Mr. President, the time is at hand to restudy and reexamine the entire EastWest trade program.

I believe the time is at hand for us to be working with our NATO allies to find out what policy we will pursue. It is ludicrous, it is ridiculous for us to pursue one policy while our NATO allies are taking over all the business opportunities. This is a kind of self-imposed unemployment program for the United States.

I believe the time is at hand for the United States of America to reexamine what goods we can sell to our benefit, which will in no way increase the danger to our security, or increase in any way the strength of the Communist bloc countries.

We ought to tighten up on strategic goods and insist that our allies do the same, that we set some limitations or controls. We ought to ease up on consumer goods, however. I believe that the more consumer goods we can take into Eastern Europe, the more they are going to see the difference between their world and ours, between freedom and collectivism, between freedom and communism.

Mr. President, I have just been informed by a member of my staff that there seems to be some misunderstanding about the effect of the bill introduced today by the senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT].

The senior Senator from South Dakota was very clear, when he introduced the bill, about the purpose involved and its effect and its application.

Therefore, let me say that the bill is not retroactive in any respect. As the senior Senator from South Dakota made clear in his colloquy, it does not apply to the Hungarian credit guarantees which have been approved or committed by the Export-Import Bank; nor does it apply to credits that are guaranteed by private banks.

As I indicated in my colloquy with the senior Senator from South Dakota, the bill applies only to those transactions which the Export-Import Bank has not approved or committed itself to approval, either orally or in writing, of export credit guarantees. It is my understanding that the Export-Import Bank has made such commitments with regard to sales to Hungary under export licenses issued through last night.

That is the understanding we had. If the business community needs to examine this question once again, I suggest it call the Export-Import Bank, or the majority leader, or the minority leader, or the Senator from South Dakota, or read the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

THE SENATE LEADERSHIP Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is with great distress, and at times with extreme sadness, that I have noted the recent outpourings of the press and professional commentators criticizing the majority leadership of our Senate. Speaking as one who has been involved in political activity long enough to realize that politicians always seem fair

game, I know that we must expect some degree of criticism from time to time, whether such be justified or not. That seems to be the nature of the political process in this and any other country with so proud a history of freedom of expression.

But the nature of the political process, which places a premium on freedom of expression, has also been characterized by a proportionate emphasis on personal responsibility. This is the hallmark of the open society. It seems that some of us have failed to realize this in the intemperate criticism directed against the Senate leadership.

As freedom of expression and personal responsibility have been symptomatic of the open society, an examination of the pathology of the closed society in our time discloses an unquenchable thirst time discloses an unquenchable thirst for a scapegoat whenever there appears to be no rational solution to perplexing and continuing problems. This malaise has lately shown how it can begin to make inroads as we face the seemingly insoluble problems confronting us during the closing weeks of this session of Congress. We cannot afford this ennui because we cannot be deterred from the tasks facing us and the Nation.

I do not believe that I need to defend Senator MANSFIELD. Neither do I think that he needs to defend himself. If he that he needs to defend himself. If he had wished to do so, I have no doubt that the Senate would have been privileged to hear rare eloquence and logic.

However, as a Member of the Senate, I feel compelled to speak because the I feel compelled to speak because the criticism presently being directed at the Senate leadership also reflects upon the Senate as a whole. There is no single Senate as a whole. There is no single person entrusted with all the duties and reponsibilities of leadership. If anything, ours is a collective leadership with the assistant majority leader, the various the assistant majority leader, the various chairmen of Senate committees all who share in the responsibilities of leadership. As a matter of fact, every Senator is a leader in his own right and rightfully so. Because of this, if Senator MANSFIELD deserves the recent spate of criticism, we equally deserve it and should share it. If we do not deserve it ourselves, then If we do not deserve it ourselves, then I firmly believe that he certainly does not.

After the last few days of reflection, I am convinced that precipitate criticism of the Senate leadership has increased of the Senate leadership has increased because of prolonged and often frustrating discussion on the foreign aid bill. This ordeal by debate has tested, and at times bested, our known capacity for such indulgence.

Although my record on votes will indicate that I have consistently supported dicate that I have consistently supported the position of the administration and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on this matter, I wish to go on record as opposing any attempt to resort to pressure and "steamroll" the foreign aid bill through the Senate. It is in this connection that I believe the Senate leadership has shown its true mettle. MANSFIELD has done an irreproachable MANSFIELD has done an irreproachable job in assuring a hearing to every Senator's views. If he had done otherwise and dictatorially forced through the bill, then I would have had to agree with his detractors. But such, thank God, has not

Senator

been the case. He has shown extreme tact, fairness, and, I must add after the events of the past fortnight, exemplary forbearance. These are the gifts of a leader of men, but not of mobs.

But these are the gifts of a leader of free men which are being criticized. These are the qualities which are being called dilatory. But tact, fairness, and forbearance are necessary to free and open discussion. And free and open discussion is indispensable in the democratic process.

Question these qualities, and we actually question the integrity and sincerity of those of us who have debated this issue and proposed various amendments. Criticize these qualities, and we criticize not only the right but the responsibility of those Senators who believe their course is correct. After all, not a single one of us is the sole depository of all wisdom.

Many of the proposals of the past month or two have been controversial. The almost interminable discussions on the foreign aid bill have sometimes resulted in an injudicious choice of words. The net result has been the unsettling of heretofore amicable relations on the floor. Senator MANSFIELD, in my opinion, has been very effective in salving nerve ends being irritated by the inexorable passage of precious time toward the end of the year. And as the new year and the new session face us, we tend to forget the scholarly brilliance of a man who has been successful in shepherding many bills through the Senate and pay increasing attention to the daily reams of newspaper print calling Congress to task. To some, what is past in the Senate is not necessarily prolog but grist for the columnist. Even the severest of his critics must agree that Senator MANSFIELD is an honorable man and a truly good man in the best sense. He is a kind, generous, and understanding human being. ing. In my eyes these are the sources from whence flows the strength necessary for effective leadership.

I am sure that when the last page of the record of the 88th Congress is completed, it will undoubtedly show that it was a successful legislative session conducted during a most trying period in our Nation's history and led by a Senator deeply committed and sensitive to the traditional safeguards of a society designed to enable majority rule while preserving minority rights.

It has been my privilege and honor to follow the Senate leadership for the past 11 months. It is my hope that I have the opportunity of continuing to do so for many more years to come. I have searched the annals of the Senate and have come up with very few other leaders equal to our most distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Hawaii yield? Mr. INOUYE. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for what he has said in this message. I knew this was in his heart. I knew this was his personal conviction. I am confident the majority leader will be most grateful for the words of support, of respect, and of admiration

which the Senator has expressed today. The Senator has not spoken mere words; as the Senator from Hawaii demonstrates by his actions, here and everywhere else, he means what he says.

While we have heard much criticism about the work of the 88th Congress, some persons forget that this Congress has been faced with some of the toughest decisions any Congress has had. If the Senate had done nothing else but ratify the nuclear test ban treaty, that was a singular achievement, because it dealt with the very security of this country. We spent 6 weeks in hearings on that treaty, and then many days of debate.

We have averted a railroad strike that could have tied up the Nation and cost the country billions of dollars. The senior Senator from Minnesota can speak of this. Dozens of times I attended meetings dealing with these crucial matters.

Every once in a while I read in the press that we have not been doing anything. Perhaps 16 hours a day of hard work is not doing anything; but it seems to me that it is a rather heavy load. I might add that the duties of a Senator are not merely in committee or on the Senate floor. The distinguished junior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGOVERN] mentioned to me a moment ago that he had been called out to a very important meeting in the Dakotas to explain legislation. He was asked to go to Nebraska to explain his wheat bill and other procedures relating to wheat legislation to the wheat growers of that State. All this is a part of the legislative process. It is a part of our duty-not necessarily the most relaxing part-to stand before an audience and explain bills.

I am convinced that when the 88th Congress closes its book, the record in that book will be outstanding. I compare it now, and will compare it when we complete our work, with the record of the 63d Congress, the first Congress of Woodrow Wilson's administration, a Congress that enacted the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Federal Reserve System, to mention merely two important pieces of legislation.

The 88th Congress has already passed important legislation. This Congress will have done more for education than any other Congress in the history of the United States. This Congress passed the greatest mental health program ever sponsored or enacted by any nation, any time, anywhere in the world. We have passed a bill providing aid to medical education.

I have a complete report of the work which this Congress has accomplished thus far. We are now approaching the end of only the 1st session of the 88th Congress.

One would think when he read the newspapers that when December 31 came, the world would stop; that all the reporters would say, "Stop, world; we want to get off."

We will be here in January-the Lord willing-and some of the same bills will be before us, bearing the same numbers, and we will take action on them. We will pass a tax bill. It will be made effective as of January 1. It would have

become effective January 1 if we had become effective January 1 if we had passed it in October. But if we pass it in March or in April, it will become effective as of January 1.

We will pass civil rights legislation. We should have passed it sooner. We should have passed it sooner. But there are 537 Members of Congress, and all of them do not agree.

We will pass wilderness preservation legislation, area redevelopment legislation, youth employment legislation, and tion, youth employment legislation, and extended Peace Corps legislation.

Consider what we have done in the field of defense, military construction, and Securities and Exchange Commission reforms. I become a little tired of reading in the newspapers that we do reading in the newspapers that we do not do anything. I do not think that not do anything. I do not think that is the way to get people to do constructive things. People should not be told that they are failures.

I am a family man. If I kept telling my youngsters every day, youngsters who are growing up to young manhood and young womanhood, "You are a fail

You are no good. You do not do anything," they would soon lose their love and respect for me; and perhaps, unfortunately, they might well believe what they had been told-that they were failures.

Frankly, since we are talking about improvements, I think journalism could improvements, I think journalism could be improved. Radio and television could be improved. The moral and ethical tones of those facilities could be improved. Many areas of life could be improved.

Congress needs to be improved, of course. I am one who believes it needs new rules and some reform in terms of its institutions. We need not go into that subject here.

What the Senator from Hawaii has said surely needs to be said. I saw the majority leader lead today. I was in majority leader lead today. I was in room S-208 for more than an hour and a half this morning—almost 2 hours. I saw the majority leader come into that room, as I have seen him on other occasions after he had exhausted his patience and he is the most patient man I have ever met or have ever known.

He said, "We are going to act." He did not get it into the newspapers. He did not call a news conference and say, "I told them we are going to act." He simply came to the floor of the Senate and resolved a difficult problem in the foreign aid bill, the debate on which appeared last night as though it might last for days.

I am delighted that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], whom I consider Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], whom I consider to be one of the outstanding Members of this body and one of the truly outstanding citizens of our country, has spoken as he has today. I consider it a rare privilege to be included in his circle of friends.

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], has to his credit an imposing list of accomplishments at this session. Does not the Senator from Minnesota believe that he can take some glory and credit for those accomplishments?

Mr. HUMPHREY. If the majority leader has to take the blame for what we

do not do, he ought to get the credit for what we do.

Mr. INOUYE. That is only fair. Mr. HUMPHREY. If one has to take the blame for error, he ought to be given credit for the truth.

The majority leader has a fine record. It is an honor and a privilege to work alongside him. Perhaps I have an opportunity to know him a little better than many men do. His loyalty as a Member of this body, his loyalty to his convictions, to his Nation, and to the processes of our Government, is such that every one of us could well emulate him.

He does not use the sledge-hammer technique; but he does use the technique of persuasion, encouragement, admonition, and, when he needs to, the shillelagh-for I wish to testify that this morning about 14 Senators were in the majority leader's woodshed, and he had out the shillelagh; and let me tell the Senate that he knows how to use it when it is needed, and it worked.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his valuable contributions and his gracious words.

RECESS TO MONDAY, AT NOON

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I have consulted with the acting minority leader, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CASE], as to whether there is any further business for today for Senators on his side of the aisle. We understand that there is not.

Therefore, Mr. President, I now move that, in accordance with the previous order, the Senate stand in recess until Monday next, at noon.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess, under the order previously entered, to Monday, November 18, 1963, at 12 o'clock meridian).

CONFIRMATIONS

the Senate November 15 (legislative day Executive nominations confirmed by of October 22), 1963:

U.S. ARMY

Lt. Gen. Robert William Porter, Jr., 018048, Army of the United States (major general, U.S. Army), for appointment as indicated, under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 711; to be senior U.S. Army member of the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations.

The following-named officers for temporary appointment in the Army of the United States to the grades indicated, under the provisions of title 10, United States Code,

sections 3442 and 3447:

To be major generals

Brig. Gen. Robert Howard York, O21341, Army of the United States (colonel, U.S. Army).

Brig. Gen. Harry William Osborn Kinnard, 021990, Army of the United States (lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army).

Brig. Gen. Charles Edward Johnson 3d, 019534, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. George Paul Sampson, 042926, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. William Carl Garrison, 030144, U.S. Army.

Brig. Gen. John Graham Zierdt, O20632, Army of the United States (colonel, U.S. Army).