American hope that is the Government we have and are so proud to claim our own. Our Government works, if for no other reason, because it is the one government under which the people not only are free but also have enough food to feed themselves.

What better way could we implement our foreign aid program than to let the people in the newly emerging nations know that America is the country which can and is willing to provide them food. The Communists cannot. Other nations cannot. We can.

We in our country spend more than $50 billion a year on armaments to defeat men in the field of war, but we spend little or nothing to win the minds of men in the fight for peace. For 4 percent of our budget for military hardware we could provide more than a billion additional bushels of wheat to bring the dietary level of the world's people more nearly to normal.

How can we appeal to a family in a newly emerging nation which may have three or four children slowly dying of malnutrition, when they hear that America is cutting back its farm production, because we feel food is not needed-that Public Law 480 is regarded as merely a way of throwing unwanted food surpluses down the drain.

It is time for us to be proud of what food we have and to present this to the world not as a giveaway of something we do not need but as a positive weapon for peace in a definite showing to the world of what America has to offer and what we can do.

We are in the situation of holding a handful of aces in one of the most important poker games in the history of the world. It would be a shame to lay this down and pick up a bunch of deuces.

Hand in hand with adequate diet, Mr. Chairman, goes education. We must concentrate on these two fields-food for the hungry, and education so that we can bring the people of the world up to realize their potential, up to realize the goal which can be theirs in a world where people work and live together.

These programs must be broadened and strengthened. The waste must be taken out of them so they can be truly responsive. It is about time that we in the Congress recognized we should not use foreign aid as a whipping boy but should seek to correct the inequities we all know exist and to build it stronger, because in the long run it could well be the best investment this Nation has ever made.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONTE].

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONTE. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ROBISON. It is a privilege for me to be able to join with the gentleman from Massachusetts, now in the well, in the additional views which appear in the committee report on this bill. I commend the gentleman for his leadership in helping prepare those views.

Mr. YATES. I congratulate both the gentleman in the well, Mr. CONTE, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROBISON] on the excellence of their views in the committee report. I wish to associate myself with them, with the exception, of course, of the commendatory remarks they make about the 80th Congress, and I leave those to their conscience. That does not mean, however, that I do not agree with the laudatory remarks the gentlemen made in praise of former Congressman Herter and the late Senator Vandenberg. I believe those remarks are well taken.

I associate myself with the remarks of the gentlemen, because I believe they did a good job. It is unfortunate that the majority report on this bill did not go beyond a rather sketchy description of the various programs which are a part of the foreign aid bill. They neither discuss nor appraise the programs. As the gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the subcommittee, said, this is a barebones bill, to use his words, and a barebones report. It is most unfortunate that a report on as complex, as controversial and as important a bill as this one should be "barebones." It should be more informative. The MemThe Members of the House should be apprized in bers of the House should be apprized in greater detail of the effectiveness of the operations of the programs.

I do not for 1 minute minimize the work of the Subcommittee on Foreign Aid.

The subcommittee members are very able, very conscientious, very thorough. They spent endless time in the comprehensive hearings. Unfortunately, the report does not reflect the vast effort they expended. The majority report in great measure was only a bookkeeping report of past and proposed expenditures. I think that is unfortunate.

I am very much aware of the value of bookkeeping and accounting in connection with these expenditures. I am cognizant of the impact and sacrifice that the American taxpayer has made, of the huge sums of money that have gone into assistance to other countries. I suggest that although figures are important, accomplishment, achievement, national policy are important, too. Is our foreign policy being truly served by the tremendous expenditures being made?

I agree with the gentlemen from Massachusetts and New York in calling for a massive reappraisal of the programs, looking to selective aid rather than scattershot programs. I agree with the constructive suggestions they make. I agree with the gentlemen that there be additional emphasis on self-help and further mutual cooperation. Certainly, I agree that the military assistance programs should be reviewed immediately and reduced when assistance exceeds the needs of internal security as it does in many instances. I agree with the gentlemen on the need for a more creative utilization of foreign currencies. The enormous sums of counterpart funds

friction with us. The huge sums mounting in their treasuries which belong to us hang over their economies potentially like the sword of Damocles.

Finally, I think it is time our entire foreign policy was reviewed. Policies which were conceived and were appropriate more than a decade ago may not be adequate for the world today.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the time has come for another great debate to chart our future course.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his brief remarks.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts yield at this point?

Mr. CONTE. I am about to run out of time.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. We shall EY yield you some more time.

Mr. CONTE. On that condition I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. I should like to say that I thoroughly disagree with the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. YATES], the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, and, unexpectedly, with the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. ROBISON] because in their additional views set forth in House Report No. 955 the latter two gentlemen get off into an area concerning the use of foreign currencies that they are not at all, in the absolute sense, concerned with. These matters properly belong to the committee which is chairmaned by the gentleman presently speaking, the gentleman from New York, and which includes the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl. I like to think we know something about the use of these foreign currencies. I am sure I bespeak the thoughts of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] who is present, as well as I do my own when I say that we do not at all agree with either of the three gentlemen I have mentioned or with the distinguished Mr. Chester Bowles, our Ambassador to India. We do not need people to think up how we can indiscriminately get rid of our foreign currencies that cost the American taxpayers good, hard American dollars. We ought to watch out for our foreign currencies.

Mr. CONTE. I thank the gentleman from New York for his comments. He does not have to tell me what committees has jurisdiction over this subject matter because I have been working on this project for years and I will put my knowledge on this subject against his any day in the week. I know it comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on State, Justice, and Commerce.

In regard to indiscriminately getting rid of foreign currency which we own, I believe by putting these funds to good use

we can save a great deal of money for our taxpayers. I will have more to say in regard to this matter in my prepared speech. Mr. Chairman, I was one of those who went along with the gentleman from New York, who is interested in saving money for the taxpayers, in coming out with this bill. I did it this year and last year, and I think our minds and thoughts run parallel even though we might disagree in this small area here. Mr. ROONEY of New York. That is the absolute fact. Those of us who feel as we do about foreign aid and its importance to the security and welfare of our country are very much indebted to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for the valuable contributions that he has made over the years. Of course, when the gentleman says he knows this matter does not belong in this Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the gentlemen should not have incorporated their additional views in the report on this bill.

Mr. CONTE. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have already consumed 5 minutes and therefore cannot yield further. I am not a member of the gentleman's subcommittee and I could not incorporate this information in his committee report. The idea is tied in with our foreign aid program, it is part and parcel of foreign aid, even though that item comes under the jurisdiction of the committee headed by the gentleman from

New York [Mr. ROONEY].

Mr. Chairman, we have come once again to that time annually devoted to deliberations on the letter and the spirit of our foreign aid program. Today, if we do not break the pattern of the past, our debate will be little more than an exchange of admonitions against foreign aid for accolades in its support. And when everyone has spoken his mind, while the letter of the program will have been virtually unchanged, the spirit will have been all but broken.

I have been an ardent advocate of foreign aid for as many years as it has been my privilege to serve in this body and on the important Appropriations Committee. Only once in those 7 years have I said "no" to an administration proposal in this area. I am proud of that record and stand ready to defend it against attack from any quarter. I am committed to the spirit of foreign aid. It is a vital arm of our foreign policy, and I give it my full support. However, I am neither blind nor indifferent to the letter of the program.

I see this year as a significant year for the program of assistance that we send around the world as the helping hand of the American people. We are at a crossroads for foreign aid. We have traveled a long road to the point where the mere continuation of what has been done in the past is insufficient to meet the problems of the future. We have reached the point where there must be a comprehensive reevaluation of the scope and character of our assistance efforts.

Because of this, a mere repetition of the hackneyed debate of the past serves no worthwhile purpose. We must seize

the opportunity which is ours today. the opportunity which is ours today. That opportunity is not to draw the rug out from under the proposed program for this fiscal year. It is to explore serifor this fiscal year. It is to explore seriously new ideas for a new program of assistance, to plot the course of the new directions we would like to see it take, and to lay the groundwork, through this debate, for a new program for the future. The exploitation of the opportunity that we have, requires, more than at any time in the past, that the spirit of foreign aid be defended, rather than broken by barred, negative reactions to the letter of today's program.

Last year as we were involved in the debate on foreign aid, I called for suggestions for changes and improvements from you, my colleagues in the House. In remarks on the floor, I emphasized the need for greater congressional examination of the strengths, as well as the weaknesses, of foreign aid. There are any number of ways that we can influence the course of foreign aid. We must not be diverted by negativism which casts doubt on the program, undermines confidence in the concept, and breaks the spirit of the idea.

What are the strong points around which we can rally and build a new program? The greatest strength of the program is its heritage, out of which grew the drive and the spirit which even today, though much maligned, has not been defeated. I believe the majority of Americans support the basic, fundamental mission which we began in the forties with the Truman doctrine and the Marshall plan. A bipartisan effort in its inception, the able leadership of Reits inception, the able leadership of Republicans such as Christian Herter and Arthur Vandenberg gave the impetus to what all the world saw as a saving helping hand to fill the void left by war's devastation and havoc. Through the years new proposals have been made to meet new problems; foreign aid to the desolated, though developed, Europe in the post-World War II days was a very different thing from foreign aid to the developing countries of the world which has followed. But, we have not changed the basic, fundamental mission of our foreign aid, though we have adjusted its scope and character. These three go hand in glove and we cannot hope to improve the program through adjustments in its scope and character if we impede the underlying mission in doing so. I believe that our improvements must come from a positive political climate, emphasizing the strengths of the existing program.

This year Congress has received the smallest request for foreign assistance funds in the history of foreign aid. This is due, in part, to the fact that our assistance is becoming somewhat selective and concentrated. Ten years ago if you stuck a pin in a globe of the world, your chances were mighty good that you would hit a country receiving aid from us. At that time we were helping 100 countries. Today, we are aiding 72 countries with 95 percent of our aid going to only 31 of them. This is a strength of our foreign aid program. of our foreign aid program. However,

the idea of selectivity and concentration in our assistance efforts has by no means been fully implemented. A decrease from 100 countries to 72 countries still leaves us involved in too many countries. Even greater selectivity in assigning aid funds to a country, will enable the AID Administrators to evolve a more purposeful program aimed at more precise objectives. By concentrated and intensive efforts in a smaller number of countries having development potential, coupled with the will of the people to be partners in our assistance efforts, a sound and diversified economic base can be established in these countries. Then, in good time, this small number of countries can join with us, offering their help to their lesser developed neighbors and relieving the burdens that would otherwise be ours if we were forced to do the whole job by ourselves.

This would enable us to build an assistance program from a limited base that would ultimately reach all the developing nations of the world. It would free us from the burden under which we labor today of trying to do a little bit for everyone with the result that we do too little for anyone. It would, at the same time, place even less of an eventual burden upon this country. We could rely on a regional identification of interest and the concern of neighboring nations, one for the other, to enlist the assistance of those we had helped in the past to help others now.

Even today, other free world nations are joining with us. During 1963, commitments by other free world nations for for economic development increased, while U.S. commitments declined to less than half the free world today. The nations we helped with the Truman doctrine and the Marshall plan are now helping others.

We have the basis for greater selectivity in this year's program and can take this as a starting point on which to build. We can insure, by increasing our selectivity in the number and in the choice of countries, that the maximum benefits will accrue from the expenditure of our aid dollars. Otherwise, we run the risk of losing the potential help that this select number of countries could provide in assisting other developing countries in the future because we have spread ourselves too thin with too many projects and too many programs in too many countries.

Ten years ago, two-thirds of all our aid was military assistance. The bulk of our aid is now directed toward longrange economic development. The ratio has, in fact, been reversed; twothirds of our assistance is now economic. We are providing capital and technical assistance for long-term development and progress toward self-support; we are building a strong foundation in these countries upon which all other capabilities can be raised up. This, too, is a strength of our foreign aid program; this, too, can be improved upon. Approximately 72 percent of the total funds programed for military assistance will go to the 11 forward defense countries

bordering on the Soviet Union and Communist China. We are also continuing military assistance programs in Africa and in Latin America. With respect to With respect to the latter, I have long advocated a change in emphasis for our miliary assistance. I am not convinced that, in every instance, the funds, which have been programed for military assistance for the Latin American countries, have been applied toward their intended purpose. These funds could, however, well be an enabling factor for any Latin American country's buildup of military capabilities for external aggression. These funds may well have been applied in many of the coups that have taken place in Latin America.

The funds programed for military assistance have been decreasing through the years. However, in Latin America, the amount has been increasing and not knowing to what end it may be applied makes this an ominous increase. Because of this imponderable element of Latin American military assistance, I strongly recommend a regional military defense organization for the Latin American countries similar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This would eliminate the necessary, but essentially uncontrolled, grants of military assistance to the individual Latin American countries. It would provide an identification of interest and purpose, common to all the Latin American countries, for the defense of Latin America. Our military experts have agreed that it is essential that these nations come to the realization that the Communist threat affects all Latin American nations, not just a few. The successful resistance of any one country to this threat may well be dependent upon the combined efforts of all, singularly and forcefully brought to bear on the common foe. The establishment of a regional military organization would serve to unite these countries in an effort where they must depend upon one another.

While encouraging local private enterprise in the developing countries, our aid program continues to promote expanded private American investment in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Since 1961, there has been dramatic growth in programs available to American investors to give them incentive to put their capital and management skill to work in the underdeveloped nations. The justification for this year's program, which has been submitted to the Congress, has indicated the increased awareness of the AID administrators to the need for private initiative in our assistance efforts and the contributions which can he made by this private sector. This is a strength of our foreign assistance program; this is a strength that sorely needs shoring up, a concentration of effort and an expansion of scope.

We are a nation built upon individual initiative and private enterprise. We have, then, no better spokesmen for the freedom of choice and the economic advantages afforded by a Democratic society than these individuals. As a part of such a society, they have advanced to the point where they are now able to offer their cooperation to those in the develop

A recently completed study on the need for private initiative in our foreign assistance efforts, estimated that there is a $5 to $20 billion gap between the capital resources that go into the developing countries and the resources that the people of these countries need. These needed funds cannot come from the Federal Government in any one year. The enlistment of the vast resources of private enterprise would help to fill this gap vate enterprise would help to fill this gap and would insure the earlier accomplishand would insure the earlier accomplishment of the task we have set for ourment of the task we have set for ourselves in the developing nations.

A second area of need for private help in the developing countries is that of human resources. There can be no price There can be no price tag put on such a commodity; it is measured only in terms of skills, technology, and understanding. Money alone canand understanding. Money alone cannot do the job of developing these counnot do the job of developing these countries. The prudent use of available funds tries. The prudent use of available funds is directly dependent upon the know-how of those in whose hands the funds are of those in whose hands the funds are placed.

The call is for such diverse areas of expertise that only the entire private community can have the means to answer that call. Our universities, business enterprises, labor unions and professional societies are a vast and virtually untapped reservoir of capital, tually untapped reservoir of capital, skills and human resources. These must skills and human resources. These must be motivated and applied to assist the world's developing countries. I am not saying that the ultimate success or failure of our foreign assistance program is ure of our foreign assistance program is in the hands of private enterprise. I am saying that the means for accelerating our efforts, and the development of these our efforts, and the development of these countries, can be found in these private countries, can be found in these private resources. We should make every reasonable effort to expand our program of incentives for private capital and human resource investment in the developman resource investment in the developing countries.

We must pick up the ball in other areas of the foreign aid program which are not strong points of the program are not strong points of the program now, but could serve as bulwarks of a new program.

Every effort should be made to utilize the U.S.-owned foreign currencies in the growing number of excess currency countries. The obstacles which have blocked past efforts to put these idle funds to work should be studied once again. Where the interests of both this and the Where the interests of both this and the excess currency country would be served by freeing the currencies from these obstacles, we should take appropriate action to do so.

The administration should make a more concerted effort to bring proposals for the use of these funds before the Congress. There is no excuse for a proCongress. There is no excuse for a proposal, concerning a matter that has been with us for as long as these excess currencies, to be so ill-conceived and poorly drafted that it must be turned away by the Congress as indefinite.

Within the limitations that are applicable to these currencies today, there have been some exciting proposals for their use. In India, where our holding of excess currency is greater than in any other country, Ambassador Bowles has worked to free these funds for projects

There are complicating factors to the freer use of excess currencies. But, at the same time, it has become increasingly complicated just to hold these funds as they grow with abandon. We are being criticized by the countries where the accumulation of these funds has gotten quite out of hand. They pose a definite threat to the internal financial and economic systems of those countries. It is, then, contrary to the interests of this country and the countries where these currencies are held to let them remain idle while projects which they could support go unfunded.

Within this hemisphere, our assistance efforts are falling far short of the immediate needs of the people of Latin America. The population of Latin America is growing faster than any other area of the world and the birthright of these new citizens of the world is too often hunger and hopelessness. As we look toward a new program of intensified efforts in a selected number of countries, one area of emphasis must be Latin America. We are only beginning to reap the benefits of the Alliance for Progress for the people of Latin America as we enter the fifth year of that program. I believe that in that short time it has become evident that the will of the people of Latin America is to grasp the helping hand which we extend to them.

Finally, our concern for a strengthened and effective new program should not overlook the needs of the adminstrators of that program right here in Washington. In colloquies with David Bell, a superbly competent Administrator, in his appearances before the foreign operations subcommittee, he has declared that the lack of a personnel authority specifically designed for aid is the No. 1 problem with which he is faced. He and his staff are responsible for the operation of an international business, but have been given no personnel guidelines to direct the most efficient operation of that business. AID is not an agency functioning only domestically, subject to the civil service guidelines, nor is it a foreign operation that should be directed according to the Foreign Service Reserve system. The quandary is certainly not resolved by applying both personnel authorities, which is what has been done, with results most akin to having the worst of both systems control. The unique requirements of the agency should be answered in legislation specifically drafted for that purpose.

I hope I have been able to redirect our thoughts and words for this year's debate to preclude a recurrence of what has become an annual debacle of the letter and the spirit of our foreign aid program and to prompt some positive, constructive thinking.

I am not advocating that we cast aside this year's program and rewrite it to conform to my thoughts or your thoughts. I support this year's program and the overall thrust of its objectives. We have seen steady improvement in our foreign assistance, whether you measure that improvement in terms of the terms of the amount of the appropriations request, in the number of countries to which our aid is going, or the balance between our successes abroad when measured against our failures.

We are not engaged in a hopeless mission. I believe that a serious and constructive reappraisal of the scope and character of that mission in the months ahead will enable us to formulate a new program directed to its successful completion.

It has been said that we are all children of the earth. If one of us is oppressed, we are all oppressed; if one hungers, everyone hungers; if someone's freedom is taken away, our freedom is less secure. Such is the call for assistance efforts. Because we are the leaders of the free world, that call goes out to us. Some would say it is a burden of power; others would say it is an opportunity. I have given you my argument. In the words of Samuel Johnson, a lion in controversy, "I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, my own remarks will be brief, since I am not a member of the subcommittee which dealt with this appropriation bill-H.R. 10871-the foreign assistance and related agencies appropriation bill for 1966.

I would, first, want to express my appreciation for the untiring effort made again this year by the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. PASSMAN], in insuring that there has been a thorough and careful review of the activities carried out under the various programs covered by this bill, and of the budget requests for their continuation for 1 more year, and I would similarly wish to congratulate all the

members of this subcommittee for their contributions in this regard.

Also, I believe special mention should be made of the work of the two new minority members on the subcommittee the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SHRIVER] and the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. ANDREWS]-both of whom were given a most difficult assignment, indeed, but have carried out that assignment in a most commendable manner.

To them, we are all indebted for the useful and challenging minority views that are appended to the committee report. I think that much of what is said—and the questions that are asked in their minority views, needed both to be said and to be asked, and I do not wish to have the fact that I did not join in those views leave the implication in anyone's mind that I have disassociated

myself from them. To the contrary, I myself from them. To the contrary, I found much therein with which I can and do agree.

However, I also found that-in general terms-my own attitudes toward our various so-called foreign-assistance programs more closely paralleled those of the other minority member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONTE], with whom I have joined in submitting the additional views which are also a part of the report now before you. We have sought, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has said, to be constructive in our criticism of these programs-where we have been critical-but I am sure that we both agree, and we hope a majority of the Members of this House will agree with us, that these programs must be continued at, or about at, the level as recommended in H.R. 10871, but that the Congress and the administration-workCongress and the administration-working together must continue, as they ing together-must continue, as they have been doing, to reevaluate and revise those programs, with ever more emphasis on the concept of "planned selectivity," as is mentioned in our additional views,

with a greater emphasis on Latin America and concurrently a new look at military assistance programs for Latin America, and also with the need for establishing better methods for the use of those troubling excess foreign currencies as well as the ever-present need to find ways and means to enlist the help of private enterprise and private initiative in doing a job that needs, still, to be done.

In essence, it seems to me, our argument here again this year has boiled down to the question-as it always does of how much, actually, should we agree to expend on these programs in the current fiscal year. On this point, all of us have differing ideas, although I suspect that those of us who, by our eventual votes, will express themselves as being in favor of some further reductions in the appropriation as recommended in the bill, have been looking more at past mistakes and waste in the administration of these programs, and with appropriate doubts-if not outright displeasure over the more recent actions of certain nations who, either in the past or even still at present, have been recipients of our assistance, than they have at the successes that have been

achieved, and the improvements in administration that are being made, however distressingly slow.

I thoroughly respect the views of those who feel that this bill still carries too much money, for it is not easy to determine how much is enough, or how much is too much in any such effort of this magnitude, or of this sometimes uncertain purpose.

I say this, because I confess to having

had the same uncertainties-uncertainties that have been felt by the American people, many of whom have completely lost confidence in the eventual value of the overall program and have expressed that fact to us in no uncertain terms.

However, I believe it is up to this Congress to restore the confidence of the American people in this program-to make it, and its purpose, more carefully

focused and therefore more clear to them, even as we attempt to clarify our own thinking about what we are trying to do and why.

I am not at all sure that we in Congress can do this, but we most assuredly must try. Why? Well, perhaps the answer comes as clearly as from any other source in this excerpt from a Christian Science Monitor editorial of January 16, 1965:

We repeat what we said in commenting on the state of the Union message, with all its artificial respiration for a nation in no immediate danger of drowning:

"So long as some two billion human beings beyond America's borders have little hope of their own great society, neither the American people nor the American Government can safely or conscientiously concentrate too long or too closely on their own well-being and happiness."

There are also some thoughts that might be useful here, as contributed by Mr. A. N. Spanel, founder-chairman of the International Latex Corp., in one of his familiar, paid columns of comment on issues of the day, as carried this time in the Washington Post for February 19 of this year. Mr. Spanel, in referring to what he called a "new isolationismrearing its head in the United States" and I am sure we all know to what he refers said this:

Let those who make the vital decisions of this challenging time never forget that the overriding objective of world communism has been, and remains, to drive the United States to isolationism. "Yankee go home" has been the principal slogan of the Kremlin-Peiping axis and it is an axis where their common hatred of the capitalist world is concerned. On both sides of the Iron Curtain we have witnessed systematic attacks, organized and led by Communists, against American embassies, libraries, property, and nationals. What is the purpose of this Red war of nerves? It is a continuing conspiracy to force Americans, in sheer disgust, to withdraw economic and military aid; to induce them to renounce their concern for the fate of freedom on this earth and retire in isolation to fortress America. Such a fortress makes no strategic sense under modern conditions, yet the temptation may become irresistible, when the provocations come from friends and allies.

Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Spanel's warning is appropriate to consider in the

context of the decision we are again called upon to make and it is largely along similar lines of reasoning that I

have concluded that what we have come to call our foreign aid program must go on, and why I have also determined to support this bill as reported to us by the committee, while at the same time stress

ing the continuing need for reevaluation and reforms in the nature of those recommended to you by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. CONTE] and myself.

Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from

Washington [Mrs. HANSEN].

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not

present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Seventy-seven Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. PRICE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 10871, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 377 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee rose, the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. HANSEN], had been recognized for 25 minutes.

Mr.

Mrs. HANSEN of Washington. Chairman, you have heard some very eloquent and distinguished speakers this afternoon that you have heard in the last 20 years, discussing the reasons for our foreign aid and discussing the ramifications of the program.

I want to say as a new member of the committee I have enjoyed extremely serving on the committee, and I express my appreciation on behalf of the new members to the chairman of the committee for his constant courtesy to those of us who are new.

Eloquent and able speakers for almost 20 years have addressed this House on our foreign aid. They have explained the reason it came into being, its philosophy and have leveled criticisms. No program before any legislative body in the world is immune to criticism nor should be, for out of constructive criticism better administration of any program emerges. However, I do want to However, I do want to say that the foreign assistance program is at this time one of the basic ingredients of the U.S. foreign policy. In the broadest possible terms our national goal here is to assist in training programs for a stable world of free and prospering nations. We support this goal realizing that our own security and well-being will be directly affected by what happens in Asia, Africa, Latin America.

The world has been steadily shrinking in size and nowhere is this more graphically illustrated than the other day when our Gemini spaceship and two astronauts spent 8 days traveling a distance of more than 4 million miles in less than 8 days.

As one of the world's wealthiest nations it has become one of our policies and a responsibility to share our abun

dance and particularly our abundance of know-how and technical training.

One of the great complexities of the total problem of world affairs has been the emergence of young nations into the full light of the 20th century and a competitive place within the family of nations already well established.

our

Compare, if you please, our own national emergence in an era of sailing ships and a frontier almost the width of the continent with that of today's nations only a few years away from tribal organizations emerging into the age of jet transportation and space development. Therefore, one of major jobs in foreign affairs has been to try and assist these less developed areas; to help them to help themselves develop management skills for their economic and governmental potentials economic and governmental potentials acknowledging the necessity for development within themselves the private sectors of their lives.

The recent termination of economic aid to Taiwan is evidence that success is obtainable.

In the course of our assistance we have received criticism and many manifestations of anger. This is not unlike the situation where parents are periodically upbraided by their children for parental deeds during childhood and adolescence. If any parent has ever escaped such a discussion with a young person, I should like to know them.

Long ago we recognized that like our own families people were people and we could expect this internationally as well as personally.

On June 18, 1953, Congressman SCOTT, of Pennsylvania, a Member of the now minority party and now a distinguished Member of the other body, made a statement in discussing our Mutual Security Act on the floor of this House:

Ingratitude is not unusual in the world and neither is gratitude. I came here to speak not of gratitude, but of wise planning to extend the frontiers of the free people and to break down the walls which enslave. This statement is as true today as it was 12 years ago.

As a new member of the committee, I would like to speak of some of the I would like to speak of some of the questions and problems which trouble many members of the subcommittee who do not pretend to be experts at all.

First. We would suggest and we did suggest during the committee hearings suggest during the committee hearings that there be a greater degree of knowledge on the part of the Washington office on our foreign aid on the scope, day-today activities, planning, management and goals of field operations. There were many times when the briefing of the Washington departmental groups appearing before us was not as knowledgeable as possible.

Second. Members of the committee, like myself often questioned the total impact on a country's own economic development when, in order to match our military aid, expenditures were made from their own very limited budget. For example, let us take a country of 3 or 4 or 5 million people with the average per capita income of that country in the per capita income of that country in the range of approximately $300 per year and then note that they have committed

$15 or $16 million as their particular share in a defense program.

The question naturally arises: Is this defense funding from their own meager incomes curtailing activities which are mandatory to the development of a stable economy and governmental system of their own with the necessary tax reforms, necessary programing for education, public health, housing, and job opportunities?

Third. The same thing can be true, if in order to secure loans, countries overcommit themselves in this field, for again many nations can be tempted into overcommitment, then, as repayment time nears, find that they are unable to, first, take economic steps necessary for their own development; and, second, at the same time repay these loans. Has the margin of ability here to pay become so narrow that it will push the sound and needed progress in fields so vital to their maintenance as a free nation out of existence?

Fourth. Members of the committee have viewed with great misgivings and disquietude long before the PakistanIndian war broke out the dual armament of neighboring nations engaged in controversy.

India and Pakistan are examples-and there are others. Although our arms were lent to prevent aggression by the Communists, how possible is it for us to be sure that they cannot, at the same time, use these armaments to begin holocausts where no end can safely be foretold?

Fifth. Members of the committee also saw the anachronism of placing advanced and up to date and even elite armaments and equipment in the hands of people who did not even know the use of safe drinking water. Ultramodern defense equipment against insufficient diets makes a strange paradox.

Sixth. We are thinly spread with aid in many many nations.

These are some of the controversial and disquieting problems that your new members of the committee talked about and we would urge that the administration undertake a careful analysis of each of these facets and other maintaining a continuing and careful vigilance over them.

On the positive side of foreign operations, I would like to say that there are signs of hope and there are places where a genuine satisfaction can be felt by the American people.

Seventh. In total national planning within areas perhaps better jobs are needed. For example, ports development are not giving maximum service without coordinated transportation and vice versa-wheat on docks.

In the first place, of those emerging nations which are part and parcel of this world of 1965 and since the date of the beginning of our foreign assistance, Cuba is the only nation which has become the captive of the Communist's Bamboo and Iron Curtain. Cuba received from fiscal year 1953 through fiscal year 1960, $2.8 million largely in technical assistance. I might ask the question here, "Would additional technical assistance raising the levels of this impoverished nation's