places a candidate lacking it in the appropriate degree, the aspects of the job in which the characteristic is required cannot be performed effectively." AID paid Syracuse University $350,000 for an appraisal of the administration of the technical assistance program, even though they are phasing out the technical assistance program in favor of contracts to perform the service.

However, with more than $400 million in "current technical service contracts as of December 31, 1964," AID appears uncertain about the wisdom of the contract method, because they have entered into another contract with Purdue Research Foundation for evaluation of AID university contracts for agricultural educa

I think the time has come for this Congress to put the brakes on the conCongress to put the brakes on the contract craze of AID. It is time that this Congress impressed upon this Agency the need for tighter controls, and I am certain that with less money in their hands, more careful use of the taxpayers' money can be encouraged. Rather than attempt to prevent any contracts, I intend to submit at the appropriate I intend to submit at the appropriate time an amendment which would prevent AID spending money on research vent AID spending money on research into the administrative, organization, or operation of personnel practices of or operation of personnel practices of the Agency. I am hopeful that the Committee on Foreign Affairs will, at the Research contracts fiscal years 1962-65

Contractor

thorough and searching examination of this type of use of the taxpayers' money, with the clear intention of writing some strict guidelines into the authorization legislation which will effect some long overdue economies, and effect some savings and prevent some of the waste which is so evident in this Agency.

Mr. Chairman, I insert at this point in the RECORD, under permission to include extraneous matter with my remarks, a tabulation of research contracts for the funding years 1962-65 by title, and the agency making the research, as well as the amount of money involved, the total of which is $25,193,163.

Total obligations 1

1,469, 720

Total....

1,518, 105

The matter referred to follows:

Project title

25. Functional analysis of health centers.

26. Research on certain effects of foreign aid on the economic growth of selected countries. 27. Research in health manpower planning for selected lessdeveloped countries.

28. Study of methods for improving the training and use of middlelevel health manpower.

29. Research in foam plastics for housing.

30. Role of food marketing systems in Latin American economic development.

31. Diffusion of innovations in rural societies.

32. Development of an educational research center for Central America.

33. Mapping of research requirements of the food-for-peace program.

34. Symposium on communication research and the development process.

Total obligations 1

$225, 690

19,408

865, 684

1,110, 782 130, 200

236,000

395, 162

500,000

2 610,000

124, 040

37,880

1,667, 082

2 246, 200

36. Improved analytical methods for development planning.

200, 910

917, 906 1,823, 012 481, 603

Total...

447, 110 1,377, 120

planning assistance criteria. 38. Capacity expansion planning factors.

38, 391

39. Development Research Digest...

269,240

Total....

1,484, 751

750,000

636, 821

250,000

158,380

Phase II.

58,931 940,000

Total......

998, 931

220,000

See footnotes at end of table.

how the deceased general in Thailand

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his excellent statement. I do not believe he mentioned the $15 million that went to Ecuador to take care of its budget deficit when it had a credit in the Central Bank of the International Monetary Fund upon which they could have drawn. I wonder how much longer we are going to continue to take care of budget deficits of other countries when we have a deficit of billions of dollars in this country and when the other country has a source of credit available upon which it can draw.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. I yield

to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, every month there is laid on my desk a report from AID showing the number of contracts that have gone into Missouri as well as the amounts of the contracts; also the contracts that have gone into Wisconsin, Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, and all the other States of the Union. The purpose of this, I suppose, is to influence Members in their vote.

Personally I consider it an insult to the integrity and the intelligence of a Member of the U.S. Congress. But my question is, Does the Member know how much is being spent by AID on public relations of this kind?

Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. I am sorry I cannot respond with accuracy. I have a tabulation of the contracts that are let out to the universities, corporations, and various other agencies. But I am sure AID does very well in their public relations functions. I am surprised that they are letting contracts out to find out new ways to diffuse innovations in rural societies and some that are not rural.

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

Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. I am glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. I have been reading the voluminous hearings as best I can. I

around $100 million. I do not know whether he was one of the gambling house operators in Thailand, but the State Department seems to think, according to information that I have, that the official's 40 or 50 wives were thrifty and therefore they made a contribution to this huge estate.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, how many wives did the gentleman say? Mr. GROSS. Forty or fifty.

self-supporting nations. This goal is certainly no less valid today than it was 19 years ago, when the program was begun and the need is certainly no less great.

The history of the last two decades shows rather conclusively that this program of economic and military assistance played an essential role in the rebuilding of Western Europe. It shows that it was a crucial element in enabling Turkey to withstand heavy Soviet pressures and in permitting Greece to put down Communist aggression. It shows that it allowed many nations on the

Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. COHELAN].

Mr. COHELAN. I thank the gentleI thank the gentleman for this time and, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to join with those who preceded me in the well in extending my great appreciation to our chairman for a most interesting period of time in reviewing this bill. Even though we do have disagreement on some points, I believe it is very important to recognize that even while we are having a vigorous debate on this ment than we are in disagreement. bill today, we are much more in agree

Mr. Chairman, I would point out at the outset that when we are considering cuts in the bill, the actual differences in the cuts that have been proposed are only in the neighborhood of some $83 million and, as you know, the committee has recommended a $75 million cut.

I believe it is safe to say that all of us are most anxious that our foreign aid assistance program be put to the most effective, efficient use possible. There will always be, I suppose, some controversy as to how this can best be done.

Mr. Chairman, foreign aid—that much criticized, much maligned, and much misunderstood program—is not a wolf in sheeps clothing, as some would have us believe. It is in reality an important, a practical, and a necessary arm of our foreign policy. Its several programs are directed toward a single goal: to assist those nations that so desire to maintain their independence and to develop into

and grow. And it shows that it has encouraged, and in some cases made possible, economic and social growth in many of the underdeveloped countries of the world.

The fact of the matter, and this too is

borne out by history, is that the continued survival of our own free institutions depends upon the development of a world community of stable, self-supporting countries. Or to put it another way, as other people grow in freedom and independence, so the security of the United States is advanced; and as others grow in economic strength, so will our markets and our economy continue to expand.

Our foreign aid program, furthermore, should not be thought of only in terms of national security and national interest. It can and it should be thought of as well in our proud tradition of humanitarianism; a tradition which dates back to the frontier days of this country; a tradition which is based on our willingness to share our abundance with those less fortunate. And let those who say charity and good works should begin at home remember that for all of the economic, social, political, and humanitarian functions which this program advances, it represents less than 1 percent of our gross national product.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy stated it aptly in a message to Congress a little over 2 years ago when he said:

That our aid programs can be improved is not a matter of debate. But that our aid programs serve both our national traditions and our national interest is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mr. Chairman, the foreign aid program which we are considering today is a much different program than the one we considered 10 or even 5 years ago. It It operates differently; it is directed to different kinds of problems and it is going different places.

A decade ago we finished our economic aid programs in Europe and Japan. Those countries had achieved enough economic strength to go forward without aid. Today these countries are joining us with foreign aid programs of their own, providing over $2 billion per year in aid to less developed countries.

Our assistance efforts today are focused in the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But more importantly, the kind of aid we are providing, and its purpose, have changed significantly.

Not too many years ago, a large portion of our aid was intended to do nothing more than keep many countries economically afloat on a day-to-day basis. Much of our aid was simply budget support. As recently as 1956, two-thirds of all our foreign aid was military assistance, and most of our economic aid was budget support. But since 1960, supporting assistance has been ended for 18 countries. Today, two-thirds of our aid is economic in nature and almost all of this economic assistance supports longterm development and progress toward self-support. This is the key to our new efforts.

This long-range development assistance is provided primarily through development loans. The $1.1 billion reThe $1.1 billion requested for development loans, including the Alliance for Progress, constitutes a major share of the total request for fiscal year 1966. These loans provide assistance of two different types.

The most familiar type of loan provides capital assistance for specific projects-highways, bridges, dams, and irrigation works. They help in the construction or expansion of private industrial plants. They also assist the growth of rural electrification cooperatives and help establish local development banks, which in turn lend to private investors. For example, loans have been made to 36 industrial banks in 30 countries which in turn have made possible some 2,400 loans to private business there. These are the kinds of activities which encourage economic activity at the grassroots level where it counts so heavily and which create the institutions vital to the economy of a developing nation. These are the kinds of programs which must, be emphasized if self-reliance and independence are to be promoted.

A second type of loan, called program loans, also provides a grassroots impact, not by building institutions, but by encouraging the development of private enterprise. These loans, which have become increasingly important, finance the import of equipment, supplies, and raw materials for countries with scarce foreign exchange resources. In the past year, approximately 90 percent of these funds went to the private sector in the recipient countries.

Individuals-both manufacturers and farmers-in many less-developed countries desperately need raw materials and

CXI-1461

spare parts to expand their production, and sometimes simply to keep their plants or farms operating. These loans mean vehicle components for motor companies; fertilizers for farms, machinery for factories; medical and pharmaceutical commodities for laboratories. They may be undramatic but a sound development program is made up of thousands of small undramatic improvements, replacements, additions, and investments. And it should also be pointed out that program loans finance the import of U.S. commodities only.

They are thus an asset to the private sector of our own economy. They are one important means of expanding our overseas trade.

Another vital need for the less-developed countries is skilled leadership. Building institutions-banks, educational systems, agricultural extension services is of little value if these countries lack adequately educated and properly motivated people to make them effective. The technical cooperation program is directed primarily toward meeting these needs.

In India, for example, our programs have helped train teachers, establish a major fishing industry, solve production and market problems in private industry, and establish institutions to train engineers and agricultural experts. We all realize, I am sure, that the United States cannot and should not, even if it could, send overseas all the doctors, teachers, city planners, economists, and so forth, that are needed in these countries, nor will our assistance programs alone produce enough of these people. But that is not our immediate objective.

The technical cooperation program, for which $277 million, including the Alliance is requested for fiscal year 1966, is aimed at long-term development primarily by providing technical experts who perform advisory services and teach others to teach themselves. In other words, this assistance is intended to act as a catalyst-to provide the critical margin of resources from outside which will enable much larger resources inside the country to be put into action.

Not all of the technical assistance projects nor all of the development loan programs have met rapid success or produced large-scale results. The difficulties in the developing countries are too great for us to expect quick success at every turn. But the important thing is that steady and meaningful progress is being made. And a fact that we should remember is that for every $1 of U.S. bilateral assistance, the 20 major aid recipients in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have allocated an average of $6 for development from their own limited funds.

Mr. Chairman, I have said a great deal about development loans and technical cooperation programs because they are the core of our efforts abroad. I wanted to emphasize that most of the economic aid funds are used for purposes essential to development progress. There are, of course, other components of the aid program-supporting assistance; the contingency funds for general needs and for southeast Asia; the funds for interna

tional organizations and programs; and the funds for American schools and hospitals. These all contribute in an essential way to the objectives of U.S. foreign policy.

Our military assistance program, for example, is the key to survival to some 11 countries on the rim of the Communist bloc. It is the key to the maintenance of more than 3.5 million men under arms. These men are a deterent to Communist aggression. Without them our defense costs would be much higher and many more American troops would have to be committed around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we have reported a good bill to the House. It represents the smallest total available for obligation in the last 10 years. It concentrates two-thirds of its development assistance in 7 countries, 90 percent of its supporting assistance in 4 countries and three-quarters of its military assistance in 11 countries. It also places a premium on self-help; on a recognition that the United States cannot afford to provide major assistance to countries that choose to make their own development a minor concern.

Several members of the minority on the committee have not seen fit to join in the committee report. They have instead filed minority views and I would like to take a minute or two to comment on some of their allegations.

First, as to congressional control. The impression is given that somehow foreign aid is out of control of the Congress. Aside from the fact that this is a reflection on two committees of the House, their chairmen, and in fact the entire membership, it ignores the fact that the foreign aid program is probably the most frequently scrutinized, examined, and studied of any Government program. Extensive hearings are held by the Foreign Affairs and Appropriations Committees each year. Foreign aid is one of the few programs that each year must go through a full authorization cycle and a full appropriations cycle. Congress does have control; it does have full powers of review. In fact a number of changes and reforms have been made in the program-even in the smallest details-as a result of congressional review.

Second, aid and the balance of payments: Few subjects have been so much debated and so completely distorted as the relationship of foreign aid to our balance of payments. The facts are

these:

Since 1961, foreign aid has had a steadily decreasing impact balance of payments.

The adverse impact is at the lowest level yet achieved. More than 85 percent of the funds requested for the economic assistance program in fiscal year 1966 will be spent directly in the United States for American goods and services.

The net drain of funds from the economic aid program, taking into account repayments from prior aid loans, was about $300 million in fiscal year 1964. 1964. The latest figures for calendar year 1964 show that the annual net drain has been further reduced-to about $250

million. In 1961, by contrast the comparable drain was about $1 billion.

Third, aid and the balance of trade. Contrary to the allegation by the minority, the statements that U.S. commercial exports are rising in the less-developed area where AID maintains foreign assistance programs are correct. From 1959 to 1964, U.S. commercial exports to the AID program countries excluding exports financed by economic sistance-rose from $3,893 million to $4,832 million-nearly $1 billion in 5

years.

It is simply not correct that a more meaningful measure of AID's impact on foreign commercial trade is the "balance" of U.S. commercial exports and imports. The "balance" is the result in two independent phenomenathe level of exports and the level of imports. The level of commercial imports to the United States from the lessdeveloped countries is influenced by a variety of factors, including such things as the level of U.S. income and demand for goods produced in less-developed countries, the growing capacity of the less-developed countries to produce export goods, and the prices of these export goods. These are factors over which foreign aid clearly has no control or direct influence.

Nonetheless, our overall commercial trade balance with Latin America has not declined in the 1959-64 period. Indeed, in 1964 it was less unfavorable than in any year since 1959.

In addition, the U.S. share of the worldwide export market in all the lessdeveloped regions of the world is expanding. Our overall share of worldwide exports-including aid-financed trade to 99 countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia in the 1959-60 period was 25 percent; in the 1963-64 period it was 28 percent. More important, the United States obtained 43 percent of new export trade with these countries since 195960-much more than our overall share of the export market in these less-developed countries. In other words, our relative export position in the developing countries is improving-not deteriorating The U.S. increase in new export trade was much greater than can be explained by the increase in U.S. aid dollars.

Fourth, the real size of the aid program. The minority alleges that there is some sort of plot to conceal the size of the aid program by splitting it up. This is certainly not true. And, even if it were, all the discussion about concealment would have long ago brought things into the open. The truth is that all such funds are shown in the budget, and fully reviewed and understood by the Congress.

Some of the items listed by the minority as foreign aid have little, if any, relationship to the foreign aid program as I have discussed it today. The foreign aid program has traditionally been understood to be the program authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and for which funds are appropriated by title I of the bill we are considering today.

The minority report lists as foreign aid, for instance, the funds for the administration of the Ryukyu Islands. The

United States is responsible for the administration of these islands pursuant to a treaty with Japan. Military considerations require our presence there, siderations require our presence there, but clearly these considerations are not governed by foreign assistance criteria.

Another item listed as foreign aid by the minority is the Export-Import Bank. The primary objective of the ExportImport Bank now-as it has been for over 30 years-is the promotion of U.S. export trade throughout the developed and less developed areas of the world. Its activities do spur economic growth in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but its principal function is to bolster U.S. commercial sales to these areas.

There are other international activities of the United States which to some extent share with the foreign aid program the purpose of assisting the less fortunate nations. It is important in each case, however, to recognize the nature of the activity and the true costs involved.

Mr. Chairman, on balance I think the evidence points conclusively to the need and the necessity of continuing this program of foreign assistance and to pass this bill without reductions beyond those which have already been made by the committee. I have not meant to imply in my remarks that this program has no weaknesses, that it should go on indefinitely or that it is no burden to us as taxpayers. I have meant to emphasize, however, that much of our aid program is committed to fundamental economic development efforts, that it is economic development efforts, that it is primarily a catalytic agent, that it is in the best interests and the best traditions of this country, and that its weaknesses and its costs are frequently exaggerated.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk said it very pointedly and very thoughtfully in his testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs last year.

The Secretary said:

We often hear talk about what we are doing to future generations of Americans and about the legacy which we have given to our grandchildren. I would certainly not want mine

He continued

to grow up in a world where the richest nation-having nearly half the world's wealth-ignored for decades the needs of two-thirds of the people who lived in poverty, disease, and hunger. It would surely not be a very safe or stable world. And even more, it would not be a very great heritage or tradition to pass on.

Mr. Chairman, foreign aid represents a major offensive weapon in our foreign policy arsenal. In an age of nuclear weapons, when any brushfire may turn into a general holocaust, it offers an opportunity and an incentive for peaceful change, progress, and growth. Other free nations combining their efforts with ours, can, must, and are helping the emerging areas of the world to develop into independent and self-reliant states. Communism cannot countenance such a world. It is foreign to its philosophy and designs.

Foreign aid, thus, is not only an effort to provide help and hope to less fortunate neighbors a step which we should take even if there were no such thing

as Communist aggression. But at a time when so-called "wars of national liberation" are being hailed as the wave of the future, it is also a foundation stone and an essential bulwark in the defense of freedom and independence.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, we have been listening to debate here all afternoon of the great accomplishments of foreign aid in the past, how much it means to our foreign policy, the great good it has done. But little has been said about the harm it has done, and nobody, apparently, has been thinking about the American taxpayers.

I hate to put forth a note of discord into this love fest we have been having, but it seems to me that somebody should have something to say about the American taxpayers; somebody should have something to say about whether the American taxpayer should continue to finance wars, and whether or not this House is going to take some action.

It seems what we have done here has been to go along pretty well with what the administration wanted and with what the White House wanted. It seems to me we ought to reduce this sum. When the time comes I am going to offer a motion to recommit with some reductions. I will speak later on that under the 5-minute rule.

What have we been doing as a Congress? We have been going the White House one better in practically everything we have done.

Medicare costs were raised $2 billion over what the White House requested. College aid was approved more than double the amount asked.

Military pay-that was raised $600 million above the request.

On civilian pay raises it looks like $400 million will be added.

On arms spending-that is to be increased above the amount asked.

The antipoverty program has all the money that was requested and more.

Area redevelopment is $250 million higher than what the White House asked for.

The old idea there should be economy in government when the economy is expanding and the old idea of economy by the Congress seems to have been forgotten. As a result, the spending in the administrative budget will soon be breaking through the $100 billion mark.

The cash budget is going to be above $130 billion.

The cut of $3.600 million in military spending in the midst of the war was needed in the year that ended last June 30 to hold the administrative budget down below the $100 billion mark, and then they were back in for more money and they got it.

Arms spending is going to rise at least $4 billion this year.

It seems to me, my colleagues, it is time we took a good hard look at what is going on. We recognize the war in Vietnam is going to cost us a great deal more next year than this year's military budget. But because of the stamp "secret and confidential," we cannot

speak here on the floor today as to what we are spending to finance the war of India and Pakistan. It seems to me, my colleagues, a perfectly ridiculous thing that we should be taking the taxpayers' funds to finance a part of the war in India and Pakistan-spending money on both sides. Yet the administration is going to come in and ask for more money to fight our own war in Vietnam. All of this is done by deficit spending. Remember this, that the funds you are using to finance the war in Pakistan and India come from money borrowed at the expense of the American taxpayers upon which we are paying interest and increasing the deficit of this country.

It seems to me it is time we called a halt to some of these things. Now the gentleman who has just spoken here talked about the humanitarian side. I agree that we must have a humanitarian feeling, but let us have one for the American taxpayers as well. He talks about what we did in Western Europe. Yes, of course, we went to our allies and we rebuilt their nations. We rebuilt their economic strength. After we did it-what happened? Have they contributed to these other nations and to these funds? Take a look at the list of other countries in this question of aid. We are still footing the bill. Oh, they are making some minor contributions, but they are more interested in defeating us in trade and in business with the machines and factories that we built for

them out of our resources. Why are they not in this? Why can we not ask them to go into a humanitarian program too with some of the funds and the profits of the prosperity that they now have to aid in this? Why can we not ask for something like that?

I will agree with anyone that it would be immoral if we ever let grain spoil in our granaries or if we ever let food spoil

in our warehouses so long as there are hungry people in the world and so long as there are hungry people in the United States and there are some hungry people here in the United States. I understand we have had to have an antipoverty program here because 17 million people go to bed hungry every night in the United States. Let us feed them with our surpluses as well as feed people

abroad.

The story is not one sided, as we have been hearing today.

It seems to me that the Congress must

begin to consider the financial side of the question as well as the question as to whether it is moral for us to support a war between two countries, as we are now doing in India and Pakistan.

My distinguished chairman read a letter which rather suggested that the House should do nothing about the war between Pakistan and India. It was stated that that is a matter of foreign policy. I agree. To a certain extent it is. But I do not believe that that is a policy which is entirely within the province of the President of the United States.

I remind the Members of the House that the Constitution provides that no funds shall be spent unless appropriated by the Congress of the United States. That provision in the Constitution gives

us control of the purse strings and the determination as to whether moneys shall be used to finance both sides engaged in a war. We have a constitutional right-and, I believe, a constitutional responsibility-to exercise that prerogative and to say that we will not expend money from the Treasury of the United States to finance wars-on both sides or on one side. Whether we shall appropriate funds for that purpose is a question which comes within the responsibility of the Congress.

I hope that Congress will finally stand up and be counted. We have delegated many of our powers. We have given rights away. It is time that we again stand firm, take a look at these programs, and exercise our own prerogatives. The idea of walking up and down the aisle must come to an end. Congress should again assume its authority over programs of this kind.

I shall speak on the motion to recommit later, but I hope that my colleagues will not believe that this question of foreign aid, foreign security, or whatever it may be called, is all one sided. The American taxpayer has a right to be heard. Certainly the Congress should not merely step to the tune called to it. We should exercise our own prerogatives in this field.

Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY]. Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the always highly interesting remarks of my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] remind me of the late Al Smith when he said: "Let's look at the record."

Do Members know, in fiscal year 1953, the amount of money appropriated by the House for the purpose of foreign aid? Practically 100 percent more, or twice as much as the amount suggested to be appropriated today, to wit, $6,001,900,000.

Do Members recall who was the chair

man of the House Appropriations Committee back in those days, in 1954 fiscal year? That great and fine American, one of my dearest friends, the gentleman from New York Mr. John Taber. Mr. Taber and the Republicans produced a $42 billion foreign aid bill in that year.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES).

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chair

man, it always touches me deeply to have somebody from the majority party do as the gentleman from New York has just the gentleman from New York has just done; that is, to take as a standard the example of Republicans and to indicate that anything Republicans did must have been perfectly all right. I appreciate the gentleman's felicity and I congratulate him on his broadmindedness and perspicacity.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will my distinguished friend from Arizona yield?

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. I know of the high grade of intelligence possessed the high grade of intelligence possessed by my distinguished friend from the

great Southwest, and I know that he does not at all believe what he says.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. This puts me in sort of a dilemma, I say to my friend from New York; either I have to admit that I do not have as much sense as he says I do, or I have to say that I do not believe what I have just said. I cannot do either.

I will reiterate the point and say that it seems that on the other side of the avenue, 1600 Pennsylvania, this is getting to be a very important exercise every day. Apparently, a letter is brought out which was written by President Eisenhower at one time, which has been used to indicate that the present Vietnam policy was completely fathered by a Republican Republican administration. Even though the letter does not prove the point at all. Again I say I am touched and I am delighted that the Democrats of the country are so pleased to be on the side of the Republicans. I congratulate them.

I should like to say, however, to my good friend from New York, that the figures which he quoted as an appropriation for foreign aid by the 83d Congress came, as he knows full well, during the days of the Korean war. I believe if he will look at the record and make the appraisal which I am sure he is perfectly capable of making-and will make, because he is an honest man-he will realize that after the Korean war was finally ended by a Republican President the appropriations were cut considerably, and came up then quite considerably under later Democratic administration.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. If the gentleman will kindly yield further, I should like to say that the appropriations never got down to the "bare bones" they are today.

Has the gentleman forgotten what is going on at the moment in Vietnam?

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Of course I have not forgotten what is going on at the moment in Vietnam. I have not forgotten what is going on in Pakistan and India, either.

I believe it is very important that this House take a stand against a current which seems to be developing throughout the world-that is, that nations get American military aid and American economic aid and then go to war with each other. They start having wars in which we find ourselves represented vicariously on both sides, in the shape of weapons we have furnished to each com

batant.

We have seen this happen on Cyprus. There, weapons furnished by the Turks which we had given them originally were arrayed against other weapons we had given the Greeks. These weapons found a rendezvous on the Island of Cyprus, shooting at each other.

I do not believe we should pass this bill until the Congress of the United States has gone on record in support of what I understand, from my good friend from Texas, is the policy of this administration. I understand that the President of the United States has already announced-if I am incorrect I am sure the gentleman will correct me-that military assistance both to India and to Pakistan has been suspended pending