such time as the present war between those two nations has been completely stopped. I also understand that further agreements for economic assistance to either nation will not be made so long as there is a shooting war between these two nations.

I believe Congress should go on record in support of the President's policy. We should put in this bill a provision which will strengthen his hand in the purpose which he has already taken up.

I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that in this bill for the past several years we have had a prohibition against foreign aid to any nation which allows its ships to be used in trade with Cuba. I am sure this provision has had a very salutary effect in aiding the efforts of this Government to stop trade with Communist China.

Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the distinguished gentleman yield?

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

siana.

Mr. PASSMAN. Certainly it was the subcommittee's loss that the distinguished gentleman from Arizona moved on to another committee. So as to keep my own record straight, in keeping with the statements that I made earlier today-and if they are not correct, of course, I want to be corrected this is, in reality, one of the largest appropriation bills ever passed by this House in the history of the foreign aid program. I brought that point out in my earlier discussion because the program has been fragmentized. During the period it has been my privilege to handle the bill on the floor final appropriations have been down as low as $2.7 billion on two occasions.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired. Mr. PASSMAN. I yield the gentleman one additional minute.

If the gentleman will yield further, final appropriations have been down to $3 billion on one occasion, and down to $3.25 billion on another occasion. However, we must also take into account that we now channel aid into a lot of different international organizations. So I stand on the previous statement that the total aid request is $7,512,470,000. I am compelled to make that statement in defense of what I said earlier today.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. I wanted to ask my distinguished friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. PASSMAN] whether it is not the fact that when this foreign aid bill passed the House in the 1953 fiscal year, it was not in the amount of $6,001,900,000.

Mr. PASSMAN. I think that is correct. That still does not amount to the $7,512,470,000 figure I just mentioned.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN].

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this time to advise my colleagues of the House that at the apcolleagues of the House that at the appropriate time it is my intention to offer an amendment to this bill which would deny aid to countries who are shipping or permitting their ships to carry goods When we were to North Vietnam. threatened by communism in Cuba, this is what we did. We attempted to isolate Cuba and in the foreign aid bill at that time we provided that no aid would be time we provided that no aid would be made available "to any country which sells, furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry to carry to Cuba" certain items of aid. That provision continues in the bill we have before us today and which we are going to be acting on soon, I say that while Castro is still a conI say that while Castro is still a continuing threat, the problems we are facing in Vietnam are imminently more urgent. I say it is not right to deny aid to countries that are trading with Cuba and not include a prohibition against aid to countries that are permitting their ships to carry materials of war to North Vietnam. What is the scope of this shipping? My colleagues, some of you may have heard me call attention to this in the past, but the conference report we approved just recently on page 23 says: approved just recently on page 23 says:

"Free world ships carry 45 percent of North Vietnam seaborne imports and 85 North Vietnam seaborne imports and 85 percent of seaborne exports."

Just think of this Free world ships supplying North Vietnam. I told you then that I challenged these figures, and that they are not the whole truth. I hold in my hand a secret document which will tell you, those of you who are concerned about this and want to come and look at it, the true extent of this aid to North Vietnam. It is alarming.

gentleman from Louisiana on the work he has done in his committee this year, as always, and on the fine presentation he made. I also want to say I miss being on this subcommittee.

me?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Will the chairman of the subcommittee answer this question? Does this bill not contain aid to countries that are shipping to North Vietnam?

Mr. PASSMAN. This bill is on an illustrative basis so that it is impossible to tell from the justifications. The agency can testify for concerning money for a school building in Argentina and take that money and build a summer resort on the Ivory Coast.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. The information made available to me by staff members of this subcommittee is that there is aid in this bill to nations that are shipping to North Vietnam.

Mr. Chairman, the President has told us that this is war. I agree with him. It is war. I have been to South Vietnam just recently. I have been to Da Lang and Pleiku and Chu Lai. I have been to the hospitals. I have seen what is going on there. It is war. We cannot have a double standard and permit aid to the countries whose ships are carrying supplies to North Vietnam while we prevent aid to countries whose ships sail to Cuba. That does not make sense. We owe it to our military people in Vietnam and the other 50,000 boys that the President says he is going to send there and those are to be asked to serve because we are doubling our draft calls and sending more boys out there.

How can we sit on our hands here and do nothing to stop the shipping that is going to North Vietnam?

The President has stated that this is war. He has recognized this. He has stated that he does not like it. I know he wants it stopped. I know that the Secretary of Defense wants it stopped. I know that every Member of Congress wants it stopped. I say that here is the opportunity for us to do something about it. Let us help the President to stop it.

Our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution provided that appropriations shall be made by the Congress, because we are closer to the people. I say the American people do not want aid sent to North Vietnam. I say that here is a chance for us to do something about it. We should help the President stop this trading with the enemy.

Mr. Chairman, I say that there is a moral issue involved here, too.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the distinguished gentleman from Michigan now yield?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I yield briefly to the gentleman.

Mr. ROONEY of New York. The matter to which the gentleman from Michigan has directed our attention for more than 5 minutes now, will, I think, be amply taken care of when this pending bill is read for amendment. I shall then offer an amendment to cure the very situation he has mentioned with regard to North Vietnam.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am heartened by those words, because my colleagues know that I have taken the last few weeks to get the facts on this and call them to the attention of the House. I am glad that

my voice has been heard and that something is going to be done about it.

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

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman. I introduced legislation to carry out this purpose, and a report came from the Department of State against the passage of that proposed legislation. I am going to support the gentleman's amendment, and I hope

to get a haircut. He has to get it right there. Some of it must be spent over

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. I would like to say that I have addressed a letter to the Department of State. It is my purpose soon to read it into the RECORD So that all Members of Congress, including the Members of the other body, may know the attitude of our State Department with respect to this deplorable situation. They seem to think that there is nothing wrong with it.

Well, as I say—and I am glad my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY] has recognized this-there is a moral issue involved here which goes far beyond the dollar amount of this aid. Mr. Chairman, we have got to let the nations of the world know that we mean

business in Vietnam and that we are not going to continue aid to countries that are supporting North Vietnam.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has again expired.

Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished and very able gentleman, a member of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. LONG].

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak on the entire bill, but wish only to address myself to correcting two misleading statements contained in the minority report. The minority report states on page 15 that there is a definite relationship bethat there is a definite relationship between the gold outflows and the Federal Government's program of spending in foreign countries.

Mr. Chairman, this is not only incorrect but it is in fact the opposite of the truth. The fact is that our gold outflows are almost entirely to countries that do not now receive, and in most cases, have not received for 5 or 6 years any aid assistance, either military or economic, either grants or Government

loans.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes; I would be happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. PASSMAN. Certainly, I was not trying to be evasive in giving the gentleman an answer earlier.

We would assume, based upon what has happened in the past, that nations who are shipping into North Vietnam will receive aid, but as I have stated so many times to Members of the House, we pass this bill on an illustrative basis and the only way you can protect the American taxpayer, and for that matter, our foreign policy is to keep the figure low. When you keep these figures high, there is always some way that they can get around to giving aid to countries like Egypt, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Indonesia, and many others for that matter. wanted to keep out of that, but I have been preaching this since I have been handling the bill, that you have large sums going into Communist countries.

I

I wanted the gentleman from Michigan to understand that I was not being evasive. I do not know what the approach will be next year under this bill, but we hope before we finally pass this bill now under consideration an amendment will be adopted that will close the gap to which the gentleman has referred.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman, I would not want to have this RECORD indicate that the gentleman from Louisiana was being evasive in the slightest. I discussed this with my colleague before and he is most cooperative about this. He understands the situation, and I am certain that we share the same views with respect to shipping to North Vietnam by free world nations.

Mr. PASSMAN. If the gentleman will yield further. I hope the gentleman I hope the gentleman from Michigan understood my statement earlier that my wings had been clipped

Mr. Chairman, nearly all of the aid went to countries which took only 7.2 percent of the U.S. gold.

So, if we are losing gold, it is not because of our present aid program, despite whatever this may have had to do with it in the past.

I think the minority may argue that what we have done in our past programs was to put these countries in the position of buying our gold at the present time. This is quite true. This was our object, to make these countries healthy and to make these countries healthy and prosperous. Many of these countries had cashed in large quantities of gold to buy munitions for World War II. This took the place of our help at that time. After they got their prosperity back, they wanted to buy back their jewelry, and wanted to buy back their jewelry, and most of this has gone to those countries. So far as the present AID recipient countries are concerned, I cannot conceive of their ever being as prosperous as the of their ever being as prosperous as the countries which are taking our gold. They are going to have a tough problem They are going to have a tough problem for many decades to come, and they cannot afford gold. They can afford only to take our help.

The minority report says on page 15: Our commercial trade balance with aidrecipient countries has dropped sharply has dropped sharply since 1960. The Latin American commercial trade balance is particularly alarming.

Here again I think this is completely wrong and misleading. Since 1959 our policies have required that aid appropriations must be spent wherever possible in the United States for goods and services produced in this country. $6 out of every $7 in aid during 1965 has been spent directly in this country. Of course, not all can be spent directly, because an American military adviser or an AID official cannot go back to the United States ficial cannot go back to the United States

for any loss of our commercial trade balance. Since 1960 we have improved our worldwide commerce surplus by $2.2 billion. Actually our foreign aid program has improved U.S. dollars. Our foreign trade program, by giving U.S. dollars to underdeveloped countries and obliging them to spend these dollars in U.S.goods and services has not impaired our commercial trade balances. Very much as if I gave my brother-in-law a lot of money and insisted that he spend it in my store. I would improve my sales. I am not arguing that that is the best way to improve sales but, nevertheless, it would have the effect of increasing business.

The U.S. share of trade with 12 coun

tries rose from 19 percent in 1959-60 to 22 percent in 1963 and 1964. With 20 countries of the Near East and southeast Asia from 21 to 27 percent; with 48 countries in Africa from 7 percent to 9 percent. With 99 developing countries altogether from 25 to 28 percent. Only with Latin America does our share vary slightly, and that is only from 48 to

47 percent.

Thus our trade balance with AID recipient countries has risen during the pe

riod set forth in the minority report.

The report therefore is incorrect. All we can say about our aid to underde

veloped countries is that it has not hurt

our trade.

I want to say in conclusion I support this bill, I am very much in favor of it. I think America can be proud. We are the only great Nation in history that has used its power to give rather than to take. I am proud to be an American when I consider what we are doing here today.

It is remarkable that what we are giving only amounts to about $3 per capita for the countries we are trying to help. It would be amazing if this solved all of the problems in a short period of time.

I think it would also be remarkable if we made no mistakes in view of the lack

of experience.

We should not eliminate these programs, but cut away the excess fat.

I support this program, and I urge all my colleagues to do likewise. Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I yield the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 5 minutes.

Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I say again in defense of my own integrity and the statements I made earlier in the day that the language in the minority report, in my opinion, is absolutely correct. It is just a coincidence that the language and data in the minority report coincided with what I had established earlier. There is, and I repeat, is a definite relationship between the gold outflow and the Federal Government's program of spending in foreign countries.

We brought this problem to the attention of the committee about 8 years ago that we were giving too freely of our wealth to many countries and that they were building up dollars in excess of their needs for commerce and that the time

would soon come that they would demand gold for their extra dollars. I say again the record is accurate.

I respect the views of the gentleman from Maryland. But this is data that I have also used in the past.

As to the table found on page 20, again it was just a coincidence that the minority included that in their report. The recipients of this program did, during those 8 years, purchase $7,013 million of our gold. Further, it was aid that we gave to them in 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961 which, I say, when they got ready to spend the dollars that they had accumulated, they bought our gold.

Also, in the bill being considered by the House today, the analysis of the 1966 budget indicates 43 of the countries contained in the gold table found on page 20 will receive foreign aid, economic and military, in the amounts of over $1,300 million.

I do not think this is a "relationship." I think it is a direct cause of the gold outflow. As I have said on so many occasions before, there are no facts or statistics that will disprove the accuracy of my statement and the accuracy of the contention contained in the minority report.

I had to make this statement in defense of what I said earlier today. I want to commend the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SHRIVER], for putting this data in the minority report, because it is something that I had toyed with previously, but I did not have the votes to get it in the majority report.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 10871 because as an American I am proud of what my fellow Americans are doing to help the less fortunate in foreign lands.

More than 5,000 AID technicians-all Americans are today working shoulderto-shoulder with the people of the recipient countries showing them better ways to build things, better ways to grow things, better ways to educate their children, better ways to improve public health, better ways of public administration-and in general, better ways of living.

Our technical assistance has helped to achieve agrarian reform in the Philippines, conquered malaria in Free China, taught do-it-yourself home building in Guatemala, attacked illiteracy in Colombia, modernized agricultural techniques in Vietnam, and set up farm cooperatives in Nigeria.

In India, technical assistance has helped to train teachers, establish a major fishing industry, solve production and marketing problems in private industry, and establish first-class training institutions for engineers, industrial technicians and agricultural experts.

In Chile, it has helped to effect tax reform and improved tax collections systems, create a savings and loan system, and provide decent housing for low-income families.

In South Vietnam, U.S. technical assistance has helped to raise farm output, organize village health services and education programs, stamp out malaria, and initiate a public safety program against Vietcong attacks.

In Nigeria, technical assistance has helped to create a modern poultry industry, increase cement output, expand private industry, and reshape the educational system.

In Jordan, our technical assistance has meant a thriving tourist industry, more irrigation projects, tax reforms, and improved civil service administration.

Because we have learned that American assistance can have lasting effect only to the degree that it improves the ability of another country to do something for itself, we have set up as an objective of technical assistance the helping of developing countries to get on their own feet, by creating the facilities and the institutions, and training the people to solve their own problems.

It is important that we leave not only physical results-a dam, a road or a factory-but people who are ready, willing, and able to continue their own development when we have departed from their country. This is the mission of technical assistance of our aid program, and for this reason, if not for any other, H.R. 10871 deserves our full support.

As Americans we who believe more than any other people on earth in the concept of world brotherhood, we should take pride in this unselfish effort.

Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Chairman, the very nature of Communist theory makes the military assistance program of the foreign aid bill an essential part of our foreign policy.

Communists are pledged to an international conspiracy to end systems of free enterprise and replace them with totalitarianism. If we are dedicated to the independence of the individual, we cannot sit idly by as Communists infiltrate one country after another. The security of the United States is at stake; the dignity of man in the balance.

An appropriation of $1,170 million is requested for military assistance this fiscal year. About 72 percent of these funds will go to just 11 "forward defense" countries stretching from Greece to Korea along the Communist frontier. With out this aid, much greater burdens would have to be borne directly by our own military forces.

The request this year consists of a basic program of $1 billion to meet minimum essential needs plus an additional $170 million to cover extraordinary costs in million to cover extraordinary costs in Vietnam and Laos.

The total request is more than a quarter of a billion less than the annual average appropriation for fiscal years 1960 through 1964, and almost $5 billion less than the peak appropriation at the time of the Korean war and NATO buildup. We have been able to reduce and, in some cases, eliminate programs in countries of increasing economic strength.

Credit sales are used more and more to supplement or substitute for military assistance grants.

Much of our military assistance goes for the purchase of a wide range of defense equipment and other materials. Training is also an essential component. Many present and future military leaders are brought to the United States to observe the functions of a responsible

military establishment under civilian direction.

Military assistance also makes a direct contribution to U.S. security by providing funds for U.S. participation in collective security organizations such as NATO, CENTO, and SEATO.

Today the free world needs the strength and support of the United States. We cannot abandon our small allies to dictatorship. With our help they have a chance. Without it, they are lost. And, perhaps, so are we.

Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to vote for an increase of about $35 million over last year's appropriation for the foreign aid program. I consider this completely indefensible and suggest instead that the amount can be substantially cut without any impairment of the aid program or international relationships.

The record in the past is only too clear. Foreign aid dollars have failed miserably in stopping the advance of communism in the world and have too often been used by the world's dictators as ammunition against the free world. There has been little guarantee that our money has ever reached the people for whom it was intended.

The American people, it seems to me, share the view that the foreign aid program should be completely revamped. The people want assurances that their money goes to those who really need and appreciate it. They have not had those assurances in the past and they will not find assurances in the bill before us. The American people are extremely generous, and would not hesitate to spend the three-plus-billions of dollars asked if our Nation was really benefiting and the recipient nations were really using the funds to best advantage.

Foreign aid is said to be a tool of our foreign policy, and that is exactly what it should be. But it has failed in large measure in being a tool of any sort. We still continue to pass our aid to countries that are not only unfriendly, but openly hostile, siding constantly with our enemies. And when we try to write even one sentence into legislation in an effort to cut off such aid to hostile nations, the administration cries in anguish that our whole foreign policy will be impaired. We also hear the same cries of anguish when we try to cut a few dollars from the appropriation. But we have cut funds before and I dare say our foreign relations never suffered from a lack of funds. Our image may have become tarnished around the world in recent years, but as we pointed out in the minority views accompanying this bill, the impairment in our image was not due to any reduced amounts of foreign aid.

Mr. Chairman, Congress has completely lost its control over our foreign aid program. Once we appropriate the money, anything can happen. It is startling to note from the committee testimony that it would be perfectly possible for administrators of the aid program to testify before the committee requesting funds for a building and loan bank in Guatemala and then turn around and build a mountain resort in Brazil with the

money. The program's administration is so lax that the Congress does not even hear about certain projects until after they have failed miserably through bungling and mismanagement.

In other words, the Congress and the American people have no effective way of stopping this foolish spending except to slash the funds available. I suggest we do just that and then develop a program that will really aid the needy of the world.

Actually, the present foreign aid program represents preferential treatment of foreign nations over the people of the United States. If anyone in our country wants a new dam, a flood control project, or any other local program, the interested parties must come to Congress with a workable plan. But not so with foreign interests and the foreign aid people. If they did have to come to Congress to justify their programs we would see fewer roads that lead to nowhere, fewer TV sets sent to bush country where there are no transmitters or electricity, fewer hay balers to a country that does not raise hay, and less eye shadow and bubble gum to Turkey.

Perhaps I would not be so concerned about all of this if the three-plus billions being considered today actually represented all of our foreign aid effort. But it does not. Requests for foreign assistance submitted to Congress this year amount to over $72 billion. And the unexpended balance-pipeline as of June 30, 1965, is estimated to be over $10.6 billion.

The balance of trade has shown a significant trend. Some countries have been receiving our aid since the days of the Marshall Plan, and you would expect that it would have opened the way for increased U.S. trade. However, our commercial trade balance is in a significant downward glide.

The advocates of uncontrolled foreign aid tell us that it has no effect on the critical outflow of gold. But the facts indicate otherwise. For the 7-year period of 1958 through 1964, 57 countries who have received $14.4 billion of our assistance also have purchased over $7 billion in U.S. gold stocks during the same period. Fourteen of those countries bought an additional $769 million of our gold during the first quarter of this calendar year 1965. These figures do not even include the benefits these countries have received in special tariff considerations on marketing their sugar, beef and other commodities in the United States.

We are told not to worry about the dollars spent on foreign aid because most of them are spent right here in this country. This is a myth that simply is not true. Close examination reveals that we are talking about only total commodity purchases. For example, in fiscal year 1963, $855 million was spent on commodities out of total foreign aid grants and loans of $5.17 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we in the minority on the Appropriations Committee believe that foreign assistance can be worthwhile, but we cannot subscribe to the present system. The focus of our foreign aid program should be upon responsive projects

that use our abundance of food to feed the unfortunate peoples of the world where starvation is all too prevalent. And initiation of educational programs are needed to help the people of newly emerging nations to better enable them to take their place in a continually more complex civilization.

Until those worthy objectives have been accomplished, I suggest that we put been accomplished, I suggest that we put a stop to the present program.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired. gentleman from Louisiana has expired. All time has expired. The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Contingency fund, southeast Asia: For expenses authorized by section 451(a), $89,000,000.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the necessary number of words.

Mr. Chairman, it has been interesting to hear, starting with consideration of this bill on the floor of the House, the attempts to soft pedal the Pakistan-India war that is now going on. For years some of us have warned, and we were voices in the wilderness, that this Government was arming and otherwise aiding some countries thus making it possible for them to go to war against each sible for them to go to war against each other. I do not know why the attempt is being made here today to minimize the war between India and Pakistan because as a result of this bill and maladministration of the foreign handout program there will be a continuation of the fatal errors already made.

This Government spent hundreds of million of dollars, yes billions, arming and otherwise helping those two countries. Yet it was only a few weeks ago that Prime Minister Shastri of India went to Moscow and while there told us we should get out of South Vietnam. He did our cause no good around the world by issuing such a statement. world by issuing such a statement. We have been trying to get some help in Vietnam. As a result of the $130 billion that has been expended by this country around the world since the end of World War II on foreign giveaways, where have War II on foreign giveaways, where have we found any friends to help us with the fighting and dying in Vietnam?

Still the leader of India goes to Moscow and while there tells us that we ought to get out of Vietnam, and gives comfort to those around the world who say, "We are delighted that you are doing the fighting. You go ahead and do the fighting and the dying."

A little while ago the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] asked where the money is going to come from to pay this bill. The same question has been asked year after year. after year. The answer he gets is a lot of silence, as usual, from those who are so free with the money of others. I am afraid the gentleman from Ohio is a little bit too old fashioned to qualify for membership in the Great Society. Too few are concerned about the debt and deficits in this country, but they are concerned about deficits in foreign countries. As I mentioned a little while ago, the handout artists gave $15 million to the government of Ecuador because of their budget deficit, when they had the

credit to borrow money from the International Monetary Fund.

The gentleman from Maryland has tried to make an issue of the fact that we are not giving economic aid to some of the countries which are buying our gold. For example, let us consider France. We are no longer giving economic aid to France and probably not very much military assistance. But what would be the situation if France assumed the responsibility of defending France against the Communist conspiracy instead of the United States maintaining four or five divisions in Europe at being expense to American taxpayers?

We ought to bring those divisions home. France ought to be spending the money and providing the troops to defend France. She would not have quite so much money to buy our gold if she were providing her own defenses. The same statement applies to other countries of Europe.

After all these years, I think I have found the real answer to the attempts of the foreign aiders to rationalize the spending of our money around the world. I wish to read very briefly from page 1508 of the committee hearings when the subject of Togo was before the committee. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SHRIVER] asked the following question:

What is the purpose of our putting money into that country when other countries have been contributing toward their economic development?

Mr. HUTCHINSON's answer for the aid outfit was as follows:

The basic rationale is what I gave you earlier. The necessity for them showing that

someone is interested in them rather than the people they used to have their dependence upon.

It was not a question of real need; it is a proposition of showing them that we are big, open-handed spenders; that we simply cannot let anyone prevent the Great Society from dissipating the resources of this Republic.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a repeat performance of every other multi-billion

dollar handout that has come down the

pike for the past 17 years that I have been a Member of Congress. The American taxpayers are again being jobbed by those who have no policy except to continue the discredited effort to buy and bribe around the world.

Apparently it is utterly futile to try to cut this bill in the interests of trying to save this country from ultimate bankruptcy. I will vote against the bill.

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

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give my wholehearted support to that portion of the military assistance program which is directed to Nationalist China. The amount of money for Formosa is, of course, a classified figure, but I engage in no breach of security when I express my satisfaction that it is a figure larger than last year or the year before. We know from what has happened during the past decade that we get more for every dollar that is spent in military aid to our friends in the Republic of China than perhaps any other

place in the world. That return is in the form of mutual security.

Our country is being honored at this time by a visit from the wife of the President of the Republic of China. Madame Chiang Kai-shek is one of the world's greatest women. She is universally respected and admired by the American people. She has been closely identified with the great struggle for human freedom in the Pacific area. We can benefit from her wise counsel and sound judgment.

vast

Mr. Chairman, many of us have doubted the justification for billions of dollars in foreign economic aid which has not been productive of good results in recent years. I think history has vindicated our judgment in opposing many projects which have involved amounts of waste and extravagance. That, however, has not been the case in Formosa, where there is something tangible to show for our efforts. It is unfortunate that economic and military aid have always been lumped together in the same bills ever since foreign aid began. The two should be treated separately.

Our country, both through its economic-aid program and its military assistance, has helped to weld a powerful military force on the island of Formosa. Today there are some 600,000 combatready troops plus a capable Air Force, a relatively small but effective Navy and other supporting units. With the situation being what it is in southeast Asia, there is no need to belabor the importance of these forces of the Republic of China to our own interests in the Far East and indeed, throughout the world. We hear and read much about the

committed and uncommitted nations. There is no more committed nation than the Republic of China. They are ready-they are more than ready-they are anxious to uphold freedom, and this they have proved over the last 16 years.

Sometimes we wonder who are our friends and how long they will remain our friends; we need have no doubt in this respect so far as Formosa is concerned. We have no better friends and at this juncture in world affairs, we have no more important friends.

Our investment, both in economic and military aid, has, of course, been very large. And no assistance has provided greater rewards. Even if we were to view these large expenditures from the most narrow, parochial, and selfish standpoint, we would be justified in continuing our military aid to the Republic of China for the sole purpose of protecting the large investment which we have already made.

We are all aware that our economic aid to the Republic of China has now come to an end and there may be those who would say that this being so, the Republic of China is now capable of taking care of itself not only economically but militarily. Nothing could be further from the truth. The end of economic aid programs in Taiwan does not mean that the Chinese have become rich. Per capita income averages only $150 a year as compared with something over $2,500 in the United States. We would be short-sighted and foolish to

even consider stopping or lessening our military aid to this bastion of freedom in the Far East.

It will be recalled that when a bill was being considered by the other body, an amendment was offered to add $100 million to the amount in the bill for Formosa. The amendment was withdrawn and I must say that I regret this fact. It is my understanding from a reading of the RECORD that the amendment was withdrawn for only one reason-and that reason is that assurances were given which made the amendment unnecessary. I am not aware of the details underlying these assurances but I have every reason to believe that they must have been of a very persuasive nature.

A mere glance at a map of the far Pacific makes immediately evident the importance of the island chain of which Formosa is a vital link. This whole island chain furnishes bases to support the operation in South Vietnam and elsewhere in southeast Asia.

Although highly unlikely at this time, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that our own air and naval forces might at some time be required to take over the primary role in the containing of Communist China. Should that eventuality occur, these island bases are indispensable to that mission.

Today we have base facilities on Formosa which are, however, only on a standby basis. The security of Formosa is intimately tied to that of Okinawa and the Philippines, the sites of our principal advance air and naval base complexes.

Under no circumstances could this

country-or the Western World-permit a Chinese Communist occupation of Formosa since this would expose both Okinawa and the Philippines to Communist infiltration and subversion.

Let us not for a moment forget that Soviet Communist Party the Chinese asonly a year ago in their letter to the

serted:

this year

The Chinese on Taiwan (Formosa) must maintain, and we must continue to help if their territory is to be defended. them support, large modern military forces

And I will add, if all of our varied interests in the Far East are to be defended.

Perhaps there is no better summary of our national attitude toward Formosa than that expressed by Secretary of State Rusk during his visit to Taipei last year. During that visit he said:

The Communist regime on the mainland of China calls itself revolutionary and boasts of progress, despite the fact that its policies have inflicted terrible setbacks on the people of the mainland. It is the Government and people of the Republic of China who have been carrying out successfully progressive programs which reflect the true revolutionary inheritance of the three people's principles of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. These forwardlooking programs continue to improve the well-being of the people of the Republic

I salute the resolute will and positive achievement of the Republic of China under the leadership of President Chiang Kai-shek. The American people have always regarded the Chinese people with admiration. We value you as stalwart comrades in the struggle to secure a more prosperous, just, and satisfying life for all free men everywhere, and a peace safe from the threats of aggression. I look forward to discussions with your leaders on the major problems facing free men today. May the friendship and close understanding between our two peoples, as your own phrase puts it, live 10,000 years.

ment: We should give every measure of Let me conclude with this flat state

support to the Republic of China that is within our power. They are a stabilizThey are a potential striking force at any ing force in the Far East at this moment.

time from this moment on should that necessity arise.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 3, line 12: Administrative expenses:

For expenses authorized by section 637(a), $54,240,000.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have long been a critic of how the foreign aid program Government, and this criticism is felt has recently been carried out by our by millions of Americans and by a large portion of Congress.

The tremendous financial outlay for foreign aid today is a great drain on the country's fiscal strength, especially in view of the recent large spending programs passed by Congress, and the real necessity to spend many billions of dollars on our military mission in Vietnam.

istrative improvements must be made in It is obvious that tremendous adminthe foreign aid program and waste eliminated wherever possible.

flexible and lacks specific congressional Besides that, the program is far too attention and restriction to individual projects and countries.

I am a strong advocate of the military program of the foreign aid legislation being placed in the Department of Dethrough the House and Senate Armed fense with review by Congress coming

Services Committees. The military items should get the close scrutiny and careful attention that is given our own military expenditures. Nothing like this or even approaching this is presently the case and with more money going into crisis areas around the world we need this more than ever.