Слике страница
PDF
ePub

teach and to become school principals and administrators and in some cases university presidents? Is that the burden of much of the speech of the Senator from Florida?

Mr. HOLLAND. I would not say that is the whole burden, but that is certainly a part of the burden of the statement I have made, which I feel is clearly shown by the statistics from States outside the South that practice integration, where Negroes do not have anything like the number represented by their race as teachers, where there are no Negro presidents of Negro institutions of learning, because the opportunity to advance does not exist, and where also, in spite of the fact that, by law and by preference, the doors are open to Negroes in medical and dental schools and other places where the learned professions are taught, nevertheless they have not been admitted in large numbers, not because anybody wanted to keep them out, but due to the fact that pressures for such educational opportunities are so great that the top qualified people are admitted and Negroes too frequently are too far down the list.

That fact could not be more clearly shown than by the letter from the assist

ant dean of the medical college of the University of California to the dean of the medical college of Meharry at Nashville, a segregated college, imploring him to send to California two or three of their best qualified youngsters, stating that many had applied, a few had passed the minimum requirements, but none had been able to qualify at such a level that they could be admitted to the school.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Did not the Senator's statistics show that since 1946 or 1947-perhaps not either one of those years, but at least in the decade of the 1940's-there was an improvement both in the South and in the North, a very rapid percentage improvement in the North, and a very substantial and absolute improvement in the South, in the opportunity for Negro teachers? Far more Negroes have the chance to teach than ever before by far. Does not a large part of this improvement coincide with the desegregation decision of the Supreme Court, which desegregated teaching institutions in the border States and some of the Southern States, and has given greater impetus and emphasis to desegregation throughout the Nation? Have not the opportunities for Negro teachers improved at the same time the desegregation decision by the Supreme Court has been in effect?

Mr. HOLLAND. I believe that is correct in general, but I do not believe the Supreme Court decision did it. The efforts of the States, especially in the South, to improve the schools is responsible for the improvements along with greater numbers of teachers, again, especially in the South. I stated, in a part of my speech, that the only silver lining in the forbidding cloud that has hung over us since the 1954 decision, with respect to the relations between the races, has been the improvements in the schools where they have been made. In both areas there has been improvement-in the schools and in the teaching ratios. There has been much greater

improvement in the South, because, for
example, in my own State, as the sta-
tistics will show, there has been estab-
lished a system of junior colleges which
was held up by one of the great maga-
zines of the Nation in the last 2 or 3
months as a model for the whole coun-
try to follow. We have included oppor-
tunities for both races in the educational
system of our State.

Mr. PROXMIRE. As the Senator
pointed out, there has resulted a greater
percentage increase in the North, and
a lesser one in the South-

Mr. HOLLAND. No. Not exactly.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator pointed out that there was a greater absolute increase in the South because there are far more teachers and Negroes there. As the Senator pointed out, in the segregated schools in the South there are only Negro teachers, whereas in the North, teachers are chosen on the basis of qualifications, and there has been some discrimination.

Mr. HOLLAND. Let me correct the Let me correct the Senator's statement to this extent. In the segregated schools, where there are only colored students, there are only Negro teachers. In the segregated schools, where there are only white students, there are only white teachers. Each group of students has received instruction from well-trained people of their own race.

Mr. PROXMIRE. In view of the fact that the Senator from Florida has conceded that since the decision of the Suending of legal segregation in our counpreme Court in the Brown case, and the try in every section, there has been an improvement in Negro opportunities in teaching, why should the Senator oppose this very mild bill. To continue the Brown case philosophy a bit further, a large part of this title the Senator concedes he will support

Mr. HOLLAND. No.

Mr. PROXMIRE. So far as title IV is concerned. One section which the Senator from Florida does not want is section 406.

Another section he does not want is the open-end appropriation provision in this title. He opposes section 407 which deals with suits to be brought by the Attorney General.

Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad the Senator has brought on this colloquy, because he misunderstood the Senator from Florida. What the Senator from Florida Florida. What the Senator from Florida said was that there was one part of title IV which he approved, and that was the reference to the offering of technical training for schools that wanted to progress in this field. I did not approve of any other title.

I would not want the Senator from Wisconsin to get the idea that there are not other parts of the bill which are equally objectionable to the Senator from Florida. He objects very strongly to the FEPC provision, which is put under four different initials, but which is the same old thing. I did not know that certain persons would think that with the ostrich's head in the sand nobody would recognize the ostrich, but that is what the situation is. This is obviously nothing but the old FEPC. I disapprove of that completely.

I think the right of anyone to pick his associates, to pick his own employees, to pick his employers and his fellow employees, is a sacred right. If the Federal Government tried, with this tremendous, sweeping power, to cover the employment practices, through its minions from Maine to Hawaii and from Alaska to Florida and Puerto Rico, we would be coming much closer to being a police state than we have ever done before.

I object equally strongly to the injunction feature.

I object to the title which would give the President, in his sole discretion, and subject to the review of no court, the right to cut off appropriations, approved in Congress in good faith, from communities, agencies, or States where he felt racial discrimination was being practiced even though it is already being done.

I would not want the Senator from Wisconsin to go away with a mind so completely unappreciative of the fact that the Senator from Florida was making more than two objections to the bill.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed; but the objections of the Senator from Florida to title IV went only to the open-end appropriation provision and to the provision providing for suits by the Attorney General.

Mr. HOLLAND. I named them as my two principal objections to this title. I said, in as clear language as I could employ, that there was only one section of which I approve. I think the Senator will find this statement upon an examination of the record.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I think it is extremely helpful, since the Senator from Florida is an experienced Senator and has been a great Governor of his State and has a fine understanding of educational problems as well, that he approves this section of the bill.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida approves only one small part of title IV. I am glad the Senator from Wisconsin thinks that is an important part. I wish he thought it were so important that he could forget the rest of the title, which is so objectionable, and proceed only with the granting of technical assistance. If we are to provide technical assistance to almost every other nation in the world-the last time I saw the list there were about 100 nations to which we grant technical assistance in many fields-I can see no objection to our Nation giving technical assistance to schools which are trying to devise procedures for improvement in this field.

That is the only part of title IV that I approve.

Mr. PROXMIRE. One other point. It is now 3:30 p.m. The Senator from Florida started his address at 12:20. He has given an excellent and interesting speech. He has certainly very eloquently defended his viewpoint of title IV most exhaustively. I should like to ask the Senator-and I do this with all respectif it is not true that we are now debating taking up the bill, and that the Senator from Florida has not spoken at all in his long speech-and in his fine speech

about the point that is before the Senate-namely, the motion before the Senate to take up the bill.

Why would the Senator object to acceding to the majority leader's persistent request, and that of the assistant majority leader as well, that we move ahead now and have an opportunity to debate the bill as such, and not tie ourselves down to this question now before the Senate which makes the Senator from Florida's speech wholly irrelevant, and not at all germane, because the Senator has not said anything about whether we should take up the bill or not.

Mr. HOLLAND. The majority leader made it clear, at the time the Senate voted to sustain the Presiding Officer on the first question that arose, that he was willing to have the bill go to the Judiciary Committee for a limited time, for its study, in order that the committee might report back. My recollection is that the unanimous-consent request was for a 10-day reference. If I am in error, the distinguished majority leader will correct me.

The distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] is expected to make a motion to accomplish about the same thing, to refer the bill to the committee, so that we may have the advantage of its comments, not merely on title IV, but on the other parts of the bill, some good, some bad-much more bad in it than good from my point of view, at least. But the majority leader has advised us that he proposes to move to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from Oregon as soon as the Senator from Oregon is finished speaking. If I have misunderstood the distinguished majority leader, he can correct me.

My feeling is that we must call attention to the manifest injustices, the manifest un-American provisions in the bill at this stage, if we hope to win. We shall not have an opportunity to argue at the time the Senator from Oregon makes his motion, but instead will be cut off at the discretion-and I hope it will be the discretion-of the Senator from Montana, the majority leaderfrom making any debate at that time as to the wisdom of reference to the committee by a motion to lay on the table. That should make it clear that the subject requires some discussion at this time.

Perhaps the Senator can correct me, but I believe I am the first Senator to discuss title IV. I believe the Senator will also agree that it is an important title. I believe the Senator has already said that my remarks were creditable considering my point of view. If we are to discuss the things which we believe are vital in the bill, now is the only time available to discuss them.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. If we are to have an opportunity to discuss them prior to the summary laying on the table of a motion to refer, which would give us an opportunity to have a committee report which should become part of the legislative record of the consideration of the bill, I hope it will never be passed-we must do it now.

I understand the attitude of the distinguished majority leader. I understand that he intends to move to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from Oregon, even though it will be substantially the same proposal as the Senator from Montana made from Montana made for unanimous for unanimous consent only a few days ago.

So I have felt, whether rightly or wrongly-and I hope the Senator will be tolerant toward me that there is enough of vital importance to this Nation in title IV, which has not been discussed by any other Senator, to make it worthy of discussion.

I have talked for a little more than 3 hours or rather, I have held the floor for a little more than 3 hours and I could hold it longer, if I wished, but I do not propose to do so. I believe the Senator will admit that I have not been talking about impertinent or annoying things. I have been talking about title IV. I have been talking about this title with the thought that it must be discussed cussed before Senators vote on on the question of whether the bill shall go to the committee, to have the benefit of the committee's judgment on this and other important titles in the bill.

Al

country, if I did not ventilate this provision of title IV of the bill before we reach the point where the distinguished majority leader is to raise his poleax and knock out the motion of the Senator from Oregon. I believe this will be based on procedural grounds only. though I am not too much concerned with procedural grounds, I am concerned with the Senate's having the advantage and benefit of a report which will go into the details of some of these very bad provisions of the bill, of which title IV, with small exceptions, is one. I hope the Senator will be tolerant in understanding my point of view.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING clerk will call the roll.

OFFICER. The

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names:

Aiken
Allott

Bartlett
Bayh
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Brewster
Byrd, Va.

Carlson Case

Church Clark Cooper

Mr. PROXMIRE. I believe the Senator will agree, of all the Senators who have ever served in the Senate with the Byrd, W. Va. possible exception of the Senator from Florida, there is no one that can talk at greater length and with greater persuasiveness and eloquence and force than can the Senator from Oregon. I Cotton am sure he can take care of himself in spades on the issue of his own motion. He can discuss it for hours and hours and hours. He has shown that he can do it and with great force.

Curtis

Dirksen

Dominick Douglas

[blocks in formation]

Eastland Edmondson

McClellan McGovern McIntyre

Ellender
Ervin

Fong
Fulbright
Gore

Hart

McNamara Mechem

Metcalf

Miller

Monroney Morse

Morton

Mundt

Muskie

Nelson

Neuberger

Pastore
Pearson

Pell
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Robertson
Russell
Saltonstall
Scott
Simpson
Smathers
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond

Tower

Walters

Williams, N.J. Williams, Del. Yarborough Young, N. Dak. Young, Ohio

The PRESIDING OFFICER. rum is present.

If the Senator from Florida feels that it is not necessary to enlighten the Senate on the issue of whether the bill should go to committee, he could talk on that issue, but the Senator has chosen Gruening not to do so in his long talk today. The Senator has talked on title IV of the bill and given an eloquent, persuasive, and masterly presentation of his viewpoint. But it is something that has nothing whatsoever to do, No. 1 with taking up the bill; and No. 2, with referring it to the committee. We should proceed and have an opportunity to vote on the motion of the Senator from Oregon. We should then call up the bill and have an opportunity to discuss the bill, title by title, as it deserves to be discussed, in an orderly way, and not while we have pending the issue of whether we should discuss it.

Mr. HOLLAND. In view of the fine and glowing adjectives the Senator from Wisconsin has used in describing me, in

his impassioned way, my answer will have to be mild. I know perfectly well have to be mild. I know perfectly well that the Senator from Oregon does not agree with me on the merits of the bill. I know he does not have the advantage

of a direct knowledge of the biracial educational situation. It so happens, since a considerable part of my life has been spent in the field of education, and with my interest in it, that I do have some qualifications to speak on it from the standpoint of the firm convictions I hold with reference to title IV. I could hold with reference to title IV. I could not feel that I had done my duty to my own people, or to the Senate, or to the

A quo

[blocks in formation]

The President has found, as did three Presidents before him, that foreign aid is essential not only for expressing our national purpose but also for serving our national interests. In the words of the message:

The proposals contained in this message express our self-interest at the same time that they proclaim our national ideals.

We will be laying up a harvest of woe for us and our children if we shrink from the task of grappling in the world community with poverty and ignorance.

I congratulate the President on his message, and on stating his convictions about foreign aid with the same good sense that led him to support the program during his entire service in this Senate.

A few days ago, the President sent a message to Congress about poverty at home. Today, he has sent us a message on poverty abroad. He could have combined the two into a single message on

"poverty at home and abroad." They are a part of the same problem-the problem of helping people to help themselves, be it in West Virginia or west Africa. Destitution is a common enemy of all mankind and destitution abroad is as much a moral, political, and economic concern for the United States as destitution in our own land.

The President's message also follows on the heels of the McNamara mission to Vietnam, where foreign aid is playing a key role in preventing communism from scoring another victory.

It is difficult to understand how anyone can oppose foreign aid in today's world. As the President says in his mes

sage:

I recommend this program to the judgment and the conscience of the Congress in the belief that it will enlarge the strength of the free world, aid in frustrating the ambitions of Communist imperialism, reduce the hazards of widespread conflict, and support the moral commitment of freemen everywhere to work for a just and peaceful world.

Besides finding foreign aid essential, the President has also found that it would not be desirable to change substantially the present organization of foreign aid activities. The only organizational change of any significance being made is to vest operational responsibility for the Alliance for Progress in the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. This is a step which the Senator from Minnesota, among others, had urged in order to give greater impetus to the Alliance.

Other forms of organization were considered, but after careful review it was found that the present organization is basically sound for carrying out the present program.

Consideration also was given to separating economic and military assistance. This, too, was found undesirable for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that what is sauce for the Senate is not sauce for the House. And even within the Senate there was sharp disagreement on this point.

In these and other respects the message reflects the President's earnest effort to take into account congressional attitudes and objections, as well as his

own concern for a program which is own concern for a program which is prudent, economical, and effective. This is shown by the request for $3.4 billion, is shown by the request for $3.4 billion, which is the amount available for the which is the amount available for the current year and the smallest request current year and the smallest request ever made for foreign aid. It is shown also by the emphasis in the message on greater selectivity and concentration, termination of aid in countries achieving self-sustaining growth, better administration, improved personnel, and greater use of resources and advice outside the agency.

Wisely, I think, the President refrained from naming specific countries or fixing particular dates for the termination of aid. It would be foolish to give the Communists a timetable of our plans for the future. Nor is it desirable to set into motion forces which could interfere with the orderly and successful completion of aid activities in countries nearing economic independence.

One of the recommendations of the President, which I strongly support, is a tax credit for U.S. investment in less developed countries. The Europeans already have similar plans. German investors, for example, can now take an immediate depreciation allowance of 15 percent, and transfer another 42.5 percent of initial capital into a profitreducing reserve, thus reducing taxable profit in the first year by up to 57.5 percent of the cost of investment.

We need a tax credit for investment in less-developed countries if we are to compete successfully in world markets with other countries, as well as promote new investment which can augment U.S. Government funds in helping developing countries to become self-supporting.

INCREASING USE OF OTHER GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AND PRIVATE GROUPS

I am especially pleased by the increasing use being made of resources and ading use being made of resources and advice outside the foreign aid agency, and by the emphasis on this point in the message. The Executive Service Corps, or businessman's peace corps, which is being privately launched with the enbeing privately launched with the encouragement and assistance of Congress

and the executive branch could be a promising and even historic new foreign aid dimension. Drawing on active as aid dimension. Drawing on active as well as retired American businessmen, the Executive Service Corps would provide entrepreneurial and managerial assistance to less-developed countries. Experience has shown that in many Experience has shown that in many countries the chief obstacle to economic growth is lack of trained manpower. A number of countries are at the point of having to train more people before they can effectively use greater amounts of outside capital. Particularly scarce are entrepreneurial and managerial skills of the kind which would be exported under this new plan. Even the shortage of scientists and technicians in less-developed countries is less acute than the shortage of entrepreneurs and managers. Americans are, I might add, particularly well equipped to render this kind of assistance, having the most advanced entrepreneurial and managerial system in the world.

A privately organized program for exporting American management knowhow has unlimited possibilities not only

for assisting with the development of other countries, but also for providing invaluable business experience for American business executives, and for contributing toward the development of democratically organized and operated business around the world.

This project, which I think has as much potential as any foreign aid enterprise ever conceived, originated, I am happy to say, with two Members of this body, the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS]. I think both Senators deserve a great deal of credit for initiating the plan and encouraging the study of the proposal made last year by AID. Credit should also go to David Rockefeller, who independently suggested a similar plan, and is now cochairman, along with Sol Linowitz, the very talented chairman of the board of the Xerox Corp., of an organizing committee to establish the project. gratulate these two gifted American businessmen for their leadership, together with other members of the committee-C. D. Jackson, vice president of Time-Life; John H. Johnson, president of Johnson Publications; Adm. Dan Kimball, chairman of Aerojet-General; and William S. Paley, chairman of CBS. This is an extraordinary group of men, and I have great confidence in their ability to organize what may well prove to be an extraordinary human endeavor.

I con

Two other important steps toward greater use of resources and advice outside the foreign aid agency are also announced in the President's message. These are the Advisory Committee on Private Enterprise in Foreign Aid, which results from last year's Senate amendment sponsored by the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], and a general foreign aid advisory committee which is being established largely in response to the urging of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER]. Both Senators are to be commended for their efforts to stimulate greater utilization of advice from knowledgeable people outside the Government. These committees can make a unique contribution toward improving the foreign aid program, as well as toward increasing public understanding of the program.

The foreign aid program cannot be effectively operated solely by officials of any one Government agency, or even of all agencies combined. The role of Government should be primarily to facilitate and to stimulate rather than to operate. We are fortunate to have so many wellqualified specialists in AID. But for every AID specialist there are 10 specialists in private business, the universities and the foundations with the skill and experience needed in foreign aid. Here, too, progress is being made in making our foreign aid program more effective. This is very gratifying to me personally, I might add, because of my own efforts to encourage AID to make greater use of other Government agencies as well as outside groups.

An impressive number of steps have been taken to implement my technicalservices-for-peace" amendment, section 621 of the Foreign Assistance Act, which

calls for the utilization by AID, to the fullest extent practicable, of the technical services of other Government agencies and private groups. During the current fiscal year AID has entered into more than 20 new agreements with other Government agencies to provide for their participation in the foreign aid program. Under these new arrangements the Housing and Home Finance Agency is processing all Latin American housing guarantees; the Internal Revenue Service is conducting special training for foreign officials on tax collection, as well as sending teams overseas to assist in improving tax administration in lessdeveloped countries; the Public Health Service, which is presently being used by AID for most of its health projects, may assume full operating responsibility for the malaria eradication program. Here are some examples of the types of technical assistance being performed under AID auspices by the various Government agencies:

In Vietnam, the Bureau of Docks of the Department of the Navy is providing technical assistance for an integrated telecommunications network.

In Indonesia, the Maritime Administration is providing an 11-man team to the Indonesian Merchant Marine Academy to upgrade merchant marine graduates.

In Burma, the Corps of Engineers has performed a feasibility survey on the proposed Rangoon-Mandalay Highway and will supervise the construction contract on one section of the highway.

In Thailand and Laos, the Bureau of Reclamation has a 19-man team surveying the water resources of the Mekong River.

In Laos, the Bureau of Public Roads is providing a 24-man team to assist with the development of the Laos National Road System.

In the Philippines, the Federal Aviation Agency is assisting the Philippines Airline System in the development of a comprehensive traffic control system.

AID has some 200 agreements of this type with 14 other Government agencies involving about 1,500 people, compared to 1,100 a year ago.

Increasing use also is being made of private organizations. AID now has about 1,000 technical assistance contracts worth $390 million with American companies, universities, and individuals a 10-percent increase over the previous year. Under these contracts men and women from all over America, specialists in their chosen professions, are working in 69 different countries training teachers, establishing agricultural extension services, improving public administration, training rural health personnel, to mention only a few.

A construction firm is rehabilitating a hydroelectric plant in South Korea. A Midwestern land grant college is helping to strengthen the agricultural curriculum of a new school in Sierra Leone. A trade union group is training non-Communist labor leaders in Latin America. A financial consultant is helping Pakistan advisers develop ways of diversifying local industry and encouraging private investment.

The development of cooperatives is another extremely important new foreign aid program being conducted by AID in partnership with private American organizations. Here, too, I have a vital personal interest, having been the sponsor of the Humphrey amendment, which is part of section 601 of the Foreign Assistance Act, on encouraging the growth of cooperatives, credit unions, and savings and loan associations.

a total area development program is beginning, including exchange of staff, advisory help in improving public administration, university scholarships, and preinvestment surveys-to more simple arrangements supplying needed items, such as sewing machines for an orphan's home. Other partnerships are being formed-the State of Utah with Bolivia, Idaho with Ecuador, Ohio with Brazil. Other groups are being organized in Alabama, Texas, Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Illinois.

These facts dramatize the extent to which foreign aid is rapidly becoming, I am happy to say, a national effort, embracing the many great institutions and organizations of American society.

Professional service organizations such as the Cooperative League, the National League of Savings and Loan Associations, the Credit Union National Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association are being used for the development of cooperatives for agricultural credit, marketing, housing, and electric power, as well as for establishing savings and loan associations. These facts illustrate the progress son, and with the able administration of being made:

Ninety-three major cooperative assistance programs are under way in 48 countries compared to 25 in 36 in fiscal 1962, the year AID launched an intensive efthe year AID launched an intensive effort to foster cooperatives.

In 1963 nearly $100 million in new capital, from AID, from the Social Progress Trust Fund and from private groups backed by AID investment guaranties became available for development of all types of cooperative enterprises, with emphasis on Latin America.

AID's grant funds spent for technical assistance to cooperatives rose to $8.5 million in 1963 from $2.8 million in 1962. Private U.S. cooperative institutions spent $700,000 on additional technical help.

Persons trained outside their countries in cooperative management rose from 203 to 1,675, with even more being trained at home.

U.S. cooperative institutions furnished 133 specialists in 1963 for employment by AID, against 49 in 1962. The institutions themselves fielded 213 specialists.

Credit unions in Latin America had 217,500 members as of September 30, 1963, with over $8 million in savings. The number of credit unions increased from 524 to 987 in the first 9 months of 1963. It was estimated that by 1970 Latin America will have 3,000 credit unions with more than a million members and $34 million in mobilized savings.

Few people realize that 72 American colleges and universities from 32 States, compared to 61 such institutions a year ago, are now playing a key role in our foreign aid program by providing technical assistance in 40 different countries under 129 different contracts with AID worth $159 million.

Another encouraging development in the effort to broaden public participation in foreign aid is the new program of State and local participation in the Alliance for Progress. With the help of AID committees are being formed in several communities and States. These grassroots "partners of the alliance" will provide, with the advice of our aid missions, direct assistance to countries, to countries, municipalities, and projects in Latin America. They range from the partnership between Oakland County, Mich., and the area of Cali, Colombia-where

Under the leadership of both the late President Kennedy and President John

David Bell, the foreign aid program has been greatly improved in the last several years. The message of the President reflects these changes, and makes recommendations for new improvements.

Congressional and public criticism of foreign aid for its lack of selectivity and concentration, its overemphasis on shortterm political and security objectives, its lack of emphasis on self-help, its piecemeal support of individual projects rather than more general development programs, and the excessive direction of field programs from Washington has led to a number of reforms in the concept and organization of the program.

Today, foreign aid is highly selective and concentrated. Only key countries with real potential for development or significant security interest are being assisted to any appreciable extent. But the central question is not how many countries are being added. To argue about number of countries receiving foreign aid, as if a certain number were sacred, is like arguing that we should provide grants-in-aid to only a certain number of States, or educational assistance to only a certain number of colleges. There are reasons for aiding a number of countries, just as there are reasons for giving grants-in-aid to all 50 States, or lending money for educational facilities to the Princetons of the country as well as to the smaller, less endowed colleges.

This preoccupation with the number of countries receiving foreign aid, as if that were a reliable or meaningful guide to the soundness of the program, would make some sense if the issue were one of saving money. But this is clearly not the case. What would the savings be if the number of aid-receiving countries were cut from around 80 down to 50, as was suggested during the debate last year? The answer is that out of a total AID budget for the last fiscal year of about $2.4 billion, only $40 million could have been saved if aid programs were eliminated in 30 out of 80 countries, a little more than a million dollars per country. This shows two things-first, that the aid program is already highly concentrated, and second, that if there is any logic to the argument about number of countries it certainly cannot be supported on grounds of economy.

It makes a great deal more sense, as far as tightening up the program is concerned, to argue for strengthening the terms of our assistance, based upon each country's potential for growth, amount of self-help, importance to American and free world interests, and present state of development. Foreign aid terms should vary, of course, depending upon ability to pay, but terms for all countries should be strengthened as countries become more economically independent. U.S. lending for capital projects should gradually shift from AID to the ExportImport Bank. Technical assistance should increasingly be assumed by private organizations through direct contractual relationships with the country concerned.

Here, too, there is progress, as reflected by the emphasis in the foreign aid message on strengthening aid terms wherever possible, and quickening the pace of growth in order to produce economic self-support as soon as possible. According to the President's message, some 14 countries are now approaching the point where aid terms can be strengthened and grants can be terminated. In addition, seven countries are being dropped from the new request for military equipment grants. This is all to the good, provided we do not move so rapidly that we terminate programs prematurely. This would be like building a new factory and leaving off the roof.

As countries become self-supporting, terms of aid should be strengthened, but great care must be taken to protect our investment. For the administration to cut off all aid, or to cut off aid prematurely in order to be able to brag to Congress about how many country programs have been eliminated would be a serious mistake. This is one reason why the argument about the number of countries receiving assistance is so dangerous. Pressure to reduce the number of countries receiving assistance can contribute toward premature strengthening of loan terms or termination of aid, either of which would both jeopardize our investment and penalize the very countries which have made the most progress. In the end, this could cost more money than it would save.

The foreign aid message also reflects the administration's emphasis on selfhelp, which the President rightly calls the most important ingredient in development. If we have learned any one fundamental in our foreign aid experience, it is this lesson. Foreign aid can Foreign aid can never be a substitute for local effort. We can help, but we cannot provide the motivation and the hard work required for development, nor can we transplant to other countries our institutions and way of life. Each country must be its own master, relying primarily on its own people and resources for achieving social and political progress.

The principle of self-help was explicity recognized and formalized in the Alliance for Progress. Under the Charter of Punta del Este, every member of the Alliance is committed to undertake certain self-help measures. Aid is conditioned upon the necessary structural reforms and measures for the mobiliza

tion of internal resources. I would hope
that similar steps could be taken in other
areas of the world to recognize and es-
tablish specific self-help measures as
conditions for aid.

Tax reform, a basic self-help measure,
is an example of the new emphasis in
our foreign aid program on helping
countries to help themselves. In 1963,
AID with the collaboration of the Inter-
nal Revenue Service launched a new,
high priority technical assistance pro-
gram in tax administration. Directed
primarily toward Latin America, this
program, in my opinion, is one of the
most significant foreign aid improve-
ments in recent years. And it is already
achieving results in a field, as we know
from our own experience, where reform
is stubbornly slow. Examples are three
of the key countries of Latin America,
Chile, Peru, and Colombia.

NEED FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE

Foreign aid is the most ambitious and
difficult endeavor in history. The con-
cept itself is revolutionary. One hun-
dred years ago England forcibly pre-
vented her technicians from leaving the
country for fear they would make their
knowledge available to others. Today,
it is a mark of enlightenment for a coun-
try to make available its technical skills
and knowledge, and even to provide the
capital necessary for economic growth.
capital necessary for economic growth.
Yet part of our problem, as the recent
Yet part of our problem, as the recent
debate in this Chamber has demon-
strated, is that despite all the evidence
to the contrary some are still reluctant
to accept the validity of the concept it-
self. Others rightly argue that although
the concept is valid, it has not been
the concept is valid, it has not been
properly executed.
properly executed. But it is one thing
to say that there have been mistakes,
and quite another to say that the con-
cept of foreign aid is not valid. It is one
thing to offer constructive criticism—
that is our duty, but it is quite another
to find nothing but fault. It is one thing
to say that foreign aid needs to be im-
proved, but it is quite another to criticize
without suggesting any alternative ex-
cept less aid to fewer countries by a
smaller staff with lower appropriations.

Every Member of this Senate wants to
see improvements made in the foreign
aid program. There is not a Senator
who does not have his own ideas about
how this could be accomplished. Some
of the criticisms and suggestions of the
Senate have been put into effect and
have helped to improve the program. It
is important for Senators to continue to
suggest changes and improvements. If
anything, there is need for even greater
congressional examination of the
strengths as well as the weaknesses of
foreign aid. But there are any number of
ways in which Congress can influence the
course of foreign aid without casting
doubt on the concept, undermining con-
fidence in the program, and creating a
negative political climate which favors
restrictions and reductions rather than
healthy, constructive criticism, and sup-
port. Foreign aid will never be made
more effective if it continues to be sub-
jected to the attack which characterized
last year's congressional action.

We cannot again afford the spectacle of 1963, when the Congress of the United of 1963, when the Congress of the United

States-and especially the Senate of the United States, which should know better-did great injustice to the cause of freedom by its attacks on a program so vital to our country and to the future of the human race. In 1964, let there be criticism, but let it be constructive. Let there be debate, but let it be prudent. Let there be legislative action, but let it be responsible.

AMERICANS SUPPORT FOREIGN AID

There is, of course, another side to this question. The executive branch has an equal obligation and responsibility. It has the responsibility of making the foreign aid program more dynamic, more imaginative, more responsive to the crying needs of the world, and more in accord with the generous impulses of the American people and the traditions of the permanent American Revolution. What the American people want is not less foreign aid, but better foreign aid. Give them a better program, a more effective program, and they will give it greater support. Help them to gain a better sense of the value of foreign aid, and of the quality of our program, and they will underwrite it with greater confidence.

Americans understand the historic im

portance of foreign aid. They do not like having to spend their hard-earned dollars for foreign aid any more than they do for military defense. But they know that foreign aid is one of our responsibilities as the champion of democracy, and most powerful nation on earth. They know that rich, powerful countries, like rich, powerful men, have a moral obligation to the less fortunate. They know that ours is a great nation, not because we have selfishly served our narrow national interests, but because we have acted in the common interests of all mankind.

Nothing better symbolizes America's role of world leadership than foreign aid. Of all of the great acts of American statesmanship, foreign aid is the most outstanding, and, I might add, the most in keeping with our own history and traditions.

We

The United States of America was the first new nation. Ours was the first modern, democratic revolution. We were the first colony to win our freedom. were the first newly independent people to face the wilderness. The word "bootstrap" is an American word. Americans know what it takes to lift yourself by your own bootstraps, because America was created by the determination and hard work of its people.

Americans were political pioneers as well. We were the first people in history to establish a new government in a new land. Ours was a political revolution, which, once it succeeded, left us without adequate government. This is why we understand the problems in beginning with a revolution and building a nation. We know how difficult it is, once freedom is gained, to unify the people of a country, to create one from many, to establish a government which can govern. The words inscribed over the rostrum of this Senate-"E Pluribus Unum"-describe our unfinished task, a task we have in common with every other coun

« ПретходнаНастави »