His argument was later supported by George Meany, AFL-CIO president, the principal speaker of the occasion.

Meany noted that the chronic above-5percent unemployment rate, the educational lag among those having lost jobs to machines, the inability of the economy to provide the abundant life for far too many citizens living in areas like Appalachia, and the too low national economic growth rate aren't indicators of health or prosperity. Landing a man on the moon no doubt would enhance U.S. prestige, but is this

accomplishment more to be desired than maintaining a decent standard of living for all Americans?

The imperatives of a strong national defense, which is costly and necessitates certain sacrifices to sustain, are facts of life the Nation must accept-probably for generations. Nevertheless, what good is any defense, if the overall economy is flabby and malnourished?

If, as is generally contended, this Nation is in a struggle to the finish with the Soviet Union to determine whose ideology is superior, aren't the imperatives of a selfsufficient society equally as vital as an unassailable military position?

The Randolph-Meany view is quite simple, very precise: Unless the United States can retain its democratic principles while providing for its citizens the indispensable criteria associated with a meaningful and rewarding civilization, the Nation's defense capabilitity and an American astronaut on the moon with flag will count for nothing in the pages of history.

There is specific language in section 616 of the act which reads:

Except as otherwise provided in the Act, funds shall be available to carry out the provisions of this Act as authorized and appropriated to the President each fiscal

year.

It is not easily apparent what the real effect is. It is merely a strong hope, I suppose, as to what would be accomplished. It was hoped, in 1961, at least, that this authorization would give the agency some feeling of continuity and that it would improve its planning and administration.

Generally, the really serious criticism in the committee has nearly always been about the efficiency of administration. Back in 1958 or 1959, the Senate approved the proposal for continuing authority to use a public debt transaction, a method of financing which has been used successfully in many other cases by other agencies of Government. But at that time the House of Representatives rejected it; particularly, the House Committee on Appropriations opposed it.

The later action, in 1961, was, in a sense, an outgrowth of the previous action. The main motive was to try to give to the agency a more efficient administration.

As a nation, the needs of our citizens must be met. Otherwise, as a nation, we

AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST

ANCE ACT OF 1961

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7885) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the yeas and nays heretofore ordered on my amendment be now vacated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I have been in consultation with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] about

this amendment. The addition of the reauthorization of what is already authorized was inadvertent. We had in mind dealing only with this year's $975 million. The law already carries the authorization for $1,500 million, and the clerk of the committee inserted it by reiterating the full language of section 202(b).

I have no strong feeling about the overall limitation of authorization. We have had the authorization for development lending since 1961. In 1961, Congress, in an effort to give the program continuity and, it was thought, some efficiency, authorized it in the act for 5 years. We have never appropriated the full amount. The administration has never requested it. This year the administration requested $1,060 million.

I think it has no real effect on Congress. Congress can always change it, as Congress did in the appropriation for this year.

tion should not have been in the amendment. However, I shall be glad to take the amendment to conference and support it in conference. As I have said, each Congress has full authority to change these authorizations each year the question arises.

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

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. If the amendment were to be adopted, however, the Congress would be without authority to appropriate for the Development Loan Fund, except under that authorization as a ceiling for 1965 and 1966, unless an increased authorization were voted meantime by Congress itself.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is quite correct. Congress has every right to change the authorization, as well as the appropriation, in the coming year. the appropriation, in the coming year.

As the Senator knows, I have recommended to the administration, as has the committee, that it reevaluate the entire program and seek a new approach to it. I am thoroughly in accord with that recommendation.

I do not think the Senator and I disagree on that aspect of the problem. We may disagree as to our estimates of what importance it has had in the past and what a great contribution it has made, in spite of faults in its administration.

Be that as it may, I am reluctant to oppose the Senator's amendment. I think it does not drastically change matters, because next year Congress can either increase or decrease the authorization, as the Senator so well stated.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator very much for accepting the amendment.

I understand the Senator from Arkansas is willing to take the Holland amendment to conference. ment to conference. There are those of us who believe that there should be no authorizations for 1965 and 1966. The answer is that there already are in the act authorizations for 1965 and 1966. Our answer to that is that there is nothing to prevent us from stopping such authorizations as are in the act. That is what we propose to do, if the parliamentary situation will permit us to do it, before consideration of the Holland amendment is concluded.

My first question is this: Assuming that the Holland amendment is agreed to by the Senate, and assuming it goes to conference and is accepted in conference, would it be necessary for a foreign aid bill, with this authorization for 1965 and 1966, to come before the Congress again next year?

If

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It will be necessary for a bill to come, but, so far as the authorization as to amount is concerned, it would be the same as this year. there were no effort to change it in any respect, it would not be a matter of action. But it would be if any effort were made-which has been done in this case-to make a change in the existing authorization; not merely by this amendment, but by the proposed Mansfield amendments and the fact that the request of the administration for appropriation was only $1,060 million.

Mr. HOLLAND. Assuming that the Holland amendment is written into law this year, there is nothing that will stop the Congress next year from striking the authorization of $975 million?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. No; I do not see that there is anything to stop it.

Mr. MORSE. Why, therefore, in the opinion of the Senator from Arkansas, is it desirable that the bill this year contain a figure of $975 million as an authorization?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. As I said a moment ago, having the figure after 1964 was an inadvertence on our part; and was no need to reiterate the authorization, because it is already in the law. Since it was done, I was agreeing to take the Senator's amendment to conference. So far as I can see, it does not do too much harm. I am perfectly willing to take it to conference.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will bear with me. This may be clear to the Senator, but it may not be clear to many people who are unfamiliar with Senate procedure; and I believe that for their sake I must be guilty of some repetition. Even though the bill is passed this year-assuming a hypothetical situation-containing either the

$1,500 million on line 8 of the Mansfield amendment, or the figure of $975 million in the Holland amendment, as a substitute therefor, the adoption of either figure does not in any way bind Congress for fiscal 1965 and 1966 to authorize either figure, depending on which figure is adopted.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is my understanding.

Mr. MORSE. There is a desire on the part of some of us to strike any figure for 1965 and 1966; in other words, to amend the existing act by striking what is already in the act for 1965 and 1966, because if Congress is not bound by it anyway, we see no harm in taking it out, and we see some advantage, because the committee in its own report is urging the administration to make a careful review of the entire aid program; and we would at least provide a psychological incentive to accomplish that end if we took action this year to strike the language which is already in the act representing an authorization for 1965 and 1966.

Does the Senator from Arkansas see anything particularly wrong with that proposal?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes; I do not beYes; I do not believe it is realistic to assume, as the Senator does, that the program, though it may be lacking in some virtues, is to be ended. I know the Senator expressed that view in committee. I do not agree with him. Much as I would like to end it, I do not believe it is realistic to expect to end it altogether.

What I believe the committee did is to take a new approach. We are proposing a better way to reduce its scope, particularly with respect to the military provisions of the bill.

I do not believe it is realistic to expect this kind of activity to be ended completely. I hope that some method of administration superior to what we now have will be developed by the administration, together with Congress. That is as far as I can go at the moment. It is my hope that we can find a better way to discharge the function of trying to maintain the integrity of the free world. That is one of the major purposes, at least, to help new countries develop as independent countries, rather than to become satellites of the Communist world.

I am sure we shall be called upon to do something. How much, I do not

know. The pending bill clearly reduces the amount. That is about all I know about it. If the Senator is suggesting that we delete the amount for the next fiscal years altogether, there again I do not know that that would be disastrous, but I would not support such a proposal. If I am not mistaken, in 1961, when the question was before the Senate, the Senator supported it, just as I did, to give some continuity to the administration of the aid program.

Mr. MORSE. The Senator is absolutely correct. However, this is 1963, and not 1961.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I agree.

Mr. MORSE. The conditions in 1963 are different than they were in 1961. We were hopeful that there might be some

improvement in the administration of the program. I hold to the point of view that there has not been, but, instead, that it has worsened.

Perhaps on this particular question, the difference between the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Oregon is perhaps a difference of definition, or perhaps a matter of semantics. The senior Senator from Oregon has never taken the position that this program should end. The position of the Senator from Oregon is that it should continue, but under an entirely different program; that we should announce to the world that we are ending it in its present form, but that we are immediately starting a new foreign aid program. On the basis of terms and conditions, reservations, ditions, reservations, and guidelines mentioned in my amendment, it would be a better foreign aid program.

There is merit in what the Senator from Arkansas says; that, in a sense, this is an ending and new beginning. I also stress the fact that I propose to start over. I do not propose the ending of all foreign aid. Perhaps it should be put this way: I propose to end the program and immediately substitute for it a new foreign aid program.

That perhaps represents the difference between us. Eliminating the authorization for the Development Loan Fund for 1965 and 1966 will make perfectly clear to the administration that when they come before us with their authorization requests next year, they will have to come prepared to take into account the recommendations which the Senator's committee report makes to the State Department. I believe that puts us in a stronger position. I am not sure from the parliamentary standpoint that this can be done. I shall ask a series of parliamentary questions of the Chair after I obtain the floor in my own right.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, it seems to me that a specific benefit would be accomplished by the adoption of the amendment; namely, a reduction of $525 million for 1965 of the ceiling on the appropriation for the Development Loan Fund, and a similar reduction in the ceiling of the authorization for 1966. Is the Senator in accord with that?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator's interpretation is correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. It seems to the Sen

ator from Florida that without any more information before us, about all we can do is to show by our vote that we do not expect the program to be bigger, or the Development Loan Fund to be enlarged, in the 2 succeeding years, and therefore we are not abandoning the position the Senate has repeatedly taken and I wish to call the particular attention of the Senator from Oregon to this point-that we prefer the loan program to the grant program.

The loan program is here because of the Senate's demand that it be here. The Senator from Florida, both in the consideration of the authorization bills and in the consideration of appropriation bills, with respect to which he has also had some responsibility, has given

preferment to the Development Loan Fund.

Therefore it seems to me that in the circumstances we would not be justified in taking as drastic action as that suggested by the Senator from Oregon.

I am hopeful that the Senator from Arkansas, in accepting the amendment, will be followed by the Senate, for this is the first and only opportunity we have had to show that we want a substantial reduction in the program and that we are working toward ending of the program at such reasonable time as the end can be reached. This is an excellent opportunity to show that intention by the adoption of the amendment. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Arkansas to accept the amendment. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRUENING. I am much interested in what the Senator from Florida has said, and heartily approve of it. But I wish to raise a question which will arise in the form of an amendment. Does the Senator from Florida consider that the so-called loans we are making at three-quarters of 1 percent interest with a 10-year grace period are really loans? The change from grants to loans was in response to the feeling of the Senate that this money should not be given away, but that those who receive it should be asked to repay it. It seems to me that to call money advanced under those terms a loan is really a deception and a fraud upon the American people, for it is not a loan at all. It is obvious that our Government must borrow money from the American people at higher rates of interest, and that we are actually making a grant when we make a so-called loan, as well as a loan.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thoroughly agree with the Senator from Alaska. The terms of the loans, in many instances, have been much too liberal. This is not fair to the taxpaying public. Unfortunately, we cannot hit that part of the program at this point; but, as I have already said, we now have a golden opportunity to say that we want the program reduced substantially and brought to an end as quickly as possible.

Mr. GRUENING. I was somewhat distressed when the President apparently indicated that he was opposed to the half billion dollar cut made in the House.

In some remarks I made on the floor last Tuesday, I showed, country by country, how I believe the aid program could be improved by stopping aid to certain countries which either no longer need it, or should not have it for other valid reasons. We are continuing aid to countries like Japan, West Germany, and France which are prospering and no longer need it. Our aid to those countries should be stopped. Aid to other countries, such as Israel, Greece, and Lebanon, is practically finished for the same reasons. We should cease our aid to a country like Taiwan. We have already poured over $3 billion into that little island. It should be self-sufficient by now. I think it is time for aid to such countries to be brought to an end.

Countries, like Egypt, which are engaged in aggression or Indonesia which threatens war on Malaysia should have their aid stopped until we make sure the money is not being used for military ventures but for the purposes intendednamely, to build up the economy and help their people.

If we were to consider the situation country by country, we could decide in which countries the program should continue or be discontinued. By this approach we could make a substantial cut in the total amount, and not only not impair the program but improve it. We could decide whether this country, that country, or the other country should or should not have more money right now.

In my opinion, that is the way to approach the situation, rather than by a blanket, meat-ax cut of a certain amount, which might be too much or might not be enough. That is the way we should focus attention on the bill. That is what we should do in this debate. To cut substantial sums without specifying where and why is not desirable. While I consider there was ample justification for the House cut, I would prefer a country-by country or projectby-project approach. Then the administrators of the program would have the kind of guidance they should have but have never had in the past from the Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility for authorizing expenditures and appropriating for them.

Mr. HOLLAND. I am thoroughly in sympathy with the suggestion of the Senator from Alaska. I have no objection to making such an approach. I regard this as our first opportunity to make a substantial reduction in the foreign aid program and to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.

Mr. GRUENING. I heartily agree.

Mr. HOLLAND. I hope that my proposal will meet with the approval of the Senate, so that we may give a clear indication to the people of our intention to reduce the foreign aid program.

Mr. GRUENING. It will be a bit of encouraging news and it will improve the program.

Mr. HOLLAND. It certainly should cause widespread encouragement over the country.

is our duty to do it. I am sure we are not interested solely in the appropriation to be made this year, but that we are thinking in terms of reduction and of the elimination, finally, of the program.

Mr. MILLER. I thoroughly agree with that approach; but my question is: If the House saw fit to reduce the amount to $900 million-I understand from the Senator from Arkansas that that is what happened-what justification is there for increasing the amount to $975 million? Why not make it $900 million, just as the House did, so that the conference committee would have one less item with which to concern itself?

Mr. HOLLAND. My answer is that if the Senator from Iowa feels that way, he should offer an amendment to the appropriation authorized for this year, which, under the amendment of the leadership, would be fixed at $975 million. The proposals I am offering would be in conference. I feel quite certain that the conference would return with a single answer, rather than to have the authorization for this year differ from the authorizations for 1965 and 1966. The House has not had an opportunity to consider the authorizations for 1965 and 1966 in connection with this bill.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the Senator's suggestion, but has he any suggestion as to why the amount should be $975 million in the authorization bill, rather than the $900 million in the bill passed by the House?

Mr. HOLLAND.

The reason why I have selected the figure $975 million is that it is in the amendment proposed by the leadership on both sides of the aisle and by the two ranking members of the committee who dealt with this question, and who know much more about the situation than does the Senator from Florida, and perhaps more than most Senators can know about it. It seems to me, without having a greater knowledge of the situation, that we would be on firmer ground if we placed the authorization for the 2 succeeding years at some ceiling that had been fixed by the group of distinguished Senators who have offered the amendment for this year, which provides for $975 million. The Senator from Florida knows perfectly well that Congress has never appropriated an amount up to the ceiling authorized. Authoriza

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. Do I correctly understand that the amount in the bill passed by the House was $900 million?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am not familiar with the amount stated in the House

The authorized amount for this bill. year, 1964, with which we are now dealing, was $1,500 million. The request of the Budget-as approved by the committee-the request of the administrationwas $1,060 million. The amendment offered by the leadership on both sides of the aisle and by the senior members of the Committee on Foreign Relations from both sides of the aisle would reduce that amount to $975 million. By my amendment, I call attention to the fact that we now have an opportunity to cut equally the authorizations which are already law for 1965 and 1966. I think it

than was the blanket authorization for 1961, and appropriation bills have been consistently lower than that. We are not talking now about the amount that will actually be appropriated. I am simply trying to offer an amendment to bring the authorization into conformity with what is recommended by the group of distinguished Senators as what should be authorized for this year.

Mr. MILLER. I am strongly in agreement with that approach. I propose to support the amendment.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. MILLER. If the amount were the same as the amount the House sent to the Senate, I would feel a little more comfortable about it, unless perhaps the Senator from Arkansas might enlighten the Senate as to the justification for the extra $75 million.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Iowa is talking about the authorization for 1964. My amendment relates to the authorizations for the 2 succeeding years.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. This amount is the amount that was actually appropriated for this year, 1963, by the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses. That is the reason.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield further, so that I may ask another question?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield.

Mr. MILLER. The response of the Senator from Arkansas is that the appropriation for this year was $975 million. However, I invite attention to the fact that the House, notwithstanding the fact that the appropriation was $975 million, saw fit to reduce the authorization to $900 million. So the Senator from Iowa is still intrigued by the justification the Senate has now found to increase the House amount in the authorization bill from $900 to $975 million.

Mr. HOLLAND. I wish I could respond to the distinguished Senator from Iowa; but not having sat in the committee, I do not know what the reason was. I do know that, so far as I am concerned, my amendment does not relate to the authorization for this year at all. I take it that amendments possibly will be offered to other parts of the amendment offered by the group of distinguished Senators. I have merely tried to reduce the authorization for the 2 succeeding years by $1,050 million, which I think is a worthwhile objective toward which all of us should try to work.

Mr. MILLER. Again, I pledge to support the Holland amendment. However, I hope that perhaps the colloquy that has taken place might develop whether the Holland amendment may be improved a little by reducing the amount to $900 million, which is the amount provided by the House in the bill sent to the

Senate.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from

Iowa can accomplish what he suggests in another way, because my amendment relates only to 1965 and 1966.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. ELLENDER. I have an amendment that I shall propose today or tomorrow, if I have the opportunity to do so, to reduce the amount in the so-called Mansfield amendments from $975 million to $900 million. As I understand, for next year the amount of authority would be reduced from $1,500 million to $975 million, and there will be ample time to reduce it from $975 million to perhaps less than $900 million.

Mr. HOLLAND. If experience indicates anything, there will be ample energy and ambition to move in that direction.

Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his comment.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I think it very important that we take a few minutes at this time to try to clarify the parliamentary situation which confronts

us as regards the parliamentary effects of the Mansfield amendments and the parliamentary effects of the Holland amendment. Many of us want to amend the money provisions of the bill as well as many particulars of its policy. But we are concerned and are not too clear about our parliamentary rights in regard to money item amendments.

The Senator from Louisiana has spoken about an amendment which he will propose, and I wish to make certain that he will be in a parliamentary position in which he can propose it.

I have an amendment, which I have not yet submitted in final form, which would amend the text on page 1, in lines 7 to 9 of the Mansfield amendments, by striking out "$975,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964 and $1,500,000,000 for each of the next two succeeding fiscal years," and by inserting in lieu thereof "$900,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964." That would mean that we would automatically drop any reference in the bill to 1965 and 1966, and we would accept the House figure for 1964; namely, $900 million.

I should like to add a further amendment: On page 2 of the Mansfield amendments, strike out lines 10 and 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following: On pages 40, line 10, strike out $175,000,000 and insert in lieu thereof $150,000,000.

That would take us back, as regards the contingency fund, to $150 million. If parliamentarily possible, we would desire to handle those two matters together, although we could separate them, and could deal with an amendment to the contingency fund separately from the Mansfield amendments-and perhaps we should, and then we could deal separately with an amendment of $900 million for Development Loan Fund; $900 million is the figure voted by the House.

These amendments then would leave the Alliance for Progress program as it now is in the Mansfield amendments.

The economic aid program to the Alliance for Progress program is very impor

tant. I would be willing to raise it beyond what is proposed in the Mansfield amendments. If any further saving is made in Latin American military aid it should be added to the Alliance for Progress economic aid program. That would be welcomed, I believe, by all our friends in Latin America among the heads of state of democratic governments.

Mr. President, my first parliamentary inquiry is as follows: Are we in a position to seek to amend the Manfield amendments by changing the figure $975 million, in line 7, to $900 million; or are we now in a parliamentary positionwith the Holland amendment pendingin which we cannot act on the Mansfield amendments until first we act on the

Holland amendment; and if we act first on the Holland amendment and if the figure $975 million, which is called for by the Holland amendment, prevails, then will we be foreclosed from amending it to $900 million, particularly if-as are the custom and practice here-a motion to reconsider and a motion to lay on the table are agreed to?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Holland amendment is agreed to, the

figure $975 million would be agreed to in line 8; and the Parliamentarian informs the Chair that once the Holland amendment is agreed to, insofar as line 8 is concerned, thus changing the amount to $975 million, line 7 of the Mansfield amendments would still be open to amendment.

Mr. MORSE. Does the Chair mean to state that the Mansfield amendments would still be open to amendment in line 7, even though the Holland amendment calling for $975 million had been agreed to, insofar as line 8 is concerned?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is in accordance with the understanding of the Chair.

Mr. MORSE. Assuming that in line 7, the figure $975 is changed to the figure $900 million, as called for by the bill as passed by the House, would we then be in a position in which we could not subsequently change the $975 million figure in line 8?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is

correct; the $975 million figure in line 8 would then be frozen in, and-assuming adoption of the Mansfield amendmentscould not be amended further.

Mr. MORSE. That was my understanding, and that is why I wish to make it a matter of record, and to point out again to the Senate that although some do not like my use of the phrase use of the phrase "powerhouse amendments," it is a rather apt description of the Mansfield amendments.

Before acting on it, any amendments to it, we must be perfectly certain that there is no way at all for us to reach some meeting of the minds in regard to this bill, for I have no intention of agreeing to the taking of a vote on the Holland amendment at this hour until there has been ample cloakroom discussion in regard to the parliamentary effect of the Holland amendment as regards other changes we wish to make later, when the Senate may reach the conclusion that other changes should be made.

item of $975 million on line 7. Is that true?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is true.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if the Holland amendment were adopted, and the amount of $975 million were written into line 8 in replacement of the amount of $1,500 million, could those of us who think that the bill should be changed further offer a complete substitute for section (b) of the Mansfield amendments?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be in order provided a substantial change were made in the paragraph.

Mr. MORSE. I shall come to that point in a moment. Assuming that a very substantial change would be made in the paragraph, would we then be in a position in which we could modify the amount of $975 million in the Holland amendment, even though the Holland amendment were agreed to?

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

The

Parliamentarian states that such action would be in order.

Mr. MORSE. Now we come to what a substantial change would be. If we offered an amendment to paragraph (b) which would read:

Section 202 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, is amended by striking out "for each of the next four succeeding years," and inserting "for each of the next

Would that be a substantial change?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair feels that reducing the period of time from 4 to 2 years would be a substantial change.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, before we might offer such a substitute for paragraph (b), we would be in a parliamentary position, even though the Holland amendment were adopted, to offer, for example, the amendment that many of us propose to offer on the contingency fund, leaving it at the figure of $150 million? The adoption of the Holland It is a difficult position to occupy, and amendment would in no conceivable way

yet it is important that it be occupied,
and I occupy it not alone.
We want
Senators to realize the limitations that
have been placed upon their freedom of
parliamentary action in the Senate by
the introduction of the Mansfield amend-
ments. We think there should be a good
many money changes in the bill. I shall
ask some parliamentary questions on that
point in a moment. We have some ave-
nues open that will make that possible.
But my own judgment is that days of
time would be saved if the Mansfield
amendments were withdrawn, if we
cleared the decks, and if we started on
the bill item by item, section by section,
rather than to have a cut by way of a
general money cut on the Mansfield
amendments,

which

create serious parliamentary hurdles for those of us who think that the bill should be cut much more than the Mansfield amendments would cut it.

Mr. President, I should like to ask the following questions: If the Holland amendment were adopted, parliamentarily it would not affect in any way the

affect our parliamentary right to amend the contingency fund?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Agreeing to the Holland amendment would not affect any other part of the bill.

Mr. MORSE. Likewise we could pro

pose to cut further into the military aid figures of the Mansfield amendments.

Mr. President, I should like the leadership of the Senate to give consideraamendment for the time being so that tion to a withdrawal of the Mansfield we will not have to do all the parliamentary manipulating and maneuvering in strategic action that would be called for as long as the Mansfield amendments are before the Senate, so that those of us who wish to change the bill in respect to various provisions can go ahead and see how much we can change. Then they can decide whether or not they wish to offer or reoffer the amendment.

We know our reasons in making that proposal. I do not believe it would come to pass, but let us hypothetically assume that we are beaten on most or all of our amendments. Then the proponents of

the bill might decide that they do not want to cut the bill at all, not reoffer the Mansfield amendments, and let the committee bill stand as it is.

We are perfectly willing to run that risk. But what we feel sad about is that we have been placed in this parliamentary position in which we have to consume a great deal of time in conference and prevent votes from occurring here in the Senate until we can see the end of the trail parliamentarywise.

So far as we are concerned, all the Mansfield amendments have done is to slow us up. We are cautious men, and we shall be exceedingly cautious, for no matter who disagrees with us, we believe we are putting up a fight here in the Senate on a question so vital to the welfare of the American taxpayer and so important to the welfare of our country foreign policywise, that we are going to take all the slings and arrows that may be directed at us until we are satisfied that we can say to our constituents that we did all we could. We at least tried not to go to sleep by swallowing any parliamentary pills that the leadership may have stuffed into us.

I only make the plea. I cannot bring about a withdrawal of the Mansfield amendments unless the proponents wish to withdraw them. My parliamentary question is as follows: There is nothing that prevents the proponents of the Mansfield amendments from withdrawing the amendments, is there?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is nothing that would prevent the Mansfield amendments being postponed temporarily or withdrawn.

Mr. MORSE. When the Chair states "postponed temporarily," such action would not clear the floor of the Senate for other amendments?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments can be withdrawn at the request of the proponents. The Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] might make the request.

Mr. MORSE. The amendments could be reoffered at any time the proponents of the amendment wished to reoffer them?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MORSE. Of course, if they were withdrawn, the Senator from Florida could nevertheless offer his amendment as a separate amendment to the bill.

He could not very well offer it to a withdrawn amendment. But I would assume I do not know that if the Mansfield amendments were withdrawn, the Senator from Florida would probably give consideration to postponing any further consideration of his amendment at this time. He would have to change its form, in any event, if the Mansfield amendment were withdrawn.

I have raised all the parliamentary inquiries that I care to raise at this time, so there can be some consultation on the suggestions that I am making in behalf of those who are opposed to the bill in its present form.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from ington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent due to illness.

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. MECHEM] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] are absent on official business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAYH in the chair). A quorum is present. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, what is the pending question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] to the amendments offered by the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD), for himself and other Senators, to the committee amendment.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator will state it.

The

Mr. DIRKSEN. Is it in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the so-called Mansfield amendments?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be in order.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays already been ordered? The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; they have not been ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 296 FOREIGN AID BUILDS INDUSTRIES ABROAD TO COMPETE WITH U.S. INDUSTRIES

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, one of the greater follies committed under the foreign economic assistance program has been the practice of using U.S. dollars to establish or expand industries abroad which compete with U.S. industries.

Since 1945 we have spent $1,735,685,782 building up steel producing capacities in such countries as Japan, Turkey, France, India, Korea, Liberia, Peru, and Yugoslavia. Today our own steel mills are operating well under their capacities.

We have spent abroad, since 1955, $14,507,024 to build up foreign fishery resources, while our own fishing resources at home have been sorely neglected and are floundering.

We have given or loaned millions to establish and expand textile mills in many foreign countries while our own textile mills are in ever more serious trouble because they cannot compete on an equal footing with the more modern textile mills abroad.

Paper mills, rubber plants, chemical plants, and aluminum plants could also be cited as examples of instances in which AID dollars have been used to build facilities abroad to compete with U.S. industries either in the United States or in foreign markets.

I send to the desk and ask that it be printed and lie on the table, an amendment to H.R. 7885, the bill to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, so as to lessen competition to the United States from foreign businesses founded with U.S. AID funds.

I ask unanimous consent that this proposed amendment be printed at this point in my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table; and, without objection, will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendment (No. 296) proposed to be offered by Mr. GRUENING is as follows:

On page 51, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

"(f) No assistance shall be furnished under this Act for the construction or operation of any productive enterprise in any country unless the President determines that similar productive enterprises within the United States are operating at a substantial portion of their capacity and that such assistance will not result in depriving such United States enterprises of their reasonable share of world markets. The President shall keep the Foreign Relations Committee and the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives fully and currently informed of assistance furnished under this Act for the construction or operation of productive enterprises in all countries, including specifically the numbers of such enterprises, the types of such enterprises, and the locations of such enterprises."

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, this provision is identical with the provision