Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, several years ago Congress began to grow impatient over the large number of grants being made to various countries, and requested the Foreign Aid Administration to make loans, so that the recipients of our aid would have a sense of responsibility and would know that they would have to repay the amounts extended to them. That came at a time when retrospectively we felt it had been a great mistake under the Marshall plan to make tremendous gifts to these nations, and decided that we should have made loans, instead, so that these countries, which do not have the large numbers of unemployed that the United States has, would repay the amounts extended to them by the United States. So we then adopted the so-called loan policy. The 40-year loans were made under the following terms: No repayment of either principal or, in some cases, of interest for 10 years, and interest at the rate of three-quarters of 1 percent per annum. But, Mr. President, I submit that such terms are not at ali the terms of a loan.

Let us consider what actually happens: I happened to be in Cairo when our Ambassador signed a 40-year loan for $30 million, for the construction of a powerplant in West Cairo. Of course, a powerplant is a profitmaking enterprise; and from the day when it begins to generate power, Mr. Nasser can charge the consumers whatever rate he wishes to charge. The terms of the socalled loan were, as in the case of practically all our development loans, no payment of principal for the first 10 years, and interest at the rate of three-quarters of 1 percent.

No payment during the first 10 years means that during that time the people of the United States will be borrowing the money from themselves, through bond sales, at a rate of approximately 4 percent interest. Four percent of $30 million is $1,250,000 a year. As a result, during each of the 10 years we shall be going into the hole by making a concealed grant of $1,250,000, and at the end of the 10-year period we shall have paid out $12,500,000 before the loan mechanism starts to function; and for the remainder of the 30-year period we shall be paid interest at the rate of only threequarters of 1 percent per annum. Certainly that is the poorest kind of business in the world.

My contention is that if there are in the world-as undoubtedly there arepeoples who are so poor that they cannot pay the rate of interest which we require in connection with loans to the American people, we should return to the making of grants. But I submit that in the case of the powerplant to which I have referred, there was no such need. Nevertheless, all of the so-called loans we have made to these countries have been made on such ridiculous terms; and to date we have made development loans on these "soft" terms to the extent of $1,300 million. Even if we assume that the loans will be repaidwhich is extremely doubtful in many cases we shall have to pay out, under such concealed grants in connection

with these "loans," $870 million. That is utterly fantastic.

The House of Representatives and the Senate have shown some sense of recognition that the three-quarters of 1 percent interest rate is not realistic. So it has tinkered with this arrangement, but its tinkering is not at all realistic. The House version of the bill provides that in no event shall the rate of interest be less than 2 percent per annum. The Senate committee did a much better job; it provided that the three-quarters of 1 percent rate would continue for the first 5 years, and thereafter the rate would be 2 percent. But actually, we would thus be doing exactly what we did before: We would be making so-called loans which would not be loans, and we would be going into the hole to the extent of millions and millions of dollars before the loans would be repaid.

My amendment provides that we should ask, as terms for our loans, exactly the interest rate it costs the American people to borrow money. The Treasurer of the United States can inform us whether we are borrowing money at 334 or 4 percent; and we should add to that 1 percent, as a carrying charge. This is a just amendment, and I hope it will be adopted.

Mr. President, at this time I wish to suggest the absence of a quorum, if I suggest the absence of a quorum, if I may do so without losing the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska withhold that suggestion for a few minutes? I seek the floor, to address the Senate.

Mr. GRUENING. I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from South Dakota, if it is agreed that following his remarks, I shall still have the floor, and may then suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MUNDT. That is perfectly acceptable to me.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will that be possible?

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska yield to the Senator from South Dakota?

Mr. GRUENING. Yes; with the understanding that I shall not lose the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield briefly to me? Under an agreement with the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], he has kindly offered to yield 3 minutes to me.

Mr. GRUENING. I am happy to do SO.

Mr. KEATING. I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from South Dakota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New York

may proceed.

AID TO ISRAEL

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, there Mr. President, there has been some criticism of the continuing U.S. assistance program in Israel.

Critics argue that Israel has achieved a rapid rate of economic growth, that its gross national product has risen over the past several years, and that it is anticipated this growth will be maintained. This is a very good record and, since much of the criticism of foreign aid has been directed to the fact that it has sometimes failed to accomplish its objective, we should be congratulating ourselves that our aid to Israel has produced such gratifying results.

Since our aid to Israel has been a success, as every Senator who has visited that country can testify, I would counsel against any abrupt or radical change in that program that would retard the progress that has been made and that would cancel out past achievement.

Some critics assert they are not opposed to lending money to Israel. But they contend that the economic facts of life make it clear that "our loans to Israel should be made only on a businesslike basis, and not through the soft money route which has been set up for aiding the truly underdeveloped countries of the world." Extensive tables showing the interest rates on loans to Israel have been included in the RECORD. Here it should be noted that on many of these loans the interest rates have been set at conventional levels, and I understand that the rate to be charged on loans during the current fiscal year is 31⁄2 percent.

Now, Mr. President, I think it is oversimplification to examine our aid program to Israel solely in economic terms. We cannot be satisfied with a fiscal view of the problems of security and survival in the Middle East. All of us may be very happy that Israel has made dramatic and dynamic economic progress. But I am sure that the realities in the Middle East cannot but dilute optimism about future predictions.

The unfortunate fact which we cannot overlook is that the balance of military strength has been gradually shifting against Israel. And we must bear in mind that our country has not granted military aid to Israel, even though she is surrounded by nations which threaten her with extermination and which acquire modern Soviet weapons to carry out those threats. If we had been supplying Israel with grant military assistance during this period, it might be argued that all of our loans for economic development should be made on conventional interest rates.

It is a fact that our Government is now making the Hawk available to Israel in order to enable her to defend herself from low-flying supersonic Soviet bombers. But this is not a grant. We are loaning Israel the money to buy this defensive weapon and she is being charged 32 percent interest on a 10-year loan.

We must be concerned about Israel's security. If we cannot persuade the Soviet Union to stop shipping deadly weapons to Egypt and if we cannot persuade the former Nazi scientists who are building ground-to-ground rockets for Egypt to abandon this deadly effort, then we must realize that Israel is in peril. We cannot afford to dismantle an economic aid program which helps to preserve Israel's existence.

We must bear in mind also that the United States and other Western nations have been providing generous economic aid to Egypt and other Arab countries. Of course, it is argued by some officials that we are simply providing economic aid to these countries and that we are not responsible for the fact that this makes it possible for them, indirectly, to acquire additional weapons from the Soviet Union, as well as to hire former Nazi scientists, as well as to deploy troops in Yemen and in Algeria. But I do not accept that reasoning.

We must not delude ourselves into believing that the Arab threat to Israel is not real. They may move to carry out those threats when they are strong enough. For that reason it is essential that the arms balance be maintained. If we are not ready to put Israel into our grant military aid program, as we do in the case of many countries, then we must be ready to maintain economic aid to that country.

Now, what has Israel been doing? Even though she has been threatened by hostile forces and must therefore divert much of her budget for defense, she has been able to carry on her magnificent open door policy. She has continued to admit refugees from lands where they have suffered discrimination-many of them in fact have managed to escape to freedom from lands behind the Iron Curtain.

Immigration into Israel rose in 1962 to a peak figure. In the last 2 years, Israel has taken in approximately 110,000 people, which is more than 1,000 a week. This has been made possible because the Israelis themselves have gone deeply into debt to finance development, to underwrite their immigration program, and to insure security.

The Israelis pay heavy taxes. Every economist will agree that large outlays for defense and for immigration do not produce foreign exchange. Accordingly, it is difficult to pay for such expenditures with loans which require high interest rates. Most countries which acquire weapons for defense have been able to get them without paying anything at all. And so while it is quite true, as has been said that Israel's foreign exchange holdings have risen during the last few years, her reserves are not high in relation to her trade deficit. Her foreign debt is also very high. It was estimated at $768 million just a year ago. Early this year, the Israel budget showed that the average Israeli will pay $422, or 562 percent, of his GNP per capita, for the cost of government.

This year, Israel began to pay off the first Israel bonds. It has paid off the last installment of the $100 million Export-Import Bank loan which the administration granted Israel in 1949. That was the first expression of American assistance-and this repayment is another demonstration of the soundness of our aid program to that country.

Israel's reserves are a security chest and they are essential because Israel is in an exposed military position. War could devastate, not only Israel's economy but her people, overnight.

It is strange indeed to look at our aid program in any one of these Middle East countries without recognizing the political problems that exist there and the litical problems that exist there and the military circumstances which jeopardize military circumstances which jeopardize security. No one who looks at this prosecurity. No one who looks at this program can be unaware of the fact that it is essential to maintain Israel's strength is essential to maintain Israel's strength in order to prevent war and to preserve what little stability there is. Surely, it would be a disastrous blunder if there were to be a precipitous reduction in our aid to Israel and if this were misinterpreted. We cannot permit any nation in the Middle East to gain the impression that American interest in Israel has receded and that we are indifferent to what happens there.

MIDTOWN PLAZA IN ROCHESTER, N.Y.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, last Sunday's Washington Star carried a story by Robert J. Lewis titled "A New Downtown." It describes the beautiful new Midtown Plaza in Rochester, N.Y. This shopping center, in the middle of the downtown area, was designed to attract shoppers back into central Rochester by providing a unique and unusual setting.

Without a penny of Federal aid, private businessmen and the city government cooperated to contruct a glassenclosed air-conditioned town square surrounded by attractive shops.

Midtown Plaza now includes two large department stores, 30 retail shops, 13 floors of office space, a post office, a hotel, an auditorium, a sidewalk cafe, a restaurant with a 10-mile view, a central bus terminal, and an underground parking garage for 1,843 cars.

The author of the Star article considers this Rochester project a model for other cities seeking to rejuvenate their downtown areas-particularly Washington, D.C. So that all my colleagues can become familiar with what Rochester has done, I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I have referred be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

A NEW DOWNTOWN

(By Robert J. Lewis)

Rolling into Rochester from the airport, the cabdriver tells you: "It brought the city back to life. Yeah, it saved the downtown.

They got that underground parking and you drive right into it. You'll see it in a minute. See there, up ahead. See it stick up in the air." Jutting in the distance is a shining office tower, symbol of Midtown Plaza, the Nation's most spectacular centercity revival project.

On the spot a half hour later, jostled by a swarm of frenzied shoppers, you begin to share the cabbie's enthusiasm. This city of 320,000 in upstate New York has created something no other downtown possesses anywhere in the world-a "town square" under glass, a focal point leading to more than 40 air-conditioned acres of floor area. In the square are two big department stores, 30 retail shops, 13 floors of office space, the city's busiest post office branch, a 78-room hotel (perched on four floors atop the office building), an auditorium, a sidewalk cafe, a floating restaurant-bar with a 10-mile view,

a central bus terminal, and underground parking for 1,843 cars.

In the year and a half since this $35 milunveiled, Rochester has made a discovery of lion magnet of commercial excitement was interest to Washington and every other city aiming at downtown renewal: Give the people convenient in-town transportation; a place to hide their cars; exciting new things to look at; an open place to assemble, meet, sit, and stroll about; ways to combine shopping and pleasure-plus all the acknowledged advantages of downtown diversityand they'll come in droves, stay for hours, buy like mad, and go back to their suburban homes reluctantly.

The most amazing fact about this humming new center is that it went ahead without a penny of Federal aid.

Key to the beginning of the eight-acre transformation smack in Rochester's counterpart of Washington's 14th and F Streets was a decision by the city in 1958 to spend $12 million, mostly on public improvements it intended to carry out even before the Midtown was proposed. This money went to finance the three-level public parking garage beneath the plaza, partially close two narrow streets, and extend another street to channel in more traffic. The improvements were designed to attract private investment.

With this expenditure agreed to, the owners of two big Rochester enterprises-McCurdy's, a department store, and Forman's, a ladies specialty shop-formed a development corporation, assembled 17 parcels of land at a cost of about $5 million, and told architect Victor Gruen to do his ingenious best.

Fresh from designing changes for downtown Fort Worth that never got beyond the blueprint stage, the Viennese-born architect proposed a modern version of the traditional European town square to enliven downtown Rochester. The square, naturally lighted and air-conditioned, would be the centerpiece, with ground-level and balconylevel stores fronting on it. Three similarly air-conditioned arcades radiating from the plaza also would have stores. Ground rights for the parking garage were to be leased to the city for $1 a year.

The site picked for the town square was behind the two big stores. Mr. Gruen proposed to remodel and enlarge the existing two stores, open their rear to the glassed-in plaza and fill in the spaces on all four sides with buildings for competing speciality shops, among them an airline ticket office, a barber shop, a realty firm, a travel agency, and a beauty shop. A bank was also planned.

Placing an 18-story hotel-and-office building at one end of the enclosed plaza and a smaller office building at another end-and linking the whole complex with elevators, stairways, pedestrian arcades, and escalators to the below-ground parking-was all part of the scheme to attract big crowds and

keep them there, inside, out of the weather, and shopping to their heart's content.

That's exactly what happened. Now, as you stroll inside Midtown Plaza, the place is crowded, day and night. Some stores, including McCurdy's, stay open from 9:30 a.m. to 9 p.m., but even after closing time, people cluster in the plaza, sitting on benches, talking, reading, as people have done in town squares for centuries. Lights stay bright, doors remain open, and escalators keep run

ning to below-ground parking all night long.

"Public acceptance has been simply amazing," Gilbert J. C. McCurdy says. He is 68, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Williams College, and heads the department store founded by his father in 1901. It was his initiative that led to forming the Midtown Plaza development firm, which he serves as president.

But Mr. McCurdy's move to improve downtown Rochester came only after his department store had taken the defensive step of opening a suburban branch a decade ago.

"We had a number of friends in the branch business and we thought we would build one and see what happened," he says. "Our suburban branch was very profitable. But we soon discovered it's impractical to build branches of sufficient size to represent a store like ours. So we determined our next move would be to do our utmost to make downtown more attractive than any suburban shopping center could be."

Mr. McCurdy carefully emphasizes the Midtown Plaza project was designed with all downtown Rochester in mind. (His firm and the Forman company are 50-50 partners in the venture.)

Other storekeepers largely agree that whatever helps Rochester's central core should help them, too. But there is no question that some downtown merchants have been put at a competitive disadvantage by the shiny new midtown development, with its own captive audience arriving effortlessly by escalator, hour after hour, from the subterranean three-level parking garage.

Yet Sibley's and Edwards'-Rochester's other big department stores-also benefit from large, above-ground municipal parking garages, completed before Midtown Plaza was started. And, unquestionably, some shoppers park at midtown primarily to visit other nearby shops and stores in Rochester's compact downtown. But Vicki Newton, 22, a junior at the University of Rochester, is not not one of these.

"I used to go down one side of Main Street and up the other," she tells you. "Now I shop in Midtown all the time, constantly. And in the wintertime it's marvelous. I never go outside except to Sibley's." (Sibley's, across Main Street from Midtown, is upstate New York's largest department store.)

Older shoppers, too, are entranced. "My grandmother loves it," one youngster said. "She likes to sit and watch the people, and says to me: 'You run and do something and I'll sit here and look at the flowers"." Alfred (Alfie) Valentine, 76, a retired music teacher, likes to visit Midtown once a week to meet up with friends. "This place was a Godsend to old people," he says. "Now they come here and see everything. It's an entirely new world." Gus Karner, 70, retired proprietor of Rochester's Nurenberger Hof restaurant, adjusts his straw hat, stomps his cane, and says: "I come in every single day—I live just down the way, across from the Knights of

Columbus."

Far from worrying over the center's nonshopping attractions for older persons, Angelo Chiarella, a youthful architect who is Midtown's general manager, likes it that way. "Some do sit on the benches a long time," he says. "But we figure if they like what's going on here we must have struck just the

human note that cities need."

One of the town square's attractions is its clean-lined architecture. Another is the sunlight flooding in from 12-foot-high clerestory windows surrounding the 60-foot-high ceiling. A third is the ever-changing throng of dressed-to-kill Rochesterians so obviously enjoying themselves. ("Ogling pretty girls is also a pastime," suggests an official of the Rochester Planning Commission.) But by far the most fascinating of the plaza's allurements is the Clock of the Nations-an artful $35,000 creation in the center of the square. It stops all traffic every hour and half hour as it puts on a puppet show to the tempo of folk dancing tunes of a dozen foreign nations.

Midtown Plaza's big lesson for cities seems to be that downtown business districts need enlivenment, however it is done. It demonstrates the importance of separating automobile traffic from pedestrian traffic (special underground ramps and surface loading docks are provided for delivery trucks servicing stores). It points out quick, easy means of transportation to shopping areas are needed (a subway station, for example, could complement onsite parking in a development like this).

In Rochester, an argument still simmers over how best to meet the changing downtown needs of cities. Mr. McCurdy, who spearheaded this notable project during the tenure of Republican Mayor Peter Barry, says it would have been impossible under Federal renewal procedures. The city's new mayor, Henry E. Gillette, a Democrat, fought the project in its planning stages, now concedes: "It does make Rochester more attractive." But he quickly adds:

"It's very unlikely any other city will attack the problem in this same manner because of the insufficiency of city funds. Cities will

have to resort to the Federal urban renewal concept, using Federal, State, and municipal money.”

However, that argument is settled, the people of Rochester are sure of one thing: They like Midtown Plaza. It makes the city more lively. As Mrs. Rae Ojalvo, a Rochester housewife, says: "It's something wonderful. It's beautiful. It's a meeting place for every

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South Dakota.

THE FREEDOM ACADEMY AND
FOREIGN AID

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, while I am a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, due to unavoidable circumstances I was not able to attend the closing series of meetings at which the aid bill was finally marked up, nor have I participated up to the present time in the debate on the floor of the Senate. However, I have availed myself of some unexpected leisure time to read each day's issue of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD so as to follow the debate in the Senate very carefully. First, I congratulate the Senate for the fact that, for the first time in my experience, the Senate has really measured up to its responsibilities on foreign aid legislation and gone into on foreign aid legislation and gone into the issues item by item and paragraph by paragraph to try to register its collective judgment in the improvement of lective judgment in the improvement of fast been going to pot during the past a program which everyone knows has fast been going to pot during the past few years.

I especially congratulate my distinguished colleague on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], for assuming leadership in opposition to accepting the results of the findings of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations without scrutiny, and without amendment. The Senator from Oregon insisted that the Senate spend sufficient time on the subject so that all Senators might be subject so that all Senators might be fully conversant with the facts involved, so when they cast their votes they would spent on anything," says General Manager and the wishes of their constituents inbe voting their independent judgment

"That clock gave the best value per dollar

Chiarella. The Gruen architects had it specially made in Beverly Hills after unsuccessfully searching through Europe for someone to do the job.

stead of merely following the recommendations of the committee report. I think the proposed legislation is important

enough to justify that kind of consideration.

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

Mr. MUNDT. I am happy to yield.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his remarks. But I wish also to thank the Senator from South Dakota for the assistance he has been to all of us who share that common point of view in our work on the Foreign Relations Committee. The Senator was of great help during the hearings and during those sessions of the markup when it was possible for him to be present.

For example, the Senator will recall that it was the Senator from South Dakota who made the final motion by way of compromise in the committee on the contingency fund, about which he and I have been critical for many years, including what we consider to be a misuse of the contingency fund in some instances.

I thank the Senator for the great assistance he has been to those of us who feel that we owe to the American taxpayers the course of action we are following in the Senate on the bill.

Mr. MUNDT. I am indeed grateful to the Senator. What he has said brings to mind a statement he made one day on the floor of the Senate while I was absent in the hospital. He commented on what I felt was one of the most astonishing statements I have read in Washington newspapers in 25 years. Some columnist, whose name I have forgotten, chided the entire Senate because it was even debating the foreign aid bill, and suggested that such debate was a pure waste of time. waste of time. I thought the Senator from Oregon, in his typical able manner, put that particular reporter in the spot in which he definitely deserved to be placed. I got a "kick" out of reading the remarks.

Up to now most of our discussion has dealt with the funding of the Foreign Assistance Act and with the way in which the program has operated in specific areas.

I wish to devote the body of my remarks today to a discussion of one of the basic reasons why I think the foreign aid program has fallen into such bad repute around the country. I think it is not primarily the size of the job which we have undertaken or the cost, but the fact that the failures at the end of the line and in the field are now so apparent that Americans generally are rightfully insisting that Congress dedicate itself to correcting such conditions.

I recall that a week ago today the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] took occasion in the course of the Senate debate to point out the need for more adequate training for the American officials who are responsible for the administration of the American programs abroad, and for carrying out the American foreign policies. I support completely the point of view which he exthe $100 billion we have spent in this pressed. One reason why so much of area has been nonproductive, or perhaps, to use a favorite State Department phrase, even counterproductive, is that

we have not had the trained personnel who clearly understood the scope of their jobs and the nature of the Communist menace which we are attempting to resist by the foreign aid program.

I share the skepticism of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] about our merely making multimillion-dollar appropriations for foreign aid while we in the Congress continue to fail to establish the training facilities for our officials which is necessary to enable them to implement the foreign aid programs effectively and produce the results which the country expects from them.

I have voted for far more foreign aid than I have opposed. I speak as one who has introduced several bills to provide for adequate training for those who represent America overseas. I speak as the coauthor of the legislation which the Senate enacted in 1960, moving toward that goal, but which unfortunately has not even yet been voted upon by the House of Representatives.

The best way to express the need for this type of legislation, and the potential for strength which is embodied in the Freedom Academy proposal, of which I am a cosponsor, is to repeat the greatly impressive statement in the report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report No. 1689, of the 86th Congress. I read from page 5 of that report, as follows:

The Communists have conquered a billion people during a period when their sphere was markedly inferior in industry, technology, science, and military capabilities-in fact, inferior in almost everything except power-seeking know-how. The Soviets have been able to expand their empire during this period of inferiority, because they have developed a science of protracted conflict in which they are able to gradually increase their relative power position, using a wellintegrated combination of political, economic, and military methods while avoiding a sufficient provocation to invite massive retaliation. Central to their science of pro

the giddy-eyed amateurs they are so the giddy-eyed amateurs they are so demonstrably today?"

Mr. President, I continue to read from page 6 of the committee report, made in 1960:

1. No concentrated, systematic effort is being made to develop an integrated operational science from our side which will meet the entire Soviet attack and work toward our long-range national objectives in a coordi

nated manner utilizing every area of potential strength in the public and the private sectors. We have not thought through all of the short- and the long-range methods and means which freemen can properly use when faced with a Soviet-type challenge, and we have not integrated these methods and means have not integrated these methods and means into a broad strategic plan. This is especially true in political and economic warfare. Bits and pieces of the problem are being worked on within the Government and at some universities, and a part of this development work is of a high order, but the total effort falls far short of seeking an integrated, operational science and it does not begin to develop our true potential.

2. Nowhere today can Government per

sonnel or private citizens receive broad spectrum training in cold war, especially in the large and highly complex field of political and economic warfare. Not only do we lack toplevel schools, we do not even have intermediate or lower level schools. There is no place where the bits and pieces are pulled together and taught in concentrated form.

I understand that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], a great and courageous Senator, was the author of the subcommittee report on which the Judiciary Committee report was based. The Senator from Connecticut is a coauthor of the current Freedom Academy bill, S. 414, which a number of us have been energetically trying to have approved by the Committee on Foreign Relations, approved by the Senate, and sent to the House of Representatives in time so that the House may approve it this year.

I wonder how far the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, of which I am

economic warfare.

Soviet capabilities in political and economic warfare are not inborn. They are the result of a massive development and training program extending over several decades. This formidable program has given them a huge fund of political warfare knowledge, an effective operational science, and large numbers of highly trained cold-war professionals.

I continue to read, from page 6 of the report of the Committee on the Judici

ary:

There are grave deficiencies in this country's preparation to defend itself and the free world in this unitary, total, unending war to the finish. At the top of the list, and underlying our other failures, is our failure to institute an adequate cold-war develop

ment and training program.

Mr. President, since the Senate is considering the present multibillion-dollar foreign aid proposal, it is a good time for Senators again to ask themselves the question, "Why is it that for 15 years, during which there has been an expenditure of over $100 billion, we have so miserably failed to provide the essential training devices so that our cold war operatives abroad can function as professionals and experts instead of as

Senate to recommend an appropriation of $500 million, or $1 billion, for some aspect of nuclear science-perhaps development of an improved Polaris, or development of an improved delivery system for utilizing nuclear warheads abroad-in similar circumstances. How successful would we be if it came to the Senate, as the Committee on Foreign Relations has come to the Senate, to ask for $3 billion, if, in connection with the appropriation we asked the Senate to appropriation we asked the Senate to provide, we told Senators candidly and honestly, as the Foreign Relations Committee virtually tells the Senate today, "If you give us the money, we will spend it, but you should be forewarned as to the fact that we do not have any experts in the field to utilize the money.

Give us

the money for nuclear warheads. Give

connection with nuclear warfare, and we us the $500 million for an experiment in connection with nuclear warfare, and we will pick up some fine, idealistic, patriotic, will pick up some fine, idealistic, patriotic, unskilled amateurs who do not know a warhead from a mountain, and who do warhead from a mountain, and who do not understand anything about the basic not understand anything about the basic science of nuclear physics. We will proscience of nuclear physics. We will proceed, with those amateurs, to spend the ceed, with those amateurs, to spend the people's money in our national defense." people's money in our national defense."

I believe the Senate would unanimously reject such a request, if made by our

If the

Committee on Appropriations. Senate did not reject it unanimously, I suspect that the people at home would reject the Senators who voted for that kind of unconscionable squandering of the people's resources.

Yet that is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves as Senators today. The Committee on Foreign Relations is asking the Congress to approve more than $3 billion of additional money to fight a cold war, and says, "Give us the money. We will see that it is spent. We will get some fine, patriotic, idealistic unskilled people to go overseas, and they will spend the money, even though they are complete amateurs in the entire cold war concept, even though they have never spent a single month in a training facility learning what the Communist apparatus is all about, how it operates, how it functions, and the devious tactics it employs. We will send these amateurs out with 'star dust' in their eyes, with billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money in their pockets, to do battle against expert Communist professional operatives functioning in the same field, who have been trained for years in one or more of the six Soviet institutions set up specifically to train the cold war operatives functioning for communism."

Do Senators wish to know why there has been so much trouble with this foreign assistance bill? As I sat in the hospital and in my office reading the debate of days that I was absent it did not conjure up any mysteries in my mind. It did not cause me to seek out obtuse reasons why the debate continues day after day and week after week, as indeed it should. The reason is obvious.

The people of America have finally caught up with Congress, and have pointed the finger of responsibility at each of us. They say, "What gives? After spending $100 billion, you want $3 billion more for the same kind of enthusiastic inadequately prepared amateurs to squander overseas, trying to resist, to defeat, to turn back trained, skilled, professional Communist operatives who defeat us in the areas in which we come in contact with them."

I should like to talk about that fact. Now is the time to resolve to do something about it. thing about it. Nothing has occurred since 1960, when the Senate passed the Freedom Academy bill overwhelmingly, to change the minds of the supporters of the bill or to change the minds of members of the committee. Our need for specifically trained personnel to win the cold war overeas is precisely today what the committee said it was in 1960.

uary 22 of this year, and which is basically the same as our Freedom Academy

S. 414, which was introduced on Jan

bill of 1960 has, as its cosponsors, in addition to the Senator from South Dakota who is now addressing the Senate, the

Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CASE], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG], the Senators from

Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER and Mr. MILLER], the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT].

Nobody can type that group of Senators, Mr. President. I defy anybody to label them as "a conservative bloc," "a liberal bloc," "a nationalistic bloc," or "an internationalistic bloc."

They are Senators who represent the whole spectrum of ideological, economic, political, and philosophic differences in the Senate.

But they agree on one thing, namely, that we cannot win a war against professionals if we are relying on amateurs. This does not mean that the amateurs are evil. This does not mean that the amateurs are bad. It merely means that golf tournaments are not won, either, when amateurs are playing against professionals. It means that football games are not won when amateurs are playing against professionals. It means that baseball world championships are not won by amateurs playing against professionals. And wars are not won that way. They are not won by arraying amateurs against professionals when the wars are hot. They are not won that way either when the wars are cold.

This continued squandering of the people's resources, now representing an expenditure of well over $100 billion, has miserably failed to achieve its optimum results, because contests are not won with that kind of matching of unskilled and inadequately

trained amateurs against highly trained professionals.

So, of course, the debate on foreign aid drags on. Of course, amendment after amendment is added to what the Committee on Foreign Relations brought before the Senate. And, of course, when it comes up for the second round, when

appropriations must be made-remember, we are talking about an authorization bill only now-it is a foregone conclusion that additional sharp reductions can, and should, be made in those proposed expenditures. Such reductions will be sizable and substantial.

Certainly, these reductions will take place unless by that time the Senate has before it some type of Freedom Academy bill, assuring the American people, at long last, that we are going to train specialized people who will be able to do the job, just as we do in military matters, just as we do in the atomic energy field, just as anyone does in any area of activity whenever one is out to win. And, unless we have the desire to win the cold war, we are stupid indeed to sacrifice so much of our national resources on a

formula of failure.

The original position of the administration and of the State Department with respect to our Freedom Academy proposal was indeed a rather curious one. It was said that the kind of training proposed by the Freedom Academy was unnecessary, and that this kind of legislation was not needed. In their enthusiasm, members of the administration even said that that kind of training was already being provided by a few lectures and very short-time, cursory

courses, by which newcomers to Government oversea service were indoctrinated and briefed.

However, after the country rejected that sanctimonious position, the State Department was compelled to change its tactics. After a commission had been appointed by the President to obtain the facts and verify the position of the State Department that it was doing the job, and that no changes and additional training facilities were needed, and after the Commission brought back evidence that the State Department was failing to do the job, that something new was needed, and that the proponents of the Freedom Academy were correct in labeling them as inadequately equipped amateurs who were being sent out to fight against professionals—after that adverse report came back and surprised the administration, the State Department changed its tactics. It countered the great and growing support for the Freedom Academy by proposing a very modest expansion of the present mission of the Foreign Service Institute. It proposed to change its name to something more grandiloquent. It proposed to construct a fine new physical establishment to carry on the Foreign Service

Institute program.

The State Department proposal com

pletely fails, however, to grapple with the basic problem which would be met in the Freedom Academy bill. One need look only at the budgetary proposals for the two_institutions to see this. The present Foreign Service Institute budget totals around $6 to $7 million, including payments from other agencies, to the extent that it is able to train people in them the routine method by which cables foreign language proficiency, to teach are sent back and forth between State

Department functionaries and those who are overseas, to teach them to maintain what I hope are adequate security arrangements-although what we read in the newspapers recently leads me to some skepticism as to whether they are doing that job very well-to train people how to act at cocktail parties overseas, and how to greet foreign visitors at embassies with a broad smile and a good handclasp; in these highly limited areas of training, the Foreign Service Institute renders a useful service.

The new Academy proposed by the State Department would have a budget of something like $8 or $9 million annually. Let us contrast that with what we propose in the Freedom Academy bill, wherein we seek to do the job of fully meeting the problems we face, and of training personnel in the hard-nosed techniques required in order to beat off the seductions and subversions and programs of the Communists, with a minimum budget of from $35 to $50 million annually to train the people to do the job.

That is a pretty modest proposal modest proposal when we stop to think that these are the people who, along with their predecessors, have spent $100 billion. These are the people who are now calling upon us to give them another $31⁄2 billion so they can spend it during the remaining of this fiscal year.

Certainly, a training program of $35 to $50 million a year to equip and to train properly the people who are going to spend these astronomical amounts is a very modest safeguard in making sure that the money is well spent.

The State Department's shifting from one type of position to another in order to fit into the climate of public opinion deserves to be remarked upon a little further.

First it was said that no training was needed. Then the Department, under pressure, under the severe criticism of its own commission, which it had hoped would pat it on the back, but which, instead, kicked it in the pants, when it got the evidence, reluctantly admitted that the training program was not adequate.

Then the Department moved to confuse and befuddle the issue by advancing a proposal to substitute for the Freedom Academy bill a substitute which, in reality, proposes only to expand, to a very modest degree, what the Department is already doing at its Foreign Service Institute.

For the information of the Senate and

the country at this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the full text of S. 414, the Freedom Academy proposal.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S. 414

(In the Senate of the United States, January 22 (legislative day, January 15), 1963, Mr. MUNDT (for himself, Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. CASE, Mr. DODD, Mr. SMATHERS, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr.

PROXMIRE, Mr. FONG, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr. MILLER, Mr. KEATING, Mr. LAUSCHE, and Mr.

SCOTT) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:)

A bill to create the Freedom Commission and the Freedom Academy, to conduct research to develop an integrated body of operational knowledge in the political, psychological, economic, technological, and organizational areas to increase the nonmilitary capabilities of the United States in the global struggle between freedom and communism, to educate and train Government personnel and private citizens to understand and implement this body of knowledge, and also to provide education and training for foreign students in these areas of knowledge under appropriate conditions Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Freedom Commission Act".

CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) The Congress of the United States makes the following findings and statement of policy:

(1) The United States in preparing to defend its national interests in coming years faces grave and complex problems in the nonmilitary as well as military areas.

(2) First and foremost are the problems raised by the unremitting drives by the Soviet Union and Communist China seeking world domination and the destruction of all

non-Communist societies. The Communist have systematically prepared themselves to bloc and the various Communist parties wage a thousand-pronged aggression in the nonmilitary area. Drawing on their elaborate studies and extensive pragmatic tests,