ingly beneficial. Where they have been made a part of the permanent planning of the city, they have been most successful. Where temporary, they sometimes have failed. Good maintenance is necessary.

grettably, that the program was allowed to die in 1957. My hopes are rather poignant that the program will be reestablished in Ohio, because if there is anything we need, it is covering the ground with vegetation and trees at a time when concrete seems to be the covering everywhere.

be a fact. Furthermore, if we go to the House with a conference situation between $3.7 billion and $3.5 billion, Senators know as well as I do where the compromise will come. But it is up to the Senate to work its will. It can have it any way it wants it. any way it wants it. The Senator from Oregon, of course, will continue to exercise his parliamentary rights.

In North Carolina, Charlotte and Winston

Salem have planted roses and trees in ex

pressway medians. Greensboro has appointed a city beautification coordinator.

A Plant America Award for landscaping was presented in 1962 to Mayor Melvin T. Matlock for the town of St. James, Mo. Many local trees had lost their vigor in an extended drought. The citizens, helped by the James Foundation, planted 4,000 sweetgum, flowering crabapple, and holly trees. These plantings gave this small town new beauty and new spirit. Townspeople talk about "the new St. James" and plan to develop a three-block-long strip in center of town into a central plaza, to be planted with grass, shrubs, and trees.

Various community projects have been taken up at times, as recommended in the plant America program, such as establishment of community gardens; street tree plantings; landscaping and planting around public buildings, including airports; plantings around tourist accommodations, such as gasoline stations and motels and hotels; plantings of highway entrances to the community; developing local parks; cleanup and planting of the banks of local streams; establishment of community forests for recreation; and the planting of flowering plants, or trees, in order to make the city or town known for spectacular azalea, rose, dogwood, lilac, flowering crabapple, cherry, or similar plantings.

As every municipality grows, a long-range program for planting and beautification of land, including acquisition of new park

lands, becomes necessary.

Planting America is an extremely rewarding goal for all-individual, community, State, and Nation. With needed and widespread cooperation, our country almost everywhere can be made to "sing with beauty."

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the statements made by the Senator from Wisconsin in calling attention to the article beginning on page 552 of the Agricultural Yearbook. It describes a program adopted in Ohio in 1953. The program was named "Plant a Tree in 1953, the Sesquicentennial Year of Ohio." It is a good program, and it would be well if it were followed in many other States, too.

In that year of the Ohio sesquicentennial celebration, there were planted in Ohio 22 million forest pine seedlings and 3 million ornamental trees. They were planted without expense to anyone, except the very low price charged for the seedlings which were delivered.

The program was followed in 1954, 1955, and 1956. In each year the planting of grasses, flowers, shrubs, trees, and legumes was encouraged through a centrally directed program, followed identically in each of the 88 counties of the State. In each of those years more than 20 million trees were planted. I make the statement, not critically, but re

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. MORSE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], I call up my amendment No 256 to the committee substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

amendment to the amendment will be

stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 40, line 5 in the committee amendment, it is proposed, in lieu of "$400,000,000" to insert "$380,000,000".

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the colloquy this afternoon will show that the amendment is the one which the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH] suggested that I consider in case my proposal to make a $50 million cut in supporting assistance were defeated. The Senator advised me that he would like to join me in the amendment after the vote on the proposed $50 million cut.

The amendment would cut the supporting assistance program $20 million, to the House figure. It would be an important $20 million saving. It would be an important saving from the standpoint of the merits of the amendment itself in regard to the foreign aid program. We ought to be willing to take $20 million out of that bloated program, for it is a highly inflated program.

In my judgment, it is very much in the interest of the taxpayers of this country to take the House figure of $380 million, but it is important also from the standpoint of the parliamentary situation in the Senate in regard to which conversations are still in progress. The road ahead to a final vote on the bill can be a very long one. We shall do our best to make a fairly substantial cut in the bill. But, as I have said before, the Senate should try to take another $40 million out of the bill and then devote its attention to policy changes in the bill. That is the position of the senior Senator from Oregon, although he cannot speak for others, and would not purport speak for others, and would not purport to do so. But so far as my money amendments are concerned, I would not be offering them, but I would be free to vote for any that any other Senator would offer, if some were offered.

We must face the fact that there is not a chance, in my opinion, of obtaining a final appropriation of more than $3 billion for foreign aid. The administration forces do not like to face that prospect, but I think they will discover it to

The amendment before the Senate is

CHURCH] and the senior Senator from Oregon offer on its merits. We also accept the House figure, which is $380 million.

Unless some other Senator wishes to speak, I intend to suggest the absence of a quorum to bring the Senator from Idaho to the Chamber, for he desires to speak on the amendment. He is on his way to the Senate Chamber at present.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his suggestion? Mr. MORSE. I am glad to yield the floor.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I would not venture to speak, except that the Senator from Idaho is coming to the floor of the Senate. Mr. MORSE. I yield the floor.

UNESCO AND NATIONALISM Mr.LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I have a letter from a constituent pointing out the context of a resolution adopted by UNESCO. The constituent states that UNESCO Publication No. 356 makes the following statement:

As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world mindedness can only produce rather precarious results. It is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism.

The school should use means to combat family attitudes that favor Jingoism. We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness and world peace.

That statement is contained in a docu

ment issued by UNESCO. I assume that UNESCO has forwarded to the United Nations that fantastic conclusion which it reached about the evil to the people of the world caused by persons being taught to be nationalists. I suppose that when the suggestion comes before the United Nations it will not be adopted. I am sure that if it ever came before the Foreign Relations Committee or the Senate, the proposal would be vigorously rejected. However, I feel that Senators and Representatives ought to be acquainted with what UNESCO advocates. It tells the people of the United States, "Do not teach your children to be patriotic or nationalistic. triotic or nationalistic. Teach them to be internationally minded, because with national mindedness there will never be world peace."

I wish to offer only one word of advice to these modern, sophisticated, socialistically minded advisers. I do not care how many resolutions are adopted by UNESCO nor what the United Nations does, or what the Congress does. nationalistic and patriotic attitude in the hearts of Americans and their feelings toward their country will not be extinguished.

The

I have asked the Foreign Relations Committee to check into the actual situation as it prevails in UNESCO, to find

out what nations voted for the resolution, and whether our country subscribed to this policy. Later, I shall speak again on this subject.

Mr. CHURCH. That is correct. This feature of the bill lies outside the socalled "powerhouse" amendment, which involved a cut of $300 million in military assistance. This amendment would ef

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. CHURCH. Mr. President, I am

pleased to join in cosponsorship of the pending amendment, which would cut $20 million from the military support feature of the foreign aid bill. The effect of the amendment would be to reduce the committee figure to that already approved by the House.

As the Senator from Oregon knows, I was unable to support his earlier amendment because I felt that this feature of the bill should not be cut below the level already approved by the other body. However, I feel military supporting assistance is the best place to effect a further cut from the Senate committee figure, because it is in connection with military support that we are extending aid to those countries which get the lion's share of American aid countries which, in my judgment, are getting a disproportionately large slice of the American aid melon. I believe the $20 million cut can easily be made, without impairing the aid going to any of these countries. I also believe that if the Senate should approve this amendment, it would be taking a step toward resolving some of the difficulties, some of the barriers still to be surmounted if we are to bring the bill to a final vote.

Adoption of the amendment would expedite the resolution of further difficulties and help Senators to reach an early vote on a measure which has now been debated for nearly 22 weeks.

For these reasons, I hope Senators will see fit to join in support of the amendment.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield?

Mr. CHURCH. I yield.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Idaho, as cosponsor of the amendment, if the proposed reduction in supporting assistance would bring the level of supporting assistance in the bill more closely in proportion to the military assistance reduction than otherwise? As I understand, the committee recommendation for military assistance has been reduced from $1.3 billion to $1 billion.

Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.

military support, which would be consistent with the action already taken with respect to military assistance. This is still another reason why adoption of the amendment would result in a better balanced program, overall.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

The

question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], for himself, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. JORDAN], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from

California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because

of illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. JORDAN], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr WALTERS], and the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] is absent on official business.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG] are detained on official business.

On this vote, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] is paired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER]. If present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska would vote "yea," and the Senator from Kentucky would vote "nay." The result was announced-yeas 51, nays 41, as follows:

Boggs

Brewster
Byrd, W. Va.
Case
Clark

Dirksen

Douglas

Hart

Hartke

Hayden

Hickenlooper

Humphrey
Inouye
Javits

Nelson

Pearson
Pell
Prouty
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Robertson
Russell
Simpson

Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
Young, Ohio

Keating Kennedy Kuchel Lausche Mansfield McCarthy McGee McNamara Metcalf Monroney

So the amendment offered by Mr. MORSE, for himself and other Senators, to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER obtained the floor.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may modify my amendment?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Louisiana for the purpose of having his amendment laid before the Senate, without losing my right to the floor.

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

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 244. I ask to modify the amendment in line 6, page 1, by changing the figure "1963" to "1964."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his amendment.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, as modified, to the committee substitute, as amended, will first be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed, on page 41, in the committee substitute between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

AID TO AFRICA. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 614(a) of this Act, the value of grant programs of defense articles

(d) SEC. 512. RESTRICTIONS ON MILITARY

for African Republics, pursuant to any authority contained in this part other than section 507, in any fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 1964, shall not exceed $25,000,000.

(b) Internal security requirements shall not, unless the President determines otherwise and promptly reports such determination to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, be the basis for military assistance programs for African Republics. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I should like to offer a few comments on recent developments in Argentina, and I select this country for two reasons. First, I think it is generally agreed that Argentina has probably the best potential for development into a stable and self-sufficient free country in its part of the world.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Senator is delivering a very important speech. I would like to have the Senate hear it.

The PRESIDING Senate will be in order.

OFFICER. The Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I may say I may say parenthetically that the general principles which I shall attempt to develop in my remarks apply to any other countries in Latin America which are engaging in or planning to engage in expropriation of American property, and to any countries in any other part of the world which are engaging in or planning to engage in the expropriation of American property. Argentina has many advantages not generally shared by most other South American countries, among which are a highly literate population which is predominantly European in stock, the absence of vast land reform problems, plus the possession of natural resources which are considerable.

My second reason for selecting Argentina is that what is happening there has a direct relationship to some of the difficulties our foreign aid efforts are facing in other areas.

On the basis of such measurements as per capita gross national product, number of telephones and radios, miles of railroads and highways and the like, Argentina is already one of the most highly civilized and advanced countries in South America. Its major challenge is to achieve stability of government and to put into practice sound economic policies which can eliminate the effects of years of mismanagement, inflation, a wasting of assets, decline of agriculture, and deficits both in its budget and its balance of payments.

The plight of the Government-run railroads provides a good example of the kind of economic chaos which has been allowed to develop. The volume of freight carried has fallen from 60 million tons in 1942 to less than 30 million tons; yet in the same period, the number of railroad workers has climbed from 90,000 to over 225,000. The result is an annual deficit of some $300 million which

the Government is forced to cover.

Such examples can be found in nearly every sector of the economy. In fact, over recent years there has been only one bright spot of any consequence in the whole picture, and this is in the petroleum industry. For years, imports of oil had been steadily rising, in spite of the fact that there is oil within the country. By 1958, Argentina's total annual oil production amounted to only 36 million barrels, and the nation was forced to import some 65 million barrels to meet its needs. Oil was in fact the largest import item, and cost roughly the Argentines $220 million a year in foreign exchange. Looking back over the painful history preceeding them, the Government at that time decided that a different approach might be worth a try. For almost half a century, the control of oil operations had been in Government hands. Foreign capital and experience had been largely excluded. But faced with such a phenomenal deficit in the balance of payments from a single source, the Argentine Government decided to try a new approach.

It invited outside capital and assistance to supplement the state's own efforts, and the results have been dramatic. In the long decades preceeding this

CIX-1370

event, petroleum production had been built up gradually to 36 million barrels a year, against imports which had climbed to 65 million barrels, as I have noted.

In the 4 years following the time the Argentine Government opened the doors to assistance from private enterprise, the production of oil nearly tripled, while the amount the country has to import has been reduced by roughly 70 percent. In 1962, production had reached nearly 100 million barrels, while imports had shrunk to less than 20 million.

I believe when we get the accurate figure at the end of 1963, it will be even more startling. In terms of foreign exchange, Argentina's expenditures for buying petroleum or oil products were cut from $220 million a year to $75 million, and the goal of self-sufficiency was in sight. There was even talk of an export able surplus.

Behind this tremendous accomplishment lie some interesting facts. In general terms, what it took to make the job possible was a combination of capital, technology, and efficiency-in all of which the Argentine Government had been lacking. These key elements were supplied by American oil companies, in competition against each other, who came in, negotiated contracts running up to 40 years, and proceeded to supply the money, personnel, equipment, and techniques which turned the tide.

To date, these companies have invested an estimated $300 million in Argentina since 1958. Their experiences have varied. Several companies have spent close to $50 million in largely unsuccessful exploration efforts. Another company, which has developed production, brought in some $60 million in capital and reinvested another $40 million from the sale of the oil in further exploration and development activities. In general terms, these companies have continued to invest money in Argentina,

without any significant return thus far.

This kind of confidence in the coun

try's future has also bred confidence. In addition to the direct investment in exploration and development, there has been the predictable economic fallout in other areas, bringing additional outside investment in transport, refining facilities, and petrochemicals-which together have been estimated at close to another $100 million, added to the econ

If we add to this the further stimulation to the economy in terms of royalties to the provinces for oil and gas produced within their territories, plus the very basic fact that the oil industry has provided a growing number of jobs for nationals over a period in which nearly every other segment of the Argentine economy has been stagnant, we recognize that here is a very substantial contribution to the development of the country.

This has been done with private enterprise, private investment, and private venture.

I should note that it has also been a real contribution to the pocketbook of the American taxpayer, since here is something approaching a half-million

dollar shot in the arm to a country we want to help, but which did not have to come out of U.S. foreign aid, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, or any other of the many organizations to which we so largely contribute.

One could be pardoned for assuming that the Argentine Government would also recognize the magnitude of this contribution to the welfare of its people. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. There is now a new government in office in Argentina, and one of its major articles of political faith seems to be a determination to abrogate the contracts or to nullify them to use their own language, negotiated by the previous government with the U.S. oil companies.

While it is perhaps not too difficult to appreciate the political charm of sloganeering about "throwing out Yankee imperialists" during a Latin-American election campaign, it is very hard indeed to discern any semblance of rationality in such an action in this instance. In practical terms, this would amount to a frontal attack on the only really sound and hopeful economic development that has occurred in that country in the last decade.

The reasons expressed by the new government for this extraordinary proposal have been rather nebulous thus far, consisting mainly of charges that the contracts are illegal and uneconomic. The only argument which the government has advanced regarding their legality, to my knowledge, is that

the contracts were not submitted to the Argentine Congress for ratification.

While I am no expert on Argentine constitutional procedure, I cannot help but be impressed by the logic of some of the comments which the oil companies have made in this regard. As they point out, the agreements merely put them in the position of hired contractors. They have engaged to spend a good deal of money, time, and effort in trying to find oil-but any oil found becomes automatically the property of the government. The companies do not have title to it. They cannot export it. All they can do with it is deliver it to the government at a previously agreed upon price. Both legally, and in effect, they are simply contractors hired by the state oil agency to help do a job which that agency had neither the capital nor the ability to do itself.

If the state oil agency has to get the approval of congress to hire a contractor, then presumably the state-run railroad would have to get congressional approval to sign a contract to repair freight cars. The oil companies assert that there is no such precedent in Argentine law, or anywhere else for that matter, so far as anyone knows, and I find this quite believable. Any country which operated along these lines would have to keep its congress in session 24 hours a day.

Aside from this is the interesting fact that everyone accepted the contracts as legal and binding, and both parties attempted to live up to their terms for about 5 years, until a new government come in. I say "attempted to live up

to their terms." The U.S. companies actually overfulfilled their contractual obligations. They drilled more wells and found more oil than even the Government had hoped at the time the agreements were made. While the country is While the country is still not self-sufficient in oil, it has gotten a good deal closer than anticipated in such a short period.

The Argentine Government's performance is not quite so good, not so much because it did not try but because of the general fiscal chaos which has existed within the Government. The state oil agency, to which the U.S. producing companies are obliged to deliver the oil, has not been able to pay for the oil. It is currently behind in its payments to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. One American oil company alone is owed more than $28 million for oil it has produced with its own capital and know-how, and has delivered it to the Argentine Government agency. It is holding the sack for that amount of oil, to say nothing of any recoupment on its investment. Other oil companies are owed comparable amounts, in keeping with the extent of their operations and contracts.

As for the Government's other charge that the contracts are uneconomic-it is unlikely that the oil companies would disagree with this assertion. They have clearly been uneconomic for the com

panies thus far, since the companies have continued to invest, and reinvest, and are left at the moment with not much to show for their effort except overdue

When we add to these considerations the fact that, at the end of the contracts, the Government will receive free of charge all permanent facilities installed by the companies-including pipelines and other expensive installations-it is perplexing, to say the least, to find that Government calling the contracts uneconomic.

It is also appropriate to wonder what lies ahead. In order to find and produce the quantity of petroleum required to meet Argentina's growing needs over the next 9 years, it is estimated that an investment of some $1.7 billion will be required. This is an average of nearly $200 million a year, and it would be interesting to know where a deficit-ridden government and a bankrupt state oil agency would propose to get capital funds on this order, particularly if they pursue their presently announced course.

Abrogation of the oil contracts would, to a very considerable extent, succeed in drying up outside capital funds from all quarters and for all purposes. If a contract made with one government is likely to last no longer than the inauguration of the next government-particularly in South America-then the whole concept of long-term investment can no longer apply either, a conclusion which will be speedily drawn by potential investors everywhere.

From reports coming out of Argentina, it appears that some of the politicians there profess to see a solution by simply having the state oil agency take over all oil operations. That such a course would

The record indicates that the U.S. com

I have no quarrel with this objective; I support it. But at times it is hard to see how to go about it. Take the case in point. Here is a country which is emerging from the shadow of years of dictatorial rule which left a legacy of bankruptcy and economic decline. The Argentine people apparently want stability and economic growth, under an elected government. Since these are goals which we support, we have been trying to assist in this undertaking, with funds exacted from the American taxpayer and through freely made private investment. But developments such as those in regard to the oil contracts are enough to give anyone pause. So far as foreign aid is concerned, we must recognize that we are dealing with a sovereign government, and that it is neither proper nor desirable on our part to presume to tell that government how to conduct its affairs.

When such a government proposes to follow a course, however, which is clearly designed to compound its financial difficulties and damaging bona fide private American interests in the bargain— we had better ask ourselves how long we can continue to underwrite such experiments. We have no mandate from the American taxpayers to continue to pour their income down bottomless pits, and

they appear to exist all over.

It is one thing to love thy neighbor as thyself, as the Bible enjoins us; but this is becoming a pretty large neighborhood. American aid just about blankets the globe. If every sovereign government on earth wishes to dig its own economic

the Government millions of dollars in desperately needed foreign exchange. As to the price the Government pays the companies for the oil-and this is quite apart from any considerations of sanctity of contract-it appears to be considerably less than the cost of oil of com

parable quality imported from Venezuela, the Middle East, or anywhere else in the

free world. The former Secretary of Energy and Fuels recently testified that the oil supplied by the contracting companies costs between 20 and 50 percent less than similar types of imported crude. That is the testimony of Argentine officials themselves. The witness pointed out that this represents oil which the Government was in no financial or technical position to find oil and develop it

itself.

Not only have the U.S. companies been supplying oil at lower rates than it could be imported; under their contracts they are also charging less for a barrel than the Government oil agency can produce it through its own efforts, on the basis of cost estimates submitted to the Congress by that agency. And on the basis of the Government's own per-barrel valuation, the value of the oil already delivered by one company exceeded the price charged by some $20 million. To put it another way, the Argentine Government has received oil for a price $20 million less than it would have cost to produce it itself, according to its own figures. Yet the Argentine Federal company has not even paid for all the oil.

accomplished in half a century, and it took a large amount of capital in addi

tion to know-how.

About the only foreseeable consequences of this cavalier course would be to render any contract with the Argentine Government next to worthless in international circles, while hastening the Argentine oil industry down the road its railroads have already gone.

One other alternative has been hinted at that Argentina might make up its oil deficiency by importing Russian oil. It is no secret that the Communists would be delighted to see this happen. With the tragic example of Cuba before them, I doubt that a majority of Argentine citizens would care to follow that course, since they value freedom highly.

As I said at the start of these remarks, what is happening in this particular situation typifies some of the dilemmas facing our foreign aid program in a number of areas. It is my understanding that our viewpoint is that we wish to do whatever we can to assist freely elected governments throughout the world, where we can assist, with the necessarily rather imprecise goal in mind of advancing the cause of human freedom, in which we believe.

ment also has a sovereign right to refuse

there is simply not that much money in America, or anywhere else in the world,

we could not do so even if we wanted to;

for that matter.

I think it might be helpful if this fact could be slightly better appreciated by some of the many countries which look

to us for support. It might as well be understood that while the United States

is willing to continue to contribute to the cause of freedom throughout the world, it does not plan to bankrupt itself in the process, and thus sacrifice its own freedom, leaving the field to the enemies of freedom.

To make this understood, I think we had better start today. One way to do this is to make it plainly understood that the U.S. Government is not prepared to give money, goods, or services to countries which will not even honor their obligations to U.S. citizens and corporations. Unilateral abrogation of such obligations by other countries should be understood to be synonomous with unilateral cessation of aid from this country.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

MCINYTRE in the chair). Does the Senator from Iowa yield to the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I have a number of newspaper articles, communications, and so forth, which I wish to discuss and to have printed in the RECORD, but I can do that a little later. They

are in further reference to the amendments we adopted last year and to those we adopted this year in regard to these items.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to ask about these amendments. The Senator from Iowa and I have held conversations, not only in regard to what is happening in Argentina, but also in regard to what is happening in other Latin American countries. The Senator from The Senator from Iowa knows that I am very much concerned about the application of the Hickenlooper amendment to these situations. In fact, some of us considered trying to broaden the Hickenlooper amendment; but after my discussion with the Senator from Iowa, I am inclined to agree with his view that probably no other amendment is needed, if there is clear agreement as to what the Hickenlooper amendment already encompasses.

So far as the situation in Argentina is concerned, our proper course is very clearly indicated by the facts in that case. If the Argentine Government nullifies those oil contracts and refuses to follow the procedures of international law which the Hickenlooper amendment encompasses, and if the Argentine Government expects to share in any way in the economic assistance provided by the United States, our State Department must notify the President of the Argentine that the Hickenlooper amendment will be applied, and that there will be no "maybe" about it.

So my first question is-in dealing somewhat with a hypothetical case, but also relating to the situation in the Argentine if the President of Argentina proceeds to nullify these oil contracts, is it the opinion of the Senator from Iowa that the Hickenlooper amendment will apply and the U.S. Government will be obligated to carry out its provisions, which, if a satisfactory adjustment of these claims is not made by the Argentine Government, will result in the cessa

tion of our economic aid to Argentina? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. In my opinion, the answer to that question is "Yes." I believe the amendment of last year the provision now in the law-could be extended, by proper interpretation, to cover such a situation of nullification of contracts, as compared with expropriation or seizure of physical property. But certainly under the amendments we have adopted and under the additional amendment which now is before us, which specifically refers to nullification and to action which has the effect of destroying the property rights of individuals, I think there is no question that it applies and that it would have to be applied not only to nullification of these oil contracts, which have been in effect since 1958, but also to the fruits of them, of which Argentina has taken advantage. The latter point raises a further question, for this is not a question of nullification of contracts after they were entered into, but before performance was had under them-although under some legal concepts, damages might be due in that situation. On the contrary, in this case performance has been had, and the oil has been delivered under

the amendment will apply.

Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Iowa and I have talked with other members of the committee and other members of the subcommittee-because both of us are members of the Subcommittee on Latin American Affairs; these members are very much concerned about whether the nullification amendment applies to the nullification amendment applies to this year's bill. I said to them that I think it does. However, this is a good time to clarify that situation and to leave no doubt about that matter.

Will the Senator from Iowa take time to refer to the Hickenlooper amendment of last year and also to the proposed changes in it, as contained in this year's changes in it, as contained in this year's bill. In my opinion this supports his contention, in which I join, that the Hickenlooper amendment, as it will be in existence after the enactment of this bill, will cover the Argentine oil contract nullification case.

Mr.HICKENLOOPER. I shall be very happy to do so; and I think it should be made part of this record.

I call the attention of the Senator from Oregon and the attention of other Senators to the report of the Foreign Relations Committee on House bill 7885, dated October 22, 1963, at page 67, and to the item on that page beginning with "(e)". I ask unanimous consent that this portion of the report be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the excerpt from the report (No. 588) was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

(e) The President shall suspend assistance to the government of any country to which assistance is provided under this or any other Act when the government of such country Act when the government of such country or any [governmental] government agency or subdivision within such country on or after January 1, 1962

(1) has nationalized or expropriated or

owned by any United States citizen or by any corporation, partnership, or association not less than 50 per centum beneficially owned by United States citizens, or

(2) has taken steps to repudiate or nullify existing contracts or agreements with any United States citizen or any corporation, partnership, or association not less than 50 States citizens, or per centum beneficially owned by United

[(2)] (3) has imposed or enforced discriminatory taxes or other exactions, or restrictive maintenance or operational conditions, or has taken other actions, which have the effect of nationalizing, expropriating, or otherwise seizing ownership or control of property so owned,

and such country, government agency or government subdivision fails within a reaafter such [action or after the date of enactsonable time (not more than six months ment of this subsection, whichever is later] action or, in the event of a referral to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States within such period as provided herein, not more than twenty days after the report of the Commission is received) to take appropriate steps, which may

include arbitration, to discharge its obligations under international law toward such citizen or entity, including [equitable and] speedy compensation for such property in convertible foreign exchange, equivalent to

the full value thereof, as required by international law, or fails to take steps designed to provide relief from such taxes, exactions, or conditions, as the case may be []; and such suspension shall continue until [he] the President is satisfied that appropriate steps are being taken, and no other provision of this Act shall be construed to authorize the President to waive the provisions of this subsection.

Upon request of the President (within seventy days after such action referred to in paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection) the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (established pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1954, 68 Stat. 1279) is hereby authorized to evaluate expropriated property, determining the full value of any property nationalized, expropriated, or seized, or subjected to discriminatory or other actions as aforesaid, for purposes of this subsection and to render an advisory report to the President within ninety days after such request. Unless authorized by the President, the Commission shall not publish its advisory report except to the citizen or entity owning such property. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such amount, to remain available until expended, as may be necessary from time to time to enable the Commission to carry out expeditiously its functions under this subsection.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, the amendment of last year provides as follows:

(e) The President shall suspend assistance to the government of any country to which assistance is provided under this Act when the government of such country or any agency or subdivision within such country on or after January 1, 1962

(1) has nationalized or expropriated or seized ownership or control of property owned by any United States citizen or by not less than 50 per centum beneficially any corporation, partnership, or association owned by United States citizens, or

(2) has imposed or enforced discriminatory taxes or other exactions, or restrictive maintenance or operational conditions, which have the effect of nationalizing, expropriating, or otherwise seizing ownership or control of property so owned,

Then it provides the methods of determination, arbitration, and so forth.

I have read the language down to that

point, as contained in the present law. Now I read the additions which were made in the committee this year, in strengthening that language.

The present law reads as follows:

(e) The President shall suspend assistance to the government of any country to which assistance is provided under this

And this year we added— or any other.

The words "or any other" were added this year. So the language would then read:

(e) The President shall suspend assistance to the government of any country to which assistance is provided under this or any other act when the government of such country or any

And we substituted for the word "governmental" the word "government"— government agency or subdivision within such country on or after January 1, 1962

Paragraph (1), which I read a while ago, would remain the same.

Then we added (2), a paragraph which reads as follows:

(2) has taken steps to repudiate or nullify existing contracts or agreements with any