year ending

$8, 000, 000, 000

6, 433, 962, 000

for fiscal June 30, 1963 (breakdowns not yet available) Grand total, U.S. aid to all nations and world organizations, July 1, 1946, through June 30, 1963--- 148, 456, 333, 000

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. Smoot goes on to say:

The $148.5 billion which our Government has taken from taxpayers and given away abroad since 1946 is $46.7 billion more than the total assessed valuation of all property (including land) in the 50 largest cities of the United States.

Foreign aid since 1946 has cost individual taxpayers an average of $1,537 each, and has cost corporation taxpayers an average of $25,828 each. Since all corporation taxes must necessarily be passed on to consumers in price of goods, the total burden of our Government's foreign giveaway actually falls on individual Americans.

None can deny the harsh fact that this giveaway has brought us to the edge of economic ruin, saddling our citizens and their posterity with a debt exceeding the combined indebtedness of all other nations on earth, and putting us at the mercy of the very nations which have received our bounty. None can deny that American tax money has built foreign industries which now undersell our own-and that the American industries are still being taxed to subsidize foreign compet

None can deny that American foreign aid and American foreign-investment guarantees have caused American industries to expand abroad, thus curtailing industrial expansion at home. None can deny that many American industries have already been grievously hurt by foreign competition which American tax money subsidizes abroad-and that thousands of American workers have thus lost jobs.

And none can show that our foreign aid programs have done any good for the United States. Ostensibly, the primary purpose of our foreign aid is to fight communism. It has done the opposite.

Look at the list of nations receiving our aid and determine which, if any, are now stancher friends of America, or sterner foes of communism, than before our aid began. You will not find one on the list.

We alienated the Netherlands by forcing them to surrender their East Indian possessions-which became the pro-Communist nation of Indonesia. In 1962, we deepened the injury by our part in forcing the Netherlands to surrender New Guinea to Indonesia. Australia (which owes us no money) is disturbed and angry because of this New Guinea deal. Indonesia and the Philippines now berate us for supporting the new nation, Malaysia.

Our State Department is responsible for converting Cuba into an enemy nation. In forcing the downfall of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, we eliminated the last strong friend we had in the Caribbean area. We helped establish the pro-Communist government of Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic. This month, we refused to recognize the anti-Communist group which overthrew Bosch.

The alienation of France now seems complete. West Germany is outraged about our wheat deal with the Soviets. Cambodia resents us because of arms we give to Thailand. Thailand resents us because of arms we give to Cambodia. Pakistan resents us because of aid we give to India. India resents us because of aid we give to Pakistan.

We alienated Portugal by our United Nations stand regarding Portuguese Angola in Africa; and we alienated South Africa (which owes us no money) by criticizing her internal policies.

The dastardly United Nations rape of Katanga-which we financed and supported without stint-not only eliminated Katanga as a friend of America but apparently caused hatred of us throughout Africa. United Nations forces bombed hospitals, homes, industrial plants, and schools. United Nations troops (which included uncivilized Ghurkas from India and savage tribesmen from Ethiopia) committed atrocities against women, children, missionaries, doctors, and other civilians. Meanwhile, Congolese troops-drawing their pay at the expense of American taxpayers-roamed the country in lawless, drunken bands, raping, killing, and pillaging.

In Peru, there is hurt and bewilderment on the part of intelligent, middle-class Peruvians at our failure to give full recognition to the anti-Communist group which seized power there.

Brazil (largest recipient of our aid in South America) is in the hands of Communists or pro-Communists, and so are Bolivia, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Argentina, second largest beneficiary of our aid in South America, is so wildly unstable that a Communist coup is possible at any time. Indeed, Kennedy's foreign aid program for Latin America (Alliance for Progress) is preparing that whole region for communism.

Iceland is pro-Communist, strongly antiUnited States. Israel, a socialist nation which has received vast sums of American money, is training armies for the Communist dictator of Ghana. nist dictator of Ghana. Italy contains the

second biggest Communist Party outside the Communist bloc and is currently nationalizing (which means communizing) major industries.

Of the 52 Afro-Asian bloc nations which receive our aid, at least 5 can correctly be called Communist nations, since they are controlled by Communists or by men like Sukarno of Indonesia who is, for all practical purposes, a Communist: Algeria, Congo (Léopoldville), Guinea, Indonesia, Laos.

All Afro-Asian nations are, like Burma and India, Socialist nations with political ideologies basically inimical to American constitutional ideals; and most of them have revealed a deep hostility toward the United States. Yet, the European nations which were once colonial powers in Africa and Asia, resent us for the aid we gave to help destroy their empires.

All over the world, nations take our economic aid, not to develop free enterprise economies compatible with American constitutional principles, but to finance Socialist systems patterned after the Soviet Union. All over the world, nations accept our military aid, not to help defend the free world against communism, but to support their own tyranny over their own people and to strengthen themselves against their neighbors, who are also accepting our military aid as members of our free world alliance.

Our military aid to foreign nations puts all of our allies into an armaments race with one another. We finance both sides, and both sides resent us.

How much freedom for the world, or friendship for ourselves, have we bought with $4.8 billion in aid to Communist nations since July 1946? The $500 million shown in the above tabulation for the Soviet Union is for World War II lend-lease delivered after July 1, 1946. Prior to 1946, we gave the Soviets (in lend-lease during World War II) $11.1 billion in aid.

In this connection, it is instructive to look at the total picture of American foreign aid. The figures tabulated above are for the period since July 1, 1946. Prior to that, we had already given away $58.9 billion in aid to foreign nations.

The net amount of foreign aid which the United States has given to foreign nations since our involvement in the First World War is $207,434,234,867. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa are-as far as I have been able to determine the only nations on earth who do not owe money to the United States. Here are the 15 nations which have received the most from us (the figures include unpaid World War I debts, net amounts of lend lease received during World War II, and net amounts of foreign aid received from July 1, 1946, through June 30, 1962):

had this article printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. However, I believe that a brief résumé of some of the points brought out would be worthwhile at this time. Mr. Stevenson quotes Congressman OTTO E. PASSMAN, chairman of the House Foreign Aid Appropriations Subcommittee, as follows:

The trouble is that too much of our foreign aid has deteriorated into a subsidy of Communist takeover. And the spenders are so power hungry, they so withhold the truth from the public, they are so beyond the normal controls of Congress, that there seems no way to confine assistance to helping people help themselves unless we kill the entire operation and begin over.

Mr. Stevenson goes on to say:

Simply reducing appropriations won't cure what's wrong with an aid organization which is in more trouble than ever after going through 10 different administrators, 5 major reorganizations and more than 100 billion tax dollars.

As an example, this article points out that the foreign aid authorities have not been able to spend as much money as they have been given in any year since 1958. There is an accumulation of funds carried over from year to year to such an extent that the failure of Congress to pass an authorization bill would probably not effectively restrain the level of foreign aid spending.

Our foreign aid money in all parts of the world is being used to finance Government-owned and controlled, socialistic enterprises which in many cases compete with private businesses.

Articles of this nature are causing the American public to realize the fallacy underlying our foreign aid program. I believe that this large-scale public understanding is beneficial and will result in

more serious misgivings about this pro

gram on the part of the Members of Congress. I cannot support the pending foreign aid authorization bill and will express my opposition to any such future proposals until such time as the needed reforms are undertaken.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF FOREIGN AID NEEDED

Mr. HART. Mr. President, yesterday President Kennedy called the opposition to his foreign aid program the worst attack since the Marshall plan. Certainly the debate these last couple of weeks has put on the line some very urgent matters. We need better guidelines in the program. We apparently need a new framework for allocating and expending the taxpayers' money. We need a clearWe need a clearer set of priorities. We need more concentrated effort in particular areas. need more integrated thinking on the

We

role of foreign aid in the overall pattern of American foreign policy, and our longterm strategic interests. We need more effort to relate foreign aid to other tools

of our foreign policy, and to the political objectives of the free world. We need a

greater interallied effort.

In short, Mr. President, we need a major and total review of our foreign aid program in the light of present world conditions, and our best estimate of current and future international trends. This is the nub of today's situation. This is the meaning of the reckless at

tacks on a major tool of our foreign policy, and one that has served this country well. This is the meaning of the restrictive amendments proposed to the pending measure, and the mass confusion they have created.

Perhaps a major review of our foreign aid program is underway in the executive branch-I do not know. In any case, such a review is needed before the next session of Congress. It will help clear the air, and renew public confidence in a major program. I urge the President to give this matter his urgent attention. He would be well advised, I believe, to recall the Clay Committee to serve as a focal point of such a review, with a mandate to seek further findings and recommendations early in 1964.

It is true that in the last couple of years, the administration has taken a number of initiatives to put our aid program on a firmer footing. Some splendid efforts have been made. The Alliance for Progress is a foremost example. But some of these efforts, and their positive results, have gone largely unnoticed—or so it seems. A case in point is the very sensitive and highly important plan to make economic reform a condition of U.S. aid—a plan, Mr. President, that is beginning to bite.

Some efforts have been taken out of context and misinterpreted. The Clay

report, for example, has been falsely used by the opponents of foreign aid in their efforts to reduce drastically the current program-much to the chagrin of General Clay. I need only call Senators' attention to a recent article by the general, which I will ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. Other efforts of the administration, Mr. President, have been lost in the flurry of debate riveted on the failures and shortcomings of our aid policy. Still others have been smothered by the "petty irritations" President Kennedy mentioned in a speech a few days ago.

Perhaps this situation was inevitable, inasmuch as these efforts often reflected a brush-fire approach to our aid problems. They were often quick improvisations and piecemeal measures. They were often defensive in tone. But whatever the reason, a total reexamination is now due.

man resources which are necessary precursors to meaningful economic development-education and the like; and

Fourth, that we consider providing the President wtih a much larger contingency fund to act with maximum effect in critical situations.

The Senator's suggestions deserve our attention in the months ahead, Mr. President, and the attention of all Americans. He offers some worthy suggestions. I stake no claim on being an expert in foreign affairs, but there are at least two additional areas I would add to his list of suggestions.

First, a very real and concerted effort must be made to coordinate free world aid programs and to increase the aid contributions of our allies. We need more concrete results in this area.

Second. Regional approaches to foreign aid must receive greater attention. In southeast Asia, for example, this could possibly be done through a revived Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. Serious consideration should be given by the Allied Powers to a broadening and redefining of SEATO's terms of reference. SEATO is now an exclusively anti-Communist alliance. It would seem to me, however, that SEATO would be if it were capable of insuring the politiserving free world interests even more, cal stability and economic progress of the entire area, including the new Malaysia and against subversion from

any quarter.

Broadening SEATO's terms of reference, and injecting into it a little of the Alliance for Progress concept or an inter-Allied basis-is a tall order. But it is an avenue of approach which needs, I believe, some thoughtful consideration-for southeast Asia and other areas as well.

Mr. President, I trust the administration will undertake a systematic review of our entire foreign aid program in line with the long-term strategic interests of this country. It should present recommendations to Congress early in the next session. The American people would welcome this review.

Congress must still complete action on the pending program. I was hopeful the end result would not digress radically, at least from that proposed by the Foreign Relations Committee. But this does not seem to be the will of Congress.

Certainly, we need some new directions in the foreign aid program. We need a reexamination. That is why I propose, most urgently, a systematic review. Meanwhile, in further considering the pending program, we would do well to weigh our criticisms against the

arating the military component of the First, that we seriously consider sepforeign aid program from the economic

and other elements;

Second, that we consider reducing our bilateral development loan program, and look increasingly to international financial institutions for the provision of capital loans;

Third, that we consider giving priority attention to the development of the hu

our security because of the aid program scales are heavily weighted on the value and in spite of its shortcomings. The side.

And is it not a paradox, Mr. President, that at a time when the Communist bloc is experiencing difficulties in its domestic and foreign programs, including that of foreign aid, the bulk of this country's attention is riveted upon the failures and shortcomings of our program, rather than on the opportunities

opening up for America, and on the possibilities of making foreign aid of even greater value to our security in the years ahead?

Hopefully, the problems in our foreign aid program, and those in our relationship to the undeveloped countries, will not repel us back toward isolationism. I do not believe we have lost our creative instincts. Let us put on our thinking caps. Let us solve our problems. Let us seize the opportunities before us, and get on with the task at hand. The security of our country, and that of freedom everywhere, requires no less.

countries will not be able to realize the goals essential to maximum support by the United States, many of them are making real progress. While only those funds justified by this progress will actually be made available, it would seem to me that the United States must be in a position to sustain its commitments to the full extent that would result if Latin American performance were satisfactory.

A failure to authorize the appropriation of funds which would meet this commitment would be taken by many as evidence of our lack of sincerity. Moreover, if the reduction stands, fewer funds would be available this year than were appropriated last year when the Alliance was moving less rapidly than it is today. Certainly, political stability on this continent is highly desirable, and such stability can develop only to an at

There being no objection, the statement and editorial were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Grand Rapids Press, Oct. 13, 1963]

Our Committee To Strengthen the Security of the Free World, in its comprehensive examination of the aid program earlier this year, found in the words of our report what every American President has found since the program was first started: that a sound foreign aid program "is essential to the security of our Nation and necessary to the exercise of its worldwide responsibilities."

In the belief that it would contribute to the continuance of the program on a sound basis, our report did recommend certain reductions which we thought would improve its effectiveness while reducing its cost. However, the report stressed the importance of these cuts being made over a period of several years to avoid drastic consequences and cancellation of commitments entered into in good faith.

By and large, the recommendations which we had made were closely paralleled by many in the report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to the full House of Representatives. Indeed, this committee made somewhat greater cuts than were embodied in our suggestions. Nevertheless, its considered recommendation for an authorization of $4.1 billion, which was in itself $400 million below the President's request, was slashed by $585 million to $3.5 billion on the House floor.

I believe that the larger cut is a threat to vital U.S. interests abroad, and I am disturbed in particular by the reductions in the Alliance for Progress and for the military assistance program.

In proposing the Alliance for Progress, the United States undertook solemn commitments in the Charter of Punta del Este to provide external support to the self-help efforts of the Latin American countries. While it is likely that some of the Latin American

Alliance for Progress does not provide this atmosphere, I know of no other way to proceed, and it seems to me that it justifies our full support as long as it holds promise. I also believe that the House has made much too sharp a reduction in the military assistance program to be accomplished in 1 year without encouraging damaging results to the security of the free world. Certainly, our policy of supporting the defense establishments of free nations adjacent to Communist countries has prevented the political penetration which was so successful in taking over the countries of Eastern Europe. It is also clear that the defense establishments in many of these countries are beyond their economic capacities. Admittedly, cutbacks in this program are possible-over several years. Immediate forced reductions could require rapid deterioration in military forces with consequent political disturbances in several of the countries now receiving military aid from the United States. In point of fact, we might well reduce the resources of our own defense budget rather than to discontinue or to sharply reduce the support which makes possible the contribution of the foreign military forces to the security of the free world.

Thus, and particularly in these specific programs, I believe the cuts enacted by the House to be excessive. If allowed to stand, the damage they would cause would have its effect on future years, even if not immediately apparent. The Senate has, of course, not yet acted on the authorization bill, nor has the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as yet reported to the Senate.

an

However, there is not much time left to consider carefully the extent of this year's program and to be sure that it represents a sound and balanced contribution to our national security and to the execution of our foreign policy. False charges, valid criticism, and general indifference may have obscured, and even overshadowed, appreciation of the value of our foreign aid program. It can be carefully and gradually reduced, barring extraordinary developments. Nevertheless, real progress is being made both in improving the administration of the program and in directing funds to countries and projects which offer optimum return. This is the proper way to improve our foreign aid program rather than to take the risks involved in too great a cut in 1

In making this recommendation, the committee endorsed the views of Eugene Black, former World Bank President. He believes World Bank officials could exercise more influence over the use of a loan because they would not be suspected of ulterior motives. World Bank officials also could be more insistent on sound terms and could make their lending conditional upon greater efforts by the recipient country itself.

The committee itself felt that the shift from bilateral to multilateral lending would tend to put a greater burden of foreign aid financing on Western European countries. They have been spending more for foreign aid, but their $2-billion-a-year total still is well below their capacity, in the committee's view.

Despite its criticism of present foreign aid loan practices, the committee recommended a $4.2 billion foreign aid authorization for the current year. That compares with the $3.5 billion authorization voted by the House and the $4.5 billion asked by the President. The authorization, when finally passed by both Houses, will serve only as a ceiling, and the appropriation bill still will have to be passed.

Since the Government already is almost 4 months into the current fiscal year, the committee's recommendation for the internationalization of foreign aid loans may have come too late for action at the current session of Congress. But it is a good recommendation that ought to be implemented as soon as Congress can get to it.

OIL CONTRACT NULLIFICATION

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, on Wednesday, my distinguished colleague from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] spoke to us at length on the attitude of the Argentina Government toward foreign oil companies, and outlined to us the manner in which his amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act is being strengthened in this year's bill.

I spoke at that time to indicate my support of the additional language to make sure that assistance is suspended in cases of what has been called creeping expropriation. My colleagues from the Foreign Relations Committee made it clear that the law we are considering will cover the Argentine oil contract nullification case, if nullification is carried out, to suspend foreign aid and other funds.

The Senator from Iowa, who has made a great contribution in his study of this subject, assured the Senate, in answer to my questions, that the amendment applies for the Alliance for Progress as it does to other AID programs.

Interest in our action here is evident among citizens all over the country. The Tulsa World, in Tulsa, Okla., carried an excellent editorial in its November 12 edition on this subject of Argentine attitudes toward foreign oil companies, and urged us to revise last year's amendment.

successful efforts in many parts of the world.

[From the Detroit News, Oct. 28, 1963] SHIFT IN AID URGED

Even their best friend in Congress is now telling foreign aid administrators what is wrong with their programs.

Foreign aid's best friend has been the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which now has recommended that loans for economic development be made by international agencies such as the World Bank rather than by the U.S. Government alone.

the bill this year is even stronger than we passed previously. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.

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

FALSE PRIDE IN ARGENTINA

Most Americans north of the border find it hard to understand the attitude of the Government of Argentina headed by President Arturo Illia.

The Illia regime seems determined to cancel its contracts with all foreign oil companies in Argentina. The action would directly affect a number of U.S. firms with an investment estimated at $397 million.

The Government promises to protect legitimate rights, but Argentina will determine what those rights are. The oil companies can hardly be reassured by this kind of pledge.

Illia states no specific objections to the contracts. But he ran for office on a promise to annul them, and he is apparently going to keep his word, regardless of the international consequences.

The stakes in Argentina go far beyond the interests of the oil companies. The U.S. basic concept in the 20-nation Alliance for Progress is clearly involved.

One of the main goals of the Alliance is to encourage private investment in the Latin American countries, where the flow of American aid is intended to stimulate the local economy. All the Latin countries need foreign capital, and that certainly includes Argentina, a nation that has complained in the past it was not getting American aid fast enough.

What kind of effect can the Illia government expect its oil contract annulment to have on present and potential investors in Argentina? The answer is obvious; the action is bound to throw a chill over any plans to bring private money into the country.

The United States does not approve of the Argentine Government's attitude, but Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman doesn't seem able to change Illia's mind. So what do we do about it?

We suggest that one place to start showing U.S. displeasure is Alliance for Progress funds. Why should our Government continue to spend Alliance funds in behalf of a country that is summarily undermining American investments?

The principal purpose of the Alliance is not to protect the chestnuts of private American companies. But neither is our Government obliged to pour tax money into countries that are long on accepting the benefits of the Alliance but mighty short on assuming its obligations.

The Latin Americans are proud people. Understandably, they do not like the role of beggars; they want some say-so in how foreign aid money is spent in their countries.

But the United States has some feelings, too. For one thing, we object to anyone who accepts our friendly aid money and responds by kicking us in the teeth.

If we continue to shell out in the face of such ungracious conduct, will not the other Alliance countries feel free to do the same?

Last year an effort was made in Congress to tie a little "if" to the foreign aid program, holding back aid from countries that reached out to gobble up U.S. investments. Maybe it's time to revive that amendment. ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON NOVEMBER 20

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Banking and Currency will hold hearings, in accordance with with the recent unanimous-consent agreement, on the bill S. 2310, introduced by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] to prohibit any guarantee by the Export-Import Bank on any other agency of the Government of payment of obligations of Communist countries. These hearings will be held in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, beginning at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, November 20, 1963. All persons who wish to appear and testify on this matter are requested to notify Mr. Matthew Hale, chief of staff, Com

Mr. President, I have admiration, I have admiration, fondness, and respect for the Senate leaders. They are two splendid menthe Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN]. When they united in calling me today to ask whether I would cooperate with them in having prompt hearings on a bill that embodied the Mundt ings on a bill that embodied the Mundt amendment, which I fully supported, and asked our committee to report back to the Senate on November 25, and gave assurances that if the bill were reported to the Senate on the 25th it would be given priority. I agreed to do so. Hence my announcement.

But, Mr. President, in my opinion the bill embodies a very important principle. We have been giving aid to 107 nations in the world.

The bill that the Senate will shortly pass contains a prohibition against any aid going to any Communist country, except for a hospital in Poland and the except for a hospital in Poland and the Public Law 480 program in Poland and Yugoslavia.

The Mundt amendment proposed that we should not give aid to Communist countries that wished to buy on credit through the Export-Import Bank. through the Export-Import Bank. That is what the bill S. 2310 is about. It is is what the bill S. 2310 is about. It is a vital bill.

I expect all members of the Committee on Banking and Currency to be present on November 25 so that we can legally act on the bill and report it either favoract on the bill and report it either favorably or unfavorably. I welcome this opportunity to commend our majority

and minority leaders.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate no more than a very few minutes. I have hitherto remained silent while the debate went forward on the bill. I wish to make a brief record of my position. I shall vote for the bill, of my position. I shall vote for the bill, which I fear has been badly crippled by the Senate. Many amendments with which I find myself in accord in principle have been adopted. I believe we should look hard and long before we give another dollar of aid to Nasser. I think we should look hard and long before we give another dollar of aid to Sukarno. But I fear that in the straitjacket in which a number of the amendments have placed the President it will be difficult indeed for him to have the flexibility needed to conduct our day-today foreign policy as the Constitution intended that he should.

I believe it is the right of the Senate to lay down broad legislative mandates in the field of foreign policy. Indeed, that was contemplated by the Constitution. I therefore have no quarrel with many of the new indications of policy which appear in the bill. In fact, I support most of them. I say again, as I said last night, that I deplore the effort of so many of us to be our own little individual secretaries of state and impinge on the right of the President and pinge on the right of the President and the Secretary of State to conduct foreign policy day by day, and to write in eign policy day by day, and to write in inflexible restrictions on the power of

the President to conduct our foreign policy.

I deplore also the action of the Senate-and, indeed, the action of the leadership-in cutting back from $4,200 million to hardly more than $3,500 million the authorization in the bill.

I should like to have had an opportunity to vote for the original figure of $4.2 billion proposed by the Foreign Relations Committee. I regret that I had no such opportunity. That does not mean that I do not think that in due course we should taper off the program.

I am opposed to military aid for Latin America. I am opposed to military aid for NATO allies who can well support their own situation.

I wonder why we did not have the courage to cut back aid to Chiang courage Kai-shek. I wonder why we did not have the courage to take some of the aid out of South Korea. Those are the places we should be looking into. Instead of that, we do it by indirection. We cut aid back to some of our friends with the thought that the only way the President can find the money to give them what they need is to take it away from some of the areas in which we should have the political courage to stand up and say, "You do not need it there."

Mr. President, I shall support the bill with a fairly heavy heart. I hope that by next year the administration will have found a formula by which this great and generous country can pay an infinitely small percentage of its gross national product to countries less fortunate than we are, to countries in need, to countries that we hope to save from the yoke of communism. My hope is that can be worked out. I also hope the conference will show more wisdom than, in my judgment, was shown by the Senate.

I shall vote for the bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I shall be brief. Let me point out that in the final moments of consideration of this bill we find ourselves in a most paradoxical and ironic situation. I believe that in Mr. David Bell we have as able an administrator of the foreign aid program as any we have ever had. As administrator, he presides over the program at a time when it is receiving its most bitter and severe criticism.

The program was reorganized in 1961 at the behest of President Kennedy. Following the enactment of the 1961 foreign aid program, a new effort was made for the recruitment of new personnel-experienced and knowledgeable administrators, assistant administrators and mission chiefs. I should like to go on record as saying it is my conviction, after careful on-the-spot examination, in country after country, that we have dedicated, able, and conscientious people in the AID program to a degree such as we have never had since the days of the Marshall plan.

Mr. President, I am pleased with one development in the debate on foreign aid. We have strengthened the role of private enterprise in the foreign aid program. This was long overdue. We have invited into the oversea economic and technical assistance program the real muscle, the real strength, the real know-how of

America, which is the private enterprise free economy system. For this we are indebted to many Senators, who have been critical of the bill but who have offered constructive amendments.

I was happy to join with some of those Senators in aiding the adoption of those amendments.

We find ourselves in another paradoxical situation-at the time this country is approaching a $600 billion a year economy, we are retreating, and retrenching in our oversea commitments.

This is the smallest foreign aid authorization ever adopted by the Senate since 1948. At the time our gross national product is the largest, at the time that we have the greatest commitments in the world, at the time we are beginning to see some signs of victory for the side of freedom, we are retrenching.

We retrench at the time the Soviet Union and its satellites find themselves in difficulty, economically and politically. It seems to me that what we should be doing is pouring on the coal, so to speak, redoubling our efforts, harnessing our resources, and making up our minds that we have a great opportunity.

Mr. President, I know reforms are necessary. Some of those reforms have been outlined in the committee report. I am going to file for the RECORD a statement as to what I believe would be con

structive reforms in foreign aid not reforms that will diminish our effort, but reforms that will accelerate and intensify our effort. One of those reforms, which I believe is vital, relates to the matter of bringing in other nations to help us provide economic assistance to help underdeveloped areas, by using the contract form with private groups and with the established Government agencies, which we call the domestic agencies of our Government.

Mr. President, I hope Senators have read the morning press. Despite 3 or 4 days of really disturbing news from Brazil, we now find that the program which our Government supports has won the overwhelming support of our Latin

American neighbors.

The bad news that claimed the headlines for a week are in the ashcan. America's proposal-the proposal of proposal of President Kennedy-at the São Paulo Conference for an overall supervisory committee has been adopted, Brazil and Argentina to the contrary notwithstanding. These are things that we said would happen, and I believe we should let this vote on foreign aid be an expression of our confidence in our program.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR HEALTH IN THE MUTUAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION BILL FOR 1964

Mr. President, I should like to express a few words with respect to one of the technical assistance programs which is authorized in the foreign aid bill.

I refer to a program in which I have been especially interested down through the years-technical assistance for health.

The actual dollar outlay for this purpose represents only a tiny proportion of the total funds in the bill pending before us.

POINT 4 TYPE GRANTS AND LOANS FOR HEALTH

In the 1963 fiscal year, the Agency for International Development spent around $36 million in grants for health; in the 1964 fiscal year, it will have spent around $45 million for point 4 type health assistance.

In addition, during these 2 fiscal years, AID health loans for public water and sewerage projects were and are $95 million and $112 million, respectively. HEALTH AID IS RELATIVELY NONCONTROVERSIAL This is money well spent. Probably no single item in the entire multibillion-dollar aid program is more universally esteemed and less controversial than aid against mankind's ancient foes of disease and disability.

At this very time in Chicago, Ill., a second conference on international health is being held under the auspices of the American Medical Association. The American Medical Association had kindly invited me to this important meeting, but Senate duties, of course, prevented my being there.

The conference signifies, however, the deep, nonpartisan interest of the medical and of allied professions-nursing, dentistry, pharmacy, sanitary engineering, and so forth-in oversea health assist

CAPITAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Year after year, I have urged that increased attention be paid to all forms of technical assistance to education, to agriculture, and health.

Year after year, however, there has been a tendency-I must say very frankly-to keep assistance for human resources relatively low and to maximize assistance for capital resources.

Economists, particularly, tend to think that foreign aid can best launch developing countries into self-sustaining growth by sponsoring such "brick and mortar" projects as new roads, powerplants, steelmills, other forms of factories, and the

like.

There is no question but that, from an economic standpoint, gross national product can indeed be most spectacularly increased by aid for capital-type projects of this nature.

From a human standpoint, however, we cannot afford to lose sight of the importance of aid to the human beings who are now living and who, in so many instances, are now suffering and dying. A careful balance is necessary, therefore, between aid for capital improvements which do generate national income and aid for human beings who are, after all, a nation's most important asset.

Certainly, capital loans for clean water and for sound disposal of waste represent a good blend of economic human aid.

I am delighted, therefore, that AID is supporting more water and sewer programs in the interest of combating the infectious diseases which are bred by unsanitary conditions.

REGRETTABLE CUT IN NUMBER OF HEALTH TECHNICIANS

It is a curious fact, however, that at the very time that AID is soundly increasing its water-sewer loans, it is

cutting down its point 4 type health personnel from 372 technicians to 334 in the 1964 fiscal year. This means, for example, fewer sanitary engineers to supervise the loans for sanitary projects.

This cut is, very candidly, neither good economics nor good health practice. Water and sewer projects do not get built well or function well if construction and operation are not properly supervised by competent people, right on the scene.

its way clear toward sending not only I hope, therefore, that AID will see adequate money, but adequate numbers of well-trained men and women to supervise and to work on health projects, in cooperation with indigenous

health teams.

DISTURBING SLASH IN LATIN AMERICA

I should like to say further that the figures which I have quoted earlier are worldwide estimates.

In one particular region the estimates, when broken down, prove actually disturbing. In Latin America, of all places, the one region where U.S. interest is paramount, the number of point 4 type health assistance projects is being slashed from 101 in the 1963 fiscal year to only 43 in the 1964 fiscal year. This slash cannot be justified, in my view.

It seems to represent the views of economists who are more concerned with monumental engineering projects for tomorrow than with the plight of human beings, living today.

The needs of tomorrow must certainly be attended to, but people are sick today, are dying today, and need medical assistance today. These people are interested in what their government and our Government are doing for them and for their children now-not just tomorrow.

AID on the difficult problem of allocation
I can well understand the thinking of
of relatively limited resources.
DANGER IN HOUSE SLASH OF OVERALL FUNDS

I point out, too, that if the House's unfortunate slash in AID funds is not altered in conference, the reduction in health aid will become even more severe.

I hope and believe that this will not occur. I earnestly ask our colleagues in the House to give their most thoughtful review to this problem. NEED FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE COLLABORA

TION WITH AID

There is one further phase of oversea health aid to which I should like to refer.

It is a phase on which the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee, of which I am chairman, has particularly specialized. I refer to interagency coordination.

Ever since 1958, this Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations has insisted on closer coordination between the foreign aid agency-that is AID-and the so-called domestic agency which has the foremost technical competence in the health field-the U.S. Public Health Service.

Although this idea seems relatively simple, although it has always been accepted, at least in theory, because it is so unassailable, in point of fact, it has never been adequately implemented.