OF AMERICAUNITED STATES

Q:onw£ssional1Rccordth

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 90 CONGRESS

. SECOND SESSION

VOLUME 114-PART 23

OcrOBER 4. 1968, TO OCTOBER 10, 1968I

(PAGES 29577 TO 30730)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1968

29608 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 4,1968

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two­thirds of the Senators present and votinghaving voted in the affirmative, the reso­lution of ratification is agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the present consideration ofthe bill?

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the. bill.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, the for­eign assistance appropriation bill forfiscal year 1969, a copy of which is beforeSenators, together with a report of theSenate Committee on Appropriations,recommends total appropriations in theamount of $2,658,261,000, which is anincrease of $317,250,000 over the Houseversion of the bill, but $996,450,000 underthe amount requested by the Presidentand $322,952,000 under the total appro­priations enacted in fiscal year 1968.

Mr. President, the bill reported by theCommittee on Appropriations is about$52 million under the authorization billthat was agreed to in conference by theSenate and by the House. That bill wasdiscussed on the floor of the Senate andalso on the floor of the House of Repre­sentatives for several days.

For economic and military assistance,which is included under title I of the bill,the committee recommends to the Sen­ate a total of $1,932,350,000, which is$313,250,000 over the House bill but$987,650,000 under the budget request.

The sums recommended for economicassistance are divided among the follow­ing different appropriation line items:

For technical cooperation and develop­ment grants, the committee recommends$200 million. In addition, the committeehas included language in the bill whichwill continue available for fiscal year1969 carryover funds from fiscal year1968 totaling $20,772,000. This appropri­ation will provide funds to train teach­ers, public health experts, agriculturalspecialists, and other personnel neededto support economic development in theemerging nations of Africa, in the NearEast, and South Asia. In addition, fundsfurnished under this line item are em­ployed to assist in planning and surveysof development programs and projects;pay freight charges on shipments of sup­plies by approved American nonprofitvoluntarY agencies; assist in the controland eradication of major diseases andother menaces to health; and finance re­search concerning problems of economicdevelopment. Furthermore, the technicalcooperation and development grant pro­gram is basic to the war on htmger, par­ticularly in those areas which increasefood production. An increasing programunder this head represents funds forfamily planning.

For American schools and hospitalsabroad, the committee is recommending$14,600,000, which is the same as the sumprovided under the House bilL In addi­tion, a total of $5,100,000 in foreign cur­rencies excess to the normal require­ments of the United States is authorizedto be used for three institutions listed onpage 5 of the report. This sum was in­cluded in the bill as it was referred to theSenate, and the Senate committee isrecommending concurrence in the Houseaction.

For international organizations andprograms, the committee recommendsthe sum of $147,900,000, which is $27,­900,000 more than the amount allowedby the House. For the information of

LEGISLATIVE SESSIONMr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate pro­ceed to the consideration of legislativebusiness.

There being no objection, the Senateresumed the consideration of legislativebusiness.

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RE­LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA­TIONS, 1969

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Senate pro­ceed to the consideration of the unfin­ished business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MCGEE in the chair). The bill will bestated by title for the information of theSenate.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Abill tH.R. 199GB) making appropriationsfor foreign assistance and related agen­cies for the fiscal year ending June 30,1969, and for other purposes.

Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, it iswith a great deal of pleasure I note theratification today of the Protocol Relat­ing to Refugees. I am particularly grati­fied since this vote demonstrates clearlythat these various international conven­tions, designed to internationalize humanrights and their protection,can be rati­fied without prejudice to national orState law.

The specific inclusion of appeal to theInternational Court of Justice is particu­larly gratifying. It is only through suchaction on the part of world powers likethe United States that other countriescan be induced to forego application oftheir own equivalent of the Connally res­ervation. We have foregone the Connallyreservation in several other treaties con­cerning friendship, commerce, and navi­gation. Extending appeal before theInternational Court to the field of humanrights is a milestone which should easethe path of other human rights conven­tions still awaiting Senate ratification.

As the Senate is well aware, we haveother human rights conventions that re­main unratified. Among these are theantigenocide convention and the conven­tion on racial discrimination. Whileother conventions do remain unratifiedit would seem that these two conventionsare particularly in need of immediateratification. A look at the world and itsvarious regional and national tensionsand strife would seem to make impera­tive their swift ratification by the U.S.Senate and resumption of our leadershipin the field of human rights throughcooperative creation of an effective inter­national mechanism to oversee universalcompliance with the protections of thevarious conventions.

Mr. President, again I applaud the Sen­ate for its affirmation of universal humanrights. I truly hope that what is passedtoday is prolog.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the President beimmediately notified of the Senate's con­sent to these resolutions of ratification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

MundtPastorePearsonPellPercyProuty'ProxmireRandolpllRussellScottSpwrkmanSpongStennisTalmadgeWilliams, N.J.Williams, Del.YarboroughYoung, N. Dak.Young, Ohio

AikenBakerBartlettBayhBennettBibleBrewsterChurchClarkCooperCottonDirksenDominickEastland

AllottAndersonBoggsBrookeBurdickByrd, ITa.Byrd. W. Va.CannonCn,rlsonCaseCurtisDoddErvinFongGoodellGoreGriffinHansenHarrisHart

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Alaska [Mr.BARTLETT], the Senator from Maryland[Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator fromPennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senatorfrom Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHT], theSenatDr from Alaska (Mr. GRUENING],the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Mc­CLELLAN], the Senator from New Mexico[Mr. Mm.TOYA], the Senator from Ore­gon [Mr. MORSE], the Senator from Con­necticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] and the Senatorfrom Florida (Mr. Sl\IATHERS] would eachvote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that theSenator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]. theSenator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER], theSenator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], theSenator from KentuckY [Mr. COOPER],the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.COTTON], the Senator from Illinois [Mr.DIRKSEN],. the Senator from Colorado[Mr. DOMINICK], the Senator from Ari­zona [Mr. FANNIN], the Senator fromNew York [Mr. JAVITS], the Senator fromCalifornia [Mr. MURPHY], the Senatorfrom Maine [Mrs. SMITH], the Senatorfrom South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND],and the Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER]are necessarily absent.

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senatorfrom Utah [Mr. BENNETT], the Senatorfrom Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], the Sena­tor from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the Sen­ator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK], theSenator from Arizona [Mr. FANNIN], theSenator from New York [Mr. JAVITS],the Senator from California [Mr. MUR­PHY] , the Senator from Maine [Mrs.SMITH], the Senator from South Caro­lina I [Mr. THURMOND], and the Senatorfrom Texas [Mr. TOWER] would eachvote "yea."

The yeas and. nays resulted-yeas 59,nays 0, as follows:

(No. 317. EX.]YEAS-59

HatfieldHickenlooperHillHollandHruskaJacksonJordan, N.C.Jordan, IdahoKennedyKuchelLauwheMagnusonMansfieldMcGeeMcIntyreMetcalfMlIlerMondaleMortonMoss

NAYS-O

NOT VOTING-41

Ellender MonroneyFannin MontoyaFulbright MorseGruelling MurphyHartke MuskieHarden NelsonHollings RlbicotfInouye SmathersJavits SmithLong. Mo. SymingtonLong. La. ThunnondMcCarthy TowerMcClellan TydingsMcGovern

October 4, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 29609

Members, the organizations which arefunded out of this appropriation areshown on Page 6 of the report.

Included in the sum allowed by thecommittee is the full budget estimate forthe Indus Basin development fundamounting to $12 million. The Housedisallowed this item, notwithstanding thefact that section 302 (b) of the ForeignAssistance Act authorized an appropria­tion of $51,220.000 commencing in fiscalyear 1969. This authorization was ap­proved by Congress as part of a multi­national agreement in which eight donorcountries participated, along with theWorld Bank.

Mr. President, the Indus Basin de­velopment fund, which is administeredby the World Bank, is financing a 10-yearprogram to construct works in Pakistanto replace waters allocated to India W1­del' the Indus Water Treaty. The proj­ect-the larest earthmoving task everundertaken-involves the construction ofa dam, seven barrages, and 430 miles oflarge canals that link the six major riversof the Indus Basin. The Indus programis now in its 8th year and is progress­ing on schedule. Expenditures throughDecember of 1967 totaled just over $1billion. Foreign exchange commitmentsover the 8-year period total $947 million,including $173 million from India. U.S.foreign exchange commitments amountto $416 million, Or approxim.ately 44 per­cent of the total.

In recommending a sum which is lessthan the budget estimate for interna­tional .organizations. the committeestated in its report that none of the re­duction be applied to the United NationsChildren's Fund, and that not more thanS50,000 be used for United Nations pro­grams for southern Africans.

The next item in title I is supportingassistance, for which the committee hasrecommended an appropriation of $365million. which is $230 million under thebudget estimates and the same as theHouse allowance. This sum. together withan estimated carryover of $129.822,000,will fund a total program of $494.822.000in fiscal year 1969, and compares with abudgeted total program of $629.500.000.In other words, the programs funded bythe total committee allowance is $134.­678.000 less than the program initiallyproposed in the budget estimate. ThisbUdgeted program included $480 millionfor Vietnam. and the balance for pro­grams in Korea, Laos. Thailand. Congo,Dominican Republic. Haiti, and regionalprograms in Africa.

Supporting assistance is economic aidwhich is employed to advance U.S. na­tional security and foreign policy objec­tives in those situations where the basiceconomic conditions prevailing in cer­tain underdeveloped countries make thestrict criteria for developmental type ofassistance inapplicable; and to build thedefense strength of less-developed na­tions threatened by Communist expan­sion. Most of the supporting assistancegoes to countries where aid is needed t.Qhelp establish their external and intemalsecurity. which must precede meaningfuleconomic and social development. I thinkit is important to note that the amountof supporting assistance made available

to the less-developed countries of theworld has been diminishing oyer theyears. Some 26 countries. which wererecipients of this type aid in 1960, willnot be recipients in fiseal year 1969 and.for the information of the Senate. thosecountries which have been remoyed fromthe list are cited 011 page 7 of the report.

The recommendation for the contin­gency fund is $5 million, the same as theHouse allowance. but $40 million underthe budget estimate. However. the esti­mated carryover of$24.778.000 from 1968funds will provide the contingency fundwith a total of $29,778.000 for use infiscal year 19£19. These funds will enablethe President to meet urgent assistanceneeds that are either unforeseen 01' can­not be accurately defined in advance.

Under the Alliance for Progress, whichis the Latin American program. the com­mittee recommends $90 million for tech­nical cooperation and developmentgrants. This is the same as the amountauthorized. but $20 million under thebudget estimate and $20 million morethan the House allowance. I do not be­lieve it is necessary to go into an expla­nation of this program since its objec­tives are the same as those describedunder the first item in this bill. technicalcooperation and development grants. ex­cept that this program applies only tothe countries of Latin America. Of in­terest, however, will be the summary pre­sented on page 10 of the report.

For development loans, Alliance forProgress. the committee has increasedthe House bill by $130 million. In addi­tion to this new lobligational authorityof $330 million, carryover funds from fis­cal year 1968 in the amount of $56,493,­000 will also be available to fund a totaldevelopment loan program of $386,­493,000.

Also included in the bill by the com­mittee, but deleted by the House, is theitem, partners of the Alliance, authorizedby section 252 (b) of the Foreign Assist­ance Authorization Act. The authoriza­tion provided $350.000 for grants to carryout programs and activities of the part­ners of the Alliance, which is a channelthrough which civic clubs, business andprofessional groups. unions. and privateindividuals in the United states workdirectly with people in Latin Americatoward their economic and social bet­terment.

The next item funded under title I ofthe b11l is the largest single item of eco­nomIc assistance. It Is the worldwide de­velopment loan program-exceptingLatin American countries-and the com­mittee Is recommending $350 million.This is $85 millIon over the House allow­ance, but $415 million below the budgetestimate. These dollar repayable loansare the major element of AID's develop­ment assistance programs and enable re­cipients to import U.S. goods and serv­ices essential to development whieh theycannot finance from normal commercialsources. In addition. AID uses these loansto encourage self-help measures neededto strengthen the recipient countries' ex­panding economies. Project loan agree­ments specify that the recipient coun­tries take self-help measures needed toassure success of the projects, and AIDincreasingly insists that certain reforms

precede the disbursement of funds. thatborrowing governments provide match­ing funds or complementary facilities.and that the projects be operated inspecified ways.

The House included in the bill, underthe development loan item, the followinglanguage:

ProVided, That no part of the appropria­tion may be used to carry out the provisionsof section 205 of the Foreign Assistance Actof 1961, as amended.

As members know, section 205 pro­vides that up to 10 percent of the fundsmade available for development loansshall be available for transfer. on suchterms and conditions as the Presidentdetermines, to the International Develop­ment Association, the InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Develop­ment, the International Finance Corpo­ration, and/or the Asian DevelopmentBank.

The committee felt that the languagecontained in the authorization actshould not be made inoperative. and, ac­cordingly, has stricken the aforemen­tioned proviso from the bill.

For administrative expenses of theAgency for International Development,the committee has recommended $51,­000,000 and the carryover of $3.508.000which was also allowed by the House.

The committee concurs with the Housein allowing $3,500.000 for administrativeexpenses, Department of State.

For the last item in title I of the bill­l~:'litary assistance-the committee rec­ommends the sum of $375 million. Thisis $45 million :lnder the budget estimateand the same as the House aIlowance.The committee recommendation is theamount authorized for this purpose inthe Foreign Assistance Authorization Actof 1968, just recently enacted. Furtherexplanation of this appropriation is con­tained on page 14 of the committeereport.

Mr. President, I now turn to titles IIand III of the bill.

The committee has approved the sumof $104 million for the Peace Corps. whichIs $4 million over the House bill and $8,­800,000 under the amount requested inthe bUdget. The committee allowanceshould permit the Peace Corps to main­tain a program just a shade under the­level provided in 1968.

For the Army administration of theRyukyu Islands. the committee recom­mends the $20.772,000 allowed by theHouse, which is also the sum requestedin the budget.

For the Cuban refugee program, thecommittee recommendation is 569.774,­000, the fuJI budget estimate.

The House bill also provided the fullbudget estimate for this item. but in­cluded language -in its report directingthat $844.000 of the new obligational au­thority be transferred to the Departmentof state to provide additional funding forthe item. migration and refugee assist­ance. In its report on page 18, the com­mittee states that "it concurs with theHouse transfer langnage. but wishes tomake it clear that it is not the intentof the committee to cut back the programlevel for the assistance of refugees in theUnited States. On the contrary. the com-

29610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE V~tober4, 1968mittee would exp~ct the department torequest a supplemental appropriation ifthe requirements for assistance actuallymaterialize at the levels budgeted."

For the migration and refugee assist­ance program administered by th~ De­partment of State, the committee recom­mendation is $5,485,000. Since the com­mittee has concurred with the House'stransfer of $844,000 from the Cuban ref­ugee program, the total available for themigration and refugee assistance pro­gram in fiscal year 1969 will aggregate$6,329,000. The additional funds will beused to fund the increased caseload ofCzechoslovakian nationals to other coun­tries of western Europe.

The committee has concurred with theHouse and has recommended the budgetestimates for the Asian DevelopmentBank, $20 million; for investment in theInter-American Development Bank, $300million; and for subscription to the calla­ble capital of the Inter-American Devel­opment Bank, $205,330,000. The specificpurposes for which these funds will beused are fully explained on pages 18through 21 of the committee's report.

The committee has also concurred withthe House in the limitations on operatingand administrative expenses of the Ex­port-Import Bank, as contained in thebudget estimates.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.Mr. LAUSCHE. The measure before

the Committee on Foreign Relationsdealt primarily with what we call foreigndssistance. I note from page 2 of thereport that the budget estimate on for­eign assistance was $2.920 billion, theHouse recommended $1.619 billion, andthe bill before us provides $1,932,350,000.

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator is correct.Mr. LAUSCHE.. In other wQrds, it is

$937,650,000 below the bUdget estimatebut $313.250,000 above what the Househas given.

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator is correct.Mr. LAUSCHE. This is the lowest fig­

ure we have provided for this program,at least since I have been here, Ibelieve.

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator is correctand it is just about the lowest figuresince I have been here. It is a bare-bonesbudget. There is no question about it.We are $52 million below the amount inthe authorization. I should not thinkthere would be any question about thisbill.

Mr. President, at this juncture I wishto say that it was a pleasure and anhonor to work with the distinguishedSenator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT] inconnection with this matter. We wentinto some depth with all of the wit­nesses and in our discussions at execu­tive sessions. We all agreed and ourrecommendation was accepted by thefull committee in executive session. Ialso wish to compliment the membersof the staff for the excellent job theydid.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield further'?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I am

looking at title ill of the bill that is dis-

cussed on page 21 of the report. Title illdeals with the Export-Import Bank. TheSenate committee is in concurrence withthe House recommendation dealing with$2,552,050,000.

Will the Senator from Rhode Islandexplain what that item is? Is it an itemof expenditure or is it an authorizationfor obligations the Export-Import Bankmay incur? .

Mr. PASTORE. Well, it is both. It is alimitation on the amount that the Bankmay obligate during fiscal year 1969, thusit will also limit expenditures. We allknow what the Export-Import ·Bank is.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes, I do.Mr. PASTORE. It helps to finance some

of our exports. It has consistently oper­ated at a profit, and returns a consider­able dividend to the U.S. Treasury eachyear. Estimated profit for fiscal year 1969will be in excess of $100 million, and $50million was paid to the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. LAUSCHE. My recollection is, wehave put very little money in the Export­Import Bank. All of its financing is donethrough moneys obtained through thesale of the bonds; is that not correct?

Mr. PASTORE. That is more or lesscorrect; but initial financing was ob­tained from U.S. subscriptions to thecapital stock of the Bank.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I think we have onlyput up about $10 million.

Mr. PASTORE. There has never beena call on the U.S. Treasury. In fact, since1934 the Bank has paid into the U.S.Treasury over $1 billion in dividends onthe stock that it owns. It has been aflourishing and profitable enterprise.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Thus far, the Export­Import Bank has made huge profits. Wehave paid in very few dollars of the cap­ital that we subscribed, but it is callable.Now I do think that this prOVision hereputs a limitation on what their opera­tions may be for the· next fiscal year;am I not correct?

Mr. PASTORE. That is true.Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. I thank the Sen­

ator from Rhode Island very mUCh.Mr. PASTORE. They have to get au­

thority from us.Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, if the

Senator from Rhode Island does notmind, I want to make a short statementnow before we get involved too deeplyin discussion ('f the bill. The Senator canyield to me for that purpose and retainhis right to the floor, if he Wishes.

Mr. PASTORE. All right. Very well. Iyield to the Senator from Colorado forthat purpose.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I want toexpress my gratitude to the Senator fromRhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] for the veryfine and excellent manner in which hecarried out his assignment and his dutiesin reporting this bill, and his thought­fulness in inclUding me, the acting rank­ing minority member on the committeeon the foreign assistance appropriationbill which handled H.R. 19908 in all de­liberations. After the hearings were com­pleted, the chairman and I joined ingoing over each and every item in the billin an effort to arrive at equitable recom­mendations to the committee. The chair­man has already explained the variousamounts of money recommended by pro-

. r .

gram, alSo the language included in thereport andb1l1, so I will not be repeti­tious, but the committee did accept therecommendations of the chairman andmyself.

The foreign assistance appropriationsbill has disturbed me over the years, andthis year is no exception. I fail to findany firm foreign policy advanced by thepresent administration, thus I am pre­cluded from making a sound judgment asto what is needed and Where it should go.

Another area that disturbs me is thetiming on the appropriation bill. TheAppropriations Committee cannot act onthis bill until the authorization bill hasbeez:l, considered and passed by bothHouses, and this generally is late in thesession. The result is that the Appropria­tions Committee has to do its work in ahurried manner.

Mr. President, we went into these mat­ters as carefully as it is possible to do sc,but if any appropriation bill which comesbefore Congress emphasizes the need forour committees to start functioning ear­ly in the year in order that the authori­zation legislation may be out of the wayand adopted, and in order that the Ap­propriations Committee can spend thetime it really should on these matters,we need to take a new look at our wholeprocedures in this matter.

Just think, this is the 4th day of Oc­tober. July, August, and September ofthis year have gone by. We know thatunder such a planning schedule, no mat­ter how critical we may be of AID orany of these other institutions, they can­not perform an effective, well-planned,and economic job when they are not as­sured until this time of the year as towhat kind or program will be in. effect.

While I am sure that all of us at timeshave been critical of one or another ofthese agencies, or some aspect of .thework they have carried on in this re­spect, I think we in Congress must as­sume our responsibility. If we could putthese appropriation bills into effect atthe beginning of a fiscal year, or at atime not later than 30 days after the be­ginning of a fiscal year, we would actu­ally and truly-and I am sure no onewould quarrel with this-effect econo­mies in the millions of dollars. We wouldeffect economies in this one bill by manymillions of dollars if we could pass an ap­propriation bill and get it out of the wayso that the various agencies would knowwhat they are doing.

Mr. PASTORE. If the Senator fromColorado will indulge me to make an ob­servation on that very point he hasraised, I have lamented that fact year inand year out. It is a tragic situation­and I use the )word "tragic" advisedly­that the authorization bills did not comeout until a few days before the appropri­ation bills were acted upon.

Mr. ALLOTT. That is correct.Mr. PASTORE. As the Senator has

pointed out, we are dealing with billionsof dollars and the people in the field donot know how much money they will getor what commitments they can makeuntil a considerable part of the fiscal yearhas gone by. Thus, for perhaps 4 01' 5months all they can do is sit on theirhands, or talk loosely about what shouldbe done or what should not be done.

October 4, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 29611

There being no objection, the table wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

u.s. ECONOMIC ANO MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO VI ETNAMAS AUTHORIZED UNDER MUTUAL SECURITY ACT ANDFOREIGN ASSiSTANCE ACT

1953-. ________

o I1954__________ .11955_____:. ___ 325.8 3277. 8 1,101.11956__________ 216.31957.. __ •_____ 281.11958... _______ 192.0 53.2 245.21959__________ 207.1 41. 9 249.01960__________ 180.3 70.9 251. 2196L ______ .• 144.2 65.0 209.21962__________ 142.9 144.0 286.91963__________ 186.4 190.0 376.41964__________ 216.1 186.9 402.01965__________ 268.5 274.7 543. 21966_ •• _______ 729.2 '170.8 899.91967.. ____ •___ 634.6 (.) 634.61968________.__ 574.9 (4) 574.91969____ .. ____ 700. I (.) 700.1

I Figures under economic assistance including Public Law 480assistance.

2 Military assislance figures are for Mutual Security Actperiod and Foreign Assistance Act. only.. . .

3 Excludes aid to French Indochma prtor to partitIOn.4 Military assistance WDS transferred to the regular DOD

budget during fiscal year 1966. The years and amounts fundedby DOD were as follows: 1966-778.1; 1967-1,197.0; 1968­1,298J; estimated 1969""'-Classified.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield to the Senatorfrom Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. First, Mr. President,I want to express to both the Senatorfrom Rhode Island and the Senator fromColorado my very great thanks for thecareful and kind way in which they havehandled this bill. They realize that itaffects human beings, more in somecases than in others. I want to make thatgeneral statement. I do not know of any­one who could have handled it morethoroughly and yet more compassion­ately and kindly.

Second, I am particularlY happy thatthe recommendations of the two Sen­ators, as acted upon by the committee,affirmativelY called for the restorationto the full authorized amount of theappropriations for the Latin Americanprograms, for the Alianza program. Ithink, whether we want to recognizethe fact or not, first, we are on record aspledging support for it; and second, ourfuture is so concerned with that prob­lem because, after all, we are going tolive here in the Western Hemisphere withour Latin American friends. We wantthem to be our friends, and we musttreat them as friends. I must say, in themain, they treat us very cordially. I amglad the committee has called for fullrestoration of the authorized amount ofthe program.

Third, I want to say that I particularlyappreciate the consideration given to therefugee program insofar as it affectsCuban refugees. I think the general pub­lic is inclined to believe that that prob­lem is behind us now. We have had some­thing like 500,000 Cubans come into thiscountry since Castro came into power. I

lin millions of dollars]

want this RECORD to show that the rec­ord of the committee hearings alreadyshows, that something lil,e 44,000 arecoming in annually by airlift on a regu­lar basis, and, according to the best es­timates of the immigration people, about4,000 are coming in by other, less regu­lar means, making a total of about 48,000a year. So that the problem is not be­hind us, but is a continuing one. Manyfeatures of it call for compassion. Forexample, a great many children are beingsent in by their parents unaccompaniedby their pp.rents. That still remains thecase.

.I want the RECORD to show that theHealth, Education, and Welfare Depart­ment, as well as the Immigration Service,have both done, in my opinion, a very,very fine job, and I want the RECORDto show equally that, in my opinion, thecitizens of the Miami area, where thefirst impact of this problem has been felt,have done a fine job.

The record shows that, insofar ashospitalization costs of the refugees areconcerned, that has been worked out ona completely agreeable basis betweenHEW and the local authorities. The sameis true with reference to the school pro­gram, where a good many thousand chi~­

dren of Cuban refugees are in the publlcschools of the Miami area. The same. istrue with reference to the resettlementprogram, because now more and moreother areas of the Nation are taking overlarge portions of this refugee problem.

I simply want to express here and nowmy appreciation to the two distinguishe.dSenators whom I have named for theIrcontinued recognition of and cooperationin this problem, and at the same time toexpress my pride-and I do have pride­in the cooperative handling of this pro­gram, which has called for cooperationfrom the public authorities of DadeCounty, Miami, and of Florida generally,and that cooperation has been freelyand gladly extended.

Without going into the amounts in­volved, I want to make it clear that,without quibbling about the matter atall, both Houses of the Congress, throughthe committee in the House and now thecommittee in the Senate, recognize thisproblem, at its existing size; and I per­sonally, as one of the representatives of:the Florida people, want to express myappreciation for that fact.

It is a real problem. It has been met byjoint effort of the local and Federal au­thorities; and I am glad we continue tosee that the problem is not over, but, onthe contrary, anyone who wants to go tothe airport at Miami on the days of ar­rival of the airlift will see indications ofthe tremendous gratitude on the part ofthose people who arrive and of very deepemotions on the part of those who meetthem as their family members who havebeen held in Cuba up to this time areable to get here at last on the free soilof America.

I again express my gratitude to thetwo distinguished Senators.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. I yield.Mr. LAUSCHE. Apropos what has just

been discussed by the Senator from

Total economicand militaryassistance asauthorizedunder MSA

and FAA

Totalmilitary

assistance "1

Totaleconomic

assistance 1Fiscal year

I believe that Is a very dangerous prac­tice, for the simple reason that in deal­ing with foreign governments, we shouldbe precise about what will be available.One cannot talk in terms of $5 millionand then end up with Congress allowingonly $2 million. That makes it quite em­barrassing.

Just as the Senator from Coloradopointed out, all of this leads to ineffi­ciency, to haste and waste, because afterall here the appropriations bill is, nowbefore the Senate, and the President haSi,not yet signed the authorization bill.We will have to go to conference, hope­fully trying to get it out' of here by theend of next week. Then there is the sup­plemental bill, which has not even beenreported yet, we have not held hearingson it, and the committee has not gonethrough it. The fact remains that hereit is soon going to be the 1st of November,which means that 4 months of fiscal year1969 have already passed.

Mr. ALLOTT. I thank the Senator, be­cause he realizes as much as anyone theproblems that this creates. If we considerwe pass this bill today and gO througha conference and submit it to the Presi­dent next week, it would be very highlyimprobable that the allocations under thebill would be made before the first ofDecember. Then we are already delayingit one-half of the fiscal year, and no onecould operate a business on . that basis.

I want to make perfectly clear that noone could have acted with more dispatchor held hearings more promptly and in­tensively than the chairman of the com­mittee. So what I have had to say beforethis, I want to make clear, places noburden on his back. No one could havedone more to expedite this matter thanhe.

Mr. President, the bill, as reported bythe committee, for title I is $1,932,350,­000. There is an amount of $397,153,000also available in carryover and recov­eries for a total of available funds to fi­nance title I for fiscal year 1969 in theamount of $2,329,503,000.

The question tha~ keeps bothering us,of course, is whether these funds andprograms are justified and whether theyare in the best interests of our country.We have so many needs at home that wehave to balance them against the needsof the developing countries; and I per­sonally justify my participation in votingfor this bill on the concept that we can­not live forever in a world of haves andhave-nots, and what little we can do tohelp we have to do, but we have to alsobalance that against our domestic needs.

1...1:1'. President, I believe that after twodecades of funding foreign assistanceprograms, it is high time for a review tobe made of the whole program, with thethought in. mind that firm programsshould be submitted to the Congress in­stead of this so-called illustrative pro­gram which has been presented to theCongress over the ~rears.

In closing, Mr. President, I should liketo insert a table in the RECORD, sho\vingthe amounts of money provided for eco­nomic and military assistance programsin Vietnam since fiscal year 1955.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

29612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE October ,4., 1968

Florida with reference to providingmoney for the relief of refugees, un­doubtedly there will be refugees comingout of Czechoslovakia. I discussed thesubject yesterday with Mr. Rostow atthe White House. Can the Senator fromRhode Island. tell us whether or not thecommittee handled that subject in thisbill?

Mr. PASTORE. Heretofore transpor­tation costs for Cuban refugees wereborne by the Department of State. TheHouse directed that $844,000 be trans­ferred from the $69,774,000 appropriatedto the Department of Health, Educa­tion, and Welfare to the Department ofState to cover these transportation costs.The effect of this transfer of funds, inwhich the Appropriations Committee hasconcurred, makes $844,000 additional tothe Department of State to cover thecosts of handling the Czechoslovakianrefugee situation.

There is no question that if the needshould be greater, the money will beprovided. We also wrote into our reportthat, if the transfer of the $844,000causes the Cuban refugee appropriationto run short, the amount will be restoredin a supplemental bill.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I yieldto the SenatOl: from Tennessee.

AFTER VIETNAM

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, this elec­tion year in the United States, a time ofwar and challenge to world security, isa crucial time for Americans and theworld. The great issues of the day re­quire, as I undertook to say in the Sen­ate yesterday, the attention and frankdiscussion by candidates for Presidentand for Congress.

As pressing as are our current prob­lems and controvel:sies....,.,.Vietnam, Rus­sian aggression and Czechoslovakia,China's nuclear weapon development,the United Nations, unrest, riots, race,and space, and all the rest-problems andpolicies beyond today, after Vietnam, de­mand attention, too.

I assume that we will find a way, be­cause we must, to extricate ourselvesfrom our madness in Vietnam.

What challenges will we then face?What goals will we then seek? What les­sons shall we and others have learned?In what ways shall we then seek oursecurity? These questions and the an­swers to these questions should consti­tute pertinent dialog in the presidentis,}campaign. Perhaps a searching debatein the Senate would encourage the can­didates for President to engage in serious,responsible discussion of importantissues, both present and long term.

The objectives of our foreign policlesafter Vietnam will be, I believe, orshould be, to defend the security of theAmerican people; to guard the freedomof our people; to encourage an environ­ment in which they can enjoy the bless­ing of liberty, and to prevent the out­break of nuclear war.

I think we shall have then discoveredthat our security and the world's chanceof avoiding nuclear war will depend inthe final and most important analysisupon relations between the United Statesand the two other great nuclear powers

in the world, the Soviet Union and China,and upon the force of world publicopinion that will be better and betterinformed through intensified and ex­panded mass communicat.ion and bettereducation. Neither world peace nor ourown security. in my opinion, will thendepend upon efforts on our part toestablish democratic governments allover the world at any and all costs, how­ever desirable for us that objective mightbe.

On the other hand, the giant Com­munist countries shall have learned, Ibelieve, that neither their own prestigenor their own internal peace, neither thesolidarity nor the security of the Com­munist bloc will be achieved by aggres­sion or military force.

Though military power may be polar­ized in three great nations whose ideo­logical characteristics may vary andchange, the use of force by a great na­tion to work its political will upon smallnations will have been proven counter­productive if not abortive.

The United States, I am glad to say,has generally realized this elementalfact and has generally acted accordingly.Thus, while we intervened in Korea wherethe issue of peace or war was clearlydrawn by a massive armed attack, we didnot intervene in East Berlin in 1953, inHungary in 1956, in Tibet in 1966, inRhodesia in 1967, or in Czechoslovakia in1968.

The limited intervention in the Domin­ican Republic by the United States suc­ceeded in preserving the status quothere, yet its cost in prestige and in theirhemispheric relations was severe andboth its need and jt:stification is now inserious doubt. In the Dominican inter­vention we were not trying to overturnan established Communist regime but toprevent the possibility of a Communisttakeover. We have not intervened inHaiti, or in -Angola, or in Greece or inArgentina,or in Nigeria, or in Czechoslo­vakia or in many other. countries for thesake of preserving democracy and free­dom because there has been no Com­munist threat. There have been instancesof U.S. intervention, to be sure, but whenwe have intervened we have done so notin an attempt to preserve democraticrule but to prevent Communist rule or tothwart a real or imagined Communistthreat.

In this after-Vietnam-tomorrow ofwhich I speak, I believe the UnitedStates will have come to realize that wecannot do for others what they call11ot,or will not, do and wish for themselves;that a military victory at all costs maynot always be worth the price; that mili­tary intervention to work a political willeven though by invitation, either genuineor contrived, is both costly and doubtfulif not extremely unwise; that the secur­ity of the American people, in the largesense of the word, may be weakenedrather than strengthened by either over­reaction or overcommitment; and that adecent respect for the opinions of peo­ples of all nations is a concomitant toworld leadership.

I have no doubt-no doubt at all-thatafter Vietnam we will, because we must,recoup our fortunes, though we will neverbe able to restore our brave young men

to life. We will, because we must, returnto pursuing our national goals as setforth in the preamble to the Constitu­tion-Uto form a more perfect union,establish justice, insure domestic tran­quility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare, and securethe blessings of liberty to ourselves andour posterity." We will, because we must,restore our relations with those nationswho have been oUr friends and improveour relations with those who have notbeen willing to do so before. And we will.because we must, turn our energies andour will again to the principal objectiveof our foreign policy. We will, because wemust, turn our attention to our relationswith the Soviet Union and CommunistChina.

The war in Vietnam has not healedthe breach between the Soviet Union andCommunist China. We can take nocredit for this fact. On the contrarY, byall logic the war should have driventhese two Communist powers together,even against their wills. But the breachbetween them has been too wide, andits roots too deep, to be so repaired.

After all, the Chinese have had cen­turies of hostile relations with Russia.They have lost large parts of China toRussian rule or domination. And theChinese. with their strong nationalpride and bitter resentment of the West,were bound to find Russian domina­tion distasteful. Thus, it is not surpris­ing that some scholars believe that Sovietrevisionism may now rival, perhaps evenmay have replaced, American imperial­ism as the principal object of Chinesehostility.

But while the war has not restoredunity between Russia and China, it hasnevertheless joined them in a rivalry-arivalry that has been undesirable fromour point of view but inevitable fromtheir point of view,. given the competi­tion between them for leadership in theCommunist world. They have becomerivals to see which can appear to be themost anti-American and thus the mostloyal defender and persuasive advocateof Communist principles. In this un­comely contest, China now seems to holdsome sort of lead.

After Vietnam, it shOUld be possiblefor the United States to extricate itselffrom the position of being the target ofa Soviet-Chinese competition in anti­Americanism. We should be able, in­stead, to become the object of a Soviet­Chinese competition in peacefUl co­existence. Good relations with the UnitedStates should become a precious assetto be sought, rather than a perniciousattachment to be shunned. We should,in other wOltds, be able to have the dif­ferences between the Soviet Union andChina work to our advantage instead ofto our disadvantage.

I do not mean to suggest that afterVietnam we should encourage Soviet­Chinese hostility, whatever immediateadvantages such a course of action mightappear to promise. Given the opportu­nity to play one off against the other,which is not an unforeseeable situation.this would be tempting; but, in the longrun it likely would be unsound to makegood relations between the United statesand the Soviets dependent upon poor

adobe}' .i, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 29613relations between the Soviets and the encourage and support wars of nationalChinese or vice versa. For if hostility be- liberation, but China has not promised totween the Soviets and the Chinese were participate directly in these wars andcarried far enough, it could lead ulti- has not done so. Doubtless the Pekingmately to a war between two of the government hopes that such wars willthree greatest powers in the world-a succeed not only in Vietnam, but in Laos,war which could involve one-third of Thailand, Burma, and other Asian coun­the earth's population, which would put tries as well. We have, I believe, placedtwo races against one another and which more emphasis on their words than onwould involve two nuclear powers. their actions. And we have confused their

But a declination to take the side of desire to see such wars succeed-a desirethe Soviets in their feud with the.Chi-·. which is certainly no stronger than ournese does not mean that we could not- ."desire to see such wars fail-with theirand would not-find a common interest ability to Insure success.with the Soviets in restraining the Chi- But even if China does not threatennese. And, conversely, a refusal to sup- today. will she threaten tomorrow whenport the Chinese in their argument with she will have developed her nuclear capa­the Soviets does not mean that we could bilitles and when she will have a full­not-and would not-be able to encour- fledged intercontinental-ballistic-missileage and help the Chinese to become even force? I question Whether we shouldmore independent, particularly econom- quake at this prospect, given our awe­ically. some nuclear superiority. In fact, posses-

ThUS, rather than pursuing a policy sion of nuclear weapons may be as sober­aimed at preserving poor relations be- ing to China as it proved to be with Rus­tween the Soviet Union and Communist sia. If so, China may then be more nearlyChina, I suggest that after Vietnam we willing to approach her foreign problemspursue a policy aimed at promoting im- in a reasonable and realistic way. Afterproved U.S. relations with both. all, Soviet-American relations were worse

Our relations with the Soviet Union when the United States had a monopolywere gradually improving before the U.S. on nuclear power than they have been inventure in Vietnam and before the Soviet the period since a nuclear balance hasaggression and suppression with force in existed in Europe. This balance has, par­Czechoslovakia. These have been severe adoxically, helped produce a certain de­setbacks that thx:eaten the achievements tente' in Europe. A nuclear balance inin cooperation that have been realized in Asia could have a similar effect. At least,nuclear test suspension, in nuclear non- this is possible, something for which weproliferation, in outer space agreement can hope.and in cultural exchange. As far as the Pel{ing government is

Yet the mutuality of interests in these concerned, the Nationalist Governmentand other fields cannot be overlooked. of Taiwan is by far the most serious ob­The more turbulent and dangerous the stacIe standing in the way of more nor­world becomes the greater is the need mal relationships with the United States.for sufficient cooperation and mutuality The principal source of the mainlandbetween the leading nuclear powers. to Government's resentment against us isavoid war. that since 1950 we have been the Nation-

It shOUld be possible, if we really try, aUst Government's chief supporter andto pick up the threads of detente and advocate.undertake with caution and care to build Surely, after Vietnam, we should-ina more solid relationship with the So- the interests of peace in Asia-turn theviet Union. various problems that revolve around

We should be able to increase cont~cts Taiwan over to the Chinese themselves,of many sorts-cultural, technologIcal, the Chinese on the mainland and theinformational, and academic. We should Chinese on Taiwan. We should continuebe able to develop increasingly unfet- to insist that these problems be resolvedtered trade. peacefully, and we should leave no doubt

We should be able to make more prog- in any mind that we will continue toress toward reaching agreements on addi- honor our 1954 treaty to defend the Re­tional arms control measures, especially public of China against attack. A settle­in areas where there is a mutual interest ment, in short, should be, and possiblyin peace and stability. such as the Middle could be, in the nature of an amnesty.East and Southeast Asia. There is no reason why it should be

And we should also be able to work beyond the human ingenuity of the Chi­toward joint efforts in space exploration, nese to arrange solutions to their variousin population control and in economic problems which would meet the interestsand food assistance to the developing of the 2 million mainland Chinese oncountries. Taiwan, who surely do not wish forever

At least, these must be our aims, and to continue to base their existence onour efforts should be diligent and dedi- the now ludicrous fiction that they con­cated. stitute the government of China; the

The problems of our relations with interests of the 11 million Taiwanese,Communist China after Vietnam are who surely do not wish to be governedlikely to be even more complicated. Per- and represented for the indefinite futurehaps the first obstacle on our part is the by 2 million non-Taiwanese refugeeswidely held view in the United States from the mainland; the interests of thethat China is an expansionist and mainland Chinese, who-notwithstand­threatening power which is determined ing their apparent disinclination at pres­to sweep through Asia. ent to enter into more normal relation-

It does not seem to me that the pres- ships with other nations-surely do notent Chinese Government has shown wish to see the unresolved problems re­much eagerness to spread its faith by lating to Taiwan perpetually obstructforce. Communist China has promised to their assumption of a more appropriate

and positive role in Asia; the interests ofother Asians, whose security is surely notenhanced but threatened by the bitterantipathies aroused by this issue; andthe interests of the United States, whichsurely does not wish to see a continuinghostility with China because of the for­lorn hope of some-or perhaps only afew-of the mainland Chinese on Taiwanwho still claim to see some possibility ofreturning there.

Thus, it seems to me that after Viet­nam-and perhaps even sooner-theUnited States I should acknowledge-asclearly, unqualifiedly, and openly as pos­sible and at the highest level of govern­ment-that the People's Republic ofChina controls the mainland of China,And we should add that we are readyto exchange diplomatic representationwith China and to negotiate mutuallyadvantageous trade agreements. In cur­rent parlance, we should recognize RedChina, the grossest pretense being re­quired not to do so.

At the same time, we should stop andrefrain from twisting arms at the UnitedNations so that all nations can vote onquestions relating to the issue of Chineserepresentation without pressure fromthe United States.

Instead of opposition to Chinese ad­mission to the United Nations, the UnitedStates should take' the lead inurgiIigChina to alter her unrealistic demandsand antagonistic policies so she could beadmitted and accepted into responsiblemembership in the family of nations.This, I believe, willl rapidly become a su­preme challenge to the Western World.including Russia. This. in fact, appearsto be the case even now.

Communist China has. of course, fixedutterly unreasonable conditions to bemet before she will accept membershipin the U.N., inclUding the expulsion ofthe United States. These conditions areso extreme that they will not be grantedby the U.N. Yet the United States per­mits herself to be blamed for keepingChina out of the· U.N. Why should theonus of Chinese intractability be borneby the United States? Let the Chinesebear the burden of their own unreason­ableness. If she changes, good.

There are two particular problems in­volving mainland China-far simplerproblems than those of recognition andrepresentation in the United Nations- •which it should be possible for theUnited States to begin to resolve afterVietnam. One is travel and the other istrade.

The total absence of travel betweenour countries has created a barrier ofignorance between the United States andCommunist China which serves the in­terests of neither. The Chinese them­selves were the first to suggest in 1956that American journalists visit China, anoffer that we rejected. When we decideda year later to accept, they changed theirminds and they have since shown no dis­position to accept offers on our part toease the travel barrier.

Nevertheless. I see no reason to con­tinue to insist on any reciprocal Chineseaction-that is. on any procedure involv­ing an offer by us and an acceptance bythem-on this point. If, after Vietnam,the Chinese are not willing to admit

29614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 4,1968

American journalists, doctors, scientists,and tourists, it will be their loss far morethan it is ours. I believe that we should,therefore, announce that we will vali­date all passports for legitimate cultural,economic and professional travel byChinese in the United states. We wouldhave much to gain by this and little, itanything, to lose.

As far as trade is concerned, it seem&to me that the present situation vergeson the ridiculous. It is doubtful whetherour original objective of an embargo onall foreign trade with China by all non­Communist nations would really havecaused sufficiently serious economicproblems in China to force them to makeconcessions of some sort in order to ob­tain such trade. Certainly, such an em­bargo would not have caused the Com­munist regime to collapse. But, in anycase, the question of the effect of suchan embargo is academic because othernations have not been willing to join inimposing one. Peking's chief tradingpartners last year were the United King­dom, Japan, the Soviet Unlim, WestGermany, Australia, Canada, Italy, andFrance, roughly in that order.

While our refusal to allow Americancompanies-or even foreign liubsidiariesof American corporations-to trade withmainland China, even in nonstrategicgoods, has had little economic effect, ithas had serious political effects. It hasbeen a constant source of friction withour allies who regard. our policy as mis­conceived, if not demented. And it hascontributed another drop of poison to theatmosphere between the Chinese andourselves.

I see no reason to trade in nonstrategicitems with the Soviet Union and theEuropean' Communist countries but notto trade at all with China. We shouldtrade with both. I see only benefits thatwould flow from increasing China's non­strategic trade with us and with othernon-Communist countries. Trade is, afterall, China's one window on the worldtoday. It is a basic medium of interna­tional communication. U.S. trade has hadpositive political results in the SovietUnion and in Eastern Europe, and I seeno reason to assume that similar resultswould not follow in China.

Throughout history, friendship hastended to follow the trade routes.

UnfortwlatelY,there is a good possibil­ity that even after Vietnam the actionson our part that I have mentioned willnot be welcomed-much less recipro­cated-by the Chinese, at least not in thevery near future. The Chinese now seemto look at the world through Marxistglasses with Maoist lenses, lenses whichmagnify the traditional Chinese suspi­cions and resentments of the rest of theworld and distort-in a particular way­the Chinese view of the United States.These lenses could, of course, be removedbut it seems that China's p1"esent leadersfeel that they serve a useful purpose inproducing a fearful and mistrustful viewof the outside world which makes theChinese less prone to question-and moreprone to support-that which they areasked to do for the sake of the revolu­tion.

Nevertheless, I believe, logic and anenlightened long-range view of our own

self-interest indicates that the UnitedStates should take the actions I havesuggested, rather than to continue to at­tempt to compete, on their terms, with acountry Which seems to make a habit ofugly intransigence and a virtue of con­tentiousness.

Some may argue that it would be wiserto begin with small steps, with explora­tory negotiations, for example, or ,,,ithsome careful probing designed to discoverwhether the Chinese are prepared to re­spond to our initiatives. I believe thatthe question of our future relations withChina and the Soviet Union is of suchparamount importance that excessivecaution may be tantamount to excessiverisk. For those in the United States whoHe still obsessed with the fear of com­munism, who fear that it will sweepacross Europe and the Atlantic, or acrossthe paradoxically named Pacific, to theshores of the United States, small stepswill be just as incomprehensible, andthus just as unacceptable, as giantstrides.

In his farewell address, George Wash­ington warned us not only against "per­manent alliances with any portion of theforeign world" but also against "perma­nent, inveterate antipathies againstparticular nations." He then said:

The nation, which indulges towards an­other an habitual hatred, or an habitualfondness, is In some degree a slave. It Is asla've to Its anomisity or to its affection,either of which is sufficient to lead it astravfrom its duty and its interest. •

The United states has been led astrayby its extreme antipathy to communism.It has been led astray, as Washingtonforesaw, by an antipathy that has provedinveterate and a hatred that has becomehabitual and that has made it a slaveto its anomisity.

Now the time is rapidly nearing whenanother President will deliver an inaugu­ral address to the Nation; the platformsfor the ceremony are already under con­struction. I hope that he will see andseize the opportunity to urge his coun­try to free itself from the slavery of itsanimosities which has led it astray fromits duty and its interest.

I urge my fellow Americans to pursuepolicies after Vietnam that will termi­nate the bitter antipathies among Amer­icans, Chinese, and Russians.

For if our relations with the SovietUnion and China-and their relationswith us-do not begin to improve butcontinue to deteriorate, the next war maybring a very different "after"--or noneat all for the major nuclear powers.ACHIEVEMENTS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the firstwords of the United Nations Charter arethese:

We the peoples of the United Nations, de­termined to save succeeding generations fromthe scourge of war.

The foreign policy of the United Statestoday has its deepest roots in that samedetermination. In the last 5 years, theslowly rising structure of peace has beenbattered, from the highlands of Boliviato the waterways of the Mekong and thestreets oJ pi'ague, by those who resortto force to impose their policies on others.Facing this hard fact, the United States

during the Johnson administration hasnot sought to police the world. But wehave steadfastly honored our nationalpledges to our allies and treaty partners,from West Berlin to Korea, Taiwan, andVietnam. And today, surveying the globeafter 5 years of ever-present danger, wesee that not one people which had putits trust in us has given up its land orits liberty.

It might have been easier to have de­cided that we were no longer needed;that, for example, peace would preserveitself in a Europe heavily unbalancedby nuclear-armed Soviet divisions. Manywere the voices which urged this con­clusion on us. The Soviet system hadchanged, they said; the threat from theEast was dead. This thinking could havemeant the end of NATO.

But in spite of pressw'es at home andabroad, President Johnson did not be­lieve that the way to maintain peace inWestern Europe was to curtail its de­fenses and destroy the framework ofhard-won collaboration. Other NATOallies shared our view. We redoubledour common efforts. The massive prob­lems of withdrawal from France weresuccessfully mastered. Strategy has beenupdated and made more flexible; theresponsibilities and difficulties of nuclearplanning have been shared. Few wouldargue, now, in the light of Czechoslo­vakia, that we were wrong to choose theharder road. And had we chosen theother way, would the courage of the peo­ple of West Berlin have been enough,alone, to sustain them against the armedhostility which surrounds them? Wecannot be certain. But West Berlin sur­

,vives today, an example in determina­tion to us all.

But it is in Southeast Asia that wehave faced our most difficult choices.The United States, through the South­east Asian Treaty and a whole series ofother pledges, has been committed to themaintenance of peace in the former ter­ritories of Indochina since 1954. We havechosen to honor our promises, acting onthe deep conviction that no peacebought by appeasement of aggressioncan last long. Those of us who rememberthe 1930's, recall the history of "peace inour time." It lasted but a moment, whilethe aggressor grew stronger, and the re­sult was World War II.

While no one can yet say when thistragic struggle will end, the essentialoutcome can already be discerned. TheNorth Vietnamese Army cannot and willnot defeat the South Vietnamese and al­lied forces. In the last 18 months, thereversal of the military trend has beendramatic. Accordingly, whether soon orla~e, it will be the people of South Viet­nam who will determine the future ofSouth Vietnam, and will make theirchoices free from fear. This is the out­come for which we have sacrificed somuch. and its attainment is sure. What isnot sure is the time and the manner inwhich the end will come about. TheUnited States has been willing to discussa cease-fire and a safeguarded peace inVietnam for many months.

But even as Hanoi delays. and the vio­lence continues, South Vietnam is chang­ing. Since mid-1965, there have been slowbut continuing gains in education,

Octobe}' 4, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 29615health, roads, agriculture, land reform.A constitution has been adopted and aseries of free elections held-and this inthe midst of war. As a result, confidenceis being born, in the army, in the govern­ment. and in the villages. That con­fidence is refiected today throughoutSoutheast Asia, where the overwhelmingmajority of government" have given voiceto their recognition of the issues at stake.As the independent-minded Premier ofSingapore, Lee Kuan Yew-no slavishadmirer of American ways-has said:

If the communists are able to advancetheir frontiers to envelop South Vlet-Nam,it will be only a matter of time before thesame process ... will overtake the neighbor­ing countries.

But the leaders of the area have in­creasingly become aware that this Com­munist effort is failing. through theresistance of the South Vietnamese andtheir American and Asian allies. Withthis new confidence has come a kindlingof constructive energies in all the coun­tries of the region.

What would have happened if we hadallowed South Vietnam to be annexed byforce from the North? What would havehappened in Laos, in Cambodia, in Thai­land and Burma, Malaysia and Singa­pore? What would have happened in In­donesIa, fifth largest nation in the world,whIch less than 3 years ago nearly fell toa Communist coup? We cannot be cer­tain, but we need make no mIstake abouthow the Asians feel. Prime Minister Satoof Japan reported last year, after an ex­tensive tour of Southeast Asia:

I was deeply impressed, during my recenttrip, that the United States' efforts in Viet­Nam were well understood and appreciated bythe governments and peoples of the Asiancountries. I found that they clearly under­stood that if the United States loses interestin Asia at the present time, not only thepeace and security of Asia, but also the futureof the world would be in serious jeopardy.

At the heart of the dangers whIchthreaten us all lies the deep division be­tween East and West, in philosophy, inpurpose, in trust. In the last 5 years, theefforts of President Johnson to narrowthis gap have given the political vocabu­lary of the world a new phrase: "bridge­building." The words symbolize a pa­tient and persistent search for points ofmutual interest between East and Weston which we can build-a search forareas of agreement, however small, whichcould lead toward larger accords. And sowithin the last 2 years we reached acivil air transport agreement with theSoviet Union. We signed a consularagreement, under which Americans trav­eling to the Soviet Union are extendednew rights of protection. We have con­cluded a space treaty to allow the humanrace to make of outer space an adven­ture and a resource, instead of a .battle­ground.

From the very first days of his admin­istratlon, President Johnson worked for astill larger agreement, of enormousmeaning to us and to succeeding genera­tions-a nonproliferation treaty, to pre­vent the spread of nuclear weapons fromthe few countries which have them todayto the many who could brandish themtomorrow. Today we have that treaty,

CQrIV-----1867--Part 23

signed by the United States, the SovietUnion, and many other nations, andhopefully soon to be ratified in this body.

And still a furthel' important stephas been taken through an agreementwith the Soviet Union to discuss the lim­itation and the reduction of strategicmissile systems, a development whichcould be the turning point in the costlyarms race. In no period since World WarII has an administration done more tobridge the gulf which separates East andWest.

At Glassboro, President Johnson said:Peace will be achieved not only by resoh··

ing the bitter conflicts of today. Even afterwe end these conflicts, there remains an­other task: to build a pattern of cooperationin the world.

These agreements with the SovietUnion, so painstakingly worked out inyears of effort, are a crucial part of thateffort to build a pattern of cooperation.The rebuilding and reVitalizing of NATOin recent years to strengthen the At­lantic partnership with Western Europewas another central part of that effort.Our determination, with our allies, towork for peace on the Pacific flank ofAsia, is another part of this developingpattern of cooperation. In the WesternHemisphere, we have worked successful­ly to strengthen the Organization ofAmerican States, to insW"e collectivelythe peace of the twin Americas. The re­sult has been impressive.

In other parts of the world we havesought to strengthen peace by whatevermeans was most appropriate--whetherthrough the United Nations, regionalorganizations, or bilateral agreementswith other countries. We have been aleading supporter of the U.N. peacekeep­ing efforts between Israel and the ArabStates, between IndIa and Pakistan, andbetween Greek and Turkish CYP110ts.Peace can never be taken for granted­least of all where rivalries and passionshave been deep ingrained through cen­turies past. But the patterns of coopera­tion are emerging-in Europe, in Asia,in Latin America, even among the newlyemergent nations of Africa.

A principal key to a better standardof living throughout the world is a risinglevel of world trade. Through interna­tional monetary reform, we have takenthe leadership in assuring the necessaryliquidity for financing a growing worldtrade. By persevering in the difficultand long-drawn-out Kennedy round oftariff negotiations, we helped to achievethe most favorable tariff climate forworld trade in history. Our farmers nowbenefit from a wide range of concessionson commodities such as soybeans, tallow,tobacco. poultry, and fruit. In the 3 ~'ears

alone from 1963 to 1966. a more than 30­percent increase in U.S. exports meant850,000 more jobs for American working­men and a billion and a half dollars ofU.S. agricultural exports.

OW" foreign aid program, the PeaceCorps, and our information programshave been spearheads of social develop­ment throughout the Southern Hemi­sphere. In Africa, not a single new nationhas accepted Communist domination.

In Latin America, the Alliance forProgress has affected the lives of millions.

Above all, the Alliance has helped tocreate new attitudes and hopes whichare the key to a still larger success. Underthe impetus of real progress, the practiceof government by coup Is yielding to thepractice of government by consent.Since 1964, 15 Latin American countrieshave held constitutional elections andelected governments which proceeded totake office peacefully-six of them re­placing unconstitutional regimes.

In spite of our great efforts, the gapbetween rich and poor nations is stillgrowing. There are more illiterates andmore hungry people in the world todaythan there were yesterday, ana therewill be still more tomorrow. It wouldbe tragic if the American people were toturn their eyes away from this great need.It is a need which we must meet: first, be­cause it is right; second, because thelong-term hope of peace in the world de­pends on meeting the aspirations of allpeoples for a decent life; and third, be­cause it is in our own interests. A 38-per­cent rise in U.S. exports to Africa in 5years, a 25-percent rise in U.S. exportsto east Asia in 2 years, are only twoillustrations of the fact that developingcountries are developing markets forU.S. products.

And one more contribution to worldorder, often overlooked in discussing for­eign policy, should be cited here. It hasbeen said that the Johnson administra­tion, more than any other Presidency,has advanced the cause of human rightsin this country. But in battling againstthe social ills which afflict our own so­ciety, we Americans have not been w9rk­ing for ourselves alone. The progressgained in one country supports the strug­gle for human rights in every other coun­try. In strivIng for justice and oppor.tunity and dIgnity for our own people,we are advancIng the just cause of peo­ples around the globe.

In this world of instant communica­tion, instant action, instant protest, thereare no instant answers, no instant prog­ress,no instant peace. A wise administra­tion can offer only patience, persever·ance, and dedication to our highest goals.

Lyndon Johnson once described thequestions that a PresIdent must ask him­self:

Have I done everything that I can do tounite this country? Have I done everythingI can to help unite the world. to try to bringpeace and hope to all the people of the world?Have I done enough?

And he went on to say:Ask yourselves that question in your

homes-and in this hall tonight, Have we.each of us, all done all we can do? Have wedone enough?

In my judgment, President Johnsonhas done a great deal, and so have theAmerican people. 'When the history ofthese turbulent tL'lles is written, I belie\'eit will be said of America that under theleadership of Lyndon Johnson she avert­ed global war while moving the world to­\\'ard lasting global peace.

Mr. President. we are being asked to­day to ratify what the President of theWorld Bank, Robert McNamara, has justcalled the disenchantment of the richwith development aid.

In his first speech in his new job, the

29616 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 4,1968former Secretary of Defense has made ago America "declared war on hunger, amendments be considered and votedit clear that the World Bank group will the ignorance, the disease, and the hope- upon en bloc. I am told by the Senatordo its best to fill a resource gap which is lessness ,vhich freed violence in hmnan from Delaware that he would like to havebeing created by declining aid levels from affairs." He continued that-- a rollcall vote on this request. I askthe United States and other countries. We knew this task reqUired many years- unanimous consent that it be in orderThe bill before us today is a striking il- to ask for the yeas and nays on thislustration of Mr. McNamara's complaint And added- question.that "while the requirement for assist- but we also knew that, In the long run, a The yeas and nays were ordered,ance was never higher, the will to provide single ray of hope--a school, a road, a hybrid Mr. HOLLAND. What is the question?it was never lower." seed, a vaccination-{)an do more to build the h Th

peace and guard America from harm than T e PRESIDING OFFICER, e ques-The Appropriations Committee has guns aild bombs. tion is on agreeing to the committee

done its best--it has fully restored all This Is the great truth upon which aU our amendments en bloc. By unanimous con-the funds for development in this bill to " foreign aid programs are founded. sent the yeas and nays will be taken onthe level authorized in the Foreign As- th t t' d th 1 k "1'11 call theThe concept of technical assistance is a ques lOn, an e c er \vsistance Act of 1968, which we just re- rollcently passed. The trouble is that even simple. There is a shortage of trained 'h' 1 k 11 d

People in less-developed countries, and T e assistant legislative c er ca ethat level is too low, and unless this year the rollis different, we will not be able to per- technical assistance transfers and adapts .

American skills and know-how to help Mr, BYRD of West Virginia. I an-suade the other body to accept those n u c th t tl S t f Loill' .meet this need. The following examples 0 n e a 1e ena or rom Slanarestorations intact. illustrate what technical assistance is all [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Alaska

This aid bill is by far the lowest ever. about: [Mr. GRUENINGl, and the Senator fromEven with the restorations recommended MaI'yland [Mr TYDINGS] e absent onA project which is increasing the num- • . arby the committee, it is $1 billion below ber of qualified schoolteachers in the official business.a budget request which was, itself, the east African community, In fiscal year I also announce that the Senator fromlowest ever, Without those restorations it 1969, $1.1 million is needed to finance Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator fromwould cut the administration's request contract costs of American university Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the Senator fromalmost in half. In fact economic aid teacher trainers and education spe- Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], the Senator fromwould be cut over 50 percent, to a level cialists. Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator35 percent below last year. A regional project for graduate study from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK], the

This year's congressional action on and research in agriculture in east Asia. Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], theforeign aid is, in my view, a discouraging Adaptive research and continual "dis- Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK],retreat from our responsibility to help ease-proofing" of the new varieties of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EAST­countries which are struggling to break rice and agricultural crops is needed if LAND], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.free from the endless cycle of poverty these new seeds are to maintain their FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Indianaand despair, It is a retreat from our for- high-yield capacity. [Mr. HARTKE], the Senator from Arizonamel' leadership among the rich countries A variety of demonstration activities [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Southin attacking the problems of develop- in India, Pakistan, and Turkey which Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS], the Senatorment. It means that we are turning away focus on getting know-how about mod- from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], the Senatorfrom the hard realities that shape men's eln farming methods to the villages. The from Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senatorlives in two-thirds of the world and deny- spread of such knowledge is essential from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senatoring our capability, or our willingness, to if these nations are to achieve self-suf- from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], thecontinue making headway against a po- ficiency in food grains, Senator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLEL­tential for widespread unrest and vio- These are the kinds of projects meant LAN]. the Senator from South Dakotalence which can threaten world peace when last year the President's Science [Mr. MCGOVERN], the Senator from Newand endanger our own security. It means. Advisory Committee report and the re- Hampshire [Mr. McINTYRE], the Senatorin the last analysis, that we are turning port of the National Advisory Commis- from Oklahoma [Mr, MONRONEY], theour backs on the misery of mankind. sion on Food and Fiber called for greatly Senator from New Mexico [Mr. MON-

I hope we will do what little we can increased technical assistance. TOYA] , the Senator from Qregon [Mr.today by approving the bill reported by But the House level would cut tech- MORSE], the Senator from Maine [Mr.the Appropriations Committee and by nical assistance to the point where proj- MUSKIE], the Senator from Wisconsinurging our conferees to stand firm for ects like these would be abruptly aban- [Mr. NELSON], the Senator from Con­restoration when they meet with the doned in midstream. This could mean necticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], and the Senatorrepresentatives of the other body. sending home university contract teams from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] are neces-

We have already, in the authorization now working overseas. Student training sarBy absent.act, exercised to a too great degree our programs in this country would be cut I further announce that, if present andfiscal responsibility. Now let us exercise short thus wasting dollar and educa- voting, the Senator from North Dakotasome responsibility for the condition of tional investments we have already made. [Mr. BURDICK], the Senator from Lou­those less fortunate than we, and for Africa would be especially hard hit by isiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator fromthe peace of the world we w111 leave to the House cut since technical assistance Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], and the Senatorthe next generation. Let us show the programs are almost half of AID's total from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] would eachworld that we are still, in Mr. McNa- program in Africa. Coming at a time vote "nay."mara's words, "determined to use our when we are changing over our technical I also announce that, if present andoverwhelming strength for the better- assistance emphasis in Africa to a re- voting, the Senator from AlaSka [Mr.ment of all mankind, and the fUlfillment gional basis, the reduction will be seen BARTLETT] would vote "yea."of the human spirit." as a lack of concern on our part for Mr KUCHEL. I announce that the

Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I am glad those who need our encouragement as Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], thllto note the committee has recommended they confront their development prob- , Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER],$200 million for AID technical assistance lems. the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETTl,for fiscal year 1969. In conclusion, I repeat my suppor; the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Coop-

Last year's cut largely restricted AID for the committee restoration of $50 mil- ER1, the Senator from New Hampshireto ongoing technical assistance activities. lion to the House level of $150 million [Mr. COTTON]. the Senator from IllinoisThe level proposed by the House this for technical assistance. In the light of [Mr, DIRKSEN], the Senator from Colo­year-$150 million-would force termi- the world;s needs, the potential for rado [Mr. DOMINICK]. the Senator fromnation of technical assistance activities peaceful change. and the President's Arizona [Mr. FANNIN], the Senator fromnow underway. It would mean postpon- $235 million ·request. I believe that the Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], the Senatoring still further important new projects least we can do is show our interest and from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA], the Sena­in agriculture, education, and health. concern by supporting the committee's tor from New York [Mr. JAVITS], theDevelopment cannot afford such a delay. recommendation of $200 million. Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY],

President Johnson in this year's for- Mr. PASTORE. Mr, President, I ask the Senator from Maine [Mrs. SMITH].eign aid message spoke of how 20 years unanimous consent that the committee the Senator frOm South Carolina [Mr.

October 4, )968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 29617

So the committee amendments wereagreed to en bloc.

The amendments agreed to en bloc areas follows:

On page 2, line 9, after "section 212", strikeout "$150,000,000" and insert "$200,000,000".

On page 2, line 21, after "section 302(a) ",

Mr. President, there is one other iteminclUded under the Alliance for Progressappropriation that is deserving of specialattention. That is' the recommendationto appropriate $350,000 for the Partnersof the Alliance program. This is thesmallest line item contained in H.R.19908. This small appropriation is used topay shipping costs of donated material toLatin America and to pay some travelexpenses of private American citizenswho donate their time and their exper­tise to provide technical assistance to thepeople of Latin America.

The Partners of the Alliance wasstarted in March 19601. People of indi­vidual States form a group and associ­ate themselves with a developing countryor a state within a developing countryin Latin America. These Americans es­ta;blished a people-to-people relationshipWIth our hemisphelic neighbors. This isa program that requires a very smallinvestment, but which produces a verylarge return. I am pleased that the Sen­ate committee has recommended the ap­propriation of $350,000 for this programand I hope that this amount can be heldin conference.

Mr, President, $469.3 million was rec­ommended by the administration for theAlliance for Progress in fiscal year 1969.The House of Representatives slashcdthat amount with an appropriation ofonly $270 million. I am thankful thatthe Senate of the United States is rec­ommending an appropriation of $420.3million to help to save the Alliance forProgress from the devastating cuts madeby the House. \

The Alliance is not just another gov­ernmental program-it is a pledge offaith to our hemispheric brothers. Thecommitment to the program cannot beweakened or broken without weakeningor breaking the pledge to the people itaids.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy began thiscommitment on January 20, 1961, whenhe said in his inaugural address:

To our sister repUblic south of our border.we otrer a special pledge-to convert our goodwords luto goOd deeds, in a new al1lance forprogress, to assist free men and free gov­ernments In casting off the chains of poverty.

Mr. President, the Alliance for Prog­ress has had great motivations. It hasaccomplished fine results when we con­sider the small amount of money putinto it in comparison with the vastamounts of money we appropriate to be­come militarily involved in a country.

If We gut the appropriation -for theAlliance, as the House proposes, we willseriously and perhaps irreparably fraythe bonds of credibility that this pro­gram has stretched to our Latin broth­ers. We cannot forget so soon the com­mitment of our great President, JohnKelUledy, "to convert our good wordsinto good deeds." I hope that the Senateof the United States will not break thatpledge.

At a time when the third -world of de­veloping nations has seen the SovietUnion move ruthlessly to crush the lib­erty of Czechoslovakians, the UnitedStates should not move to snuff out theeconomic hopes of millions of LatinAmericans,

strike out "$119,000,000" and Insert "$134,­900,000",

On page 3, after line 7, insert:"International organizations and programs,

loans: For expenses authorized bv section302(b), $12,000,000, to remain available untilexpended."

On page 3, at the beginning of line 17, strikeout "$70,000,000" and insert "$90,000,000".

On page 3, line 21, after "section 252(a) ",strike out "$200,000,000" and Insert "$330,­000,000".

At the top of page 4, Insert:"Alliance for Progress, Partners of the Al­

liance. For expenses authorized by section252(b), $350,000."

On page 4, line 4, after "section 202(a) ",strike out "$265,000,000" and insert "$350,­000,000"; and, in line 7, after the word "ex­pended", strike out the colon and "Provided,That no part of this appropriation may beused to carry out the provisions of section205 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, asamended".

On page 14, line 15, after "United States",strike out "$100,000,000" and insert "$104,­000,000".

On page 19, Une 10. after the word "ex­ceed". strike out "$9,000" and insert"$12.000".

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The bill is open to further amend­ment. If there be no further amendmentto be proposed, the question is on theengrossment of the amendments and thethird reading of the bUl.

The amendments were ordered to beengrossed and the bill to be read a thirdtime.

The bill (H.R. 19908) was read thethird time.

Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. President, Irise to comment only briefly on a fewof the specifics contained in H.R. 19908,a bill to make appropriations for foreignassistance and related agencies in fiscal1969.

Of special interest to me is the appro­priation recommended for the Alliancefor Progress. The senate AppropriationsCommittee recommended an appropri­ation of $90 million for technica.l cooper­ation and development grants, an in­crease of $20 million over the amountrecommended by the House of Repre­sentatives. These grants are made toLatin American countries and to Inter­American organizations to help the peo­ples of Latin America to gain the ex­pertise and the knowledge that is neces­sary to build for themselves a viable andstable society. Of the funds allocated tothe country programs, two-thirds will beused to finance technical experts andtraining programs in the field of agri­culture, education, and health.

In considering development loans un­der the Alliance for Progress, the Houseof Representatives appropriated only$200 million, less than two-fifths of the$515 million that the administrationconservatively estimated was needed forthis vital development program. TheSenate committee has increased thatamount by $130 million in new obliga­tional authority, When combined withcarryover recoveries and loan receiptstotaling $56.5 million. a total develop­ment loan program of $386.5 million willbe funded for fiscal year 1969 if theSenate position on this program prevailsin conference. This amount, in my opin­ion, is not enough, but it is considerablybetter than the deep slash proposed bythe House.

TalmadgeWilliams. Del.Young, Ohio

McGovernMcIntyreMonroneyMont<JyaMorseMurphyMuskieNelsonRiblcoffSmatherssmithThurmondTower~'dings

PastorePearsonPellPercyProutyRandolphScottSparkmanSpongSymingtonWilliams, N.J.YarboroughYoung, N.Dak.

EllenderFanninFulbrightGrueningHartkeHatfieldHaydenHollingsHruskaInou~'e

JavitsLong,Mo.Long. La.McCarthyMcClel1an

NAYS-13Jordan, N.C.Jordan, IdahoProxmireRussellStennis

NOT VOTING-44AikenBakerBartlettBayhBennettBibleBrewsterBurdickChurchClarkCooperCottonDirksenDominickEastland

Byrd, Va.Byrd, W. Va.CurtisErvinHansen

AllottAndersonBoggsBrookeCannonCarlsonCaseDoddFongGoodellGoreGriffinHarrisHart·Hickenlooper

THURMOND], and the Senator from Texas[Mr. TOWER] are necessarily absent.If present and voting, the Senator from

Maine [Mrs. SMITH], would vote "yea."If present and voting, the Senator from

Texas [Mr. TOWER], and the Senatorfrom Utah· [Mr. BENNETT], would eachvote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Ver­mont [Mr. AIKEN] is paired with the.Senator from Arizona [Mr. FANNINJ. Ifpresent and voting, the Senator fromVermont would vote "yea," and the Sell­ator from Arizona would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Colo­rado [Mr. DOMINICK] is paired with theSenator from California [Mr. MURPHY].If present and voting, the Senator.fromColorado would vote "yea," and the Sen­ator from California would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Oregon[Mr. HATFIELD] is paired with the Sena­tor from South Carolina [Mr. THUR­llmNDJ. If present and voting, the Sena­tor from Oregon would vote "yea," andthe Senator from South Carolina wouldvote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from NewYork [Mr. JAVITS] is paired with the Sen­ator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA]. Ifpresent and voting, the Senator from NewYork would vote "yea," and the senatorfrom Nebraska would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Ken­tucky [Mr. COOPER] is paired with theSenator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN]. Ifpresent and voting, the Senator fromKentucky would vote "yea," and theSenator from IllinOis would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 43,nays 13, as follows:

[No. 318 Leg.]YEAS-43

HillHollandJacksonKennedyKuchelLauscheMagnusonMansfieldMcGeeMetcalfMllIerMondaleMortonMossMundt

29618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE "October 4, 1968

Despite the great drain upon ourbudget by an extended involvement inVietnam, we cannot afford to withdrawthe hand of ftiendship from those whoshare our hemisphere. The Alliance forProgress is the road to peace and prog­ress at a minimal investment of money.

It is my great hope that the Senateconferees on this appropriation bill willbe adamant in the defense of the Senateposition on the Alliance for Progressappropriation. .'

Mr. President, Miss Virginia Prewetthas a very perceptive article in theWashington Daily News for Wednesday,September 25, 1968, under the title,"Breach of Good Faith in Time ofPromise: Slash of Aid to Latins WllIHurt." She discusses In brief languagethe devastating effect of the deep slashin the Alliance for Progress, which is al­ready deeply cut.

Miss Prewett states the case sharply,but she states it accurately. I ask unani­mous consent that the article by MissVirginia Prewett, under the title,"Breach of Good Faith in Time of Prom­ise: Slash of Aid to Latins Will Hurt,"from the Washington Daily News ofWednesday, September 25, 1968, beprinted at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:BREACH OF GOOD FAITH IN TIME OF PROMISE:

SLASH OF AID TO LATINS Wn.L HURT(By Virginia Prewett)

The deep House cut in Alliance for Pro­gress loan funds has fallen as a heavy blowon Latin AmerIca.

"It could not come at a worse time, orhave .a worse effect," is the way the U.S.Ambassador to the Organization of Ameri­can States, Sol M. Llnowltz, sums up.

If not repaired by Senate action in thepresent Congress or by the next Congress inJanuary, the cuts in fiscal 1968's Allianceloan fund from $625 million to $420 mil­lion, and finally to $270 mlllion, will provedevastating to this nation's credibility inthe hemisphere.

GOOD FAITHA $150 million or even a $355 million cut

in Alliance loan funds may not IrretrievablYsink Latin America. But it may sink thiscountry's good faith with Latin Amerlcans­and for an infinitesimal fraction of O\lr na­tional wealth that we would lend out atinterest.

The Alliance cut could not come at aworse time for the following reasons:

Latin America. after a painfUl period ofreadjustment and tooling up, has in thelast year or two made basic reorientationsthat the U.S. urges as a spur to hemispheredevelopment. Acceptance of the long, hardand ditlicult task of creating a Latin Amer­ican Common Market is one example.

Latin America is going thru a time of ex­treme uncertainty because of the increasingtendency among the industrialized countrieswhere our neighbors sen their exports toclose doors against those exports. This In­cludes the U.S., where the tendency isstrong.

Latin America in very recent weeks hasbeen shocked thruout by the Russian inva­sion of Czechoslovakia.

For years, our country has been in com­petition with Russian Ideology and with atwo-pronged communist penetration attemptin Latin America. Latin American govern­ments were already ale,t to Castro's overtsubversion out of Cuba. But many LatinAmericans have tended to distinguish

sharply between Castro and an Image ofRussia as an essentially peace-loving nationbasically Interested only in trade expansionlUnong smaller nations.

OPPORTUNITYThe rape of Czechoslovakia rudely jolted

many Latin Americans. Never In recent dec­ades has the United States had a better op­portunity to consolidate its political, defenseand economic relations In the New World.

Then along came a Know-Nothing Houseof Representatives to slaughter the aid pro­gram tllat our entire government--Inc!udingthe House--has spent years building up asa symbol of friendship and good Intentionsin the hemisphere.

A great nation cannot behave this capri­ciously to its allies and not suffer for it.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I wishto commend the committee for threerecommendations in the foreign aid billnow pending before the Senate.

The first is the restoration of fundsfor the Alliance for Progress.

The second is tlle restoration of fundsfor the development loans.

The third is the restoration of fundsfor travel under the Partners of theAlliance program.

Mr. President, 7 years ago we joinedwith the Latin American States in anAlliance for Progress to help defeathunger, ignorance, and disease. Weformed this Alliance to build dignity,hope, and freedom. The goals sf'. atPunta del Este were ambitious. But thegains have been significant.

In the past 4 years, average per capitagrowth rates in Latin America haveaveraged 2.2 percent per year, a levelsignificantly above the I-percent averageof the first 2 years of the Alliance. Grossdomestic investment in Latin Americahas been over $100 billiorf in the past 7years, with Latin Americans putting upnearly 90 percent of this themselves. In­flation also is being brought undercontrol.

The deep slashes in the Alliance forProgress appropriation made by theHouse represented a turn backward, aretreat to the old isolationist ideas.

The argument for continuance of theAlliance can be made in moral terms­for certainly our responsibilities to aidother countries is a moral one.

But there is a political dimension aswell. More than a dozen major presi­dential and legislative elections will beheld in Latin America between now and1970. The question that most of themwill pose is how to meet the pressingeconomic and social demands made bythe people of Latin America. Abandon­ment of Latin America at this pointwould give further fuel to those workingtoward a revolution of repression ratherthan one of peaceful economic and socialchange.

The action of the committee with re­spect to development loans also speaksto the continuing need for peaceful eco­nomic and social change. Developmentloans are the primary instrument of de­velopment to such important countriesas Turkey, India, Pakistan, and Indo­nesia. They finance the basic implementsof economic development-fertilizer,farm implements, industrial machinery,pharmaceuticals, textbooks, laboratoryequipment, and other critical materials.

Economic development loans are pred-

ic'titedilpon hard~nosed self-help meas­ures which must be undertaken by recip­ient countries prior to approval. Theyare not giveaways. Because of the re­quirement that, except by specific waiver,development loan recipients must bUYgoods and services in the United Statesfrom funds appropriated under the For­eign Assistance Act, economic develop­ment loans increase income here. Fur­ther, the associations and friendshipsbuilt up help assure continuing access tothe future markets of the development\"orld. Such loans also help us influenceleaders of the developing countries sothat they can prevent pOlitical unrest bymeeting the economic problem that causediscontent.

The level authorized for developmentloans will permit a limited hut signif­icant level of development momentum inkey countries to be maintained. In atime of national crisis, we can ill affordto create other trouble spots by failingto support the committee's recommen­dation on development loans.

I believe the same generalization ap­plies to the third committee recommen­dation I wish to discuss: the restorationof travel funds under the Partners ofthe Alliance program. Travel funds per­mit Partner volunteers to travel to coun­tries in need of technical assistance indeveloping self-sustaining programs ineducation, health, and other areas. I re­cently received a letter from one of theparticipants in the program which ex­plains the need for travel funds. I askunanimous consent to the inclusion inthe RECORD at this point excerpts from aletter I received from Stanley N. Graven,M.D., of the University of Wisconsin.

I commend the committee for itsactions.

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

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN,DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS,

Madison, Wis., September 23, 1968.Hon. WALTER MONDALE,Senate Office Building,Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: Wisconsin isaligned with Nicaragua under the Partnersof the Alliance Program. We have during thepast six months made significant stridestowards the development of a number ofprojects in the areas of medicine, educationand community development in Nicaragua.While the project and the expense of thepersonnel involved in the project are beingfunded through private sources within theState of Wisconsin, we have relied upontravel funds from the Partners of the AlEanceOffice in Washington. The availability oflimited travel funds under the Alliance forProgress Program has been essential to thedevelopment of our program.

We have just been informed that the LineItem for Travel under the Partners of theAlliance Program was stricken by theUnited States House of Representatives. Mypurpose in contacting you Is In the hopethat you might consider restoring at least aportion of the travel bUdget when themeaSltre comes up for consideration In theUnited States Senate. We fully recognize theproblems inherent In the present bUdgetsqueeze. While we anticipated a serious cur­tailment In the avallabUity of travel fundsto coordinate the projects under the Part­ners of the Alliance, we did not anticlp>ttetheir total disappearance. Since our projectis still In the early development phase. the

October 4, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 29619

So the bill IRR. 19908) was passed.Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, r move

to reconsider the vote by which the billwas passed.

Mr. ALLOTT. I move to lay that mo­tion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I movethat the Senate insist upon its amend­ments, request a conference with theHouse of Representatives and that theChair be authorized to appoint the con­ferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and theActing President pro tempore appointedMr. PASTORE, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. MCGEE,Mr. PROXl'.IIRE, Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. AL­LOTT, Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. andMr. MUNDT conferees on the part of theSenate.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr, President, theswift, yet very thorough manner in whiol1the Senate disposed of this extremely im­pOl'tant and complex funding measureagain speaks abundantly for the remark­able skill and ability of the Senator fr0111Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE]. As thechairman of this important Appropria­tions Subcommittee, Senator PASTORE hasonce again displayed his usual highstandard of excellence in guiding the for­eign aid appropriations measure to over­whelming acceptance by the Senate.

Joining Senator PASTORE in such a clearand concise presentation of this bill wasthe distinguished Senator from Colorado[Mr. ALLOTTJ. He, too, deserves our com­mendation for the fine manner in whichhe, as the ranking minority member ofthe subcommittee, added to the discus­sion, and to our understanding.

The Senate has once again exhibitedsplendid cooperation, giving full yetswift consideration to an importantmeasure. I wish to commend each Sen­ator for his participation and coopera­tion.

EXECUTIVE SESSIONMr. MANSFIELD. Mr, President, r

ask unanimous consent that the Sen­ate go into executive session to con­sider the nominations of UNESCO Con­ference delegates.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

UNESCO CONFERENCE DELEGATESThe bill clerk proceeded to read sun­

dry nominations of UNESCO Conferencedelegates.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask <

unanimous consent that the nominations'be considered en bloc.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, reservingthe right to object-while Senators arein the Chamber--

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. The Senate will be in order.

. Is the Senator going to inquire aboutthe program?

Mr. KUCHEL. May I ask, under res­ervation of objection, whether or not thedistinguished majority leader has anyfurther chores in mind which would re­quire answering a rollcall?

Mr. MANSFIELD. My best guess isthat there will not be a rollcall, but Ishould like a leeway of 1 percent out of100.

Mr. KUCHEL. If there is no objectionto that, I will withdraw my objection.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­pore. Without objection, the request ofthe Senator from Montana is agreed to.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,what are we voting on?

TalmadgeWilllams, Del.Young, N. Oak.

PastorePearsonPellPercyPl'OutyProxmireRandolphScottSparkmanSpongSymingtonWilllams, N.J.YarboroughYoung,Ohio

HansenJordan, N.C.Jordan, IdahoRussellStennis

NOT VOTING-43Ellender McGovernFannin MonroneyFulbright MontoyaGruening MorseHartke MurphyHatfield MuskleHayden NelsonHollings RibicolfHruska SmathersInouye SmithJavits ThurmondLong, Mo. TowerLong. La. ~-dings

McCarthyMcClellan

BurdickB~'rd, Va.Byrd, W. Va.CurtisErvin

AikenBakerBartlettBayhBennettBibleBrewsterCarlsonChurchClarkCooperCottonDirksenDominickEastland

AllottAndel'sonBoggsBrookeCannonCaseOeddFongGoodellGoreGrIffinHarrIsHartHickenlooperHlll

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARL­SON] is detained on official business.

If present and voting, the Senatorfrom Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senatorfrom Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], the Sena­tor from Maine [Mrs. SMITH], and theSenator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] wouldeach vote "yea."

I further announce, if present andvoting, the Senator from Utah [Mr.BENNETT] would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Ken­tucky [Mr. COOPER] is paired with theSenator from South Carolina [Mr.THURMOND). If present and voting, theSenator from Kentucky would vote"yea" and the Senator from South Caro­lina Would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Illinois[Mr. DIRKSEN] is paired with the Sena­tor from Arizona [Mr. FANNINl. If pres­

. entand voting, the Senator from Illinoiswould vote· "yea," and the senator fromArizona would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Colo­rado [Mr. DOMINICK] is paired with theSenator from California 1MI'. MURPHY].If present and voting, the Senator fromColorado would vote "yea," and theSenator from California would vote"nay."

On this vote, the Senator from NewYork [Mr. JAVITS] is paired with theSenator from Nebl'aska [Mr. HRUSKA]. Ifpresent and voting, the Senator fromNew York would vote "yea," and thesenator from· Nebraska would vote"nay."

The result was announced-yeas 44,nays 13, as follows:

[No. 319 Leg.]YEA8-44

HollandJacksonKennedyKuchelLauscheMagnusonMansfieldMcGeeMcIntyreMetcalfMillerMondaleMortonMossMundt

NAYS-13

110n-avallabllity of travel funds will cer­taInly delay and could curtall the develop­ment oCa number of much needed projectsin NIcaragua. .

SIncerely,STANLEY N. GRAVEN, IIi.D.,

Director, Neonatal Center, DepartmentOf Pediatrics, University Of Wisconsi1l.

M1'. PASTORE. Mr. President, I askfor the yeas and nays on passage.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­

pore. The bill having been read the thirdtime, the question is, Shall it pass?

On this question, the yeas and nayshave been ordered, and the clerk will callthe roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe 1'011.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. r announcethat the Senator from Louisiana [Mr,ELLENDER], the Senator from Alaska[Mr. GRUENING], and the Senator fromMaryland [Mr. TYDINGS], are absent onofficial business.

I also announce that the Senator fromAlaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator fromIndiana [Mr. BAYH], the Senator fromNevada [Mr. BIBLE), the Senator fromMaryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the Senatorfrom Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], the Senatorfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK), theSenator from Mississippi [Mr. EAST­LAND], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.FuLBRIGHT), the Senator from Indiana[Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from Arizona1MI'. HAYDEN], the Senator from SouthCarolina [Mr. HOLLINGS], the Senatorfrom Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], the Senatorfrom Missouri [Mr. LONGJ, the Senatorfrom Louisiana [Mr. LONG), the Senatorfrom Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], theSenator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLEL­LAN], the Senator from South Dakota1MI'. MCGOVERN], the Senator fromOklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY], the Senatorfrom New Mexico [Mr. MONTOYA], theSenator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], theSenator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] , theSenator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON],the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.RIBICOFF], and the Senator from Flor­ida [Mr. SMATHERS) are necessarllyabsent.

r further announce that, if present andvoting, the senator from Louisiana [Mr.ELLENDER], the Senator from Alaska[Mr. GRUENING), and the Senator fromOregon [Mr. MORSE] would each voteH nay."

I also announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Alaska [Mr.BARTLETT], would vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that theSenator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], theSenator from Tennessee [Mr. BAKER],the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT],the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.COOPER], the Senator from New Hamp­shire IMr. COTTON], the Senator- froni'Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the Senator fromColorado [Mr. DOMINICK], the Senatorfrom Arizona [Mr. FANNIN], the Senatorfrom Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], the Sena­tor from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA], theSenator from New York [Mr, JAVITS],the Senator from California [Mr.MURPHY), the Senator from Maine [Mrs.SlIUIH]. the Senator from South Caro­lina [Mr. THURMOND], and the Senatorfrom Texas 1MI'. TOWER] are necessarilyabsent.