will seek for improvement in our relations with the Soviet Government, for a reliable and extended easing of tensions, for the "next steps"-in the direct sense-after the first small step of the limited test ban treaty. But the second proposition is that in this purpose and process the United States will give no comfort or support to those who believe that it is right or even possible to lie down in trust with Communists and their supporters in the free societies of the West or in places where communism subsists only by force and fraud, as most notably today in Cuba.

The first proposition hardly requires elaboration, I think, in the light of the President's own address at the United Nations. We seek a reliable easing of tensions. We never intend to be second in this honorable search, and, while we will always insist on the proper rights and interests of our allies, and especially on the legitimate purpose of reunification which animates the people of Germany, we believe that there can be real progress toward peace and security between the West and the Soviet Union whenever the Soviet Government is really ready.

It is the other proposition which needs more emphasis. Too often in the past, at moments of lower tension or of surface cordialty, freemen have been tempted to suppose that a change in the atmosphere is the same as a reversal of basic Communist purpose. History since 1920 is littered with the wreckage of such illusory hopes. The largest wrecks are those left from the period of the Popular Front between 1935 and 1939, but smaller and instructive shipwrecks of hope occurred after the summit meeting of

4. Our purpose of cooperation can attract support and understanding both at home and abroad for the national space effort.

On policy toward Europe

5. Our loyalty to Atlantic partnership is a prerequisite of the growth of self-confidence and self-reliance in Europe.

essential to the coherence of the Atlantic community.

10. Alert and determined opposition to Communist force and fraud among us is an essential prerequisite to any sound and lasting settlement with the Soviet Government, which will never respect a West it can hope to divide or subvert.

I have come a long way through a number of complex issues, and it may be that I have pressed my thesis too strongly in one instance or another. Moreover, there is always the hazard that, in weighing conflicting considerations, one may unfairly tilt the scales in favor of one's own notion of the

summit of 1960. So now it is essential to distinguish between the real and serious hope of sustaining our progress toward less critically dangerous relations with the Soviet Government, and the equally real and serious necessity of unrelenting hostility to Communist subversion, whether sustained by force, as in Cuba, or by political intrigue and Soviet support, as among Communist parties throughout the world.

In this case, as in the others, the danger of error comes from rigid rejection of either half of this double reality. There are some, preoccupied with the danger of letting down our guard against subversion, who believe that it is wrong to seek any improvement at all in the relations between the great powers. There are others who concentrate their attention so sharply on the hope for improvement in our relations with Moscow that they disregard the need for respect to our allies and wariness against a bogus at

mosphere of general reconciliation which would serve only the implacable underminers of liberty among us.

BALANCING BOTH ASPECTS OF REALITY

I have finished with my five cases-one just settled and four still before us, but all of present importance. I want now to offer

one general comment on all five-and to offer it as a suggestion only, with no attempt at detailed demonstration. I believe that in each of these five cases the balanced acceptance of both aspects of reality is in fact essential to the purposes which seem central to those who themselves emphasize only one side. Let me offer 10 sentences, without proof, in support of this suggestion.

I think that:

On the test ban

1. The test ban treaty helps our security by enlisting hope as well as fear. 2. Safeguards help toward disarmament by permitting confidence.

On space

3. Our national effort in space is the essential underpinning of a plausible and selfrespecting purpose of cooperation.

I would urge upon you not the specific wisdom of the specific proportions I have supported but the general wisdom of the general concept that there is usually some truth in what is urged by both sides in our great debe our attitudes on specific issues, the acceptbates on foreign affairs. And whatever may lead to the generosity of spirit and breadth of ance of this more general proposition can understanding which are essential to sustained good will and effective action in the

dangerous age in which, even in these days of growing hope, we are required to live.

Students of history will recall that 50 years after the end of the Revolutionary War, the patriotic citizens of Massachusetts dedicated a monument at Bunker Hill, where members of the Massachusetts State Militia had made a brave and historic fight against better trained and better equipped troops of the British Army. On that occasion, Webster made an historic speech in which, among other things, he said that as long as the James flows by Jamestown Island; as long as the Atlantic washes Plymouth Rock, no vigor of youth, no maturity of manhood will cause our Nation to forget those early spots that cradled and defended the infancy of our Republic.

came the capital of the colony and the seat of the English Governor. It also became the site of a college named for a British King and his wife-William and Mary-which would have been the oldest college in our Nation today but for the fact that the King went on a hunting trip when he should have mailed to the Governor in Virginia the charter for the college, and because of that delay, Harvard, which was founded without a royal charter, became the first college to be started in our country. At the College of William and Mary were trained not only many of the leaders of the subsequent Revolutionary period but some of the greatest statesmen that the world has ever known. Two of those statesmen, in whom Virginia takes great pride, were George Mason, the author of our Bill of Rights, and Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence. And it was, of course, at Williamsburg that Patrick Henry, the sparkplug of the American Revolutionary War, made a famous speech in which he urged support of the freedom-loving people of Massachusetts who had complained of the onerous stamp taxes, including an outrageous tax on tea and also of the fact that the British Government was reserving for British ships all of the straightest, finest trees to be found in the forests of Massachusetts.

Therefore, as I said, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., rendered a service not only to Virginia and to all of the United States, but to the world in investing over $73 million in the restoration of the Governor's Palace at Williamsburg, in the House of Burgesses, in which was framed Virginia's Bill of Rights, the restoration of early buildings at the college which had been designed by the great English architect, Christopher Wren. And then in order that hundreds of thousands of visitors might get the inspiration to be derived from a personal contact with "those early spots that cradled and defended the infancy of our Republic," Mr. Rockefeller, through his organization called Colonial Williamsburg, built the Williamsburg Inn, the lodge and the motor court, which can offer accommodations for the tourists equaled by few hotels and surpassed by none in the United States or the civilized world.

In order to facilitate the meeting of conferences at Williamsburg, Colonial Williamsburg recently built what it calls "the Conference Center." Early last month, the annual meeting of the National Association of Supervisors of State Banks was held at Williamsburg, at which, incidentally, every State in the Union was represented. I addressed that meeting on the morning of October 3 and was impressed by the beautiful carpet that was on the conference room floor. When I asked for an explanation

I wrote my friend, the very able and efficient president of Colonial Williamsburg, Hon. Carlisle H. Humelsine, to tell me why what appeared to be the great seal on the carpet showed the national emblem, the bald eagle, looking to the right, as in the great seal, is holding arrows in his right talon and the olive branch in his left-which is the reverse of what appears in the great seal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter to me of October 31 from President Humelsine, explaining the pattern of that gold rug at the Williamsburg Conference Center.

Mr. President, perhaps this is a felicitous time to make available to many American citizens who have not yet had an opportunity to enjoy the wonderful food that is served at the Williamsburg Inn and the other places of entertainment in Williamsburg, recipes of some of the wonderful dishes that have come down to us from our colonial ancestors.

I therefore ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this time the following recipes taken from the 1962 President's report of Colonial

Williamsburg:

Beat again and pour into hot buttered baking dish. Bake 25 minutes in hot oven and ing dish. Bake 25 minutes in hot oven and serve from baking dish.

CORN PUDDING

Take 6 large, tender, milky ears of corn. Split the corn down the center of each row; cut off the top and then scrape the cob well. Beat 2 eggs and stir them into the corn. Add one-fourth cup of flour, 1 teaspoon of salt and one-half teaspoon of black pepper. Stir in 1 pint of fresh milk and mix all together thoroughly. Put in a cold buttered pan about 4 inches deep. Cover the top with 2 heaping tablespoons of butter cut in small pieces. Bake in a moderately hot oven about 1 hour. Serve hot.

How To CoOK AN OLD VIRGINIA HAM

Select a 3- to 5-year old ham weighing 12 to 18 pounds. Trim and wash carefully and soak overnight. Change water and add

1 cup of apple vinegar and 1 cup of brown

sugar. Cover with water. Boil very slowly 5 or 6 hours, or until end bone is loose. Leave the ham in the water in which it was cooked until water is cold, then skin. Put ham in bakingpan and bake to a nice brown.

CANADA'S EXPORT PROBLEM

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, a distinguished Canadian industrialist last week summed up Canada's need for larger exports to the United States in an important speech before the Advertising Club of Washington, D.C.

It was my privilege to meet the speaker, T. J. "Ted" Emmert, president and

raphy and tremendous distances we Canadians tend to look upon Canada as not one but five Canadas; The Maritime Provinces, Quebec, Central Canada, the Prairies and British Columbia.

Canadians have, for a long time, been extraordinarily interested in the United States, and our media give a lot of attention to your affairs.

But today the United States is making a great deal of news in Canada in a manner ing of apprehension. previously unknown. And with it is a feel

The subject of the news is not political, defense or friendship. It is freedom-economic freedom, without which so many other freedoms and principles go by the board.

To put it very simply, U.S. investors and business are now so extensively involved in the Canadian economy that the situation has become critical. As Canada continues to buy much more from the United States than she sells to the United States, every passing year aggravates the situation.

U.S. investment in Canada is nothing new. After all, Canada is the United States biggest customer. Two-thirds of all Canada's international transactions are with the United States. Canada has always welcomed outside capital, but today its proportions and its drain on the economic stability of Canada are too great. Canada is living beyond her means on a dangerous scale. differences and always will, but like a family Our two countries have always had their we settle our disputes by compromise or mediation.

This economic situation goes much deeper

than a family dispute. Many Canadians see

their sovereignty in jeopardy.

How is this feeling possible when the countries have been so close for so many years? And very often the only way you can tell a of cigarettes he smokes.

and recipes ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WILLIAMSBURG, Va.,
October 31, 1963.

The sunburst pattern in the gold rug at the conference center is derived from the Nova Constellatio patterns in silver, which were represented in perhaps the first U.S. coinage. They were designed for Gouverneur Morris to carry out his ideas in a decimal coinage system. As the proposed denominations and coins did not advance beyond the pattern stage, the pieces are all dated 1783 and are extremely rare. In the original pattern an eye appeared in the center of the sunburst which we have omitted.

personally as well as by the message he Canada, Ltd. I was impressed by him

delivered.

We in the United States have long recognized Canada as a good and friendly neighbor. With this in mind we need to consider seriously Canada's problem of economic imbalance in her business relations with this country.

Mr. Emmert's speech is the opinion of an industrial statesman, and I recommend heartily to my colleagues that it be carefully read. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the address be included at this point in the RECORD.

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

Your business is advertising and selling, and very largely, so is mine. Normally I am The heraldic eagle appearing in the rug advertising or selling on behalf of my own

was used in 1797 on dimes, dollars, half eagles, and eagles. In those coins, the relationship between the eagle, the arrows, and the olive branch were reversed as you detected from their position in the Great Seal and in modern coinage.

You have raised an interesting question, and I think we probably ought to have these answers published in some form in the conference center as the derivation of the rug designs is, I think, most interesting. Accept my very best wishes. Sincerely,

CARLISLE H. HUMELSINE.

SPOON BREAD

Stir 1 cup of corn meal into 1 pint of boiling water, which contains one-half teaspoon of salt. Stir 1 minute, remove from fire and add 2 tablespoons of butter. Beat well, add 4 beaten eggs and beat in 1 cup of cold milk.

company.

But today, the product is Canada, the country I have chosen to live and work in. In size, Canada ranks next only to Russia and our operating companies which are from the Atlantic to the Pacific are 4,200 miles

apart or the distance from Chicago to Paris. Windsor, Ontario, is parallel with northern

California, and from Windsor we look north to Detroit. Our northern frontier is the Arctic Circle.

In this tremendous landmass we have a population of only 19 million-about the same number of people living in New York State.

Our form of government is based on the British system, as free and representative as your own. Canada is an equal partner in the British Commonwealth and subservient to no one.

Although we have full nationhood, and complete political entity, because of geog

To the United States with a gross national product of around $600 billion, Canada's $1.5 billion problem is negligible. But to Canada with a $44 billion gross national product it is economic survival.

Our Minister of Finance said this month: "The Government of Canada is determined measures that will bring order, stability, and to give priority in its economic policy to better balance in our international trade payments. This will not be easy. It will mean some changes in the way we do things."

He said also: "The direction we must take

is clear and unmistakable. We will proceed carefully in seeking and applying solutions. We will bear in mind the interests of our friends and neighbors, but there can be no question about the compelling need for effective action."

To Canadians the economic facts are loud and clear and dangerous. The danger of relying on the flow of foreign capital into

Canada as an offset to trade imbalance was brought rudely home last year when the flow stopped. The result was an extreme exchange crisis.

The logical question here is: How did Canada get herself into this position? Well, I guess we can blame the war and the boom years that followed, when we changed from a primary producer to a manufacturer.

The cry was "Canada can make it." Literally hundreds of new factories sprang up every year in a phenomenal industrial expansion. Many of these factories were subsidiaries of U.S. and oversea companies.

In 1938 primary industries such as mining and agriculture accounted for over 40 percent of the dollar value of Canada's total production. By 1960 that figure had slumped to 26 percent, and today secondary industry accounts for three-quarters of the dollar volume of Canadian production.

Canada has had to pay the price for this rapid progress and today U.S. interests control well over half of all Canadian industrial enterprises, including some 45 percent of manufacturing. While this circumstance could be viewed with alarm and contribute to our current economic difficulties it has speeded up the development of Canada and provided the high standard of living we enjoy today.

We should remind ourselves that it was European investors who provided the financial strength for the development of the United States when she became an independent Nation. Yet America has retained her economic independence. Naturally, Canada is equally anxious to retain hers-and I feel sure she will.

A further problem has been the youth and inexperience of Canada's new secondary industry in export markets. Often it has been a matter of timidity; sometimes restraint by the parent company, especially in attempting to penetrate the U.S. market, or neglect through complacency in the boom years of the domestic market.

Geography has also added to Canada's dilemma. Much of the population of Canada is resident in the large new industrial belts along the Great Lakes and on the U.S. border.

As a result, these people who are the pacesetters in Canadian standards of living are directly under the full onslaught of U.S. influence. Through television and radio, magazines and all other methods of communciation-a field in which Americans are expert-the desire for U.S. standards has spread-and this is good.

Today a Canadian in Ontario has his own home, his new model car, his refrigerator, his washing machine, his television and all the other material things expected in the

United States.

The only trouble is that while the individual Canadian may be able to meet the payments for all these things, his country can't meet the bills without borrowing. And there's a limit to what can be borrowed safely.

As a nation we are now committed to industry. But because of our much smaller domestic market, industrial Canada today must look elsewhere to sell her goods. Quite naturally her eye turns first to the immense U.S. market.

In order to balance trade something has to go. Either Canada lowers her standard of living by cutting imports or she balances the books by selling more to the United States-$1.5 billion worth annually to be exact. And the people of Canada are not willing to accept the first alternative.

My own company operates internationally,

Our divisions and subsidiaries are not afraid to compete in any market. That is why we do a fair amount of business abroad. We don't win them all, but of sales totaling $1.3 billion in the last 5 years, about $200 million has been earned in foreign markets.

I am all for opening more trade doors and closing fewer. Restrictions cripple initiative, expansion, and progress. In this day and age no nation can sit on its hands behind a high protective wall and survive. The Europeans found this out.

I was pleased to note that in a speech given the other day, Gen. E. W. Rawlings, U.S. Air Force, retired, one of your distinguished military men and now a leading industrialist, pointed out to a Toronto audience that one of North America's chronic problems is a matter of geography.

"Basically," he said, "certain problems arise on our North American Continent because politically the dividing lines run east and west, whereas economically they run north and south.”

This is of real concern to enlightened industrialists on both sides of the border, but I am sure that in the course of time some practical solution will be found for this problem.

From my own experience in the farm equipment business where there are no duty barriers, I found that both Canadian and United States agricultural equipment consumers and manufacturers benefit by the free north and south flow of their goods. The question now is: Where do we go from here?

First. Canada is not looking for handouts. She is not a recipient of foreign aid-but is in fact a giver.

Second. What she seeks is a better opportunity to sell her secondary products in the U.S. markets. She feels she has earned that right by her "wider door" policy with the United States, and is still earning that right.

Third. Canada doesn't want a better market share through charity. Her goods should be marketed in the United States on quality and price.

Fourth and probably the most important. Canada needs better U.S. education and un

derstanding of her position, her role in North American affairs, and acceptance of her new

industrialization.

I do not fear Canada's ability to compete successfully in the United States under fair ground rules. Canada can compete. Canada can compete. There's no doubt about that.

Today we sell a lot of goods in certain U.S. markets. But many other markets are virtually closed to us.

We are constantly studying the U.S. market and we accept the challenge.

For example, in order to do business U.S.style, our company opened a subsidiary in Chicago 14 months ago staffed entirely by Americans. This is an engineering and assembly plant for the production of power packages using industrial gas turbine engines developed and manufactured by our Orenda Engines Division, which has been in business for nearly 20 years. By the end of this year we will have about $2 million invested over here, in hopes of getting it and some more back by penetrating your market with a first-class product at competitive prices.

Next year, Canada hopes to export more than $6.8 billion worth of goods and services, and undoubtedly an increasing proportion will be in manufactured goods portion will be in manufactured goods which are showing some encouraging improvements.

Generally, however, we are looking and must look more to the U.S. market. And when a Canadian industrialist looks at the American market one thing happens-his mouth waters.

A fractionally greater share of that vast market can solve Canada's greatest economic problems.

Good relations between Canada and the United States are vital for the future prosperity and perhaps even the survival of both countries. Therefore, we must not only seek to encourage a better understanding of the problems which have arisen and may arise, but also to develop solutions which are in the common interest of both countries.

It may well be in the future that Canada will appear to be adamant in many matters while wrestling with her problems.

If this is disturbing I would ask you to remember the words of Vincent Massey, first Canadian citizen to become Governor General of Canada and former Canadian Ambassador to Washington, who says in his recently published biography: "Americans do not dislike us when we are loyal to our

selves, and they respect us when we stand up for what we believe to be our rights, as they are always zealous in defending what they believe to be theirs."

And having lived on both sides of the border, I believe that this is true.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed.

AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which will be stated.

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

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] to the so-called Mansfield amendments, which were offered by the Senator from Montana on his own behalf and on behalf of other Senators. The amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 1, in line 8, of the amendments (No. 280) submitted by Mr. MANSFIELD, on behalf of himself and other Senators, the following amendment (No. 290) is proposed: namely, strike out the figure "$1,500,000,000" and insert the figure "$975,000,000".

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOLLAND obtained the floor. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The amendment of the Senator from Florida is the pending business. I ask unanimous consent that I may suggest the absence of a quorum, with the understanding that the Senator from Florida will not lose his right to the floor.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Montana. I shall be happy to accept it, if the Senate gives permission for a quorum call, provided that in doing so I do not lose my right to the floor.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call may be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. WALTERS in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, before urging my amendment upon the Senate, and before the distinguished chairman of the committee leaves the Senate Chamber, let me say that I appreciate the fact that the majority leader, the minority leader, the chairman of the committee, and the ranking minority member have tried to deal realistically with the problem presented this year in offering their amendments. They show a realistic approach to the thinking of the country which, I am sure, is strongly in favor of a substantial reduction in the foreign aid program. Senators who have joined in offering these amendments are probably in closer touch with the problem than other Senators-certainly much closer than I am. I appreciate their effort, and I want to support it. I hope that I shall be able to support it. But there is one feature in it which has seemed to me to be not realistic and not showing an understanding of what I believe is in the minds of other Senators, and certainly in the minds of the great majority of our people—that is, that we are hoping not merely for a reduction of the program this year, but for continued reductions and for an end to the program at as early a time in the future as possible.

The Senate has noted, I am sure, in the amendments offered by the majority and minority leaders and the distinguished ranking members of the Foreign Relations Committee, including, in addition to the ones I have already mentioned, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] that on line 8 of page 1 of the printed amendments there ap

pears a reauthorization of the entire amounts included in the Development Loan Fund, by existing law, for the 2 years 1965 and 1966.

The reduction for this year to $975 million from the $1,500 million previously authorized for this year is, I think, a realistic reduction. I am glad the leaders have proposed it. But I think there is even more need for a reduction in the authorizations for the ensuing 2 years, 1965 and 1966.

It would be incomprehensible to me if the Senate, knowing of the hopeful attitude of the country that the Congress should not only reduce the program, but end the program at an early date, would reauthorize at this time the whole $1,500 million included in the original act of 1961, as the authorizations for each of the years 1965 and 1966.

I do not believe there is present in the Senate an intention to reauthorize that very large amount for the Development

Loan Fund for 1965 and 1966.

I call attention to the fact that, if the amendments offered by the leadership were adopted, they would, in fact, reauthorize the $1,500 million authorizations for 1965 and 1966.

Because I think we should not do that, but should show the deliberate intention of the Senate to reduce this program for the future, and to look to an even greater reduction than we have offered in the amendments of the leadership for this year, I have offered my amendment, which would reduce the $1,500 million

authorization in the amendment for 1965 to $975 million, and accomplish the same thing as to the $1,500 million authorization for 1966. Mr. President, will

Mr. LAUSCHE. Am I correct in my understanding that in the existing authorization there is allowed $1,500 million for the fiscal years, separately, of 1964, 1965, and 1966?

Mr. LAUSCHE. It is the argument of the Senator from Florida that, if there is legitimacy in the argument that we are to reduce the amount, we should begin the reduction in some way at the present time, rather than increase or

Mr. LAUSCHE. The amendments offered by the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], on behalf of himself, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], and other Senators, would reduce the $1,500 million authorization for the fiscal year 1964 to $975 million, but would allow the $1,500 million authorization, respectively, for the fiscal years 1965 and 1966 to continue. Is that correct?

Mr. HOLLAND. They would not merely allow it to continue; they would reauthorize the amounts. If the amendments offered by the leadership had referred only to 1964, they would not have been as objectionable in this respect as they are; but they include these words, and I read now the words to be inserted in the present authorization:

For the fiscal year 1963, $975,000,000 for the fiscal year 1964, and $1,500,000,000 for each of the next two succeeding fiscal years. work upon that part of the Mansfield I believe the Senate has the duty to amendment by saying that we are not merely hoping to reduce the large amount authorized for this year, but are

looking forward, with equal hope, to the next 2 succeeding years.

I am sorry I have no evidence on which to make a request for less than $975 million for each of those future years, but I know that with a ceiling of that amount for 1965 and 1966, a reduction in the programs would be much more likely to take place than it would with a ceiling of $1,500 million, as under the present law. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator let me pursue that thought?

Mr. HOLLAND. Yes. I yield to the Senator from Ohio. Then I shall yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LAUSCHE. If the amendment of the Senator from Florida were adopted, it would mean that the amount which has been recommended for authorization in fiscal year 1964 would also be the amount for fiscal year 1965 and fiscal year 1966, which is $975 million. Is that

correct?

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is correct. That would be the authorized amount for the 2 following years, meaning that that would be the ceiling for those years.

This year the authorized ceiling is $1,500 million. The amendments offered by the leadership would reduce that amount, which was already reduced by the committee to the budgeted amount I believe the budgeted amount was $1,060 million, or something like that—to $975 million. They have accomplished those two reductions from

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is correct. I think we should show our intention to the people. It would be an appreciated act on the part of Congress, if, in regard to this program, we not only reduce it this year, but also look to the future. If we reduced the ceiling for 1965 by $525 million at this time, and for 1966 by the same amount, namely, $525 million, I think it would begin to show to the country that we really are working toward a reduction, and, we hope soon, an elimination of this program.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. MORSE. I wish to raise a point or two with regard to the Senator's amendment in relation to the Mansfield amendments. One of the "gimmicks" of the Mansfield amendments is the provithe Senator know any reason why we sion that seeks to commit the Senate to should not limit the authorization to

an authorization for 1965 and 1966. Does

1964?

would be an appropriate way to approach Mr. HOLLAND. That, of of course,

the problem; but there is a problem stated in these amendments, in which there is a proposal for a reauthorization of $1.5 billion for 1965 and 1966. So far he thinks it would be a great mistake as the Senator from Florida is concerned, for the Senate to go on record that we should retain that huge authorization for the years 1965 and 1966. I think we ought to begin to work our will toward a substantial reduction of the program for the future by cutting the ceiling for those years from this part of the program, that is, the Development Loan Fund, from $1.5 billion to $975 million.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, let me tell the Senator what I believe to be a great mistake. It is to have in the bill any language that authorizes expenditures for 1965 and 1966. The Senate ought to face what I call a "sleeper" proposal in the amendment. There is no doubt that the proponents of foreign aid know that foreign aid is in serious trouble in the United States. I am satisfied that most of the proponents of foreign aid know that if foreign aid went to a referendum vote by the American people, it would be overwhelmingly defeated. The American people have had enough.

That does not mean that the American people would note vote for some reasonable foreign aid program. However, I believe that the American people are satisfied that the foreign aid program is unreasonable, unjustified, and

uncalled for. The American people are preparing to strike it down. They are going to strike it down in a variety of ways. They are going to strike down some Senators and Representatives in 1964, when they come up for election.

I hope it will be remembered that the senior Senator from Florida said so on the floor of the Senate today, and will remember it when we take a look at the results of the 1964 election. The people are going to strike them down. Some of us believe that we had better wait and let the people decide what we should do for 1964 in the election of 1964, before we proceed with the Mansfield amendments to authorize for 2 additional years $12 billion of foreign aid. That is my first point.

My second point is that I believe anyone who will study the foreign aid program knows that we ought to reduce the number of countries that are receiving aid. We cannot justify continuing to pour foreign aid funds into countries which are as well able to support themselves as we are to support ourselves. They have no right to receive any additional money from the United States. Before we finish with the debate we shall present our evidence to show our reasons for believing that this is already true of most of the NATO countries. We shall propose a reduction in most of the foreign aid money that is intended to be poured into a number of countries, because they are able to support themselves and should not be getting a subsidy from the American taxpayers.

There is in the bill an authorization of a billion and a half dollars for the next 2 years. I know what the proponents of foreign aid will say. They will say, "We have it in our pockets." I believe that next year the entire foreign aid program ought to come before us as a matter of necessity.

It can be said that the people are not going to do anything to stop Congress from going into foreign aid if it wills to do so. The Senator from Flordia knows, as well as I do, that the Senate does not go out looking for business, usually; it has enough to do to handle the calendar of bills that automatically

comes before us.

If an authorization bill does not come before us, no one will go out to dredge one up. I would propose to strike all the language on line 8, page 1 of the Mansfield amendments "And $1,500,000,000 for each of the next two succeeding fiscal years."

I do not believe we ought to vote for an authorization for fiscal years 1965 and 1966. We ought to pass only on 1964, and then take a look at what the situation is for 1965 after the American people have taken a look at the election. Thank God, we have the kind of democratic system in our country under which the people can go into the voting booth and register their dissent from actions of Congress, by retiring a few Senators and Representatives who ought to be retired. The American people are entitled to have us, in this session of

Congress, pass what our wisdom as of now indicates should be the authorization for 1964. I do not believe it ought to extend beyond that period for 1 day. to extend beyond that period for 1 day. I make the suggestion because I want the Senator from Florida to know that I would like very much to find myself in agreement with him as far as possible. agreement with him as far as possible. He is making a contribution by the amendment that he has offered. ever, it does not go far enough.

How

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is always frank. I always like to be in agreement with him, not only because he is my seatmate, but also because of his brillance and his broad grasp of so many problems.

I invite his attention, with some temerity, to the fact that if the course he suggests is followed, it will leave as a part of the law the authorization now outstanding, which is for a billion and a half dollars for 1965 and a billion and a half dollars for 1966.

We have a precious opportunity to bring the authorized amount down. I am suggesting it be brought down by more than a billion dollars by the amendment which I am suggesting. I am also stating that I do not propose to vote for any reauthorization of these huge amounts if they are left in the amendments proposed to us as the result of some very careful study, I am sure, by the distinguished Senators who offer them. We shall find ourselves in the position of facing a billion and a half dollar authorization for next year, because it is already on the books, and a billion and a half dollar authorization for the year following, in connection with the Development Loan Fund.

I believe there is a wonderful opportunity to show to the country that the Senate is not merely performing an operation on this year's budgeted request, but is also laying a predicate for a greater diminution of the program in the future.

I am sorry, as I have already said, that I cannot intelligently fix any other figure for 1965 and 1966, other than to take the diminished figure which is proposed to be put in the bill for 1964, which I believe is real progress, because it suggests the elimination from the program of a total of a billion and fifty million dollars in the authorization for the next 2 fiscal years.

I am sure, knowing how the Senator from Oregon feels about the whole program, that he will admit that this is a very meritorious objective in itself.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I admit that it is a meritorious objective. Apparently I did not make myself clear. What we propose to do is to repeal the authorization in the existing law for 1964 and 1965. We propose to repeal it, and to have nothing but the authorization for 1964 remain in the bill. We do not believe there should be any continuing authorization beyond this year. The committee in its report has suggested that the entire foreign aid program be reconsidered. We want to encourage that recommendation, by repealing the authorization provision beyond 1964.

I should like to ask the Senator a procedural question. I have been asked to attend a meeting of Democrats being held in the majority leader's office, apparently to ask me some questions about my position in connection with the pending bill. I cannot very well leave the floor to do that, because the Senator's amendment might be adopted in my absence.

Mr. HOLLAND. I certainly would not call it up while the Senator is away.

Mr. MORSE. I understand that. Unless I made an arrangement, it could be adopted in my absence. My present intention would be, after the Senator finishes his argument, and before action is taken on the amendment, to have a live quorum. live quorum. That would take long enough so that the meeting, which I understand will not take very long, could be held and Senators could return to the floor.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am in sympathy with the situation in which the Senator from Oregon finds himself. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield the floor for the purpose of suggesting the absence of a quorum, and that I may have the floor upon the conclusion of the quorum call. I give notice that this will be a live quorum.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his suggestion of the absence of a quorum?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to withhold it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the Senator from Florida?

Mr. HOLLAND. I withdraw my request. The distinguished minority leader, being always able to take care of every situation, will, I think, take care of this one in such a way as to enable Senators who are members of the other party to attend the caucus.

Mr. President, I amend my request that there be a quorum call by withdrawing the part relating to the suggestion that there be a live quorum. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the request of the Senator from Florida that he retain the floor at the conclusion of the quorum call? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the unanimous-consent agreement, the

Senator from Florida was to retain the

floor at the conclusion of the quorum call. Is there objection to allowing the Senator from Ohio to proceed?

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio may proceed, notwithstanding the request of the Senator from Florida.

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