CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

August 10, 1967

Page 22196

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader inform me what other developed countries would be providing these tools if the United States did not sell them?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Offhand, I would say the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Italy, and probably the smaller countries, and on the other side of the globe, there would be Japan.

There would be plenty of people to step in to fill the void which would be created if this amendment were agreed to. And I believe there have been statements to that effect in the RECORD.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. So that as a practical matter, there are a half dozen progressive, developed countries, friendly to the United States, that will sell these tools if we do not.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Exactly, and probably a good many more. And I am opposed to that.

I might add, that refusing to extend credit for American sales of products which may eventually end up in a Communist country has the effect of turning millions of dollars -- even hundreds of million of dollars of American sales -- and jobs -- over to Western Europe.

This amendment, if it is adopted, will be the biggest aid program for industrial Europe since the Marshall plan.

I know, Mr. President, that it will be said that we must not arm our enemies. But let me emphasize, the specific transaction which bothers the supporters of this amendment is the financing of the export of American machine tools to enable the Russians to build an automobile factory.

I say the more automobile plants in Russia the better. Automobiles are instruments of peace, not of war. Automobile plants can't be turned overnight into tank factories.

My authority for this statement is the former president of one of this Nation's largest automobile producers, Mr. Robert McNamara.

Now Mr. McNamara also happens to be our Secretary of Defense; so, he speaks with some authority after some 6 or 7 years in that position.

On July 26, he appeared before the Committee on Foreign Relations and testified in executive session on the foreign aid bill. Those hearings have been sanitized and sent to every Member today. On page 288 of those hearings, there is a colloquy between one of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and Secretary McNamara;

I ask the careful attention of every Member as I read this exchange:

Senator MUNDT. My final question is: what rationale does the department of government that is solely responsible for our national defense have that it is in the national interest to guarantee Italian credit of U.S. machine tools for an automobile plant in Russia to the extent of $50 million?

Secretary MCNAMARA. You are speaking of the Fiat loan?

Senator MUNDT. Yes.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Without appearing to be flippant, I cannot imagine anything I would rather have Russia apply its resources to than the production of automobiles. They have spent 15 years producing automobiles, and it is like dope. Once you get on it, you cannot get off.

Senator MUNDT. You mean our resources?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No.

Senator MUNDT. Not theirs.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Their resources.

Senator MUNDT. $50 million of our resources.

Senator GORE. Would you declassify that particular statement?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No, no. [Laughter.] Let me say that it is their resources in large part, Senator Mundt, because the $50 million is but a small part of the total resources that will be provided. I know, of course, that other governments are financing some of the total program. But I guarantee that, initially the Russians will have several hundred million dollars of their own resources tied up in it, and, within 5 or 10 years, they will have tied up several billion dollars, that is several billion dollars of Soviet resources that will not be facing us in military equipment some place in the world.

So I strongly favor the $50 million loans to, as I say, place them on dope.

Senator MUNDT. I do not totally disagree with you. But it seems to me you are not entirely correct when you say an automobile complex like that has no military significance to Russia.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I do not believe it does, sir.

Senator MUNDT. That has not been our experience in this country.

Secretary MCNAMARA. It has in the sense that you cannot convert an auto factory to produce military equipment. You can stop production of the automobiles, with great resistance from the public, and take the people who produce the automobiles, and after a long time convert them to producing something else, but it is a long time indeed, as all of you know who have watched Ford Motor Co. convert to B-24 production in World War II.

As Senators know, Secretary McNamara and I do not always see eye to eye, as, for example, on the matter of the use of the manned bomber, compared with the missile. I believe there is a proper mixture in which both can be very useful. But on the subject of the manufacture of automobiles and the relationship of that manufacture to the military capabilities of a nation, Mr. McNamara is a most qualified witness.

Let me say in summary, I urge rejection of the Dirksen amendment for these basic reasons:

First, its effects on the sale abroad of American products will be damaging to the U.S. economy;

Second, the amendment will not prevent Communist countries from acquiring throughout the world civilian-type products which I would like to see Americans manufacturing and selling;

Third, the adoption of the amendment would contribute to our balance of payments problems;

Fourth, its adoption will impede our efforts to wean eastern European nations away from Soviet control;

Fifth, its adoption could to some extent impede the Soviet Union as it moves in the direction of a society concerned with consumer goods instead of military goods;

Sixth, the amendment will not, as its sponsors suggest, have the effect of increasing the Communist military potential. It may well have just the opposite effect, as Secretary McNamara has testified.

So, Mr. President, I would hope that the discretionary authority which the President has had and continues to have in the bill now before the Senate will be retained by the Senate, and that the man who is charged first and foremost with the conduct of our policy in the field of foreign affairs will not have, to use a colloquial expression, his hands tied behind his back.

I hope the amendment will be rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes on the amendment. First, I should like to make clear, as I undertook to do yesterday, the nature of the issue that is before us, in terms of the bill and its provisions.

As I said last night, the bill does not constitute an authorization for our country to engage in East-West trade. To the extent that the bill deals with East-West trade, it is an additional restriction on the possibilities for East-West trade. The basic restriction involved is found in title III of the Foreign Assistance and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1966. The provision reads as follows:

None of the funds made available because of the provisions of this title shall be used by the Export-Import Bank to either guarantee the payment of any obligation hereafter incurred by any Communist country or any agency or national thereof, or in any other way to participate in the extension of credit to any such country, agency, or national in connection with the purchase of any product by such country, agency, or national, except when the President determines that such guarantees would be in the national interest and reports each such determination to the House of Representatives and the Senate within 30 days after such determination.

That restriction, Mr. President, is found in a piece of legislation which is reviewed annually by the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses. It prohibits use of the credit of the Export-Import Bank to finance trade directly with Communist countries unless the President determines that it would be in the national interest to do so.

The provision in the pending bill expands that restriction and effects further limits on the prospects for American goods going to Communist countries. If approved, it would bring into our legislative policy the so-called possible third-country deal involving Communist countries.

The amendment which the committee has reported to the Senate, if adopted, would be subject not to annual review but to review when the Bank again comes to Congress for extension of its life, and that would be 5 years from now. So we are talking about freezing into the basic restriction, which has a 1-year life, a further restriction which would have a 5-year life. The committee has recommended it.

The issue raised, then, by the Dirksen amendment, is not whether we should engage in East-West trade, but whether and to what extent the restrictions against East-West trade now found in our public laws should be strengthened.

I believe it is important to understand the difference between this description of the bill and the description of the bill which we heard yesterday in the debate. The question is,

"Should the Presidential discretion be eliminated from this restriction?" In other words, as we consider writing a 5-year restriction on policy into the law, should we eliminate the possibility of the exercise of Presidential discretion at any time in that 5-year period, under any conceivable circumstances, if in his judgment the national interest requires it? It is with respect to the wisdom of preserving that Presidential discretion that I should like to speak now.

The issue is whether Congress should close the door to the use of Export-Import Bank facilities under any circumstances which we can now anticipate or which we may not be able to anticipate in connection with trade with any Communist country. Because of the war in Vietnam, such an absolute ban may seem attractive to some; but we must ask ourselves the question: Is such an absolute ban in our best interests?

Our country, as we all know, is fighting a war today in Vietnam which is unlike any war this country has ever fought before. It is a frustrating war, a war which tests the patience of us all.

Under the circumstances, it is easy to search for any act that can be made to seem to hurt those on the other side.

But we have to keep Vietnam in its proper perspective. It poses problems for the Communist world as well as for us. We cannot be sure how it will affect various members of the Communist bloc tomorrow, next month, next year, or in 3 years or 5 years.

Mr. President, we must not lose sight of the fact that the proposed ban would extend not just for this year but for 5 years. We live in a rapidly changing world. Who would have thought several years ago that Sukarno would be toppled in Indonesia, or Nkrumah in Ghana? Who can foresee the changes which will take place in Vietnam itself or in Communist countries around the globe in the next 5 years?

The lesson of history is that changes will take place -- even the history of the Communist countries. It is the law of life, which is never static. Situations change, opportunities present themselves, and in the dangerous world in which we live, our country must be able to act upon those changes, to seize opportunities for peace and stability. Our national interest demands no less.

That is why I urge every Member of this body to consider very carefully the wisdom of the action proposed. It would freeze our posture with respect to the entire Communist world for the next 5 years.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. PASTORE. And who would have expected or hoped that we would have achieved a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963 after trying and trying and trying for almost 10 years?

Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator completely. There is an excellent example of leaving flexibility and discretion in the hands of the President, where the Founding Fathers placed it in 1787.

This ban would deny the President the flexibility he must have to act in our national interest -- not just today, when emotions run high over the Vietnam war but for a period of time so far into the future that no one can foresee the shape of the world at that time. I cannot believe such action can possibly serve our longterm interests.

The time factor aside, even in today's world, I doubt the wisdom of this proposal.

Whatever we do with our own trade, the Communist countries will continue to buy inputs of capital goods and technology, among other things, from the free world's industrialized countries.

And increasingly, too, Eastern European countries are developing the capacity to produce their own machinery. They have built up, during the past 50 years, a very respectable productive apparatus. Cutting off free world trade would not touch existing Communist capacity; it would not stop their growth. Cutting off our trade with them would, because of its small size, in comparison with that of other free world countries, do even less. It is, then, self-deception to believe that stopping American trade with the Communist countries of Eastern Europe would measurably or detectably affect the ability of the Communists in Vietnam to wage war.

Under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, the United States has since the end of World War II presented a solid front against the threat of Communist military expansion.

Democratic and Republican administrations alike have mobilized the wealth, the skills, the idealism, and the imagination of the American people to achieve a free and peaceful world. We know we cannot have peace in isolation from those who are living under communism. We cannot ignore them; we cannot disregard the changes and developments which are taking place in their world. Rather, we must encourage change. The fundamental reason we must defeat the proposal before us is that the U.S. Government needs and must have available every usable tool with which it can help shape the changes in the Communist world.

This is no pious idealism. I am not suggesting -- nobody has proposed -- programs of economic aid for Communist countries. I am not suggesting trying to bribe them to be good.

I am arguing that, as we have to live in the same world with these people, we must not merely show them that they cannot overrun us by force of arms, but we must work on them to encourage changes in desirable directions, not by bribery or giveaways, but in the way Americans know best -- through the confrontation of differing ideas and systems in the marketplace. I cannot imagine that Americans would come off second best in any honest competitve struggle of ideas, of technical ability, or managerial skill.

Foreign ideas are dangerous for Communists. They take the mind off Marx; they give people something else to think about than the latest pronouncements of the Party. The Communists know this. They take great pains to restrict and control knowledge of the great world outside their citadel of boredom. They are worried, and rightly so. I think we should make every effort to expand those contacts, to scatter the seeds of American ideas as far and wide as we can, and in as many forms. A Polaroid camera can start someone thinking in one direction; an American magazine may strike sparks in somebody else. For consumer goods do change societies.

When, for example, the Fiat automobile plant is built in the Soviet Union -- and I say "when," because it will be built no matter whether we participate in its construction or not -- when it is built, an automobile will cease to be a dream in the Soviet Union and will become a possibility.

Ordinary Soviet citizens are interested in cars right now as they were in 1959, when I spent 30 interesting days in that country. But they do not think about or plan for getting one. The waiting lists are too long. Once cars are being produced in respectable numbers, they will begin to. And once they get cars, time and money and effort which are now at the disposal of the party or of Soviet social organizations will be drained off into polishing and repairing and paying for cars. Soviet car owners will want places to drive to, roads to drive on, gas pumps to fill up at, motels or hotels to stay in.

The introduction of the automobile into the Soviet society is going to do things which, control them as they will, the Soviet leaders are not going to like. A man with a car, for one thing, is harder to turn out for a demonstration, harder to get into a meeting, more of an individual and a family member, and less a pliant party member. The change may not be sudden or dramatic, but nobody who has seen what it has done here and in Europe will easily believe that things will go on in the same old way.

And this is just one aspect of change. Changes of this sort, as I have already indicated, are going to take place whether we help them along or not. If we wish, we can bow out, but that will not stop the process. It will only make it certain that we will not influence it.

Recent developments in Eastern Europe, particularly in Rumania, indicate that our foreign policy would suffer disastrously if we were to continue to treat each Eastern European country as part of a single monolithic bloc, and thereby be unable to reward innovation and independent thinking.

To cite some examples from Rumania, where a phenomenal rise of nationalism has fostered distaste for any cooperative schemes which impinge on state sovereignty:

First. Its famous April declaration of 1964 stated that although the Communist alliance should be bound by a common ideology, there should be no binding organizational forms, no interference in internal affairs of the member states, and no attempt to encroach on their political, military, or economic sovereignty.

Second. It has dissented from many of the economic programs of Comecon -- the Eastern European Common Market.

Third. It resisted Soviet attempts to strengthen the Warsaw Pact and instead made sweeping proposals to weaken it.

Fourth. It publicly assailed both the Cominform and the Comintern -- and indirectly, therefore, the Soviet Union -- for its past activities against the Rumanian national interest.

Fifth. Besides playing Maverick within the Communist bloc, it broke the united Communist front in international affairs by establishing diplomatic relations with West Germany.

Sixth. In the Middle East crisis, it refused to sign a collective declaration with the other Communist countries which would both condemn Israel as an aggressor and pledge participation in collective measures to help the Arab countries. Instead, it urged the preservation of the territorial integrity of the countries involved, and it urged negotiations between the parties.

Seventh. It has become increasingly independent economically from the Soviet Union. The Soviet share of Rumanian trade has fallen from 50 to 30 percent in less than 10 years. West Germany is now its second most important trading partner.

Eighth. Rumanian leaders have not attended three of the past four European Communist Party conferences.

Ninth. Domestically, destalinization has proceeded rapidly. Police terror has been reduced drastically; greater freedom of speech and movement is now tolerated; an amnesty in 1964 released many thousands of political prisoners; guarantees were written into the new 1965 constitution of greater rights for the individual citizen against the State; the standard of living has perceptibly increased and social security benefits have improved; diversification and creativity have been encouraged in philosophy and literature, despite the danger that Marxist-Leninist philosophy may thereby be eroded. Derussification of Rumanian history has continued.

Other eastern European countries are testing the waters of economic reforms which will, to the extent that they proceed, shake the total grip of the Communist parties. They are taking these steps on their own, partly because they need to trade with Western countries, and partly because they are learning from Western countries. No country, neither Yugoslavia nor Rumania, could have resisted Soviet economic pressure if it had not been able to buy from and sell to the West.

But the necessity of economic, competitive, market efficiency, first evident in foreign trade with market economies, has spread in Yugoslavia to the internal economy. As a result, we are seeing the growth of an economic system based both on market principles and on the social ownership of capital goods. We are seeing, too, the expression of individual ideas in social and political affairs, and the remarkable process of a Communist Party publicly debating and questioning its own role and function.

I cannot believe that we will deny ourselves the chance to participate in these developments by stubbornly insisting that we must not trade with the Communist countries of Eastern Europe at any time, and under any circumstances because today they are helping Communists in Vietnam. I feel certain that we shall today guarantee our country the means of playing a flexible and imaginative role in the world in which we live.

Let me emphasize once more in closing, Mr. President, that what we are talking about is not a wide-open door to trade with the East, but rather the question of whether or not, as we further restrict the potential of trade with the East, we should leave ourselves, in the shape of presidential discretion, a chance to take advantage of opportunities which we do not now foresee.

(The following colloquy, which occurred during Mr. MUSKIE's address, is printed at this point in the RECORD on request of Mr. MANSFIELD and by unanimous consent.)

Mr. MUNDT. Would the Senator be willing to try to find some way in which we could get time in which to present his argument, the argument of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] and the arguments of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], and myself in rejoinder when we would not all be addressing a nearly empty Chamber.

As this Senator properly said yesterday, this debate involves one of the most vital issues confronting America today. It involves the lives of Americans today and in the future.

I find it difficult to choose an adjective to describe a debate which takes place with only four Senators in the Chamber.

In some way, I suggest to the majority leader, I wish we could bring Senators to the Chamber. I should like to have them hear my argument and the argument the Senator from Maine is presently presenting. I think we must agree that this is an issue of great magnitude.

If suggestions are to be made for a limitation of debate on other amendments at the desk, unless some way can be found to bring more Senators to the Chamber to hear the debate -- and I do not know the answer to the problem -- I shall resist any request for a time limitation, so that Senators may have until tomorrow, at least, to read the debate as it will appear in the RECORD. If Senators will not come or cannot come to the Chamber when a debate on a matter of this magnitude is taking place, it is a sorry spectacle to speak in an almost empty Chamber.

I know the majority leader tried to get Senators here, just as I did, but let us observe the futility of it. We all agree that this is an important issue.

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

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I do not consider any legislation that has come before the Senate this year for consideration unimportant. I admit that the degree of importance of legislation does vary. But as we all know Senators are preparing other legislation in committee at this time which precludes their attendance at all times on the floor.

If the distinguished Senator from South Dakota can come up with a magic formula by means of which there could be accomplished what he would like, I would like, and others would like, including the distinguished minority leader, I wish he would pass it on to me, because the joint leadership would be glad to put it into effect.

Mr. MUNDT. There probably has not been a Senator more cooperative through the years than I have been in agreeing to unanimous-consent requests.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MUNDT. The only reason why I shall object to them now, if I must, is that I know of no better way to bring to the attention of Senators what has gone on in this important debate than to let them read it in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the following morning in their offices, if they are not here in the afternoon, because this is a matter affecting not only 500,000 Americans now in Vietnam, but also the peace of the world. This is a debate of the greatest magnitude. Mr. President, we should really take a week in connection with this debate, but a week would not do much good if the Chamber remains empty, although Senators could then read the debate in the RECORD.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota is perfectly within his rights. If the Senator desires to do what he stated in effect, we have no alternative. The Senator realizes the difficulty in which he finds himself. He worked long and hard on this legislation. However, I do not know how we can get Senators to the Chamber. I do not believe it could be done if the Sergeant at Arms were sent out with a warrant.

Mr. MUNDT. I appreciate the sympathetic consideration. I do not know the answer either, but I pointed out as a preface that if I am forced to object to the unanimous-consent request it is because of what I have stated. Maybe we are today confronted with unusually busy committees. I realize that all Senators cannot be here all the time, but I know of no other way to bring the matter to the attention of Senators who will vote on this matter and who must answer to their constituents for this historic decision by a rollcall vote.

During the debate on the Consular Treaty there was much discussion that was not heard by everyone. The matter was debated for 4 or 5 days. Why? We wanted the facts to get to the public.

Even at that the treaty was ratified by only three votes. Since that time two of those Senators who voted to ratify have come to me and said, "Karl, if we had known everything said in that debate we would have voted with you in opposition to the treaty." That is water over the dam. The treaty would have been ratified by one vote even if those two had voted in that way.

Mr. President, I want to let fellow Senators know what this is about. Right or wrong on either side this is going to be the biggest political issue in 1968, as I said yesterday. The biggest political issue is going to be the war, policies connected with it, and trading with the enemy.

Senators have a right to know what they are voting on as we hammer this matter out amendment after amendment, and vote after vote. If my position is defeated, so be it. But let it be decided by those in possession of all the facts on both sides of this debate.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am sure that every Senator concerned, on each side of the aisle, knows pretty well right now how he is going to vote. I do not think that debate is going to change a single mind, at least produce enough of a change to be significant. I do not know how the vote will go, one way or the other; but I think that even on the extent of the debate already incorporated in the RECORD over the past 2 days that the gist of the main arguments -- and the Senator from south Dakota made a magnificent speech yesterday -- are there for all to see. They have been seen and they have been read.

However, because I think the Senator has a valid argument, I am going to ask attaches on the Democratic side to phone each Senator's office and ask that he please come to the Chamber. I would hope that the acting minority leader would do the same.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I make the same request of the attaches on the Republican side.

Senators should be impressed with the fact that they are voting on something second in importance only to a declaration of war because this is a debate about a policy which affects whether or not we are going to win the war, lose it, or get out of it alive.

I thank the Senator for listening, I do not usually interrupt, but I thought in this instance I should.

Mr. MUSKIE. We can at least form sympathetic audiences for each other.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, a moment ago the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] suggested that it might be in order to carry this matter over until next week. Personally I would be well satisfied to see the proposal carried over to next week, not.because of Senators but because of the people.

I am convinced that if the people of the United States understand this proposal, if they know what is being proposed, if they realize that their money is coming out of the pockets of hardworking men and women, they will be upset. The average wage in this country is $91, and some $14 of that is taken in Federal taxes. If the people realized that that money, under this proposal, can be used to aid the economies of nations trading with North Vietnam, I believe they would be more upset and perhaps there would be a different outcome on the vote which will be taken. I do not make a motion, but I did want to make that statement.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I appreciate the viewpoint of the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I am glad that he offered the suggestion which he did. I point out to the Senator that the Senate has legislation equally as important as the present bill awaiting its consideration. I would call to the Senator's attention and to the attention of the Senate that this morning I received a call from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, in which he expressed a desire to bring up the defense appropriations bill tomorrow, if this legislation is disposed of today.

If we are able to complete action on this bill today and start defense appropriations tomorrow, the leadership would then plan to call up the foreign aid bill and that legislation is usually quite controversial.

That legislation will embrace many of the factors which are being discussed on the floor of the Senate at this moment.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I agree with the Senator from Montana that the defense bill is a vitally important bill and must be passed. But that does not mean that the pending bill must be passed before the defense bill can be taken up. As I understand it, the pending bill could be laid aside and the defense bill taken up this afternoon, tonight, or tomorrow even.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Oh, no, it could not be taken up tonight. I know that the Senator knows what is behind the request of the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL].

The leadership will do its best to prevent the Senate from getting into the habit of taking up important legislation and then later putting it aside prior to completion. The relative importance of legislation is determined by the leadership in scheduling legislation. The leadership was prepared to take up the defense appropriation bill on Tuesday but because of circumstances beyond its control it was not possible to do so. Thus we went ahead with this bill.

Let me say that so far as educating the people of this country is concerned, are we going to be guided by pressures, by petitions, or letters, telling us how to vote?

What were we elected to this job to do? To exercise our own best judgment, to face up to the issues and to vote according to our conscience, and then to go back and face the people whom we represent. I do not believe there is a Senator in this body, on either side of the aisle, who is not prepared to do just that on any issue, at any time.

Mr. MUNDT. Will the Senator from Maine yield, on my time?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. MUNDT. I rise to express interest and support in what I believe is a most constructive suggestion from the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]. I believe it could be done, let me say to the majority leader, without the loss of a single second of the Senate's schedule. If we could agree to this, we could probably vote on the amendment before us, I assume, this afternoon, then tomorrow we could take up the defense bill, which should have priority and would have been passed by this time except for circumstances which we all understand.

When that is over, the majority leader could reschedule this Export-Import Bank bill and the foreign-aid bill, both of which are very important. No time will be lost. It is obvious that we are not going to be able, in good conscience, to complete this bill today. There are amendments which have not even been discussed. If we are going to be speaking to an almost empty Chamber, the only way our colleagues can know the arguments about the issues involved -- which they have not heard described yet, and the evidence which has not yet been given -- is to read it in the RECORD. The only way for the people around the country to understand the issues will be to read it in the press and listen to radio and TV. I hope that the press will fully report this debate, because of its unusual and universal significance.

May I say to my good friend from Montana that I do not think we should be disturbed about the fact that our constituencies express their desires. I think more Senators should pay attention to them.

I am also disturbed by the fact that many Senators listen too carefully to telephone calls from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. That is legitimate, of course, under our American system. We know what pressures are exerted from the other end of the avenue. We know some of the pressures exerted by the munitions lobby, the international bankers, and the machine toolmakers. also, Mr. President. There is nothing wrong with the common people having a complete understanding of the issues reflecting our decisions and relaying to us their counsel. Each Senator, in good conscience, will make up his mind, and I would hope he will make up his mind on the basis of all the facts.

Mr. MANSFIELD. This is the first I have heard any reference to munitions makers or any other kind of organization, business, or group.

I have had no pressure, not even from the administration. This is a bill reported from a committee. It was, I believe, reported unanimously. We are now considering an amendment by the distinguished minority leader. It has always been the policy and procedure of the joint leadership to consider a bill until disposed of once it is made the pending business. I would hope we would continue the consideration of this bill. If we cannot finish it today, there is always tomorrow and Saturday. There is always next week. I think we had better go ahead, accordingly, and face up to this issue and vote as our conscience dictates, and then be prepared to accept the consequences, if any. I certainly am prepared, and I have had no pressure, not even from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. I have had no munitions makers -- I do not know where they come in on this--or any other group trying to tell me how to vote. It would not do them any good, anyway, because I like to think that I exercise my own best judgment, wrong though it may be at times.

Mr. MUNDT and Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, who has the floor?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has the floor.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, some 20 minutes ago, because it was quite clear that Senators on the other side of this issue wanted to take some time to speak about the matter, I yielded 10 minutes and have since yielded time to other Senators who have indulged in this colloquy. All I was able to complete was the first page of my speech.

Mr. MUNDT. Well, we gained one additional Senator in the Chamber.

Mr. MUSKIE. With all deference to the Senator from South Dakota, I should like to continue my speech, but I will yield once more if the Senator from South Dakota will promise to keep his comments brief.

Mr. MUNDT. I thank the Senator. Let me say to my good friend from Montana that when I was speaking of the lobbyists, I assure him it was not meant as being any pressure against him, because the Senator from Montana has demonstrated, over and over again, his independence. I was alluding to the fact that this bill was brought out by the House committee months ago, and the President and others in the White House have been trying to get it taken up on the floor. The House has refused to do it because there has been so much opposition to it. So they skipped over the House, after the bill was approved by the House committee and got it out of the Senate committee before House action so we now have it before us.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If the Senator from South Dakota will yield, the Senator will recall that he approached me 3 weeks ago to ask that the bill not be presented to the Senate in any hurry. I assured him that it would not; that only after the Senator was well prepared and had gone to committee and the report had been filed in time for study, would the bill be taken up.

Mr. MUNDT. The reason the leadership did not send it to the House was that there was no pressure to get it there compared with the resistance of House Members against voting for the bill.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Let me tell my good friend from South Dakota that we in the Senate will attend to our business in our own way.

Mr. MUNDT. I thank the Senator from Montana.

Mr. MUSKIE. This bill was introduced on the Senate side and has been referred to as S. 1155. It was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, of which I am a member, and was then referred to the Subcommittee on International Finance, of which I am chairman. The initiative for conducting hearings and for assigning a date for the hearings for conducting an executive session and then reporting the bill to the full committee was exercised by me, speaking without any pressure from the House, without any pressure from the White House -- either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a matter of fact, the language which we are talking about originated in the committee, not by the White House, not by the House, not by this Senator, but by two Senators on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] and the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER]. So that if this proposition is, as it is suggested, the product of pressure from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the route has been indirect, indeed.

(This marks the end of the colloquy which occurred during Mr. MUSKIE's address and which was ordered to be printed at this point in the RECORD.)

Mr. MURPHY. Would the Senator, for the information of the Senator from California, explain what he means by "social ownership of goods"? That was a term the Senator used a short time ago.

Mr. MUSKIE. I take it that this means state ownership of capital goods.

Mr. MURPHY. That is state ownership; that is socialism?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. Is there any difference between that particular socialism and the socialism in Russia? Any practical difference?

Mr. MUSKIE. No.

Mr. MURPHY. In other words, the ideologies, then, are still in definite opposition? In other words, we as a free society and they as a Socialist state?

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator apparently focused on only the last half of my sentence. I said:

As a result, we are seeing the growth of an economic system based both on market principles

Which, I take it, is emulative of the West and the social ownership of capital goods. Which, I take it, is emulative of the Communist system.

Mr. MURPHY. I see. I merely was interested in what was the actual meaning of social ownership of goods.

Mr. MUSKIE. The only point I was making, may I say to the Senator, is that here is another evidence of the change that is taking place in the Communist countries, to buttress my point that we should not ignore the fact of change, and that the changes are, in many instances, inconsistent with the directions which the Soviet Union would dictate, if it could. I make the point that these changes make it possible for Eastern European countries increasingly to develop independence of the Soviet Union, and that we ought to reserve for ourselves the possibility of influencing such changes, magnifying them, and encouraging and stimulating them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes which the Senator yielded himself have expired. The Senator from Maine has 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, since we have in the Chamber a considerable number of Senators who were not here when I began my speech, and since apparently this remarkable upsurge in attendance is attributable to the vigorous colloquy which took place between the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and the majority leader, who both deplored the absence of Senators, I think I should take advantage of this enlarged audience to make, once again, the point with which I began my speech, which is this: I wanted to clearly identify the nature of the issue before us in terms of the language of the bill.

We are not talking about a bill which authorizes East-West trade. We are not talking about a bill which enlarges the possibilities for East-West trade. We are talking about a bill that will further contract the possibilities of East-West trade. The basic prohibition with which we are involved is found in title III of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966, which prohibits use of the Export-Import Bank for direct trade between our country and a Communist country as defined in the law.

The pending amendment, which is the only language dealing with the East-West treaty in the pending bill, would further enlarge the restriction. It would not further enlarge the possibilities for such trade.

The enlargement has to do with the possibility that sales of goods to one country may find their way to third countries which are Communist. This restriction would prohibit that, but leave a loophole, the same loophole which is found in the basic law, the loophole of Presidential discretion.

Mr. MUNDT. It takes out the matter of discretion, too.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time on the amendment has expired.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes under the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the language I have been discussing is not the Dirksen amendment, but the committee bill. So, the committee bill further restricts the prospects of trade with the East by prohibiting transactions which will result in goods ending up in third countries which are Communist, and then provides that that prohibition may be waived, as the basic prohibition can be waived under the existing law by the exercise of Presidential discretion that such waiver would be in the national interest.

So, the issue before us in the form of the Dirksen amendment does not concern whether we should prohibit an enlargement of the possibilities of East-West trade, but whether we should restrict the prospects of East-West trade to a greater degree than the pending bill. And that restriction contained in the language of the pending bill was offered by the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER], and the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER].

They were so persuasive with the committee as to persuade us to vote unanimously on both sides of the aisle in favor of the language presently in the pending bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I intend to send to the desk an amendment to the amendment of the senior Senator from Illinois.

My amendment would further modify the language of the pending bill. The language to which I refer reads as follows:

It is further the policy of the Congress that the Bank in the exercise of its functions should not guarantee, insure–

And so on. The amendment which I shall send to the desk would amend the language by striking out the words: "It is further the policy of the Congress that" and substitute for the word "should" the word "shall," so that the proposed language would read as follows:

The Bank in the exercise of its functions shall not guarantee, insure, or extend credit–

And so on. The proposed change would still leave the Presidential discretion provision in the bill.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a qualifying question?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. First, the amendment will be stated by the clerk.

The assistant legislative clerk read, as follows:

Strike all after the word "credit" on line 2, page 1, and insert the following: "or participate in an extension of credit (A) in connection with the purchase of any product by a Communist country (as defined in section 620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended), or agency or national thereof, or (B) in connection with the purchase of any product by any other foreign country, or agency, or national thereof, if the product to be purchased by such other country, agency, or national is, to the knowledge of the Bank, principally for use in, or sale to, a Communist country (as so defined) Provided, That whenever the President determines that such guarantees, insurance, extension of credits, or participation in credits, would be in the national interest and reports such determination (within thirty days after making the same) to the Senate and House of Representatives, such guarantees, insurance, or extension of credits may be made, or participated in, by the Bank."

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I see no relationship between what was read and the amendment that was described.

I wonder if there is not a mixup. Perhaps this is the wrong amendment. The Senator was talking about an amendment to make it a matter of policy, and the clerk is reading an amendment that concerns a different matter. Is the clerk reading the wrong amendment? It does not sound like the amendment, described to us.

Mr. MUSKIE. The staff assures me that the language does do what I asked them to have done.

I will check it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, there is no time control on this amendment.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, just to make a point, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I have contended over and over that the language in the pending bill dealing with the matter under discussion has no more effect than the language of Theodore Roosevelt or the issuance of a Papal Bull against a commie. And I think it is beginning to sink in, because I think the distinguished Senator from Maine, when he read his proposed amendment a moment ago, was trying to do exactly what I tried to get done in my amendment, except that I go somewhat further in striking the provision.

So, it is not a question of who authored the amendment to the bill. The question concerns what it does. And the former Attorney General of the United States, who is now a Member of this body, could get up in the Senate if he wanted to testify and read from his opinion No.15 in 1964 and state to us that the language in the pending bill is not worth a hoot. And we have found that out to our distress before.

Now, do we have to find it out again by walking down that same dismal trail? That is what we are up against. I will amplify that later. Right now, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I should like to take up, first of all, the wise suggestion of the distinguished junior Senator from Maine,that we try to clearly understand among ourselves what is involved here.

In the colloquy between the majority leader and the minority leader yesterday, doubt was left in the minds of some Senators as to how far the Dirksen amendment actually goes from the standpoint of withholding the right of the Export-Import Bank to finance indirect trade with Communist countries. So I should like to clarify that by pointing out that the second part of clause (B) would preclude the issuance of credit to any country which is engaged in trade with Communist countries. That is quite clear. But this is not the sole intent and purpose of the language of the amendment. The purpose of the restriction, if Senators will read it throughout, is to preclude the backdoor financing of a Communist country purchase made through an intermediate country. The Dirksen amendment contains nothing which will affect the normal Export-Import Bank loans to countries for products which will remain in their countries or that will not be transshipped to Communist countries. What is being proposed in the Fiat scheme is exactly what would be controverted by the Dirksen amendment.

The issue is clear: Do we or do we not want to commit the dollars of the taxpayers of this country to the encouragement and financing of trade which finds its way into Communist countries at a time, in these dark hours, when those countries are working in concert to send increasing supplies to continue the war in Vietnam, and thus aid the enemy?

I should like to deal specifically with some of the arguments which were presented by the distinguished majority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD] and by the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], who is in charge of the bill.

The majority leader made a candid statement, and I am glad he made it. I hope it will be read throughout the country. I agree with what he said. He said that if we adopt the Dirksen amendment, some jobs in the United States will be eliminated. That might possibly happen. It will not happen very soon, however, because the machinemaking companies and the toolmakers of the country have a large backlog of orders. Ultimately it could affect them.

But let us take that statement for the sake of argument and ask ourselves whose jobs we are primarily interested in protecting? A few jobs in this country might be eliminated, but I think most of us are primarily interested in eliminating jobs which require the sacrifice of American boys who are fighting on the front in Vietnam. I want to make those jobs unnecessary. I would like to let those boys come back home from their jobs in war-torn Vietnam and get civilian jobs back here in the United States.

I am sure it can be argued persuasively that whenever additional supplies are sent to Vietnam, make it more likely that those jobs in the trenches will continue. But I want those jobs eliminated by a successful ending of the war. So if it is a question of whose jobs are going to be curtailed, I am in favor of curtailing the need to continue the job of the men who are fighting year after year in Vietnam.

His second argument: He said that if we do not supply the plant, others will build it. Perhaps so.

And he listed some countries that might build it. Possibly so. But he did not list a single country willing to finance it. Many countries are willing to build it with American money. They come to us for the tax dollars. They come to us for the credits. Then some other country probably will build it, and some other country probably will supply most of the machine tools.

I submit that I am not so much concerned about the possibility that some other country might have the desire to build a plant. If that country wants to build it and can finance it itself, we can do nothing to stop it. But I deny that it is a peaceful production plant.

That leads me to the most important argument of the majority leader, about what he said Secretary McNamara has said. I suspect that we never could get a time limitation on debates in the Senate if we were going to debate between what Mr. McNamara says one day and what he says the next, because from him you have a whole series of contradictory arguments.

Let me give you one example, based on the colloquy which the majority leader read between the Secretary of Defense and the senior Senator from South Dakota in the executive hearings of the Committee on Foreign Relations, where, very magnanimously, the Secretary of Defense declassified the executive hearing where he thought it would help him, despite the curious fact that in another committee of which I am a member, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the same Secretary persisted in classifying the contents of a news story I read from the Washington Post and put in the record to support a position I had taken.

[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]

Mr. DIRKSEN. ... They are cars which will replace, as Kosygin said, trucks which some Soviet officials now employ to ride around Moscow, and those trucks can then haul supplies to the airports and terminals to be sent to Hanoi to aid the troops engaged against us over there.

Mr. President, as far as any changes in policy are concerned, as one who has lived with this matter for more than 25 years and devoted a longtime study to communism, how it operates, who has visited Communist countries, talked with the people, and read literature, my best advice to my good friend from Maine would be to wait and see; do not go too far in trying to predict that Communist Rumania is about to come into the land of the free or that Communist Yugoslavia is about to come into the land of the free. Ask any political refugee from either country to tell you about that.

Within the year Rumania has been sending trucks, oil, and other war supplies to Hanoi. That is what bothers those of us who are concerned about the importance of this amendment, not the fact that Rumania establishes a dialog with the other members of the Communist clan, but because they are shipping supplies to the enemy which the Dirksen amendment would stop.

Mr. President, I conclude by saying that the Senate in its action on this bill should decide once and for all in public policy, and by recorded votes whether it is really wise, proper, and prudent for this country to spend the money of American taxpayers to strengthen the economic and military capacity of a country and a Communist conspiracy which on the record is supplying all of the sophisticated weaponry and all of the oil to our enemy in North Vietnam, thereby permitting them to prolong the war, to stay away from the negotiating table, and escalate our American casualties.

As one who believes that policy to be indefensible, I urge support of the Dirksen amendment.

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

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. DOMINICK Mr. President, I am happy to be a cosponsor of the Dirksen amendment. I shall not take much time in urging my support for the amendment but I do wish to point out a few matters.

Some of us have tried over a period of time to cut down economic support that is going into Communist-controlled countries unless or until we can get some concessions which would enable us to give people in those countries the right to move forward with their freedom. We find ourselves unable to persuade the State Department or our foreign policy leaders to insist on policy concessions in connection with trade agreements. Therefore, it seems to me we should take a long look at whether or not we should continue to trade with Communist countries and thereby increase their economic and military ability.

We have in the Eximbank at the present time, as I placed in the RECORD yesterday, $140,407,000 worth of taxpayers money guaranteeing sales of articles to

Communist-controlled countries in Eastern Europe. That statement is in the RECORD at pages 22211-22212. This information was submitted to me by the Export-Import Bank.

It will be noted in the list on pages 22211-22212, covering only the fiscal years 1963 through 1967, that the sales to Yugoslavia in fiscal 1964, included machinery and services for rolled aluminum products.

One of the things we have been insisting on in the past as part of our policy is that we would not trade any equipment, or supplies which could conceivably be used for strategic purposes. Yet; we give them machinery and services for rolled aluminum products which can be used in any number of ways, including for the production of military supplies.

Secondly, we have been protesting against the issuance of credit on a long-term basis, either by ourselves or our allies in Western Europe, for the sales of items to Eastern European countries.

Yet, on this loan during fiscal 1964 covering machinery and services for rolled aluminum products, we are guaranteeing payment of 18 semi-annual installments beginning December 24, 1966.

In other words, we are guaranteeing their credit for 9 years from last December. This is something which we have said over and over again was against our own policy; and which is something we have been urging our Western European allies not to do in connection with their trade with Eastern European countries.

We can continue down the list and find other items sold to Eastern European countries with guarantees for long-term loans, for example, Rumania -- a catalytic plant, with 10 semiannual installments, beginning February 1, 1968. The payments are deferred until next year and then they have 5 years in which to repay. Once again, a long-term installment. I can go down the list and pick them out one by one, all the way through. Several locomotives, for example, again sold to Yugoslavia. We are spending a great deal of time and effort at a great cost in human life in trying to knock out locomotives in Vietnam and here we are selling them to Yugoslavia, a Communist-controlled country. We are giving them 18 semiannual installments

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Colorado has expired.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 additional minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMINICK. Eighteen semiannual installments, which began July 31, 1967 -- just a few days ago. Nine years from that date they have to pay for the locomotives, locomotives which are certainly strategically important to any country in the world, regardless of whether it is Yugoslavia, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, or any other country.

Some weeks ago, I made a speech on the floor of the Senate in which I commented on the East-West trade position. I pointed out the report of the Special Committee on U.S. Trade Relations with eastern European countries in the Soviet Union which was submitted to the President on April 29, 1965. One of the members on that panel was Mr. Goldfinger, who is a representative of the AFL-CIO, and this is what he said about trade with the Soviet Union and the eastern European countries:

In our readiness to engage in bilateral trade negotiations with individual countries of the Soviet bloc, we should have no illusions about the ability of trade in itself to alter Communist attitudes and policies. Neither is trade, as such, a sure force for peace as indicated by the two world wars between trading nations.

Thus, Mr. President, when people start talking about moving forward and building bridges for peace, it simply is not a fact historically, and I am not at this point convinced there is any evidence for the future.

If we are going to use trade as some kind of strategic weapon, then we should start asking concessions in return for what we are going to be delivering to them.

I do not feel, under any circumstances, that we should use taxpayers' funds as guarantees for strengthening the economy of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern European countries at the very time when these countries are creating problems for us in Cuba and all over Latin America, instigating the buildup in the Middle East and the war between the Arab States and Israel, and supplying 85 percent of all the material going into North Vietnam which is being used to shoot down our own people, day in and day out.

As strongly as I possibly can, I urge support of the Dirksen amendment.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MUSKIE. 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. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes -- do I have any time under the amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limitation on the amendment.

Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment which I have previously offered, and will explain why, and will offer another one.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine desire to withdraw the amendment now or after his explanation?

Mr. MUSKIE. I will explain it first, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On that basis, the time is unlimited.

Mr. MUSKIE. I do not need unlimited time. I shall not use too much time, but I want to be sure I do not get into further difficulty with this amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment which I previously sent to the desk I accurately described in my comments, but the amendment did not measure up to my description.

This new amendment will answer to the description I gave of the earlier one this afternoon.

For the benefit of Senators in the Chamber now, who were not here then, the amendment would do this:

The bill as it reads with respect to this provision is as follows:

It is further the policy of the government that the Bank in the exercise of its functions should not guarantee–

And so forth. This amendment, Mr. President, would substitute the following language for that entire section which would read as it does now in the bill, with the change in that language, so that the section will begin as follows:

The Bank in the exercise of its functions shall not guarantee ...

Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and ask that the other amendment be withdrawn. I ask that the new amendment be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The earlier amendment is withdrawn and the new amendment will be stated by title.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 3, strike out lines 6 through 24 of the bill, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

(2) The Bank in the exercise of its functions shall not guarantee, insure, or extend credit, or participate in an extension of credit (A) in connection with the purchase of any product by a Communist country (as defined in section 620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended), or agency or national thereof, or (B) in connection with the purchase of any product by any other foreign country, or agency, or national thereof, if the product to be purchased by such other country, agency, or national is, to the knowledge of the Bank, principally for use in, or sale to, a Communist country (as so defined) : Provided, That whenever the President determines that such guarantees, insurance, extension of credits, or participation in credits, would be in the national interest and reports such determination (within thirty days after making the same) to the Senate and House of Representatives, such guarantees, insurance, or extension of credits may be made, or participated in, by the Bank.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, for the purposes of this amendment, I want to take 30 seconds to explain it.

It was the intent of the committee to do what this new amendment does. This amendment makes it clear through the committee and the language as approved by Congress, that Congress does desire to discourage and prohibit East-West trade in the fashion envisaged by the amendment, unless there is a Presidential finding of national interest to waive the prohibition.

This language is designed to indicate more clearly the intent of the committee to prohibit such trade short of a Presidential finding.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, one comment. This amendment concedes the point we made yesterday, that the language of the bill as it came to the Senate had no force or legal effect whatsoever under the Attorney General's opinion No. 15 in 1964 in the Soviet wheat case.

I am glad, at long last, that that fact has been recognized, so that this is no longer a policy, but this will make law. The rest of the amendment is only the language of the bill, and we can adopt it without discussion, because the question now is whether we take the bill or not, and whether we eliminate the proviso which puts in the hands of the President the authority to make the discretionary determination as to when the national interest is involved, so that all these requirements are waived.

I have no objection to the amendment as such. We may just as well have it now, and then we will proceed with the discussion.

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

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.

Mr. DOMINICK. I am still not clear about the amendment. Perhaps the Senator from Maine or the Senator from Illinois can explain it. Are we going to start out that section by saying it is the policy of the Congress that the Bank shall not?

Mr. MUSKIE. No. The language will read:

The Bank in the exercise of its functions shall not guarantee

There is no other language preceding.

Mr. DOMINICK. As I understand it, the Senator from Maine leaves the loophole in the hands of the President, but not in the question of the language itself in the bill?

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. I do not consider it as a loophole, but I agree with the description that that is the intent of the amendment.

Mr. DOMINICK. I did not understand what the Senator from Illinois, who has a number of cosponsors on his amendment, intends to do about this.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. DIRKSEN. First, I think we should be clear as to whether or not this is offered as a substitute for the amendment which I offered on yesterday.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine offer it as a substitute amendment for the Dirksen amendment? The form in which the amendment is at present is not in order.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I received no response from the Chair to my question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has already ruled that the amendment as offered is not in order.

Mr. DIRKSEN. At all?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. DIRKSEN. It could be offered a: a perfecting amendment to the amendment which I offered, or to the bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Maine offered it as a substitute for the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, then it would be it order.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine will state it.

Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the intent of the present amendment, would it be possible to modify the committee bill in the way indicated in the amendment, by a unanimous-consent agreement?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; by unanimous consent, the Senator may.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. PASTORE. Why cannot the amendment as proposed by the Senator from Maine be accepted as a modification of the amendment of the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. DIRKSEN. For the very good reason that I cannot accept a modification that does not conform to the intent of the amendment offered. I could not accept that. I would have to offer to knock the language out or offer additional language.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The distinguished Senator from Maine did discuss this matter not only with the leadership but also with the Parliamentarian, and he waited until the time on the amendment had expired, offered his amendment, and I thought, offered it as an amendment to the bill.

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct, and I thought I had been advised by the Parliamentarian that that is the proper way to proceed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Correct.

Mr. MUSKIE. But now I am told by the Parliamentarian I cannot proceed that way; so I am asking if it is possible to have the committee bill modified in that way.

I have discussed this with the minority leader. I gather, from his attitude, he does not object to modification of the bill in this way if there is a parliamentary way to do it. I do not intend any modification of the Dirksen amendment. That is not the intent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may do it by unanimous consent.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I can only say the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Maine does include language in the committee bill to the extent that it no longer declares policy, but makes it binding law. Now, the Presidential proviso for waiver is still remaining. I think it would be just as well that the amendment be withdrawn and we have a clear-cut vote on the amendment. It would be open to amendment, by any Senator who wishes to do so.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I wonder what good it does for a Member of the Senate to try to comply with parliamentary procedure as it is, act in good faith, wait until all time on the amendment is disposed of as was done in this instance, and then find he is cut off or out of order.

After all, there is such a thing as equality and consideration in this body. The Senator from Maine has a right to offer his amendment to the bill. The fact that he was given erroneous information only makes his case all the more equitable and worthy of consideration by the Senate as a whole, whether any Senator is in favor of what he suggests or opposes it. It is just a matter of fair play.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I have only one comment to make. When the amendment was read from the desk, that was the first time I heard of it. I have not discussed it with any Senator, including the distinguished Senator from Maine. So this is all news to me.

Then we discovered that the language being read by the clerk did not comport with the statement the distinguished Senator from Maine made. Then, of course, we were somewhat mystified. We had to halt the proceedings and yield time elsewhere until the Senator from Maine could straighten out the matter. Now he offers his amendment, and certainly his right cannot be foreclosed under the rule. He has any right that the rule permits. I would be the last to try to circumscribe that right or privilege on the part of the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I certainly would expect nothing less than a statement of that kind from the distinguished minority leader. I woud hope that something could be done to rectify the situation, for the Senator from Maine should bear no fault or blame.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine will state it.

Mr. MUSKIE. In an effort to resolve the question -- and again, I am wary of any parliamentary advice I get from any source -- I understand there are two parliamentary means by which I can accomplish my purpose. I think they might be time-consuming possibilities that some Senators might like to explore; or we might bypass them and act quickly.

First, do I correctly understand that with the permission of the committee, I may modify the language of the bill which is in question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the committee meets and authorizes the modification, the Senator may do so.

Mr. MUSKIE. So I may act in that way.

Mr. MUNDT. Has the committee met and authorized such a modification?

Mr. MUSKIE. May I first state my parliamentary inquiry? Then I shall deal with facts.

My second parliamentary inquiry is whether by separate amendments I may perfect portions of the language involved without resorting to the approach of a substitute amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MUSKIE. If a section contains two or three phrases or words that I should like to change, I may do so by means of perfecting amendments, without the use of an amendment in the nature of a substitute or without seeking authorization from the committee?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. MUSKIE. I suggest to the majority leader that we might explore either of those ways. The quickest way would be to make the changes now.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, a Parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota will state it.

Mr. MUNDT, Do I correctly understand the Chair's ruling to be that the Senator from Maine, acting as an individual Senator, has no right to ask that the language be amended, but must ask for approval in a meeting of the committee?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Only as to the first part of the inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That requires committee action.

Mr. MUNDT. Has the Senator had committee concurrence?

Mr. MUSKIE. No, and I do not intend to proceed in that way. I shall try to save the Senate's time by offering perfecting amendments. I shall proceed by offering individual amendments. I propose to strike out the first language in paragraph (2) which begins: "It is further the policy of Congress that"; that is where the first amendment would occur. The amendment would be to change the word "should" to "shall."

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the bill be amended by striking, on line 6 of page 3, the following words: "It is further the policy of the Congress that"; striking out, on line 7, the word "should" and substituting therefor the word "shall"; and, on lines 23 and 24, striking out the words "notwithstanding the policy herein stated," and substituting a period therefor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking that the amendments be considered en bloc?

Mr. MUSKIE, I am.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request that the amendments be considered en bloc?

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MUNDT. I should like to inquire by what process the Dirksen amendment has become dislodged and another amendment takes precedence over it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not dislodged. A perfecting amendment takes precedence over the substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. MUNDT. Will the Chair repeat that?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A perfecting amendment takes precedence over a substitute which seeks to amend the language proposed.

Mr. MUNDT. A perfecting amendment to the bill takes precedence over an amendment which proposes to do substantially the same thing, in part?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. In this case that is correct. A perfecting amendment to the section of the committee substitute proposed to be stricken out by the Dirksen substitute takes precedence over the Dirksen substitute.

Mr. MUNDT. May I inquire further, then, what was the basis of the Chair's initial ruling? The Chair has me confused as well as the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from South Dakota may fall in line behind me.

Mr. MUNDT. What was the impact of the Chair's initial ruling, which I thought was the same thing?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has offered a perfecting amendment to the language which is sought to be stricken by the Dirksen amendment. That takes precedence over the Dirksen amendment.

Mr. MUNDT. Which was precisely what the Senator from Maine has done in his earlier proposal.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. PASTORE. Endeavored to do, and did not obtain permission.

Mr. MUNDT. The Chair ruled it out of order.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. MUNDT. I was trying to understand the difference.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment was a strike-out-and-insert amendment, and there was already pending a strike-and-insert amendment; namely, the Dirksen amendment.

Mr. MUNDT. This is still a strike-outand-insert amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is not a strike-out-and-insert amendment.

Mr. MUNDT. I beg the Chair's pardon; it strikes some language and inserts the word "shall."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinction is that this is a perfecting amendment to the section.

Mr. MUNDT. So was the first one.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first one struck out the entire thing, and then inserted in lieu thereof.

Mr. MUNDT. Do I understand, then, it all depends on how many words you strike out? If you strike out quite a number of words, it is against the rule; but if it is just a few words, it is all right?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state again that the other amendment sought to strike out the entire section and insert in lieu of the stricken part certain new material, whereas this amendment seeks to perfect language in the existing section without striking it out.

These amendments take precedence over the Dirksen amendment.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia have a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I thought I had the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.

Mr. MANSFIELD. What about a vote on the perfecting amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is bn agreeing to the perfecting amendment.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, who has the floor?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not recognized anybody on the perfecting amendment as yet.

Mr. MANSFIELD. But I thought the distinguished minority leader had the floor, and what we are trying to do now is rectify a misunderstanding.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator could not hold the floor during the unanimous consent to withdraw my request for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, I should like to recall for the benefit of the Senate the situation which existed when the Senate convened this morning.

When the Senate convened this morning, the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois was the pending business. Two perfecting amendments -- actually one, but technically two -- were submitted for printing by me yesterday and were on the desk.

As I understand the parliamentary situation, I would have had an opportunity to call up first the perfecting amendments that I had submitted yesterday when the time on the Dirksen amendment expired. However, in an endeavor to cooperate with the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the majority leader, the distinguished senior Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], and with the minority leader, the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], I gave up that idea and said that it would be satisfactory to me in the interest of accommodating Senators and saving time if the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois were to be voted on first.

I am now confronted with other perfecting amendments that have been submitted and the request that has been made to vote on those amendments first.

I just wish to point out the situation, and if I am in error about it, I should like to be corrected. I had an opportunity to call for a vote on my perfecting amendments, and I let that opportunity go by, in the interest of convenience and time and to accommodate the leadership of the Senate.

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

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Would the Senator from Virginia state, for the memory of the Senator from Montana, when he had proposed to offer the perfecting amendments on yesterday?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The amendments were submitted for printing yesterday afternoon.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Was it after the Dirksen amendment was pending?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I believe so.

Mr. MANSFIELD. This is my understanding, and I ask that the Chair correct me if I am in error:

It was not possible under the rules and the agreement to offer a perfecting amendment until the 2 hours had expired on the Dirksen amendment.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MANSFIELD. And that did not occur until about half an hour ago.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. But it did happen, and I was here, and I had an opportunity to submit my amendment at that time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Except that at that time, as I recall, the Senator from Maine, the manager of the bill, had the floor and offered an amendment, after consultation with the Parliamentarian.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I do not know what he said to the Parliamentarian.

Mr. MANSFIELD. He had consulted with the Parliamentarian concerning the form of the amendment and the procedure to be followed and after the announcement was made that the time had expired on the amendment on both sides, he asked for 2 minutes on the bill, as I recall, and then he sent his amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. May I speak to that point, and then I will yield.

In the first place, the Senator from Maine did not send to the desk a perfecting amendment. He sent to the desk a substitute amendment and then withdrew it. So the perfecting amendment was sent only about 5 or 10 minutes ago.

Mr. MANSFIELD. But, If the Senator will yield, I believe he withdrew it only after he was informed by the Parliamentarian that he had adopted the wrong procedure, and, therefore, he had to correct it to make his amendment eligible for consideration again. I believe that is correct.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MUSKIE. May I add this: The Senator is completely accurate in his description of the cooperation which he has given to me and to the leadership on both sides. I appreciated it when he tendered that cooperation, and I appreciate it now.

Although my amendments and his are both perfecting amendments, I considered mine to be less substantive and more in the nature of a clarifying amendment and his more substantive in nature.

So that it did not occur to me at the time that I was adopting a procedure which was running in conflict with the cooperative understanding which the Senator from Virginia and I had.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I am sure that is correct, and I accept the Senator's statement. I might say, however, that it is contrary to his argument or discussion with me as to whether the Dirksen amendment should be voted on first or my amendment should be voted on first. The Senator from Maine thought the Dirksen amendment was more inclusive and, therefore, should be voted on first. My amendment is more inclusive than that of the Senator from Maine, yet the Senator believes that his amendment should be voted on first.

Mr. MUSKIE. At the time I had discussed it with the distinguished minority leader and the Senator from South Dakota, it did not appear that there would be a vote at all, but that this would be a clarifying change that could be easily accepted, which did not run counter to the interests of the Dirksen amendment as the distinguished minority leader then saw them, and that this was more or less a routine fashion of little substance. Now it has emerged with more substance than I thought it had, and I confess that I fully sympathize with the point of view that the Senator from Virginia has of the entire matter.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If I may offer a suggestion -- and I do so only in the interest of efficient and orderly procedure -- would the Senator from Maine withdraw his amendment at this time to allow the Senator from Virginia to offer his -- if that is what the Senator from Virginia desires?

Mr. MUSKIE. If that is the desire of the distinguished Senator from Virginia certainly I would feel bound by my earlier understanding with him to do just that, and I would be happy to do so.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Before the Senator from Virginia answers, may I say that if the amendment of the Senator from Maine is adopted, the Senator from Virginia would still be in the same position with respect to his amendment which he could then offer and have voted on as a perfecting amendment.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I am aware of that, and I did not rise for the purpose of making an issue. I did desire to set the record straight however.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator from Virginia has performed a fine service in clarifying the entire question which has been before us for a half hour or more now.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I appreciate the offer of the Senator from Maine and the suggestion of the Senator from Montana, but I shall adhere to the commitment I made. I made a commitment that the Dirksen amendment would be voted on first, and I adhere to it.

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Virginia is eminently fair and cooperative, as he has been the entire day.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator from Virginia is aware of the fact that if the Muskie perfecting amendment is disposed of, he can, if he desires, offer his perfecting amendment in the same place and have a vote first. It would be perfectly within the rules. If he did that, no one could find fault with the procedure he has selected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments of the Senator from Maine.

The amendments were agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DIRKSEN. At this point, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. ... I want to add that all this amendment applies to is the Export-Import Bank. It says the Export-Import Bank cannot use the American taxpayers' money for any nation, the government of which is supplying equipment to North Vietnam.

Mr. TOWER. Then, it would not be construed as the British Government supplying goods to Hanoi? What would be the Senator's construction of it? We should have some legislative history to clarify this.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I frankly believe the British Government should keep its ships out of Haiphong, too.

Mr. TOWER. I think so, too. I thought we ought to keep them out by mining the harbor. I have long advocated that. But the point of the question is, inasmuch as these are not government-owned vessels, but under British registry, would this amendment preclude loans to Britain or British enterprises?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. If the Senator construed the fact that they are flying the British flag as meaning the government itself

Mr. TOWER. I think the Senator's construction is more important than mine, because he is offering the amendment.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I would like to see it apply to Great Britain, but I cannot say whether the technical construction of the language–

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let me point out that the language is very clear on page 2 when it says:

In connection with the purchase of any product by any nation (or agency or national thereof), the government of which is furnishing goods or supplies to a nation described in clause (1).

Let us take an example. If it is steel, under the Socialist nationalistic government of Great Britain, it would be supplied by the government. A suit of clothes would not. If it is a nationalized industry producing the goods, it is covered; but if it is not provided by a government-owned industry, it is not.

Why should we lend money to a government which manufactures products to send to our enemy?

It does not include a needlemaker or a poisonmaker, unless one can find a nation where these products are being made by the government. It does not go to the other areas except if a government supplies them.

Mr. PASTORE. Yes, but the amendment says "nation or agency or national thereof".

Mr. MUNDT. A person cannot act alone if his government is supplying it. I refer to page 2, line 6, which reads, "the government of which is furnishing goods or supplies to a nation described in clause (1)."

That is a common grammatical construction which applies in both Rhode Island and South Dakota.

Mr. TOWER. I am asking for the Senator's construction of the phrase "the government of which is furnishing goods or supplies to a nation described in clause (1) ." Does that apply to a ship that is in a government's registry, carrying goods to Hanoi? Does the Senator contemplate services in the term "goods or supplies"?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Probably it does not, but I wish it did.

Mr. TOWER. If the Senator so wishes it, sir, this is his amendment, and this would be a revelation as to legislative intent.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I think this amendment is very clear. It says "Any nation the government of which is furnishing goods or supplies."

Mr. TOWER. If it is very clear, then why cannot we get a construction of the phrase?

Mr. MUSKIE. Would the amendment apply in the case of Government corporations which are involved in trade presumably flowing to North Vietnam, as it did in 1966? Now, what we are talking about here is a total of trade from the free world in 1966 of $12 million, much of it in nonstrategic materials. Some of those could conceivably come -- we do not have a record on it, because this was not gone into in the hearing -- from Government-owned corporations. Because of that fact, if the Senator's amendment had been applicable, all our trade with France, to the extent that it was financed by Export-Import Bank credit, would be foreclosed. Am I correct?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Since the Government of France has been so very cooperative and so very helpful to the Government of the United States, I guess we do not want to do anything to hurt the Government of France; but if the French Government furnishes goods or supplies to our enemies in North Vietnam, it will apply. If the British Government does, or any other government -- if the government itself -- does, this amendment would apply.

Mr. MUSKIE. I am trying to clarify the intention; I simply want to get the thrust of the amendment. So if the Senator's intention is effectively implemented by his amendment, he would cut off trade with Britain, with France, West Germany, Italy, Norway, and the other countries -- and I have a list which I will put in the RECORD -- which may have participated in the $12 million of exports into North Vietnam in 1966 if they need Export-Import Bank credit to finance their trade?

Mr. MURPHY. Not trade.

Mr. MUSKIE. I asked the Senator from Virginia a question. I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from California in a moment.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. It does not apply

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. In reply to the Senator from Maine, who made the statement that I wanted, by this amendment, to cut off trade

Mr. MUSKIE. I asked the question.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. In asking the question, the Senator made the statement that the amendment would cut off trade with any nation which did certain things. This amendment does not cut off trade with any nation. All it does is say this Government cannot use the taxpayers' money to finance the trade of that country if the government of it is furnishing supplies or materials to Vietnam. If the war is over, it does not apply.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that was not my question.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. If the Senator will restate his question, I shall be happy to try to answer it.

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I asked the Senator if it was his intent to cut off completely -- perhaps I phrased it poorly -- to cut off Export-Import Bank financing, credit, or trade with all countries which participated in any way in the $12 million of exports that went into North Vietnam from the free world in 1966.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The Senator used the words "in any way." I return to the wording of the amendment, which says that the funds of the Export-Import Bank, the American taxpayers' funds, will not be used if any government is furnishing materials and goods.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a question?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I think many of us are concerned about whether or not this restriction would apply only to a government doing it directly. A government must license a man to engage in trade, in most cases. Would that be the government operating? I think the Senator from Virginia would clarify the matter for a great number of us if, on page 2, line 2, the matter in parentheses "(or agency or national thereof) " were eliminated. Then it would read in connection with the purchase of any product by any national the government of which is furnishing supplies. That would limit it to the government doing it.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. That is what it says.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes, but the Senator adds "or agency or national."

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. In connection with the purchase of any product by any nation or agency or national of any nation, the government of which is furnishing supplies.

Mr. MAGNUSON. How does the Senator interpret "the government"?

Let us take England. If they furnished steel, that would be a government product?

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Yes.

Mr. MAGNUSON. But I think the Senator from South Dakota suggested that if they sell clothing, that is not a government product. But the seller has to have a license from the British Government. to export clothing. Nearly all countries require such a license. Would that be the government doing it? That is the point I am trying to clear up.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. The purpose of the amendment–

Mr. MAGNUSON. I am trying to support the amendment, and I want to have it cleared up.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I realize that, and I am grateful to the Senator from Washington.

The purpose of the amendment is not to use the taxpayers' money.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I understand that. But when the Senator interprets the–

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we have listened for some time to the explanation of the pending amendment on the part of the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] and the discussion of the merits of his amendment by those who support it.

So, it is timely that I take at least a few minutes -- and I will try to make them as few as possible -- to discuss the problems which will be raised by the amendment.

With respect to the objective sought to be achieved by the Senator from Virginia -- that is, that we find a way to cut off all trade between the free world and the Communist world in North Vietnam -- I take it that we are all in hearty accord and that if we could find a way to cut North Vietnam off from trade with the West, we would endorse that means. If we could find a way to cut off all trade between North Vietnam and the Communist world, we would support that proposal.

The objective of the Senator from Virginia is something with which we can all agree, and that is the basic appeal of the amendment.

There are military ways which have been suggested, such as the bombing of Haiphong harbor, or the mining of Haiphong harbor and its approaches. However, these ways are not within our prerogatives to decide this afternoon. And much as they have been urged by very articulate Members of Congress, they have not yet been adopted as part of our military strategy. They have not been adopted because, on balance, in the minds of the decision-makers, the disadvantages of those means outweigh the apparent advantages.

We have a very similar decision-making problem with respect to the pending amendment. The amendment was offered as a way of cutting off trade between North Vietnam and the Communist and non-Communist world.

So, we ought to undertake to examine the problems which it may create, because we ought to have those problems in mind as we make the decision.

Let me say at the outset that with respect to the Communist world, we already have legislation on the books to prohibit use of the credit facilities of the Export-Import Bank to finance trade between the United States and any Communist country. I have already referred to it today, and it is found in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966 in title III.

The Byrd amendment covers the same ground as that legislation which is now on the books, and which prohibits trade between the United States or use of the Export-Import Bank facilities to finance trade between the United States and Communist countries.

Second, the committee bill covers another area which is also covered by the Byrd amendment.

That area is the area of trade between the United States and another country which transships our products to communist countries. The committee bill covers that area, as does the Byrd amendment.

What area is covered by the Byrd amendment which is not covered by existing law and by the pending bill? That area is the area of trade with free world countries which export goods to North Vietnam.

With respect to the Communist countries, whose trade is subject to the provisions of current law and the pending bill, the Byrd amendment raises only the question of whether the existing law and the pending bill provide effective enough control. So, it is a question of judgment as to whether the Byrd amendment or these other provisions would do a more effective job. However, with respect to trade with free world countries which export goods to North Vietnam, we have an area that is not covered by the current law or the pending bill.

What are some of the problems, if any, that may be raised?

First of all, we ought to have some idea of what countries we are talking about, because the Byrd amendment proposes that we do something that could restrict, if not eliminate, our trade with many free world countries.

What are the possible countries that we are talking about? The last calendar year for which we have complete information is the calendar year 1966. The free world countries exporting goods to North Vietnam in 1966 were some 20 in number, and I will read them into the RECORD.

They were: Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United Arab Republic, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, Mexico, and India.

If these countries were to be covered by the Byrd amendment by reason of the trade that they engaged in in 1966 with North Vietnam, then the Byrd amendment would have some impact upon our trade with those countries from now on.

Obviously, there may be a difference of agreement as to what that impact would be, but it would have some impact.

The first problem that is raised is with respect to the Byrd amendment. The language in question is found on page 2 of the amendment, lines 4 to 7, and reads as follows:

In connection with the purchase of any product by any nation (or agency or national thereof) the government of which is furnishing goods or supplies to a nation described in clause (1).

That latter reference is to North Vietnam for the purpose of our discussion. What is meant by the phrase "is furnishing goods"? If one of these countries furnished goods in 1966, is it covered by the Byrd amendment, absent any showing as to what its activities may have been since that time?

Is it sufficient, in terms of the Byrd amendment, simply to act in the absence of additional information since 1966, or to satisfy the Byrd amendment must there be in addition some positive showing that since that time there has been no export of goods by any of these countries to North Vietnam?

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

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. That is the reason why I have raised the question as to what is meant by "furnishing goods or supplies." In other words, I would have been better satisfied if it read "materials of war or armaments." Then, of course, I would feel a little differently about it; if some of our apparent friends were sending bullets to Hanoi to be used upon American boys, I do not care what the balance of trade would be, I would vote against it.

If the words "furnishing goods or supplies" are changed to "furnishing materials of war or armaments," then I believe we would get to the core of the problem.

Mr. MUSKIE. May I pursue the point I have made.

The first point is, what is the time frame within which the test laid down in the Byrd amendment must be satisfied?

First, must one of these countries make a positive showing to the satisfaction of our country, some agency of our Government, that it has not engaged in exporting goods to North Vietnam within whatever time frame is meant by the Byrd amendment?

Second, what time frame is there? Are we talking about trade in 1966, or are we talking about trade at any time in 1967? And what about trade tomorrow? Suppose that today such a country meets whatever test is intended by the Byrd amendment. What assurance must such a country make with respect to tomorrow or next week or next month?

Let us take the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom in 1966 exported goods to North Vietnam. The total could not have been very great, because the total of all goods exported by the free world to North Vietnam in that year was $12 million. But suppose the United Kingdom sold goods, exported goods, to North Vietnam in 1966. To my knowledge, the United Kingdom has not foresworn the possibility of exporting other goods to North Vietnam some time in 1967. Are we going to require, if the Byrd amendment becomes law, that Great Britain foreswear such an intention with respect to some part of the future or an indefinite period into the future, or for what period, if any?

These are questions that it seems to me must be answered as we consider the Byrd amendment.

Now, the Senator from Virginia will very properly raise the point that what he is talking about is governments of these countries and not exports by citizens or nationals, I presume. Well, when is trade with North Vietnam to be considered the furnishing of goods by governments? Suppose the goods are carried by ships flying the flag of the nation in question. Suppose the export of the goods in question had been licensed by government agents in some fashion. Would that constitute furnishing of goods by the government of one of these nations?

These are the questions that must be decided if we are to require that, in order to satisfy the Byrd amendment, a government must give positive assurance that it is not engaged in trade -- or that none of its nationals is -- that it has not done so for some time in the past, and that it must in addition give some assurance as to the future.

What would be the reaction of governments which are asked to give these assurances? What would be the reaction of the United Kingdom if we were to say to her, "We will not trade with you or we will not give you use of the Export-Import Bank facilities, to finance trade with you, unless you give us a piece of paper which says that you have not traded with North Vietnam in 1967, that you do not intend to trade with North Vietnam in 1967" -- perhaps go even further and say, "You do not intend to trade with North Vietnam at any time that we are at war with North Vietnam"? What would be the reaction of the United Kingdom to that kind of requirement on our part? Can we take it for granted that she will give that assurance? If we are not troubled by whether or not she gives that type of assurance, then we must be concerned with the impact upon our industry, our exports, and our balance of payments as a result of her refusal to comply with the requirements of the Byrd amendment.

These are some of the problems.

In the hearings and considerations of the bill, questions of this sort were not before the committee in any way, shape, or form. There were no hearings to explore the answers to problems such as those I have attempted to suggest on the floor of the Senate -- and I have not suggested them all, by any means.

Is it in our interest to enact this type of prohibition without in some way exploring the impact? What will be the reaction of the free world countries? What is the total of their present trade?

On that point, let me say this: I have referred to the proposals for using military means to cut off free world trade with North Vietnam. We have not accepted those proposals up to this point because in the minds of the decisionmakers, the balance of our national interest does not justify it. We have the same thing here. We are talking about cutting off the flow of a total of $12 million.

How did we arrive at the figure of $12 million? There was a time when it was much greater.

Well, it has been cut to that figure because we have used diplomatic channels, the channels of direct communication with free world countries and with our friends in the free world, to persuade them to reduce their economic communications with North Vietnam. They have responded, and they have reduced their trade, and they have done so without jeopardizing some of the other interests, the mutual interests, which I have tried to touch upon briefly this afternoon.

So we have made progress, substantial progress, to the point where all free world trade with Vietnam is down to $12 million.

The question is whether, without having fully explored all the implications of the policy encompassed in the Byrd amendment, we should take on risks which could imperil billions of dollars of trade for the purpose of cutting off that last vestige of $12 million in trade. Do we accept the uncertain risks, which can be of great magnitude, to cut off that last remaining $12 million? This is the nature of the question.

Because of my sympathy with the objective which the distinguished Senator from Virginia has described -- the objective of the amendment he has offered -- I have explored thoroughly, with administration representatives, the possibility of working out language that would move in the direction of his objective, without incurring the risks I have suggested.

Frankly, they made a good-faith effort to do just that, but because of these uncertainties which they themselves are not in a position to define we have not found it possible to dream up language which would eliminate the uncertainties and the risks. We have tried. I wanted to do it.

I know how this amendment troubles Senators on both sides of the aisle. The feelings that exist are almost physical in reality here this afternoon as Senators respond to the objectives of the Byrd amendment. Believe me, it is not easy for me to stand here and raise these problems, risks, and uncertainties. These problems are real. They are there and I suspect, if the Senate reaction to the emotional appeal for the amendment is to adopt it this afternoon, all of us would find it necessary to wonder if we acted wisely when we understand the full implications of it.

This is different than an amendment of the Foreign Assistance Act which has a similar restriction because there what is being controlled is our own action. We know what it is and if our policy is not to give aid under certain conditions or uncertainties, we know and understand, and there is no doubt about it. Here we are talking about the action of other governments. We do not know the frame of time that is being talked about. We do not know what order of proof is necessary, what kind of assurance will be required from foreign governments, or what their reaction to our requirement may be.

It is for each Senator to decide how he will vote, keeping in mind what I have said with respect to the emotional appeal of the Byrd amendment.

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

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I do not think I am second to any Senator in his opposition to communism. Further, I oppose East-West trade. I do not think we can start building bridges of friendship, understanding, and commercial intercourse between the United States and Communist countries until the Communists show by overt deeds, acts, and words that they are willing to cooperate in making this a peaceful and secure world.

I do not imagine there is anyone in the Senate who is more of a hawk than I am. I have been in Vietnam three times in the last 18 months. I have always supported our military men in their judgment. Time and time again I have urged that we close the harbor at Haiphong, the vital funnel through which North Vietnamese supplies flow.

However, I cannot in good conscience and with a feeling of responsibility support a vote for the Byrd amendment in its present form. I think the language is vague. I think that it leaves too much to very, very liberal construction, far more liberal construction than I think many of us would like to see. I have not been satisfied with whether this would apply to Britain or Greece, because vessels registered and carrying flags of those governments do sail in and out of the harbors of Hanoi and Haiphong.

Mr. President, second, as I understand it, this proposal would cover any future situation. I believe our administration embarked on a foolish policy in agreeing to economic sanctions against Rhodesia. What would happen if, in pursuit of that policy, we were called upon, or the administration should determine we would support those sanctions with our Armed Forces?

Then, we would be bound not to deal with any nation which was doing business with Rhodesia.

This is the logical extension to which this proposal could be carried.

Unless we can get something far more specific than this, and something which does not lend itself to such liberal construction, I am afraid I cannot support the amendment and I intend to vote against it.

I can anticipate the flood of telephone calls, wires, and mail that I am going to get as a result, but I do not believe this is a wise amendment and I agree with the Senator from Maine. I do not think that in an emotional state we should act hastily on legislation at this time.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia offered this amendment this afternoon and he made the statement that perhaps some Senators might not believe that the reasoning which he used in offering the amendment was very sophisticated, but that he was persuaded it was the right thing to do.

I wish to say to the Senator from Virginia, whether anybody classes his reasoning as sophisticated or not, he sees the picture with a clarity that I hope other Senators will see it.

In considering this very important amendment I, as a Republican, first have to ask myself: "If there were a Republican President sitting in the White House would you vote for this amendment?

Mr. President, I have voted for many similar restrictive amendments with so-called escape hatches in them when we had a Republican President and when we had a Democratic President.

When I view the growth of the executive branch of government and its assumption of power, its strange, queer, macabre, and distorted interpretation of laws that we write here, sometimes going in a completely opposite direction to the intent of Congress, I think we do have reason to be concerned.

Let us take a look at one specific instance. Let us look at the Fiat situation. Most people, I suppose, think of Fiats in terms of these cute little bugs that run around the streets of Washington and around our country. I have nothing against them. I am sure that very few people realize that Fiat is one of the largest manufacturers of big, heavy, buses and trucks in the world. So, when we talk about constructing or loaning $50 million of American money to construct a Fiat factory in Russia, we are not only talking about building little bugs for Russians to ride around in; we are

talking about the actual potential of of building the heaviest and most sophisticated trucks, buses, and means of transportation, convertible to military use that a plant could possibly make.

Then, I cap this statement with one question: Who made our tanks in World War II and who makes our tanks today? They are basically made by our automobile manufacturers or spin-offs from those companies because they are the companies which made the mobile units which we employ in Europe. It is convertible and it even goes beyond the making of trucks. It is convertible by means and by reason of machinery that goes into the making of materials and armaments of war.

This we should never forget. My good friend from Rhode Island, who is in the Chamber, said a few moments ago -- I do not have his exact words, but he said the thing that bothered him was the difference between goods and supplies and materials of war or armaments, and that if it had more substance as to materials of war or armaments, this might make him feel differently. Have I quoted the Senator approximately correctly?

Mr. PASTORE. Correct.

Mr. ALLOTT. I can understand the Senator's concern about this, but there is also something else about this particular language which has great pertinence. We do not have to name armaments or materials of war if we finance the shipment of wheat or any other nonstrategic item. Here I am not talking about bearings or heavy tools. But if Americans finance the shipment of goods not ordinarily considered strategic to a given country, to that extent we fill up their well so that they can draw on the well for use in the production of strategic materials.

Thus, it cannot be said in any sense that goods and supplies become insignificant. They are significant; because, to the extent that we finance them, we relieve the pressure on that particular economy and permit them to use their implements and their finances for the production of war materials.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield at that point?

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. That is not the way I understood the situation. As I understand the situation, if Great Britain sold wheat, let us say, to Hanoi, then, thereafter, we could not extend any credit to Great Britain for any other product that it proposes to buy from the United States.

Mr. ALLOTT. I am coming to that side of the argument in a moment.

Mr. PASTORE. The Senator did not see it that way. In other words, as I understand it, this is not a cutting off of trade that is to be extended for goods going into Vietnam. This would cut off trade with a country that might be selling anything to Hanoi.

Mr. ALLOTT. That is exactly right.

I will go through this again because I want to make myself clear to the Senator from Rhode Island. We do not actually have to finance armaments going into Hanoi. All we have to finance is anything which is purchased at least by that government. In doing so, we relieve the economic and fiscal pressure on that government so that the credit and the financing can then be used by that government in another way; namely, for the production of armaments.

So that it does not actually have to be named armaments or materials of war. It does not have to be so named in the amendment.

Mr. PASTORE. No, we are not understanding one another at all.

Mr. ALLOTT. I am sure the Senator does not understand me.

Mr. PASTORE. I am afraid the Senator does not understand me, either.

The fact remains that what we are talking about are our relations with friendly nations. As has been pointed out by the Senator from Maine, he has already mentioned a group of nations in the free world -- I think it is 10 -- who have been selling about $12 million worth of nonstrategic goods to Hanoi.

Now, I do not like this. What the amendment would do is, because these countries sell $12 million worth of goods -- and now I am talking about France, Belgium, Italy, West Germany–

Mr. ALLOTT. And Spain.

Mr. PASTORE. Because these countries sell $12 million worth of goods to Hanoi, ipso facto, we are going to cut out credit for anything else they may want to buy from American producers and manufacturers, not to go to Vietnam, but to be used by their own people.

What we would actually be doing would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. We would be insulting our friends. We should persuade our friends not to sell to Hanoi. I think we have made tremendous progress, but on the floor this afternoon it has been indicated that because these friendly nations are selling $12 million worth of goods a year to Hanoi, we do not want to do business with them any more and are not going to extend credit to them any more.

I am afraid that if we do that we may be getting ourselves into a problem so great that we cannot possibly imagine it at the moment. We are anxious to increase our exports. Take France. France purchases from us one billion and a quarter dollars' worth every year. We buy from them half a billion dollars' worth. There is a 2-to-1 factor there, and to our advantage, in the trade we have with France. If we say to France, "Look, last year you sold $500,000 worth of nonstrategic goods to Hanoi and for that reason we will do business with you no longer," does not the Senator realize what we would lose?

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. PASTORE. Yes, of course the Senator does. The Senator does not have to ask the Presiding Officer. Ask me and I will tell him. [Laughter.]

Mr. ALLOTT. Well, all right. I do not want to cut the Senator off

Mr. PASTORE. I appreciate that the Senator yielded to me.

Mr. ALLOTT. However, I do not want to be forestalled from the right to be heard myself.

The figure, by the way, is $12 million, is it not, according to the Senator from Maine?

Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator from Colorado will yield

Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. The $12 million figure covers all exports from all free world countries to North Vietnam in calendar year 1966. The figure for France was $2,290,000.

Mr. ALLOTT. I thank the Senator from Maine.

Getting back to the subject, obviously I have not gotten through to my good friend from Rhode Island. It seems to me that what we are facing here is that the State Department and the executive branch have failed to face up to the hard facts of realism. The rest of the world thinks we are foolish to finance trade with governments who are furnishing Vietnam with supplies. I think we are foolish. We are not shutting off all trade, if this amendment is adopted, despite the arguments to make it appear that way. There are other ways they can finance their trade. They can use their own banks or private sources of capital. There are also the world banks. In fact, we have got so many banks spread all around the world, in such profusion now, that there is almost no end to them.

What the Senator has said is that this is one opportunity for us to say, loud and clear, that we do not sanction trading with our enemies and we are not going to ask our people to finance trade with those countries who are furnishing North Vietnam with supplies.

Mr. President, I feel very strongly about this amendment. I feel strongly about it with full consideration of what I think the President needs. But I also think that it is time for the Senate to stand up and say to the world, loudly and clearly, that we have brought our thinking out of the clouds, that we have got our feet firmly on the ground, and now is the time when we are going to stop this financing of countries who are trading and giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Finally, with the dead in Vietnam at 12,000 or thereabouts, I cannot be unmindful of the responsibility that rests upon each and every one of us. It is not just emotional. I have supported the President. I have not supported the way the war has been waged. I have not agreed with it.

The best military people I have heard have not agreed with the way it is being run, either. But neither has any statement of mine I have ever made given any aid or comfort to the enemy, nor could it ever be published to be of aid and comfort to the enemy in any Russian, Chinese, or Hanoi newspaper.

Thus, I think my position in this respect, in support of the President, is well known and has been stated over and over again.

I sincerely hope that the Senate this afternoon will say to our Government, "We do not approve of this. We are going to cut it out. No longer, by taxing our own people, are we going to finance trade with those countries presently giving material and comfort to the enemies we are fighting in Vietnam.”

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I strongly support the Byrd amendment. The amendment would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from: one, financing purchases by a country at war with the United States; and two, financing purchases by a country aiding another country which is at war with the United States. Last year the United States lost over 5,000 men in Vietnam. This year it has been estimated we will lose 7,300. I think the figure now is going to run higher than that, because the casualties so far have been greater than anticipated.

I would simply ask Senators to propose a question of this kind to the servicemen fighting over there. What would the men in Vietnam want them to do? How would they want Senators to vote on this question? There is no doubt in my mind that this amendment is calculated to prevent helping the economy of any nation that is at war with the United States or any nation that is trading or doing business with a nation at war with the United States.

It has been mentioned here that about $12 million of business is being done with North Vietnam by other countries. I would remind Senators that this is a drop in the bucket; that the United States itself is spending, to support this war, from $25 billion to $30 billion per year. This war is costing from $2 billion to $2.5 billion a month.

Mr. President, even if we did lose that amount in trade, what is that compared with saving American lives?

There certainly should be no question in anyone's mind that, if this amendment is adopted, it will promote the economies of the countries which are engaging us in armed conflict or those countries which are doing business with those countries with which we are engaged in armed conflict. War is not only a military battle, but an economic battle, and it is just as important that we fight it from an economic standpoint as from a military standpoint.

I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment. Ask yourselves what the American people want. There lies your answer. There is no question in my mind as to how the American people would stand on this. There is no question in my mind as to how the fighting men would stand on this. There is no question in my mind as to what is best for America while we are at war.

Mr. President, I think it is a great mistake to trade with countries that are at war with the United States or to assist them in any form whatever.

I would remind the Senate that the Soviet Union has been furnishing about 80 percent of the armor and equipment necessary to wage the war in Vietnam. I am convinced that if the Soviet Union would withdraw its aid in the war in Vietnam, the war would end very shortly.

I can see no other course; it seems to me if we are interested in the survival of our own country, we should adopt this amendment. For the sake of a few paltry dollars -- even if we lost them -- I still say we ought to adopt the amendment. I hope the Senate will adopt the Byrd amendment.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I want it plainly understood that my opposition to this amendment does not constitute an endorsement of trade with Communist countries. It does not constitute any softening in my attitude on the prosecution of the war in Vietnam. It does not constitute any softening in my attitude toward countries that want to trade with North Vietnam.

I do not think the amendment is well drawn. I am afraid of its implications. Therefore, I intend to vote against the amendment.

I appreciate the objectives of my distinguished friend from Virginia, and I endorse his objectives.

I want to clarify one other thing. This is not a matter of American taxpayers subsidizing the trade of anyone. The Export-Import Bank is one of the few agencies of the Government of the United States that makes any money. It returns some $60 million annually into the Treasury of the United States, and some $60 million more goes into its reserves. So it is in sound condition. Therefore, do not get any mistaken idea that this is a matter of the American taxpayers subsidizing anybody.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator has said how much trade has been involved between a number of nations and North Vietnam. Can he tell the dollar value of the trade between Russia and North Vietnam? How much military equipment has been sent to North Vietnam? What is the value of it? Is it 80 percent, as suggested by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND]? That, to me, is the important issue. How much has been the volume of trade?

Mr. MUSKIE. That figure is available. I do not have it.

Mr. LAUSCHE. That is the most important thing to me. The trade of these other nations is insignificant.

Mr. MUSKIE. May I say, Mr. President, that the question of trade with Communist countries, including Russia, and the use of the Export-Import Bank in connection with it, is covered by the Foreign Assistant Act of 1966. The question of trade with free countries whose exports from us may find their way to Communist countries is covered by the pending bill. So the Byrd amendment has particular relevance to trade of the free world countries. It is with respect to them that we have no present law, and nothing in the pending legislation applies.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I repeat what I said earlier today: We are contemplating financing a $50 million automobile manufacturing plant for Russia. Russia is the main supplier of goods to North Vietnam. Trucks are an essential part of war. I cannot go along with any program which, as has been said, will provide $50 million for Fiat to build automobiles which, in all probability and certainty, will be sent to North Vietnam.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I shall be brief in summarizing the arguments as I understand them. I suggest, primarily, that Senators who have not been able to listen to the debate this afternoon, and who will be reading the RECORD after the vote, and our constituents, friends, historians, and reporters read carefully the RECORD of this memorable day. Let them examine the debate and notice the questions which have been asked and the answers which have been given, and relate them, if they can, to a conclusion in connection with the decision which is about to be made.

I do not propose to repeat the arguments. The bill has rather larger implications, however, than the Senator from Maine indicated in one of his concluding remarks, in which he seemed to imply that the Byrd amendment would not have much import because all of what it proposes is adequately covered by other legislation. Unhappily, that is not correct.

The other legislation says that it is the policy of the United States to abhor and to oppose these activities. This bill, for the first time, would make it a law. Attorney General Kennedy ruled -- and it is a matter of record -- that when something is a matter of policy, it is meaningless as law. There is a vast difference between what the Byrd amendment provides and what has been done in previous legislation.

We may quibble whether the amount is $11 million or $12 million, but every nation knows that what goes into Hanoi goes in to help them fight a war against our American forces.

In reply to the question of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], there are some specific guidelines concerning what Hanoi is getting from Russia. I have placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at different times tables and other information showing this.

Fourteen days after October 12, 1966, when the President by Executive order, for the first time opened up, without license or restriction, 400 items for exportation to build up the economy of Russia, the Russians held a conference in Warsaw, Poland, with the Warsaw Pact countries, and issued a proclamation. Included among the countries was "friendly little Rumania." I put "friendly Rumania" in quotation marks. Russia and those countries promised a billion dollars of additional supplies to North Vietnam. In the first 3 months afterward, they sent one-third of that additional billion dollars' worth of supplies to Hanoi.

We know where a Mig comes from. It comes only from Russia. We know where they get their SAM bases; only from Russia. We know, according to intelligence which the Army has reported, that there are at least 7,500 antiaircraft guns in North Vietnam and South Vietnam, shooting down American pilots every day. All of them come from Russia. The Senator says he has seen pictures of the Russian trucks himself. Mr. President, that should be adequate to sharpen the issue before us.