National Affairs: Foreign-Aid Victory

• Share

The week in which South Americans stoned the U.S. Vice President, Lebanese and Algerian rioters sacked U.S. libraries, and U.S. alliances in Europe trembled, was also the week in which the U.S. House of Representatives acted with extraordinary calm and exemplary reason. Putting down momentary anger, the House last week approved (259-134) and sent to the Senate a bill authorizing $2.9 billion in new foreign aid, $1.64 billion for military assistance, most of the rest for economic and technical development.

Not all the three days' debate, to be sure, was conducted with sweetness and light. "We have not bought any friends," thundered Michigan's hoary (82), unreconstructed Republican Clare Hoffman, "that is, not friends when we needed them." Snorted Mississippi's arch-reactionary William M. Colmer: "We have seen only in the last few days instances of the fact that this aid is not only not appreciated, but in many instances is not welcome." In this frame of mind, Colmer and other opponents introduced nearly two dozen amendments to gut the principle of foreign aid, chiefly by slicing the total authorization or eliminating aid to Yugoslavia, Egypt, Poland and India. By wide margins, each restrictive amendment was beaten.

"He Shudders." Partly their defeat lay in the fact that the current mood of Congress is for more spending, not less; in last year's savage attack on foreign aid, Congress was still shivering from George Humphrey's prediction of a "depression that will curl your hair" if spending continued. Partly the victory came because foreign-aid advocates approached this year's battle well prepared. Acting Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Thomas E. Morgan of Pennsylvania and energetic new Director James Smith Jr. of the International Cooperation Administration were ready with facts and figures to answer all the predictable horror stories, e.g., that aid funds went for dress suits for Greek undertakers, bathing facilities for Egyptian camel drivers or a chinchilla coat for Zsa Zsa Gabor (see below).

But the most important new factor was the President of the U.S. He had withstood a token $339 million cut in committee but would accept no more. "He shudders," reported Minority Leader Joe Martin, "to think how he could meet the world situation if there are any further cuts." Moreover, Ike clearly made foreign aid a part of his three-point Republican loyalty test (TIME, May 19). Backing up the President, Joe Martin scoured the House for more G.O.P. votes, added an angry floor argument: "The charge that we cannot afford the mutual-security program is hogwash. When the U.S. cannot afford its own security, it is time to hoist the white flag."

"Growing Realization." But mainly, last week's bill passed in spite of everything because the House sensed the will of the nation. Said Indiana's veteran Charles A. Halleck: "There is growing realization throughout the country that the far-flung defenses of the U.S. require substantial and continuing foreign aid."

The foreign-aid forces could only hope that such brave words would still echo when the battle comes to back up the authorization with funds.