22. Memorandum From the Administrator of the Agency for International Development (Bell) to Secretary of State Rusk1
John McNaughton and I had a disturbing conversation with Senator Fulbright on Friday.2 The purpose of our call was to ask his views of (a) a four-year foreign aid authorization, and (b) separating economic and military aid legislation. The Senator was polite on these proposals; he favors both.
But the main thrust of his comments was to repeat, firmly and frequently, that he is unwilling any longer to lead the Senate battle for foreign aid legislation in anything like its present form. Changing to a multi-year authorization is not enough; splitting economic and military aid is not enough. His own recommendation is to change the entire pattern of economic aid: to channel all U.S. funds for development loans and technical assistance through international agencies; and to appropriate Supporting Assistance funds to the State Department.
The Senator recognizes that the majority of the Congress—particularly in the House—may not be willing to appropriate to multilateral institutions anywhere near as much as they now appropriate for bilateral aid. He agrees that other donor countries are not now prepared to share in such a substantial increase in the resources of the international agencies. He does not insist on his position; he would not be at all put out if the President does not accept his recommendations.
But in that case Senator Fulbright will not wish to take responsibility for the legislation. His suggestion is that the President ask Senator Mansfield to handle the bill.
This position leaves us in a very difficult position. The Senator’s recommendations on aid legislation seem to me to be both unwise in terms of United States interests, and impractical in terms of Congressional re-alities. I do not see how the President could accept them.
The suggestion of asking Senator Mansfield to handle the aid legislation does not seem feasible. Nor is there an obvious alternative. Senator Sparkman is up for re-election in 1966 and would not, I am sure, want to handle the aid legislation. Next in line is Senator Morse.
I believe this problem can be resolved only by discussion between the President and Senator Fulbright. It is possible that Senator Fulbright’s views stem, in part, from a feeling that his role in handling the [Page 72] bill in the Senate has not been sufficiently appreciated and that he has not been consulted directly by the President on the future of foreign aid.
I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this matter with you at an early date.