United States Foreign Assistance Remarks at a White House Briefing for Members of Congress.

First of all, let me express my thanks to the Members of the Congress who've come here tonight to discuss two very difficult but very important issues, and then in a few minutes, after my presentation, to have our new Secretary of State, Ed Muskie, give you a brief report on his trip to Europe and his negotiations with our allies and friends and also with the Soviet Foreign Minister. Then we'll be available to answer your questions on these and other matters that might be of interest to you.

For a President who wants to keep our Nation at peace and not use a tremendous military arsenal that is available to me as Commander in Chief, it's necessary to call on the Congress to help me in meeting the challenge or the competition with the Soviet Union in various places in the world, particularly in Africa; to stop the encroachment of Cuban-engendered communism throughout Central America and the Caribbean; and to meet the challenge that remains after the Vietnam experience in Southeast Asia. This is not an easy challenge to meet without using weapons. It's incumbent on the Congress to give me the economic tools with which to meet these challenges.

This year, the Congress has not yet been willing to do so. This is not a matter of liberalism versus conservatism, because, in my judgment, it's as extremely important for a conservative, who believes in human rights and the preservation of our way of life and the meeting of a communist challenge, to do so in a bold and effective and courageous way without regards to the demagogic approach on foreign aid that might appeal to some members of a constituency. And for those who profess to be liberals, it's extremely important to protect human rights, to meet the needs of hungry people, and to spread the beneficial effect of democracy and freedom and our way of life. There is no incompatibility depending upon a philosophical point of view, nor is there a distinction legitimately to be drawn between Democrats and Republicans.

As you all know, the way that we meet these challenges in Southeast Asia, in Africa, and our own hemisphere is through our economic or foreign aid program. It's varied in makeup; it's highly focused when it needs to be on a bilateral basis; and it also expands tremendously the investment of a dollar of American foreign aid or loan money to benefit us with trade, with the growth of our national product, and the beneficial effect of the impact of all the Western democratic nations on the nonaligned, sometimes uncertain, uncommitted, but searching developing countries.

In the World Bank, a dollar that's invested from American allocations of funds by you is multiplied 50 times over-for every dollar of American money, the World Bank can lend $50. The International Monetary Fund, which makes available very sound loans to countries, also imposes on them a rigid fiscal discipline and has saved many nations from chaos by imposing on them, in a negotiated manner, a sound fiscal policy. Sometimes the leaders of those nations privately express their gratitude to the IMF for making them do what they know ought to be done to control runaway inflation and an imbalanced budget that would lead ultimately to chaos, revolution, and disintegration of the societal structure of that nation.

This year, at this moment, we have six different foreign aid bills still not passed by the House. Today the Senate did agree to the authorization bill for the supplementary development allocation for Central America, primarily for Nicaragua. The money will still have to be appropriated for it.

As you know, for the last roughly 35 years, with the full knowledge and consultation of the Congress, our country has committed itself to the multilateral development banks, multinational development banks for a certain portion of loans. This is the first time in 35 years that the Congress has not honored that commitment. This is embarrassing for our country, and, as you know, the multilateral development banks have now not been making loans for 6 months. In the meantime, small nations who would be our friends, who are desperate for those loans—some loans relatively modest in size, measured by our standards—are sitting in limbo, facing potential financial catastrophes.

Our allies and trading partners whom we are calling upon to support our position with Iran and Afghanistan and other very sensitive matters feel that the United States has welched on its commitment.

You know what a devastating economic impact the closing of a community bank in your city would mean, particularly if it was the only bank that could make loans, for a 6-month's period.

We've now worked out in the conference committee a level of commitment to these banks, that will now come before you for a vote again, that's $412 million below what our promise was, what our negotiated commitment was. I hope that the House will support this commitment.

Every time we have put a dollar in economic aid on a foreign aid basis for the last number of years, it's resulted in an increase of about $3 for the American gross national product. Our trade with the less-developed countries of the world now exceeds the trade with all of Western Europe, all of Eastern Europe, plus the Soviet Union. And, in addition to this, we can provide in a beneficial way a partnership agreement with those small and potentially friendly countries where we can be provided with their raw materials and sell them finished products, providing jobs for our own country.

I have no way to express as deeply as I feel the need for your support for this legislation. We have been operating under a continuing resolution since October 1 on the 1980 foreign assistance appropriations. The conference report, as you know, will include military assistance, economic support, development assistance, money for the refugee program, money for disaster relief, for the control of narcotics, the multilateral development banks, the Peace Corps, the Eximbank-these kinds of programs are included within the legislation for which the Congress has not yet passed the appropriations for 1980. And, of course, the 1981 authorization bill has the same function and programs, and, of course, we'll be following that with appropriations for foreign aid.

I think all of you realize that about half of the authorized money—about $2 1/2 billion—goes for the Mideast peace settlement. And in addition, countries like Turkey, Greece, Morocco, many others, are dependent on us to sustain their forms of government, and it's been a very successful program for many years in the past.

I hope that you will help with this legislation. It's been sharply reduced from what we asked and from what we need. It's a good investment for our country. It honors the commitment that our Nation has made with your knowledge and based on historical precedent. There are no surprises in it. It is in conformity with the balanced budget proposal that I put forward.

We have disaster relief in this legislation. I think all of you remember the Caribbean hurricane relief and the Italian earthquake relief. There was $73 million in the conference report, in the original proposal we made. That's been cut from $73 million down to $20 million. It's typical of the kind of cuts that have already been made in conference and which the House has still not passed.

In a few minutes, Ed Muskie will make some brief comments to you. But before he does, I'd like to make one other appeal to you, and that is a nonrelated subject, but a very important subject.

In the first part of March, after consultations with the leadership in the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, the leadership of the budget committees and the appropriations committees, the Members of the Congress came to the Cabinet Room and asked me to impose an oil import conservation fee that was the equivalent of 10 cents a gallon for gasoline. I accepted this recommendation by the Members of Congress and imposed the fee. It required no action of the Congress. I did it just before the Illinois primary, and it was a highly publicized move. It was not politically attractive, but the primary results were gratifying to me, and I don't think I've suffered materially from it.

I don't ask the Congress to take any action on it. I ask you not to take any action to remove the authority that I have now and have always had since I've been in office and that my predecessors had, to impose such a fee to cut down on unwarranted imports of oil.

Ten cents is a very small tax on gasoline. Compared to other major consuming nations, it's almost insignificant. But it sends a clear signal to our allies and other consuming nations to restrain themselves and to cut down on their own imports and to remove the pressure from the worldwide oil supply market. It also sends a very clear signal to the OPEC countries, the Saudis and others, who are now producing more oil than they choose to produce, but are doing so to maintain a stable price. And, in my judgment, if the Congress should act over my veto to remove the oil conservation fee authority from me, we'll have much greater prices increased by OPEC than we would have otherwise, and it'll make it almost impossible for us to have a joint or common conservation effort by the major oil-importing nations.

So, I ask you to help me in this respect by not supporting the legislative attempts to remove from me the ability that the President has had for a long time, to impose the conservation fee that I've described. It will result in roughly 100,000 barrels less imported at the end of a year; at the end of 2 1/2 or 3 years, 250,000 barrels less oil to be imported into our country. Last year, we imported about $60 billion worth of oil from overseas. This year we expect $90 billion of oil imports from foreign countries, which amounts to about $400 for every man, woman, and child in this country. And my appeal to you is to help me with this particular act. It requires no action on your part, just to refrain from acting. That's what I ask you to do.

As you know, the Federal courts have ruled, at the district court level, that the method of allocating the fee just to gasoline is illegal. We are appealing this ruling, and I'm perfectly willing to fight my battle in the court.

Let me say in closing that the easiest legislation in the world to find fault with is probably foreign aid. It's easy to demagog the issue, and you can always find some reason at home in the fourth district of Georgia or the third district in Georgia, where I'm from, to justify voting against foreign aid. But when you come down to the question—is our Nation going to meet its commitments; is our Nation going to be able, short of military action, to compete successfully with the Soviet Union for the hearts and minds and friendships and trade of the developing nations on Earth; are we going to be able to prove to those nations that a democratic country like ours, the most powerful on Earth, is a responsible partner for them to have, a responsible friend, with an investment that pays rich dividends, that provides American jobs, that's greatly magnified in its beneficial effect, that helps those who are suffering to have more to eat, to let them produce energy of their own that will alleviate worldwide shortages—these kinds of questions, the answers are obviously yes.

And I ask you to consider these matters in a statesmanlike way and add your vote in the next few days, maybe even tomorrow, to pass these cut down bills, that are lower than we need but at least will let the multilateral development banks and others resume functioning after they've been shut down now with no loans because of American intransigence for as long as 6 months.