Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities

65. Letter From President Johnson to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Fulbright)¹

Washington, February 15, 1967.

Dear Bill:

I have your letter of the 8th² with reference to my determinations of January 5, 1967, increasing the number of countries eligible for Development Loans from 10 to 29 and for Technical Assistance from 40 to 48.³

As a general proposition, I believe the exercise of Presidential discretion should be rare and only on the strongest facts. And I think that in connection with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966 the discretion which I exercised is proper.

The numerical limitations on the number of countries to which the United States could give aid were introduced by the Foreign Relations Committee into the legislation over the strong objections of the Administration. We believed, as a matter of principle, that an aid program could not be sensibly limited in this way, that some flexibility is necessary, and that any assistance program has to be capable of responding to changing world circumstances.

Equally importantly, we pointed out to your Committee that numerical limitations on the number of countries would force abrupt and uneconomic termination of present programs in a number of countries.

While your Committee, and the Senate as a whole, rejected these arguments, the House of Representatives agreed with them. The House Committee strongly took the position, as did the House Managers in the Conference Report, that numerical limitations were unwise. The result of differences in this respect between the House and Senate was the compromise permitting Presidential determination to exceed the statutory limits whenever the President determined it was in the national interest to do so.

In this connection I believe that it was widely understood by the Congress, for the reasons expressed to the Committee and to the Conference, that this discretion would have to be exercised in a number of instances. I do not believe, therefore, that my determinations of January 5 came as a surprise to the Congress. They were entirely consistent with the compromise which Congress arrived at in enacting the legislation. And each determination was the result of a careful review which led me to conclude that the national interest indeed required the action that I took.

More specifically, as you know, I have determined that our Technical Assistance programs should number 48 rather than 40. Seven of these are in the Near East and South Asia. Six are in the Far East. The remaining 35 are in Africa. If we suddenly reduced the number of our Technical Assistance programs from 48 to 40, Africa would suffer most—if not all—of the loss.

We share your view that some of our bilateral aid should be replaced by multilateral and regional aid. As recommended in the Korry report, we have decided to terminate our bilateral aid programs in a number of African countries and deal with them only on a multilateral or regional basis. But we cannot make this change overnight. It would not make sense to abandon Technical Assistance projects which are already under way. Accordingly, although we will not start new Technical Assistance projects in a number of countries, I have determined that it is in the national interest to complete those projects which have already been begun. As they are completed, the number of countries in which we will have regular Technical Assistance programs will decline to less than 40.

Let me now turn to Development Loans. Last January we stated in our presentation to the Congress that in FY 1967 we definitely expected to make Development Loans to 10 specific countries, that we considered three other specific countries eligible for Development Loans, and that Development Loans would also be made to a number of additional African countries depending upon whether particular projects proved feasible and were ready for financing during the course of the fiscal year. The Senate bill limited us to making Development Loans to 10 countries only. In Conference, there was added the clause permitting the President to exceed that number.

We now propose to make Development Loans to 29 countries. Of these 8 are in the Near East and South Asia, 2 are in the Far East and 19 are in Africa. If we were limited to 10 countries only, the burden would again be borne by our African program.

As recommended in the Korry report, we propose to make no further bilateral loans to a number of African countries, and to provide assistance to them on a multilateral or regional basis. We do, however, propose to complete projects which are now under way, and to go forward with Development Loans for which joint planning has reached an advanced stage even though loan authorizations have not yet been entered into. Ultimately, this will mean that we will be making Development Loans to 20 countries, 10 in Africa and 10 elsewhere. But for this year and next—while we are finishing unfinished business—the number will be more than 20. And under no circumstances can I see the wisdom of reducing the number to 10 in the foreseeable future.

There are two other numerical restrictions contained in the Act bearing on the number of countries to which we can give aid. One limits to 13 the number of countries to which we can give Supporting Assistance.⁴ As you know, I have determined that the national interest requires increasing this to 17. The Act also limited to 40 the number of countries to which we can give military assistance.⁵ We are living within that restriction.

I know that you have differences with the Administration with respect to the aid program, and particularly with respect to Development Loans. But there is no disagreement between us as to the importance of foreign aid. During the past few months we have made important policy changes in the foreign aid programs, and which will increase its multilateral and regional aspects. I would hope very much that you would be able to support the Administration’s efforts to move in that direction.

If arbitrary restrictions are imposed the victims will be a number of African countries where the programs are small, the needs great, and the consequences to our foreign policy important. I believe it is in the national interest for this Government to support—even though the dollar amounts are relatively modest—these new nations in their struggle to achieve equality and economic development.

Sincerely,

Lyndon B. Johnson

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Subject File, Presidential Determinations, Vol. IV [2 of 2], Box 40. No classification marking.
2. Document 64.
3. Document 61.
4. Section 401 as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966, P.L. 89–583, approved on September 19, 1966. (80 Stat. 801)
5. Section 504(a), as amended. (80 Stat. 802)