State Dept. Says Aid to Egypt Would Not Be Stopped Despite Senate

State Department sources today predicted that a Senate amendment passed last week pertaining to severance of aid to any country “engaging in or preparing for aggressive military efforts” would not be applied to Egypt, although the amendment’s sponsors made clear they had Egypt in mind.

The officials said they were not convinced that the Nasser regime was either currently engaged in aggression or aggressive preparations as defined by the amendment. They also maintained that it was not in the national security interest of the United States to sever aid to Nasser.

The general prediction from these sources was that the Administration would not implement the amendment because it requires the President to act only if he determines that Egypt is engaged in or preparing aggression. They said it was unlikely that the President would act owing to the alleged absence of proof of aggressive behavior by the UAR and the conviction of American policy makers that Nasser is growing friendlier to America. Abrupt severance of aid to Egypt at this juncture, said the State Department sources, would “throw Nasser into the hands of Moscow.”

The amendment, adopted by a Senate vote of 65 to 13, restored to the foreign aid authorization bill the so-called “Farbstein amendment” adopted by the House but eliminated by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It requires an end to aid, including surplus food, if the President determines a country like Egypt is engaged in or preparing aggressive military efforts against the United States or any other recipient of American assistance.

The adoption of identical wording by both Senate and House assured the retention of the amendment in the final version of the bill. A watered-down version offered by the Administration was rejected by a Senate vote of 46 to 32 against the substitute.

SECRETARY RUSK CRITICIZES SENATE AMENDMENT AFFECTING EGYPT

Secretary of State Dean Rusk told a press conference he was deeply concerned about “the tendency in Congress to legislate foreign policy as it might apply to special situations or special countries,” referring to the Senate amendment pertaining to Egypt and similar restrictions on aid to specific countries.

He charged that Congress was trying to legislate the American foreign policy toward particular countries but it was the President and not Congress who had to deal with aid problems on a day-to-day basis. He said he hoped Congress would “not try to legislate in detail about the application of an aid program to a particular country.”

Senator Wayne Morse, Oregon Democrat, took issue with Secretary Rusk’s comments. He said Congress had a duty to check on the spending of billions of dollars furnished by the American taxpayers on such programs as foreign aid. Chairman Fulbright of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee supported Mr. Rusk’s position. He said “we have put specific restrictions on executive authority–some irrelevant to the aid bill, like the amendments on fishing and the security of Israel.”