from the authorization, but for unforeseen situations. If funds are cut back for the Alliance for Progress, we are in a sorry condition so far as contingency fund use is concerned.

I will give another reason. Many forces may be at work on the contingency fund. There may be military situations, for example, which require drawing on those funds. I have reason I have reason to believe that those who battled for the Alliance for Progress are not aware of this situation. There will be heavy demands for contingency funds if a contingency arises. If a contingency or If a contingency or emergency does not arise, those funds ought not to be used. I think the Senator from Georgia is aware that authorizations or programs cannot be cut back and be paid for from contingency funds.

Mr. RUSSELL. I am not aware of any law to that effect. The Appropriations Committee, when it has reduced appropriations and it has been the subject of controversy-has been highly critical of transfers with respect to appropriations that have been reduced. But this is an authorization. This is not an appropriation bill. In the case of approIn the case of appropriations, the Appropriations Committee is very jealous, when it has recommeded reductions, and Congress has acted accordingly, and, despite the fact that Congress has fixed the appropriations at a certain level, funds have been transferred for that purpose. It has considered it an abuse of executive power.

But that is not true in the case of authorizations. Where we authorize $300 million, if Congress appropriates $300 million, it knows the President has certain discretion. It seems to me it would be a lack of faith in the President, if the Senator says he is so concerned about the Alliance for Progress, to say he would not use funds from the contingency fund if necessary.

Mr. HUMPHREY. It seems to me the people who have an interest in the program might think differently. A very interesting thing, in connection with the Alliance for Progress and our foreign policy relating to the Western Hemisphere, is that this is a relatively new program. It is in its third year. The first year was an organizational year. The second year we got some start. We are now in the third year of the Alliance for Progress program. It is in this period that we are talking about whether we are going to have, to some degree, freedom in the Western Hemisphere. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. COOPER. Will the Senator inform me if I am correct in stating that the administration made a final request which totaled $650 million for fiscal 1964, and that $650 million would have been made available for the Alliance for Progress under the bill reported by the committee? And will the Senator tell me if this latter amount compares with an amount of $450 million which was included for the Alliance for Progress in the bill passed by the House?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. The amount of $650 million was recommended by the

committee. The amount acted on and recommended by the House was $450 million. The request of the administration was $650 million. The Senate committee, after considerable discussion and debate, recommended that amount to the Senate.

Mr. COOPER. The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota would add $125 million to the amount authorized in the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. HUMPHREY. It would add $125 million above the so-called DirksenMansfield amendments.

Mr.COOPER. This amendment would not add anything above the amount requested to be appropriated and recommended by the administration?

Mr. HUMPHREY. No; my amendment would bring the amount to what the administration recommended and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations recommended.

I know of no newspaper or journal in this country, regardless of its political persuasion, that has not deplored the action taken in the other body. They felt the $450 million figure was too low. We all know that when we go to conference there is give and take. The Senator from Minnesota is attempting to recommend the amount the committee recommended, and that the administrarecommended, and that the administration recommended, and what I consider to be the most respectable segment of the press recommends. I do not see how it could be too far wrong.

Mr. COOPER. Would the Senator's amendment add anything to the total amount of the bill?

Mr. HUMPHREY. No. Mr. COOPER. It represents a transfer?

and reduced it to $450 million. The Senate committee put it all back and raised it to $650 million.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is the administration's request.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes. To balance out this account we went back to the expenditure for fiscal 1963. The so-called "powerhouse" amendments contain $525 million, exactly what was appropriated for fiscal 1963. We considered that that was enough. On balance it ought to be approved. Those are the figures.

Mr. HUMPHREY. If we could be assured that we would get $525 million in appropriations for fiscal 1964, I would withdraw the amendment. The truth is that $450 million is provided in the House bill. If we have only $525 million in the Senate version, as valiant as my colleagues in the Senate will be in terms of their conference committee capability, I doubt that the House will fold up and agree to the $525 million authorization. If we have only a $525 million authorization, I am sure the Appropriations Committee will not automatically appropriate that amount of money.

I

I offered my amendment in the hope that the conferees on the part of the Senate would be able to come out of conference with a figure close to $525 or $550 million in authorizations. hope more than that will come to us in the appropriations bill, in the third year of the Alliance for Progress program, when programs are now getting underway.

I have received an excellent report on this program. I hope that at least we will come out of the Appropriations Committee with the same amount that we had in fiscal 1963.

Unless we adopt an amendment that will restore it to $650 million, or an

Mr. COOPER. I have not been here the last 2 days. Unfortunately, I have not been able to follow the progress of not been able to follow the progress of the debate, particularly on the Alliance for Progress. I voted for the reductions offered by the senior Senator from Florida. I intend to support the recommendations made by the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Illinois. I have a strong feeling about supporting, to the fullest extent we can, the Alliance for Progress. We have been talking for 2 years about Cuba. The Soviet Union has established a military presence in Cuba. It is a threat to Latin America. I do think this area could provide the greatest source of danger to this country, or the greatest source of strength to the future of this country. I am going to support the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. So that the authentic figures may be in the RECORD-and we received these figures from the Approreceived these figures from the Appropriations Committee for fiscal 1963 the Alliance for Progress had $525 million. Mr. HUMPHREY. In appropriations.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes. The budget asked for $650 million for 1964. The House cut the amount by $200 million

chance whatever of coming out with the full amount of money.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, we did not touch the so-called social trust fund. Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DIRKSEN. That is the $200 million, for example, for the benefit of Latin America.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. $175 million. Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes; but originally the request was for $200 million. Mr. FULBRIGHT. The House provided for $200 million.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am not arguing about the other figures. As the Senator from Georgia has indicated, possibly the President would use some of the contingency fund for the Alliance for Progress. That is a part of the argument for increasing the contingency fund. All I am saying is that in light of the drastic action taken by the other body in cutting the authorization for the Alliance for Progress programs, the Senate ought at least to sustain the figure in the committee report, or close to it, so that when we go to conference on the Alliance for Progress we shall be able to come out with a little more than is offered in the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments.

I am sure the Senator from Illinois knows that I really do not like to be in this position. I do not exactly support

what the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority leader have attempted to do. In other respects, I believe they had to do what was done. I hope I can persuade my colleagues in the Senate to agree that the allocation to the Alliance for Progress would be a wise step to take. Apparently some shift was made, and I am not quite sure why. It seems to me that if we could agree on a better figure for this year we would be serving the cause that we all wish to support.

Mr. DIRKSEN. The situation amounts to, "You pay your money and you take your choice." In other words, shall we put the money into the contingency fund of the President, giving that added flexibility, or do we take it out of that fund and put it into the Alliance for Progress authorization?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. I also feel that inasmuch as the committee made a long and careful study of the Alliance for Progress, it would be a good idea to go along with the progress that has been made. I respect the committee's judgment with respect to the Alliance for Progress funds.

Mr. KEATING. Am I correct in saying that the Senator's amendment would add to the Alliance for Progress fund the exact amount which would be taken from the contingency fund?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. KEATING. I should like, with the Senator's permission, to address a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair. Is the amendment divisible? It strikes out two sections.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to strike out is divisible.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. I believe that the Senator from Illinois made a good point, but It seems to me that there is an underlying question of policy involved, and that is that the so-called powerhouse amendments seek to make it clear to the Alliance for Progress members that we are concerned about some of the countries that have not been performing as we feel they should, and, therefore, we are not going to approve the amount that was originally recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee, but that, instead, we will leave it up to the President to exercise his discretion as to whether they are going to go ahead with a program. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I believe that is a valid argument. I do not deny it.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Minnesota has said that he has received progress reports. The Senator from Minnesota probably has much better information on this point than I. However, I too have seen some reports which indicate that of all the Latin American countries, only about 12 have come forth with the kind of programs that we have long been expecting them to propose.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the Senator permit me to make an observation?

Mr. MILLER. I would appreciate it very much if the Senator from Minnesota would tell us a little more about the state of these programs, because we have received reports which indicate that all is not well with respect to some of the is not well with respect to some of the countries.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not claim to be any expert on this subject, but basically there is considerable truth in what the Senator from Iowa has said with respect to the fact that a number of countries have not come forth with what we call necessary reforms.

Mr. MILLER. Not only with respect to reforms, but with respect to programs as well.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; programs also. That is why the Alliance for Progress has been slow in starting. We have not only demanded feasibility studies, project by project, and economie studies, project by project, but also countrywide plans, country by country. This has compelled some of the countries to examine their human resources, their natural resources, their capital resources, and their public administration structure. We have insisted on rather high criteria. Now they are beginning to show some progress in that respect. In some countries the programs have not come along as fast as we would like to have had them come along because we have insisted upon better performance.

If we had insisted in certain other parts of the world on the same kind of performance that we are insisting upon with respect to Latin American countries, there would have been less criticism of the foreign aid program than we have had thus far. I believe we have learned a great deal as a result of our demand for better performance. Our funds in Latin America are showing much better performance on these projects.

I have had brought to my attention a report from Colombia. It is in the form of a letter, with pictures, and it deals with the city of Cucuta, Colombia.

The letter is addressed to the President of the United States, and it states:

With the present we are enclosing some photographs, which show how the Alliance for Progress program is producing results in our city.

We have been granted a loan by the InterAmerican Development Bank, that is helping American Development Bank, that is helping to finance a 10-year expansion program, designed to provide water and sewerage house connections for more than 95 percent of our 115,000 inhabitants of the city.

Their plan was designed to take care of some of the sewerage, water, and sanitation needs. I show Senators the pictures, which obviously cannot be printed in the RECORD. One picture One picture shows the problem, and another picture shows the solution. In other words, the pictures say, "This is what we had, and this is what we are getting."

This was done after American engineers had been brought in and after economic and feasibility studies.

This is the kind of program we ought to support.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana, who must leave

the Chamber and who desires to offer his amendment now.

Mr. ELLENDER. As I stated a while ago, I am in full agreement with the position taken by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I do not believe, as has been stated by some Senators, that money could be transferred from the contingency fund, as such, to the Alliance for Progress. The purpose of the contingency fund is to provide for unforeseen happenings, such as at Quemoy and in Lebanon.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 299 and ask that it be read. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2 of the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, it is proposed to strike out lines 10 and 11 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

On page 40, line 10, strike out "$175,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$100,000,000".

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana will state it.

Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand, this amendment will be voted upon before the so-called Humphrey amendment.

The

PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KENNEDY in the chair). A motion to amend language proposed to be stricken out takes precedence over a motion to strike out.

Mr. HUMPHREY. It is not an amendment in the third degree?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a preferential amendment.

Mr. ELLENDER. As the Senator from Minnesota has just stated, I have a previous engagement. Tomorrow I shall give my reasons why I believe my amendment should be adopted.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Iyield.

Mr. MILLER. My only comment in response to the Senator's statement is that I recognize that the scrutiny which is being given to some of the Alliance programs is tight. That is as it should be. It does not mean that when these programs are not measuring up to our standards, especially those set forth in the Clay Committee report, we should automatically appropriate the same amount of money we did last year. I take it from the action of the House that the House has been restive because we have not been moving fast enough with the moneys appropriated originally, and that the understanding and hope that there would be a quicker movement have not been justified. That is why some of the excess funds have been built up.

Mr. HUMPHREY. One of the reasons why we have not moved so rapidly as the Senator from Iowa would have liked or the Senator from Minnesota would have liked is that there was a toolingup job that had to be done in working with the governments. In many instances, they simply were dragging their feet for a while, in terms of some of the criteria or qualifications that had to be met according to our commitments un

der the Act of Punta del Este. Many countries did not have the services that were necessary, such as planning officers and economists, to undertake their part of their work. That is now being done. Some progress is beginning to be made. When General Clay came before the committee, he said, speaking on the total authorization in the foreign aid bill, in response to a question from the chair

man:

Yes, sir. We believe that the authorization should be in the neighborhood of $4.2 billion or $4.3 billion.

The reason we have recommended that this figure be higher than we think the appropriation need be is that we feel the full amount promised to Latin America should be authorized even though we don't really believe that there is any chance that their performance will justify it all being expended. We think that a failure to authorize the full amount for Latin America would be widely interpreted as a failure of the United States to support the Alliance for Progress.

That was General Clay's statement. In the Clay report, as I recall, special emphasis was placed upon our commitment to the Alliance for Progress and the authorization that has been requested.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I have great respect for General Clay. However, with reférence to the last statement the Senator read, I should say, in light of what we have been doing and in light of the clear commitments that are required under the Alliance for Progress, that if the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment stands, and the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota fails, and if Latin American nations get the idea that we are not proceeding in their support, it will be due to our own failure of information. I see no reason why this information cannot be disseminated properly, so that they will know that we are still committed to their support, and that the only reason why we are not authorizing so much money is that, frankly, we are disappointed with their poor performance in some cases-and it has been poor in some cases. In other instances, we could give quite adequate and quite proper praise.

However, I cannot accept General Clay's statement which is, in effect, that we would be doing a very poor job of public relations in getting that information across to the people of Latin America.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Most respectfully, I say to the Senator from Minnesota that I think he is mistaken in the statement he made some time ago that the contingency fund could not be used in any place where the authorization had been reduced or the appropriation for a specific purpose had been reduced. I have checked with one of the clerks of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Scott, and have confirmed my memory of a good many years that the contingency fund can be used where the purposes are vaguely stated. In the Al

liance for Progress, no specific item is picked out that has been eliminated by the authorization or the appropriation. The Senator's amendment restores to the The Senator's amendment restores to the full budget request the amount for the Alliance for Progress, and reduces the contingency fund by $125 million.

Mr. HUMPHREY. It is merely a shift of funds.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Yes. Based upon my experience in the Committee on Appropriations, we have already tried to stand by the contingency fund. The administration, whether it be the administration of Truman, Eisenhower, or Kennedy, has always asked to have the contingency fund at a reasonable level to allow for any emergency that might arise.

The Senator's amendment would restore the amount to the specific project, the Alliance for Progress, where it might not be used, because projects might not come up, and therefore might be cut from the contingency fund.

Therefore, I personally am opposed to the Senator's amendment for the reason, based on experience, that the contingency fund is one of the most responsible, valuable adjuncts that the administration has, even though the fund might not be entirely used.

I am sorry to have to disagree with what the Senator from Minnesota has said, but I did wish to call his attention particularly to the fact that I do not beparticularly to the fact that I do not believe his statement is entirely backed up by experience, namely, that when an amount is cut back, the contingency fund cannot be used when the objective is not clearly stated.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I hope the Senator tor from Massachusetts is correct. Frankly, I have no desire to limit the Frankly, I have no desire to limit the President's contingency fund. Had I had my way about this matter, the Presihad my way about this matter, the President's contingency fund would be cut at his request, because I thoroughly agree with the Senator that the President's contingency fund in many cases serves a valuable purpose.

Let us discuss for a moment the Committee on Appropriations. Excluding Excluding the member of that committee who is speaking, let us talk about the competency of the other members. It was the considered judgment of that ccmmittee that the contingency fund should be kept at $175 million. I thought that that amount was too small. It was also the considered judgment-if not the unanimous judgment, then surely the judgment of an overwhelming majority of the members of the committee-that this fund should be $150 million. I have no desire to cut the President's contingency fund; nevertheless, I sense the temperament of the Senate to be that it is going to make some cuts. I felt that way when the bill was reported to the Senate. If that be true, I do not want my amendment to be interpreted as one that would add money to the bill. My amendment merely provides for a My amendment merely provides for a different allocation of the funds as prodifferent allocation of the funds as proposed in the Mansfield-Dirksen-Fulbright-Sparkman-Aiken - Hickenlooper amendment. There is an honest disagreement among Senators as to how

these funds should be allocated. I agree that there should be a cut in military assistance. I agree that there should be a cut in the Development Loan Fund. That amount was further reduced by the Morse amendment.

I am now asking only that the Senate be given some room for bargaining with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs when we go to conference on the Alliance for Progress.

I really believe that this is a meritorious position. I am not arguing with the judgment of other Senators as to the amounts that ought to be provided for the Alliance for Progress. If we can get $525 million, the Senator from Minnesota will be exceedingly happy. That was the total amount provided last year. Last year we had an authorization for $600 million.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a further question?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator from Minnesota is talking to a friend of the Alliance for Progress program when he talks to me.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I fully realize that; and I realize also that the same is true when I speak to the distinguished minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN]. I said that, essentially, we are not arguing about the programs; instead, we are merely discussing ways and means to fulfill or implement them.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Yes. My point is that if we are to make cuts in line with the recent votes in the Senate-and, as the Senator from Minnesota has said, it seems to be the temper of the Senate to make some cuts in the bill as recommended by the committee-we shall be providing for a better overall situation by leaving the contingency fund larger and thus providing desirable fluidity for the administration.

I have agreed with the Senator on some of the positions he takes, but I cannot agree with him on this amendment.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a brief question?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. In view of the procedure in the Senate thus far today, is it intended to have the Senate vote today on this amendment?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe not. Before the vote is taken, the Senator from Oregon will speak on the Alliance for Progress program; and in view of his knowledge of the Latin American area, his remarks will be most important. So I have no intention of pressing for a vote today on this amendment.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I am glad to cooperate in this connection. I did not know the Senator's amendment was to be brought up today. He knows that I wish to work with him in connection with this subject matter.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, indeed.

Mr. MORSE. And other Senators also wish to work with him and collaborate

with him in this connection. However, some of our amendments are not even drafted as yet. Furthermore, I think that at this point in the debate on the foreign aid bill we need to have whatever discussion and debate we are going to have on all aspects of the Alliance for Progress program. We cannot deal with this particular amendment without affecting the entire program, inasmuch as the Alliance goes to the very heart of the program. Therefore, in our discussions and debate tomorrow in regard to the Alliance for Progress program, we wish to outline the various proposals in regard to amendments of or modification in the Alliance for Progress program. That is why I propose that there be no vote tonight on this amendment. Furthermore, I understand-although I may be mistaken about this-that the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] has precedence over this amendment; and he has already left the Chamber, with the understanding that no further votes will be taken tonight.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Oregon is correct; and I am very anxious to take up this matter with the Senator from Oregon and his associates, because I am sure that a package which will greatly strengthen the Alliance for Progress can be arranged. After this debate, I shall meet promptly with the Senator from Oregon to discuss this subject.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. McGOVERN. Would the Senator from Minnesota say the Senate was acting in accordance with a long established foreign policy if it were to demonstrate in a concrete way its special consideration of the Western Hemisphere?

I

Mr. HUMPHREY. I certainly would. If there is any nation which demonstrates special consideration of the Western Hemisphere, certainly it is the United States, through the U.S. Congress. think I can say with complete accuracy and confidence that so far as the American people are concerned today about foreign aid, the one area of the program to which they seem to make an enthusiastic response is the Alliance for Progress. They want to do something constructive for this hemisphere. There are 101 reasons for that. Some say it is because of fear of Castro; but I think the more important reason is the realization that we have denied to some of our neighbors in this hemisphere the attention they justly have deserved over all these years.

Mr. McGOVERN. Furthermore, even Castro is a representative of a country in our hemisphere.

Mr. McGOVERN. There has been some understandable impatience regarding the rate of the progress we are making in the countries to the south of us. Can the Senator from Minnesota state how long we have been involved in South Vietnam, as compared to the length of time the Alliance for Progress has been operating?

Mr. HUMPHREY. As I recall, our involvement in South Vietnam began about 1954; I refer to our direct involvement after the French were defeated.

Mr. McGOVERN. Since then we have expended well over $3 billion in that one country, whereas the Alliance for Progress has been operating for approximately 2 years in some 20 different countries. I believe the Senator from Minnesota would agree that we have not been entirely satisfied with the progress we have made in South Vietnam, although we have been involved there over a much longer period of time.

Absolutely

Mr. HUMPHREY. Furthermore, in a few days Mr. Harriman, our Under Secretary of State, will go to a very important conference in South America-the Conference of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council, at which he, one of the highest representatives of our Government, will discuss, once again, the plans for the economic advancement of the countries of this hemisphere, region by region, country by country, area by area, and category by category. I believe it would be wise to arm Mr. Harriman with the kind of commitment for resources that will strengthen his position in that Conference, in terms of exacting from our sister republics the conditions which we believe to be necessary in order to have believe to be necessary in order to have an effective aid program.

I repeat that because of the position taken by Congress, and, in particular, because of the position taken by the subcommittee headed by the Senator from Oregon himself, as was indicated here in the early stages of the debate on the aid bill, certain conditions and criteria for the Alliance for Progress program were established, and I believe those conditions and criteria will make that program much more viable and much more effective than any other program we have had in any other part of the world, save the Marshall plan. This is one of the reasons for the delay or for what some call the slowness of our progress. However, I point out that although we may be proceeding a little slower than may be proceeding a little slower than we would like to, we are proceeding well.

socially, and politically. We have not constructed, in connection with this program, any four-lane roads that go nowhere, or luxury homes and luxury buildings that are not needed, in areas of poverty. We have been printing books, building schools, developing rural credits, engaging in land reform, helping in home building, cleaning up slums, installing water systems, and protecting the public health. I think the people of the United States find these programs most desirable and worthy of support.

Mr. McGOVERN. And those programs are not covered by any contingency fund; am I correct in that statement?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct. They are not.

Mr. McGOVERN. As the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] said before he left, the purpose of the contingency fund, is to meet emergency conditions, usually of a military nature or something of that sort.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Exactly. I know that certain Senators feel that there are changes that need to be made in the Alliance for Progress program. With some I agree. For example, the military assistance program. I think we should get into that. The Senator from Oregon will do so. I wish him to know that I feel that the military assistance program in Latin America ought to be cut.. As I told him the other day, it is my intention to support him. The Senator from Oregon feels that if cuts are to be made in some of these items, possibly we can make them at that point and in a package. I am amenable to that suggestion. I wish to talk to the Senator about it.

The amendment is now before the Senate. The amendment will give us an opportunity to talk on that aspect of the foreign aid bill.

I wish to conclude my presentation today on the question by saying that of all the items in the bill that deserve the most thoughtful consideration, it is the Alliance for Progress. It will be fully discussed by a number of Senators. That will be time well spent. Of all the items in the bill that deserve the support of Congress, it is the Alliance for Progress. I hope that we will do nothing either overtly or indirectly that will weaken our position in relation to the Alliance for Progress.

Mr. MCGOVERN. The Senator from Minnesota has expressed my views exactly, including the comment he made about the desirability of reducing some of the military aid funds. When the motion to recommit the bill was made the other day by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], I joined and I believe others joined-in supporting the motion to recommit, not because we wanted to make drastic cuts in the foreign aid bill across the board, but because we saw in that motion an opportunity to make some selective cuts in the military field particularly, which would give us a stronger over-all program.

Bradstreet figures were unreliable and did not agree with the material published in the "Statistical Abstract of the United States" for 1963. The latter publication is characterized by NLMA as "an official U.S. Government publication of established repute."

The NLMA quotes figures from the Statistical Abstract which indicate a larger number of failures in the lumber industry than those used by Dun and Bradstreet. I ask unanimous consent that the pertinent portions of table 678 of the 1963 Statistical Abstract be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the portions were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: