Private investment: Private development banks have been established or are in the process of being established in seven countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Ecuador. Other intermediate credit institutions are relending to small- and medium-sized industries have been established in Peru, Mexico, and Chile.

Regional integration: Central America has been most successful in building a common market made up of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Their success in this strategic area comprising 12 million people shows the way to other Latin American countries, whose progress within the Latin American free trade area has been considerably slower.

To support the increasing self-help activity to insure that the momentum of reform will increase-AID has requested $650 million.

It was and is impossible to state precisely the need for loan funds. The level of the Alliance lending program depends upon many factors. Most are beyond the control of the United States. The uncertainty stems from the fact that no lender, no bank can predict the amount it will lend in the future-and still remain a sound institution.

Based on the most careful analysis of the probabilities, AID has stated that it will need a minimum of $550 million for new development loans and $100 million for development grants this year. This amount is designed to meet the Latin American countries' increasing need for marginal external assistance as the Alliance progresses.

The Alliance for Progress program was also subjected to an examination in depth by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Their studied evaluation studied evaluation reported to this body, concluded that the best interest of the United States, as a partner of the Alliance for Progress, called for the requested authorization.

AID's commitment of development loan funds for the Alliance in fiscal year 1963 gives us a clear idea of how the program operates.

Development loans make up the major AID contribution to the Alliance for Progress. Over $340 million in development loans was used in fiscal year 1963. Total commitments for development loans and grants were $465 million.

This exercise of fiscal responsibility in the face of a $525 million appropriation is the best proof that assistance will be given only to the extent that it is consistent with Alliance objectives. Two years of Alliance experience back up this method of operation, which has to meet two key U.S. objectives. These involve the assurance that the self-help and reform requirements of the Alliance must be met and, at the same time, the need to capture the confidence and imagination of the Latin American people.

AID, therefore, has acted on these principles: First, it has refused to commit or spend unless convinced that the outlay is clearly in the U.S. national interest, promoting development and freedom in Latin America; and second, it has been prepared to offer assistance

whenever a Latin American nation initiates the social and economic changes the Alliance calls for. On a per capita the Alliance calls for. On a per capita basis, countries like Chile, El Salvador, basis, countries like Chile, El Salvador, Colombia, and Panama received much Colombia, and Panama received much more aid than did Paraguay or Haiti, for example.

In fiscal year 1963, aid was concentrated in the countries which performed. It was reduced or held up where selfhelp and reform efforts were shunned or lagging. You will recall that the United lagging. You will recall that the United States spent almost nothing in Peru. States spent almost nothing in Peru. Funding for Brazil and Argentina was much lower than expected. Brazil had not met her self-help commitments, nor had it reached the stage of political, and particularly, financial stability which would make worth while all of the lendwould make worth while all of the lending which was previously estimated. Argentina's political problems prevented any clear focus on development.

This year, Peru's new constitutionally elected Government has put that hitherto politically stagnant country on the Alliance road to reform. Argentina has a constitutionally elected Government and the prospects are good for stability after a year of turbulence. Further development opportunities are evident in Central America and Chile, among others.

AID's development lending operations, like those of a bank, depend a great deal on

mutual confidence. The United States has not assumed the posture of a hard-hearted leader. Congress has placed tight restrictions on AID loan procedures, however. The loans must reflect careful feasibility studies and a clear capacity for repayment. AID, therefore, has acquired many aspects of a fullfledged banking operation. It has, moreover, insisted that the Latin Americans live up to their own commitments on reforms. If we did not do so, the money we lend would neither benefit the borrower nor further our Alliance objectives. On the other hand, to raise hopes and aspirations, to achieve worthwhile bootstrap efforts and then not be able to back them up with marginal external lending this causes a loss of confidence among our Latin American neighbors and a sense of alienation from the Alli

Right now, today, finance ministers and development experts from the Alliance countries are meeting in São Paulo, Brazil. This meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council is devoted to an analysis of reform efforts, to methods for improving the administration of the Alliance, and to strengthen that spirit of mutual confidence which is the true revolution in this hemisphere over the past 3 years.

The democratic leaders in Latin America today count on us. At the very moment when they have gained confidence in us and are exposing themselves to grave political hazards in the firm expectation of timely and effective support from the United States, we must come through.

Mr. President, I turn now to my third major point: Why the figure for the contingency fund recommended by the Senate Senate Foreign Relations Committee should be supported by the Senate.

After long deliberation, the committee voted a figure of 175 million. My amendment would restore the committee's figure, reducing it 125 million from the 300 million recommended by the Mansfield-Dirksen amendment.

In this careful study of the contingency fund, the Foreign Relations Committee discovered that almost half of the contingency fund last year went unused.

Of the 260 million appropriated last year, 117 million was not spent. Therefore the committee thought it proper to give the President a figure-175 million-far above what was actually spent last year-143 million-but, below the level requested.

The contingency fund is one of the most important items in the foreign aid bill and it should not be dealt with lightly. However, it should not be distorted into something it was never intended to be.

According to the legislative history of this part of the aid program, the contingency fund is not to be used by the executive branch to make up cuts unpassed by Congress.

It is my understanding that ordinarily the contingency fund will be used for the following purposes:

First. For emergencies and unfore

seen occurrences.

Second. For possibilities that may be foreseen, but the amount of which is unknown at the time of the congressional presentation-for example, we may be relatively sure that our assistance program to Vietnam will change as a result of the coup-whether it will be up or down or how much cannot now be foreseen.

Third. For changes after the congressional presentation has been made to the Congress, but before appropriations-this is for ease in preparation of the presentation.

Fourth. For increases in a program after the initial allocation as a result of changed circumstances.

Supporting the committee's action therefore supports the idea that the aid agency must use the money for the progress agreed to by Congress. If an unnecessarily large contingency fund is approved, while sharp cuts are made in certain parts of the program, the pressure will be great to convert the contingency fund into a slush fund to make up for cuts in parts of the program. The contingency fund was designed to meet real emergencies, not to circumvent the will of Congress.

I repeat my conviction that the contingency fund is important. The committee considered it to be important. But it is designed for contingencies. After a careful review of the past history of the fund, the committee concluded that $175 million is enough. The committee's action should be sustained.

Mr. President, Members of the Senate should know that if some extraordinary event did occur requiring extraordinary expenditures, the Senate would stand ready to heed the President's call. The funds would be made available promptly if needed. I would strongly support such a request. But at the present there appears to be no need for increasing the

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not.

Mr. GORE. Then, Mr. President, I ask for enforcement of the Senate rule in that connection. Under the Senate rule, unless a Senator has specifically requested the presence in the Chamber of his aid, his aid is not entitled to the privilege of the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All persons now in the Senate Chamber who do not have authority to be present will leave the Chamber.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

should like to say a word, and then I shall yield to the majority leader. As a word of background, there has been a very good discussion this afternoon on the amendments before the Senate.

I wish to modify the amendment which I offered yesterday in the light of those discussions, so that the effect of the amendment will be as follows:

My proposal of yesterday would have restored to the committee bill, in lieu of the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments,

the full sum of $650 million for the Alliance for Progress as recommended by the committee rather than the $525 million as proposed in the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments.

Second, it would maintain the committee's recommendation of the sum of $175 million for the President's contingency fund instead of the $300 million which was proposed in the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments.

However that solution would be my first preference after discussions with many Senators today I wish to modify my amendment. I shall place the appropriate technical legal language before the Senate, but I can easily explain the proposal. The Alliance for Progress funds authorized would be $600 million. The Mansfield-Dirksen original amendments called for $525 million. The amendment would increase the figure by $75 million, so that $600 million would be provided for the Alliance for Progress.

The contingency fund would be cut back to $175 million. With the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, as modified yesterday by the amendment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] it would mean a net saving in the bill of $460 million as the bill came from the committee. It would mean an additional reduction of $50 million in the reduction provided in the original MansfieldDirksen amendments, as modified by the amendment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE).

As of last night, the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, as amended, would provide a reduction of $410 million. The Humphrey amendment now to be offered as a modification of my proposal of yesterday would add an additional $50 million reduction. So my amendment would mean that the Mansfield-Dirksen proposal, instead of providing $525 million for the Alliance for Progress, would provide $600 million; and instead of providing $300 million for the contingency fund, it would provide $175 million.

I believe that if the amendment were adopted it would do a great deal to ex

The proposal has been discussed with the appropriate officials of the administration. They are not particularly happy about it, but I am sure that they can live with it. Like myself, they would prefer the full $650 million recommended by the committee. But they have not expressed what I would call violent objection.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Chair. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, first, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator now yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LAUSCHE. The recommendation of the Foreign Relations Committee enThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The tailed a total authorization of Senator will state it.

Mr. DOMINICK. Do I correctly un

derstand that the so-called Humphrey amendment, as it was stated yesterday in connection with the original amendment, is subject to division? Several of us may not wish to accept the package as a whole.

$4,202,365,000.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.

Mr. LAUSCHE. To what amount

would the cuts which have thus far been made in that sum bring the authorization?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me, I may be The PRESIDING OFFICER. The able to supply that information. amendment would be divisible.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the ma

Mr. HUMPHREY. It is subject to jority leader. division.

Mr. LAUSCHE. If no further reductions in the authorization were made, the amount authorized would be $3.742 billion?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, a cut of $460 million below the amount contained in the bill reported by the committee.

Mr. MANSFIELD. On the basis of the I suggest respectfully to our good adoption of the amendment of the Senafriend the Senator from Colorado that tor from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] yesterday, the amendment as it now stands is not there would be a $25 million reduction. now exclusively my amendment. It If the amendment now before the Senrepresents a consensus. At the present ate is adopted, the figure will be brought moment I happen to be the spokesman. down to the extent of $460 million, leavThe amendment has been discussed with ing a total authorization of $3.742 billion. Senators on both sides of the aisle. I am hopeful that it will meet, if not with general approval, at least with acceptance. I wish to make clear that I do not claim any pride of authorship at all. I am appreciative of the fact that many Senators who are concerned about progress on the bill have been able to agree on the amendment. For example, I wish to thank the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], and the chairman of the committee in particular, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL], and others who sat in and discussed the proposal, along with other Senators whom I have not mentioned. So let us be clear about it. It is not any one Senator's proposal.

Mr. LAUSCHE. What was the original amount in the budget of the President for the fiscal year 1964, which amount he cut on his own volition?

Mr. MANSFIELD. First, it was $4.9 billion; then on his own volition he reduced the amount to $4.529 billion.

Mr. LAUSCHE. If we stopped at the present time in making cuts, the amount of the authorization would be $3.742 billion?

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I thank the Senator. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to vote quickly, but I have certain obligations that I owe to Senators who have

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The been working with me and with whom Senator will state it.

Mr. MILLER. If the Humphrey amendment, as modified, were adopted, would the $175 million authorization for the contingency fund be locked into the bill forevermore?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the $175-million proposal for the contingency fund contained in the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota were adopted and subsequently incorporated in the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments, it would not be subject to change thereafter.

Mr. MILLER. Do I correctly understand further that if the amendment is adopted, it will be locked into the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian has advised the Chair that it would be.

I have not had an opportunity to confer. I want to quickly outline what the situation is. As the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] have pointed out, I want to vote, but I do have an obligation to the Senators who have been working with me and with whom I have not been able to talk since these negotiations have taken place. I want them to know what the situation is. I want them to feel perfectly free to vote as they believe they should vote. I have not spoken for them, nor have I purported to speak for them.

It is true that the Senator from Minnesota has talked with me, and I consulted briefly with the majority leader. I had a conference with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] and he

pointed out to me that if his amendment were adopted, it would be wiped out by the Humphrey amendment if the Senate adopted the Humphrey amendment. Therefore, he was inclined to withdraw his amendment. So he and I went to the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] and asked the Senator to go along with us on $150 million for the contingency fund. The Senator from Minnesota graciously considered it and said he did not feel he could go below the committee figure, which is $175 million. It happened that I voted for $150 million in the committee but could not go along with the $175 million.

This must be a give-and-take compromise situation, when we write a bill on the floor of the Senate-which we are doing.

I consulted with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] and it was with some reluctance that we said, as to that amount, that if we could get some further concession we would accept the $175 million in the contingency fund.

I hope Senators will read the debate on the contingency fund when they receive the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tomorrow, because the Senator from Louisiana and I pointed out that the contingency fund, as it has been operating, has involved the expenditure of a great deal of money, not for American national emergencies, but for emergencies in other countries. More than half the money has been used for budget balancing, for balance-of-payments problems, and for budget support money in other countries, such as Brazil and Argentina. In some instances those countries in turn have been paying off American creditors. We believe this is not the proper use for the contingency fund. Most people believe the contingency fund should be used to meet U.S. emergencies and not some other country's emergencies. But, be that as it may, that was our argument this afternoon. That was why we said we could not go along with the proposal to raise the amount for the contingency fund to $300 million, but that if we could obtain some other concessions we would go along with $175 million.

We were speaking only for ourselves. The Senator from Minnesota wanted to go to $650 million on the Alliance for Progress. We said we could not support that proposal. He asked if we could support $600 million. We said we would favor having a vote on it.

I can speak only for myself, but that would be an additional saving, and I would be willing to take that adjustment. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I yield.

Mr. RUSSELL. As I understand the contingency fund, it has never been expended in whole.

Mr. ELLENDER. It would remain at $175 million.

Mr. MORSE. It would remain at $175 million, as reported by the committee. Mr. RUSSELL. What did the socalled powerhouse amendment propose to make the contingency fund?

Mr. ELLENDER. Three hundred million dollars.

Mr. MORSE. Three hundred million dollars.

Mr. RUSSELL. That is the point I am making. I look upon that as a considerable saving. If the money is taken out of the action programs, where we know it is going to be expended, and put in the contingency fund, the chances are it will not be expended. If we put the money in one of the action programs, it will be spent to the last dime.

Mr. MORSE. I say to the Senator from Georgia that there is nothing to stop the President from spending the money, if given $300 million for spending. The effect would be the equivalent of what could be spent under the Alliance for Progress program, even if used for a balance-of-payments problem or for budget-support money. That is why I do not like to give such discretion to the do not like to give such discretion to the President.

Mr. RUSSELL. I

I can understand that, but I was looking at the overall savings. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Senator from Ohio. As

a practical matter, less than $150 million was spent out of the contingency fund in the past fiscal year, so if we put $300 million in the fund, the chances are that $150 million of it will not be expended. But if we put the $175 million in the Alliance for Progress, we would know beyond any peradventure that it would be spent.

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

Mr. MORSE. I do not make the assumption that the Senator makes. I believe there is a clear intention to expend the money. If they can get $300 million, we will find that much of the $300 million will be used. I believe there has been that kind of shift. I feel much better with $175 million in the fund than with $300 million in it.

Mr. RUSSELL. I proposed to support the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, which he has withdrawn, Mr. MORSE. So did I.

Mr. RUSSELL. But I was hoping to get the best I could out of the situation.

Mr. RUSSELL. So it seems to me that we are asked to transfer this money to a position where we know it will be expended, taking it from the position where, the chances are, it will not be expended.

leave the money in the contingency fund, where it would not all be spent, rather than to put it in the fund for the Alliance for Progress, where we know every dime of it will be committed.

Mr. MORSE. I believe it will be spent. That is the position I have taken.

One further point. I have the assurance of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] that he will support me in this. I wished to incorporate in the so-called package an agreement to reduce the military aid program for Latin America from $50 million, as the committee recommended, to $40 million, and add the saving of $10 million to economic aid for the Alliance for Progress program. I intend to offer that amendment, and the Senator from Minnesota assures me he will support it.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I will give the Senator my individual vote, but I made it crystal clear that from now on we would consider the amendments one at a time, as they come.

Mr. MORSE. If the Senate adopts the Humphrey amendment, many other amendments will be offered that will involve further cuts in the amounts. If the Senate votes to adopt the MansfieldDirksen amendments, that will not mean that we shall be stopped from making further savings in the foreign aid program. Many other amendments will be in order and can be adopted. They involve a saving that can run into millions of dollars. We shall offer them.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, if I still have the floor, I yield to the Sen

ator from Louisiana.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I wish to make it crystal clear that, if the contingency fund were used in the manner some of us believe it should be used,

I would be in full agreement with the distinguished Senator from Georgia. But, as I pointed out this afternoon, $100 million of the $250 million that Congress provided last year was returned to the Treasury, and only $35 million was used for contingencies during the first 9 months of fiscal year 1963. The balance of it was used, as I pointed out, to balance the budgets of some countries in South America and some in Asia.

Mr. RUSSELL. What would prevent the $175 million from being used for the same purpose?

We

Mr. ELLENDER. We could write something into the bill that would direct how it could be used.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I say to the Senator from Minnesota that I dislike to vote to cut the contingency fund, more than all the others. I am perfectly willing to see this fund cut back, if that is the will of the Senate.

I repeat that Secretary of State Rusk testified before the Committee on Foreign Relations that

It is of the greatest value in being able to move promptly in some of these unforeseen situations to make commitments.

That was testimony by Secretary of State Rusk before the Foreign Relations Committee.

As the Senator from Louisiana has said, the amount of $100 million on the contingency fund was returned in 1963 and not spent, because it was not needed.

Personally, I would rather see a flat commitment, with respect to funds that will probably be spent, as the Senator from Georgia said, leaving a certain flexibility in the fund. That is my own feeling. I would dislike to see a cut made in the contingency fund and see other funds of a specific character left alone.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Historically, the contingency fund indicates that there is a considerable degree of flexibility, with other items of flexibility and transferability, plus the amount in the military assistance fund for military need. The emergency fund of some $300 million, with the $175 million recommended by the committee, involves a considerable amount of flexibility.

I want to be frank. I do not find that this is the most happy situation, but I have talked with some of our colleagues as to what we might be able to do to proceed with the bill that would let us arrive at something constructive. I believe this amendment, which is a compromise amendment, which was arrived at after the give and take of Senators who have rather strong views, will help us proceed with the proper consideration of the bill.

In reference to the funds for the Alliance for Progress, there are specific standards which must be followed in the programing of those funds. To date those funds have been programed about about as well as any in the history of the foreign aid program. That is the reason why I have suggested a higher amount. That is the reason I have fought hard for this amendment. The The House has authorized a figure of $450 million. The Senate committee recommended $650 million. It is quite obvious that we are not going to come out of the conference with our exact figure. I am sure the Senator from Massachusetts, who has had much experience in conference with the House, knows that we are lucky if we can hold reductions to a minimum.

After that, there must be an appearance before the Appropriations Committee, where the Senator from Massachusetts and other Senators scrutinize very carefully the countrywide programs. I believe we will come up with a good proposal after action is taken on the Mansfield-Dirksen amendments. A substantial saving will be provided.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, for about 10 years I have had experience in conferences between the House and the Senate. Under President Eisenhower, President Truman, and President Kennedy, where commitments had to be made and cuts had to be made, the administration always wanted to keep the contingency fund up and cut the other amounts. I always thought that was the fund that provided fluidity in the program, if the program had otherwise been cut too low. If that was done, and the contingency fund was kept at a reasonable amount, it was satisfactory. Mr. HUMPHREY. I hope this fund will be kept at a reasonable amount. Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

man of the committee, I have received certain information, but, for the purpose of the RECORD, I should like to make an inquiry. Is it true that after the specified period is over, the President, by law, must make a full accounting of the purposes for which the contingency funds were used?

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct. The bill provides, under chapter 5, section 451(b):

The President shall provide quarterly reports to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the programing and the obligation of the funds under this sec

tion.

Mr. COTTON. Does not the Senator from Minnesota believe, as the Senator from New Hampshire is inclined to believe, that the foreign aid program having assumed the dimensions it has assumed, and having gathered the momentum it has gathered, in the long run, whoever may be President, we should lean toward giving a larger contingency fund to the President, in view of the fact that it will be fully accounted for and used, in the President's discretion, for emergencies, and should reduce the amounts that go into the working programs?

Mr. HUMPHREY. First, I think $175 million is enough for the contingency fund, in view of the experience over the years. Second, the Alliance for Progress funds are well programed. I do not say they are perfect by any means, but there is a full accounting for them.

I am deeply concerned over the sharp cut made in the other body. Otherwise I would not be as adamant as I have been. I have great sympathy toward the contingency fund. I think my record indicates that I have supported it, with its flexibility. But with $450 million authorization in the other body, if this body were to authorize only $525 million, I am afraid we would cripple the program. What I am looking for is a better figure, a more rational figure, for the Alliance for Progress, and I am confident that we can arrive at a better figure.

Mr. COTTON. Does the Senator feel that every cent allocated will be spent? Mr. HUMPHREY. No, because the funds will have to be programed under certain criteria. They did not spend all that was appropriated last year. I believe there was a carryover of something like $50 million from the $525 million appropriated.

Mr. COTTON. But essentially this amendment, in its present form, holds down the contingency fund and restores some cuts in the working programs?

Mr. HUMPHREY. It holds it down to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Relations and reduces by $50 million the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Relations with respect to the Alliance for Progress.

Mr. ANDERSON. Does the Senator feel it would be helpful to Senators to know how the chairman of the committee and the ranking Republican member of the committee feel about it? It seems that the Foreign Relations Committee is acting in the capacity of an investigatory committee, and that the final decision is being reached by the leadership. I do not object to that procedure, but I have great faith in the Senator from Arkansas, and I would like to know how he feels about it. It is pretty difficult to know how to vote. I should like to be able to vote with some semblance of intelligence. I thought the suggestions of the Senator from Minnesota were eminently sound. Other Senators may not think so. The chairman of the committee and the ranking Republican member should let us know how they feel.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I have been discussing the question with the chairman of the committee. It has been the desire of the Senator from Minnesota to support the committee all the way.

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not question that, but I think the Senator from Arkansas should speak for himself.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. Let me yield first to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr.LAUSCHE. There has been some question as to which funds should be provided by appropriating them to the contingency fund or appropriating them to the Alliance for Progress. I call the attention of Senators to page 47 of the testimony, at which point Mr. Rusk was testifying. He said that the Clay report recommended a minimum of $4.3 billion. Mr. Rusk said that while he recommended $4.3 billion, it may not all be spent, because General Clay was doubtful in his own mind "that $300 million of the prospective loans to Latin America would in fact be used because of the unlikelihood they would be qualified for by action taken by the Latin American countries."

The Latin American funds or the Alliance for Progress funds can only be used when certain conditions are met by the members of the Alliance for Progress.

My own belief is that there has been a weakness in the meeting of those conditions and that it does not follow that all the money appropriated to the Alliance for Progress will be more certainly used than if the money were put into the President's contingency fund.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. In view of the in

Mr. COTTON. But it is far in excess of the House figure?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.

mittee and usually also the ranking minority member of the committee. The