Western Hemisphere. It has never fulfilled any of the objectives stated in its justification. There is an escape clause which provides that some of the $300 million in the President's contingent fund can be used by the President in case an emergency situation arises and the President needs the money to use it for that defense purpose in one or more Latin American countries.

I hope the Senator will support the amendment.

Mr. CHURCH. I assure the Senator that I intend to support his amendment. I have long advocated the reduction and termination of military assistance to Latin America. I believe that the record of military assistance in Latin America demonstrates that, on balance, it has been a net loss to the United States. I have heard no persuasive arguments to the contrary.

Again and again, we are told that the money is necessary in order to open a channel of communication or rapport between the Military Establishments in Latin America and the United States. Everyone who knows much about Latin America knows that, generally speaking, the problem there is not that the Military Establishments are too small, but that they are too big.

Mr. GRUENING. Exactly.

Mr. CHURCH. The fact is that the money we spend, and the equipment and material we give, is not necessary to give further size or strength to these Military Establishments. The statutory ceiling we have set $57.5 million last year and $50 million this year, is recognition of the fact that we wish to keep the program very limited, and this very limitation makes it of no great significance, insofar as the equipping and strengthening of these Military Establishments are concerned.

But what does it do? It identifies the United States with the military within each country in such a way that we get the blame when the military does something that is offensive to the people, such as a military junta overthrowing the Government of the Dominican Republic or the Government of Honduras. When that happens, immediately the cry goes up by those who are determined to erode away good feeling toward the United States in Latin America, that we are the ones who are responsible, because we are the ones who are furnishing the tanks or the fancy fighter planes. Thus we are identified with the strong-arm men in Latin America. It is not worth the candle.

The arguments that are made in support of this program are increasingly less persuasive. The recent military juntas demonstrate the danger of being tarred with the military brush in Latin America.

I commend the Senator for his amendment. I will support it. I have tried to do the same thing myself, from time to time, within the committee. Thus far I have been able to do no more than to retain an amendment placing a ceiling on the program. If we would eliminate it entirely we would be better off.

Mr. GRUENING. I wonder whether the Senator could tell us what possible

justification was presented to the committee for starting military aid in such countries as Sierra Leone or Upper Volta or Mali, small countries which have little in the way of economic resources, and which have no occasion to defend themselves against aggression. I wonder wonder what justification was presented to the committee for this military program. Mr. CHURCH. It is the same kind of reasoning that has sustained the program in Latin America, to accommodate the desires of those governments. It is easy for us to do the equipping, it is said, because the equipment is obsolete so far as our use of it goes; therefore, it is argued, we should accommodate these governments; besides, it is said, it helps cement better feelings between the existing governments and the Government of the United States. This is the same argument that has been used again and again with respect to Latin America.

Then, the day of a coup arrives, and the people learn that the tank which pushed down the gates of the presidential palace, as in Lima, Peru, was a tank that had been supplied by us. This is the word that gets through to the "down and outs" in Peru, to the working people of the country, to the Indians in the highlands. This is what damages the image of the United States in these unfortunate, feudal lands.

Mr. GRUENING. I hope the Senator will submit an amendment to eliminate the military program in Africa. It he does, I shall certainly support him.

Mr. GORE. First, I wish to thank the Senator yield?

Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. GORE. First, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator for his generous references earlier to an amendment which I offered in committee and which was adopted by the committee

Next I wish to commend the Senator for his eloquent and articulate address.

Now I wish to call to his attention another amendment which appears at page 41 of the committee amendment.

The distinguished senior Senator from Idaho and I have shared misgivings with respect to the provision of military assistance to countries in South and Central America, and also in Africa. Perhaps the Senator will recall that a few days ago a military coup d'etat occurred in a small country in Africa which, it was reported, had an armed force of 800

men.

I suggest that in this small country, 800 men with high powered American rifles might very well succeed with a coup d'etat. What good would be served? What would be the end result? What would be the end result? How would it benefit either the people of that country or the United States or the forces of freedom? I know the reasons which some people advance, but I have not thus far determined them to be valid not thus far determined them to be valid reasons, at least not conclusively so.

With respect to military assistance to Central and South American countries, it seems to me that if a laudable cause exists in which the United States has an interest, it must be one to strengthen hemispheric defense, the defense of the hemispheric defense, the defense of the various countries from military threats

from without, and from military threat from some neighboring Latin American country. If that were true, there might be some justification for a hemispheric defense force, and we might be able to justify and, indeed, the Organization of American States might find most useful, a military force at its command to intercept a flotilla from Cuba, for example, bent upon invasion of, say, Honduras, to imagine a possible use for such a force; as well as in a police action by the Organization of American States, if that Organization determined it to be advisable, in a small country like the Dominican Republic, if such were adjudged by the Organization of American States as being necessary for the protection of life and the preservation of liberty in that small country.

To that end, about 3 or 4 years ago, I offered an amendment to earmark a certain part of the military assistance funds for such an international or a Western Hemispheric defense force.

The Committee on Foreign Relations approved it, and the Senate accepted it without question. However, no move by the Organization of American States followed the availability of these funds. Perhaps the amendment may have been stricken in conference because of a lack of manifestation of interest.

I offered such an amendment again and once again my amendment was adopted in committee. It is found at page 41. It provides that of the $50 million that would be available, $25 million may be available during each fiscal year for assistance to an international military force under the control of the Organization of American States.

I rise to call attention to this point, first, because it may be a constructive proposal, one that might prove quite beneficial not only to the United States, which is a member of the Organization of American States, but also to the hemisphere as a whole; second, because I hope that this time in conference with the other body the Senate will insist upon acceptance of this amendment.

I thank the distinguished Senator for his courtesy in yielding. I regret that I have trespassed so far in expressing these views.

Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for having taken the floor to explain this amendment. I am in full agreement with what he has said. I hope that other countries of Latin America will look upon this proposal as an opportunity to support, within the Organization of American States, the formation of such a police force. It could very well have much usefulness in the hemisphere. The amendment is a most constructive one. What is proposed is much different from the kind of military assistance we have been giving, which serves no useful purpose. Therefore, I join in commending the Senator for having offered the amendment and for having taken this opportunity to explain it to the Senate.

Mr. President, when I rose some time ago, I had no intention of taking this much time. I am prepared now, unless the Senator from Alaska wishes to ask me another question, to yield the floor.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I should like to continue on the point raised by the Senator from Tennessee. An international police force under the supervision and jurisdiction of the OAS would have much merit. But I hope the Senator realizes that there are practical difficulties toward its realization in the differences of opinion that exist in those countries and their governments. Countries that are not junta controlled would not agree to such a proposal. We would be confronted with the problem, as we have been on previous occasions, of inducing a majority of countries to support what seems to us to be constructive measures.

The present situation really began 30 years ago, at the first Pan American Conference after the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt took of fice. It was officially known as the Seventh Inter-American Conference. It met in Montevideo in November 1933. I was the adviser to that delegation. We abjured gunboat diplomacy. We declared that there would be no more armed interventions into our neighbors' terrain of the kind we had carried out in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. That led to subsequent agreements that there should be no such arrangements without the consent of a majority of the American States. In effect, we multilateralized the Monroe Doctrine. We made it, in Roosevelt's words, a joint concern.

But we found as a practical matter that it was difficult to reach an agreement between the 20 republics. I could name several countries that would oppose, however much they might approve in principle, this kind of police force, because of difficulties that might arise from time to time.

We should pursue this proposal in the hope that the time will come when a majority of the Organization of American States will affirmatively prefer this kind of assistance, rather than have it presented as something which we propose and which we hope they will support. When the initiative comes from them, the proposal will have a much better prospect of becoming effective. I hope that that time will come, because the proposal is sound.

Mr. CHURCH. I agree. I feel certain the Senator from Tennessee also will agree that the difficulties heretofore experienced have prevented the establishment of such a force. The amendment is merely an invitation to the countries of Latin America to consider again the advisability of the formation of such a force. The amendment is inserted in the bill with no great expectation that the difficulties will soon be surmounted. Mr. GRUENING. But it is a highly constructive proposal.

Mr. CHURCH. Nevertheless, it is a highly constructive proposal. I am glad the committee has taken action, has adopted it, and made it a part of the bill.

Mr. GORE. I am most grateful for and encouraged by the statements of the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH] and the able junior Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING). It is true that under present circumstances

there is little hope for the actual creation of such a force. tion of such a force. But I would hope that if the funds were made available, President Kennedy would direct some negotiations, some conferences, some study, and some effort toward exploring the possibility of creating such a force. I repeat: If there is justification for the provision of U.S. military aid to Central America and South America, it must be because it is thought that this would contribute to hemispheric solidarity and to the security of freedom and peace in the Western Hemisphere.

The distinguished junior Senator from Alaska points to the growing number of military juntas which are in control of governments and countries in South and Central America. This is disturbing, because it seems to me that in the long run the repetitive and growing identification of the United States with military coup d'etats and dictatorial, repressive regimes will have an eroding effect upon the influence, prestige, and respect in which the United States may be held, not only in those countries but throughout the world. I recognize that it is sometimes difficult to choose; that if one must choose between a military junta that is non-Communist and a Communist takeover of a country, the former might be preferable. But I submit that the people of most countries, in my opinion, do not want either. Therefore, we must search for means to give life and meaning to the principles for which our great Nation and our people stand. Democracy is the most revolutionary and appealing political concept that mankind has ever known. Let us not blur its image and reduce it to an unappealing system, as it may be seen and interpreted through the eyes of those who are repressed by a regime which we support and with which we are identified.

Mr. CHURCH. I commend the Senator from Tennessee for his sentiment, which I cherish fully.

Having commenced this discourse with the intention of discussing foreign aid in tropical Africa, I want to close with some remarks on the subject of the discussion at the moment, which is Latin America.

The President is to be commended for the way in which he is now utilizing the aid program to doggedly pursue American objectives in this hemisphere. When the military junta recently overthrew the first popularly elected, constitutional government in the Dominican Republic-I believe in its history——

Mr. GRUENING. In its history is correct.

Mr. CHURCH. The Senator from Alaska is a profound student of Latin American history. The President took prompt action to break off diplomatic recognition with the new junta, to withhold further American aid, and systematically to withdraw the AID personnel connected with the sizable AID program that had been established there. He did likewise in Honduras, when the Government of Honduras was overthrown by a similar junta a few weeks ago. Likewise, the President utilized the AID program in South Vietnam in his efforts to induce the collapsing Diem regime to

undertake reforms that might have regained for it the popular support of the Vietnamese people.

We have cause to hope that the new regime in Vietnam will rally popular support behind the war effort, so that the Vietcong can at least be defeated and the Americans in Vietnam can be returned home.

This is an example of how the President can withhold foreign aid in order to give more effective implementation to the foreign policy objectives of the United States in the Western Hemisphere, in the Far East, and elsewhere in the world. For this, the President is to be commended most strongly.

Mr. President, I close with a plea for adoption of the pending amendment. If there is any hope for many of the countries of Latin America to which the Senator from Tennessee has referred-countries plagued with the feudalism of another era; countries where a very few families are exceedingly rich, and the mass of the people are desperately poorit is to be found in the Alliance for Progress, inaugurated-again-by President Kennedy, for it promotes two objectives which are the prerequisites for achieving real democracy and social justice in the Western Hemisphere-the elimination of economic feudalism and political dictatorship. Only if the President insists that the aid program shall conform with these objectives, will the money Congress appropriates for it have any chance of bearing fruit.

So, Mr. President, I commend him for his recent actions in Latin America, and I plead with the Senate to restore the money for the Alliance for Progress, which alone can help in the achievement of these goals.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the pending amendment, which I submitted yesterday, seeks to cut $75 million from the contingency fund. In the course of my remarks I hope to show to the Senate that, under the bill, the President now has ample authority to make transfers in order to assist him in dealing with any emergency which may arise during the current year. I propose to show that under the present law the President has authority to transfer as much as $1,780 million.

The original concept of the so-called contingency fund was to take care of certain emergencies and unforeseen events which might arise. I well remember that when the first emergency fund provision was included in the foreign aid bill, serious questions as to what the President could use these funds for were raised. As time passed, it was demonstrated that in many instances the so-called emergency fund was not used for the purposes intended. In the course of my remarks I shall indicate to the Senate some of the instances in which this fund was used for purposes far removed from the original intent of the fund.

As I have said, my amendment would make available for the contingency fund for the fiscal year 1964 the sum of $100 million. This means that the President will have $100 million in this fund, to use as he sees fit. The House voted to

authorize $150 million for this fund. The Senate committee voted to authorize $175 million. The so-called MansfieldDirksen amendments would increase the fund to $200 million, by transferring to the contingency fund $125 million of the money recommended by the committee for the Alliance for Progress.

When one analyzes the many gimmicks and gadgets in this bill which make available to the President millions of dollars over and above the amounts we authorize, one can only conclude that

a

$100 million contingency fund is more than adequate to take care of any unforeseen emergencies which may arise. Let us take a look at some of these gimmicks and gadgets.

Under section 510 of this bill, the President is granted special authority whereby he may withdraw from Department of Defense up to $300 million worth of military stocks, for purposes of military assistance.

Even though in the bill, we have limited the amount for military assistance to $1 billion, the President will have authority, under the law as it now stands, to withdraw from the Military Establishment $300 million worth of hardware, to be used as he sees fit.

This $300 million is over and above the amount of military assistance authorized in this bill, as I have just stated.

For the information of Senators, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD section 510, to which I have just referred. It is to be found on pages 59 and 60 of the report, under the heading "Special Authority."

There being no objection, the excerpt from the report (No. 588) was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SEC. 510. SPECIAL AUTHORITY. (a) During the fiscal year [1963] 1964 the President may, if he determines it to be vital to the security of the United States, order defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense and defense services for the purposes of part II, subject to subsequent reimbursement therefor from subsequent appropriations available for military assistance. The value of such orders under this subsection in the fiscal year [1963] 1964 shall not exceed $300,000,000. Prompt notice of action taken under this subsection shall be given to the Committees on Foreign Relations, Appropriations, and Armed Services of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(b) The Department of Defense is authorized to incur, in applicable appropriations, obligations in anticipation of reimbursements in amounts equivalent to the value of such orders under subsection (a) of this section. Appropriations to the President of such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for such orders are hereby

authorized.

Mr. ELLENDER. In addition, section 610 of the bill would give the President much flexibility, in that it would permit him to transfer 10 percent of the funds made available for any provision of this act, and would be consolidated with the funds made available for other purposes in this act.

I ask unanimous consent that the provision of law to which I have referred,

which appears on page 63 of the report, be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the section was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SEC. 610. TRANSFER BETWEEN ACCOUNTS.(a) Whenever the President determines it to be necessary for the purposes of this Act, not to exceed 10 per centum of the funds made available for any provision of this Act may be transferred to, and consolidated with, the funds made available for any other provision of this Act, and may be used for any of the purposes for which such funds may be used, except that the total in the provision for the benefit of which the transfer is made shall not be increased by more than 20 per centum of the amount of funds made available for such provision.

(b) The authority contained in this section and in sections 451, 510, and 614 shall not be used to augment appropriations made available pursuant to sections 636 (g) (1) and 637 or used otherwise to finance activities which normally would be financed from appropriation for administrative expenses.

Mr. ELLENDER. Furthermore, section 614 gives the President special authority to use up to 250 million of hard dollars, and up to $100 million of foreign currencies for any purpose he deems appropriate. The only limitation placed on him under this section is that he cannot spend more than $50 million in any one country in any fiscal year.

Now, Mr. President, I have just enumerated a few methods that the President has at hand to give assistance based on his discretion. There are many more contained in this bill, and I am sure that if anyone takes the time to make a further analysis they can be discovered. But those I have pointed out to the Senate here today should make it clear that not more than $100 million is needed for this contingency fund. Even if the many gimmicks were not available, the confunded with an amount of $100 million. tingency fund would still be adequately I have had my staff make a careful analysis of the obligations of the contingency fund through March 31 of 1963, and this analysis revealed that out of the $120 million that was obligated, only $35 million actually covered unforeseen contingencies.

I repeat at this point in my remarks that the bill was originally intended to cover situations which could not be foreseen by the President, the administrators of the program, or Congress. That was the genesis of the continguency fund. But the fund has not by any means been used in that manner, as I shall indicate in a few moments.

Surely, the use of the contingency fund might be justified to take care of disasters that may occur throughout the world and perhaps to provide internal security equipment where Communist subversion threatens. But I ask, Mr. President, can grants from the contingency fund be justified to cover the deficit in a nation's national budget?

The contingency fund was put to this use last year in the case of a certain country.

I cannot name the country because it is labeled "secret."

Several million dollars were granted to this country to cover, and here is the justification, "to cover deficit in national

budget to avoid serious political disturbances which would result from the Government's inability to meet its immediate expenses."

In other words, taxpayers' funds were used, without congressional authorization or review, to subsidize governmental mismanagement, and to act as a buffer between the Government authorities and the Government workers. This use puts a strange interpretation on what normally is thought of as disaster relief and "unforeseen emergencies."

A few days ago the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], stated that the emergency fund was absolutely necessary in order to cover such conditions as happened in Lebanon and South Vietnam and other parts of the world. But I point out that the fund was never used for such purposes. To the contrary, the President has ample authority to use other funds, as I indicated a while ago, to cover such situations as developed in Lebanon and other parts of the world. When the situation which caused us concern developed in Lebanon, the 6th Fleet, which was in the Mediterranean, took charge. In order to recover the expenses, Congress appropriated to the Navy such funds as were spent out of the Navy's regular appropriations. The contingency fund was never used, from what I can understand, in any such situation.

Also last year, the goodly sum of $17 million was made made available to our stanch friend and ally, Mr. Sukarno, of Indonesia, for the same purpose; namely, to mitigate serious internal financial and balance-of-payments problems. About the time the funds became available to him, I seem to remember that Mr. Sukarno bought some jet aircraft from Russia. By some strange coincidence, the planes cost approximately $17 million.

Ah, but this is not all that the contingency fund has done in our effort to buy a true friend. From the fund last year, a grant of $2.7 million was given to him to equip and train a special unit of the Indonesian National Police which supposedly had been trained to Ideal with civil disturbances.

I can only wonder where this special civil disturbance unit was when Indonesian crowds proceeded to wreck and burn the British Embassy a short time ago. I am sure the British wonder, too. Apparently, Mr. Sukarno has a rather narrow definition of what constitutes a civil disturbance. But, unfortunately, he seems to have gained a rather broad knowledge of how to get his hands into the pockets of the American taxpayer.

Our administrators also saw fit last year to use the contingency fund to make $25.5 million available to Brazil to aid her balance-of-payments problem. Twenty million dollars was given to Argentina for the same purpose. I respectfully suggest that our administrators could find balance-of-payments problems in need of solution somewhat closer to home, if they could be persuaded to pay some heed to our own country's financial condition. I also submit that this use of the contingency fund is not in line with the intent of Congress in making it available, and

comes about solely because in the past we have made too much money available.

But let us move on to another strange contingency that the contingency fund was used to take care of. Two million dollars was made available to aid our supporting assistance program in the islands of Trinidad-Tobago. It should be pointed out that these islands have a gross national product in excess of $600 per capita. If they can be called underdeveloped, then some of our Western European Allies would also qualify as undeveloped nations. Yet they have been receiving substantial quantities of American aid ever since Great Britain saw fit to cut them loose to fend for themselves.

I visited those two areas several years ago. It seems strange that whenever the British leave their former possessions or colonies and stop giving aid or assistance to them in any manner, good old Uncle Sam walks in and takes over. We are called upon to supply the moneys necessary, in order that those countries may continue, and in order that they may balance their budgets and build up their economies.

I submit that those uses of the contingency fund, and many others like them, do not fall within congressional understanding of the purposes for which this money is made available. I do not believe that they can be justified. And I further submit, without fear of successful contradiction, that this misuse arises solely from the fact that simply too much money has been granted.

The Devil finds work for idle hands; our administrators are no less able to find some use, no matter how farfetched, for idle and unnecessary funds.

Mr. President, in the interest of our national economy, in the interest of re

storing some congressional control to this runaway bill, I urge Senators to support my amendment and implore them not to make more than $100 million available for the contingency fund.

I wish to point out specifically the the amounts that will be available to the

President under the pending measure, if

he sees fit to use them.

First, under section 510(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961-which I cited a moment ago-there is $300 million that he can use as he sees fit. He can call upon our Military Establishment to increase by $300 million the amount that we provide for military assistance. Second, there is transfer authority under section 610 of that act. Ten percent of the amount made available in the pending bill, and also of the amount in the pipeline, and not to exceed 20 percent of the item to which transferred, may be transferred between accounts.

If the so-called Mansfield-Dirksen amendments are adopted, the amount of the pending bill will be, in round figures, $3.8 billion.

Today, there is in the pipeline approximately $62 billion, a part of which can be used by the President as he sees fit. These amounts are now allocated. But the allocations can be changed by the administrators of the program. If we add the amount in this bill to the amount in the pipeline of $62 billion, it means

that the administrators of the foreign aid program will have available to them approximately $10.3 billion, and that the President will have the authority under section 610 of the act to transfer 10 percent of such sums as he sees fit.

As I pointed out before, under section 614(a) of the act the President may use up to $250 million in hard dollars, and an additional $100 million in foreign currencies, for a total of $350 million which can be transferred as he sees fit in accordance with the section to which I have just referred.

Mr. President, if the amendment I have submitted is adopted and its figure is added to the amounts I have just indicated as being the amounts the President can transfer and use, the President will have at his disposal under this bill and can transfer from one account to the other, in accord with the legislation to which I have just referred, $1,780 million. That is a great amount to put in the hands of any one man.

Yet I would not mind so much if the President himself were the only one to make these allocations or transfers, but, as a rule, the transfers are made by employees of AID, the administrators in the field who make suggestions as to how the amounts should be transferred from one area to another.

I am sure that when the Senate voted $250 million for the contingency fund last year, it never dreamed that $20 million of that amount would be used in Indonesia to balance the payments of that country, or that any of the amount would be used to establish a little gestapo-like police force in Indonesia.

I repeat that the genesis of the contingency fund, if the matter is looked into by Senators, will show that this sacred fund was to be used for emer

gencies, for unforeseen events, and not to pay the deficits of any of the countries to which I have referred.

I am confident that the President of the United States will have ample money to take care of any contingencies that may develop within the next 7 months with the $100 million provided by my amendment. Let us remember that 5 months of the year have passed.

I hope and pray the Senate will vote for my amendment.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

BREWSTER in the chair). Does the Senator from Louisiana yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. First, let me compliment the Senator from Louisiana on his very able presentation and excellent analysis of the problem.

Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that the amount in the contingency fund for the fiscal year 1963 was $120 million?

Mr. ELLENDER. That much was obligated during the first 9 months of fiscal year 1963.

Mr. MILLER. Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that he cannot get any information regarding how that money was spent?

Mr. ELLENDER. No. I was referring to the money for the current year, 1964, and for the last 3 months of fiscal 1963. Under the continuing resolution, I am sure some of the money was spent, and some of the money was allocated. However the record of obligation for the first 9 months of fiscal year 1963 clearly illustrates how contingency funds have been used.

Mr. MILLER. Does the Senator have a breakdown of how the $120 million was spent for fiscal year 1963, or does he have only a portion of that item?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, I have a detailed breakdown showing how the $120 million was spent. Only $35 million of the $120 million was used for bona fide contingencies. The remaining $85 million was used to correct deficits in the budgets and balance of payments of various countries.

We helped Mr. Sukarno, of Indonesia, build up his police force. Suppose last year the Senate had been told that any part of the $250 million appropriated for the contingency fund would be used to accomplish such purposes as those? What do Senators think would have been done with such a proposal? The Senate would have voted it down.

I repeat, this fund is to be used solely for emergencies that cannot be foreseen.

Mr. MILLER. Is it the Senator's position that the $30 million, if indeed it was an emergency type situation to help some country from going under, could have been obtained from one of the other sources which the President had available to him?

Mr. ELLENDER. Absolutely. There is no question about it. Consider military assistance. The President could take 10 percent of the $1 billion, which would be $100 million, to supplement many of the items in the bill. He could

use $300 million under section 510(a) of the pending measure, and he could also use $350 million under section 614(a) of this same bill.

Mr. MILLER. The

Senator has

pointed out that $35 million of the $120 million was spent for bona fide contingencies. Can he tell us where some of

the other amounts went from the remaining $85 million, or was all of the $120 million which Congress appropriated spent from the contingency fund?

Mr. ELLENDER. It was obligated primarily to balance budgets and remove deficits in the balance of payments of various countries.

Mr. MILLER. I think it would be helpful if those figures could be placed in the RECORD.

The Senator from Iowa has misgivings over this contingency fund and has had for some time.

Let me ask a further question of the Senator from Louisiana. If the contingency fund has been subject to what I consider to be abuses such as this-and I am sure the Senator from Louisiana will consider it to be an abuse-why cut this amount from $175 million only to $100 million?

Mr. ELLENDER. I am really trying to get at least a half loaf. My amendment would bring the amount available for the contingency fund $75 million

below that recommended by the Senate committee and $50 million below the amount authorized by the House.

The so-called Mansfield-Dirksen amendments have raised the amount of the contingency fund to $300 million and reduced the Alliance for Progress by $125 million to an amount totaling $525 million.

Mr. MILLER. If a figure can be justified, whether it be $100 million or $50 million or a half billion dollars, the Senator from Iowa is perfectly willing to support it. However, I am not impressed by the fact that someone may pull a figure out of his hat and say, "Let us make it $250 million," and someone else says, "Let us split the difference." In that way, we get into a numbers game with respect to what has been expended and what the obligations have been heretofore. That is why I believe, if the Senator from Louisiana can provide the information for the RECORD, it may be helpful in evaluating his amendment, which at this stage of the debate, I am inclined to support.

Mr. ELLENDER. I may say to my good friend from Iowa that I would cheerfully supply this information, but some of it is classified. It is labeled "secret." That is why I did not go into any more detail than I did, because I could not go any further than to give a few examples.

Mr. MILLER. I can understand why some of the information might be classified, and perhaps properly so. I would like to know how much of the $120 million has been classified. It might help us, in evaluating the package, to see how much is of a classified nature. Senators can go to the committee room and consult the files there. However, let use look at the net balance.

Mr. ELLENDER. Notwithstanding the suggestion made by the Senator from Iowa, I again point out that the contingency fund should be used for emergencies and for unforeseen occurrences. When my good friend from Illinois said that such a fund should be large, and when he and the majority leader got together and increased it to $300 million to take care of such a situation as developed in Lebanon and other places, they should bear in mind that it has never been used for that purpose, as I pointed out. The President has other authority that gives him the necessary flexibility. I have already placed in the RECORD the section of the bill wherein this flexibility is contained.

In addition, Congress was called upon to replace the amount spent by the Navy during the Lebanon crisis.

Therefore, there is no doubt that in the bill, as it now stands, the huge amount of unexpended balances, which amount to $62 billion, can be reallocated-it is done every day-from one place to another; and so long as it has not been actually delivered, the President has the authority to make the transfer to which I have referred.

Mr. MILLER. Does the Senator have available information on the amount of the obligated but the unexpended balance in the in the President's contingency fund?

Mr. ELLENDER. No; I do not have that information with me and, I cannot recall the figure at this moment.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator very much for his response.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Ellender amendment. If it should not be adopted, I shall subsequently offer an amendment to increase the contingency fund from $100 million to $150 million.

Before I discuss the Ellender amendment I wish to discuss the Humphrey ment I wish to discuss the Humphrey amendment. I have distributed to Senators interested a copy of a brief speech I am about to make on the Humphrey I am about to make on the Humphrey amendment as it relates primarily to the amendment as it relates primarily to the contingency fund.

I support the major objectives of the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, but I believe it needs to be broadened.

At this point I wish to tell the Senate the ways in which we are seeking to arrive at an agreement, if possible, with the Senator from Minnesota for broadthe Senator from Minnesota for broadening it. We have suggested to him, but I now formally suggest for the RECORD, that the Alliance for Progress amount be increased in the first instance, amount be increased in the first instance, to $600 million, instead of $650 million, which his amendment proposes, and that we reach an agreement to reduce the we reach an agreement to reduce the military aid for Latin America, which is now fixed in the bill at $50 million to $40 million, but that the $10 million saving be added to the Alliance for Progress, which would leave $610 million, instead of $600 million, or $40 million less than of $600 million, or $40 million less than the Humphrey amendment in its present form.

Legislative counsel has handed me an amendment which carries out the proposals which we will submit to the Senator from Minnesota for further conference this afternoon. Although it may seem that we are not making progress in the debate, we are actually making a great deal of progress, because in view of the parliamentary situation which confronts us, it is necessary for some of us to talk on the floor of the Senate, while at the same time others in our group carry on negotiations in offices and cloak

rooms.

On the other hand, making the RECORD on the floor of the Senate is important, because here we lay the basis for support for amendments that we are seeking to negotiate in the offices and cloak

rooms.

Therefore, I say I support the major objectives of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMthe Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUмPHREY], but that I believe the amendment itself needs to be broadened.

I support it not only because of the foreign policy implications of the Alliance for Progress, but also because I do not believe that contingency funds that contingency funds should be used for the Alliance. It is the assumption of the Mansfield amendments that if any shortage develops in the funds available for the Alliance for the funds available for the Alliance for Progress, it will be made up out of the huge contingency fund which the Mansfield amendments also envision, I respectfully point out that it is poor legislative practice to do so, and for many

reasons.

It is poor practice to give to any administration large sums of money to be used at its discretion and without legislative guidelines.

I invite Senators to look at the uses already made of the contingency fund last year, and show me anything like $300 million worth of emergencies. The material I placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD last night, which appears on pages 21113-21121, shows the disbursements of foreign aid to Latin American countries for fiscal 1962 and part of fiscal 1963, including contingency funds.

The material which I placed in the RECORD last night, beginning at page 21113 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, is factual data, which Senators ought to study before they vote not only on the amendment, but also on a good many other amendments, and certainly before they vote on the Mansfield amendments and on the bill itself. We should know what the money has been used for in the Alliance for Progress program. I have set it out, so Senators can see where the money is going in connection with the Alliance for Progress program and from where it has come. I believe Senators will be very much surprised.

If we begin to analyze these figures, we shall be surprised by what is being done with the contingency fund. It is of great regret to me that contingency funds have been used in large amounts for balanceof-payment and budget-support purposes in Latin America, particularly in Brazil, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Panama. The true emergencies of public safety and natural disaster account for grants and loans measured only in thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the budgetsupport and balance-of-payments aid out of the contingency fund are measured in the millions.

I digress at this point. In my judgment, that is not an appropriate use of the Presidential contingency fund. We cannot justify giving the President an emergency fund, or a contingency fund, on the assumption, that almost everyone will make, that the contingency fund is provided to meet some emergency, and then find that the President in fact has been using the fund to help Brazil or Panama or Ecuador, or some other country, balance its budget or use the money for support. When we vote contingency funds, we ought to know to what use they will be put.

The average person will say that if there is an emergency of great national interest, he wants the President to protect our national interest and have some emergency funds with which to act before he seeks congressional action. But every single dollar that has been used out of the contingency fund-and this President is not the only one who has done it for balance of payments or budget support in Latin America, be it for Brazil or Argentina or the Dominican Republic or Ecuador or Panama, ought first to have received the approval of Congress. I know of no good reason why we should give to the President, under the guise that it is needed to provide emergency money, the authority to use his own unchecked discretion for bal