[From the Providence (R.I.) Journal, Oct. 8, 1972] $5.7 MILLION AID TRADE FOR RHODE ISLAND FIRMS Rhode Island manufacturers and suppliers received $5,783,002 over a threeyear period as payment for commodities shipped under U.S. foreign aid programs of the Agency for International Development, that agency has reported. The goods and products turned out by Rhode Island workmen and women went to AID-supported economic development programs for the world's less developed nations. For the entire 50 states of the U.S.A., more than 5,000 manufacturers and suppliers received AID-financed commodity orders amounting to more than $2.4 billion over the three year period which ended June 30. The figure does not include approximately $3.5 billion in agricultural commodities shipped to poor nations of the world in the same period under the Food for Peace program. To meet critical import requirements of the developing nations, AID shipments covered a wide range of products, including agricultural and roadbuilding machinery, iron and steel mill products, electrical equipment, engines and turbines, fertilizers, motor vehicles, chemicals and rubber products. AID notes that more than 95 per cent of AID expenditures for such commodities have been going to American suppliers. At the same time, the agency says, universities and research institutions, as well as qualified individual experts, also have received AID contracts for technical services. In Rhode Island alone, the agency says, these contracts were valued at $1,383,498 as of the end of last year. "Such arrangements," AID spokesmen say, "made possible the transfer of U.S. skills and experience to help people of the developing countries in their struggle against disease, hunger, illiteracy, and overpopulation." As of Dec. 31 of 1971, Rhode Island technical service contracts reported by the AID included International Data Sciences, Inc., of Providence, $54,450; Puritan Life Insurance Co., Providence, $579,048, and the University of Rhode Island in Kingston, $750,000. Rhode Island manufacturers and suppliers receiving contracts under the AID program during the past three years include the following: The Bostitch Division of Textron Inc., $24,245; Textron Inc., $275; Leesona Corp., $329,906; Universal Chemical, $10,224; Nicholson File International, $47,122; Newman Crosby Steel Co., $50,998; BIF, a unit of General Signal Corp., $14,920; Grinnell Corp., $33,613; Madison Industries, Inc., $1,793; Nicholson File Co., $58,985; Charles W. Taylor & Co., $215,202; Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co., $15,095. [From the Springfield (Mass.) Union, Oct. 6, 1972] FOREIGN AID GENERATES ORDERS Manufacturers and suppliers in Massachusetts have received $31,464,739 in the past three years for commodities shipped overseas through foreign aid programs. Nationally, more than 5000 companies have earned $2.4 billion through exporting in foreign aid programs in the three year period ended June 30. These goods and services were produced by American workmen for the Agency for International Development, AID, foreign aid programs for underdeveloped nations. Contracts to universities and research institutions for technical services were valued at $55,661,249 in Massachusetts at the end of last year. In Western Massachusetts companies have received orders totaling $495,945 in the six-month period from January to June of this year. Industries in Berkshire County received a total of $106,644 in orders, Franklin County, $45,411, and Hampden County, $343,890. No industries from Hampshire County are listed. The total value of orders to the companies is in Greenfield, Greenfield Tap & Die Corp., $5,465; Millers Falls Co., $4,988; Rodney Hunt Co., Orange, $34,958; EBTEC Corp., Agawam, $8,445; Uniroyal, Inc., Chicopee Falls, $132,677; Worth ington Corp., Holyoke, $40,500; Keenen Cashman Co., Indian Orchard, $10,783; in Springfield, In Springfield, American Bosch, $36,745; Monsanto Co., $49,530; Scientific Industries, Inc., $4,618; Van Norman Machine Co., $54,574; WICO, The Prestolite Co., in West Springfield, $4,444; Kingsbury Machine Co. of Wilbraham, $1,574. In Dalton, Crane & Co., Inc., $44,117; Beloit Corp., $12,476; in Lee, Clark Aiken Co., $1,232; Kimberley Clark Corp., $14,465; Mead Corp., $2,274; Sprague International, Ltd., North Adams, $807; General Electric Co., Pittsfield, $29,557; Anken Chemical & Film Corp., Williamstown, $1,716. Technical service contracts totaling $2,492,512 were given to the University of Massachusetts. [From the Fort Wayne (Ind.) News-Sentinel, Oct. 6, 1972] 13 FIRMS HERE SHARE $527,494 AID TRADE Thirteen Fort Wayne industries have received a total of $527,494 over a threeyear period as payment for commodities shipped to less developed nations under the U.S. foreign aid programs of the Agency for International Development. The Agency reported that manufacturers and suppliers throughout Indiana recevied $40,948,942 over the three-year period, while more than 5,000 nationwide firms received $2.4 billion during the period. The figure does not include more than $3.5 billion in agricultural commodies shipped to poor nations in the same period under the Food for Peace program. Industries here and the amount received include Airtex Products, $2,398; American Hoist & Derrick, $196,073; Dana Corp., $19,480; Federal Mogul Export Corp., $1,450; Gerson International Corp., $103,473; B.F. Goodrich Co., $27,261; Hoosier Wire, $13,563; International Harvester Co., $31,337. Also, Joslyn Stainless Steels, $8,014; Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Corp., $12,647; Tuthill Pump, $14,116; Wayne Home Equipment Co., $27,100; and Zolliner Corp., $25,573. Area firms benefiting under the program included Warner Motive, of Auburn, $805; Stellar Industries, of Huntington, $1,305; Corke Corp., of Warsaw, $4,508; Zimmer Manufacturing Co., of Warsaw, $6,109; Flint & Walling Manufacturing Co., of Kendallville, $2,544; Ford Meter Box Co., of Wabash, $3,142; Honeywell, Inc., of Wabash, $516; and Franklin Electric Co., of Bluffton, $827. [From the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times, Oct. 6, 1972] $196,483 FILLED IN AID CONTRACTS-IN PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS, MANUFACTURERS IN AREA IN 1ST HALF 1972 Chattanooga manufacturers and suppliers received $196,483 during the first six months of 1972 as payment for commodities shipped to less developed nations under U.S. foreign aid programs of the Agency for International Development. For the state as a whole, payments for the first six months totaled $772,833 to bring to $21,347,987 the total spent in the state during the three-year period that ended June 30. Universities and research institutions, as well as qualified individual experts also received AID contracts for specialized technical services. Approximately $5.7 million was spent last year on such contracts in the state. During the three-year program period, more than 5,000 U.S. manufaturers and suppliers have received commodity orders amounting to $2.4 billion. To meet critical import requirements of the developing nations, AID shipments covered a wide range of products, including agricultural and roadbuilding machinery, iron and steel mill products, electrical equipment, engines and turbines, fertilizers, motor vehicles, chemicals and rubber products. [From the Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader, Oct. 5, 1972] AID PROGRAMS EARN N.H. $1.4M WASHINGTON.-New Hampshire manufacturers and suppliers received $1,410,131 during a three-year period as payment for commodities shipped to less developed nations under U.S. foreign aid programs of the Agency for International Development. According to AID, the goods and products turned out by U.S. workmen were required for AID-supported economic development programs in the world's poor countries. A list of manufacturers by county and city, showing the amount of AIDfinanced orders placed with them for the six-month period of January through June of 1972, reveals that Sanders Associates, Inc., of Nashua received the highest amount, $110,090. Other amounts included: Hubbard Farms, Inc. (of Walpole), Alstead, $32,705; the town of Alstead, $32,705; Markem International, Inc., Keene, $12,724; Miniature Precision Bearing Corp., Keene, $3,188; the city of Keene, $15,912; Cheshire County, $48,617; Norton International Corp., Littleton, $11,580; the town of Littleton, $11,580; Grafton County, $11,580; Macalaster Scientific Co., Nashua, $10,535; the city of Nashua, $120,625; Hillsborough County, $120,625; the G. W. Griffin Co., Franklin, $59,985; the city of Franklin, $59,985; Merrimack County, $59,985; Joy Manufacturing Co., Claremont, $20,046; the city of Claremont, $20,046; Sullivan County, $20,046; and the state of New Hampshire, $260,853. In all, more than 5,000 manufacturers and suppliers in the 50 states received AID-financed commodity orders amounting to $2.4 billion over the three-year period, which ended June 30. The figure does not include approximately $3.5 billion in agricultural commodities shipped to poor nations of the world in the same period under the Food for Peace program. To meet critical import requirements of the developing nations, AID shipments covered a wide range of products, including agricultural and road-building machinery, iron and steel mill products, electrical equipment, engines and turbines, fertilizers, motor vehicles, chemicals, and rubber products. At the same time, universities and research institutions, as well as qualified individual experts, also received AID contracts for specialized technical services. In New Hampshire alone, as of the end of last year, these contracts were valued at $189,433. PUBLIC APPEARANCES BY AID PERSONNEL Senator PELL. Would you supply for the record data on the number of public appearances made by AÏD personnel in this fiscal year? Dr. HANNAH. Yes, sir; we will. [The information referred to follows:] PUBLIC APPEARANCES BY AID OFFICIALS, FISCAL YEAR 1973 [Supplied by AID] In the conduct of its public information and reporting responsibilities, AID is guided by the provisions of both the Freedom of Information Act, and Section 634 (b) of the Foreign Assistance Act, as well as Section 501 of the Foreign Assistance Appropriation Act. A relevant Agency policy directive, in force since February 1963, begins with the following statement: "It is the policy of the Agency for International Development that information about its objectives and operations be freely available to the public. "To this end, all personnel shall be available to representatives of news media, and shall attempt to furnish accurate and complete information in response to news inquiries." In response to requests from organizations and institutions interested in U.S. foreign economic assistance programs, and subject to staff availabilities, AID endeavors to furnish knowledgeable development officials to discuss AID programs and their purposes. During fiscal year 1973, 52 AID officials, including overseas personnel on home leave status in the United States, made a total of 311 speaking engagements before various interested private organizations. These included, for example, the following groups concerned with overseas development programs: Grand Rapids Rotary Club St. Louis World Affairs Council League of Women Voters, Bakersfield, Calif. Chicago International Trade Club Florida Partners of the Americans Midwest Conference on World Affairs, Kearney, Nebr. University of Louisville, Ky. American Association of University Women, Tallahassee, Fla. University of Utah Press stories resulting from the appearances of these AID officials reflect the local interest of both the press and the sponsoring organizations in the discussion programs involved. AID PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES Senator PELL. And also for the record, or do you know offhand, how many people do you employ in your public affairs department? Dr. HANNAH. Well, I can't answer. It is very small, 25 or 30 or less. But we will furnish it accurately, sir. We are not in the business of Senator PELL. You say 25 or 30 is very small. It certainly is small compared to the Pentagon, but the agency that has responsibility to balance the Pentagon, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, theoretically has a total personnel of three. So you are not all that small in Government terms. Dr. HANNAH. We will furnish the exact information, sir. [The information referred to follows:] OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, A.I.D. FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES-AS OF JULY 1, 1973 Senator PELL. I also notice that you try to stimulate some local publicity and some support in the Congress by stressing the importance of AID business to each of the States. You break it down into how much this would mean to so and so's congressional district or so and so's State. Do you believe such activities are consistent with the spirit of the annual appropriation bill saying no funds should be used for publicity or propaganda purposes? Dr. HANNAH. I do not think they are antagonistic. In the beginning questions were asked as to where AID funds were expended. There seemed to be the widespread notion that the AID operation consisted largely of distributing U.S. dollars around the world. As a matter of fact, by congressional action we were required to have almost 100 percent spent for goods and services in the United States. There is a mistaken notion that is still prevalent that AID, U.S. tax dollars are spent in far-off places either in poor countries or in Japan or West Germany or somewhere to buy something they might want. Point 2, there is a belief that whatever is appropriated by the Congress for aid is all gifts and grants. As a matter of fact, a point I made earlier this morning that a very small fraction, under $400 million, is for technical assistance and the grant programs. The development loan business is substantially larger than grant and under present requirements these development loans have to be paid both in interest and principal in U.S. dollars. Some of the critics have gathered together all international expenditures, they come up with aid in Public Law 480, and the contributions to the multilateral agencies and total credit portfolio of the Ex-Im Bank and they come up with astronomical figures. It is not said this is all gifts and grants, but the inference is there. All I am saying we are not trying to propagandize but we are trying to make the truth available. Senator PELL. But my specific inquiry was that when you pinpoint a congressional district and show how much money is spent in that congressional district, not in the United States as a whole, and publicize that fact, do you believe that is inconsistent with the spirit of the language in the appropriation act. Dr. HANNAH. Well, I have never thought that it was. This is on a computer and fed out quickly at low cost and given to anybody who wants it on a State and county basis. This is the first time that question has ever been asked. Senator PELL. I refresh your memory about the language which says that none of the appropriated funds shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by Congress. Dr. HANNAH. I do not consider this propaganda, I consider this factual information that ought to be made available. Senator PELL. I think the answer the Pentagon gives as to why they have a large public relations staff is that it is not propaganda, it is to inform the American people. Dr. HANNAH. I spent most of my life at a big State university 3 miles from the State capital and one of the problems there was to make everything available. If you make available all the facts, good, bad, and indifferent, you come out all right in the end, and you ought to be on the side of making information available, not hiding behind screens. Questions are asked for more information so that the American people come up with the right answers in the end. Senator PELL. I am very frank when I send out newsletters, I call that propagandizing my people. I do not call it making information available. I think it is a question of frankness here. When you want to make your story there is nothing wrong with the word propaganda, but I am not sure it is consistent with that language. ADMINISTRATION REQUEST FOR ECONOMIC AID TO INDOCHINA The administration has asked for $632 million for economic aid for Indochina as a whole. Hearing the exchange with Senator Case, I |