Mr. BELCHER. Correct.

Mr. POAGE. If we are consistently going to do that, we will have to provide something in lieu thereof; something that will achieve the results. And it seems to me that to use this food, if we have such an abundance, is a sound way to approach the needs of the other countries.

Mr. BELCHER. We give them the dollars to go out and buy it. It does not make any difference whether we give them the dollars or the food. So far as the taxpayer is concerned, it is "even Stephen."

Mr. POAGE. I don't think it is. When we provide food it does create a market for our farm products which otherwise would not be created. Mr. BELCHER. For a product that is not in surplus; it does for that. Mr. POAGE. For a product that I think will be in surplus during the 10 years. Do you think you will have wiped out our surpluses in 10 years?

Mr. BELCHER. I want to have it for the wheat surplus and to take all of the rest of these commodities out that do not need help.

Mr. POAGE. Do you think we will be rid of our cotton surpluses in 10 years?

Mr. BELCHER. Under this program you can still do it as long as cotton is there.

Mr. POAGE. You can contract under this program for wheat, for cotton, for corn, and other feed grains, and for tobacco, and that is all. The CHAIRMAN. Rice is in that.

Mr. POAGE. And rice is included. I think you will all agree that they have a surplus of rice and of the other basic commodities. I do not think anybody will deny the fact that we have surpluses and are going to need markets for some years to come.

Mr. BELCHER. Probably 480 will take care of the surpluses.

Mr. POAGE. It has not. The purpose of Public Law 480 is not to use our food for peace so much as it is to simply dispose of it. We have had Public Law 480 for a number of years, and we have surpluses.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you object to, say, a five-year contract dealing with surpluses, for corn or wheat, each year for the next 5 years?

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, ÍI would like to point out that under the present authority a 5-year contract could be made if the circumstances would justify it.

The CHAIRMAN. You have the authority. You said you have the authority. Mr. Poage is complaining you are not using the authority.

Mr. BELCHER. He was complaining they were using it a minute ago.

Mr. POAGE. No, no. I said I complained about using the authority to cancel out these notes that they are taking.

I think it is quite clear that if we are going to sell these things we have got to consider what the purchaser wants and what we want. We have got to give some consideration to his needs.

We now must sell them on terms that are most convenient to the United States regardless of whether that meets the convenience, or the needs of the purchaser or not. I know we have got the right to do that. I won't deny that at all. We have got the right to say that, "We won't sell at all unless you come here and get the goods and pay cash for them." We have a perfect right to do that.

Now then, if we are really serious to get rid of surpluses, if we are really anxious to sell them, we have to take into consideration the wishes of the people who may buy them. What do they want with our surpluses? One of the things that people may want with them is a stable source of supply. Don't you agree that is one of the things they want?

Mr. MYERS. We have

Mr. POAGE. A reliable source of supply.

Mr. MYERS. We have not found that the other countries want, under the 480 provisions, to commit themselves to these long terms. And if we find a transaction-if the one in Sudan, as you mentioned, should be such that they and we see the need for a 5-year deal, we can do it now.

I would like to point out that we do try to fit it to their needs. We try to make it more attractive to them. As a matter of fact, his maintenance of value was in that direction, as Mr. Ioanes said.

Mr. POAGE. This would still be further in this direction?

Mr. MYERS. We have no plans to do that.

Mr. POAGE. I didn't ask that. I just asked if it would not still be further in that direction-wouldn't it?

Mr. MYERS. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. Of course. Why all you did was to do part of the cancellation. I am not going to tell you that cancellation may not be a good thing. I know, however, that it is a complete change of the policy that this Congress established. It seems to me that if you can cancel part of the debt without consulting the Congress, that, obviously, you have the authority to cancel all of the debt. I think we ought to have it on the record. Do you think you have the authority to cancel all of the debt?

Mr. MYERS. This is a matter that is a little complicated. In terms at the time of the original deal, the decision can be made by the U.S. Government to put it all in terms of grants, or most of it in terms of grants rather than in loan and, in effect, there would be no debt. Also, the possibility of negotiating or renegotiating

Mr. POAGE. Those are technicalities. Let us consider those agreements where you have canceled the maintenance of value clause, would you say that you did or did not have legal authority to cancel the entire debt on those specific agreements?

Mr. MYERS. Yes, it could be done.

Mr. POAGE. You feel you do have the authority?

Mr. MYERS. I would like to make one point, however, this cancellation of maintenance of value does not necessarily mean reducing the amount of repayment. Some of the countries where we have made sales recently have strengthening currency.

Mr. POAGE. I know. Maybe Bolivia currency will go up and become of equal value to the dollar. Then you are wanting to get back more value than you would have given?

Mr. MYERS. I was not thinking of that particular example. There are some of the countries, only a portion of the total sales, but in some of the countries, the currencies are strengthening and in some they are weakening. I would like, if I may, to refer to two points made earlier in your comments here, Mr. Poage.

41080-59-4

First, I am sure that the administration and the United States Department of Agriculture do not view the whole matter of food-forpeace concept in the limited sense of surplus disposal. But however, the intent of Public Law 480, as it was written, was for surplus disposal.

A second point I would like make related to a comment that you made. Is it our judgment that the countries to which your proposal would apply are essentially the same ones which are now getting substantial quantities under title I of 480. And it is our judgment that they would not be likely to take more of these commodities with the additional provision than they do now.

If I may use an example and mention India, the only limitation at the moment on the amount of wheat that is going to India is their ability to move. We are not holding them up on other than that.

Mr. POAGE. Of course, countries would not take advantage of a loan that had to be repaid in dollars as provided in this bill if they could get the same commodities by agreeing to repay in their currency at a later date.

I agree with you that you have arranged the situation where very few countries would take advantage of this proposal. There is no doubt about that.

If you agree that 6 months after the signing of the notes that you are going to cancel the entire notes, you would induce still fewer countries to take advantage of my proposal.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not mentioned whether some have asked for grants. Are there some countries?

Mr. MYERS. You mean grants of currency?

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if they have asked for commodities.

Mr. MYERS. I would like to ask Mr. O'Leary to speak on that. Mr. O'LEARY. The use of grants has been minor in the past. Until this year there have been very few grants made under the program. The CHAIRMAN. Why is that?

Mr. O'LEARY. Well, we have not found that the requirement that the currency going for use by the country be under loan instead of grant, was a limiting factor as regards the quantity of commodities: that they would take. Generally the quantities of commodities that they have taken under the program have been that quantity that they could absorb, taking into account their own production and other sources of supply.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, taking into account the starvation that prevails among people in other parts of the world, whereas we have these huge supplies here in the United States, why can we not get that food over there where it is needed?

I read in the paper the other day where people have died in Haiti of starvation. Something is wrong somewhere.

Mr. O'LEARY. Well, all you can do is to try to

The CHAIRMAN. I understand sometimes there are political considerations and there are other causes, but the fact still remains that we have people starving all around us and here we have all of this food in storage.

Now, is that because there are political roadblocks, or economic roadblocks, or what?

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that, rather briefly. You mentioned people dying of starvation in Haiti, and in the newspaper it talks about disease down in Haiti. I will come to that in an instant.

Now, in some of these countries the ability of that country to take and move and distribute the commodities is a limiting factor.

I would like to point out also that under titles II and III of Public Law 480 considerable quantities have been furnished in emergencies and to relief organizations, church supported and other, that are prepared to move the product. The limiting factor has been the amount that can be so moved, not the willingness of the U.S. Government to furnish the commodity.

With specific reference to Haiti, now, the U.S. Government has checked that situation with three survey teams. On a visit to Rome last week I found, as the result of Food and Agricultural Organization check by their local people in Haiti, that the story of deaths from starvation and the story of epidemics in Haiti is false.

The CHAIRMAN. You said false?

Mr. MYERS. False. There is plenty of need for help in Haiti, there is no doubt about that. There is a drought and there might be an even more serious situation before too long. But as far as the survey teams of the FAO and the survey teams of the International Cooperation Administration were able to tell, and they went right into the area mind you, the story of deaths from starvation or the story of disease epidemics down in Haiti, those stories are not correct. The CHAIRMAN. You saw that in the paper?

Mr. MYERS. I saw it in the newspapers. As the result of seeing it in the papers, there was an immediate investigation. I should add that there are food stocks on the island and the U.S. Government is prepared to send more in immediately if necessary.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question before we get too far away from what we were discussing?

I think that it is inevitable that you are going to have to rewrite all of the outstanding contracts that were made before June 30, 1958, as well as those made since that date. I think that in good conscience you should give these other people, our early customers, the same privilege as has been granted to the late comers.

Mr. O'LEARY. Well, there are some countries that would not want that change.

Mr. POAGE. Perhaps not, but anybody that comes and asks you for it, you are going to give it to them; aren't you?

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Poage, we are just going to have to consider them— we have made no indications that we are going to grant that.

Mr. POAGE. I understand, Mr. Myers, but I want to be frank with. you and I want you to be frank with us. We know, I know and you know and everybody knows, that the United States of America is not going to pick out certain countries and tell them, "We are going to cancel this provision in the contract with you," and then say to other countries, "You signed the contract 3 days earlier and we will not make any concession to you." You know that we are not going to do that. And you know you are going to treat the early contracts just as favorably as you do the more recent contracts.

Mr. MYERS. Well, that would have to be a matter of negotiation between the two governments. We are helped a little bit on it by the fact that there was this gap of the time period when we were not signing any negotiations.

Mr. POAGE. I think that a moment ago, Mr. Myers, you said that you wanted to help, you would try to help, but that you do not want to extend, if I understood you correctly, to all the people who made these contracts the same privilege.

Are you telling this committee that you would not extend that same privilege to the people who made these contracts in 1956 and 1957 that you have extended to those people who made contracts in 1958?

Mr. MYERS. I did not mean to so imply. I meant only that each individual instance will have to be looked at on its own merit.

Mr. POAGE. And you are not going to give them the same privileges? Mr. MYERS. You see, sir

Mr. POAGE. You say that you want to help, but you are not going to give them all the same privileges.

Mr. MYERS. Well, the choice of the word "help" may have been a little unfortunate. What I meant is that the gap in time-we will prevent someone coming in and saying, "We were just 3 days ahead,” and we

Mr. POAGE. I do not like to be interrupting you all the time, Mr. Myers, but as a matter of fact, you will give them the same thing, you will treat them all alike, will you not? You know that you will. Why are you not frank about it?

Are you not going to treat all nations with whom we trade alike? Since you have already given this privilege to one group, you are going to have to give it to the others, and you know you are going to have to, and you are going to recommend it, are you not? That is one of the problems of making retroactive agreements.

Mr. MYERS. I don't wish to make a decision on that this moment. We will look at each case on its merits.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POAGE. Yes.

Mr. McGOVERN. I have been very much impressed with Mr. Poage's statement that we have to evaluate this program, at least partially, from the standpoint of the people that we are trying to help, instead of merely from the standpoint of what it does for us.

Will it not create a much better attitude on the part of the recipient countries if they know that we are willing to supply some food, even though it may not be in surplus supply in this country, just because those people need food?

I question whether we generate very much good will and appreciation on the part of these other countries when we limit our aid simply to those commodities that we know are in great surplus in the United States.

As Mr. Poage indicated, we have to consider those other countries who are cooperating with us; we have to think in terms of their needs as well as in terms of dollar benefits to the United States.

Mr. MYERS. Sir, I think that the overall foreign programs of the U.S. Government in one way and another give considerable assurance that we are not limiting our efforts strictly to surplus disposal.