You see, we get both sides of this all the time. On the one hand, if we provide new uses which slow down negotiations, we thereby impede the possibility of surplus utilization; if, on the other hand, we limit the uses to economic development or put the emphasis on economic development, economic loans, then some of our friends in the administration say, "Ah, but this is inflationary."

Mr. BEALE. Well, Senator, it need not be inflationary if the uses are properly organized and balanced.

Senator HUMPHREY. You understand these new uses of currency are not for the United States, but they are for the recipient countries. Mr. BEALE. That is correct, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. It gives a broader selection. In other words, it gives sort of an economic supermarket from which they can choose. Mr. BEALE. It would limit the amount that they could use for economic development purposes; would it not?

Senator HUMPHREY. Not at all; no. I disagree with that, because it is not mandatory that a certain percentage go to schools or a certain percentage go to hospitals.

The provisions of the law or the provisions for use are still the same as they were in Public Law 480. That is incorporated right in this bill.

Mr. BEALE. That is correct, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. We provide new uses, if you can negotiate them. But it is not mandatory.

For example, section 104 relates to assistance to educational exchange activities sponsored by U.S. citizens.

We put in provisions supporting workshops in American studies or American educational techniques; for financing technicians and other personnel of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Or-ganization, and World Health Organization-including necessary equipment and supplies engaged in consulting and advising on, conducting, or administering Government programs designed to relieve chronic hunger and malnutrition; for financing research, surveys, conferences, publicity, and other activities which the President shall find to be helpful in support of the projected "Free the World From Hunger" campaign of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

These are funds that can be used. But it seems to me that this all depends upon how you negotiate.

Mr. BEALE. Well, I believe, sir, that just as within the present uses, pressures build up for their use, and they are vested interests and, no doubt, the same things would be developed in the countries themselves. The pressures would build up for their particular uses, and it would mean inevitably, as I would understand it, a reduction in the amount available for economic development. There is just so much of a pie.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes; but we are making a bigger pie. Of course, there are going to be a few more people coming in and wanting a slice of it.

We are going to give you $500 million more in currencies. Then, my friend, there is the problem of repayment of old loans. This has been studied, and poses a very serious problem to this Government as to what we are going to do with the currencies that were once loaned out, and are now coming back with interest.

So that actually, the problem today is not a deficit of currencies for economic development; it is not a deficit or limitation upon the amounts available.

It is the fact that they are in surplus. I should say that our recipients of these commodities are becoming deeply concerned because we have too big a hold on the currency structure of their own country. Therefore, we recommend in this bill greater use of grants to get these currencies back into their hands and not under our control. That is one of the reasons of the binational foundations which were recommended by other study groups.

Well, I have surely kept you here too long. I hope that while I have been rather sharp in some of my replies and questions, that you understand, Mr. Beale, I appreciate the good work that your Department does in administering this program.

I just wish you were not so timid. I do not think we are going to win this struggle by timidity.

OVERSEAS VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

There are quite a few hungry people around, and if we cannot sell this food there are a lot of people in this country who think we ought to give it away through our great voluntary organizations. I might add that the 59 or 60 overseas voluntary agencies of our country, private, religious, and nonreligious can handle a lot more food and fiber than they are handling right now. They, by way, give us the best deal in the world.

They provide the personnel, the contacts, the machinery, and the administrative apparatus. All the Government of the United States has to do is to supply the materials and the food. The choice is whether or not that food is going to accumulate in these warehouses or whether or not it is going to be used.

I am amazed and shocked when I hear so many reasons being given why this food cannot be used. The same people who are going to tell us it cannot be used are the same people who are going to complain about it gathering in the warehouses. And we are going to have more this year than we had last year. There will be a minimum of $10.5 to $11 billion worth.

It seems to me that with that kind of a prognostication-that is not exaggerated, it is conservative-somewhere along the line we ought to be thinking of how we are going to put this food into effective use over and above what we have been doing. That is the purpose of this bill.

We would like to get more than just objections to this bill.

LETTER OF STATE DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE IN CRITICISM OF PROPOSED BILL

The letter of the State Department will be filed and made a part of this testimony. You testified on most of it. I regret to say it is completely negative.

Apparently all that we have is perfect and that which we propose is not good.

It goes on for five pages of negative criticism. For example, they say, "The Department is opposed," "we oppose," "we do not believe," "we oppose."

I will be interested to find out what they are for.

Thank you.

Mr. BEALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Miller, I think we will recess until 2:30. We will reconvene in F-53, which is the old Foreign Relations Committee room.

We will notify Mr. Stambaugh of the Export-Import Bank of the location of the hearing.

Room F-53 is in the Capitol.

Then, Mr. Albert Sims, will you come, too?

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Present: Senators Fulbright (chairman) and Humphrey.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I wish to call as our next witness Mr. Lloyd Godley, who is one of my constituents. Inasmuch as I may have to go to the Senate floor shortly to resume the consideration of the Mutual Security Act, I may not be able to come back. So, Mr. Godley, will you come forward, please?

Mr. Godley, we are very pleased to have you here today.
Mr. GODLEY. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to state for the record that Mr. Godley is one of the leading planters of Mississippi County, which is the greatest agricultural county in the South. He is also one who has paid particular attention to the governmental program in the field, and I think he is very well informed and well qualified to testify on this bill.

Mr. Godley, we are very pleased to have you.

Do you have a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF LLOYD GODLEY, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, ARKANSAS FARMERS UNION

Mr. GODLEY. Yes, sir. Senator, I may vary from it a little. The CHAIRMAN. May we suggest that you put the whole statement in the record and you can speak from it at your convenience. Mr. GODLEY. Thank you, sir.

I am Lloyd Godley of Osceola, Mississippi County, Ark., and I am a farmer.

I grow cotton, soybeans, wheat, and corn.

I am here representing the Arkansas Farmers Union as chairman of its legislative committee.

It is a great honor, gentlemen, to have the privilege of appearing before this distinguished committee, and we recognize that this legislation treats in a large measure with foreign affairs and foreign relations. Nevertheless, if passed, we believe it can have a great impact upon American agriculture.

Now, we make no pretense whatsoever at being an authority on foreign affairs. We do, however, claim some knowledge of agriculture and its problems.

While your efforts for agriculture may not be recognized by all the farmers of America, I can assure you that a great many farmers from

our State and throughout the Nation know that you, Mr. Chairman, and the other distinguished Senators here, have been right up in the forefront all the time fighting for farm legislation.

We are here today to support the legislation under consideration, and I might say in noting the sponsors of this legislation we would be tempted to support it even without reading the bill.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, I am glad you read it.

S. 1711—A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN RAISING FARMERS' INCOME Mr. GODLEY. We have one selfish reason, gentlemen, for supporting this legislation.

That is because we are farmers, and such legislation should contribute toward raising our income.

We think, perhaps, that that is a reasonable aspiration since agriculture has for the past several years borne the brunt of holding within reasonable limits the cost of living while taking a net annual reduction in income of at least $3 billion, and we sometimes wonder just who is subsidizing whom.

This reduction in farm income has, of course, greatly reduced the buying power of farm people.

Therefore, the loss to the farmer has likewise been a loss to the manufacturer, the factory, laborer, the shipper, the merchant, and others.

It is unfortunate that so many do not understand that agriculture, the biggest business in America, cannot be ground down into poverty by being pressed on one side by lower and lower prices and on the other side, by higher and higher costs of living and production without adversely affecting the whole economy of our Nation. That is pretty difficult to understand.

Now that, gentlemen, is our selfish reason for supporting this legislation.

FOOD AN IMPORTANT IMPLEMENT FOR BRINGING ABOUT PEACE

Our unselfish reason is that we honestly believe that America's destiny is to keep the light of freedom burning in the world.

If it were not so, why does the good Lord permit us so much freedom, and with all of our abundance?

Since we farmers have the land and the equipment, the energy and the genius to produce food and fiber in such abundance, we pray most earnestly that this abundance may be used to promote peace in the world.

We hope that the Congress, in its great wisdom, may be the means of bringing this about.

Most certainly, with world leadership goes world responsibility. We are not opposed to the vast military expenditures in any amount necessary to protect our freedom and that of other freedom-loving peoples. But we do believe that food is a greater implement for peace than are guns.

This is the major reason for our supporting this legislation.

. But if, gentlemen, we should adopt this legislation solely as a means of ridding ourselves of agricultural surpluses and other goods, it will fail.

One of our greatest challenges today is to prove that our aid to other lands is extended on the basis that we care for people more than we care for profit.

We have been challenged to the conquest of outer space, and we have responded, as America always has with our wealth, genius, and determination.

Wouldn't it be great if America would challenge the world to the conquest of hunger? If we should issue such a challenge in earnest, and it had the same support by the administration, the press, and the people as did the challenge to the conquering of space, it may be that there would be such an outpouring of good will throughout the world that the tyrants would sulk in their tents and never again attempt to force their will upon helpless people.

Communism abounds where hunger, poverty, and ignorance abide. We farm people are ready, able and willing and anxious to produce in whatever abundance is necessary to meet the needs at home and abroad. But we are growing a little tired, discouraged, and disgusted at the abuse and ridicule heaped upon us, especially since every man, woman, and child in America must depend upon the farmer for his very life.

In this great Nation of ours, built upon the profit theory in business, it is inconceivable that we, the farm people, should be expected to produce the living for all the people with so little profit that it has almost reached the vanishing point.

If the people could have the facts, not half truths, distortions, and deliberate falsehoods, they would respond in such a way that we, in agriculture, would once again enjoy reasonable prosperity.

We honestly believe, gentlemen, that this legislation we are discussing here today has within it the seeds of prosperity for the American farmer and for peace throughout the world.

Isn't it awful that there is so much hunger and misery in the world, and yet we farmers must leave land idle because there is no outlet for full production?

FARMER ACCUSED OF BEING IDEALISTIC

We may be accused of being idealistic. If believing that food, not guns, may decide mankind's destiny, then we admit we are idealistic. If believing that farm people are entitled to a fair and reasonable share of the national income is idealistic, then we again must admit that we are idealistic.

America has a farm problem of surplus which is judged a curse by some, by others a blessing.

If we continue with our warehouses and granaries overflowing, it may well be a curse.

But if we use this great abundance for the conquest of hunger, nakedness, and despair throughout the world, then our surplus may prove to be mankind's greatest blessing.

Public Law 480 has worked wonders for American agriculture, and the recipients of it benefits abroad.