indicate that the entire $3 billion will be committed under agreements well before June 30, 1957. It is likely that this will occur as early as February 1957.

Public Law 480 is considered a temporary means of disposal of agricultural surpluses. It has proved to be an effective tool in moving surpluses abroad while other programs are restoring a more balanced situation with respect to farm output and demand. However, sales for foreign currencies and barters are inconsistent with the administration's foreign trade policy and the administration's desire to further the removal of Government from business. No action should be taken to incorporate disposal methods of this kind as permanent features of United States foreign trade programs.

The request for an additional $1 billion and the extension of the terminal date under title I is presented at this time in order to permit orderly programing of agricultural commodities for the fiscal year 1958. The additional amount would provide for new programing at approximately the same annual rate that has been accomplished since the program was initiated in 1954.

In order to permit continuation for another year of the useful activities which have been possible under title II of Public Law 480, it is proposed that section 203 be amended to increase that authority from $500 million to $800 million and that section 204 be amended to extend the terminal date for undertaking programs from June 30, 1957, to June 30, 1958. Inasmuch as approximately $300 million of title II funds has already been committed, this proposal would in effect restore title II to the present amount authorized of $500 million.

Section 304 of the act requires the President to exercise his authority under Public Law 480 so as to assist friendly nations to be independent of trade with the U. S. S. R. or nations dominated or controlled by the U. S. S. R. and so as not to increase the availability of commodities to unfriendly nations.

It is recommended that section 304 be repealed. This would place us in a position to make offers of barter transactions on a selective basis to the European satellites of the Soviet Union. It would appear that this authority would be of particular advantage in view of recent developments in Eastern Europe. Agreements for sales of commodities for foreign currencies under title I of the act would continue to be limited to friendly countries by provisions of that title.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of the proposed legislation to the Congress and that enactment of such legislation would be in accord with the program of the President.

A similar letter is being sent to the President of the Senate.
Sincerely yours,

E. T. BENSON, Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. There will also be inserted in the record the report from the Department of Agriculture under date of February 18, 1957. (The report is as follows:)

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives.

FEBRUARY 18, 1957.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: This is in response to your request of January 30, 1957, for a report on H. R. 1905, to amend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, so as to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for purposes of title I of the act; to extend the act for 2 years; and to authorize barter transactions with satellite countries.

This bill would increase the maximum amount authorized to be appropriated to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities disposed of and costs incurred, under title I of the act, from $3 billion to $4 billion. The bill would also extend the terminal date, through which title I and title II transactions can be undertaken, from June 30, 1957, to June 30, 1959. The bill would amend section 304 of the act by limiting the authority now contained in section 304 to title I transactions and by adding a specific prohibition against title I and title III transactions with the U. S. S. R., Communist China, or North Korea. The Department has submitted a legislative proposal to the Congress in line with the President's budget message. We have requested an additional $1 billion in the title I authority and an extension of the terminal date to June 30, 1958. This would permit orderly programing of agricultural commodities for the fiscal year 1958. The additional amount would provide for new programing at approximately the same annual rate that has been accomplished since the program was initiated in 1954.

In order to permit continuation for another year of the useful activities which have been possible under title II of Public Law 480, we have proposed that section 203 be amended to increase that authority from $500 million to $800 million and that section 204 be amended to extend the terminal date for undertaking programs from June 30, 1957, to June 30, 1958. Inasmuch as approximately $300 million of title II funds has already been committed. the proposal would in effect restore title II to the present amount authorized of $500 million. H. R. 1905 would increase the title I authorization by $1 billion. We agree that the title I authorization should be increased in this amount. However, H. R. 1905 does not provide for an increase of $300 million in the title II authorization, and we recommend that the bill be amended to authorize such an increase. The proposal would extend the time for programing under title I and title II for 2 years. We believe that the extension of these titles should be limited to 1 year. Limiting the extension of these programs to 1 year would permit consideration of alternative methods whereby surpluses can be disposed of and normal export markets developed.

We recommend that section 304 be repealed rather than amended as proposed by H. R. 1905. This would place us in a position to make offers of barter transactions on a selective basis to the European satellites of the Soviet Union. It would appear that this authority would be of particular advantage in view of recent developments in Eastern Europe. Agreements for sales of commodities for foreign currencies under title I of the act would continue to be limited to friendly countries by provisions of that title.

We favor enactment of the proposed legislation with the amendments indicated above.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary.

(The following statements and data were submitted to the committee:)

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES

The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives supports legislation to extend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, for 1 year, and to increase the total authorization for acceptance of foreign currencies to $4 billion.

We also support additional authority to dispose of agricultural products to unfriendly countries for dollars or strategic materials.

The act should be amended to provide statutory authority to dispose of accumulated foreign currencies through sales or loans to private concerns, both domestic and foreign, for use for industrial and trade activities in the country where the currency originated.

We also favor an appropriate increase in the amount authorized in section 203 of the act to be used by the President for relief measures abroad.

Trade activities under this act have exerted a marked and multiple leverage on the progress of our foreign economic policy. The act has

1. Promoted economic development in underdeveloped countries to increase payrolls, and purchasing power, diversification, and economic balance.

2. Converted abundant agricultural resources into an American asset in international economic and political relations.

3. Conserved dollar exchange both here and abroad for industrial purchases and other uses.

4. Accustomed the people of contracting countries to a higher standard of living and, if this is continued, will develop a permanent effective demand for more food and fiber products, hence contribute to market development.

5. Promoted convertibility of foreign currencies on a constructive basis.

6. Contributed to stockpiles of strategic materials.

7. Contributed materially to relief activities of private organizations, which devote voluntary efforts to decentralized distribution of foodstuffs.

8. Spurred private exports of farm products.

9. Leveled off and reduced the accumulation of public and private surplus farm products in this country.

Objections to this program have come from a few countries which export a very large proportion of their agricultural production, in some cases 90 percent of the

total production and whose agricultural products are a dominant part of their total exports. In contrast, 90 percent of our agricultural production is consumed at home and agricultural exports constitute about 25 percent of our total exports. The answer to their problem is more balanced economic development and industrial diversification at home, to increase the domestic demand and consumption of their own agricultural production, with a decreased reliance on the almost exclusive export of raw agricultural products. As a matter of fact, several countries, formerly heavy exporters of competitive agricultural products, have become importers of American farm products, since embarking on economic diversification under our economic aid program.

The overall approach to the worldwide agricultural problem is to even out production and distribution which are too thin in some areas and too thick in other areas, through more diversified economic development and the trade resulting therefrom.

We believe the multiple values of operation under this act can be measurably increased by provision for disposal of accumulated currencies, through sale and loan, to industrial and trading concerns, operating in the area of the currency origin.

Also we believe provisions for sales to unfriendly countries for dollars and strategic material, will absorb dollar exchange which might otherwise be used to purchase war supporting equipment and plants; or yield us strategic materials in barter.

WHY POLAND SHOULD BE HELPED, A STATEMENT BY THE POLISH AMERICAN CONGRESS

Since the October upheaval in Warsaw, when, in the wave of unrest and discontent of the population, Polish Communists recognized the urgency of needed economic and political reforms, American sympathy for Poland has been growing rapidly. From humanitarian and, to some extent, diplomatic views, at least 90 percent of American press and radio and television commentators favor technical and economic help for Poland.

However, in this gratifying wave of sympathy for the Polish people, a sense of apprehension could be detected. One question is being frequently asked: Whether, while helping Poland we would at the same time strengthen the Soviet Union and communism?

The answer to this question is an emphatic no for the following reasons:

1. The Polish people are painfully aware of the fact, that Communist concepts of economy and industrial planning have brought them to the brink of disaster. The Communists themselves accepted this truth by retreating from such spheres of economic activities as the collectivization of farms which has been brought to a standstill, and complete socialization of small private enterprizes which has been abandoned.

These two examples prove beyond doubt that the Polish people have forced Communists to a considerable retreat from stubborn entrenchment in MarxistLeninist theories and practices. And this is only the beginning. Given more time, and moral as well as material support, the Poles will eventually go farther on the road to complete independence.

2. Polish national interests, historic evolvement as well as cultural and spiritual ties with Western civilization clash with Communist designs for world domination. Polish implacable hostility toward communism in general and toward Rusian colonialism in particular is a proven fact of history.

There is no danger-that by helping Poland economically we would be strengthening communism and the Soviet Union. On the contrary, stronger and more independent Poland would mean a gradual retreat of communism in Central and East Europe and would effectively oppose Russian designs for conquest.

Another argument is being set forth even by people whose sympathy toward Poland is sincere, that there is a great risk involved in helping the Polish people now. They say that American aid for Poland would provoke Russian wrath against the Poles. They add that the Polish people have already aroused Russian antagonism to a breaking point.

Let us bear in mind, therefore, that the Poles are well aware of the risk. They are willing to take it. The very fact that they asked us for help instead of begging

the Kremlin for handouts, proves beyond doubt that Poland wants to return to the Western family of nations where her national birth placed her a thousand years ago.

The Poles have already taken a risk by turning to the West. It should be evaluated as a calculated risk. They are risking far more in turning to us than we are risking in granting them help.

The stakes are high and worth the chance both for Poland and for the United States.

In the long view of history, the Communist system of government forced on Poland by the might of the Russian Army is only transitory.

Poland as a nation successfully opposed Russification in the past and, with her boundless devotion to freedom and democracy, will emerge victorious from Communist oppression.

But she needs our help and fully deserves to be helped in her hour of dire need. Finally, some aspects of Poland's foreign policy are being used in arguments against a large-scale help.

We should remember that Poland's current foreign policy is not of her own choice. It has been linked to Russia with full consent and support of the Western powers at Yalta. Poland is not yet able to follow an independent course in foreign affairs. This can develop only in accordance with the amount of material and moral help that Poland could get from the West.

MILLERS' NATIONAL FEDERATION,

Washington, D. C., April 5, 1957.

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In behalf of the Millers' National Federation, the national trade association of the wheat flour milling industry, I wish to support the enactment of H. R. 5534, a bill to extend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954.

We favor the extension of title I of the act for 1 year and an increase in authorization from $3 billion to $4 billion. We have no specific views with respect to amendments (3) and (4) proposed in H. R. 5534.

We believe Public Law 480 and the manner in which it has been administered by the Department of Agriculture has been helpful in the exportation of wheat and wheat flour from the United States.

The milling industry is particularly interested in the long range aspects of Public Law 480. At the present time, Millers' National Federation is conducting a market promotion program for wheat flour and wheat products in Colombia under a market promotion agreement with the Foreign Agricultural Service. The Federation also is condicting market promotion survey projects in the Pacific area under an agreement with the Foreign Agricultural Service entered into jointly by the Federation and the Oregon Wheat Growers' League.

In our opinion, the extension of Public Law 480 will permit the development of similar market promotion projects in other countries and we are confident these will result in increased interest in and increased importations of United States wheat flour and other wheat products.

In 1956, the United States remained in first place among world exporters of flour after regaining its former traditional leadership in 1955. This is due to increased promotion activities on the part of United States export flour millers, increased activities on the part of the export department of the Millers' National Federation in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture and other interested Government agencies, and an increased world demand for flour.

The milling industry is optimistic that world demand for United States flour can be still further stimulated by activities under Public Law 480 and the industry therefore, favors the expanded extension of the act for a period of a year as proposed in H. R. 5534.

I am submitting this brief expression of our views for inclusion in the record of the hearing in accordance with permission granted me on March 26.

Yours very truly,

HERMAN FAKLER, Vice President.

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

PORTAGEVILLE, Mo., March 28, 1957.

Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, D. C.:

This organization urges extension of Public Law 480 for at least 2 years and that its present authorization be doubled. Proposed extension and increased authorization would broaden potential of program badly needed to help disposal of burdensome farm surplus.

Hon. HAROLD COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

JAKE WEEKS,

Missouri Cotton Producers Association.

CHARLESTON, Mo., March 29, 1957.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

Sincerely regret unable to appear for hearing on Public Law 480. Today the following organizations strongly urge extension of Public Law 480 with sufficient appropriation to warrant continuation of disposal of surplus cotton stocks: Missouri Cotton Producers Association, Tennessee Agriculture Council, Delta Council of Mississippi, Agriculture Council of Arkansas, Louisiana Delta Council, American Cotton Producers Association.

A. L. STORY.

If no one else desires to testify orally or submit a statement, the committee will stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 12:20 p. m. the hearing was adjourned.)

X