Mr. OGG. Wes.

Mr. LECOMPTE. What would we do with our counterpart money that is in those countries?

Mr. OGG. We would use it then for projects and uses, part of which would be matters of mutual agreement between our Government and receiving governments, to further promote the economic development of the country.

Mr. LECOMPTE. Would not this $1 billion in commodities be in substance an addition to another billion dollars of counterpart funds? Mr. OGG. It would have that effect, yes, exactly. But here is the thing, Congressman: We have $3 billion now.

Mr. LECOMPTE. We have the products, but you are going to send the products abroad and take currency of those countries in payment, and that will be in substance counterpart currency. It may not be called that, but it will practically be that, will it not, if I understand

you?

Mr. OGG. That is right.

Mr. LECOMPTE. I do not want you to accuse me of trying to misquote you. I am just trying to ask you.

Mr. OGG. Oh, no, and I want to emphasize, sir, that we haven't tried to work out all the details and ramifications. I would like to have it understood that we are merely presenting this for consideration of your committee and the administration. We just want it presented here for study.

Mr. LECOMPTE. You understand I am just asking you; I am not telling you.

Mr. OGG. We realize there are some difficult problems involved, but we do know this, if we don't do something about these mounting surpluses-which we are putting in boats for storage-unless we can get rid of some of these surpluses, we are likely to have to take millions of acres of land out of wheat production in the next year, and the acreage equivalent of over 1 million bales of cotton-so I am just pointing out problems which if we don't do something about-will cause greater difficulties.

Mr. LECOMPTE. I am intrigued by your idea.

Mr. BENTLEY. I suppose you are talking about nonperishables, are you not?

Mr. OGG. We are talking about any commodities the Commodity Credit Corporation might own. They do have some semiperishable items like dried fruit.

Mr. BENTLEY. What would be the price at which this would be sold in the foreign countries, existing world prices?

Mr. OGG. That would be something for our Government to determine.

Mr. GARNETT. If I may interrupt, the object would be to sell them for the maximum amount of local currency which you would use in turn for economic development in those countries.

Mr. BENTLEY. They would almost have to be at existing world prices, would they not, at a maximum?

Mr. GARNETT. They might run higher in certain countries, which either didn't have, or wouldn't allot foreign exchange.

You see, a country might not permit the use of foreign exchange to buy dried fruit or dried milk, we will say, but in a particular case

you might bid high for it. The policy would be to generate the maximum amount of local currency.

Mr. BENTLEY. It is presumed, of course, in any case that would be below the existing support price in the United States.

Mr. GARNETT. That isn't necessarily true.

Mr. OGG. It depends on whether your price is above the world level. It is on some things.

Mr. GARNETT. Milk in India might be above our support price. Mr. BENTLEY. Does this come under what you call the two-price system?

Mr. OGG. It is a form of it, but it is not usually what I speak of as that. It is a different price, but it isn't what is normally called a twoprice system.

We get into a situation sometimes where we would get our price support too high and then in order to move it you have to take a loss on it. It is a difference of whether you plan to do it ahead of time or whether it happens as a result of unforeseen circumstances.

Under the wheat agreement we have legalized dumping, you might say, under that agreement, where we sell below our price.

Gentlemen, there is just one other point that I would like to stress here that I think ought to be considered carefully in connection with this last proposition. It is the whole problem of how do we develop or solve this problem of getting away from aid and on to trade.

Russia is now negotiaing, we understand, with India, to buy 1 million tons of wheat. In other words, we have wheat running out of our ears, and India has recently signed the new wheat agreement.

Also in Europe, the Russians are right now meeting in Geneva trying to draw off our allies into their own trade orbit.

It seems to us that it is vital to this security program that we develop ways and means by which the free nations can trade and support their own economies, and we think that here we have a resource to bridge this gap temporarily until a broader program could be established.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Thank you, gentlemen.

If you wish to revise your remarks, you will have an opportunity. Mr. OGG. We appreciate very much the time you have given us Mr. Chairman.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Frazer A. Bailey, president, National Federation of American Shipping, Inc.

STATEMENT OF FRAZER A. BAILEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SHIPPING, INC.

Mr. BAILEY. My name is Frazer Bailey. I am president of the National Federation of American Shipping, Inc. We represent a majority of all of the deepwater American-flag ships. I am appearing in connection with committee print dated May 5, 1953, and we are supporting the Mutual Security Act.

The committee print, as we read it, leaves untouched the provision in which we are interested. We are ocean-shipping operators, and we are interested in ocean-shipping transportation. We find nothing in here that changes the present national policy with respect to supporting that portion of our economy, while we are trying to help other

nations.

Chairman Chiperfield, is there to be any testimony on the Richards bill, H. R. 1071?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We are not considering the Richards bill. Mr. BAILEY. Then that is all I have to say, sir. Our position has not changed, and it supports the present national and congressional policy.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I cannot predict what the Congress will do ahead of time. It is privileged to consider anything.

Mr. BAILEY. If the Richards bill comes before the committee, may we have the privilege of submitting a statement because we think it requires two small clarifying amendments?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Yes.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Robert E. Fisher, National Congress of Parents and Teachers.

STATEMENT OF MRS. CLIFFORD N. HENKINS, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS. (BY MRS. EDITH FISHER, FOREIGN AFFAIRS MEMBER)

Mrs. FISHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, with its nearly 8 million memberships in 40,000 parent-teacher associations throughout the country, is concerned with the welfare of children in all parts of the world. It is our deep conviction that the lives of our children are permanently bound up with the lives of children everywhere. We have, therefore, been deeply concerned about the appropriations for the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund and the authorization for a similar continuing program, specifically geared to the needs of children on the international level and operating through the United Nations.

Consequently, we applaud the executive recommendations in the mutual security program for fiscal year 1954, in which it is proposed that international children's welfare work be continued. We deeply respect and trust the vision and courage of this committee to include in the bill which you will report to the Congress the authorization for an adequate amount of money to assure the other countries of our wholesome cooperation in this work and to insure that this program be effectively continued. It bears repeating that the UNICEF program, which is currently operating in 69 countries and territories, which has during the past 6 years aided over 60 million children in those most vital areas of need-nutrition and sanitation-is based on the sound principle of self-help. This gives the hope of permanence to the good achieved. We understand that in many countries this program has come to be known as the U. N. in action-an important achievement in its own right.

Therefore, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers is happy to endorse this program of international children's welfare work. We feel that it is a very important international program and we urge your most careful and generous consideration of the authorization for this work in fiscal 1954. We shall await with hope and confidence the cutcome of your deliberations.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very kindly.

Miss Elizabeth Kendall, Washington, D. C.

STATEMENT OF MISS ELIZABETH KENDALL, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Miss KENDALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have not prepared a statement but I have a number of things I would like to say and I will be as brief as I can.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Whom do you represent, Miss Kendall? Miss KENDALL. I just represent myself as a taxpayer. I believe that this matter is a very practical and sensible matter. In my opinion our foreign relations would be a lot better today if this had been thought about in our aid bill sometime ago but anyway it probably is not too late.

I would like to say, on the matter of whether I am for or against this bill, I would like to put it this way: If I had to make a choice between having Uncle Sam be an altruistic pauper or have him be a hard-hearted self-centered billionnaire, I would choose to have Uncle Sam be an altruistic pauper. In that respect I go along with a bill like that.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Do you mean that is what the bill is going to do?

Miss KENDALL. But I do not think we need to make that choice. today. I do not think it is a necessary choice because there is a middle road that has not, I understand, been explored by the Senate committee nor the House committee, nor anyone in the executive departments. I have tried to find out as best I can and I do not believe it has been explored. I have felt the idea is good and other people have hit upon the same idea and it is a "natural"-that people who want more Federal aid would approve of, or those who want less Federal aid or high taxes or low taxes.

I think the British and the Americans would approve of it.

I would like to read a paragraph in here in a letter that I wrote to your committee members in 1950, that is the theme of my proposal today. I suggest the following:

Requests made of countries now receiving our ECA and military and other aid those in 1950-that they cede to us certain lands they claim in the Antarctic and/or grant leases or royalties on possible mineral wealth there. Our aid abroad will doubtless continue under one name or another and that is all very well, but the United States taxpayers and their great grandchildren may be very glad to have something in return, especially inasmuch as historically we have rights to great tracts in the Antarctic. The exploring heroes of other lands would, I feel, be glad to know that their work would enable their home lands to stand on their own feet, at least in some measure, and even more honor would accrue to such heroes

such Antarctic heroes.

Way back here on page 73 of this measure

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We have not come to page 1 yet. That comes next week.

Miss KENDALL. Anyway, on page 73 of the proposed bill here, it

says:

No assistance shall be made available to any country unless the President determines that the furnishing of such assistance will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace, and unless the recipient country has agreed to join in promoting international understanding and good will, and in maintaining world peace, and to take such action as may be mutually agreed upon to eliminate causes of international tension.

Well, now, of course, I have to go on just what I read in the paper.

There are many sources of information available to the committees that I do not have but it seems to me the countries who are recipients of the moneys proposed here are not doing those things.

It says, "No assistance shall be made available to any country," unless we think we are doing those things.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We passed the Battle Act which prohibited trade between recipients of our aid and the Soviet Union and its satellites of articles that would increase their war potential.

You have read the papers on that too, have you not?

Miss KENDALL. Yes; I have.

And it seems to me that as a tangible and sensible thing for what we are we are a world banker-it seems to me that the sensible, logical thing is to ask for certain lands.

Now, this Antarctic proposal would concern only, today, seven nations among those who are receiving some of this aid. But tomorrow, it might be eight nations. It might be nine. Russia is interested. There is great interest in the Antarctic in Germany.

But today, it would concern seven nations and in order to make it equitable, if you should consider it advisable to incorporate the idea in this bill, it would be necessary then to say that land, so much land, so much acreage or square miles, for so many dollars would be asked of every country.

Then, if it seemed pertinent to waive it in some instances, all right. You could waive it in some instances or take it in the territory of the home grounds of the country or the overseas territories of a given country. Then, you would have something-we would have something the taxpayers could approve of, and taxpayers would probably not feel that $5.8 billion would be too much, if they could put something tangible in their pockets for a rainy day, in respect to national

resources.

And your bill here on pages 13 and 14 points out that there are deficiencies. It says it right in black and white, that there is a drain on the United States natural resources.

In one clause here we are asking to facilitate the transfer to the United States of materials required by the United States as a result of deficiencies or potential deficiencies in its own resources.

Well, that is all right. That is shifting from one continent to another continent the known resources of the world, but when there is a whole continent, a very little bit smaller than South America, with untapped resources available practically for the asking, for the attention we could put on it, why just concern ourselves with shifting resources, shifting resources from other continents to the United States and back and forth like that, and not developing a new continent? It does not seem too logical.

It seems to me that it is pertinent to this bill to do something like this.

Now, in a sense, that is putting the cart before the horse. Last year before your committee there was introduced a joint resolution, 291, which proposed sovereignty of the United States over certain areas in the Antarctic.

It seems to me that should come first and then this sort of a bill, in order not to be putting the cart before the horse.