Mr. LINDER. I do not think the Bank's function is to go out and say, "Don't you need some wheat?" It really ought to be the function of the commodity dealers. If a private company comes to us and says, "We want to sell $50 million worth of wheat to Italy. They normally pay on 90 days. Would you extend a year's credit to them for it?" I would say, "Yes."

Mr. ANDREWS. This is exactly what I was driving at. In fact, if they came in for France or Italy or any other countryMr. LINDER. We would be delighted.

them. We like people who can pay.

We have no prejudice against

Mr. ANDREWs. But you have to admit when we look down this list and we see everything building up except the commodity field, some of those of us who talk with our trade teams who are finding difficulty in marketing wheat in a cash market area because of difficulty of financing would like to see this Bank participate in these loans.

Mr. LINDER. There is no question about that. We would be delighted to do it. If we are prepared to sell wheat to Hungary, surely we would be prepared to sell wheat to Italy. My guess is that the Italians simply figure they are in a good, substantial position, and if they buy that wheat from Cargill they can ship it on an Italian ship or on a French freighter, or something else, which is a lot cheaper. If they buy it through U.S. Government agencies, then they have shipping preference problems.

Mr. ANDREWS. Can the Export-Import Bank loan them the money to buy goods without buying it through the American Government? Mr. LINDER. Yes.

Mr. ANDREWS. So they would not have to ship in American bottoms. Mr. LINDER. Yes, they would.

REQUIREMENT FOR USE OF AMERICAN SHIPS

Mr. ANDREWS. You mean every loan you make for the purchase of any American commodity has to be shipped in American bottoms? Mr. LINDER. Yes. I do not want to overstate the case. The Maritime Commission usually gives an exemption on 50 percent.

Mr. ANDREWS. Which does not amount to anything.

Mr. LINDER. Because still the prices are high. I think the administration has the shipping problem under very serious consideration. I do not know what they will do about it. We probably would not have sold wheat to China which Canada sold to China.

Mr. ANDREWS. But the point still remains that the Bank would be willing to finance

Mr. LINDER. Not only willing but eager and delighted.

Mr. ANDREWS. With the exception of the one gimmick which has not been removed yet, which is the restriction to shipping in American bottoms?

Mr. LINDER. Yes, sir; if the buyers accept that restriction. Mr. ANDREWS. Of course, the buyer is not prepared to accept that restriction because he cannot economically.

Mrs. HANSEN. Almost every industry has the same problem. The lumber industry has been hampered for years by it. We cannot even trade with Puerto Rico because of this.

Mr. ANDREWs. I am aware of this.

You are a hard-nosed banker, or at least you are a darned capable banker or you would not be in this Export-Import Bank. We have a soft spot for the Eximbank in my hometown because Lynn Stambaugh, one of my father's best friends, was on the Board for many years. We appreciate what you are doing. Actually, what you are doing is probably one of the best facets of foreign aid.

But what would you recommend that we could do to pursue this more favorable balance of trade that we are hearing from, this business of stopping our gold outflow? Certainly if we can find new markets for Mrs. Hansen's lumber or new markets for my wheat, we are doing the very things that the administration has laid down as goals for our foreign trade. Yet, we keep running into this solid brick wall of shipping in American bottoms. How do you correlate the two?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Congressman, I think there are considerations which relate to the shipping industry, which relate to our concern that we continue to be a maritime power, that we have certain kinds of labor rates in this country; that there are problems, if we get into a military conflict, for U.S.-flag shipping. All these things go into that consideration.

It is actually an impediment to American exports. I would not for a second say that I know enough about these factors to make a decision to answer your question.

Mr. ANDREWS. Would you perhaps suggest or suspect that there might be some merit, if our maritime industry needs a subsidy, that we subsidize them so we can maintain the fleet of ships necessary in time of war or national emergency, and then go about our business of moving our products because the greater good could be gained from this course than the one we have been following?

Mr. LINDER. Whether greater good, I do not think I can answer. But I would say this is one of the ways in which this problem might well be handled. I am sure this is one of the considerations which is motivating the administration and the Secretary of Commerce, who is very conscious of the need of exports and under whose general jurisdiction the Maritime Commission comes. I am sure it is a matter of concern to the President.

Mr. ANDREWS. Certainly, if the grain does not move, this restriction is no help to the maritime industry because they get no trade; they get no business. We have a dead standoff where nobody benefits.

I appreciate very much your thoughtful presentation this afternoon, Mr. President. I appreciate your answers to these questions which are so vital, I think, not only to our area but the country as a whole. Mr. LINDER. Thank you very much.

(Off the record.)

Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Linder. We appreciate your very fine presentation.

Mr. LINDER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. HANSEN. It was most informative.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1966.

MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WITNESSES

PHILIP B. HEYMANN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE ELMER FALK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REFUGEE AND MIGRATION AFFAIRS

GEORGE L. WARREN, SR., ADVISER, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS

JOHN A. TIERNEY, BUDGET OFFICER, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS

HARRIS COLLINS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET

CLEMENT J. SOBOTKA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REFUGEE AND MIGRATION AFFAIRS

Mr. PASSMAN. The committee will come to order.

The committee will take up this afternoon the budget request for $6,050,000 for migration and refugee assistance activities under the Department of State.

JUSTIFICATION MATERIAL

We shall insert at this point in the record justification pages 1 to 14 inclusive.

(The justifications follow :)

Department of State Migration and Refugee Assistance

Appropriation, 1966_

Estimate, 1967.

Decrease..

$7,946, 000

6, 050, 000 -1, 896, 000

The request for $6,050,000 for fiscal year 1967 is to provide funds for migration and refugee programs authorized under P.L. 87-510, the Migration and Refugee Act of 1962, enacted on June 28, 1962. In accordance with this legislative authority, the fiscal year 1967 funds requested will be utilized for contributions to the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),1 and for assistance to refugees which the President determines to be in the national interest, including refugees from Soviet bloc countries in Europe and from the Near East, Communist China, Tibet, and for the evacuation of Cuban refugees.

The request for 1967 is a reduction of $1,896,000 from the 1966 amount. This reduction reflects a continuing adjustment downward in appropriation amounts for several years. In fiscal year 1963, for example, the appropriation amount was $14,947,000; in fiscal year 1964, $10,550,000; and in fiscal year 1965, $8,200,000. These consistent reductions in Congressional appropriation amounts for migration and refugee assistance have been achieved by prompt program adjustment where pertinent, to changing economic conditions in asylum countries, steady progress toward the solution of some of the refugee problems in certain areas, increased contributions-stimulated and encouraged by U.S. efforts by other governments to migration and refugee activities and close control of migration and refugee expenditures.

The provision of assistance by the United States Government toward the solution of refugee problems is consistent with the basic U.S. political objective of promoting peace. It has long been recognized that refugee problemsvaried, volatile, and arising as they do from political antagonisms, arbitrary action or disregard of human rights-are a locus of controversies and unrest, prejudicial to the maintenance of peace. Most refugee problems cannot be foreseen because they arise suddenly, creating emergency situations. Each developing refugee situation requires analysis to determine whether U.S. interests are involved and what kind of action is necessary to protect these U.S. interests. Some refugee problems may be resolved or alleviated by diplomatic negotiations, by the help of private voluntary relief agencies, by the local government of the asylum country or through the auspices of international organizations. The provision of PL 480 surplus commodities, AID development projects or the utilization of U.S. owned local currency are often helpful. There remain, however, some refugee problems which require direct expenditure of U.S. dollar funds as these problems involve specific U.S. interests and cannot be resolved by other means.

The very nature of refugee problems makes precise and specific forecasts of funding requirements to meet these problems difficult at best. While each of the following migration and refugee program justifications presents sound and realistic estimates of the anticipated funding requirements, rapidly changing 1 Under the authority of Public Law 89-230.