73. Letter From the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Kalijarvi) to the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Economic Policy (Randall)1
Dear Clarence: Reference is made to the conclusion reached in the CFEP meeting of November 20 that an extension of Public Law 480 should be recommended, with certain revisions.
Time was not available in that meeting to consider several recommendations for legislative revision which the Department of State was prepared to submit to the Council. In view of the Department’s interest in this matter, it would be appreciated if the following suggestions could be considered in the detailed development of the legislative program.
We suggest adoption of the recommendation by Mr. Hall in favor of an amendment to restrict sales under Title I to commodities owned by the Government or for which the Government is committed as a result of price support programs, in amounts exceeding a reasonable carry-over. Our experience to date indicates that this would be more effective than handling the problem by administrative action.
In order to provide stronger statutory safeguards against displacement of commercial trade, the Department recommends that Section 101(a) be amended by including the underlined inserts, as follows: [Page 208]
“(a) take reasonable precautions to safeguard usual marketings of the United States and those of friendly third countries and to assure that sales under this Act will result in increased consumption and will not unduly disrupt world prices of agricultural commodities.”
The Department also wishes to recommend that the Act be amended to provide a new subsection under Section 104, as follows:
“104(k) for financing programs of the international exchange of persons activities under the programs authorized by Section 201 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1446).”
In connection with the deletion of Section 304, which was favored in the CFEP meeting of November 20, the Department believes that authorization for barter is not needed in P.L. 480 and would preferably be omitted in any extension of this legislation.
We believe that these revisions would increase the constructive possibilities of the legislation and further strengthen the safeguards against dangers which were noted during the discussion by the Council. We will be glad to discuss the proposals with interested agencies and look forward to assisting in every way we can in the further preparation for action by Congress.
In view of the decision to recommend an extension of Title I operations, the Department suggests that the possibility of making this Title applicable to Bloc countries be examined as part of the proposed review in the near future of sales policies and related legislation bearing on the question of trade with the Bloc.
Copies of this letter are being sent to Messrs. Brundage, Francis, and Butz.
Sincerely yours,