Office of the Historian

75. Letter From the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Economic Policy (Randall) to the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Kalijarvi)1

Washington, November 27, 1956.

Dear Kal: May I make this suggestion by way of reply to your letter of November 23 on the subject of Public Law 480? As soon as it can be done after our return from the Pacific, I shall call another meeting of the CFEP to consider questions having to do with the administration of this law, as distinguished from the law itself.

At that time, I shall be very glad to afford you an opportunity to present to the Council itself any proposals that you may wish for [Page 212] amendments to the law, even though some of them may require reconsideration of the formal actions taken on November 20.

Personally, I feel that it would be inappropriate for the Administration to suggest amendments.

This is a bad law. We all know it. We are therefore struggling to meet the practical situation without perpetuating a law which we wish circumstances did not require.

I hope the Administration will make it clear that it believes the law to be bad and, therefore, one to be extended for the minimum term.

For the Administration itself to suggest amendments does two things which I believe to be undesirable: (a) it takes the edge off our criticism of the law and suggests that we ourselves are trying to shape it towards permanency; (b) it invites Congress to make amendments, and we would get them by the bushel. We would have amendments to the amendments.

I hope you will find this procedure satisfactory.2

Sincerely yours,

CBR
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 411.0041/11–2756.↩
  2. In a letter to Randall, December 1, Kalijarvi replied that the Department of State continued to believe that adoption of the proposals in his letter of November 23 would not require reconsideration of the actions taken in the Council meeting on November 20. He added that some of the Department’s objectives could be partially achieved by administrative arrangements without actual revision of the P.L. 480 legislation. (Ibid.)↩