Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities

53. Minutes of the Meeting of the President’s General Advisory Committee on Foreign Assistance Programs¹

GAC Meeting 6.7

Washington, September 13, 1966, noon.

PRESENT

• The President
• Members of the Committee:
  • Dr. James A. Perkins, Chairman
  • Mr. Dwayne O. Andreas
  • Mr. David E. Bell
  • Mrs. Everett N. Case
  • Dr. Luther H. Foster
  • Gen. Alfred M. Gruenther
  • Dr. J. George Harrar
  • Mr. William R. Hewlett
  • Mr. Sol M. Linowitz
  • Professor Edward S. Mason
  • Mr. David Rockefeller
  • Mr. William J. Zellerbach
• White House Staff:
  • Mr. Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to the President
• A.I.D.:
  • Mr. William S. Gaud
  • Mr. C. Tyler Wood
  • Mr. George P. Scurria

Dr. Perkins said that he wished to make a brief report on behalf of the Committee, and that all of the Members of the Committee were open to any questions which the President might wish to ask. He said that the Committee has been in existence for 18 months, has held six plenary meetings, and that its Members had visited 34 countries in which the U.S. conducts foreign assistance programs. It is the Committee’s judgment that U.S. assistance programs abroad are being conducted with increasing efficiency and know-how and that the momentum for improvement is continuing. Efficiency of operation of the program appears to be at an all-time peak, and there is no present need for major reorganization. However, over the next decade the Committee foresees an increasing modification of the form of U.S. assistance from bilateral to multilateral.

Dr. Perkins then said he would like to make four main points:

1) The general level of U.S. assistance is too low, not drastically low but, nevertheless, lower than the Committee believes appropriate. At the same time, the capacity of the developing countries to use aid wisely is increasing. None of the Members of the Committee believes that the U.S. will be able to dispense with foreign assistance programs in less than a decade, and several Members believe that this requirement will extend to a generation and beyond. A Subcommittee under Dr. Mason is considering this question.

2) The Committee shares with the President his deep concern over the food and population situation in the world. It believes that this subject is increasingly important in the context of American foreign policy. He quoted a phrase, which he attributed to Dr. Mason: “food has become too important to leave to the farmers.”

Dr. Perkins said that the Committee would be submitting to the President in a week or two a report prepared by its Subcommittee on Food and Population, chaired by Mr. Andreas, which would deal with this subject. This report will make three main points:

a) Although the importance of population restraint has been increasingly cited by the Administration, this subject needs to be moved up even higher in the list of priorities. The Committee will urge that the subject of population control in the context of assistance programs be reconsidered, including the present ban on financing by the U.S. of contraceptives and equipment to manufacture contraceptives. The Committee realizes that this question is a delicate one and does not recommend that family planning programs be a condition of U.S. assistance. However, the Committee believes that this subject should be reviewed with the developing countries at the time aid programs are planned and the discussion of it should be treated as a condition;

b) The efficient production of food in the developing countries is of paramount importance. U.S. assistance programs should be geared increasingly towards this goal;

c) Any plans developed for increased agricultural production in the U.S. should take into account the need for shipments of agricultural products to other countries. Accordingly, representatives of the Departments of State and Treasury should be included in decisions concerning authorization for an increase in acreage under production.

3) The Committee believes that elements of the private sector must be increasingly involved in programs which complement the official foreign assistance efforts of the U.S. A Subcommittee, under Mr. Rockefeller, has been studying this problem. It needs to be recognized that public money alone never will be sufficient to help the developing countries to become economically self-sustaining. The Committee has sent to the President, Dr. Perkins said, a suggestion for a Conference at the White House with representatives of the business community, which itself constitutes only a part of the American private sector. This suggestion is somewhere between Mr. Gaud’s and Mr. Rostow’s offices, he said, and he asked the President to consider having such a Conference at sometime convenient to him. The Subcommittee is also concerning itself with other elements of the U.S. private sector, such as universities, cooperatives, labor unions and others.

4) The Committee is greatly concerned about the development of trained manpower to deal with problems of economic development, both in the U.S. and overseas, and believes that the President’s proposed International Education Act of 1966, if enacted, would be a great step toward dealing with this problem. It is understood that this Act is tied up in the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare behind other legislation, but that its passage in this session of Congress is still possible. When and if this Act is approved, it will provide needed support to the universities in the U.S. for training Americans to work on problems in the developing countries. However, the most important aspect of this subject is the development of indigenous manpower and institutions in the developing countries; without this, all aid efforts may well be for naught.

Dr. Perkins noted that, besides those already mentioned, four other Subcommittees have been established: Africa, International Education, Multilateral-Bilateral Aid, and Military Assistance. With reference to the last Subcommittee, he said that the DOD is undertaking an in-depth review of all military assistance programs and that the Committee will attempt to follow this and provide any advice which may seem appropriate.

In closing, Dr. Perkins said he wished to note two other matters which concern the Committee:

1) Foreign assistance has no constituency in the U.S. The Committee intends to work hard, he said, to come up with ideas for informing the American people about the good which foreign assistance programs accomplish. For example, the job which A.I.D. is doing in Vietnam provides a great story, but most Americans are not aware of it.

2) The Committee believes that the accession of Mr. Gaud as Administrator of A.I.D. is an appropriate time to review how it may be most useful to the President and to the Members of his Cabinet. This coincides with what Dr. Perkins called “the end of the beginning” of the Committee’s work and he accordingly urged that its purpose and objectives now be reviewed for any modifications which may be needed.

Dr. Perkins thanked the President for the opportunity to report to him and said the Committee would be pleased to receive any guidance he might wish to give at this time.

The President thanked Dr. Perkins for his report, noting that both he and the nation are indebted to the Committee for the work which its Members are contributing. The subject with which the Committee is concerned is as important as any matter with which the U.S.G. deals. He said that it would be “horrible to think of your disbanding,” adding that if anything, the Committee would be needed more in the days ahead, “if that is possible.”

He said that he and most Americans agree with the challenges their country faces in the world, but there is no clearly identifiable following in the Congress or in the country for the foreign assistance program. The Administration has tried to carry out these programs according to the criteria laid down by the Congress, but there is no agreement in the Congress about these criteria. Many Members of the Congress would like to cut foreign assistance appropriations, while others would like to go along but don’t approve of the methods which are used.

He recalled that soon after he had assumed the Presidency, he had dined at the White House with 39 legislative leaders, all of whom favored multi-year authorization for the foreign aid program. The Administration’s proposal for the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966 included a five-year authorization for the program, but so many Members of the Congress had changed position in the interim that the BILL has been passed by the Congress providing for only a one-year authorization, except for the Alliance for Progress and the Development Loan Fund.² He said that the Committee could perform a valuable service if it could figure out how to persuade the Congress of the benefits of a multi-year program.

He said that the proposal for a multi-year authorization had been made by the Administration despite the opposition of Chairman Morgan of the Foreign Affairs Committee who maintained that the foreign aid bill is the only one which his Committee considers and without it the Committee would have little to do.

In considering the questions of the reasons for foreign aid and the amounts of foreign aid, the opposition in the Congress comes primarily from five men. There are serious problems with the Foreign Relations Committee, he said.

Congressional opposition comes from men who are sincere, but who simply view things through glasses of a different color. The Members of the Committee, who have no axe to grind, are in a position to help change the glasses of these men. He said, for example, that some Members of the Committee might appear on Meet the Press or Face the Nation, or write magazine articles describing the accomplishments of foreign aid.

He said he wished he knew how to find an area of agreement among 50 Members of the Congress, of whom five are key men, to do what is best for the country. There is no trouble about party differences in this connection. He receives the most comfort from the talks he has at the White House from time to time with former President Eisenhower, who is described as his “best Chief of Staff.” There is no indication of party differences between the two of them during these conversations. He said that it is quite necessary to “choose up sides” six weeks before an election and to fight it out, but that after the election, ranks should be closed to go on with the business of the country.

Story about Congressman Passman at the White House.

He said that it is difficult just getting Congress to understand the need for aid programs. How can we make a more effective case with the Congress and the country? The basic weakness of this Government at this time is in communicating to the people.

The President mentioned that he had just left a meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture who showed him a poll of farmers in a mid-western state indicating dissatification with surplus storage charges and low incomes. The facts are, however, that surplus storage charges have been reduced greatly as surpluses have been disposed of and that average annual income per farm in that state has risen from $10,000 to $16,000 in the last ten years. The people really do not understand the “farm picture.”

The President said that he was greatly disturbed about the problem of getting over to the country an education program on what foreign aid is doing. He wished he could gain just 1/100 of 1% of the country’s attention to “something constructive.” Why do only bad things get head-lines? For example, he said, measles historically killed 1/4 of the children in Upper Volta until A.I.D. assisted with a measles eradication program there. As a result of this program, about 750,000 children have been vaccinated, saving perhaps as many as 200,000 lives. He said that he had been told by the President of Upper Volta that, regardless of any ideological differences which may exist between our two countries, the people and especially the women of Upper Volta would never forget the U.S. for what it did through this program.

The President mentioned the problem he faces in cutting the over-all budget. Because so many of the budget items, such as veterans’ payments, social security, and debt service, are inflexible, he has only $30 billion from which to cut $3 billion. Many Members of the Congress think all of this should come from the foreign aid appropriation, which is not of concern to the people in their districts. One item in the budget which is not of concern to such people, but which has been authorized, is $1 billion for food shipments to India to keep people from starving to death. He said that he had been advised by Members of the Congress and by his own advisors not to offer this, but that he believed it was the only right thing to do and wished to have a vote on it in the Congress. When the vote did come, it was passed unanimously by both Houses.

He said that the budget each year includes approximately $60 billion for defense as an insurance policy, but almost nothing to eradicate the causes of worldwide disturbances and threats to peace. He listed the enemies in this regard as disease, ignorance, and poverty. It is necessary to convince the people of America that it is in their interest to invest in Upper Volta, for example.

He urged the Committee to reconsider and make a more effective case for foreign assistance. It is necessary to rethink the reasons for and purposes of aid. “How to sell the product is the basic problem.” He asked the Committee’s advice also on the following three points:

1) How much foreign aid should the U.S. provide?

2) How should those funds be spent?

3) How can the story of foreign aid be conveyed to the people of America?

The President said that the conduct of the business community has been “generally very good” in this field, beginning with the Marshall Plan. However, as foreign aid moved away from individual interests, it lost a lot of its business support, e.g. when it became something more than shipping cotton from the South. He said he wished that he could get the business community to be concerned with “how to help its fellow man” and to “engage in some introspection,” without always asking only “What is in it for me?”

He described aluminum stockpile incident.

He said it is necessary to make business realize that “their profits are only as secure as the world is secure.” He said examples of unrest are caused by civil rights demonstrations in this country, by factionalism in India, and by diseases in many places of the world. It is necessary for teachers, preachers, labor leaders, and businessmen to realize this.

Dr. Perkins remarked that the President would be heartened by the enlightened and long-range views taken by the businessmen on the Committee, and that during the Committee discussions, it was not possible to differentiate between university professors and businessmen. The actions of the Committee disguise the origins of its Members.

The President said that A.I.D. has done a good job with the business community. Business has taken the lead and been progressive, but over-all it is still too self-centered. He said he would like to have businessmen review the files of the Wall Street Journal since its inception, asking themselves, “What has the Wall Street Journal done for its fellow man?”

The President said that he had just awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to the wives of two soldiers killed in Vietnam. He described the heroics of these men, but went on to say that the Members of the Committee were, in some respects, more important even than these men because they are in a position to reach out and influence many other people. He said he believes that foreign aid is as important as the defense or space programs.

He closed by stating his belief that the Committee was as good a group of people as could possibly be assembled and urged them to continue their activities. The President said Mr. Rostow would provide a memorandum outlining some further thoughts he has about the Committee and its functions.

1. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 286, Perkins Committee—President’s General Advisory Committee on Foreign Assistance Programs—C. Tyler Woods Files—CY 66 thru CY 70: FRC 73 A 159, GAC Minutes (5th-8th Meetings). Limited Official Use. No drafting information appears on the source text. The meeting was held at the White House. The source text was attached to two covering memoranda. The first, September 27, from C. Tyler Wood, Gaud’s Special Assistant, in part asks Gaud for permission to send the minutes to Rostow for his review and his advice as to whether they should be distributed to the Committee members. Gaud indicated his approval on September 28 with his handwritten initials. The second covering memorandum, September 30, from C. Tyler Wood to Rostow informs Rostow of Gaud’s approval of the minutes and seeks Rostow’s permission to distribute them to the Committee members.
2. As signed into law, H.R. 15750, P.L. 89–583 (80 Stat. 795), approved on September 16, 1966, authorized an appropriation for the Development Loan Fund of $685 million for fiscal year 1967 and $750 million for each of the fiscal years 1968 and 1969. (80 Stat. 796) The Alliance for Progress was authorized to receive appropriations of $696,500,000 for fiscal 1967 and $750 million for each of the fiscal years 1968 and 1969. (80 Stat. 799)