table II that you have, an estimated 1957-58 of 650,000 hundredweight there. That is section 416.

Whether the other domestic donations are increasing a similar percentage we could not say.

Mr. GATHINGS. That is an indication of the shortage of food. And the shortage of income on the part of a great number of the American people.

Mr. MILLER. Certainly, I would say that as that demand increases, rice is available, we will be glad to program it under that section, I mean in the domestic programs.

Mr. KRUEGER. Will you yield?

Mr. GATHINGS. Yes, I yield to you gladly.

Mr. KRUEGER. I have several inquiries from school districts concerning school lunch programs, small districts in my State, and there are many of them, the agency that is distributing the food to the schools will not give rice to them because they must have a certain number of pupils in school before they can release a hundred pound bag of rice.

I have inquired whether rice could not be made available in 50pound bags, so that these smaller school districts could be satisfied. Mr. MILLER. If that becomes a problem, certainly, we could look into it, we do not want to deny them because of the quantity, I think we could very well look into it.

Mr. KRUEGER. I want to sell more rice in North Dakota, for instance. Mr. THOMPSON. We want to cooperate with you.

Mr. MILLER. Let us take that under advisement and see what can be done about that. That is a packaging problem that we are faced with.

Mr. THOMPSON. When you reply, will you reply direct to Mr. || Krueger and let me have a copy of it?

Mr. MILLER. All right, sir. I do not want to answer for the Agricultural Marketing Service, certainly. We want to help. To me it is a problem that can be well looked into. We will bring it to their attention and have an answer to it.

Mr. KRUEGER. I have written to the superintendent of public instruction of my State, and the agency or the setup that distributes the rice tells me that they are not allowed to distribute rice in smaller units because it would be too much. They might waste it.

Mr. THOMPSON. It is subject to weevils and so forth, and other things. It is understandable.

I would think that could step up the outlet.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, referring to Congressman Gathing's inquiry about the report on his bill, I had a call last week from some gentleman-I have forgotten his name-over in GSA who stated that one of their problems in utilizing additional quantities of rice would be that they would have to obtain it in less than carload lots. He also stated that the attorney general's office had advised him that they had not been able to use or obtain any rice under section 210 of the act of 1956, because they would have to take it in carload lots and they could not handle it in that manner.

Mr. THOMPSON. That should be explored.
Mr. GATHINGS. It should be.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The GSA has certain hospitals under its jurisdiction, and I believe all the Federal penal and correctional institutions come under the jurisdiction of the attorney general. Both would have the same problem on distribution. They could not use a whole carload lot at a time, but could use a substantial amount of additional rice if permitted to obtain it in less than carload lots.

Mr. MILLER. It is a question of which agency will break it down. A lot of these governmental agencies can accept it in carload lots and others cannot.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. They should be able to ship a carload to a certain point and there break it down and distribute it in less than carload lots. Mr. MILLER. Going back to the question that Congressman Krueger has, it seems to me we could in turn package or break down to these domestic donation programs in less than these hundred pound containers.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I believe there is a provision in the act of 1954 which would permit us to do this.

Mr. MILLER. I think so.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It would cost the recipient only the cost of packaging. I believe this is in that provision.

Mr. THOMPSON. In this particular instance, I do not see any conflict of interest between wheat and rice, none whatever, because in this country, one is not a substitute for the other. I think we have perhaps a good market for it.

Mr. GATHINGS. I was impressed with the query coming from our colleague from North Dakota, and delighted to know that you are interested in rice in North Dakota. And I would like to ask the Department officials, or anyone of you whether or not there is a larger consumption in any particular part of the country. Do we eat more rice in the Southland, do they eat more rice in California, where rice is produced, or in Texas, or Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi?

I just wondered whether or not there is any difference between consumption of rice in that part of the country where it is produced as against North Dakota, the Midwest, or the northeast or the northwest part of the country?

Mr. THOMPSON. Let me provide the opening remarks here. Where they eat rice at all they eat a lot of it. They either like it very much or they do not know about it. Once they learn about it, they eat it.

Mr. GATHINGS. That is correct. I agree. Here is what I want to know. These gentlemen I expect could enlighten us with respect to the school-lunch program. And we are looking to young Americans to eat this wholesome food and enjoy it, and as they go along through the years they will eat more of it, and their children and their children's children would eat more rice.

I wonder if you do have any information along that line with respect to the school-lunch program, and how it is being received?

Mr. ELLIS. I do not have any information as to the per capita use of rice in the school-lunch program. I am sure it is somewhat similar to the overall per capita consumption because where you have somebody preparing the meals using rice they are going to be more apt to ask for it than where they are not using it.

Of course, the consumption of rice does vary very materially in different parts of the United States. In Louisiana, and South Caro

would cost considerable capitalization, that you would have to increase the capital in order to operate in that field?

Mr. SMITH. For a few months we did advance loans in the Mississippi and Arkansas and Missouri delta areas for the refinancing of secured debts only. We advanced funds for the paying of other creditors up to the value of the farm machinery. He had to release his lien and we took a first mortgage on the farm machinery. And then we would advance him funds for the production of the crop. But our loan was a fully secured loan.

Mr. GATHINGS. I am glad to get that information in the record.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions? Are there any further comments? If not, we are very much obliged to you gentlemen for spending so much time with us and giving us so much help. We appreciate it. The committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon at 12: 45 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.)

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 20 AND APRIL 29, 1958

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

Serial WW

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1958

The other gentleman will remain, will you not. I think it would be well if you did.

STATEMENT OF C. W. NICHOLS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES, ACCOMPANIED BY T. C. M. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT CHIEF, COMMODITY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. NICHOLS. I am C. W. Nichols, with the Department of State, and my associate Mr. Tom Robinson is also with the Department. I realize that your time is becoming short.

We were told that the committee would be interested in the following things, the policies or the attitudes of the Department concerning exports of rice, the problems in relation to other countries that might be generated by special export programs, and the dangers and the difficulties in these special programs, particularly Public Law 480 from the point of view of the Department of State.

These are somewhat general. And in view of the limited time. if I may, I would like to just comment very briefly and very gener ally, and then we could, perhaps, move to something more specific. The Department's interest in the matter, of course, is a derived interest. In trying to carry out international relations in a way that will serve broad objectives we do become involved in trade problems and in trade problems of particular commodities, but the Department does not have any policies of its own as to any one commodity. We try to arrange trade opportunities, in particular commodity situations in such a way that the derived benefits for the United States minimize foreign friction, but it is not our original objective to discriminate in any way as between commodities.

Let us say, basically, the Department's attitude toward international trade is one of encouraging so far as possible trade on a private basis, multilateral trade with a minimum of discrimination between countries, or governmental regulations.

For many years there have been severe limitations on the extent to which trade can be conducted in that form. These remain in varying degrees.

We are working on some emergency assistance programs, some charitable donations, the mutual security program, and in particular the Department is taking an active part in the administration of Public Law 480 in the development of the negotiated proposals and in the conduct of the negotiations with other governments, later in this scheduling sometimes of the commodities and the use of the funds. We recognize that the primary purpose of Public Law 480 has been to dispose of surpluses already generated, but we have, also, recognized an opportunity here to supplement levels with consumption to add something to the trade which would have occurred wholly commercially. We have attempted within the terms of the law to assure that these concessional types of programs on noncommercial trade do not damage or do only minimum damage to the basic possibilities of expanding trade on commercial terms.

We have felt that there are some dangers in certain parts of the world of countries becoming too dependent upon such a large fraction of their food supplies coming to them without commercial payment,