So we have our struggle within our own Government under all administrations to maintain a proper place for American agriculture and the governmental determinations in our overall policy.

So we would be glad to have you go into this matter rather thoroughly, Mr. Ioanes. I want to find out just how this thing works before we get through. I am going to call on Mr. LeRoux later to tell his side.

Mr. IOANES. Fine. Let me comment first, Mr. Chairman, on this question of the Assistant Secretary in the international area.

It seems to me that one of the important factors in it is the recognition that the foreign trade of the United States, whether it comes into the country or goes out, is a major matter of concern, of interest to the Department and to American agriculture.

Specifically when we go into negotiations in Geneva, it is awfully good for us to have an Assistant Secretary present at those negotiations to show that American agriculture has a senior official available and interested in the subject. It is also important when we meet at the round table in interdepartmental discussions in this city that we be able to have a man there who ranks with the officials of other departments, all of whom have Assistant Secretaries for international matters.

It seems to me this move corrects that deficiency and certainly as far as we are concerned it ought to help us get our job done in a more effective way and we certainly welcome that.

Now, with respect to our agency and what it does and how it has grown, I have been in it now about 8 or 9 years and I recall that the principal job we had at that time, 8 or 9 years ago, was that of reporting. Essentially at that time our job was to report the facts and the forecasts on what was going on abroad with respect to the agriculture of the other countries. Not entirely, but that was the essential job.

Since that time a number of large new activities have been taken on. One of those is the market development program which has grown from a small program, involving a few thousand dollars a year, to one that involves a large sum of money every year. And I am not going into detail about what we think we have accomplished with this program but it is impossible to take on a large new activity without building staff to manage it.

REPRESENTATION IN NEW COUNTRIES

Secondly, we have become interested in new countries of the world. As we have gotten new lineups in the world, we have found it necessary to staff some of those areas with attachés, in some cases, and assistants in others, to improve our coverage abroad. And I would be less than frank to tell you that we have completed this process. We have not. There are many areas of the world, and if you will permit me to, I would like to show you map to indicate the coverage that we now have and the gaps that exist in our coverage and the part of the world. that isn't covered at all.

There are a number of places in the world today which are important from the standpoint of competition or are important with respect to export market opportunities which we do not cover

properly. Let me show you the northern African area for the moment-Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. This is an area in the world which exports grain, which on occasion exports oils, which on occasion exports fruit products, but in total it gives us a great deal of competition.

We have one man stationed at Rabat and we try to get him to cover that whole area. We know that it would improve our own position in world affairs, particularly in our own export markets, if we knew more of what was going on in those countries. This illustrates the side of the coin that we call competition, knowing what the opposition is doing, knowing what your competitors are doing.

Then, going to the top of the map, you notice we don't have coverage in Norway. We handle Norway by an occasional visit from the attaché in Denmark. As I recall, Norway is now a market for us to the extent of about $30 million a year and we think that the market could be expanded. We think it is a mistake that we don't have a man in that country.

Another factor I would like to mention is that certain brandnew functions have been transferred to the agency in the last 2 years. These include the sales manager. These include the barter activity. So you have an apparent increase in the agency which reflects a transfer into it of additional functions.

I would take it you would hear this rationalization from any witness who would come from an agency concerned with international trade. We must deal with newer and changing situations, it seems to me, to a greater extent each year than the year before. I showed you the large land map area in Africa. In days past in order to deal with those countries we went to London or Paris or Brussels. We have had changes within 12 to 24 months where new seats of governments are established for 25 or 30 countries, and whereas all information came from 3 particular capitals in the past, we must now develop data, we must develop relationships with 25 or 30 new capital areas.

We have had this tremendous multiplication of new countries in the world where the foreign relations are handled by the countries themselves instead of by the European powers.

We have a particular interest in that part of the world. One of the big areas that we cover with one man out of Léopoldville is a major exporter of tropical products, oils, and oilseeds and cotton. It is an area, as I recall, about half the size of the United States.

Our man does the best job that he can to cover what is happening to their crops, whether disturbances are going to permit the commodity to come out into world markets or not, but as we move ahead, we would like very much to have an assistant who could share some of the traveling with him.

REGIONALISM

The final factor I would like to mention is that we face also a new dimension in world trade affairs which is regionalism. It is one thing to deal with the Germans on poultry and bring all your pressure to bear on the Germans as an individual sovereign nation. It is another matter to deal with an entity of nations grouped together as

the Common Market where we have to convince all the nations that our trade interest must be protected.

This means that we not only cover each of the six countries, we also cover them as a single geographical unit, and it is not ending with the Common Market. We have a Central America free trade area that is an active going organization. We have a Latin American free trade organization that is not yet a going organization.

In conclusion I would say that the multiplication of governmental units that we have to deal with is reflected not only in our budget for the last few years but in the budget proposal that we make to you for 1964.

Mr. Chairman, on this point the total number, of filled full-time permanent positions, in our organization on June 30 of each year since 1956 in Washington and in foreign countries was 643 in 1956; 720, a big jump, in 1957, then in the next years, 713, 778, 802, 803, 825, and on January 31, 1963, 869.

Mr. WHITTEN. We have it elsewhere in the record, but I think it would be well here for you to trace for each of those years our exports of agricultural commodities with the difference between those for cash and those under Public Law 480 or various other programs. Mr. IOANES. All right.

(The information requested follows:)

U.S. agricultural exports: Under Government programs, outside Government programs, and total agricultural exports, value, year ending June 30, 1956–62 [In millions of dollars]

1 Sales for foreign currency, barter, donations, and a total of $20 million worth of long-term dollar credit sales in 1962.

Exports outside Government programs (commercial sales for dollars).

USDA PARTICIPATION IN FOREIGN POLICY DETERMINATION

Mr. WHITTEN. Now, let me ask you again, and I know that every government has to have a foreign policy. I recognize that ours is no exception. I recognize further that any State Department of necessity hears the complaints of recipient countries of our trade, but they hear ten times as much complaint from our competitors as anyone else because that is natural in the order of things.

I realize that that being true, and this comes from my own experience here, they frequently are trying to find a way to stay comfortable and keep the peoples of the world happy, and it makes it necessary, then, that American interests with which they may not be fully familiar must be kept uppermost in their minds.

Now, could you briefly describe for us how these matters are dealt with as between our State Department and the Department of Agriculture and then within the Department of Agriculture? With re

gard to the Common Market countries, I say again that we had a whole lot to do with promoting it. But after it became an established fact or at least became apparent that it likely would be, what occurred within our own Government so far as preparations and clearances and agreements as to how we would proceed and all that as between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of State and all the rest? I am sure you have been in on the ground floor to the point where you could describe for the committee just how these things did work in that actual occurrence.

COMMON MARKET

Mr. IOANES. We first became active participants in projecting the U.S. position with respect to our trade in about 1958, well before we could prove that we were being damaged. At that time in our discussions within the Government we were theorizing. We were saying that the system we were hearing about was a system that could cause us problems. There were visits to Europe at that time by people from the Department of Agriculture and speeches were made on the subject.

Going into this period of 1958 to 1960, we had two kinds of things happening with respect to the Department's activities. We had first the reports that come from people like our tobacco specialists or our wheat specialists or fats and oil specialists who were going to Europe and putting out published reports saying we were concerned about what might happen, and we had the second kind of thing where official statements or speeches were made by departmental officials on the same subject.

Then we came to the actual period, Mr. Chairman, of the negotiations with the Common Market, the period when we visited the Common Market in company with the State Department. I was a member of a mission on a number of occasions that did this. And I must say that on the mission, again before the market was formed in its agrí cultural phases, we had very good support from a number of people in the State Department in saying, "The system you are proposing could hurt us very badly."

I remember one mission in particular where we went in company with other exporting nations and visited all the Common Market countries for a 6-week period and I can say that the support we had from ambassadors and from our State Department at that time was very good. Then we came down to the time they actually put the system in effect. I think the right things were said. I think the right things were said officially. There is no question that the Europeans fully understood that the Common Market was a device which the United States had supported as a political being, that perhaps because we were so interested in having a Common Market formed that maybe they didn't believe what we were saying.

TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS

The major reason why the tariff negotiations which began in the fall of 1960 lasted for 18 months, was a strong difference of opinion with respect to agriculture between us and the Common Market. The Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Freeman, is the man within the U.S.

Government who kept that negotiation from closing earlier, and I think he is the man who deserves credit for focusing attention on this problem today. The Europeans I think are understanding better and better every day that the rules have to be the same for both sides, that we can't have a new negotiation where agriculture doesn't get the same kind of treatment as the rest of the trade package. I think we can say that if agriculture isn't included in the next tariff negotiations in an effective way, there won't be any negotiations. Mr. Renne has spent at least half his time since he has been here in developing this policy.

Does this come close to what you had in mind?

Mr. WHITTEN. It does. Mr. Ioanes, we want this information, because we are dealing with "a place in the sun" for your agency. We want to know the facts.

Mr. IOANES. I appreciate that. What I am really trying to say in summary, if there is one place in the Government that from day to day worries about this problem and tries to see that the problem gets attention in the framework of everything the U.S. Government is doing, it is this part of the Department of Agriculture. This is true, whether it is the Common Market, or whether it is exports to other areas or whether it is imports, but in particular with respect to the Common Market I think all of us who have worked on the Common Market have a great deal of personal satisfaction in believing that we have helped obtain a better understanding of the situation through our work.

Mr. WHITTEN. I appreciate your statement, much of which we have some ideas about.

WORK OF THE AGRICULTURAL ATTACHÉ

Now, turning briefly to this, just how does an agricultural attaché operate? I recently saw your agricultural attaché, Mr. Wenmohs, who was transferring from Nigeria to Hong Kong. We are familiar with the situation heretofore in Paris which was kind of a central point for most of Europe, by virtue of its geographic location. Could you describe for us for the record Mr. Wenmohs' operations in Nigeria? We hold him in high regard, knowing him personnally. What would be his job that he has been doing for 2 years in Nigeria? By that I am trying to point to a single post dealing with a single operation. Then if you would tell us what the job of a man in Paris prior to the Common Market was, what his work would be, that we might better understand. I would guess that Mr. Wenmohs' position in Hong Kong will come nearer what the Paris attaché would be doing. I am asking you to show us how they would handle that job at a location of that type.

Mr. IOANES. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

The job in Lagos, Nigeria, would have one major essential component. It happens that Nigeria is a major agricultural country and a major exporter of two items very important to American agriculture. One is cotton and one is oilseeds, mainly peanuts. It is an area where statistics-where the modern marketing system, where the means of communication and reporting we have in other parts of the world, are lacking. This is because in former years you went someplace else to conduct your business with the country. It is opening