Mr. ANDERSEN. I am glad to hear you say that. I am referring to the fact that you have an agricultural man as your liaison man.

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you. I have felt that when you go out and talk to a man-if you can talk to him on the highest level in the field you can do a lot more with the Embassy than to send a field man who is a third party. So, at least for this year we are sending top members of our staff on these field trips. If we get the money for another year we may change that.

We have followed the policy of sending men like Mr. Rossiter, my Associate Director, out on these field inspection trips. He visited personally and stayed from 1 to 3 days in 15 countries and talked to the Embassy staff and the Ambassador; and often the Ambassador does not know too much of what goes on. Often the administrative men-who service the agricultural fellows out there-do not fully appreciate the attachés' needs. Many times you have to do a little hammering to get his assistance and it often requires some effort to get adequate office quarters for the agriculture officer. Mr. Becker. who is chief of our Commodities Branch and primarily responsible for all this reporting has just been to South America. He visited nine countries and went into the details of what we want of the agricultural men out there.

I have been in the Far East on Army expense but I did spend some time on this work. I did this job of inspection and we are going to do more of it.

Maybe we should be criticized for still sending our top men out instead of a liaison man; but I feel that the people in this office have got to know something about conditions in the field and, at least for this year, I would like to go on the policy, or the theory, that we will not put on a field man.

Mr. WHITTEN. Have you had reason to believe from the reports from the folks at the top level that the man in the field is not doing any good for agriculture, because he is a State Department man? We felt the whole program was not doing what it should in this connection.

Mr. ANDREWS. We appreciate that, sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. You folks in the job are the folks whom we must look to to find out. At this point we will not belabor the hearing. I would like to have a report from Mr. Rossiter, to know what he has found out. Mr. ANDREWs. That is very good.

Mr. WHITTEN. I would like for you to give us a detailed report on this situation and you do not have to hold back your punches. This criticism is not especially directed to the Secretary of State or the State Department, but to the law and the system. So I hope you will not hold back your punches.

Mr. ANDREWS. We will be delighted to supply the report. (The information requested is as follows:)

REPORT OF FIELD INSPECTION TRIP TO EUROPE, BY FRED J. ROSSITER, ASSOCIATE

DIRECTOR

The first inspection trip authorized under the 1950 appropriations was taken to Europe where we have the greatest concentration of agricultural officers in the Foreign Service. The Embassies and legations visited on this trip, where we have agricultural officers stationed, are as follows: London, Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, The Hague, Brussels, Paris, Frankfort, Vienna, Prague, Belgrade,

and Madrid. On the average, about 3 days were spent per post. The trip was taken during the last half of September and the month of October 1949.

Upon arriving at each capital, I was generally met by the agricultural attaché. Upon my arrival at the Embassy arrangements were made for me to call on the Ambassador or the executive officer in charge to report the purpose of my mission.

The inspection consisted of looking over the agricultural attaché's office lay-out, checking the work performed and the status of neglected reports, as well as interviewing his staff. Visits were made with other economic officers and supervisors to compare their respective lay-outs with the agricultural officer. Generally, at least a half day was allotted to go into the country with the attaché, to observe the local agricultural situation. Frequently local agricultural officers or trade contacts were interviewed, in order to evaluate the type of available information. Before leaving the post, a summary of my recommendations was verbally reported and discussed with the Ambassador or the supervising officer and with the agricultural attaché. Everywhere, the reception received from the chief of the mission or the executive officer was excellent, and the recommendations made at the time of my departure were in most cases cordially received. At one post the executive offi er did not accept my recommendation very kindly. Later I learned, however, that he endeavored to carry it out.

At only one Embassy did I find that the agricultural attaché's set-up measured up to all the standards deemed appropriate to fulfill the requirements for American agriculture. The standards consisted of sufficient local staff, appropriate office space, and suitable working arrangements. In other words, at this one Embassy, no recommendations were deemed necessary to improve the agricultural attaché's set-up in the Embassy or the work of the agricultural officer. At several posts the office space and adequate facilities were available, but the most common deficiency was the lack of a competent local assistant. It was our conviction that a properly trained local employee to gather and tabulate data and perform many minor tasks would greatly relieve the agricultural officer of many details. At six Embassies, a recommendation was made that the agricultural officer should have a trained local assistant. Information has been received from some posts that steps have already been taken to carry out this recommendation.

At three posts, the agricultural attaché's office quarters were considered inadequate or unsatisfactory. At another post the office allocated to the agricultural officer was not comparable with that of other economic officers of equal rank. At still another post, sufficient space was not allotted to the agricultural attaché's staff. In each Embassy, these conditions were brought to the attention of a supervising officer. I believe, over a period of time, some of these situations will be improved. In some Embassies the agricultural officer's rank was below that of the other economic officers.

At one post the agricultural officer had adequate office space, a capable local assistant, but was permitted to travel to the country only on rare occasions. This was taken up with the supervising officer and was corrected on the spot.

The authorization and funds for this field-inspection work, from my limited personal experience, I believe is very essential for improving the agricultural representation abroad. Responses from the men whom I visited were that the short time spent with them was worth a trip to Washington. It tremendously helped the prestige of our men in their respective Embassies. Their superior officers recognized the fact that the Department of Agriculture was interested in them and their work.

As I see it, the principal benefits from this field inspection are: First, it impresses upon the Ambassadors and executive officers in the various Embassies the importance of agricultural representation. Most chiefs of missions are not too familiar with American agriculture. Having someone from home bring our needs to the attention of these people should pay dividends. The second benefit is the lift that it gives our men. The value of having someone from Washington come around to see where they work, and what they have to work with, really inspires our representatives. The third benefit is the opportunity afforded to recommend to the chief of the mission the place an agricultural officer should have in the respective Embassy. Fourth, it helps the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations administrative officers keep in close touch with the field work. Lastly, it affords an opportunity to make recommendations to the agricultural attaché on how he may improve his work.

STATEMENT ON THE AGRICULTURAL WORK AT THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN NINE LATIN-AMERICAN COUNTRIES IN 1949-50

A representative of the office visited the Embassies in Central America except Honduras, and in the four northwestern South American countries (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru). He also visited the consulate at Colón, Republic of Panama, and the consulate general at Guayaquil, Ecuador. All of these conutries grow and ship complementary crops to the United States, and all of the are deficit producers and, therefore, potential markets for temperatezone agricultural products produced in the United States. Agricultural research and education are not well advanced in these countries; and agricultural services, such as the preparation of statistics of production and marketing, the inspection of products, and disease control, are only in their initial stages of development. Government officials, students, and producers' representatives are eager to learn of methods used abroad that might be adapted to advantage in order to increase the output of complementary crops and to provide more adequate supplies of food products for the people.

These objectives are praiseworthy; they strike a responsive note with the people of the United States, and it is the United States Government's policy to work with these countries toward these goals. The agricultural representation consequently requires technicians equipped to perform two categories of tasks: (1) to report upon agricultural production and the market outlook for food importation, and (2) to advise and assist the responsible agricultural officials of these countries in connection with their technical problems. The degree to which this representation is provided varies greatly by country; in no country is it adequate. The reporting work is provided almost entirely by agricultural attachés and other Foreign Service officers attached directly to the Embassies. The work of technical asistance is provided in part by technicians of the Office from funds provided under the work of the Committee on Scientific and cultural Cooperation and in part by technicians of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs, The agricultural reporting work, to a greater degree than in areas like Europe, requires individuals who are equipped not only to gather information from diverse sources, appraise it, and arrive at definite conclusions with respect to production and market outlook, but also to advise the country officials in this field. To perform this task in these 10 countries (including Honduras), there are three agricultural attachés assigned to one country each (Venezuela, Colombia, and Peru), two agricultural attachés assigned to three countries each (Central America), one consular attaché (Ecuador), and a number of nonagricultural consuls and alien employees. Only three of this entire group can be classed as well-trained and well-informed agriculturalists, and only two have had sufficient experiences in the field of statistics gathering to advise the country officials in that field.

In the actual work of gathering factual information on agricultural subjects, nevertheless, a commendable job is being done with the personnel assigned to the task. The analytical work of participating trends of future production generally is weak. The appraisal of market outlets for United States agricultural products receives too little attention at some posts, in some practically none. At most posts facilities for travel and personal observation are strictly limited for various reasons-lack of highways in some cases, lack of funds, lack of Government-owned and assigned automobiles, and inadequate allowances for the use of personally owned vehicles. There is uncertainty as to responsibilities and authority where an agricultural attaché is assigned to more than one post. At some posts adequate stenographic help is available; at others not. This lack in some cases is not restricted to the agricultural section, but is general at the post. Native or alien clerical assistance is also lacking at some posts. Without exception, junior officers to help the attaché and learn the job are missing. This is a serious matter looking to the future. Generally the agricultural attaché has not budget for travel and other expenses; he must request allotments on an ad hoc basis, making it difficult at times to plan his work.

It should be said that the Ambassadors generally are well aware of the importance of agricultural work of the Embassy. This is true also of the ranking officers of the posts. In general also, the working relations with the general staff of the posts are pleasant and cooperative. At some posts it appears that the assignment of personnel to the agricultural section is disproportionally small in the light of the importance of agriculture in the economy of the country. This is most marked at the posts where the agricultural attaché's time is heavily drawn upon in advising and consulting with country technicians on their problems.

Positive programs of technical assistance are carried on in a substantial manner in 4 of the 10 countries and in a limited manner in 3 others. These programs are well received and productive of results as well as good will. They appear to be conducted on a more modest scale than the work of the institute. While the two agencies work in parallel and in some cases identical fields, they do not overlap as to area and subject matter in any instances in these countries. The combined number of technicians is small in relation to the job to be done.

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM IN JAPAN

Mr. KRUSE. Mr. Andrews, I pretty well agree with what you said a minute ago. I would like to know how active your Office was in effecting the agricultural program in Japan, the program under way now. Mr. ANDREWs. All we have done on that has been in the role of helper. It is a military responsibility over there, and the way the program operates they get personnel from everywhere. They, of course, run the show. It is just like ECA, which runs its own show.

It just happens that much of the program has been worked out with OFAR in cooperation with people in the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Ladejinsky on our staff is given credit by MacArthur for the landreform law in Japan, and this has broken up the landlord-tenant system in that part of the world. MacArthur says Ladejinsky is the father of that.

Mr. KRUSE. It is a good program.

Mr. ANDREWS. And I have been out to Japan. Japan has done one of the most remarkable jobs of producing food on that small area of land for 80,000,000 people-more progress than any other country I know of.

Mr. KRUSE. They produce 85 percent of their own needs.

Mr. ANDREWS. But I do not think it is possible to continue that as the years go on. All we can do is bask in the reflected glory of the Army with that. We recruit people for them, but we do not claim credit for that. We merely helped out.

AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Andrews, what authority does your division have in restricting imports into this country on agricultural products? Mr. ANDREWs. We have none under the law. That comes under the authority of PMA, the Tariff Commission, and the President. Our authority is strictly a staff function. All we can do is to try to find out the facts and supply PMA and the Secretary with the information on which they can act.

Mr. ANDERSEN. All you can do is to recommend as far as the effect of competing imports is concerned. I have been very much disturbed, Mr. Andrews, that a situation which will permit millions of bushels of barley to come into this country exists, when we are trying to support the price of barley domestically. The same thing applies to oats. I have also heard the reports of huge quantities of eggs coming in from China at times when we are having difficulty in holding up the price of our domestic products.

Mr. ANDREWS. All we can do is to present the facts. We must say that these things involve very high Government policy and broad directives from the President and the State Department down. Commodities of that kind are tied up with the policy toward Canada; and,

while we have battled things up to the President, we don't always win. But we have done the best we could. We have to do as good job as we can, but we have not done as good a job as we should. But there are limitations on what one little office can do.

The only thing I want to say if we are about to end the hearings is, Don't, for goodness sake, cut the appropriation below what the Budget Bureau has given us.

Mr. HORAN. I think Congress is showing the awareness of the difficulties of all foreign trade particularly as it affects American agriculture. It is interesting to note that a special ECA study group found that out of 265 items which the United States charged import duties in excess of 25 percent, only 2 were agricultural. Agriculture seems justified in going to court some place to plead for a little fairness in this whole field.

Mr. ANDREWS. That is right and what I am about to say here is to some extent a little misleading. Some astute statistician can probably trip me up on it, but I have here some charts which show the value of United States agricultural exports and imports. This line here [indicating] is domestic agricultural imports. And what I am trying to show is that so far as agriculture is concerned, we are not far out of balance. I think agriculture is doing its share in absorbing products from other parts of the world in the interest of international trade. Our lack of balance in foreign trade comes as a result of excess exports of industrial goods.

Mr. HORAN. That might trip you up, you say? I had occasion to look into the situation in Mexico. We are about balancing our trade in crossing the line on that chart. We import 80 percent of what we export. Most of the agricultural commodities which obviously were imports are really not raw materials.

Mr. ANDREWS. They are such things as coffee, winter vegetables, lumber, and vanilla beans.

Mr. HORAN. And our import trade with Mexico is raw materials. Mr. ANDREWS. That is right.

Mr. HORAN. I am very happy with the attitude of this subcommittee during the years. I am also especially delighted that Mr. Cooley's committee on agricultural legislation is looking into the whole field of OFAR work. There is a difficulty in our foreign relationships, especially with those in that field that they almost take the attitude the English take where you look down on anyone "in trade." Such a man was unclean. Foreign diplomats do not want to talk about anything as dirty as business yet that is where they get their support. I believe the sharp, keen edge of the agricultural attachés has been blunted by making them look for promotion, not to the fields of specialization, but in the direction of becoming a counselor or minister.

Mr. ANDREWS. There is one thing I would like to point out. Under the present arrangement an agricultural attaché's primary responsibility is reporting to the Government on conditions.

Mr. HORAN. When you say "Government" you mean to whom? Mr. ANDREWS. To the State Department.

Mr. HORAN. Wouldn't it be a lot better for the American farmers if he reported to the Secretary of Agriculture?

Mr. ANDREWS. Maybe I should not say it, but that is what I think. Mr. HORAN. Do the military attachés report to the State Department?