392. Memorandum from Joseph S. Toner to Bell, September 201
SUBJECT
- Secretary Freeman’s Proposals on Organization
Although Secretary Freeman’s proposals on administering the agricultural portion of foreign assistance have been broached repeatedly and to a variety of people, the responses recorded in our files appear to have been coordinated and consistent.
[Typeset Page 1629]The subject was first brought up in an exchange between Mr. Labouisse and Mr. Charles S. Murphy, Under Secretary of Agriculture, and although Mr. Labouisse did state ICA’s position on the question of ICA-USDA relationships, the scope of the correspondence was then confined to the Secretary of Agriculture’s testimony on the Hill concerning Title II, PL 480. The conclusions of this correspondence were tentative and phrased in terms of there being no need at that time for USDA to comment on ICA’s specific position, of agreement that the issues had been narrowed, and of Mr. Labouisse’s intention to speak to Messrs. Murphy and Freeman about ICA-USDA relationships as soon as the legislation marathon was over.
Later, in response to Mr. Freeman’s letter of May 12 and his memorandum of May 5 to the President, ICA and Department of State policy was clearly stated in Mr. Bowles’ letter of May 19 to the Secretary of Agriculture. This policy was endorsed by Secretary Rusk in his letter of August 3, and elaborated in a Briefing Memorandum of August 22 for Secretary Rusk’s use in connection with the discussions proposed by Secretary Freeman for a Cabinet luncheon on August 23.
Stanley Andrews has made a number of proposals concerning the new AID program and these have run the gamut from suggestions for a [illegible in the original] the agency and personnel (including himself) to suggestions on actual reorganization. The most important piece done by Mr. Andrews was a nine country report tracing what had happened in the course of ten years to programs initiated under Point IV when Andrews administered the program. This was sent to us by President Hannah of Michigan State University on April 20. [Facsimile Page 2] Mr. Labouisse replied and the report was sent to the Task Force. Earlier, on April 5, Mr. Andrews himself had sent to Mr. Cooley a paper comprising “roughly drafted suggestions of the general structure” of the new agency. Mr. Cooley acknowledged receipt and it was forwarded to the Task Force. So far as I know, no communications have gone to Mr. Andrews from ICA touching on the question of USDA-ICA relationships. I understand that Mr. Andrews has done a paper for the Secretary of Agriculture on this question, but we do not yet have a copy and we were not requested to comment on its preparation.
Mr. James G. Patton, President of the National Farmers Union, wrote to the President on May 26 giving the opinion that Food for Peace should be retained in the White House and not placed under either USDA or AID. A copy of this letter was sent to Mr. Labouisse by Mr. Patton, and on June 1 Mr. Waters replied and cited the President’s statement on Food for Peace contained in his transmittal letter accompanying the AID legislation to the Hill. The President’s transmittal letter stated the relative responsibilities of USDA, AID and Food for Peace for the use of agricultural commodities, etc. as an instrument of devel [Typeset Page 1630] opment assistance. Mr. Waters’ reply simply referred to this statement and voiced agreement on the need to work out day-to-day working arrangements with Food for Peace, with no further mention being made of USDA.
I know of no other correspondence on this subject. All of the above appear consistent in their statement of the AID-State position.
Copies of the most important relevant documents are attached for your reference. We should be glad to send you the complete file if you wish.
- Secretary Freeman’s proposals on administering the agricultural portion of foreign assistance. No classification marking. 3 pp. Washington National Records Center, RG 286, AID Administrator Files; FRC 65 A 481, Agriculture, FY 1962.↩