網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

ment is causing people to compete with us and to compete with us so unfairly? If the Government will give our soybean farmers the same loan rates as these international banks offer to foreign countries, at least that would be a step in the right direction but they don't even have that.

I submit that something has to be done to rectify the situation so that our soybean farmers are not in the position of competing with their government or competing unfairly with foreign producers of palm oil, which is a situation made possible by these international

loans.

I heard the testimony earlier, and I agree that we don't control these banks but I am wondering also whether we have taken proper steps to stop these practices and exert what influence we can, Mr. Chairman, to cease these loans. I think, at least, that is in order.

Let me in conclusion simply state that the soybean situation is most important to our economy. If you look at how many acres of land are in production in soybeans and how many people are employed and what it does for our balance of trade and what it does to our overall food production, I think you will agree we must not allow the situation to continue and something must be done to rectify it, Mr. Chairman, to bring it into balance.

And with that I defer to the two gentlemen, for which I have great respect, who can probably add a great deal more than I have on these points. Certainly I will follow their leadership in the House Agriculture Committee on this matter.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. That was an excellent statement. We will proceed now and hear from Congressman Mathis and then we will finish with Congressman Poage and have some questions.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAWSON MATHIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. MATHIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate very much the fact you all are conducting the hearings today. I concur with the statement made by my distinguished friend from Louisiana, who is a valued member of the Oilseeds and Rice Subcommittee.

I am sorry I missed your opening statement this morning, Mr. Chairman, but I detected in the statement you just made-well, you talked about the duplicity being engaged in by the administration in regards to palm oil and their policies. And if I might, I would like to submit my statement for the record along with a limited amount of extraneous material.

Mr. GONZALEZ. We will accept that and so ordered.

Mr. MATHIS. But I think what we need to do is document the rhetoric and the reality that the administration is engaged in. And I would like to just touch briefly on my statement and point out to the members of the subcommittee that on July 29 the USDA announced that they were not going to-well, let me quote. It states:

The U.S. Government will no longer support loans by international money lending institutions to develop more palm oil production for international export

That came from a press release by Richard Bell, who is the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. It was put out on the 29th of July. Mr. Bell then went to the American Soybean Association later in August and he outlined the administration's policy, but then he added one little exception. And we have heard a lot about waffling by other candidates for public office in recent days but Mr. Bell walled all over the ball park when he said,

There were several small palm oil projects in the pipeline and we don't intend to oppose these projects since their impact on future vegetable oil production will be minimal and a lot of work has already gone into these projects.

And then a letter to me, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice, was sent and the Secretary of the Treasury also spoke of "several small projects in the pipeline, which would be approved." And privately I think that it can be documented-and in fact I intend to submit, Mr. Chairman, a list of these loans to document that these proposed loans are indeed not small. The loans are larger than most of the other 33 loans that have been made over the past 10 years. And with a total value of $72 million, the five loans, which we expect to be approved over the next year, are extremely large when compared with the $305 million of loans being made over a 10-year period. And Mr. Chairman, I have that list. I do think in fairness I should say in the list there are several projects involving Malaysia and Indonesia, Mr. Chairman, that privately some people in the Treasury Department have told my office that these will not be approved.

Now, we have also been told by Assistant Secretary Richard Bell that none will be approved so I think we will have to wait and see what the end result will be as far as total approval.

But there are now palm oil projects being considered for possibly approval, which amounts to $237 million. This is exactly what is in the pipeline.

Mr. Chairman, it concerns me and I think all of us, that we are being told one thing by the administration when in fact other things are going forward, which would cause these loans to be approved. And you have already heard testimony this morning, and I think every member of the subcommittee is aware of what the impact will be. We know what the impact has been. I certainly don't want to be redundant or repetitive in going over these figures again. But you know the American farmer and American agriculture is being damaged: the American consumer is being damaged also. I think Chairman Poage, if he follows his normal pattern, will certainly address himself to that this morning because he makes a very compelling case. With that I would ask again my statement be submitted for the consideration of the subcommittee. I thank the Chair for allowing me to appear.

[The prepared statement with attachments of Congressman Mathis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAWSON MATHIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on the subject of palm oil development loans by the international financial institutions.

The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice, which I chair, has dealt with this issue extensively. The Subcommittee conducted public hearings in Washington on March 18 and in Memphis, Tennessee, on May 15. We received testimony from almost fifty witnesses, including Members of Congress, Administration officials, farm organizations, industry representatives, and others. On July 29 the Subcommittee unanimously reported two resolutions urging the Administration to oppose further palm oil loans and to negotiate voluntary restraints on exports of palm oil to the United States. One of these resolutions, H. Res. 1399 is also pending in this Subcommittee. The Senate has already passed two similar resolutions.

Of all the persons who testified before the Oilseeds and Rice Subcommittee, only one felt there might be any need for the U.S. to continue subsidizing foreign palm oil production. Unfortunately, this person represented the Treasury Department, which is the agency charged with making and executing U.S. policy in this area. Despite the almost universally held view in this country that the U.S. taxpayer should not subsidize his own competition, the Administration has stubbornly refused to budge on the palm oil issue, leaving American farmers and processors to sink or swim in a flood of imported palm oil.

Furthermore, the Administration has deliberately tried to deceive the American public by opposing further loans in public pronouncements and doing just the opposite in private. For example, on July 29 the Department of Agriculture, which has endorsed 31 of 32 palm oil development loans made since 1966, announced that "the U.S. government no longer will support loans by international money-lending institutions to develop more palm oil production for international export trade purposes." In August an official of USDA affirmed the new Administration policy in a speech to the American Soybean Association, but he added one exception. He said that there were several small palm oil projects in the pipeline and that "We do not intend to oppose these projects since their impact on future vegetable oil production will be minimal and a lot of work has already gone into the projects." In a letter to me explaining the new Administration policy, the Secretary of the Treasury also spoke of several small projects in the pipeline that would be approved.

Privately, it is known that the proposed loans are not small. Individually, the loans are larger than most of the other 33 loans made over the last ten years. With a total value of $72 million, the five loans expected to be approved over the next year are extremely large when compared with the $305 million in loans made over a ten year period.

Mr. Chairman, to document the wide gap between Administration rhetoric and reality, I request that the statements of the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury and the list of the so-called "small pipeline loans" be made a part of the record. It should be noted that according to the Treasury Dept.. the $165 million in loans to Malaysia and Indonesia, although in the pipeline, will not receive U.S. approval.

The Administration has attempted to downplay the impact of palm oil on the domestic oils and fats industry, but the fact is that palm oil is expected to capture an increasingly larger share of the domestic market and the export market. Further palm oil development loans will mean that the U.S. fats and oils industry will lose markets to foreign palm oil developers. For example, 70% of the World Bank financed production will enter international trade where it will displace U.S. products. By 1985, palm oil is expected to have almost 23% of the world market for edible oils. In my judgment, there is no reason why the U.S. taxpayer should be required to subsidize the destruction of the domestic industry.

Mr. Chairman, because the Administration has proved insensitive to the needs of American farmers and processors, I urge this Subcommittee to take legislative action to mandate the opposition of the U.S. government to palm oil development loans by the World Bank and the other international lending agencies.

[The statements of the Department of Agriculture; the Secretary of the Treasury; and the list of the so-called "small pipeline loans” referred to above by Congressman Mathis follow:]

[News release from the Department of Agriculture, July 29, 1976]

UNITED STATES TO STOP FUNDS FOR PALM OIL DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, July 29.-Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Richard E. Bell said today the U.S. government no longer will support loans by international money-lending institutions to develop more palm oil production for international export trade purposes.

This firms up an interim policy position tentatively established last March. Mr. Bell believes the U.S. position will effectively dry up funding from lending institutions which the U.S. supports. This will cut the amount of palm oil that would be produced in absence of the U.S. action. No exact estimates of the cut have been made.

Palm oil imports into the U.S. are slowing, may total about a billion pounds this year. Government officials believe a tariff or direct limitations on palm oil imports would encourage palm oil producers to compete with U.S. soybean producers in the big European market. Such limitations would thereby be selfdefeating, according to such views.

THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., August 10, 1976.

Hon. DAWSON MATHIS,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR DAWSON: In view of the interest that has been expressed by the Congress concerning the position which the Executive Branch will take on future proposals by the World Bank and the other international development lending institutions with regard to financing palm oil projects, I thought you would be interested in the recent action taken by the National Advisory Council (NAC) on that matter.

The position adopted by the NAC provides that:

1. Loans for palm oil projects intended primarily to produce oil for domestic consumption in the borrowing country will be approved.

2. Loans for palm oil projects in countries with established palm oil industries capable of obtaining commercial financing will not be approved. 3. Loans for palm oil projects that are currently being prepared for Executive Board consideration and intended to produce palm oil for export will be approved if the projects are viable.

4. The US should convince the IFI managements to find alternatives to palm oil export projects when developing new projects for Executive Board consideration.

5. The NAC should review, as necessary, these guidelines for USG approval of IFI financing of palm oil projects.

These guidelines are well conceived and represent a solid interagency concensus based on extensive consideration and careful study of the world supply and demand situation in vegetable oils to 1985. They reflect a new and more cautious approach to financing palm oil projects. While we will not approve some projects, the guidelines will permit several small projects now in the pipe-' line in the various development banks to go forward, when these projects are finally presented to their respective Executive Boards over the next 12 to 18 months, if they are viable proposals. Implementation of these guidelines will serve to discourage additional IFI financing of palm oil projects for export and encourage these institutions to find alternatives to palm oil export projects. With best regards,

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM E. SIMON.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, we want to thank you very much. The figure we had mentioned that was in the pipeline, Mr. Mathis, was a lot more conservative than the figure you have given us.

I think I can explain now why the Treasury was so reluctant to have anybody come here and testify. We did our best to get them. We wanted them to be the leadoff witnesses this morning, but we will keep on trying.

Mr. MATHIS. Well, I don't blame them, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't want to come down here either if I was in their position.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, it is serious because the same department is going to come in here, as has been indicated, with very important bills, pertaining to replenishment of funds and our participation and continuing support of these international institutions. And I think that, as just one Member of the Congress, that we are going to be very reluctant to do so unless these matters are clearly and emphatically straightened out. Thank you.

Next, Chairman Poage.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. R. POAGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I am very much obliged to you for putting up with my delay in getting here. I appreciate it. I appreciate the statements of both my colleagues. I think they have pretty well covered the matters in which you are most directly concerned; that is, the lending authority of these international financial institutions that we are financing to a large degree. But I don't think we can solve that problem nor make a wise decision in regard to these loans until we have a general understanding of the palm oil situation over the world and the effect it has upon both the producing countries and

« 上一頁繼續 »