ciplinary problems. They have been looked at too much as an agriculture or as a medical problem.

Available progress in agriculture has shown that we can increase 5 to 10 fold the yield of a cereal. Medical men can cure a malnourished child. But, the child returns to the same environment and will again become malnourished. What has been difficult to show is how to make food available for ready consumption and optimal utilization by everyone everywhere.

This is a giant task; it has been proposed for your country that no one must go hungry or be malnourished [A. Altschul]. I want the same to be accepted for the world.

A few questions could be now brought out such as:

Is there a world food shortage?

The answer, as was pointed out before, is that in absolute amounts there is not.

Is there a less developed countries food shortage?

Certainly there is, but from a mathematical point of view it is possible to bring the world's food need in balance.

What is much more difficult to do is to guarantee the right of everyone to be well fed. That is what we have to fight for.

I am quite optimistic about the potentiality of increasing food production in the world and specifically in the less developed world. This will be accomplished by better seeds, fertilization, pesticides and bringing new land under cultivation. This has been shown already to be possible through the new varieties of wheat and rice. This is what is called the green revolution that with all its achievement, has a few red spots because the cereals are displacing some legume land, bringing about an imbalance in local diets in terms of protein. I am sure new legume varieties will bring back the balance.

What I am pessimistic about is how to reach the needed people, how to work with the developed and developing countries on the way to a better distribution, consumption and utilization of food.

Past experiences in this field are not the most brilliant. Millions of tons of food have been under distribution in the world and the malnutrition situation in the world has not changed very much. There is no doubt we have to change methods.

We have to increase food production but not only in the developed countries, but mainly in the developing countries. A green revolution should be started in each developing country. We have to teach people how to catch fish and not give them fish.

Free distribution of food should be only accepted as an emergency and not as a routine. A World Food Bank should control this distribution. Lower prices should be offered in special cases.

Heavy educational and research programs with multidisciplinary approach should link research in the food area, including both developing and the developed countries. Collaborative work and applied programs should be more widespread.

In summary:

1. Supply of food in less developed countries is and has been at critical levels, in spite of good average per capita world availability [The World Food Problem, The White House, 1967]. This shortage affects

primarily the low socioeconomic classes of a given population. Often the problem is a matter of production and distribution, but other times concerns consumption and/or utilization of food.

2. Free distribution of food from developed countries surpluses seems, from past experience, not the best approach for the solution of the problem. Often it does not reach the target group and other times it does not take into consideration local habits and practices. It has also had a negative influence on local production of food.

3. Only emergency situations should call for free distribution of food and that should be made through a World Food Bank or international organizations.

4. New advances in agriculture and technology make us optimistic in relation to a food revolution in several developing countries. This will ease the world food shortage. This has to be done from within each country.

5. Lack of well trained multidiciplinary personnel in food and nutrition can be considered one of the obstacles to the solution of the world food problem [food economists, planners, politicians, social scientists, et cetera]. These resource people have to be made available as soon as possible.

6. Education and research are the two most powerful long range weapons on the world fight against food shortages and malnutrition. Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Dr. Dutra.

Our final witness is the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, president, Operation PUSH, People United to Save Humanity.

We welcome you.

STATEMENT OF REV. JESSE L. JACKSON, PRESIDENT, OPERATION P.U.S.H. (PEOPLE UNITED TO SAVE HUMANITY), CHICAGO, III.

Reverend JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In 1968, a very serious drought hit West Africa. This region, known as the Sahel, borders on the Sahara Desert and includes Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Upper Volta, and Chad. These are all former French colonies who became independent in 1960. They are not very well known in the United States. They can, therefore, be considered friends of the United States. The six have a total population of about 25 million. Four of them. Mali, Chad, Upper Volta, and Niger, are landlocked and some parts of these nations are over 2,000 miles from the sea. The United Nations classified these nations as among the 25 poorest nations of the world.

For 5 years now, and going into the 6th, these poor nations have been struggling for survival. If the drought was not brought to the attention of the international community earlier, it was chiefly be cause these nations had hoped to be able to help themselves. By 1971, they had used all their resources and, when the 1972 rainy season was catastrophic, to say the least, the nations realized that only substantial international aid, similar in principle to the U.S. Marshall plan, could avert the tragedy. These six nations are today facing the systematic and total destruction of their economy, culture, ecology, and civilization.

On June 28 of this year, the following Ambassadors: His Excellency Andre Coulbary, Ambassador to Senegal; His Excellency Seydou Traore, Ambassador of Mali; His Excellency Lazare Missibe, Ambassador of Chad; His Excellency Dominque Sisso, Acting Ambassador of Upper Volta; His Excellency Samba Kamara, Acting Ambassador of Mauritania; and His Excellency Oumarou Youssoufou, Acting Ambassador of Niger, came to Chicago to enlist the help of Operation PUSH in raising the level of awareness of the American people to their plight.

Our board of directors has made this a national priority. There is every reason for the United States to make this a national priority and to make a substantial contribution for the reconstruction of these friendly, peaceful, and poor nations.

This is a situation in which we, as a Nation, can show to the world that our international obligation is not only in fighting wars of ideologies, but of helping the needy to lead a decent life. Let us change our international military image.

When I talk of a substantial help to these nations, Mr. Chairman, I am not talking of billions of dollars. The economies of these nations need but $500 million, most of this in equipment to be bought from our Nation's industries, thus giving jobs to our own people and, at the same time, helping these millions of Africans. Half a billion dollars, Mr. Chairman, is a lot of money, even for the United States, but we have it and we have the capacity to give. The issue is, do we have the will?

The American businessman has developed a lot of respect for his imaginative and creative activities all over the world. I strongly feel that, rather than the hard core bureaucrat who decides what Africans need, American businessmen are more qualified to work directly with these nations. My modest experience in African affairs was developed by traveling in this fascinating continent and through many good African friends.

It is my impression, Mr. Chairman, that the American businessman has been far more successful in Africa than any other group of the American people. Therefore, as a decision is made to give this substantial long term loan to these six nations, it is imperative for the American business community to have a leading role. Otherwise, we will end up with a lot of confusion, as we have today, where loans are granted but the conditions so complicated and unrealistic that there are cases of loans unused in some of these nations. There are also cases of inefficiencies that result in long delays in executing projects resulting in inflated costs. The American businessman will not have this bureaucratic dilemma that we have today.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in multilateral aid in which our Nation will join with others. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to find out how much these nations have done for themselves. All six have created a solidarity fund where people have made monetary contributions.

The case of Niger resulted in an article by Thomas Johnson of the New York Times. In this particular case, the President of Niger and members of his cabinet made substantial contributions and invited the entire public and private sectors to follow their example. In a short

while, over $2 million was raised. This is a lot of money from a people with a $70 annual income per person. As I said earlier, similar efforts were made during the entire 5 years of drought. These are an optimistic people, Mr. Chairman, who are accustomed to hardship and who are hard working.

During my trips in Africa, I have learned to know and respect these people. They have traditions and customs which deserve our respect and admiration. They are the poorest, not only in Africa, but in the entire world. They have done the maximum with their meager resources. They have now come to the painful reality of having to depend almost entirely on international solidarity and in the name of humanity, we cannot afford not to help.

Of the limited foreign aid that our Nation gives to the underdeveloped continents, Africa gets the least and the six nations are getting the least in Africa. Foreign aid, Mr. Chairman, is far more substantial in those underdeveloped nations where there is a lot of natural resources. We should continue to help these nations with known natural resources, but is it fair for this to be done at the expense of those who are less fortunate? Our foreign aid policy has to be reviewed or else we shall continue to witness the tragedy we are now seeing in the Sahel.

The budgets of these nations are now dwindling to a frightening level. These nations will lose anywhere between 25 to 50 percent of their national budgets, which to start with are not substantial. The budget as in every country is made of money from taxes. In an agriculturally based economy, this means the taxes farmers pay. These farmers are about 90 percent of the population. Farmers, in this sense, Mr. Chairman, include fishermen, agriculturalists, and herdsmen. The rivers, lakes, and ponds where fishing is done are either totally dry or the water is so low that there are no fish.

In the case of the two largest bodies of water in the region, Lake Chad and the Niger River, the former has shrunk to one-third of its size, and the latter could be crossed on foot for the first time in recorded history.

The agriculturalists either did not harvest at all and are now being fed daily by the governments or what they harvested is very small. The herdsmen have, on the average, lost about 50 percent of their animals— cattle, goats, sheep, and camels. Another 10 to 15 percent is probably too sick to save and will eventually die no matter what is done.

Mr. Chairman, there is no way these three categories of people can be taxed for the national budget, and, they are not.

We therefore suggest an immediate increased shipment of grain and the use of trucks, land rovers, and CS-131's to get the food into the interior. Let us drop food instead of bombs. Our African brothers are polite and optimistic, some of our Americans involved directly in the relief have been trying to paint an optimistic picture, but this is unfair and it is taking advantage, as I said earlier, of a polite and courteous people who lack the appropriate forum to counterattack this unfair, irresponsible, and in fact, inhuman act.

Neither our suffering African nations nor us are looking for a scapegoat. In fact, these nations have publicly expressed their gratitude for what PUSH has done so far. We have set up vans for collecting dry

foods and medical supplies in 15 cities across the United States. A special account has been established for the collecting of funds and the cities of Los Angeles, Calif.; Gary, Ind.; and Chicago, Ill., and their mayors, have adopted resolutions commending and supporting our relief efforts. But much more is needed.

It is also time, Mr. Chairman, high time, that we start listening and accepting what economists and leaders of these nations tell us about their needs and the best way to help them. In the past we have paid more attention to what our own experts say, and even though I respect these experts, it is now clear that they cannot appreciate the many problems of these nations as well as the nationals.

I would say in summary that the efforts we have done so far concretely involve setting up these vans in these various cities to increase the consciousness and general sensitivity of people about the plight which people are now beginning to see for the first time just to see where these nations are relative to the African Continent.

We have pulled together major food companies like General Foods, General Mills, and Quaker Oats who are committed to donating vans of food.

We have begun to pull together oil company experts to see if some experts drilling for oil can drill for water. They have expressed an interest in contributing some of their scientists.

Last, I have talked with certain of the Senators here about possibly using some of the unused military equipment that is not being used in Vietnam now to be used there for land transportation so as to reduce the expense involved in getting the goods from the seaport countries to the more landlocked countries.

So we have attempted to respond directly to the request of the six Ambassadors who visited us with a program of concrete action. Thank you very much.

Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Reverend Jackson.

I think perhaps we will want to take the specific case that you cited as a starting point of our discussion. Perhaps before we do that, though, Mr. Hathaway, as one who has been deeply involved in the problem of agricultural development, would you give us your estimate as to the usefulness of continued U.S. effort in the field of rural development and agricultural development? That is, there are some here in the Congress who are becoming convinced that our efforts in the aid field or even in this section are not productive and that we are creating more difficulties than we are solving and that the United States should pull out of aid efforts.

I wonder what light you might throw on that point of view.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I would respectfully disagree with that view. I believe that continued and even increased U.S. aid participation is crucial if we are going to build the scientific competence in the developing countries. I would agree with Reverend Jackson regarding the undesirability of running other countries, and I believe that the approach that Dr. Pannah has taken, U.S.-AID has moved much away from our former policies.

I do not believe that sending in large contingents of American experts to run somebody else's government and to build somebody else's agricultural production system in a society in which they are not