Seventh, no food from relief or from domestic production in these countries should be used for political pressure, and there should be no racial or other discriminations.

Eighth, no relief should be given where either commodities or cash are going out of that country for reparations or the purchase of arms. Such commodities or such cash could be used to pay for food.

Ninth, in my view any nation receiving relief should now begin to obligate itself to pay for the cost of it. That obligation should either be to the United States and the other donors to this same fund, or preferably to a fund to be established by the United Nations for future famine relief.

The nations receiving reparations from relief countries should be asked at once to defer reparations until these relief costs are repaid. Justice of this proposal lies in the fact that this relief obviously serves to preserve the manpower productivity of that country and therefore its ability to pay reparations.

Both the nations under reparations and those who are not should agree to a definite assurance of repayment by placing a tax of, say, 5 or 10 percent on all exports from that debtor country, to be paid for in the currencies of the countries which receive such exports, and these payments would have, of course, to be held up, not to begin for 2 or 3 years.

In addition to these nine suggestions, I have one further: I believe that if this fund is to be administered with efficiency and economy, the committee should provide that there be appointed an administrator of the fund who can coordinate the various agencies of the Government in procurement, in shipping, in inspection, in these different countries.

That is the more necessary as four or five relief funds are going to be in operation coincidentally with this one.

Now the administration of relief is not as some people seem to think, a job for welfare-trained people, as much as I appreciate their great qualities and their usefulness to the human race; administration of relief is a tremendous job in logistics.

It is the job of procurement of vast amounts of foods, of preparation of shipping, its transportation not only overseas but on land, and its delivery to certain specific points. The questions which arise of distribution after this food has once arrived in a given country are not difficult, if there is a predetermination of the supply that will be offered for the following 30 days.

If, during that 30 days, the distribution has not been carried out to the satisfaction of the administrator, then the supplies can cease and, in my view, if all the agencies of the Government were brought into cooperation, such a special administration would not need 20 men.

I am therefore not adding a burden of any consequential order upon this appropriation.

Now in conclusion, and I would be glad to amplify this rather condensed statement at any point that the members of the committee may ask, but I would like to emphasize that it is such methods as these that would give some protection to the American taxpayer. It would contribute toward bringing an end to this universal giving, and yet it would deprive no needy country of relief.

It only calls for cooperation on the part of these governments with the United States to secure efficiency and economy in the use of relief, and in the restoration of productivity which is fundamental for the recovery of the world and. in the promotion of fundamental freedom and peace.

Gentlemen, if there is anything further to add to that, I would be glad to do so.

Chairman EATON. We are deeply grateful to our distinguished visitor for this most illuminating statement.

We have 25 members of this committee all filled with questions that they would like to have answered.

I propose that we take perhaps a half hour now and give each member a chance to ask one question.

We are then going into executive session, because we want to discuss some rather intimate matters with our distinguished visitor.

Mr. HOOVER. There was one paragraph that I think I ought to amplify and it might tend to clarify the minds of the members before we begin on questions.

The need of relief will extend over the next fiscal year. The proposal in this legislation is for relief only up until January 1, 1948, and therefore is for only half of the next fiscal year.

Further, as I have said, there is no mortal man who can determine what the requirements of these various nations are going to be after the next harvest and determine requirements of each nation after harvest at the present time. Therefore, what I intended to indicate here was there should be some provision in this legislation that some time after the forthcoming harvest, say the 1st of September, the chairman and the ranking Democratic Member-I am only just making a pro-forma suggestion-of the Appropriation Committees of the House and Senate should pass upon the use of the balance of this fund that may remain in hand at that time, and as to its distribution over the whole fiscal year instead of only the first half of the fiscal year.

We must bear in mind that there is a tremendous shortage in world. food. I am advised that the amount of food available for distribution to the countries, which it has been stated that this fund will apply to, will not cost, or represent the expenditure of, more than about $125,000.000 before the next harvest. That is not a question of need; it is a question of supply.

I would like also to amplify a little further this question of examination on the ground. I may give you a very pertinent example: Last February I was called upon by the President to take a hand in the world situation. I found that the demands which had been formulated by the different nations as to the food that they would require to get through until the harvest of 1946, amounted to a total of breadstuffs and fats alone to something over 31,000,000 tons. As we had apparently available in the world at that time somewhere under 14,000,000 tons, the situation looked absolutely hopeless. Having had some years of experience during the first war with estimates and with the fact that people in great misery expect to be cut down sometimes, I concluded that nothing would serve except to examine these needs on the ground, and with skilled staffs of technicians who could sit down with the technicians of those countries it was possible

to determine fairly accurately the amount month by month for each country that was required to prevent starvation.

When we had canvassed the problem over the entire word, we found that instead of thirty-million-odd tons being needed, if we were to hold to the very minimum levels necessary to prevent mass starvation, that we could succeed with somewhere between 17,000,000 and 18,000,000 tons.

Therefore I suggested in my statement that there should be an examination on the ground. These situations look very different from that viewpoint than they do from statistical conclusions.

The Government possesses men in its various departments who are skilled in these problems. It is only a short job, a matter of a week or 10 days for each country. Such an inquiry can quickly determine what minimum program will prevent the loss of life for the given period.

Therefore the amounts of food required are uncertain because of accurate estimate of the needs before harvest, but they are also confused by the lack of knowledge as to what the forthcoming harvest will be. These proposals are also deficient as they provide only for one-half of the fiscal year and I take it you will want to cover for the entire fiscal year rather than meet the problem again in a deficiency appropriation.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Chiperfield.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Hoover, thank you for your most helpful suggestions.

I will have a question or two to ask you in executive session.
Chairman EATON. Mr. Bloom.

Mr. BLOOM. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Hoover, I have questions to ask you later, too, but I wondered about this question: You mentioned that no obligations or promises should be involved in this program.

On the other hand, we have been told that there should be no public discussion of the needs of the various countries, for fear some sort of commitment might be implied by a mere discussion of the needs.

Do you see any reason why our committee should not be able to tell the House of Representatives and the country, the general estimates of the needs of the various people?

Mr. HOOVER. The difficulty in my mind is that I do not believe, except for Austria, there has been any examination on the ground. Once there is an investigation on the ground there is no reason in the world why the monthly program necessary should not be published.

If you will recollect when we made the examination of the 39 countries last year we published the exact program which was needed to prevent mass starvation in each country, month by month. There is no reason that should not be done again.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Kee.

Mr. KEE. Mr. Hoover, I noticed that in your statement you said it was about time for us to stop, look, and listen.

I suppose you referred to the need of securing sufficient information upon which to base our action in this matter.

Of course, in the matter of making this appropriation, all we have to act upon is the informattion now before us.

From this testimony and information now before this committee as to the needs of the countries of Europe, is it your judgment that we are justified in authorizing this appropriation?

Mr. HOOVER. I think you are warranted in authorizing $350,000,000 if the administration will undertake to carry out the suggestion I have made here. Under that, you will get revised estimates, and after the harvest, 1947, the whole matter could be reviewed again, in cooperation with the Congress, or the representatives of Congress. Chairman EATON. Mr. Mundt.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Hoover, in executive session, I expect to ask you some questions about the relationship of this program with Poland. I agree 100 percent with the appointing of an administrator on relief.

If I recall in your suggestion, you spoke of an administrator of this fund. Should he have charge of this fund alone or all of the various feeding and relief agencies to be set up for children and for other ages?

Mr. HOOVER. That would require a little thought.

The occupied territories are administered by the War Department. They have a food administrator in the War Department-Mr. Tracy Voorhees who is doing a very efficient job as far as the areas are concerned.

These funds under United Nations will not be under the United States control, either the one for the displaced persons or the one for children. But if we had someone as administrator of this particular fund I have no doubt he could coordinate all of these activities. Chairman EATON. Mr. Jonkman.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Hooyer, you just referred to the Army administration of these foods, and in your fourth suggestion you mentioned three agencies to make the estimate. Do you propose to still continue the Army as an administrator of these foods after the estimates have been made?

Mr. HOOVER. My statement refers only to the food for the countries under this appropriation.

The Army does the administration in the occupied areas only, and it is not proposed that the Army should administer the food under this appropriation.

Mr. JONKMAN. I had reference to the occupied areas.

Mr. HOOVER. The Army must continue in control of that admin

istration.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. President, the chairman very appropriately referred to you, in introducing you, in some such language as "the outstanding authority in the world on relief."

While I have no question, I wish to express to you my deep appreciation, which I feel sure is shared by the people of the United States generally, of your great accomplishments, not only in the immediate past but after World War I, and what I am sure you are destined to do in the future, not only directly for suffering humanity, but indi-• rectly, in view of the good will and other benefits coming to this, country, for your own countrymen. Thank you very much.

Chairman EATON. The chairman calls the attention to all present to the fact that that is a tribute from a leading Democrat to a most distinguished Republican.

Mr. MERROW. Mr. Hoover, this bill proposes an appropriation of $350,000,000 by the United States.

As I understand it, part of the money is to be spent in countries that are dominated by the Soviet Union. I understand further that the total sum to be appropriated to care for relief after UNRRA ends is to be $610,000,000, with contributions being made by other countries. There is no indication that the Soviet Union is going to contribute. I think that in countries where the Soviet Union dominates she should help feed the people.

I want to ask this: Do you think that the suggestions which you have made are entirely sufficient to prevent the use of the relief funds that are to be spent by the governments dominated by the Soviet Union from being used to advance the interests of the Communist Party in those countries?

Mr. HOOVER. I think we will have to look a little further back. The situation in the Soviet Union is one in which I do not think they have any surpluses for anybody. The short crops in part of the Ukraine and other areas are such that the Soviet Union will have enough difficulty to get food in the next period themselves.

They have, however, resources with which to buy food for themselves, so that, as I understand it, they would receive no food under these appropriations. I have made the suggestion here that conditions should be made that not only no food, but no commodities of any kind should go out of these countries for reparations during the period of this relief.

Chairman EATON. Mrs. Douglas.

Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Hoover, I notice on page 5, in a paragraph toward the bottom of the page, that the suggestion is made that the appropriation before us of $350,000,000 should be repaid.

That seems to be a radical and new idea in the relief program as we now envision it. Could you explain a little further what you have in mind? Do you think, for instance, that the whole $350,000,000 should be repaid by countries receiving relief? And if this is to be a loan and not a relief program, can we ask relief countries to live up to the rather strict set of rules which we are laying down? Mr. HOOVER. I see no incompatability in asking repayment under these terms, which are extremely modest, long-deferred, and easy

terms.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Judd.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Hoover, in your second suggestion, you ask that relief from these funds be limited to United States products and transportation; that we should not use American dollars to purchase supplies in other lands.

Now, as you have truly said, we cannot forecast the sort of harvest that will be reaped this year in these various countries; but it is also true we cannot forecast what our American harvest will be.

Is it not possible that shortages might arise here, where it would be more disturbing to our own economy to insist that all the money