Mr. DORT. It involves the cost of insurance, inland transportation, and so forth.

Mr. FULTON. Could you give us a little closer definition of it, so that the committee can have it at a later time?

Mr. DORT. Yes.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Current usage by Government procurement agencies of the phrase "accessorial expenses" includes expenses incident to the acquiring or the procurement of property. They are supplemental to the actual cost of the property itself. They include such items as insurance, inland transportation, demurrage, and inland handling charges. Webster's New International Dictionary defines "accessorial” as follows: "Of or pertaining to, or of the nature of, accession or an accessory; supplementary; as, accessorial agency, guilt, or services."

Mr. FULTON. On page 5, lines 4 and 5. We are looking at the outside limits of this bill to see what the requirements and the limitations should be, and if you will read that with me you will see that the bill is not an authorization for the President, but anyone in the Government even to a United States marshal, to handle this program. Section 9 says:

The President may, from time to time, promulgate such rules and regulations as he may find necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of the act; and he may delegate to the Secretary of State or an other official or officials of the Government any of the powers or authority conferred on him under this act.

Mr. LOVETT. I should think, in view of the advice that you gentlemen give, that we could define the provision more sharply, as in the Relief Act, giving the powers to the Secretary of State, and stopping there.

Mr. FULTON. Do you not think that language is a little broad to pass in an authorizing statute, and could you not have your counsel give us some form which would restrict it somewhat to certain individuals of a responsible nature at the policy-making level?

Mr. LOVETT. Yes; I know what was intended there, Mr. Fulton. I am inclined to believe that you are right; that because we purchase in part through other governmental agencies, we wanted the clear right to delegate the purchase of certain items to the Bureau of Federal Supplies, or to the Commodity Credit Corporation.

Mr. FULTON. May I point out to you that under section 3 your authorization for departments, agencies, or independent establishments is clearly set out, but you do not need it down here with a delegation of power by the President.

Mr. LOVETT. I think that is probably correct.

Mr. FULTON. Will you look on page 4, lines 6 through 9, section (c). It says

to give full and continuous publicity within such country as to the purpose, source, and character and amounts of the commodities made available by the United States under this act.

Now, when you read that you would think that it meant a lot. It does not. "Full and continuous" is the expansive end of the clause, but the thing that you tell about is rather limited; it is just the commodity itself.

May I make an explanation and ask you if a program of this type could not be included under this act.

When Dr. Pfeifer and I were in Italy this fall on our subcommittee, we were over in Venice. At the time we were there, on an island in Venice they had a 3-day Communist exhibit. It was more or less like our fairs. They had placards up of what was happening. They had demonstrations of people doing things. They had pieces of machinery, and they had things that people could look at and handle. They had a practical sample demonstration set up, and the local people went for 3 nights to it under sponsorship of a Communist Party called Unita. It was a bit more than just publicity in the newspapers. I understand they have taken it around to the various northern cities of Italy, giving not only what the Communists intended to do, but actually what they were doing with their youth, their workers, and their factories.

Now would it be possible when we are setting this program up to do a selling job ourselves somewhat like the Freedom Train that has been going about the United States? Perhaps we could take over some of our materials and display them and let the people go through and see them physically on a sample basis.

Mr. LOVETT. Well, Mr. Fulton, I think if an Italian party sponsored that enterprise so that we would not be in the position of laying ourselves open to the charge of interfering in the domestic affairs of the country, we could probably work something out. I would like to consider the question you asked with some of my associates, because I think it has a certain appeal. Whether it is possible to do it or not without bringing on a train of greater difficulties, I cannot say offhand. Mr. FULTON. Well, may I make this suggestion. We are going to enter into an agreement with Italy to do certain things, so a provision of that agreement could very well be set up that such-and-such should be done. We are paying the freight and the cost. We would be dealing as independent contracting parties.

May I go further and say that actually it is just a small element of the information program we had last year, and it is parcelling it out along with the aid. My suggestion is that maybe instead of trying for an over-all program immediately at this special session, we could put in here a provision that would get into these three countries a little start on such a program along with the things that we are sending in. I am sure that either you or the Secretary of State would not think that our information proposed under the Mundt bill is in any way an interference with the foreign countries in their own domestic policies.

Mr. LOVETT. No. I think that is an interesting suggestion, Mr. Fulton. I would like to consider it with my associates in the Department, if it is agreeable to you, and try to give you a more definite

answer.

Mr. FULTON. Finally, this could be done on a Government level because the agreement is with the Government, and it does not have to be on a party level because we are not dealing with any party.

Mr. LOVETT. There is, as you know, an aspect of it that we would have to give consideration to-whether or not we are furnishing any ammunition to those who make charges of imperialism, and so forth. I mention that not with the thought of giving you the impression that I think the value of the idea advanced is doubtful, but merely to indicate certain aspects of it that I think we would have to take a look at. It has rather an appeal to me as an individual.

Mr. FULTON. May I finish with this comment: I hope the State Department soon gets over its feeling of being sensitive to criticism

on the grounds of being called imperialistic by someone. We make our policies dependent on what we think is right, and if those policies are right they will stand up on their own feet. This talk of listening to propaganda and then making our policies to conform to propaganda claims is not the way I want to do business.

I like Russia, I might say. I like the Russian people, but I do not like police governments and I do not think that such claims of any police government, or governments that we do not feel are the type we want, should be given the weight to make us change our policies when we believe the claims are not correct.

Mr. LOVETT. I would not want to leave in your mind any idea that the State Department was adopting policies based upon propaganda charges. I think our record for some months has clearly shown that we have accepted those charges as an ordinary risk of doing business. What I was trying to point out was the influence of our actions may have in their impact on the local government; not on us, sir.

Mr. FULTON. You surely would not decide the work of this information program, or inserting a provision in this particular statute, on the basis that we might lay ourselves open to a charge of imperialism from other sources?

Mr. LOVETT. I was not relating that to this country, but the local government might be laid open to a charge that it was becoming the tool of this country. I am considering the possible impact on the local government itself.

Mr. JAVITS. I have just a few questions.

Mr. Secretary, is there any objection on the part of the Department of State to the inclusion in this relief bill of subsections (a) and (h) of section 3 of Public Law 84, the purport of both of those subsections being to make available supplies regardless of race, creed, or political belief, and to have a control system to see that everybody in the benefited country gets his fair share?

I might explain that I ask that question because I join with Dr. Judd, and I think a good many of my other colleagues here, in the firm conviction that we should have no such discrimination, and from my own observations in Austria, for example, where there are bound to be Jewish minorities and other minorities left in the country, and in other countries like France and Italy where there are bound to be political minorities, either left or right, we must have a clear pronouncement on that score.

Mr. LOVETT. That subject, Mr. Javits, was touched on momentarily earlier. I do not see any objection to the inclusion of those provisions, but it is our feeling that, in view of the countries involved in the interim aid proposal, such provisions are not necessary.

Mr. JAVITS. Thank you, sir.

Now, one other question.

There has been some question about the nature of this bill in its essence, and therefore I think we ought to be very clear as to what it means in its purpose, because it will restrict considerably the line of our inquiry.

Public Law 84, as we understand it, was a balance of payments relief bill. You gave us very complete figures and the figures that you felt were complete on the balance of payments, and we erected a structure

67810-47-6

of relief upon a balance of payments plus relief contributions from others.

As I understand it, this particular bill does not carry either implication. It is a straight relief bill. You are going to spend so much money to take care of hunger for a specific period of time. It is divorced from all balance of payments, or any expectation that anybody else is going to contribute; is that correct?

Mr. LOVETT. It is divorced from any expectation that anyone else will contribute.

Mr. JAVITS. What about balance of payments?

Mr. LOVETT. It is divorced from balance of payments in the sense that it is based on the establishment of needs in order to maintain the status quo, but the needs in part, of course, arise out of the shortage of dollars. They are related, if I understand your question, to the stream of requirements of these countries during this period of months, and not merely designed to satisfy a financial problem. Does that answer your question?

Mr. JAVITS. I think that I would like to make my question more clear. The money is to be used directly to pay for necessities of a specified character. The money is not intended to supplement a deficit in foreign exchange of a country so that country can benefit?

Mr. LOVETT. The money is intended to be spent in the direct procurement of supplies in amounts and general categories indicated in the bill.

Mr. JAVITS. Am I right in stating that it is the basic assumption of this particular bill that these countries need this money regardless, and we will take up whatever slack there is in respect to their own balance-of-payments position when we come to consider their needs under the European recovery program after March 31, 1948?

Mr. LOVETT. I think I understand the difference, sir. This is really a stopgap measure to give us time to hold these countries as going concerns until such time as the recovery program deals with the problem you mentioned. Thus it is not just a relief bill in the old sense but a necessary prelude to a recovery program.

Mr. JAVITS. In the recovery program, you deal with all questions-what assets they have here, what they can get elsewhere, what they can do about their foreign-trade position, and such other questions. Mr. LOVETT. That is correct.

Mr. JAVITS. So this particular bill can be divorced from all of that debate. Do you agree with that?

Mr. LOVETT. With one modification, sir, because we have tried to isolate, pick up and liquidate the known assets in this country that are subject to quick encashment.

Mr. JAVITS. But you are confident that you will pick up everything when you come to determining their position after March 31. 1948, and you cannot go very far wrong, as you stand now, because this is only stopgap; is that right?

Mr. LOVETT. That is right.

Mr. JAVITS. That is all.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Secretary, I understand that certain members of the American mission in Greece thought when they first arrived in Greece, if they could create satisfactory economic conditions in Greece, the guerrillas would come down out of the hills. They found then to

their sorrow that that was not the case. That being the case, it is so to a lesser extent, it seems to me, in France and Italy, where the fighting has not yet broken out as it has in Greece, and, therefore, I would like to ask you, sir, do you feel that it is possible to rehabilitate France and Italy until the Communist menace has somehow been met by other means?

Mr. LOVETT. If I understand your question, Mr. Lodge, my answer is "Yes." I think that France at the present time has retained the characteristics of a free society. I think the recent elections indicate a substantial swing from the extreme left, and I believe that the longterm recovery program will induce a series of recovery measures which will have the effect of stabilizing the political situation in the form of a free state.

Mr. LODGE. I agree with that statement, Mr. Secretary. I am afraid that I do not make my meaning entirely clear. The thought that I intended to convey, sir, was this: That because our aid has been effective up to a point; because it has contributed to a swing in France and Italy, that is the very reason why, in my considered judgment, the Russians are abandoning the idea of taking over these governments by constitutional means and have decided that they will resort to force from the interior. I happened to be in Paris when Mr. Duclos made his recent attack on the United States, which I think was more violent than anything Goebbels ever said about the United States, and it was in the opinion of most responsible people in France that because of the declaration they had abandoned the attempt to seize the government by peaceful means and were going to resort to street riots and civil war.

Do you believe that the French Government is in a position to resist such an attempt?

Mr. LOVETT. Well, Mr. Lodge, I must ask you to excuse me from expressing an opinion as to what the French Government's position may be in the hypothetical case that you gave. I think that it would be difficult for me to express an opinion.

Mr. LODGE. I quite understand your reluctance to express an opinion, although, Mr. Secretary, you will permit me to say that the case I bring up is not hypothetical. It is a very real and actual thing. I am sure that your information will bear that out, and I would be interested in having you tell us whether you feel that this aid, or the aid under the so-called Marshall plan, will be of sufficient amount to enable the French Government to protect its legal existence from extralegal force?

Mr. LOVETT. I cannot answer your question with any precision, of course. I do believe that the provision of this aid, or rather the assistance contemplated in the European recovery program will manifestly increase the ability of the French Government to maintain a rate of industrial production and recovery which will, in the last analysis, improve its position with respect to maintenance of law and order.

Mr. LODGE. I think it will improve its position. I wonder whether it is enough. That is the question that I raise.

Mr. LOVETT. That is a very difficult question for me to answer. In making our estimates, we have endeavored to act in a capacity somewhat in the nature of a fiduciary of the Government. This has re