Mr. WOOD. You want that just for the technical cooperation program, or are you thinking about the whole thing? Mr. HARRISON. What comes out of the Treasury of the United States? Mr. WOOD. Let me get this a little clearer, if I may, Mr. Harrison: Would you include in that the total amount of agricultural production that is financed and goes to foreign countries? For example, you may recall that I testified about this special amount of $100 million financing for the United Kingdom to be expended for lard and cotton, wheat and corn. Is that the sort of thing in addition that you would want? Mr. HARRISON. That would be in response to my first question. The total thing for agriculture. Mr. WOOD. Or of agricultural products shipped from this country, or from some other country. Mr. HARRISON. No, I will tell you what I am trying to get. I am trying to compare what we are doing in the nature of assistance to agriculture in other countries, with what we are doing with regard to assistance in our own. That is the comparison I want to make for my own purposes and not particularly in regard to this bill. Mr. WOOD. May I also suggest that it would be well by way of perspective, then, to compare with that, the amount of agricultural exports from this country to other countries, to get a balanced view of the situation. Mr. WOOD. We will see what we can do on that. We may have to make some rather arbitrary decisions. I presume you would also want the money spent on people who go into these countries and do farmextension work. Mr. HARRISON. Oh, yes; oh, yes. Mr. Wood. As well as fertilizer exports to them, tractors, bulls, and as Mr. Andrews says, jackasses? Mr. HARRISON. Yes. Mr. WOOD. Would you include expenditures on irrigation? Mr. WOOD. Even though it were not entirely for agriculture? Mr. HARRISON. I think you would have to break that down. Could you break that down? Mr. WOOD. Let us see what we can do with this, Mr. Harrison. This is quite an undertaking but we will see what we can do and consult with you if we have any further questions on it. Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, sir. Mr. FULTON. We have figures on what other countries are doing in this area? Mr. WOOD. In what respect, Mr. Fulton? Mr. ANDREWS. Do you refer to the Colombo plan and so forth? Mr. FULTON. Yes. Mr. WOOD. You are not thinking of the contribution or the work that India does in its own rehabilitation as much as what other countries are making available in aid, outside their own borders? Mr. FULTON. Yes. Mr. WOOD. We will attempt to put something on that into the record. (The information referred to appears in the appendix, p. 1294.) Mr. Wood. I understand they are all in the bluebook, country by country. Mr. KENNEDY. It is on page 163. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. In view of attendance, I believe we should adjourn. Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, what would you like to proceed with when we next meet, which I assume will be 10 o'clock tomorrow morning? Chairman CHIPERFIELD. 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Mr. WOOD. Would you like to go on with some questions on India, Pakistan, and the South Asian area? Chairman CHIPERFIELD. You prepare your own program. If that is not satisfactory, we will take care of it when we mark up the bill. Mr. WOOD. We still have the technical assistance program in South America upon which I presume the committee would like to have some testimony. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Will you explain this to me: I was on the subcommittee dealing with Inter-America affairs. We talked with people down in South America and our own officials to determine whether or not they were perfectly satisfied with a program that amounted to about $8 million as our share a year. We give all this other aid over the world, so we jump it up down there just because we are giving it someplace else. They were satisfied with it. Now, you come in there and give it a boost. Will you explain that? Mr. WOOD. We will be delighted to try to explain that tomorrow. I would like to have that done by the experts on South America. I do know generally, Mr. Chairman, that as was testified here by Mr. Stassen, these programs have been most carefully screened by the new administration and that Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Regardless of the administration the money must still be justified. Mr. HARRISON. May I say something off the record? (The then following remarks were not reported.) Mr. JAVITS. Would you give us a 3- or 5-year financial production for a country showing that we have to do it and they cannot? Mr. GARDINER. Mrs. Bolton is going to arrange another subcommittee meeting where we can take that up for the Near East. Mr. FULTON. Could I supplement what Mr. Javits is saying and relate it to what has been happening here. You need the major justification related simply to policy factors without getting into such detail that you lose the thread of things. On the floor it must be simply stated, quickly stated, as we can get into so much on the floor that we will lose the main policy that we are trying to justify. My recommendation is one of limitation so that you limit yourselves very decidely and keep it up on the policy level for easy presentation rather than getting into the tremendous detail level that you may feel is necessary for the committee. Mr. Wood. We are always in a dilemma, Mr. Fulton, as you know. Individuals have special concern, and properly so, with certain detailed situations. We do try to respond to those questions as best we can. Mr. FULTON. At the committee level it is fine. There is no criticism if it is kept on policy rather than detail, as it is to be presented on the floor, I think it will be better. Mr. Wood. I think it is clear that the special economic assistance, which we have labeled and set out separately, is related to certain very crucial areas in the world where it is felt that the situation is so crucial and the needs are so great, judged on the basis of stability in the world and its relationship to our security, that efforts in addition to the regular technical progress and development programs are necessary. Mr. FULTON. Tying this policy matter into your justification and your strategic urgency is of the highest importance to get this bill passed. Therefore, I am going to recommend to my subcommittee for Europe that we follow this course for Europe and advise the Congress in executive session ahead of time, under Mr. Chiperfield's chairmanship. And I think Mr. Javits wants to do it for the economic subcommittee. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We should have a dry run on this draft, go over every item and determine who is responsible for each part. We will have time to go over it and we will sit down with a group and work it out. The hearing is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p. m., the hearing recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p. m., the same day.) 33064-53-61 MUTUAL SECURITY ACT EXTENSION AFTERNOON SESSION The committee met in room G-3, United States Capitol, at 2:30 p. m., Hon. Lawrence H. Smith presiding. Mr. SMITH. The hearing will come to order. Will you please give us your full name, and your occupation? Mr. PETERMAN. Ivan H. Peterman. I am foreign correspondent and do a colmun on the Philadelphia Inquirer. STATEMENT OF IVAN H. PETERMAN Mr. SMITH. Do you have a statement, Mr. Peterman? To begin with, this series of articles which was entitled, "Bungled Billions," and ran late last September and October in the Philadelphia Inquirer, was the first attempt so far as I know to do a full-scale review of the Marshall plan, both ECA and MSA, and offshore procurement. I was assisted by a man named Alfred M. Klein, who is a lawyer and a journalist up there who got the idea that we were making a lot of millionaires, primarily in Europe, with foreign aid and broached it as a single magazine article. When we got to looking into it we thought we might as well do the whole thing and we found a lot of interesting developments besides millionaires over there. We talked to people from ambassadors on down to the lower echelons in our setup in all of the Marshall plan countries but three. We were over there about 2 months. We got the impression that while the money spent has undoubtedly moved up very rapidly the recovery of Europe and brought about an almost unprecedented recovery after a war, at the same time, it did not seem to us as reporters that we were getting by any stretch of the imagination a full dollar's worth for what the taxpayers were spending. This is partly our own fault. We found a lot of people thought that the thing had been rushed through too rapidly, that the Marshall plan did not have time to implement and lay out routine methods and directives by which we would profit by the money we were giving these countries. Now the first thing that impressed us was an almost total lack of propaganda values as far as the United States went. Wherever we went we found people who did not know anything about how they were getting this money. It went as high as the directors of steel mills Incidentally coming down here today-and this is a little that should interest you-I met the engineer who laid out ble themselves sa TERMAN. That is w affars of another co SMITH. Do you thin MPETERMAN. I certain iye to the French would Mr. SMITH. You would not cracked down, and tol the chief troubles with th who are now Member you that top men in |