Tens of millions of these people-in zones of flood, and drought and disaster in a dozen countries of Asia and Africa-will be almost totally dependent for their lives, over the next 12 months, on the compassion and goodwill of America and of the other affluent nations. Anywhere from 10 million to 30 million incremental deaths-deaths above and beyond those that would be traceable to malnutrition in a "normal" year-could be suffered in these countries, if there is no response from the developed world.

But it is these millions upon millions of individual lives that lie behind the grim statistics of need, which I shall briefly review:

India. India has now received a loan of 2 million tons of grain from Russia, and is reported to have purchased another 2 million tons commercially. For the amount purchased she has paid a terrible price, since financing has been at the cost of many basic development programs. These 4 million tons cover most of the 4.5 million tons by which, since June or July, India has estimated her supplies would fall short. But if one accepts a need figure of approximately one million tons a month from late October, when present wheat supplies will run out, to mid-April, when the wheat harvest provides the first reliable increment to internal surpluses-and assuming that the harvest is average or betterthen India may still be short as much as 1.5 million tons Thus, India may need as little as half a million tons, or as much as 1.5 million. And priority shipment for the 4 million tons just acquired may be a crucial problem: wheat in Soviet or American warehouses cannot keep a man on a farm in the Punjab or a little girl on the streets of Bombay from starving to death.

Pakistan.-Pakistan lost both large quantities of stored wheat and substantial amounts of unharvested rice in the recent floods. Pakistan also lost the major portion of its cotton crop, with earnings from which additional grain imports could have been financed. Estimates of need would appear to range from a low figure of around 250,000 tons of rice and 350,000 tons of wheat, up to 500,000 tons of rice and 1,000,000 tons of wheat, with most-probable estimates appearing to fall around a total need of 1,000,000 tons.

Bangladesh.-Bangladesh appears to be short by about a million tons of rice, although some estimates have been even higher.

The Philippines.-With a combination of carryover effects from floods and Tungro disease in the north, which were then followed by inadequate rains after replanting, and a devastating drought in the south, the Philippines is short about 500,000 tons of rice. As in India, although probably not to as great an extent, there have already been civil disorders, and the Philippine army has been put in charge of rice distribution.

Indonesia.-The estimates are that there will be a substantial need for imported rice, or a substitute grain, but I have seen no specific figure as yet. The population pressure on Java-an island smaller than Wisconsin or Michigan, but with a population of 80,000,000—is such that life is as precarious as anywhere on the globe, and a shortage of grain could mean death for millions of people

Sri Lanka.-There have been reports of a substantial shortage of rice, but here again I have as yet seen no specific figure.

Sahel, Africa.-The six countries of the drought-stricken Sahel-Senegal, Mauritania, Upper Volta, Mali, Niger, and Chad-have thus far received contributions of 650,000 tons of cereals, including 256,000 tons from the U.S., in a magnificent, multilateral relief effort that has saved millions of lives. A joint U.S.-FAO field assessment was underway in September of the prospective needs over coming months but the expectation is that emergency food relief will be needed for a further 12-15 months even, as a recent State Department report put it, "under the best of circumstances." One unofficial estimate was that the 24 million people of this area, for this year, may lose 60% of their cattle and 50% of their grain harvests. It seems probable that further food aid at least in quantities as large as those already provided, and perhaps substantially larger, will be needed through 1974. It must be kept in mind that every reserve, including seed grain, has been used up in many parts of the region, and that the drastically depleted herds cannot be relied on at all for meat but must be rebuilt.

Chile.-Chile reportedly has urgent need of 300,000 tons of wheat, and for as much as 1.2 million tons over the rest of the year. As and if calm returns there, we should have a better idea of how much of this quantity represents a real shortage due to disruption of agricultural production and how much of the shortage may have been caused merely by the disruption of internal transportation and distribution mechanisms.

There have been recent reports of substantial shortfalls in Ethiopia, and shortages may exist in other countries as well. Most recently, there have been reports that China is in the U.S. and Canadian markets for 4 million tons of grain, although there appears to be hope that this can be cut in half with focus on China's really "essential" needs, and, of course, I cannot anticipate possible further weather disasters: the foregoing account assumes that everyone will harvest "normal" crops over the coming months and into 1974.

With the preceding discussion put into tabular form, with "high" and "low" estimates of need where a range of estimates exists, and with a very rough figure of 1 million tons taken as the combined need for Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia, the result is as follows:

This total does not take into account the possible need, nor the intensity of that need or ability to meet it without relying on concessional terms, of China for up to 4,000,000 tons of grain.

The question, of course, is not of world surpluses, nor of world import demand "at prevailing price levels," two smokescreens which USDA officials have, regrettably, put up at various times in recent weeks. Tens of millions of people, in a dozen or more countries, desperately need staple grains which neither they, nor their government on their behalf, can afford to buy. The affluent countries, together, possess stocks of such staple grains considerably in excess of their collective nutritional needs-although perhaps not in excess of their unthinking, business-as-usual proclivities to waste, store, or overconsume such grains. The immediate and pressing question is one of how to find the mechanisms by which at least 5 million tons of the excess grain in the hands of the affluent nations can be gotten to the dozen needy nations in time to prevent millions of deaths. Such a famine, moreover, will play havoc with political stability, and it will-paradoxically-probably set family planning efforts back a decade, since poor families that lose a child to famine seem inclined to replace that child two or three times over. To deal with this global threat a series of bold and sweeping steps will be required on the part of both the public and private sectors, to arrange for cooperation among many nations, to alert public opinion, to authorize adequate funding under P.L. 480 and other mechanisms, and to mobilize help at the grass-roots. Beyond the immediate and critical problem of famine and its consequences, there is also a broader question of what can be done to prevent this kind of crisis from arising in the future. To meet the prospect of wide-spread famine, I believe that the following specific steps are required, which I should like briefly to outline:

One. The first and most vital need is to obtain global cooperation and coordination on this issue, and to accomplish this I think several steps will be very helpful. I think that a very powerful Congressional delegation should go to the November FAO meeting with this issue at the top of their agenda. I think that it should be stressed, at every occasion, in Congress and elsewhere, that global famine is an issue that must be handled as part and parcel of America's foreign relations and foreign policy, and is not an issue where the decision-making should take place in the narrow confines of the Department of Agriculture. With a broad initiative from this country, I think that other affluent nations-such as the European Community nations, which as of last month had 2.8 million metric tons of American wheat contracted for, but not yet exported, or Japan, which also had 2.8 million tons, bought but not yet exported, or other European nations, which together had 800,000 tons should be strongly urged to allow diversion of a major part of that grain to the needy areas. This should provide

not only grain but urgently-needed shipping at an early date, and could take place as a "loan" from the otherwise-importing country, or on other concessional terms from that country. If we are thus able to work out coordination by which the U.S. offers substantially the same amount-2 million tons-as the Russians have just loaned Indian, and if this amount is again matched by the collective efforts of the other large wheat exporters (Canada, Australia, France and Argentina), and a further one million tons are made available through loans or other methods of transshipping grain presently under contract to Japan and Europe, we will then have in hand the 5 million tons which appears to be the minimum amount needed to avoid massive famine. But high-level discussion of such cooperative and burden-sharing arrangements between the nations concerned, coupled with close coordination between the Executive and Congress, must begin now, and must not wait another month for the FAO meeting in Rome.

For convenience, let me set out in tabular form the minimum "aid quotas" I have just suggested:

Two. Make the public aware of the crisis. These hearings should help perform that important function. I would hope that not only the printed media, but the broadcasting media might provide more continuous coverage, from here on down to the wire, in what is after all potentially the greatest disaster to befall the planet-in terms of human lives lost-since World War II. If a comet were going to hit the planet at a place where 30 million people lived, at noon on February 20, 1974, there would certainly be massive media coverage, and a global effort to relocate those people. Well, this is a comet named "Famine," even though the most we can say about the date is that it will hit in "1974." On the question of public awareness, and considering that Dr. Kissinger made a statement to the U.N. eleven days ago that was fully as pessimistic on the world food outlook as this present statement, and that he was echoed by Chancellor Willy Brandt, it would seem to me appropriate that the President go before the American people in some way, and attempt to mobilize them and galvanize them to meet this crisis. I am sure that this is an issue transcending all personal and political differences, on which there could be a solid consensus of our country's leaders. But I am equally certain that if that concern is not communicated and begun to be acted upon within the next few weeks, millions of people will die.

Three. I believe that several important further implementing steps can be taken by the Congress. One that might be accomplished very quickly, would be a sense of the Senate and a sense of the House resolution, calling for an immediate global effort against the pending threat of widespread famine. A second, and very important measure, would be to restore the P.L. 480 Food for Peace program to something nearer, at least, the volume of the preceding years, through supplemental legislation. Over the past two years, there has been a drastic decline in the crucial Title II, which at the current level of appropriations will not sustain nearly the volume of humanitarian, famine-relief food shipments that were possible in past years, let alone the amounts required by the current crisis. (Actually, I am not comfortable with so clear a line between Title I and II: Title I shipments, after all, can and do finance "programs emphasizing maternal welfare, child health and nutrition, and activities . . . related to the problems of population growth" (P.L. 480, Sec. 104 (h)). Title II is concerned with shipping food "to meet Famine or other extraordinary relief requirements; to combat malnutrition, especially in children; to promote economic and community development . . . and for needy persons and nonprofit school lunch and preschool feeding programs outside the United States" (id., Sec. 201)).

...

For FY 72, Title II shipments (including ocean freight) were at a level of $524 million. For FY 73, the preliminary figure for Title II is $396 million. For FY 74, the proposed amount for Title II was $266 million, but it is my understanding that the Department of Agriculture now proposes to limit the purchases of commodities to those amounts, which can be bought for $120 million. At the very least, Title II assistance should be restored to last year's level of $396

million-which today will not buy nearly as much-not cut by rds. To make this work, however authority must be specifically given to AID to effectuate the purchase of this amount, which will probably require some revision of the standards of Section 401 of PL 480, in terms of not giving overwhelming priority to hard-currency export sales, as USDA is currently doing. Actually, I believe that we should, at a minimum, look to an incremental U.S. effort which, in terms of grain provided free or on concessional terms (whether under Title I or Title II) will substantially match the Soviet loan of 2 million tons of grain which was made to India, and that, at current grain prices, we should therefore think in terms of an increment to Title II amounts as they now standand again, and vitally, a corresponding purchase authority-which would be on the order of $350-400 million. Looking to the somewhat longer term I believe there certainly should be support for specific measures-already the subject of a Senate resolution-which seek to provide a basis for establishing adequate world reserve stocks of basic foods.

Four. Another step that can contribute substantially, I believe, is a grass-roots effort to prevent even a fraction of the waste and over-consumption which occur here and in the other affluent societies. Such an effort not to waste food could be helped greatly by broad publicity for the global food crisis, and indeed, would be impossible without such publicity. A few of the measures that might be taken are suggested in a recent article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer which, with your permission, I would like to make part of my statement, although I shall not read from it now. Support from national restaurant organizations for measures such as offering "2/3" portions for all who want them, or providing bread "on request"-as they did water a few years ago in New York, if you recall the water shortage could help get a no-waste campaign underway very quickly. In the U.S. we each purchase about 3100 calories a day of food. If elimination of waste and overconsumption saved only 50 calories a day of that amount, it would free food equivalent to a supplemental, and probably lifesaving, 1,000 calories per day, for some 10 million people. Between "freeing" it in that sense and making equivalent quantities actually available for export under Title II or other programs there is, of course, a whole train of intermediate procedures: but the initial saving would set a vital precondition by which additional surpluses could be determined to exist by USDA (for example, under Sec. 401 of P.L. 480), and then acquired, and shipped.

Five. It is essential, however, that in dealing with the immediate crisis we should not overlook the longer-term imperatives for a foreign aid policy that will help to make the less-developed nations-and particularly the 40% of their population who live mostly in the countryside as tenants or laborers, and in conditions Mr. McNamara has described as "absolute poverty"-truly self-sufficient in food production. The recent revisions of the Foreign Assistance Act by Congress, in their emphasis of such measures as grass-roots support for agriculture, and Mr. McNamara's call at Nairobi for a World Bank emphasis on the problems of subsistence and sub-subsistence smallholder agriculture, are important steps in the right direction. Measures such as land-tenure reform and smallholder credit must find major break-through support from the various foreign assistance programs if we are not to be locked into a downward spiral in which steadily worsening food crises drain off steadily larger proportions of the available assistance, while long-term solutions are neglected. We need a "New Marshall Plan" for Asia, and a "New Marshall Plan" for Africa, coordinated and jointly supported by the developed countries, with the U.S. providing perhaps one-third to two-fifths of the total funding, and with a clear focus on the critical problems of small scale agriculture (beginning, in those areas where most agricultural families do not own the land they work, with land-tenure reform, without which technological change or productivity improvement is a nearimpossibility). The most affluent nation in the history of the world can afford such a program. We can afford to help those hundreds of millions who live in "absolute poverty," not only to keep them alive in 1974, but to give them real hope for living decent lives, without hunger, by 1980 or 1985.

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIUS L. Katz, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF State for INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES AND FOOD POLICY

I am appearing in response to your invitation of October 2 to the Secretary of State to provide testimony on the possibility of further United States assistance to countries experiencing food shortages, and on possible long term United States approaches to the world food grain situation.

THE PRESENT SITUATION

The world food grain situation has been tighter this year than at any time since the end of World War II. The 1972/73 crop year was unusually bad. World wheat production declined by about 5 percent, coarse grains by 2 percent. Rice production, which had shown no increase in 1971/72 over the preceding year, also declined by about 5 percent. At the same time, meat consumption is rising rapidly, particularly in the more developed countries, and this has increased the demand for coarse grains as animal feed. A further contributing factor is the drastic reduction this year in Peruvian fish meal production, an important alternative source of protein for both humans and animals.

In a situation of short supply and high prices, relatively poor, grain-importing, countries are at a particular disadvantage. In some cases, because of natural disaster or economic difficulties of long standing, they are dependent on donations or concessional sales from the United States and other food exporting nations. For others even though able to purchase grains commercially, the present high prices increase the internal costs of food subsidies and constitute a significant drain on foreign exchange reserves. But they must still be able to find what they need on world markets. This is not now a problem with respect to wheat or coarse grains, and we do not foresee it becoming one. However, rice is in very short supply on world markets at the present time.

In response to the world food grains shortage, the United States is exporting this year record amounts of wheat and coarse grains. Rice exports will be at near record levels. Public Law 480 shipments through fiscal year 1973 were at approximately the same dollar value as in the preceding two fiscal years, although rapid price increases in the first half of this year reduced the quantities supplied. This has become an even more serious problem in the current fiscal year, a matter I would like to return to subsequently in this statement. At the present time, we are proceeding with a PL 480 program which, in regard to quantities available, is substantially lower than last year's program. We have had to reexamine carefully the priorities of PL 480 commitments and requests. Humanitarian considerations have been a paramount factor.

The United States continues to be the principal contributor to the World Food Program, sponsored jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations. The US pledge for the 1973/74 biennium is 136 million dollars-in commodities, cash contribution and shipping costs. The commodity portion is charged to Title II of PL 480. We expect to fulfill the present pledge, but this is dependent on increased availabilities either later this fiscal year or in fiscal year 1975.

The United States is signatory to the Food Aid Convention of 1971. By that Convention it is committed to donate or sell concessionally a minimum of 1,890,000 metric tons of wheat and coarse grains in fiscal years 1972, 1973 and 1974. We have met and will continue meeting that commitment.

PROSPECTS AND PROBLEMS

The most important single factor in alleviating food grain shortages in Africa, South Asia and elsewhere is the size of the 1973/74 crops. Until supplies increase, foodshort countries will have to pay high prices where they are able to buy commercially. Quantities available for concessional sales and donations, by other countries as well as by the United States, will be limited.

On the other hand, there is good reason to believe that record prices and world shortages this year will stimulate world production efforts. A repetition of widely-spread unfavorable growing conditions is very unlikely. Prospects for the 1973/74 wheat and coarse grains crops are thus very good at this time. Rice prospects are less clear, but do not now appear to be unfavorable.

A. PUBLIC LAW 480 PROGRAM

Since 1954 the United States has relied on PL 480 concessional sales (Title I) and donations (Title II) to meet food needs in the LDCs. The total value of commodities made available, primarily food, exceeds 22 million dollars.

A program of this size, covering a large number of countries, has an important bearing on US foreign relations. In part PL 480 has been used to relieve natural disasters and other emergencies. To a larger extent, many countries have come to rely upon it as a more or less regular supplement to their agricultural production. It is an important component of our overall economic assistance. In some countries it is the only form of bilateral US assistance at the present time. 24-799-74—13