Mr. HESELTON. I wish that you would also give us the detail, if you can, of what the military uses, its requirements are for. I assume that some of it is for strictly military operations, and others are for domestic operations, in occupied areas and the like of that.

I think that would be helpful to us.

In the next place, I want to read to you from your testimony in July, and I have reference particularly to the questions the chairman asked about the wisdom of an embargo by Mr. Sadowski, and others of us who have had to seriously consider it in terms of our own critical domestic situation.

I have in mind your insistence throughout the day on the possible results and the hardship to the other nations which you said would be extreme. I think that I quote you accurately on that point. It strikes me that it was an important point.

I have in mind your statement that even as of this date, you do not believe that there can be any essential change made in your quota program for the first quarter of this year. I assume that it might be possible to recoup some of the reserves set up there in the press release. I do not know what they are for, yet perhaps we could get some heating and industrial oil from that source.

But upon the assumption that you do not see any constructive method of having a single gallon of this oil going to other countries being diverted to domestic use, although you are willing to have the review committee examine it thoroughly, I do want to reemphasize Mr. Hale's question and your answers as far back as last July, and I think it was on July 7.

Mr. Hale said [reading]:

I was struck by this paragraph on page 3 of your statement that "the concern over the domestic supply does not lead us to the belief that exports of petroleum and petroleum products should be prohibited or drastically curtailed." To do this should upset the world system of distribution and make petroleum a source of international friction.

Mr. Hale said:

There must certainly be some limitations on that, Mr. Foster.

You replied:

Yes; that is right.

Mr. Hale then said:

There must be some point where you would be opposed to any export at all. You said:

Yes; but we do not feel so far, that that point has yet been reached where we should completely prohibit. We think we might as a matter of fact lose more than we gained at the present, now that conditions may change in the next 60 to 90 or 120 days.

This afternoon is more than 6 months from the time you made that statement.

You continued:

We are currently studying the problem, and as we obtain from countries to whom we are exporting their figures on requirements and their figures on urgency and we relate those to our own domestic needs, that statement may have to be changed. However, as of today we do not feel it would be wise to prohibit or even drastically curtail those shipments.

It is true, of course, that those shipments were not curtailed during the ensuing months, and it is true also, that this committee made a

very vigorous recommendation on December 19 which I know reached your attention, or at least reached the attention of the Department. If the assumptions you have made today, on the basis of which you have given us certain other information, are correct and I submit to you, Mr. Foster, that many of your answers have been based on assumptions which are not provable by any information we have, or you have, or anyone has in this country-then I think it will be proven beyond any doubt that in terms of licenses and in terms of military requirements as against the first quarter of 1947, something like 29,595,000 over-all barrels of petroleum and petroleum products were shipped to other countries. It will also become clear that under the announced program this year 29,885,000 will go to other countries. In other words, it seems to me that it is a very unfortunate situation, one that should be corrected, and if there is any recapture possible, you should not lose 24 hours in setting the machinery in motion.

Now, because of our deep interest in this, which must be evident to you, and has been evident all through the year, I cannot let this day pass without stating with all possible emphasis to you officially as a representative of the Secretary of the Department who have the full power to take the action which some of us think is necessary if we are going to solve this problem, that it is the only method possible of immediately helping these people who need your assistance. I call your attention again to the paragraph in the full statement submitted by the chairman on behalf of the committee yesterday, and I call your attention to the fact that it is printed in full in the Congressional Record at page 568 and 569. I want to read that paragraph:

The committee does not believe that we are forced to accept the panaceas which so far have been offered to us by Government and by industry, namely, the cheerful acceptance by the consuming public of the inevitability of these tight situations. The leaving to industry to work out without governmental interference this problem which for some time now they have assured us would not arise, and the solution to which they so manifestly so far have seemed unable to reach. Our question goes to the superficial remedy suggested of allocating or rationing

I refer to your frequent references to Mr. Krug's testimony

available supplies without maximum effort to effectuate a real cure through bringing supplies and demand in line.

I do not believe that it has been demonstrated to any member of this committee today that we do not have enough fuel oil in this country to take care of these shortages at once if you use the ingenuity I know exists in the Department.

I am sorry that you stress so repeatedly that you do not find it possible to act because it is only permissive. So frequently departments tell us that they do not want us to tie their hands, that they want some flexibility.

You must have anticipated this when you were before us in July. Certainly, you know the difficulties have been increasing all through the fall.

I can assure you it is desperate in certain areas in our districts. Speaking personally I want you to know that if you cannot give us a more specific assurance of prompt, vigorous and effectual action through your review committee and under the laws the Congress has passed, I shall be compelled to introduce a bill somewhat along the line that the chairman has suggested, and to urge its immediate

adoption. I feel rather confident that the people, and the Members of Congress who represent these people, to whom we have a moral responsibility, are going to give a great deal of attention to it. I hope that you will not force us to that point, but surely if the Department cannot devise the means of helping us, you are laying it right in our laps. We must recognize the heavy responsibility we have toward those in need of assistance now-not next month nor next year.

I appreciate your consideration of the possible hardships in other countries. I have expressed myself more emphatically, perhaps, than I need to because I realize that you are an honorable American, deeply interested in what is going on here in this country, but you do not have to listen to and read about day in and day out, as we do, some pretty tragic stories in our district.

You do not have to hear of industries being shut down-the possibility of schools being shut down. You do not have to read telegrams from the heads of hospitals, begging us to do all we can individually so that they do not have to limit their services. You do not have to read accounts in the newspapers of people standing in line for a gallon of kerosene. I do, and the rest of the Members of Congress do.

Unless you can come up within a very short time-and I do not mean within a matter of a week-I mean within a matter of hoursunless you can come up with something better than has been suggested today, I repeat I shall feel compelled to introduce a bill of some nature such as the chairman suggested, not necessarily along the lines of the Senate bill, but which will indicate with a great deal of definiteness that Congress insists that the American people have a standing in this world, too.

By the way, they were good enough to furnish me with this file of the background, and I find, incidentally, two personal friends on this committee, which is a source of comfort to me, and I shall certainly see them individually.

I cast no reflection on anybody, and, in fact, I think an excellent record appears in every instance, but in terms of our analysis of the decisions and some possible split of opinions, I think it might be well to have this available for the committee either in the record, or at the time when we hear the testimony, or receive the minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will examine it, and determine whether it should be made a part of the record.

Mr. HESELTON. It is the only one they have.

(The material on Review and Advisory Committee's background information, was filed with the committee.)

Mr. FOSTER. May I speak very briefly as to Congressman Heselton's statement?

I do think it was not a question.

Mr. HESELTON. It was an emphatic warning.

Mr. FOSTER. Briefly, I have exactly the same concern you do. The reason I have taken here the attitude that I have is that I am still fearful that the action contemplated in that proposed legislation will lead rather to more trouble than a solution of the problem.

I can assure you that with the powers we now have, we are taking steps, and we have taken steps to the effect of cutting down the amount that is going out. I am still unconvinced that an embargo

is the method to use to accomplish the results that both you and I are interested in obtaining.

I am interested in giving you the benefit of what I hope is the experience we have had in this, and I hope the decision you ultimately reach will be a wise decision.

Mr. HESELTON. If I did not share your same concern as to the possible effect, I would have introduced such a bill a long time ago, because of the situation that confronts us. But now I think it is about time that I should weigh the known effect on the people in New England and New Jersey and other areas of this country against the possible effect on the people in some of these other countries.

I am sure that you will agree with me that there is no campaign on throughout Canada to our knowledge, asking individual householders to reduce their heating, and I am sure that you will agree that it cannot be true in South Africa, and in Central American countries, and in New Zealand, and in Australia.

In other words, unless you can give a better explanation than you have been able to give today, speaking individually, unfortunately the lack of the explanation is going to force me to take this action which I shall do so with a great deal of reluctance, recognizing the possibility of it creating difficulties in the administration of disclosed and, perhaps, undisclosed foreign policies.

Mr. FOSTER. I am sorry that I have not been competent to answer those questions. I again commend to you the question of whether the solution you propose is adequate to meet the conditions you have outlined. There is where I think you and I differ in the conclusions. May I just comment on the last statement concerning Canada. They cut off the installation of oil burners in last May by action of the Canadian Government so that there is an attempt to meet this in Canada, at least, and there is a definite attempt to cut down that consumption.

Mr. HESELTON. That is encouraging.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Foster, we realize that this has been a very unusual day.

Mr. FOSTER. Unfortunately, it is not unusual.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been before the committee on many occasions, and in each instance you have always given a demonstration of good humor and you have never in any way reflected any feeling to the committee other than a desire to be fair and to give the testimony which you were able to give, and drawing the conclusions which you in your judgment thought best.

We deeply appreciate your presence today, and we have made these sessions long, and I apologize to you and to the newspapermen who have sat here with us. I would say in justification of the long session, not only the sincere desire of this committee to get to some solution of the matter, but if a witness has to be drawn and quartered, as you have been today, I would assume you would rather have it over with in 1 day than to come back and have the treatment for 2 days.

Mr. FOSTER. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I do want to express on behalf of the committee, and it is not only my own personal opinion that I am expressing, but it is the result of my conversation with other members of the committee, that we do appreciate the spirit in which you have ap

peared before the committee and given us the benefit of such information as was available to you.

Mr. FOSTER. I appreciate the opportunity of trying to explain some of the problems that we have to face, and our judgment on them. Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(The following was submitted for the record:)

EXHIBIT 8.-Areas of exit for petroleum products as shown by license applications, fourth quarter 1947

11,000 barrels of total shipped from Miami, Fla.

100,000 barrels from New York and $7,600 from Philadelphia, Pa.

License issued for 150,000 barrels from New York.

NOTE. Actually all but 15 percent of total was oil which was in bond.

EXHIBIT 9.-Areas of exit for petroleum products as shown by first-quarter license

1 Totals shown are for approved licenses only. Many license applications are on hand but until approval is granted it is impossible to determine ports of exit. All exporters have been advised that licenses for export through east coast ports will be approved only in very exceptional cases.

(Whereupon, at 5:10 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. of the following day.)