Mr. HERTER. And those loans you might consider would be government-to-government loans. The Export-Import Bank might make that type of loan. But, where you are going to make a loan for carrying out a purely governmental function of that type, you might find that you are calling for a type of loan that

Chairman KEE (interposing). Right at that point, in explanation of the chairman's statement that no loans are contemplated under the terms of this bill: That statement has been quoted because no creation for loans would be authorized in this act.

Mr. HERTER. That is correct.

Chairman KEE. The loans they might require if they ask for technical information in the underdeveloped country, in which they would invite private capital to come into some of their operations, would be loans of a nature that might be furnished by private capital. But no Government money is contemplated to be spent in the operation of this act.

Mr. LODGE. That is true; but just a glance at this report, prepared by the staff of our committee, in order to help us to an intelligent and comprehensive understanding of the bill before us, reveals that on page 12, the question of the financing of the program is discussed. Of course, that matter would have to be taken up by another committee; nevertheless, it is one of the things which we have to consider. It is in this respect in reference to this bill, and it seems to me that it would not have been included in this report of the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee if it were of no interest to this committee. That was the reason that I brought out the point.

I would like to ask you one more question, Mr. Herter. You have one paragraph on bilateral agreements, and you have another on treaties and conventions. Do you feel that these agreements would not be subject to ratification by the Senate, but that treaties and conventions would; and do you think it is a good thing to make this distinction?

Mr. HERTER. I think it is desirable to do so. I think we are coming to the time when the question of what is an agreement will be before our courts for a definition.

Mr. FULTON. May I ask you this question: What is your constitutional authority for saying that the House of Representatives, by resolution, can set down a limitation on what might be put in a treaty?

Mr. HERTER. I think we can set that down any time we like if we make it as a condition precedent to something we have got the right to do. If the administration does not need to follow it

Mr. FULTON. How about the Senate, which might feel that we are attempting to enter their prerogative by setting down ahead of time what can go into the treaty by House resolution.

Mr. HERTER. No; I think not. I think we have every right to say that, unless there is some special treaty, we will no longer appropriate funds, Government funds, for certain purposes.

Mr. FULTON. Then you are pointing up the fact that the money originates in the House, which would be the controlling factor in foreign affairs, rather than the fact that there is the constitutional requirement of ratification by the Senate of a treaty.

Mr. HERTER. There is no question about that.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Herter, we thank you very much for your testimony this morning.

Mr. HERTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF RAYFORD LOGAN, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE Chairman KEE. We have another witness this morning. Do you have a written statement, Mr. Logan? You may file it, or read it as you wish.

Mr. LOGAN. Thank you. My name is Rayford Logan, and I am appearing here as a representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, an organization of some half million members, constituted in 1,600 branches, college chapters, and youth

councils in 45 States.

I do not wish to appear, Mr. Chairman, to be qualifying myself as an expert, but I should like to say that for 25 years I have been a university professor, during which time I have devoted a good deal of study to this subject.

Further, I have had the opportunity of observing, first hand, conditions in some of the backward areas, particularly in the Caribbean.

I should like to address myself to four points: First, that there is need for the so-called Point IV program. Second, the evidence of the value of an enlightened program for investors in the underdeveloped areas and for the people of the United States. Third, one international aspect of the program that has been overlooked thus far; and finally, some general observations concerning the proposed legislation. First, with reference to the need for such a program. In order that may be as brief as possible, I should like to cite just a few figures from the green book of the Division of Non-Self-Governing Territories of the United Nations..

I

This report, as the committee knows, is based upon an official report of the metropolitan governments, submitted to the United Nations, through its Secretary-General.

I would like to cite only a few examples of conditions in the underdeveloped territories, based upon the report published in 1949, revealing conditions in 1947. And I would ask the committee to keep in mind, moreover, that these figures are based upon the value of the pound before it was devalued.

In one territory, administered by a nation friendly to the United States, the monthly wage for plain labor was 15 shilling, six pence, even before the pound was devalued; that is, $3 a month, plus a little for subsistence.

That is found on page 24 of the 1949 report.

On page 53, in another area in Africa, we are told that the minimum wage and as you know, the minimum wages are generally the maximum wages-the minimum wage is 24 francs a day, which in terms of United States currency is approximately 20 cents per day.

On page 230 of this official report is a statement which I would like to read from the testimony:

Agricultural resident labor is paid 10 shillings a month, plus a house and the use of certain area of land.

Before devaluation that was $2 a month. And with respect to education in the areas just cited, the per capita expenditure was approximately as follows: 50 pounds for Europeans; 8 pounds, 15 shillings for Asiatics, and 16 shillings for Africans.

We have heard some criticism in this country about the disparity between the appropriation in certain States for the education of one

element of our population as against another element of the population, but certainly nowhere in the United States is there a situation in which one element of our population receives more than 50 times the per capita expenditure for education than is provided for another

element.

And I am even more disturbed, Mr. Chairman, by the fact that in a country which we have frequently called a ward of this country, a rich and powerful United States corporation is paying a daily wage of 25 cents, plus a little subsidy.

I therefore wonder how it is going to be possible to achieve one of the objectives set out in Under Secretary Webb's statement before this committee, as one of the principal objectives of the United States foreign policy today, namely:

the establishment of conditions throughout the world which will permit us, along with others to enjoy security against external aggression, to preserve and strengthen the concept of the dignity and freedom of the individual and to participate in a program of expanding world economy.

It is a little difficult to develop the concept of the dignity and freedom of the individual and of an expanding economy in areas where the basic wage is $2 to $3 a month.

During the course of my travels I have had an opportunity of seeing the favorable results of enlightened development. I refer particularly to the Netherland West Indies. Those of us who have traveled through the plantation colonies of the Caribbean area, where the wage scale is 25, 30, to 40 cents a day, and have seen the miserable conditions under which the peasants work and live in the tropical mud huts with a thatched roof over their heads, know something of the conditions. We know they have a very low nutritional diet, and that illiteracy ranges as high as 90 to 95 percent, with the usual result of such deplorable conditions. But in these Dutch islands there is a contrast, and the simple explanation is that the hourly wage in the Netherland West Indies is as high as the daily wage in some of the colonies in the Carribean. And the illiteracy in the Netherland West Indies, instead of being at the rate of 90 to 95 percent, is at a rate of 6 percent. They boast that they have a rate of illiteracy that is less than that in the United States.

Now, one concrete example will demonstrate the value of paying decent hourly wages to the producers of the raw materials so necessary to the economy of this country.

In these two little islands that I have mentioned, one has a population of approximately 100,000 and I saw the figures showing there were 5,000 automobiles there. Not far from it and in another island where the population is more than 3,000,000, there were only 5,000 automobiles. Because the life on the plantation and the economy with a wage of 30 to 40 cents per day was such as to preclude their having

more.

I therefore fully agree with the President's statement that if the✓ standard of living in China, which is the illustration he used, could be raised only 1 or 2 percent, the prosperity of the United States would be guaranteed for many years to come.

We are constantly hearing it said that we must export or die. And the point that I am stressing is that raising the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people in these underdeveloped areas, not only

will benefit capital, but will be of benefit to the indigenous people, as well as to the people of the United States.

The third point deals with an aspect of the international situation which has been generally overlooked. It has been referred to obliquely this morning.

You remember, of course, that the President's statement placed the Point IV program within the general framework of the plan to combat communism, and I would merely ask you to stop to consider one very important aspect of the current situation, namely this: Since World War II a half billion brown people in India, Burma, Ceylon and the Philippines have been given their independence, but not a single black colony has.

And since reference has been made to the value and effectiveness of Communist propaganda throughout the world, to this committee this morning, the chairman will permit me to call the attention of the committee to the likelihood that Communist agents are not allowing that fact to be passed over unnoticed.

It is also very gratifying that, perhaps for the first time, at least as far as I can remember, a top-level United States diplomat has linked China with Africa in talking about the rising tide of nationalism, and the dangers that could result if dictatorial control by some power should be established in the newly created independent states.

Now, finally, I am not prepared to offer any special proposals this morning, but I would like to invite the attention of the committee to one phase of the problem that has been completely overlooked, at least this morning.

We have been hearing a great deal about the protection to capital that might be invested in these underdeveloped areas, but down to this moment at any rate, I have not heard one word concerning the protection of labor. We are very much interested in seeing to it that at least as much thought is given, in the preparation of legislation that is drafted, in administrative regulations and in the promulgation of any multilateral and bilateral treaties for the protection of labor as is given for the protection of capital.

There are just three or four special ideas that I should like to add to what I have said. I believe that the President's bold new program will not be effectively carried out unless these people, the native people living in the underdeveloped areas, are given some form of effective representation in the organizations that will be concerned with the execution of the program.

I have not had time to read both bills and to study them carefully but I do recall that both bills provide for some kind of advisory committee and I should very much like to ask the committee to consider the wisdom, because I think it would be a dramatic illustration of the forward movement of democracy in this country, if our Government would appoint some persons from the overseas Territories of the United States on these advisory committees.

If you will permit me to make this statement, as a member of the United States National Commission for UNESCO, I have constantly urged there, likewise, that we could demonstrate to our critics abroad that democracy has some real meaning by appointing a member from one of the overseas Territories of the United States to the United States National Commission for UNESCO.

Expanding that idea, we believe that it is going to be necessary for indigenous peoples from the undeveloped territories to be on the specialized agencies that will inevitably, I believe, be involved in the execution of the program through the United Nations, specifically WHO, FAO, ILO, and UNESCO. That then is one recommendation that we submit to the consideration of the committee.

The second is that there should be a minimum-wage scale. The third is, and the United States Government could carry out this suggestion without the necessity of cooperating with any international agency or any foreign country, that in the training, selection, and appointment of persons sent abroad because of their technical skills, there shall be no discrimination on account of race, language, sex, or religion, the well-known language of the charter of the United Nations; that similarly in the appointment of persons sent abroad, at least as much attention should be given to ascertaining their skill in human relations as in ascertaining their skill in technical matters.

I know one neighboring republic in which experts from the United States some years ago opened an American club to which not even the president of that republic was invited. I do not believe we could carry out a Point IV program, I doubt that we could build up good will by sending abroad experts who have such contempt, shall I say, for the people whom they are supposed to be serving, as to establish a club to which not even the president of that country would be invited. We are concerned also about the areas of operation in which Point IV would work. Frequent reference is made to China, the Near East, the Middle East, Indonesia, Latin America, but practically never, so far as I have been able to ascertain is reference made to the development of Africa and the Colonial territories of the Caribbean.

For that reason again, we are very profoundly impressed by the statements made by Dr. Philip Jessup on the eve of the opening of the ✓ General Assembly in which he linked the importance of conditions in Africa with the importance of conditions in China.

One final word as to a method by which some of these objectives might be accomplished. Reference has been made to multilateral, bilateral treaties, conventions, and other international conventions for the protection of patents and copyrights and for the protection of capital invested in the backward areas. I would submit that if such multilateral and bilateral treaties and conventions can provide for the protection of patents, copyrights and capital, they can also provide for the adequate protection of labor. At Howard University, Mr. Chairman, we have more than 300 students from West Africa and the colonial West Indies. We have discussed Point IV at considerable length since the President made his statement last January 20 and many of those students and many of my colleagues express the view with which I heartily concur, that unless Point IV provides at least as adequate protection for labor as it does for capital, unless Point IV operates in all areas of the world that are underdeveloped and not only in those areas that are of strategic importance, we are forced to the✓ regrettable conclusions that unless these objectives are achieved, Point IV will merely be the old imperialism under a new guise.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman KEE. Thank you very much for a very informative statement and for the suggestions to which the committee may very well give its attention.