Mrs. BOLTON. And it does not need to go that way?

Mr. GIFFORD. I do not think it needs to go that way, and I do not think originally it was intended to go that way. The only reason I keep coming back to that is because I do not want to see more mistakes made in this. I would like to see this project done on a practical basis.

Mrs. BOLTON. I think we owe you a very real debt of gratitude for bringing it out so clearly before us and emphasizing it in the way you have clearly, simply, and from experience.

Mr. GIFFORD. Thank you.

Mrs. BOLTON. I want to thank you very much for it.

Chairman KEE. You made one statement that has intrigued me. It was news to me at the time it was made. You made the statement that there had been only one French team sent over here by ECA for technical assistance-of two men, or of one man

Mr. GIFFORD. Two men, I believe.

Chairman KEE. Is that correct?

Mr. GIFFORD. Suppose I read you the actual release? I think I have it here. It is dated July 14 of this year. It is ECA release No. 7133: A 4 months' study of farm mechanization in the United States by two French agricultural experts has been approved by the Economic Cooperation Administration as the first technical assistance project for France.

I am only taking their word for it.

Chairman KEE. I have been informed that a 16-member team from France has just recently returned to France after a 6 weeks' investigation here or 6 weeks' survey of heavy electrical machinery in this country and that another team-I do not know just how many-is now on its way over here for a similar purpose.

Mr. GIFFORD. All I can take, of course, is their word for it. They may have changed that in some other way.

Chairman KEE. Well, that 16-man team must have been here in July. Mrs. BOLTON. As I understand it, that was a release from the ECA itself?

Mr. GIFFORD. That is their release. It struck me as so unusual, that is why I put it in my briefcase.

Chairman KEE. It struck me as unusual, too.

Mr. GIFFORD. But under the Cripps plan for organizing those so-called visitation teams, that was not originally the way we worked it out with the British industrialists. It was planned to feed through the ECA to the British Board of Trade, but it was taken the other way around, which destroyed the real purpose. If a team, so-called, of men versed in the economy of another country can spend 4 to 6 weeks in the United States and learn the American version of industry, then some of the rest of us must be extremely dumb, because we are still learning.

The chairman of Lever Bros., raised this question with me. He said:

The big firms in England can get to America; the small firms in England, which represent far more than 95 percent of the total, have no way to get to America, get in and get contacts and learn what is going on there.

He said:

If ECA would finance the dollar part of those trips in America for those men, you would do more good than you could with millions being spent in other ways. And that is not being done.

It is a long-range program, whether in ECA or whether on the Point IV. No one thinks he can lift himself by his bootstraps in a matter of a year or two or three. You cannot hope, if you are going to change their economic thinking, to do it merely by raising the standard of living of the country.

Chairman KEE. As I understand, it is not the purpose of this program merely to give them technical information in industrial management nor to try to inoculate them with knowledge with a hypodermic syringe.

Mr. GIFFORD. That is right.

Chairman KEE. To acquire technical knowledge requires a long term of education. But there are a great many instances in which men can be given technical information about very important subjects. Mr. GIFFORD. That is right.

Chairman KEE. For instance, we had testimony the other day with reference to inoculating the beasts of burden in China, which is the water buffalo, against a disease carrying off very rapidly all of those very important animals, which are so essential to the agricultural economy in that country. A very small American team of about two men in Formosa has taught these people how to make the virus, how to use it, how to inoculate the water buffalo, until today that practice is established all over Formosa and has resulted in saving countless thousands of water buffalo.

Mr. GIFFORD. I am in favor of all that.

Chairman KEE. And it took them but a very short time to give that technical information.

Mr. GIFFORD. That is right.

Chairman KEE. And it was of inestimable value to the whole country.

Mr. GIFFORD. I think most departments are trying to do more than they have the money for. I personally would certainly recommend that all of those types of departments have increasing amounts but not too much at one time, because my experience is you just cannot double the production of a plant in a day or a year. Most things have to be gradual developments. I would like to see that done, but I would like, on the other hand, to see a realization of the fact that a lot of things are involved. I mean it all goes together in one big picture; it cannot be solved by just a lot of missions going out, any more than you can find out today what is going on in Europe by going over to Europe and only having contact with our embassy or ECA. other words, it does not tell you all, as you get only their viewpoint. But you get down and talk to industry, and you get another picture, and you have to evaluate the two.

In

Chairman KEE. The point I was making was simply that the experiences I have related indicates the character of information which is of tremendous importance to the masses of the people if the projects can be properly carried on.

Mr. GIFFORD. Right.

Chairman KEE. If they can be carried on properly and effectively. by teaching the people themselves how to carry them on and then leaving for another section and carrying the torch light of education along with them and always leaving the fire burning behind them.

Mr. GIFFORD. I agree with that. I also would like to stress more the question of education. One medical school in Brazil was set up by the

Rockefeller Foundation. It is a wonderful school. You do not destroy our markets by increasing the productivity of those people. That has been brought up here several times today. Our best customers are always the countries that are most industrialized-England, Canada, France, and Germany and Japan before the war.

When you figure, according to ECA's figures, that two-thirds of the people of the world use $7 a year in manufactured goods and the other third, which includes our own country, use about $120 per person, if we are thinking only of international trade on the basis of what it was, then we will all squabble over that. But I think there is just no limit to what trade is.

I think that, incidentally, is one of England's great problems-that she had not learned to try to develop markets instead of protecting investments. And if you study the figures—if I had the time, I would like to make some charts on the progress of England since about 1885. In other words, their share of the world's export trade dropped from 38 percent, I think, to 18 percent over the period from 1885 on. Their share of manufactured products has dropped from 35 to 9 percent, and in cotton textiles, from nearly 7,000,000,000 yards of cotton textiles in 1913, it dropped to a low just before the war of about 450,000,000.

In other words, if you look at that as a country has to look at business, there is only one thing a business has to learn; if possible, it has to learn how to do the job and whether they can secure better production, better sales methods, or what have you. You can only legislate those so far. They tried that with reference to legalized cartels, legalized price agreements, and all the rest, and now we are coming to their rescue. I do not think we can continue to come to their rescue. That is why I know British industry would like to get technical help, and they cannot get it.

Mrs. BOLTON. Because it has to go through the government?

Mr. GIFFORD. It has to go through the government, and the British Government won't agree to private enterprise. Even the steel workers' union voted in favor of continuing the steel industry as a private enterprise, but the government is going to nationalize it, anyhow, because they realize it is too large already.

Chairman KEE. Is there anything more you want to add?

Mr. GIFFORD. No. I could go on talking all afternoon, but I think I have said enough.

Chairman KEE. We appreciate very much indeed your coming here and are very glad to get your testimony for the information of the committee.

Mr. GIFFORD. I appreciate the opportunity, because, so far as I am concerned, this is sort of crusading for the cause.

Mr. BOYD CRAWFORD,

Administrative Officer, Foreign Affairs Committee,

United States House of Representatives.

OCTOBER 10, 1949.

DEAR BOYD: I should appreciate it if the enclosed memorandum could be inserted in the record for the Point IV hearings following Mr. Gifford's testimony. As you will see from the attached letter, Mr. Gifford is willing to have the memorandum inserted and Mr. Dallas Dort has told us he has no objection.

Sincerely yours,

C. TYLER WOOD, Assistant Administrator for Operations.

Mr. BOYD CRAWFORD,

Clerk, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

DETROIT, MICH., October 7, 1949.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CRAWFORD: I am willing to have the attached memorandum inserted in the record following my testimony in today's hearings, as a statement which was given me by the ECA.

Sincerely yours,

MEMORANDUM TO BE INSERTED IN THE RECORD

R. W. GIFFORD.

While the ECA technical-assistance program operates through governments, it can be, and in an increasing number of cases is, of direct benefit to private industry. For example, a large number of missions are being sent over to this country from England, France, and other countries, the members of these missions being composed of management and employees of private firms. Where the Government comes in is that the number of applications for technical assistance far exceeds the financial ability of ECA under its present budget to take care of them, and the recipient government is accordingly used to screen the applications and decide jointly with ECA as to which can be taken care of. While the two-man French agricultural team was the first technical-assistance project involving a mission from France, there have been other missions sent over since that date. A 16-man team recently left this country after 6 weeks' study of heavy electrical-engineering production, and another industrial team has recently arrived from France.

Chairman KEE. We have a statement which has been sent in by Mr. H. A. Howard, of Los Angeles, who was invited by the committee to testify today. Mr. Howard was unable to come today, and he sent a written statement. Mr. Ernest E. Johnson, of New York, has submitted it to the committee, and we will be very happy to print his statement in the record.

We have also received a statement from Mr. Robert E. Rodes, representing the American Trade Association of Morocco, which will be incorporated in the record.

(The statements above referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF H. A. HOWARD, OF LOS ANGELES, CALIF., NATIONAL DIRECTOR of THE "BIGGER AND BETTER BUSINESS" PROGRAM OF PHI BETA SIGMA, A NATIONAL COLLEGIATE FRATERNITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, I sincerely welcome this opportunity to appear before you this morning to make this statement in support of H. R. 5615. I speak specifically as the national director of the bigger and better business program of Phi Beta Sigma, a national fraternal organization. I have been authorized, however, to say that the American Council on Human Rights, with which Phi Beta Sigma is affiliated along with other fraternities and sororities, is fully in accord with the views I shall present. May I hasten to say, Mr. Chairman, that the statement I am making should not be construed by your committee to be that of an expert witness. Rather, it is the statement of a businessman, an average citizen and taxpayer, but one who happens to be Negro. No less than any other American, we see it as our duty to participate in the affairs of government. We look forward to the day when more of us will be relieved of the handicaps to a fuller participation which exist in some areas of our country.

The bill as we understand it is the legislative expression of the program to lend aid to the underdeveloped areas of the world. It was first enunciated by President Truman during his inaugural address in January. I believe we can agree that the general idea has gained wide currency, interest, and favor.

For the past 2 weeks you have heard a fine group of witnesses attest to the worthiness of this program. Two world wars have demonstrated to us at considerable cost in lives and money the necessity for helping to create, insofar as is possible, those conditions of world-wide stability as could reasonably reduce

existing areas of conflict among nations. Work in this direction is proceeding apace through numerous programs and agencies, both national and international. We know by now that no nation enjoys a monopoly in the production of the products which the world requires. The program contemplated in President Truman's proposal, if adopted, would enable many of the world's peoples to buy and use more of the things produced by every country. This program, as we see it, would also make it possible for a substantial number of these peoples to acquire a training which would ultimately fit them for more productive roles in their own lands and, it is hoped, under wider local auspices. To all of this. Phi Beta Sigma thoroughly subscribes.

Those for whom I speak, however, would like to go on record as saying that the success of this program is not alone dependent upon the technical assistance we make available to the participating territories. Prompt and adequate attention will have to be directed to raising the standards of health and of eduction of the native peoples wherever they be.

Also, we believe that those agencies of our Government which have had the greatest amount of experience in the areas of public health and education should be drafted to apply their talents in the administration of this bold new program. H. R. 5615 is identified, and properly so, as an instrument of our foreign policy. But no foreign policy to combat world communism and aimed at undernourished and uneducated peoples is going to stick if the minds and bodies of these people are not given the benefit of the knowledge of our own agencies which are doing so gallant a job here at home in these fields.

We join, too, with an earlier witness in urging that this committee assure through the terms of this bill that definite application of its provisions be given to the Caribbean area and to Africa. The United Nations survey recently completed in the Republic of Haiti has provided both experience and adequate justification for proceeding with this work. The people of Haiti are struggling valiantly to maintain a sound constitutional government, controlled by black people. Upon their own initiative, they are succeeding handsomely, but not as well as they could were they given the added incentive suggested by the pending legislation.

In addition to the foregoing, we should like to offer for your consideration the following four points:

1. We want to know that the expenditure of new funds for use in the development of dependent areas will represent an increase in aggregate outlay for these areas, and will not merely be an opportunity for the governing colonial powers to withdraw what funds they are now spending for colonial welfare development. 2. Assurances are asked that, although earmarked for colonial welfare, expenditures as are to be made under H. R. 5615 shall not, in the final analysis be syphoned off and channeled into Europe through some bookkeeping backdoor. 3. We assume that some kind of standards will be established, either in the legislation itself or through rules and regulations written by the administering agency or agencies. We pray that these standards will guarantee that in the operation of this program, we shall not find ourselves substituting an American form of exploitation for the ruthlessness that has characterized the administration of dependent areas by certain well-known offenders.

4. Before this committee and in the business pages of our newspapers, the American investing public has been insistent that proper safeguards be erected for the protection of private capital sent into these underdeveloped areas. That is indeed a highly commendable recommendation. My fraternity and many of my business associates, however, would go further. We urge that in the code of ethical conduct, steps be taken to insure that the integrity of America shall not be dissipated before the eyes of the world by a protected private capital exploiting an unprotected native people.

The heritage of every American goes back to lands in far parts of the globe. The heritage of American Negroes is traceable to lands peopled by darker races. We have not entirely lost an identity with this heritage. In it we share an affinity which, like other people, spans the oceans, the mountains and the valleys. Negro people have winced many times at the downright and oftentimes base exploitation of Africans by the great colonial powers. Naturally, we would hesitate to see our proud country cast in the role of another exploiter.

Finally, I want to comment upon the charge of "dollar imperialism" frequently leveled against this Nation. I am not aware that our country has ever held a gun to the head of any nation to compel it to borrow or ask for American dollars. It was not especially our need which led to the economic recovery program in Europe. It was the needs of a war-wracked continent. It would