logically, regarding the disposition of such aid, the United States is charged with imperialism by the Red Bloc nations—and with the sin of circumventing the United Nations whenever it desires.

And even among the nations friendly to America, there is the justifiable suspicion that the United States, even in its most altruistic programs of foreign aid, is "doing it alone" for its own selfish purposes rather than channeling its funds through the United Nations. Since our Nation manufactures over 50 percent of the goods of the world in a nation having only 6 percent of the world's population and 7 percent of the land area of the world, our foreign programs will be more effective and our reputation more laudable if we worked more diligently through the United Nations. Specifically, if we recommend that America channel the bulk of its foreign aid through the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development (SUNFED). The proposal for this agency was made by the delegates of some underdeveloped countries at a recent session of the U. N. It called for the setting up of a fund of $250 million for capital development. They based their argument on the fact that often the technical assistance agencies outline excellent policies and programs, but because there are no cheap sources of capital available, these plans cannot be adequately developed. They further pointed out that the U. N. International Bank requires 4% percent interest, whereas many of the most needed improvements, such as roads, schools, harbors, etc., are of a nonprofit nature. This special fund of only $250 million is equivalent to about 60 percent of the cost of one of our aircraft carriers of the Forrestal type. If any real improvements are to be made in the living standards in any of the underdeveloped countries, it means cheap capital on a long-term basis must be made available.

And yet this morning I have received word from Washington that the House Appropriations Committee will report the supplemental appropriations bill to the floor of the House tomorrow (March 18) with no money for U. N. technical assistance. This is a tragic mistake, which can be remedied only if we reverse the trend of circumventing the U. N. The U. N. Charter should be revised so that nations will be required to aid needy countries through agencies of the United Nations.

4. Organized labor believes in the United Nations because it believes in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of all men.--Much of the criticism of the U. N. here in the South comes from men and women who through ignorance or circumstance simply do not believe in the equality of all men. They preach white supremacy in the South, conduct their politics with a flare for racial demagogery, and fight labor unions because we believe in job opportunities for all men and women regardless of race, creed, or color. A man cannot believe in inequality at home without believing in inequality abroad. These same persons preach against aid to the underdeveloped people of the world-simply because most of these people have a darker skin than white Americans. They are against America's participation in the United Nations simply because that organization has advanced the universal declaration of human rights based on the proposition that all men—and nations-are created equal in the sight of God.

Democracy is not the exclusive property of any nation or race, and America can best show its faith in the equality of all men by strengthening the United Nations in all ways.

Dean NARMORE, Mr. Herbert Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT JOHNSON, ATLANTA, GA.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was born within 25 miles of where we are right now; except for 6 years I spent at Charlottesville, Va., I have lived here. First I want to say something. I want to apologize for people who disagree with me. I am not as gracious as my friend Harrison McMains, but I want you gentlemen of the committee to forgive them for I am sure they know not what they do.

As you gentlemen have said, the American people are impatient people. They are not only impatient, they want everything to come full blown into this world perfect.

That is not true. Even the United States Senate has sometimes been accused of a lack of perfection, but no one has seriously suggested that we abolish it.

Now the same thing is true about the United Nations. It is the one hope that we have for world peace. All the people that appeared before you gentlemen today and all the people that have appeared before you at the previous hearings and the ones that will appear in the future have one thing in common, one meeting ground. Every one of them desires world peace.

I think our only difference is what is the best hope of achieving it. Most of us, some of us believe that the only hope is through the United Nations.

Now it was understood when the United Nations was formed that a revision would probably be necessary from time to time, and that time has come.

REVISION OF VETO POWER

I think that the most important thing that should be the cause for revision is the veto power.

It has been overused, and been used in a way that the people who wrote the charter of the U. N. never contemplated it would be.

Many people object to the abolishment of the veto power because they believe that it would mean the sacrifice of some of our national sovereignty. They overlook the fact that the United States itself is not a sovereign nation, because many of the powers that are necessary for sovereignty are reserved to the various States.

Sovereignty is a relative term. They have not and cannot be in this modern world such a thing as absolute sovereignty.

Probably at no time in human history has man been a sovereign animal. He has had to sacrifice a degree of sovereignty for the very act of survival itself.

Men joined together and gave up their rights as individuals to protect their lives, persons, and property.

For myself I cannot see why the United States would be hurt at all by giving up the power to wage an offensive war.

We do not seek war. As a matter of fact, this country has long been willing to forego war as an instrument of policy.

But other nations have not agreed with the idealistic view of the United States on this point.

We have got to get to have them agree to it in some way. As a country we have been willing to have other countries or representatives of other countries to investigate our armament program. Other countries have not been willing for representatives of other countries to come and investigate their army's program.

Since the United States grew from a union of almost sovereign States and since this country has been so successful that it has now achieved world leadership, it seems that we, of all people in the world, should be the one least fearful of giving up a small degree of sovereignty.

I got a few figures from Carnegie Library here just before I came over here; they were given over the telephone but I think they are

accurate.

Under our present program we are spending about $50 billion a year for national defense. This is a staggering amount.

For this the education of our children is being sadly neglected. Georgia and every other State in the Union cannot provide education of its children.

Business is unable to lay aside the sum it deems necessary to replace itself.

I believe that 95 percent of this sum could be saved if the United States were to make it impossible for any one country, to make it impossible for a country, to wage offensive war.

Just as an economy measure, forgetting idealism, that is a sufficient reason for strengthening the U. N.

I understand the United Nations cost each American 56 cents last year. The threat of war cost every American $300; I don't see how anybody could look at these figures and not see the ridiculousness.

I think every one of us should work together to secure peace for this world.

Gentlemen, I understand I am the last one on the program. I am not an official greeter; I don't represent anyone. But I want to thank you on behalf of myself and everyone else here for the kind attention you have given us.

We have criticized our Government. We are quite frequently callous to our democracy, but by the attention you have paid to us just through these hearings you have increased my faith and the faith of everyone of us who has come before you in our way of American life.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, I think that is a very fine and generous American note on which to end the hearings. (Mr. Johnson's prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HERBERT JOHNSON, ATLANTA, GA.

The American people want everything to be perfect. They are idealists rather than realists. When they helped create the United Nations they thought that it would be an effective organization for world peace. Unfortunately, it has not been perfect, but it has been far better than no organization at all. At least, there has been a gathering place for representatives of most of the world's great nations.

When the United Nations was formed, it was understood that charter revisions would probably be necessary, and they are necessary. One of these, and possibly the most important one, is a revision of the veto power. It has been overused, in a way that was never originally contemplated.

Many people object to the giving up of the veto power because they believe that it would mean the sacrifice of some of our national sovereignty. They overlook the fact that the United States is not a sovereign nation, because many of the powers which are necessary for sovereignty are reserved by the various States. Sovereignty is a relative term. There is not and cannot be in this modern world such a thing as absolute sovereignty. Probably nowhere in human history has man been a completely sovereign animal. He has had to sacrifice a degree of sovereignty for the right of survival. Men joined together to keep from constantly battling each other and to protect their own lives and property. I cannot see why the United States would be hurt at all by giving up the power to wage an offensive war. We do not seek war. As a matter of fact, this country has long been willing to forego war as an instrument of policy. We have been willing to have our armaments checked by a tribunal, but other countries have been unwilling to have theirs checked.

Since the United States grew from the union of a group of almost sovereign States, and since this country has been so successful that it has achieved world leadership, it seems that we of all people in the world should be the ones least fearful of giving up a small degree of sovereignty.

Under our present program, we are spending $50 billion a year for national defense. This is a staggering amount. For this the education of our children is being sadly neglected. Business is unable to lay aside the amount necessary for

expansion. I believe that 95 percent of this sum could be saved if the United Nations was so strengthened as to make it impossible for any one country or group of countries to wage offensive warfare.

The United Nations cost each American 56 cents last year. The threat of war cost each $300. How can anyone look at these figures and not see the ridiculous waste?

We must work together with every nation in the world for anything that would insure peace for our children.

CLOSING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Johnson was the last of the additional 3 witnesses to be added to the list which was given us this morning, so I understand that that completes the agenda.

May I say in closing, unless either or both of my colleagues have something to say, that I have been impressed more than anything by two facts in connection with this hearing today:

First is the fact that so many people who used to be submerged in their own affairs and whose own affairs are more complex now than they were then, are taking the time and putting out the effort to advise themselves about this subject. Surely there is intelligence enough and patriotism enough in all of us to come to sound and constructive

answers.

The second thing that I am greatly impressed with here today is the tolerance and friendly attitude of witnesses who have applauded each other regardless of the fact that there has been rather marked difference of opinion in some instances, and I believe you would say that was an understatement of what has occurred.

We hear these things every day. Our mail reflects them several times a day, because the newsmen and messengers can't carry all our mail at one time. We are getting very heavy mail on this and other important subjects, and I want to assure you that very frequently to my office come letters not nearly so tolerant and not nearly so considerate and I think not nearly so American as have been the tones of every witness who has spoken here today for which I am most grateful to you and I am sure the other members of the committee feel likewise. I yield to Senator Sparkman and Senator Smith to make any supplemental statement that they wish to make.

Senator SPARKMAN. I accept the statement of our chairman for my own.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much.

Senator SMITH. I accept the same statement and I also want to express my appreciation of the inspiration of today in hearing you people so earnestly present your views.

It has been a great contribution to America.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much and the committee will rise.

(Whereupon at 4: 35 p. m. the hearings were adjourned.)

X