to prevent nullification by treaty of existing Federal and State legislation without further action by the Congress.

My concern in this matter stems from the fact that for the last 4 years I have attended the annual conference of the International Labor Organization as a member of the United States employer delegation.

As an arm of the United Nations, the International Labor Organization passes conventions which, when ratified by member countries, become international treaties among the countries which ratify them; thereby under our Constitution as it stands today, becoming, if we ratify them, the law of the land and taking precedent over all other existing Federal or State law.

A large share of these conventions-which are in effect basic outlines of proposed types of legislation-deal with strictly domestic affairs of member countries.

The fact is that the ILO has gone far beyond the field of labor, and is seeking to set itself up as a sort of international legislature to formulate uniform domestic socialistic laws which it hopes, by the vehicle of treaty ratification, can eventually be imposed upon most of the countries of the world.

The ILO has apparently abandoned the concept of the treaty as an instrument dealing with international affairs. It seeks, instead, to inject the principle of internationalism into domestic legislation and destroy the principle of local self-government.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I take it you do not agree with the President when he says there is no difference any more between the domestic and foreign policy.

Mr. McGRATH. I definitely do disagree to that statement, sir. I can best illustrate the extent to which the ILO is attempting to invade the field of domestic legislation by describing some of the conventions which it has passed.

Convention 62 deals with safety provisions in the building industry. Convention 63 sets up federal machinery for gathering statistics on wages and hours in mining, manufacturing, building, and agriculture.

Convention 64 deals with government regulations of written contracts of employment of indigenous workers.

Convention 67 has to do with government regulation of hours of work and rest periods of bus and truck drivers.

Convention 77 sets up regulations for medical examination of children to be employed in industry; and Convention 79 would restrict the night work of children in nonindustrial occupations.

Convention 81 has to do with governmental labor inspection in industry.

Convention 86 would regulate maximum length of contract of employment of indigenous workers.

Convention 87 deals with freedom of association of employees and protection in the right to organize.

Convention 88 is a draft of a law setting up a federal employment

service.

Convention 89 seeks to regulate the night work of women employed in industry; and Convention 90, to regulate the night work of children employed in industry.

Senator HENDRICKSON. We do have, do we not, in most of our States, sound laws regulating these things?

Mr. McGRATH. That is exactly right, and that is why I am listing these, Senator. We do have our own State laws which deal with all of the problems that I have read up to date. We are almost beginning to get

Senator HENDRICKSON. Do the proposals that come in these conventions in this category differ from our own proposals and own laws in our own States?

Mr. McGRATH. Not too much, generally. Our usual standards of measures of safety are as high or higher than other nations of the world. But we have our own standards. There may be differences, I don't say that there are not some differences.

Senator HENDRICKSON. In that category they are probably minor differences, are they not?

Mr. McGRATH. Generally, there might be minor differences. But. even those minor differences might be important so far as we are concerned in America. We don't have to apologize for any of our standards of safety or employment so far as the people of America are concerned as compared with those of the rest of the world.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Thank you.

Mr. McGRATH. Convention 94 deals with labor clauses in public contracts.

Convention 95 would set up governmental regulations concerning methods of payment of wages.

Convention 96 has to do with government regulation of free-charging employment agencies and, incidentally, this convention was designed by the ILO Socialist majority in the hope that it would lead to the outlawing of private employment agencies.

Convention 98 has to do with the application of the principles of the right to organize and bargain collectively.

Senator HENDRICKSON. In that particular convention, how much do they disagree in philosophy and theory with our principles as we know them here?

Mr. McGRATH. I think I can answer that question because I have had a considerable amount of discussion on that particular subject. The philosophy of that convention is-and there is joined with that convention the right to organize, that is, the right to join, and the right to bargain collectively-the philosophy of the governments of the rest of the world, most of the governments of the rest of the world, is that you should only have the right to join. When we tried to insert into that particular convention the words "or not to join" we were met with terrific opposition because it was stated that people should be compelled to join. In other words, there is quite a distinction. We had a terrific argument on that one point. We said:

We will go along with the idea of the right to join if you will insert the right "not to join."

Senator HENDRICKSON. Was our delegation unanimous?

Mr. McGRATH. The employer delegation was unanimous. The employee delegation and the labor delegation were against our viewpoint. We didn't challenge the right to bargain collectively. That is a recognized right. But, on the other hand, in America a man might want to bargain individually. He might not want to bargain collectively. We felt that right should be maintained.

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. McGrath, this convention, how far does it go? Does it, for example, or would it, for example, if adopted as a treaty by the United States Senate, overcome the provisions of the TaftHartley law which was passed by two-thirds of both Houses?

Mr. McGRATH. That has been my very great fear, and there is where you draw your distinction as between the domestic law and Federal law. In my opinion, and those whom I have consulted, if that particular convention was passed

Senator HENDRICKSON. You mean domestic law and international law

Mr. McGRATH. Well, we have, of course, the two types of law. Domestic law as applied to laws of States. Now, your Taft-Hartley law, as I understand it, is a Federal law. I believe that if this particular convention was passed, that is, a convention which has to do with the right to join and the right to bargain collectively, was passed, and those with whom I have consulted on the subject, that it would nullify completely that part of the Taft-Hartley Act which has to do with the closed shop. That is why I think that this thing is terribly dangerous. When they begin to move away from there into the field of what we have adopted as Federal legislation and make this thing so broad as this would do, then I become very fearful of that particular convention and its dangers. I definitely believe that if that convention was passed it would very greatly impede and interfere with the Taft-Hartley Act.

Senator HENDRICKSON. You are saying in effect, then, that through these conventions you could apply a veto to the Taft-Hartley Act. Mr. McGRATH. Exactly.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Or nullify it in some respects.

Mr. MCGRATH. Exactly. I think it would nullify it. At last June's session the ILO passed a convention covering minimum wages in agriculture, and a convention specifying equal pay for men and women workers for work of equal value.

On the agenda of the forthcoming ILO conference are items dealing with holidays with pay in agriculture, protection of the health of workers in places of employment, and job and insurance protection for women during period of childbirth.

I submit, gentlemen, that matters such as these are not only purely domestic affairs for every country; in the United States some of these subjects, or portions of them, are covered by State laws rather than Federal laws, and belong, therefore, most definitely in the province of local self-government.

However, the ILO is not content to confine its legislative efforts to specific limited fields, such as those I have cited. It is now seeking to promote, through the convention vehicle, types of legislation which eventually would basically alter the very nature and structure of the governments of the member states.

There will be passed at the forthcoming ILO conference a convention entitled "Minimum Standards of Social Security." This is a draft of an international law proposing practically every type of social security of which human imagination can conceive; including socialized medicine and a provision for a 5-percent increase in family income for every child born after the first. If a man is sick, or laid off, or grows old, or cuts his little finger, or his wife has a baby-or

even if he has what is called a morbid condition-he gets money from the Government.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Are those words used in the regulation? Mr. MCGRATH. The words "morbid condition" I quote, sir. That is from this particular standard, yes.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Just what does it mean?

Mr. McGRATH. I don't know, sir, but I don't like its implications. There is hardly a contingency in all human experience for which government would not pay him something. Insurance is set up chiefly under government, and it is specified that

in the aggregate the employees protected are not to be required to pay, by way of insurance contributions, more than 50 percent of the financial resources allocated to their protection.

This convention is a complete blueprint for the welfare state. It is an absolute denial of the philosophy of self-reliance, independence, and opportunity; and its financing would require a complete reconstruction of the economy of any country adopting it. Only under a completely planned economy could such a proposal be put into effect. But that is not all. Also on the agenda is a new proposal, which I have not seen, called Advanced Standards of Social Security.

The ILO has developed an interesting technique for pushing measures forward. It will propose, on a certain subject, a recommendation, which is merely what the word implies. Since the recommendation carries with it no threat of treaty ratification, delegates, for the sake of peace and harmony, may be persuaded to go along with it. But once a recommendation along a certain line has been passed, then the majority Socialist group will sharpen it into a convention which those who have previously consented to the recommendation find it difficult to oppose. Therefore ILO recommendations may be taken as an indication of what we may expect will be proposed as actual conventions some time in the future.

At last year's conference the ILO passed a recommendation concerning collective bargaining agreements. This recommendation proposed that government, if and when it chose to do so, could—

negotiate, conclude, revise, and renew collective agreements—

and also that government could arbitrarily—

extend the application of all or certain stipulations of a collective agreement to all the employers and workers included within the industrial and territorial scope of the agreement.

If this became law, government could decree industry-wide bargaining in any industry, and then step in and take over the negotiations. That would not only be the end of free collective bargainingit would inevitably lead to government control of prices and wages and constitute a virtual step toward the establishment of a Socialist planned economy.

Also on the agenda of the forthcoming conference is an item entitled "Cooperation Between Employers and Workers at the Level of the Undertaking." The general import of this innocent-sounding proproposal is that the management of a company should be taken over by a joint union-management committee, and in the background is the understanding that in case the joint committee is unable to agree Government can step in and take over. Needless to say, this, too, would be merely another step toward a government-controlled economy.

A more specific clue as to the over-all objectives of the ILO Socialist majority can be gained from the so-called Resolution on Action Against Unemployment" passed by ILO in 1950.

This resolution states that government should provide an equitable distribution of incomes, and a balance of investment, consumption, and leisure. It recommends what it terms "compensatory action" upon the part of government, in the form of "measures directed at particular sections of the economy" to effect fluctuations as they occur. A study of this resolution shows that to implement it in fact would require complete government regimentation of every phase of business and personal activity.

You may well wonder where the ILO acquired this grandiose ambition to make over the whole world in accordance with its own preconceived pattern. It stems primarily from the declaration adopted by the ILO in Philadelphia in 1944. This declaration said, in part:

* *

Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere. The war against want requires to be carried on with unlimited vigor within each nation and by continuous and concerted international effort *. It is a responsibility of the International Labor Organization to examine and consider all international economic and financial policies and measures in the light of this fundamental objective.

The declaration then proceeds to interpret as "international" many matters dealing purely with internal conditions in member countries. By simply calling everything "international" it arrogates unto itself the supposed right to prescribe domestic legislation on any subject it selects, for nations the world over.

In this connection Judge Florence Allen, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, says in her recent book entitled "The Treaty as an Instrument of Legislation":

That there are situations in all of these fields of human life which need to be remedied cannot be doubted; but how do these matters fall within the jurisdiction of the ILO? Does the fact that the ILO in its Philadelphia declaration stated broad human objectives make it the legislative agent of the nations of the world in problems other than those affecting labor? That the ILO thinks so was clearly evidenced in the 1949 report of the Director, who said in his report: "Today the role of the Organization as to an international parliament has become generally accepted."

I have heard it said that there is nothing to worry about in this situation, because the United States Senate would not ratify any convention the terms of which were contrary to the United States Constitution, or which would alter existing domestic legislation.

That may be very true today. But we are dealing with possible eventualities which may arise at some time in the future. And the United States is going to be subject to an increasing amount of urging by other countries to ratify more ILO conventions.

The ILO has passed a total of 99 conventions. Many other nations have ratified substantial numbers of them. For instance, France has ratified 51, England 48, Belgium 37, Netherlands 33, Norway 33, and Sweden 32.

Senator HENDRICKSON. How many have we ratified?

Mr. McGRATH. Six, five of which were maritime conventions. I think had we been alert to their implication and possibilities the Senate would not have ratified those five. Thus far, as you know, the United States has ratified five, dealing chiefly with maritime matters