Senator DIRKSEN. You can insert that when you have it, but just for our purpose now, tell us what other representatives or delegates there are. If there is an employer delegate or more, then surely there are employee delegates.

Mr. McGRATH. The setup is this. The United States Government has two official delegates. One of these delegates usually comes from the Senate of the United States.

Senator DIRKSEN. From the Senate?

Mr. McGRATH. From the Senate of the United States; yes, sir. The other is usually the Assistant Secretary of Labor. But during the 4 years I have been going, the Secretary of Labor arrives some time during the conference, but during his absence he is always represented there by the Assistant Secretary of Labor.

· The CHAIRMAN. The Senators are Herbert O'Conor and Murray of Montana.

Mr. McGRATH. During the year 1949 and 1950 Senator Herbert R. O'Conor of Maryland was one of the two Government representatives. During the years of 1951 and 1952, Senator James Murray of Montana and Phil Kaizer, Assistant Secretary of Labor, was the other Government representative.

Now that takes care of the Government delegation.

We move on now to the labor delegation. The labor delegate during the period of time I have been going there has been Mr. Phillip Delaney, who is the international representative of the American Federation of Labor in attending these conferences. Along with Mr. Delaney, as well as along with the Government people, there are usually 6 or 7 advisers that comprise each respective section's part of the delegation.

In other words, the Government delegation has its representatives or advisers, the labor delegate, Mr. Delaney, will have usually 6 or 7 international presidents of various AFL unions during the first 2 years, and then during the latter 2 years there was a combination of AFL and CIO in the last 2 years.

Senator DIRKSEN. Who designates the employer delegate?

Mr. MCGRATH. The employer delegate is usually nominated by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is my understanding that they divide the nominations.

Senator DIRKSEN. You do not mean the employee delegate?

Mr. McGRATH. No. You asked about the employer delegate. The employer delegate is named jointly by the two associations. The advisers are usually named, perhaps 3 by the National Association of Manufacturers and 3 by the United States Chamber of Commerce. I understand my nomination came from the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Senator DIRKSEN. Who nominates the employee delegate?

Mr. McGRATH. I understand those are nominated by the Deparɩment of Labor.

Senator DIRKSEN. Now who votes out of this group? You vote over there?

Mr. McGRATH. The Government has two votes. Only the delegates have the power to vote. But they also have the power to designate whom they will select to vote for them in their absence.

Senator DIRKSEN. So we have two votes?

The CHAIRMAN. How many votes are there all together?
Mr. McGRATH. Four all together.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean in the entire conference.

Mr. McGRATH. There are only four votes that really count. Whenever an employer representative votes, he votes in the name of the employer delegate.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not get my question. With all the countries combined how man votes are there?

Mr. MCGRATH. There are between 60 and 65 nations, and each has 4 votes. So we have, we will say, one-sixtieth of the total votes. That is, the United States delegation has one-sixtieth of the total votes. Does that answer the question?

The CHAIRMAN, That is the question. Thank you very much. Senator DIRKSEN. So nations large and small each have four votes? Mr. McGRATH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that apply to the United States and all its Territories? You vote for Puerto Rico and Alaska and Hawaii?

Mr. McGRATH. I do not recall. I have a list of all the countries that are there. I have never heard of Hawaii. I think the United States Government represents Hawaii and all the Territories.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind filing that list if you can find it? Mr. McGRATH. I have it right with me. These four copies I have contain a complete list of all the countries represented and the delegates named.

Senator DIRKSEN. I think that should be filed for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it should be filed.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

The CHAIRMAN. How many votes does Russia and all the satellite countries have?

Mr. McGRATH. I would like to qualify that statement. Russia is not represented as a member nation. However, Czechoslovakia and Poland are there, and we assume that they are the listening posts

and the mouthpiece of Russia. But Russia as a nation is not represented. In fact, about the only two countries behind the Iron Curtain that are represented there would be Czechoslovakia and Poland, and you would consider Austria as being one of the countries behind the Iron Curtain, they are also represented there.

if

But we consider as a general rule that these three countries represent Russia, and they are behind the Iron Curtain.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. McGRATH. In 1934, when the United States first became a member of the ILO, the United States was not bound by convention procedure, and joined the ILO on the basis that any proposal of the ILO would serve merely as a recommendation in the United States. I think that is very important.

The joint resolution of the House and the Senate ratifying United States membership, passed in 1934, contained this paragraph:

Whereas special provision has been made in the constitution of the International Labor Organization by which membership of the United States would not impose or be deemed to impose any obligation or agreement upon the United States to accept the proposals of that body as involving anything more than recommendations for its consideration ***

Now I think you will have a difficult time trying to locate that particular paragraph. It seems to be out of print. I believe we found that on the wall of the International Labor Office here in Washington, but that is something that has been forgotten.

The Senate and the House when they ratified our membership in ILO in 1934 took the precaution to see to it that our Government or our country would not be affected by these conventions. They recognize their dangers.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be printed in the Congressional Record of that day?

Mr. McGRATH. That should be. I do not know that. That should be in the Congressional Record.

But the Senate at that time and the House took the precaution, recognizing the danger, to incorporate this exception that conventions would be treated as recommendations. Now recommendations are not international treaties. So, some very wise thinking was done at that time. Now let us follow on from there and see what happened. But when, in 1948, we approved the present ILO constitution, this act put us on the same basis as other federal countries with respect. to ILO conventions.

Under the ILO constitution, once a convention has been passed by the ILO each member country is supposed to submit it to its own. treaty-ratifying authority. There are therefore now pending 93 proposed ILO treaties, which under ILO procedure could be submitted to our Senate, or to the States, for ratification or implementation. In fact, several of these conventions were, as you know, submitted to the Senate by ex-President Truman. Conceivably any or all the rest of them could be submitted at any time.

What is the subject matter of these proposed treaties? I shall not attempt to go through the whole list, but will merely cite, for purposes of illustration, some of those covering matters which I would certainly consider to be "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States," and that is what I understand the Bricker resolution is supposed to provide for.

There are now in existence ILO conventions-that is, draft treaties-ready for submission, dealing with the following subjects: Safety provisions in the building industry.

Gathering of statistics on wages and hours in mining, manufacturing, building, and agriculture.

Government regulation of written contracts of employment of indigenous workers. It took me a long time to find out what an "indigenous worker" was.

Government regulation of hours of work and rest periods of bus and truck drivers.

Medical examination of children employed in industry.

Freedom of association of employees and protection in the right to organize. Take a good look at that one.

The setting up of a federal employment service.

Regulation of night work of women employed in industry.
Labor clauses in public contracts.

Regulation of methods of payment of wages.

Government regulation of employment agencies. Take a good look

at that one, also.

Minimum wages in agriculture.

Equal pay for men and women for equal work.
Holidays with pay in agriculture.

Social security.

Government benefits for maternity.

Among the ILO conventions submitted by Mr. Truman and now pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are: Convention 63, concerning statistics of wages and hours of work in the principal mining and manufacturing industries, including building and construction and in agriculture, Convention 87, concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, and Convention 80, concerning the organization of the employment service. Now those are sleepers. We have been conditioned. We have passed 10 conventions. So why should we not pass some more of them? They are harmless, according to what we are told.

It may be hard to realize, gentlemen, that the International Labor Organization, with delegates from some 60 nations, debates, for a whole month each year, the actual nature and wording of proposed standard international laws covering subjects of this sort, which we in our country would consider, in many cases, even more appropriate for State than for Federal action. But such is the case.

Furthermore, a great many countries of the world, especially the socialistically inclined nations, take these ILO conventions very seriously, put many of them into effect by implementing legislation, and then ratify the conventions by their ratifying authorities. These ILO conventions in fact set the pattern for a great deal of domestic legislation in countries all over the world.

This situation is alarming because of the change in the political complexion of the ILO which has occurred chiefly during the last decade.

In its earlier years the ILO devoted its efforts to matters dealing directly with labor and did excellent constructive work. Its objective was that of endeavoring to raise living standards of employees all over the world, get them better working conditions, fuller recognition of their rights, etc.

However, as state socialism came into the ascendancy in Europe and the concept of the planned economy gained broad political acceptance, the ILO stepped beyond the field of labor proper into the field of government itself; and under the pretext of "helping the workingman," has put forward a whole series of proposals, which, if adopted and implemented in member countries, would of necessity force their governments into a socialistic mold.

The ILO is today, in my opinion, almost completely in the hands of a socialistic government-labor coalition, which apparently has as its objective the enactment of socialistic legislation, standardized along ILO lines, in the largest possible number of countries in the world. Their interest is to get these laws on the statute books. Whether or not they are actually made effective today is apparently secondary. Once a law is passed, the pattern is set. The rest can come later.

Senator DIRKSEN. When a draft convention goes before the ILO body and all the delegates are there, they vote by majority vote? Mr. McGRATH. It takes a two-thirds majority vote to carry. But I would like to remind you that the breakdown is 2 votes for Government, 1 vote for labor, and they vote together practically all the time. So that you have a 75-25 coalition coalition. So we get licked all the time. We very seldom win a victory. The only way we win a victory is to threaten to walk out of the place, and we have done that on one occasion.

Senator DIRKSEN. But it would appear from the general membership and the concept that prevails in so many countries that our conservative attitude is almost always outvoted, I take it?

Mr. McGRATH. Unfortunately our Government delegate will practically always vote with the other countries of the world, and our labor delegate votes with the other countries of the world. So the other countries of the world believe, as a result of that expression, that the United States Government is in total and complete accord with what has been proposed, and we are just the antisocial, disgruntled employers of the world.

As I said before, we get licked all the time, but we finally developed a sort of leatherlike constitution which enables us to take our beating and come back and ask them for more, and use their Socialist soapbox to try to preach freedom of America and the private-enterprise system and the benefits it has given to this country that is supporting the rest of the world.

That is heresy when you talk like that, when you talk there about government being the servant of the people and the people being the masters, why, you are speaking disrespectfully, and you should speak in a low voice, because you are certainly not speaking in accord with the beliefs of most of the rest of the nations of the world, and you feel very much alone.

As you meet with these nations year after year you see that they do not understand at all about America. Our Government has not been telling those people the story of America. They have been telling those people over there that we are completely socialistic over here, that we are in favor of all these things. I will get to that a little later. To illustrate the Socialist nature of these proposed international laws I want to go into detail as briefly as I can with respect to some of the most recent ILO conventions.