one, you see.

And I think there are a lot of people in this country that believe that we ought to take this Constitution of ours and throw it out the window.

But when you see the manner in which that was conceived and written, and the blood and sweat and the tears that those men put into that Constitution, and the undivided effort that they gave, such as men couldn't give today, in the turmoil of things as they are today--I don't think you could find a group of men that would be willing to dedicate themselves as those men did.

The CHAIRMAN. When you see a group like the American Bar Association sitting here, that will be here over a month, do you not think that is a pretty fine example of American patriotism?

Mr. McGRATH. I would like to say a word. The inspiration and the knowledge that I got out of this whole thing, the thing that alarmed me-I wasn't thinking so much about the U. N. I heard about the U. N. But all at once I heard a voice out here in the wilderness, and that voice was making speeches, about 5 or 6 years ago. And all of a sudden I got a copy of a speech that was made by Frank Holman. Then I got a letter from an attorney by the name of Bowen, and he happened to be a delegate to an adviser of the ILO Conference, and he began to send me material that was originating from Frank Holman, what he was saying on this subject. Well, you know, I never met Frank Holman, never heard of him, until then. And that voice was crying in the wilderness. I just said, "Well, here is an affiliate of U. N. Why can't the same thing apply right over here? The only thing is that this one has been going for 35 years, and they have worked out their mechanics of operation. They have a finesse. They have master minds, trained people, 600 of them."

But it was out of the inspiration of thought that came from Frank Holman that I was caused to question as to whether or not this same thing he was talking about, on UN and genocide, wasn't the same thing that would hit us back in the teeth some day out of ILO. And, of course, I believe that ILO will be living maybe perhaps long after UN has been forgotten, if they don't change their ways, you see.

Senator DIRKSEN. Well, ILO has now been definitely integrated into UN. It is, as you say, an affiliate or a subsidiary.

Mr. MCGRATH. I was speaking to the Director General on that subject, and he is very apprehensive about the relationship. He is very careful now to say that it is an affiliate, you see. I think they are tied in pretty close.

But, nevertheless, from what I read about the situation, I am convinced that ILO is definitely a part of UN. I think that they have bound themselves together on the basis of understanding, and that when you think of UN you think of ILO.

But I think ultimately, unless UN changes its ways, it is intended that ILO shall take over this particular Bureau that was headed up by Mrs. Roosevelt, on economic, social, and cultural phases. I think we will ultimately see that move over to ILO.

Senator DIRKSEN. You know, Mr. McGRATH, I have a habit of looking over all the material that comes to my office, and blue pencilling, and so I save out a few things. This came to my desk: "Guide to the United States and the United Nations." It contains a chronology going back to 1941. And then on page 18, it says:

Background material on UN and other international organizations.

Then it recites the various subsidiaries and one thing and another. And on page 21, it gives the same space, without qualification, to ILO, that it does to WHO, meaning World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the World Postal Union, WPU, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization. It makes no distinction here. It is included as a commission or a specialized agency in UN.

Mr. McGRATH. Yes, sir. And I believe very definitely that they are all a part of UN, and I believe they have been integrated and merged, by agreement.

May I go on, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed. Go right ahead. And just interpolate at any time you feel like it.

Mr. McGRATH. Is that agreeable, sir? I hope you do not feel I am getting too much off the track.

The CHAIRMAN. No. Take all the time you want.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. McGrath, just a moment. Senator Butler thought we ought to identify the publication a little more. This is the Department of State publication 4653, "International Organization and Conference Series," III, 84, released September 1952. Mr. McGRATH. Very good.

The United States Labor delegate to the ILO likewise voted in favor of practically every proposed international socialistic law.

The only people from the United States who steadfastly opposed such proposals were the members of the United States employer delegation. You might have thought that the State Department would have been on hand to do something where international treaties were concerned. They were there, however, only as observers, and took no active part.

That, to me, was one of the most terrible things, that here were a bunch of rank amateurs. Now, consider me, a furnace manufacturer, going over to Europe to negotiate an international treaty, without ever having a legal background. And yet today, in the parlance of the international people, I am an expert, you see. Yes, I am an expert. I am qualified to really sit in there and help them amend these laws and write these laws.

The thing that was so appalling to me, as I would say to these State Department people when I would run into them: "For God's sake, when are you going to get in this? Are the labor people and these people all over the world going to write our United States laws for us?" Senator DIRKSEN. By the way, how large is the staff of the United States and the U. N. at Geneva?

Mr. McGRATH. Five or six hundred.

Senator DIRKSEN. As I understand, their annual budget is around 6 million.

Mr. McGRATH. Five and a half million.

Senator DIRKSEN. Five and a half million, of which we contribute 26 percent. Now, do we have any experts on the staff who give guidance?

Mr. McGRATH. Oh, yes. Well, there are experts from every country in the world, you see.

Senator DIRKSEN. I am speaking particularly of expert guidance with respect to international treaties, since you say the State Depart

ment people are only observers who do not give you any assistance. Mr. McGRATH. Well, these people are all experts. They all claim to be experts. They are the ones that do the masterminding. They are the ones that prepare the draft treaties. And, if course, the Conference itself confines itself to amendments.

You would have thought that the United States Department of Commerce would have taken a hand in a situation in which employers as well as employees were concerned. They finally sent a representative over last year-but he, too, only observed.

Since, in ILO voting, Government has 2 votes, labor has 1 vote, and employers 1 vote; employers were always voted down 3 to 1. On almost all of these proposed international socialistic laws, the United States delegation as a body voted 3 in favor as compared to 1 against.

Now, I think that I would like to introduce at this time exhibit 3. Each year since 1949, following my return from each ILO Conference, I immediately prepared a personal report, in which I set forth a résumé of my observations and the highlights of some of the most outstanding experiences. I wish to submit as exhibit 3 my four yearly reports, which give a more comprehensive picture of what transpired there than I am able to do in my brief statement presented today. The CHAIRMAN. That can be filed. Will you file that?

Mr. McGRATH. I also wish to submit, as exhibit 4, the official reports of the entire United States employer delegation to ILO, issued as a joint publication by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, in which are set forth the general views and observations of all members of the employer delegaTion. These reports have been issued each year since the 1949 Conference, and in my opinion deserve careful reading and consideration. These reports will give you in detail the names of those who participated, the subjects that were on the agenda, and I think it is one of the most constructive jobs that these two business organizations have done for business generally. Because here is an effort of the two organizations working together and presenting a joint viewpoint on an important subject. The contents of these reports were prepared by consulting with the various adviser members of the delegation, and the delegate himself.

So these are my personal reports. These are the official reports of the delegation.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show that they are filed.

Mr. McGRATH. The general impression, therefore, given to the 60 nations present, was that the United States of America, as a whole, was entirely in favor of the socialistic state of tomorrow, constructed along the lines of proposed international laws drafted by the ILO. The opposition of the United States employer delegates was completely disregarded as representing what the Socialists called the traditional antilabor attitude of employers.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you joined in your opposition by the employers from other countries?

Mr. McGRATH. That is a very interesting question, Senator. The amazing thing to me is that the poor downtrodden employers for the rest of the world are in a situation where they have exactly the same problems. They have lost their freedom, though. You see? Here in

America we employers still have the right to complain. And, you know, I marveled at the courage of these businessmen from all over the world, and the manner in which they sort of stuck together, sort of hoping that America would take the lead and get us out of this predicament. Because, you know, businessmen are pretty good missionaries around the world. They can do the world a lot of good, if you don't restrict them too much.

But in direct answer to your question, you would be amazed at the solidarity of viewpoint and the sympathic understanding that businessmen the world over have for the problems of one another; and the solid front, under the leadership of this great Britisher-I differ with him greatly-Sir John Forbes Watson. He died this last year, from pressure. But under his leadership, as a British employer, all of these employers were held together. And it is a pretty thin fabric. It took a lot of courage. Because I know when a lot of those employers went back to their respective homes, they were pretty roughly treated, perhaps, as a result of the stand that they took on certain issues when they voted alone on issues and voted for issues.

The CHAIRMAN. When you meet there, is there any limitation on debate?

Mr. McGRATH. They have restrictions sometimes in the plenary session. Now, that is like when you gentlemen meet out here on the floor of Congress. I don't know whether you are restricted, but they sometimes have a 15-minute rule; that they will let you talk 15 minutes.

For most of our work, for the 3 to 4 weeks that we are here, we meet in committee. We meet just as if we were gathered around this table. This group here, this center table, would be the government, the employers would be over there, the labor people here, with the chairman presiding. Now, those debates would go on endlessly. You see, we would take 3 weeks until we get out of the maze of detail there. And that is where most of the work of the conference was handled.

Then, finally, at the end of the conference, we would begin, at the end of 3 weeks, to crystallize these conventions, and then we would have the debates on the floor of the world parliament.

Does that answer the questions?

The CHAIRMAN. It does. Thank you very much.

Mr. McGRATH. This is another important reason why action should be taken in this country along the lines proposed by the resolution introduced by Senator Bricker.

The delegates from the various nations attending the ILO are important people in their various countries. They have taken home to their constituents the impression that the United States of America is completely in favor of socialism, and that it is only a question of time. until we in this country go Socialist as they have already gone Socialist, or are planning to do so, in the near future.

In this connection, it is hard to realize what a small place the United States of America occupies in the thinking of the people who are planning the Socialist world of tomorrow. In their eyes the world today is engaged in a great struggle between socialism and communism. In this struggle the American competitive system simply doesn't count. All we do is supply the money.

A last June's conference, we asked the United States Government delegates flatly why they followed the policy they did. Their first answer was that their policy was dictated from Washington.

When pressed further, they indicated, in a general but not very informative fashion, that the idea was that the United States should play up to the Socialists because the Socialists would help us contain The Communists. In other words, internationally speaking, we should be hypocrites. We should pretend to support measures which we now our people would never approve of, in the hope that European Socialists would in turn be more sympathetic to our programs with espect to Russia.

My own personal point of view is that hypocrisy is no proper founFatice for international relations. I think that the behavior of our Cited States delegates in voting in favor of Socialist international Tavs which are contrary to the principles on which our freedom and vait eeepony have been founded is unforgivable. I do not think we defend ourselves against communism by pretending sympathy for a system which is equally repugnant to the basic principles of Le Constitution of the United States.

In question the extent and importance of the Socialist bloc Fred our United States delegates to the ILO have attempted to reuse. There is held each year a convention of what is called the Cast Internationale. Many of the delegates to the ILO stay et to attend this convention. A phrase often overheard in the pridors of the Palace of the United Nations, where the ILO conces are held. is the phrase "international solidarity." These Socialists want to impose their ideas on every country they and in particular they want to impose them on the United States. They are well aware that they cannot do it here by direct legisBut they are fully alert to the possibility that they 4122 bee to achieve their ends by sneaking in through the back

They may not be able to get socialism by legislation-but unheeeghele in our Constitution is plugged, they might be able weism by treaty.

have also heard it said that there is little need to worry about ILO

QATYRICONS because, under the ILO Constitution, a country with a syster such as ours may, if the subject is deemed appropriate er than federal decision, simply refer the matter to the 24" *Ies for such action as they may see fit to take. What this 940878 '&'y that the United States Government can dodge the

yassing the buck to the states.

Now, you might be interested in this. The committee I served on t yea's is à committee called the Committee for Ratification of

Ccommendations. That is supposed to be the auditing committee

no conscience of ILO. That is the committee that audits all nayons of the world, all these participating members, who have ied treaves and yet who have not implemented them by legis

Spy. Is this the embryo of an enforcement agency? MY MOGRAPM. This is a persuasive agency. And you persuade by cof embarrassing the participants of ILO.

So they are brought into this room.

And, of course, there are rep

ANNUVOS on this committee, labor, industry, and government. Of