able to say that we have laid the foundation for building up the democratic Austria that will be on the border of the Iron Curtain, and will be fully committed to the western democratic ideals.

Italy must be helped further in its efforts to increase production and to solve its major problems of large-scale unemployment. In France, and 3 or 4 other countries, a relatively small supplement of economic aid is needed to help eliminate avoidable hardships imposed by the burden of the rearmament effort.

In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might make a suggestion. I caught, in Mr. Vorys' voice, when he was asking a question of the previous witness, some concern about the kind of thing that has been discussed in this committee for quite a long time. And one of the witnesses reiterated that point, that we don't want to have give-away aid. It is the kind of thing that would help somebody to earn the doughnut and cup of coffee, instead of handing it to him, continually, that we want.

I am not presenting a formula. I am not offering a program of any kind, but I am merely suggesting that it might be well for this committee to ask Governor Stassen, the Mutual Security Administrator, or the Foreign Operations Administrator who will be in charge of this program to explore the possibilities of reciprocal services that might be given and that some of the countries today are most anxious to give to us in return for some of the aid that they are receiving. There are ways of pointing out possibilities of providing both in services, goods, and knowledge and facilities, that these countries possess, to help us in things that might be of extreme value to us on the basis of exchange and reciprocity for the aid we are giving. I am not raising a question about the loan program, although we know a good part of this has been on a loan basis and we know that many of the loans are good and will be paid later, but I am offering this as a possible method that might help in the acceptance of the kind of relationships that we are pursuing in this program.

3. Encourage free labor unions. Free labor, with its support of America's cause of freedom and true democracy has been from the outset at the core of the effort to achieve effective economic cooperation and mutual defense. In the years ahead, it is free labor, its purpose and its strength, that will decide the balance between the success and failure in the struggle for the free world.

I don't think there is any question about that, that the dependence is entirely in the arena in which the Soviet agression, internal aggression, is concentrated. Their purpose is to capture, short of military action, the allegiance of the workers, and that is why this is so important. That is why we are asking that sections 516 and 115 (k) of the Mutual Security Act be not only retained, but reinforced to enable the Mutual Security Agency to encourage, where suitable, the development of free labor unions.

4. Encourage free competition, increased productivity, and equitable sharing of its benefits, while discouraging monoplies. The measure of progress toward self-reliance in many of the countries in this program is their ability to break out of the binding restrictions of customs and institutions which have served to foster cartels, monopolies, and a static economy in protected markets. The expanding economy of the free world as a whole, must be sustained by increasingly dynamic economic organization. Sections 516 and 115 (k) of the act

are vital tools for accomplishing this purpose. We ask that they be put into full effect.

5. Relate purchasing policies and allocation of contracts to political and economic objectives of mutual security. Offshore procurement can and should be closely integrated with our program objectives.

I am raising the question of offshore procurement, and I am raising it purposely, because it is our feeling that in the past there has been something of a failure to relate the procurement policies, the offshore procurement, to the kind of realities of the situations which they must meet, particularly in Italy, as a notable example. You have areas of unemployment, you have areas of available productive capacity, and you have areas of political checkerboard in which some plants and facilities are Communist dominated. In others, you have strong units that are supporting the western democratic ideal. And yet, you find procurement officers ignoring that kind of situation completely and negotiating particular contracts, as if they were conducting their negotiations at home in the United States, completely without regard to the kind of conditions and the kind of effectiveness that can be achieved by tying this to the basic considerations of our objectives in that country.

Procurement officers should be under directives to give special consideration in the placement of orders to the political background involved in the use of production and transportation facilities abroad. No less important is the insistence on the maintenance of fair labor standards in the production of goods and services financed out of Mutual Security funds.

6. Revitalize and expand point 4 aid to underdeveloped areas. We must redouble our efforts to extend technical assistance and other forms of aid in order to help raise production, welfare, and the standard of living in the underdeveloped areas of the world. These programs should go hand in hand with our work to help extend democracy and enhance national freedom of the people in these areas.

All that these words spell is self-reliance. It means the provision of simple tools. It means helping others take the next stepsnot steps 100 yards away but the next steps they can take right in front of them that will enable them to make progress, and that is one of the problems in the point 4 program that has to be met. It has to be a realistic program and a practical program.

In this I would like to comment on the question that came before this committee this afternoon and that is in relation to the political objectives. We have no question but what we have one basic national interest objective which simply cannot be divorced from what we are doing. What we are doing is in the face of these realities: a large portion of the world captive in Communist hands and a large portion of the world which is free and a large portion of the world which does not know. And we should ask today as a matter of just plain fact in terms of uninformed people-millions of people-do they know? I am not sure we can answer that. Probably they do not. If they do not, we can accomplish a great deal more by dealing with the kind of situations particularly in the undeveloped areas by simply providing on the positive basis and no other, their ability to advance, to show that we are for their economic advancement.

That is where we serve our political purpose. But to say that we will only provide help after having weighed carefully in the balance—

particularly in the case of technical assistance, particularly in providing help through tools and changing methods and enabling them to use more power and fewer oxen-in rendering that kind of assistance we would be foolish, of course, to say that this is only related to rearmament, defense, or a military purpose.

I can only reiterate what I think we have said, as my organization has said, and I have repeated before this committee, that one of the strongest assets that we have in this program at any time, and perhaps have not fully developed, is that we, the United States, are the champions of self-advancement, that we are the revolution, that we are the opponents of oppression and enslavement and that we carry the knowledge to these people that will enable them to do the things themselves rather than have somebody else do it for them.

7. Emphasize the cooperative character of the program. We ask that the multilateral character of the program be not reduced, but enhanced. Separate bilateral agreements with individual countries on matters of common concern serve to break the unity of purpose which the Mutual Security Program must maintain.

The American Federation of Labor has played a vital part in the formulation and development of the economic cooperation and Mutual Security Programs. Workers of America have contributed a major share toward the cost of its realization. They are willing to shoulder these costs in the future with confidence that they will pay rich dividends in strengthening freedom and assuring the winning of a just

peace.

The A. F. of L. is working closely with the free trade unions in all parts of the world and is helping reinforce the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. The 65 million workers in these free trade unions are the strongest bulwark the world has today against the external and internal aggression of Communism.

We don't believe that the threat of Communist aggression his diminished. Congress must make good on America's pledge of mutual assistance to her allies and friends, to the end that America would not be facing the threat of communism alone.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, sir.

Are there questions?

Mrs. BOLTON. Yes; I have some questions.

Mr. VORYS. I always learn from Mr. Shishkin when he is here and I regret that I cannot ask him questions because I have an engagement in my office right now.

Mr. SMITH. Mrs. Bolton?

Mrs. BOLTON. I am wondering about this: The A. F. of L. did so much in Europe at the time of the Italian elections and so on.

Are you continuing the program of actually sending your people out and doing things abroad in the unions? Are you following through with that, or has that moment passed and is it not necessary now?

Mr. SHISHKIN. We are doing a little more now than we did before but we are doing it differently. We are not past the stage at which we were at the end of the war. In most of these countries there are strong, well-developed, anti-Communist national trade union centers. We are responding to what they ask for. I think that is the best way in which we can serve them.

In Italy they are on the verge of another election, but the A. F. of L. is doing what it can only to respond to the Italian workers' invitation, without any interference in the internal political situation.

Mrs. BOLTON. You say, "the workers of America have contributed a major share to the cost of its realization."

Mr. SHISHKIN. I mean the cost. We have all shared the burden. Mrs. BOLTON. "They are willing to shoulder these costs in the future with confidence."

Does that mean you are willing to go on paying very high taxes to make this thing happen?

Mr. SHISHKIN. Since I have come back from Europe I have been to all 48 States. I have been all around the country and I have gone to the local union meetings and talked to the people at the rank-and-file level, the people from the machines and the mines and the plants. I think there is a very profound understanding now that this cost must be continued. There is fear that it will not be. There is fear that if it is not, they will have to pay a much higher price, a price of war and the kind of rearmament that wars bring.

Mrs. BOLTON. Now, in order to focus my questions and bring this right down to my own district: Can I depend upon the A. F. of L. in my district to go out and sell the idea to the people of my district? Mr. SHISHKIN. We are selling it now.

Mrs. BOLTON. Are you going really to do it? When I go home they say, "Get those taxes down. Stop giving abroad."

I have just been home over the weekend and I am a bit bruised and black and blue. Because I believe in these programs and I believe we should go on with them.

Mr. SMITH. I can confirm Mrs. Bolton's statement. It is the exact reaction I get.

Mr. SHISHKIN. These things vary. Of course, people want to have taxes down. It is a natural thing when they have to pay them. But when you ask about what and which and really get a discussion and talk about the cost and the share of this cost in it, I think that a great many people begin to really thoroughly understand that this portion in itself is not a large portion and that defense comes first.

The next time you go home, Mrs. Bolton, I will be glad to provide you with some rather heavy ammunition.

Mrs. BOLTON. Are we going to lower the tariff? What is that going to do to jobs in this country? I get that, too.

Is organized labor prepared to meet the problem of shifts in occupation, if necessary, in order to make it possible for some of those countries to deal with us, and we in turn deal differently with them,

with a lower tariff between us?

Mr. SHISHKIN. You know the A. F. of L. has supported the reciprocal trade program from the beginning.

Mr. SMITH. Some of the unions do not.

Mr. SHISHKIN. There are 12 national unions out of 110 who are opposed to the program.

Mrs. BOLTON. And they do make a great deal of noise.

Mr. SHISHKIN. I can count them on my finger tips and I can tell you that some of them have a very real problem.

Mrs. BOLTON. I know they do and that is why I say what can we do to shift from one employment to another if the original employment is done away with because of the imports from abroad? That is a dramatic picture of the situation.

Mr. SHISHKIN. I must say the officers of many unions are assuming a tremendous burden of responsibility because to convince someone,

even though it is a small group, that it might be good for the welfare of the country as a whole for them to be a little hurt is a very difficult task.

Mrs. BOLTON. If I say anything about it, I am apt to be critized, which, of course, I can take, but I shall appreciate your information. Mr. SHISHKIN. You will get it.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Shishkin.

The hearing will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4: 55 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, June 3, 1953.)

(The following statement has been submitted for inclusion in the record :)

GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT

WASHINGTON 6, D. C.

CONTINUED APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNICEF (UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY FUND)

I am Sally Butler, legislative research director of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, which has a membership of 51⁄2 million women in the United States, with a voting membership of 815,000. The general federation supports or opposes legislation only after it has been given authority to do so through resolutions adopted at national conventions.

All except emergency resolutions are mailed in the convention call to member clubs 6 weeks before the national meeting. This enables them to take action and, if desired, instruct their delegates.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs, composed as it is of many of the mothers of the United States of America and of the world, deplores the fact that there has been an inclination on the part of Congress to cut the appropriation which has been set up to care for the children whose lives have been shattered by the evils of and aftermath of wars.

As American women our members in the United States are aware that we must balance the budget of the United States Treasury. But we feel certain it is not a good policy to let the children who need rehabilitation and proper care suffer further. We believe such a policy would likely result in losing friends for the United States rather than making friends. We know you cannot buy friendship. We know, too, if we help to feed, clothe, and educate we make it possible for children to grow up into healthy young people. The knowledge that the United States of America helped them when they needed aid most will likely cause them to become citizens who will understand that the United States has no greedy purposes. These young people who are tomorrow's citizens will know the true greatness of our beloved country.

We, therefore, feel that the United States should continue to participate in the work of UNICEF by continuing its contribution to the fund, and would urge authorization for the full amount as it appears in the 1954 legislation being considered.

33064-53