« PreviousContinue »
While AIFLD assistance for educational programs for example—is an important step in the development of free and democratic unions, the inability on the part of the ITF-in many instances—to follow up such educational activities with meaningful organizing work reduces the effectiveness of trade union education.
The combination of trade union education and organizing work is the most effective approach in building and strengthening free trade union institutions in developing countries, led by free individuals who, in turn, can actively participate in concert with other segments of their society in the painstaking process of nation building. Where a union is capable of applying hard self-help measures, the ITF can give the added push toward success. In all ITF programs the quality of self-help is a key factor in helping a union with its own development efforts.
It is in this context where the greatest emphasis for urgent help can be made. The ITF program in the developing areas of the world seeks to build nothing but constructive forces in the transport labor movement which can and do help in developing durable political and economic structures. It is a well known fact that responsible and dynamic ITF affiliates throughout the world have played major roles in helping to preserve the political and economic stability of their governments, recognizing that if they want help they have to start by helping themselves.
Obviously, then, if these efforts are to produce lasting results, the activities of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) in Latin America, as well as in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, must be stepped up to the highest degree possible. In this task, the ITF could use all support and assistance available. Therefore, Federal grants, as contemplated under Senate bill S. 1779 would be of great supplemental assistance in these endeavors.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, and on behalf of the Railway Labor Executives Association, I strongly urge your committee to report favorably on this bill to establish the International Health, Education and Labor Foundation, which would make Federal grants available to the ITF, and to other international labor organizations, through American unions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Railway Labor Executives' Association affiliated organizations American Railway Supervisors' Association. American Train Dispatchers' Association. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express,
and Station Employes.
Forgers and Helpers.
Amalgamated Transit Union.
, that contributes a great deal of information about the need of this bill in the fields of labor programs overseas. We have your recommendation that these be grants outright to be used by these American labor organizations; that you not set up a bureaucracy to tell them how.
Mr. OTERO. Precisely.
Senator YARBOROUGH. You have made a very forceful statement of the forces at work in different Latin American countries, some for good and some for bad, and it is a great help to this subcommittee, this full committee and the Congress.
This is a campaign year, and the Congress has less time than it would have in a noncampaign year. We need help now, not only testimony here but we need the strength of the 7 million people that your affiliated organizations represent, all through the Congress to procure passage. So we ask you to keep using your influence and your assistance to not merely furnish these facts for us to work on but for all the Members of the Congress.
I hope the National Federation of Blind and all these associations appearing,
here do the same. I have learned when you have a bill pro bono publico, just a good measure like this, nobody is going to make any profit out of it and it does not move itself. I have to organize my own lobby, and I am going to organize a lobby of every organization testifying here to get busy on the whole Congress. It is going to take pushing to get any measure
So I am asking not only you but everyone here representing any organization for this bill to start now with everybody on this subcommittee, the full committee, both Houses, for the bill that I helped write here. I ask for help in passing it so we can help around the world.
Thank you very much for your contribution.
If not, the next witness is Mr. Richard A. Humphrey, director of the Commission on International Education of the American Council on Education, Washington.
Come around, Mr. Humphrey.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. HUMPHREY, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, I am Richard A. Humphrey, the director of the Commission on International Education of the American Council on Education.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing. My statement is short. As committee staff will have informed you, the American Council on Education is not prepared to take a position on
S. 1779 at this time. My understanding is that it might be useful to the committee, in these exploratory hearings, if I briefly enumerate certain basic points on which we believe clarification of intent is desirable.
Before doing so, I should first say that the evident general intent of the bill appears sound and timely. I take that intent to be to substitute open Federal sources of funding for certain international private sector enterprises in lieu of hitherto covert sources of support. In principle, it is difficult to defend covert Federal support for such nongovernmental programs. In practice, we have all witnessed how counterproductive such support can be. Credibility, as well as professionalism, are essential to the viability of the functions this bill is intended to fund. The open support contemplated in S. 1779 will comprise neither.
This said, my remaining brief comments will bear primarily upon the mechanisms proposed in the bill for fulfilling this broad purpose. I have essentially two basic points to raise. I believe both are substantial, and that neither are administrative or procedural quibbles. My frame of reference, of course, is international education—the only one of the three fields embraced in S. 1779 in which I have any special competence.
First. I believe the specific purposes of the bill suggest clarification of the proposed Foundation's role vis-à-vis existing, and similar, authorizations.
As set forth in section 1.c the specific objectives of S. 1779 are:
1. To promote a better knowleged of the United States among the peoples of the world;
2. To increase friendship and understanding among the peoples of the world; and
3. To strengthen the capacity of the other peoples of the world to develop and maintain free, independent societies in their own nations.
I think everyone would agree that these are valid and important goals for public policy. Indeed, as the committee knows, they are already reflected in legislative authorizations for a number of Federal agencies-most notably, perhaps, the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency. Each of these agencies, in my understanding, now provides open Federal support to nongovernmental entities for precisely the purposes covered in section 1.c of this bill.
The broad question which comes to mind, therefore, is whether the role of the proposed International Health, Education, and Labor Foundation is expected to play will be supplementary to already authorized programs of similar purpose or whether it is expected to supplant such programs.
I recognize, of course, that the answer to this question may lie in the difference between the functions of the wide variety of private agencies previously funded convertly and the functions of the abovementioned governmental agencies. Nonetheless, I think it would be of advantage, given the similarity in the stated goals of this bill and those of said governmental agencies, to make clear whatever distinctions in function do in fact exist. Conversely, if the proposed Foundation is intended to embrace a wide variety of functions now covered in both public and private sectors, I think it would be helpful if that fact were clarified in the authorizing legislation.
Second. S. 1779 seems to many of his less clear than it might be about the intended status of the proposed Foundtion. I use "status", for lack of a better term, to refer to the Foundation's setting or locale in the wide spectrum of possible public or private responsibility. The bill provides, of course, that it shall be an independent agency of the Government; but I am not quite sure what "independent" is intended to mean.
My uncertainty stems from the juxtaposition of three main concepts in the bill. (1) The foundation will be manned, I take it, by private citizens (section 3.c); (2) it is to be given complete independence of Executive control (sec. 8.a) although it will report annually to the President (sec. 3.9); (3) it will be subject to the accountabilities of the appropriations process (sec. 9), and report annually to the Congress (sec. 3.g).
The broad question which appears to me to arise is whether this is a workable “mix” of provisions. I would not argue that precedents are lacking for such a “mix”, but I cannot think of any which have very successfully solved the problem of “independence” versus governmental control.
Underlying, of course, what may appear to be my undue preoccupation with mechanics is, in fact, a really serious question of substance and intent. If it is possible, clearly, to summarize my confusion, let me try in the following terms.
If the broad purpose of S. 1779 is simply to provide an open channel for Federal funding, I would think this could be done most easily in one or the other of two ways-either through utilizing presently authorized agencies or through the establishment of a new agency for this purpose within the Government. In neither case would it be necessary to provide for the "mix” of public authorities and private persons embodied in the present bill.
If, on the other hand, the intent is to relieve government of the administration of international activities in the fields of health, education, and labor, as well as to provide an open channel of Federal support, then I suspect a possible course would be to seek for an existing strictly nongovernmental mechanism of professional competence to do the job, channeling funds to it by contract. If no such organization exists presently capable of covering the variety of functions now performed in both the public and private sectors, it ought not to be too difficult to create one, provided assurance was given of continuing Federal support. Here, again, it would be possible to avoid the predictable problems of a hybrid “mix” of public authorities and private persons.
It would seem to me well, in summary, for the bill to reflect a clear-cut decision: either to administer fully within the public sector without an intermediary foundation, or to turn over to a wholly independent, perhaps newly established, private entity the administration of the functions envisioned, under contract to the Federal Government.
Of the two alternatives, the latter would seem to me most nearly to accord with the overall purposes of S. 1779, as I now understand them. Independence would be clear. Accountability for Federal funds would be equally clear, within a pattern (contracts) used extensively and successfully in public-private sector collaboration.
In closing, I hope that the problems I have raised will appeal to the committee as real, and that their solution may become the objective of any revisions of or amendments to this bili.
If there is any way in which we can assist in this process, Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to try to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Humphrey. You bave made a real contribution to the study of this bill. You have looked beyond our first aims to ask how it is going to be administered. Of course, we do not intend with this bill to supplant the Department of State, the AID or U.S. Information Agency in any of their functions.
The witnesses yesterday helped illuminate this problem and some problems to be met. For example, when one approaches AID for a loan, there are long delays and AID apparently uses a "banker's" approach. We do not want this bill burdened with the bureaucracy of these other departments, and I say that not in a hostile manner with respect to those departments.
If the USIA puts out a certain type of program, if they are not very careful, they are attacked by the Congress that they are not praising America enough. If AID does not put enough strings on a grant they are attacked by the Appropriations Committees as making giveaways.
It has been pointed out how $200 rejuvenated a fishing village; another $200, in which the people contributed their labor, up in the Andes, built a road and connected a village that had no outlet for that except walking on a trail. Some of our agencies, it has been pointed out, will not consider a loan that small.
You seem to recommend that there either be a clear-cut fully administered program within the public sector without any intermediate foundation or that it be turned over wholly to an independent agency'.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I think, Mr. Chairman, it might be worth exploring. You are going to have a mix in any case, as you point out, and it might be worth exploring the possibility of working through contract with an independent private organization. This has been done in a number of other cases, as you know.
Senator YARBOROUGH. The areas in which we deal are fairly broad. We are dealing with the field of health, education, and labor. As the gentleman who testified just before you demonstrated, his field is labor; he would not work in the educational field.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I think that is true, Mr. Chairman. Your common denominator of purpose in this bill is in adequate support for certain kinds of international communication and activity. Any such bill would be very wide in scope, I think.
In this really very bureaucratic approach of mine, all I was heading for, I think, was to say the more you can simplify the nature of the mix, the more you can come up with real independence--as the previous witness pointed out--for the organizations which are really involved and which you are giving grants to, on the one hand, and accountability on the other to the Federal Government, the better it will be. I think one of the simplest ways of doing it would be, in effect, by contract to an independent private organization, if one existed, or could be formed adequate to handle this problem. I think this would be a possible option.