ry Ry eerie ae United . Automobile By GEORGE MORRIS For the first time the opera- tions of the State Department’s “Yabor front” in Latin America, headed Ly George Meany and his international relations direc- _ tor, Jay Lovestone, came under congressional scrutiny and the initial report made public con- firms much of last year’s expo- sure of AFL-CIO involvement with the Central Intelligence Agency. A committee publication issu- ed by Sen. Wayne Morse (D.Ore) chairman of the Subcommittee on American Republics Affairs that began the inquest at the _ request of Chairman Fulbright of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proved so embar- rassing to George Meany that he issued a long statement blast- ing it. The Meany-Morse contro- versy reached the Senate floor Sept. 25 when Senator Morse had the entire committee print, plus Meany’s objections, insert- ed in the Congressional Record and promised to call further hearings some time in Novem- ber. The Morse Committee is look- ing into the labor policies and program as part of the foreign _ affairs committee’s survey of the Alliance for Progress. The committee’s print is mainly an examination of the “American Institute for Free Labor Devel- opment,” of which Meany is chairman. Peter J. Grace, of Grace and Co. and many other banks and companies, is chair- man of AIFLD’s board. The lead- ing members of organizations of U.S. businessmen with interests _| in that part of the world are _! on the board and hold other of- fices in AIFLD. Understandably, the sub-com- mittee’s print evades direct re- ference to the much publicized CIA operations in the labor field, with AIFLD its primary front. The CIA is exempt from con- gressional investigations. Refer- ences to it occur in the report only where attacks are noted on AFL-CIO activities as CIA in- spired, or CIA is implied where the committee deals with “cov- ert financing.” Formed in 1962, soon after CIA’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, AIFLD set out to train Latin American unionists for “leadership.” A _ school was set up -in Front Royal, Va., near Washington, for three-month courses for about 30 selected students each _ term. In the earlier stages of the program, the schooling also in- cluded a nine-months “intern- ship” with full pay and expenses during which the student de- ‘monstrated his training in action in his homeland. AIFLD also operates extensions and semin- ars in Latin countries. Another part of the program projected’ loans out of American union funds for housing projects in Latin countries. -AIFLD’s program: and work was one of the main targets in exposure of the CIA that began in 1966 with a blast by the Workers charging AIFLD is really a CIA cover. In Brazil alone AIFLD has 46 officially acknowledged full time operatives. The Morse committee’s re- port includes a study of U.S. ‘labor policy and AIFLD’s work in Latin America prepared by Robert H. Dockery, who was research assistant in the Depart- ment of Economic Affairs of the Pan-American Union. The print also includes a_ review ral Accounting Office. In mak- ing it public Senator Morse wrote that the report is “an un- classified report’ submitted by the comptroller general. This is another way of saying the mate- rial was edited to make public only what was regarded as pub- lishable. The study disclosed that be- tween 1962 and 1967 the United States financed AIFLD to the tune of “almost 16 million,” compared to about $1 million from the business group and a - like amount from the AFL-CIO. AIFLD’s expenditures currently run more than $5 million an- nually. The ostensible reason for the study was to examine what the U.S. gets for all these mil- lions spent under the direction of Meany and Lovestone and William C. Doherty, Jr., their AIFLD administrator. The study disclosed that be- tween 1962 and 1967 the United States financed AIFLD to the tune of “almost $16 million,” compared to about $1 million from the business group and a like amount from the AFL-CIO. AIFLD’s expenditures currently run more than $5 million an- nually. The ostensible reason for the study was to examine what the U.S. gets for all these mil- lions spent under the direction of Meany and Lovestone and William C. Doherty, Jr., their AIFLD administrator. The study say that U.S. ex- penditure for “labor” activities under the Alliance for Progress program has been funneled through the Agency for Interna- tional Development (AID). Ac- tual expenditure for “labor-rela- ted” objectives in Latin Ame- rica, according to the report, . “has been $24 million, approx- imately $5 million of which has been assistance to labor minis- tries with the remainder to trade unions.” ; Along with this frank admis- sion that U.S. money goes to labor ministries of Latin Ame- rican governments, which hardly speaks well for their “indepen- dence,” the report says “at the ’ trade union level, the bulk of the assistance provided to date has been through AIFLD, a private, non-profit organization.” AIFLD gets 89 percent of its money from AID, says the -re- port, noting “this arrangement theoretically allows a minimum of direct involvement in the Latin American labor situation on the part of State and AID officials.” With labor ministries and AIFLD agents: “used,” says the report “the design is to in- sure ‘clean’” relations with Latin American labor. But while this is the purpose of the arran- gement, it has been “a subject of controversy” because many Latins question the role of AIFLD as an independent voice of U.S. labor and view it instead as the chosen instrument of the U.S. government.” After devoting most of the document to evidence that ‘AIFLD has in fact become dis- credited as a “voice ‘of U.S. labor,” the report makes recom- mendations calling for virtual liquidation of AIFLD. The stu- dy recommends that the U.S. follow a policy that “would re- cognize that Latin American labor problems can only be solved meaningfully by Latin Americans themselves.” Further, that emphasis should be placed on union-to-union activities ra- ther than those of an organiza- ofy tion such: as AIFLD which em-: AIFLD’s activities by the Gene- braces government and business as well as labor.” Declaring that financing of programs like AIFLD should be discontinued except where the government may match labor contributions gof “technical as- sistance,” the report adds “in each and every instance, covert funding of labor activities must be rejected.” According to the report, “lit- tle reason exists” for AIFLD’s “social projects” like trade union loans for housing, sug- gesting that such activities can be conducted directly through U.S. agencies, much in the stu- Senate investigates Meany and CIA dy shows that housing projects were more propaganda than reality. The recommendations add that “many of the problems now troubling” the U.S. in Latin America labor could have been avoided had the document of guidelines worked out by the | University of Chicago in 1960 been followed. That document is appended to the committee’s report. Apparently CIA secret funding was known even then. The U. of C. document said, “Secret assistance may be war- ranted in a particular emergen- cy, but as soon as that emer- U.E. BRIEF: A concrete, detailed analysis of the needs of women at work and in society was prepared for the Royal Commission on the Status of Women by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, a union whose membership is 24 percent: female. The report deals with analy- sis of why women work: “Some women work today in order to fulfil a desire to lead a life that is more personally re- warding or socially useful in terms of their own values, than that of the ordinary housewife. However, most women work be- cause they have to in today’s economic climate of ever-rising prices.” For instance, to live in To- ronto in 1967 with two children and a wife, a man had to earn $5,240 after taxes. But the aver- age wage for men in manufac- turing, after taxes, was $5,100. And if one wishes a car or a house, expenses rise, so many women are forced to work. The report goes on to deal with the problems of working women in Canada e On education “The division of jobs along gender lines is reflected in the secondary level of education for women. Although, in theory, a girl can choose any course of instruction for which she can qualify, a division of: the'