CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEaccounts and records as may be necessary toenable the Secretary to determine whetherthe provisions of this Act are being compliedwith. Such accounts and records shall atall times be available for inspection andaudit by representatives of the Secretary andshall be preserved for such period of time,not in excess of five years, as the Secretarydetermines is necessary.

"(b) The Secretary shall incorporate, inhis agreements with the State educationalagencies, the express requirements under thisAct with respect to the operation of theschool-lunch program under this Act inso-far as they may be applicable and such otherprovisions as in his opinion are reasonablynecessary or appropriate to effectuate thepurposes of this Act.

"(c) In carrying out the provisions of thisAct, neither the Secretary nor the State shallimpose any requirement with respect toteaching personnel, curriculum, instruction,methods of instruction, and materials of in-struction in any school. If a State maintainsseparate schools for minority and for ma-jority races, no funds made available pursu-ant to this Act shall be paid or disbursed toit unless a just and equitable distribution ismade within the State, for the benefit of suchminority races, of funds paid to it under thisAct.

"(d)' For the purposes of this Act-"(1) 'State' includes any of the forty-eight

States and the District of Columbia, Territoryof Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and the VirginIslands.

"(2) 'State educational agency' means, asthe State legislature may determine, (a) thechief State school officer (such as the Statesuperintendent of public instruction, com-missioner of education, or similar officer), or(b) a board of education controlling theState department of education: except thatin the District of Columbia it shall mean theBoard of Education, and except that for theperiod ending June. 30, 1948, 'State educa-tional agency' may mean any agency oragencies within the State designated by theGovernor to carry out the functions hereinrequired of a State educational agency.

"(3) 'Nonprofit private school' means anyprivate school exempt from income tax undersection 101 (6) of the Internal Revenue Code,as amended.

"(4) 'Nonfood assistance' means equip-ment used on school premises in storing, pre-paring, or serving food for school children."

And the Senate agree to the same.RICHARD B. RUSSELL,J. H. BANXHEAD,ARTHUR CAPPE,ALLEN J. ELLENDERE,GEORGE D. AInEN,

Managers on tthe Part of the Senate.JOHN W. FLANNAGAN, Jr.CLIFFORD R. HOPE,STEPHEN PACE,AUG. H. ANDRESEN,ORVILLE ZIMMERMAN,HAROLD COOLEY,

Managers on the Part of the House.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent for the immediateconsideration of the report.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, is it aunanimous report, signed by all the con-ferees?

Mr. RUSSELL. It is a unanimous re-port and is signed by all the conferees onthe part of both Houses.

The PRISIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection to the present consideration ofthe report?

There being no objection, the Senateproceeded to consider the report.

Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. President, I movethe adoptidn of the report.

The report was agreed to.

MEDIATION OF LABOR DISPUTES

The Senate resumed consideration ofthe bill (H. R. 4908) to provide additionalfacilities for the mediation of labor dis-putes, and for other purposes.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, on yes-terday I had a prepared statement whichI intended to present, but in the excite-ment last evening it became lost in theshuffle; and the hour was so late that Idecided to let it go until today. At thistime I should like to proceed with it.

Mr. President, no vote that I have castthis session gives me greater satisfactionand pride in retrospect than my negativevote on the Lea bill, the so-called anti-Petrillo bill. On the final vote, you willrecall, only three Members voted againstthe bill, the Senator from Vermont [Mr.AIKEN], the Senator from Washington[Mr. MITCHELL], and I. I debated thebill for 4 hours with the Senator fromColorado [Mr. JOHNSONI, and I tried toconvince my colleagues that the bill wasunconstitutional, unworkable, and badlydrafted. I consulted in advance withseveral students of labor and radio pro-blems. All of them told me that the billwas clearly unconstitutional; but, asfriends, they advised me not to take upthe fight. "Petrillo," they assured me,"is the most unpopular man in the coun-try today, and if you do not join the packand bark at him, you will miss a chancefor acclaim from press and radio. Sincethe bill is obviously invalid, you mightjust as well vote for it and leave it to thecourts to throw it out." I did not heedthat warning, much as I appreciated thekind spirit that prompted it. I do notthink that Congress should legislate forthe headlines, or reflect the passions ofthe moment. I do not think we shouldenact unconstitutional legislation, andrely upon the courts to mop up after us.Upon Congress, as well as upon the judi-ciary, rests the obligation of protectingthe Constitution.

One of my chief concerns in the fightover that bill was for the acting profes-sion and for all those who earn their live-lihood in the radio business as actors andsingers-I myself having formerly beenin that occupation. The Lea bill, if en-forced, could do much harm to radioactors; yet their union has been accusedof no abuses, and their employment re-lations have been happy.

This week I had the satisfaction oflearning that the radio industry, whichespoused and promoted the Lea bill, hasbegun to realize that, in so doing, it hasvery definitely "laid an egg" to use oneof its own expressions. Tide magazineis a trade paper which speaks for the topcrust of the advertising business, whichproduces practically all of the major net-work broadcasts. In its May 17 issue, itdevotes its leading article to an analysisof the Lea Act and a consensus of opin-ions of the advertising agencies' lawyersand executives.

Their verdict on the bill does not agreewith the majority of the Senate, whichthought it was conferring so great a boonon the radio business, but with these ex-perts in the radio business, the threelonesome dissenters. They call the billa legislative boomerang. Their judg-ment is based entirely upon self-interest,

but it is cool, rather than hysterical self-interest. On reading it, I made a silentwish which I have made many times inthe past. I wished that when businessleaders have problems which require ourattention; they would come to Washing-ton and talk them over with us in person,rather than entrust them to trade asso-ciations and lobbyists, who seldom, ifever, exemplify the best or the most au-thoritative thinking of the industrywhich they profess to represent. Pres-sure boys thrive on conflict, rather thanon solutions. We have seen this illus-trated on many occasions. On the OPAissue, for example, the retail dry goodslobby has been repudiated by most of thelarge department stores in the country.Advice, consultation, and exchange ofviews is always helpful to everyone, butpressure campaigns delude both thepusher and the pushed.

The article in Tide is worth reading.It would be well for all of us now to thinkback to the failure of the anti-Petrillobill. For we are againi being asked tolegislate on labor problems in whiteheat, when passions are high, and wheneach day's reflection and deliberation isthe occasion for whiplash headlinesabout delay and procrastination. Let usnot cook another indigestible hasty pud-ding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the entire article to which Ihave referred from Tide maite beprinted in the RECORD at this point as apart of my remarks.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:LEA ACT-LEGISLATIVE BOOMERANG?-AN. EX-

AMINATION OF 'Trt ANTI-PETRILLO LAW,WHICH INDICATES THAT IT MAY NOT WORKAT ALL AND MAY BACKFIRE ON THE BROAD-CASTERS, IF NOT ON THE ADVERTISERSWhen Congress passed, and the President

signed, the Lea bill last month, they osten-sibly sought to get James Caesar Petrillo andbounce his American Federation of Musiciansout of one of the deepest, softest feather bedsin United States industry. However, com-petent radio attorneys who have studied thelaw say that Congress failed on both counts.If not unconstitutional (in violation of thethirteenth, antislavery, amendment), 'thelaw, they claim, contains a loophole largeenough for Petrillo to drive a brass bandthrough. And there are enough smaller loop-holes to make the act appear utterly uselessfrom anyone's standpoint.

The Lea Act was designed, as its propo-nents announced, to keep Petrillo's unionfrom doing certain specific things for whichit is famous. The act makes it a misde-meanor (punishable by a year in jail and/ora $1,000 fine) to "coerce, compel, or con-strain" a broadcast licensee:

To hire more employees than he needs toperform actual services.

To pay fees because he fails to employ per-sons he doesn't need (as when musicians getdouble fees if one program is broadcast overboth an AM and an FM station).

To pay more than once for services per-formed in broadcasting (as in the case ofextra fees for transcribed rebroadcasts).

To pay standby fees.To refuse to carry noncommercial educa-

tional broadcasts (as in the famous case ofthe Interlochen, Mich.. Music Camp whichPetrillo kept off the air),

To refuse to carry programs originating'overseas.

To pay royalties in connection with mak-ing transcriptions.

5708 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATElishment, maintenance, operation, and ex-pansion of nonprofit school-lunch programs.

"APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED"SEC. 3. For each fiscal year, beginning with

the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, there ishereby authorized to be appropriated, out ofmoney in the Treasury not otherwise appro-priated, such sums as may be necessary toenable the Secretary of Agriculture (herein-after referred to as 'the Secretary') to carryout the provisions of this Act.

"APPORTONMENTS TO STATES"SEC. 4. The sums appropriated for any

fiscal year pursuant to the authorizationcontained in section 3 of this Act, excludingthe sum specified in section 5, shall be avail-able to the Secretary for supplying, duringsuch fiscal year, agricultural commodities andother-foods for the school-lunch program inaccordance with the provisions of this Act.The Secretary shall apportion among theStates during each fiscal year not less than75 per centum of the aforesaid funds madeavailable for such year for supplying agri-cultural commodities and other foods underthe provisions of this Act, except that thetotal of such apportionments of funds foruse in Alaska, Territory of Hawaii, PuertoRico, and the Virgin Islands shall not ex-ceed 3 per centum of the funds appropriatedfor agricultural commodities .and other foodsfor the school-lunch program. Apportion-ment among the States shall be made on thebasis of two factors: (1) The number ofschool children in the State and (2) the needfor assistance in the State as indicated by therelation of the per capita income in theUnited States to the per capita income in theState. The amount of the initial apportion-ment to any State shall be determined bythe following method: First, determine anindex for the State by multiplying factors(1) and (2): second, divide this index bythe sum of the Indices for all the States; and,finally, apply the figure thus obtained to thetotal funds to be apportioned. For the pur-pose of this section, the number of schoolchildren in the State shall be the number ofchildren therein between the ages of fiveand seventeen, inclusive; such figures and percapita income figures shall be the latest fig-ures certified by the Department of Com-merce. * For the purposes of this Act "school"means any public or nonprofitprivate schoolof high-school grade or under and, with re-spect to Puerto Rico, shall also include non-profit child-care centers certified as such bythe Governor of Puerto Rico. If any Statecannot utilize all funds so apportioned to it,or if additional funds are available underthis Act fpr apportionment among theStates, the Secretary shall make further ap-portionments to the remaining States in thesame manner.

"SEC. 5. Of the sums appropriated for anyfiscal year pursuant to the authorization con-tained in section 3 of this Act, $10,000,000shall be available to the Secretary for thepurpose of providing, during such fiscal year,nonfood assistance for the school-lunch pro-gram pursuant to the provisions of this Act.The Secretary shall apportion among theStates during each fiscal year the aforesaidsum of $10,000,000, and such apportionmentamong the States shall be on the basis of thefactors, and in accordance with the standards,set forth in section 4 with respect to the ap-portionment for agricultural commoditiesand other foods. The total of such fundsapportioned for nonfood assistance for use inAlaska, Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, andthe Virgin Islands shall not exceed 3 percenturn of the funds appropriated for non-food assistance in accordance with the pro-visions of this Act.

"DIRECT FEDERAL EXPENDITURES"SEC. 6. The funds appropriated for any

fiscal year for carrying out the provisions of

No. 98-6

this Act, less not to exceed 31/2 per centumthereof hereby made available to the Secre-tary for his administrative expenses and lessthe amount apportioned by him pursuant tosections 4, 5, and 10, shall be available to theSecretary during such year for direct expendi-ture by him for agricultural commodities andother foods to be distributed among theStates and schools participating in theschool-lunch program under this Act in ac-cordance with the needs as determined bythe local school authorities. The provisionsof law contained in the proviso of the Act ofJune 28, 1937 (.50 Stat. 323), facilitating op-erations with respect to the purchase and dis-position of surplus agricultural commoditiesunder section 32 of the Act approved August24, 1935 (49 Stat. 774), as amended, shall, tothe extent not inconsistent with the provi-sions of this Act, also be applicable to ex-penditures of funds by the Secretary underthis Act."

"PAYMENTS TO STATES"SEc. 7. Funds apportioned -to any-State

pursuant to section 4 or 5 during any fiscalyear shall be available for payment to suchState for disbursement by the State educa-tional agency, in accordance with suchagreements not inconsistent with the pro-visions of this Act, as may be entered intoby the Secretary and such State educationalagency, for the purpose of assisting schoolsof that State during such fiscal year, in sup-plying (1) agricultural commodities and otherfoods for consumption by children and (2)nonfood assistance in 'furtherance of theschool-lunch program authorized under thisAct. Such payments to any State in anyfiscal year during the period 1947 to 1950, In-clusive, shall be made upon condition thateach dollar thereof will be matched duringsuch year by $1 from sources within theState determined by the Secretary to havebeen expended in connection with the school-lunch program under this Act. Such pay-ments in any fiscal year during the period1951 to 1955, inclusive, shall be made uponcondition that each dollar thereof will beso matched by one and one-half dollars; andfor any fiscal year thereafter, such paymentsshall be made upon condition that each dollarwill be so matched by $3. In the case of anyState whose per capita income is,less than theper capita income of the United States, thematching required 'for any fiscal year shallbe decreased by the percentage which theState per capita income is below the percapita incomie of the United States. For thepurpose of determining whether the match-ing requirements of this section and section10, respectively, have been met, the reason-able value of donated services, supplies, facil-ities, and equipment as certified, respectively,by the State educational agency and in caseof schools receiving funds pursuant to sec-tion 10, by such schools (but not the cost orvalue of land, of the acquisition, construc-tion, or alteration of buildings, of commodi-ties donated by the Secretary, or of Federalcontributions), may be regarded as fundsfrom sources within the State expended inconnection with the school-lunch program.The Secretary shall certify to the Secretary ofthe Treasury from time to time the amountsto be paid to any State under this section andthe time or times such amounts are to bepaid; and th§. Secretary of the Treasury shallpay to the State at the time or times fixedby the Secretary the amounts so certified."

"STATE DISBURSEMENT TO SCHOOLS

"SEC. 8. Funds paid to any State duringany fiscal year pursuant to section 4 or 5 shallbe disbursed by the State educational agency,in accordance with such agreements ap-proved by the Secretary as may be enteredinto by such State agency and the schools inthe State, to those schools in the State whichthe State educational agency, taking intoaccount need and attendance, determines

are eligible to participate in the school-lunchprogram. Such disbursement to any schoolshall be made only for the purpose of reim-bursing it for the cost of obtaining agricul-tural commodities and other foods for con-sumption by children in the school-lunchprogram and nonfood assistance in connec-tion with such program. Such food costsmay include, in addition to the purchaseprice of agricultural commodities and otherfoods, the cost of processing, distributing,transporting, storing, or handling thereof.In no event shall such disbursement for foodto any school for any fiscal year exceed anamount determined by multiplying the num-ber of lunches served in the school in theschool-lunch program under this Act duringsuch year by the maximum Federal food-costcontribution rate for the State, for the typeof lunch served, as prescribed by the Secre-tary."NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIRE-

MENTS

"SEC. 9. Lunches served by schools partici-pating in the school-lunch program underthis Act shall meet minimum nutritionalrequirements prescribed by the Secretary onthe basis of testdd nutritional research.Such meals shall be served without cost orat a' reduced cost to children who are de-termined by local school authorities to beunable to pay the full cost of the lunch. Nophysical segregation of or other discrimina-tion against any child shall be made by theschool because of his inability to pay.School-lunsh programs under this Act shallbe operated on a nonprofit basis. Eachschool shall, insofar as practicable, utilize inits lunch program commodities designatedfrom time to time by the Secretary as beingin abundance, either nationally or in theschool area, or commodities donated by theSecretary. Commodities purchased underthe authority of section 32 of the Act of Aug-ust 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 774), as amended, maybe donated by the Secretary to schools, inaccordance with the needs as determined bylocal school authorities; for utilization in theschool-lunch program under this Act as wellas to other schools carrying out nonprofitschool-lunch programs and institutionsauthorized to receive such commodities.

"SEC. 10. If, in any State, the State educa-tional agency is not permitted by law todisburse the funds paid to it under this Actto nonprofit private schools in the State, oris not permitted by law to match Federalfunds made available for use by such non-profit private schools, the Secretary shallwithhold from the funds apportioned to anysuch State under sections 4 and 5 of thisAct the same proportion of the funds asthe number of children between the ages offive and seventeen, inclusive, attending non-profit private schools within the State is ofthe total number of persons of those ageswithin the State attending school. The;Secretary shall disburse the funds so with-held directly to the nonprofit private schoolswithin said State for the same purposes andsubject to the same conditions as are au-thorized or required with respect to the dis-bursements to schools within the State bythe State educational agency, including therequirement that any such payment or pay-ments shall be matched, in the proportionspecified in section 7 for such State, byfunds from sources within the State ex-pended by nonprofit private schools withinthe State participating in the school-lunchprogram under this Act. Such funds shallnot be considered a part of the funds con-stituting the matching funds under theterms of section 7.'"MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

"SEc. 11. (a) States, State educational agen-cies, and schools participating in the school-lunch program under this Act shall keep such

1946 5707

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEJust after the President signed the bill,

Petrillo reiterated his year-old ban on musicfor television, and again told AFM memberstlfat they could not play simultaneously forAM and FM programs without double pay.

And last week the AFM told KROVv (Oak-land) that University of California studentswould have to stop using music on theirweekly variety radio show unless they hiredstand-by musicians.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, in con-tinuing with the thought that the Con-gress should not pass measures whichwould probably be declared unconstitu-tional at some future time, I feel that,inasmuch as we have been informed thatthe President of the United States is toaddress a joint session of Congress to-morrow afternoon at 4 o'clock, it wouldbe very ill-advised for the Senate to con-tinue deliberating at this time upon thepending bill. Almost certainly the Pres-ident's address to the Members of Con-gress will be concerned largely with theproblem of labor relations and labor leg-islation. I believe that it would be wisefor the Senate now to adjourn until to-morrow afternoon at 4 o'clock, and thenmeet and listen to what the President hasto say before proceeding further.

Mr. President, I can say from prac-tical experience that the thinking of theworking people of America is funda-mental, and sometimes elemental. Gen-erally speaking, they are not highly edu-cated. I am afraid that many of themhave what we might call an inferioritycomplex, because they do not have manyof the things of life which other personsare able to enjoy. They come from thepoorer classes, as we sometimes chooseto refer to those who work for a living.Under the circumstances I am afraid thatrepressive labor legislation might resultin a terrible strike taking place gen-erally throughout the c6untry, and chaosmight be provoked throughout the Na-tion. Workers are jealous, above all else,of their freedom. From my experiencein associating with them, from workingwith them in the factories, and from mycontacts with them in other ways, theone thing of which they are most jealousis their freedom, their privilege to tellJohn D. Rockefeller, for example, whatthey think of him if they wish to do so.If they get the idea that someone is try-ing to tread upon their rights, I fearthat the consequences may be disastrous.

I have spent many hours in talkingwith workers. While there are only afew of them who have read the Con-'stitution and know exactly what are theirrights, they have been told over and overagain that they do have certain rights,and that they are just as privileged, inmany ways, as is the richest man in thecountry. So, I do not believe that theenactment of legislation, particularly atthis moment, would end labor strife.Even if the legislation were eminentlyfair, coming at the present time whenlabor is engaged in a great struggle, theywould view such legislation as beingaimed at them in their struggle. with theemployers.

It seems to me, Mr. President, thatIn collective bargaining labor is at atremendous disadvantage. I have inmy mind a picture of an ancient Romanamphitheater. I see the employers onone side of the arena safely in a cage be-

hind bars, and the employees who arebargaining being required to come outon the other side of the arena into themiddle of the area where the lions arewaiting. The lions are those critics oflabor, such as the press, who are alwaysanxious to defame labor. Labor is re-quired to come out into the mercilesscenter of the arena and bargain whilethe employers are safely back behindthe bars. The employers are not mak-ing demands; they are only denyingthem. They do not receive any publicity.They have done nothing spectacular.They have continued to operate theirbusinesses, and would continue to do soby paying the same wages forever if labordid not make demands upon them forincreases in the compensation which theyreceive. So labor gets the headlines.That is the way it is in the United StatesSenate. A' Member of the Senate mayintroduce constructive measures. Thatis what he is expected to do. But it doesnot make the headlines. However, if heopposes violently some measure, or doessomething which is sensational, he canmake the headlines.

I heard someone say the other day-Ido not know whether it is true or not-that the late Senator Borah had neverintroduced a bill. He always opposedsomething. He always chose measureswhich were sponsored by other Senatorsand opposed them. He was an expert atsuch things, and he remained constantlyin the headlines.

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr.BILBol, in his own inimitable way, doesthe unusual and the unorthodox all thetime. I have noticed that since the ableSenator from Mississippi left the Senateand returned to his own State in order tocampaign there, practically every day' hehas been given front-page space in theWashington newspapers merely becausehe does not do what he is expected to do.That is the position in which the workersfind themselves. They are making de-mands; they want something; so theyreceive all the publicity while the em-ployers are immune. It places the work-ers at a serious disadvantage.

Inasmuch as we are so close to the con-troversy here in the Senate. I think itmight be well to have a word from some-one who is outside looking at it, and gethis idea of what is going on. I shouldlike to read an article from the Washing-ton Daily News of Thursday, May 23.The headline is "In All Fairness," andthe article reads:

In the heat whipped up in Congress overlabor legislation many things have been saidthat will not bear the light of cool analysis.

Even in the calmer mood of the minorityreport on the Senate labor bill, submitted bySenators BALL (Minn.), TArF (Ohio), andSmrra (New Jersey), all Republicans, thereare some inferences that can be challenged,because they concisely express assertionsmade in other quarters.

"It has always been an axiom of liberal-ism that unrestrained and unregulated powerin the hands of any individual or group isdangerous to democracy and freedom," thereport says.

Well and good. Accepted. The reportthen continues: "Labor unions and theirleaders exercise such unrestrained and unreg-ulated power today. The proposals whichwe are making in these amendments areaimed to be corrective of certain labor prac-

tices In the same sense that the anti-trustlaws of the early decades of this centurywere corrective of the abuses of the free-enterprise system.

"Such measures safeguard real freedom.Our amendments are no more against thetrue Interests of enlightened labor union-ism than such measures as the InterstateCommerce Commission and the Securitiesand Exchange Act were against the best in-terests of business."

Without going here into the amendments,some of which seem helpful, some not, theinference of these statements can be exam-ined with some benefit.

There is general agreeme4t that John L.Lewis has indulged in an exercise of powernot commensurate with his responsibility asa union leader and a citizen by his refusalfor some time to bargain collectively In theaccepted manner.

But the inference from what the Senatorssay, and others have said it directly, is thatnational labor leaders are going around call-ing strikes willy-nilly.

The inference also might be drawn fromwhat the Senators said that power is weight-ed on the side of labor leaders and unions.That isn't the fact. Our big industry is aspowerful, if not more so, than ever, and itspower is enhanced by its interconnections.This is proved today in politics of which thebest demonstration is what has happenedin Congress to measures supported by labor.

Because of their great financial resources,increased by tax refunds, big industries arewell able to stand long workless sieges.

The Senators also referred to antitrust lawsto regulate business. The truth is, of course,that business continually has been strivingto shake off such restrictions.

'The irony of it all is that Members of Con-gress who are so rabid to do somethingabout labor include many who were soanxious to vote huge tax refunds to business,who voted for the insurance antitrust exemp-tion in both House and Senate, who votedfor the Bulwinkle bill in the House and areready to vote for it in the Senate.

Their complaints about labor would comewith better grace if they were equally alertto protect the public interest from theseother threats. In all the excitement it isonly fair to point this out.

Mr. President, that was an article writ-ten by Mr. Thomas L.' Stokes.

Inasmuch as we are enacting legisla-tion to curb the freedom 'of labor, Ishould like to point out that when fascismwas riding roughshod across Europe itwas the laborers, the labor movement,those who worked with their hands, whowere principally responsible-for the con-tinuance of the underground movements,the resistance. We very seldom read ofany bankers being shot because they wereassociated with the resistance move-ments. We very seldom read of anygreat industrialist being shot because hewas out with the Maquis or other ele-ments sabotaging the Nazis. On theother hand, we generally read that thebig industrialists, the upper strata, werecollaborating with the Nazis, and I amsorry to say that in my opinion in Amer-ica there are some who would be veryhappy to have some fascism or nazismhere. They did not lile Hitler's fascismbecause the Germans ran it, and in thecompetitive economic system there isover the world, the boys are out to gettheir hands on everything they possiblycan, and that was the object of Hitler'sfascists. The big businessmen financedHitler because they were having difficultygetting markets and raw materials and

5710 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATETo restrict the number of records which

can be made or used for broadcasting.To pay fees for the use of transcriptions of

live programs. (These last three things ap-ply not only to radio licensees but to every-one else.)

MAJOR VICTORYThe Nation's newspapers found only one

basic fault-in a comment typical of paperseverywhere-the New York Times complainedof the ridiculously narrow scope of the legis-lation. Justin Miller, president of the Na-tional Association of Broadcasters, thoughtthat the act was the radio industry's firstmajor legislative victory. Broadcasting glee-fully called the. law a momentous victoryfor all who live by the microphone. The billwas written to take away Jimmy Petrillo'sgun. It does just that. It brings an end toAFM pillaging of radio. And one advertisingjournal made a quaint historical allusion-"'Caesar hath met his Brutus."

But it looks as though Brutus came armedthis time with a rubber dagger. Attorneyssay that the act can't hurt anybody directly,but that indirectly it is succeeding alreadyin making the Congress which passed It andthe radio industry which acclaimed it lookthoroughly ridiculous: and the same attor-neys believe that the industry wouldn't havea snowball's chance in hell if it tried to havethe act enforced.

For the joker in the act, and the partwhich lawyers are looking at closely, is sub-section C. It stipulates that the law "shallnot be held to make unlawful the enforce-ment or attempted enforcement, by meanslawfully employed, of any contract rightheretofore or hereafter existing or of anylegal obligation heretofore or hereafter in-curred or assumed."

As the bill was discussed in the House,Representative CLARENCE F. LEA, Democrat, ofCalifornia, explained: "The bill is not in-tended to prevent bargaining or the enteringinto contracts between the broadcaster andany other person even for the purposes whichare prohibited from being accomplished bycoercion under the terms of this bill. Anyobligation created by contract thus made, orany obligation that exists as a matter of lawagainst the broadcaster, is subject to enforce-ment by legal procedures in court. A strikefor failure to comply with such a contractwould not be in violation of the provisionsof this bill."

NO VIOLATIONIn other words, if the broadcasters agree

to any or all of the practices cited, Petrillowill violate nothing. And, as will be shown,while his current contract lasts, or if andwhen similar ones go into effect, all thethings which Petrillo does and which theproponents of the act dislike, will still ap-parently be 100 percent legal.

The only possibility of crimping the AFMUnder this new law, some radio lawyers say,would come up between contracts, while ne-gotiations for new ones are going on, Andthey say that you don't have to be as sharpas Petrillo to duck any possible prosecutioneven then.

EXEMPT DEALINGSHe will do this, says NAB's Miller, by go-

ing to work on advertisers and agencies. Bydoing so, he would make his subsequent deal-ings exempt from the act, since the Lea Actdeals primarily with broadcasters; only on afew points (and relatively unimportant onesat that) does it prohibit any "coercion" themusicians might direct against anybody else.Petrillo could use any legal means to get in-dividual contracts with advertisers andagencies.

This opens up a whole new field. Even ifhe has no real desire to deal directly withadvertisers and agencies, Petrillo can scarcethem by making them think he has. Asidefrom the trouble it would put them to, andit might be considerable, there likely wouldbe further complicated union disputes-with,

for example, those advertisers with closedshop CIO contracts for their regular workers.Faced with the prospect of dealing with theAFM, it is a cinch the advertisers and agen:cies will do their utmost to leave the jobto the broadcasters.

If a strike for failure to comply with acontract does not violate the act, the questioncomes up: When would a strike violate theprovisions of the law? If in negotiating newcontracts Petrillo asks the broadcasters tocontinue paying added fees for trancriptions,standby fees, and so forth, and if the broad-casters refuse, it would probably be illegal forPetrillo to call a strike. That, presumably,would be coercion.

GREATER LIVE FEESActually, however, it probably would not be

necessary for Petrillo to coerce anyone. TheAmerican Federation of Radio Artists, infighting the Lea bill, showed how to beat thatgame. Instead of ever suggesting added feesfor transcriptions, the AFM or AFRA couldsimply demand much greater live fees-enough to equal its present live fees pluspresent transcription fees (plus whatevernew increases it felt were coming to it)..

In such a case, if the broadcasters balkand the union strikes, there will be no viola-tion. For the union. can contend, legally,that the strike is for wages-for live perform-andes, has nothing to do with transcriptions,standbys, or anything else actually prohibitedby the bill..

More likely, however, is a different ap-proach, suggested by Petrillo's attitude to-ward television. Without demanding any-thing or negotiating anything, Petrillo hasforbidden his musicians to work for televisionstations. As, he sees it, the medium is "notgoing to grow at the expense of the musi-cians. As television grows, the musician isgoing to grow with it, or we are not goingto assist in its development." There is noviolation obviously and, ironically perhaps,the television stations may have to go toPetrillo for a contract. That makes the lawwork perfectly-in Petrillo's interest.

INDEFINITE vACATION

To carry that point a notch further, themusicians might easily decide that radiowork had become too tiresome and nerve-wracking. So instead of negotiating for newcontracts, they might all go on indefinite va-cations. Nobody would call them out onstrike, of course. Nobody on the union's sidewould mention the word. And until thebroadcasters bring around a nev/contract,nobody would work.

This, point out the lawyers, puts a wholenew complexion on labor relations, thruststhe industry into the position of seeking outthe union to get a contract. As long as thelaw remains, on the books, they maintain, itwill pay Petrillo to be bashful and dilatory, torefuse to take the initiative. That is, ifhe wishes to avoid a court test of the act.

ANXIOUS BROADCASTERSAgain, runs the theory, if the broadcasters

want to get a reduction in demands for livefees by agreeing to pay for off-the-line or off-the-air transcriptions when used (but onlywhen used), they will have to come to Petrilloto suggest the arrangement. Petrillo, cer-tainly, would want to make them prove theiranxiety for this type of a deal before he wouldagree. Of course he would probably agree,but reluctantly, in order to protect himselfagainst any charges of coercion in connectionwith extra charges for transcription.

Actually, most of the lawyers except thoseat the NAB believe that the act would bethrown out on constitutional grounds if Pe-trillo ever got himself or his boys arrestedfor "coercion" (as Joseph A. Padway, generalcounsel of the AFM, hinted might be done).They are even a little dubious that an out-raged broadcaster could convince any UnitedStates attorney to try to prosecute the case.And, peculiarly, the act has no civil remedies,

only criminal penalties, which makes it muchmore complicated and difficult to enforce.'

These same lawyers and others look uponthe bill as a phony which not only fails todeliver what it promises but may turn outto be the biggest boner the broadcasting in-dustry ever pulled. They expect that thelaw will work as badly as the Smith-Con-nally Act, and that it may really hurt thebroadcasters. Like the Smith-Connally Act,they say, the Lea Act served only one need,an emotional one: by passing it, Congresswas able to vent its spleen, at least in talk,on a particularly unpopular labor leader.But, they argue, when the law fails to work,Congress' reputation may fall to new depthsand the broadcasters may have an infernal,internal revolution.

AUTHORSHIP

They doubt, too, the reports that CharlesR. Denny, acting chairman of the FederalCommunications Commission, really wrotethe bill. More likely, say Government sources,Representative LEA himself, with the helpof his fellow Californian, ex-Judge JustinMiller, drew up the legislation.

Miller, who has praised the act all along,also has warned broadcasters to go easy, tomake doubly sure of their ground beforethey try to bring a case to court. And theday President Truman signed the bill, RadioDaily quoted some unidentified' "industryspokesman" as warning that "irresponsibleor reckless abuse of the bill will certainlyruin the whole thing."

NETWORK FEARAside from Miller, no outstanding radio

men have had much to say publicly aboutthe law. Network executives fear an AFMstrike more than they detest feather bedding.And some of them share Petrillo's distastefor transcriptions, though not for the samereason. In case of an actual strike, for in-stance, AFRA members would not crosspicket lines set up by musicians. Varietyquotes one network executive as saying that2 weeks of handing out rebates to adver-tisers would wipe out a network's profitsfor a year.

On the other hand it might well be eco-nomically feasible for an independent sta-tion operator to force the issue, even atthe possible expense of an AFM strike.

When he was pushing the bill through theSenate successfully a month ago, SenatorEDWIN C. JOHNSON (Democrat, Colorado)confessed to one misgiving: although therehad been stiff opposition from labor gen-erally, Petrillo himself didn't seem to haveany objections. Now the reasons are becom-ing clear.

In the past Petrillo has always been sureenough' of his ground and the discipline of"his boys" not to care what ariyone exceptthe members of his union thought. Chancesare he hasn't changed much. Though hehasn't had much to say yet, another AFMexecutive, W. M. Murdoch, of the TorontoMusical Protective Association, made thissuggestive comment: "It was one of thosebills that sometimes pop up, and on analysis,don't mean anything." Whatever Petrillowas thinking, he was acting In his traditionalmanner:

THE PETRILLO MANNERWhile Congress was busy denouncing him,

he told the motion picture companies theywould have to hire three times as manymusicians as they had, pay them twice asmuch. (He settled for 30 percent moremoney, 44.percent more musicians.)

I The difference is that with civil remedies,anyone can sue for relief; but with criminalpenalties, action can be brought only by aUnited States attorney. The antitrust lawscontain both civil and criminal clauses, tomake them as broadly enforceable as pos-sible.

1946 5709

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATETo restrict the number of records which

can be made or used for broadcasting.To pay fees for the use of transcriptions of

live programs. (These last three things ap-ply not only to radio licensees but to every-one else.)

MAJOR VICTORYThe Nation's newspapers found only one

basic fault-in a comment typical of paperseverywhere-the New York Times complainedof the ridiculously narrow scope of the legis-lation. Justin Miller, president of the Na-tional Association of Broadcasters, thoughtthat the act was the radio industry's firstmajor legislative victory. Broadcasting glee-fully called the law a momentous victoryfor all who live by the microphone. The billwas written to take away Jimmy Petrillo's'gun. It does Just that. It brings an end to·AFM pillaging of radio. And one advertisingjournal made a quaint historical allusion-"Caesar hath met his Brutus."

But it looks as though Brutus came armedthis time with a rubber dagger. Attorneyssay that the act can't hurt anybody directly,but that indirectly it is succeeding alreadyin making the Congress which passed it andthe radio industry which acclaimed it lookthoroughly ridiculous: and the same attor-neys believe that the industry wouldn't havea snowball's chance in hell if it tried to havethe act enforced..

For the Joker in the act, and the partwhich lawyers are looking at closely, is sub-section C. It stipulates that the law "shallnot be held to make unlawful the enforce-ment or attempted enforcement, by meanslawfully employed, of any contract right.heretofore or hereafter existing or of anylegal obligation heretofore or hereafter in-curred or assumed."

As the bill was discussed in the House,Representative CLARENCE F. LEA, Democrat, ofCalifornia, explained: "The bill is not in-tended to prevent bargaining or the enteringinto contracts between the broadcaster andany other person even for the purposes whichare prohibited from being accomplished bycoercion under the terms of this bill. Anyobligation created by contract thus made, orany obligation that exists as a matter of lawagainst the broadcaster, is subject to enforce-ment by legal procedures in court. A strikefor failure to comply with such a contractwould not be in violation of the provisionsof this bill."

NO VIOLATIONIn other words, if the broadcasters agree

to any or all of the practices cited, Petrillowill violate nothing. And, as will be shown,while his current contract lasts, or if andwhen similar ones go into effect, all thethings which Petrillo does and which theproponents of the act dislike, will still ap-parently be 100 percent legal.

The only possibility of crimping the AFMunder this new law, some radio lawyers say,would come up between contracts, while ne-gotiations for new ones are going on. .Andthey say that you don't have to be as sharpas Petrillo to duck any possible prosecutioneven then.

EXEMPT DEALINGSHe will do this, says NAB's Miller, by go-

ing to work on advertisers and agencies. Bydoing so, he would make his subsequent deal-ings exempt from the act, since the Lea Actdeals primarily with broadcasters; olly on afew points (and relatively unimportant onesat that) does it prohibit any "coercion" themusicians might direct against anybody else.Petrillo could use any legal ·means to get in-dividual contracts with advertisers andagencies.

This opens up a whole new field. Even ifhe has no real desire to deal directly withadvertisers and agencies, Petrillo can scarcethem by making them think he has. Asidefrom the trouble it w'ould put them to, andit might be considerable, there likely wouldbe further complicated union disputes-with,

for example, those advertisers with closedshop CIO contracts for their regular workers.Faced with the prospect of dealing with theAFM, it is a cinch the advertisers and agen-cies will do their utmost to leave the jobto the broadcasters.

If a strike for failure to comply with acontract does not violate the act, the questioncomes up: When would a strike violate theprovisions of the law? If in negotiating newcontracts Petrillo asks the broadcasters tocontinue paying added fees for trancriptions,standby fees, and so forth, and if the broad-casters refuse, it would probably be illegal forPetrillo to call a strike. That, presumably,would be coercion.

GREATER LIVE FEES -Actually, however, it probably would not be

necessary for Petrillo to coerce anyone. TheAmerican Federation of Radio Artists, infighting the Lea bill, showed how to beat thatgame. Instead of ever suggesting added feesfor transcriptions, the AFM or AFRA couldsimply demand much greater live fees--enough to equal its present live fees pluspresent transcription fees (plus whatevernew increases it felt were coming to it).

In such a case, if the broadcasters balkand the union strikes, there will be no viola-tion. For the union can contend, legally,that the strike is for wages for live perform-ances, has nothing to do with transcriptions,standbys, or anything else actually prohibitedby the bill.

More likely, however, is a different ap-proach, suggested by Petrillo's attitude to-ward television. Without demanding any-thing or negotiating anything, Petrillo hasforbidden his musicians to work for televisionstations. As he sees it, the. medium is "notgoing to grow at the expense of the musi-cians. As television grows, the musician isgoing to grow with it, or we are not goingto assist in its development." There Is noviolation obviously and, ironically perhaps,the television stations may have to go toPetrillo for a contract. That makes the lawwork perfectly-in Petrillo's interest.

INDEFINITE VACATION

To carry that point a notch further, themusicians might easily decide that radiowork had become too tiresome and nerve-wracking. So instead of negotiating for newcontracts, they might all go on indefinite va-cations. Nobody would call them out onstrike, of course. Nobody on the union's sidewould mention the word. And until thebroadcasters bring around a new contract,nobody would work.

This, point out the lawyers, puts a wholenew complexion on labor relations, thruststhe industry into the position of seeking outthe union to get a contract. As long as thelaw remains on the books, they maintain, itwill pay Petrillo to be bashful and dilatory, torefuse to take the initiative. That is, ifhe wishes to avoid a court test of the act.

ANXIOUS BROADCASTERS

Again, runs the theory, if the broadcasterswant to get a reduction in demands for livefees by agreeing to pay for off-the-line or off-the-air transcriptions when used (but onlywhen used), they will have to come to Petrilloto suggest the arrangement. Petrillo, cer-tainly, would want to make them prove theiranxiety for this type of a deal before he wouldagree. Of course he would probably agree,but reluctantly, in order to protect himselfagainst any charges of coercion in connectionwith extra charges for transcription.

Actually, most of the lawyers except thoseat the NAB believe that the act would bethrown out on constitutional grounds if Pe-trillo ever got himself or his boys arrestedfor "coercion" (as Joseph A. Padway, generalcounsel of the AFM, hinted might be done).They are even a little dubious that an out-raged broadcaster could convince any UnitedStates attorney to try to prosecute the case.And, peculiarly, the act has no civil remedies,

only criminal penalties, which makes it muchmore complicated and difficult to enforce.?

These same lawyers and others look uponthe bill as a phony which not only fails todeliver what it promises but may turn outto be the biggest boner the broadcasting in-dustry ever pulled. They expect that thelaw will work as badly as the Smith-Con-nally Act, and that it may really hurt thebroadcasters. Like the Smith-Connally Act,they say, the Lea Act served only one need,an emotional one: by passing it, Congresswas able to vent its spleen, at least in talk,on a particularly unpopular labor leader.But, they argue, when the law fails to work,Congress' reputation may fall to new depthsand the broadcasters may have an infernal,internal revolution.

AUTHORSHIPThey doubt, too, the reports that Charles

R. Denny, acting chairman of the FederalCommunications Commission, really wrotethe bill. More likely, say Government sources,Representative LEA himself, with the helpof his fellow Californian, ex-Judge JustinMiller, drew up the legislation.

Miller, who has praised the act all along,also has warned broadcasters to go easy, tomake doubly sure of their ground beforethey try to bring a case to court. And theday President Truman signed the bill, RadipDaily quoted some unidentified "industryspokesman" as warning that "irresponsibleor reckless abuse of the bill will certainlyruin the whole thing."

N'rwORIK FEARAside from Miller, no outstanding radio

men have had much to say publicly aboutthe law. Network executives fear an AFMstrike more than they detest feather bedding.And some of them share Petrillo's distastefor transcriptions, though not for the samereason. In case of an actual'strike, for in-stance, AFRA members would not crosspicket lines set up by musicians. Varietyquotes one network executive as saying that2 weeks of handing out rebates to adver-tisers would wipe out a network's profitsfor a year.

On the other hand it might well be eco-nomically feasible for an independent sta-tion operator to force the issue, even atthe possible expense of an AFM strike.

When he was pushing the bill through theSenate successfully a month ago, SenatorEDownIN C. JOHNSON (Democrat, Colorado)confessed to one misgiving: although therehad been stiff opposition from labor gen-erally, Petrillo himself didn't seem to haveany objections. Now the reasons are becom-ing clear.

In the past Petrillo has always been sureenough of his ground and the discipline of"his boys" not to care what anyone exceptthe members of his union thought. Chancesare he hasn't- changed much. Though hehasn't had much to say yet, another AFMexecutive, W. M. lurdoch, of the TorontoMusical Protective Association, made thissuggestive comment: "It was one of thosebills that sometimes pop up, and on analysis,don't mean anything." Whatever Petrillowas thinking, he was acting in his traditionalmanner:

THE PETRImLO MANNEA

While Congress was busy denouncing him,he told the motion picture companies theywould have to hire three times as manymusicians as they had, pay' them twice asmuch. (He settled .for 30 percent moremoney, 44 percent more musicians.)

The difference is that with civil remedies,anyone can sue for relief; but with criminalpenalties, action can be brought only by aUnited States attorney. The antitrust laws'contain both civil and criminal clauses, tomake them as broadly enforceable as pos-sible.

1946 5709

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEJust after the President signed the bill,

Petrillo reiterated his year-old ban on musicfor television, and again told AFM membersthat they could not play simultaneously forAM and FM programs without double pay.

And last week the AFM told KRO% (Oak-land) that University of California studentswould have to stop using music on theirweekly variety radio show unless they hiredstand-by musicians.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, in con-tinuing with the thought that the Con-gress should not pass measures whichwould probably be declared unconstitu-

·tional at some future time, I feel that,inasmuch as we have been informed thatthe President of the United States is toaddress a joint session of Congress to-morrow afternoon at 4 o'clock, it wouldbe very ill-advised for the Senate to con-tinue deliberating at this time upon thepending bill. Almost certainly the Pres-ident's address to the Members of Con-gress will be concerned largely with theproblem of labor relations and labor leg-islation. I believe that it would be wisefor the Senate now to adjourn until to-morrow afternoon at 4 o'clock, and thenmeet and listen to what the President hasto say before proceeding further.

Mr. President, I can say from prac-tical experience that the thinking of theworking people of America is funda-mentalwand sometimes elemental. Gen-erally speaking, they are not highly edu-cated. I am afraid that many of themhave what we might call an inferioritycomplex, because they do not have manyof the things of life which other personsare able to enjoy. They come from thepoorer classes, as we sometimes chooseto refer to those who work for a living.Under the circumstances I am afraid thatrepressive labor legislation might result'in a terrible strike taking place gen-erally throughout the country, and chaosmight be provoked throughout the Na-tion. Workers are jealous, above all else,of their freedom. From my experiencein associating with them, from workingwith them in the factories, and from mycontacts with them in other ways, theone thing of which they are most jealousis their freedom, their privilege to tellJohn D. Rockefeller, for example, whatthey think of him- if they wish to do so.If they get thle idea that someone is try-ing to tread upon their rights, I fearthat the consequences may be disastrous.

I have spent many hours in talkingwith workers. While there are only afew of them who have read the Con-stitution and know exactly wvhat are theirrights, 'they have been told over and overagairi that they do have certain rights,and that they are just as privileged, inmany ways, as is the richest man in thecountry. So, I do not believe that theenactment of legislation, particularly atthis moment, would end labor strife.Even if the legislation were eminentlyfair, coming at the present time whenlabor is engaged in a great struggle, theywould view such legislation as beingaimed at them in their struggle with theemployers.

It seems to me, Mr. President, thatIn collective bargaining labor is at atremendous disadvantage. I have inmy mind a picture of an ancient Romanamphitheater. I see the employers onone side of the arena safely in a cage be-

hind bars, and the employees who arebargaining being required to come outon the other side of the arena into themiddle of the area where the lions arewaiting. The lions are those critics oflabor, such as the press, who are alwaysanxious to defame labor. Labor is re-quired to come out into the mercilesscenter of the arena and bargain whilethe employers are safely back behindthe bars. The employers are not mak-ing demands; they are only denyingthem. They do not receive any publicity.They have done nothing spectacular.They have continued to operate theirbusinesses, and would continue to do soby paying the same wages forever if labordid not make demands upon them forincreases in the compensation which theyreceive. So labor gets the headlines.That is the way it is in the United StatesSenate. A Member of the Senate mayintroduce constructive measures. Thatis what he is expected to do. But it doesnot make the headlines. However, if heopposes violently some measure, or doessomething which is sensational, he canmake the headlines.

I heard someone say the other day-Ido not know whether it is true or not-that the late Senator Borah had neverintroduced a bill. He always opposedsomething. He always chose measureswhich were sponsored by other Senatorsand opposed them. He was an expert atsuch things, and he remained constantlyin the headlines.

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr.BILBOI, in his own inimitable way, doesthe unusual and the unorthodox all thetime. I have noticed that since the ableSenator from Mississippi left the Senateand returned to his own State in order tocampaign there, practically every day hehas been given front-page space in theWashington newspapers merely becausehe does not do what he is expected to do.That is the position in which the workersfind, themselves. They are making de-mands; they want something; so theyreceive all the publicity while the em-ployers are immune. It places the work-ers at a serious disadvantage.

Inasmuch as we are so close to the con-troversy here in the Senate, I think itmight be well to have a word from some-one who is outside looking at it, and gethis idea of what is going on. I shouldlike to read an article from the Washing-ton Daily News of Thursday, May 23.The headline is "Ins All Fairness," andthe article reads:

In the heat whipped up in Congress overlabor legislation many things have been saidthat will not bear the light of cool analysis.

Even in the calmer mood of the minorityreport on the Senate labor bill, submitted bySenators BALL (Minn.), TAFP (Ohio), andSMIrrH (New Jersey), all Republicans, thereare some inferences that can be challenged,because they concisely express assertionsmade in other quarters.

"It has always been an axiom of liberal-ism that unrestrained and unregulated powerin the hands of any individual or group isdangerous to democracy and freedom," thereport says.

Well and good. Accepted. The reportthen continues: "Labor unions and theirleaders exercise such unrestrained and unreg-ulated power today. The proposals whichwe are making in these amendments areaimed to be corrective of certain labor prac-

tices in the same sense that the anti-trustlaws of the early decades of this centurywere corrective of the abuses of the free-enterprise system.

"Such measures safeguard real freedom.Our amendments are no more against thetrue interests of enlightened labor union-ism than such measures as the InterstateCommerce Commission and the Securitiesand Exchange Act were against the best in-terests of business."

Without going here into the amendments,some of which seem helpful, some not, theinference of these statements can be exam-ined with some benefit.

There is general agreement that John L.Lewis has indulged in an exercise of powernot commensurate with his responsibility asa union leader and a citizen by his refusalfor some time to bargain collectively in theaccepted manner.

But the inference from what the Senatorssay, and others have said it directly, is thatnational labor leaders are going around call-ing strikes willy-nilly.

The inference also might be drawn fromwhat the Senators said that power is weight-ed on the side of labor leaders and unioias.That isn't the fact. Our big industry is aspowerful, if not more so, than ever, and itspower is enhanced by its interconnections.This is proved today in politics of which thebest demonstration is what has happenedin Congress to measures supported by labor.

Because of their great financial resources,increased by tax refunds, big industries arewell able to stand long workless sieges.

The Senators also referred to antitrust lawsto regulate business. The truth is, of course,that business continually has been strivingto shake off such restrictions.

'Ihe irony of it all is that Members of Con-gress who are so rabid to do somethingabout labor include many who were soanxious to vote huge tax refunds to business,who voted for the insurance antitrust exemp-tion in both House and Senate, who votedfor the Bulwinkle bill in the House and areready to vote for it in the Senate.

Their complaints about labor would comewith better grace if they were equally alertto protect the public interest from theseother threats. In all the excitement it isonly fair to point this out.

Mr. President, that was an article writ-ten by Mr. Thomas L. Stokes.

Inasmuch as we are enacting legisla-tion to curb the freedom of labor, Ishould like to point out that when fascismwas riding roughshod across Europe itwas the laborers, the labor movement,those who worked with their hands, whowere principally responsible for the con-tinuance of the underground movements,the resistance. We very seldom read ofany bankers being shot because they wereassociated with the resistance move-ments. We very seldom read of anygreat industrialist being shot because hewas out with the Maquis or other ele-ments sabotaging the Nazis. On theother hand, we generally read that thebig industrialists, the upper strata, werecollaborating with the Nazis, and I amsorry to say that in my opinion in Amer-ica there are some who would be veryhappy to have some fascism or nazismhere. They did not lil-e Hitler's fascismbecause the Germans ran it, and in thecompetitive economic system there isover the world, the boys are out to gettheir hands on everything they possiblycan, and that was the object of Hitler'sfascists. The big businessmen financedHitler because they were having difficultygetting markets and raw materials and

5710 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEcolonies by peaceful means, and they de-cided to go after them by forcible means.

When our own exploiters saw the situ-ation and realized' that they were actuallyin danger of being enslaved themselves,naturally they fought Hitler and helpedus by putting their factories at our dis-posal, although, of course, they did not

ado it until after they had had a strikeof their own, the first one of the war, asit-down strike, wherein. they refused toproduce any armaments 'until they gottheir cost-plus contracts.

But now that Hitler is safely out of theway, I think some of them would not beaverse to having the condition here inAmerica such that the labor unions couldbe destroyed, and democratic govern-ment would give way to totalitarian ruleby the big interests of the country. Per-haps I am overly apprehensive, but thatis my feeling.

Mr. President, yesterday we adopted anamendment which said that no employer

.can give anything of value to a repre-sentative of any union. I should like tosay that I think it is going to be anothermistake, along with the Lea bill, some-.thing which we will live to regret, be-cause many examples can be cited ofarrangements which are now in force inour country, very happy arrangementsbetween employers and their employees,whereby the employers finance, or helpfinance, many worth-while activities.

It has been pointed out previously thatmany employers furnish the funds forhealth-benefit associations and otherthings of the kind; but I should like tocall to the attention of the Senate thefact that it will be impossible for themto continue doing so, because, no matterhow the employer may feel about it, ifthe amendment shall be enacted it willbe against the law for him further tocontinue these activities, and it will bebeyond the power of the union to financethe activities; so they will be discon-tinued.

There are throughout the country lit-erally thousands of baseball, softball,basketball, bowling, tennis, golf, andother athletic leagues or teams whichunions manage but which employersfinance, at least in part. There are alsobands, orchestras, parks, playgrounds,dance halls, and recreation centers whichunions operate, but which managementhelps to finance. There are picnics, boatrides, vacation plans, and, yes, even vic-tory-garden programs, where the unionmanages the activity, but the compahygladly contributes a small or a large partof the cost.

And let me stress that the companiessupport these projects gladly, volun-tarily, and enthusiastically-partly be-cause they take sheer human delight-inseeing their people enjoy themselves andpartly because they consider it goodbusiness.

. I do not want anything I said amoment ago, Mr. President, to be con-strued in any way as a blanket indict-ment of industrialists. Many of themare great humanitarians. But I do saythat even as in Germany, they do haveenough power so they could enslave thecountry. I think there is danger-in thiscountry of the same thing happening as

in Germany unless we are ever on guardagainst it.

Let me give some concrete cases. Theunion of the employees of a retail chain-and this is an example of what wouldbe outlawed by the Byrd amendmentwhich was adopted last night-began todevelop a girl's softball league, a tennisleague, and later a bowling-league, in alarge city where such activities werecomnmon and where the games drewlarge crowds. The union officials wantedthese activities to prosper for tworeasons: First, the girls enjoyed suchsports, and secondly, it might be a meansfor increasing their regard for theirunion. Teams were organized and thegirls began to meet for practice. Oneday the union manager of a team invitedthe manager of the chain to come outto watch the girls practice.

When the employer went out to a parkto watch his girls perform, in companywith the manager of the union, he dis-covered that there were quite a few ballteams practicing in the same park. Hefurther discovered that some of his com-petitors had girl teams practicing in thepark. All these teams of pretty younggirls were decked out in rather colorfuland expensive uniforms. Large crowdscame to see the pretty girls and the color-ful costumes. But the.new team of ourfriend was not bedecked in pretty uni-forms-these girls were playing in cheapmakeshift outfits because their unionwas new and did not have the money tobuy them nice uniforms.

This employer was neither a "tightwad" nor was he blind to the businessfactors involved in the situation. Hesaw that large crowds of people watchedthese girl teams, and that the teamswere known by the names of their com-panies. He at once saw the possibilitiesfor advertising through an attractiveand successful team. He furthermorehad the good sense to know that girlemployees who came to like the athleticactivities would tend to stay on the'joband would not drift away to other em-ployment. He promptly proposed thatsince the union did not have the moneyto "doll-up" their girls, the companywould like to help by supplying the teamswith the prettiest outfits obtainable.There was an activity which doubtlesscreated a great deal of goodwill be-tween the employer and the union. Butnow, by'the adoption of the Byrd amend-ment, we have outlawed such a thingabsolutely. Anything of that naturehenceforth is against the law.

This retail management didn't want tobothered with the problems of organiz-ing and managing athletic teams. Theymerely wanted their girls to have attrac-tive and successful teams. They merelywanted their girls to enjoy the sports.They much preferred that the girls,through their union, manage their ownsports, while the company makes a cashcontribution and watches the game fromthe side lines.

Mr. President, the legislation beforethe Senate would not permit that man-agement to give their own employeespretty uniforms.

A famous manufacturer of sweet goodsmaintained in connection with one of

their American plants a generous pro-gram of financing picnics and outings,for the families of employees. The pri-mary objective of the company was toprevent labor turn-over in their plant.By trying to win the good will of the en-tire family of an employee, through thesepicnics and outings management hopedto cut down labor turn-over, which wasquite costly to them.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,will the Senator yield?

Mr. TAYLOR. I yield, if by so doingI do not lose the floor.

Mr. REVERCOMB.. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent that the Senatorfrom Idaho may not lose the floor byyielding to me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? The Chair hears none.

Mr. REVERCOMB. I thank the Sen-ator from Idaho for yielding at thistime. On behalf of the Senator fromMassachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] andmyself, I offer an amendment to thepending amendment, which I send to thedesk and ask to have stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment to the amendment will bestated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 4 ofthe so-called Ball amendment, at theend of line 12, it is proposed to strike out-the period, insert a colon, and add thefollowing:nor shall the quitting'of labor by an em-ployee or employees in good faith because ofthe abnormally dangerous conditions forwork of the place of employment of suchemployee or employees be deemed a strikeunder this section.

Mr. REVERCOMB. I may say thatearlier today the Senator from Massa-chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALLI, on behalf ofhimself and the Senator from West Vir-ginia, offered an amendment to thepending amendment offered by the Sena-tor from Minnesota [Mr. BALL] and otherSenators. I am now authorized on be-half of the Senator from Massachusettsto withdraw that amendment, and' tooffer the amendment which I just sent tothe desk and which was just read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the amendment will be re-ceived.

Mr. BALL. Mr. President, will theSenator from Idaho yield to me?

Mr. TAYLOR. I yield.Mr. BALL. As one of the authors of

the pending amendment, I am perfectlywilling to accept the amendment justoffered by the Senator from West Vir-ginia on behalf of himself and the Sena-tor from Massachusetts. I think it stateswhat is the purpose of our amendment,and I accept it, and ask that our amend-ment, as modified by the additional lan-guage just read, be reprinted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, the amendment will be modi-fied accordingly, and will be reprinted asrequested by the Senator from Minne-sota. The previous amendment offeredby the Senator from Massachusetts onbehalf of himself and the Senator fromWest Virginia is withdrawn.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, willthe Senator from Idaho further yield tome?

1946 5711

5712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEMr. TAYLOR. Yes; I yield.Mr. REVERCOMB. I want to thank

the Senator from Minnesota for accept-ing the amendment as a modification ofhis amendment. I also wish to thank theSenator from Idaho for yielding and giv-ing me the opportunity to present theamendment.

I now ask unanimous consent, Mr.President, that the amendment whichhas just been accepted by the Senatorfrom Minnesota as a modification of hisamendment be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the amend-ment was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

On page 4 of the so-called Ball amendment,at the end of line 12, strike out the period,insert a colon, and add the following:

"Nor shall the quitting of labor by anemployee or employees in good faith becauseof the abnormally dangerous conditions forwork of the place of employment of suchemployee or employees be deemed a strikeunder this section."

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, I wasjust recounting the case of a candy man-ufacturer who was in the habit of financ-ing picnics for the benefit of his'em-ployees as a part of his labor-relationsprogram. On the side this employer hadanother motive, namely, to keep a unionout of the plant. But the union suc-ceeded in organizing the plant and insecuring a union-shop contract. Withina very short while the union and man-agement were on most cordial terms andthe company felt that the union's pres-ence in the plant was more of an assetthan a hindrance.

But the families of the employeeswanted to keep up the picnics and out-ings, as doubtless they will even now,but the amendment adopted last eveningwill bring an end to the picnics. To holdthe goodwill of its members the unionfelt it should provide such a program.But the union was new and was decidedlylimited in funds. It could not afford the'elaborate meals, and prizes and otherexpenses which the company had bornein the past. Furthermore, it was a mat-ter of pride with the union officials thatthe former company program, which wasaimed partly at fighting the union, shouldnot be continued by the company in com-petition with the union. The union wasin a dilemma, it must equal the formeroutlay of the company, but it did nothave the money to do so.

At this juncture, the personnel man-ager of the company had the good senseto size up the situation and to guess theproblem facing the union officials.. Healso had the good sense to know that anyeffort by the company to interfere withthe union or to embarrass it would bebitterly resented by the union leaders.He proposed to the company that theycontinue in the company budget the for-mer amount spent on these picnics, butthat the money be turned over to the en-tertainment committee of the union asa good-will contribution of the man-agement. Management further realizedthat these young union officers might besuspicious of any proposal by manage-ment regarding the operation of the pic-nics. So they suggested that the unioncompletely manage the program, butwith company financial aid. Of course,

no longer will they be able to have thepicnics unless the union 'is able to footthe bill itself. The Senate of the UnitedStates last night adopted an amendmentwhich provides that it shall be againstthe law for an employer to help financeeven a picnicfor his union.

Here is another instance where thelocal situation made it better for all par-ties that the company contribute moneyto an activity, but leave its managemententirely in the hands of the union. Bythis method there was less likelihoodof friction, and much better prospect forharmony and mutual respect.

I venture to say that the amendmentadopted last evening is going to causefar more labor strife than exists now,not because of any great effect it is goingto have, but because of little irritations,because management has been in thehabit of assisting unions in their recre-ational programs and' health programsand can no longer do sc.

Another very interesting illustration ofcompany-financed but union-manragedactivity is an annual Labor Day paradein a large industrial center. Each yearthe unions carry on aggressive competi-tion for prizes and honors for the bestdisplay and floats in the parade, whichis strictly a union show. These paradeshave become such colorful spectaclesthat it is estimated that between a mil-lion and two million people gather alongmiles of streets to watch the spectacle.Union committees spend much time andenergy trying to figure out clever and un-usual displays to win the coveted prizes.

Now everyone loves a good parade, andthat includes the managers of big com-panies. 'They like to see their employeesput on a good show and win the prizes.So it has become customary for variouscompanies to quietly but most substan-tially back their own employees' unions.This is particularly true of concerns suchas bakeries, dairies, and retail storeswhich sell directly to the public. Theyconsider it first-rate and relatively in-expensive advertising to have their com-pany names borne by colorful floats inthis strictly labor parade. At a recentparade, one big bakery supplied theirunion with 100 big vans especially paintedfor the display, plus a beautifully-uni-formed band and a synthetic loaf ofbread that cost more than a thousanddollars and required a tractor-drawntrailer to carry it to victory and theprize. Not to be outdone by a bakery,a nationally known dairy company setits machine shops to work to outdistancethat loaf of bread.

Obviously such an activity is an out-pouring of good fun and human rivalryof a healthy sort, plus some sense ofclever advertising. Equally obvious isthe fact that no company wants to sharethe management of a Labor Day parade.But if there are any parades henceforth,Mr. President, the company must takeupon its shoulders part of the responsi-bility for managing them, or all the per-sons involved may be sent to the peni-tentiary. The employers give theirmoney and cheer for their own em-ployees-and hope that many people'willsee the show. That was in the good olddays before the adoption of the Byrdamendment.

We could assemble hundreds of suchexamples of athletic teams, calhpgrounds, dance halls, dramatic clubs,and every other conceivable sort of sportor recreational activity that a local groupmight devise-with employers gladlycontributing money, but not wishing tobe bothered with any further responsi4bility for the activity.

Let us examine the development ofsome typical company health and sick-benefit insurance schemes.

A large midwestern sales agency re-quired a crew of well-trained and above-the-average salesmen, preferably mid-dle-aged men. Companies in thefield were in the habit of stealing cracksalesmen from each other, by variousinducements. The company we are con-sidering decided to set up a fund to helpcare for the hospital and medical ex-penses of its employees, plus some provi-sion for salary payments to the familywhen the breadwinner was laid up forvery long. These benefits were open toall salesmen in the employ of the com-pany, provided they agreed verbally toreturn to work for the company after re-ceiving any benefits under the plan. Thefund was entirely supplied and operatedby the company, through its personneldepartment. The amount of aid to begiven was not prescribed by any fixedrules. The company representativesjudged each case on its merits.

There were three motives in main-taining the practice: first, the desire tastop labor turn-over; second, the gen-erosity of the owner who had grown upwith the business; and third, an effortto keep a salesmen's union from gettinginto the business. But the union finallysecured a contract, after something ofa fight. Subsequently, the union andmanagement established very harmoni-ous relations and took up the questionof the sick and health benefits. Manage-ment was glad to continue contribu-.ting the funds, and joint supervision ofthe outlay-was established. But this didnot work well at all. Some of the more"militant" union members were alwayscomplaining that a particular family hadnot received a sufficiently generous al-lowance, and blamed the representativesof management for "discriminating'against that family because of some past,alleged grievance or grudge. There wereendless arguments, making for ill will.It was obviously necessary either to dis-continue the benefit fund or to find someless damaging method of supervision.Management did not wish to discontinuethe fund, for that would lay them opento recrimination and would lose themthe values in lowered labor turn-over.

At this juncture the management pro-posed that a union committee acceptcomplete responsibility for administer-ing the funds. By this means they con-fined all arguments over the amount ofbenefits within union circles, thereby re-moving the only bone of contention be-tween the union and management.

Those who have not had practicalexperience in such matters may say thatsuch an arrangement is an unprincipledmethod; but the experience of manycompanies shows that it works betterthan joint management in many in-stances.

MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEVery similar results flowed from a

plant hospital. A large establishmentbuilt a small private hospital for em-ployees and their families. Limitedmedical service and less limited hospitalservices were rendered employees. Thecompany considered the investment asprofitable in reducing labor turn-over.The costs were borne by a pay-roll taxwhich took 1 cent from the employeeand 2 cents from management. Theservices were administered by the com-pany, with an advisory committee of em-Oloyees picked by the personnel depart-ment.

When the union came in, the serviceswere continued on the old basis. Butmore cantankerous individual unionmembers were always filing grievancesagainst the way the hospital was oper-ated. They particularly charged thatthe head physician was incompetent,was a company stooge, and so forth.After some careful consideration by anintelligent personnel department, thecompany decided to propose to the unionthat they assume complete responsibilityfor management of the services, with alump-sum contribution from manage-ment, to be supplemented by any amountthe union chose to take from its ownmembers. Management figured that itis much easier to criticize the other fel-low's work than your own-and thatcomplete responsibility for administra-tion by the union would tone down theirattitude. The joke of the story is thatthe union committee cracked down onunion members tending to abuse theprivileges more than management hadever done, and wound up rehiring thesame physician in charge.

That is only an example, Mr. Presi-dent, showing that it will be very difficultin many instances to have joint admin-istration of many of these undertakingsand projects which have been a part ofAmerican industry. If labor administersthese funds, then it is responsible, and ifthere is any criticism it does not add tothe dissatisfaction on the part 'of laborwith management. It does not help tobuild up ill will. It is a matter withinthe union. But if all these countlessthousands of good-will projects now haveto be administered jointly, instead of be-ing projects creating good will they willbecome bones of contention, and willhelp to create ill will, out of which prob-ably many major strikes will arise oversome matter which at first was petty.

We could give many other illustrationsof this same principle. When a unionand a company honestly sit down to-.gether and seek the best possible mannerfor administering some fund benefittingemployees, many times the best way toremove the entire matter from the areaof union-management friction is to makethe employees feel that they are com-pletely responsible. Divided responsi-bility often becomes a fruitful source offriction. Placing the union memberscompletely in charge leaves them no oneto criticize but themselves if anythinggoes wrong. They also feel a greatersense of ownership and responsibility;and do a better job.

That ties in with what I stated a whileago, Mr. President, that people who laborwith their hands sometimes have an in-

feriority complex and feel overaggres-sive and assertive, trying to overcome thefeeling "I am just as good as the otherfellow if I just had the breaks he had."When the employees are permitted toparticipate in these activities, and havethe opportunity to manage something,they tend 'to feel more friendly towardthose who are managing the plant. Inother words, they begin to share theproblems of management. But now wewill not even let them have that smallboost to their ego. We are going to de-prive them of the pleasure even of ad-ministering petty funds for picnics, andone thing and another.

A large wholesale house with severalhundred employees was a self-insurer,with a sick-benefit fund. While it isprobably true that management admin-istered the fund reasonably well and withpractical fairness, there were alwayscharges and rumors of favoritism. Thatis the point I wish to bring out, Mr. Pres-ident. Even if management administersthese funds well, labor will be foundcriticizing management because there isan opportunity to criticize; and there isreally no need for a situation whichcauses friction, if the unions are per-mitted to manage these matters forthemselves. Discontent with the admin-istration of the superintendent, became'a prominent factor in leading employeesto turn to a union that happened alongabout that time. Anxious to prevent or-ganization of their plant, the manage-ment built a company union and dele-gated to it considerable authority overthe sick-benefit fund. But low wagesfinally led the company union to bolt, enmasse, to a bona fide union.

When the company and the unionfinally negotiated a contract and estab-lished fairly friendly relations, the man-agement of the sick-benefit plan-thefunds for which were contributed by thecompany- as a percentage of the payroll-was handed back to the company.But immediately grievances began topour in. The more militant and noisyunion members charged the companywith discriminating in favor of "companypets." The union voted to set up its ownsick-benefit fund and to levy on mem-bers a flat sum per week. But after somecalculations they discovered the coldfacts of life, and saw they could not pro-vide very ample benefits.

At this juncture, the managementmade a farsighted move. It proposedto add its contribution to the unionmembers' more modest sum, to supply anadequate sick-benefit fund, but to leavethe management entirely in the hands ofthe union. To tell the whole story, itmust be said that a union treasurer didtry to run away with $600 of the fund,but he was caught and the funds were re-stored. At this juncture, the manage-ment did not suggest taking back thefund, but merely advised the boys to becareful about bonding all officers andtaking the usual precautions.

I could continue this recitation of in-stances at great length, with infinitevariety as to the nature of the funds andthe way in which they are administered.In many cases there is mixed respon-sibility. But also, in many instances,both management and the union are

agreed that placing full responsibility onthe shoulders of the employees may re-sult in the best atmosphere and thesmoothest administration,

Educational programs sometimes be-come a matter of mutual interest be-tween employers and the union. In aparticular instance during the war, aunion which organizes skilled workersin small shops decided to open a train-ing school for workers, to enable itsmembers to advance their earning power.But the school was also open to non-union students wishing to enter thetrade. The union felt that this wouldattract such people to the union. Whensome of the employers heard of thisproject by the union, they were greatlyinterested and most anxious that it suc-ceed. They needed more trained work-ers. They also guessed that the unionhad only limited financial resources.Several employers offered to help financethe training school, with the verbal un-derstanding that they be allowed to can-vass the students with a view to hiringthem. Most of them were small em-ployers who could not afford to set upany kind of training program for them-selves, and they had complete confidencein the ability of the union to do a goodjob. Furthermore, they had no desireto become involved in administering theschool. They were quite happy to makemodest contributions to its maintenance,and to get their share of the graduates.But, of course, under the Byrd amend-ment they will no longer be able to helpfinance the school unless they also as-sume the responsibility of managing theschool; and that, in turn, probably willlead to dissatisfaction on the part ofthe employees.

In another instance, the union of adepartment store set up a dramaticsclub. It aroused considerable interestand began to give little performances atunion meetings around town. The clubwent by the name of the shop where themembers worked. The personnel depart-ment and the advertising departments ofthe big store immediately sensed thatthere was an activity which might be ofbenefit to both of them. The manage-ment proposed to the union that it wouldbe glad to assist the dramatics endeavorfinancially and with materials. Fromthat time forward the carpenter shop,the display department, and the dressand the clothing departments of thestore began to give unlimited help to theplay group. Scenery, costumes, printedprograms, notices of performances car-ried in' the store ads, and other contribu-tions in kind were given, as well as cash.Here, again, Mr. President, is a humansituation. The union and the boss arenot fighting each other. They are merelyliving together. The owner of- the storeis glad to see his employees have a goodtime. He is also appreciative of the ad-vertising which a successful play groupgives his store name. He used to attendrehearsals personally and applaud "hisplay company" as enthusiastically as theunion leaders applauded. But that em-ployer can no longer contribute to thedramatics club of his employees withoutbecoming a criminal in the eyes of thelaw as we are writing it at this time.

1946 5713

: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

Employment offices and hiring hallsare sometimes productive of joint supportby union and management. During thewar a union that organizes small shopsset up a recruiting program to attractpeople into their hiring halls, so that theycould fill their shops with union mem-bers. The union advertised for workersand sent solicitors around to all sorts ofmeetings to plead with people to workpart time or full time to help the wareffort. But the union was young andcould not afford to invest too muchmoney in such recruiting activities. Theemployers quickly sensed that this ac-tivity was profitable for them, and offeredto make cash contributions to the union.Particularly the small employers realizedit was far more economical to pool theiradvertising efforts through the union em-ployment office than to run small ads inthe newspapers. They had neither thefacilities nor the desire to share in thesupervision of the hiring halls. They hadthe good sense to kncw that the unionwould tend to favor the employers whocontributed, if it showed any partialityin rationing out the sparse supply ofworkers.

There was another activity in whichthe employers found it good business tocontribute financially-in that case, to ahiring hall, in order that they might ob-tain their employees more reasonablythan if they individually advertised in'the newspapers and conducted their ownhiring. Eut they will no longer be ableto do that, because they would be givingsomething of value to representatives ofthe union to maintain the hiring hall,and that would be against the law, ac-cording to the provisions of the Byrdamendment.

Mr. President, for the benefit of thosewhose knowledge of labor relations islimited to what they read in the news-papers, let me give a rather unusual illus-tration of how good labor relations candevise a novel procedure for solving atough problem.

A large wholesale bakery, with severalhundred delivery trucks on the road allthe time, is bound to have many trafficaccidents. In a particular case, disciplineof drivers who had accidents became aserious bone of contention between man-age~ment and the union. Where the com-pany felt that negligence had producedloss of a vehicle or injury to pedestrians,.the management was inclined to dis-charge the employee or to lay him off fora considerable period of time.

But accidents are bound to happen-asin the case of the Lea bill, I may say-and the union often made a good case forits members' not being to blame for agiven accident. Then a bitter fight al-ways ensued between the union grievancecommittee and the traffic superintendentof the company. The gieneral managerof this company was a former truckdriver himself, and he had considerablefaith in human beings. He was con-vinced that some democratic procedurecould be devised whereby guilt would bedetermined with reasonable accuracy,and justice done. Since the companyand the union never had serious troubleover anything else, he rightly judged thatit was not bad people, but bad procedure,that was causing the friction.

After considerable discussion, the com-pany and the union set up a traffic courtto try offenders. After considerable ex-perimentation, they finally arrived at aprocedure whereby a jury of union truck 'drivers could be called to sit in judgmenton any case where the normal grievanceprocedure did not produce a quick settle-ment. This jury sat over a trial verymuch like a criminal court. The com-pany, the insurance company, the em-ployee or the union might individuallyor severally appear before the court, withor without counsel, to argue for oragainst the offending driver.

The union elected its juries and stoodready to supply them whenever theirServices were required. But it costmoney to take those drivers off their jobsand to assemble them. The companyheld that this was a legitimate chargeagainst the business, and paid the unionthe total costs of the trials. Neither thecompany nor the union would abandonthis traffic court.

Now, Mr. President, I want to pointout something to the distinguished Sen-ators present. These cases which I'havecited may seem quite unorthodox. Theymay not appear to be the conventionalway of handling such matters. Theyare all an outgrowth of free, democraticdiscussion by the people on the scene-the union and management in a plantworking out what seems to them to bethe best way of meeting a problem withwhich they may be faced. They areAmerican democracy, our free way of lifeat its best. They do not conform to theusual manner of hiring an insurancecompany to look after health or sickbenefits.

They do not conform to a standardpattern laid down by law, nor by a Gov-ernment board. They conform to onething only, namely, the free and cooper-ative judgment of the employers and theunion men on the spot. They are menwho sit down together and work out thesolution of their problems by a methodwhich works. And, I may say, it worksprecisely because they figured it out forthemselves. Whenever it ceases to work,they meet again and do some more fig-uring. Out of it comes a result whichpleases them, a result which works forthem.

The Byrd amendment would extendthe long arm of the Federal Governmentinto the private lives of these little peo-ple and forbid them to do what they havefound it is good for them to do. Thesponsors of this legislation are reallyproposing the most unwarranted of Gov-ernment interference with private initia-tive. Here we have unions and employ-ers who have, in good will, good sense,and democratic respect for each other,met and solved their local problem. Butit would appear that some Senatorswould want to break up this wholesomeprocess and compel those persons to con-form to some rigid pattern which theyhope to devise on this floor.

I repeat that genuine collective bar-gaining means just such meetings of menof good will, men of good sense, men de-termined to find a way to overcome bytheir own common sense all local diffi-culties.

Mr. President, the present wave ofstrikes is to be expected. We have gonethrough a war in which persons keptthemselves in restraint. They were com-pelled to remain steadily on the job.They could not take vacations. Theybuilt up pressures within themselves, andthe present period of unrest is only onewhich we should naturally expect. If wewant absolutely .peaceful, stereotyped,and uniformly regular labor relationsin this country, I see only one way inwhich we may procure them. They can-not be obtained by the Congress passinglaws compelling men and women to work.It might be possible to shoot some of theworkers, but they would still refuse towork. We must make up our minds thatwe shall have strikes, and that we mustsit them out. We may have to go hungryto some extent if we want to maintaina free country. That is something forwhich we may be required to pay. Onthe other hand, if we cherish our per-sonal comfort, and the right to get aletter through to Aunt Millie on time,and other things which we take forgranted, we may find that they cannotbe easily attained. If we cherish ourprivileges more than we cherish our freeinstitutions, and insist on everything be-ing done after a pattern, then let us facethe situation squarely and scientifically,just as the British have done. Let ussocialize our basic key industries such asthose which can tie up our economy. Wewill then know that the workers will re-main on the job just as do the employeesin the Post Office Department. The PostOffice Department has never had a strike.It seems that government is more ca-pable in dealing successfully with laborproblems than are the private employersof the Nation. Perhaps some of thebasic industries to which I have referredshould besocialized. I am not attempt-ing to say which ones should be social-ized. But the socialization of our basicindustries may be the only way by whichwe can, have absolute peace in connec-tion with labor and industry. We donot have to worry much about the littleprivate enterprises because the em-ployees in those industries may go onstrike and thrash out their problems. Ifone chain of grocery stores is closed downbecause of its employees going on strike,the consuming public may patronizesome other chain of grocery stores. Ifthe services of one garage are no longeravailable to the patrons of that garagebecause of a strike of the employees ofthe garage, the public may go to anothergarage. We must make up our mindsto like the situation and wait patientlyfor the strikers and the employers to set-tle their differences.

Mr. President, I make the predictionthat no bill which the Senate could pass,no matter how restrictive or how sternit might be, would be of any help at thepresent time. The Senator from Virginiasaid that we should do something verystern. We can get just as stern as weplease, but it will not force men andwomen to return to work until they feelthat they are getting a square deal.

Mr. President, the Senate should re-member that there are thousands of em-ployers and union leaders scatteredthrough the towns and cities of this coun-

5714 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEtry who are settling their differer/cesthrough peaceful means. We never hearof them, precisely because their littlelocal meetings succeed in producing aworkable pattern for them.

Do Senators believe that the long armof the Federal Government should reach-out to a little town in Iowa and tell theowner of a grocery store there that hemay not give a pretty uniform to thegirl clerk who plays on the union ballteam? Should this Government tell theowner of a clothing store in Michiganthat he may not contribute to a fundwhich is managed by the union to help hisown salesmen when they are sick? If themanager of a brewery wants to pay for theinstruments and the uniforms for asnappy brass band to be managed by theunion of his own employees, shall we tellhim he may not do so?

It is well to remember that America isa vast country, filled with some prettyingenious people. We have to have traf-fic laws, but we must be.-very careful thatthose laws do not obstruct the free flowof ideas and methods. We must remem-ber that most employers and union men,right on the job where the problem arises,are better able to find a way out thanthose of us here who never managed aunion or a union grievance procedure.The proposed legislation is most unwise,because it is bound to interfere with pre-cisely the kind of collective bargainingthat we all profess to desire. It will notaccomplish the aim it professes.- It willaccomplish much harm.

Remembering that there are thou-sands of shops throughout the countrywhere these health, educational, recrea-tional, and other cooperative programsare in operation, how is any member ofthe Senate going to justify to the peoplewho are proud of these programs that wehave seen fit' to outlaw them? How canWe justify to any employer or union out-lawing something that they know bytheir own experience is mutually helpfulto them and does no one else any con-ceivable harm? Same of these welfareschemes have been in operation for years,and the community has come to dependupon them. Everyone is happy overthem. But some morning they learnthat their Congress has outlawed themas- being very bad. It does not makesense, and we will never be able to con-vince these citizens who have done theirdemocratic duty that it makes sense.

I do not believe that we will be able toconvince members of management thatwe have acted wisely when it begins tocome home to them what we have reallydone. Thousands of managers who haveparticipated in these programs for theirunion members, to help keep them satis-fied, to help keep good employer-em-ployee relations, when they find what wehave done to them, will begin printingarticles in trade papers, like the articleI introduced from Tide magazine sayingthat we acted ridiculously in passing theLea bill. The very people that bill waspassed to benefit are now ridiculing us,saying that we were stupid in the ex-treme.

I think many people who have writtenurging that we pass labor legislation,when they find what kind of labor legis-

No. 98-7

lation has. been passed, that *we haveended their good relations with 'theiremployees, and made it against the lawfor them to participate in these pro-grams, will start printing articles in theirmagazines saying that the Senate wenttoo far, and overstepped the bounds, andthat that was not what they wanted.

To be perfectly frank, Mr. President, ifwe would take the letters which come toMembers of Congress saying, "We wantyou to pass some labor legislation," andwould go to the people who wrote the let-ters, I will wager we would not find oneof them in 100 who had any idea whathe meant when he said, "Pass some laborlegislation." If'we should ask what kindof labor legislation, he would be at a totalloss. That is just the way Congress isacting. There is a demand, in the news-papers especially, and on the part ofmany people who have not thought thematter through, that we do something-legislate, pass some labor legislation. Sothe Congress frantically starts legis-lating, without any idea of what it islegislating about.

The amendment of the Senator fromVirginia was the most outstanding ex-ample. It was offered, then the ableSenator from Florida [Mr. PEPPER1started pointing out idiosyncrasies andflaws and faults in the amendment.Then, its sponsors would take it out andamend that part of it; then, they wouldbring it back, and the Senator from Flor-ida [Mr. PEPPER] would read it again andpoint out something else that was thematter with it, either just downrightsilly, or probably unconstitutional. Theywould then take it out and amend itsome more. Four or five times they hadto repair to the cloakroom with theamendment and feverishly work on it,then;- they would bring it back and theSenator from Florida would work on it.That is the spirit of this whole pro-ceeding. It does not make any dif-ference who wrote the amendment orwho offered it or what it is about, let uspass it.' Pass it. Do not even have anydebate on it.

Last night our opponents tabled oneamendment offered by those of us whoare trying to make the bill a workablemeasure. They would not even give usan opportunity to set forth the meritsof the amendment. They were soanxious to get busy and pass something,the Byrd amendment, in that instance,which had been amended until it didnot resemble what it started out to beat all, they were so anxious to adopt it,because it had the reputation of takinga sock at labor, and they wanted to getat that one right away, that they wouldnot even consider an amendment offeredin an effort to improve the bill, as wehave tried to improve it, or make it lessobnoxious, at least, by pointing out flawsand defects in the amendment of theSenator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I shall close now, but Ihave a poem here I wish to enter in theRECORD. Ordinarily I would simply insertthe poem, but I truly think it is worthreading aloud to the Senate, or I wouldnot read it. I am not doing this to con-sume time, but I feel that the poem isworth reading.

This poem.was presented to a conven-tion of World Federalists at Chicago,Ill., April 28, 1946. The chairman of theconvention said:

The Chair recognizes Silas Blake Axtell,delegate from New York.

I may say that I have had the pleasureof meeting Mr. Axtell, who is a very finegentleman, a capable lawyer, and a de-vout believer in world government. Mr.Axtell read this poem:

The people died. It was the people's war.Why did they die? What were they dying

for?Why are the people always asked to die?Who are the people? You, and You, and I!Our children yet unborn! Then-let us rise!

In God's name, let us rise up and declareAnd end of war before the whole world dies!Come out! Come out, to everSyvillage square!Come out from factories and homes, and

,schools!Bring out your laws, bring out your dreams,

and skillsBring out your faiths and all their golden

rules!And hurl your strength against the thing

that killsOur blossoming youth on every countryside!

The World is oile, and now no longer wide.Nothing is out of range, New York, Eire,

Rome,Forbidden Lhasa, jungles or icy bay!No place is safe where man has built a

home;Stars shine above them all, to light Death's

way.

Air knows no boundary, atoms no controlExcept this urge fast gathering in the soulOf frightened man to somehow save his sonFrom this last awful thing, he's made and

done IYou joined your powers for war, Now, stretch

your, handsAnd pluck this hurtling terror from the skiesBefore it crashes down upon the lands!Before the last spring flower falls and dies!

Our human blood obeys no several rulesOf politics, in one or isolate pools.Blood is but blood. And dust to dust returnsRegardless of its flag. And each hurt burnsFor liberty. Then let us so proclaim!And swear allegiance to our bond, and stateOur will, world-wide, this day to promulgateA people's peace, and Government in its

name!

The poem was written by Elva Just.All the laboringman has, to make him

feel important in this world, is his feelingthat he too is free; that he is just asfree as any Senator, as any rich man inthe great house upon the hill, and if westart taking away that feeling from himit is going to rankle in his soul; he willbecome rebellious. I am convinced ofthat, for, having worked in factories my-self, I know how the men feel. You cantake them with you a long way if youwill reason with them. Someone repre-senting the management can come to thefactory and, if he is a good fellow andwill talk to the boys a little while, canpractically win them over to anything.But if someone who represents the au-thority up above comes to the factoryand tends to become a little tough, theboys seem to take a great delight in try-ing to get twice as tough as he can. It istheir only defense, it seem, against theirfeeling and knowledge that they have notbeen able to climb the ladder socially

1946 5715

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEand financially. They are willing to goalong with anyone, but, on the otherhand if anyone tries to rob them ofthis one precious thing which they holdin common with the highest citizen ofthe land, this liberty of theirs, theygreatly resent it.

Mr. President, they may not under-stand the Constitution fully, and may notunderstand exactly what their libertiesare, but they have a good idea thatthey have such liberties, and that theycan say what they please about thePresident or anyone else and get awaywith it. If they believe that anyone.istrying to take their liberties away fromthem there is likely to be a mass psycho-logical reaction and a mass strike maytake place in which practically everylaborer in the country would sit down.Then if more repressive measures weretaken to end the strike it would onlymake the situation worse and worse.

Mr. President, as I stated a while ago,I am not a Socialist. I am not a Com-munist. I have been accused of being aSocialist and of being a Communist.Every time I ran for'office I. was called aSocialist and a Communist. I denied itin 1928 and I lost the election. I deniedit in 1940 and I lost the election. I.deniedit in 1942 and I lost the election. Finallyin 1944 I became tired of denying it, soI simply let the charge go unanswered,and I was elected. I do not know whatthat means. I do not know whether thepeople want socialism or like socialism orcommunism or whether they simply likesomeone to ignore those who would ac-cuse him falsely.

As I said, I am not a Socialist or aCommunist. But if we insist that we can-not be inconvenienced by any strikes, thatthe wheels must turn smoothly, andthat if we want to. travel we must go ata certain moment and cannot wait a fewdays while the men are thrashing' outtheir problems with management, thatis really too bad for us.

The strikes are simply a means of let-ting off steam on the part of the workers.I will wager that the railroad workersare anxiously awaiting at this very mo-ment to hear the call back-to work. Iwill wager that a percentage so small ashardly to be worth mentioning have goneoff fishing. I am willing to bet that theyare waiting by their telephones for thecall to come which will send them backto work. I have been a member of aunion, and I believe I know how theyfeel. While I never was engaged in astrike, I know the psychology of theworkers pretty well. I have a brotherwho is a member of a railroad brother-hood, and I am quite certain he is at thisvery moment out on strike, because Iknow he is not the kind of man to let hisfellow workers in the brotherhoods down,and I will bet anything I have that atthis moment literally the perspiration isstanding out on his forehead and that heis sitting'by the telephone hoping andpraying that the call will come whichwill take him back to work. But themen think they have gotten a raw deal.All management had to do was simplysay "No." Management made no de-mands on anyone. The newspapers didnot write up management. Managementwas simply behaving itself, going along

as usual, and the railroad workersthought they were entitled to a betterdeal. From what I have seen at firsthand, and from what I have heard frommy brother who is a member of a rail-road brotherhood, I am inclined to be-lieve the men are entitled to a better deal.

Much is said about the railroad workersbeing the aristocracy of labor. That ismush. That- is one job in which theworker does not knowv from one hour tothe next whether he will work or whetherhe will be laid off for several days. Theworker does not dare to go downtown toa movie for fear the call will come forhim to go to work "right now." There areno regular hours of work. The workeris at the mercy of someone who may callhim at almost any time. Some of thejobs are on regular schedules, but a greatmany of them are not. Generally aworker is expected, unless he has a con-siderable amount of seniority, to take thejob whenever he is called to take it,whether early in the morning, in the mid-dle of the night,-or at ati other time.

As I have stated, the workers are sim-ply letting off steam. Even now I amsure they are anxious to go back to work,and if they do not go back I would bewilling to bet it is because managementis not metting them half way and is notwilling to give them a reasonable deal.

Up to this very moment Senators whonow are urging the most repressiveamendments have eulogized the railroadworkers. Until this railroad strike hap-pened they rose on the floor every littlewhile and eulogized them and said, "Lookat the aristocracy of labor. See whatfine workers they are. If only we hadsomething like the Railroad Labor Act toapply to all industry, how wonderful itwould be." All of a sudden their heroeshave gone out on strike, and I do notwonder that some Senators feel quite,bitter after the paeans of praise they haveuttered for the boys of the brotherhood.

So we see, Mr. President, that so-calledperfect laws to keep industrial peace donot work. We cannot frame a law onthe floor of the Senate which will settlestrikes. I do not believe any group ofexperts, which we are not, with the pos-sible exception of the Senator from Ore-gon [Mr. MORSE) can frame adequatestrike legislation. We are not experts inlabor relations, no matter how much wemay think we are, and we are not goingto frame a bill here which will settle thestrikes that are now in progress or willprevent strikes in the future.

Mr. President, I have been an employerof labor most of my adult life. I startedout when I was 15 years old working forwages. When I was 18 I bought a halfinterest in a business which, incidentally,happened to be a theatrical stock com-pany, and from that day until this, withone or two brief interruptions, I havebeen an employer of labor. I have alwaysgotten along with my labor. If I wantedto let my passions rule me, I could be veryantilabor, -very bitter toward labor, be-cause shortly after I first bought a part-nership in the business I mentioned weplayed a small town in Arizona. We hada big tent, with a stage in it, and we pre-sented our plays in the big tent. The.stage-hands union told us we had to hire,

I think it was, three stage hands. We hadnot been using any stage hands at all.The actors changed the scenery betweenthe acts, and. pulled the curtain, andpushed the light switch. The union toldus we had to have three stage hands. Wehired them. They put the woods wingson upside down; that is the butts of thetrees were sticking up in the air and thefoliage was on the stage. Then the onethey set to watch the curtain became sointerested in the show that he stuck hisneck out past the proscenium arch so thewhole audience could see him. And theone who was supposed to push the lightswitch and lower the curtain become in-terested in the show and forgot to lowerthe curtain. So finally we told them togo down and sit behind the stage. on abench, and we paid them, and proceededto run our show ourselves.

That was an injustice.and, as I said,I was pretty angry about it at the time.From that and other experience I havehad I could feel very bitter toward labor.But I have let my good judgment, mycommon sense, prevail.

Mr. President, much as we talk aboutwhat a great deal we owe to the inven-tors such as Bell who invented the tele-phone, and Fulton who invented thesteamboat, and Watt with his steam en-gine, however much we owe to-them,however much we may owe to Mr. Ford,who perfected mass production of auto-mobiles, however much we owe to themfor our high standard. of living today,I say that we owe just as much to theidea of trade unions, because if it had notbeen for trade unions wages would neverhave risen to the point where the peoplecould buy goods and enable us to makeuse on a mass scale of telephones, auto-mobiles, and all the other things whichwe enjoy today.

Labor has had to strike time and againto get petty increases. The newspaperssay, "Look at the fools. They havestruck, and they have remained idle oversuch a long period of time that they havelost millions of dollars. There was onlya difference of 2 or 3 cents. They couldhave settled it a month ago. It will takethem a year and a half, perhaps, to makeup what they have lost in wages."

Mr. President, that is not a valid argu-ment, because if they had never struck inthe first place, away back yonder, andinsisted on getting increases little bylittle, a few cents at a time, if they hadalways been hesitant to fight for theirrights, today workers would be gettingtwo or three dollars a day. To be sure,the prices of commodities might not.beso high as they are, but we would not beable to buy them at any price, becausewe would not have the money. Wewould not have our great mass produc-tion ecenomy, with all its conveniencesand luxuries, and the blessings it bringsto us. So I say that labor is entitled toa great deal of credit.

In the General Motors strike the criti-cism was made that there was not agreat deal of difference between theamount the workers were asking: andwhat the employer offered; but they stuckto their guns and finally got a little more.It was said that it would take them ayear or two to make up the difference.But we can thank them for putting up

5716 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEthe fight, because it makes it possible forcars to be manufactured cheaply. If theycould not be sold to the workers on amass scale, those of us who can affordto buy a car now, if they were producedfor a few of us who happened to receivemore than the others, would have to payso much that probably even a Senatorcould not afford an automobile. So weall owe a great debt of gratitude to labor.

With respect to the railroad strikewhich is now in progress, I should like toread an excerpt from the report to thePresident by the Emergency Board whichwas appointed on March 8, 1946, pur-suant to section 10 of the Railway LaborAct. P may say that this railway strikehas been in prospect for many months.No one can say that the railway workersdid not give ample warning and under-take negotiations in ample time to haveprevented this strike, which we can calla catastrophe if we wish, but I do notlook upon it as such. It is a great in-convenience, to say the least. The reportof the Emergency Board reads in part asfollows:

In this case, as in similar predecessor con-troversies between the railroad carriers andthe railroad transportation unions, one ofthe causes of the impasse in negotiationsand subsequent conflict in presentation ofevidence revolved around differing conceptsregarding the operation of the dual basis ofpay. Because of this conflict between theparties concerning the dual basis of pay, wethink it not inappropriate to comment tosome extent upon it.

Briefly, the dual basis of pay applies onlyto road service, and consists in a combina-tion of mileage and hours. For example, inroad freight service 100 miles is deemed equiv-alent to an 8-hour day and a speed basisof 121/2 miles per hour. If the crew .runs100 miles or more in 8 hours it is paid on amileage basis. If the time required to runthe mileage is longer than a speed of 12/2miles per hour, overtime accrues at time anda half. If on the other hand the run is lessthan 100 miles and is performed within 8hours, the basic minimum pay for 8 hoursor 100 miles is applicable.

The question of being paid by the houror by the mile also arises in connectionwith controversies with bus companies.Recently in Idaho there was a so-calledstrike of the bus workers. All the news-papers called it a strike. It involved theGreyhound Lines, which run through myhome town. Recently the operator of thelocal bus line was in Washington and Italked with him. He gave me a perfectillustration of how the *orkers alwaystake the rap. The work stoppage is calleda strike, whether the workers are onstrike or whether they are locked out, orwhatever may be the reason for thecontroversy.

He stated that certain scales of pay hadbeen established on the basis of the warspeed of 35 miles an hour. Suddenly thewar ended and the speed limit was lifted,so that the busses could travel 45 or 50miles an hour. A run which formerlyrequired a certain number of hours nowrequired a great deal less time, and forthe same run the employers wanted tocut the pay of the drivers; but, of course,the workers could not make up the dif-ference, because that was a run, andwhen they reached the end of it, thatwas the end of the day's work. So itwas simply a question of taking a cut'

in wages, and the workers did not wantto take a cut in wages.

The workers had asked the bus com-pany to negotiate with them. The nextmorning when -the bus company em-ployees came to work the bus depot andthe sheds where the busses were keptwere locked. The newspapers in myhome town and all over the countrycalled it a bus strike. They said that thedrivers were out on strike. The operatorof the local busses told me that he himselfknew it to be a fact that they had notgone out on strike. The bus companyclaimed that it could not make ends meetif-it had to operate on the new basis.The busses were all shut down betweenthe cities, so the operator of the localbus line hired the bus drivers for thewages they were asking of the Grey-hound Line, and he put some of his citybusses on the intercity routes. Theywere not built for that purpose, andprobably were not as efficient as theymight be; but he put them on, and he toldme that he was making plenty of money.And yet the bus company was so exer-cised and excited that it would not evennegotiate with the bus drivers over theircontract. It had found a good way tocut wages by increasing the speed of itsbusses, and it was not going to sacrificethat advantage.

Mr. President, a resolution was pre-sented on the floor of the Senate signedby 135 economists, I believe, saying thatwe should not pass this repressive laborlegislation. The economists thoughtthat it would solve nothing. The Sena-tor from Minnesota [Mr. BALL] raisedthe question whether those people knewanything about labor relations, orwhether they were qualified to advise us.Some of them were doctors of divinity,ministers of the gospel, teachers of thosewho would take up the church as theirlife work. I think that those menshould know something about the prob-lems of labor. Certainly any ministerof the gospel or anyone interested inteaching Christianity should know some-thing about the trials, tribulations,privations, and suffering of those wholabor. I think that would qualify themrather well. If they are conscientiousthey must certainly have familiarizedthemselves with the problems of labor.

The Senator from Minnesota statedthat only 10 of the 35 he had looked upwere in Who's Who. I am surprised thatthere are even 10 economists in theUnited States who are listed in Who'sWho. 'If anyone had asked me to make awager on the subject, I should have saidthat there were not that many who werewell enough known or of .sufficientprominence to be included in Who'sWho.

Mr. President, the Senate has failed toprovide broad and comprehensive socialsecurity legislation. Not satisfied withour dereliction in this matter, we nowsally forth to strike labor a blow whilethe workers are engaged in deadly con-flict with the great octopus of corporatewealth-in this instance a great blackgiant in the coal industry, erected on thegraves of countless under-privilegedchildren whose lives were sacrificed be-cause of substandard living conditions,

because of filth and flies and foully offen-sive lack of even the most basic sanitaryfacilities.

I know that railroad work is a verydifficult life. My brother's health is im-paired from the constant nervous strainunder which he labors in operating alocomotive. He has had an accident ortwo. It happens to all of them. Theyare constantly under a great strain.Frankly, his health is breaking; and ifhe does not last many years-and he willneed to last a good many years yet-when he does break under the strain ofthe severe occupation he will be leftwithout any way to take care of hisfamily.

So I hope that the people of Americawill not place all the blame on those wholabor. I feel that there are at least twosides to this question, and that labor'sside is equally justified with that of thosewho own and operate the plants, if notmore so.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.President, due to the fact that at 12o'clock tomorrow the Senate will vote oncloture, and due to the fact that allamendments must be presented beforethat time, I am forced to offer tonight anamendment which I am really not quiteready to offer. As a matter of fact, Iwished to hear the President's statementat 10 o'clock this evening before I offeredmy amendment.

I understand there are at least 25 or27 amendments which already have beensubmitted.

Mr. BALL. Mr. President, will theSenator yield at that point?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield.Mr. BALL. I believe that, Under the

cloture rule, if the Senator presents theamendment at any time before the voteis taken on the cloture petition tomor-row, if he does not offer the amendmenttonight, there will be an hour tomorrowduring which amendments may be of-fered, under the rule. Amendments of-fered during that time would still be of-fered in compliance with the rule. Theoffering of an amendment at such timewould be a privileged matter, and theSenator would be able to take any otherSenator off his feet in order to offer it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That iswhy I am presenting the amendment to-night, in order to have. that privilegetomorrow, if necessary. Otherwise, Iwould not present the amendment now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FER-GUSON in the chair). Without objection,the amendment will be received, printed,printed in the RECORD, and ordered to lieon the table.

The amendment submitted by Mr.JOHNSON of Colorado is as follows:

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. JOHNSON of Colorado to the bill (H. R.4908) to provide additional facilities'for themediation of labor disputes, and for otherpurposes, viz: At the proper place Insert anew section as follows:

"SEC. -. (a) Whenever the President de-termines that the Nation is imperiled, or thedomestic tranquillity, or general welfarethreatened, by strikes, slow-downs, or otherconcerted stoppages of work, or threats ofstrikes, slow-downs, or other concerted stop-pages of work, by the employees of any car-rier subject to the provisions of the Railway

1946 5717

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATELabor Act, the continued operation of whichis essential to the preservation of the na-tional health, safety, or security, he is herebyempowered to Issue a proclamation to thateffect balling upon such employees to refrainfrom engaging in strikes, slow-downs, orother concerted stoppages of work until afterthe expiration of 100 days following the dateof such proclamation. If at the end of such100-day period, the controversy shall not havebeen settled, the President shall have powerto extend such period for an additional pe-riod of 100 days.

"(b) Any such employbe who engages in astrike, slow-down, or other concerted stop-page of work within such period of 100 days,or extension thereof, following a proclama-tion of the President under subsection (a)shall be deemed to have voluntarily termi-nated his employment and shall not be re-garded as an employee of such carrier for thepurposes of the Railway Labor Act, as amend-ed, unless he is subsequently reemployed bysuch carrier, and, if he is so employed, shallnot be entitled to any seniority rights basedupon his prior employment.

"(c) Any agreement or settlement reachedwith respect to any such controversy afterthe date of issuance of a proclamation of thePresident under subsection (a), shall, insofaras such agreement or settlement relates torates of pay, be made effective as of the dateof such proclamation.

"(d) Any provision of any contract incon-sistent with the provisions of this section ishereby declared to be against public policyand to be null and void."

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.Mr. President, I should like to ask a ques-tion. Suppose that in the course of hisaddress the President injects some newmatter in regard to which we may needto offer an amendment. Under the rulewe could not offer such an amendment,as I understand the situation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unani-mous consent would be required for thatpurpose, if the cloture motion wereagreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.But that would tie up the Senate, becauseprobably some Senator would object.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield.Mr. CAPEHART. I desire to pro-

pound a parliamentary inquiry.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator will state it.Mr. CAPEHART. When will it be in

order to offer an amendment which Ihave, which is in the nature of a substi-tute for the bill?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.President, if the Senator is asking me,I shall say that it will be in order to offerthe amendment at the end, after all theamendments have been acted upon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe rule, it will be in order to have theamendment submitted, for printing, atany tiil,e up to the time when the cloturepetition is-voted upon. It will not be inorder to offer the amendment for con-sideration until after the pendingamendment and all other amendmentshave been disposed of. It would be thelast thing to be voted upon prior to actionon the committee. amendment asamended.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I de-sire to submit the amendment in modi-fied form, to be printed under the rule.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-out objection, the amendment will be re-

ceived, printed, and printed in the REC-ORD, and lie on the table.

The amendment submitted by Mr.CAPEHART is as follows:

Amendments, in the nature of a substi-tute, intended to be proposed by Mr. CAPE-HART to the bill (H. R. 4908) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation oflabor disputes, and for other purposes, vig,at the proper place insert the following:

"SEeTON -. That with the developmentof an industrial civilization, citizens of theUnited States have become so dependent uponthe production of goods for commerce, thedistribution of goods in commerce, and thecontinuous operation of the instrumentali-ties of commerce that substantial and con-tinued stoppages of such production, distri-bution, or operation in the case of essentialgoods or services seriously impair the publichealth, safety, and security. Irrespective ofthe cause of such stoppages, it is necessaryfor the protection of commerce and the na-tional economy, for the preservation -of lifeand health, and for the maintenance of thestability of government that a means beprovided for supplying essential goods andservices when such stoppages occur..

"(a) Whenever the President finds that astoppage of work arising out of a labor dis-pute (including the expiration of a collec-tive labor agreement) affecting commercehas resulted in interruptions to the supplyof goods or services essential to the publichealth, safety, or security to such an extentas seriously to impair the public interest, heshall issue a proclamation to that effect, call-ing upon the parties to such dispute to re-sume work and operations in the publicinterest.

"(b) If the parties to such dispute do notresume work and operations after the issu-ance of such proclamation, the Presidentshall take possession of antI operate any prop-erties of any business enterprise where suchstoppage of work has occurred if the Presi-dent determines that it is necessary for himto take possession of and operate such prop-erties in order to provide goods or servicesessential to the public health, safety, or secu-rity. While such properties are operated bythe United States, they shall be operatedunder the terms and conditions of employ-ment which prevailed thcrein when thestoppage of work began.

"(c) Any properties of which possessionhas been taken under this section shall bereturned to the owners thereof as soon as(1) such owners have reached an agreementwith the representatives of the employees insuch enterprise settling the issues in disputebetween them or (2) the President finds thatthe continued possession and operation ofsuch properties by-the United States is notnecessary to provide goods or services essen-tial to the public health, safety, or security.The owners of any properties of which pos-session is taken under this section shall beentitled to receive just compensation for theuse of such properties by the United States.-In fixing such just compensation, due con-sideration shall be given to the fact that theUnited States took possession of such prop-erties when their operations had been inter-rupted by a work stoppage,.to the fact thatthe United States would have returned suchproperties to their owners at any time whenan agreement was reached settling the issuesinvolved in such work stoppage, and to thevalue the use of such properties would havehad to their owners during the period theywere in the possession of the United Statesin the light of the labor dispute prevailing.

"(d) Whenever any properties are in thepossession of the United States under thissection, it shall be the duty of any labororganization of which 'any employees whohave been employed in the operation of suchproperties are members, and of the officersof such labor organization, to seek in goodfaith to induce such employees to return to

-work and not to engage in any strike, slow-down, or other concerted refusal to work orstoppage of work while such properties arein the possession of the United States. Anysuch employee who fails to return to work(unless excused by the owner of the businessor its agent, or unless prevented by illness,disability, or similar valid reason) or whodoeg engage in any strike, slow-down, or otherconcerted refusal to work or stoppage ofwork while such properties are in the pos-session of the United States, shall be deemedto have voluntarily terminated his employ-ment in the operation of such properties,shall not be regarded as an employee of theowners or operators of such properties forthe purposes of the National Labor RelationsAct, as amended, and the Railway Labor Act,as amended, unless he is subsequently re-employed by such owners or operators, and ifhe is so reemployed shall not be entitled toany seniority rights based on his prior em-ployment. Any prod4sions of any contractinconsistent with the provisions of this sub-section is hereby declared to be against pub-lic policy and to be null and void.

"(e) Whenever any properties are in thepossession of the United States under thissection, it shall be unlawful for any per-son (1) to coerce, instigate, induce, conspirewith, -or encourage any person to interferewith or prevent, by lock-out, strike, slow-down, concerted refusal to work, or otherinterruption, the operation of such proper-ties, or (2) to aid any such lock-out, strike,slow-down, refusal, or other interruption in-terfering with the opleration of such prop-erties by giving direction or guidance in theconduct of such interruption or by provid-ing funds for the conduct of direction there-of or for the payment of any strike, unem-ployment, or other benefits to those par-ticipating therein. No individual shall bedeemed to have violated the provisions ofthis subsection by reason only of his havingceased work or having refused to continueto work or to accept employment. Any in-dividual who willfully violates any provisionof this subsection shall be subject to a fineof not more than $5,000 or to imprisonmentfor not more than I year, or both.

"(f) The powers conferred on the Presidentby this section may be exercised by himthrough such department or agency of theGovernment as he may designate.

"(g) As used in this section, the terms'employee', 'representative', 'labor organiza-tion', 'commerce', 'affecting commerce', and'labor dispute' shall have the same meaningso far as they apply to labor disputes in anindustry included in the scope of the Na-tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, suchwords. shall have the same meaning as ifapplied to the Railway Labor Act, as amended,so far as labor disputes involving employersor employees covered under the RailwayLabor Act, as amended, are concerned.

"SEC. -. The provisions of this act shallapply to industries or facilities already inthe possession of and being operated by theUnited States Government or any agencythereof, which governmental operation hasbeen brought about as the result of a workstoppage or threatened work stoppage.

"SEC. -. Notwithstanding the provisionsof any other law, this act shall be in fullforce and effect from and after 12 o'clockmeridian of the day following its approval."

Mr ' CAPEHART. -.Mr. President, Iwish to say that, although I am aware,of course, that the Chair knows and allMembers of the Senate know it to be so,I still wish to call their attention to thefact that in refusing to work the railwayworkers are defying the Government ofthe United States.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.President, I should like to make a briefstatement at this time. It will not takeme long to deliver it to the Senate: I

5718 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEdesire to make it in connection with theamendment which I shall offer at theproper time. As I have said, there areapproximately 25 or 30 amendmentsalready pending to the bill, and moreamendments are likely to be offered.Statements have repeatedly been madeon the floor of the Senate that, if allthe amendments now pending were en-acted into law, they still would have noeffect whatsoever upon the pending rail-road strike.

Mr. President, after I have offered myamendment, that statement no longerwill be true, because my amendment hasto do directly with the railroad strike,and with nothing else.

I need not tell the Senate about thestrangulation of traffic and the paralysisthat has gripped the country, with theshut-downs all over the United States,with the threats of famine and thethreats of riot and the threats of dis-order which certainly must come aboutif the railroad strike continues. Yet,with all the amendments and with allthe consideration which is being givento labor legislation, even in the face ofthe situation which Confronts the coun-try, no amendment to deal directly withthe labor situation is before us.

A little while ago we were told thatthe President would appear before ajoint meeting of the Congress at 4 p. m.tomorrow. I hope he makes a fightingspeech. I hope he tells us very definitelyof some legislation which he recom-mends, because the situation requires afighting speech. The desperate situa-tion which we are in cannot be handledby any milk-and-water approach. The

.approach must be hard and it must bestern, even though the Senator fromIdaho [Mr. TAYLOR] complains aboutstern legislation even at a time like this.

I have read in the newspapers thatthe strike is now almost 100 percenteffective. Three hundred and eighty-four railroad lines are tied up. I heardover the radio a few minutes ago thatout of a normal number of 17,500 trainsin the United States, only 100 are op-erating. The surprise to me is that 100trains are still operating. The surpriseto me is that the tie-up is not 100 per-cent effective. I say that because Iknow something about railroad labor; Iknow how loyal they are to one another;I know how they stand shoulder toshoulder in any fight in which anybranch of organized labor finds itself en-gaged. So I am surprised that thisstrike is not even more effective thanit is, even though it be, 99.9 percenteffective.

Mr. President, at 10 o'clock tonight'the President of the United States willtalk to the people. I understand histalk will-be a "fireside chat." In hisaddress I realy expect the President tobe very firm and to tell the people theexact situation, although perhaps theyknow it as well as he does.

Today I have received telephone callsfrom Denver, and in them I have beentold of the tragic situation in that city.and what is going on at the Union Sta-tion and how concerned everyone inthat city is about the present strikesituation.

Mr. President, the President of theUnited States is going to find that thepeople to whom he will talk tonight arevery impatient, that they are angry, thatthey are frightened, that they are terri-bly discouraged. The audience he willface, even though he faces it over themicrophone, will not-be a very pleasantone to face, because of the antagonismwith which he will be confronted whenhe speaks to the people. So I hope, andI fully expect, that the President will bevery serious and will make some definiterecommendations which will give thepeople hope that the present situationwill clear up, and will clear up very soon.

I understand that some considerationis being given to operating trains withmilitary forces, directly or directly. Isincerely hope that nothing of that kindis contemplated. I cannot think of agreater mistake which anyone couldmake than to attempt to operate thetrains directly or indirectly with mili-

· tary forces. Many men in the militaryforces understand the operation oftrains, to be sure; but we have 250,000trainmen in the United States who knowall about the operation of trains; andthey can do a good job of it.

The thing we need to do here in theCongress and the thing which needs to bedone at the White House is to get the

· 250,000 trainmen and the other membersof the operating unions back to operat-ing the trains, and not attempt.to foolourselves or attempt anything so reck-less as to try to operate the trains withmilitary forces. I say to anyone who isconsidering such a thing as that, pleasedo not do it, because it will only enddisastrously for all of us.

As I understand the situation, the Pres-ident took over the railroads on the partof. the Government based on the provi-sions of the 1916 law, the law which au-thorized the President to take over therailroads in the First World War. It au-thorized the President to operate therailroads during wartime. I understandthat the President's order is based uponthat old law, which I presume everyonethought was obsolete. I wish to remindthe Members of the Senate and everyoneelse, for that matter, that in 1918 the'Congress authorized payment out of theTreasury of the United States to the rail-road companies of compensation for anylosses which they suffered through Gov-ernment operation of the railroads.' Ipresume that law is also still in effect. Ipresume also, that inasmuch as the Gov-ernment has now taken over the rail-roads, and they are suffering great fi-hancial loss because the trains are notoperating, the Congress will be calledupon to vote millions upon millions ofdollars in order to compensate the rail-roads for the losses which they are nowsustaining as a result of the strike. Thesituation with reference to World War Iset a precedent for that kind of treat-ment. I believe it is very unfortunatethat the President has taken over therailroads under the 1916 and 1918 laws.

Mr. President, I wish to read my pro-posal. It is not long. I shall read it intothe REcoRD and comment upon its pro-visions. I know positively that if this

proposal is enacted into law the rail-roads will operate for at least 200 days.I do not know whether the provisionwhich is before the Congress at the pres-ent time would result in the operation ofthe railroads for one hour. There is noother provision now before the Congress,except the,amendment offered by theSenator from Wisconsin. I do not under-stand how it would operate, but I shouldmake an exception of it. Perhaps itwould do something toward settling thepresent railroad strike. I do not know.But my amendment would result in theoperation of the railroads for at least 200days, and the rights of labor would notbe violated.

Mr. President, my sympathies are withthe men who operate the railroads. Asthe Senator from Idaho has said, thosemen who are called out on the lines atany time during the day or night, havegrievances in many instances. I believethat their demands should be consideredseriously, and that many of them shouldbe met. My amendment would do noth-ing to violate.or injure the rights of thosemen.

Mr. President, my amendment readsas follows:

(a) Whenever th'e President determinesthat the Nation is imperiled, or the domestictranquility or general welfare threatened-

I obtained those words out of the Con-stitution, Mr. President, in case someSenators may not recognize them-by strikes, slow-downs, or other concertedstoppages of work, or threats of strikes, slow-downs, or other concerted stoppages of work,by the employers of any carrier subject to theprovisions of the Railway Labor Act, thecontinued operation of which is essential tothe preservation of the national health,safety, or security, he is hereby empowered toissue a proclamation to that effect callingupon such employees to refrain from engag-Ing in strikes, slow-downs, or other concertedstoppages of work until after the expirationof 100 days following the date of such procla-mation. If at the end of such 100-day period,the controversy shall not have been settled,the President shall have power to extend suchperiod for an additional period of 100 days.

Mr. President, I can hear Senators say,"A simple proclamation by the Presidentwill not have that good effect. Cer-tainly, if that is all your amendmentmeans, the President could issue thatkind of a proclamation without any lawtelling him that he may do so."

However, Mr. President, I have pro-vided for sanctions in the next para-graph. I do not believe that we can dealwith this problem tonight without mak-ing provision for the imposition of sanc-tions. I believe that sanctions must beprovided for. I regret the necessity ofputtihg sanctions into a law and havingthe railroad workers, or any other labor-ers whether organized or not, interpret'the language as being directed towardthem. However, when the Nation is inperil, and when its welfare is threatened,drastic action is called for.

I now read the next paragraph:(b) Any such employee who engages in a

strike, slow-down, or other concerted stop-page of work, within such period of 100 days,or extension thereof, following a proclama-tion of the President under -subsection (a),shall be deemed to have voluntarily termi-

1946 5719

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEnated his employment and shall not be re-garded as an employee of such carrier forthe purposes of the Railway Labor Act asamended, unless he is subsequently reem-ployed by such carrier, and, if he is so em-ployed, shall not be entitled to any seniorityrights based upon his prior employment.

Mr. President, that is a severe penaltyto impose upon a railroad man. Thereis nothing quite so valuable to him as hisseniority rights. They mean everythingto him. They are counted from the timehe starts working for the railroad, andthey end only upon' his retirement fromrailroad service. His runs, his wages,his employment, and all considerationsgranted to him by his employer are basedupon his seniority. It is priceless to him.

Under the amendment a railroad manwould not be takeh out and shot if hedoes not work, and no physical penaltywould be exacted from him; but if hedoes not work he loses that which is most

,precious to him, namely, his seniority.I know enough about railroadmen toknow that they will not take any chanceon losing their seniority rights. No; theamendment does not make refusal towork a crime.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of'Colorado. I. yield.Mr. CAPEHART. I should like to in-

vite the Senator's attention to the factthat at about this time, or possibly a littleearlier last night, I asked unanimousconsent to introduce a bill which woulddo exactly what would be done by theproposal which the Senator from Colo-rado has read, except with reference tothe 100-day period. The bill which Iasked unanimous consent to introducelast night was similar to the amendmentwhich was offered by the able Senatorfrom Illinois about 10 days- ago. Lastnight I tried to obtain unanimous con-sent of the Senate to introduce the billto which I have referred, and have itacted upon by the Senate. I agree 100percent with the able Senator from Colo-rado that a provision such as is in thebill which I hold in my hand, will stopthe railroad strike. I realize, as does theSenator from Colorado, that it is quitesevere. I know of no way, however, ofprotecting 140,000,000 American people,than by in some way stopping the presentrailroad strike.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Thestrike must be stopped. I am sorry Idid not give the Senator credit for themeasure which he wished to propose.

Mr. CAPEHART. I do not want anycredit for it. If any credit is to be given,-it should be given to the Senator fromIllinois, because I merely improved uponhis amendment and tried to do so in theform of a-bill. If we could have passedthe bill last night and the House hadacted favorably upon it today, no doubtby this time the railroad strike would beat an end and trians would now be mov-ing. That indicates how much confi-dence I have in the suggestion which theSenator from Colorado has made and inthe amendment which was offered by theSenator from Illinois. I agree with theSenator from Colorado that it is onlyalong that line that we can do anythingunder the circumstances: I dislike verymuch to introduce such a bill as the

one to which I have referred, but I see noother way in which weecan remedy thecrisis which now confronts the Nation.We must protect the American people.In my opinion, our job is not to debatethe merits or demerits of labor contro-versies and disputes between manage-ment and labor. Our job as Senators isto protect all the people all the time andnot-debate whether one side is right orthe other side is wrong. Our job is topass laws which will protect all the peo-ple. The duty of the courts is to enforcethe laws. I do not think it is germaneto pending legislation. for Senators totake sides in disputes between employersand employees. Our job is to be fairand equitable to all people, to legislatefor all 140,000,000 American people. Ihope that is exactly what we will do,rather than take sides in any labordisputes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I thankthe Senator from Indiana for his com-ments. I read a part of the bill he pre-sented last night for the consideration ofwhich he asked unanimous consent, butso far as I read in it, it was almost anexact duplicate of the amendment offereda few days ago by the Senator from Illi-nois [Mr. LucAS]. The amendmentoffered by the Senator from Illinois doesnot in my 'opinion affect the operation ofrailroads in any degree, and I will statewhy I do not think it does.

Under paragraph (g) of the secondsection of the amendment, on page 5,I find this language:

As used in this section the terms "em-ployee," "representative," "labor organiza-tion," "affecting bommerce," and "labor dis-putes," shall have the same meaning as insection 2 of the National Labor Relations Aqcas amended.

Of course, if the definitions are thesame, then the amendment of the Sena-tor from Illinois does not in any wayapply to or affect the operation of rail-'roads, because, as we know, the railroadunions and railroad labor are not underthe National Labor Relations Act. Thereis a special act affecting railroad labor.That is why I offer this amendment, asa complement to the amendment whichwas offered by the Senator from Illinois.

I have the feeling, Mr. President, thatif we had a lesser number of amend-ments in front of us, if we had theamendment that was offered by the Sen-ator from Illinois, complemented by theamendment which I am offering now,and if they had been consolidated into

,a bill, we would have the legislation nec-essary to deal withthe railroad strikeand with the coal strike.

The amendment offered by the Senatorfrom Illinois deals with the coal strikeand'strikes similar to the coal strike,while my amendment deals with the rail-road strike. If we had these two amend-ments in a bill by themselves, the Senatewould have something to act on.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I Yield.Mr. TAFT. What does the Senator

propose to do about the railroad strike?After all, the railroads have been seizedalready under an existing law. Why isanother law needed at the moment?

Mr. JOHNSON ·of Colorado. I do notwant the Government to seize the rail-roads. I think that is a very foolishthing to do.

Mr. TAFT. It has been done, however.Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. They

were seized under the 1916 law; and,under the 1918 law-World War I law-the United States Treasury will be calledupon to pay the railroad companies forany losses they sustain because of theirseizure by the Government. That iswhat I am complaining about. Myamendment does not contemplate seiz-ing the railroads. I do not think therailroads should be seized. I do notthink the proper way to solve the prob-lem is for the Government to take themover-temporarily or in any other way-and especially I think it was a terriblemistake to take them over under the 1916law, with .the ensuing financial burdenimposed on the Treasury to make uptheir losses, for which there was a prece-dent in 1918. There is no doubt in theworld that the same thing will happenagain.

Mr. TAFT. What does the Senatorpropose to do about the present strike?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. This iswhat I propose to do. I should like tosee the President return the railroadsto the operators. I do not say anythingabout that in my amendment, but it-seems to me that would be a sensiblething to do. What I propose is a verysimple thing. It is so simple that I pre-sume Senators will be dubious about it.I read the provision a moment ago, but Iam glad to tell-the Senator from Ohiowhat my. amendment contains, becauseother Senators have come on-the floorsince I read it, and I should like to havethem hear it. I shall read the first partof the amendment.

Whenever the President determines thatthe Nation is imperiled-

Certainly it is imperiled at the presenttime-or the domestic tranquillity or general wel-fare threatened, by strikes, slow-downs, orother concerted stoppages of work, orthreats of strikes, slow-downs, or other con-certed stoppages of work, by the employeesof any carrier subject to the provisions ofthe Railway Labor Act, the continued oper-ation of which is essential to the preserva-tion of the national health, safety, or se-curity, he is hereby empowered to issue aproclamation to that effect calling upon suchemployees to refrain from engaging instrikes, slow-downs, or other concerted stop-pages of work until after the expiration of100 days following the date of such proclama-tion.

It seems like a very simple remedy, forthe President to issue a proclamation td'that effect, and call upon the employeesto refrain from engaging in strikes, slow-downs, or other concerted stoppages ofwork, until after the expiration of ahundred days following the date of theproclamation.

If at the end of such 100-day period, thecontroversy shall not have been settled, thePresident shall have power to extend such

'period for an additional period of 100 days.

Now here is the sanction, here is thepenalty; and it is a severe penalty.Without accusing the railroad worker ofcrime, without molesting him in any way

5720 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATEfrom a physical point of view, withoutsticking a bayonet in his back and tell-ing him to crawl on an engine or crawlon a freight train and operate the rail-roads, without doing any of those drasticthings, we do something which is ex-tremely drastic, extremely effective, butwhich is mild in comparison, and not soobjectionable. The second subdivisionreads:

(b) Any such employee who engages in a'strike, slow-down, or other concerted stop-page of work within such period of 100 days,or extension thereof, following a proclama-tion of the President under subsection (a)shall be deemed to have voluntarily termi-nated his employment and shall not be re-garded as an employee of such carrier forthe purposes of the Railway Labor Act, asamended;.-unless he Is subsequently reem-ployed by such carrier, and, if he is so em-ployed, shall not be entitled to any seniorityrights based upon his prior employment.

That is a severe remedy.Mr. TAFT. Will the Senator yield?Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield.Mr. TAFT. Does the Senator think we

can deprive the railroad worker of hisseniority rights which he has acquiredwithout any assistance from the Govern-ment, but by personal arrangement withthe railroads?

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Yes, in-deed, I do. He got those-rights becauseof the sufferance of the Government.They would be worthless to him if Gov-ernment did not operate. He does notget those rights under any law, but cer-tainly the Congress can take such rightsaway from him.

Mr. TAFT. I do not see how Congresscan take those rights away from him.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I do notknow why Congress cannot take themaway from him if it wants to.

Mr. TAFT. Of course Congress has noright to take them away from him. Theyare not rights created by law, and I seeno way by which Congress can deprivehim of those rights. The railroads mayattempt to do so, the railroads can do sonow, but it would bring about anotherstrike if the railroads did it. And whowill get the seniority rights the man givesup? When the employees go back, thesame seniority rights are going to exist,and nothing Congress may do will pos-sibly destroy them. I cannot understandthe remedy suggested by the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The Sen-ator is jumping at conclusions. The Sen-ator probably does not know how pre-cious seniority rights are to the men.The proclamation is to be issued by thePresident. The railroad men are put onnotice that if they go out on strike theyare going to lose not only their jobs buttheir seniority rights, and as a result theyare not going to strike against the Presi-dent's proclamation. The proclamationwould be issued only in a great crisis,only when the Nation is in peril. ThePresident is not going to adopt such adrastic remedy as that in an ordinarysmall strike, but when the welfare of thecountry, when society itself, is threaten-ed, when Government is threatened, cer-tainly the President has to have someremedy.

The Senator from Ohio says that theGovernment has not that power. Yet I

understand that tomorrow we are goingto be told that the thing to do is to passa law making it a criminal offense tostrike against the Government. If we canpass such a law as that, if we can makea crime of striking merely because undera 1916 law the Government took over theoperation of the railroads, if we canpass that kind of drastic legislation, thencertainly we can pass such legislation asI have suggested in the amendment.

Mr. TAFT. I am absolutely opposedto such legislation, so far as I am con-cerned. All the legislation and measureswhich have been proposed have acknowl-edged the right of men to strike or quitwork. Penalties have been imposed onlyon the officers, and those who have or-ganized the strike. That penalty existstoday. Such men can be indicted to-day, as I understand, under the Smith-Connally Act.

I certainly would not vote for any lawwhich made it a crime for an employeeto strike. Furthermore, I think that ifwe did that there would be universaldefiance. It is not possible to put 200,000men in jail. I think it is an utterly vainremedy for any strike. I do not favorthe more drastic remedy, and I am onlysuggesting that I doubt whether the Sen-ator's remedy is one which we can con-stitutionally impose.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I recog-nize that the Senator from Ohio is a verygreat lawyer, and I respect his opinion,especially on legal matters. I do not al-ways go along with his judgment, and Ithink he is letting his judgment run awaywith his legal opinion in this case. I feelcertain that if he will reflect a little moreon the proposal he will not find any con-stitutional barrier against the adoptionof such a provision. Of course, if theSenator from Ohio is correct, if we arenot going to adopt any sanctions what-ever against striking, we might as wellforget legislation on the matter; wemight as well quit; there is nothing wecan do. Are we going to take this thinglying down? Are we going to let a fewlittle organizations and a few organiza-tion leaders imperil the whole Nation, in-flict famine and bloodshed and other illsupon the country? Certainly, if thestrike continues that is what is going tohappen. There is no question but thatthere will be suffering in every city ofthe Nation-in every part of the country.There will be tremendous losses of prop-erty. Food will spoil.

I talked the other day with a colonelwho had just returned from India. Hetold me about the country there, thegreat jungles, what fertile land is there,the vast acreages of unimproved land inIndia. I said, "Tell me, Colonel, why itis then that 100,000 Indians starve everyyear? If they have all this fertile landand plenty of labor, why do they not re-duce those jungles to fertile fields?" Hesaid, "The answer is very simple. Thereason the Indians starve is because theydo not have transportation." He said,"They cannot get food from here to there,and as a result many starve to death."

Mr. President, if the strike continueswe will be in, the same condition. Wewill have the food, we will have thewheat, we will have the fat cattle, butwe will not be able to get the fat cattle

. ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and the wheat from the place whereproduced to the places where it is neededfor consumption. Then we will be inthe same situation as many of the peo-ple of Indian if we let the strike continue.

I wish to read two more paragraphs:(c) Any agreement or settlement reached

with respect to any such controversy afterthe date of issuance of a proclamation of thePresident under subsection (a), shall, insofaras such agreement or settlement relates torates of pay, be made effective as of the dateof such proclamation.

I That means that after the Presidentissues his proclamation, and after themen are required to go ahead and workor lose their seniority, they will be paidin accordance with the agreement whichis entered into afterward; they will bepaid up to the time the President issueshis proclamation. In other words, thenew pay rates, the new conditions whichwill be agreed upon, will be retroactiveto the date when the President issues hisproclamation.

There is one other short paragraphwhich I will read, and then I am through:

(d) Any provision of any contract incon-sistent with the provisions of this section is.hereby declared to be against public policyand to be null and void.

That is in order to take care of theobjection which has already been raisedby the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I submit the amepd-ment.

The amendment submitted by Mr.JOHNSON of Colorado was received, or-dered to lie on the table, to be printed,and to be printed in the RECORD, asfollows:

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. JOHNSON of Colorado to the bill (H. R.4908) to provide additional facilities for themediation of labor disputes, and for otherpurposes, viz: At the proper place insert anew section as follows:

"SEC. -. (a) Whenever the President de-termines that the Nation is imperiled, or thedomestic tranquillity or general welfarethreatened, by strikes, slow-downs, or otherconcerted stoppages of work, or threats ofstrikes, slow-downs; or other concerted stop-pages of work, by the employees of any car-rier subject to the provisions of the RailwayLabor Act, the continued operation of whichis essential to the preseryatlon of the na-tional health, safety, or security, he is herebyempowered to issue a proclamation to thateffect calling upon such employees to refrainfrom engaging in strikes, slow-downs, orother concerted stoppages of work until afterthe expiration of 100'days following the dateof such proclamation. If at the end of such100-day period, the controversy shall nothave been settled, the President shall havepower to extend such period for an additionalperiod of 100 days.

"(b) Any such employee who engages in astrike, slow-down or other concerted stop-page of work within such period of 100 days,or extension thereof, following a proclama-tion of the President under subsection (a)shall be deemed to have voluntarily termin-ated his employment and shall not be re-garded as an employee of such carrier for thepurposes of the Railway Labor Act, asamended, unless he is subsequently reem-ployed by Such carrier, and, if he is so em-ployed, shall not be entitled to any seniorityrights based upon his prior employment.

"(c) Any agreement or settlement reachedwith respect to any such controversy after thedate of issuance of a proclamation of thePresident under subsection (a), shaU, inso-far as such agreement or settlement relates

1946 5721

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEto rates of pay, be made effective as of thedate of such proclamation.

"(d) Any provision of any contract incon-sistent with the provisions of this section ishereby declared to be against public policyand to be null and void.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres-ident, I wish to place in the RECORD aneditorial which was published in theEvening Star of today entitled "The Pres-ident's Duty." I hope that the Presidentwill read the editorial; I hope he willread it a half a dozen times, and I alsohope that-Members of the Senate willread the editorial, not once, buit manytimes. It states the case exactly as it is.It points out the tragic situation whichfaces the country today, and it calls for aremedy in keeping with the situation weface.

There being no objection, the editorialwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:

THE PRESIDENT'S DUTY

Because so few believed that it would cometo pass and because it is certain to havesuch a shattering impact on the nationalwelfare, the railroad strike seems to belongin a different category from the other strikeswhich have plagued this country since thewar's end. But actually, except in the meas-urement of its consequences, there is no realdifference.

In the railroad strike, the coal strike, thesteel strike, the petroleum strike and in manyof the other strikes involving powerful unionsand great industries vitally affecting the lifeof the Nation there is clear and undeniableevidence that collective bargaining has failed.And the railroad strike, climaxing a suc-cession of threatened railroad strikes whichwere prevented only by actions taken out-side the law, demonstrates that the RailwayLabor Act, possibly the best legislation ofits kind in our experience, is a failure.

Equally clear are the principal reasons forthe collapse of the machinery set up for thevoluntary settlement of industrial disputes.These voluntary processes have failed be-cause of an increasing disinclination to makethem work. In some cases the employershave been at fault, believing that they couldobtain a better settlement with their work-ers after a strike had forced Government in-tervention. In more cases the unions havebeen at fault. Slanted laws have given themen who belong to unions and the men wholead them enormous power, and experiencehas taught them that, frequently, they canuse this power fo coerce the public and tocoerce the Government, thereby obtaininggreater concessions than could be obtainedthrough peaceful bargaining.

The railroad strike illustrates the point.Two out of 20 unions, representing 250,000workers, forced the President by threat of astrike, to offer them a higher wage thanhad been recommended by the emergencyboard set up under the law. But the Presi-dent did not bid high enough and the lead-ers of these two dissenting unions-menpossessed of power far out of proportion totheir sense of responsibility-have resortedto a strike which has crippled the country,believing that they can get what they want,whether reasonable or unreasonable, if thepublic can be made to suffer enough.

The question of placing blame, however, isof secondary importance. The significantfact, whether unions or employers or bothare at fault, is that the public is the victimof their excesses, and that there is not nowany legal means whereby the overriding pub-lic interest can be protected.

In this situation the duty of the Presidentis clear. He has tried as best he could withthe means at hand to keep our economy onan even keel. But there cannot be theslightest doubt that he has failed, nor that

the prestige and dignity of his office havesuffered in the process. Furthermore, asfailure piles upon failure, the prestige ofthe President will continue to diminish untila point is reached at 'which he will havelittle or no influence and we will witnessthe spectacle of the President of the UnitedStates being defied by every small-mindedand arrogant spokesman for a minority in-terest with some selfish and often petty endin view. Clearly, there is no hope in thisdirection, and unless the country is to re-sign itself to a continuing and endless suc-cession of utterly destructive industrial up,heavals, the duty of the President is equallyclear.

For the first time in more than a decadelabor legislation is before the Senate. Someaction is going to be taken, yet the variousproposals now under consideration, desir-able as they may be in themselves, are farfrom adequate. The imperative need is forbroad and comprehensive legislative action-action which will be basically concerned withthe protection' of the public interest in asituation which has become intolerable. Butthe recommendation for that action should.and must come from the President.

It would be a futility, however, to comeforward with a timorous, halfhearted, po-litically motivated proposal. In the Star'sopinion, the time has come for the Presi-dent to put before the CongreSs a forth-right recommendation for legislation set-ting up a system of compulsory arbitration,applicable to all industrial disputes vitallyaffecting the public interest and backed bysanctions sufficiently drastic to insure ac-ceptance by the parties to the disputes.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I hesi-tate at this moment to address the Sen-ate on the pending legislation but, as Iunderstand, discussion of the legislationmust continue at this time, notwith-standing. the colloquy which has justtaken place, which impresses upon uK theserious crisis confronting the Nation asthe result of the railroad strike. I wouldvery much prefer, if it were possible, todelay my remarks until after we haveheard from the President tonight, andat the joint session of Congress tomor-row afternoon at 4 o'clock. I am sure weare all waiting with great anxiety therecommendations of the President of the.United States in the serious situationwhich confronts us. Nevertheless theperlding legislation must go forward.Therefore I should like to take the timeof the Senate in discussing the issueswhich are now before the Senate.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss in ageneral way the amendments now beforethe Senate through which it is claimedthat industrial peace is to be restored tothe Nation. Already Senators havepointed out in much detail the far-reaching effect of these proposals. ·Ev-erything that has been said against theseamendments has been demonstratedthroughout the years to be the truth. Aspointed out by so conservative a publica-tion as the Wall Street Journal, whichwas read into the RECORD yesterday, theywill fail absolutely in accomplishing anyresult except confusion and chaos in thefield of labor relations. Let me quotefrom that editorial:

None of the labor measures recentlybrought forward deals at all thoroughly withthe fundamentals of national labor legisla-tion. Any one of them, If enacted, wouldleave Federal laws on the subject a patch-work of inconsistent and partly conflictingprovisions for the courts to struggle with.The real need is not of more law but of less,

of simpler and more precisely expressed stat-utes designed first of all to render men andgroups of men equal before the law.

Federal labor law should be thoroughly re'vised and codified. Until it is ready to tacklethat job in an atmosphere of relative indus-trial peace, Congress would do well not tolegislate on labor.

Mr. President, no one familiar with thepast history of labor relations in thiscountry can fail to see the consequenceswhich will ensue from the adoption ofthese violently restrictive proposals nowbefore the Senate. These amendmentswould take away from men their funda-mental rights if they sought to bettertheir conditions. All this is sought inthe name of industrial peace. Of course,it is obvious that such laws would accom-plish just the opposite of what is desired.If Congress is induced to pass this legis-lation, taking away rights of the workingpeople, it will turn us back to all the evilswhich we spent 50 years in endeavoringto correct.

During the course of this debate, Sena-tors addressing this body have expressedprofound concern over the dangers in-herent in attempting to enact this kindof legislation in the heat of excitementand emotion.

Nevertheless, ever since the opening ofthis debate, the situation has grownsteadily worse. The reason for this de-velopment it seems to me, is that the un-derlying causes of the crisis which we areconfronted with have been ignored.

We are attempting only to attack thesymptoms, and we are approaching themwith feelings of ill-will and emotion.

We have failed to note that all theselabor disturbances which we are con-tending with have sprung from the eco-nomic and social upheavals of the war.At the end of the war, industry was con-fronted with the need of making tre-mendous adjustments in returning topeacetime production. A program of re-conversion was in order. The Cbngresspassed liberal laws to aid industry in re-conversion.

But, Congress took no action in thatdirection for labor. Labor was left withits problems and' required to fight it outwith management the best it could underthe democratic processes of collectivebargaining. But, management has hadthe whip-hand. It occupied a position ofgreat advantage. It came out of the warwith huge earnings and a disposition tobe adamant against the demands of laborin its claims for the adjustment of wagesand working conditions. It realized thata strike at this time would arouse theresentment of all who might, as a result,suffer inconvenience. So, managementbluntly rejected the claims of labor asrevolutionary and impossible. On theother hand, the workers contended thattheir claims were just and fair andequitable in view of the situation inwhich they found themselves strandedat the end of the war.

So, there was a failure to work out con-tracts between management and laborto readjust the workers to peacetimeconditions, and we began to witness aseries of shut-downs because of a lack ofcontracts.

The finding of a scapegoat upon whichto place the blame or responsibility forthese conditions can serve no purpose.

5722 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEIn his message to Congress warning

against the enactment of repressive leg-islation affecting either side in the strug-gle for readjustment, the President said:

I hope that the Congress * * will notadopt repressive or coercive measures againsteither side. A free American labor and afree American private enterprise are essen-tial to our free democratic system. Legisla-tion which would stifle full freedom of col-lective bargaining on either side would bea backward step which the American peoplewould not tolerate.

But, Mr. President, notwithstandingthese fine words, the country is left in astate of confusion. Our citizens areproperly shocked by the distressing re-sults from the shutdown of the coalmines. At this moment an organized ef-fort is on foot to place the sole blame forthe closing of the mines on the workers,and in total disregard to the President'sappeal, all sorts of repressive, coercive,and punitive measures are now beingproposed against the workers. It is as-sumed, without any proof whatsoever,that the workers are solely to blame.Daily we read editorials denouncing JohnL. Lewis, the spokesman for the mineworkers. Scores of cartoons are beingpublished in which that heavy-browedleader "is symbolized- by every sort ofanimal from weasel to the lion."

Last Sunday all the newspapers in thecountry carried reproductions of a pho-tograph of John L. Lewis and CharlesO'Neill in conference. That photographshows these two men to look enough aliketo be psychological twins. As one writerpoints out, "both have lowering eye-brows. Both are in need of girth-con-trolling diet. Both are expensivelydressed and enjoying what look like goodcigars. But the resemblance goes muchfurther than such matters of dress andavoirdupois." In both cases there-is anappearance of extreme pugnacity andunwillingness to compromise.

Now, Mr. President, each of these menhave powerful backing. Mr. O'Neill hasbehind him all the wealth and influenceof the mine owners. Lewis representsthe power of a half a million mine work-ers. One represents organized capital-the other organized labor.

During the long weeks of this crisisthese men have fought-in just about thesame way. Neither displayed much re-gard for public convenience or welfare.It has been said by one critic that "theirarguments take the form of occasionalgrunts."

But, Mr. President, all the bitter at-tacks -published in the press have beenleveled exclusively against the workersand not against the operators.

It is assumed that if a strike inter-feres with production, some labor leadermust be the devil in the woodpile. Itnever occurs to most writers and car-toonists that it takes two to make a quar-rel. So, Lewis is assailed as the villainin the case and O'Neill is referred to as asort of industrial statesman representingthe operators.

Mr. President, this is not the first timethat the Senate has had before it de-mands for hasty legislative action to meeta crisis precipitated through the failureof the Congress to enact appropriate leg-

No. 98-8

islation designed to obviate the funda-mental causes. In 1943, in the heat of acontroversy over a stoppage of war pro-duction in the coal mines, we debatedand passed the War Labor Disputes Act,more commonly known as the Smith-Connally Act. That was the most ill-conceived and ill-considered piece of leg-islation ever to come before the Congress.In his veto message of June 25, 1943,President Roosevelt warned the Congressthat the Smith-Connally Act would notlessen, but would promote, industrialstrife. That prediction was fully borneout by subsequent events.

Had it not been for the far-sightednessof President Roosevelt in obtaining a no-strike pledge from the major labor or-ganizations at the very beginning of thewar, it is probable that the Government'smachinery for settling labor disputeswould have broken down in wartimeunder the influence of that legislationjust as it did break down at the endof the war when the no-strike pledgeno longer operated.

But now again, Mr. President, we arewitnessing a drive for further restrictivelabor legislation based on emotion. As

-I have already pointed out, even sucha conservative newspaper as the WallStreet Journal describes this as unwiselegislation and warns again'st it.

Mr. President, in recent months wehave witnessed' a series of strikes fromone end of the country to the other.

We have also witnessed an increasingdemand for constructive action by Con-gress-action to avoid the ill effects ofthese strikes and to promote cooperationand industrial .peace.

I am one of those who believe that thesituation calls for the most careful andconstructive legislation that will avertfurther confusion and discord. Americais no longer an agricultural country; ithas become a highly complex industrial-ized economy. in which the laissez-fairetheory of government is completely out-moded. A shut-down of the coal indus-try creates far-reaching complications inour economy and Government cannotstand idly by.

As the elected representatives of theAmerican people it is our responsibilityto act; to act without prejudice andemotion; to act without delay; and to actwisely.

It is my judgment that the Americanpeople want a realistic and comprehen-sive program of legislation that will goto the roots of these conflicts betweencapital and labor and usher in a periodof cooperation-a period of peacefulprosperity and expansion. Thoughtfulcitizens, like the editor of the Wall StreetJournal, are disappointed to find everystrike situation used as an excuse for afrenzied drive to weaken the rights'ofAmerican labor, and to forestall a states-manlike program of effective action.

To map out a realistic program wemust first determine the real causes ofconflicts between management and labor.

Cause No. 1 has been the rapid increasein the cost of living. As a result of thewar, the cost of living has gone up 24percent since 1941, and 12 to 15 percent

since October 1942, when wage stabiliza-tion went into effect.

These price increases, however, do nottake into consideration the enormous in-creases in living costs due to the blackmarket. Price control violations havebeen eating away at the pocketbooks ofevery family in the country. The over-allstatistics also conceal the particularlyacute situations which have developed incertain areas of the country-notably inthe coal regions. There the miners areat the mercy of the company stores.There enforcement of price controls be-cause of inadequate funds and personnelhas been notoriously inadequate.

But what has happened to wages dur-ing that same period? Average hourlyearnings for all manufacturing haverisen 20 percent above October 1942.E]Ut it is "take-home" pay, or averageweekly earnings, that determines theworkers' income. Average weekly wagesfor all manufacturing have gone up only6.1 1prcent since October 1942. In fact,they have not kept pace with even thecfficial cost of living. And they have, ofcourse, fallen far short of the actual risein living costs, if black-market prices anddeterioration of quality are taken intoaccount.

Moreover, "take-home" pay has beendropping rapidly in recent months. Asa result of reduction in both hourly payand weekly hours, average weekly wages

,for January 1946 were 13.1 percent belowthose of January 1945.

That is not the whole story, however;when the American worker demands anincrease in base Pay, he is not asking formore money for the same work. Hisoutput per hour is substantially abovewhat it was back in 1941 when his basicwages were frozen to the cost of livingunder the Little Steel formula. Outputper man-hour has risen about 5 percenteach year since 1935, or close to 50 per-cent.

The worker has continually producedmore for each hour of work. What he isasking now is that he be paid in accord-ance with what he produces. This is amatter of simple justice. It is also amatter of basic necessity in order tomaintain high production and continu-ing purchasing power to absorb the in-creased output of industry.

There is also the question of what hashappened to profits. The lag of wagesbehind productivity is evidence enoughthat profits have been swelling all out ofproportion, And the figures certainlyverify this conclusion.

During the war period of 1942 to 1945,average annual corporate profits wereapproximately $23,000,000,000, or morethan four times the average of the pre-war 1936-39 period. And even afterdeduction of taxes, the annual averagewas more than, $9,000,000 000, or 21/2times the comparable average for1936-39.

For particular industries, the figuresare even more striking. In textiles, 1944profits before taxes were 6 times the1936-39 average; for electrical equipmentabout 5 times, for printing aned publish-ing 4/2 times, for rubber 61/4 times, fortransportation equipment over 4 times,and for lumber and timber over 12 times.

1946 5723

5724 CONIs it any wonder that working men

and women are aggrieved and feel im-pelled to strike in order to obtain a bet-ter share of the products of their laborso that they may build for themselvesand their families a standard of livingmore in keeping with American ideals?The greatest cause of strikes today is theprofiteer who sees in a period of shortsupply, the natural aftermath of thewar, an excellent opportunity to increasehis profits at the expense of the Ameri-can people.

The answer to the rising cost of livingis clear. On the one hand, we need anextension of the Price Control Act foran adequate period of time, without crip-pling amendments, together with ade-quate funds for administration and en-forcement.

On the other hand, we need extensionof the minimum wage law, without infla-tionary amendments, to allow those nowreceiving substandard wages to come justa little bit closer to catching up with thecost of living.

A second cause of labor disputes, in myopinion, is the rapid growth of monopolyand the concentration of business and,industry in the hands of a small group.There are sQme persons who seem to thinkthat the problem of prices and'the costof living is a strictly temporary phenom-enon occasioned merely by the short-ages resulting from the war. As soon aswe recover from wartime shortages, theyclaim, then the law of supply and demandwill come into its own, and prices will bedetermined on the basis 6f competitionbetween business enterprises. This ap-proach reveals an appalling ignorance ofthe economic facts of life. Prices are nolonger determined primarily on the basisof competition. Prices are increasinglycontrolled by the handful of monopolyinterests which dominate almost everybranch of our economy.

Mr. President, in an article which ap-peared in Fortune magazine in March,1938, I find the following statement:

In the progress of mankind there was atime for the Dark Ages, another for the Ren-aissance, another for an Industrial Revelu-tion. There was a time for the building ofAmerica, for the creation of bigger marketsand bigger pay rolls and, inevitably, biggerindustrial units. And that is our time.

In our time men have become conditionedto the idea of bigness. They believe that togrow big is almost of necessity to progress.They believe that the expansion of Ameri-can enterprise necessarily involves the cor-porate expansion of its units. And they aretaught that the corporate expansion of theunits should result in bigger profits, in-dividually, to the economy as a whole.

American business was founded upon theprinciple of free competition maintainedthrough free markets. But during the eraof bigness the units of business became sobig that they developed a fear of price wars;they dared not compete against themselves,and no one dared to compete against them.There consequently emerged the super-units-well-defined industrial groups whosemembers act in concert and whose aim isnot competition but, on the contrary, pricestabilization.

But inasmuch as these policies impingeupon and invade the sphere of public wel-fare, they impinge upon and invade thefunctions of government. By its very office,government must intervene.

rGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENMr. President, what is the connection

between monopoly control and labor dis-putes? First of all, monopoly controlmeans higher prices, prices that drivethe wage earner to demand higher wages.Second, monopoly prices mean higherprofits for the privileged few, profitsthat sharpen the contrast between theposition of capital and the position oflabor, and make it inevitable that the

-wage earners demand a larger share ofthe national income. Third, monopolyprofits mean vast economic power inthe hands of a few business enterprises,power to force their employees out onstrike and to sustain, with little trouble,the losses resulting from the strike. Insuch an endurance contest between theunlimited financial resources of monop-oly and the hunger of men and womenon strike, monopoly will invariably gainthe upper hand. Fourth, monopoly eco-nomic power means the political powerto gain control of parties; to elect mem-bers of Federal, State, and local gov-ernments, to destroy democratic prin-ciples and to block liberal legislation.

During the period between World WarI and World War II monopoly powerin America grew by leaps and bounds.

I ask unanimous consent to have in-.serted in the RECORD at .this point astatement entitled "Basic Facts on Con-centration of Economic Power BeforeWorld War II."

There being no objection, the state-ment was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:BASIC FACTS ON CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC

POWER BEFORE WORLD WAR I

The 45 largest transportation 'orporationsowned 92 percent of all transportation facili-ties of the country.

The 40 largest public-utility corporationsowned more than 80 percent of the public-utility facilities.2

The country's 20 largest banlks held 27 per-cent of the total loans and investments ofall the banks.3

The 17 largest life insurance companiesaccounted for over 81.5 percent of all theassets of all life insurance companies.4

The 200 largest nonfinancial corporationsowned about 55 percent of all the assets of allthe nonfinancial corporations in the country3

One-tenth of 1 percent of all the corpora-tions owned 52 percent of the total corpo-rate assets. 0

One-tenth of 1 percent of all the corpora-tions earned 50 percent of the total corporatenet income.'

Less than 4 percent of all the manufactur-ing corporations earned 84 percent of all thenet profits of all manufacturing corpora-tions.,

No less than 33 percent of the total valueof all manufactured products produced underconditions where the four largest producersof each individual product accounted forover 75 percent of the total United Statesoutputs

National Resources Committee, June 1939:The Structure of the American Economy, pt.·1, p. 106.

2 dem.sTwentieth Century Fund, Inc.: Big Busi-

ness, Its Growth and Its Place, 1939, p. 9.4National Resources Committee, op. cit.,

p. 103.5Ibid., pt. 1, p. 107.6 President of the United States in his mes-

sage to Congress April 20, 1938: 75th Cong., 3dsess., S. Doc. 173, Strengthening and Enforce-ment of Antitrust Laws, p. 2.

' Idem.s Idem.'Temporary National Economic Committee,

ATE MAY 24More than 57 percent of the total value of

manufactured products was produced underconditions where the four largest producersof each product turned out over 50 percentof the total United States output.'s

One-tenth of 1 percent of all the firmns inthe country in 1939 employed 500 or moreworkers and accounted for 40 percent of allthe nonagricultural employment in thecountry."

In manufacturing 1.1 percent of all thefirms employed 500 or more workers and ac-counted for 48 percent of all the manufac-turing employment in the country.'2

One-third of the industrial-research per-sonnel were employed by 13 companies.About 150,000 industrial corporations werewithout research laboratories.'

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, thetable I have just inserted in the RECORDreveals that in 1931 the 200 largest non-financial corporations owned about 55percent of all the assets of all the non-financial corporations in the country.One-tenth of 1 percent of all the corpo-rations owned about '50 percent of totalcorporate assets and total corporate netincome.

That was the picture immediately be-fore the war. During the war the trendtoward the growth of monopoly was tre-mendously accentuated.

When the defense program began Gov-ernment turned to big business for theproduction of military goods and equip-ment. Small business was brushed aside.

On September 30, 1944, 100 corpora-tions held 75 percent of all outstandingprime contracts. Big business corpora-tions also received the great bulk of sub-contracts. They received the bulk of thenew war plants which had been built withGovernmnent funds or financed throughthe amortization provisions of the taxlaws.

Mr. President, in the Washington Postthis morning there appeared an articlein which it was stated that the UnitedStates Steel Corp. had taken over thebig plant at Geneva, Utah, which hadcost originally $200,000,000. The UnitedStates Steel Corp. obtained the plant forthe sum of $47,500,000.

Big business also got most of the con-tracts for scientific research. Underthose contracts, for the most part, thecorporations which carried on the re-search will have control, through pat-ents, of the postwar commercial applica-tions of such research.

Furthermore the big corporations ofthe country succeeded in obtaining taxexemption for the expenses involved inhuge advertising campaigns designed tobuild up their prestige in the publicmind.

As a result of all those influences, theposition of big business increased in eachsuccessive year of the war. In 1939 firmswith more than 1,000 employees ac-

monograph No. 27, The Structure of Industry,P. 275.

0 Idem." Howard R. Bowan, Donald W. Paden, and

Genevieve B. Wimsatt: The Business Popula-tion in Wartime, Survey of Current Business,May 1944, pp. 12-13.

2 Department of Commerce and Bureau ofOld-Age and Survivors Insurance (see app. B).

1S Works Progress Administrdtion, NationalResearch Project on Reemployment Oppor-tunities and Recent Changes in IndustrialTechniques, Industrial Research, and Chang-ing Technology, 1940, pp. 45-46.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEcounted for 30 percent of the total em-ployment of all American trade andindustry. By 1943 this figure had risento 44 percent. In 1939 firms with morethan 1,000 employees accounted for 36percent of the total pay roll. In 1943this figure had risen to 53 percent.

Since the end of the war large indus-trial and business concerns have beensteadily absorbing smaller firms. In thefourth quarter of 1945 the rate of mer-gers and acquisitions in manufacturingwas higher than at any time in the pre-vious decade and a half. This should bea warning to all of us that monopoly ison the march.

Mr. President, at this point I shouldlike to read a portion of an address en-titled "Business Restrictions Upon theMarket," which was delivered by Hon.Wendell Berge, Assistant Attorney Gen-eral of the United States, before theAmerican Marketing Association onThursday, May 16, 1946. It reads asfollows:

In the lifetime of the present generationwe have witnessed a profound and calculatedincrease in the rise of economic monopoly,the concentration of economic power, and thedrive to eliminate competition as the organ-izing principle of the market. We have be-come sharply conscious of a revival of eco-nomic feudalism, of a renewal of the philoso-phy of privilege, and the reappearance of awhole array of monopolistic devices intenidedto destroy the free market.

Our national economy is not mature. Ourcapacity for economic growth is tremendous,but it will not take place without effort.Difficult and vexing situations incident toreconversion must not be permitted to warpthe immense opportunities of the yearsahead. If labor, Government, and industrycooperate Wholeheartedly in utilizing thevitality and flexibility of our economic sys-tem, the American people will go forward tolevels of production and abundance which wehave only begun to glimpse. Abuses of eco-nomic power to limit and dominate the freemarket can jeopardize this future. It isamong our first concerns to hiake certainthat the opportunity and the promise withinreach are given every aid to their realization.In this undertaking enterprise is at stake,and with it the fate of economic freedom.

The growing political power of mo-nopoly is evidenced in many ways.There is the current drive to cut theantitrust law into shreds by exemptinginsurance companies, railroads andnewspapers, and by preventing adequateappropriations for the Antitrust Divi-sion. There is the attempt to tightenbanker control of the railroads. Thereis the drive of the power trust againstthe Missouri Valley Authority and othersimilar measures which would tend topromote small business and new com-Petitive enterprises in the industriallybackward areas of the country' Thereis the campaign of the large banksagainst any public program that wouldmake capital available for small busi-ness and competitive enterprises.

Above all, there is the current cam-paign to restrict the rights of labor andentrench monopoly control over thelives and destinies of the American peo-ple. The antilabor amendments nowpending before the Senate will furtherstrengthen this campaign.

The answer to the problem of monop-oly lies in a broad program to preventincreased concentration of economicpower, to break up monopolies where

that is at all possible, and to devise ap-propriate forms of public control overmonopolies which cannot be brokendown. It also calls for preservation ofthe antitrust laws, adequate appropria-tions for the Antitrust Division, loansfor small business, and developmentalprojects to expand industry in backwardarea".

In my opinion, such a program wouldgo a long way toward reducing the causesof disputes between management andlabor.

In addition to the cost of living and thegrowth of monopoly, a third cause' oflabor disputes is our present system oftaxation.

For many years, the tax burden inAmerican has fallen too largely uponthe shoulders of those least able to pay.

Let me be a little more specific aboutthe effect which taxes have on the pur-chasing power of the average worker.Let me add the impact of Federal taxesto the impact of rising living costs, andsee how the average man or woman nowstands as compared to 1939.

It has been calculated that a marriedman, without children, earning $2,000 ayear, would have $1,830 left after incomeand social-security taxes. This wouldbuy about the amount of goods and serv-ices that could have been purchased in1939 with $1,250 or $1,400, depending onwhich cost-of-living index is used.

On the same basis, a $1,500 incomewould buy about $1,000 to $1,100 worth of1939 goods and services, and a $1,000income would buy. about $600 to $700worth. And I am not talking about asmall minority of the Population. Thereare about 30,000,000 wage earners andtheir families included in these incomebrackets.

For many years, the large industrialand business organizations in Americahave been enjoying unfair advantagesunder our tax laws. For many years theyhave been using devices invented byhigh-powered law firms. They are de-vices which, though they may be withinthe letter of the law, nevertheless repre-sent unjust evasions of the spirit of thelaw.

But during the last few years we haveseen a new device in the history of taxa-tion, a new method whereby monopolyis enabled to enhance its economic andpolitical power. I refer to the carry-back and carry-forward provisions of thetax laws.

During the hearings on the 1942 taxlaws, representatives of our big corpora-tions argued that the engineering costsof conversion from war to Peace wouldbe so great that industry could convertonly if it were given tax exemption dur-ing the war for the purpose of buildingup postwar reserves. It was argued,however, that it would be impossible dur-ing the war to calculate how much of apostwar reserve any company mightneed.

Accordingly, the present carry-backand carry - forward plan was devised.The theory behind this plan was that acorporation should be able to averageoff its wartime and postwar profits inorder to be able to sustain the losses in-curred in converting their plants fromwar to peace, In essence,'this plan means

that every corporation has been given apostwar reserve equal to the total amountof normal taxes and excess profits taxespaid during the preceding 2 years. It isprovided that out of this reserve, theUnited States Treasury compensates cor-porations at the rate of 81 cents on everydollar of decreased income and 81 centson every dollar of loss.

In August 1944 when I discussed thismatter on the floor of the Senate, Ipointed out that at that time the post-war reserve set up for American corpora-tions under these provisions of the taxlaws amounted to $28,000,000,000-theestimated amount of normal and excessprofits taxes levied during 1943 and 1944.(See CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of August 9,1944, p. 6898.) Today this fund amountsto more than $31,000,000,000-the esti-mated total of all normal and excessprofits taxes paid by corporations for 1944and 1945.

Although the argument in favor ofthese provisions of the tax laws was pre-sented to Congress in terms of the needfor meeting the engineering costs of re-conversion, there is nothing in the lawwhich would prevent this huge reservefrom being used to compensate a corpora-tion for losses sustained through strikes-strikes which might easily have beenavoided under honest collective bargain-ing.

Let us suppose that there is a strikewhich lasts for 100 days. To the workerson strike, this means 100 days of depriva-tion, sacrifice, and uncertainty. It means100 days during which bonds are cashedin, debts are incurred, insurance policiesare canceled, and bills mount higher andhigher.

To the corporation, however, it meansnot 1610 days of financial loss, but 19 daysof loss. This is so because for every $100loss, the Federal Treasury will give thecorporation $81. If my figures are notcomplete, it is because I have not takeninto consideration the extent to whichfinancial manipulation and involvedbookkeeping methods could succeed ingiving a corporation far more than 81cents of return on a dollar of loss. It isentirely possible, and entirely within theability of the accounting experts for acorporation to obtain far more than adollar from' the Federal Government forevery dollar loss during a strike.

The A. F. of L. executive council re-cently expressed the belief that govern-mental tax policies had put industry "ina favored position" where it could resistdemands of the workers and sustain pro-longed strikes Wvithout financial loss, re-gardless of the public interest."

Obviously, as the A. F. of L. points out,these provisions of the tax laws.do nothave the effect of inducing a reasonableattitude on the part of management inits wage negotiations with organizedlabor. Rather, these provisions inducea stubborn and arbitrary attitude, sincemanagement would have little or nothingto lose-perhaps even something togain-by a strike.

The remedy for this situation is acomplete revision of the tax structure-a revision that will not only provide fortaxation in accordance with the abilityto pay, but will also wipe out all provi-

1946 5725

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEsions of the tax laws that subsidizestrikes.

A fourth cause for labor disputes is thelack of a national system of health in-surance.

Under present conditions, the costs ofmedical and hospital care represent oneof the greatest threats to the security ofthe average workingman and his family.Sickness and disease do not respect thesize of one's pay check or bank account.They frequently wipe out a family's sav-ings and lead to heavy borrowing. Whenthe breadwinner of a family is sick, heand his family face the twin calamity ofmounting medical bills and the cessationof wages.

Because medical and hospital care isso expensive, the ordinary worker tendsto postpone going to a doctor. For him,there is no such thing as preventive med-icine. For him, medical care is a luxuryresorted to only after it is too late forprevention.

The ever-imminent threat of accidentand disease is an important factor in thedemand for higher wages. In the ab-sence of aih adequate insurance fund tomeet the costs of medical and hospitalcare, the only security for the workerand his family can be a larger bank ac-count.

Consequently, there has been an in-creasing interest on the part of organizedlabor, in negotiating with employers, forthe creation of special health insuranceplans.

The present controversy between theUnited Mine Workers and the coal oper-ators is only one in a growing number ofsuch cases. Some companies have al-ready agreed to establish plans of thistype. A survey by the Social SecurityBoard revealed that in 1945 there were115 such plans in existence.

How simple it would be to dispose ofthe multiplying disputes between man-agement and labor regarding health andwelfare funds by making a single healthinsurance law! This is exactly what or-ganized labor prefers, in order to removethe entire question of health insurancefunds from the sphere of collective bar-gaining.

The present demand of the mine work-ers for a health and welfare program islittle understood by a large section of thepublic.

I should like here to call attention to adiscussion of this matter by a well-knownwriter for the Washington Post, Mr. Al-fred Friendly, which I. ask unanimousconsent to have printed in the REcORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.WHERRY in the chair). Is there objec-tion?

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:[From the Washington Post of May 19, 19461HE MAY GET 3 PERCENT-JOHN L.'s ASKING

FOR NOTHING NEW IN FUND DEMAND

(By Alfred Friendly)When John L. Lewis' proposal for a health

and welfare fund was rejected last week bythe soft-coal operators, one of their groundswas that it represented a new social theoryand philosophy.

So revolutionary was the idea, the oper-ators implied, that it should be thoroughlystudied by Congress before it was installed;

because It had such broad national impllca-,_tions and repercussions, it should not first

be tried out, in the absence of public policy,on the coal Industry.

It is somewhat difficult to follow this lineof reasoning. Whatever the merits or de-merits of the miners' demand for a welfarefund, the notion does not appear to be newor revolutionary in theory or philosophy.

Quite aside from such plans in Europe andeven Asia, there are mahy health, welfare,insurance, and pension funds in the UnitedStates which embody all of the basic ideas.

THE ESSENCE OF IT

The principal elements in the miners' planare:

1. It.shall be paid for entirely by the em-ployers. They are asked to contribute anamount equal to 7 percent of the industry'spay roll.

2. It shall be administered solely by theunion.

3. It shall be used to provide medical care,hospitalization, accident and death benefitsother hardship compensatpn, vocational re-tarining for disabled miners, and even "cul-tural and educational" grants.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports thatmore than 600,000 American workers are cov-ered by somewhat similar health-benefit pro-grams set up by union-management con-tracts. (This does not include possibly amillion' more covered by life insuranceschemes, by health and welfare plans outsidecollective-bargaining agreements, by volun-tary participation plans, or by systems in-stalled unilaterally by either unions or em-ployers.)

THE PATTERN HOLDS

Most of the plans written into labor con-tracts are financed entirely by the employer,whose contribution is usually 2 or 3 percentof pay rolls. In some cases.the contributionruns as high as 5 percent.

Of these systems, a little more than onethird are jointly administered by union andemployer. Ih another third, insurance com-panies assume the principal administrativeresponsibility. Somewhat less than one-third are run solely by the union.

Most plans'in the last-named category arefinanced entirely by the employers.

ONLY HALF FOR HEALTH

The most important of these is a plan ofthe International Ladies Garment WorkersUnion (AFL). The employer usually con-tributes 3 to 4 percent of his pay roll. One-third to one-half of this amount is allocatedfor health benefits; the rest is used for va-cation and retirement provisions.

In some instances the amount of the bene-fit and the rules under which claims are paidare determined by a joint union-managementcommittee. But in other cases the deter-mination is entirely in the hands of theunion.

The ILGWU plan covers about 150,000workers. Health and hospital benefits arepaid, many elaborate health centers aremaintained and in tubercular cases (occupa-tional disease of clothing workers) sanitar-ium treatment is provided during the entireillness.

SURGICAL BENEFITS PAIDAnother system is that of the New York

City Laundry Workers division of the Amal-gamated Clothing Workers (CIO). In thiscase, the employers contribute I percent ofweekly pay rolls and the fund is administeredby a seven-man union board.

Local unions of the United Hatters, Cap andMillinery Workers (AFL) in several largecities have also negotiated union-adminis-tered health benefit payment plans. Em-ployers contribute 2 percent of the pay rolls.

In some cases the governing board for thefund has employer representation; in others,it is entirely union run.

Hospital and surgical benefits are paid,and disability benefits equal to half of the

worker's wage are paid for as much as 20weeks in 1 year.

MERE FIGUREHEAD

Most of the so-called jointly-administeredplans are financed entirely by the employers.And while the employer shares in controllingthe plan, the BLS states that the '"day-to-dayadministration is actually in union hands."

In most of the programs, regardless of thetype of administration, there are weekly dis-ability benefits of 5Q to 60 percent of an em-ployee's regular earnings. The maximumbenefit period runs from 13 to 36 weeks. Pay-ments for hospital care are also usually pro-vided, running from $4 to $5 a day for 31days.

A major provision in virtually all of theseplans, and one with important bearing on themile workers' dimands, is that they do notcover disability caused by occupational acci-dents. This is because there are State work-men's compensation laws protecting workersinjured on the job.

THE "COVEaAOE" DOESN'T

But some 20 States have o-'-- optionalworkmen's compensation plans. . employ-er may or may not choose to participate.And in many of the Southern States thebenefit payments are woefully low.

If a miner is injured in line of duty in amine which does not participate in the Stateplan the miner's only recourse is to sue. Thetrouble here, the union insists, is that theprincipal medical testimony will come fromthe company doctor.

The miners 'also cite the disaster last De-cember at Four Mile, Ky., In which 24 liveswere lost. Suits against the mine are to nopurpose, for it was incorporated for a triflingsum, its property was mortgaged to its fullworth, and there were no assets to be seized.

HE'LL GET SOMETHING

From experiences such as this, Lewis Istherefore demanding that his welfare plansalso provide benefits for occupational in-juries.

It is almost a certainty that Lewis willacquire a welfare fund, though probably notas large as he is demanding. Two or 3 percentseems a more likely figure.

It is also probable that the fund will bejointly administered, or run by a tripartitetrusteeship, with public or Government rep-resentation.

Finally, one provision of the contract mayrequire all mines to participate in Stateworkmen's compensation laws. The opera-tors have already offered this proposal andthey may use it as a lever to reduce the sizeand scope of the welfare fund.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, thepresent controversy between the mineworkers and the coal operators has thusfar centered around the confused ques-tion of the health fund.

Mr. President, the question of the coalstrike and the miners' health fund hasbeen discussed at length on the floor ofthe Senate. I find something very per-plexing in the attitude of those who con-tend that the present crisis in the coalindustry calls for legislation limiting therights of labor,

On the one hand, they all agree thatthe health problem in mining areas isextremely acute. I do not believe thereis one man in the United States Senatewho will deny that there is a serious needfor improved health services for the coalminers of America.

Yet, on the other hand, I have yet tohear a constructive proposal from thosewho are calling for antilabor legisla-tion-a proposal that would actually dosomething to improve the health of theminers, and therefore remove one of the

5726 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEmost direct causes of strikes in the coalindustry.

Mr. President, I do not believe in en-acting national legislation to meet theneeds of a specific, localized situation.Yet those who favor the restriction oflabor's rights are calling for nationallabor legislation because of the fact thata dispute over health plans has arisenin the coal mines.

If we are to enact national legislationto deal with a localized problem, then, inthe name of logic, let such legislation beaimed at the problem which has gii'enrise to the coal strike!

Then, let us enact the national healthbill, S. 1606, and thereby establish a na-tional health insurance fund which willbring adequate medical and hospital carewithin the reach of every miner inAmerica, and the dependents of everyminer!

If this action were taken by Congress,Mr. President, the fundamental basis ofthe present coal dispute would completelydisappear. The miners, like all others,would have a health-insurance fund,soundly conceived and soundly admin-istered. The effect upon labor relationsin the mining industry would be in-calculable.

No, Mr. President; there is no funda-mental answer to the miners' healthproblems other than the creation of anational system of health insurance.

But the case for national health in-surance does not rest entirely upon thesituation in the mines. It rests upon aNation-wide need for improved medicaland hospital care.

It rests upon the fact that private in-surance plans have proved totally in-capable of bringing adequate medical andhospital care within the reach of thegreat masses of our people.

It rests upon the fact that nationalhealth insurance would contribute tolabor peace, not only in the coal mines,but in every branch of industry andtrade as well.

In this situation, as in many others,the way to prevent strikes is not by cur-tailing the rights of labor, but by pro-tecting those rights so as to maintain theproper equilibrium between managementand labor. Instead of curtailing theright to strike, we must give the peo-ple of America the right to health. Byso doing, we would remove one of themost prolific causes of conflict betweencapital and labor.

A fifth cause of labor disputes is badhousing.* Let me quote from the article by Mrs.'

Agnes Meyer which appeared in theWashington Post on May 8, 1946, and de-scribed living conditions in the miningareas of Kentucky:* At Fourmile I began my study of theminers' living conditions. The companyhouses are hovels so abominable that nohuman being should live in them. Theroofs leak, the wind blows through crevicesin walls and floors, the destitution and filthof generations are everywhere evident. Twofamilies had lived for 30 years right at themouth of the mine. These shacks with alocal lumber supply had costless than $50to $75 to build originally. Yet these families,for 30 years, had paid first $6, then $9, amonth, or some $3:000 in all, for this abom-ination of a house and for the privilege of

working from father to son in daily risk oftheir lives when they entered this mine.There is no running water in such camps.One family uses a dirty trickle of a streamthat comes from the hill where pigs run andcattle graze. Others use moldy, pollutedold wells. Many walk blocks to the near-est source of water, which may be a cleanspring in the higher locations or a dirtyone if it is in'the valley. The open outdoortoilets are often near the water supply. Ref-use lies in the streams and in the all-per-vasive mud.

The small children in these families areundernourished and scabby-faced, eitherwith skin diseases or filth. The miserablecommissary in this mine has an inadequatevariety of foods. Other stores are miles away.From 5 to a top of 22 children are crowdedinto these houses.

'Mr. President, I have heard many dis-tinguished Members of the Senate allegethat the coal strike calls for legislativeaction to curtail the.rights of unions.I am still waiting for any such Membersof the Senate to propose a plan for doingsomething about company housing.

True, the other House now has beforeit the long-range housing bill which onlyrecently was passed by the Senate. Yet,to my knowledge this bill contains nospecific provisions for coming to gripswith the problem of company-ownedhousing such as we have come in contactwith in the coal industry.

Naturally, it is extremely important, aspart of a program for preventing labordisputes, to have expeditious action bythe House of Representatives on thehousing bill as passed by the Senate.But it would also be helpful, I submit,to have additional housing legislationsetting up a program to eliminate andsolve the company housing problemabout which Mrs. Agnes Meyer has writ-ten in the Washington Post.

A sixth cause of labor disputes is thefailure of Congress to extend the socialsecurity laws.

I refer to'the proposals that have beenmade again and again to improve un-employment insurance, to improve old-age and survivors' insurance, and toestablish disability benefits to compen-sate for the loss of wages while peopleare out of work because they are ill.

It-was early in the course of the warthat Congress set up its insurance fundfor corporations through the carry-backand carry-forward provisions of the taxlaws. There was no delay on thatmeasure.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will theSenator from Montana yield to me for aquestion?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Does the Senator from Montanayield to the Senator from Florida?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield for a question.Mr. PEPPER. I will ask the able Sen-

ator if it is not correct that proposedamendments to the social-security lawcontemplate insurance benefits or pay-ments to individuals who might sustain'disability through some permanent in-jury, but that such proposals have notby the Congress been enacted into law?

Mr. MURRAY. That is exactly true.Mr. PEPPER. And if we did have leg

islation of that character in existencetoday, would that not have eliminatedthe necessity of John L. Lewis demand-

ing that there be provided out of the coalindustry a fund to take care of theminers who have their backs broken andotherwise have sustained total and per-manent disability.

Mr. MURRAY. I think it is obviousthat if we had such a law there would beno need for the demand now being madeby John L. Lewis.

Mr. President, during 1944, as chair-man of a subcommittee of the MilitaryAffairs Committee, I took an active partin mapping out the legislation that expe-dited the industrial conversion of busi-ness. I refer specifically to the ContractSettlement Act of 1944, the SurplusProperty Act of 1944, and the WarMobilization and Reconversion Act of·1944. '

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. CAPEHART. I should like to ask

the able Senator from Montana a ques-tion. What would he recommend be donein case the railway workers refuse towork and the rail strike continues forone week?

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I willsay that I do not like to anticipate whatthe President is going to propose tonightat 10 o'clock and tomorrow afternoon at4 o'clock. I am sure that his recom-mendations to the Congress will have aprofound effect upon all of us, and I amanxiously awaiting his recommendations.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will theSenate grant a unanimous-consent re-quest for me to try to answer the ques-tion asked by the Senator from Indiana?

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, Iwould be very happy to have the ableSenator from Florida answer the ques-tion, because to my mind it is the mostgermane thing that we could be discuss-ing tonight, because our Nation is para-lyzed as the result of a strike.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent for 5 minutes' time inwhich to answer the question of the Sen-ator from Indiana.

The ACTING PRESIDENT Irto tem-pore. Does the Senator from Montana,who has the floor, yield for that purpose?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield for that pur-pose, if I do not lose the floor by doing so.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Is there objection to the requestof the Senator from Florida?

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will theSenator again state his request?

Mr. PEPPER. The able Senator fromIndiana made inquiry of the able Senatorfrom Montana as to what he would rec-ommend if the rail workers declined towork for a week, and I said that I shouldlike an opportunity to try to answer thequestion. Of course, I could not do sowithout taking the Senator from Mon-tana off his feet, and-I made a unani-mous consent request for 5 minutes timein which I would endeavor to answer thequestion.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I have nodesire to object. I think it will take thecombined efforts of both the Senatorfrom Florida and the Senator from Mon-tana to make a satisfactory reply.

Mr. PEPPER. I should like to proceed,Mr. President. The inquiry is a verypertinent one, and I should like to havo

1946 5727

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE5 minutes' time in which I shall make aneffort to make reply.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-pore. Is there objection to the unani-mous consent request? The Chair hearsone.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I wasanxious to try to answer the question,because many of us have been very seri-qusly concerned about just that kind ofquestion, and I know how very diligentthe Senator from Indiana has been in aneffort to find some way out of the presentsituation.

My suggestion is that the President, ina case where the Government has theoperation and the custody of an enter-prise or a facility, immediately he takes.possession, concentrate his inquiry andeffort upon a single question, namely, themaintenance of the service of the indus-try for the public, leaving aside for thetime being the settlement of the perma-nent controversy. Now to be perfectlyfrank, one reason I am so anxious tomake an observation is that I amafraid-and I say it not in a spirit ofcriticism in any sense-that so far theeffort of the Government has been tobring about a permanent settlement be-tween management and labor ratherthan a temporary restoration of work bythe w6rkers. I am afraid that the Gov-ernment has not put the same emphasisupon getting the workers back to theirjobs as has been put upon the solution ofthe permanent question.

We, as members of the public, are pri-marily interested in the railroads run-ning. We want trains to ride on. We arenot so much interested, as individualcitizens, in the wage scale or the otherterms of employment; but we do want therailroads to run. And had the Presidentnot been engaged some of us would al-ready have conveyed to him this eveningthe earnest hope that he would make thestatement tonight at 10 o'clock that whathe is going to do is to get the workers intohis office and say, "Now gentlemen, I amappealing to you as President of theUnited States to work for me as the rep-resentative of your country, and let uscome to a sensible agreement about theterms of your employment while you areworking for the Government. MeanwhileYou go ahead with your negotiations fora permanent settlement."

I have reason to believe-and I say itadvisedly-I have reason to believe thatsuch an approach will meet a responsivereception. I believe that if the Govern-ment will concentrate its efforts in thatway, within a matter of hours work canbe resumed on the railroads by the em-ployees, and the trains can be started inoperation again. I think the same pro-cedure could be applied' with respect tothe coal mines.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

Mr. PEPPER.' I yield.Mr. CAPEHART. Suppose, after the

President calls the heads of the unionsin, they still refuse to work, as they havedone up to this time; then what wouldthe able Senator recommend be done?The reason I am asking the question isthis: f am thoroughly convinced that theAmerican people are looking either to the

Congress or to the President to protectthem in this hour of emergency. I amthoroughly convinced that tonight theAmerican people are looking to the Sen-ate, in session here tonight, to debate anddiscuss the immediate problem of againoperating the railroads of America. I donot believe that they are interested inour debating the merits or the demeritsof whether the railroad owners or theemployees are right or wrong. As Istated a little earlier, I think we are hererepresenting all the people, and not anyone class. I think we should legislate forthe good of all the people. I do not be-lieve that we have any right as Senatorsto debate the merits or demerits of anylabor dispute or any other dispute be-tween private individuals. I think weshould immediately decide, if we possiblycan, what can be done, I know of no onebetter qualified to discuss that questionthan the able Senator from Florida, be-cause he is vitally interested in labor, andI am certain that he is vitally interestedin the American people. Let us proceedon the basis that something must be doneto settle the strike and get our railroadsoperating again before there is a realdisaster.

How can we do it? To my mind thatis the problem. I-should like to see thePresident of the United States and theCongress concentrate on that subject.What can we do to again get our rail-roads in operation and avoid what mightbe a calamity?

Mr. PEPPER. I am afraid I am al-ready exceeding my allotted time. TheSenator is absolutely correct in concen-trating-attention upon the immediateproblem.

I repeat that if the President lacksauthority to deal with the operation ofthe enterprise while the Government isoperating it, then he should tell us so;and no doubt he will tomorrow. If helacks authority to get the men back towork, and if he lacks authority to offerinducements and fair adjustments to getthem back to work, then I.think the Con-gress would be ready to give him thatauthority almost immediately.

However, let me say that I think theCongress will be reluctant to give au-thority to use coercion or force untilthere has been an exhaustion of all rea-sonable efforts at inducement and ad-justment. A few minutes ago I saw inthe Evening Star some things that lookeda little ominous. The statement wasmade that General Eisenhower had beeninstructed to come back immediatelyfrom the Pacific, and that various mili-tary concentrations have been made atstrategic rail points.' That is suggestiveof a type of coercion and armed forcethat I shrink from. I hope that is notgoing to be the spirit in which we are toapproach this question, especially if Iam right in the information which I havereceived, that so far the negotiationshave been not with respect to whetherthe men would work for the Governmentor not, but merely with respect to wheth-er a permanent settlement can be ar-,;ived at. I understand that so far thenegotiations have not been with thePresident, but with representatives of thePresident, management and labor deal-

ing with each other. The Presidentshould call in Mr. Whitney and Mr.Johnston and say, "Gentlemen, I am notasking you to work for the railroads, butto work for me, your Government, andyour country. I want to make fair ad-justments in this dispute while you areworking for us, and I will meet you halfway. We want the railroads of thiscountry to operate, first, and secondly,we will settle the dispute."

It seems to me that if we support thePresident in such a policy-and if'helacks authority for such a policy, clearlygive it' to him-that will accomplish thefirst objective for which we are striving;namely, getting the railroads in operationagain. Then we can reach the perma-nent problem when the more immediateproblems are disposed of.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President-Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is

a vitally important discussion which isgoing on, and I am perfectly willing thatit should continue for a few minutes, IfI am not taken from the floor.

Mr. CAPEHART. I certainly have noidea of taking the Senator from the floor.Will the Senator yield for just a moment?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. CAPEHART. I was under the im-

pression-perhaps I am wrong, and if Iam wrong the able Senator from Floridacan correct me-that when the Presidentof the United States, in the name of ourGovernment, took over the railroads, thatin itself was all the notice that was neces-sary to the employees that the Presi-dent of the United States desired thatthey work for our Government. Whatmore can he do?

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I shouldbe glad to try to respond if I may be rec-ognized.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator from Florida is priv-ileged to do so, because the question hasbeen asked of him

Mr. PEPPER. I think the Senator iscorrect in that the technical and legalcustody of the railroads has been taken'over by the Government. But I am in-formed by a reliable source that therehave been no negotiations with the work-ers with respect to their working for theGovernment. I obtained the informa-tion, as I have said, from a person whohas been close to the negotiations. I donot know whether the President feels anylack of authority, or feels that he wouldnot be supported by the Congress. Hemay feel that the question of a perma-nent wage should be settled now. But,I believe that in the Congress, and as-suredly in the country, the chief concernis to get the railroads in operation again.I believe that it is the sense of the Con-gress that the first negotiations shouldbe with the employees with respect toworking for the Government.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, willthe Senator from Montana yield to mefor a moment more?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. CAPEHART. Does not the Sen-

ator from Florida believe that the work-ers should be willing to work for thePresident at the old rates, and if not atthe old rates, at the rates which the Presi-dent recommended that they accept ina new contract with the railroads?

5728 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEMr. PEPPER. The able Senator has

asked two questions. Let me answer thesecond question first.

The recommendation as to wagechanges made by the President was notfor the time they Were working for theGovernment, but as a permanent base.That recommendation related to the per-manent contract. In that -case I amsure the able Senator would no moreblame the workers in this case for notfollowing the President's recommenda-tion than he would blame General Mo-tors, in the General Motors case, for notfollowing the recommendations of aPresidential fact-finding board, and therecommendation of the President.

To answer the first question, of coursewe expect that the workers should workfor the Government. I do not favor awork stoppage. But, as I stated earlierin the day in a discussion with the ableSenator from Minnesota [Mr. BALL],I do not believe that we ought to askemployees, in case they feel so aggrievedthat they will resort to a work stoppage,to continue of necessity to work for arfindefinite time without any improvementin the controversy which caused the dis-pute in this case, namely, wages. Iwould not expect the President, duringthe temporary operation, to solve all thequestions; but I think it would be per-fectly proper for the President to say,"I am the trustee, and it is my job as-trustee to keep this enterprise in opera-tion. I want you to make a contractwith the Federal Government as trustee.I am willing to make reasonable adjust-ments in the wage scale during the lim-ited time that you are working for theGovernment."

Mr. BALL. Mr. President, will theSenator from Montana yield?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. BALL. I wonder if the informant

of the Senator from Florida has indi-cated to him whether the approach whichhe recommends, namely, the Congressauthorizing the President to offer induce-ments to the employees to work after theGovernment takes over the properties, isprobably the one which the President willrecommend to. us tomorrow.

Mr. PEPPER. I have no informationon that point. I hope the President willrecommend that course if he believes helacks authority. All I wish to empha-size is that I desire to see to it that thePresident has authority, and feels thathe will have congressional support to ne-gotiate with the workers to work for theGovernment. That is all I am asking.

I will say to the able Senator from In-diana that if after reasonable trial thatmethod fails, and the President learnsby experience the kind of request heshould make of the Congress, he can beassured that he will receive most sym-pathetic and cooperative considerationfrom Members of Congress when hemakes such a request. But we do notwant coercion first; and we do not wantthe Army first.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, Ihave yet to hear a single Senator, or any-one in authority, say that he feels thathe knows how to get our railroad workersback to work. I believe it has been statedtime and again on the floor of the Senatethat there is no existing law under which

we can force the operation of our rail-roads. If that be true-and I do notknow whether it is or not, because I amnot a lawyer-

Mr. PEPPER. I have not the law be-fore me, but there are able lawyers inthe Chamber who, perhaps, can confirmmy statement. It is my impression thatthe law under which President Wilsontook over the railroads in World War Iis still on the statute books. I recallthat the Railroad Administrator, Mr. Mc-Adoo, exercised the authority of theGovernment in the administration of therailroads and made new wage agree-ments on behalf of the railroads whilethe Government was operating them. Iunderstand that that statute is still thelaw of the land, and within reach of theGovernment.

Mr. CAPEHART. Then, am I to un-derstand that it is the opinion of theable Senator from Florida that the Presi-dent does have the authority? If he hasthe authority, then why would it not beproper for the Congress, by joint resolu-tion, to direct or request the Presidentof the United States'to use that author-ity and again operate the railroads ofAmerica?

Mr. PEPPER. I should be glad to joinin such a request.

Mr. CAPEHART. If he does not havethat authority, and there is no law underwhich he can prevent our Nation frombeing paralyzed, then does not the Sena-tor believe that we should give him suchauthority? I am directing this questionto the able Senator from Flcrida and theable Senator from Montana, who havedone a great job representing their pointof view. They have been tireless intheir efforts. If there is no such law,then does not the Senator think the timehas arrived-or, at least, the time willhave arrived tomorrow-when all of usshould join together, should admit thereis no law, and should pass a law whichwill permit the operation of-the rail-roads?

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, if theSenator from Montana, who no doubtwill wish to make a longer answer, willpermit me to speak first-

Mr. MURRAY. Yes.Mr. PEPPER. Let me say I am sure

that is what all of us are interested in,and I am sure all of us will await withgreat interest the President's address tod-night and his address tomorrow to thejoint session. If he lacks legal authorityto make a proper approach, I am sure theCongress will be willing to give it to him.

But I hope the President is not goingto ask the Congress, first, for authorityto use coercive measures or to make it apenal and a criminal offense for citizensto exercise their rights, until every effortof persuasion and reasonable inducementhas been exhausted.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I amsure all of us agree regarding the serious-ness of the situation confronting the Na-tion tonight.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. TYDINGS. In the event the Gov-

ernment takes over the railroads-whichit has done-and in the event the Presi-dent and his advisers make a proposal

which they deem fair and equitable notonly to the railroad workers but for hold-ing the line and for all the other wagescales in the whole country, if the repre-sentatives of the employees reject it, withthe result that the strike continues for aweek, then what should we do? I shouldlike to have an answer to that question:That is, what .should we do if the em-ployees reject the offer of an increase asmade by the President of the UnitedStates?

Mr. MURRAY. I am sure that therailroad workers of the United Stateswho are involved in this strike are patri-otic Armericans, and I have great confi-dence that they will exercise sound judg-ment in responding to the President'srequest.

Mr. TYDINGS: Let me say to theSenator from Montana, if he will yield,that this afternoon the United StatesEmployment Commissioner for Mary-land happened to be in my office, andhe told me that an estimate showed that,because of the rail and coal strikes, com-bined, 57,000 people in Baltimore City,alone, had been thrown out of employ-ment, today. If this strike lasts a week,I am wondering how many will be outof employment in just that one city, ifthere are 57,000 already out of employ-ment there.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Does the Senator from Montanayield to the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. MURRAY. I shall yield in amoment.

First, Mr. President, let me say thatthe situation confronting us is, of course,extremely serious. I think we have madea mistake in our failure to foresee theproblems which are upon us at thismoment. My understanding is that thiscontroversy between the railroad work-ers and the' railroads has been up forconsdieration for a long time. Everyeffort has been made by these workersto have their conditions of work ad-justed, but they have failed in thateffort. It seemed to them that it wasabsolutely necessary for them to exercisethe right to strike in order to bring thematter to a focus and to obtain someresults.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, willthe able Senator from Montana yieldfor one more observation?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. TYDINGS. It seems to me that

the best solution of the matter wouldbe this: If the President-and I under-stand he has already done so, either di-rectly or impliedly-offers to these work-ers an increase, and if that be an interimoffer, only, and not binding finally onthem, they might come back and operatethe railroads on the basis of an 18½/2cents an hour increase, which I under-stand already has been offered, and workfor the Government and carry on theother negotiations at the same time. Inthat way we could get commerce goingagain. What I, cannot understand iswhy, when the employees can get thatmuch temporarily, they will not returnto work.

Mr. MURRAY. That sounds like anextremely reasonable proposal. I am

1946 5729

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEsure that if that proposal is made to thestrikers who are involved in this strike,they will, as good citizens, accept it.

Mr. TYDINGS. I am glad to hear theSenator say that, because I am sure he isin a better position to give an opinion onwhether it is a worth-while suggestionthan most of us are.

But it seems to me that the Presidentalready has his board; and he himself,as I understand, has recommended an181/2 cents an hour increase. The boardrecommended an increase of 16 or 161/2cents an hour, and the President raisedit to 181/2 cents an hour, so that it wouldbe on all fours with the settlerhent ofthe other strikes.

Mr. MURRAY. Yes.Mr. TYDINGS. As I see the picture-

and it may not be an accurate picture-the employees not only want that in-crease but they want more than that in-crease in money, and they also wantsome of the rules changed.

Mr. MURRAY. Yes.Mr. TYDINGS. It seems to me we

might get out of this emergency by thisprocess, which would, not do anyone ir-reparable harm-to wit, that the em-ployees would accept the 181/2 cents anhour increase for, say, the next 3 weeks,and go to work under the Governmentat an increase of 181/2 cents an hour,without any change In the rules, butthat the negotiations for the additionalamount and for the changes in.the ruleswould be carried on at the same time-inwhich event we would have immediaterelief from the rail strike, and negotia-tions could continue, and the countrycould be relieved from a tremendousemergency.

I do not know whether that proposalhas been presented to the men. But ifthe men themselves knew that that wasthe proposal-namely, that they wouldreceive what the President has offered,and that the whole matter would con-tinue to be negotiated-it is a little diffi-cult for me to believe that the railroadmen themselves would refuse to go backto work.

But I wonder whether they have hadthat proposition put up to them.

Mr. MURRAY. That is the point.Mr. TYDINGS. I do not mean that I

wonder whether that proposal has beenput up to them by the President, but Iwonder whether it has been put up tothe employees by those who are speakingfor them.

Mr. MURRAY. I understand that thatproposal has not been made, and thatthere has been no opportunity on thepart of the employees to consider it. Ifit is made to them, if they are given anopportunity to consider it, I have confi-dence that they will give it very carefulconsideration; and if I were a spokes-man for them I would wish to accept it.

Mr. TYDINGS. I would, too; and Ithink perhaps that would be the solu-tion. But what I cannot understand isthis: Assuming that the Senator fromMontana and I were the two people tothe controversy, it would be settled hereIn the floor of the Senate.

Mr. MURRAY. I am sure that is cor-rect.

Mr. TYDINGS. Assuming that thePresident and the employees were the

parties to the controversy, I believe itwould be settled instantly.

Mr. MURRAY. I think so.Mr. TYDINGS. But I am wondering

why the employees do not have a chanceto accept or reject that proposition. AsI see the picture, the negotiators for theemployees have not put that particularproposition, which the President regom-mended, up to the employees.

Mr. MURRAY. It has not been put upto the representatives of the employees,as I understand the matter. If it hadbeen I am sure they would consider it.

Mr. TYDINGS. I may be misin-formed; but my information is that theoriginal fact-finding board recommendeda 16 or 16/2 cents an hour increase-asI recall it was 16 cents-and I under-stand that the President said, "No; Ithink these men ought to have the sameincrease that those who are in the auto-mobile and the steel industries haveheretofore obtained," and therefore hemade the offer of an 181/2 cents an hourincrease, instead of 16/2 cents an hourwhich was recommended by the fact-finding board.

Mr. MURRAY. My understanding isthat the fact-finding board was limitedin making its findings, and that was thereason why it did not go up to 181/2 centsan hour.

Mr. TYDINGS. Be that as it may,eventually they were offered 181/2 centsan hour.

Mr. MURRAY. Yes.Mr. TYDINGS. And as I see the pic-

ture-largely from the press-the moneyseems to be somewhat incidental to achange in some 40 rules, against manyof which the employees are protesting,and in which they wish to have sub-stantial changes made.

The point is this: The President hastaken over the railroads. In my opin-ion there is no doubt in the world thatthe Goverment and the railroad com-panies together will be willing to paythe additional 181/2 cents an hour.

Therefore, why not have the railroadsreoperated, have traffic resumed, andhave these negotiations carried on at the181/2 cents an hour. level, without anychange being made in the rules, and havethe entire question finally settled within2 or 3 weeks?

Mr. MURRAY. In the judgment of theworkers the question of rules is an impor-tant element in the negotiations.

Mr. TYDINGS. May I ask the Senatora final question?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Does the Senator from Montanayield further to the Senator from Mary-land?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield provided thatI do not lose the floor.

Mr. TYDINGS. Would the Senatorfrom Montana, speaking for himself andthe Senator frotr Florida, they being thetwo Senators who are the chief con-tenders in the controversy here, althoughI say that with no reflection on them,be willing to recommend to the workersthe adoption of the course which I havesuggested' as a temporary solution of thepresent problem?

Mr. MURRAY. So far as I am con-cerned, I would be willing to recom-mend It.

Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator.Mr. MURRAY. With the understand-

ing, however, that the adjustment as towages would be retroactive.

Mr. TYDINGS. I think that is a fairstatement. Of course, the question ofrules is an important element whichwould be considered before a final ad-justment had been reached. But as theSenator pointed out, that is somethingwhich would be deferred and would be asubject of subsequent negotiation.

Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield?Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. BARKLEY: I think there should

be no misconception or misapprehensionfrom what has been said in this discus-sion with reference to what the Presi-dent has or has not done.

Mr. MURRAY. That is what I said atthe opening of the discussion.

Mr. BARKILEY. I am quite sure thatno Member of the Senate has anyauthority to state that the President hasmade any statement such as the one towhich reference has been made. Hetook over the railroads under the au-thority conferred upon him. Negotia-tions have been carried on continuously,including practically all of today, atwhich no conclusion or decision wasreached. Because of the failure toarrive at a decision the President hasasked the Senate and the House of Rep-resentatives to meet in joint session to-morrow at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, atwhich time he will address the Congress.He is to speak to the country tonightover the radio. I suppose that in thataddress, as well as in the address whichhe will make tomorrow to the Congress,he will outline what has been attemptedin the way of a solution of the presentproblem, and will advise the Congressand the country, as well, with regard tothe situation. I have no doubt that thePresident'will make definite recommen-dation in his address to the Congresstomorrow with reference to legislationwhich will enable him to cope with thesituation. I am not authorized to sug-gest, and I would not do so- even if Iknew at this juncture what he will specifi-cally and definitely recommend. But Ihope the Senate will keep itself in posi-tion to consider immediately whateverthe President recommends to it in hisaddress tomorrow. I do not believe thatwe should draw any conclusions as towhat has taken place behind closed doorswith reference to the various phases ofthe negotiations which have been carriedon in an endeavor to solve the problem,but which, up to how, have failed.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, that isexactly what impressed me at the timethe colloquy began. I did not wish toanticipate what the President might rec-ommend. In fact I do not know what hewill recommend. I have not been incontact with any person who has any-thing to do with the controversy, and soI am unable to express any views withregard to the matter. Therefore, I didnot wish to engage in a discussion con-cerning a matter of--such seriousness.However, I must say that I greatly im-pressed by the arguments which havebeen made by the distinguished Senator

5730 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEfrom Maryland. They appealed to meas being absolutely fair and reasonable.I am confident that if the proposal whichhe has suggested were made to the work-ers, some solution might be reached.

Mr. BARKLEY. I merely rose to ex-press the hope that the Senate would notattempt to speculate in advance on whatthe President will recommend tomorrow.I feel sure that he will make a definiteand specific recommendation, based onall the efforts which have been made toreach a solution. I also hope very fer-vently that both the Senate and theHouse of Representatives will be in aposition tomorrow promptly to considerhis recommendation after he has madeit. In the meantime, I believe that wemust await that recommendation with-out believing that we have the slightestadvanced knowledge of what it will be.

Mr. MURRAY. I agree with themajority leader.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Does the Senator from Montanawish to continue his address?

Mr. MURRAY. If the discussion whichis now taking place is permissible underthe rule, and I do not lose the floor, I amwilling that it shall continue. I havenearly concluded my remarks, and if it issatisfactory I am willing to yield forquestions.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I shouldlike to ask a question, but I think that Ican propound it to the Chair.

If the Senate votes for cloture tomor-row, would it then be in order to -offeramendments which would conform withthe President's recommendations, pro-vided his recommendations were not al-ready embodied in some of the amend-ments now before us?

'Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, allSenators, who are familiar. with the ruleconcerning cloture, know that no amend-ment may be offered, after the hourwhich under the rule the Senate is re-quired to vote on the cloture motion, ifthe motion is adopted, unless the amend-ment has already been offered, printedand complies with the rule before thevote on cloture is taken.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. No amendment would be in orderafter the motion for cloture has beenadopted by a two-thirds vote which hadnot been presented prior to the time ofthe vote, except by unanimous consent.

Mr. AIKEN. Then if the Senate de-sired to pass a measure conforming withthe'President's request, and it had notalready been embodied in any amend-ment which was printed, it would haveto be by way of new legislation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Yes, or by unanimous consent.

Mr. AIKEN. Or by unanimous con-sent.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Yes.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, I wishto correct a statement which has beenmade. The fact of the matter is thatthe President has appointed a media-tion board for the purpose of mediatingnot only the question of wages, but alsothe question of rules. He appointed twoboards, one for 18 unions, and one for

No. 98-9

2 unions, the trainmen and the engi-neers. Both boards made a recommen-dation of an increase of 16 cents anhour. Subsequently, and after thestrike was threatened, the President,made a suggestion of 18/2 cents an hour.The trainmen and the engineers wanted1812 percent, and some changes in therules. Those are really what the issuesnow are. The President appointed per-sons on the board who have been knownto be friendly to the railroad employees.After the fact-finding board made itsfindings of 16 cents an hour, the Presi-dent went over the board and recom-mended 22 cents an hour more. As Ihave said, the members of the boardswere appointed by the President. Someof- those members were known to be.friendly to the railroad men when theywere appointed. My understanding isthat they were appointed at the sugges-tion of the trainmen and the engineers.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. CAFEHART. When the President

recommended 181/2 cents an hour, did therailroads accept the recommendationand agree to pay 18/2 cents to their em-ployees?

Mr. MURRAkY. I did not understandthe Senator.

Mr. CAPEHART. The President rec-ommended an increase of 18%2 cents anhour.

Mr. MURRAY. Yes.Mr. CAPEHART. Did management

accept the recommendation?Mr. MURRAY. I do not understand

that management accepted the recom-mendation, because it was merely a partof the entire problem.

Mr. WHEELER. I understand thatthe railroads themselves were willing toaccept the recommendation of an in-crease of 181/2 cents-an hour.

Mr. MURRAY. They could not acceptit because it was tied up with the otherproblem concerning the rules.

Mr. WHEE.LER. The railroads couldhave accepted the recommendation, butthe employees wanted not 18/ cents anhour, but an increase of 18'/2 percent.They also wanted a change to be made inthe rules. There are many rules in dis-pute. For example, the railroads wantcertain rules changed, and the brother-hoods want certain other rules changed.

Mr. MURRAY. A change in the ruleswould entail a heavy expense on the partof the railroads.

Mr. WHEELER. That is correct.Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield? -Mr. MURRAY. The Senator from

Michigan has been on, his feet for sometime, and I yield to him. a

Mr. FERGUSON. My reason for ask-ing the Senator from Montana to yieldis that we have been discussing the 1916act. I thought it would be well to readone paragraph of the act which appliesto the discussion.

It provides:The President, in time of war, is empow-

ered, through the Secretary of War, to takepossession and assume control of any systemor systems of transportation, or any part

thereof, and to utilize the same, to the ex-clusion as far as may be necessary of allother traffic thereon, for the transfer ortransportation of troops, war material andequipment, or for such ether purposes con-nected with the emergency as may be need-ful or desirable.

That is the section of the 1916 act. Itwill be noted that it says "in time ofwar," and they shall be taken overthrough the Secretary of War.

Mr. President, the act of March 21,1918, was an act to provide for the op-eration of transportation systems whileunder Federal control, for the just com-pensation of their owners, and for otherpurposes.

The original act of 1916 made no pro-vision whatever for compensation, andthe 1918 act undertook to provide forcompensation, and if the Senator fromMontana will yield long enough I shallread the first paragraph, which will indi-cate what I have in mind and what thestatute provided for.

Mr. MURRAY. I only hope that it isnet lengthy, because I wish to listen tothe President's address.

Mr. FERGUSON. It is not lengthy.It provides:

The President having, in time of war takenover the possession, use, control, and opera-tion (called herein Federal control) of- cer-tain railroads and systems of transportation(called herein carriers), is hereby authorizedto agree with and to guarantee to any suchcarrier making operating returns to the In-terstate Commerce Commission, that duringthe period of such Federal coatrol it shallreceive as Just compensation an Guanl sum,payable from time to time in Tseonable in-stallments, for each year and pro rata forany fractional year of such Federal control,not exceeding a sum equivalent as nearlyas may be to its average annual railwayoperation ifcome for t e 3 years ending June30, 1917.

Mr. President, in 1920 an act waspassed for the termination of the Federalcontrol, and it provided that the FederalControl Act relating to the last I read-this Transportation Act-was termi-nated. But we find one provision in theact which says that the 1916 law is still ineffect, but it is'very doubtful, and Ishould say from a reading of these stat-utes that the 1918 law has been repealedand is not in effect, because the law pro-vides, in section (c):

Nothing in this act shall be construed asaffecting or limiting the power of the Presi-dent in time of war under section 1 of theact entitled "An act making approprIationsfor the support of the Army for the fiscal yearending June 30, 1917, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, that is the act I firstread.

If I might, I should like to have printedin the RECORD Executive Order No. 9727,issued on May 17, 1946, which is the orderunder which the President has taken overthe railroads at the present time. I askthat it be inserted in the REcoRD at thispoint, instead of reading it. It is theorder taking over the railroads.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the Execu-tive order was ordered to be printed inthe RECORD, as follows:

1946 5731

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEEXECUTIVE ORDER 9727

POSSESSION, CONTROL, AND OPERATION OFCERTAIN RAILROADS

Whereas after investigation I find and pro-claim that as a result of labor disturbancesthere or interruptions, or threatened inter-ruptions, of the operations of the transpor-tation systems, plans, and facilities owned oroperated by carriers by railroad named in thelist attached hereto and made a part hereof;that the war effort will be unduly impededand delayed by such interruptions; that ithas become necessary to take possession andassume control of the said transportationsystems, plants, and facilities for purposesthat are needful or desirable in connectionwith the present wartime emergency; andthat the exercise, as hereinafter specified, ofthe powers vested in me is necessary to in-sure in the national interest the operationof the said transportation system, plants,and facilities:

Now, therefore, by virtue of the power andauthority vested in me by the Constitutionand laws of the United States, includingsection 9 of the Selective Training and ServiceAct of 1940, as amended by section 3 of theWar Labor Disputes Act (57 Stat. 164), theact of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 619, 645),and the First War Powers Act, 1941 (55 Stat.838), as President of the United States andCommander in Chief of the Army and Navy,it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. Possession and control of the transpor-tation systems, plants, and facilities ownedor operated by the carriers by railroad namedin the list attached hereto and made a parthereof are hereby taken and assumed,through the Director of the Office of DefenseTransportation (hereinafter referred to asthe Director), as of 4 o'clock p. m., May 17,1946, but such possession and control shallbe limited to real and personal property andother assets used or useful in connection withthe operation of the transportation systemsof the said carriers. If and when the Direc-tor finds it necessary or appropriate to carryout the purposes of this order, he may, byappropriate order, take possession and as-sume control of all or any part of any trans-portation system of any other carrier by railSroad located in the continental United States.

2. The Director is directed to operate, orarrange for the operation of, the transpor-tation systems, plants, and facilities takenunder or pursuant to this order in suchmanner as he deems necessary to assure tothe fullest possible extent continuous anduninterrupted transportation service.

3. In carrying out the provisions of thisorder the Director may act through or with

,the aid of such public or private instrumen-talities or persons as he may designate, andmay delegate such of his authority as he maydeem necessary or desirable, with power ofsuccessive redelegation. The Director matissue such general and special orders, rulesand regulations as may be necessary or ap-propriate to carry out the provisions, and toaccomplish the purposes, of this order. AllFederal agencies shall comply with the di-rectives of the Director issued pursuant tothis order and shall cooperate to the fullestextent of their authority with the Directorin carrying out the provisions of this order.

4. The Director shall permit the manage-ment of carriers whose transportation sys-tems, plants, and facilities have been takenunder, or which may be taken pursuant to,the provisions of this order to continue theirrespective managerial functions to the maxi-mum degree possible consistent with the pur-poses of this order. Except so far as theDirector shall from time to time otherwiseprovide by appropriate order or regulation,the boards of directors, trustees, receivers,officers, and employees of such carriers shallcontinue the operation of said transportationsystems, plants, and facilities, including thecollection and disbursement of funds there-of, In the usual and ordinary course of the

business of the carriers, in the names oftheir respective companies, and by means ofany agencies, associations, or other instru-mentalities now utilized by the carriers.

5. Except so far as the Director shall fromtime to time otherwise determine and pro-vide by appropriate orders or regulations,existing contracts and agreements to whichcarriers whose transportation systems, plants,and facilities have been taken under, orwhich may be taken pursuant to, the provi-sions of this order are parties, shall remainin full force and effect. Nothing in- thisorder shall have the effect of suspending orreleasing any obligation owed to any carrieraffected hereby, and all payments shall bemade by the persons obligated to the carrierto which they are or may become due. Ex-cept as the Director may otherwise direct,there may be made, in due course, paymentsof dividends on stock, and of principal, in-terest, sinking funds, and all other distribu-tions upon bonds, debentures, and other-obligations; and expenditures may be madefor other ordinary corporate purposes.

6. Subject to applicable provisions of ex-isting law, including the orders of the Officeof Defense Transportation issued pursuantto Executive Order 8989, as amended, thesaid transportation systems, plants, and fa-cilities shall be managed and operated underthe terms and conditions of employment ineffect at the time possession is taken underthis order. The Director shall recognize theright of the workers to continue their mem-bership in labor organizations, to bargaincollectively through representatives of theirown choosing with the representatives ofthe owners of the carriers, subject to the pro-visions of applicable statutes and ExecutiveOrders, as to matters pertaining to wages tobe paid or conditions to prevail after termi-nation of possession and control under thisorder; and to engage in concerted activitiesfor the purpose of such collective bargainingor for other mutual aid or protection, pro-vided that, in his opinion, such concertedactivities do not interfere with the operationof the transportation systems, plants, andfacilities taken hereunqer, or which may betaken pursuant hereto.

7. Except as this order otherwise providesand except as the Director may otherwisedirect, the operation of the transportationsystems, plants, and facilities taken here-under, or which may be taken pursuanthereto, shall be in conformity with the Inter-state Commerce Act, as amended, the Rail-way Labor Act, as amended, the Safety Ap-liance Acts, the Employers' Liability Acts,and other applicable Federal and State laws,Executive orders, local ordinances, and rulesand regulations issued pursuant to such laws,Executive orders, and ordinances.

8. Except with the prior written consentof the Director, no receivership, reorganiza-tion, or similar proceeding affecting any car-rier whose transportation system, plants, andfacilities are taken hereunder, or which maybe taken pursuant hereto, shall be instituted,and no attachment by mesne process, gar-nishment, execution, or otherwise shall belevied on or against any of the real or per-sonal property or other assets of any suchcarrier, provided that nothing herein shallprevent or require approval by the DirectoroZ any action authorized or required by anyinterlocutory or final decree of any UnitedStates court in reorganization proceedingsnow pending under the Bankruptcy Act or inany equity receivership cases now pending.

9. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 to 8,inclusive, of this order, there are herebytransferred to the Director the functions,powers, and duties vested in the Secretary ofWar by that part of section 1 of the said actof August 29, 1916, reading as follows:

'"The President, in time of war, is -em-powered, through the Secretary of War, totake possession and assume control of anysystem or systems of transportation, or anypart thereof, and to utilize the same, to the

exclusion as far as may be necessary of allother traffic thereon, for the transfer ortransportation of troops, war material andequipment, or for such other purposes con-nected with the emergency as may be need-ful or desirable."

10. The Director may request the Secretaryof War to furnish protection for perions em-ployed or seeking employment in the plants,facilities, or transportation systems of whichpossession is taken hereunder, or which maybe taken pursuant hereto, to furnish pro-tection for such plants, facilities, and trans-portation systems, and to furnish equip-ment, manpower, and other facilities or serv-ices deemed necessary by the Director tocarry out the provisions, and to accomplishthe purposes, of this order. The Secretaryof War is authorized and directed, upon suchrequest, to take such action as he deemsnecessary to furnish such protection, 'equip-ment, manpower, or other facilities or serv-ices.

11. From and after 4 o'clock p. m., on thesaid 17th day of May 1946, all propertiestaken under this order shall be conclusivelydeemed to be within the possession and con-trol of the United States without further actor notice.

12. Possession, control, and operation ofany plant or facility, or of any transporta-tion system, or any part thereof, or of anyreal or personal property taken under thisorder, or which may be taken pursuant here-to, shall be terminated by the Director whenhe determines that such possession, control,and operation are no longer necessary to carryout the provisions, and to accomplish thepurposes, of this order.

HARRY S. TRUMAN.THE WHITE HOUSE, May 17, 1946.

Mr. FERGUSON. I appreciate theSenator from Montana yielding for thispurpose, so that we may make the REC-ORD, clear.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wasdiscussing the problems of reconversionand the measures which had been adopt-ed in connection with the reconversionof industry. There was no delay on anyof these measures, which were so help-ful and beneficial to industry in meetingthe problems of reconversion.

But, Mr. President, when the proposalwas made to improve unemploymentcompensation as part of the War Mobili-.zation and Reconversion Act, then-andnot until then-did we see the strategyof delay and obstruction used with re-spect to real reconversion legislation.The Senate voted down the proposals toprovide an adequate level of unemploy-ment benefits, and seriously modified theproposals .for an adequate duration ofbenefits. The House of Representativesthen removed completely whatever 'mi-nor improvements in unemploymentcompensation were provided in the Sen-ate bill.

The effect of this action was to puta few big corporations in a position wheretheir employees would have less financialresources to fall back upon during theperiod of reconversion-a situation underwhich these corporations might better beable to hold down wages and force theirwill on .organized labor.

Mr. President, the insecurity of Ameri-can workers is a most vital factor-botheconomic and psychological-in the de-velopment of labor disputes. It is afactor which, if we fail to recognize it,will continue to be a source of irritationand strife between labor and capital inthis country.-

5732 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATELegislation to. impair the rights of

labor will accentuate rather than allevi-ate the insecurity that faces the averageworking man and working woman. Theintelligent answer to this phase of theproblem is tlie- enactment of legislationto increase the benefits and- broaden- thecoverage of unemployment insurance and.old age and survivors? insurance. and toestablish a system of disability benefits.

A seventh cause of labor disputes-and one of the most important of all-isthe 'apparent effort on foot in recentyears to weaken or destroy existing laborlaws.

It is a well-known fact that a substan-tial proportion of the biggest corpora-tions in America have not yet reconciledthemselves: to the principles of collectivebargaining: They still hark back to thegood. old days of "yellow dog contract,"the company- spy, and the companyunion.

During the war such employers lookedforward with- anticipation to: the thoughtof widespread industrial conflicts afterthe war. Let me quote from- a statementmade'in August, 1944, by the chief econ-omist of the' Chrysler Corporation, Mr.John Scoville:

If you believe in economic freedom. anrdccmpetition, then you will be- opposed tocollective bargaining * ~ * as indus-trial turmoil increases, more and more peo-ple will. see the evils generated by collectivebargaining, and. we should look forward tothe time when all federal labor laws will berepealed.

If the present drive' for anti-laborlegislation is- successful, I. am convinced-that itvwill only encourage. and stimulatethose who want to see anm extension: ofmonopolistic control. of- our country.:

The answer to this situation is lessanger, less heat, and less of a desire in-Congress to carry out economic policieswhich encourage corporate monopoly.The answer is a broad and well-conceivedprogram to remedy the causes of labordisputes, restore genuine free enterprise,and promote the- peaceful 'settlement ofour domestic problems.

Another basic cause for the failure tosettle labor disputes and' prevent strikes.is the lack of adequate machinery for the-.mediation. and arbitration of labor dis-putes. While this is last on my list, itis not the least:

In stating that we lack adequate medi-ation machinery, I do not want to beinterpreted as minimizing the- splendidresults of the present Conciliation Serv-ice in the Department of Labor.- The record of the hearings before theEducation ant Labor Committee shows-that nearly 1,200; cases of labor disputeshandled by the Conciliation Service dur-ing the month of January 1946-a monthwhen labor strife was at a peak. Ofthese 1,200 cases more than 900 were set-tled before a work stoppage occurred.Well over half of these cases were ami-cably adjusted before- any threat of astrike had become serious.

Nevertheless, the Conciliation Servicehas suffered from inadequate funds, in-sufficient personnel, low salaries, and thelack of sufficient prestige.

The inadequacy of the ConciliationService as presently constituted, -is in-dicated by the fact that time and- time

again tle President has had to set upspecial mediation boards.

In. his testimony before the Educationjand Labor Committee, Dr. William Leis-erson,. professor of industrial relationsat John Hopkins University, and formerchairman, of the National MediationBoard, pointed out the difficulties in ourpresent procedure. Let me quote frompart of Dr. Leiserson's testimony-page143 of hearings on S. 1661:

You have observed recently, I take it, dur-ing the oil dispute, the first effort at media-tion. The Board was composed of high-grade persons. I think they were judges,at least, the chairman was a judge fromColorado. That Board was appointed tomediate. It met at Chicago and called' thepeople: together, the representatives of bothsides, to a hearing.

The- purpose of mediation is to bring theparties to agreement, and to do this beforethe dispute becomes a strike. When you donot have a permanent organization that isthoroughly grounded in the prinrciples andmethods, you cannot expect to get these re-sults by mediation.

Dr. Leiserson concluded this line ofargument in the following words-frompage 146 of hearings on S. 1661:

But every time a real problem comes up,we have to set up a defense mediation board,a war- labor board, special panels, and now'-fact-finding boards. We always have to lookfor new boards-to handle the problems. Thegreat need is for a permanent Federal media-tion and conciliation board.

The substitute bill reported by the Edu-cation and: Labor. Committee. providesjust-such a board. This bill provides-fara Federal: Mediation Board in the Depart-ment of Labor for the purpose of. makingavailable to both management and labor"full and adequate facilitiet for concilia-tion and mediation and- voluntary arbi-tration. of disputes.;"

But there are Members of the Senatewho will ask whether we will have morepeace through a mediation board havingno authority and no compulsion ratherthan through a law with teeth in it. Letme quote from Dr. Leisetson's reply tothat question, which. may be found onpage 151 of the Senate hearings, on S.1661:

But now * am sayingthat by amediation organization having no authorityand no compulsion, we are going to havemore peace than by a law with teeth in it?

My answer to tliat is "Yes." The labor re-lations problem is just a human problem, Justlike domestic relations. Family disputesarise because- people who live and work. to-gether have differences and get into quar-rels about them. They cannot be made: towork together happily. by legal compulsionsand penalties.

The ssme thing happens with labor' rela-tions. bhe- Labor Relations Act- joins laborand. management in a vow to bargain col-lectively. Then it leaves them, as if theyare going to live happily thereafter. Thatis all right. But when they get to the pointof fighting, the Government can help betteras a friend than as a policeman. We needa labor relations. set-up, not to pass judg-ment on whether one party is right or theother is wrong in its demands or in the posi-tion it is taking on wages and working rules.We do- not have- standards on those things.They are both right and they are both wrong.And that is. why we can make more progressand get better results and more peace by ex-ercising less and less authority, but giving

·more and more organized friendly aid in deal-Ing with the problems.

The majority of the committee agreedon this point with Dr. Leiserson andother witnesses, including the HonorableWilliam H. Davis, former Chairman ofthe War Labor Board, who testifiedalong the same lines. The majority ofthe committee felt that the primary re-sponsibility of the Congress in enactingfurther legislation dealing directly withlabor disputes was to establish a FederalMediation Board under which the Con-ciliation Service would operate.

Let us recall that back in 1941, onlyshortly before Pearl. Harbor, the dis-tinguished- Senator from New York, theauthor of the National Labor-RelationsAct, offered a similar bill. He pointedout at. that time that the Federal Gov-ernment's obligation with. respect tolabor relations could' not end with thelegislation protecting the right to organ-ize. and. the right to bargain collectively.He pointed out that the Government alsohas the- responsibility to make availablemodern, streamlined facilities for media-tion_ and. for voluntary arbitration ofdifferences between management andlabor.

Unfortunately, the mediation bill ofthe distinguished Senator from NewYork was not acted upon at that time.If it had been on the statute books duringthe last year; I am convinced that ourGovernment's role in handling labor dis-putes during recent months would havebeen much more effective. r am notsaying that a labor mediation- law wouldhave been a panacea, fbr a- mediationlaw' can deal with only one of the manycauses of labor disputes and strikes. Buta mediation law on the- statute bookstoday would be of great help. A media-tion law on' the statute books during themonths to come will be a great aid inthe- settlement of disputes and preven-tion of strikes.

Mr. President, Why'is if that the Con-gress. has not yet' enacted a law settingup a Federal mediation board?

Is it because there is any lack of agree-ment on the need.for a Federal mediationboard and an improved conciliation serv-ice? Not at all. The labor-manage-ment conference called by President Tru-man last year was unanimous intagreeingupon this point. In fact, this was one ofthe very few matters upon which therepresentatives at the labor-manage-ment corference. could agree.

Mr. President, a statesmanlike ap-proach. to. all- thse problems would beto have a thorough and objective exam-ination of the causes of the disputes be-tween labor and management, as has al-ready been recommended to the Senatein Senate Resolution. 228.

I'should like to point out that the studycalled. for in. this resolution, which re-ceived, the unanimous approval of theEducation and Labor Committee, in-cludes "union and employer policiesand. practices." It also includes, "theeconomic and other factors and govern-mental policies" affecting disputes be-tween labor and management.

It would have been a great help: to ustoday if such a study and investigationhad been authorized by the Senate manymonths ago. But the fact that it has notyet been initiated- is no reason to delayit. It is my hope that favorable and- ex-

1946 5733

5734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

peditious action will be taken upon Sen-ate Resolution 228.

Mr. President, there are two coursesahead of the American people.

One course is the road to an expandingeconomy of full employment and fullproduction so eloquently portrayed bythe able Senator from Wyoming a fewdays ago. If we take this course, it meanslegislation dealing with the many factorsthat affect disputes between labor andmanagement. It means affirmative ac-tion with respect to price control, mo-nopoly, taxation, health, housing, socialsecurity, mediation machinery, and re-lated matters.

It means translating into reality thepromise which Congress made to theAmerican people in the Employment Actof 1946. This is the road to labor peaceand harmony.

But there is another course that liesahead of us. That is-the road of boomand bust, of feast and famine. That isthe road that seems to be preferred bythose who advocate a floating pool of un-employed in order to keep labor in itsplace. This is the road down which otlrcountry would travel if we followed thelead of the speculators, monopolists, andprofiteers.

In time of boom there is always a smallminority who can reap fabulous profits.In time of depression there are alwaysa number of large corporations who cantake this opportunity to push theirsmaller competitors to the wall. Mo-nopoly has learned to insulate itself fromthe ups and downs in business conditions.It has learned to ride the business cycle.

Let me quote in this connection froman article entitled, "We Need Those De-pressions," written by Mr. Ralph B.Blodgett, head of an advertising agencyin Des Moines, Iowa:

It is to be hoped that depressions are neverabolished, for they have many desirable fea-tures. Those who learn to ride the buSinesScycle can find as many advantages in de-pressions as in booms--personal as well asbusiness advantages. Smart folks take ad-vantage of the boom * * * they are thenready Tor depression-time bargains, bargainsin every conceivable thing from a suit ofclothes to a railroad.

To those who look forward with gleeto the prospect of boom-time profits anddepression bargains, legislation to impairor destroy the rights of labor appearsboth desirable and necessary.

Mr. President, there is no doubt in mymind that the overwhelming majority ofthe American people prefer the firstcourse-the road to full employment andfull production, the road toward the en-largement and expansion of our social-security program.

Unfortunately, the ordinary people ofAmerica, as well as Members of Con-gress, are engulfed in a wave of unscru-pulous propaganda. The opponents offull employment and full production useevery conceivable psychological trick.intheir attempt to confuse the public.

I only wish those who talk so volublyabout free enterprise, would devote alittle more of their own enterprise tohelping make our free-enterprise systemreally free and work more effectively.

Mr. President, if we are to make ourfree enterprise system operate success-

fully, we must decisively and courageouslychoose the road to full employment andfull production-the road toward the en-largement and expansion of our economyto meet the-_remands of our country inthe period ahead.

We must not only preserve the rightsof labor but we must take affirmative ac-tion on a comprehensive program dealingwith price control, monopoly, taxation,health, housing, social security, and pro-viding protection and encouragement forsmall business enterprise.

Only a program of this type will giveus an economy which, through the peace-ful cooperation of labor and capital, willwe be able to achieve a standard of liv-ing and a way of life that will meet theneeds of a free people.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, will theSenator from Montana yield?

Mr. MURRAY. I yield.Mr. WILSON. I wish to offer an

amendment to the so-called Lucas andCapehart amendments, and ask that itbe considered read, printed in the REC-ORD, and to lie upon the table.

There being no objection, the amend-ment intended to be proposed by Mr.WILSON, in the nature of a substitutefor the Lucas and Capehart amendmentto House bill 4908, was ordered to lie onthe table, to be printed, and to be printedin the RECORD, as follows:

Amendment Intended to be proposed inthe nature of a substitute for the Lucas andCapehart amendment to H. R. 4908 to provideadditional facilities for the mediation of la-bor disputes and for other purposes, viz:At the end of the bill insert the following:

"SEC. -. That with the development ofan industrial civilization, citizens of theUnited States have become so ependentupon the production of goods for commerce,the distribution of goods in commerce, andthe continuous operation of the instrumen-talities of commerce that substantial andcontinued stoppages of such production, dis-tribution, or operation in the case of essen-tial goods or services seriously impair thepublic health, safety, and security. Irre-spective of the cause'of such stoppages, it isnecessary for the protection of commerceand the national economy, for the preserva-tion of life and health, and for the main-tenance of the stability of Government thata means be provided for supplying ewen-tial goods and services when such stoppagesoccur.

"SEC. -. (a) Whenever the President findsthat a stoppage of work or threatened stop-page of work arising out of a labor dispute(including the expiration of a collective laboragreement) affecting commerce has resultedin or may result in interruptions to the sup-ply of goods or services essential to the pub-lic health, safety,. or security to such anextent as seriously to impair the publicinterest, he shall issue a proclamation tothat effect, calling upon the parties to suchdispute to continue or resume work andoperations in the public interest.

"(b) If the partiesg to such dispute do notcontinue or resume work and operationsafter the issuance of such proclamation, thePresident shall take possession of and oper-ate any properties of any business enterprisewhere such stoppage of work has occurredif the President determines that it is neces-President shall take possession of and oper-ate such properties in order to provide goodsor services essential to the public health,safety, or security: Provided, That while suchproperties are operated by the United States,and the employees refuse to continue orresume work, then and in that event suchproperties shall be operated as open shops.

MAY 24

Provided further, That during the periodsuch properties are operated by the Unite'dStates no employee shall, as a condition ofemploymbnt, be required, compelled, or so-licited to join any labor organization.

"(c) Any properties of which possessionhas been taken under this section shall bereturned to the owners thereof as soon as(1) the rate of production equals the rate ofproduction achieved during the 60 days im-mediately prior to the work stoppage re-sulting in the seizure; or (2) such ownersand employees have reached an agreementsettling the issues in dispute between them;or (3) the President finds that the continuedpossession and operation of such propertiesby the United States is not necessary to pro-vide goods or services essential to the publichealth, safety, or security. The owners ofany' properties of which possession is takenunder this section shall be entitled to receiveJust compensation for the use of such prop-erties by the United States: Provided, Thatupon the return of any properties seized bythe United States to the owners thereof, theUnited States or any agency thereunder shallimpose no conditions relative to rates of pay,seniority rights, collective bargaining rights,nor shall any increase of pay or benefits beprovided for: Provided further, That for 6months after the date when any such seizedproperties are returned to the owners there-of, the National Labor Relations Board shallconduct no representation election amongthe employees of such properties for the pur-pose of determining the majority status ofany labor organization.

"(d) Whenever any properties are in thepossession of the United States, it shall bethe duty of any labor organization of whichany employees who have been employed inthe operation of such properties are mem-bers, and of the officers of such labor organ-ization representing them, in good faith toinduce such employees to return to work andnot to engage in any strike, slow-down, orother refusal to work or stoppage of workwhile such properties are in the possessionof the United States. Any such employeewho fails to return to work or to remain atwork or who engages in any strike, slow-down,or-other concerted refusal to work or stoppageof work while such properties are in the pos-session of the United States, shall be deemedto have voluntarily terminated his employ-ment in the operation of such properties,shall not be regarded as an employee of theowners or operators of such properties for thepurposes of .the National Labor RelationsAct, as amended, unless he is subsequentlyreemployed by such owners or operators, andif he is so reemployed shall not be entitled toany seniority rights based on his prior em-ployment. Any provision of any contract in-consistent with the provisions of this sub-section is hereby declared to be againstpublic policy and to be null and void.

"(e) Whenever any properties are in thepossession of the United States under thissection, it shall be unlawful for any person(1) to coerce, instigate, induce, conspire with,or encourage any person to interfere with orprevent, by lock-out, strike, slow-down, con-certed refusal to work, or other interruptign,the operation of such properties, or (2) to aidany such lock-out, strike, slow-down, refusal,or other interruption interfering with theoperation of such properties by giving direc-tion or guidance in the conduct of such in-terruption or by providing funds for the con-duct or direction thereof or for the paymentof any strike, unemployment or other bene-fits to those participating therein or byrequiring or compelling any employee to Joinany labor organization as a condition of em-ployment. Any individual who willfully vio-lates any provision of this subsection shall besubject to a fine of not more than $5,000, orto imprisonment for not more than 1 year,or both.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE"(f) The powers conferred on the President

by this section may be exercised by himthrough such department or agency of theGovernment as he may designate.

"(g) As used in this section, the terms'employee,' 'representative,r 'labor orgapiza-tion,' 'commerce,' 'affecting commerce,' and'labor dispute' shall have the same meaningas in section 2 of the National Labor Rela-tions Act, as amended."

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, inview of the situation which exists in theSenate and in the country, it seems to methat we ought to seek to bring about anearly termination of the considerationof the pending legislation. Therefore,looking to that end, and in the hope thatit may be agreed to, I ask unanimousconsent that during the further consid-eration of the pending legislation noSenators shall speak more than once orlonger than 30 minutes on the bill or anyamendment thereto.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Is there objection to the unani-mous consent request of the Senatorfrom Kentucky?

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, reservingthe right to object, I take it the requestis subject to the cloture proceeding underrule XXII.

Mr. BARKLEY. It is subject, ofcourse, to that procedure. The cloturepetition can be withdrawn only by unan-imous consent. But if my request shouldbe agreed to it would afford time equiva-lent to-the length of time each Senatorcould have if cloture were adopted inde-pendently of any agreement.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,will the Senator yield?

Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.Mr. REVERCOMB. Am I to under-

stand the request to contemplate 30 min-utes on the bill and 30 minutes on eachamendment?

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes. As a matter offact, that would give each Senator moretime than he would have under thecloture rule.

Mr. BALL rose.Mr. BARKLEY. I yield to the Sena-

tor from Minnesota.Mr. BALL. That was the question

which I was about to ask. A Senatorcould also speak more than once.

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes, on differentamendments.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.Mr. PEPPER. As I understand, the

request is that we enter into a unani-mous consent agreement for limitationof time to 30 minutes on the bill and 30minutes on each amendment, and topostpone the cloture vote.

Mr. 0ARKLEY. That is not incorpo-rated in my request. If this request isagreed to, I shall follow it with a unani-mous consent request that the vote oncloture, if it is to be had, be postponeduntil after the President has deliveredhis message tomorrow.

Mr. PEPPER. I understood that thetwo requests were to be connected.

Mr. BARKLEY. They are not con-nected.*

Mr. PEPPER. One is to follow theother?

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes.

Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv-ing the right to object, I did not hear thelast part of the explanation given by theSenator from Kentucky.

Mr. BARKLEY. My request is for alimitation, that no Senator shall speakmore than once or longer than 30 min-utes on the bill or any amendment.That, of course, means each amendment.That. is all the request that I made. Iwas asked whether there was connectedwith that the request that the vote orncloture under the petition now on file

.be postponed. I replied that there wasno connection. I had not included thatsubject in my request.

Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.Mr. CORDON. Am ' correct in the un-

derstanding that if the agreement is hadto the unanimous consent request, andthereafter, by unanimous consent, thecloture petition is withdrawn-

Mr. BARKLEY. It is not included.That is an entirely separate matter.

Mr. CORDON. I am assuming thatit will be withdrawn afterward.

Mr. BARKLEY. Frankly, I hope thatif we enter into this agreement the peti-tion for cloture will be withdrawn, be-cause it would be unnecessary. But Idid not couple the two, and I have noright to do so. The authors of the clo-ture petition, or any one of them, wouldhave the right to ask that the petitionbe withdrawn, but I myself would notassume that right.

Mr. CORDON. I fully understand themajority leader's position, but I am pre-senting a hypothetical situation, on theassumption that we shall have the unan-imous consent limitation now requested,and that thereafter the cloture petitionwill be withdrawn.

Mr. BARKLEY. That is somethingwhich I cannot predict. I hope that willbe true, but I am not connecting the twoproposals.

Mr. CORDON. Would the Senatorconsider my inquiry on the basis of thatassumption?

Mr. BARKLEY. If that does happen,it will infinitely simplify matters, in' myjudgment.

Mr. CORDON. Would not this situa-tion be possible: While we would have alimitation on the right of each Senatorto speak for half an hour on the bill andhalf an hour on each amendment, therewould be no limitation on the number ofamendments which might thereafter beoffered.

Mr. BARKLEY. That is true. Therewould be no limitation on the number ofamendments which might be offered untilthe final conclusion of the legislation. Imay say in that connection that underthe rule, prior to a vote on cloture, asmany amendments can be offered, print-ed, and lie on the table as any Senatorwishes to offer during the further con-sideration of the bill.

Mr. CORDON. I understand.Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield?AMr. BARKLEY. I yield.Mr. TAFT. If amendments were

offered purely for dilatory purposes, mo-tions to lay on the table would cut off

debate, In spite of the unanimous-con-sent agreement.

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes. I think I oughtto state that under the rule, even thoughamendments are offered prior to the voteon cloture, if cloture should be adopted,under the rule all amendments must begermane to the legislation under consid-eration.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Is there objection to the unani-mous-consent request?

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will theSenator yield?

Mr. BARKLEY. I yield to the Senatorfrom Montana.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President-Mt. BARKLEY. I am yielding to the,

Senator from Montana. Later I shallbe glad to yield to the Senator fromOregon.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, so faras I am concerned, and so far as thoseon the side of the controversy on whichI have been speaking are concerned, weare entirely agreeable to the request.It seems to me that it would allow plentyof time for full and complete debate. Ido not anticipate any dilatory amend-ments from this side.

Mr. BARKLEY. I am sure that theSenator from Montana speakes in theutmost good faith in that regard, andI thank him for his suggestion.

The ACTING PRESIIENT pro tem-pore. Is there abjection to the requestof the Senator from Kentucky?

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, reserv-ing the right to object, although ordi-

'narily I believe that debate in the Senateshould be limited only by way of cloture,I feel that in this critical hour we shouldproceed to close this debate as quicklyas possible so'that we may be in a posi-tion to take whatever steps are neces-sary to support t:i hand of the Presi-dent in meeting the cisis which confrontsthe Nation. Therefore I shall not object,as would ordinarily be my custom.

The ACTING PRESIDENT. pro tem-pore. Is there objection to the requestof the Senator from Kentucky? TheChair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, Iappreciate the willingness of the Senateto eater into this agreement. Of course,the cloture petition is still pending, andI have no purpose at this time to ask thatit be withdrawn. I hope it will be with-drawn. But if it is not withdrawn, inorder that we may nt be compelled tovote upon it until after the President hasdelivered his speech to the joint sessiontomorrow at 4 o'clock, and in order thatwe may in the meantime determinewhether it is advisable, feasible, practi-cable, or wise to attempt to incorporatein the pending legislation whatever rec-ommendation the President may make,or Pursue an independent course by theintroduction of what his recommenda-tion may be separately and apart, I askunanimous consent that the vote on thecloture petition be postponed until 5o'clock p. m. tomorrow.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Let the Chair suggest to the ma-jority leader that it would probably beadvisable to ask that the vote on thecloture petition be postponed for a full

1946 5735

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATElegislative day, or until 1 o'clock on Mon-day, so as to give ample time to deter-mine what course the leadership wouldlike to pursue.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, asone who presented the cloture petitionon behalf of a group of Senators, I shouldhave no objection to the request of themajority leader that the vote on cloturego over until 5 o'clock tomorrow after-noon. If, at that time, it were deemedadvisable, unanimous consent could thenbe asked to have it go over until Monday.But I would have to object were the re-quest made at this time to have it goover until Monday.

Mr. BARKLEY. I presume that Mem-bers of the Senate who have sponsoredthe cloture petition desire to considerwhether, in view of the unanimous con-sent agreement we have entered into,they will withdraw the petition. Theymight be in a position to determine thatby 5 o'clock tomorrow. If that were done,it would obviate any vote on the cloturepetition, and greatly simplify the matter.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Is there objection to the unan--imous consent request submitted by theSenator from Kentucky? The Chairhears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I atkunanimous consent to submit a modifiedamendment intended to be proposed byme to House bill H. R. 4908 to provideadditional facilities for the mediation oflabor disputes, and for other purposes,and request that it lie on the table, beprinted, and be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the amend-ment was received, ordered to lie on thetable, to be printed, and to be printedin the RECORD, as follows:

Amendment intended to be proposed by-Mr. LUCAS to the bill (H, R. 4908) to provideadidtional facilities for the mediation oflabor disputes, and for other purposes, viz:At the proper place in the bill insert thefollowing:

"SEC. -. With the development of an in-dustrial civilization, citizens of the UnitedStates have become so dependent upon theproduction of goods for commerce, the dis-tribution of goods in commerce, and thecontinuous operation of the instrumental-ities of commerce that substantial and con-tinued stoppages of such productions dis-tribution, or operation in the case of essen-tial gocds or services seriously impair thepublic health and security. Irrespective ofthe cause of such stoppages, it is necessaryfor the protection of commerce and the na-tional economy, for the preservation of lifeand health, and for the maintenance of thestability of Government that a means be

provided for supplying essential goods andservices when such stoppages occur.

"SEC. -. (a) Whenever the President findsthat a stoppage of work arising out of a labordispute (including the expiration of a col-lective labor agreement) affecting commercehas resulted in interruptions to the supply

of goods or services essential to the publichealth or security to such an extent as ser-iously to impair the public interest, he shallissue a proclamation to that effect, callingupon the parties to such dispute to resumework and operations in the public interest.

"(b) If the parties to SUCh dispute do notresume work and operations after the issu-ance of such proclamation, the Presidentshall take possession of and operate anyproperties of any business enterprise wheresuch stoppage of work has resulted In thefinding provided for in subsection (a). While

such properties are operated by the UnitedStates, they shall be operated under the termsand conditions of employment which pre-vailed therein when the stoppage of workbegan, except that if any changes in termsand conditions of employment, which con-tributed to the dispute, or which are at is-sue in the dispute, were put into effect priorto the time the work stoppage began, suchproperties shall be operated as if such changeshad not been made.

"(c) Any properties of which possessionhas been taken under this section shall bereturned to the owners thereof as soon as (1)such owners have reached an agreement withthe representatives of the employees in such.enterprise settling the issues in dispute be-tween them or (2) the President finds thatthe continued possession and operation ofsuch properties by the United States is notnecessary to provide goods or services essen-tial to the public health or security. Theowners of any properties of which possessionis taken under this section shall be entitledto receive just compensation for the use ofsuch properties by the United States. In fix-ing such just compensation, due considera-tion shall be given to the fact that the UnitedStates took possession of such propertieswhen their operations had been interruptedby a work stoppage, and to the value thd useof such properties would have had to theirowners during the period they were in thepossession of the Unitea States in the lightof the labor dispute prevailing. It is herebydeclared to be the policy of the Congress thatneither employers nor employees profit by theoperation of any business enterprise by theUnited States under this section and, to thatend, if any net profit accrues by reason ofsuch operation after all the ordinary andnecessary business expenses and payment ofjust compensation, such net profit shall becovered into the Treasury of the UnitedStates as miscellaneous receipts.

"(d) In any case in which the owners ofany properties of which possession is takenunder this section are dissatisfied with thecompensation fixed by the President, or bysuch agency as he may designate, said own-ers may file a petition in the Court of Claimsof the United States (which court shall haveexclusive Jurisdiction to hear, determine, andrender judgment in all such cases) for justcompensation for the use of such propertiesby the United States. Final judgments inthe Court of Claims in cases under this sec-tion shall be subject to review by certifica-tion or certiorari in the same manner andto the same extent as provided in section 3(b) of the act entitled "An act to amend theJudicial Code, and to further define the Jur-isdiction of the circuit courts of appeals andof the Supreme Court, and for other pur-poses," approved February 13, 1925 (43 Stat.939; U. S. Code, title 28, sec. 288), as amended.In all cases of final judgments by the Courtof Claims under this subsection or, on re-view by the Supreme Court, where the sameare affirmed in favor of the claimant, thesunm due thereby shall be paid first out ofsany net profits accruing by reason of opera<-tion of the properties by the United Statesand second, If the compensation finallyawarded hereunder shall exceed such netprofits, out of any general appropriationmade by law for the payment and satisfactionof private claims, on presentation to theGeneral Accounting Office of a copy of said

Judgment, certified by the clerk of the Courtof Claims, and signed by the chief justice,or, in his absence, by the presiding judge ofsaid court.

"(e) Whenever any properties are in thepossession of the United States under thissection, it shall be the duty of any labor or-ganization of which any employees who havebeen employed in the operation of such prop-erties are members, and of the officers andagents of such labor organization, to seekin good faith to induce such eniployees to

return to work and not to engage in anystrike, slow-down, or other concerted refusalto work or stoppage of work while suchproperties are in the possession of the UnitedStates. Any such employee who fails to re-turn to work within a reasonable time afterpossession of such properties has been takenby the United States or who does engage inany strike, slow-down, or other concerted re-fusal to work or stoppage of work while suchproperties are in the possession of the UnitedStates, shall be deemed to have voluntarilyterminated his employment in the operationof such properties, and shall not be regardedas an employee of the owners or operatorsof such properties for the purposes of theNational Labor Relations Act, as amended, orthe Railway Labor Act, as amended: Provided,That such loss of employee status for pur-poses of such acts, as amended, shall term-inate if and when he is reemployed by suchowner or operator, but if he is so reem-ployed, such employee shall not be entitledto any seniority rights based on his prioremployment. Any provision of any contractinconsistent With the provisions of this sub-section is hereby declared to be against pub-lic policy and to be null and void. -

"(f) Whenever any properties are in thepossession ef the United States under thissection it shall be unlawful for any person(1) to coerce, Instigate, induce, conspire with,or encourage any person to interfere with orprevent, by lock-out, strike, slow-down, con-certed refusal to work, or other interruption.the operation of such properties, or (2) to aidany such lock-out, strike, slow-down, refusal,or other interruption interfering with theoperation of such properties by giving direc-tion or guidance in the conduct of such inter-ruption or by providing funds for theconductor direction thereof or for the payment ofany strike, unemployment, or other benefitsto those participating therein. No individualshall be deemed to have violated the provi-sions of this subsection by reason only ofhis having ceased work or having refused tocontinue to work or to accept employment.Any individual who willfully violates any pro-vision of this subsection shall be subject to afine of not more than $5,000, or to imprison-ment for not more than 1 year, or bth.

"(g) The powers conferred on the Presi-dent by this section may be exercised by himthrough such department or agency of theGovernment as he may designate.

"(h) Except as to offenses committed priorto July 1, 1948, all provisions of this sectionand the authority to operate any propertiesas provided herein shall terminate on suchdate.

"(i) Any properties which are in the pos-session of the United States on the date ofenactment of this act, and of which posses-sion was taken by the United States on ac-count of a labor dispute or other interrup-tion or threat of interruption In productionor services, shall, for the purposes of thissection, be deemed to have been taken pos-session of by the United States under thissection on the date of enactment of this act.

"(j) Notwithstanding any other provisionof this act or any other law, no matter shallbe exempt from the provisions of this sectionbecause it is subject to the provisions of theRailway Labor Act, as amended."

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent for the considerationof the order which I send to the desk.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The proposed order will be readfor the information of the Senate.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:I ask unanimous consent that all amend-

ments intended to be proposed to the pend-ing bill, H. R. 4908, which have heretoforebeen ordered to lie on the table, togetherwith those that may be offered for printingprior to the cloture vote, may be printed in

5736 MAY 24

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEthe RECORD and thereby deemed-to be a com-pliance with the rule as to their reading.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Is there objection to the unani-mous consent request submitted by theSenator from Kentucky? The Chairhears none, and it is so ordered.

Under the foregoing agreement, thefollowing amendments were ordered tobe printed in the RECORD:

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. BYRD to the bill (H. R. 4908) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation oflabor dispute, and for other purposes, viz:At the end of the bill insert the following:

"REEISTRATION

"SEC. -. (a) Within 6 months after thedate of enactment of this act and annuallythereafter every labor organization havingas members one or more employees of per-sons engaged in commerce shall register itsidentity with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and shall state under oath thefollowing information and such other in-formatidn as the Commission may by regu-lations require: The name of the labor or-ganization; the address at which it has itsprincipal office; the names and titles of theofficers and their annual compensation; thecompany or companies with which the' labororganization deals, if a local organization;the industry or industries in which the labororganization operates, if a national organi-zation; initiation fees; annual dues chargedto each member; assessments levied duringthe past 12 months' period; limitations onmembership; number of paid-up members;date of the last election of officers; themethod of election; the vote for and againsteach candidate for office; and the date of thdlast detailed financial statement furnishedall members and the method of publicationor circulation of such statement. With suchinformation shall be filed under oath, in ac-cordance with such rules and regulations asthe Commission may prescribe, detailed andintelligible financial statements and a copyof the articles of incorporation and bylawsof the labor organization.

"(b) Every labor organization incorporatedafter the date of enactment of this act hav-ing as members one or more employees ofpersons engaged in commerce shall, whenincorporated and annually thereafter, reg-ister with the Commission and furnish theinformation required of existing labor or-ganizations under the provisions of thissection.

"INCORPORATION

"SEC. -. Every labor organization havingas members one or more employees of personsengaged in commerce shall, prior to its initialregistration with the Securities and ExchangeCommission as provided in this act, take outarticles of incorporation under the laws ofthe District of Columbia, except that, if per-mitted by the laws of the State in which alabor organization has its principal place ofbusinest, such articles of incorporation maybe taken out under the laws of such State.Each such labor organization when incor--porated shall have the capacity to act pos-sessed by a naturalperson, shall be liable forthe acts of its officers, members, or agents, tothe same extent and in the same manner asordinary business corporations, and shallhave the power-

"(a) to continue as a corporation for thetime specified in its articles;

"(b) to have a corporate seal and thepower to alter it;

"(c) to sue and be sued in its corporatenamre;

"(d) to make bylaws for the governmentand regulation of its affairs;

"(e) to acquire, own, hold, sell, lease,pledge, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of anyproperty incident to its purposes and ac-tivities;

"(f) to conduct its affairs within or with-out the District of Columbia;

"(g) to exercise any power granted to ordi-nary business corporations consistent withits purposes and activities;

"(h) to exercise all powers not inconsist-ent with this joint resolution which may benrecessary, convenient, or expedient for theaccomplishment of its lawful purposes and,to that end, the foregoing · enumeration ofpowers shall not be deemed exclusive.

"PENALTIES

"SEC. -. (a) No labor organization havingas members one or more employees of per-sons engaged in commerce and no memberthereof shall be entitled to any rights, privi-leges, or benefits under the National LaborRelations Act unless and until such organi-zation complies with the provisions ofthis act.

"(b) In the event any such labor organi-zation is held by the final decision of acourt of competent jurisdiction to havebreached its employment contract with anyemployer or to have unlawfully damaged ordestroyed the property of any employer, suchorganization shall not be recognized as alabor organization, or a representative of em-ployees, under the National Labor RelationsAct insofar as any matter relating to em-ployees of such employer is concerned.

"DEFINITIONS

"SEc. --. When used in this act the terms'person,' 'employer,' 'employee,' 'representa-tive,' 'labor organization,' and 'commerce'shall have the same meaning as is given tothose terms by section 2 of the National La-bor Relations Act. In addition, the term'labor organization' shall include nationaland international organizations having asmembers. labor organizations as defined insaid section 2."

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. EASTLAND (for himself and Mr. BYRD) tothe bill (H. R. 4908) to provide additionalfacilities for the mediation of labor disputes,and for other purposes, viz: On page 26, be-ginning with line 19, strike out down to andincluding line 8, on page 27, and in lieu there-of insert the following:

INTERFERENCE WVTH TRADE AND COMMIERCE

"SEC. 6. The act entitled 'An act to pro-tect trade and commerce against interferenceby violence, threats, coercion, or intimida-tion,' approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 979;U. S. C., 1940 ed., title 18, secs. 420a-420e),is amended to read as follows:

"'TITLE I

"'SEC, 1. As used in this title-"'(a) The term "commerce" means (1)

commerce between any point in a State, Ter-ritory, or the District of Columbia and anypoint outside thereof, or between points'with-in the same State, Territory, or the Districtof Columbia but through any place outsidethereof, and (2) commerce within the Dis-trict of Columbia or any Territory, .and (3)all other commerce over which the UnitedStates has jurisdiction; and the term "Ter-ritory" means any Territory or possession ofthe United States.

"'(b) The term "robbery" means the un-lawful taking or obtaining of personal prop-erty, from the person or in the presence ofanother, against his win, by means of actualor threatened force, or violence, or fear ofinjury, immediate or future, to his personor property, or property in his custody orpossession, or the person or property of a rel-ative or member of his family or of anyonein his company at the time of the taking orobtaining.. "'(c) The term "extortion" means the ob-

taining of property from another, with hisconsent, induced by wrongful Use'of actualor threatened force, violence, or fear, -orunder color of official right.

"'SEC. 2. Whoever in any way or degreeobstructs, delays, or affects commerce, or the

movement of any article or commodity incommerce, by robbery or extortion, shall beguilty of a felony.

"'SEC. 3. Whoever conspires with anotheror with others, or acts in concert with an-other or with others to do anything in viola-tion of section 2 shall be guilty of a felony.

"'SEC. 4. Whoever attempts or participatesin an attempt to do anything in violation ofsection 2 shall be guilty of a felony.

"'SEC. 5. Whoever commits or threatensphysical violence to any person or property infurtherance of a plan or purpose to do any-thing in violation of section 2 shall be guiltyof a felony.

"'SEC. 6. Whoever violates any section ofthis 'title shall, upon conviction thereof, bepunished by imprisonment for not more than20 years or by a fine of not more than $10,000,or both.

"'TTrLE n

"' Nothing in this act shall be construedto repeal, modify, or affect either section 6 orsection 20 of an act entitled "An act to sup-plement existing laws against unlawful re-straints and monopolies, and for other pur-poses," approved October 15, 1914, or an actentitled "An act to amend the judicial codeand to define and limit .the jurisdiction of thecourts in equity, and for other purposes,"approved March 23, 1932, or an act entitled,"An act to provide for the prompt dispositionof disputes between carriers and their em-ployees, and for other purposes," approvedMay 20, 1926, as amended, or an act entitled"An act to diminish the causes of labor dis-putes burdening or obstructing interstate orforeign commerce, to create a National LaborRelations Board, and for other purposes,"approved July 5, 1935.'"

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. ELLENDER (for himself, Mr. BYRD, Mr.HATCH, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. BALL, Mr. TAFT, Mr.HAWKES, and Mr. FERGUSON) to the bill (H.R. 4908) to provide additional facilities forthe mediation of labor disputes, and for otherpurposes, viz: At the proper place in the billinsert the following:

"SEC. . (a) Section 2 (3) of the NationalLabor Relations Act is amended by insert-ing before the period at the end thereof acomma and the following: "or any individualemployed as a supervisor!".

"(b) Section 2 of such act is furtheramended by inserting at the end thereof thefollowing:

"'(12) The term "supervisor" means any in-dividual having authority, in the interest ofthe employer-

" '(a) to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, re-call, promote, demote, discharge, assign, re-ward, or discipline any employees of the em-ployer, or to adjust their grievances, or toeffectively recommend any such action; or

"''(b) to determine, or make effective rec-ommendations with respect to, the amountof wages earned by any employees, or toapply, or make effective recommendationswith respect to the application of, the factorsupon the basis of which the wages of anyemployees are determined, if in conrnectionwith the foregoing the exercise of such au-thority is not of a -merely routine or clericalnature, but requires the use of independentjudgment;but such term shall not include any indi-vidual in an occupation of a character whichUnder prevailing custom prior to July 1, 1935,was covered by collective-bargaining agree-ments.'

"(c) Nothing herein shall prohibit a super-visory employee from becoming or remain-ing a member of a labor organization."

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. ELLENDEn to the bill (H. R. 4908) to pro-vide additional facilities for the mediation oflabor disputes, and for other purposes, viz: Atthe proper place in the bill insert the fol-lowing:

1946 573'7

5738 CON"SEC.-. (a) When a labor dispute in an

industry affecting commerce is not settled oradjusted under the foregoing provisions ofthis act and if a public utility whose ratesare fixed by some governmental agency is aparty to such dispute, the Board shall de-termine whether the dispute threatens toresult in such a substantial interruption ofcommerce as to make it necessary or desir-able in the public interest to request thePresident to create an emergency commis-sion. If the Board determines that an emer-gency commission is necessary or desirable,the BQard shall thereupon request the Presi-dent to create and appoint an emergencycommission to investigate and report re-specting such dispute. Such commissionshall be composed of such number of personsas may seem desirable to the President. Nocommissioner appointed shall be pecuniarilyor otherwise privately or prejudicially inter-ested in the employees or employers con-cerned in the dispute. The compensation ofsuch commissioners shall be fixed by thePresident at an amount not exceeding $100per day. Such emergency commissions shallbe created separately for each dispute orgroup of disputes in the same industry pre-senting similar issues and pending at thesame time. The commission shall investi-gate promptly the facts as to the dispute andmake a report thereon to the President withits recommendations as to the manner inwhich such dispute should be, adjusted. Thecommlssion's recommendations shall be con-fined to wages, hours, and working condi-tions, but it may describe in its report otherissues, not involving wages, hours, and work-ing conditions, which may be in dispute.The commission's report shall be madewithin 30 days from the date the commissionis created, except that with the approvalof all parties to a dispute, the time forrmaking its report may be extended by thePresident for an additional 30 days. The re-port of the commission shall be made publicpromptly by the President.

"(b) The Board shall provide for any com-mission appointed under this section suchstenographic, clerical, and other .assistanceand such facilities, services, and supplies asmay be necessary to enable the commissionto perform its functions. When a com-mission appointed under this section hasmade its report, the commission shall be dis-solved and its records shall be transferred tothe Board:"

Amendment Intended to be proposed byMr. ELLENDER to the bill (H. R. 4908) to pro-vide additional facilities for the mediatienof labor disputes, and for other purposes.,viz: At the proper place in the bill insertthe following:

"SEC. -. (a) Section 2 (3) of the NationalLabor Relations Act is amended by insertingbefore the period at the end thereof a com-ma and the following: 'or any individualemployed as a supervisor.'

"(b) Section 2 of such act is furtheramended by inserting at the end thereof thefollowing:

"'(12) The term "supervisor" means anyindividual having authority, in the interestcf the employer-

"'(a) to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,recall, promote, demote, discharge, assign,reward, or discipline any employees of theemployer, or to adjust their grievances, oreffectively to recommend any such action; or

"'(b) to determine, or make effective rec-ommendations with respect to, the amountof wages earned by any employees, or to ap-ply, or make effective recommendations withrespect to the application of, the factorsupon the basis of which the wages of anyemployees are determined, if in connectionwith the foregoing the exercise of such au-thority is not of a merely routine or clericalnature, Lut requires the use of independentjudgment;

GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENbut such term shall not include any indi-vidual in an occupation of a character whichunder prevailing custom prior to July 1, 1935,was covered by collective-bargaining agree-ments.'

"Section 9 of the National Labor Relations* Act is hereby amended by the addition of

the following subsection:"(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of

this section and the two preceding sections(that is, secs. 7 and 8) the Board shall notcertify as the representative of any super-visor any labor organization other than (1)one which adnits to membership only super-visory employees, and (2) is not affiliatedthrough charter, agreement, understanding,or in any other manner whatsoever with anylabor organization which admits to mem-bership nonsupervisors; nor shall the provi-sions of sections 7 and 8 be deemed to affordprotection to any supervisor who may form,assist, or Join labor organizations ineligiblefor certification under this subsection, orto encourage the designation of such an or-ganization by any supervisor as his repre-sentative for the purpose of collective bar-gaining."

Amendment (in the nature of a substitute)intended to be proposed by Mr. KILGORE tothe bill (H. R. 4908) to provide additionalfacilities for the mediation of labor disputes,and for other purposes, viz: Strike out allafter the enacting clause and in lieu thereofinsert the following:

"That the first section of the act entitled'An act relating to certain inspections andinvestigations,in coal mines for the purposeof obtaining information relating to healthand safety conditions, accidents, and occu-pational diseases therein, and for other pur-poses,' approved May 7, 1941, is amended byadding at the end thereof the following:

"'(f) For the purpose of obtaining suchinformation as may be necessary or appro-priate for prescribing regulations pursuantto section 13 and for the administration andenforcement of such regulations.'

"SEC. 2. Such act of May 7, 1941, is fur-ther amended by adding at the end thereofthe following:

" 'SEC. 13. (a) The Secretary of the Interior,acting through the United States Bureau ofMines, is hereby authorized to prescribe rea-sonable regulations establishing standardsand requirements necessary and appropriatefor the prevention or amelioration of un-healthy or unsafe conditions, accidents, oroccupational diseases in coal mines the prod-ucts of which regularly enter commercebprthe operations of which substantially affectcommerce. Such regulations may provide,among other things, that the operations ofany such mine shall be suspended in whole orin part upon the order of a coal mine in-spector if he finds in such mine an unsafeor unhealthy condition which is specified insuch regulations as a ground for such sus-pension.

"'(b) At least 30 days prior to the issu-ance of any regulation under this section orany amendment to such a regulation, noticeof the proposed regulation or amendmentshall be published in the Federal Register andshall include either the terms or a statementof the substance of the proposed regulation oramendment. Not less than 15 days afterthe publication of such notice, interested per-sons shall be afforded an opportunity to sub-mit, 'orally or in writing, data, views, andarguments with respect to such proposedregulation or amendment. All relevant mat-ter so presented shall be given consideration,and such regulation or amendment shall,before issuance, be revised to the extentwhich the Secretary, acting through theBureau of Mines, deems necessary and ap-propriate in the-light of such matter.

"'(c) Whoever violates the provisions ofany regulation prescribed pursuant to thissection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and

[ATE MAY 24upon conviction thereof shall be fined notmore than $5,000 or imprisoned not morethan 1 year, or both.

"'(d) Whenever in the judgment of theSecretary, acting through the Bureau ofMines, any person has engaged or is about toengage in any acts or practices which consti-tute or will constitute a violation of anyregulation prescribed pursuant to this sec-tion, the Secretary may make application tosuch acts or practices, or for an order en-the appropriate court for an order enjoiningforcing compliance with such regulation, andupon a showing that such person has engagedor is about to engage in any such acts orpractices a permanent or temporary injunc-tion, restraining order, or other order maybe granted without bond.'

"Amend -;he title so as to read: 'A bill toprovide for requiring compliance with safetyregulations in coal mines.'"

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. MOORE to the bill (H. R. 4908) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation of labordisputes, and for other purposes, viz: On page28, between lines 5 and 6, insert a new section,as follows:

"SEC. -. (a) It is hereby declared unlawfulfor any person, firm, labor organization, as-sociation, or corporation, subject to the Na-tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, afterthe passage and approval of this act, to enterinto any contract or agreement of employ-ment, oral or written, with any other person,firm, labor organization, association, or cor-poration whereby either party to such con-tract or agreement undertakes or promises(1) to employ or promise to employ any per-son or continue the employment of any per-son only if such person shall be, become, orremain a member of a labor union or otherorganization: (2) to deduct from the wages,salary, or other compensation due any em-ployee any sum to be paid as membership or.other dues or assessments to any labor unionor other organization, unless such deductionis made pursuant to the separately given con-sent in writing of each employee affected.

"(b) Every contract or agreement enteredinto in violation of the provisions of thissection is hereb? declared to be contrary topublic interest, null and void.

"(c) Every person found to have violatedany of the provisions of this section shall befined not more than $10,000 and imprisonednot more than 5 years."

Renumber succeeding sections.

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. MOORE to the bill (H. R. 49u8) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation oflabor disputes, and for other purposes, viz:On page 28. between lines 5 and 6, insert anew section, as follows:

"SEC. -. (a) Every labor organization, anyof whose members are engaged in activitiesaffecting commerce or the production ofgoods for commerce, shall, by a direct voteof its members, elect all its officers and bar-gaining representatives annually by secretballot. Candidates for election shall be nom-inated at open meetings held at least 60 daysprior to the date fixed for such election, uponnotice to all members.

"(b) Every labor organization, any of whosemembers are engaged in commerce or theproduction of goods for commerce, shall, atleast once during each calendar year, publish,in itemized form and within 10 days of itscompletion, a complete report of its financialactivities during the preceding year in atleast two issues of a newspaper having gen-eral circulation within the county whereinthe headquarters or main office of such labororganization is located. Such report shallalso be filed, within 10 days after its comple-tion, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics ofthe Department of Labor, and shall be opento public inspection at any time.

"(c) As used in this section-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE"(1) 'Goods' means goods, wares, products,

commodities, merchandise, or articles or sub-Jects of commerce of any character, or anypart or ingredient thereof.

"(2) 'Produced' means produced, manufac-tured, mined, handled, or in any other man-ner worked on in any State; and for thepurposes of this section an employee shall bedeemed to have been engaged in the pro-duction of goods if such employee was em-ployed in producing, manufacturing, mining,handling, transporting, or in any other man-ner working on sush goods, or in any processor occupation necessary to the productionthereof, in any State. .

"(d) Any person who willfully violates anyof the provisions of this section shall uponconviction thereof be subject to a fine of notmore than $1,000 or to imprisonment for notmore than 6 months, or both."

Renumber succeeding sections.

Amendment to be proposed by Mr. MOOREto the bill (H. R. 4908) to provide additionalfacilities for the mediation of labor disputes,and for other purposes, viz: On page 28, be-tween lines S and' 6, insert a new sectionas follows:

"SEC. -. (a) Subsection (b) of section 9of the National Labor Relations Act (49 Stat.

.449) is amended to read as follows:"'(b) The Board shall decide in each case

whether, in order to insure to employees thefull benefit of their right to self-organiza-tion and to collective bargaining, anti other-wise to effectuate the policies of this act,the unit appropriate for the purposes of col-lective bargaining shall be the employer unit,craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof:Provided, That the unit appropriate for thepurposes of collective bargaining shall be thesmallest practicable employee,unit, as may bedetermined by the Board, and in no case shallbe larger than the employee group of anyseparate plant or shop.'

"(b) The fourth sentence of subsection (e)of section 10 of such act is amended to readas follows: "The findings of .the Board as. tothe facts, if supported by the weight of theevidence, shall be conclusive."

'(c) Section 10 of such act is amended byadding at the end thereof the following newsubsection:

"'(j) Whenever the Board shall find thatany person or persons, or any labor organiza-tion, is threatening to violate any contractrelating to the wages, hours, or ether work-ing conditions of employees, entered into asa result of collective bargaining, or is threat-ening to engage in a jurisdictional strike, itshall thereupon deny to such person or per-sons or labor organization, during the periodof the continuance of such threat of viola-tion, or threat of jurisdictional strike, anyrights, privileges, or benefits which such per-son or persons or labor organization wouldotherwise be entitled to. under this act. Inthe case of any actual violation of such acontract, or of any actual jurisdictional strike,such rights, privileges, or benefits shall con-tinue to be denied to any person or persons orlabor organization who engaged in such viola-tion or jurisdictional strike for a period of 1year from the date of cessation of such viola-tion or jurisdictional strike.'

"(d) Section 13 of Wrch act is amended toread as follows:

"'SEC. 13. Nothing in this act shall be con-strued so as to prohibit or interfere with theprosecution of any cause of action in anycourt of competent jurisdiction for the recov-ery of civil damages by any person, includinga corporation, injured as a result of a laborstrike or violation of a contract relating tothe wages, hours, or other working conditionsof employees.'" -

Renumber succeeding sections.

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. MOORE to the bill (H. R. 4908) to provide

No. 98-10

additional facilities for the mediation oflabor disputes, and for other purposes, viz:On page 28, between lines 5 and 6, insert a'new section as follows:

"SEC. -. Section 6.of the act entitled 'Anact to supplement existing law againstunlawful restraints and monopolies, and forother purposes,' approved October 15, 1914, isamended to read as follows:

"'SEc. 6. It shall be unlawful for any labororganization or for the pfficers, representa-tives, or members thereof to enter into anycontract, combination, in the form of trustor otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint oftrade or commerce among the several Statesor- foreign nations'"

Renumber succeeding sections.

Amendment intended to be proposed byMr. MooRE to the bill (H. R. 4908) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation of labordisputes, and for other purposes; viz: On page28. between lines 5 and 6, insert a new sectionas follows:

"SEC. -. The act entitled 'An act to protecttrade and commerce against interference byviolence, threats, coercion, or intimidation,'approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 979; U.-S. C.,1940 edition, title 18, sees. 420a-420e) isamended to read as follows,

"'SEC. 1. As lased in this title-"'(a) The term "commerce" means (1)

commerce between any point in a State, Ter-ritory, or the District of Columbia and anypoint outside thereof, or betwee:- pointswithin the same State, Territory, or the Dis-trict of Columbia but through any place out-side thereof, and (2) commerce within theDistrict of Columbia or any Territory, and(3) all other commerce over which the UffitedStates has jurisdiction; and the term "Terri-tory" means any Territory or possession ofthe United States.

"'(b) The term "robbery" means the un-lawful taking or obtaining of personal prop-erty, from the person or in the presence ofanother, against his will, by means of actualor threatened force, or violence, or fear ofinjury, immediate or future, to his personor property, or property in his custody or pos-session, or the person or property of a rela-tive or member of his family or of anyonein his company at the time of the taking orobtaining.

'"'(c) The term 'extortion" means_ theobtaining of property from another, with hisconsent, induced by wrongful use of actualor threatened force, violence, or fear, or undercolor of official right.

"'SEC. 2. Whoever in any way or degree ob-structs, delays, or affects commerce, or themovement of any article or commodity incommerce, by robbery or extortion, shall beguilty of a felony.

"'SEc. 3. Whoever conspires with anotheror with others, or acts in concert with anotheror with others to do anything in violation ofsection 2 shall be guilty of a felony.

"'SEC. 4. Whoever attempts or participatesin an attempt to do anything in violation ofsection 2 shall be guilty of a felony.

"'SEC. 5. Whoever commits or threatensphysical violence to any parson or propertyin furtherance of a plan or purpose to doanything in violation of section 2 shall beguilty of a felony.

"'SEC. 6. Whoever violates any section ofthis act shall, upon conviction thereof, bepunished by imprisonment for not more than20 years or by a fine of not more than $10,000,or both.'"

Renumber succeeding sections.

Amendment intended to be proposed by-Mr. MOORE to the bill (H. R. 4908) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation of labordisputes, and for other purposes, viz: On page28, between lines 5 and 6, insert a new sec-tion as follows:

"SEC. -. Section 313 of the Federal Cor-rupt Practices Act, 1925, as amended (43Stat. 1074), is amended to read as follows:

"'SEC. 313. It is unlawful for any nationalbank, or any corporation organized by au thor-ity of any law of Congress, to make a contri-bution or expenditure in connection with anyelection to any political officer, or for anycorporation whatever, or any labor organiza-tion, or any committee or other organizationorganized by or affiliated directly or indi-rectly with any labor organization, to makea contribution or expenditure in connectionwith any election at which Presidential andVice Presidential electors or a Senator orRepresentative in, or a Delegate or RezidentCommissioner to Congress are to be votedfor, or for any candidate, political committee,or other person to accept or receive any con-tribution prohibited by this section. Everycorporation, or labor organization, or com-mittee or other organization organized by oraffiliated directly or indirectly with any labororganization which makes any contributionor expenditure in violation of this sectionshall be fined not more than $5,000; andevery officer or director of any corporation,or officer of any labor organization, or officerof any committee or other organization or-ganized by or affiliated directly or indirectlywith any labor organization, who consentsto any contribution or expenditure by thecorporation, or labor organization, or com-mittee or other organization organized by oraffiliated directly or indirectly with any labororganization, as the case may be, in violationof this section shall be fined not more than$l1,00 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year,or both. For the purposes of this section"labor organization" shall have the samemeaning as under the National Labor Rela-tions Act.'"

Renumber succeeding sections.

Amendments intended to be proposed byMr. MumnAY to the bil (H. R. 4908) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation of labordisputes, and for other purposes, viz:

On page 28, line 6, after "SEC. 8." insert"(a)."

On page 28, between lith': and 16, insertthe following new subsek at

"(b) Nothing in this act shall be con-strued to diminish or interfere with theexercise of the rights of employees, labororganizations, or carriers under titles I and IIof the Railway Labor Act of May 20, 1926(44 Stat. 577), as amended, or to impair thefunctions of the National Mediation Boardand the National Railroad Adjustment Board,system, group, or regional boards of adjust-ment under said act, as amended."

Amendments intended to be proposed byMr. WILEY to the bill (H. R. 4908) to provideadditional facilities for the mediation of la-bor disputes, and for other purposes, viz:

On page 19, line 14, strike the period atthe end thereof, insert a comma, and add thefollowing: "except as specifically provided."

On page 24; line 22, strike the period afterthe word "act" and insert in lieu thereof thefollowing: "except as otherwise provided bythe provisions of this act relative to com-pulsory arbitration."

At the proper place in the bill Insert thefollowing:

"SEC. -. (a) When the Federal MediationBoard finds and determines that a labor dis-pute affecting commerce, which is not settledor adjusted under other provisions of thisact, or under the Railway Labor Act, asamended, if subject thereto, (1) involves anindustry engaged in the production of goodsor services which are essential to the publichealth, safety, or security, or to the normalfunctioning of the national economy, orwhich are furnished by a public utility whoserates are fixed by governmental agency, Stateor Federal, and (2) threatens or has resultedin such interruption of the furnishing of such

1946 5739

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEgoods and services as will endanger the pub-lic health, safety, or security in the Nation asa whole or any part thereof, or as will sosubstantially interrrpt commerce as seriouslyto disrupt the functioning of the nationaleconomy, or in the case of public utilities aswill substantially interrupt the furnishingof an essential monopolized service, then theBoard shall so notify the President. Uponreceipt of such notification, the President isauthorized to require submittal of the dis-pute to arbitration by a board of seven per-sons (or, if the parties so stipulate, three per-sons).

"(b) Within 20 days 'after notice from thePresident to the parties to the dispute ortheir representatives that the dispute shallbe submitted to arbitration, it shall be theduty of the parties and their representativesto enter into an arbitration agreement cover-ing all the questions involved in the unsettledcontroversy. The parties shall have no powerto withdraw questions submitted or toterminate the arbitration except upon writ-ten settlement of such questions or of thecontroversy, respectively, filed with the boardof arbitration. Such settlement shall beeffective for at least 6 months from the datethereof. In case of failure or refusal of theparties to execute such an arbitration agree-ment, the Board shall name the arbitratorsand shall present to the board of arbitrationa submission in behalf of the parties whichshall conform as nearly as may be to the re-quirements for an arbitration agreement.Neither a board of arbitration named pur-suant to the arbitration agreement nor aboard of arbitration appointed by the FederalMediation Board shall be limited or re-strained in the exercise of its power to makea binding award by the failure or refusal ofany party, or of all parties, to participate inthe proceedings.

"(c) The provisions of section 7 Secondthrough section 9 of the Railway Labor Act,as amended (U. S. C., tile 45, secs. 157 Sec-ond through sec. 159), shall govern arbitra-tion conducted under this section to the ex-tent that such provisions are not incon-sistent with this section. Where used inthe aforesaid sections of the Railway LaborAct, for the purposes of this section theterm 'carrier or carriers' shall mean the em-ployer or employers parties to the disputeand/or their representatives; the term 'em-ployees' shall mean the employees parties tothe dispute and/or their representatives;the term 'board of arbitration' shall meansuch boards established under this section;the term "Mediation Board' shall mean theFederal Mediation Board, and the term'chapter' or 'act' shall mean this section.

"(d) Notwithstanding the provisions ofthe Railway Labor Act, for the purposes ofthis section-

"(1) a board of arbitration shall have thepower to grant or deny In whole or in partthe relief sought by any parties on anyquestion submitted;

"(2) the provisions of section 7 (f) of theRailway Labor Act, as amended (U. S. C., title45, sec. 157 (f)), relating to filing the awardwith the Interstate Commerce Commissionand to the effect of such award on the powersand duties of the Commission, for the pur-poses of this section shall be applicable onlyto awards in proceedings under this sectionto which carriers subject to the jurisdictionof the Commission are parties: Provided,however, That in all proceedings under thissection involving carriers or publib utilitieswhose rates are fixed by governmental agency,a certified copy of the award shall also befurnished to such agency and no such awardshall be construed to diminish the powersand duties of such agency: Provided further,That in the case of any award which grantsan increase In wages or salaries, a copy ofthe proposed award, together with copies ofthe papers and proceedings and a transcriptof the evidence taken at the hearings, all

certified under the hands of at least a ma-jority of the arbitrators, shall, before theaward is filed for judgment thereon, be fur-nished to the Stabilization Administratorwhile such office exists and a certified copyof such proposed award shall also be fur-nished the parties. The Stabilization Ad-ministrator, if in his judgment such actionis necessary to prevent wage or salary in-creases inconsistent with the purposes of theStabilization Act of 1942, as amended, shallhave the authority to require by directivethat the board of arbitration reduce its awardto such maximum increases as in his Judg-ment are consistent with the purposes of saidact. Failure on the part of the StabilizationAdministrator to exercise such authoritywithin 15 days after the receipt of the award,papers, proceedings, and transcript and toissue such directive to the board of arbitra-tion shall be deemed approval of such increasefor all purposes under the stabilization lawsand Executive orders and regulations issuedthereunder. As soon as practicable after re-ceipt of the directive from the StabilizationAdministrator the board of arbitration shallamend its proposed award accordingly andissue the award so amended as a final awardand the same procedural and substantive pro-visions shall apply thereto as to any awardunder this section, except that no award shallbe held not to comply with the stipulationsof the agreement to arbitrate or of the sub-mission in behalf of the parties by the Fed-eral Mediation Board because of the timeconsumed in conforming to this proviso orbecause the award grants or denies wage orsalary increases in conformity with the direc-tive of the Stabilization Administrator;

"(3) in the case of an arbitration agree-ment providing for a board of seven arbitra-tors the parties shall choose four and thearbitrators or the Federal Mediation Board,as the case may be, shall name three all inthe manner provided in section 7 Second (b)of the Railway Labor Act aforesaid.

"(e) If an award is set aside in whole or inpart and the parties do not agree upon ajudgment to dispose of the subject matter ofthe controversy, the Federal Mediation Boardshall reinvestigate the matter. If it makesthe findings described in subsection (a) ofthis section, it shall so notify the President.The President is then authorized to requireresubmittal of the matters in dispute toarbitration pursuant to the provisions of thissection and further to require that no personwho was a member of the previous board ofarbitration shall serve on the new board.

"(f) The duties of' employers and employ-ees and their representatives involved in thedispute, and the penalties for breach there-of, as set forth in section 3 of this act, shallcontinue from the date of the requirementof submittal to arbitration until the entry offinal judgment upon an award, or until termi-nation of the proceeding by written settle-ment, as the case may be. Any such settle-ment as well as settlement of particular ques-tions by agreement of the parties at any stageof the proceedings shall be enforceable underthe provisions of this act relating to enforce-ment of collective-bargaining contracts.

"(g) Unless in the arbitration agreementthe parties stipulate for a longer period, anaward shall continue in force for 6 monthsfrom the entry of final judgment thereon.During such period it shall be the duty of theemployers and employees and their repre-sentatives involved in the dispute to adhereto the terms of the award and to refrain fromstrikes, lock-outs, and concerted slow-downsof production. Section 3, subsections (c),·(d), and '(e) of this act shall exclusivelygovern any breach of such duties.

"(h) Impeachment of awards under thissection, provided for by reference, shall bethe exclusive method of judicial reviewthereof."

Amendments intended to be proposed byMr. AIKEN (for himself and Mr. MoRSE) to the

amendment proposed by Mr. BsRD to the bill(H. R. 4908) to provide additional facilitiesfor the mediation of labor disputes, and forother purposes, viz:

On the first page, line 5; on page 2, line 20;:and on page 3, line 3; after the word "com-merce" insert the following: "ana everytrade, promotional, or other organization orassociation of employers which has for itspurpose the promotion of the welfare of itsmembers through the influencing of publicopinion and which uses the mails or other in-strumentality of commerce in carrying outsuch purposes."

On the first page, line 9: on page 2, lines3, 5, 17, and 23; and on page 3, lines 8 and10, strike out the word "labor."

On page 4, strike out lines 12 to 25, in-clusive, and insert in lieu thereof the fol-lowing:

"SEC. -. Any organization which violatesany provision of this act shall, upon convic-tion thereof, be punished by a fine not ex-ceeding $10,000."

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, aparliamentary inquiry.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-.pore. The Senator will state it.

Mr. REVERCOMB. If cloture is in-voked and adopted by the Senate, willthe Chair advise the Senator from WestVirginia whether, after cloture has beenvoted, amendments may be offered?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. They may be offered only by uani-mous consent, unless they are first pre-sented and read into the RECORD underthe rule. Under the unanimous consentagreement just entered into, all pendingamendments, that is, all amendmentsprinted and lying on the table, are con-sidered as having been read and printedin the RECORD under the rule, and wouldbe in order if the cloture Petition shouldbe adopted.

Mr. REVERCOMB. I thank the Chair.Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, a par-

liamentary inquiry.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. The Senator will state it.Mr. PEPPER. I did not quite hear

the first part of the question propoundedby the Senator from West Virginia. AsI understood the unanimous-consent re-questproposed by the leader, it was thatany amendment now lying on the desk,or any which might be presented or of-fered before the cloture vote, should beconsidered as being been offered in ac-cordancewith the rule. Is that correct?

Mr. BARKLEY. -That is correct.The ACTINd PRESIDENT pro tem-

poPe. The Chair believes that the Sen-ator's hearing was entirely accurate.

Mr. PEPPER. I thank the Chair.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if the

Senator from Kentucky is finished withhis unanimous-consent requests I desireto make a very brief statement. Hasthe Senator anything further?

Mr. BARKLEY. No; I have no furtherunanimous-consent requests, but I havebeen urged to insist that the Senate votetonight on the pending amendment. Sofar as I am concerned, it is entirely agree-able to do it if the Senate wishes to doso, or to have the Senate take a' recessuntil tomorrow and vote on the amend-ment tomorrow when the Ssnate re-assembles then.

SEVERAL SENATCRS. Vote! Vote!

Mr. BARKLEY. I simply wish to ob-tain the consensus of views of Senators

5740 MAY 24