the dispute; and all other assets of the enterprise necessary to the continued normal operation thereof.

(b) Any enterprise or properties of which possession has been taken under this section shall be returned to the owners thereof as soon as (1) such owners have reached an agreement with the representatives of the employees in such enterprise settling the issues in dispute between them, or (2) the President finds that the continued possession and operation of such enterprise by the United States is no longer necessary under the terms of the proclamation provided for in section 301: Provided, That possession by the United States shall be terminated not later than sixty days after the issuance of the report of the emergency board unless the period of possession is extended by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

(c) During the period in which possession of any enterprise has been taken under this section, the United States shall hold all income received from the operation thereof in trust for the payment of general operating expenses, just compensation to the owners as hereinafter provided in this subsection, and reimbursement to the United States for expenses incurred by the United States in the operation of the enterprise. Any income remaining shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts. In determining just compensation to the owners of the enterprise, due consideration shall be given to the fact that the United States took possession of such enterprise when its operation had been interrupted by a work stoppage or that a work stoppage was imminent; to the fact that the United States would have returned such enterprise to its owners at any time when an agreement was reached settling the issues involved in such work stoppage, and to the value the use of such enterprise would have had to its owners in the light of the labor dispute prevailing, had they remained in possession during the period of Government operation.

(d) Except as provided herein, any enterprise possession of which is taken by the United States under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be operated under the terms and conditions of employment which were in effect at the time possession of such enterprise was so taken.

(e) Whenever any enterprise is in the possession of the United States under this section, it shall be the duty of any labor organization of which any employees who have been employed in the operation of such enterprise are members, and of the officers of such labor organization, to seek in good faith to induce such employees to refrain from a stoppage of work and not to engage in any strike, slow-down, or other concerted refusal to work, or stoppage of work, and if such stoppage of work has occurred, to seek in good faith to induce such employees to return to work and not to engage in any strike, slow-down, or other concerted refusal to work or stoppage of work while such enterprise is in the possession of the United States.

(f) During the period in which possession of any enterprise has been taken by the United States under this section, the employer or employees or their duly designated representatives and the representatives of the employees in such enterprise shall be obligated to continue collective bargaining for the purpose of settling the issues in the dispute between them.

(g) (1) The President may appoint a compensation board to determine the amount to be paid as just compensation under this section to the owner of any enterprise of which possession is taken. For the purpose of any hearing or inquiry conducted by any such board the provisions relating to the conduct of hearings or inquiries by emergency boards as provided in section 303 of this title are hereby made applicable to any such hearing or inquiry. The members of compensation boards shall be appointed and compensated in accordance with the provisions of section 303 of this title.

(2) Upon appointing such compensation board the President shall make provision as may be necessary for stenographic, clerical, and other assistance and such facilities, services, and supplies as may be necessary to enable the compensation board to perform its functions.

(3) The award of the compensation board shall be final and binding upon the parties, unless within 30 days after the issuance of said award either party moves to have the said award set aside or modified in the United States Court of Claims in accordance with the rules of said court.

- Mr. CAREY. I would hope it would be included; although it does state that this drive for additional legislation is going to be made after

the election and indicates that after Senator Taft gets into the White House he is going to put these ideas he has in mind into effect.

In fact, I was hoping I would have the opportunity of meeting with Senator Taft here today to discuss some of these questions.

I just simply want to point out that the international situation is such that it would be well to take a little time to look at this attitude that is growing up in the ranks of labor, that they are taking a terri beating, and they are being kicked around like the political footbal That may be detrimental to the inteersts of this Nation. We ha a fight with Communists in our ranks. We had no benefits of Marshal plans or RFC loans or anything of that nature. We had to conduct our own fight in our own way. And we find that advantage was take of the situation in labor during that period.

There are some of us that have the feeling that it might be well if the lawyers did a little less piddling so that the steelworkers can de some puddling. The steelworkers are trying desperately to get along with the employers. And we face some desperate situations in the electrical industry, where we don't have industry-wide collective bargaining.

We have some companies that are being awfully well dealt with by this Government. In the case of General Electric, each production worker produced in 1951 $21,000 worth of salable goods and servicesevery single worker in General Electric. And the worker was paid an average of $3,500 for that. Although GE claims to be abused by this Government of ours, they managed to get a couple of, well, letters of intent, and in the contracts they got from the Government, Genera Electric got more than all the other corporations put together. Now they put full-paged advertisements in a newspaper condemning the Conciliation Service and saying, in effect, that Cy Ching is a stooge of the CIO and the A. F. of L. They seem to forget that Cy Ching was an officer of the United States Rubber Co., which is pretty big business. And Charley Wilson of General Electric fame, working in the position of Government, is for Government controls. He then gets invited up to a meeting by the steel interests, to a meeting in New York. He drops everything and runs up there to make some promises to them about price increases and things of that nature, and comes back, and he can't get the Government to carry out the will of the steel interests, and he resigns. And then he has been shouting about the need of eliminating all the Government controls.

Now, if inflation was a dangerous thing a couple of months ago, it might be dangerous now.

If this Communist threat is real in this country, something might be done about the Communists in the General Electric Corp.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Carey, I am going to stop you there and just say this, that since we are moved away a little bit from the general lines of the bill, it appears to me that the people today that are talking about the elimination of controls and, may I say also, sharply reducing our defense and mutual-security budget, are doing this in the face of some very obvious facts.

No. 1, the Japanese situation, where there are desperate and conspiratorial efforts being made to undermine the security of that country and that Government by Communist infiltration and by Communist international pressure. That is the No. 1 target. I heard General Ridgway say that, right here in the. Congress of the United States.

And I think it is impossible to properly defend an Asiatic area with Japan taken over by communism or substantially undermined so that it can play no part whatsoever in the security picture of the Far East. Take a look at what is happening today in Western Europe with the signing of the agreements with the West German Republic, with the coming of General Ridgway and the return of General Eisenhower. There are pressures being put on, and I say that our country will be faced for a period of time with relentless pressure, with demonstrations, with dramatic incidents, with every conceivable threat and every conceivable form of conspiratorial activity to drive us out of Western Europe and to drive our allies away from us. This is a program of threats and intimidation and fear, and it could spring forth and break out into armed conflict. And these are just plain obvious facts. You do not even have to be halfway smart to know this. You need only read the newspapers on this one, without even digging into the facts, without going back and doing a substantial research.

I knew this would happen in November. I wrote some articles and said that just as soon as we started to unite Western Germany into the defense community of Western Europe you could rest assured that the Soviet Union was really going to put on the pressure. They are going to try to drive us out of Berlin. They are going to mobilize Eastern Germany. They are going to do everything that is humanly possible perhaps just slightly short of an all-out war-and that gets awfully close to it; it may break out-to intimidate us and break up the western alliance.

At this very time, what are we talking about? At this time in Congress we are going to weaken controls, weaken the controls program. We are going to do it just as sure as you and I are in this room, despite the determined opposition of many of us.

No. 2, we are going to reduce substantially the appropriations for military and for mutual security. And we are doing this just at the time when the climax and the crisis in international relations is upon us. Because this climax and crisis is high-lighted by two things, the treaty with Japan and the agreements with Western Germany and the development of the European defense system.

Mrs. Humphrey and I were in Europe for 6 weeks. I talked with the foreign ministers of eight countries, with the opposition parties in the countries and the majority parties, the party leadership. There was not a one of them that did not tell me exactly what you are reading in the papers today. What you are seeing today could have been written 3 months ago, just the minute that they put the ink to the West German agreement. Just the minute that they signed the agreements in reference to the integration of German manpower into the European defense community, what is happening now was inevitable then. Now, what are we supposed to do at this time? I mean, how injudicious, how foolish, can one become, and almost irresponsible, as to want to weaken the controls program and the military preparedness program at a time when we are going to need more goods.

I think a real danger has been forced upon us here by expediency. We are stretching out our defense program for an extra year. That could be very, very dangerous. It could be. I hope it will not be. It is a calculated risk, and it was so stated to us by the Secretary of Defense.

Now, after having stretched out the defense program for an extra year, we are going to reduce the sum of money for that program, which was supposed to have been a 4-year program and is now a 5-year program, expecting that Joe Stalin is going to be a little more kindly just in order to meet our pocketbooks.

I am going to say something about this today on the floor of the Senate. I just feel it is a matter of life and death.

Mr. CAREY. Senator, there is one thing they didn't reduce. This company of General Electric got $125 million of new plants and equip ment, of which $85 million was written off in 5 years. They didn't reduce the tax amortization privileges even though they reduced the demands upon the industry. And after three visits to the Soviet Union, I can understand why the Soviet Union is so interested in Germany. They want the work habits of the German people.

Senator HUMPHREY. Of course.

Mr. CAREY. If they could get their skills and training to supplement the Soviet economy-and that would be a reason why they would be interested in Japan as well. And this German question is an extremely important one.

The thing that strikes me is that the Marshall plan and all these other items were necessary to gain some confidence on the part of the people. Because the struggle is over the minds of working people. agricultural and industrial workers. And here in this country the drive seems to be on-it has been going on since 1946-to destroy the confidence of American workers in their Government, to destroy the confidence of American workers in the kind of system we operate ir this Nation, a free economy.

And it seems to me that they better do a little fair objective thinking about this subject. Because I do not know why labor should be so violently opposed to communism and the Communist techniques if our legislation is going to be designed similar to the legislation dealing with labor in the Soviet Union; and the only difference be tween Taft-Hartley and the regulations in the Soviet Union governing labor organizations is that Taft-Hartley does not prohibit national industry-wide collective bargaining.

I wish this committee would get hold of the regulations governing labor organizations in the Soviet Union and compare them with the Taft-Hartley law, with some of the amendments now being proposed. as contained in the Wall Street Journal of last Monday. And these operations will be identical.

Now, it is necessary that there be some confidence among the American public in labor organizations. But the demonstration of the steel workers organization in their willingness to postpone and postpone and call off their strike in this industry at the same time that industry has been promoting the idea that a strike would be good for the general public-and that is what is going on in several other industries in this country. I do not think it is designed for the purpose of chastising the labor organizations nearly as much as it is to make our Government weak and ineffective in dealing in this field. And they have the edge at the present time in their publicity, because the Government, to a great degree, subsidizes this big campaign that is going on. I would like to suggest that this management-labor committee perhaps get together some of these people of industry that have looked upon this whole threat of communism and understand the operations

of industry. I refer to Charley Wilson of General Motors. And get a few of the other industry people that are not part of this blitzkrieg against labor that has been going on at the moment. And see if we can't sit down with some of those industry people that are part of the blitzkrieg and some labor people and see if we can't have a little off the record conversation, and see what is happening. And perhaps we might widen this area of agreement, on what to do about national emergency disputes.

Senator HUMPHREY. I am going to introduce a resolution, Mr. Carey, that will, I think, be somewhat helpful in terms of the proper study of some of these problems and in arriving at some areas of agreement. We will get it ready this next week and introduce it, and maybe we can get some action upon it. Mr. Barbash tells me that the technical language of it is being polished up or improved by the legislative counsel so that we will have it in shape.

Mr. CAREY. I think it might be a constructive contribution at that time. Because we think the danger is still there, that the threat is still with us.

Senator HUMPHREY. Anything else, Mr. Carey?

Mr. CAREY. No, sir.

If you have anything more that you want from the CIO, we would be pleased to receive a communication and suggestion from you.

Senator HUMPHREY. I would like to get your point of view on that Douglas-Aiken amendment, and Mr. Barbash will give you the citation on it, the date it was introduced, and give you a copy of it. Mr. CAREY. We will appreciate that.

Senator HUMPHREY. The one thing I was interested in was your comments on the amendment Senator Morse introduced.

I may be mistaken, but I thought Senator Morse intended that to be a temporary injunction.

Mr. BARBASH. You provided for a temporary injunction but also provided in effect for a longer injunction; if the court felt that a temporary restraining order would be useful, they could issue ‘one, but it also provided for a longer injunction.

Mr. CAREY. Well, we thought that that could be taken into consideration in terms of a better balance.

Mr. BARBASH. Although it should be said in reference to your earlier comment that the earlier Morse bill did provide for an injunction, except that the injunction could only be used when the Congress by joint resolution set aside the Norris-LaGuardia Act as applying to the present dispute. That is the first Morse bill, S. 2999 in its original state.

Mr. CAREY. Even that I am not sure was of an indefinite nature. Mr. BARBASH. Oh, no.

Mr. CAREY. I should have used the language "indefinite injunction," or "with no time limitation."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much.

The committee will stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 11:52 a. m., Wednesday, May 28, 1952, the hear

ing was recessed to be reconvened at the call of the Chair.)