vented the phrase "mandatory settlement" in an effort to deal with the question.

But in the final analysis I think this resolution would undermine collective bargaining not only in the railroad industry but generally throughout business in the United States.

The other thing that dismays me greatly is that since April 25 there has been no meeting of the parties. Labor and management have not met. The whole matter is completely up in the air. From present indications it is extremely doubtful that they will meet or that they will negotiate so long as we indicate that we are going to take the job over and negotiate for them or give them our mandatory settlement. Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I feel it my duty to present some alternatives if the administration, itself, is unable to see any way out of this one. This does not commit me to go against the administration's request if I feel there is no other way to keep the railroads running, but it certainly shows that there are other things that can be done.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I shall question the witnesses about two amendments to this measure which I shall propose. The amendments are described as follows: One of the amendments will give the President an alternative of limited seizure by court receivership. I have a bill in on that with Senator Kuchel so the terms are readily available to the witnesses.

The other alternative, and they are not mutually exclusive, will be to give the President the very tools that he asks for in the resolution which is before us, introduced by Senator Morse, but would provide that the final settlement, if we call it that, would be subject to a congressional veto, with the Congress having 20 days in which, under the procedures of the Reorganization Act which insure us against filibusters, or burial in commitee, the Congress must act if it does not like the settlement which is mandated by the panel's overturn.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we need to consider these alternatives because in view of the fact that the administration has only an ad hoc solution, our ad hoc solution may be as good as theirs.

I would like to close without taking any more of the committee's time by emphasizing what I consider to be a singular dereliction in American public life. We are not only caught without legislation which would enable the Government to operate-and that is what is involved here, but we are apparently even powerless to remedy it when we face a grave emergency. The best we can concoct is a scheme to deal with this one emergency, which scheme, itself, is deeply concerning and deeply troubling to both management and labor because it has so many of the implications of a mandated settlement or compulsory arbitration, which U.S. labor and management have been trying to avoid for decades.

Here we are, right up against it, with that seemingly the only remedy which the President can see as being possible in the premises. I think it is a most deplorable and depressing situation.

It is high time that the people got up in arms about it and insisted that we do a lot better than we show any promise of doing right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are there any further statements by any member of the committee.

Senator PELL. I also would like to express my regret that no general emergency strike legislation has come up in the last year. And I believe we should have such a law on the books.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Any further statement from any other Senators?

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL J. FANNIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Senator FANNIN. Mr. Chairman, I for one support the action of Congress averting, at least for the present, a national railroad strike, but I deplore the situation that gave rise to our action. It is a national disgrace a serious indictment of our labor laws-that twice in recent weeks Congress has had to interrupt its order of business to deal with. a threatened strike in a public service industry. The experience again points up the need for permanent legislation to deal with emergency strikes, strikes which threaten irreparable damage to the national interest.

The present administration policy of having Congress settle each labor dispute as it arises is both unsatisfactory and unwise. It confuses the responsibility of the executive and legislative branches of Government, it erodes public confidence and morale, and it further weakens the normal process of collective bargaining. The time clearly has come when the American people must be protected, permanently, against strikes and walkouts that inconvenience the public, that burden the economy and that jeopardize national security.

It has been obvious for years that the emergency provisions of the Railway Labor Act and the Taft-Hartley Act are inadequate. And it is difficult to understand the reluctance of the President, and to only somewhat less a degree the Congress, to meet the problem forthrightly. There is no need for the President to run hat in hand to the Congress each time for a special labor law. Temporary solutions no longer are enough. If, as in the railroad dispute, a threatened strike is serious enough to warrant legislation, it is serious enough to require a perma

nent answer.

One answer, at least from the standpoint of public service industries, is legislation to permit, if necessary, mediation to finality. Some union officials argue that a settlement reached by an impartial third party would of necessity be detrimental to the best interests of their members. But the charge has no basis in fact. America is a nation of laws, not men. We-including union officials-accept the principle of disinterested third party determination in life and death decisions of criminal law. We do not hesitate to permit a jury of our peers to determine the dollar value of a man's arm, or leg, or life. We empower the National Labor Relations Board, which supposedly is impartial, to settle questions of great importance to labor and management. Why then should we hesitate to allow a group of reasonable men to determine, in a fair manner, the worth of a man's labor? Clearly, there is no logical reason.

It is of course regrettable that any type of enforced mediation is required, but the unique character of these industries demands that

this minimum protection be provided. But I want to make it perfectly clear that I favor its use only as a last resort and then only with regard to public service industries. I very much oppose its widespread application.

It would be, however, an exercise in futility for this committee to concern itself only with a solution to the railroad strike, or only to strikes affected by the Railway Labor Act. The issue involved here is more important than any one strike, any one industry. The important question is whether, through the adoption of needed laws, Congress will meet its responsibility to save the country from hopelessness in the face of emergency strikes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

Any further statements?

Secretary Wirtz, you are the first witness. You may proceed in your

own manner.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES J. REYNOLDS, UNDER SECRETARY OF LABOR; FRANCIS A. O'NEILL, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD; JUDGE CHARLES H. FAHY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SPECIAL MEDIATION PANEL; AND DAVID GINSBURG, CHAIRMAN OF PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY BOARD NO. 169

Secretary WIRTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to identify the group which is at the table this morning. I should not have to remind the chairman and members of the subcommittee of the competence, the authority, the wisdom, which this group brings to this proceeding. You know them.

You know Mr. Ginsburg as the Chairman of the Emergency Board No. 169 in this particular case; the man who has devoted his lifetime to the public service. You know Judge Fahy as Chairman of the Special Mediation Panel which met in this case and which brought forward a proposal which has been a very important part of this record. Some of us have forgotten that he was among the architects of free collective bargaining in the 1930's. When the rest of us were still wondering what ought to be done, a small group of men went ahead and brought forth the Wagner Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the setting up of the National Labor Relations Board. Charles Fahy was their first counsel for that Board.

I say no more, because for me to say more would be presumptuous but again we have with the assistance of the committee this morning a man whose life has brought into the building of the institution of free collective bargaining.

Closer familiarity requires my references to the other two associates being shorter, you know well Jim Reynolds, Under Secretary of Labor who has done as much or more than any other man in the country in the last 6 years to make collective bargaining work. You know Francis O'Neill, for 20 years a member of the National Mediation Board, six times on a rotating basis its Chairman and again a man who commands not only a complete understanding of this case but a complete allegiance to and an understanding of the basic principles of collective bargaining.

It is all relevant, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, because the issue in this case right now is collective bargaining. It is not a matter of dollars and cents which separate the parties.

So, it is with great pride that I introduce my associates at this table this morning.

Now, I have filed a relatively short statement with this committee. It is short because this subcommittee is thoroughly advised and has a background in this matter. I will follow either course which fits the circumstances, to read that statement or summarize it still more briefly as a basis for your questions, whichever seems better for you.

Senator MORSE. I might suggest if it is the pleasure of the subcommittee that the statement be read so that we can make it a public record. The public will be the final arbitrator of this dispute when all is said and done.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I concur with the suggestion of the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Secretary. In glancing through this statement and getting some idea of it, I think it would be very desirable that it be read.

Secretary WIRTZ. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I testify to the necessity, under present circumstances, of maintaining the Nation's railroad transport without interruption, to the necessity of preserving free collective bargaining, and in support of Senate Journal Resolution 81 as the most effective means of meeting both of these needs.

There have been recent hearings before the full membership of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare which have included sufficient description of the background of the current dispute between the railroads and the shopcraft organizations that there is no reason for repeating it here, except, of course, as there may be questions about it. A complete record of the case, including all material documents, has been given to each committee member.

(The document referred to is included as app. B to this hearing record and may be found on p. 437.)

You will recall that at the last hearing before the committee, on April 24, there were statements by both parties which seemed to give some promise of an early settlement of their dispute by agreement.

These statements had to do with the proposal which had been made to the parties on April 21 by the Special Mediation Panel, made up of Judge Fahy, as Chairman; Dr. Taylor; and Dr. Dunlop.

I should note, Mr. Chairman, that both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Dunlop would have liked to have come to this hearing this morning. They are both in the process of fulfilling other commitments which they have as a result of their service on this panel. They would like me to state that they will be glad to appear before the committee on a later date for any questions that you may have for them.

Neither party had accepted that proposal. In answer to questions from the members of the committee, however, representatives of both parties appeared to suggest that each might give serious and constructive consideration to the Panel's proposal if the other would. No commitments were made. But obvious respect for the Panel and for its work was expressed, and some degree of favorable disposition toward the Panel's proposal was indicated. It was clear at that hear

ing that collective bargaining had come close in this case, with the help of mediators, to doing its job.

This sense of the case was reflected in the resolution adopted unanimously by the committee at the conclusion of that hearing. It included the resolution, that, "the committee calls upon the parties to seriously reconsider as the basis for settlement the recommendations of the special mediation panel."

Unfortunately, that call evoked no sufficient response from the parties. Agreement was not reached, and it subsequently became necessary to extend the statutory status quo period in this dispute to June 19, 1967.

Senator Javits, you will understand my correcting the record as it stands in two respects. Your statement was that there was no subsequent collective bargaining and mediation after that. That is not right. The parties met together the following day and considered this matter across the table. Beyond that in less formal but in more practical terms on the weekend of April 30 and May 1 there was another very serious mediation effort to attempt to get a settlement of this case by mediation. Those efforts again were frustrated but they were of a very meaningful kind and the suggestion that there has been no further attempt to meet the problem in the way it should be met needs that correction.

But it was necessary to extend the statutory period and it was extended to June 19, 1967.

Nevertheless, the full significance of that incident, or stage, in this collective-bargaining process has been captured and embodied in Senate Joint Resolution 81.

The position of the administration regarding this joint resolution is set out in the President's May 4 message to the Congress, which has been included in the materials which have been placed before you. Here again, anything except the briefest summary on my part would only burden this record.

Senate Joint Resolution 81 proceeds, as the committee's resolution of April 24 did, from recognition that the "Special Mediation Panel *** proposed settlement terms to assist the parties in implementation of the collective bargaining envisaged in the recommendations of Emergency Board No. 169."

It notes the fact that "the parties have not succeeded completely in resolving all of their differences through the processes of free collective bargaining," and then goes on to provide "procedures for the orderly culmination of the collective bargaining process."

The resolution provides for the President's appointment of a fivemember Special Board to "attempt by mediation to bring about a resolution of this dispute and thereby to complete the collective bargaining process."

If there is no agreement after the first 30 days of mediation, the Special Board will set a hearing designed specifically to bring these months of bargaining and mediation to a head.

The central discussion point at this hearing will be the proposal made to the parties by the Special Mediation Panel on April 21.

The parties will be asked to express their views as to whether a settlement based on that Panel proposed would "(1) be in the public