tion a full statement of the case together with such recommendations as he may see fit to make.

"(b) In any case in which a strike or lock-out occurs or continues after the issuance of the proclamation pursuant to section 206 the President shall submit immediately to the Congress for consideration and appropriate action a full statement of the case, including the report of the emergency board if such report has been made, and such recommendations as he may see fit to make, including a recommendation that the United States take possession of and operate the business enterprise or enterprises involved in the dispute. If the President recommends that the United States shall take possession of and operate such enterprise or enterprises, the President shall have the authority to take such action unless the Congress by concurrent resolution within 5 days after the submission of such recommendation to the Congress determines that such action should not be taken or enacts legislation designed to resolve the dispute and terminate the national emergency if Congress finds such an emergency exists: Provided, That during the period in which the United States shall have taken possession the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the emergency Board shall continue to encourage the settlement of the dispute by the parties concerned, and the agency or department of the United States, designated to operate such enterprise or enterprises shall have no authority to enter into negotiations with the employer or with any labor organization for a collective-bargaining contract or to alter the wages, hours, or the conditions of employment existing in such industry prior to the dispute, except in conformity with the recommendations of the emergency board or a concurrent resolution of the Congress. If the Congress or either House thereof shall have adjourned sine die or for a period longer than 3 days, the President shall convene the Congress, or such House for the purpose of consideration of an appropriate action pursuant to such statement and recommendations: Provided further, That the act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purpurposes" (Norris-LaGuardia Act), approved March 24, 1932 (U. S. C., title 29, secs. 101-115), shall be applicable to the United States acting under the provisions of this title unless Congress by concurrent resolution provides otherwise in the particular case.

"'SEC. 209. (a) In the event that the Government shall take possession of and operate any business enterprise or enterprises involved in a given dispute, the President shall designate the agency or department of Government which shall take possession of any business enterprise or enterprises including the properties thereof involved in the dispute and all other assets of the enterprise or enterprises necessary to such continued operation thereof as will protect the national health or safety.

"(b) Any enterprise or properties of which possession has been taken under this title 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 206: Provided, That possession by the United States shall be terminated not later than 60 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 title, 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 owners or the labor organization, as the case may be, have failed or refused to comply with the recommendations of the emergency board or the conditions determined by the Congress to constitute a just settlement of the dispute; to the fact that the United States would have returned such enterprise to its owners at any time when an arrangement was reached settling the issues involved in such work stoppage; and to the value the use of such enterprise to its owners at any time when an agreement was reached settling

prevailing, had they remained in possession during the period of Government operation.

(d) 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, slowdown, 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.

(e) During the period in which possession of any enterprise has been taken by the United States under this section, the employer or employers 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.

(f) (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 207 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 207 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.

66

(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.

"SEC. 210. When a dispute arising under this title has been finally settled, the President shall submit to the Congress a full and comprehensive report of all the proceedings, together with such recommendations as he may see fit to make.'

"SEC. 3. (a) The amendment made by the first section of this act shall not apply with respect to any dispute existing on the date of enactment of this act.

(b) The amendment made by section 2 of this act shall apply with respect to any dispute existing on the date of enactment of this act, and for such purposes (1) any reference in such amendment to an emergency board shall be deemed to refer to any existing board of inquiry appointed pursuant to section 206 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, and (2) a proclamation authorized to be issued pursuant to section 206 of such act as amended by this act, shall be deemed to have been issued in any case in which any such board of inquiry has been appointed.

"SEC. 4. The provisions of this act shall not be applicable with respect to any matter which is subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time."

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, let me enumerate briefly the salient points of the bill:

First, the bill provides for the appointment by the President of an emergency board whenever he finds, and issues a proclamation to that effect, that a dispute exists or threatens in a vital industry affecting the public interest.

Mr. President, you will notice as I read an outline of the major points of the bill that the principles of the bill are identical in nature with the principles of the amendment I offered in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress for the handling of emergency disputes. We did not adopt the amendment, as the Presiding Officer well knows, but I am satisfied that had we passed it, and if it were the law on the books today, we would not be confronted with the coal crisis which America faces tonight. "Well," someone may say, "What makes you think, if the miners, as individual workers, refuse to work in the mines under an injunction handed down in accordance with the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law, that they would work under your bill if the Government seized the coal mines, in accordance with the procedures of your bill?" It is a fair question, but my answer is this: I have no question about the patriotism of the mine workers of America. As I have

said before, it is quite a different thing to ask free Americans to go into the minesand mine coal for the Government of the United States, with the American flag flying over the mines, from giving them a choice of either mining coal under an injunction in accordance with the instructions and orders of a private employer, on the basis of the wages and hours and conditions of employment that he would impose upon them, and for his profit dollars, or going to jail for contempt of court. Mr. President, do not mistake me. I do not condone any failure on the part of any workers in the country to obey the spirit and the intent and letter of the law on the books, or of a court order seeking to carry out the law. I do not condone any violation of the law or violation of an injunction issued thereunder. But I cannot remake human nature. The Congress of the United States cannot remakehuman nature. We must face some of the ugly realities of human nature, and one of those realities appears tonight to be that a great many thousands of coal miners are in effect saying, "We just won't mine coal for a private employer, in the absence of an agreement." They have not said, "We will not mine coal under terms and conditions imposed by the Federal Government through a seizure of the mines." The difference is a great difference in human psychology. If there is anything I learned in my more than 15 years' experience in the field of labor relations, it is that, when all is said and done, the human factor is the controlling factor in most labor disputes. It is necessary in each dispute to get down to an understanding of the human factors that have caused the disagreement which has sprung up between the parties. I am convinced that if we pass a fair seizure law which protects the legitimate rights of both the workers and the employers for the period of Government operation of the mines, the coal miners and the operators will rise to their patriotic obligation of supporting the flag that wil fly over their properties, and will proceed to work out some agreement satisfactory to the two sides, for the operation of the mines on their return to the owners. I believe that is true, and that is the third major premise I have laid down in this speech, Mr. President. If I am wrong about that, then on that premise, my argument will fall to the floor of the Senate. If I am wrong in my conviction that the miners will dig coal when the flag flies over the mines then, truly, I shall be stumped, Mr. President, because I shall then be hard put to think out any constructive answer to the question, What now?

I think we should try it, and if our seizure bill is fair, I think it will work, and work immediately, and proceed to produce immediately the coal necessary to relieve the great suffering which is sweeping across America tonight. I said many of these things during the last session of the Congress when I pleaded on the floor of the Senate for a seizure bill of this type. I am just as convinced tonight that this is a much sounder approach to the problem than the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law, which certainly have demonstrated, at least in this instance, that they cannot produce coal. I am afraid that what the Taft-Hartley law is producing, Mr. President, is a deepened resentment in the hearts of miners, which will plague us long after this dispute is finally settled.

That is one of the things that worry me so much, Mr. President. That is why I keep pleading with the Congress, "Let us go to work on this labor law; let us reevaluate it, let us modify it, so that we take out of it those sections which the evidence clearly demonstrates are the breeders of resentment in the hearts of American workers."

The record is overwhelming, Mr. President, that the Taft-Hartley law has become a great cause of growing resentment in the breasts of free workers in this country. They feel so many of its provisions are unfair, unjust, and discriminatory against their legitimate rights. I do not want to see this second session of the Eighty-first Congress go by without our coming to grips with the great problem of passing fair labor legislation. I believe we are so close together, Mr. President, as the result of our experiences under the TaftHartley law. I think we can get together, if we have the will as legislators in this second session of the Eighty-first Congress, on those modifications of the Taft-Hartley law necessary to make it a fair law and to remove from the hearts of millions of American workers the feelings of resentment which they now hold toward that law. I do not think we should play politics with it. We should not let it go into the 1950 congressional elections as one of the political issues, because I do not think it should really be considered an issue any longer.

The time has come to operate on the Taft-Hartley law in this session of the Eighty-first Congress. I offer this bill tonight as the first proposal in this session of Congress for a modification of the Taft-Hartley law. It goes to the very vital issues of how to handle emergency disputes.

The second provision of the bill that I would mention is the one which provides that a board is to report to the President with recommendations not later. than 30 days after appointment. Third, at any time after issuing a proclamation of a national emergency, the President may report to Congress, making such recommendations as he sees fit. Fourth, in any case where a strike or lock-out continues after issuance of a proclamation, the President is required to submit to Congress a full report and whatever recommendations he sees fit to make, including a recommendation that the United States take possession of the business enterprise involved in the dispute.

I emphasize that provision, Mr. President, as one of the safeguards I have deliberately placed in the bill to avoid some of the dangers of unnecessary seizure, which might be proposed if the Congress did not have a check upon the executive branch of Government, which might want to seize when seizure in fact might not be necessary. Mr. President, we must make this system of checks and balances work in practice, and not merely talk about it. When we pass legislation we must keep in mind the great constitutional principles of our form of government that the legislature should check the executive and the executive should check the legislative branch. The courts sit to check them both, and we in turn have our checks upon the courts.

Here is one of the checks which I provide specifically in this type of seizure bill in order to avoid some of the dangers of seizure that the junior Senator from Oregon fears very much. He wants to make certain that his bill is one which can be used only as a last resort and one which cannot be used arbitrarily by a President of the United States, but which can be used only after careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of an emergency board both by the President and by the Congress.

If the President recommends the taking of possession, he has the authority under the bill to take such action unless Congress, by concurrent resolution, within 5 days after the submission of such a recommendation, determines that such action should not be taken or enacts legislation to resolve the dispute and terminate the emergency.

During the period of Government operation, which is limited to 60 days, unless the period is extended by concurrent resolution of the Congress-another example of the congressional check I have in my bill, Mr. Presidentthe Federal Mediation Service shall continue to encourage settlement.

The Government agency operating the seized property has no authority to negotiate with the employer or union, or to alter wages or conditions of employment except in conformity with the recommendations of the emergency board or concurrent resolution of Congress.

I do not know whether I can succeed in getting that point across, Mr. President, but that point is basic to the theory of this bill. It carries out a fundamental principle of negotiations for settling any labor dispute. I have said it before, but I want to get it into this speech, too, that the one thing, above all else, that must characterize negotiations for a settlement of a labor dispute when the Government has to intervene mark what I say, Mr. President-when the Government has to intervene, is the principle of keeping the disputants in doubt about what the final settlement will be. Unless that be done, Mr. President, we play right into the hands of either labor's or the employer's side of the table, which may find it to its advantage to let the procedures of the law run their course. That is one of the difficulties involved in the present dispute. We could take the Taft-Hartley law in its present form and, as counsel for the union or for the employer, tell them with almost complete certainty just what is going to happen, step by step, as the law proceeds to be applied to the dispute. Therefore, Mr. President, either side, under the existing Taft-Hartley law, can determine at the very beginning of the dispute whether it is to its advantage to let the Taft-Hartley law flow in its procedures and be applied to the dispute.

I mean no criticism when I say this, Mr. President. I speak for a moment from a lawyer's standpoint as to what I think has happened, in part, in the coal case. I do not claim to know all the details of what has gone on in this case, but judging from what I have been advised in regard to the case, the attitude of at least one of the parties, the operators, has been to sit tight and let the law follow its course.

I was interested some time ago in reading an article in the Washington Post in which Cyrus Ching, the head of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, said, in effect—I do not have the article before me, so I do not purport to give it verbatim-in answer to a question put to him by a newspaperman, that, for the most part, the negotiations have been characterized by the union making various offers and the employers saying, "No, no, no."

I have seen that happen in many cases, Mr. President. During the war, we sent many cases back to the parties because we became convinced that they were trying to use the Board as the determiner of their dispute, rather than try to use the free collective-bargaining table as the medium for settling their differences.

So whenever we became convinced that collective bargaining had broken down because either side thought there would be an advantage in having the case go to the Board for determination, we sent the case back and said:

"We shall take jurisdiction over this case only if we are convinced that you have acted in good faith and that you have really tried in all honesty to settle your differences between yourselves but can find no basis or common ground for settlement. Only then will we take jurisdiction."

I am suspicious, Mr. President, that in this particular case there are some persons among the operators who thought it would be to their advantage to let the Taft-Hartley law be applied to the dispute. Therefore, that is at least part of the explanation for the breaking down of negotiations between the parties. If that is true, Mr. President, it is an unfortunate thing. If it is true, I think we should do something about it. If it is not true in this case, Mr. President, it may very well be true in many cases. I think it has been true in many cases since the passage of the Taft-Hartley law, because that law does not leave the parties in doubt as to what the legal procedures and legal consequences are going to be if they simply permit a given dispute to reach the point that a national emergency is created and the law has to be applied.

So, Mr. President, in my seizure bill I have left the parties in doubt. I do not propose a law which would allow either side to sit down and figure out in advance whether it will be to its advantage to look out the window when collective bargaining should be going on in good faith, and to say "No, no, no" to offers made by the other side. I have phrased the bill so that both will be in great doubt as to the economic consequences if they permit a situation to develop of such a national emergency that it threatens the health and safety of the country to the extent that the Government has to step in and exercise the arm of the law to protect the public welfare.

How have I done it? I have done it, Mr. President, as I did in my proposed amendment in the first session of this Congress, and which is one of the great differences between my seizure proposal and the other seizure proposals which have been offered on the floor of the Senate, by leaving it to the Government to determine, when seizure has been applied, what the wages, hours, and conditions of employment shall be and what the compensation of the operators shall be.

In other words, Mr. President, mine is a flexible procedure as far as economic compensation to both parties under Government seizure is concerned. It has some weaknesses. I know of no perfect solution. I can see some disadvantages to the economic compensation provision of my bill. But, in contrast to the provisions which last session were offered on the floor of the Senate, I think my provision is far superior, because it leaves the parties in doubt. That is in inducement for them to get together around the free collective bargaining table and keep the Government out of the dispute. I believe that free employers and free workers in American should recognize before it is too late that every time their course of conduct makes it necessary for the Government to enter into a labor dispute they jeopardize economic freedom in this country. After all, economic freedom belongs to us. It belongs to the people. Whether we have it or not is pretty much up to us. If labor and employers lose any degree of economic freedom in this country because of the Government's stepping into a labor dispute to protect the public interest, the fault is theirs, and not the Government's, because Government can do no less, as I said at the beginning of my speech.

So here I have a provision which I think will be an inducement to collective bargaining. It is a provision which keeps the parties in doubt. Here is what is going to happen to them economically if the Government must seize a plant or a mine. The Chair will remember that in some of the other seizure proposals which we had in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress there was a specific requirement to the effect that during the period of Government seizure wages, hours and conditions of employment had to remain the same as they were at the time the dispute started. What good is that provision?

How much doubt does that create in the mind of an employer as to what is going to happen economically to the industry if Government seizes it? None at all. He might find, under that kind of law, that Government seizure would be a great advantage to him, and therefore he could just "sit tough," as we