and the States is the tried and tested way to strengthen the flabby muscles of democracy."

Wealth must be taxed where wealth is, to educate workers where workers are.

We feel that the fact that workers generally are today receiving less than enough income to buy an American standard of living answers two questions: Why don't the unions pay for the service and why don't workers pay for such a service?

The minimum family budget today is in excess of $3,200, and prices are still rising for most necessities. Workers' income average much less than that figure. If workers received $7,500 a year, which some economists have estimated would be possible if our national income at maximum production levels were distributed so as to maintain a healthy circulation within our free-enterprise economy, they could keep their children in school through the college years, paying tuition and other expenses. Or they could pay substantially higher union dues, out of which unions might duplicate the apparatus of higher learning or contract for the services of such institutions.

All this is theory. The hard fact is that workers cannot afford this service out of their present or prospective incomes. They need this service. They are entitled to it. The public welfare requires that it be made available to them. The localities cannot pay for it; the States cannot pay for it; the Federal Government can; and because it is a matter of national interest, concern, and welfare, it should.

I quote from the statement of William Davis, former chairman of the National War Labor Board and Director of Economic Stabilization, who has had a long experience in labor mediation and conciliation, testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Education and Labor in behalf of the labor extension bill:

Now this new trend in American labor relations toward development of the individual, by mutual understanding and democratic participation has tremendous forces behind it-such forces that it is not likely to be reversed, in my opinion. It is pretty sure to lead on toward the goal of all human relations— that is, the bringing into good order for common purposes the hearts and minds of men-unless-I say I think it will lead to that gradually, unless our whole social structure is destroyed by a third world war-an impact of outside forces, which could happen.

There are, of course, real areas of conflict. However much you may analyze the over-all common goals of management and workers, there are areas of conflict and always will be, and ignorance, selfishness, and fear still exist to impede progress.

The point I want to make is that a new framework has come into existence within which these conflicts have a good chance to be resolved without too much disruption.

I think, having had a considerable experience in that particular field, since I have had to handle a good many disruptions in American labor

which is an understatement, Mr. Chairman, there have been a great many, and very serious ones

I say with confidence that this new trend, yet to be implemented and grow up, does constitute a framework in which these conflicts can be creatively resolved. The process needs, however, to be speeded up. One may say, if the thing is started in the right direction, if it is going to grow, let it grow. It is not going to be completed in my time. The tendency is to say, "Let it go, give it time." But here we have a factor that needs speeding up because the fact is that world events still threaten the very roots of the system.

It is possible that from outside there will be impacts on our social structure that it is not strong enough to withstand, and they may come in this very field, so I think it is worth while to speed it up.

It is because of this situation that I think great importance attaches to this bill now under consideration by your committee.

I have been speaking in very general terms, not of the details of the bill, but we need right now to improve in every way we can the education of the rank and file upon whom the success of this continued high-level distribution and production of products ultimately depends, and I felt sure in looking over the bill that if the Congress passes such legislation it will find that it was money well spent and that it will pay for itself many times over.

Mr. Davis, I may add, is a Maine Yankee, a patent attorney, and he does not use words lightly, and when he says "it will pay for itself many times over" I take it as a deliberate and conservative judgment. This strength and equality of access to knowledge and education is the thing. To the degree that it is available to anybody who can make use of it, we are strong to that extent. When it is vitiated or denied or made a class matter, we are weakened. Labor, after starting this free-education system, urging and pleading for it, has through economic necessity not had equal access and parity, and here they are asking for it.

If there is to be confidence on the part of wage earners in this new development, they feel that it should be reposed in an agency in which they have confidence from the very beginning both at the Federal level and the state level. That is my point about leading the student to learning.

They will go to it in crowds if they feel it is something they can rely on. They will stay away in droves if it is anything of which they are suspicious. Those in labor who have thought about this thing for 25 years, think that to get it started the Labor Extension Service should be carried on as it has been successfully with respect to the farmers.

I should like in addition, if I may, to comment on two points that have been raised in the course of the hearings because they go to the heart of the kind of program and service that this bill proposes to make available to the wage and salary earners of the Nation. First, the suggestion has been made by members of the committee that management and wage-earners should be compelled to attend joint classes.

Mr. Chairman, this is impossible in a free America. Compulsion was a characteristic of the Nazi labor front and the "strength through joy" movement imposed on German workers by Robert Ley and his fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. Compulsion is a characteristic of Russian totalitarianism, where even composers are told what music to write and not to write.

There is no compulsion in this program. As I have said, and as earlier witnesses have said, this is a wholly voluntary program. It will succeed if it has the confidence of the wage earners whom it is intended to serve. Were it to become a top-down propaganda device it would quickly wither and die for lack of interest on the part of workers.

Other witnesses have given reasons why, except for labor-management seminars for advanced students, it is impractical to attempt joint management-labor classes or services. Let me quote briefly from the statement of Victor Reuther, which I have filed for the record:

A joint program with representatives of management has been discussed. I was very directly involved in discussions of this at Wayne University in Detroit. I sat with representatives of the Michigan Manufacturers' Associa

tion, with George Romney, head of the Automobile Manufacturers' Association, and others. When Wayne University first discussed the establishment of the industrial institution, the representatives of the university thought it might be possible to conduct joint training sessions for management and labor, and I can report very truthfully and frankly to you that the representatives of management, Mr. George Romney and Mr. John Lovett in particular, were as vehement against conducting joint sessions as were any representatives of organized labor. Why? Because they are practical men. They are engaged in collective bargaining, and they know very well that you cannot recruit the kind of people that are needed for training in these sessions if there cannot be the utmost frankness in the discussions that take place. Management does not want us sitting in on their training sessions any more than we want them sitting in on ours. I think both parties will get a great deal more out of it if those sessions are conducted separately.

I repeat, if management has need for this kind of assistance and I question if they actually have the need today, because they have considerable resources beyond those which we have-if they need it, let them come and make their request for it.

Professor Edwin Witte's conclusions, as presented earlier by other witnesses, are very much in point on this issue-page 285 of Senate hearings.

The second point is this: Last Friday a member of the committee suggested that, under a program such as is proposed in this bill, officers of labor organizations could teach-or promote the teaching of-certain attitudes toward the Taft-Hartley Act and toward those Members of the Congress who voted for that measure.

He expressed the very strong belief that the American people wanted such legislation, that such legislation was in the public interest and that those who voted for it were right. Yet he said officers of labor organizations are urging the defeat of those who voted for that measure.

He concluded by remarking that if a man is out to shoot him, he is not going to hand him a gun to do it with.

Mr. Chairman, we of the National Committee for the Extension of Labor Education feel very deeply that this is a most unfortunate characterization of the Labor Extension Service that is proposed in this bill. We submit that it is not founded upon facts and conditions set forth in the bill.

We submit that the proposed Labor Extension Service is not a gun; that it could not be pointed at anyone; and that, under it, no labor organization officer or union could use it as was suggested in the member's remark.

The member's apprehensions do not appear to us to be founded on the facts of the bill, its principles and its methods of operation. Under this bill, no labor officer could point a gun, or propaganda, or anything else at anyone.

All services, all instruction, all materials, would be prepared, supplied, and taught, not by labor officers or employees, not by partisan defenders or opponents of the Taft-Hartley Act, but by institutions of higher learning, locally controlled and administered, with full power of direction, discipline, dismissal, and promotion over their instructors assigned to labor extension work.

As has been said again and again in these hearings, in this bill labor is asking for access to, and training in the use of, facts and reason. Under the terms set forth in the bill, labor is willing to take the presenta

tion of facts and reason as presented by the institutions of higher learning.

A minority-those whose views coincide with the twists and turns of Communist Party policy-are not willing and do not support this bill. They have their own schools, teaching their own doctrine. And they are just as apprehensive as the member about a Nation-wide Labor Extension Service, such as is here proposed. They express the fear that it will be a gun put into the hands of labor's enemies. Perhaps they mean that wider access to facts and more skill in their use will strengthen the forces of democracy in the present conflict in the world and within our Nation to which I have already referred. They fear the free competition of facts and ideas.

Mr. Chairman, we hope that the members of your committee will base their judgment of this bill on its own merits, on the demonstrated need for the service it proposes to extend to 46,000,000 wage earners.

We hope that the member who expressed apprehension about the bill in relation to certain attitudes with respect to the Taft-Hartley Act will, upon further examination of the principles, policies, and methods in the bill, change his mind and conclude that, upon the merits of the case as he has stated them, he stands to win more than he can lose.

Labor is not afraid of exposure to facts, ideas, and the use of reason. We are here asking for access to them, asking for parity of opporunity. We want to know the truth for its own sake and because we believe the truth will keep us free.

May I file for the record in conclusion, certain statements by people who have asked to have their remarks included in the record of this hearing. The statements are by Philip Weightman, vice president, United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO; Harvey W. Brown, international president, Association of Machinists (Independent); Elisabeth Christman, secretary-treasurer, National Women's Trade Union League; George Googe, regional director, American Federation of Labor; Clyde E. Murray, National Federation of Settlements; Paul Fitzpatrick, executive secretary, American Arbitration Association, and also endorsements from Senator A. H. Vandenberg and Senator Ives.

Mr. BREHM. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record.

(The documents are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF PHILIP WEIGHTMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, CHICAGO, ILL.

As an industrial worker I have always been interested in workers' education. With the coming of the CIO and the organizing of workers in the basic industries, I, as a packinghouse worker, became an active member. Later I served as presi dent of my own local union in the Swift plant in Chicago. When we set up our international union, the United Packinghouse Workers of America, affiliated with the CIO, in 1943, I was elected as a vice president of that organization. I have served as a vice president since that time.

My reason for giving you this background information is that in the years which I have served as an officer of my union, my conviction for the need of more extensive workers' education was greatly stimulated. As an officer of a union, whether it be local or international, one soon discovers that education is necessary both as a worker and as a citizen in the community and the Nation.

I am greatly in favor of the Labor Extension Service bill (H. R. 4078) in its present form, as it is being supported by all major labor organizations as well as a number of public-spirited citizens and groups.

The labor movement has grown to where it involves some 15,000,000 workers, and I would like to state my belief that in all organizational work, if it is to remain true to its stated ideals, it is necessary to carry on educational work commensurate with the organizational work. History, it seems to me, proves that where this has not been the case, there has been a distintegration and a demoralization of values.

I accept labor unions, of course, as an integral and essential part of a functioning democracy. I think, therefore, that Government should manifest an interest in matters pertaining to education within the labor movement. Government has shown that interest in the American farmer through the Federal Agricultural Extension Service, and has made funds available for practical educational work.

The Labor Extension Service, operating through the United States Department of Labor, would, in my opinion, make it possible for colleges and universities to service labor education through extension programs. Workers, I feel, have a right to that sort of service from our institutions of higher learning. The bill serving all wage earners would become, as it is now written, an instrument for improvement upon matters affecting collective bargaining, understanding of industrial problems as well as social and labor legislation.

I believe that this program of education will become valuable in terms of making possible a greater scope of integration of the labor movement into the American community. It will help establish levels of cooperation between the various groups represented in the American community, including industry and labor, as well as all other groups of importance in a functioning democracy.

In my own international union we carry on an eduactional program which necessarily must be limited because of a lack of resources. On the other hand, we know from our own experience that education for the membership is in great demand. We know that there is a great hunger for opportunities to become better equipped to meet the many responsibilities that grow out of unionism. Many of the disputes of the past in the industrial field have, without a doubt, grown out of a lack of understanding on the part of labor and industry. Workers' education will be a major factor in contributing to greater industrial peace.

The Labor Extension Service bill will make it possible to build the sort of program which can reach down into the ranks, into the communities, and that, I believe, is the real measure of success in any educational program. There is no doubt in my mind that this sort of program, available throughout every State in the Union, will be reflected in all of the phases of a worker's life. It will further be a healthy influence, I believe, on institutions of higher learning in this Nation since it would stimulate an understanding of the basic problems involved in maintaining a functioning relationship between labor and management.

I would like to restate my belief, first, that unions must be accepted as an integral part of democracy, and that you cannot have real democracy without education, and, second, that the scope of the labor movement today is such that the necessary funds for an adequate program must be provided through Federal funds because the Federal Government has a stake in the development of a democratic and well-informed labor movement. Under the provisions of H. R. 4078, I believe it is possible to perfect an educational program which will met the needs of the workers. Successful educational programs, in my opinion, must meet those basic needs and equip workers to meet their problems with greater knowledge, greater understanding, and greater efficiency.

STATEMENT OF HARVEY W. BROWN, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS

The International Association of Machinists is keenly interested in the passage of H. R. 6202 and H. R. 6249. That interest is the result of three principal factors: (1) The size of the union; (2) the diversity of its membership; and (3) the autonomy of its local lodges.

The International Association of Machinists is a big union-the largest labor organization of its kind in the country. Our present membership is in excess of 600,000. That membership is highly diversified. We have members in every important branch of modern industry-in railroads, shipyards, aircraft manufacturing, air lines, automotive manufacture and repair, machinery and machinetool manufacturing, and metalworking establishments of every kind. Our members are organized in both craft and industrial units, according to the type of organization which best serves their interests.