many concerns, concerns that go in many different directions, but we also do restrict ourselves when it comes to dealing with the Congress and so on in speaking our concerns.

Our people are concerned, but when the church speaks, of which we are speaking today officially as the church, we restrict ourselves to a very narrow area, and that area is on the matter of religious convictions. I am sure that you will find Seventh-day Adventists with a multitude of concerns for political and all the rest that go on, but we do not make a habit of coming to Congress very often. Our record does not indicate that we make very many visits here to testify before committees. It is only when they come down to a very narrow issue, striking a strong religious conviction, where we enter the picture as a church.

So I think maybe you have misjudged us a little bit in that statement. Mr. THOMPSON. The Chair might observe that in recognition of this, I did not pursue a line of questioning which occurred to me with respect, not to your testimony, but to Mr. Walker and his brothers, and it is this: That in the 19 States which have the so-called rightto-work laws, there are a tremendous number of people whose belief in union security agreements is such that they would desire, and they want very much, to have a union shop. They are deprived of the right given under 8(a) to everyone, but by their State laws, they are deprived of the right even to express their view in an election, and they have very deep convictions, too.

Mr. Andrews, no doubt, refers to a number of convictions which he has which you didn't mention. I recognize that you are here for the sole purpose and so are the others, and I recognize, too, that you have said, and so did the others, that you take no position with respect to the repeal of 14 (b).

That being a political question, you have left it alone.

Mr. ADAMS. That, I gather, is the reason we are all alone at this end of the hearings. The other pros and the cons have gone before. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it was in recognition of this that I did it. Mr. ADAMS. To this position.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thought that the other arguments were much more relevant to the other witnesses, and not to those who appear solely on the basis of a religious belief. For that reason, I did not pursue the line of questioning which obviously occurred to me. In other words, I would not say to you, because of the narrowness of your testimony, that you would want to deprive the people in 19 States who want something which they can't have that you were depriving them or would in any way advocate depriving them of a freedom which they would like.

Mr. ADAMS. May I respond, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. While we do not enter into this matter of the freedom which you have brought up at this time, that's not in our purview right now. Nevertheless, we do very strongly feel that even in these elections where this freedom is discussed, that the rights of religious convictions of those who can't join or support should be respected. That is our constitutional way of life.

Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, I understand that.

Mr. ADAMS. That is the point that we are here for today.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Scheuer, we have time, I think, for you. Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, in deference to the lateness of the hour, I would like to thank the witness for his thoughtful testimony. Mr. THOMPSON. As I explained earlier, some members of the committee have to go up to Pennsylvania Avenue at about this time. Thanks to the minority leader's courtesy and Mr. Griffin's courtesy, we have, we assume, consent to sit this afternoon. We will return at 2: 15, to hear Mr. Hershberger, Dr. Murch, and Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will adjourn until 2: 15.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2: 15 p.m. the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2:15 p.m., Hon. Carlton R. Sickles presiding.)

Mr. SICKLES. I will call the hearing to order. In the absence of Congressman Thompson, I will preside this afternoon.

You just heard the bells, which means we must answer a call on the floor. We will delay the opening of this session until at least 2:35 or when we come back.

(A short recess was taken.)

Mr. SICKLES. This afternoon we will continue our consideration of H.R. 77 and related bills. We will hear first from Mr. Guy F. Hershberger. A member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Brademas, has asked to introduce Mr. Hershberger.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Hershberger is the executive secretary of the Committee on Economic and Social Relations of the Mennonite Church. I am delighted to welcome him here not only as a constituent, but as a friend. He has been one of the most active citizens not only in church affairs in northern Indiana and in my State, but in other social and public affairs as well, and we are very pleased indeed to welcome you here, Mr. Hershberger, with your coÏleagues and perhaps you would like to present them to the committee also.

STATEMENT OF GUY F. HERSHBERGER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RELATIONS, OF THE MENNONITE CHURCH

Mr. HERSHBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Brademas.

To my left is Mr. Ralph Hurnley, who is the chairman of the committee on economic and social relations, and to my right, Mr. Paul Pitze, who is also associated with our committee. We are very happy to be present this afternoon in this presentation.

The statement has been mimeographed and is in your hands, but I shall make some editorial changes as I go along, and I would say that the first entire paragraph down to my point No. 1-you will notice that the paper numbers the points the entire introductory statement is stricken out and in its place I read the following:

I am Guy F. Hershberger, executive secretary of the Committee on Economic and Social Relations of the Mennonite Church. The statement which I am presenting has been endorsed by four Mennonite

and affiliated groups through the committees officially responsible to speak for them on social and economic concerns. These groups are the Mennonite Church, the General Conference Mennonite Church, the Church of God in Christ Mennonite, and the Brethren and Christ Church, all affiliated with the Mennonite Central Committee, with headquarters at Akron, Pa., and representing upward of 150,000 members. In addition it should be noted that the committee on economic and social relations has been servicing members of the Old Order Amish Church, who have no official committees, in their relations with labor unions. In speaking for these groups I am testifying in behalf of freedom of religion as that may be affected by proposed legislation with respect to labor and industrial relations.

In stating our position in respect to various issues now before the Subcommittee on Labor I would note the following:

1. Our position is neither "promanagement" nor "prolabor." We believe that each (management and labor) should have its fair share of the fruits of industrial work, and that each may rightfully seek to find procedures for obtaining that fair share, in ways, however, which do not interfere with or militate against the rights of the other, or the rights and conscience of third parties.

2. We recognize the right, even the desirability, of organization for the purpose of collective bargaining for the achievement of these ends. Indeed, in certain instances the committee on economic and social relations has encouraged, and even assisted, in the formation of workers associations for this purpose (associations, however, which do not employ coercive methods and procedures, such as the strike and the boycott).

3. Many Mennonites as well as others have conscientious scruples against membership in organizations, whether of management or labor, which would make them responsible for such coercive procedures. They feel that this position is only one of consistency with their Christian pacifist position. Many also feel that the unrestricted payment of dues involves them in such responsibility.

4. Many labor unions with whom we have had negotiations understand this position, are sympathetic to it, and have worked with the committee on economic and social relations in finding ways and in agreeing upon relationships whereby persons with such scruples can work in union shops without violation of their conscience.

While these agreements vary as to details, they generally excuse the individual from taking the union obligation, attendance at meetings, serving on the picket line, and similar activities. In a large number of cases the "equivalent of dues" which is paid by the workers is specified for benevolent and charitable services, either within or without the union organization. In one instance, indeed, the payment is specified for a student scholarship fund which is administered by a committee of three men, a union official, a Mennonite minister, and a mutually agreed upon third member who happens to be a college administrator.

In another, the payment is specified for a special sick benefit fund available for any worker in the plant, and is administered by a committee similarly constituted. There are other instances, however, in which the financial arrangements are less satisfactory, some indeed in which the contributors are not happy with all of the uses for which the funds are employed.

5. While we believe that understandings voluntarily entered into by the union and the religious objector and his representative, if the details are satisfactory, are the best solution for the problem with which we are here concerned, it must also be recognized that not all unions have seen their way clear to enter into such negotiations, and for this reason some persons with conscientious scruples continue to suffer under what seems to us to constitute unnecessary discrimination. For this reason we believe that in the formulation of legislation concerning the rights of the industrial employee the members of the legislature should give consideration to the concern of the religious objector also. We do not like to think of ourselves as in a position asking for legislation compelling any organization to respect our conscience. On the other hand, since all legislation involves compulsion, we do not believe that power in this manner conferred may rightfully be used by any organization to discriminate against persons with religious scruples.

6. We would emphasize that our position is one neither for nor against the retention of section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Some of our most satisfactory relations with unionsdescribed under 4 above exist under full union shop conditions, and most of them in States which do not have so-called right-to-work laws. In some cases, on the other hand, we have experienced real difficulties in States which have right-to-work laws, and in industries where there is a union without a union shop contract.

From the viewpoint of our concern and experience both satisfactory and unsatisfactory relations with the union are possible, both in States which have so-called right-to-work laws and in States which do not have them. Furthermore, since it is also our belief that in some many instances support of section 14(b) has a motivation other than the promotion of industrial democracy, we wish to make it clear that we do not share such support so motivated.

In other words, it is our belief that in the industrial history of the United States, the procedures of management also have often been unethical, that, indeed, it was the need for the correction of these practices which gave rise to organized labor.

7. We would note a statement approved in 1956 by the Executive Board of the Division of Christian Life and Work of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. This statement, although holding the opinion that "union membership as a basis of continued employment should be neither required nor forbidden by law," also includes a section entitled: "Democratic safeguards for union members." Among the necessary safeguards referred to in this section is the following:

Adequate protection for those individuals who, for reasons of religious belief, cannot participate in all conditions of membership.

This, we believe, is so important a concern for all who take democracy seriously that industrial organizations, whether of management or of labor, as well as legislators, whether on the National or the State level, should give serious consideration to it.

8. Finally, we believe the question before us to be one of religious liberty. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is the opening state

ment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. When Congress enacted the military conscription law of 1917, and again in 1940 and 1948, the Bill of Rights was honored by the inclusion of a provision recognizing the conscience of those who by reason of religious training and belief have scruples against military service, and extending to them the privilege of an appropriate alternative in the form of civilian service of national importance.

It is our belief that any organization serving the general public, to the extent that labor organizations do, should likewise recognize the conscience of the religious objector, and that when such compulsory organization is supported by legislation, the latter should also do so. 9. As to what should constitute a suitable alternative, we are taking no fixed, inflexible position. We are concerned for the liberty of the individual not to be bound responsibly for procedures in which he cannot conscientiously engage. We are not interested in evading any financial responsibility which may be ours. Our experience with cooperating unions leads us to believe that alternative ways of discharging this responsibility can be found, alternatives that can prove satisfactory to all parties concerned; and we stand ready to participate in negotiations toward such a mutually satisfactory solution.

CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

1. We are not seeking any financial advantage.

2. We believe it should be considered an unfair labor practice to compel anyone to violate his conscience who, for reasons of religious belief, cannot participate in union membership.

3. The primary concern of the groups which have endorsed this statement is for a ministry of reconciliation between economic and social classes and groups, and it is for this reason that many find themselves unable to support coercive procedures such as the strike and the boycott. While organized labor in general considers the latter procedures necessary as a last resort, most unions, we believe, are also sympathetic to the ministry of reconciliation for which the groups here represented are concerned. It is their belief, therefore, that organized labor should rise to the occasion and accept legislation which has a concern for such a ministry of reconciliation.

4. A suggested amendment.' As a suggested amendment to H.R. 77, providing for individuals with religious objections to union membership we would propose the following.

Provided, It shall be an unfair labor practice,

(i) To require an individual who has religious convictions against membership and financial support of labor unions, to join or financially support any such organization:

(a) Provided such individual pay to the Treasurer of the United States a sum equal to the initiation fees and periodic dues uniformly required as a condition of acquiring and retaining membership in the labor organization which is the representative of the employee as provided by section 9(a) ;

(b) Or provided such individual pay the same equal sums into a fund to be used by an impartial agency representing management, labor, and the U.S. Government through the National Labor Relations Board, for the resolution of industrial conflict through mediation and arbitration. (ii) To fine, or otherwise penalize, or threaten, or in any way discriminate against any individual with religious convictions which prevents him from joining or financially supporting labor organizations, for exercising, or attempting to exercise, any legal or civil right guaranteed to any person by this act, or by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or law of any State or political subdivision thereof.

1 The above proposed amendment is similar to that submitted by Mr. W. Melvin Adams of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the exception that (i-b) has been added; (i-a) as inserted by Mr. Adams is designed to meet the convictions of persons represented by the testimony of Mr. Frederick N. Walker and Mr. Cyril F. Dadd; (i-b) would provide a solution which more nearly conforms to the convictions of persons represented by the Committee on Economic and Social Relations of the Mennonite Church.