Following these remarks I shall call upon the ranking Republican of this subcommittee, Representative Griffin of Michigan, if he would like to make a statement.

The chairman of the full committee, Representative Powell, is unable to be here this morning, but he will make a statement on Wednesday.

It is expected that these hearings will consume most of 2 weeks, within which representative opinions will be heard on both sides of the question. In this connection I would like to acknowledge the fact that many who wish to testify in person will be disappointed. I regret that this will be the case, but we had to establish what I believe to be reasonable time limits. Any person or group wishing to present their support or opposition to H.R. 77 and the other legislation, may submit a statement to the subcommittee and it will be included as a part of the record if it is not repetitive of an argument already made. A great many of our colleagues who do not serve on this subcommittee but who are on the Committee on Education and Labor, have communicated with me and I suppose with Mr. Griffin as well, on behalf of persons or groups who would like to be heard.

All have been assured that opinions are welcome and will be considered.

The responsibility for the conduct of these hearings belongs in the majority, and as its representative, I accept that responsibility. Every possible consideration of the wishes of the minority of the people have been given. I could not be more mindful of the strength and divergence of the opinions which we shall hear in the next 2 weeks.

We intend to be considerate of all, and we ask the same for ourselves.

Because we do have a great many witnesses scheduled, the committee will follow the 5-minute rule in the questioning period. This will guarantee, I believe, the members of the subcommittee equal opportunity. If, at the end of the questioning of a witness, by all of those on the subcommittee, there are further questions to be asked, we will accommodate the members as well as we can.

We expect that we will have some members with us who are not members of the subcommittee, and I shall accord them the courtesy of asking questions insofar as time allows. I notice that Mr. Gibbons, of Florida, is with us this morning, and I understand that Mr. Gurney, of Florida, will be here, and Mr. Roosevelt is here, and Mr. Pucinski.

The effect of the bill, H.R. 77, would be to repeal section 14(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act. There are certain technical changes in other sections of the act that are necessary corollaries to repeal of the section, but basically the objective of the bill is to reestablish a uniform nationwide code of governing union security clauses in labor management and grievances.

It may be well to begin by stating what the law now provides. As it stands, the Federal law authorizes the union shop contracts under certain carefully defined conditions; an employer and a union may agree, if they so choose, to make union membership a condition of employment.

That is, they are permitted to sign a contract that requires every present employee to join a union which workers have chosen as a bar

gaining agent, and which requires every new employee to join the union within a certain period of time.

But the law does not give a union any control whatever over who shall be hired, nor does it give the union the right to demand the discharge of an employee for any offense against the union, except refusal to pay properly established dues and assessments.

No employee can lose his job because of his opinion. He may oppose the union leadership, and he may oppose the union itself, but as long as he pays his dues on the same basis as other members, the union cannot bring about his discharge.

I think it is important to make this point, because so much has been said about the power of unions over the livelihood of workers. In plain fact, no such power exists under the law.

While what I have just described as the Federal law is set forth in the act as a whole, section 14 (b) takes another, and to me an incomprehensible, step. It says that the several States may themselves. establish regulations as to any union security agreements, provided that only the terms are not more restrictive than those of the Federal law.

This is the only instance in which the Federal Government relinquishes control over industries affecting commerce. I submit that it is bad law and bad logic. It is bad law because it offends the very essence of the Constitution that one's Federal jurisdiction has been asserted by the Congress in a given area, in this instance labor-management relations, the Federal law shall prevail over that of the States. It is bad logic because it assumes that there are wide enough differences among the States, whether economic or ideological, to justify the fragmentation of Federal law in this one point.

The assumption in my view is invalid. This country is an economic entity which becomes closer knit with each passing day. The same companies produce and purvey the same goods in Newark, and New Orleans, and Seattle, and in Savannah. They and their workers should be governed by the same code of labor law.

There are two other points I would like to mention briefly. As President Johnson has pointed out, the contest over the so-called right to work has been divisive. They foster a mutual suspicion and outright conflict between management and labor.

This is totally inconsistent with the national policy of encouraging collective bargaining, which the act establishes, and it is contrary to the public interest by any measurement. Moreover, under the law, a union has a binding obligation to represent fully and equally all employees in the unit for which it is the bargaining agent.

A union cannot bargain for its members alone. It must give equal benefits and equal protection to all, even to those who don't want it. Surely it is unfair then to deny the union the right to seek a contract which requires all of those whom it protects to carry their share of the costs. To me it is as simple as that.

Like all of us who have the privilege of serving in this House, I reserve my deepest respect for the right of every American to vote. He may vote right or he may vote wrong on any issue or for any candidate. But whether I agree with him or not I cherish his freedom of decision and I respect the will of the majority.

Surely then the workers in the factory, or in any other place of employment, should have the right to vote on the conditions of employment that they will seek to establish by union contract. If they vote for a union shop, they are entitled to negotiate for a union shop. I wonder how anyone in the Congress can seriously quarrel with this basic exercise of majority rule. I realize of course, that the proposal to amend the so-called right-to-work laws has aroused emotions which are sincere even though misdirected.

I have tried to avoid any vestige of emotional appeal. H.R. 77 is not and should not be an emotional issue. It is a matter of clear conscience, of simple justice, and of the democratic rights of work

ers.

I hope it will be so viewed by the committee and by the witnesses who testify before us.

That concludes my statement. Now, Mr. Griffin, would you like to be recognized for a statement?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join the chairman of the subcommittee in welcoming our first witness to these hearings, Secretary Wirtz.

I am sure that

these hearings are going to be interesting and fruitful.

I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee at the outset for allowing what I would consider to be a reasonable time for hearings on this important issue. There were rumors early that there might be an effort to "railroad" this legislation through in 2 or 3 days of hearings, and not provide the opportunity to have the various points of view presented.

But Chairman Thompson has agreed to 2 weeks of hearings, I don't think that is enough time but certainly it is an adequate period of time. I do want to say, though, at the outset that those who follow these hearings ought to be aware that any hearings of this nature, when they are held in Washington, and only in Washington, bring only limited points of view before the committee.

Surely we will have the associations, the big associations, on either side of this question represented. Their points will be well presented by their paid association executives. But as we approach this question here in Washington and take their testimony, or the testimony of those that they bring in as spokesmen on either side, I think that we ought to keep in mind that out of more than 70 million workers in America, only 17 or 18 million actually belong to labor unions.

Who speaks for the other 53 million workers in a hearing such as this? Who speaks for those in the unions who believe in unions, who want to belong to unions, but don't believe in being second-class citizens in the process?

It is unfortunate, of course, that many of those in the rank and file who would like to testify here don't have the funds to come to Washington, and in many cases I regret that it is the case that the rank-and-file members would find that they would be the subject of reprisal if they did come down here and testify in opposition to the union point of view on this particular issue.

In Mr. Johnson's recent long delayed and long awaited labor message, he finally, at the very end of the message, with 44 words recommended the repeal of section 14(b).

I note with some interest that although that recommendation was the last of the message, the last is going to be first as far as this committee is concerned. I will watch with interest to see just how much priority this particular proposal has with the administration in the days ahead.

There will be, and as we have already heard, arguments made that this issue has nothing to do with civil rights or individual liberties and that these are somehow not related at all.

Mr. Thompson pointed to the fact that once a union is selected by a majority of the employees in an establishment, that union must represent all of the employees in the establishment.

I think then at the very outset, the record should contain a reference to section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, which provides that a labor organization selected by a majority of the employees "shall be the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment."

One of the crucial questions throughout these hearings is going to be: If section 14(b) is to be repealed then the union is to represent all of the employees in the bargaining unit for what purposes?

Are they to represent all of the employees? In 1958 a distinguished union leader, Mr. Walter Reuther, from my State, wrote in the New Republic, and he said—

I agree that the original labor movement was basically pure and simple trade unionism-bargaining for wages and for hours and for working conditions. But the labor movement cannot carry out its historic mission if it is to continue to do no more than that. As the problems of our modern society become more complex and interwoven, their solution cannot be economic or political. The solution has got to be economic and political.

Mr. Robert Mayer, an attorney for the AFL-CIO, in 1959, said this

When a member of a union pays his dues, he does so to support not only collective bargaining, welfare pension, and other benevolent activities, but legislative and political activities as well.

Those statements are interesting, I think, in comparison with this statement made by a very distinguished jurist, and I think a man who would be considered a liberal by most liberals, Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court. Listen to these words

The collection of dues for paying the costs of collective bargaining of which a member is the beneficiary is one thing. If, however, dues are used, or assessments are made to promote or oppose birth control, to repeal or increase the taxes on cosmetics, to promote or oppose the admission of Red China into the United Nations, and the like, then the group compels an individual to support with his money causes beyond what gave rise to the need for group action.

Someone else has even more eloquently said—

One who is compelled to give the fruits of his labor to the support of political or economic programs or support candidates for public office is just as much deprived of his freedom of speech as if he were compelled to give vocal support to doctrines he opposes.

I entered those statements in the record to give notice at the outset that there will be controversy on what the issue involved in these hearings is.

The issues of individual liberties, civil liberties, and fundamental rights are involved, in my opinion, and we will endeavor to demon

strate that this is so. The outright repeal of 14(b), without any further protections whatsoever, would be a great disservice in my opinion, to millions of rank-and-file workers.

But I want to call the attention of the chairman, since he called attention to a bill he sponsored, to the fact that there is at least one other alternative in the way of legislation, and I refer, of course, to H.R. 4350, a bill which I introduced and which does provide some basic protections.

I have noted the fact that many rank-and-file members and workers around the country may not be here at these hearings, and I also want to raise this question: I have seen the witness list for the next 2 weeks and where are the Governors or the attorneys general of the various States of the United States, whose laws will be affected if Congress takes this action?

Their laws will be repealed in some cases and in other cases the power of the State to legislate in this field will be taken away. I raise the question at the outset, as we proceed with these hearings, where are the so-called liberal groups on this particular issue?

Where is the Civil Liberties Union? Where is the Americans for Democratic Action? Why aren't they coming in to testify on an issue as important as this?

Mr. Chairman, with those brief remarks, I look forward to the testimony of Secretary Wirtz. Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMPSON. We would like to invite Governor Romney here and my Governor, too.

Our first witness this morning is the distinguished Secretary of Labor, the Honorable W. Willard Wirtz.

You are very welcome this morning, Mr. Secretary, and I note that you have a prepared statement. You may proceed with it as you wish, and we can put it in the record as it is, and have you comment on it, or you may read it and interpolate whichever you choose.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR

Secretary WIRTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. With respect to the handling of the statement, I would suggest, if I may, that the statement be made a part of the record, and that I use it as a basis for my remarks, but perhaps stray from it both in the direction of some curtailment in the light particularly of your opening statement, and in the light of the desire of developing certain points that are in it.

Mr. THOMPSON. Without objection, your statement will be placed. in the record in full at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF W. WILLARD Wirtz, SecretarY OF LABOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, President Johnson recommends, in his message of May 17 to the Congress, repeal of section 14 (b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.

I am before you in support of this recommendation and in support, accordingly, of H.R. 77 and the parallel provisions of the several other related bills this subcommittee has under consideration. To the extent that these bills include additional provisions, separate consideration will be appropriate.

The issue involved here is exceedingly important. Its determined legislative consideration has been long deserved and too long denied. I hold strongly the view I represent.