THE WAR IN VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 21, 2005
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: January 29, 1966
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1443
Carl Schurz and Samuel Gompers, E. L. God- There is, alas, a tragic example of this at- critics from the country. Southerners
kin, of the Nation, and Felix Adler, of the titude toward criticism before our eyes, and found criticism of slavery so subversive that of the Ethical Culture Society, Jane Addams, of in a people who inherit, if they do not Cher- they drove critics out thought cou h. t-
Hull House, and President Jordan, of Stan- ish, our traditions of law and liberty. Like torney Plmer
ford University, and Andrew Carnegie and the slaveocracy of the Old South, the domi- our Siberian misadventure-now remem-
scores of others. And when the defenders of nant leaders of South Africa today are con- bered only with embarrassment-so sub-
the war raised the cry "Don't haul down the vinced that whites are superior to Negroes, versive that he hounded the critics into
flag," it was no other than William Jennings and that Negroes must not be allowed to en- prison for 20-year terms. McCarthy found
Bryan, titular head of the Democratic Party, joy the freedoms available to whites. To almost all teachers and writers so subversive the librar who asked, "Who will haul down the Presi- cismaintain tb . Is policy and to m--criticism cismcoming from the academic 1 aaand riwas ticism niversi ies.n Experience
dent?"
We need not decide now whether those community and from the press-they have should harden us against the argument that
who protested this war were right or wrong. dispensed with the traditions of due process dissent and criticism are so dangerous that
It is sufficient to remember that we honor and of fair trial, violated academic freedom, they must always give way to consensus. cri Mark Twain and William James, regard Jane and are in process of destroying centuries of And as aifor d the argument to that
some encism
Addams as one of the greatest of American constitutional guarantees. And with criti- may give
women, and still read Godkin, and that Bryan cism silenced, they are able to delude them- that is a form of blackmail unworthy of
is somewhat better remembered than William selves that what they do is just and right. those who profess it. If it is to be accepted,
McKinley. Those infatuated patriots who Now, it would be absurd and iniquitous to we have an end to genuine discussion of
now assert that it is somehow treasonable to equate our current policies toward Vietnam foreign policies, for it will inevitably be in-
criticize any policy that involves Americans with the defense of slavery, or with Nazi or voked to stop debate and criticism whenever
in fighting overseas would do well to ponder Afrikaner policies. But the point is not that debate gets acrimonious or the criticism
the lessons of the Philippine war. whether these policies have anything in cuts too close to the bone. And to the
But, it will be said, as it is always said, common. The point is that when a nation fevered mind of the FBI, the CIA, and some
this war is different. Whether history will silences criticism and dissent, it deprives Senators, criticism always gives aid and
judge this war to be different or not, we itself of the power to correct its errors. The comfort to the enemy or cuts too close to the
cannot say. But this we can say with cer- process of silencing need not be as savage as bone.
tainty: a government and a society that si- in Nazi Germany or in South Africa today; it "The only thing we have to fear," said
lences those who dissent is one that has lost is enough that an atmosphere be created Franklin Roosevelt, "is fear itself." That is
its way. This we can say: that what is es- where men prefer silence to protest. As has as true in the intellectual and the moral
sential in a free society is that there should been observed of book burning, it is not nec- realm as in the political and the economic.
-
be an atmosphere where those who wish to essary to burn books, it is enough to dis- Wese do hip riot ideasneed to Wear ideas but the fcen ear
do nt need to
dissent and even to demonstrate can do so courage men from writing them. so of
without fear of recrimination or vilification. It cannot be too often repeated that the criticism, but the silencing of criticism. We
What is the alternative? What is implicit justification and the purpose of freedom of do not need to fear excitement or agitation
in the demand, now, that agitation be si- speech is not to indulge those who want to in the academic community, but timidity
lenced, that demonstrators be punished? speak their minds. It is to prevent error and and apathy. We do not need to fear resist-
What is implicit, in the insistence that we discover truth. There may be other ways of ance to political leaders, but unquestioning lead "pull up by the roots and rend to pieces" the detecting error and discovering truth than acquiescence lis adopt. in whatever policies td to fear
protests from students-it is Senator STEN- that of free discussion, but so far we have ers aeWtoo literally the anguished
leas of a who P take
o a Paul VI a y the moral lessons
xis we are quoting here. What is implicit in not found them. those
the charge that those who demonstrate There is one final argument for silencing pf the of a Pop o the or th th but those who
against the war are somehow guilty of trea- criticism, that is reasonable and even per-Serm,
son? suasive. It is this: that critics of our Viet- reject the notion that morality has any place For It is, of course, this: that once our Govern- nam policy are in fact defeating their they and politics
in . the dark that, indeed, is to stumble
ment has embarked upon a policy there is to ends. For by protesting and agitating, be no more criticism, protest, or dissent. All may persuade the Vietcong, or the North
must close ranks and unite behind the Gov- Vietnamese, or the Chinese, that the Amer- THE WAR IN VIETNAM
ernment. - ican people are really deeply divided, and that
Now we have had a good deal of experience, if they but hold out long enough the Ameri- Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
first and last, with this view of the duty of cans will tire of the war and throw in the dent
know wt that hat Senators
crisis are that this
the citizen to his government and it behooves sponge. As there is in fact no likelihood of dent, I the
far astray. troubled.
bled the us to recall that experience before we go too agony of artics are merely prolonging the Nation faces, and they are certainly priv-
We ourselves had experience with this phi- These predictions about the effect of criti- ileged to speak out and express their
losophy in the ante bellum South. The cism in other countries are, of course, purely views. I concede that right. However, .
dominant forces of southern life were, by the speculative. One thing that is not mere it somewhat dismays me to hear our Na-
1840's, convinced that slavery was a positive speculation is that American opinion is, in tion accused of being an aggressor, en-
good, a blessing alike for slaves and for mas- fact, divided; that's what all the excitement gaged in all sorts of illegal, corrupt con-
ters; they were just as sure of the righteous- is about. We do not know how the Vietcong duct in the world. That is not the case.
ness of the "peculiar institution" as is Sena- or the Chinese will react to the sounds of I am proud of this great Nation. I sup-
Vietnam. Donn of the righteousness of the war in argument coming across the waters. Perhaps
Vietnam. And they adopted a policy that they will interpret criticism as a sign of port my Nation. I support the President,
so many Senators now want to impose upon American weakness. But perhaps they will who is our Commander in Chief.
us: that of silencing criticism and intimi- interpret it as an indication of our reason- On January 27, 2 days ago, I placed in
dating critics. Teachers who attacked slav- ableness. And assuredly they will, if they the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, beginning at
ery were deprived of their posts-just what have any understanding of these matters at page 1236, the argument which the over-
Mr. Nixon now advises as the sovereign cure all, interpret it as a sign of the strength of whelming majority of international law-
for what ails our universities. Editors who our democracy-that it can tolerate differ-
raised yens believe to be correct: that is, that
their voices in criticism of slavery lost ences of opinion. yers Nation, to on 125 be occasions res: th including
has gone to
their papers. Clergymen who did not realize But there are two considerations here that the War of Independence,
that slavery was enjoined by the Bible were invite our attention. First, if critics of our
forced out of their pulpits. Books that crit- Vietnamese war are right, then some modifi- war, has sent our forces into action, prior
icized slavery were burned. In the end the cation of our policy is clearly desirable, and to a declaration of war.
dominant forces of the South got their way: those who call for such modification serve a When we were attacked at Pearl Har-
critics were silenced. The South closed its necessary purpose. We do not know bor, we did not wait for a declaration by
ranks against critics, and closed its mind; whether they are right or not. We will not Congress. We had to start defending
it closed, too, every avenue of solution to the find out by silencing them. Second, if gov- ourselves by attacking those who at-
slavery problem except that of violence. ernment, or those in positions of power and tasked us. General MacArthur did not
Nazi Germany provides us with an even authority, can silence criticism by the argu- t ak for s d General of war, but didt his
more sobering spectacle. There, too, under ment that such criticism might be mis-
Hitler, opposition to government was equated understood somewhere, then there is an end troops into action in the Philippines.
with treason. Those who dared question to all criticism, and perhaps an end to our In World War II, President Roosevelt
the inferiority of Jews, or the justice of the kind of political system. For men in au- ordered the Navy, when it came upon
conquest of inferior peoples like the Poles, thority will always think that criticism of German submarines, not to wait for a
were effectually silenced, by exile or by the their policies is dangerous. They will al- ddeclaration of war, but to attacck. The
the gas chamber. With criticism and dis- ways equate their policies with patriotism, amara message came t from a he
sent eliminated, Hitler and his followers were and find criticism subversive. The Federal-
cacti and the world, Is bts found versive criticism of President
they legislated toy expel same," .1 recently r ferred toba state-
dow to lead their nation,
down the path t to destruction.
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
`144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORI) - SENATE January 29, 1966
mcnt by 25 of the most outstanding pro- A large number of Senators harbor in- PROPOSED REPEAL OF SECTION
lessors of international law, including ward fears and doubts about what is tak- 14(b) OF THE
N
all of whom agreed that such a procedure dangerous world. W Any time the Soviet
The Senate resumed the consideration
was correct. Union decides that it wants to make war of the motion of the Senator from Mon-
The 125 examples I cited were taken on this country, it can do so and inflict tana CMMr. MANSFIELD] that the Senate
from a memorandum prepared for the great damage upon this Nation. If they proceed to the consideration of the bill
Committee on Armed Services and the deem the time to be ripe, they may (H.R. 77) to repeal section 14(b) of the
Committee on Foreign Relations at the well decide to attack us at such time as National Labor Relations Act, as
time we were discussing whether Presi- they may choose. But so far, we have amended, and section 703(b) of the La-
dent Truman was correct in relieving convinced them of our determination to bor-Management Reporting Act of 1959
General MacArthur of his duties in Ko- fight for freedom. and to amend the first proviso of section
rea. 'T'hat was the conclusion of the This nation will fight whenever we 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
document. No one argued that that was must. We engaged in acts of warfare Act, as amended.
not the prevailing view. and turned back the Russian :;]hips when The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
When our ships were attacked in the they sought to go into Cuba.. Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Gulf of Tonkin, we knew what our ships We must recognize that the Soviet Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, once
were doing there. They were there to Union might some day seek to make war again the well of this historic assembly
help the people of South Vietnam and to on this great Nation. However, we have has become the scene of one of the great
help the Government of South Vietnam the weapons we need with which to national debates of our time; a contest
defend itself. We were providing them fight them if that happens, and that is involving a basic, fundamental issue that
with various communications assistance one reason that nothing occurred, goes to the very root of a free society; a
which we thought they needed. When We know very well that the Chinese struggle between two irreconcilable prin-
our ships were attacked, we struck back. Communists may decide to engage in ciples which are of their very nature so
We committed an act of war, well know- warefare against this country at any repugnant and contradictory to each
ing that that was what we were doing. time. That is not too likely to occur other as to be insusceptible of co:mpro-
We blasted the harbors from which the now. What we had better be worried mise. For the basic issue before the
North Vietnamese torpedo boats had. about is not what the Communist Chi- Senate is simply a conflict between the
come. nese might do now, but rather what they idea of individual liberty and freedom of
The American people rose up in en- might do 5 years from now when Red association versus the concept of com-
thusiastic acclaim and support of the China has built up its atomic potential. pulsory unionization and involuntary
President. The President went before We shall then have a real threat directed regimentation of the American working-
the people, and the people had a chance at us. man.
to vote on whether they wanted him to If Red China decides that she wants to Mr. President, the right-to-work issue
continue after that. The people gave come into the situation in Vietnam today, Was presented to the people of 1Missis-
the President a 15 million majority vote. she can come in at any time she wishes. sippi on June 7, 1960, in the form of a
I am frank to say that the President's Red China will not be worried about constitutional amendment. On that
opponent, who was at that time the dis- the men she might lose or the men that date, after a full, free, and fair debate,
tinguished senior Senator from Arizona, we might lose. That nation will be more the people of my State voted to place the
Mr. Goldwater, took the same view; concerned about the danger inherent in right-to-work law in their constitution
namely, that we not only should have whether this Nation will seek on that by an overwhelming vote of 105,724 to
done what was done, but should have occasion to destroy Communist China 47,461. Section 198-A of the Mississippi
gone further in fighting the aggressors as an atomic power. That is something Constitution now reads as follows:
of North Vietnam. for them to think about. Section 198-A: It is hereby declared to be
Congress adopted a resolution not only We are committed. Our forces are the public policy of Mississippi that the right
approving what the President did, but there. We cannot let one little Cammu- of a person or persons to work shall not be
nist
power, consisting of 16 omini million denied or abridged on account of member-
approving whatever measures he might ship or nonmembership in any labor union
deem necessary to defeat North Viet- people, run the greatest power on the or labor organization. Any agreement or
namese aggression. The action the Pres- face of the earth out of there when we combination between any employer and any
ident is taking is in furtherance of an are committed to defend the people. labor union or labor organization whereby
act of war that had been committed by I applaud the President for the action any person not a member of such union or
this Nation under the powers of the Cam- he has taken. I do not envy him. He organization shall be denied the right to work
has a very difficult job. I would not want for an employer, or whereby such mernber-
mander in Chief. to have his job and be subject to
further all the ship is made a condition of employment or
Congress stated that it approved such burdens and pressures which are exerted continuation of employment by such cm- o acts of war as the President upon a President. payer, or whereby any such union or olly y in
na
might deem necessary. In some respects, tion acquires an employment monopoly that resolution is a declaration of war. When we disagree with him, we should any enterprise, is hereby declared to be an
It gave affirmative approval dthe Pres- not make speeches available for the Cam- illegal combination or conspiracy and against
It gave the United efor the Conn- munists to spread around behind the Iron public policy. No person shall be required
enemy Curtain unless we first communicate with by an employer to become or remain a mem-
ident o in the Chief, to nStaae our the
in the President and tell him what we sag- ber of any Gabor union o3rr labor organization
warfare, understanding that that was gest about the matter, and, only in the as a condition of em to ment or continua-
ploy No
exactly what the resolution meant. So event that he does not heed our sugges- plansta of shall employment required by such
an e employer.
let us understand that we are at war tions, fr an shi er to
right now. That is what our boys are , should we communicate with him abstain or refrain from membership i n any
there for. through the Nation's press. Such con- labor union. or labor organization as a con-
duct encourages the Communists to think dition of employment or continuation of em-
Che United States is in South Vietnam that if they will continue this action, ployment. No employer shall require any
in pursuance of a resolution that Con- continue to kill some of our American person, as a condition of employment or con-
inuation of employment, to pay any dues,
i?ress adopted, only two Senators voting boys, and continue to kidnap our people tfees o other charges of any
against it. Since that resolution was and chop their heads off we will lose heart union or labor organiz tion. kAny p toy any labor
adopted, the Senate has been treated to and surrender. g erson who m be denied emploment or be deriv
at least one speech a week by those two The American people are not that kind of ay continuation of hisemployment in viola
Senators, or at least one of them. of people. We can unite behind our tion of any paragraph of this section shall be
Some of us are proud of our great Commander in Chief in time of war. entitled to recover from such employer and
country, proud of our boys who are fight- We are doing that. from any other person, firm, corporation, or
ing for freedom. We are proud of them, We have been very fortunate to have association acting in concert with him by
and we are proud of our President. We good national leaders in times of danger. appropriate action in the courts of this State
are proud of the President's action to re- I am such actual son mages as of such he may have sva-
sus-
proud that we have the Present tamed by reason of such denial or deprlva-
list aggression. President of the United States. tion of employment.
e62,,1w,?1??~~P6700446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE 1445
The provisions of this section shall not ap- in a conference report on .the bill, ex- him a useful service. It is, therefore,
ply to, any, lawful contract in force on -the plained the purpose of 14(b) as, easy to see that union leaders could be-
effective date of this section, but they shall Many States have enacted laws or adopted come beset with concern relative to this
apply to all contracts thereafter entered into constitutional provisions to make all forms aspect. Over the years, closed shop and
and to any renewal or extension of an exist- of compulsory unionism in those States fl- union shop contracts have made the
ing contract thereafter occurring. The pro- legal. It was never the intention of the organizer's job easy. The new employee
visions of this section shall not apply to any National Labor Relations Act (the Wagner must accept union membership along
employer or employee under the jurisdiction Act) as its legislative history discloses, to with his new job. If he fails to pay dues;
of the Federal Railway Labor Act. preempt the field in this regard so as to w 1S discharged. It would seem that
Our people are proud to be counted as deprive the States of their powers to prevent wi he is are rged fearful woul to test their
one of the 19 States where the concept of compulsory unionism. Neither the existing
individual liberty has prevailed in the act nor the conference agreements could true value to employees by giving men
be said to authorize arrangements of this and women what should be an inalienable
confrontation with compulsory, involun- sort in States where such arrangements were American right to refuse to join if they
tary unionization, and regimentation, contrary to State policy. wish not to do so.
and we resent this effort to deprive us When the Taft-Hartley law was passed, Under the Wagner Act passed in 1935
of our choice. 13 States had statutes which prohibited unions were able through closed shop
Simply stated, so right-to-work
th that the thinherent laws right the closed shop-that is, a form of labor- contracts to force employers to hire
of a ndividu l to secure hold a job management agreement under which an union members only. This law gave
not be abridged do sged ecure any and union a secu- employee is required to be a union mem- union officials a monopoly of labor where-
shall an individual
ity ere m entered into by the h em- ber in his State in order to obtain a job by they could dominate their members,
ply er and the union. h more or to retain that job after he gets it. dictate to employers, challenge the Gov-
proper and de union. Perhaps mm- Four States permitted the closed shop ernment to a point of paralyzing the na-
ployeay stated, human voluntary liberty yiquigems only after specific approval by employ- tional economy. Union members who
ploys a individual a freedom p ech, religion, n, ees in an election. Section 14(b) reads disobeyed the edict of union officers fre-
or assembly. eyBy tenactment ceof as follows: quently suffered economic resprisals.
the Congress By the h recog- Nothing in this act shall be construed They not only lost their current job, but
the preserved theto the United ctso of f the as authorizing the execution or application frequently their right to another job.
they so de- e of agreements requiring membership in a Such shocking abuses were disclosed-that
nized
several and d States the right, if citizens
sev labor organization as a condition of employ- the elected representatives of the people
sired, to enact legislative statutes or con- meat in any State or territory in which such by overwhelming vote in both Houses of
stitutional amendments which would execution or application is prohibited by the Congress outlawed the closed shop in
protect the freedom of choice of their in- State or territorial law. 1947, and permitted the States to outlaw
and liv chows ou that their very jobs Essentially, the right-to-work statutes compulsory unionism in any form under uld and livelihood h co not be placed e in make it unlawful to deprive a person of the authority of 14(b).
jeopnydy through eompulsinn ab a result a job because he does not belong to a The ninth amendment to the Constitu-
ofa agreement and acquiescent into be - union, or conversely, because he does be- tion of the United States reads that the
ployer. union and an at em- long to a union. They also make it un- "enumeration in the Constitution, of cer-
voluntary snbmis that the principle of . lawful for an employer to enter into tain rights, shall not be construed to deny
promise, A is not open to co me agreement with a union to make mem- or disparage others retained by the
promise. A person must believe ievo or in tmust he bership in such union a condition of em- people."
fre ac ede of view that choice c proper to ployment. In other words, they insure The Declaration of Independence pro-
shackle to the the cwill lew of the unwilling em- the right to work with or without union claimed to the world the "self-evident"
shackloline em- membership. Consequently, the only is- truths "that all men are created equal;
ployee pical ri compuwor law devices. sue involved is one of compulsory union- that they are endowed by their Creator
A typcal right has thekaw provides ism, in that employees are to be forced with certain unalienable rights; that
t join an employee has the right or unioneither to join a union in order to hold a job. among these are life, liberty, and the pur-
ni 19 or States from laws joining a labor whereby . One would immediately conclude that suit of happiness."
I Sta are inion membership fw
co onttr contracts requiring laws requiring union as within the democratic process of this The Declaration of independence, it
a condition of employment are unen- great Nation, the United States, that should be noted, was careful to state that
forcible. The language which has been there could be no argument against a liberties and human rights were not man not govern adopted by either enactment by the State man's basic right to work without being made.
raTheir ther sour e was
endowed by the
legislatures or by an amendment to the forced to join a union or without being
State constitution is framed in a tenor compelled to refrain from joining a "Creator" of all men. John Adams, our
similar to the following: "Any agreement union. Certainly, Mr. President, the second President, assured the people:
or combination between any employer existence of any contrary position would You have antecedent cannot be all
reahly
and any labor union organization where- seem to be contrary to and in violation governments; o rent rights
human aa wn; of be prealed
o w the Universe.
by persons not members of such unions of the basic principles and tenets of our from the Great Lelarights
shall be denied the right to work by the constitutional government which pro-
employer or whereby such membership is vides for and genuinely befits a great This basic concept of individual sov-
made a condition of employment or con- and free society which all our citizens ereignty and liberty was absolute in the
tinuation of employment by such em- enjoy. Strangely enough, the union offi- theory of American Government from the
was not granted by
ployer or whereby any such union ac- tcers
passage over aperof the t law iod frma yearsksince vv ery Constitution.
quires monopoly to be in any ninth amendment is a basic state-
public is hereby declared to be against have directed a continuing assaulof this t to- The meet of the inherent rights of the indi-
or co poricy and an illegal combination legislative the esafeguard. and This is a repeal
curious vidual. See Patterson, "The Forgotten
Section thing-the more so because all their Ninth Amendment," Bobbs-Merrill, 1955.
egen n 14(b) a part of the Labor objections seem not to succeed in hiding On its face it declares there are unenu-
p by an Relations Act which was a what appears to be their one real fear; merated rights that are retained by the
1947. In n amending the 1935 Wagner- n Act namely, that when unionism is placed people, as a group and individually.
in a variety of areas, the ngr r on a voluntary basis, they must get their individual freedom is the basis of our
Taft-Hartley, a variety of added in new members on the basis of meriting democracy and is the virtue which marks
Tea n the States e Stsection would 1oatt to o the employees' support. ours over other forms of government.
make free to continue This as we know it, Mr. President, is Liberty, or freedom, is the equivalent of
and to chose right-to-work
prior laws a the the way that every other organization the right to live, worship, work, and pur-
pas g enforce Taft-Hartley. those enacted prioto the in this country operates. You sell a man sue happiness as an individual. Liberty
the was on the value of membership, and then and freedom, I believe, include the right
the final of version n of of Taft-Hartley t the time
worked out, the conference committee, you keep him sold by performing for of opportunity to seek, secure, and retain
No. 14-7
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
1.'46 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
employment free of any form of comiDul--
sion to join or pay tribute to any private
organization. This is one of the inalien.-
able rights with which individuals "are
endowed by their Creator." As such, I
.submit, it is preserved by the ninth
a amendment and protected by it, at least
against any denial or disparagement by
a, State or by the Congress.
Tn discussing the Bill of Rights before
the first Congress, James Madison, the
father of the Bill of Rights and author
of the ninth amendment, warned the
people:
The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought
W be leveled against that quarter where the
greatest danger lies, namely, that which pos-
s sses the highest prerogative of power. But
this is not found in either the executive or
legislative department of the Government,
bust in the body of the people, operating by
the majority against the minority. But I
confess that. I do conceive that in a govern-
ment modified like this of the United States,
the great danger lies rather in the abuse
for. the community, than. in the legislative
body. (Gales and Seaton's "Annals of
Congress.")
Pears of excesses in Government led
to the Bill of Rights. Fears of excesses
by a majority of the community led to
the ninth amendment. The highest duty
the Supreme Court can perform is the
protection of individual liberty and free-
dom. Conscience compels it and the
ninth amendment demands it.
t'reedom of association is a composite
of rights under the first amendment,
particularly freedom of speech and of
assembly. This right springs from the
liberty of the individual to live his life
as he sees fit, to choose where he will
seek to work, and freely to choose what,
if any, private organizations he will seek
to join or refrain from joining.
Mr. President, freedom of association
is a fundamental right and was recog-
nized as such by the Supreme Court in
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.,
301 U.S. 1, 33 (1937). There the Court
pointed out that the purpose of that
statute was to "safeguard the right of
employees to self-organization." It than
added:
'That is a. fundamental right. Employees
have as clear a right to organize and select
their representatives for lawful purposes as
the respondent has to organize its business
and select: Its own officers and agents.
in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516
(1945), the Supreme Court considered a
Texas statute requiring union organizers
to register and obtain a card before so-
liciting members. The Court ruled that
the Texas statute violated the 14th
amendment's protections of freedom of
speech and assembly. Said the Court:
As a matter of principle a requirement of
registration in order to make a public speech
would seem generally imcompatible with an
exercise of the rights of free speech and as-
sembly * * *. And the right either of work-
men or unions under these conditions to as-
semble and discuss their own affairs is as fully
protected by the Constitution as the right
of businessmen, farmers, educators, politi-
cal party members or others to assemble and
discuss their affairs and to enlist the support
of others, 323 US. at 539.
Finally the Court stated:
There Is some modiclun of freedom of
thought, speech and assembly which all citi-
zens of the Republic may exer' ise through-
out its length and breadth, which no State,
nor all together, nor the Nation itself, can
prohibit, restrain or impede, 32:1 U.S. at 543.
The right to join a labor organization
is not in question here. The right to
join has been established. What is in
question here is the right not to join-
the right not to be compelled to become
a member of a labor organization as a
condition of continued employment.
The right not to join is a necessary cor-
ollary to the fundamental right to join
for without the right to refrain from
joining, there can be no trite right to
join. If this corollary right does not
exist, then employees have l.io freedom
of association. All that remains to them
is the freedom to be coerced by the ma-
jority, whether of a labor organization or
the community in which they live. I be-
lieve, Mr. President, that freedom not
to associate is as much a part of freedom
of assembly and association as the free-
dom to remain silent is a part of the
freedom of speech, a right which becomes
wholly inviolable when it is sought to
compel one to utter that which he does
not believe.
The Supreme Court has consistently
recognized that the right to work for
a living is a fundamental right possessed
by all people. Most of the decisions have
dealt with issues raised under the 14th
amendment. The principles expressed
are equally applicable to the fifth amend-
ment, however, Coolidge v. Long, 282
U.S. 582 (1931) ; Twining v. New Jersey,
211 U.S. 78 (1908).
In Truax v. Raish, 239 U.S. 33, 41
(1915), Mr. Justice Hughes, speaking for
the Court, put the basic proposition very
simply when he said:
It requires no argument to sh..,w that the
right to work for a living in the common
occupations of the community Is of the very
essence of the personal freedom and oppor-
tunity it was the purpose of the amendment
to secure.
In that case the Court held void an
Arizona statute requiring employers of
five or more persons to employ 80 per-
cent U.S. citizens on the ground that
such a law violated the 14th amendment.
In Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630, 636
(1914), a Texas statute made it a mis-
demeanor for any person to act as
a, conductor on a railway train in
that State without first having served
for 2 years as a freight conductor or
brakeman. The Court held this to
be an infringement of the liberty
of contract contrary to the 14th amend-
ment. The Court said, in part:
Life, liberty, property, and the equal pro-
tection of the law, grouped together in the
Constitution, are so related that the depri-
vation of any one of those separate and
independent rights may lessen or extinguish
the value of the other three. Insofar as a
man is deprived of the right to labor, his
liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn
wages and acquire property is lessened, and
he is denied the protection which the law
affords those who are permitted to work.
Liberty means more than freedom rom servi-
tude, and the constitutional guaranty is an
assurance that the citizen shall be protected
in the right to use his powers of mind and
body in any lawful calling.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399
(1.923), involved a conviction under a
January 29, 1966
Nebraska statute which made it a crime
to teach a foreign language to a child
who had not completed the eighth grade.
Holding the statute abridged the 14th
amendment, the Court said:
While this Court has not attempted to de-
fine with exactness the liberty thus guaran-
teed, the term has received much considera-
tion and some of the included things have
been definitely stated. Without doubt, it
denotes not merely freedom from bodily re-
straint but also the right of the individual to
contract, to engage in any of the common
occupations of life, to acquire useful knol-
edge, to marry, establish a home and br.ug
up children, to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience, and gen-
erally to enjoy those privileges long recog-
nized at common law as essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Finally, in Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S.
590, 593 (1917), the Supreme Court
quoted Shylock in the "Merchant of
Venice":
You take my house when you do take the
prop that doth sustain my house; You take
my life when you do take the means whereby
I live.
The worker, impaled on the horns of
the dilenuna whether to abide by his
principles and forfeit his employment
under a union shop contract or abandon
his principles and submit to the un-
wanted obligations of union member-
ship, might well exclaim: "You take my
life when you do take the means whereby
I live." I submit that the Constitution
of the United States protects him in his
right to work and that he need not sub-
merge his principles, ideals, liberties,
and freedoms to avoid economic suicide.
The Nebraska Supreme Court summar-
ized correctly and succinctly the princi-
ples established by the U.S. Supreme
Court when it held in the Hanson case,
160 Nebr. 669, 71 NW 2d 526:
We also think the right to work is one of
the most precious liberties that man
possesses. Man has as much right to work
as he has to live, to be free, to own property,
or to join a church of his own choice, for
without freedom to work the others would
soon disappear. It is a fundamental human
right which the due process clause of the
fifth amendment protects from improper in-
fringement by the Federal Government, To
work for a living in the occupations available
in a community is the very essence of per-
sonal freedom and opportunity that it was
one of the purposes of these axnendntents
to make secure. Liberty means more than
freedom from servitude. The Constitution
guarantees are our assurance that the citizen
will be protected in the right to use his
powers of mind and body in any lawful
calling.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED DY TISE ADMIMSTRArION
IN SUPPORT OF 14(b) REPEAL
What reason is advanced by the ad-
ministration in support of this reckless
power play which threatens one of the
last significant vestiges of State sover-
eignty in the area of labor relations:
challenges the very concept of irldividu'i[
liberty; and promises to upset that deli-
cate, tripartite balance of power between
labor, management, and employee. The
sole argument upon which they elect to
stand, the exclusive premise upon which
they base their conclusion. that 14(b)
should be repealed, is the so-called need
for conformity in our national labor
policy.
ved' er'Rel s 0 /1,.,1, ~6,? - 7 5.4, E~000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1447
In the President's 1965 state of the Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for that pur- eat his the er i a n toedsc ea for his own
Union address, repeal of 14(b) was ad- pose. ght de himself
vocated "with the hope of reducing con- Mr. ERVIN. Is not the fundamental whether he will or will not join a union
flicts in our national labor policy that objection to union shop agreements that and will or will not pay dues to a union?
for several years have divided Americans they deny supposedly free Americans Is not that what the right-to-work laws
in various States" and again in the Pres- their right to make a decision which provide?
ident's address of 1966 "to make the vitally affects them during all their work- Mr. EASTLAND. Certainly. from labor laws in all our States equal to the ing hours, and, indeed, after their work- Mississippi EpR i I . thI e ask the-toe wnator ank laws
labor laws of the 31 States which do not ing hours?
have tonight right-to-work measures." Mr. EASTLAND. My friend is cer- deny to a union the right and power to
This same, simple, sterile theme has tainly right. The right of decision is have every employee in any factory or in
been parroted to the Congress by Secre- certainly a major ingredient of human uany nion industry they pay dues as members tof a
tary Wirtz: freedom.
The issue here is whether a uniform na- Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator that their welfare would be promoted
tional labor policy should be established in from Mississippi agree with the Senator by their joining the union.
this area (section 14(b)) as it exists in all from North Carolina that during a pre- Mr. EASTLAND. They are still free
other areas covered by the National Labor vious generation some employers com- to make the decision whether to join or
Relations Act. I urge that, whatever may pelled their employees, as a condition not. They are still free to make the
have been the justification 18 years ago for precedent to being granted employment, decision whether their interests would
letting the states experiment in this area, to enter into a contract which required be enhanced by joining or not joining.
experience since that time has shown that them to agree not to join a union during There is nothing in those laws that de-
c i no longer a good reason for this the term of their employment? prives them of an ingredient of liberty.
core ourseo of action. Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Mr. ERVIN. Do not the right-to-work
It is likewise interesting to note that Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator laws entirely protect the right of an em-
only one-half page of the 46-page Senate from Mississippi agree with the Senator ployee to be persuaded by a union to join
report accompanying H.R. 77 is devoted from North Carolina that the labor voluntarily?
to the majority explanation as to the unions called such agreements imposed Mr. EASTLAND. Certainly.
reason for the repeal of 14(b). The only upon the employees by the employers Mr. ERVIN. I should like to ask the
reason stated is found in this simple and ,yellow dog" contracts? Senator from Mississippi if in leaving
obviously inadequate comment: Mr. EASTLAND. It was a "yellow dog" that right to a union to persuade mem-
The sole purpose of H.R. 77 is to establish contract, which has been outlawed. bers to join their union voluntarily, the
a uniform Federal rule governing union secu- Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator right-to-work laws leaves to workers the
rity arguments. from Mississippi agree with the Senator same fredom to join voluntarily that the
That the administration should even from North Carolina that the labor various religious bodies use to have mem-
advance such an argument in support of unions called such contracts "yellow dog" bers join their church; namely, to per-
a major legislative proposal, much less contracts because they denied the em- suade them that they should join the
elect to premise its entire position upon ployee the freedom of choice to join or church of the living God.
it, is ample evidence of desperation with refrain from joining unions of their own Mr. EARVIN. ND.an rt i8enator from
which they seek to justify this cause. free choice? the
Our national labor policy and laws are Mr. EASTLAND. I agree with the Mississippi see anything wrong in say-
fraught with nonconformity in every Senator from North Carolina. I think ing to a labor union, "You shall obtain
area. Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor it was a form of enslavement. That is your members by persuasion"? That is,
Standards Act allows States to legislate what we now face from the other side. in the same manner in which the
in areas where the NLRB has declined to Mr. ERVIN. Is the Senator from churches of the living God obtain their
take jurisdiction. Workmen's campen- North Carolina correct in construing the members.
sation and unemployment compensation argument of the Senator from Missis- Mr. EASTLAND. I agree.
laws vary from State to State. Section sippi to be that a union shop contract Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator
603(a) of the Landrum-Griffin Act pre- which could be imposed upon employees from Mississippi believe that it is plac-
serves State laws regulating the actions at the request of the union is another ing the unions in very fine company when
of union officials. Yes, Mr. President, the form of "yellow dog" contract in that the right-to-work law provides that the
examples may be cited ad infinitum. It does identically the same thing that unions can and must obtain their mem-
But we are now told that the "con- the old "yellow dog" contracts imposed bers in the same way as churches and
formity" of compulsory unionization is on employees did-that is, it denies the other voluntary associations obtain their
"needed" to avoid "conflicts in our na- employee the freedom to stand on his members?
tional labor policy." Thus "necessity" own feet and decide for himself, with his Mr. EASTLAND. I agree with the
and "conformity" become the two pillars God-given faculties, whether he would Senator. The idea of compulsion is not
upon which the proponents elect to rest or would not join a union? American.
their case for repeal of 14(b). This will Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Mr. ERVIN. And does not the Senator
not be the first time these two principles Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator from Mississippi agree with the Senator
of expediency have been advanced to ex- from Mississippi agree with the state- from North Carolina that the union shop
cuse a proposal which is of its very na- ment made by William Pitt that neces- agreement is a compulsory procedure de-
ture, inexcusable, indefensible, and un- sity is the argument for every infringe- signed to graft membership into unions
conscionable. ment of liberty? Does it not illustrate by men who do not wish to belong to
I seem to recall that line from Milton's that unions want vast power over the unions?
"Paradise Lost": lives of all the working men and women Mr. EASTLAND. Of course. It means
And with necessity, the tyrant's plea, ex- in the United States, powers which would that a man joins a private organization
cus'd his devilish deeds. deny the working people of the United against his will. If that is Americanism,
I recall that William Pitt once told the States their God-given right to decide I have lost contact.
English Parliament that: for themselves, with their own God-given Mr. ERVIN. Is not the Senator from
Necessity is the argument of tyrants, it is faculties, whether they wish to join or Mississippi aware of the fact that several
refrain from joining a union? years ago Congress passed an act which
the creed of slaves. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is cor- provided, among other things, that no
While the idea that the subordination rect. Communist could occupy an office in a
of individual liberty to uniform national Mr. ERVIN. I ask the Senator from union? Does not the Senator from Mis-
policy may be accepted by the docil and Mississippi if the State right-to-work sissippi recall that?
enslaved, it is not accepted by free laws, which the bill to repeal section Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is cor-
Americans. 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act would rect.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the nullify, would do anything more than Mr. ERVIN. Is it not true that some
Senator yield for several questions rele- merely' give to each American who, in months ago the Supreme Court held that
vant to the statement he has just made? the words of Scripture, is compelled to that .act constituted an unconstitutional
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
1448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1966
bill of attainder under the Constitution employees can join or refuse to join discussion as to the question of freedom
and was, therefore, invalid? voluntary unions, the union leaders are of association vis-a-vis compulsory
Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is cor- compelled to serve the interests of the unionism in some of the countries of
rect. members who pay the dues in order to at- Western Europe.
Mr. ERVIN. I will ask the Senator tract and hold the members needed to In the free European democracies the
from Mississippi if it is not true that, as a operate an effective union. This forces principle of compulsory unionism has
result of that decision of the Supreme! the union leadership to limit pursuing been vigorously resisted wherever at-
Court, a union shop agreement may com- selfish interests, thereby increasing com- tempts have been made to provide for
pel loyal Americans to become involun- parative honesty. Compulsion removes such in collective agreements. Gener-
tary dues-paying members of unions the necessity to attract new members and ally, on the continent of Europe the free-
whose officers are Communists, and in this way encourages the less attrac- dom of a person to abstain from joining
whose officers are disloyal, not only to tive and less efficient elements of leader- a labor organization developed over the
those loyal Americans, but also to our ship. years same
country? Closely related to this point is that herecognized right for a person t wbe-
Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is car- what may seem to be good, responsible come associated with a labor organiza-
rect. My information is that that con- leadership in a compulsory union will al- tion. Most of these governments recog-
dition prevails in a number of States most certainly change over a period of nize that the affirmative side of freedom
today. I do not want it to be spread time. Power and the lessening of the of association is the liberty of persons to
all over the country, as it would be if necessity to attract will change the char- either form or to join an association, but
the pending bill were passed. acter of most leadership. Union officers, likewise, that this cognizance of the neg-
Mr, ERVIN Mr. President, I thank with the knowledge that they in effect ative side of such freedom which includes
my good friend the Senator from Missis- control the entire work force, inevitably a person's right not to associate and to
sippi for yielding and for answering would beccme more prone to make bar- refrain from forming or joining an
these questions. gaining demands no matter how stag- organization.
Mr. EASTLAND. As stated by that gering, and to use strike threats arbitrar- The principle of voluntarisim has, over
learned jurist. the Honorable Learned ily and capriciously. a period of many Hand: With compulsory membership, union velopment years, pons in the op
'e
t
y in the chiefs can concentrate on perpetuating labor unions communft, is already process generally rally and it t has been een shown that
of dissolution ; * * where nonconformity themselves in office and serving their own
with the accepted creed, political as well as Selfish motives and interests rather than inconsistent w uwiohism has been entirely
religious, is a mark of disaffection; where de- constantly being under pressure with not only legislative
ps,unciation, Without specification or backing, dues do opinio , js well opinion, but with public
c
Lakes the lase of evidence; where orthodoxy something useful for the dues-paying opinion as well.
place in order to attract and hold the
chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in One of the most controversial problems
the eventual supremacy of reason has be- lnernbership and to retain the respect facing the present social law of countries
come so timid that we dare not enter our and support required for reelection. This in the stage of democracy in industrial-
,convictions to the open list;, to win or is why many of them become ruthless ism is that of legislative treatment of
lose. disciplinarians who wield a club of au-collective thority over their members, rather than which an biployee's g right to woht to wo b
Certainly the proponents of this bill is presenting us to advocate democratic procedures within which a employee's rk is
with an example of the union that compel the leaders to be cause to depend on member'ship in a
haw denunciation, without specification labor organization, Relative to the po-
iw backing, takes the place of evidence. servants rather than bosses of their sition taken on this problem in the
Their obvious reluctance to give debate members. Thus, the need to hold mom- United States, it has been repeatedly
hers
on this issue: their fear of having to rest will usually prevent excesses and stated that :legislative treatment of it
their case before the American working- unethical conduct. has reflected its extremely troublesome
man of the merits of unionism, is con- Decisions handed down by the NLRB nature on the grounds that such an
s;l.usiv proof that they fear to center their during 1965 alone should shatter arty il- agreement is a patent interference with
"oanve pros ., the open lists, n win or lusion that the rights of individual union
an employee's freedom of self -organiza-
members will be protected by that. kan-
1,Ise. tion.
la has been. inferred that the non- garoo court which presently masquerades
conformity caused by section the is a as an impartial arbiter of our national in the United States an approach to 4 :o11Ce y eau wires but that comma labor laws. the problem ;first meets the question of
lion can be refuted by the simple fact Within this past year the NLI'B has whether legislative approval of collective
upheld the ?ight of unions to fine rriem- agreements maakes, for the sake of labor
that; in 1.946, the year before Taft- organizations, too great demands on the
Bartley, 4,600,000 workingmen were in- bet's for exceeding arbitrary production individual employee which work to his
valved in strikes fora loss of 116 million quotas or for exercising their right to own disadvantage. Ar
roan-days, while by 1948, the year fol- cross a picket line. The Board upheld t gume bents on the
lowing enactment of 'Taft-Hartley, only the expulsion of two union memb_rs for On then obviously must the in conflion
filing a petition with the NLRB decerti_ of the one hand, for is the provision
2,170,000 men were involved in strikes for of the necessity for security prvisu~ns in
a loss of only 34,600,000 man-hours. reset the union as their bargaining rep- order to preserve bargaining power and,
The argument that union shop ar- esentative, although the proceeding was
r:angements produce more peaceful and filed pursuant to a statutory right. on the other hand, it has been pointed
In hose States which do not gin; their out that an employer would not willingly
satisfactory industrial relations lacks yield to a union's demand for r a union
considerable credence in view of the in- people the protection of the rit-,ht-to- shop clause if the union were not power-
dustrial strife which continues to plague work. laws, harsh disciplinary action is ful enough to enforce such a demand.
those very industries in which the union often the product of arrogant labor
hop agreement:; are the most prevalent. bosses. In Milwaukee, Wis., United It is notable that the solution of the
1' }ion.al strikes and strike threats rear- Papermakers Local No 356 recentl fined represented labor-manage by m legislation relations our problem as
laxly characterise negotiations in several a woman member for missing union books presents a compromise m our etw en
of the Nation's major industries where meetings, even though the meetings were the l idea compromise which
compulsory union membership prevails. m
scheduled during church hours on Sun- unionism the moral idea should of
be freedom
originated, and the
and the
'i'he strikes, delays and stoppages at some day. The fine was upheld. device of compulsion brought on the
of our missile bases due to jurisdictional Within this past year the NLR13 has individual to join a union. In theory,
disputes among unions where union shop violated both the letter and the spirit of each employee has a right to be repre-
1:; deeply entrenched constitute a stanch the Taft-Hartley Act by holding tltat; an sented by a union of his own choice, or
refutation of the claim that secure employer must negotiate with the union not to be represented at all, but as has
unions are stable and responsible. The over the establishment of a union hiring been touched upon previously, it takes a
record clearly shows that union abuses, hall which would control all employment certain brand of heroism for an em-
including unwarranted strikes, are more of personnel.
likely to be encouraged rather than mini- Mr. President, at this point I think it in his exercise of thistrou
freedom. it is
mized by compulsory unionism. When could be profitable if we made a point of difficult, to say the least, to see how an
! uw!aatwawwMw!pa!wwn~mnrrswn~rrs.~+ur! :r~gw,m ~y.''.l l' "f?'! '?'7""C ..!I ~~' F4~MA'!!Ins t~IxpN!MWuF!Rli~!i~~rak i~wi4 M~!~w!~i7.L. Jima` U~Q,04QL,l
1000
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
employee can really offer any opposition
to the union which is party to the union
shop agreement which forced him in the
first place into membership in a union
with whose internal policies he is in sub-
stantial disagreement. It can be readily
seen that his freedom of choice Is In
substantial and practical conflict with
such an agreement.
An employee's right to join or refrain
from joining a labor organization has
been a focal point of labor-management
controversy in the United States since
the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935.
The 1935 Wagner Act did not attempt to
make closed shop agreements legal in
any State where they might be illegal.
However, the Labor-Management Rela-
tions Act of 1947 has expressly outlawed
closed shops and has left it to the States
either to prohibit union shop agreements
entirely or to regulate them.
An objective judgment on the present
status of the American law regarding
union shop agreements would point it out
to be confused and entangled. Any
comparison between American law on
this subject and that of certain European
nations, which in varying degrees might
be called counteraprts of this country's
indicates that the problem is somewhat
similar, but in no instance identical. Al-
though a number of European countries
have legislated on this matter, the very
nature of their legislation and the
prevalence of union membership indicate
that this issue has never been prominent
in political affairs or legal proceedings.
Belgium, for example, in the Belgian
Act, passed in 1921, expressly provided:
Nobody can be compelled to join an organi-
zation or not to join it.
Further provision prohibits making
membership or nonmembership in an
organization a condition of employment.
Judicial interpretation of this legisla-
tion has ruled that conditioning employ-
ment upon union membership was in
violation of an employee's freedom of
association and to make membership a
condition of employment is not to pro-
tect a legitimate personal interest, but
Is something which is void of any legal
justification.
In the Netherlands, the Act on Collec-
tive Bargaining Contracts, passed in
1927, provides the official expression of
the Government's protection of the right
of employees to refrain from joining
unions in the following language:
An agreement whereby an employer be-
comes bound to employ only members of a
certain religion, or persons entertaining a
certain political view or members of a cer-
tain organization is null and void.
In Austria the invalidity of a compul-
sory unionism provision is expressly
treated by legislation stating:
Provisions in collective bargaining con-
tracts between employer and employees are
null and void if they are intended to insure
that no persons other than members of a
particular union are employed or to keep
from employment persons who are members
of a particular union,
Similarly, Denmark, in a statute en-
acted in 1929, directs:
Any act or conduct which in an unjustified
manner seeks to restrict the freedom of an
Individual. to engage in an occupation or the
right to join or. abstain from joining any
organization shall be deemed unlawful.
The Federal Republic of Germany, in
a number of judicial decisions even in the
absence of any expressed legislative dic-
tate, has decreed that any injury or dam-
age inflicted upon an individual because
of his nonmembership In a union is vio-
lative of fundamental constitutional
rights and that clauses in collective
agreements which make union member-
ship a condition of employment are nec-
essarily repugnant to a worker's personal
feeling.
France has not enacted particular leg-
islation concerning union shop clauses,
but it has forcefully relied on constitu-
tional tenets and on general principles of
law to determine that clauses provoking
compulsory unionism are unlawful in
France. The French Government in the
late 1940's took the position that-
The democratic state, as the protector of
public liberties, has the duty to insure the
respect of all aspects of the right to orga-
nize-one of the fundamental liberties of
modern society. Accordingly, the statement
emphasizes that measures taken to protect
this right must not only safeguard the posi-
tive freedom of association, but also guaran-
tee to wage earners that nonmembership in
a union may not be taken into account in
relation to engagement, maintenance in em-
ployment, or dismissal.
In a supplementary declaration the
French Government further provided:
Any provision In the enactment of a col-
lective agreement intended to force a worker
to belong or not to belong to a particular
trade union, under the threat of not' being
engaged for employment or losing his em-
ployment is * * * incompatible not only
with the principle of freedom of association,
but also with the principle of freedom of
work.
In Switzerland there is no specific leg-
islation covering closedshop contract
clauses. However, by 1949 the Swiss
courts had come to the view that the
closed shop was beyond doubt an unwar-
ranted interference with the right not to
organize, that is, a person's right to re-
main outside an association without suf-
fering any appreciable economic harm-
and that, moreover, it was an unlawful
infringement of the rights of the in-
dividual. There has subsequently been
judicial approval of this view. The Swiss
Parliament in 1956 enacted an amend-
ment to the Swiss Code of Obligations
that provided:
Any clause of an agreement or arrange-
ment between the parties to compel em-
ployers or employees to join a contracting
association shall be null and void.
In Sweden any efforts either by the
Confederation of Swedish Labor Unions
or by the Swedish Employers' Federation
to make membership in a contracting
labor organization a condition of employ-
ment have been invalidated by the Swed-
ish labor courts.
In like fashion to the Swedish unions,
those in Norway have succeeded in or-
ganizing a vast majority of employees
comprising a substantial segment of the
labor force without resorting to any
method of compulsory unionism. Con-
sequently, Mr. President, there seems to
be little doubt that the general European
consensus after many years of trial and
1449
experiment indicates that compulsory
unionism is obnoxious, and thus Is either
legislated against or judicially decreed
as illegal, unlawful, and against moral
principle. -
Mr. President, there Is even a strong
school of thought within the liberal
establishment itself, and I daresay that
it cannot be catalogued as a minority
school, that feel that unions that rely
on compulsion. weaken their own effec-
tiveness. Only a voluntary membership
can feel free to determine policies and
leadership and to modify them as the
need arises. A comparative membership
of employees under union shop arrange-
ment must be so categorized, and is so
subject to dismissal from employment as
to be loathe to act openly, and, as indus-
trial history has eloquently revealed, the
voluntary system of joining a union is al-
ways more effective than being enforced
against one's wishes and better judgment
to subscribe his or her name to the mem-
bership rolls.
Another consideration that we should
at this point evaluate is the fact that in
so many instances where union shop
agreements once having been entered
into, but later eliminated or repudiated,
show that in repeated series of instances
many of the higher caliber employees
who had chosen not to assume positions
of leadership under compulsory union-
shop agreements have come forward as
extremely capable union officials operat-
ing under voluntary membership con-
tracts.
Contrary to accusations, right-to-work
laws do not discourage employees from
joining unions, since they are free to
join if they so desire and free to with-
hold membership if that is their desire.
State laws do have the effect of allowing
protection to both union members and
nonmembers in their own personal and
particular choice. They are designed to
make sure that whichever choice is made,
it is a free choice. Additionally, the
Federal Law under Taft-Hartley care-
fully protects the right of unions to orga-
nize and bargain collectively and law-
fully requires employers to bargain with
them accordingly.
There is no State law that can take
away the protections which our present
national labor policy affords to those
who wish to join unions. In so many
instances, it is assumed that unions are
operated on a completely democratic
basis-and that strikes, for example, are
only called after a favorable vote of the
majority of the membership. However,
this is not a requisite for a labor orga-
nization, and many of them have no such
requirement spelled out in their constitu-
tions. in cases in which there is a con-
stitutional provision within a labor orga-
nization, very frequently the vote for
strike action is conducted by a stand-
ing ballot of those present rather than
by a secret ballot which preserves the
elements of the true democratic process
rather than allowing for the contrived
and desired result that the leadership
would have manifold reasons to desire
and against which many of the rank and
file members would see fit not to oppose
In fear of the incurrence of displeasure
of the leaders of their particular union.
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1966
Who are these labor lords who in their
insatiable quest of absolute power have
issued their threats and ultimatums to
the Congress of the United States with
the arrogance and impudence of feudal
chieftains? They are the leaders who
have betrayed the principles of free
choice upon which the American labor
movement was founded; who have re-
jected the wise council of their friends
and have trampled upon the rights of
their own members.
They are the leaders who fear to rest
their case before the American working-
man on their record of proven accom-
plishment, responsible leadership or ded-
ication to the welfare of their members.
They are the leaders who are either un-
willing to or incapable of purging their
movement of the corruption, the racket-
eering and the Communist infiltration so
clearly revealed and documented by re-*
cent congressional investigations and
Federal prosecutions. They are the lead-,
ers who revealed their obsessive fear of
their own rank and file membership when
they fought the Labor Management Re-
porting Act of 1959, an act which simply
guaranteed the individual member's
equal rights and privileges to participate
in elections and meetings; freedom of
speech and assembly to discuss the con-
duct of union officers; secret balloting in
the election of officers, and the determi-
nation of dues, fees, or other assess-
ments; the right to take legal action
against union officials for misconduct in
office; and protection against arbitrary
or improper suspension, expulsion, or
other disciplinary action.
These are the labor barons who casti-
gated the Congress in vehement outrage
for daring to require them to adopt con-
stitutions and bylaws and to file with the
Secretary of Labor copies of these, to-
gether with other information on such
matters as the rules governing admis-
sions, dues, audits of funds, selection of
officers, and strike votes. But the objects
of their most violent abuse were those
provisions requiring the filing of annual
financial reports and spelling out the
fiduciary responsibility of union officers
managing union funds with safeguards
provided, and the disqualification of con-
victed criminals from holding such union
positions.
In view of the foregoing, Mr. President,
is it any wonder that the rank and file
of American workingmen are suspicious
of these men and refuse to accept them
as their spokesmen; that the labor move-
ment has failed to grow appreciably in
membership since 1947 despite an in-
crease of more than 4 million in the labor
force; or that the only way such leaders
can expect to even hold the loyalty of
their present membership is through
compulsory, involuntary unionization?
No, Mr. President, these bigtime labor
bosses do not speak for the rank and
file; nor do they speak for the responsible
labor leaders of the past and present, or
for many other constitent and influential
friends of their movement who likewise
reject the concept of compulsory unioni-
zation.
What more conclusive argument could
be cited against the repeal of 14(b) than
the statement made by Samuel Gompers,
the father of the American labor move-
ment, to the American Federation of
Labor Convention in 1924. Warning
against policies based on compulsion and
force, Mr. Gompers said:
So long as we have held fast to voluntary
principles, and have been actuated and in-
spired by the spirit of service. we have sus-
tained our forward progress and we have
made our labor movement something to be
respected and accorded a place. in the coun-
cils of our Republic. Where we have blun-
dered into trying to force a policy on a
decision, even though wise and right, we have
impeded, if not interrupted, the realization of
our aims.
Men and women of our American trade
union movement, I feel I have earned the
right to talk plainly to you. As the only
delegate to that first * * * convention (in
Pittsburgh) who has stayed with the prob-
lems of our movement through !:o the present
hour, as one who with clean hands and with
singleness of purpose has tried to serve the
labor movement honorably and in a spirit
of consecration to the cause of humanity.
I want to urge devotion to the f undasnentals
of human liberty-the principle of volun-
tarism. If we seek to force, we but tear
apart that which, united, is invincible.
Understanding, patience, high-minded
service, the compelling power of voluntarism
have in America made what was but a rope
of sand, a united, purposeful. integrated
organization, potent for human welfare, ma-
terial, and spiritual.
* * * * *
As I review the events of my 60 years of con-
taot with the labor movement, and as I sur-
vey the problems of today, and study the op-
portunities of the future, I want to say to you,
men and women of the American labor move-
ment, do not reject the cornerstone upon
which labor's structure has been builded-
but base your all upon voluntary principles
and illumine your every problem by con-
secrated devotion to that highest of all pur-
poses-human well-being in the fullest, wid-
est, deepest sense.
Mr. President, I invite each Senator's
attention to Mr. Gompers' statement of
the basic moral and legal principle de-
bated here today:
There may be here and there a worker who
for certain reasons unexplainable to us does
not join a union of labor. That is his right
no matter how morally wrong he may be. It
is his legal right and no one can or dare ques-
tion his exercise of that legal right.
Does anyone dispute the fact that one
of the truest, ablest, and most eloquent
friends American labor ever had in the
judicial councils of this Nation was Mr.
Justice Brandeis? Yet can there be
found a more clear, cogent or persuasive
argument against compulsory unioniza-
tion than his following statement quoted
by Justice Frankfurter in A.F. of L. v.
American Sash Co., 335 U.S.:
It is not true that the success of a labor
union necessarily means a perfect monopoly.
The union, in order to attain or preserve for
its members industrial liberty, must be
strong and stable. It need not include every
member of the trade. Indeed, it is desirable
for both the employer and the union that it
should not. Absolute power leads to ex-
cesses and to weakness: Neither our charac-
ter nor our intelligence can long bear the
strain of unrestricted power. The union at-
tains success when it reaches the ideal con-
dition, and the ideal condition for a union is
to be strong and stable, and yet to have in
the trade outside its own ranks an appreci-
able number of men who are nonunionists.
In any :free community the diversity of char-
acter, of beliefs, of taste--indeed mere self-
ishness--will insure such a supply, if the en-
joyment of this privilege of individualism is
protected by law. Such a nucleus of unor-
ganized labor will check oppression by the
union as the union checks oppression by the
employer.
Mr. President, the untenable position
in which the proponents have been placed
by the legal, moral, and rational im-
potence of their cause, as well as their
mortal fear of public debate on this is-
sue, was clearly exposed by the sheer
desperation with which they tried to
ramrod this measure through the first
session by legislative juggernaut.
This strategy was necessarily dictated
by the knowledge that such a proposal
cannot stand on right or reason but must
base its chances on a blitz-like applica-
tion of massive political power. Propos-
als such as the repeal of 14(b) cannot
withstand the light of public examina-
tion or the deliberate consideration of
the normal legislative processes, for it
is predicated not on principle, but on
power, not on right, but on might.
Certainly no one can question the cre-
dentials of Justice Black as a consistent
and faithful spokesman for the Liberal
establishment. Yet, I would direct your
attention to Justice Black's dissenting
opinion in the case of International .Asso-
ciation of Machinists v. Street, et al., 367
U.S. 740, 6 L. Ed. 2d. 1141 (1961), wherein
he stated:
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the free-
dom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Probably no one would suggest that Con-
gress could, without violating this amend-
ment, pass a law taxing workers, or any per-
sons for that matter (even lawyers), to cre-
ate a fund to be used in helping certain po-
litical parties or groups favored by the Gov-
ernment to elect their candidates or promote
their controversial causes. Compelling a man
by law to pay his money to elect candidates
or advocate laws or doctrines he is against
differs only in degree, if at all, from com-
pelling him by law to speak for a candidate,
a party, or a cause he is against. The very
reason for the first amendment is to make
the people of this country free to think,
speak, write, and worship as they wish, not
as the Government commands.
There is, of course, no constitutional reason
why a union or other private group may not
spend its funds for political or ideological
causes if its members voluntarily join it and
can voluntarily get out of it. Labor unions
made up of voluntary members free to get
in or out of the unions when they please have
played important and useful roles in politics
and economic affairs. How to spend its
money is a question for each voluntary group
to decide for itself in the absence of some
valid law forbidding activities for which the
money is spent. But a different situation
arises when a Federal law steps in and author-
izes such a group to carry on activities at the
expense of persons who do not choose to be
members of the group as well as those who
do. Such a law, even though validly passed
by Congress, cannot be used in a way that
abridges the specifically defined freedoms of
the first amendment. And whether there is
such abridgment depends not only on how
the law is written but also on how it works.
There can be no doubt that the federally
sanctioned union shop contract here, as it
actually works, takes a part of the earnings
F~~XMAinMAMkI~AUeae~I111A1*IIAAn Mrisn%aMAMMWiwAF~uNr~IIAIXMnn~nAIMIM11NiIN[II~MAWMMIWi'IMIIIWiN b11IX4!19MMMlI~A~IP~NM~XMIM'I iMMIiNUin x. .?.?~-....?.._ _
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 January ..9, 19 66 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
of some men and turns it over to others, who
spend a substantial part of the funds so re-
ceived in efforts to thwart the political, eco-
nomic, and ideological hopes of those whose
money has beenforced from them under au-
thority of law. This Injects Federal com-
pulsion into the political and ideological
processes, a result which I have supposed
everyone would agree the first amendment
was particularly intended to prevent. And
it makes no difference If, as is urged, political
and legislative activities are helpful adjuncts
of collective bargaining. Doubtless employ-
ers could make the same arguments in favor
of compulsory contributions to an association
of employers for use in political and economic
programs calculated to help collective bar-
gaining on their side. But the argument is
equally unappealing whoever makes it. The
stark fact Is that this act of Congress Is being
used as a means to exact money from these
employees to help get votes to win elections
for parties and candidates and to support
doctrines they are against. If this Is con-
stitutional the first amendment is not the
charter of political and religious liberty its
sponsors believed it to be. James Madison,
who wrote the amendment, said in arguing
for religious liberty that "the same authority
which can force a citizen to contribute 3
pence only of his property for the support
of any one establishment, may force him to
conform to any other establishment In all
cases whatsoever." And Thomas Jefferson
said that "to compel a man to furnish con-
tributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and
tyrannical." These' views of Madison and
Jefferson authentically represent the philos
ophy embodied in the safeguards of the first
amendment. That amendment leaves the
Federal Government no power whatever to
compel one man to expend his energy, his
time, or his money to advance the fortunes
of candidates he would like to see defeated or
to urge ideologies and causes he believes
would be hurtful to the country.
The Court holds that 2, 11th denies
"unions, over an employee's objection, the
power to use his exacted funds to support
political causes which he opposes" While
I do not so contrue 2, 11th, I want to make
clear that I believe the first amendment bare
use of dues extorted from an employee by
law for the promotion of causes, doctrines
and laws that unions generally favor to help
the unions, as well as any other political
purposes. I think workers have as much
right to their own views about matters af-
fecting unions as they have to views about
other matters in the fields of politics and
economics. Indeed, some of their most
strongly held views are apt to be precisely
on the subject of unions, just as questions of
law reform, court procedure, selection of
judges and other aspects of the administra-
tion of justice give rise to some of the deep-
est and most irreconcilable differences among
lawyers. In my view, section 2, 11th can,
constitutionally authorize no more than to
make a worker pay dues to a union for the
sole purpose of defraying the cost of acting
as his bargaining agent. Our Government
has no more power to compel individuals to
support union programs or union publica-
tions than it has to compel the support of
political programs, employer programs or
church programs. And the first amendment,
fairly construed, deprives the Government of
all power to make any person pay out one
single penny against his will to be used in
any- way to advocate doctrines or views he
is against, whether economic, scientific, po-
litical, religious or any other.
I would therefore hold that section 2, 11th
of the Railway Labor Act, in authorizing ap-
plication. of the union-shop contract to the
named protesting employees who are appel'-
lces here; violates the freedom of speech
guarantee of , the first amendment. -
I cannot agree to treat so lightly the value
of a man's constitutional right to be wholly
free from any sort of governmental compul-
sion in the expression of opinions. It should
not be forgotten that many men have left
their native lands, languished in prison, and
even lost their lives, rather than give sup-
port to ideas they were conscientiously
against.
Unions composed of a voluntary member=
ship, like all other voluntary groups, should
be free in this country to fight in the pub-
lic forum to advance their own causes, to
promote their choice of candidates and
parties and to work for the doctrines or the
laws they favor. But to the extent that
Government steps in to force people to help
espouse the particular causes of a group, that
group-Whether- composed of railroad work-
ers or lawyers-loses its status as a volun-
tary group. The reason our Constitution en-
dowed individuals with freedom to think
and speak and advocate was to free people
from the blighting effect of either a partial
or a complete governmental monopoly of
ideas. Labor unions have been peculiar bene-
ficiaries of that salutary constitutional prin-
ciple, and lawyers, I think, are charged with
a peculiar responsibility to preserve and
protect this principle of constitutional free-
dom, even for themselves. A ,violation of
it, however small, is, in my judgment, pro-
hibited by the first amendment and should
be stopped dead in its tracks on its first ap-
pearance,
Mr. President, the untenable position
in which the proponents have been placed
by the legal, moral, and rational impo-
tence of their cause, as well as their
mortal fear of public debate on this is-
sue, was clearly exposed by the sheer des-
peration with which they tried to ram-
rod this measure through the first ses-
sion by legislative juggernaut. .
This strategy was necessarily dictated
by the knowledge that such a proposal
cannot stand on right or reason but must
base its chances on a blitz-like applica-
tion of massive political power. Propo-
sals such as the repeal of 14(b) cannot
withstand the light of public examina-
tion or the deliberate consideration of
the normal legislative processes, for it
is predicated not on principle, but on
power, not on right, but an might.
There were those who believed that
the. awesome legislative power of the ad-
ministration, combined with the coercive
force of the labor bosses who have com-
mitted it to this unworthy, would con-
stitute an irrepressible combination:
But they did not anticipate the ground-
swell of public outrage which would rise
up against them, having badly misjudged
the character and prsonality of the indi-
vidual American workingman.
As stated by William Jennings Bryan
at the National Democratic Convention
of 1896: -
The humblest citizen of all the land, when
clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is
stronger than all the hosts of error * *
You shall not press down upon the brow of
labor this crown of thorns.
Mr. President, they will not deprive the
workingmen of the 19 right-to-work
States their freedom of association or
their right to live and work as- they
please. - This Congress will not repeal
14(b).
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD an
editorial entitled, All 50 States Are In-
1451
volved," published in the . Biloxi, Miss.,
Herald, September 6, 1965.
The PRESIDING OFFICE1 (Mr. BYRD
of Virginia in the chair). It there ob-
jection?
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Biloxi (Miss.) Herald, Sept. 6,
1965]
ALL 60 STATES ARE INVOLVED
Some folks seem to be under the impres-
sion that the repeal of section 14(b) of the
Taft-Hartley law, which is now being con-
sidered by the U.S. Senate, would affect only
the nonunion wage earners in those States
which presently have right-to-work laws.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In
addition to striking out the freedom of work-
ingmen in those 19 right-to-work States
either to join or not join a labor union, the
repeal of section 14(b) would increase the
political power of union bosses far beyond its
present level, and thus threaten the citizens
of alp States with what would amount to a
union-boss dictatorship, based on compul-
sory unionism and effected through the in-
stitutions of our Federal and State Govern-
ments. - -
As Reed Larson, exective vice president of
the National Right-to-Work Committee, said
recently in Detroit: "The existence of 14(b)
and the possibility of a State prohibition on
compulsory unionism provides an important
restraint on. abuses of union power in every
State, whether or not they have a State right-
to-work law or an active campaign to achieve
one."
-
We do not question the right of union
bosses, or anyone else, to participate in pol-
itics. But they should not be allowed to do
so with money extracted from a wage earner's
pockets as a condition for his earning a liv-
ing. Unquestionably; the repeal of section
14(b) would enable the unions to do just
that, on a nationwide scale.
The already dangerous extent of union-
boss political power is evidenced by the man-
ner in which the political proposal to repeal
section 14(b) was bulldozed through the
House of Representatives.
Our main objection to repeal of section
14(b) is that it further extends Federal con-
trol over the rights of the various States.
Mississippi is one of the States that has
passed and added to its constitution a right-
to-work amendment. The Federal Govern-
ment would, under the repeal act, prohibit
Mississippi, from enforcing an act now in its
constitution. -
While 'nonunion employees may get ad-
vantage of some of the negotiations of
unions, this is also true of nonmembers of
chambers of commerce. There are no- laws
forcing membership in a chamber of com-
merce and there should be none. The same
should continue to apply to unions if each
individual State desires to pass such laws.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the- RECORD an editorial entitled, "The
Right To Vote and Work," published in
the Greenwood, Miss., Commonwealth,
September 14, 1965.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
RIGHT To VOTE AND Woza?
Some of the most important and far-reach-
ing legislation the current Congress is still
considering has to do with labor.
At the top of the list is the drive to re-
peal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act
which permits States, if they so choose to
enact right-to-work laws. This has passed
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
1452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
the House and is now in the Senate. If the
Senate succumbs to the powerful, even ruth-
less, political pressures which demand repeal.
rank-and-file working people will be deprived
of an absolutely essential right and protec-
tion. No matter what their beliefs and
wants, they will be forced to join and pay
dues to a private organization, a union, or
lose their jobs. This is as unthinkable as if
Congress passed a law denying a man the
right to join a union.
Along with this, another vital issue is at
stake. It is the right to vote. This simply
means that no union should be certified as
a bargaining agent for employees without a
secret ballot election supervised by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. As of now,
certification can be gained on the basis of a
card count. The weaknesses in this are glar-
ing. As the Cincinnati Enquirer has said,
"Certification of a union as the bargaining
agent for a group of employees should not be
made on the basis of signatures to cards, as
pressures conceivably could be used to ob-
tain these that would not be operative in a
secret election ^ * *. No should there be
a recognition simply on the basis of a con-
tract between employer and union leader be-
cause there have been cases where so-called
sweetheart contracts scratched the back of
the employer and the union boss but sold out
the workingman.
The weary charge that right-to-work and
right-to-vote laws are antiunion is as phony
as a $3 bill. They are, instead, protections
against exploitation and misrepresentation of
the desires and beliefs of the workingman
who should have freedom of choice.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an editorial entitled, "The
Right to Vote in Union Matters," pub-
lished in the Clarion Ledger, Jackson,
Miss., August 26, 1965.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
(From the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger,
Aug. 26, 19651
RIGHT TO VOTE IN UNION MATTERS
If our U.S. Senators and Representatives
were elected to office by some of the same
procedures used by a labor union to get se-
lected as the employees' representative, there
would be a great hue and cry around the
Nation.
The truth Is that in some instances the
National Labor Relations Board in Washing-
ton has been depriving employees of the
right to a secret ballot in determining
whether or not they want a union.
Official records clearly show that this has
happened in NLRB rulings.
In some cases, the Board actually requires
businessmen to bargain with a union even
though a majority of their employees do not
want that union.
Senator FANNIN of Arizona said In a recent
floor speech: While Congress has legislated
to give the vote to all Americans, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board is eliminating
such right for the American worker in de-
termining union representation.
Several members of the Senate have in-
troduced bills to guarantee employees the
right to a secret ballot election. It will be
Interesting to see how these proposals fare
with the majority of Senators overwhelm-
ingly favorable to the so-called voting
rights bill recently steamrolled through Con-
gress.
Unfortunately, by various reports, many
in Congress are not even aware of the legal
loopholes under which workers can be de-
prived of their right to vote in union elec-
tions.
Many people believe workers always have
the right to decide by secret ballot whether
or not a majority of them want a particular
union as their representative, This is not
true.
So before even considering the repeal of
section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act
which guarantees the right to work, Congress
should make certain that workers are guar-
anteed the right to vote in any and all elec-
tions pertaining to union representation.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD a guest editorial entitled,
"The Union Power Grab," which was
published in the Jackson, Miss., Clarion
Ledger of August 30, 1965.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger,
Aug. 30, 1965]
A UNION POWER GRAB
(A guest editorial from the New York Herald
Tribune)
The House vote to repeal section 14(b) of
the Taft-Hartley Act pays the first install-
ment of President Johnson's campaign debt
to the princes of organized labor. The man-
ner in which the repeal bill was railroaded
through the House, with debate severely
limited and amendments barred, certainly
does no credit to its managers; nor does the
cynical administration-engineered log-roll-
ing in which votes for repeal were swapped
for the promise of votes for the new farm bi11.
But the House has acted; it's now up to the
Senate.
The actual importance of 14(b) may be
more symbolic than real, but the principle
involved is large; whether a worker should
be coerced into joining a union, whatever his
objections, on pain of losing his livelihood.
This is what the unions demand.
They defend this demand on the grounds
of a supposed "right of contract"-the right
of an employer and a union to agree on con-
tract terms requiring membership. And if
the issue were solely between employer and
union, this would be a valid right. But it
isn't; the whole point of such a contract is
that two parties bargain away the rights of a
third--the nonunion worker.
The free ride argument, too, is specious.
It's true that a union bargains for all em-
ployees in a given company, not only for Its
own members-but it was the unions them-
selves that insisted on being certified as the
exclusive bargaining agents even if only 51
percent of the workers elected to join. To
parlay, this into an insistence that all should
be required to join is to argue that one privi-
lege demands another.
Unions today are much more than bargain-
ing agents; they are, among other things,
powerful political organizations, and the
whole notion of coerced membership in a
political Organization is repugnant to the
American ideal of personal liberty. To strip
away even the limited protection 14(b)
gives the dissenting worker would put the
force of Federal law behind an unconscion-
able private power grab.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the body of the RECORD an editorial en-
titled "Dictates of Conscience," from the
Hinds County Gazette of August 21, 1965.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Hinds County Gazette, Raymond.
Miss., Aug. 21, 1965]
DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE
There are times, so we've been told, when a
Congressman or Senator may feel compelled,
in good conscience, to take a stand on some
January 29, 1966
particular issue which he knows full well is
contrary to the wishes of the majority of his
constituents. By so doing, he unquestion-
ably would risk being voted out of office at
the next election. And we would respect
such a man for his conscientiousness, even if
we disagreed with his position.
But, we don't take it for granted, in such
cases, that someone is really following the
dictates of conscience just because he claims
so. We expect, for example, that this might
be the claim of many among the 221 Mem-
bers of the present Congress who voted re-
cently to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-
Hartley Act despite the fact freely admitted
by many of them that their constituents were
overwhelmingly in favor of keeping that pro-
vision in the law. We don't doubt one bit
that some of them were voting according to
some dictates; but not, we are equally cer-
tain, of conscience.
Theirs was, in our opinion, an entirely un-
conscionable act. It demonstrated a willing-
ness on their part to violate several of the
basic and inherent rights of all American
working men and women, those who are
union members as well as those who are not,
in order to ingratiate themselves with power-
lusting elements in Government and in the
hierarchies of labor unions.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that several addi-
tional editorials be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorials
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Jackson (Miss), Clarion-Ledger,
Sept. 5, 1965 ]
FORCING WORKERS To JOIN UNIONS NOT RIGHT
WAY To GET Mzseezas
The prounion Senate Labor Committee has
voted, 12 to 3, to clear a bill which would
repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act
that allows, 119 States Including Mississippi,
to compulsory union membership with right-
to-work laws.
While no date has been set for action on
this bill by the full Senate, it will certainly
face a bitter fight when it does come up for
debate. Southern Democrats and conserva-
tive Republicans who oppose this measure
promise to offer many amendments and ex-
tensive arguments.
Meanwhile, it is interesting to note results
of a study just published by the National
Bureau of Economic Research, showing that
labor union membership has declined in post-
war years.
In the 5 years following 1957, while non-
farm civilian employment rose by nearly 4
million, membership in American labor
unions dropped, by 1,800,000. From a peal:
membership of 17,700,000 in 1957, the union
rolls fell to 15,900,000 at the end of 1962.
Today only I nonfarm worker in 4 is a
union member whereas at the peak, it was
one worker in three.
Labor leaders blame "automation" for
shifting many workers to white collar jobs
where they don't want to join unions, and
unionists also blame right-to-work laws for
the membership decline. This has given an
excuse to demand repeal of section 14(b),
with support from President Johnson.
"But if the Senate surrenders to this pres-
sure and votes to repeal it, as the House
already has done," says the Chicago Tribune
editorially, "the unions will have to find
other scapegoats, because the right-to-work
laws have had almost nothing to do with
falling membership.
"In the first place, only 19 States have such
laws and none of these is a labor stronghold,"
the Tribune points out. "The establishment
of compulsory union membership would yield
only a trickle of new union members. What's
more, these new members would hardly be
happy ones."
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approvea or e ease /11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January. 29,.-1966
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 1453
[From the McComb (Miss.) Enterprise-.
Journal, August 2, 1965],,
---WOULD SELL US OUT, YET CRY, "KEEP
LIBERTY ALIVE"
Former President Dwight Eisenhower said,
"I have always supported 14(b) because I
believe in the right to each State to deter-
mine for itself what it wants to do. Sec-
tion 14(b) should remain in the law."
What is section 14(b)? This is the section
of the Taft-Hartley law which provides that
States can have their own right-to-work
laws.
The right-to-work law means what the
title suggests-that a worker has the right
to work whether he is a union member or
not. It means that a man cannot be denied
the right to join a union. It means also
that 'a union cannot force a worker to belong
to a union.
Tens of thousands of people in our coun-
try today blame all of our evils on the
communists. Many will fall to interest
themselves in our basic problems. They
think that all that is required to be patriotic
is to damn the communists and to blame
them for our wrongs. This is dangerous be-
cause many people who fear tyranny from
abroad fail to recognize its development
when they see it promoted by Americans
right here an our own doorsteps.
The effort to repeal the right-to-work laws
is not a communist endeavor. It is a propo-
sition advocated by Americans. And few
things can jeopardize our individual liber-
ties than the rescinding of this portion of
the Taft-Hartley law.
Who is doing this? First the union loaders
are seeking the repeal to open the doors to
the collection of union dues whether or not
workers want to pay them. The President
of the United States is pushing this proposi-
tion. Many Senators and Congressmen are
pushing for the repeal. Why? Because they
promised to support the union bosses in
exchange for the political support given in
the last election.
This effort is a shameful attack upon
American freedoms. Yet the average Tom,
Dick, and Harry is showing little concern.
This indifference places the freedoms of
Americans in jeopardy.
The political indication today is that with
the aid of President Johnson and his aids
in the House and Senate that the State
right-to-work laws will be invalidated; .that
the Taft-Hartley law will be modified to
outlaw them.
It is strange that such a gross attack can
be made upon a thing so vital to the per-
petuation of freedom and yet so few voices
are being raised against it. It appears at
times that many Americans would prefer
to blame our evils on the communists and
let it go at that. This threat to freedom is
not a communist threat. It is a threat by
Americans, many of whom are waving the
flag and crying, "Let's Keep America Free."
[From the Meridian (Miss.) Star, Aug. 17,
1965]
MORE CONTRADICTIONS
The record is replete with contradictory
statements made by Lyndon B. Johnson
("night-blooming Judas") on important
issues.
A striking example of this is Johnson's
current position favoring repeal of the right
to work law, as opposed to the position he
took when running for the Senate in 1948.
The House has voted to repeal the law,
which is section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley
law. The Senate has not voted on the matter.
The statements made by Johnson when
he was running for the,Senate against Coke
Stevenson In 1948 are interesting to say the
least:
"I have never sought nor do I seek now the
support of any labor bosses dictating to free
men anywhere, anytime." (Dallas News,
August 10, 1948; Associated Press Story.)
"Although I have been a friend of the work-
ing man, these big labor racketeers have
voted to destroy me_, and other forthright.
Congressmen who had the courage to vote
for the Taft-Hartley bill."
"Lyndon Johnson voted for the Taft-Hart-
ley anti-Communist law because he believes
that no group of men-big labor or big busi-
ness-should possess the power to wreck our
national welfare and economy."
"Lyndon Johnson will never vote to repeal
this law." (Radio program on KRLD as re-
ported by the Dallas News, August 18, 1948.)
Texans assure him that he is 100 percent
correct when he says there are only two
great issues before Texas and the Nation
today, the Congressman said.
"One is whether we should bow our necks
to labor dictatorship through the repeal or
softening of the anti-Communist Taft-Hart-
ley bill, the other is the question of foreign
policy." (Dallas News, August 20, 1948.)
[From the Natchez (Miss.) Democrat, Aug. 4,
1965]
STEAMROLLER TACTICS
Just as had been anticipated President
Johnson and his ultraliberal administration
are using every steamroller tactic possible in
an effort to force the U.S. Congress to repeal
section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.
This is not only to pay organized labor for
their vote in the last election, but is also
their bid for their vote in the next election
in order to retain and expand the present ob-
noxious liberal government and its policies.
This move would nullify laws in 19 States,
including Mississippi, which now forbids
compulsory union membership as a condition
for getting and keeping a job.
Reduced to essentials, the issue here is
freedom-an individual's freedom to choose,
freedom to associate with others, or to ab-
stain from such membership activity and
association as he may see fit.
The foundation of American liberty has
been the rights of each person. These rights
must not be replaced by the alleged right of
a group to compel the individual to conform
to group purposes.
There is no room in this concept for com-
pulsory membership and dues-paying in
any nongovernmental organization-church,
union, farm group, veterans' association,
business group, or political party.
It is a known fact that the union move-
ment uses dues to support chosen candi-
dates.
The preamble to the famous "Statute of
Virginia for Religious Freedom," drafted by
Thomas Jefferson himself, has stated this
principle concisely:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions
of money for the propagation of opinions
which he disbelieves or abhors is sinful and
tyrannical."
A United Nations resolution, approved by
the General Assembly in 1948, has affixed this
concept of civil liberty in these plain words:
"Everyone has the right to freedom to
peaceful assembly and association. No one
may be compelled to belong to an asso-
ciation."
For a labor union to take a member's dues
and use them to finance economic or political
programs he may abhor, or to help elect some
public candidate to whom he is opposed, is
repugnant to freedom.
Certainly the forcible herding of member.
ship is more akin to foreign dictatorship
than to American principles of freedom and
democracy.
It mocks justice and commonsense to argue
that it is wrong to force a worker to stay out
of a union-but right to force him .to join
one. The best interests of the general pub-
lic, individual. workers, and the unions them-
selves will be served by keeping section 14(b)
of the Taft-Hartley Act as it is now written
into the law of the land.
[From the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger,
Sept. 6, 1965]
BABSON'S REPORT: Unions To GAIN MUCH BY
REPEAL
BAasoN PARR, Mass.-The big unions have
been waging an uphill battle in recent years.
Gains in membership have been hard to
come by. As a percentage of the total work-
force, unionism has been slipping. But all
that will be changed with repeal of 14(b) of
the Taft-Hartley Act-doing away with the
right of the States to prohibit the union
(closed) shop.
From now on, we say, watch the unions
roll to new heights of power.
LOOKING BACK
It was 30 years ago that labor was given
its first magna carta, the Wagner Act. Un-
der the sponsorship of the New Deal, this
measure guaranteed the right of workers to
organize to negotiate with employers, to
strike, and to be protected against unfair
labor practices. Employers, in general,
claimed that the law was one-sided, giving
full consideration to the unions but restrict-
ing management.
Over subsequent years, Congress has ap-
peared to agree with this claim.
In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act was passed,
over a Truman veto, giving protection to
management's rights. It was promptly dub-
bed a "slave labor act" by the unions.
The congressional pendulum, nevertheless,
continued to swing away from labor and
toward management. By 1958 Congress was
ready to force unions to file reports on their
pension and welfare funds.
Further restrictions were placed on orga-
nized labor by way of the Landrum-Griffin
Act of 1959, which barred certain types of
picketing and secondary boycotts.
SLOW TO SWING
Over the last several years, union heads
for the most part have maintained agreeable
relations with the White House as well as
with Government labor agencies. Labor's
progress with Congress, however, has been
slow. Not until the current session has there
been a safe majority who could be counted
on to get behind major demands of the
unions and push through legislation favor-
able to labor.
Partly responsible has been the hard-
fought battle of AFL-CIO groups to elect
friendly aspirants to both the House and
the Senate. Then, too, President Johnson
has given encouragement, even though some-
times rather muted, to a number of. union
legislative targets. Upping of the minimum
wage, for example-eventually to $1.75-and
wider coverage.
HUGE BOON
Perhaps no other piece of legislation has
netted labor leaders more than section 14(b)
of the Taft-Hartley Act. The reason is clear.
This section gives individual States the right
to pass their own right-to-work laws making
the involuntary union shop illegal.
In the 19 States which have taken advan-
tage of this opportunity under 14(b), it has
meant that workers no longer had to join
a union and pay dues in order to get or keep
a job. Repeal of 14(b) will erase these State
laws and bring a return of the union-shop
labor contract.
As a result, union exchequers in these 19
States could be increased by as much as $10
million by initiation feed alone coming from
those employees who will have to become
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
1454 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?- SENATE
union m.ernbers if they are to work with
firms that are under union contract.
'T'his, of course, will substantially improve
the financial condition of such labor organi-
zations; for the newly signed up members
will be contributing regular dues each
month. This will serve to strengthen labor's
economic position for lobbying as well as in
political campaigns.
):From the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger,
Sept. 19, 1965 j
SENATE MTuST FACE REAL ISSUE IN CRUSADE
AGATNST "RIGHT To WORK"
Senators 1?ASTLWn and STENNIS of Missis-
sippi, along with other level-headed srates-
men in the Upper Chamber, have a great op-
portunity to rescue Congress from its deplor-
able reputation of being a "rubber stamp"
body of "yes-men" for the White House.
This opportunity lies in it Senate chance
to defeat legislation passed by the House of
Representatives to repeal section 14(b) of the
Taft-Hartley Labor Act. This section au-
thorizes the right-to-work law now effective
in Mississippi and 18 other progressive States,
It guarantees the worker's right to get and
hold a job without being forced to join a
labor union and pay dues. This is not just
an issue of employee versus employer, nor is
it an issue between union and management.
Shall the States be free to pass or not to
pass right-to-work laws? Shall the work-
ers be free to decide whether they want to
join unions nr not? Or shall the only re-
maining freedom be the freedom of labor
unions to force every worker to join a union
where contracts apply?
The tired old argument that section 14(b)
is unfair to onion efforts to recruit new
members, or to organize new industries, sim-
ply is not borne out by their increasing power
and influence. Nor does the argument stand
up that workers suffer because of lower wages
and unemployment.
U.S. Department of Commerce figures show
that personal income, numbers of jobs ava:il-
a.ble and rises in hourly wages have increased
by a greater percentage in right-to-work
States than in. these where unions have
monopoly on employment.
At a time when Great Society masterminds
assuring every minority
are obsessed with
member the "right to vote," the same clique
is hell-bent on destroying the right to work
without: union. membership and payment of
dues.
It seems quite Obvious that foes of section
14(b) are not really concerned with freedom,
but are playing politics to the hilt.
The Senate should vote to preserve the
worker's freedom of choice, as a great service
to personal rights, and as proof that "the
world's greatest deliberative body" Is not a
rcibberstamp for the Chief Executive in his
efforts to pay a political debt for CIO-AFL
aaapport in the last presidential campaign
[From the Meridian (Miss.) Star, Sept. 15,
19651
YOU'RE Tti?.T.iJNr, Me: DISCRIMINATION An-
I?nov50
Congress outlawed discrimination in ern-
ployment because of color, race, religion, and
ocx in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So it
is ironic, according to the Chamber of Com-
toerce of the United States, that after ban-
ning so many grounds for discrimination a
majority of the Members of the House have
approved discrimination based on nonunion
membership. They did this when they voted
721 to 203 to repeal section 14(b) of the
'['oft-Hartley Act. The section permits State
right-to-work laws. These laws forbid dis-
;rimination because of nonunion member-
rhip. The issue is now before the Senate.
ifopefully the Senators will see the paradox
of banning job discrimination last year but
sanctioning it this year. Labor unions have
nothing to fear from right-to-work laws, as
shown by the growth they have had in States
with these laws as compared to those with-
out-Crowley (La.) Daily Signal.
[Prom the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger,
Sept. 8, 19651
Fogs OF RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW IG;3oaE U.N.'s
DEC LARA'TION OF HUMAN RIG ~ITs?
(By Tom Ethridge)
One-worlders and human rights crusaders
of the Great Society have painted themselves
into a corner, it appears, with their incon-
sistent stand for and against compulsion as
a policy of government.
To repay labor leaders for herding their
union flocks to the polls, and for spending
huge sums from union treasuries in L.B.J.'s
behalf last. year, the Johnson ado::nistration
is now pressuring its rubberstamp Congress
to nullify all right-to-work laws.
These laws, now effective in Mississippi
and 10 other States, forbid compulsory union
membership and dues paying, as a condition
for getting and holding a job.
It also happens to be a fact that the
United Nations (sacred cow) is firmly on rec-
ord against compelling any individual to be-
long to any organization against his or her
wishes.
The so-called U.N.'s Universal Declaration
of Human Rights plainly stipulates in article
L[ that, "No one may be compelled f o belong
to an association,"
It's amusing to note that our new U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur
Goldberg, supposedly favors and upholds the
U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, including
the above quoted article II.
But he is the same Arthur Goldberg who
was a CIO labor union mastermind before
his Supreme Court appointment and resig-
nation to accept this new U.N. post.
As a big-shot labor mastermind, he has
been (and still is?) rabidly against ri;ht-to-
work laws because they protect workers In 19
States from compulsory payment of union
membership dues, often used for political
purposes-such as keeping the national
Democratic Party in power as a tool of big
labor bosses.
Flow on earth did the President manage to
talk Arthur Goldberg into resigning bus im-
portant job as a U.S. Supreme Court justice
to accept the unimportant job as a V.,.;. Am-
bassador to the United Nations?
Various theories have been advanced but
none more plausible than this bit of specula-
tion by Commentator Ralph de Toledaa:o:
Why, it was asked, would Mr. Goldberg
leave a lifetime and prestigious post la the
Nation's highest tribunal for the heart )roak
and uncertainty of representing the United
States at the U.N.?
No matter how you looked at it, the tlol.d-
berg acceptance made no sense. It was
taken for granted that the President had
done one of his skillful arm-twisting jobs,
leaving Justice Goldberg no choice.
The facts are considerably different, Wash-
ington Commentator Tocldano goes on to
say. Arthur Goldberg left his Supreme
Court post. willingly and with joy in his
heart. From sources close to the former
Justice and after cross-checking at the
Great Society's top echelons, Toledano oilers
this intriguing theory.
The President was anxious to pay off one
big political debt and to have a loyal John-
son. man on the Supreme Court. His choice
was Abe Fortas, presidential braintrusi.er,
leagal eagle, and troubleshooter. Mr. Fort-as,
however, could not sit on the Court:-given,
the rigid ethnic division that now obtains-
without replacing a Jewish Justice; namely,
Mr. Goldberg.
Mr. Johnson, who likes to chalk up h'is-
torical firsts, felt that he could use Mr. Gold-
berg to achieve this purpose.
Mr. Goldberg was quietly approached with
this proposition: If he would accept the
January/ 29, 1966
U.N. ambassadorship he would be rewarded
with a precedent-shattering promotion.
"There has never been a Jewish Vice Pree,i-
dent," Lyndon Johnson told Mr. Goldberg.
"If you will step down from the Supreme
Court, I promise you the vice-presidential
nomination in 1968. You will. therefore have
a chance at the presidency in 1972 when I
can no longer run."
Justice Goldberg leaped to the suggestion.
It has, moreover, been a badly kept secret
that President Johnson had no intention to
allow Mr. HuMn}IREY a second term in the
Veep Spot.
In the months to come, the administra-
tion's publicity machine will do its utmost
to make a national hero of Arthur Goldberg-
His every move will be hailed as the acme of
statesmanship and diplomatic brilliance.
[From the Hernando (Miss.) Times-
Promoter, Sept. 17, 19651
THE RIGHT To Wocac
(By Vant Neff)
Must you join a union to hold it job? It
all depends on where you live. In some 31
States, if the company where you start work
has a union, you either join or you're out.
In 19 others, the choice is still yours-join
or not-you can still get and keep a job.
How long this choice will last Is up to Con-
gress. President Johnson has just asked our
lawmakers to take away that freedom.
When the Taft-Hartley Labor Act was
passed by Congress in 1947, the decision was
left to the States as to whether their citizens
would be compelled to join unions as a con-
dition of employment. Now, 19 States have
right-to-work laws, giving each worker the
freedom to join a union or remain it non-
member.
Since 1947 a handful of big labor leaders
have kept up the fight to knock out the
right-to-work section of Taft-Hartley, section
14(b). Last fall, President Johnson promised
to do this if elected. Now he has sent a mes-
sage to Congress asking for repeal of 14(b)
Many Washington insiders believe the
President is paying off a debt for labor's help
in his election campaign. Others say he
doesn't really care whether the repeal comes
through or not. It is a fact that when he
was a Senator, he voted in favor of preserving
this right to work. However, the bill to re-
peal was sponsored by Representative FRANK
THOMrsoN, Democrat, of New Jersey, and
hearings are being held by a House labor
subcommittee.
Whatever the President's reasons, a man
who carried 44 out of 50 States and beat his
opponent by 16 million popular votes hardly
owes his election to the labor vote.
The cosponsor of Taft-Hartley, former
Representative Fred A. Hartley, termed the
Presidents recommendations "a ridiculous
move."
He pointed out that Bureau of Labor Sta-
tisitcs figures show there have been less m,cn-
hours lost and fewer strikes in right-to-work
States than in non.-right-to-work States.
Union leaders have spent millions of dol-
lars fighting to repeal State right-to-work
laws and millions more to keep States from
putting them on the hooks. A single cam-
paign in California, in 1958 was said to have
cost $2 million. Naturally, leaders want to
get these funds back and into union treas-
uries. If 14(b) is wiped out, dues and fees
from workers forced to join up would recoup
these losses. Union leaders feel that non-
members get a free ride from unions in the
19 States. Whatever the union gets in the
way of benefits for members In a shop, non-
members get too-without paying union dues
or fees.
This argument is weak. Many veterans
benefit from the activities of the American
Legion's campaign for housing, medical care,
job opportunities, and the like. Yet they
are not Legion members. Busnessmen profit
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1455
from the activities of the U.S. Chamber of divisive of their ambitions, will pull every summarily defeated, not just temporarily
Commerce, but need not join the chamber. possible string to make their power over all put off again.
Many Americans benefit from the services of of us undivided. The people therefore make Now is the time to do something about it-
the American Red Cross but no one would sure that any move for 14(b)'s repeal next not waiting until repeal legislation is ac-next
session. argue that all citizens should be compelled session will be summarily defeated, not just t ally brae go tup inthosethe 34 Senators and Now
l 203
to join, whether they want to or not. temporarily put off again. Is t
Labor leaders Congressmen who actively opposed repeal
in [From the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger, last session, how much we appreciate their
work has keppt back c assert economithat c ic the progress crein
Dec. 6, 1965] efforts. Now is also the time we should re-
years 51953- This fart isn't true. In 10 mind all the others that a vote for repeal of
Work States ins ANOTHER POWER GRAB SEEKING M CONTROL section 14(b) is a vote against the wishes of
crease 1263 percent nonfarm employment
but ut creased 26 in right-to-work UNEMPLOYMENT SYSTEM a majority of their constituents. Next year
but only 10 percent in others. Individual Businessmen and industrialists of Mis- is congressional election year, and as that
income increased 43 percent against 35 per- sissippi share the nationwide concern over day of reckoning draws closer some of those
cent for the rest of the country. Real wealth Federal efforts to gain control over another who rubberstamped the union bosses' de-
produced 60 percent in right-to-work States; State function, and that is control over all mand for 14(b) Is repeal last session may
36 percent in other States. the State-managed unemployment compen- become more anxious to please voters than to
Industry seems to be attracted to right-to- sation systems. do the bidding of the President or his union
work States. As Republican Senator PAUL The House Ways and Means Committee of boss friends.
FANIN, of Arizona, has said, "We are con- Congress has held extensive hearings this A coalition of Republicans and Democrats
vinced that it (right to work) has been an year on H.R. 8282 which contains the pro- in Congress held the line for us last year,
aid to us in our industrial development posed legislation that would authorize a against the power play of the union bosses
activities." single federalized unemployment compen- and their puppet politicians. The 2d session
Behind the reasons unions give for the re- sation system. of the 89th Congress starts in just a few
peal of 14(b), one fact stands out. The peak It would replace the individual State-Fed- weeks-January 10, to be exact--so it's our
year for union membership was 1956-17.5 eral programs which have been operating turn now to prevent "a switch rather than a
million members. In 1962, the latest figures successfully throughout the country for the fight." We can do this by again turning
put union members at 16.6 million. This is last 30 years. loose a flood of mail calling on our Senators
almost a million members down the drain in Besides removing the States from con- to stand firm against the Johnson-Meany-
6 short years at a time when 3 million new trolling positions in administration of un- Reuther-Hoffa domestic war on freedom.
workers were entering labor's ranks. employment compensation, H.R. 8282 would
Has the Federal Government the right to double the Federal corporate unemployment [From the Corinth (Miss.) Corinthian,
tell any worker to join or starve? Most taxes over the next 3 years, and would force Sept. 15, 1965]
Americans don't think so. A recent national all States to conform to national benefit- As WE SEE IT: RIGHT To WORK AND VOTE?
public opinion poll showed 67 percent of all eligibility standards despite widely varying Some of the most important and far-reach-
laws. queried, approved of right-to-work regional conditions.
laws. This proposed legislation, as analyzed by ing legislation the current Congress is still
How most of us feel was summarized by a the Weekly Labor Forecast and Review, would considering has to do with labor.
Miami attorney, Bernard B. Weksler, before in effect abolish so-called experience rating, At the top of the list. is the drive to repeal
the U.S. Supreme Court. "This right to work which rewards employers with lower tax rates section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act which
is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the if they stabilize their employment. permits States, if they so choose, to enact
citizen. The right to work Is equivalent to Although this proposed Federal takeover right-to-work laws. This has passed the
the right to eat; and * * * to make one's of unemployment is of great significance, House and is now in the Senate. If the even bread depend on church or union member- news of the committee hearings was sub- Senate political succumbs pto the ice demand repeal-
ship or or forced payment of money to a union merged by publicity on efforts to repeal sec- less, pas a condition of employment would be the tion 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act rank-and-file working people will be deprived
worst species of anti-Americanism. which authorizes right-to-work laws, excise of an absolutely essential right and protec-
Labor leaders have gone too far in this tax reduction and other major actions of tion. No matter what their beliefs and forced
and
join
pay latest attempt to extend their
subcommittee th.It first the House Ways and duestst thaey organs at on, a u ion, or
powers. Witnesses before the au btommittee
say they will press for secret-ballot elections Means Committee will report out H.R. 8282 lose their jobs. This is as unthinkable as if
for union membership drives, national right- for action as early as next February. After Congress passes a law denying a man the
to-work laws, as well as amendments to do House action, this bill would go to the right to join a union.
away with most of the special privileges Senate Finance Committee. Along with this, another vital issue is at
unions now enjoy. Labor unions favor this legislation, while stake. It is the right to vote. This simply
As one of America's great weekly maga- industry and business are opposed to a com- means that no union should be certified as
zines wrote: "Let the Federal Government plete takeover of all State-managed unem- bargaining agent for employees without a
face up honestly to the fact free collective ployment compensation systems. secret ballot election supervised by the Na-
bargaining is impossible when one party The public could be adversely affected by tional Labor Relations Board. As of now,
comes to the table with monopoly powers. such a change, so the people should join certification can be gained on the basis of a
Labor union membership should be volun- with businessmen in opposing the measure card count. The weaknesses in this are
tary-not compulsory." But the pressures known as H.R. 8282-which is another at- glaring. As the Cincinnati Enquirer has
on the Con ress are tremendous, including tempted power grab by Federal bureaucrats, said, "Certification of a union as the bar-
g gaining agent for a group of employees chances less t hey s to kill serve big their labor's a cob tio al s. If un- should not be made on the basis of signa-
believe in of choice Instead. If you [From the Leland 19651 ) Progress, Dec. 9, tures to cards, as pressures conceivably could com- u sio , you freedom of well let tyof Sena- be used to Obtain these that would not be op-
op-
tors and ys Congressmen do well to lyour Sena- No TIME To RELAX erative in a secret election. * * * Nor should
tors know it. The advocates of compulsion-that is, of there be a recognition simply on the basis of
[From the Biloxi-Gulfport (Miss.) Daily compulsory unionism-have licked their a contract between employer and union lead-
Herald, Dec. 11, 1966] wounds from last session's encounter, and er because there have been cases where so-
are now preparing to try again to repeal sec- called sweetheart contracts scratched the
To AGAIN SEEK REPEAL 14(b) tion 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act when back of the employer and the union boss but
The advocates of compulsion-that is, of Congress reconvenes, In a recent letter to sold out the working man."
compulsory unionism-have licked their union boss Walter Reuther, President John- The weary charge that right-to-work and
wounds from last session's encounter, and son said: "We have made significant progress right-to-vote laws are "antiunion" is as
are now preparing to try again to repeal sec- in 1965 toward the long-sought goal of re- phony as a $3 bill. They are, instead, pro-
tion 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act when pealing section 14(b) * * * We will come tections against exploitation and misre?pre-
Congress reconvenes. In a recent letter to back in the next session to remove this sentation of the desires and beliefs of the
union boss Walter Reuther, President John- divisive provision from the law." workingman who should have freedom of
son said: "We have made significant progress Those Senators who successfully defended choice.
in 1965 toward the long-sought goal of re- 14(b) and the workingman's freedom of
pealing section 14(b) * * *. We will come choice by filibuster last session have all [From the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger,
back in the next session to remove this vowed to stand their ground. But it will Dec. 10, 1965]
divisive provision from the law." take more than just extended debate to win NEED NEW HOUSE VOTE To NULLIFY THREAT
Those Senators who successfully defended again. Those power-mad union bosses and POSED EY COURT DECISION
14(b) and the workingman's freedom of politicians, who consider a workingman's
choice by filibuster last session have all freedom to be "divisive" of their ambitions, There is ample merit in a proposal by the
vowed to stand their ground. But it will will pull every possible string to make their National Federation of Independent Business essm
.chance
a
to re take more than just extended debate twin power
, must therefore make sure that any consid r their pr viousgvote on repeal of sec--
again. Thosese. union leaders ders and nd pal politicians, people,
consider a workingman's freedom to be move for 14(b)'s repeal next session will be tied 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, In view of
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
1456 CONGRESSIONAI. RECORD - SENATE January 29, 1966
the recent Supreme Court ruling favorable to unionism States. The average weekly earn- cards" as a determining factor only if an
Communists. ings of production workers in the
In the session just ended, the House voted Fast; 10 ap ha by unfair means, destroyed
years rose 46.8 percent in right-to-work an n e emmplo loyeem ajorfty.
by a narrow majority to repeal the section States and only 42.8 percent in those States This, surely, is an amendment to which no
which permits 19 States including Mississippi which permit compulsory unionism. In fact, legislator, no union leader should object,
14) enact and enforce right-to-work laws. 6 of the 15 States with the highest weekly and it is needed to protect a resaonable,
I"inal action was held up in the Senate. earnings for production workers are right-to- fundamental right of millions of workers.
The recent Supreme Court decision has work States.
held it illegal to require Communists to regis- Does employment lag in those States which [From the Jackson (Miss.) News, Nov. 5,
for with the Government. A ruling earlier allow voluntary unionism, as those who seek
this year invalidated sections of the Lan- to repeal 14(h) insist? ,- 1965]
,,,-limes from folding office in labor turin - ---- ro.-;e 26
unions. g jobs in right-to-work k States rose 128
new
The Supreme Court also has agreed to ex- manufacturing jobs declined decade. 7.6 But nt in
amine a challenge brought against the pro- lion-right- perci:er of
to-work States. The number of
vision of the. ',Taft-Hartley Act requiring production workers in that period ro?e 3.9
union officers to lake an oath disclaiming percent in the right-to-work States brut fell
membership in the Communist Party. 14.1 percent in compulsory unionism States.
This grim situation, as emphasized by the Annual retail trade sales rose 20.3 percent
National Federation of Independent Business, in right-to-work States, but only 16.7 percent
boils down to the fact that there Is little pro- in non-right-to-work States, but onl 9:1.5
section now against Communists taking over percent-or 6 percentage points below the
control of labor unions. rational average--in non-right-to-work
The only recourse our people have against States. The same pattern can be seen in
the possibility of workers being forced to pay bank deposits, motor vehicle registry Lions,
union dues to support Communist programs retail trade payrolls, per capita and gross, per-
is for States to enact right-to-work legislation sonal income, etc.
forbidding compulsory payment of dues. Whether or not these gains in the right-
to-in view of serious dangers created by un-? work States are due to the efi'ects of volun-
fortunate Supreme Court rulings, it is quite tary unionism on the economy can be de-
probable that many Congressmen who prey- bated. But the statistics prove conclusively
ionsly voted to repeal section 14(b)--on the that the scare talk-that it hurts the wage
basis of party regularity-will want to change earner--whose wish to repeal 14(b) is
their vote on this vital legislation. hardly in line with the statistics. When
Under procedures of Congress, in January Congress convenes, those facts and figures
the House will not get another opportunity will most certainly be presented by those
to vote on this measure, despite recent de- who wish to preserve both 14(b) and the
vclopments, unless parliamentary procedures voluntary association of workers in free
are employed. It; should be done, as quickly unions.
as possible after the new session gets under
way next month. [From the Natchez (Miss.) Democrat, Nov.
I From the Yazoo City (Miss.) Herald, Dec. 23,
1965]
1)OEs TT ITIMRT WORKERS? 14(b) AGAIN To BE
TARGET
When Congress convenes In January, one
of its first orders; of business will be legisla-
tion to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hart-
ny Labor-Management Act. This provision
Oierxnits the individual States to ban compul-
sory unionism, and it has been under strong
attack for years by the AFL-CIO.
Repeal of 14(b) was blocked by the Sen-
ate in the waning days of the last session.
fnlormed sources report that President John-
~;on and a majority of both Houses would like
to see repeal forgotten. It is argued that
'.966 is an election year, and with a pre-
ponderant majority of the American people
opposed to compulsory unionism and favor-
ing retention of 14(b) (as all polls show), a
legislative battle will hurt the administra-
tion.
APT_CIi7 President George Meany Is de-
termined to press for repeal. Other labor
leaders concede that the issue has hurt the
unions. Off the record, they will admit that
repeal will do then little good. The motiva-
tion of Mr. Meany's insistence, it is agreed,
s emotional rather than practical.
Any battle over voluntary versus compul-
1, 1965 ]
MUST KEEP UP FIGHT
Now that one of the most active con-
gressional sessions in the history of the
country is concluded, people are wondering
what the 89th Congress will do for an encore
when Its 2d session gets underway next year.
There would seem to be very little left to
do. The Great Society has been launched
on a tide of laws whose ripples w Al be felt
for decades.
The Presidential proposals which Con-
gress turned down can be counted on the
fingers of one hand-such as repeal of the
right-to-work clause of the Taft-Hartley
law, raising the minimum wage, home rule
for the District of Columbia.
The answer given by most observers is that
Congress will do very little major lawmak-
ing in 1966, although President Johanson says
he will put a "must" label on about 23 bills
in another Great Society package.
Compared to the energetic first. session,
however, even this will amount to more or
less tidying up of legislative odds and ends
and correction of shortcomings and ineffi-
ciencies in some of the Great Society pro-
grams. The overall impression will he of
sober, moderate democratic leadership which
deserves approbation at the polls come No-
vember.
The real question in 1966 will be whether
it will get it.
The people have given a President a ma-
jority of his own party in the legislative
branch before, although seldom so decisively
as they did in 1964.
Traditionally, however, they have taken
away or reduced that majority in nonpresi-
dential election years.
[From the Jackson (Miss.) News,
Oct. 26, 19651
Just because the effort to repeal section
14:(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act has been
shelved, we should not let up in efforts to
insure the retention of the section, if and
when the repealer comes up at the next
session of Congress.
And, in preparation for the renewed ef-
fort, probably next year, it would be well for
opponents to be read
t
ff
y
o o
er melli
owng RIGHT-TO-WORK NoxsEDxEs
amendments to the repealer, should the ad-
ministration through its growing deforming- section of the Taft-Hartley Act has sub-
the repeal. sided in Congress this year, but by no means
In event the is should happen, and is it forgotten.
goodness knows that we certainly hope not, Labor took a decisive beating in the Sen-
there is definitely one amendment which ate rejection of any steamroller tactics gen-
should be added. crated by the administration in other John-
It is an amendment sore-favored legislation, but they are not
giving rank and file going to remain quiet.
workers the right to vote by secret ballot. on
the question of whether they do or do not Nineteen States were affected by the drive
Want to belong to a union. Stranl;ely to deliberately eliminate the one section
enough, present regulations deny employees guaranteeing the right of workers to belong
this right, which would seem to be basic? or not to belong to labor organizations as a
in :many cases. prerequisite to work.
The Leader believes, and often lies st:mind Mississippi has long advocated and
that section 14(b) should be rei'eined 111.1 stanchly defended this right of every ixidi-
the Taft-Hartley Act. It believes that., if vidual to choose for himself whether lie
repeal is achieved, it must be accompai:ied wanted to be represented by a fee-colleci.in
by a right-to-vote provision which will in- organization or let the merit of his own pro_
ure that
ductio
t h
n se
a majority ofk
is conduct with
worers in any management.
o ie ola.rms of repeal proponents that right particular instance actually do prefer the
tabor claims to have the figures
a i work damages the economy of the States union that proving
wages are higher bft
.,eneis greater and
which enact it and hurts the wage earner Under present rules of the National Labor security stronger among workers in Stn tes
^110unmicsily. The basis for this argument is Relations Board, a union can be certifier; as backing union shop.
slogs unions are weakened and greedy man- bargaining agent for employes if the union It might get faster results, and truer to the
al;emenl: takes advantage of this by lowerin spirit of early leaders In the land, to redirect
g presents "pledge cards" signed by a major
W.iges. i.ty of the employees. These cards are lot some of their expensive lobbying efforts from
lint is this true? Statistics from the Labor substitute for a secret: ballot, they are not the Halls of Congress to the factory benches
Ilepa.rtment and the Commerce Department even secret, and in numerous instances they in the country, oducg and insisting on bet-
would tend to question those allegations. do not represent the worker's true prefer.. ter quality of production.
Infact, they point to increased prosperity once for union membership. They m;,ke It is a foregone conclusion that as the next
si higher pay for the 19 right-to-work coersion possible and even likely. national elections come closer, labor will ex-
states. The intent of the "right-to-vote" provi-. ert every effort to pressure Congressmen and
Between 1953 and. 1963, for example, the Sion is to make sure that an uncoerced ma- other candidates for expressions of support
I'ouriy earnings of the manufacturing work- Jority of workers wants the union. It would for complete union-dominated legislation.
era increased 46.8 percent in right-to-work do this by requiring a fair, secret election, There should be no letup by those still
.L,,tns, but only 41.5 percent in compulsory and it would permit the use of "preference convinced that free enterprise and the right
d~C111G~?Qo0400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
to work is the individual's choice and not.
that of organized pressure.
[From the Meridian (Miss.) Star, Oct. 30,
1965]
LEGISLATIVE LULL
Now that one of the most active congres-.
sional sessions in the history of the country
is concluded, people are wondering what the
89th Congress will do for an encore when
its 2d session gets underway next year.
There would seem to be very little left to
do. The Great Society has been launched
on a tide of laws whose ripples will be felt
for decades.
The Presidential proposals which Congress
turned down can be counted on the fingers of
one hand-such as repeal of the right-to-
work clause of the Taft-Hartley law, raising
the minimum wage, home rule for the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
The answer given by most observers is that
Congress will do very little major lawmaking
in 1966, although President Johnson says he
will put a "must" label on about 23 bills in
another Great Society package.
Compared to the energetic first session,
however, even this will amount to more or less
tidying up of legislative odds and ends and
correction of shortcomings and inefficiencies
in some of the Great Society programs. The
overall impression will be of a liberal Demo-
cratic leadership at the polls come next
November.
The people have given a President a ma-
jority of his own party in the legislative
branch before, although seldom so decisively
as they did in 1964.
Traditionally, however, they have taken
away or reduced that majority in nonpresi-
dential election years.
If President Johnson can convince the
voters to break that pattern in 1966, and give
him another topheavy Democratic Congress
for 1967 and 1968, it will put him in the
driver's seat again, and in a position to hold
even tighter to the one-man rule he has now.
[From the Vicksburg (Miss.) Post,
Sept. 24, 19651
RIGHT To VOTE AND WORK?
Some of the most important and far-
reaching legislation the current Congress is
still considering has to do with labor.
At the top of the list is the drive to repeal
section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act which
permits States, if they choose, to enact right-
to-work laws. This has passed the House
and is now in the Senate. If the Senate suc-
cumbs to the powerful, even ruthless, politi-
cal pressures which demand repeal, rank-
and-file working people will be deprived of
an absolutely essential right and protection.
No matter what their beliefs and wants, they
will be forced to join and pay dues to a pri-
vate organization, a union, or lose their jobs.
This is as unthinkable as if Congress passed
a law denying a man the right to join a
union.
Along with this, another vital issue is at
stake. It is the right to vote. This simply
means that no union should be certified as
bargaining agent for employees without a
Secret ballot election supervised by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. As of now,
certification can be gained on the basis of a
card count. The weaknesses in this are glar-
ing. As the Cincinnati Enquirer has said,
"Certification of a union as the bargaining
agent for a group of employees should not be
made on the basis of signatures to cards, as
pressures conceivably could be used to obtain
these that would not be operative in a secret
election * * *. Nor should there be a rec-
ognition simply on the basis of a contract
between employer and union leader because
there have been cases where so-called sweet-
heart contracts scratched the back of the
employer and the union boss but sold out
thQ workingman."
[From
the Greenwood, (Miss.)
wealth, Sept. 28, 1965]
A BASIC RIGHT
The battle to save section 14(b) of the
Taft-Hartley Act-the section which author-
izes States to pass right-to-work laws for-
bidding. compulsory union membership as a
connection of employment-has not been
lost, even though repeal has passed the
House. Every legitimate effort is being made
to save this essential protection of the
worker in the Senate.
At the same time, if 14(b) is repealed the
workers can be forced to join and pay dues
to a union or join the hungry ranks of the
unemployed. Congress should at the very
least add another stipulation to the law. This
has to do with a tightening up of union
certification procedures. That should only
be done through secret elections conducted
by the National Labor Relations Board. Cer-
tification-which is gained through the sig-
natures of workers on cards is totally un-
satisfactory. Investigations have shown that,
at times, signatures are forged or fictitious or
have been obtained through fraud, misrep-
resentation, coercion, or other such methods.
What is at stake here is the right to vote.
As the Memphis Press-Scimitar puts it, "If
a contract is to bind every employee to pay
union dues whether he likes it or not, is it
too much to ask for a secret ballot to make
sure the union at least has majority sup-
port?"
There is nothing antiunion in this. It
would make it accurately and truly known
whether any group of workers want or do not
want union representation. This is, beyond
cavil, a basic right, and so is the right of
choice to join or not join.
[From the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger,
Sept. 29, 1965]
FORCING WORKERS To JOIN UNION IS AN EAR-
MARK OF DICTATORSHIP
Typical of every dictatorship, whether
Fascist or Communist, has been compulsory
membership in trade unions, so it is more
than slightly ironic that the United States
should be the first "free country" to attempt
compulsory union membership-by efforts
to repeal section 14(b) of our Taft-Hartley
Labor Act.
Dr. Melchoir Palyi, consulting economist
whose authoritative views are featured regu-
larly in the Chicago Tribune, puts the "lib-
eral" drive against right-to-work laws in
this light:
If Congress passes the bill to repeal sec-
tion 14(b), prompted as it is by the Presi-
dent, who was as late as last year on the
other side of the fence, it will have led the
Nation a great step in the direction of the
totalitarians. In one respect, it will have
gone further than they. Their unions are
institutions of the regime in power; ours are
private associations.
It is one thing to be forced into a gov-
ernmental straightjacket; it is far more in-
equitable and reprehensible to be forced into
a private association that uses the members
contributions for its own political and "so-
cial" purposes, if not for worse.
VIOLATES V.N. RESOLUTION
The irony is componded by the fact that
the imposition of the union shop violates
the United Nation resolution of December 10,
1948, called the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Its article II states ex-
plicitly:
1. "Everyone has the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association.
2. "No one may be compelled to belong to
an association."
This declaration was sponsored by Eleanor
Roosevelt, before she knew on which side
the unions' bread would be buttered. There-
after, she became a passionate propagandist
for what amounts to the suppression of
everyone's right to work and free choice of
1457
employment that had been reaffirmed in
article XXIII of the same declaration.. By
implication, she also denied a person's right
to be a conscientious objector in conflict with
a private association serving for private gain.
LITTLE OR NO DIFFERENCE
Legally, the union shop is not a closed
shop; in reality, the difference is little more
than nominal. Legally, the employee has
"only" to pay his initiation fee and dues,
But once he is forced to pay dues the union
bosses usually find it easy to force on him
all the obligations of membership.
[From the Natchez (Miss.) Democrat,
Sept. 18, 1965]
RIGHT-To-WoRK LAW
Some of the most important and far-
reaching legislation the current Congress is
still considering has to do with labor.
At the top of the list is the drive to repeal
section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act which
permits States, if they so choose, to enact
right-to-work laws. This has passed the
House and is now in the Senate. If the
Senate succumbs to the powerful, even ruth-
less, political pressures which demand repeal,
rank-and-file working people will be deprived
of an absolutely essential right and protec-
tion. No matter what their beliefs and wants,
they will be forced to join and pay dues to
a private organization, a union, or lose their
jobs. This is as unthinkable as if Congress
passed a law denying a man the right to join
a union.
Along with this, another vital issue is at
stake. It is the right to vote. This simply
means that no union should be certified as
bargaining agent for employees without a
secret ballot election supervised by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. As of now,
certification can be gained on the basis of a
card count. The weaknesses in this are
glaring. As the Cincinnati Enquirer has said,
"Certification of a union as the bargaining
agent for a group of employees should not
be made on the basis of signatures to cards,
as pressures conceivably could be used to
obtain these that would not be operative in
a secret election * * *. Nor should there be
a recognition simply on the basis of a con-
tract between employer and union leader
because there have been cases where so-called
sweetheart contracts scratched the back of
the employer and the union boss but sold
out the working man,"
The weary charge that right-to-work and
right-to-vote laws are "antiunion" is as
phony as a $3 bill. They are, instead, pro-
tections against exploitation and misrepre-
sentation of the desires and beliefs of the
working man who should have freedom of
choice.
[From the Biloxi (Miss.) Herald, Sept. 18,
19651
RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS
We thought that the lowest in political
hypocrisy had been achieved by those Con-
gressmen who claimed that they were insur-
ing the workingman's economic freedom by
voting to repeal section 14(b) of the Taft-
Hartley Act. But now the Senate Labor Sub-
committee, headed by Senator MORSE, of
Oregon, has endorsed repeal of section 14(b)
and additionally proposed an amendment
which would, in effect, make the National
Labor Relations Board and labor officials the
overseers of some worker's religious beliefs,
while pretending to guarantee freedom of
conscience.
To be exempt from joining and paying dues
to a labor union, under the amendment, a
workingman would have to: (1) obtain a
certificate by the National Labor Relations
Board (that he) holds conscientious objec-
tions to membership in any labor organiza-
tion based upon his religious training and
beliefs, and (2) have timely paid, in lieu of
periodic dues and initiation fees, sums equal
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
1458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -,SENATE
to such dues and initiation fees to a non-
religious charitable fund exempt from taxa-
tion * * * designated by the labor organiza-
tion.
This would make the National Labor Re-
lations Board the authority for religious ex-
emptions for a workingman joining a union.
That a Senator would propose or endorse
such an amendment, even under the pretext
of guaranteeing religious freedom, is evi-
dence that he realizes the repeal of section
14(b) would deprive the workingman of free-
dom in the first place.
l Prom the Biloxi (Miss.) Herald, Nov. 26,
1065)
ACTION By NATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
[.lather than slowing down between con-
gressional sessions, the National Chamber of
Commerce has stepped up its activities in
preparation for the convening January 10,
of the 2d session of the 89th Congress.
The goal: To press effectively for private
enterprise solutions to economic, social, tech-
nical, and other problems.
More than 20 national chamber Commit-
tees, task forces, and study groups with help
from outside experts are examining national
problems and proposing solutions. Confer-
ences, seminars, and meetings are being held
all over the country.
Special attenion is being given to issues
which will likely be debated In the next con-
gressional session, Including but not limited
to: Repeal of Taft-Hartley section 14(b),
ncreased minimum wage, federalization of
unemployment compensation, consumer
'redlt and packaging and labeling controls,
labor law reform, water supply projects,
urban renewal and poverty programs, rent
ubsidies, and transportation improvement.
Chamber headquarters for the task ahead
are the legislative department, Government
relations department, and 13 departments
involved in program development.
The legislative department has held an
advisory conference on congressional action
with the chairmen of 16 congressional action
committees from communities of various
sizes.
The purpose is to refine and upgrade the
CAC operation so as to enable business and
professional men to be more effective in tell-
ing their Congressmen how they feel about
particular issues.
The legislative department will provide a
complete blueprint for organizing and con-
ducting it congressional action committee in
local chambers, or trade or professional
groups. More than 1,300 are in operation, in-
volving more than 30,000 business and pro-
lessional men and women.
A special advisory committee is at work
planning strategy on unemployment com-
pensation legislation, which will be a major
is sue.
j i'rom the Greenville (Miss.) Delta Demo-
crat-Times, Nov. 26, 19651
ILI.-'l'TMED STRIKE
A powerful labor union threatened to de-
lay America's Gemini space effort with an ill-
a.dvised strike which idled 71,000 machinist
it the giant McDonnell Aircraft Corp. The
strike conceivably could have put the United
htates far behind in the space race. Cer-
tainly, the Ill-timed strike was not in the
hest interests of the Nation's space effort.
And, this is not by any means the first
Lime that national interests and labor in-
i.?crests have seriously conflicted. The fight
over labor's insistence on repeal of section
14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act represents just
one other recent conflict of national and
Trnion interests. In that scrap, labor leaders
:;ought to secure additional union strength
at the expense of the Nation's labor force by
banning right-to-work laws in 19 States.
No one can dispute labor's right to seek
advantages for Its members. And no one
can seriously fault the strike as a potent
collective bargaining weapon.
But, it would seem that some legislation
is in order to prevent costly labor walkouts
on Federal projects, especially when an ill-
timed strike can adversely affect crucial Gov-
ernment timetables, such as the timetable
for the Gemini shot. If the McDonnell ma-
chinists must strike, it seems the union could
have postponed its walkout until after the
planned Gemini shot without seriously darn-
aging its bargaining power. And since the
Gemini shot was scheduled well in advance,
there seems no reason why announcement of
a labor strike, or plans for the strike, were
delayed until the 11th hour, wasting the
time of countless Government labor workers
and officials, to say nothing of the cos: t to
American taxpayers.
It is, however, to the union's credit that
workmen on the Gemini project were al-
lowed to return to their jobs in order to keep
plans for the space shot on schedule-even
though the rest of the union's members
remained on strike. But the walkout did
keep Gemini workers off their jobs for sev-
eral clays, until union officials relented and
allowed them to resume preparations for the
Gemini shot. The delay undoubtedly was
costly. Certainly it was not beneficial b- the
overall preparations for the Gemini space
rendezvous even though NASA officials now
say it's still possible to adhere more or less
to the original timetable.
Perhaps legislation to force labor unions
to give adequate warning of strike plans
would help ease the situation. Such legis-
lation seems especially important when Fed-
eral projects are involved. It seems sense-
less to allow a small minority of labor officials
to order union moves which directly affect
the lives of all Americans.
The labor unions, traditionally, have pro-
vided good and useful service to American
workers and, ultimately, to industry as well.
But walkouts such as the one affecting the
Gemini space shot seem to indicate that
labor's usefulness to the Nation could be
increased by legislation which would prevent
costly, ill-timed strikes.
[From the Biloxi (Miss.) Herald,
Nov. 20, 19651
RIGHT To WORK
As reported by the press, President J . . N ~ d, J 2 u1.~~ -~3pP 7B0044.6R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 1465.
not achieving its stated purpose of pro- agent under the provisions of the Na- of the union as though they were mem-
moting industrial peace. The increase tional Labor Relations Act. By law, the bers. Recognizing the probable uncon-
in industrial strife in 1945 occasioned union is the exclusive bargaining agent stitutionality of forcing someone to join
the loss of approximately 38 million for all the employees, both union mem- an organization against his will, the pro-
man-days of labor to strikes. But, by bers and nonunion members. Section ponents have modified their request for tha act
1946 this loss was trebled, when there 9(a) of the Wagner Act states specifi- 1 author heit , andia owgonly at s, to t he dues
were number million man-days lost, and the tally: ke is numbeer of f strikes reached the unpTOC- Representatives designated or selected for and initation fees-but he does not have bar
any
actually
gainin
meetings Houses figure of 4,985. In 1946,
Case both mthe a o ty ofPthe mployees in a union appro- The p oponents know that f he is g ing
whichs Congress passed the ibill, priate for such purposes, shall be the exclu- to pay for a union he is going to attend
which seemed to to reflect past reflect the growing g pub- save representatives of all the employees in the meetings-he would be a fool not to
lie concern. The Case bill would have such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
expressly do so. Pdo not customarily pay
they do not intend to customarily
brought secondary boycotts gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, for so. People
-
under the antitrust laws. It would have hours of employment, or other conditions of it would b they going into a store and
also restored to the Federal courts the employment. it would a watch or some to r item and buying
power to issue injunctions in labor dis- In other words, the National Labor then leaving it for the store to sell again.
putes, a power which was taken away Relations Act has deprived the nonmem- Obviously, the store owner would like
from them by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. ber of his voice in determining and in that very much, but it requires a curious
The bill failed to become law because coming to an agreement with his em- sense of justice to justify such arequire-
thegroundwork odor the but enact- ployer on such important matters as his ment. While it has been argued that
the groundwork for the later ea rate of remuneration, the hours he shall public policy considerations have justi-
p ersi of the veto. The Taft-Hartley act over a work, and all other conditions of his em- fled the abrogation of the individual's
was considerably veto. The TfCase loyment. These rights have been taken right to negotiate the terms of his own
was considerably milder than the Cae from him and granted to the labor union employment contract, I know of no pub-
bill, ie it. did dote se, but labor at- without his consent. He has forfeited lie policy consideration which would re-,
ol o per course rather la- his fundamental right of freedom of quire those deprived of their rights to,
tempt d s as "bad"
tempted The follow the course then, was contract. He has given up his voice in in addition, pay tribute to those to whom
tion. predicated The upon Act, than, was the selection of his bargaining agent, and their rights have been transferred. This
qon the belief that a fairer he has also given up his voice in directing kind of reasoning would require an inde-
po-
by q Labor policy can best the internal affairs of the union-which pendent voter to contribute to both po-
be achieved more equitable
in manner which encourage free, has by law become his bargaining agent. litical parties. The independent voter
in vbargaining. r which will the same me, He is at the mercy of that bargaining forfeits his opportunity to participate in
there was b a recognition that same time, agent. He has done this to exercise his the selection of the candidates of one of
t Government freedom of choice, to exercise a right the major parties. Personally, I think
if free for free granted to him under section 7 of the this is a great sacrifice to maintain one's
agre mercan note parties if substituted
agreve ag inthe to exist, col- National Labor Relations Act-that is, independence; but, I believe every citizen
de-
However, the increased is to Government ant role . to join or not to join a labor organiza- should have the right to make that de-
in the negotiations ations of Governmeel tion. The rights he has given up may cision, and I am sure that such decisions
in negotiations of last year's Sr be likened to an act of forbearance. In are made only upon compelling reasons
contract tract leads one to wonder whether contract law, forbearance in the exercis- of conscience.
this policy has been discarded. carded. In and Ing of a right has been held to be legal Another facet of compulsory unionism
thant, the Taft-Hartley Act recognized consideration and is sufficient to make and the free-rider argument which have
that eve interests of the general public an otherwise valid contract binding. In received attention is the effect of the
in preserving peace beeI think other words, in contract law, forbearance union shop upon summer employment of
I underscore that because h the is held to be something of value; its students.
interest of the public ay large is the exact value would, of course, depend In May of last year, the President par in eamount interest in any strike. in This, upon the precise nature of the right not launched a program which he called the
mageme youth opportunities campaign. The ob-
mffect, anagement injected a relationsnew, and nd that element at t is is the the being exercised. Therefore, under these
public interest. The hands off policy of circumstances the nonunion member has jective of this program was to increase
the Norris-LaGuardia and the Wagner contributed something of value to the summer job opportunities for high school
Acts was, at least, partially reversed. In union cause. He has contributed his and college students. Two letters, writ-
other words, Congress recognized that right to negotiate the basic terms of his ten by Mr. Gerald H. Phipps, president of
monopolistic practices of labor unions employment. a general contracting company in Den
could also result in a restraint of trade, What are the benefits that flow to the ver, Colo., graphically display how com-
because once again the adage "power union due to this legislative grant of pulsory unionism may work to defeat na-
corrupts and absolute power corrupts ab- exclusive bargaining authority and en- tional programs, and also work a hard-
solutely" had been reaffirmed. There is forced forbearance of the individual to ship upon our youth. I will read from
no place where that has been more evi- act on his own behalf relative to wages, those letters because I believe they pre
dent than in the recent transit strike in hours, and conditions of employment? sent the matter eloquently. The first
New York. This pending proposal would Obviously, it has increased the bargain- letter is dated June 1, 1965, and is ad-
eliminate the last vestige of restraint ing strength and improved the bargain- dressed to the Secretary of Commerce,
upon the establishment of labor monop- ing position of the union in bargaining Mr. John T. Connor:
olies in a broad and national sense. The for its members. The labor unions rec- DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This morning's mail
history and development of regulatory ognized this benefit, and it was upon brought ht your open ltt rsfdated boys
control over public utility monopolies their insistence that the National Labor and 23 and urging
through ea employment pof age during 21 should serve as a warning to all those Relations Act included the provision an sugirls 16 mmer months. I believe a few ring
co-
who mistakenly believe that the interests granting to the unions the power to act ments are in order.
of organized labor will in the long run be as the exclusive bargaining agent for all in the nearly 20 years this firm and its
best served through establishment of ab- employees within the bargaining unit- predecessor have operated in the Denver area,
solute monopoly powers in the unions. both union members and nonunion mem- we have attempted to furnish summer em-
FREE RIDERS bers. But this is not enough, according ployment for deserving young men. As
tors we have not had nor do
rat
i
What is a "free rider?" I suppose he
can be characterized as one who receives
benefits for which he has not paid, or to
which he has not contributed, or for
which he has not given up anything.
- Let us examine the status of the non-
member in a shop which has recognized
a union as the employee's' bargaining
,
ng con
to the proponents of this bill. Those build
who have given up their contractual we expect to have openings for young ladies.
rights by force of law must also pay for in view of the subject President's recent message
the privilege of having their rights taken to the of com orment labor that eone a-
away from them. The proponents of tion, Congress
our it is se o problems worthy h y of come employment lies
this measure do not demand that non- in the fact that, as members of the Associated
members become members, they only de- Building Contractors of Colorado, we are
mand that they contribute to the'support parties to contracts with building trade
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
rrgnt-to-work law, these contracts all re-
quire union shop operation. Even though
the job opportunities we provide for students
are, temporary in nature, these men are re-
quired by our contracts to become members
of the appropriate union within 30 days of
their employment, paying full initiation fee
and full monthly dues. As you can imagine,
these take a fairly substantial bite out of
their paychecks. Further, since all skilled
trades require any man to pass through an
apprenticeship training program, these trades
are closed to seasonal employment. Finally,
when total volume of work in the area is be-
low par, the common laborer's union can and
often does refuse membership to seasonal
employees.
I omit some portions which are not
Pertinent.
The letter continues:
T. assure you that we will do all we can
to forward the youth opportunity campaign.
(however, to a major degree our hands are
tied.
Sincerely yours,
GERALD H. PI=IIPPS,
President.
The second letter is dated July 20, 1965,
and is addressed to the senior Senator
from Colorado:
DEAR GORDON: In accordance with your let-
ter of July 14, following is information re-
garding initiation fee and dues payable to
the local union of the laborers: initiation
fee is $75. A payment of $1.50 is required
l'or a Denver Building & Construction Trades
Council card. The dues to the laborers'
union are $4.50 per month. At the time of
going to work, a payment of $40 is required,
representing $34 toward the initiation fee,
and building trades card and dues for 1
month. Within the next 2 weeks, the re-
maining $41 of initiation fee must be paid.
Dues must be kept current, an arrearage
of 2 months calling for payment of $50 of the
initiation fee plus back dues. A man wish-
ing to remain in the union following the
end of summer employment and looking
toward employment in the following year
must continue his monthly dues payments.
Otherwise the full initiation fee must again
be paid. I hope this furnishes the informa-
tion you want.
Sincerely,
GERALD 1-1. PHIPPS,
"resident,
Reactionaries have been characterized
as those who inhibit progress in order to
preserve an established order. That, of
course, is the purpose of union security
clauses: To preserve the established or-
der; to protect the security of the bar-
gaining representative. In that sense,
the proponents of this measure are reac-
tionary. Secretary Wirtz, in support of
this reactionary notion, said:
There is no right of a minority to endanger
the freedom of a majority of the employees
to protect the security of the bargaining
representative.
What; he is saying, in effect, is that the
union should not be required to sell its
?ervices, that it need not continue to
prove its worth to the employee by per-
formance. In other words, the union is
entitled to a free ride at the expense of
the employee who does not wish to join
the union.
it boils down to this question: Shall
we make it a national policy that two
private parties can enter into an agree-
ment affecting the rights of a third party
who has not participated in making
that agreement? I think that it is im-
portant to recognize that the right that
is being bargained away is the right of
the individual to freedom of association,
a right which is protected by the first
amendment to the Constitution.
TIME IS AGAINST THEM
The real motive behind this present
drive to repeal 14(b) is that as time has
passed, the people in more and more
States have come to recognize the injus-
tice of compulsory unionism and have
taken steps to prevent it. Of the 19
States that now have right-to-wok stat-
utes or constitutional amendments, 9
had enacted such provisions prior to the
final vote on Taft-Hartley-June 23,
1947. During the remainder of 1947
two
,
more States were added to their ranks;
namely, South Dakota and Texa_ the
latter being the home of our PresidenIn 1948, North Dakota became a right'-. State. Things were fairly quiet
on the right-to-work front; until 1952
when Nevada became a right-to-work
State. By 1963 six more States had
either enacted right-to-work statutes or
had adopted constitutional amendments
forbidding compulsory unionism: Ala-
bama in 1953, Mississippi and South
Carolina in 1954, Utah in 1955, Kansas
in 1958, and Wyoming in 1963. Propo-
nents of the bill can see the trend. I am
sure that each year they ask them:3elves:
I wonder which State will be next?
Time is against them and they know it.
That is the real reason they wish to re-
peal all the right-to-work laws in one
blanket measure through the Congress.
Because such States as Nevada and Ari-
zona have approved right to work on
three separate occasions, the proponents
of compulsory unionism have moved to
the Congress in an effort to thwart the
expressed will of the people in those
States.
Secretary Wirtz indicated in his state-
ment before the committee that the pro-
ponents of the repeal of 14(b) are unions
"which have stood most strongly for in-
dividual freedoms." The only explana-
tion that I can find for those who have
purportedly stood for individual freedoms
.now pressing for the extinguishment of
:Individual freedoms is best expressed by
th
e old adage:
It all depends upon whose ox is gored.
Or, I might paraphrase it this way:
It all depends on whose free ride is in
jeopardy.
INDUSTRIAL PIRACY
It has been charged that right-to-work
States have been successfully pirating
industry away from my State. Mr. Pres-
ident, I must say that in talking with ray
good friends, the members of unions, who
came to my office in Colorado, this. was
the point they expressed most often and
pushed most vociferously. Certainly,
such a matter as that of States success-
fully pirating industry away from. my
State would give any Member of Con-
gress reason to pause, if such a charge
were supportable. Colorado is in a rather
unique position, because it is almost com-
pletely surrounded by right-to-work
States. Of the seven States bordering
Colorado, five have right-to-work law's;
namely, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Ne-
braska, and Kansas. On several occa-
sions, I have requested from those mak-
ing this charge that data be furnished to
me in support of this contention, but I
January 2?, 19(Y ;,
have yet to receive any such data. The
only data 1: have received are tables
showing that economic activity in nearly
every area has increased more rapidly
in right-to-work States generally than in
non-right-to-work States. I have tables
indicating that average weekly earnings
of production workers in right-to-work
States have increased more rapidly in
the last 10 years, since 1955, than has the
average earnings in non-right-to-work
States. Right-to-work States experi-
enced an increase in weekly earnings for
production workers of 46.8 percent, while
non-right-to-work States had only a 42.8
percent increase during that period.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have certain tables from the De-
partment of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, showing the increase in wage
rates, printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MORSE in the chair). Is there objection?
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Average weekly earnings of production
workers-Rate of increase, 1955-65
January
1955
January Pettey f.
1965 ` iacrraae.
Right-to-work States-- $.5. 61 $96.34
40. R
Non-right-towork
states ____----- 74.80 106.83 42.'4
National average- 71.16 102.68 44.:3
HE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT-TO-WORK STATES
Alabama- --
Arizona =_-._._. Arkansas
-_.---_-
Florida _.
Georgia -----
Indiana 2 ----------
Iowa - --- _
Kansas 2_ -. -------- ..
Mississippi- ___-_-Nebraska.- - -----------
Nevada 2_
North Carolina -----_ -
North Dakota South Carolina
South Dakota__________
Tennessec__.._
'rexas___.__. --------
U tali 2
Virginia ---- _____
$57.42
82. 19
51.73
57.95
51. Ill
80.35
74. 41
81.61
47. 88
.8. 61)
87.05
49. 78
65. 68
52. 10
73.37
59. 20
72.80
75. 81
87.02
$91.91
111.65
73. 67
90.'74
80.38
118. 98
1l It. 80
112. 95
72.98
165. 04
121.52
73.21
95. i4
77.38
106. 14
85.49
101. 68
112.87
80. 31
60. 1
3.5. 8
42.4
.51 i. 6
.5( 7
48.1
5)). 2.
U. 4
52.4
51 - 1.9
39. ri
47.1
45. 8
48. 5
44.7
44.4
39. 7
48. 9
1.4
THE INDIVIDUAL NON-RIGHT-TO-WORTS
STATES
California -.-
Colorado---
Connecticut.
Delaware--- ----
Idaho-_ _-
Illinois_____ __-_------
Kentucky__.._.._________
Louisiana--. _____
Maine__ __ ----
Maryland _ _ --_____---
Massachusetts__________
Michigan _-__-.._______-
Minnesota _ _ __ __ __-
Missouri-- -----------
Montana
.---.
New IIamnpshire___
New Jersey- __________-
New Mexico. _
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma- _ ----------
Oregon---
Pennsylvania -
.------
Rhode Island
Vermont --
Washington ________.._
West Virginia ------ __
Wisconsin _______ _ _
Wyoming-.-..--._-- --
$83.47
75.17
75. 67
73. 36
80.10
70.10
67.30
66. 75
59.26
71.77
66. 80
93.76
76. 44
09.36
83.05
59.60
76.4.
85. 28
73. 52
83.40
72. 04
87.95
72. '21)
61. 29
59. 94
85.09
71.80
77.29
81.93
$121.71
113. 27
109. 98
115.23
102.91
115. OR
98. 98
NO. 43
83.84
106. 45
96. If.
144. 87
111. 41
104.59
110.55
82. 62
111.25
90. 57
104. 67
124. 93
100. 62
114.07
103. 74
85.81
89.25
IN. 82
108.154
113.94
109. 74
'IS, 8
50.7
45.3
2s. e
48.1
47.1
at 4
4L5
48.3
44.0
A.5
,,.).7
710.8
33. 1
38. 6
45.5
6.2
42. 4
48. 7
:19. 7
29.7
4:3.7
.10. 0
48.9
37.3
51. 2
47.4
33. 9
r 13 of 29 non-right-to-work States have increases I s low
the national average.
26 of the 15 States with the highest average weekly
earnings for preductionworkers arc right-to-work States.
Source of data: Department of Tabor, T3ureau of Labor
Statistics "Employ]neat and Earnings," 1955 and M rc11
1965 volumes.
 -. Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Rate of increase of nonagricultural employees
(1953-63)
Rate of increase of average weekly earnings of
production workers (1955-65)
work stoppage due to strike action as in the
right-to-work States. The following figures
Percent
Percent
are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Right-to-work States----------------
23.8
Right-to-work States1--------------- 46.8
Man days idle during work stoppages-1963
Non-right-to-work States ---_--------
9.0
Non-right-to-work States------------ 42. 8
(As percent of working time)
National average---------------------
12.6
National average-------------------- 44.3
Percent
(The top three States in the Nation in rate
of new jobs created by industry are right-to-
work States: (1) Nevada, (2) Arizona, (3)
Florida.)
Source of data: Department of Labor, Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics.
Rate of increase of new manufacturing jobs
(1953-63)
Percent.
Right-to-work States---------------- 12.8
Non-right-to-work States------------ -7. 6
National average-------------------- -3. 3
Source of data: Department of Labor, Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics.
Rate of increase of production workers
(1953-63)
Percent
Right-to-work States--------------- 3.9
Non-right-to-work States----------- -14. 1
National average------------------- -10. 2
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
Rate of increase of capital expenditures
(1953-63)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 37.1
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 27.2
National average-------------------- 29.8
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. -
Rate of increase of per capita personal income
(1953-63)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 43.7
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 35.4
National average-------------------- 37.0
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Office of Business Economics.
Rate of increase of personal income
(1953-63)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 70.3
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 60.2
National average-------------------- 62.7
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Office of Business Economics.
Rate of increase of hourly earnings by manu-
facturing workers (1953-63)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 46.7
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 41.5
National average-------------------- 43.7
Source of data: Department of Labor, Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics.
Rate of increase of value added by manu-
facturing (1953-62)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 73:3
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 41.5
National average-------------------- 47.5
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
Rate of increase of population (1950-64)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 27.4
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 26.2
National average-------------------- 26.6
Bureau of the Census.
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
1 6 of the 15 States with the highest aver-
age weekly earnings for production workers
are right-to-work States.
Source of data: Department of Labor, Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics-"Employment and
Earnings," 1955 and March 1965 volumes.
Rate of increase of bank deposits (1953-64)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 69.4
Non-right-to-work States------------ 63.5
National average-------------------- 64.8
Source of data: Department of the
Treasury.
Rate of increase of motor vehicle registra-
tions (1953-63)
Right-to-work States---------------- 53.0
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 44.3
National average-------------------- 47.0
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Public Roads.
Rate of increase of annual retail trade pay-
roll (1954-58)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 23.5
Non-right-to-work States------------ 17. 5
National average-------------------- 18.9
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
Rate of increase of retail trade sales
(1954-58)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 20.3
Non-right-to-work States ------------- 16.7
National average-------------------- 17.6
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
Rate of increase of retail trade establish-
ments (1954-58)
With
pay-
Total roll
per- per-
cent cent
Right-to-work States------------- 6.9 9.9
Non-right-to-work States--------- 2.6 3.4
National average----------------- 3.7 5.1
Source of data: Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
Rate of incerase of value of life insurance in
force (1953-63)
Percent
Right-to-work States---------------- 167.0
Non-right-to-work States ------------ 132.0
National average-------------------- 140.0
Source of data: Institute of Life Insur-
ance, Life Insurance Fact Book.
Rate of increase of number of life insurance
policies in force (1953-63)
Percent
Right-to-work States----------------- 39.2
Non-right-to-work States------------- 26.8
National average--------------------- 30.5.
Source of data: Institute of Life Insur-
ance, Life Insurance Fact Book.
TIME LOST THRouGH STRIKES
In States without right-to-work laws,
nearly twice as much time is lost through
Right-to-work States----------------- 0.09
Non-right-to-work States------------- 0.14
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, when
these facts are pointed out, the pro-
ponents of the repeal of 14(b) respond
with this statement: "Yes, but most of
the right-to-work States are Southern
States where wages were lower to begin
with and working conditions are sub-
standard." It seems inconceivable to me
that anyone truly interested in the wel-
fare of the workingman would complain
about a more rapid increase in wages in
areas where wages were allegedly lower
to begin with. Such an attitude is
tantamount to advocating that the
blessings of our modern economy should
only be enjoyed by those States which
are already highly developed industrially.
I would not ascribe to them such selfish
and reactionary motives.
CLOSED SHOP
During the debate on the Wagner Act,
there was a great deal of discussion con-
cerning the closed shop provisions. The
opponents argued that the bill encour-
aged the closed shop, which was later
outlawed by the Taft-Hartley Act and
held to be contrary to public policy be-
cause it denied to the employee an op-
portunity to obtain employment without
first becoming a member of a labor or-
ganization. Senator Wagner, in dis-
cussing the closed shop provision, made
the following statement:
While outlawing the organization that is
interfered with by the employer, this bill
does not establish the closed shop, or even
encourage it.
But, compulsory unionism was not a
matter of widespread concern since only
a relatively small minority of employees
were affected by contracts containing
any compulsory features. However, dur-
ing the war years, compulsory unionism
developed rapidly to where over 75 per-
cent of the labor contracts contained
some form of compulsion by the time of
the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act.
The abuses of compulsory membership
became so numerous, and public feeling
against such arrangements became so
strong, that the Congress could no longer
ignore the problem. The Senate com-
mittee pointed out that in 12 States such
agreements had been made either illegal
by legislative act or constitutional
amendment, and in 14 other States pro-
posals for abolishing such contracts
were then pending. Thus, while Con-
gress, in the Taft-Hartley Act, clearly
outlawed the closed shop because "it is
clear that the closed shop, which re-
quires pre-existing union membership as
a condition of obtaining employment,
creates too great a barrier to free employ-
ment to be longer tolerated"; it left it
up to the States to control the other
forms of compulsory unionism. The
argument that Congress was inconsistent
in granting to the unions the right to
have union shop agreements on the one
hand, and on the other hand afforded the
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE January 29,
zatates the power to take that right away,
has no more validity than the argument
that Congress was inconsistent in grant-
ing to the individual the right not to
,join a union, as set forth in section 7,
and then allows the unions to enter into
it private compulsory union agreement
with the employer taking that right
In the first instance the so-called
rl;'?ht that is taken away is taken away
through the democratic processes of gov-
.Wvnment, whereas in the second instance
the individual's right is taken away
through the private negotiations of two
other parties.
f?urther, the ic?:islative history of both
ilia Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley
Act clearly indicates that it was never
the intent of Congress to preempt the
field. In his presentation to the Senate,
Senator Wagner, in commenting on the
ellects of the Wagner Act upon compul-
sory unionism, said:
It is legal in many States, and there is no
reason why Congress should make it illegal
in. those places where public policy now
sustains it.
in other words, the Wagner Act merely
maintained the status quo with regard to
compulsory unionism. This is supported
by a statement in the conference report
on 'Daft-Hartley:
It was never the intention of the National
Labor Relations Act, as is disclosed by the
legislative history of that act, to preempt
the field in this regard so as to deprive the
States of their powers to prevent compulsory
unionism.
From this, it is at once apparent that
the argument that Congress created a
legal anomaly by granting to the unions
the power to enforce compulsory union-
ism in one section of the act, and then
took it away in another section of the
act is totally fallacious. Congress never
intended to disturb State authority in
this area, except that in the Taft-Hart-
ley Act the closed shop was outlawed as
a matter of national public policy. The
status of the union shop was left un-
changed. As Senator 'raft said in ref-
erence to the inclusion of section 14(b)
in the conference report:
The Senate committee report; stated on its
face that State laws would still remain in
effect. All we have done is to write in ex-
pressly what our committee report said.
s'RESSJOM O.b' CONTRACT
The freedom of contract that was be-
ing denied at, that time, and which the
Wagner Act was attempting to restore,
was that freedom of contract which was
being systematically denied to employees
by their employers' requirement to sign
nu agreement not to join a labor organi-
zation. Such contracts were known as
.yellow dog contracts. Such a contract
would effectively deny an individual of
his right to freely associate with others
in organizing and supporting a labor
union. Congress was then reacting to
an abuse of power leading to the denial
In this case the
of individual rights
.
denial of the individual's right to asso- of the Government in these matters. 506,028 members-excluding Pennsyl-
elate. At that time it was not deemed While it has been the consistent policy vania and Hawaii for which figures were
necessary to grant legislative protection of Congress in enacting labor legislation not available. The loss for those three
of the right not to associate. As I have to elevate labor organizations to the States exceeded the net national loss by
pointed out, only a relatively small per- position of equality with management, nearly 44,000 during the same period
centage of the Nation's work force was necessary for the protection of its lawful Of course, the national net loss figure
affected by compulsory union contract rights and the furtherance of its legiti- takes into account both gains and losses.
r?umew.M1al?P+Mm~hrt.Wr?~,~~wil..~d~WI4~MihP-pMeigl~IkA~M1.McMMx.*gf~D'm"X137?LTA"T"?'rC7'1""l"'t?!T'7fJ?'F"VC'7' i:7?'ulm+~pNn~wgWglW ar..F~:
provision and, moreover, the Wagner Act
left to State determination the matter of
the legality of the closed shop and other
forms of compulsory unionism. Inas-
much as the States were free to protect
the :right not to associate, there was no
necessity for Congress to act in that
area. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the enactment of section 14(b) had any
substantial effect on organized labor, if
indeed it had any effect at all, because it
did not change existing law; it mo:orely
enunciated it.
EQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER
While all of these arguments are per-
suasive, the real issue centers around the
determination of what our objective has
been and should be in labor legislation.
Perhaps a? quote from section 1 of the
Wagner Act would be helpful in this
regard:
The inequality of bargaining powe toe-
tween employees who do not posses, full
freedom of association or actual liberty of
contract, and employers who are organized
in the corporate or other form of own: rship
association, substantially burdens and sifects
tiie flow of commerce, and tends to : ggra-
vate the recurrent business depressiois, by
depressing wage rates and the purchasing
power of wage earners in industry and by
preventing the stabilization of comp titive
wage rates and working conditions Within
and between industries.
In the analysis of the bill (S. T.0,58)
introduced by Senator Wagner, the Sen-
ate report 573; 74th Congress, 1st slss:ion
states the purposes of the Wagne.? Act
more succintly in these words:
This section states the dual objecti :yes of
Congress to promote industrial peace and
equality of bargaining power by encouraging
the practice of collective bargaining ansi pro-
tecting the rights upon which it is be'sed.
From these statements it would seem
that it was the purpose of Congress to
enact legislation which would foster
"the equality of position between the
parties in which liberty of contract
begins."
The history of the labor movement is
one of conflict, and at times bloody con-
flict. Progress toward responsible labor-
management relations has not come
easy. The labor movement has come a
long way from the days when attem,?.)ts at
unionization were considered criminal
conspiracies by the courts. But, as often
occurs in such instances, the pendulum
swings from one extreme to the other.
Psychologists call this overcompen:ttiion.
The period between the enactment of the
Wagner Act and the enactment of the
Taft-Hartley Act can be characterized
as a period of overcompensation. The
inequality of bargaining power had
shifted from the side of management to
the side of labor. But the advent of
Taft-Hartley marked the beginning of
the backswing of the pendul''un.-a
period of adjustment toward a restora-
tion of equality of bargaining lower;
and I say that this should be the ;just
mate interests, it was never the intenton
of Congress to elevate labor to a position
of dominance over management. To do
so would have been to destroy the bal-
ance Congress was attempting to achieve,
and would have amounted to a betrayal of
free collective bargaining, since free col-
lective bargaining cannot proceed under
conditions where one party is dominant
over the other.
It is evident, by the recent experience
in the New York transit strike, that labor
unions are not lacking in power to en-
force their demands. But further, there
is a tacit admission of organized labor's
favorable power position in the Presi-
dent's state of the Union message wherein
he stated:
I also intend to ask the Congress to con-
sider measures which, without improperly
invading State and local authority, will en-
able us effectively to deal with strikes which
threaten irreparable damage to the national
interest.
Since the President will ask Congress
to consider measures which will have the
effect of controlling, and thereby dimin-
ishing the power of unions in the na-
tional interest, the labor unions evi-
dently must not be lacking in bargaining
power.
If there had been a showing that sec-
tion 14(b) represented a clear and pres-
ent danger to the continued existence of
labor organizations and its repeal would
salvage their strength, the public policy
considerations might then lean toward
that expediency; and, I might say that if
that were the case, I would support it.
However, compulsory unionism can only
be considered an expediency.
But the continued existence of labor
unions is not threatened, and it is cer-
tainly not threatened by section 14(b),
and the figures I have previously in erted
in the RECORD show this. If anything,
the level of their influence is at an all-
time high. The fact that the measure
we are considering here today has al-
ready passed the House of Representa-
tives is mute evidence of that fact.
LOSS OF MEMBERS
Statistics have been adduced. to ,show
that there has been a loss of union mem-
bership in right-to-work States. how-
ever, on closer examination it becomes
apparent that other forces are primarily
accountable. For example, three highly
industrialized and unionized non-right-
to-work States had a 16.4 percent: de-
crease in AFL-CIO membership during
the period 1953 to 1962. These States-
California, Ohio, and Missouri-had a
total union membership of 3,350,000 in
1958. But by :1962 that membership had
dropped to 2,800,000-a net lost; of
550,000 members.
Before making a comparison, let me
emphasize that these three States of
California, Ohio, and Missouri are non-
right-to-work States.
Now, let us compare this loss of mem-
bership with the net national loss of
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1469
But this is not the whole story. During
this same period there was an increase
in nonagricultural employment in those
same States of 867,100-from 8,802,600
in 1958to 9,669,700 in 1962. So there was
a considerable potential for increased
union membership in the States of Cali-
forma, Ohio, and Missouri, but instead of
showing an increase, these States re-
corded a substantial loss during this
period. Obviously, there are other for-
ces at work creating this situation, and
to misplace the blame on right-to-work
laws is not only erroneous and unfair, but
it does a disservice to the labor movement
by clouding the issue.
The unions need to do some soul-
searching, their policies may need a com-
plete reevaluation, and their objec-
tives may need to be reappraised and re-
alined in keeping with the changed con-
ditions inherent in our modern, space-
age society. To blame right-to-work
laws for their own failure is indulging
in scapegoatism and serves no useful
purpose.
CONCLUSION
-Mr. President, in approaching the mat-
ter of the repeal of section 14(b) of the
Taft-Hartley Act, I felt it was my duty
to the people of Colorado to put aside
any feelings I had, either pro or con, be-
fore launching the exhaustive and inten-
sive review of the legislative histories of
labor legislation of major importance.
This I have done. Then, while main-
taining an open mind, I attempted to de-
termine the true legislative intent be-
hind our major labor legislation. After
having done this, I evaluated existing
labor legislation in terms of its present
application to the current labor-man-
agement picture, keeping in mind the
legislative intent and the objectives
Congress sought to achieve.
Obviously, the first and foremost ob-
jective was to provide for the public
safety, since this is the primary respon-
sibility of government. The second ob-
jective was to protect the public's wel-
fare. The third objective was to protect
the constitutional rights of the individ-
ual. And the fourth objective was to
establish machinery whereby disputes
which threatened any of the three objec-
tives just enumerated could be resolved
peacefully and lawfully. These four ma-
jor objectives have largely been achieved
by the labor legislation enacted by Con-
gress. From my review of the legisla-
tive histories of labor legislation of major
importance, my evaluation of its appli-
cation to the current labor-management
situation, and after carefully weighing
the various arguments, both pro and con,
I have become convinced that the reten-
tion of section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley
Act is in keeping with the objectives Con-
gress sought to achieve.
The repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-
Hartley Act is at cross-purposes with
those objectives because it would tend to
endanger the public's welfare by encour-
aging monopolistic practices, and it
would deny the individual his con-
stitutional right not to associate. Con-
sequently, Senate passage of H.R. 77,
which would repeal section 14(b) of
the Taft-Hartley Act, is not in the
national interest, and, in my opinion,
it is not in the long-range interests
of the labor movement. Therefore,
because of this and the many public
policy considerations I have discussed
here today, and because I consider my-
self to be a friend of the individual work-
ingman, I must oppose H.R. 77.
RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. MONDAY
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate may
stand in recess under the order previously
entered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MORSE in the chair) . Is there objec-
tion?
There being no objection (at 2 o'clock
and 34 minutes p.m.), the Senate took a
recess until Monday, January 31, 1966,
at 10 o'clock a.m.
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate January 29 (legislative day
of January 26), 1966:
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Robert C. Seamans, Jr., of Massachusetts,
to be Deputy Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, to
which office he was appointed during the last
recess of the Senate.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND
WELFARE
Harold Howe II, of North Carolina, to be
Commissioner of Education, to which office
he was appointed during the last recess of
the Senate.
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Franklyn A. Johnson, of California, to be
an Assistant Director of the Office of Eco-
nomic Opportunity.
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE
Dr. William B. Bean, of Iowa, to be a mem-
ber of the Board of Regents, National Library
of Medicine, Public Health Service, for a term
expiring August 3, 1969, to which office he
was appointed during the last recess of the
Senate.
Dr. Stewart 0. Wolf, Jr., of Oklahoma, to
be a member of the Board of Regents, Na-
tional Library of Medicine, Public Health
Service, for a term expiring August 3, 1969,
to which office he was appointed during the
last recess of the Senate.
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
REPRESENTATIVES WITH
RESIDENCES IN WASHINGTON
OFFICE Aveasss: House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
[Streets northwest unless otherwise stated]
Speaker: John W. McCormack
Abbitt, Watkins M., Va____
Abernethy., Thomas G., 6278 29th St.
Miss.
Adair, it. Ross, Ind________ 4000 Mass. Ave.
Adams, Brock. Wash______
Addabbo, Joseph P., N.Y.
__Albert, Carl, Okla --------- 4614 Reno Rd.
Anderson, John B., Ill_____
Anderson, William it., 3006 P St.
Tenn.
Andrews, George W., Ala__-3108 Cathedral
Ave.
Andrews, Glenn, Ala______
Andrews, Mark, N. Dak____
Annunzio, Frank, Ill___-__
Arends, Leslie C., Ill------- 4815 Dexter St.
Ashbrook, John M., Ohio ---
Ashley, Thomas L., Ohio.._..
Ashmore,, Robert T., S.C___
Aspinall, Wayne N., Coto ___The Towers Apts.,
4201 Cathedral
Ave.
Ayres, William H., Ohio____
Baldwin, John F., Calif...._
Bandstra, Bert. iowa______
Baring, Walter S., Nev-____
Barrett, William A., Pa____
Bates, William H., Mass____
Battin, James F., Mont____
Beckworth, Lindley, Tex ---
Belcher, Page, Okla_______
Bell, Alphonzo, Calif......
Bennett, Charles it., Fla____.3421 Rustlcway
Lane,
Falls Church, Va.
Berry, it. Y., S. Dak-------- 118 Schotts
Court NE.
Bette, Jackson it., Ohio____
Bingham, Jonathan B.,
N.Y.
Blatnik, John A., Minn..,....
Boggs, Hale, La________.___
Boland, Edward P., Mass___
Bolling, Richard, Mo ------ 307 Warrenton Dr.,
Silver Spring, Md.
Bolton, Frances P. (Mrs.), 2301 Wyo. Ave.
Ohio.
Bow. Frank T., Ohio ------- 4301 Mass. Ave.
Brademas, John, Ind______
Bray, William G., Ind______
Brock, W. E. (Bill), Tenn__
Brooks, Jack, Tex_________
Broomfield, William S.,
Mich,
Brown, Clarence J., Jr.,
Ohio.
Brown, George E., Jr., Calif..
Broyhill, James T., N.C__.__
Broyhill, Joel T., Va_______
Buchanan, John, Ala______
Burke, James A., Mass_____
Burleson, Omar, Tex ------ 2601 Woodley Pl.
Burton, Laurence J., Utah_
Burton, Phillip, Calif ------
Byrne, James A., Pa____-__
Byrnes, John W., Wis------ 1215 25th St. S.,
Arlington, Va.
Cahell, Earle, Tex.-__-__-_
Cahill, William T., N.J___.._
Callan, Clair, Nebr-------- 1200 S. Court-
house Rd,
Arlington, Va.
Callaway, Howard H., Ga__
Cameron, Ronald Brooks,
Calif.
Carey, Hugh L., N.Y---____
Carter, Tim Lee, Ky______
Casey, Bob, Tex_-- _____
Cederberg, Elford A., Mich_
Celler, Emanuel, N.Y------ The Mayflower
Chamberlain, Charles it.,
Mich.
Chelf, Frank, Ku _._..______-
Clancy, Donald D., Ohio___
Clark, Frank M.. Pa------- 220 C St. SE.
Clausen, Don H., Calif.....
Clawson, Del, Calif........
Cleveland, James C., N.H-__
Clevenger, Raymond F.,
Mich.
CONGRESSIONAL RF CORD
Cohelan. Jeffery, Calif ----- :1028 New House
Office Building
Collier, Harold R., Ill______
Colmer, William M., Miss__
Conable, Barber B., Jr.,
N.Y.
Conte, Silvio 0., Mass ------ 5619 Lamar Rd.,
Washington 16,
D.C.
Conyers, John, Jr., Mich__
Cooley, Harold D., N.C----- 2601 Woodley Pl.
Corbett, Robert J., Pa__..__
Corman, James C., Calif___
Craley, N. Neiman, Jr., Pa__
Cramer, William C., Fla---- 6215 Beachway
Dr., Falls Church,
Va.
Culver, John C., Iowa______
Cunningham, Glenn, Nebr_4920 Yorktown
Blvd., Arlington,
Va.
Curtin, Willard S., Pa-__-_
Curtis, Thomas B., Mo-__-_
Daddario, Emilio Q., Conn_
Dague, Paul B., Pa________
Daniels, Dominick V., NJ--
Davis, Glenn R., Wis---_-_
Davis, John W., Ga__-_____
Dawson, William L., Ill____
de la Garza, Eligio, Tex___
Delaney, James J.. N.Y__.._
Dent, John H., Pa_________
Denton, Winfield K., Ind_-_
Derwinski, Edward J., Ill___
Devine, Samuel L., Ohio___
Dickinson, William L., Ala-
I)iggs, Charles C., Jr., Mich_
Dingell, John D., Mich_____
Dole, Robert, Mans-------- 6136 Beachway
Dr., Falls Church,
V a.
Donohue, Harold D., Mass__
Dorn, W. J. Bryan, S.C--___2030 Laburnum
St., McLean, Va.
Dow, John G., N.Y______--
Dowdy, John, Tex_________
Downing, Thomas N., Va-__
Dulski, Thaddeus J, N.Y__1705Longworth
House Office
Building
Duncan, John J., Tenn____
Duncan, Robert B., Oreg__-914 Lakeview Dr.,
Falls Church, Va.
Dwyer, Florence P. (Mrs.).
N.J.
Dyal, Ken W., Calif.......
Edmondson, Ed, Okla ------
Edwards, Don, Calif ------- 9201 Fox Meadow
La., Potomac? Md.
Edwards, Edwin W., La____
Edwards, Jack, Ala________
Ellsworth, Robert F., Kans_
Erlenborn, John N., Itl____
Evans, Frank it., Colo_____
Everett, Robert A., Tenn -__
Evins, Joe L., Tenn -------- 5044 Klingle St.
Fallon, George H., Md_-___
Farbstein, Leonard, N.Y-__
Farnsley, Charles P., Ky__
Farnum, Billie S., Mich___
Fascell, Dante B., Fla___-__
Feighan, Michael A., Ohio_
Findley, Paul, Ill__-._______
Fino, Paul A., N.Y..........
.Fisher, O. C., Tex ----------- Calvert-Woi)dley
Flood, Daniel J., Pa-------The Congressional
:Flynt, John J., Jr., Ga_____
:Fogarty, John it., 11.1------ 1235 New House
Office Building,
Foley, Thomas S., Wash ---
Ford, Gerald it., Mich ----- 514 Crown View
Dr., Alexandria,
Va.
Ford, William D., Mich____
Fountain, L. H., N.C------- The Westchester
Fraser, Donald M., Minn_.,..
Frelinghuysen, Peter H. B., 3014 N St.
N.J.
Friedel, Samuel N., Md____
Fulton, James G., Pa______
Fulton, Richard, Tenn _-__
Fuqua, Don, Fla__________
Gallagher, Cornelius it.,
N.J.
Garmatz, Edward A., Md__
Gathings, E. C., Ark--_____
Gettys, Tom S., S.C______-
Giaimo, Robert N., Conn___
Gibbons, Sam,
Gilbert, Jacob H., N.Y.....
Gilligan, John J., Ohio____
Gonzalez, Henry B., Tex___200 C St. SE.
Goodell, Charles E., N.Y_-_3842 Macomb St.
Grabowski, Bernard F.,
Conn.
Gray, Kenneth J., Ill______
Green, Edith (Mrs.), Oreg_
Green, William J., Pa_____
Greigg, Stanley L., Iowa___301 G St. SW.
Grader, George W., Tenn--1197th St. SE.
Griffin, Robert P., Mich____
Griffiths, Martha W.
(Mrs.), Mich.
Gross, H. R., Iowa ___--____
Grover, James it., Jr., N.Y....
Gubser, Charles S., Calif......
Gurney, Edward J., Fla____
Hagan, G. Elliott, Ga______
Hagen, Harlan, Calif......
Haley, James A., Fla_______
Hall, Durward G., Mo______
Halleck, Charles A., Ind___4926 Upton St..
Halpern, Seymour, N.Y........
Hamilton, Lee H., Ind____
Hanley, James M., N.Y........
Hanna. Richard T., Calif......
Hansen, George, Idaho____
Hansen, John it., Iowa ---- 800 4th St. SW.,
Apt. S-701
Hansen, Julia Butler
(Mrs.), Wash.
Hardy, Porter, Jr., Va-_-___
Harris, Oren, Ark--------- 1627 Myrtle St.
Harsha, William H., Ohio--
Harvey. James, Mich______
Harvey, Ralph, Ind____-___
Hathaway, William D.,
Maine.
Hawkins, Augustus F.,
Calif.
Hays, Wayne L., Ohio ------ 3424 Barger Dr..
Falls Church, Va.
Hebert, F. Edward, La----- 26 Cockrell St.,
Alexandria, Va.
Hechler, Ken, W. Va_______
Helstoski, Henry, N.J-_-___
Henderson, David N., N.C__
Herlong, A. S., Jr., Fla_____
Hicks, Floyd V., Wash_____
Holifield, Chet, Calif......
Holland, Elmer J., Pa______
Horton, Frank J., N.Y.....
Hosmer, Craig, Calif.......
Howard, James J., N.J____
Hull, W. R., Jr., No________
Hungate, William L., Mo___
Huot, J. Oliva? N.H_-___-_
Hutchinson, Edward, Mich_
Ichord, Richard (Dick),
No.
Irwin, Donald J., Conn----
Jacobs, Andrew, Jr., Ind---
Jarman, John, Okla_______
Jennings, W. Pat, Va_____-
Joelson, Charles S., N.J____
Johnson, Albert W., Pa____
Johnson, Harold T., Calif....
Johnson, Jed, Jr., Okla____
Jonas, Charles Raper, N.C__
Jones, Paul C., Mo-------- 1111 Army-Navy
Dr., Arlington,
Va.
Jones, Robert it., Ala__-___
Karsten, Frank Iva., Mo____-
Karth, Joseph it., Minn........
Kastenmeier, Robert W.,
Wis.
Kee, James, W. Va-------- 5441 16th Ave.,
Hyattsville, Md.
Keith, Hastings, Mass----- 4617Wetheriil Dr.,
Westmoreland
Hills, Md.
Kelly, Edna F. (Mrs.), N.Y..
Keogh, Eugene J., N.Y----- The Mayflower
King, Carleton J., N.Y.....
King, Cecil R., Calif.......
King, David S., Utah______
Kirwan. Michael J., Ohio__
Kluczynski, John C., Ill-___
Kornegay, Horace R., N.C__
Krebs, Paul J., N.J________
Kunkel, John C., Pa_______
Laird, Melvin R., Wis______
Landrum, Phil M., Ga_____
Langen, Odin, Minn_______
Latta, Delbert L., Ohio_____
Leggett, Robert L., Calif......
Lennon, Alton, N.C________
67 B00446 8000400010003-3
App oved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
January 29, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. MANSFIELD. When would that
recess go into operation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
cess would go into operation immediately
after the motion was agreed to.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I wish to change
my request.
I ask unanimous consent that when
the Senate completes its business today,
it stand in adjournment until 10 o'clock
on Monday morning next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. . The
Senate was in a quorum call. Unani-
mous consent was accorded the majority
leader to make a parliamentary inquiry.
The parliamentary inquiry has been an-
swered.
. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
renew my unanimous-consent request
that the Senate stand in adjournment
until 10 o'clock on Monday morning
next.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
request is not debatable.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
withhold my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Montana has already
moved to recess. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The unanimous-con-
sent request of the Senator from Mon-
tana if agreed to would vitiate the mo-
tion to recess.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the yeas
and nays on my motion to recess until
10 a.m. Monday be rescinded. I thought
it had already been granted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. is there
objection to rescinding the yeas and nays
on the motion to recess?
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I am-
seeking to ask a question of the majority
leader, if there is no objection.
I do not understand what the Senator
from Montana asked for.
Was it the request of the Senator from
Montana that we adjourn now, this
morning, until Monday morning at 10
o'clock?
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is
correct. The reason for it is that the
Senator from Montana endeavored to
obtain the consent of the Senate that
upon the completion of business today
that it stand in recess until 10 o'clock
Monday morning next. The request
was objected to.
It is my understanding that the rea-
son for the objection was based on the
fact that certain Members of this body
thought that 10 o'clock was too early.
Personally, I do not think it is early
enough. I think it is a reasonable time.
Mr. MORSE. I relied on the an-
nouncement that there would be a ses-
sion today. I know that two or three
speeches were planned to be given.
On the basis of that reliance I sent to
the Press Gallery last night a speech for
delivery today.
Those of us who planned to make
speeches today could be accommodated
when the business of the day is com-
pleted rather than having perpetrated
upon us this early adjournment without
an announcement for what the program
is going to be today.
I hope that the majority leader will
see fit to permit those of us who-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order.
Mr. MORSE. I would hope that the
majority leader would see fit to let us
take today for the period of time neces-
sary for us to complete the scheduled
speeches we have sent to the Press Gal-
lery, relying on our understanding we
were going to be able to make speeches
today.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for
the time being I withdraw my unani-
mous-consent request.
Mr. MORSE. That is very fair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to withdrawing the unanimous-
consent request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there objection to the request of the
majority leader to withdraw the yeas
Does the majority leader wit
motion to recess?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
Mr. ALLOTT. There is no motion,
believe, to recess. There is a motion t
adjourn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
proposed motion to adjourn was not in
order at that time, and, therefore, not en-
tertained. The quorum call had been
withheld for a parliamentary inquiry
and a motion to adjourn was not in
order.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. ERVIN. Does not a motion to ad-
journ take precedence over a motion to
recess?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. ERVIN. Did not the motion to
adjourn supplant the motion to recess,
as a matter of parliamentary practice?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At that
time there was a unanimous-consent re-
quest in operation. That is why the mo-
tion to adourn did not take precedence.
Mr. ERVIN. I understand that the
majority leader asked unanimous co
tion tp recess. There has been no objec-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICE
Senator from North Carolina is
Does the Senator from Montana
new his request for a quorum call?
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent, in view of the
situation which has developed, that there
be a morning hour today and that there
be a time limitation of 3 minutes in con-
nection with short speeches, statements,
and the like.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object, I would like to pro-
pound an inquiry to the majority leader
to ask him if he would be willing to make
it clear by his unanimous-consent re-
1399
quest on this point that the provision of
the rule allowing motions to bring up
bills for consideration will not be in-
cluded in the unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, indeed.
Mr. ERVIN. With that assurance, I
do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
BILL INTRODUCED
bill was Introduced, read the first
By Mr. DIRKSEN:
S. 2853. A bill for the relief of Abraham
esser; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS
ZJSO UPON THE OCCASION OF ITS
25TH ANNIVERSARY
OLPH submitted the foi-
e on Armed Services:
needs of members of the Armed Forces of
the United States; and
Whereas the USO has made an invaluable
contribution to the morale and welfare of
the men and women of our Armed Forces
since the time of World War II by provid-
ing its welcome services throughout that
time and during the Korean action and the
cold war confrontations and by continuing
its operations today in southeast Asia, Viet-
nam, and several other areas of the world;
and
Whereas February 4, 1966, marks the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the establish-
ment of the USO: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of
Representatives concurring), That the Con-
gress of the United States hereby extends
to the USO its most cordial greetings and
felicitations upon the occasion of the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the establish-
ment of the USO, and expresses its highest
commendations for the invaluable contri-
butions which the USO has made to the
morale and welfare of our men and women
in the Armed Forces throughout the world.
THE SO-CALLED SOUTHEAST Ati t/'4
SOLUTION
ph#ted in full when submitted by Mr.
MORSE, which appears under a separate
heading.)
PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL COPIES
OF A REPORT BY SENATOR MANS-
FIELD ENTITLED THE VIETNAM
CONFLICT: THE SUBSTANCE AND
THE SHADOW"
Mr. MANSFIELD (for himself and Mr.
ArxsN) submitted a resolution (S. Res.
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010003-3
216) ~o print additional copies of a re-
portlSy Senator MANSFIELD entitled "The
V' nam Conflict: The Substance and the
hadow," which was was considered and
%?;rced to.
(See the above resolution printed in
full when submitted by Mr. MANSFIELD,
which appears under a separate head-
ing,)
INVESTIGATION BY COMMITTEE ON
1.4'OREJGN RELATIONS OF ALL Al".-
PECTS OF U.S. POLICIES IN
Mr. MORSE submitted a n .olution (S.
Res. 217) authorizing and directing the
lic7y investigate all aspects of U.S. poli
cics in Vietnam, which was referred to
the Committee en Foreign Relations.
(;ee the above resolution printed in
full when submitted by Mr. MoRsr,
which appears under a separate head-
ing.)
'T'IME FOR BILLS TO LIE ON THE
DESK FOR ADDITIONAL CO-
:3I ONSORS
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President:, on behalf
of the Senator from New York [Mr.
JAvrrsi, I ask unanimous consent that
Senate bills 2845 and 2846, relating to
civil rights, introduced by the Senator
from New York and other Senators on
yesterday, be held at the desk until Fri-
day, February 4, for additional co-
sponsors.
't'he PRESIDIrNG OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ADDI'T'IONAL COSPONSORS OF BILL
Under authority of the order of the
Senate of January 24, 1966. the names of
Mr. CASE, Mr. CLARK, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr.
WILLIAMS of New .Jersey were added as
additional cosponsors of the bill (S. 2814)
for the incorporation of the Fair Cam-
paign Practices Committee, introduced
by Mr. Kucuri, on January 24, 1966.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF PUB-
LIC INSTRUCTION CRITICIZES
SCHOOL MILK CUTBACK,
ilAr. PROXMIRE,, Mir. President, let-
ters continue to pour in criticizing the
hurcau of the. Budget's decision to with-
hold $3 million in appropriated funds
from the special milk program for school-
children. As I have pointed out previ-
ously this so-called economy move will
not save one cent. Yet to school ad-
ministrators around the country :it poses
ti, great problem. To the schoolchildren
flan, clues it means less milk, especially
for the poorer children.
Today I will read to my colleagues a
otter- from Mr. Gordon Gunderson, of
s.iie Wisconsin Department of Public In-
.-ruction. Mr. Gunderson is heading up
tiie American School Food Service Asso-
ciation's legislative committee so I know
his comments will be of real interest to
other Senators.
Before I read the letter I would like
to comment on the last paragraph which
asks if anything can be done to override
the Bureau of the Budget's action. Cer-
tailily something can be done. I am at-
tempting by my daily floor speeches to
focus the searchlight of public opinion
on the Bureau's unwise action. I will
work as a member of the Agriculture
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropria-
tions Committee to reverse this action
with the help of our able chairman, Sena-
tor IICI.I.AND, who has expressed his op-
posithon to the budget cut. Above all I
will work to reverse the administration's
announced intention to cut the program
to $21 million in fiscal 1987- a move that
would come very close to killi i t the
program.
Mr. President, I read the letter from
Mr. Gunderson:
Tin: STATE OF WiscoasLa,
DErSRTMENT OF PURi.IC IN iTn?. CTIOT.,
Madison, Wis., December 28, 1)65.
Hon. WILLeAai PROxnnsRE,
Madison, Wis.
DEAR MR. PFnxMIRE: ikon toy returi to the
oifice this morning, I 'Ind a telegram from
[lib area oiflee of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture informing me that it will be
necessary to reduce reimbursement to
schools for special milk served by 10 percent
beginning with claims submitted i>s? the
month of February. This action is based
upon instructions from the Bureau of the
Budget to hold expenditures under tl:e spe-
cial. milk program to $100 million. 'ifils is
in the face Of a final appropriation i f $103
million Which came about through your spe-
cial efforts.
It is surprising to me the,' the Dur-tiu of
the Budget has the authority to withhold
funds which have been appropriated is.y the
Congress for a special purpose. Naturally,
this is : very definite blow to school cistrict
5nn,nces sit this time of year when budgets
ogre well established, charges to ehildrrn are
all set, and the rates of reimbursement, have
been made a part of our contract with each
district.
I am wondering if anything can be done
to override the action of the Bureau of the
Budget and release the total appropriation
of $103 million. Anything you can do will
certainly be appreciated by the school dis-
tricts of Wisconsin.
Siuccrely,
G rmeoN W. On VT)EJISON,
Program ArlsnisaistraOar.
BYRON JOHNSON SPELLS OUT I]SV-
Aai'IATING EFFECTS OIL INTEIE`EST
itATE HIKES
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. one
of the ablest men to serve in the ('on-
g.ress in recent years was Byron John-
son, of Colorado. Mr. Johnson is now a
full professor of economics at the I.hii-
versity of Colorado. Many Government
and non-Government economists have
told me that they regard Professor Jcohn-
scn as a topflight as well as outspoken
expert on monetary policy.
Recently I read a letter all the Senate
floor from Professor Johnson to the
Washington Post dealing concisely but
generally with the recent action of the
Federal Reserve Board in raising inte rest
rates..
Professor Johnson has now written me
his detailed views on this vital aspect of
our economic policy.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter
be printed in the RECORD.
p"proved uror"'release""
January 29,
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the Rl corn,
as follows:
DENVER, COLO.,
January 25, 1966.
Ro your letter of January 14.
Hon. WILLIAM .PROxesRE,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking and Currency,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR BILL: I am not surprised and very
pleased that you share my concern about
the higher discount rates which have touched
off similar increases in the whole interest
rates structure. I am attaching a few item;;
I have previously written expressing my fec.-
ings on the topic. However, lot me sum-
marize my view of the key elements:
1. Was there a need for monetary re-
straint? Interest rates had been rising,
the money supply had been rising at a fairly
healthy rate. While unemployment had
been falling, a rate approximately 4 percent
is hardly cause for inflationary alarms. The
Federal Reserve chose the worst possible
time for the worst possible action. If the
puce offensive succeeds and military spend-
ing can decline, we will face the much more.
complicated problem of climbing down the
high interest ladder.
2. Was the action chosen by the Federal
Reserve a contribution to an anti-inflation
campaign, assuming such a campaign was
needed? In my view the answer is negative.
It touched off a new wave of borrowing. The
Federal Reserve action will add $5 billion to
the annual cost of borrowed money, roughly
a 1-percent increase in the cost of living.
It provided a justification for other price
increases, including those which break the
guidelines. It triggered inflation rather than
resisted it.
3. Is the supply of loanable funds interest-
elastic? Do higher interest rates signifi-
cantly increase to the supply of loanable
funds? If they would, this action would
be a clear contribution.
Again my answer is essentially negative.
The bulk of the supply arises out of the de-
preciation allowances, retained earnings, re-
serves built under retirement and other in-
surance contracts, and repayment; of out-
standing mortgages or other debts, none
of which sources are interest-rate sensitive,
High interest rates on savings are conipeti-
Give devices for encouraging the small volume
of consumer savings to prefer one kind of
bank or credit union over another. Keynes'
analysis of the reasons for savings are still
essentially valid.
4. Do higher interest rates encourage more
productive u es of credit?
Classical theory would reply that the most
profitable uses of money will bid higher for it.
In the marketplace, however, the higher
rates are pad for short-term consumer credit
where the size of the monthly payment is far
more important than the interest rate. tied
this depends on the length of the contract.
Yet the most productive use of credit is in the
building of housing and social capital, who'e
the rate of interest is very important. beca;c c
the loans are long-term loans. High inter:;
rates divert money from these more prod :c-
tive uses, especially housing. Today he ni ;:a
inflationary demand function is new con.,;im -
er credit. Given the fact that the war ,i ^d
postwar babies are now marrying and eii i.r-r-
ing the how;ing market, we must prepare i s .-r
i
the next 3 years for at least 20-percent,
crease in annual housing production.
the Wall Street Journal reports that. i':^
Federal Reserve action is now expected to
shrink the 1966 housing market by at 1, :i t
5 percent. This is a tragic commentary ai
the indifference of the Federal Reserve to Lie;
Impact of its actions on the uses of loanable
funds.
5. Are there better alternatives? Assum-
ing that the time for restraint was arriving,
abDP67B00446R000400010003-3