EMERGENCY BOARDS

SEC. 302. (a) After issuing such a proclamation, the President shall promptly appoint a board to be known as an "emergency board."

(b) Any emergency board appointed under this section shall promptly investigate the dispute, shall seek to induce the parties to reach a settlement of the dispute, and in any event shall, within a period of time to be determined by the President but not more than twenty-five days after the issuance of the proclamation, make a report to the President, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties, with the approval of the board. Such report shall include the findings and recommendations of the board and shall be transmitted to the parties and be made public. The Secretary of Labor shall provide for the board such stenographic, clerical, and other assistance and such facilities and services as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions.

(c) After a Presidential proclamation has been issued under section 301, and until five days have elapsed after the report has been made by the board appointed under this section, the parties to the dispute shall continue or resume work and operations under the terms and conditions of employment which were in effect immediately prior to the beginning of the dispute unless a change therein is agreed to by the parties.

POWERS OF EMERGENCY BOARDS

SEC. 303. (a) A separate emergency board shall be appointed pursuant to section 302 for each dispute and shall be composed of such number of persons as the President may deem appropriate, none of whom shall be pecuniarily or otherwise interested in any organizations of employees or in any employer involved in the dispute. The provisions of section 11 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by this Act (relating to the investigatory powers of the National Labor Relations Board) shall be applicable with respect to any board appointed under this section, and its members and agents, and with respect to the exercise of their functions, in the same manner that such provisions are applicable with respect to the National Labor Relations Board. Any board appointed under this section may prescribe or adopt such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to govern its functions. Members of emergency boards shall receive compensation,

at rates determined by the President, when actually employed, and travel expenses as authorized by section 5 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U. S. C. 73b-2), for persons so employed. When a board appointed under this section has been dissolved, its records shall be transferred to the Secretary of Labor.

TITLE IV-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

APPLICATION OF ANTI-INJUNCTION STATUTES

SEC. 401. The Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other pruposes" (Norris-LaGuardia Act), approved March 24, 1932 (U. S. C., title 29, secs. 101115), and sections 6 and 20 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes' (Clayton Act), approved October 15, 1914, as amended (U. S. C., title 15, sec. 17, and title 29, sec. 52), are continued in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions of such Acts; except that the provisions of such Act and such sections shall not be construed to be applicable with respect to section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

SEC. 402. Section 610 of title 18 of the United States Code (Public Law 772, Eightieth Congress, second session), is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 610. It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution in connection with any election to any political office, or for any corporation whatever to make a contribution in connection with any election to any political office, or for any corporation whatever to make a contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section. Every corporation which makes any contribution in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $5,000; and every officer or director of any corporation who consents to any contribution by the corporation in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 403. When used in this Act

(1) The term "industry affecting commerce" means any industry or activity in commerce or in which a labor dispute would burden or obstruct commerce or tend to burden or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce.

(2) The terms "commerce", "affecting commerce", "labor dispute", "employer", "employee", "labor organization", and "person" shall have the same meaning as when used in the National Labor Relations Act as reenacted by title I of this Act.

SAVING PROVISION

SEC. 404. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to make the quitting of his labor by an individual employee an illegal act; nor shall any court issue any process to compel the performance by an individual employee of such labor or service, without his consent; nor shall the quitting of labor by an employee or employees in good faith because of abnormally dangerous conditions for work at the place of employment of such employee or employees be deemed a strike under this Act.

EXEMPTION OF RAILWAY LABOR ACT

SEC. 405. The provisions of titles II and III of this Act shall not be applicable with respect to any matter which is subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

SEPARABILITY

SEC. 406. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to repeal the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, to reenact the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and for other purposes.

Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? You refer to S. 247 at one point. There is no S. 247.

The CHAIRMAN. S. 249; that is a mistake. If we are going to use the Taft-Hartley name, and the Wagner name, it might be well to use the Thomas name, so that we will not all be getting mixed up.

Senator TAFT. I offered some 15 amendments in the Senate on Thursday, which were referred to this committee. I notice those amendments are not in the folder.

Is there any objection to giving copies of those amendments to each member of the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. They will come around in their natural course, Senator Taft. You offered them on Wednesday?

Senator TAFT. I offered them on Thursday. They have been printed. Yours has not even been offered yet, and is here.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. I think your amendments are in the folder. If they are not, we will see that they are here, because we will have to talk about those amendments before we get through. Senator TAFT. Then I wanted to ask this question. I still do not understand the procedure requested by the committee.

Take the first amendment which I offered. Do you think, in the first place, that I should offer them now to the substitute? Are we dismissing the original S. 249 and proceeding on the substitute?

The CHAIRMAN. I think that will be the natural course, because · you will note that in the substitute we follow the same legislative procedure in the beginning as in S. 249.

Senator TAFT. The amendments I offered were framed on the original bill that you introduced.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. That is the way they will be, because we will have to keep S. 249 the original bill, because it is only in that bill that the context of the National Labor Relations Act is found. It is not found in the amendment.

If we will keep on our desks constantly S. 249, then with the amendment which I will introduce today as a substitute for 249, you will have all of the law, excepting the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law. Senator TAFT. I wonder if there will be any objection to printing. in parallel columns, as a committee print, the original Wagner Act, the Wagner Act as amended by this committee 2 years ago; the TaftHartley Act as finally passed; and these amendments to the Wagner Act, so that we can see the whole thing?

That has been done quite often, and it has usually been very helpful. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Taft, it will be done. I have just been informed now that we tried to get your amendments from the printer. They are still stumped. We are at the beginning of a session when bills are introduced by the hundreds, and it takes some time for us to get them.

Senator TAFT. I got all 13 on Saturday.

The CHAIRMAN. They did not have enough of them.

Senator TAFT. Let me ask this question, too. First, as an example, here is an amendment that I offered which amends a section of the Wagner Act.

First, professional employees are defined. Then it is provided that the Board must permit professional employees, if they wish, to organize separately.

I have a number of telegrams from engineering societies all over the United States desiring to be heard in retaining the present provision. Is that properly within the scope of this hearing?

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is within the scope. Whether it is within the scope of the time limit would depend upon Senator Murray's committee action.

Senator TAFT. You think it is within the scope of the hearing?

The CHAIRMAN. It is within the scope of the hearing and, of course, within the scope of our consideration when we get back into executive session.

Senator TAFT. That is all I wanted.

The CHAIRMAN. I, too, have, and I think everyone has, received telegrams from all interested persons, and there are many in the country.

Senator AIKEN. You say within the scope of the hearing, but is it within the scope of the time limit or not? You do not know whether the time limit takes precedence over everything else?

The CHAIRMAN. The time limit will, and that is why I answer it in the way that it is within the scope of the hearing; but whether it will be included in the committee hearing or not depends upon the committee's action.

Senator AIKEN. You are not indicating that the time limit takes precedence over testimony?

The CHAIRMAN. The time limit will take precedence as far as our action in it is concerned.

Senator AIKEN. Then the time limit takes the precedence.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief announcement for the benefit of my Republican colleagues on the procedure of the subcommittee.

Last week I asked my Republican colleagues to submit to me a list of the names of witnesses that they would like to have testify at hearings. They have given me such a list of witnesses that it is physically impossible to even begin to hear all those witnesses by February 10.

Senator TAFT. It probably would be impossible even if it were March 1. That will undoubtedly have to be boiled down.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt but that you have witnesses. enough to last us until the end of next year.

Senator MORSE. No. We could do a pretty good job by March 1. But the announcement I want to make is, this afternoon the subcommittee, I understand, under the leadership of Mr. Murray, will meet.

I would like to have my Republican colleagues think this matter over between now and the time of that subcommittee meeting, and advise me as to which of the witnesses they have submitted on their respective memoranda they consider to be the most important; because even as one member of that committee, Mr. Chairman, there is not very much I can do with one vote other than agree to whatever schedule my colleagues on the committee think is necessary to finish this by February 10, and then proceed with the other discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. I trust that the committee, and I know that it will, will remember a provision in our discussion that in hearings there is much duplication; there is much overlapping; there is much vain repetition, because many witnesses appear for the purpose of not completely complementing what has already been said, but to argue in favor of what has already been said.

That I am sure the committee can arrange.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, before the witness begins I would like, if I might, just to make a simple statement of something that has occurred to me here with respect to a danger in these hearings.

There is a feeling abroad that the so-called Wagner Act was a prolabor act; and the so-called Taft-Hartley Act was an antilabor act. Let us face that honestly. The group last year, 2 years ago, that tried to prepare this legislation in order to bring about more industrial harmony were working sincerely to bring about a more cordial relation between management and labor.

What we are in danger of today is a class conflict in this country, which is the very thing the Communists want to see brought about. We should be working together in a bipartisan, public-spirited way, not to say that the Wagner Act is right, the Taft-Hartley Act is wrong, but to say that there are probably good features in both acts which we as statesmen should try to incorporate in a measure that will bring about harmony.

What I am interested in, Mr. Chairman, is in creating the right kind of environment for the worker and his family in our American life. It is the worker I am talking about. All that I say today is going to have to do with the worker. I am interested in creating the right kind of environment for the worker and his family in our American life, and insuring him and his youngsters equality of education and economic opportunity; in developing industrial practices whereby the worker can receive a proper reward for his contribution to the national production; in developing an environment for him wherein he can be stimulated to be a part of the enterprise in which he is engaged by having proper incentives, either for himself or for his

group of workers, not having him constantly in an attitude of warfare to get as much as he can in the way of wages for as little as possible in in the way of work.

The only way to develop his character is to give him that opportunity to be a part, for example, in profit-sharing plans, in working toward a satisfactory solution of the annual wage question which will give him a greater security than simply dealing with wages on an hourly basis; in the proper handling of health and welfare funds, whether by individual industries taking care of their own employees or by an expansion of our social security system; and a proper approach to the question of profits, the division of profits, between investors, workers, and the public by lower prices.

I mention these matters, Mr. Chairman, because in the so-called Taft-Hartley legislation, we provided for a joint congressional committee which would follow the workings of our legislation, and would especially study these things which were aimed to make the worker a part of his industry, a partner in his industry, and not keep him in a state of continual warfare.

What I am troubled about by both the Wagner legislation and the Taft-Hartley legislation is that we are moving in the direction of trying to see whether we can establish a balance of power and then say to the boys, "Go to it now; we have made the rules. Fight it out, and may the best man win."

I want just to enter my protest against that approach and to say that I am personally of the conviction that we must face this thing from the endeavor to bring about a more cooperative attitude between management and labor, a more friendly attitude.

To this end I would change the preambles of both the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act to state that our objectives are to give the worker his opportunity in our national life and not have him in a constant state of either being exploited by big business or exploited by big labor, both for their own purposes; and not forget that this man down the line who has his family to take care of is the man we are really seeking to protect and make a part of our wonderful American industrial system.

I just want to go on record, Mr. Chairman, because that is the spirit in which I propose to approach these hearings and approach the witnesses who are to be with us today and on subsequent days. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Are there any other remarks?

Secretary Tobin has asked that he be allowed to make his statement without interruption, and that is agreeable, I am sure, to all of us, since the request has been made.

Therefore, if the various Senators will hold their questions or make note of them until Secretary Tobin has finished, it will be appreciated. Mr. Secretary, any statement you want to appear in the record about yourself, please make first, and then proceed with your testimony as you wish.

Mr. Secretary, I think you ought to say something about your having been called as the first witness in accordance with instructions, or with the scheme that we worked out in my office, so that the committee will understand what you have been doing in the last 2 or 3 weeks.