I feel that as chairman of the President's emergency board, although I sit in this hearing with a senatorial hat on and not an emergency board hat, I feel it would be inappropriate of me to participate in cross-examination.

On the other hand, I want to say to the committee I am available in due course of time to sit at that witness chair as a witness in this case. The other members of my emergency board, I am sure, will be very glad to join me if the committee would like to have our views in regard to the history of this dispute, and our views in regard to what I consider to be the most controlling issue that has not been mentioned by the Secretary of Labor.

That is the effect of prolongation of the strike and the undoubted settlements that I think would occur if it goes through with the naked economic power of this union to force a settlement by way of economic action.

That, of course, is the great inflationary wage increase in settlement of this case would impose on the American people. In regard to that matter, I think my colleagues know my views very well. I think it involves the greatest weapon we have, and we ought to make secure, the value of the American dollar.

There is no greater disservice to the American people, or, for that matter, labor, that could be rendered by the Congress if it failed, in my judgment, to take the necessary legislative steps and pass the legislation that will protect the American people from a breakthrough in inflation controls.

That, however, calls for my acting as a witness, so I shall not ask questions at this point. I shall be glad to answer the committee's questions when I appear as a witness.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Secretary, does the administration favor any legislation by the Congress in the airline strike?

Secretary WIRTZ. I had sort of anticipated that question.
Senator JAVITS. I am glad I didn't disappoint you.

Secretary WIRTZ. In respect to the committee, I have reduced my views so that there will be no misunderstanding, to writing, which I should like to distribute. It is a short statement. It is addressed to a question somewhat narrower than you have put it, but it will start at least toward that line.

It is addressed most particularly to the two resolutions on which primary interest has been focused the last day or two; namely, Senate Joint Resolution 181 and, in the terms of the committee's telegram to me of related business, and Senate Joint Resolution 182.

My position, Senator Javits, would be stated with respect to those matters as follows, and then to broaden it out to include the other parts of your question.

The question you have asked arises in terms of this hearing, in a sense of whether the impact of the airlines strike warrants the enactment of such resolution as Senate Joint Resolution 181 and related bills.

This would be easy to answer if this case stood alone. The public is fed up with this strike. Collective bargaining has had a full chance to work-but it has not so far. The legal mediation processes were followed, and a board of three most responsible men made recommen

dations to the parties; the companies accepted them but the union rejected them out of hand.

Twenty days of strike, of serious public inconvenience, have contributed nothing toward agreement. The natural public attitude is that "there ought to be a law."

It would be an easy question to answer, too, if the survey which has been made revealed a greater danger to the health or safety or defense of the Nation.

But this case doesn't stand alone.

What is involved is a complex balancing of interests typical of the hardest, toughest testing of freedom: the kind of testing that comes only in connection with the freedom to do something that most people think is outrageous.

The question is really whether to take away from one union because of its intransigence, the right to strike which is the traditionally recognized mean of all labor's enforcing its collective-bargaining demands.

That right would be worthless if it could be exercised only when a majority of the public agreed with what the union was seeking.

Once and only once in the past 20 years, since World War II, has the right to strike been denied by a special law because a union's bargaining demands were considered unreasonable, and its threat to the public interest too great. That was in 1963 when a complete. paralysis of the Nation's railroads was imminent.

This isn't that kind of situation.

In more direct answer to your question, I oppose strongly, under these circumstances, something in the nature of Senate Joint Resolution 182. It would provide for compulsory arbitration. There are not the reasons in my judgment here for going down that route.

Senate Joint Resolution 181, to which Senator Morse has referred and introduced, presents a closer question. It would leave the issue in dispute to be settled by collective bargaining. But it would deny the union's right to strike, and would require an immediate return to work on the employer's terms, that is, within the 180-day period.

Something of this sort may have to come, but not until in my judgment every alternative has been exhausted.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest an alternative interim course. I believe in the the force of public opinion.

The introduction of Senate Joint Resolution 181 and the action. of the committee has already focussed national attention on this case, and on the necessity of its prompt and fair settlement.

I suggest that the very considerable influence of this respected committee be made a force for the prompt settlement of this dispute by responsible bargaining and by mediation.

This could include your insistence upon immediate resumption of negotiations which have been, as a practical matter, recessed for the period of this legislative consideration. This would increase the prospects of bargaining which recognizes, as President Johnson pointed out last week, that "the right to bargain collectively carries the duty to bargain constructively."

It could include your instruction that I report back to this committee, at an early time specified by you, either the fact of an agreement between these parties or the reasons for there not being one.

The public, through the Congress, is entitled to set a deadline on the recognition of its interests here as above those of the parties-if there is a continuing conflict between them.

So, I urge that free collective bargaining be given a last clear chance to work.

Finally, I note this:

There is a basic question involved in this case and Senator Morse has pointed it out-of preserving the stability of the economy.

President Johnson has insisted publicly, and the Government mediators have urged both publicly and privately, that this case be settled within the framework of the recommendation of the Presidential Emergency Board.

Before proposing enforcement of these stabilization policies by law there must be full appreciation of the implications of this course. Accordingly, I respectfully suggest that the committee should consider a course of action which may contribute significantly to the prompt settlement of this case.

I realize, Senator Javits, that the answer is not directly, but feel that it lies within the area of the question which you put.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Secretary, I gather this is the position of the administration that you have read to me?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. The President has no other recourse to law? There is no law on the books to which he can repair, is there?

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. Unless we give him law, he has none?
Secretary WIRTZ. There is no other statutory recourse.

Senator JAVITS. So the recourse today, if we would have recourse to law, is to the Congress?

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. Why has not the President done the other thing which Presidents have done traditionally? Why has not he called in the parties and sought to settle the strike?

Secretary WIRTZ. I don't believe, Senator Javits, that is will be very fruitful for me to comment on the course of action of the President in terms of a question as to why he has not done it. I can give you my own reaction to it, which is that this situation does not warrant exhaustion or the use of that kind of remedy. I am frank to say, and I think the country shares this view to a considerable extent, that we will enter on a course of great danger if every labor dispute goes to the White House for settlement. I think it would be a mistake. I believe most of the country thinks it would be a mistake.

This is a case of considerable magnitude and importance, there is no question about it. It has received what I believe, in the judgment of the parties, the best mediatory help that could be afforded it in the person of Assistant Secretary Reynolds. I am sure that is the view they share. It involves a set of factors which I have tried to outline in this statement. My shorter or summarizing answer to your question in terms of my own judgment would be that this is a situation in which the balancing of interests would not prompt the President of the United States, who has a war or something very close to it on his hands, to get into this business.

I should be ashamed of myself as a Government officer, I should be ashamed of myself as a member of this union, I should be ashamed of myself as a member of any of the companies involved, if this matter had to be intruded on the attentions of the President of the United States to that extent at this point in history.

Senator JAVITS. It is not my view that either I as a Senator or this committee is sitting in judgment on the union which has workingmen fully entitled to their rights, and the carriers, who are entrusted with the people's money and preserving their rights, and which also have a public utility status. We are looking to the public interest. Do you feel we could legitimately legislate before the ultimate resort is exhausted? Let us remember the President did this in the steel strike. This is not a matter of first impression. Do we have the right to legislate, in your judgment, until this has been done, until the President has called in the parties?

Secretary WIRTZ. I would think it would be a great mistake to condition the action of the Congress in the labor field upon the participation of the President in a labor case.

Senator JAVITS. So our hands are free, in your judgment?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. It is a fact, is it not, that the President told us early this year that he would recommend legislation to deal with precisely this kind of problem? He did it in the state of the Union message and he did it in the President's Economic Report.

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct. There was a reference to strike legislation.

Senator JAVITS. Can you give us any reason why this has been delayed until we are caught completely unprepared? I would not use any more curbstone language which readilly occurs to all of us.

Secretary WIRTZ. I don't think we are caught unprepared at all, Senator. The Congress, in what I believe truly was the complete wisdom, in 1926 passed the Railway Labor Act, which provided, with amendments in 1934, for the coverage of exactly and precisely this kind of case. So there has been on the books since 1926, a statute which, if I were to recommend to this Congress an approach to problems of this kind, would be very much like what I would have in mind, because there was a recommendation here by a most responsible board in the pattern of that act. So I don't believe we were caught unprepared.

Senator JAVITS. Do you mean to represent to us that the Railway Labor Act is adequate when it has no final remedy by which the Government can protect its own operation? The Government is powerless now. If you should be testifying that the mails are broken down, defense carriage has broken down, business has broken down. You still have no law on the books to deal with it. Is not that true?

Secretary WIRTZ. I am not sure I heard your question completely enough to answer in your terms, but I am sure that the net of the question is whether there is a provision in the law for terminal, final and binding and controlling settlement of labor disputes, and the answer is that there is not.

Senator JAVITS. Or for the right of the Government to operate the facilities to the extent necessary to protect its own being? Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. There is nothing on the books?

Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. Now, finally, Mr. Secretary, it is a fact that though you do not arm us with a finding of national emergency-I think that is the clear implication of your testimony-you do testify that the test set by the Railway Labor Act has been met. You do testify that this strike has resulted in a substantial interruption to interstate commerce such as to deprive sections of the country of essential transportation service?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir; and further, Senator, that finding was, of course, made by the President as a basis for the invoking of the Railway Labor Act.

Senator JAVITS. That persists and is aggravated today, is that correct?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes; I think that is right.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, you stated in your supplemental

statement to us:

I suggest that the very considerable influence of this respected committee be made a force for the prompt setttlement of this dispute by responsible bargaining and by mediation. This could include your insistence upon immediate resumption of negotiations which have, as a practical matter, recessed for the period of this legislative consideration.

Could you be more specific about that? What do you mean? Do we just adjourn this meeting?

Secretary WIRTZ. Not to the preclusion of anything else, Mr. Chairman, but I think it ought to be sent back to the woodshed, just in so many terms. Not that alone, but if I may recall a little of the history that bears closest on the present situation, it did involve a Senate committee. It was the Commerce Committee's consideration of this problem in connection with the railroad situation in 1963. At least twice, and if not three times, there were expressions from that committee of a formulation of the public interest which I thought would be helpful for bargaining.

You know, we came very close to settling that case. It is just too bad that that scar ever developed on the history of this particular subject. We came very close. We did not win, but on two or three occasions a Senate committee looked at this committee, spoke the public's voice in a way that I can't command or that a mediator in this case can't command, spoke the public's voice, expressed very strongly the public's now sharp and continuing and day-to-day interest in that situation, and said to us, in effect, "If there is not an agreement by such and such a time, we, on behalf of 175 million people, want to know why."

So what I am suggesting there is that at least before legislation of this kind would be passed, that that possibility ought to be exhausted. The CHAIRMAN. You spoke about going to the woodshed. You mean this time we would say if they did not settle, we would take the paddle to the woodshed, is that right?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes sir; without telling us which paddle.

Senator JAVITS. If the Senator will yield, I think there is no question about the public sense of outrage and deprivation. There is no doubt in your mind about that, is there, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary WIRTZ. I don't think, Senator, that the public in general, has, until very recently, had the degree of interest in this situation that