OF AMERICAUNITED STATES

// ~

tf~\

(iongressional Recordd

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 93 CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 119-PART 13

MAY 16, 1973 TO MAY 29, 1973

(PAGES 15853 TO 17214)

•

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1973

May \ 16,·.1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1600787. Aerial Machine & Tool Corporatlon,

Long Island City, New York.88.. National Union Electric Corp., Green­

wich, Connecticut.89. Rex Precision Products, Inc., Gardena,

California.90. Bermlte Powder Company, Saugus,

CallfornIa..91. The Stalker Corporation, EsseXVille,

Michigan.92. Kilgore Corporation, Toone, Tennessee.93. Kilgore Corporation, Toone, Tennessee.94. Glenn Manufacturing Co., Inc., Amory,

MississippI.95. Ametek, Inc. S11 to Plymouth Industrial

Products, Inc., New York, New York.96.. United Telecontrol Electronics, Inc.,

Overland, Missouri.9'1. Model Screw Products, Inc., Overland,

Missouri.98. Wells Marine, Inc., Costa Mesa, Califor­

nia.99. Shinn Engineering, Inc., Santa Ana,

California.100. Superior Steel Ball Co., New Britain,

Connecticut.101. Warren pumps, Inc., Warren, Mass.102. M. Sloane Manufacturing Co., Holly­

wood, Florida.103. American Technical Industries, Mount

Vernon, New York.104. American Technical Industries SI1 to

Lem Products Corporation, Mount Vernon,New York.

105. Neapco Products, Inc., Pottstown,Pennsylvania.

106. Carlisle Corp., Cincinnati, Ohio.107. Sterllng Electronics Corp. SU to 872

ROckaway Corporation, Houston, Texas.108. Mllan Box Corporation, Milan, Ten­

nessee.109. Patty Precision Products Company,

Sapulpa, Oklahoma.110. Sun Garden Packing Company, San

Jose, Callfornl.a.111. Dale Fashions, Inc., Vineland, New

Jersey.112. American Sportswear Co., Inc., Vin­

land, New Jersey.113. National Union Electric Corp., Green­

wich, Connecticut.114. The Dyson-Kissner Corp. S1I. to North­

west Automatic Products Corp., New York,New York.

115. The Dyson-Kissner Corp. SI1 to North­west Automatic Products Corp., New York,New York.

116. Anlxter Bros., Inc. SU to Anlxter-Nor-mandy Skokie, Illinois.

117. AWA Corporation, Aurora, TIllnois.118. AWA Corporation. Aurora. illinois.119.. M.L.W. Corporatlon, Bayamon, Puerto

Rico.120. Abbot MMhlne Company, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin.121. Lee Realty Corporation, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin.122. Landis Clothes, Inc., Vineland, New

Jersey.123. Kreisler Industrl.a1 Corp., North Ber­

gen, New Jersey.124. Metro Machine Corporation, Norfolk,

Virginia.125. Sterling Commercial Steel Ball Corp.,

Sterling, mlnols.126. The Lawrence Jaros Co.• Inc., Cleve­

land. Ohio.127. The Lawrence Jaros Co., Inc.• Cleve­

land, Ohio.128. Oppenheimer Inc., Wlllow Grove, Pen­

nsylvania.129. Opacallte Incorporated, Santa Ana,

California.130. Rodale Electronics, Inc., Garden City,

New York.131. Macrodyne-Chatlllon Corp., Sl1 to Con­

solldated Missile Co., Inc.• Brea, Callfornla.132. IDtco Stl to Hawley Products Com­

pany, Los Angeles, Callfornla.

133. Alaslm-Puget-Unlted TransportationCompanies, Seattle, Washington.

134. Clearwater Die & Manufacturing Com­pany. Inc., Paramount, Callfornia.

135. Hutt, Inc., Cliffwood, New Jersey.136. The National Tool & Die Co., Hartford,

Connecticut.137. Pembroke, Inc., Egg Harbor City, New

Jersey.138. Border Machinery Company, Inc.• El

Paso, Texas.139. Puritan Fashions Corporation, New

York, New York.140. John Wood Company, Cleveland, Ohio.141. Dallathe Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.142. Dallathe Corporatlon, Corpus Christi,

Texas.143. Beevllle Corporation, Corpus Christl,

Texas.144. Beevllle Corporation, Corpus Christl,

Texas.145. Corpus Mainbase Corporation, Corpus

Christl, Texas.146. Corpus Mainbase Corporation, Corpus

Christi, Texas.147. Corpus Mainbase Corporation, Corpus

Christi, Texas.148. Glynco Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.149. Glynco Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.150. Jaxs Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.151. Jaxs Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.152. Jaxs Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.153. Key West Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.154. Key West Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.155. Key West Corporation, Corpus Christl,

Texas.156. Kingsvllle Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.157. Klngsvllle Corporation, Corpus Christl,

Texas.158. Kingsville Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.159. Medius Corporation, Corpus ChrIstl,

Texas.160. Medius Corporation, Corpus Christi.

Texas.161. New York Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.162. New York Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.163. New York Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.164. Olathe Corporatlon, Corpus Christl,

Texas.165. Olathe Corporation, Corpus Christi,

Texas.166. Olathe Corporation, Corpus Christi.

Texas.167. Bahia Dorado Corporation, Corpus

Christi, Texas.168. Metro Machine Corporation, Norfolk,

Virginia.169. Bromfield Corporation, East Boston,

Mass.170. Stanadyne. Inc., Windsor, connecticut.171. Lasko Metal Products, Inc.. West

Chester. Pennsylvania.172. Kaynar Mfg. Co., Inc., Fullerton. Call­

fomla.173. Cone }'Hlls Corporation, Greensboro,

North Carolina.174. Jernberg Forgings Company, Chicago,

I111nois.175. Gibraltar ManUfactUring Co., Port

Huron, Michigan.176. Jonathan Logan, Inc., N. Bergen, New

Jersey.177. Paramount Warrior, Inc.. Paramount,

California.178. E. Walters & Co., Inc., Elk Grove Vll­

lage, Illlnois.Source: Renegotiation Board.

QUORUM CALL

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerkwill call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to caIlthe roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the orderfor the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

CONCLUSION OF MORNINGBUSINESS

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,is there further morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is therefurther morning business? If not, morn­ing business is closed.

AMENDMENT OF LABOR-MANAGE­MENT RELATIONS ACT 1947

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senate will nowresume consideration of the Unfinishedbusiness, S. 1423, which will be stated bytitle.

The legislative clerk read as follows:A bill (S. 1423) to amend the Labor-Man­

agement Relations Act, 1947. to permit em­ployer contributions to Jointly administeredtrust funds establ1shed by labor organiza­tions to defray costs of legal services.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time onthis bill is now under control, with timeon each amendment in the flrst degreelimited to 1 hour; time on each amend­ment in the second degree, debatablemotion, or appeal limited to 30 minutes;and time on the bill limited to 3 hours.

PRrYILEGE OF THE FLooa

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the followingstaff members of the Committee on Laborand Public Welfare be permitted theprivilege of the floor during the consider­ation of S. 1423: Gerald Feder, DonaldElisburg, and Eugene Mittleman; andthat Roger King, legislative assistant toSenator TAFT, be permitted the samefloor privilege.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection. it is so ordered.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that a member of mylegislative staff. Mr. Gary Lieber, be per­mitted on the floor during the considera­tion of the bill and my amendmentthereto.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that my legislativeassistant, Tom Shroyer, be permitted onthe floor during the consideration of thebill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that the staffpeople who have been mentioned heremay be allowed to be on the floor duringroll call votes, also.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

16008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whosetime?

Mr. WILLIAMS. On my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll.The legislative clerk proceeded to call

the roll.Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for aquorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, one ofthe glaring injustices in America is thatAmericans of moderate means neitherknow when they need legal services, norhow to obtain them, nor are they able tofinance those services.

During the past decade, several non­governmental groups have begun to ex­periment with programs designed to en­sure the availability of legal services.

Blr associations across the Nation aredeveloping insurance programs to pro­vide these services. Labor organizations,on their own and jointly with local barassociations, have begun to establish le­gal service programs. The insurance in­dustry is developing and mari..:eting plansfor legal services.

Various other user groups, such asfarm organizations, credit unions, andcooperatives, have been involve1 in sim­ilar experimentation.

One major obstacle to the experimen­tation with and creation of such pro­grams is section 302(c) of the Labor­Management Relations Act, which pro­hibits labor and management fromjointly administering trust funds estab­lished to provide such legal services toemployees, their families, and depend­ents.

Section 302 of the Labor-ManagementRelations Act, 1947, as amended, pro­hibits payments by employers of moneyor other thing of value to employee rep­resentatives.

This broad prohibition was enacted toprevent bribery, extortion, shakedowns,and other corrupt practices.

However, section 302 (c), as originallyenacted, enumerated five exceptions tothe general prohibition in section 302,thus permitting employer contributionsto jointly administered labor-manage­ment trust funds to finance medical careprograms, retirement pension plans, andother specific programs.

By enacting a general prohibition onemployer payments and then settingforth specific exceptions, Congress im­pliedly prohibited payments for any pur­pose not specifically excepted.

It is clear, from the history of section302, that Congress intended only to pro­hibit abuses of welfare funds to the detri­ment of union members, and that thefunds excepted from the prohibition werethose types of benefit funds then in exist­ence.

Legal service plans were not mentionedin any of the deliberations leading to theenactment of section 302.

The failure to contemplate such plansis undoubtedly attributable to the factthat they are of relatively recent Vintage.

Indeed, only in 1971 was the last legal

barrier to unilateral funds removed,when the Supreme Court in UnitedTransportation Union against Michigan,ruled that a labor organization had a1st and 14th amendment right to en­gage in group activity to enable its mem­bers to meet the costs of legal repre­sentation. This was the right to partici­pate in a unilateral fund.

Since 1947, Congress has recognizedthe legitimacy of trust funds being estab­lished for other purposes on two occa­sions.

Thus, in 1959, jointly administeredtrust funds for purposes of "pooled va­cation, holiday, severance, or similarbenefits or defraying costs of appren­ticeship or other training programs,"were excepted from the prohibition.

In 1969, Congress further amendedthat section to authorize such funds forthe purpose of "scholarships for thebenefit of employees, their families anddependents for study at educational in­stitutions, and child care centers for pre­school and school age dependents ofemployees."

Today, management is free to providesuch services for their employees andlabor can establish such funds for theirmembers, but employers are barredfrom making contributions to any fundfor legal services jointly administeredwith a labor organization or one whichis unilaterally administered by suchlabor organization, even though in manyindustries jointly trusteed plans wouldbe the only vehicle by which legal serv­ices could be effectively provided.

S. 1423 would add an eighth exceptionto section 302(c) to authorize employercontributions to jointly administeredtrust funds for the purposes of defray­ing the costs of legal services for em­ployees, their families and their de­pendents.

This legislation is necessary becauseof the growing recognition that existingmethods of delivery of legal services tomiddle and working class citizens areinadequate.

The establishment of legal service pro­grams through collective bargaining, ina manner similar to the way health ben­efit programs have been established,would be an important step toward al­leviating this problem.

American workers today live in anincreasingly complex society; yet underour system they are often effectivelydenied access to proper legal representa­tion.

Permitting employees access to prepaidlegal services can often be in the directinterest of the employers.

For example, we learned at the hear­ings of a pilot program undertaken uni­laterally by an employer during WorldWar II to provide legal services to itsemployees.

The employer actually employed at­torneys on a salary to aid with the per­sonal legal problems of its employees.

The primary purpose of the programwas to save man-hours by keeping em­ployees on the job during the vital yearsof the war effort.

The records of the program reflect asaving of over 15,000 man-hours, includ­ing those hours saved to the employer by

virtue' Of 61'employees c being····excusedfrom jury semce. .

As noted in the September 1964 Jour­nal of the State bar of California-

The company Vias attempting to minimizethe adverse effects that a legal problem mighthave upon an employee, both 1n time losttrom the Job and attitude on the Job.

It is clear to me that providing legalservices for employees will have the effectof improving prOductivity, reducing losttime, and effectively improving employeemorale.

This legislation is to authorize theavailability of private funds to employ­ees, their families, and their depend­ents for all legal and related services.

During the hearings on this legisla­tion my distinguished colleage from Ohio(Mr. TAFT) brought out the preventivelaw aspects of this legislation most force­fully.

As he noted, and I fully agree, it isvitally important that in matters in­volving marital relations, for example,that the funds be available not only forlitigation but for efforts at reconcilingthe parties, such as marriage counseling.

Another example is perhaps best dem­onstrated by a program adopted by aunilaterally administered union plan inColumbus, Ohio, where the plan pro­vides for legal services on tax matters,including assistance to the members ofthe plan in preparation of tax returns.

It is important to note that this billwill not direct the establishment of suchprograms.

It will not dictate the terms and con­ditions of such programs, and it will notinterfere in any way with the operationsof such programs. It will not financesuch programs.

Rather, it will bring such joint pro­grams within the scope of collective bar­gaining by removing an unwarrantedand unintended Federal road block tothe establishment of such programs bythe private sector with private funding.

This measure will not replace national,State, or local bar association procedureswith Federal procedures.

It will not subvert State control overthe practice of law with Federal control.

It will neither require nor prohibitopen panels or closed panels, and it willneither require nor prohibit the estab­lishment of such programs.

It will not require labor or manage­ment to agree to any such program, and,within the limits provided herein, theparties will be free to determine thetypes of benefits and the manner inwhich legal services will be provided.

Nothing in this measure will affect thetraditional relationship between lawyersand their clients nor the duty of lawyersto fully represent their clients.

There is no reason for the FederalGovernment to be the major obstacle toprivate arrangements to insure the avail­ability of legal services to the millionsof moderate income Americans. This billwill remove that obstacle.

During' consideration of this legisla­tion an amendment, offered by SenatorTAFT, was adopted to bar the use of suchfunds in suits against contributing em­ployers, except in workmen's compensa­tion cases, suits against participating la-

May 16, 1978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16009bar organizations, and in any suit againstany employer or labor organization wherethe matter in question arises under theNational Labor Relations Act or the La­bor-Management Relations Act.

This amendment refiects a judgmentthat there is too great a potential forabuse if such trust funds are involvedin litigation involving the employee-em­ployer relationships.

The amendment does not have the ef­fect of prohibiting such lawsuits, butmerely bars the use of the legal servicesprovided for under this bill in such law­suits against employers, labor organiza­tions, their officers and agents.

Another amendment that was adoptedin committee would bar the use of suchfunds where a labor organization wouldbe prohibited from defraying the costsof legal services by the provisions of theLabor-Management Reporting and Dis­closure Act of 1959.

The purpose of that amendment wasto prohibit these funds from becom­ing involved in internal union con­troversies.

Mr. President, it is gratifying. to methat this legislation is truly pipartisan.

It has been cosponsored by the entiremembership of the Committee on Laborand Public Welfare, as well as my dis­tinguished colleagues, the Senator fromFlorida (Mr. GURNEY), and the Senatorfrom Alabama, (Mr. SPARKMAN).

This legislation has the support of theadministration, organized labor, the bar,the insurance industry, and consumergroups.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­sent to have printed in the RECORD a let­ter addressed to me from the Secretaryof Labor, Peter J. Brennan, expressingthe administration's support of this leg­islation. It suggests certain changes inthe bill that was first introduced. Thechanges that were suggested by the ad­ministration were adopted and are partof the committee amendment pendingbefore the Senate.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,Washington, D.O., May 2, 1973.

Hon. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR.,Chairman, Oommittee on Labor and Public

WeI/are, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.DEAR MR. CHAmMAN : In your letter of

March 31, 1973, you asked for my vIews onS. 1423, a bill to amend the Labor Manage­ment RelatIons Act to permIt employ­er contrIbutions to jointly administered trustfunds tha.t are utilized In provIding legalservIces for employees. The bill would amendsectIon 302(c) of the LMRA by addIng anew clause (8) authorizing the establish­ment of such programs.

As legal services are critIcal to all Of usat various times In our liVes, I support Inprinciple the inclusIon of such authority.Any such prOVisIon, however, should bar theuse of legal servIce trust funds to pay forthe defense of union officers fa.clng criminalcharges for misfeasance In office. It shOUldalso bar use of trust funds In suits by em­ployees agaInst their own employers (exceptwhen the employee Is seeking to obtainworkmen's compensatIon) and by unionmembers against their own unIons.

The Office of Management and BudgetadVises that there is no objectIon to the sub-

missIon of this report from the standpointof the AdmInistration's program.

Sincerely,PETER J. BRENNAN,

Secretary 0/ Labor.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, one ofthe most helpful examples of what can bea salutory beneficial effect of unions pro­viding legal services for their memberswas an example given to us from theState of Louisiana.

I ask unanimous consent to haveprinted in the RECORD certain selectiveportions of the testimony describing theplan and what it has meant to the mem­bers who are part of that group legalservice plan.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If theSenator will yield, the Chair states thatthat program is extremely important.Without objection, the portions of testi­mony will be printed in the RECORD.

Portions of the testimony follows:STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. OONNERTON, GEN­

ERAL COUNSEL, LABORERS' INTERNATIONALUNION OF NORTH AMERICA; STEPHEN I.SCHLOSSBERG, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTER­NATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE,AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTWORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW); MAxZIMNY, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONALLADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION;JOYCE D. MILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENTOF SOCIAL SERVICES, AMALGAMATEDCLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA; COM­PRISING A PANELMr. CONNERTON. Mr. Chairman, for your

benefit and Senator Tatt's benefit, Mr. ZimnyIs on my extreme left, Mr. Schlossberg joinsme, and of course our fine lady Joyce MUleris on my rIght.

My name Is Robert J. Connerton, and I amgeneral counsel ot the Laborers' Interna­tIonal UnIon. I am accompanied here thIsmorning by Jack Curran, our legislatIvedirector.

Mr. ChaIrman, I have had an opportunItyas general counsel to assIst In the develop­ment ot the prepaId legal services plans forLaborers' affiliates In Shreveport, La., Colum­bus, Ohio, Birmingham, Ala., and Phila­delphIa, PR., and am presently engaged Inhelping set up prepaId legal servIces planscovering apprOXImately 10,000 laborers inWashington, D.C., VirgInia, and Maryland,and apprOXimately 20,000 union laborers inthe State ot Massachusetts. I also have servedas a member of the prepaId legal servIcescommIttee of the AmerIcan Bar AssocIation,since Its InceptIon In 1970, whIch has helpedformulate the response ot the organized barto the challenge ot providing legal servIcesfor moderate-Income AmerIcans. I also servedas chairman of a steerIng commIttee whichled to the recent establishment of the Na­tIonal Consumer Center for Legal Services.

I understand Mr. Duffy, the staff dIrectorof the center, Is scheduled to testify at alater time.

From these three vantage poInts. I hRvebeen fortunate to watch and also to par­ticipate In the unfoldIng of the movementof makIng legal servIces freely avaUable toall AmerIcans. I thInk as both you RndSenator Taft ha"e IndIcated. there was notany dellberate attempt to stlfie the growthot legal servIce plans. Actually section 302was drafted In 1947 and was drafted In termsof the general prohIbItion wIth specific ex­ceptions, so that as new programs developedfrom 1947, It has been necessary to comehere and petitIon the Congress to amendsectIon 302 to exclude these programs fromthe statutory prohIbitIon.

So we have a long history In this connec­tIon. For example, back In 1959 you wUl re-

call the Congress excepted pooled vacationsand holidays and severance plans and ap­prentIceship and other traIning programsfrom prohIbItions, and 10 years later It addedanother exceptIon for day care centers andscholarshIp programs.

Your bill would simply Ildd one more spe­clflc exception to section 302 In order to cor­rect the legislative draftsmanshIp oversIght.

Last year In connection with the prepara­tIon for testifyIng In the House In supportof this proposal, we dId mRke a careful stUdyof the legIslative hIstory of sectIon 302. Itwas not based upon any consIderation otpUbllc polley. Legal servIce programs werenot then In existence and there Is a goodreason for It. Let me descrIbe it to ROU.

For many years State bar assocIatIons tookactIon agaInst groups whIch were trying toprOVide legal services for theIr members.For example, today we stU! have outstandInginjunctIons against the AmerIcan Auto­mobile associatIon in many States of thecountry for provIding legal servIces for theIrmembers. So we have had almost InsuperablebarrIers bUilt up until very reaently on therepresentation by attorney to members ofthe group, by referral of the group.

In three relatIvely recent Supreme CourtdecisIons, two involvIng trade unIons andanother involvIng a cIvil rights group, theSupreme Court held that the 1st and 14thamendments protected user groups In retain­Ing attorneys or making any other legalarrangements to assIst their members inassertIng their legal rights. Still there werethose In certain State bar associatIons Whofelt that these cases were limited to theIrfacts, that they contInue to take actIonagaInst groups, and It was only 2 years agoIn April 1971, that the Supreme Oourt In theUTU v. State 0/ Michigan case delivered thedefinitive opinIon WhIch rejected any attemptto limit the earlier cases to their particularfacts.

The Oourt made clear In that case that Itsholdings In prevIous cases did not turn uponany set of particular facts, but that the rIghtwas an unrestricted rIght protected by the1st and 14th amendments and such rIghtcould not be abrIdged or restricted.

Now we are really only talking about aperIod of 2 years, In Which It has becomeclear that consumer groups of all typeshave a right to make arrangements to pro­vIde legal servIces for their members.

Now durIng that perIod of time the Courtwas also acting upon the right of Americansto be provIded With competent counsel, andthe Supreme Court, you will recall, hassteadily expanded its notion that the Con­stItutIon requires that indigent defendantsin criminal cases be provIded wIth represen­tatIon. Again it was only about 7 monthsago in the Argersinger case where the Su­preme Court ruled unanImously that counselmust be provided In crimInal prosecutionWhere there is even a posslbl1lty of Incarcera­tIon, whether a misdemeanor case or other­Wise.

Then we can also see thIs sItuatIon unfold­Ing In another area. We found that duringthe 1960's the Congress of the United StatesprovIded for indIgents In cIvil cases theirneIghborhood legal services, the right tocounsel and although there has been somequestion raIsed now In the conversIon of theservIce to a publlc corporation, I am surethese mInor questIons wlll be settled, and itseems clear that this service will continue toprovIde free legal servIces for apprOXimately40 million poverty level AmerIcans who areeligIble for benefits.

I would like to take you back to the sen­ate bll1 on this score 2 years ago which con­taIns a llttle noticed provision whIch wassubsequently deleted in conference. whichwould have permitted these Federal povertylaw programs to expand their scope to serve

16010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD :":'-"SENATir'l'the people of moderate income through a.device of charging small fees to represent thecitizens.

Now the matter was I gather stricken inconference without debate. \Vithout impos­ing too much on you or Senator Taft, Ithink it is eminently clear that adequatecounsel is still beyond the means of over 150mll1ion Americans in this country. Wethought that provision marked the hand­writing on the wall. I do not think you canexpect moderate Income Americans I1ving inan increasingly compl1cated society, havingthe same needs for adequate legal coumel asthe poor, in the same general area, landlord,tenant, veteran, consunler cases and so forth,to continue and support free legal services forthe poor while their own legal needs remainunfulfilIed.

I am not suggesting that they wlll turnagainst neighborhood legal services programs,but I am suggesting unless we can providethrough our free enterprise system the pri­vate mechanisms for the delivery of theseservices, it is inevitable that the FederalGovernment will be called upon to meet thisgrowing demand.

Now across the country today the problemof prOViding legal services for this mass mar­ket of moderate income Americans is beingattacked by a great variety of groups. TheAmerican Bar Association is active, Americantrial lawyers, insurance companies are inter­ested in the field, universities, the consul­tants, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, all types offarm groups, cooperatives, trade unions,credit unions, reUgious groups, and civllrights organizations.

Now let me turn qUite briefiy to reviewjust two plans in which my organizationhappens to be involved. The first was a co­operative effort between our local union inShreveport with the American Bar Associa­tion and the Ford Foundation. This covers agroup of approximately 600 laborers. It hasbeen in existence for 2 years. It is financedby a 2-cent-per-hour union dues paymentdeducted by employers pursuant to voluntarycheckoff. All members of the Shreveport BarAssociation participate in these arrange­ments. Again it was necessary to do it thatway because of the present strictures of sec­tion 302. Coverage is provided just like a.Blue Cross-Blue Shield medical plan pursu­ant to a schedule of benefits. The plan pro­hibits any suits against the unions. It pro­hibits suits against employers and prohibitssuits between members.

Now after 2 years we can tell you thatShreveport is aUve and well. It has not un­dermined the stability of the collective-bar­gaining relationship in any way. There hasbeen no mad rush to either the lawyers orthe courthouse-we were concerned wemight have some legal hypochondriacs in ourgroup, and we have not had any yet. Therehave been no harassing lawsuits involved.There has been no attempt made on the partof anyone to tear down the system.

We have put the emphasis up on the frontend, up In the area of preventive law. It haspaid 93 percent of the total legal billings. Iwas just down In Shreveport over the week­end for a meeting on the plan With the barassociation reviewing its second year of ac­tivity and we found something very, veryinteresting that a certain kind of case In­volving very, very sharp practices in the con­sumer area has all of a sudden seemed to dryup. Whereas the union used to receive 8, or9, or 10 calls a week from certain Sharp opera­tors looking for members, they are not re­ceiving calls anymore. It Is more in the na­ture of preventive law.

In fact, It has diminished from the numberof cases going on the court's docket t'atherthan adding to It, and this Is simply what theunion is seeking to carry out. There havebeen unemployment compensation cases, do­mestic rela tlons, automoblle cases, real prop­erty-somebody buys a house, drafts a w1ll­and there have been retail credit and other

consumer problems. This is the type at casewe have had there.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the point there?Were the sharp operators promoting unwar­ranted litigation?

:Mr. CONNERTON. Yes, Senator. And we have,as I say, any number of specific instances wew1l1 be delighted to furnish the committee.For example, they would be doing such thingsas going In the morning to a man's house andasking him to help him take out his furni­ture and put It In the truck, simply becausehe had signed a note for someone else maybea year or two before. Obviously, under thosecircumstances If you are provided with legalrepresentation, then this type of thing justsimply does not happen, because it is Illegalfor them to do so in the first place.

We have found many, many cases in theconsumer area where a poor person ratherthan spend $300 or $400 to go to a Ia.wyerand defend himself, would rather sit by andlet the person do something even though heknows it Is lllegal for them to do so.

Now, turning quickly to another plan thatwe have-and this Is out in Columbus, Ohio,and It is more in the nature of a grouphealth kind of plan, rather than follOWingthe analogy of Blue Cross, Blue Shield. Well,It covers 3,000 members and their depend­ents. Again it Is financed through a workingdues arrangement. It functions through alegal center staffed by attorneys, much likethe group health clinic.

The usage there has been extremely high.It has been over 50 percent in the first year.

Again, this plan prohibits suits againstemployers or unions or between members.The union conducts an intensive educationalprogram with mailings to Its members sothey can recognize consumer problems. Ithas a WATTS line where any of Its membersliVing in an outlying area can simply pickup the phone and get free advice and consul­tation from the legal center. It covers virtu­ally every single type of case that is man­ageable except exclusions I mentioned earlier.

We found that In most of these cases thatwe develop a different type of practice, wherethere is practice In the law office, rather thanpractice In the courts. Most of these caseshave been adjusted without the necessity ofeither litigation or trial. There is simply noevidence that the center is adding to thebacklog of the courts.

Again we 11ave had no frivolous actions.Attorneys retain rights to reject any non­

meritorious claims. The plan Is now In theprocess of being expanded to encompassother labor groups In Ohio. We are pluggingIn the Ohio State University Law School asa backup center. We have established an ad­visory board in which the bar and all othercommunity groups participate. All of the in­formation there is available to the commit­tee or any other group that Is interested.

I think I am Imposing too much on every­one else's time. I would say in conclusion,Mr. Chairman, that we deem the request forproviding legal services to moderate-incomeAmericans simply to be entitled to the sameequality of treatment as that afforded medi­cal, dental, pension, day-care centers, orother permissible fringe benefits.

Passage of S. 1423 wlll be an Importantfirst step In this direction.

I want to thank you and Senator Taft forthe opportunity of appearing here this morn­Ing.

I would like permission, Mr. Chairman, tosubmit my statement and other materialsfor the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that wlll be inclUdedin full.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, thePresiding Officer is familiar with thissituation and knows, as I know indirect­ly, how much it has meant to the peoplewho need legal services and who mightotherwise have difficulty in meeting theirlegal needs.

tMi-. ,;. PiciiiC:ieil£, r!Ihili-g~ '''Very'•stronglythat the l~gal service program become areality by the passage of S. 1423, whichamounts to including another opportu­nity for jointly administering the fundsin section 302(c).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion is on agreeing to the committeeamendment.

Mr. TAFT, Mr. President, I yield my­self 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Ohio is recognized for 5 min­utes.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I endorse S.1423 and am hopeful that the Senatewill approve this measure this afternoon.

The concept of providing greater ac­cess to the legal system in this countryis an excellent objective, and I believethat every reasonable effort must bemade to provide legal counsel for indi­viduals in all income ranges. The objec­tive of permitting t.he establishment ofjoint management-labor trust funds forprepaid legal services is a positive stepin this direction, as America's workingmen and women will have greater accessto legal counsel by passage of S. 1423.Certain safeguards, however, must beadopted to prevent abuse of this conceptin the labor-management context. Suchfunds should not be furnished for anyproceeding, formal or informal, directedagainst an employer and a labor orga­nization administering such a fund, oragainst any other employer or labor or­ganization in any matter arising underThe National Labor Management Act,as amended.

Specifically, such funds should not onlybe prohibited from use for litigation, butalso from counseling and legal advicewith respect to disputes or proceedings inthe labor-management context. To dootherwise would be counterproductive toachieving the very real benefits possiblefrom such legislation.

Further, I strongly feel that such fundsshould not be available for legal defensefunds for labor representative officers orofficials. Such disputes, which are basi­cally internal labor organization matters,should not be financed by such funds.

Therefore, I offered an amendment inthe Senate Labor Subcommittee to in­sulate such funds from labor-manage­ment proceedings, formal and informal.The amendment further provided ade­quate safeguards with respect to use ofsuch funds in internal labor organiza­tion disputes. This amendment wasworked out with cooperation from laborand management organizations and ac­cepted by the committee without dissent.

I would also like to further emphasizethat the prohibitions for use of such trustfunds contained in the limiting amend­ment are not meant to be all inclusive;they should in no way be construed asrestricting the imposition of further re­quirements or prohibitions by labor andmanagement representatives on the useof such funds.

I understand that an amendment islikely to be offered this afternoon bythe Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) andthe Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN)which would have the effect of statingthat such funds should not be a subjectof mandatory collective bargaining.

May 16, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 16011

I do not expect to support that amend­ment, since I feel-as the Senator fromNew Jersey has mentioned-that theSenate should not make a judgment onon whether such jointlY administeredfunds should be subject to mandatorycollective bargaining. Rather I feel, tobe consistent with the provisions of theTaft-Hartley Act, that the question ofwhat constitutes a mandatory subject ofbargaining should be resolved on a case­by-case basis, depending upon the spe­cific facts before the National Labor Re­lations Board or the courts.

Mr. President, during the considera­tion of the Labor Management RelationsAct of 1947, the issue of mandatory col­lective bargaining arose. As a matter offact. the House passed a bill containingan enumeration of that issue. The textof the bill passed in the Senate had nosuch definition. The bill provided thatthe parties could bargain in good faithwith respect to wages, hours, and otherterms and conditions of employment,leaving in basic terms the issue ofwhether or not the matter would man­datorily be subject to bargaining to bedetermined on a case-by-case basis.

The conferees on the bill, which be­came known as the Taft-Hartley Act,agreed that the circumstances having todo with whether a particular situationcalled for the mandatory or nonmanda­tory provision of bargaining may varywidely depending on the type of contractthat is being proposed by either labor ormanagement.

I agree with this approach as the ques­tion as to whether a matter should besubject to mandatory bargaining mayvery well depend upon the past historyof a contract. The situation might occurwhere a labor-management contractthat has been in existence for a numberof years and there has been an on-goingbargaining over the question of the legalservices precedent. It seems likely underthose circumstances that the courts orthe Board would be inclined in the di­rection of saying that prepaid legal serv­ices trust funds would be a subject ofmandatory bargaining.

On the other hand, in the circum­stances when no such trust fund hadbeen set up before, and the proposedtrust fund would be limited to personalinjury cases or benefits for dependentsof employees, the Board or the courtmight properly determine that suchfunds would not be a subject of manda­tory bargaining.

In any event, realistically I think wecan recognize that what is and what isnot compliance with mandatory collectivebargaining requirement is perhaps verytheoretical in a general sense. Whenparties get to the bargaining stage andthey have a situation that theoreticallydoes not require them to bargain onan issue, I think that as a practical mat­ter bargaining still goes on. The merefact that a subject is not determined tobe subject to bargaining, I think, real­istically means very little.

I think that if we adopt the blll itwill be a step forward toward providinglegal services for workers all over thecountry. I urge the legislation be ap­proved without the adoption of theTower-Fannin amendment.

CXIX--I011-Part 13

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I call upmy amendment---

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. WILLIA1VIS. Mr. President, a par­liamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator will state it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would it be appropri­ate to adopt the committee amendmentbefore other amendments are offered?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.JOHNSTON) . Unless the amendment of theSenator from Texas is to the committeeamendment, it v;ould be in order first toconsider the pending amendment. Is alltime yielded back on the committeeamendment?

Mr. TAFT. I yield back the time onthis side on the committee amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. How much time re­mains on the committee amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fortyminutes remain.

Mr. WILLIAMS. We yield back the re­mainder of our time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All re­maining time having been yielded back,the question is on agreeing to the com­mittee amendment.

The committee amendment was agreedto.

AMENDMENT 128

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I call upmy amendment No. 128, and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theamendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows:On page 2, line 3, after the colon, insert

the following: "PrOVided, That no labororganization or employer shall be reqUiredto bargain on the establlshment of any suchtrust fund, and refusal to do so shall notconstitute an unfair labor practice:".

On page 2, llne 3, after "PrOVided" deletethe comma. and add "further,".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. TOWER. I yield myself 10 minutes.Mr. President, the legislation before

us amends the Taft-Hartley Act by per­mitting the establishment of employer­employee trust funds to defray the costsof legal services. The major limitationon these trust funds is that they couldnot be used by an employer to sue aunion, or a union or employee to suean employer, with the exception of work­men's compensation cases.

From the outset, r would like to makeit clear that I am not particularly op­posed to this concept. However, as thebill is drafted, the bargaining over thepossible establishment of such trustfunds would become a mandatory sub­ject of collective bargaining, therebyrequiring an employer to give it equalconsideration with such other issues aswages or face the possibility of beingcharged with an unfair labor practice.

r do not believe this requirement is inthe public interest, particularly withrespect to the stated goals of the Taft­Hartley Act. Congress passed the Taft­Hartley Act upon coming to the realiza­tion that the national interest would nolonger be best served through the en­couragement of certain union activity­the stated purpose of the Wagner Actof 1935.

Instead, Taft-Hartley represented abasic policy change in the direction ofneutrality between employer, employees,and unions. Unfortunately, due to thedecisions, rulings and basic approach ofthe National Labor Relations Board, sucha policy of neutrality in labor-manage­ment relations does not now exist. In­stead of so-called "laboratory conditions"our national labor law policy has revertedto one where union activity is encouragedto the disadvantage of employers, in­dividual employees. small unions, andalso to the general public.

It is because of this longstanding trendthat I feel compelled to offer this amend­ment which I might add is also sponsoredby Senator FANNIN. At a time when thereexists such an imbalance in labor-man­agement relations, I cannot see the wis­dom in further expanding the subjectsthat fall under the category of manda­tory subjects of collective bargaining.

The committee report on S. 1423 tendsto leave the impression that the bill takesno position on whether the legal servicesprovision will be either mandatory orpermissive. r quote from page 5 of thereport:

During the course of the hearings on thislegislation, the committee was urged to in­clude a provision which would have providedthat no labor organization or employer shallbe required to bargain on the esta.bllshmentof any such trust funds and refusal to do soshall not constitute an unfair labor practice.The committee. in not including such a pro­vision, intends to leave the law to mandatorySUbjects of bargaining where it finds it.

This statement is, in my mind bothmisleading and unwise. It is misieading inthe sense that the National Labor Rela­tions Board, when given the opportunity,has in almost every instance decided thatparticular fringe benefits and other re­lated subjects that at one time wereeither management prerogatives or per­missible subjects of bargaining are to behenceforth mandatory subjects of collec­tive bargaining. The Board has accom­plished this by giving the broadest pos­sible interpretation to the phrase "otherterms and conditions of employment·,which is found in section 8(d), the "dutyto bargain" section of the Taft-HartleyAct.

Examples of Board dccisionmaking asto this expansion of mandatory subjectsof collective bargaining include:

First. Individual merit increases in J.H. Allison & Co.

Second. Piece rates or other incentivepay rates in East Texas Steel.

Third. Wage changes made to main­tain existing differentials when changesin the minimum wage laws require in­creases at the bottom end of the wagescale in Standard Candy.

Fourth. Health and accident insuranceplans in Cross & Co.

Fifth. Profit-sharing retirement plansin Black-Clawson Co.

Sixth. stock purchase plans providedfor employer contributions in RichfieldOil.

Seventh. A unilateral change in insur­ance carriers in Wisconsin Southern Gas.

Eighth. Discounts on company prod­ucts in Central minois Public Services.

16012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENAn :A{ayd6,,1973Ninth. Christmas bonuses in Sullivan

Dry Dock.Tenth. Rent on company houses in

American Smelting and Refining.Eleventh. Rules on absenteeism and

tardiness in Murphy Diesel Co.Twelfth. Institution of aptitUde tests

in American Gilsonite.Thirteenth. Super seniority for union

representatives in Marine & Ship­builders.

Fourteenth. Subcontracting out ofwork in the well-noted Fireboard case.

These represent only a portion of sub­ject topics which the NLRB has recog­nized as falling within the phrase "otherterms and conditions of employment:' Inmy opinion, perhaps a reasonable argu­ment can be put forth to substantiatesome of these decisions. Nevertheless,taken together as a group, the Board hasdi~regarded the neutrality principle andhas opted instead to follow the under­lying principles set out in the WagnerAct of 1935-principles that no longerrepresent the enunciated position ofCongress.

The committee report's treatment ofthis matter is therefore unwise, becauseit gives an independent agency even morepower to broadly interpret the will ofCongress.

Stated otherwise, S. 1423 as repOrtedby the Senate Labor and Public WelfareCommittee represents congressionalabrogation of responsibilities to theexecutive branch at a time when we heara great deal of rhetoric about the needfor Congress to freely legislate withoutbeing restrained by administrativeaction.

Mr. President, in 1969, Congressamended section 302 (c) of the Taft­Hartley Ad to permit employer contribu­tions to jointly administered trust fundsfor the purpose of scholarships for thebenefit of employees, their families, anddependents and for child care servicesfor preschool and school aged dependentsof employees. However, Congress, in itswisdom, added the following proviso:

That no labor organization or employershall be required to bargain on the estab­lishment of any such trust fund, and re­fusal to do so shall not constitute an unfairlabor practice.

My amendment to S. 1423 is identicalto this proviso. I am not persuaded at allas to why bargaining for legal servicesshould be mandatory while bargainingfor scholarships and child care should bepermissive. Furthermore, I can perceiveof no concrete explanation as to why legalservices can be translated into "otherconditions of employment" and scholar­ships and day care services are not.

The failure to include the languageI have suggested will most likely give theBoard an excuse to make prepaid legalservices mandatory since the language ofmy amendment would appear in thescholarship-day care section within sec­tion 302(c) but would then not appearin the proposed section immediately fol­lowing concerning legal services.

Mr. President, no doubt an argumentwill be presented that in practice it doesnot matter whether subjects are manda­tory or permissive. I do not believe this

to be the case. For example, the employerof a moderately sized business is at a dis­tinct disadvantage in negotiating with astrong union. It may become apparent tohim that even though he is not theoreti­cally forced into negotiating a legal serv­ices fund or some other type of fringebenefit, due to economic factors he willbe forced into agreeing to some of thesetopics that are somewhat outside theconfines of traditional demands--wagesand hours. While this might not affectGeneral Motors' bargaining position, itdoes place great pressure on a smallergeneral contractor, for example, whomust negotiate with a fairly strong labororganization.

It has been my feeling for some timethat Congress must move to revamp theNational Labor Relations Board so as toeffectuate a balanced labor-managementpolicy within the framework of the Taft­Hartley Act. Therefore, I have introducdlegislation to remove unfair labor prac­tices from the jurisdiction of the Na­tional Labor Relations Board and placethem in U.S. district courts. As an alter­native to this legislation, Congress canand should clarify the National LaborRelations Act with respect to the provi­sions, for example, relating to subjects ofcollective bargaining and secondary boy­cotts. The legislation now before us offersan excellent vehicle for Congress to re­assert itself in labor-management policy­making and thereby limit the discretion­ary authority of the independent regula­tory agency in question.

I, for one, have long felt that Con­gress is equipped to consider legislationthat would not allow the NLRB wide dis­cretionary latitude. Labor law has alwaysbeen a subject grounded in policy ques­tions, rather than in technical questions.In a statement to the Senate Subcom­mittee on Separation of Powers duringits 1968 hearings on congressional over­sight of the NLRB, Judge Friendly ofthe U.S. court of appeals made the fol­lowing statement:

Today NLRB cases do not seem to requirea good deal of expertise that a good jUdgecannot easily acquire. Many of the cases turnon the substantiality of evidence and do notweigh great questions of the moment.

I believe that this also applies with re­spect to Congress as well as the judiciaryand, therefore, I have introduced thisamendment so as to allow the Congressitself to set labor law policy, thereby ful­filling its constitutional responsibility asthe legislative branch of the Govern­ment.

I again want to emphasize that I amnot strictly opposed to the concept ofprepaid legal services as being a per­mitted item in the collective bargainingprocess. The committee report makesnote of the fact that some unions inmany parts of the country have estab­lished pilot programs for prepaid legalservices. I agree that this should not bediscouraged and I am convinced that myamendment which will make prepaidlegal services a permissible subject ofbargaining will not stifle this trend.

Even if Congress failed to approve thislegislation, the larger unions in the coun­try that seem most interested in prepaid

legal services would be able to continueand expand upon their activities on aunilateral basis.

Nevertheless, this trend, if it is one,does not necessitate it being made man­datoryat a time when there is a clearimbalance in labor-management rela­tions.

The fact is that the NLRB would, Ithink, based on past experience, seize onthis as an authorization, if my amend­ment is not passed, to make legal servicesa mandatory item in the collective bar­gaining inventory.

In these days, Mr. President, organizedlabor more than any other segment ofthe American economy operates behindvirtually an impenetrable statutory wallof protection and can demand and getwage increases not tied to increases forproductivity, that have no relationshipto the marketplace or to the laws ofsupply and demand. It possesses thegreatest power of any other segment ofthe economy and can regularly thumbits nose at the general citizenry of thiscountry. I do not believe that we shouldexpand its power on matters that itinststs are part of the collective bargain­ing process.

It is high time that we in Congre5shad the guts to stand up to the greatpolitical power of labor and pass somerealistic labor legislation.

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, will theSenator from Texas yield me 5 minutes?

Mr. TOWER. I yield to the Senatorfrom Arizona whatever time he findsnecesary.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from Arizona is recognized.

Mr. FANNIN. I thank the Senatorfrom Texas.

Mr. President, the amendment offeredby Senator TOWER and me is a simpleone in that it provides that bargainingover such employer contributions be per­missive rather than mandatory.

In 1969, Congress amended section 302(c) of the law to permit bargaining forscholarships for the benefit of employeesand their families and for child carecenters for employees' preschool andschool age dependents (subsection 7).However, Congress added the proviso:

That no labor organization or employershall be reqUired to bargain on the estab­Ushment of any such trust fund. and refusalto do so shall not constitute an unfair laborpractice.

Our amendment makes the exact sameproviso applicable to bargaining UPOlllegal services. There is just no reasonwhy bargaining for employer contribu­tions for scholarships and child carecenters should be permissive and bar­gaining for employer contributions forlegal services should be mandatory.

During the past 25 years, fringe bene­fit programs have become a major issuein negotiating collective-bargainingagreements. The committee heard testi­mony that in some instances the com­bined contributions to SUdl funds, ex­clUding ,,'ages, exceed $1 for each man­hour worked-Council of ConstructionEmployers. To add yet another issue tobe bargained and paid for by the em­ployer will further inflate the cost of

May 16, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 16013production and is not in the public inter­est. Eventually, the public pays the en­tire cost, directly or indirectly.

If the bill passes, we may expect aproliferation of funds for legal services.Unions will be compelled by consider­ations of competition and prestige tonegotiate them and employers will beobliged to contribute money to themThere will be increases in product costsand undoubtedly labor strikes.

Mr. President, it is our hope that ouramendment will reduce in some partthose increased costs and strikes.

If this bill passes without amendment,what new subjects for bargaining canwe expect? Employee car insurance?Employee's wearing apparel? Employerpaid hair grooming-massage rooms,gasoline for employees' cars used to driveto the employers' plant, free food in thecafeteria, and so forth.

Provision for expenses such as employ­ing legal counsel, and other personal ex­penses, is and should continue to be theresponsibility of the individual. Employ­ers are not legal guardians of their em­ployees.

The workers should retain full respon­sibility and authority over how much oftheir wages to spend and how much toset aside for emergencies. I believe mostAmericans wish to retain these rightsand responsibilities and Congress shouldnot through its action transfer these re­sponsibilities to the public through em­ployers.

The Senator from Texas has listed justa few of the fringe benefits which theNLRB and the courts have held to bemandatory subjects for bargaining. Theyillustrate the ingenuity of unions inbringing up new subjects for bargaining.They also illustrate the strength ofunions in being able to obtain thesethings for their members. Unions do notneed the help of Congress in adding tothese costly fringe benefits.

If such a legal service plan is indeeddesirable, it can be established underexisting law by any group of employeesthat want one through the simple ex­pedient of the interested individualsfunding it themselves. Programs of thisnature are currently in existence in sev­eral sections of the country.

Mr. President, at a time when \ve arebecoming less and less competitive in theworld market for our manufacturedgoods, it seems highly inappropriate thatwe should move at this time to increaseour costs of production. Every day welearn more and more about what ishappening in other parts of the worldwhere they are producing at far less coststhan we are.

When we consider that, excludingwages, the cost of contributions to suchfunds in some instances exceed $4 foreach man hour at work, we realize theseriousness of this matter.

I, therefore, urge adoption of theamendment by the distinguished Senatorfrom Texas (Mr. TOWER).

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will theSenator from New Jersey yield to me.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Senatorfrom New York whatever time he mayrequire within the time available.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen­ator from New York is recognized.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, this is aserious matter \ve are discussing, as itrepresents a new area for action betweenlabor and management. The fa~t is thatthe idea of prepaid legal services hasdeveloped considerable currency andthat both the American Bar Associationand my 0\\'11 bar association in NewYork, according to the report which Ihave, look with favor on this develop­ment. In my view, Congress ought to do.a11 it can to encourage the establishmentof these prepaid legal service fundsthrough collective bargaining. That iswhy I fUlly support this bill, and hopevery much the Senate \\111 approve it asreported by the committee.

The question which is now submittedto us is a very narrow one; namely, shallor shall not employer" be required tobargain with unions on this subject ifthe employer does not wish to do so?

The Semltor from Texas (Mr. TOWER)negates the proposition. We do notnegate or affirm it but leave it to be de­termined by the NLRB and the courtson a case-by-case basis.

The argument on the part of the pro­ponents of the amendment naturallyproceeds on the theory tha t if there is aright to bargain, or a mandatory obliga­tion to bargain, that means that theworkers get it. But that really is not so.Unions demand many things in collec­tive bargaining; who can say that theyget any or all of their wage demandsor their fringe benefits?

The mere fact that bargaining is man­datory simply means that it needs to bediscussed in a serious and good faith way.

It has been said, and very properly so,that even if this amendment were adopt­ed any experienced labor negotiator couldhandle that without running afoul of thelaw, even if the employer or employers donot wish to discuss the matter. I want toemphasize that the issue here is notwhether employers should or should notagree to make payments to these funds.The issue is whether they should eventalk about it, provided the NLRB holdsthat the partiCUlar legal services planwhich is brought up is a legal servicesplan which falls within the definition ofwage, hours, and conditions of employ­ment.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President,' will theSenator yield so that we may ask for theyeas and nays?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield.Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask for

the yeas and nays on the amendment.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. JAVITS. For example, the Board

may very well make a distinction be­tween a legal services program whichdeals with suits on workmen's compen­sation, as the subject for a trust fundsuch as the one we are discussing, and alegal services program which may dealwith the generality of obligations of theindividual for perhaps opposing a de­partment store bill or a suit against someretailer for misrepresentation or fraud ora personal injury suit in an accident case.

I believe, Mr. President, that as thewhole concept of the employer-emplo~'ee

relationship is developing under the la­bor laws, these issues need to be devel-

oped with it. We should not put shackleson it.

I think the people on our side of theargument have made a very good casefor cranking into the law a requirementthat bargaining on legal services trustfunds should be mandatory. Had wewritten it into the law, that would havebeen that. We chose to leave the lawwhere we found it and to deal with thesubstantive elements of the case. Theproponents of the amendment wouldhave us negative that proposition and,by terms of the law, exclude it from thecollective bargaining process. I do notbelieve that should be so.

I emphasize again-and I think it isthe crucial point for Senators in deter­mining how they will vote-that the factthat it is a subject for bargaining, amandatory subject for bargaining, evenif it were in the whole generality of legalservices trust funds, would still not com­pel the employer to agree.

So I believe that the committee shouldbe sustained and that the amendmentshOUld be rejected.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I yieldto the Senator from Ohio such time as herequires.

Mr. TAFT. I thank the chairman ofthe committee.

I really have little to add to the argu­ment on this amendment.

As I said in my opening remarks, Ifeel it is somewhat of a tempest in a tea­pot; because, as a practical matter, thedifferentiation between mandatory aridnonmandatory SUbjects in collective bar­gaining is certainly not a very clear onein most circumstances.

In that regard, I invite the attentionof the Senate to the statement of HarryP. Taylor, president of the Council ofConstruction Employers, Inc., who testi­fied before the Labor Committee, alongwith a panel representing employers inthe contracting and construction busi­ness. I read from the committee healingrecord in that connection, on page 242:

The CHAIRMAN. In this legislation-I mighthave missed what you said there-but ifyou are deallng With any suggestion thatthis legislation makes this a mandatoryissue, it does not.

Mr. TAYLOR. Sir, if I may speak to it as onewho did negotiate, representing manage­ment, with the bunding trades unions, if Ihad a choice between it being mandatory orpermissive-

The CHAIRMAN. You would rather have itmandatory?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir, but only for those fewcases-and, they are rare-where thenegotiator for the union is not astute enoughto inflate his demand for mandatory bar­gaining issues.

This is the situation where they say. nowyou Just give a l1ttle more on this permissiVf..issue, and I w1l1 get reasonable on the man­datory lssue. The net effect in dealing with anastute negotiator-most of them are thatI have met-from the union, it really makesvery little dlfference. They will make itmandatory by the mere practice, even if it isJust permissive.

I would rather have it permissive.

This is the testimony we received froman individual who has been involved inthe very industry which the Senatorfrom Texas has mentioned.

As I have said, I think it really issomewhat of a tempest in a teapot. It

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-.SENATE,160.14seems to me to be questionable andargumentative at this point to try to putthese services in a separate categoryaside from the other major fringe bene­fit issues. The National Labor RelationsBoard and the courts, as the case may be,should make the decision on a case-by­case basis as to whether or not prepaidlegal services are subject to mandatory ornonmandatory bargaining.

I think it would be a mistake to adoptthe amendment. I can understand op­position to the bill, as expressed by theSenator from Arizona, and perhapsothers are opposed to the bill as well.

If we accept this concept, however, itseems to me that it is desirable to try toencourage rather than discourage in­clusion in labor contracts joint trustfunds for legal services. I do not believe,as has been argued, that that is an infla­tionary move. Far from it. I think thatanybody who has been involved in labor­management discussions and in negotia­tions recognizes that it is a question ofthe package you are willing to arrive at.Some of it is in pay and some of it infringe benefits. Whether such funds aremandatory or permissive, they will bepart of the fringe benefits negotiated bylabor and management. Labor organiza­tions may set up these trust funds, any­way; and it seems to me desirable, underthe circumstances, to have a joint labor­management participation in establish­ing and controlling such funds.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield myself suchtime as I may require.

Mr. President, it might be helpful to goback and review for a moment whathappened in 1947 during the delibera­tions on the Labor-Management Rela­tions Act of that year. The issue of con­gressional definition of mandatory bar­gaining arose then. As a matter of fact,a bill passed in the House of Representa­tives contained an enumeration of thoseissues over which the parties would berequired to bargain. However, the billsthat passed the Senate contained nosuch definition. Rather, the bill merelydefined collective bargaining as the con­ferring in good faith "with respect towages, hours, and other terms and con­ditions of employment." It then left thespecific determinations of what issues aremandatory SUbjects of bargaining to bedetermined, as the Senator from NewYork pointed out, on a case-by-case ba­sis, by the judicial and quasi-judicialprocess.

The conferees on that act in 1947, theTaft-Hartley Act, agreed with the Sen­ate provision, and that is where we aretoday. This would make a specific find­ing, as part of the definition, of what ismandatory and what is not. We leavethat question unanswered, as the Taft­Hartley Act in many cases left it unan­swered.

I suggest that in this situation, for allthe reasons that have been advanced, wenot legislate this definition of the Tower­Fannin amendment.

The bill will not direct the establish­ment of legal services programs, it willnot dictate the terms and conditions ofsuch programs, it will not require norprohibit the establishment of such pro-

grams and it will not require labor ormanagement to agree to any such pro­grams.

The bill will simply permit manage­ment to contribute to such fringe bene­fit funds if management agrees withlabor to the establishment of such afringe benefit.

The amendment by Senators TOWERand FANNIN would permit an employerto refuse even to bargain over the estab­lishment of a legal service program bydesignating legal services fringe benefitsas a nonmandatory subject of bargain­ing.

During the hrorings on this legisla­tion, the committee heard some witnesseswho urged that legal services be madea mandatory subject of bargaining.

Others urged an amendment similarto the Tower-Fannin amendment.

Although some members of the com­mittee believe that a legal service fringebenefit should be treated like other fringebenefits such as health insurance andpensions, all mandatory subjects of bar­gaining, the committee decided not toresolve the issue on a basis of the gen­eralized statements in our hearing rec­ord.

Rather, we chose to be consistent withthe provisions of the Taft-Hartley Actunder which the question of what con­stitutes a mandatory subject of bar­gaining is resolved on a case by casebasis, depending upon the specific factsinvolved, by the National Labor Rela­tions Board or the Courts.

The effect of the amendment is togrant to employers a statutory right torefuse to bargain with his employeesabout the establishment of a legal serv­ices program.

The whole purpose of S. 1423 could bethwarted by the proposed amendment.While we are trying to provide a vehiclefor employees to protect themselves withlegal services plans through the collectivebargaining process, this amendmentwould allow any employer to thwart thewhole process from the outset by simplysaying "I refuse to discuss that subject."

This amendment in effect could givethe employer the sole discretion of decid­ing whether or not a legal services planwould be established under the auspicesof section 302.

We would be building in a tremendousinequality in bargaining power over asubject of great importance to employees,a subject which, as Secretary of LaborBrennan said in endorsing S. 1423, is"critical to all of us at various times inour lives."

It is a subject about which employersshould also have a deep interest. Ourcommittee report described the case ofan employer which unilaterally undei'­took a legal services program for its em­ployees during World War II. That pro­gram resulted in a savings of thousandsof man-hours in time lost on the job inattempting to deal with personal legalproblems. We concluded in Oli' reportthat:

It is clear to the committee that providinglegal services for employees wUl have theelfect of improving productivity, reducinglost time, and effectively improving employeemorale.

Legal services to the a.verage Anler1ca.xlis such an important national· problemthat many believe that employees shouldhave an absolute right, through theirunions, to demand that employers bar­gain over the establishment of suchfunds on a jointly administered basis.Some believe that these plans wouldbring such benefits to both the employerand his employees, that it should bespelled out in the law as a mandatorysubject of bargaining.

Let me be certain here that my col­leagues understand that making a sub­ject of bargaining mandatory simplymeans that an employer must bargain ingood faith about the subject. He by nomeans has to agree to the demand.

In any event, after we completed areview of the legislative history of theTaft-Hartley Act and the many courtdecisions dealing with the issue of whichsubjects of bargaining were permissiveand which were mandatory, we con­cluded that it would not be appropriateto include any provision in the bill at all.

It is clear that this was intended byCongress in 1947 as a subject which wasto be left to the National Labor Rela­tions Board and the courts, to be de­cided on a case-by-case basis.

The act itself, of course, does not spe­cify which subjects are mandatory andwhich are permissive. Let me briefly re­view how the law has been developed bythe courts.

Section 8(d) of the Labor-Manage­ment Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. section 141,section 158(d) (1970), provides in perti­nent part:

To bargain collectively is the performanceof the mutual obligation of the employer andthe representative of the employees to meetat reasonable times and confer in good faithwith respect to wages, hours, and other terms,and conditions Of employment, or the nego­tiation of an agreement, or any question aris­ing thereunder, and the execution of a writ·ten contract incorporating any agreementreached if requested by either party. . . .(Emphasis added.)

The distinction between mandatoryand merely permissive bargaining sub­jects is crucial. In N.L.R.B. v. Borg­Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958), theSupreme Court held that lawful mattersnot within the scope· of "wages, hoursand other terms and conditions of em­ployment" are permissives bargainingsubjects.

The inventory of forms of compensa­tion held to be mandatory bargainingsubjects has been established on a caseby case basis: individual merit raises,N.L.R.B. v. J. H. Allison & Co., 165 F.2d 766 (6th Cir. 1948); Pension, InlandSteel Co. v. N.L.R.B., 170 F. 2d 247 (7thCir, 1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 960(1949); Christmas' Bonuses, N.L.R.B. v.Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 199 F. 2d 713(2d Cir. 1952); Rentals for Company­Owned Housing, N.L.R.B. v. Lehigh Port­land Cement Co., 205 F. 2d 821 (4th Cir.1953); Piece or Other Incentive Rates,N.R.L.B. v. E. Texas Steel Castings Co.,211 F. 2d 813 (5th Cir. 1954); Profit­Sharing Plans, N.L.R.B. v. Black-Claw­son Co., 210 F. 2d 523 (6th Cir. 1954);Stock Pmchase Plans, Richfield Oil Corp,v. N.L.R.B., 231 F. 2d 717 <D.C. Cir. 1956).

May 16, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 16015The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I demand

the yeas and nays.The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I urge

speedy adoption of S. 1423 as unani­mously reported from the Labor andPublic Welfare Committee. As a co­sponsor of this legislation. I regard theprovision of high-quality prepaid legalservices as being of the utmost import­ance. I wish to commend the Senatorfrom New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) and theSenator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) fortheir leadership in presenting and ob­taining quick Senate action on this bill.

Over the past 2 years, the Senate hasdebated and twice passed legislationwhich I, joined by many others, havesponsored to create a National LegalServices Corporation. This legislationhas been designed to aid the poor inreceiving the legal assistance they needto insure equal justice for all under ourConstitution. Within the near future.the Senate will again be debating thefuture of the legal services program.

The legislation under considerationtoday, however, is important in a dif­ferent way. For not only the poor in oursociety often find quality legal servicesbeyond their reach. Many middle-classAmericans often experience difficultiesin affording such services and the pres­ent means for delivering these servicesdo not always prove adequate. For theseAmericans, the ability to establish jointlabor-managElment trust funds to fi­nance legal services is of real concern.

S. 1423. it should be noted, does noth­ing more than remove a presently eXist­ing legal barrier which prevent theformation of jointly administered labor­management trust funds to finance theprovision of legal services. By authorizingemployer contributions to such funds,this legislation will help provide legalservices in many industries where suchjointly administered funds may well bethe only effective way of providing suchservices.

The bill does not finance or direct theestablishment of such legal services pro­grams. It allows for maximum flexibilityin the nature, number, and particularprovisions in plans for prepaid legalservices.

In short, S. 1423 attempts to recognizethe growing need for quality prepaidlegal services among employees in manyindustries, and declares that the Fed­eral Government will not stand in theway of unions and management jointlydeciding to administer such funds. AsSUCh, it fills a definite need and will bea real contribution toward benefitingthe welfare of millions of families acrossthe Nation.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yieldback the remainder of my time.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I yieldback the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill isopen to further amendment. If there beno further amendment to be proposed.the question is on the engrossment andthird reading of the bill.

The bill (S. 1423) was ordered to beengrossed for a third reading and wasread the third time.

MossMuskieNelsonPackwoodPastorePearsonPellProxmireRandolphRlbicoffRothSchwelkerScott, Pa.SparkmanStaffordStevensStevensonSymingtonTaftTalmadgeTunneyWllliams

HruskaMcClellanMcClureNunnSaxbeThunnondTowerWelckerYoung

The Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD­WATER) is necessarily absent.

The Senator from New York (Mr.BUCKLEY) is detained on official business.

The Senator from TIlinoiJ (Mr. PERCY)is absent by leave of the Senate on officialbusiness.

The result was announced-yeas 26.nays 66, as follows:

[No. 142 Leg.]YEAS-26

CurtisDomenlclDominickEastlandErvinFanninGriffinHansenHelms

NOT VOTING-8Biden Goldwater Scott, Va.Buckley Hughes StennisChurch Percy

So the Fannin-Tower amendment wasrejected.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I movethat the Senate reconsider the vote bywhich the amendment was rejected.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I move to lay thatmotion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I knowof no further amendments. I am preparedto yield back the time remaining on thebill, if Senators controlling the time inopposition are also willing.

Mr. JAVITS. Who controls the time inopposition?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator fromNew York himself dces.

Mr. JAVITS. I am prepared to yieldback the time under my control, as well,unless there are Senators who desire tospeak on the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billis open to amendment. If there be noamendment to be proposed, the questionis on the engrossment and third readingof the bill.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President. I do notwant to cut off any Senator. I think it isa little early compared with what Sena­tors usually assume. On my time, I sug­gest the absence of a quorum before thethird reading of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerkwill call the roll.

The second assistant legislative clerkproceeded to call the roll.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President. I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

NAYS-66Abourezk HartkeAiken HaskellAllen HatfieldBayh HathawayBeall HollingsBentsen HuddlestonBible HumphreyBrooke InouyeBurdick JacksonByrd, Robert C. JavltsCannon JohnstonCase KennedyChBes LongClark MagnusonCranston MansfieldDole MathiasEagleton McGeeFong McGovernFulbright McIntyreGravel MetcalfGurney MondaleHart Montoya

BakerBartlettBellmonBennettBrockByrd,

Harry F., Jr.CookCotton

cert. denied, 351 U.S. 909 (956); Em­ployee Discounts, N.L.R.B. v. Central Ill.Pub. Servo Co., 324 F. 2d 916 (7th Cir.1963) .

In developing the Mandatory versusPermissive Bargaining Concept, theNLRB and the courts have looked tobargaining practices as relevant, but notdeterminative. Fibreboard Paper Prod­ucts Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 211(964). It is well established that:

Section 8(d) of the act--does not im­mutably fix a list of subjects for mandatorybargaining.

Chemical Workers, Local 1 v. Pitts­burgh Plate Glass, 404 U.S. 157. 158(1971) and that:

Effective collective bargaining-include (s)the right-to bargain about the exceptionalas well as the routine-"

Order of Railroad Telegraphers V. Rail­way Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342. 347(1944>'

Whether legal service plans would befound to be mandatory or permissivesubjects of bargaining is an open ques­tion. There are those who argue thatthey should be treated in the same man­ner as group health plans, which aremandatory subjects of bargaining.Others argue that they should be a per­missive subject of bargaining.

The point is that we should leave itto the NLRB and the courts to decidethe qustion on the basis of traditionaland well-established criteria. The ques­tion has not yet been presented in anactual case. and we should leave the lawas we find it.

Mr. TOWER. I yield myself 1 minute.Mr. President, I want to say that pass­

ing this bill without my amendmentsimply puts another plug in the hands ofbig unions which in many instances,most instances, are greater and morepowerfUl than the business organizationsthey deal with. Remember, organizedlabor is the only segment of the Ameri­can economy that does not have to payattention to regulations in the market­place or the law of supply and demandbecause of the statutory law of protec­tion around them.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yieldback the remainder of my time.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I yieldback the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All timehas been yielded back. The question is onagreeing to the amendment. The yeasand nays have been ordered, and theclerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from Iowa (Mr.HUGHES), the Senator from Delaware(Mr. BIDEN) , and the Senator from Idaho(Mr. CHURCH) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator fromMississippi (Mr. STENNIS) is absent be­cause of illness.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr.CHURCH), and the Senator from Iowa(Mr. HUGHES) would each vote "nay."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) isabsent on official business.

CQNGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

So the bill (S. 1423) was passed, asfollows:

S. 1423An act to amend the Labor Management Re­

lations Act, 1947, to permit employer con­tributions to jointly administered trustfunds established by labor organizationsto defray costs of legal services.Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That section302 (c) of the Labor Management RelationsAct 1947, is amended by striking out "or (7)"and inserting in lieu thereof "(7)" and byadding immediately before the period at theend thereof the follOWing: "; or (8) withrespect to money or any other thing of valuepaid by any employer to a trust fund estab­lished by such representative for the purposeof defraying the costs of legal services for em­ployees, their famllles, and dependents: Pro­Vided, That the requirements of clause (B) of

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques­tion is, Shall the bill pass? On this ques­tion the yeas and nays have been ordered,and the clerk will call the roll.

The second assistant legislative clerkcalled the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announcethat the Senator from Delaware (Mr.EIDEN), and the Senator from Iowa(Mr. HUGHES) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senatorfrom Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) is absentbecause of illness.

I further announce that, if present andvoting, the Senator from Iowa (Mr.HUGHES) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that theSenator from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) isabsent on official business.

The Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD­WATER) is necessarily absent.

The Senator from TIlinois (Mr. PERCY)is absent by leave of the Senate on of­ficial business.

The result was announced-yeas 79,nays 15, as follows:

[No. 143 Leg.jYEAS-79

NOT VOTING-6Hughes Scott, Va.Percy Stennis

BldenGoldwater

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time onthis bill is under control, with time oneach amendment except one amendmentto be offered by the Senator from Ohio(Mr. TAFT) limited to 30 minutes, timeon the bill to be limited to 1 hour.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, wewill not take up the Small Business billuntil tomorrow, sometime between thehour of 10:30 and 11 o'clock a.m. Sothere will be no time on the bill thisevening.

tinguish~. Republican "'leader,first,· .. Iask unanimous consent that the senateturn to the consideration of CalendarNo. 123, S. 1672, so that it may be madethe pending business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.DOMENICI). Under the previous order,the Chair lays before the Senate S. 1672,which the clerk will state.

The assistant legislative clerk read asfollows:

A bUl (S. 1672) to amend the Small Busi­ness Act.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMFollowing the disposition of the pend­

ing business, it is anticipated that theSenate will turn to the consideration ofCalendar Order No. 142, a bill (S. 355)to amend the National Traffic and Mo­tor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and thenhopefully, either Calendar No. 144 orCalendar No. 145. Some difficulties per­tain to Calendar Nos. 143 and 141.

It is anticipated that on the calendartomorrow will be the bills reported outby the Committee 'on Foreign Relationsyesterday, or Monday, the State Depart­ment Authorization Act, the ForeignBuilding Act, the authorization for theUSIA, and the authorization for thePeace Corps. In view of the difficultieswhich have developed concerning thetaking up of the urgent supplementalappropriation bill, I would anticipate thesame difficulty would accrue to the StateDepartment authorization bill, but I willplead with the distinguished minorityleader from time to time to see whether,out of the goodness of his heart and hiswisdom of mind, he might not relent, butI am not holding out much hope.

Mr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. The mi­nority leader is filled with goodness ofheart and enormous good will and acompUlsive desire to please the distin­guished majority leader in every waypossible, and to the extent to which heand his colleagues can bring themselvesto do so, we will try to do in bringingourselves to do so.

Mr. MANSFIELD. May I say that I ap­preciate the candor of the distinguishedminority leader. I would say that thesituation which confronts us at the pres­ent time is the exception to the rule.

Mr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. The dis­tinguished majority leader is very kind­as always.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, onMonday next, the Senate will proceed tothe consideration of the nominations ofRobert H. Morris, of California, and

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMMr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. Mr. Pres­

ident, I rise to ask the distinguishedmajority leader what the order of busi­ness will be for the rest of the day, therest of the week and, if he is preparedto say, until the very brief recess be­fore Memorial Day.

LEAVE OF ABSENCEMr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. Mr.

President, I ask unanimous consent thatthe Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) begranted leave of the Senate from todayuntil Friday on official business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT OF THE SMALLBUSINESS ACT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, inresponse to the query raised by the dis-

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSEA message from the House of Rep­

resentatives by Mr. Berry, one of itsreading clerks, announced that the Clerkof the House.had been directed to notifythe Senate that Mr. AMMS, of Washing­ton, had been appointed as a manager enthe part of the House at the conferenceon the bill (S. 38) to amend the Airportand Airways Development Act of 1970, asamended, to increase the United Statesshare of allowable project costs undersuch act, to amend the Federal AviationAct of 1958, as amended, to prohibit cer­tain State taxation of persons in aircommerce, and for other purpOses, viceMr. DINGELL, resigned.

the proviso to clause (5) of this subsectionshall apply to such trust funds: Provided fur­ther, That no such legal services shall befurnished (A) to Initiate any proceeding di­rected (i) against any such employer or itsofficers or agents except In workmen's com­pensation cases, or (Ii) against such labor or­ganization, or its parent or subordinatebodies, or their officers or agents, or (!Ii)against any other employer or labor organi­zation, or their officers or agents, In any mat­ter arising under the National Labor Rela­tions Act, as amended, or this Act, and (B)in any proceeding where a labor organiza­tion would be prohibited from defraying thecosts of legal services by the provisions ofthe Labor-Management Reporting and Dis­closure Act of 1959".

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I moveto reconsider the vote by which the billwas passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I move to lay thatmotion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Secretary ofthe Senate be authorized to make neces­sary clerical and technical corrections inthe engrossment of the bill, and that thebill (S. 1423) be printed as passed by theSenate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

McClellanSaxbeThurmondTower

MossMuskieNelsonNunnPackwoodPastorePearsonPellProxmireRandolphRibicoffRothSchweikerScott, Pa.SparkmanStaffordStevensStevensonSymingtonTaftTalmadgeTunneyWeickt>rWllliamsYoung

BartlettBennettByrd,

Harry F., Jr.CottonCurtis

Abourezk GravelAiken GriffinAllen GurneyBaker HartBayh HartkeBeall HaskellBellmon HatfieldBentsen HathawayBible HolllngsBrock HuddlestonBrooke HumphreyBuckley InouyeBurdick JacksonByrd, Robert C. JavitsCannon JohnstonCase KennedyChiles LongChurch MagnusonClark MansfieldCook MathiasCranston McClureDole McGeeDomenici McGovernDominick McIntyreEagleton MetcalfFong MondaleFUlbright Montoya

NAYS-15EastlandErvinFanninHansenHelmsHruska