Now is the time to meet this issue. It in no way infringes on the rights of union organization. What it does do is enhance the personal rights and liberties of all of us as we recognize in law that minority rights and beliefs have a sacred meaning, too, as we try to build a new age in America.

The bill reads as follows:

H.R. 8962

A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide that individuals with religious convictions against joining or participating in a labor organization un ler a union security collective bargaining agreement shall not be required to join or contribute to the support of that labor organization

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"INDIVIDUALS WITH RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS

"SEC. 19. No individual who has religious convictions against joining or financially supporting a labor organization may be required to join or financially support any labor organization as a condition of employment if such individual pays to the Treasurer of the United States a sum equal to the initiation fees and periodic dues uniformly required as a condition of acquiring and retaining membership in a labor organization which is representative of the employee unless said individual and said labor organization mutually agree upon some other condition of employment."

Senator MORSE. Her bill, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, sets forth its purpose as follows:

"To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide that individuals of religious convictions against joining or participating in a labor organization under a unior security collective bargaining agreement shall not be required to join or contribute to the support of that labor organization."

I would be concealing from the committee conferences that I have had with representatives of these religious groups if I did not state for the record I have had such conferences. I have discussed with them their points of view, I have told them that I was greatly concerned about their answer, if they had any, to the argument that was bound to be raised, and I think justifiably so, that in effect they seek to obtain economic advantages from a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by a union and employer to which they were not a party, but under which they become beneficiaries, and I have asked them in many instances, "Do you object to making a contribution at least to the welfare programs, the hospitalization programs, the so-called fringe benefit programs that are connected with union contracts that benefit the membership of the union?"

There is some difference of opinion among them, but not much; they prefer the Green proposal that they should not be required to join or contribute to the support of that labor organization.

That gets into a definitive argument, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as to what constitutes a support of a labor organization. I am not one who is going to argue about a matter of semantics.

I have said to these dedicated and conscientious people, whose sincerity of religious faith I do not question in the slightest, that I thought that the chances of their being able to get the Green amendment without modification would probably be remote, but I might prove to be wrong-I have been proved to be wrong in my predictions of the Congress many times. However, they are entitled to know my own personal view.

I thought they would make a mistake if they took the position that they should have no economic obligations whatsoever as a result of

any arrangement that might be worked out whereby their conscientious objections to officially joining in the labor union or participating in the programs of a labor union should be protected by way of legislation.

Some of them said that they would not particularly object to making an equal contribution to the Treasury of the United States; in fact, some preferred that. I said to them, "What about contributions to a hospitalization fund or social welfare fund that is carried on by the industry and the legal representatives of the workers jointly?"

There was no unanimity on this point, but there have been some indications that if there had to be any give on their part, they would at least be willing to consider that possible approach. But let me make perfectly clear they have not committed-none of them have committed themselves to that, and I know of not a single one of these dedicated people who have talked to me who would prefer it. But they do not exclude it.

Then I talked to them, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, about trying to work out understandings with the union concerned in a given establishment. They said they had not had very happy experiences with that approach although they admitted that in some instances some unions have worked out such understandings with them.

On that matter, however, I would like to insert in the record extracts from a letter that my administrative assistant, Mr. Berg, has received from a religious leader of my State, who, when I talk to him, fills me with humility.

I refer to the Reverend Lloyd Biggs whose dedication to spiritual values serves as an inspiration to me and to the thousands of people who know him. From time to time I try to walk in his footprints, but I fear that those footprints are much too large for my shoes. Here is a dedicated man; I do not agree with all of his observations but he has written to me about this matter and I ask that the pertinent portions of the letter from the Reverend Lloyd E. Biggs be inserted in this hearing record.

(The material referred to above follows:)

EXTRACTS FROM LETTER DATED JUNE 21, 1965, WRITTEN BY THE REV. LLOYD E. BIGGS NORTHWEST SECRETARY, INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OREG.

Our friends of the AFL-CIO have expressed their willingness to work out some arrangement within their organization that will take care of the problems of the church people. This is not a new idea. We have been working with organized labor for about the last 20 years, but with little success. Mr. Melvin Adams pointed out in his testimony before the House subcommittee that 147 internationals refused to cooperate with our labor relations organization. A few unions were very kind and cooperative, notably the UAW. But out at the grassroots far from headquarters many of the locals refused to cooperate and our people lost their jobs.

Experience has demonstrated that the law should contain a little paragraph taking care of the situation. We do not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Meany and Mr. Biemiller, and surely they will not oppose a provision in the law to assist them in carrying out their objective.

I thank you and Senator Morse for arranging for our Mr. Melvin Adams to appear before the Senate subcommittee. Now Mr. Berg, this is a very serious matter with all our people, and they are looking to me to protect their interest and I am leaning very heavily upon my good friend Senator Morse.

Senator MORSE. The problem that is before us, I respectfully say to the labor leaders of the country, is this: They have a responsibility to see if there is a basis on which any adjustment can be made.

Let me say this to the religious groups: I know that you are sincere in referring to this as a matter of freedom of conscience, but you should not overlook a very precious basic freedom in this country, and that is the right of free men and women who work to organize into unions and to bargain collectively for the protection of their rights in respect to wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Freedoms often conflict in various degrees. We cannot have 100 percent guarantee of the exercise of what we consider to be a right of freedom irrespective of its encroachment upon the freedom of others. Legislators are dutybound to administer the civil law, and when all is said and done, to limit themselves to the obligations of the civil law. I raise this matter, Mr. Chairman, because I am perfectly willing to work out an equitable solution to it if all parties would cooperate. But if I am put to the test of voting as to whether or not we will create the right of any individual or group in the country to plead a matter of conscience as a basis for excusing them from any obligations whatsoever that come under a collective bargaining agreement carrying the plant in which they work, I would not be able to support that position. I am open to giving careful consideration to the suggestions that Congresswoman Green has made in her amendment but I do not go as far as she does.

I interpret her amendment to mean that any worker employed in a plant that is covered by a collective bargaining agreement would be under no obligation to either belong to the union or give any financial support in paying part of the cost of maintaining the union which produced the collective bargaining agreement.

All workers in a plant are the direct beneficiaries of all the benefits by way of wages, hours, and conditions of employment that are made possible by the collective bargaining agreement.

It seems to me that a union should not have to pay for all the costs of producing a collective bargaining agreement including costs that ought to be shared by employees who assert that they are conscientious objectors to unionism. Otherwise, the latter employers would be allowed to enjoy the economic benefits of the agreement without sharing the costs thereof.

That is why I have suggested to labor leaders and to representatives of the various religious groups asking for an exemption under this bill that they should try to work out a conscionable compromise that would not relieve any worker in any plant where there is a collective bargaining agreement from contributing financially to the cost of producing the collective bargaining agreement.

If we are to talk about freedom we should not overlook the fact that a worker is also free not to work in a plant in which there is a collective bargaining agreement but if he does, it is only fair and reasonable that he make some financial contribution to the cost that a union is put to in representing all the employees, including the nonunion employees.

It may be that if agreements of this kind cannot be reached between the religious groups and the unions, and if it is decided that some modification in the law should be adopted by way of amendment, I think the language should make clear that the employees

who are raising this issue of conscientious objection to union membership should not be exempted from paying an equitable amount to defray the cost of the collective bargaining structure that produced the beneficial wages, hours, and conditions of employment under which they work.

It is my understanding, and I think there is considerable merit in it, that if any modifying language is written into the bill, a procedure should be spelled out that will guarantee to organized labor that an escape hatch is not provided for those individuals who do not really possess so-called good faith conscientious religious objections to belonging to the union but only seek to avoid supporting a very important freedom in our system of government; namely, the freedom of collective bargaining.

It may be that a suggestion which has been made by some deserves the favorable consideration of legislative counsel of the committee; namely, that a procedure should be written into the law providing for an impartial board or umpire to make a finding in each individual case that the person involved does hold good faith religious objections toward union membership.

However, I wish to make clear that I do not feel that such religious views should place the holder thereof above his obligations to the civil law. We are dealing here with a matter of public policy with respect to administering the civil law. In connection with that administration, I do not see how, as legislators, we can justify following a course of action that would lead to the destruction or weakening of the basic principle of economic freedom in our country; namely, the freedom of collective bargaining.

Therefore, I am not prone to favor any amendment at this time that would exclude this particular group of religionists from any and all financial obligations to support programs in the field of labor relations that have been worked out under the legislative process

Furthermore, we are dealing in this legislation with only a small number of States, those which at the present time have "right-towork" laws. Even in those States the exemption which the religious groups are seeking do not exist under present State laws.

What they really are seeking is to make use of the 14(b) repealer bill as a vehicle for basing an exemption uniformly applicable throughout the country. It has never existed heretofore and there is some merit in the opposition of those who say it should not be attached as a rider to this bill but should be considered in separate legislation.

Nevertheless, if the labor groups and the religious groups concerned can reach a compromise by way of mutual agreement, I think we should give it consideration, but even then I think the Congress should make certain that we are not adopting any precedent which can be used as a basis by religious groups in the country for taking the position that laws considered necessary to promote the general welfare of the country as a whole should be set aside for preferred groups because of their religious views.

I yield to no one in respect for the religious faiths of others, but as a legislator, as I have said so many times in the past, the doctrine of religious freedom was never intended to give a right to a believer of a given religious faith to become exempt from the application of a public policy of civil law because of his religious faith.

Senator MCNAMARA. The first witness this morning is Mr. Reed Larson, executive vice president of the National Right To Work Committee, of Washington, D.C.

Mr. Larson, if you will identify for the record the gentlemen that accompany you.

STATEMENT OF REED LARSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE, OF WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY S. D. CADWALLADER, PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE, AND JOHN L. KILCULLEN, COUNSEL

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Reed Larson, executive vice president of the National Right To Work Committee; with me is Duke Cadwallader, president of the national committee and John L. Kilcullen, secretary of the national committee.

I have filed my formal statement with the committee and will summarize it briefly and will be prepared to answer any questions. Senator MCNAMARA. Your complete statement will be included in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REED E. LARSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE

My name is Reed Larson. I am executive vice president of the National Right To Work Committee.

In opposing repeal of section 14(b), the National Right To Work Committee is presenting the view of the American people. Like the vast majority of Americans, we believe that union membership should be voluntary, not compulsory. We represent the grassroots of the Nation-the workers, the small business people, the professional people who understand and are concerned about the damage being done to our country by the excesses growing out of compulsory union membership. While labor union representatives profess to speak for the American worker, the fact is that less than one-fifth of the people comprising our country's work force have chosen to join or be represented by a labor union. Although every employed person is guaranteed by law the right to join or form unions, more than 80 percent have chosen not to do so. Further, even among the remaining one-fifth of workers now represented by unions, a substantial number are opposed to the efforts of their unions to make membership compulsory.

Our committee came into being through the initiative of a group of rank-and-file union men, members of the railway brotherhoods, who, although loyal to their unions, opposed the demands of brotherhood officials for compulsory union shop agreements in the railroad industry. Since its formation in 1955 this committee has attracted the support of additional thousands of union members in all industries and in all parts of the country. The president of the National Right To Work Committee, Mr. S. D. Cadwallader, who appears here with me, has been a member of the Order of Railway Conductors & Brakemen for more than 23 years. Notwithstanding the efforts of union officials to brand this committee as a front for big business, we are in fact the voice of the worker, and we are here to speak in his behalf.

You have heard the Secretary of Labor give what he has described as the philosophical arguments for the union shop and you have heard Mr. George Meany and other union representatives give their reasons why they want section 14(b) repealed. Although the arguments of these proponents of repeal are able and eloquently presented, they remain, in the final analysis, abstract arguments far removed from the hard, realistic fact of compulsory unionism as it is experienced by the individual workingman who is its captive or, if you will, its victim. He is the one whose rights are at stake when a union forces him to join or pay dues and fees in order that he may be permitted to work at his job or trade. He is the one whose personal dignity and moral convictions are affronted when he is locked into a corrupt or immoral or subversive union. He is the one whose