matter, have not been settled, do you anticipate a request for an extension of the authority proposed in this resolution? Secretary WIRTZ. If nothing has happened at the end of that period. Incidentally, this would be the period after which the rule had been operative for 2 years-the interim rule-if we reached that point we would face exactly the situation we do here. May I take one moment to say that this would be the first industry, this would be the first pair of parties in the history of collective bargaining in this country in which it had been impossible to reach that agreement. In spite of my respect for Mr. Staggers' and Mr. Springer's reaction to the case, I don't rate it that way. I think these parties will in this period for very strong self-interest reasons work it out. I don't mean to fuzzy up my answer to your question. If I am that wrong that 4 years from now they are apart, the answer would be that we would be back here. I would hope not. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Do you think this legislation will be helpful to the parties in getting some kind of settlement before the expiration date? Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Younger. Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have issued a very fine statement, Mr. Secretary, and I only wish you had written the message which I think is a very fuzzy message. One of the reasons that Congress is blamed so much for inactivity, and I checked with the clerk yesterday, is that we have received 56 messages this session and in comparison we have had only 55 yea-and-nay votes in the House. I am sure that these continued 5,000-word messages do not add clarity to the problems that we are confronted with. The question I want to ask you now is, Was this solution presented at any time during the negotiations to either side of the contest? Secretary WIRTZ. It was not. Mr. YOUNGER. You mean to say that knowing that this background for the solution was on the books, as you say, for 23 years as a part of our system and during 4 years of negotiations, it was never mentioned at all in the course of the negotiations? Secretary WIRTZ. I am not suggesting, Mr. Younger, that the legis lation as it stands covers this case because it does not. The legislation as it stands covers the coordination and consolidations. The legislation which is here proposed is necessary to extend that procedure to these other comparable situations. Mr. YOUNGER. That is what I mean. In your statement you said it has been in the law for 23 years. Secretary WIRTZ. I said the procedure for handling comparable situations has been. Mr. YOUNGER. But all during the 4-year negotiations, on their difficulties, this particular solution depending on section 5 of the Commerce Act was never injected into the talks? Secretary WIRTZ. That is right. Mr. YOUNGER. Whose brainchild is this? Secretary WIRTZ. It comes as a recommendation to the Congress from the President of the United States reflecting the firmest possible conviction about the proper solution to a most dangerous situation and a most important problem. I hope that is an answer to the question. It came out of some Mr. YOUNGER. That is not a direct answer. body's mind. I think we all know who presented it. I would like to have your word on it if you could. Secretary WIRTZ. You will respect the Mr. YOUNGER. All right. In the 4 years this solution was never suggested, and had it appeared in the negotiations you may have had a solution. However, you say, and I quote, "That this will meet with a degree of finality." Yet later on you say you admit there is no finality in it. Then it only postpones the solution and gives time for a period of negotiations between the parties. How do you reconcile those two statements? Secretary WIRTZ. I don't think it places any strain on the English language at all. I don't have anything mysterious in mind in saying what this does is provide an answer which will be operative for 2 years and which the parties will have to accept for a 2-year period unless they agree on something else in the meantime. As nearly as I can remove all polarization from the words that is what it does. I don't believe there is anything complicated about that. Mr. YOUNGER. If I get your statement right, Mr. Secretary, neither party will have to agree because they can go to the courts and the courts could set the ICC order aside and there would be no solution for the period of the court trial? Secretary WIRTZ. I would hope there was no misunderstanding here about this. I think it is true on the basis of a lot of thought that any law which Congress has to pass to meet this situation will consistently with precedents of which we are all very proud be subject to judicial review. There would be no other action. Mr. YOUNGER. You can't say with finality that this will operate for 2 years? Secretary WIRTZ. That we can. Mr. YOUNGER. That it will operate for 2 years with finality? Secretary WIRTZ. I think we understand. I accept that statement. I don't believe it is any different. Mr. YOUNGER. One other question. This resolution proposes a new organization to be set up for job training, is that right? Secretary WIRTZ. No, sir; there is a reference in the President's message to the possibility that those who lose their jobs on the railroads and would have to be retrained for some other work either elsewhere or on the railroad, and that is the particular reference here, might be brought into the Manpower Development and Training Act for training for another job. Mr. YOUNGER. I thought it sets up an organization for that purpose? Secretary WIRTZ. No; this is an established procedure. The President also recommended or also announced his intention to set up a Commission on Automation but that is to study the problem. That is to study additional aspects of it. That is separate and apart from the matter to which you referred. Mr. YOUNGER. We have three already set up, job training organizations. The fourth was in the area redevelopment which the Congress turned down. Secretary WIRTZ. I am not sure which ones you have in mind. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you on your forceful statement. Secretary WIRTZ. Thank you. Mr. FRIEDEL. There are a few questions I wish to ask. Am I correct in understanding that all the employees who have worked for 10 years or more will not be affected? Secretary WIRTZ. The recommendation of both the Presidential Railroad Commission and the Emergency Board is as you have described it. Any employee with more than 10 years seniority shall retain his job subject only to attrition. The carriers have accepted that. Mr. FRIEDEL. I understand that. I want to make sure it is not only the firemen. It is all employees of the railroads. Secretary WIRTZ. No; we are talking here about the firemen issue and there is not a comparable recommendation, I think, in connection with any of the other issues. On the crew consist issue, and it is hard for me to distinguish between the various recommendations, I think there the attrition principle has been adopted in effect, if not in detail, by both parties without any limitation. So the answer is really yes, more broadly, on the other issues. Mr. FRIEDEL. It is not limited just to the firemen ? Secretary WIRTZ. The specific 10 years which is related just to the firemen. With respect to the other issue which has been committed it could go beyond that. I don't want to commit either party, but there has been a pretty good acceptance of that attrition principle. Mr. FRIEDEL. Do you have any figures as to how many employees might be laid off? Secretary WIRTZ. On the fireman issue? Mr. FRIEDEL. And the overall picture? Secretary WIRTZ. Mr. Reynolds has that more specifically in mind Mr. REYNOLDS. There are a total of approximately 36,500 firemen in the midmonth count a few months ago when we asked for it. Theoretically every one of those firemen could ultimately be affected. The area of negotiation has been narrowed down to a formula which might contemplate a 2-year handling of this problem which conceivably could narrow the number of jobs which might be affected down to something considerably less than that and something in the neighborhood of possibly in a broad figure of 5,000 and possibly even less. Mr. FRIEDEL. That would be by attrition. Mr. REYNOLDS. That would be the total number of jobs by one form or another among firemen positions which might conceivably be blanked out. There is a distinction here, Congressman, between the job and the man. There might be a job conceivably which would be concluded was not necessary nor the removal of the firemen from which would endanger safety or create an undue burden. The individual on that job may possibly be one of your long service people. He, himself, as a human being would not be affected. He would have his job guaranteed to him for as long as any other employee of long service in the employ of the railroad. So there is a distinction between the position and the man. If you are talking of human beings among the firemen, the admonition of the Presidential Railroad Commission and the Emergency Board in general terms are that no man with 10 years of service shall be touched and any man with less than 10 years of service would receive comparable employment in another position if it were necessary to remove him from his job. Mr. FRIEDEL. I understand that. What about the brakemen? You have other employees of the railroad. How many of those would be affected? Mr. REYNOLDS. The direct question you asked is how many people would be affected? Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes. Mr. REYNOLDS. The reason that it is difficult to answer is that there have been varying estimates of this. In the proceedings before the Presidential Railroad Commission the carriers at one time said that the reduction of crew consist which they sought could affect as many as 19,000 jobs. Mr. ROBERTS (presiding). The gentleman's time has expired. Could the answer be supplied for the record? (The following information was later submitted for the record :) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY "BRAKEMEN'S RULE” The "brakemen's rule" embodies the recommendations of the Presidential Railroad Commission on the carrier proposal to give management the unrestricted right, under any and all circumstances, to determine the size of the crew to be used—principally road brakemen and yard helpers-in road and yard operations. As stated by Assistant Secretary of Labor Reynolds to the committee, in the proceedings before the Presidential Railroad Commission, the carriers' evidence suggests that under their proposal, road and yard crews could be reduced by some 19,000 employees, which is approximately 22 percent of all trainmen and yard helpers (exclusive of conductors and yard foremen) in all classes of service, or an average of one-half man per crew. The Commission's Report (p. 105) states that this is a maximum estimate, and that variations exist in managerial judgment concerning the minimum crew consist required for safe and efficient operations, even under similar operating conditions. Under the recommendation of the Presidential Commission to leave the question of crew consist in the area of collective bargaining with unresolved issues to be submitted to binding arbitration, estimates of the number of employees who would be affected are even more uncertain. State regulations on crew consist would be a factor in such determinations. The Commission recommended, however, its proposal receive nationwide application. The Report of Emergency Board No. 154 to the President generally follows the Commission's proposal. It recommends that crew consist problems be negotiated with disputes to be resolved by submission to a special referee procedure. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Glenn? Mr. GLENN. Mr. Secretary, as I understand your testimony, after the making of the interim rules by the ICC, it seems to me they would remain effective for 2 years unless an agreement is entered into by the carriers and the brotherhoods. Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir. Mr. GLENN. Is that not in effect, a compulsory settlement for a 2-year period? Secretary WIRTZ. I shall continue to insist if compulsory adds something to what I have said when I say that it will be binding on the parties, then it is not compulsory. It is binding on the parties subject to the time limitation and the collective bargaining limitation. If compulsory in your mind, Mr. Glenn, adds something beyond that I would disagree. If it doesn't, then there is no difference. Mr. GLENN. On page 6 of the bill down at the bottom of the page, it mentions that the President can extend his recommendation to the Congress for an extension of a resolution after the end of the 2-year period. Secretary WIRTZ. That is correct. Mr. GLENN. So, in effect, we are then working under the interim rules and they could be extended by another resolution, could they not? Secretary WIRTZ. There would be that possibility. Mr. GLENN. If we have that possibility then it is possible that this could continue indefinitely as a way of life so that these interim. rules could, in effect, be permanent rules, is that not so? Secretary WIRTZ. As a matter of logic or as a matter of practical prospect. As a matter of logic; yes, sir. Mr. GLENN. That is all. Thank you very much. Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. MACDONALD. I have just one question, Mr. Secretary, and I want to compliment you on your obvious dedication and grasp of this very difficult problem. We in the committee know how difficult the problem is since we have gotten wrapped up in details in trying to administer just the mere retirement fund of the railroads. There is one question that I would like to ask I think mainly to put to rest a bugaboo that has been thrown about, that if this resolution was passed, it might tend to disrupt the ordinary bargaining positions between labor and management. It is my direct question to you, sir, if in your very expert knowledge you think that this type of legislation would change the traditional pattern of collective bargaining in the United States? In other words, would more and more collective bargaining arguments end up before the Congress? Secretary WIRTZ. I appreciate the question, Congressman. It seems to me to go right to the heart of the most serious aspect of it from my standpoint. It requires the candor of this answer: That any legis lation about any particular dispute is bound to have some weakening effect. This recommendation, in my judgment, has infinitely less possibility of that effect than any other conceivable approach because it would be limited to the particular case which is already there. It would handle it through a particular statutory procedure which is available for this kind of case only and could not be extended to the broad area of collective bargaining. I don't mean to blink the implication of Congress having to act one way or another on any dispute. But given the gravity of that situation, it is my considered judgment that this procedure far beyond any other is insulated against any possible application to the broad area of collective bargaining. Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Secretary, our chairman, Mr. Harris, has suggested a 30-day delay to give the Congress adequate time, and I think he is justified in his request. But Mr. Loomis has indicated that such a delay would have damaging effect on the railroads. I notice on page 3 when items in dispute are referred to the ICC that they are instructed to give prority to the problem, and they have |