19

Section 121 is inconsistent with this principle. If the parties
1 be unable to solve their problems by next year, it will be time
for the Congress to fashion a solution for them.

I add one final thought: Entirely apart from the considerations e just outlined, I suggest that Section 121 is, in any case, unsary. The parties know full well that this is their last chance, at if we do not agree upon a resolution of the remaining issues we have one thrust upon us. We know full well that, if the Congress s legislation of the type we now propose, the Congress will see to at the next step will be the enactment of legislation that will insure olvency of the retirement fund and that will address the other

pal issues dealt with by the Commission on Railroad Retirement. be suggested that we should have felt the same way about the matter wear, I can say only this: For the reasons I have discussed in 1, both unions and management concluded that the interests of the ers and their employees would be best served at this point by the we have charted; but there are no conceivable circumstances under we could or would arrive at a like judgment next year. I have I that representation in as strong terms as I am able. I am conI that Mr. Dennis, who will testify for the unions, shares my views. While we do not agree, as I have indicated, with certain of -ovisions of S. 1867, and while we urge that those particular proas not be included in the legislation, I would like to say again, sing, that we appreciate full well the validity of the general

principles that are reflected in these provisions, that it is quite evident that a good deal of time and thought went into the composition of S. 1867, and that we are grateful indeed for the attention that our railroad retirement problem has received from Senator Hathaway and from this Subcommittee.

This concludes my remarks on H.R. 7200 as well as S. 1867 and

1805. On behalf of the carriers I represent, I want to express my appreciation to the Committee for according me this opportunity to state our position with respect to this matter of great importance to both labor and management in our industry.

NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE

1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036/AREA CODE: 202-659-9320

At the hearings yesterday on S. 1867 and related bills, you asked for my opinion with respect to a revision of Section 121 under which the allocation of the 7.5% tax would be left open, with authority delegated to the Secretary of Treasury to establish an allocation if no legislation were enacted prior to January 1, 1975. I said that I had never thought of such an approach and asked for an opportunity to reflect on the matter and respond by letter.

After considering this alternative, my view is that it would not be desirable.

Although I have not had time to research the case law that would bear upon the problem, I have no doubt that such a delegation of authority would have to be accompanied by standards to guide the Secretary's exercise of discretion. I feel that, once such standards were formulated, it would become evident that the question of allocation of the tax would raise questions that are essentially political in character and therefore should be settled by the policy-making branch of government, the Congress.

As I testified, we would prefer that Section 121 not be included at all. However, as I also said, if the Senate decides to include Section 121 without the allocation feature, in our view such a provision would not impair collective bargaining and would not be inconsistent with our collective bargaining agreements with the various unions.

I should like once again to thank you, the members of the subcommittee, and the staff for the th attention that you have given to the railroad retirem matter.

Senator HATHAWAY. At this time, I would like to ask Mr. Dennis if he can answer briefly whether or not, in your opinion, if the Congress passed a March 1 deadline, or any other deadline, other than July 1-that the union would consider this an abrogation of the collective-bargaining agreement?

Mr. DENNIS. Senator, I believe yesterday that I said that March 1, July 1, May 1, we would devote all our time and effort to try to reach an agreement even before any deadline date that was set, as we intend to do prior to July 1, as agreed to.

The committee has so expressed themselves to me, the negotiating committee, that we should try to get together before the deadline of July 1.

We recognize that it is an election year, and we want to give you all the time that we possibly can, so I would have no objections to that feature, that specific feature, at all.

Senator HATHAWAY. Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Dennis.
Thank you, we appreciate your testimony.

Our next witness is William W. Winpisinger, general vice president, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER, GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS, ACCOMPANIED BY PLATO E. PAPPS, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE IAM

Senator HATHAWAY. Mr. Winpisinger, we are happy to have you with us. Would you identify the person with you?

Mr. WINPISINGER. Thank you, Senator.

It is a pleasure to be here, and may I congratulate you on handling that name so well. It isn't often it is done.

With me is Mr. Plato E. Papps, who is general counsel of the IAM, which I represent.

Senator HATHAWAY. We will at this point, without objection, make your entire statement a part of the record, and it will be inserted at the conclusion of your testimony.

Mr. WINPISINGER. Yes, sir.

I would prefer to do exactly that.

It might fairly be asked, when the statement is read, why it appears to be, at least, in part, tangential to the announced objectives of the committee as stated by the chairman at the beginning of these sessions.

That is done simply because at a time past, when it was my direct responsibility to deal on behalf of our union in this arena, in the entire labor picture, and because I have had substantial experience as a trustee of other pension funds within the purview of the IAM's activities, and this goes back some 4 or 5 years ago, it was apparent to me that the Railroad Retirement System was on a crash course with destiny, in terms of being unable to support the benefit levels based upon existing contribution levels.

When I began to first state what I thought to be that fact in various forums of rail labor, it was laughed at, booed, and a number of other things, predictably, I might say.

Sometime later, the disagreement on 13300, the prior bill that was before this committee in this particular arena, was spawned in part