On May 1, 1963 election at Tri-County did take place! IBEW was voted for by the employees. On May 2 the election at the Randolph Electric produced the same results. On May 10, 1963 Randolph EMC notified our Local Union 485 by letter they were refusing to meet with the Union. An identical letter, dated May 20, 1963, was received from the Tri-County EMC.

The I.B.E.W. then filed unfair charges with the Regional office of N.L.R.B. on refusal to bargain. On July 19, 1963 the Board notified our Local 485 that the two cases had been transferred to the National office. On November 21, 1963 Randolph Electric was found guilty of refusing to bargain and was ordered to cease and desist. Again, requests were made upon Randolph Electric to bargain-and in a letter of December 10, 1963 the Coop refused to meet with the Union representative.

Except for the dates, Tri-County took exactly the same position. The Board found in our favor and issued the cease and desist order on January 6, 1964; we requested negotiations and Tri-County, by letter dated January 10, 1964, refused to negotiate.

On February 24, 1964 the I.B.E.W. learned from the National Labor Relations Board that papers were being drafted to carry the N.L.R.B. case against these two cooperatives to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The above cases, do not by any means, cover all the grievances or complaints. There are numerous other areas wherein the anti-union attitude and actions of the Cooperative manager or the Cooperative's legal counsel have served to frustrate, delay, and in some cases, outright deny the Cooperative employees of the rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Certainly the provisions of the R.E.A. Bulletin 109-2 have been ignored by the above borrowers.

JOHN BRACKIN,
Washington, D.C.:

MIAMI, FLA.

It would be appreciated if you would represent me at the hearing to be held on House Bill 1400 on April 4, 1967, on behalf of the Utility Workers of Florida Power and Light property we oppose this bill very strongly and see no necessity for its passage. Sorry I could not appear in person, best regards.

TOMMY FORTNER, Business Manager, System Council.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. Chairman, does the other gentleman have a statement that he wishes to make?

The CHAIRMAN. I understood that Mr. Lantau desired to file his statement.

Mr. LANTAU. I thought I was going to get a chance to read it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lantau, I notice from the witness list, is with Mr. Brackin.

You have about 30 seconds of time left. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF EARL R. LANTAU, BUSINESS MANAGER, LOCAL UNION NO. 109, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ELDRIDGE, IOWA

Mr. LANTAU. I am Earl R. Lantau, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, of 114 North Fourth Street, Eldridge, Iowa.

I am employed by Local Union No. 109, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers as their business manager.

We have a membership of 650, all but five of whom are employed by Iowa Illinois Gas & Electric Co., of 206 East Second Street, Davenport, Iowa, in its Illinois-Davenport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Fort Dodge and Ottumwa Districts.

My job as business manager of Local Union No. 109, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, is to see that my members continue

to be employed by their present employer under the best possible wages and working conditions. This we have had during the last 23 years. With the introduction of H.R. 1400 our present way of life is in jeopardy.

We have no objections to the rural electric cooperatives as they now exist except for the 2-percent money. Now, we see introduced a bill to give these cooperatives more of our tax money in addition to the 2-percent money.

I believe that by creating this Federal electric bank, rural electric cooperatives and Government power projects would be given funds to extend or expand their services into areas where private utilities are now functioning or would expand their services.

I believe that this proposed legislation is bad legislation and that, instead, legislation should be proposed which would make all of the cooperatives stand on their own two feet and get off the backs of

the taxpayers; that is, get their money on the open market and also to pay taxes like private utility companies do.

The REA Act was passed for the good purpose of helping to get the farms electric power more quickly. Now, that job is largely doneover 98 percent of all farms are electrified. Why shouldn't they finance their growing requirements from private money sources like the other utilities do? This would avoid additional Government spending which would seem logical when money is hard to get. Every dollar spent by Government for Government power makes some increase in our taxes. In conclusion, the 1284 employees of Iowa Illinois Gas & Electric Co., both union and nonunion, paid $1,448,046.13 in Federal income taxes during 1966. I know that our union members and I feel sure the nonunion employees do not want any of their money to be used to foster a Government agency that could result in the loss of their jobs with Iowa Illinois Gas & Electric Co.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this to you today.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantau.

Now, we will hear from Mr. Ralph Hedquist of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Salt Lake City, Utah.
We will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF R. A. HEDQUIST, BUSINESS MANAGER, LOCAL UNION 57, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Mr. HEDQUIST. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am R. A. Hedquist. I am business manager of Local Union 57, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representing approximately 1,800 taxpaying union members in the States of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers historically have been found in the ranks of the top supporters of the legitimate functions of the REA and the IBEW has long recognized that the Federal Government has a proper place in developing power resources when private companies are either unable or unwilling to do the job. Furthermore, we believe that the REA should be encouraged and assisted by the taxpayers in performing the legitimate purpose for which it was formed, that of providing low

cost electric services to the rural areas which could not otherwise be served with electric service because of excessive costs associated with sparse population.

We believe, however, that the rural electrification program is continuing to expand with assistance of low-cost financing, subsidized by the taxpayer, and now seeks to go far beyond the purpose for which it was created. Taxpayers' money is being loaned through the REA to groups of individuals to build generating plants, transmission lines and substation facilities to integrate REA systems, municipal systems and other publicly owned facilities and now seek to invade the areas which have been traditionally served by investor-owned utilities and industrial customers who are now being adequately served are being solicited with the lure of low-cost federally subsidized power.

Members of the IBEW have time and time again stated that the basis of our opposition to the extension of REA's rests on the negative attitude of these co-ops and of municipally owned electric facilities. with regards to the need for employees to be represented by labor unions and the right to enter into meaningful collective bargaining.

We appeared before this committee on June 3, 1966, in opposition to the establishment of a Federal bank for rural electric systems, and we again voice our opposition to the passage of H.R. 1400, because we believe the establishment of a Federal bank as proposed in the bills. now before the committee would create an unfair competitive situation which would eventually bring about the elimination of the investorowned utilities and would jeopardize the working conditions and employment opportunities of thousands of members of the IBEW who now enjoy a measure of freedom and security under contracts negotiated through free collective bargaining through the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

We believe that REA should be required to justify its additional needs for public moneys in the time-honored way of presenting its case upon each occasion to the Congress giving all who desire the opportunity to object in the democratic manner.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, to representing the group that I mentioned, I have authorizations to speak and represent the membership of local 1116 in Arizona, local 925 in Colorado, local 111 and local 1436 and the Utilities Council 17 in the State of Colorado.

And I have authorization to speak for local 47 in the State of California, and I would like to read this letter, if I may. It is a short letter addressed to me:

The members of Local 47 hereby authorize you to speak for us in opposition to H.R. 1400, the REA bank bill. There is no way to justify the passage of this measure on the basis of need. The rural electrification needs of our country are being adequately met and all future needs can be met by the electric power industry. An REA bank bill would mean a further extension of unfair competition against the investor-owned utility. It would mean to the taxpayers an unjust burden with benefits for a few people. We believe that the REA bank bill is unsound and unnecessary and should not be passed. However, the objections of the 4,600 members of Local 47 go beyond the fact that the REA bill is unnecessary and unfair to investor-owned utilities. Our members work for investor-owned utilities who respect their rights in collective bargaining and in signed agreements, and as a result our members enjoy good wages, working conditions and fringe benefits. The extension of the REA program represents a threat to the conditions now enjoyed by the thousands of our members employed in the electric

utilities industry. With the present attitude of the REA's towards the right of collective bargaining and the establishment of just contracts, we, as union members, must oppose H.R. 1400.

In addition, I have a telegram which I received last evening at my hotel, and I ask permission to read it.

It is addressed to me:

DEAR RALPH Request you speak for Local Union 44, IBEW, Butte, Mont., in opposition to H.R. 1400. Have telegram be made part of record. I request permission to file a statement with the Committee.

And that is signed Francis A. Crowley, business manager, Local 44, IBEW.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement will be made a part of the record. Thank you, Mr. Hedquist.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS A. CROWLEY, BUSINESS MANAGER, LOCAL No. 44, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, BUTTE, MONT.

My name is Francis A. Crowley. I have been a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for 14 years. I have served as Vice President, Recording Secretary and Business Manager of Local No. 65, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Since November 1959, I have been a member of Local No. 44, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and I have served that organization as Vice President and as President. I am now Business Manager and Financial Secretary of Local No. 44.

Local No. 44 now has more than 400 members who are employed by electric utilities in a 90,000 square mile area in Montana.

I am submitting this statement in opposition to H.R. 1400 because I cannot support further the expansion of rural electric co-operatives, many of which have denied free collective bargaining in their own operations and frequently have let construction contracts for the extension of transmission and distribution lines and other facilities to nonunion contractors who employ nonunion workers at substandard wages and working conditions.

In the area of Montana in which Local No. 44, I.B.E.W., has bargaining contracts, the principal electric utility is the Montana Power Company. The I.B.E.W. has had contracts with The Montana Power Company for more than 50 years. Our collective bargaining agreements with the Company have been advantageous to our members in terms of better wages, good working conditions and other unoin goals. Frequently, too, these contracts with The Montana Power Company have been used as guidelines in negotiating agreements with other employers, including agencies of the Federal Government.

In addition, The Montana Power Company, whenever it has entered into contracts with electrical contractors, has consistently insisted that such contractors employ workers who are members of organized labor, thus strengthening labor's organization and improving the quality of the work performed under such contracts.

In contrast to this record of forward-looking bargaining with an investorowned utility, our experience with subsidized, rural electric co-operatives, frequently has been unsatisfactory. We have been confronted with substandard rates of pay, undesirable working conditions, refusal to adopt union security clauses and refusal to deal with union electrical contractors.

In Montana, there are now 24 operating rural electric co-operatives, but bargaining agreements with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers exist with only 12 of such co-operatives. Additionally, some of these co-operatives still let their contracts for electrical construction to nonunion contractors.

These nonunion contractors employ nonunion workers, frequently importing them from other states. These workers are paid substandard wages and do substandard work which is costly in the long run and may be dangerous to the public and to other workers. Safety inspections are not required by such nonunion contractors and hazardous conditions go unnoticed.

As you might expect, we follow the reports of loan authorizations made by the Rural Electrification Administration very closely. We find that, when work

is started, to complete the authorized line extension or other improvements, the result usually is that a nonunion contractor has been awarded the contract. This simply means that the Federal Government, through the Rural Electrification Administration, has subsidized nonunion employers to the detriment of organized labor.

The problems we face in our efforts to negotiate satisfactory bargaining agreements with rural electric co-operatives can be illustrated by reference to the experience of Local No. 44 with the Marias River Electric Co-operative with headquarters at Shelby, Montana.

In elections ordered by the National Labor Relations Board, Local No. 44, I.B.E.W., was successful in organizing the workers employed by the Co-operative. However, we have not been able to negotiate a contract with the Co-operative primarily because its officers have resisted the inclusion of a union security clause in the proposed contract.

Thus, winning an N.L.R.B. election is not necessarily a victory for organized labor when tax-exempt, heavily-subsidized rural electric co-operatives are involved.

It is not necessary for me to recount the tremendous sums of money which would be available to the rural electric co-operatives in this country under the provisions of H.R. 1400. We believe that there is adequate monies available for the necessary functions and growth of rural electric co-operatives under existing laws and congressional appropriation. The passage of either of these bills would permit a vast expansion in the activities of the rural electric co-operatives whether such expansion would be in generation and transmission facilities, in distribution facilities or in other system additions. It is certain that the proposed legislation would be detrimental to the investor-owned utilities. For the reasons enumerated above, passage of such legislation also will be detrimental to organized labor.

I believe that H.R. 1400, or any other legislation which would expand the functions to REA beyond that contemplated in the original Act, would not be in the best interests of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

I appreciate the opportunity of presenting this statement for the consideration of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. John Doermer, of the United Association of Office, Sales, and Technical Employees, Wisconsin Electric Power Co., Milwaukee, Wis.

Is Mr. Doermer present?

I do not believe he is.

Is Mr. Doermer in the room and wants to be heard?

If not, Congressman Gray has asked to be heard this morning. He has not come in yet.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask permission for Mr. Doermer to file a statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, he may have that permission. It may be done.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Doermer follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN DOERMER, JR., PRESIDENT, LOCAL No. 2, UNITED ASSOCIATION

OF OFFICE, SALES, AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES

The twelve hundred men and women I represent as president of Local 2, United Association of Office, Sales and Technical Employees, of the Wisconsin Electric Power Company are greatly alarmed to hear that bill H.R. 1400-which was so rightfully put to rest by the Congress last year-is back on the agenda of your Committee on Agriculture. Much time (and taxpayers money) was consumed last year hearing testimony from those in favor, and those opposed. A decision was reached, and the bill tabled.

It is difficult for us to understand why an attempt is again being made to instill life into a dead issue. This bill is just as repulsive to taxpayers today as it was last year. Nothing has changed since your committee last met-except possibly there are fewer farmers living in rural areas.

78-690-67-29