Senator EAGLETON. Let me ask your counsel-I am reading from Mr. Chalk's letter to Mr. George Apperson dated April 9, 1968, the last paragraph, which reads:

I am, therefore, hereby officially requesting an immediate renegotiation of the wage and benefit provisions of our collective bargaining agreement, so that we may be able to stay in business and our employees may continue to work.

What does that word "benefit provisions" infer? Can that not be deemed broad enough to include health and welfare payment?

Mr. STERNSTEIN. I believe the correct answer to that is "yes," it could be considered broad enough. As a matter of fact, the agreement between D.C. Transit and Local Division 689 consists of three portions as printed in the contract booklet. The health and welfare and pension provisions are appendices A and B, respectively, but the basic document relates not only to wages but as well to working conditions, including vacations, sick leave, holidays, all of which would also be benefits.

However, the direct answer to your question is benefits broad enough, certainly, to include health and welfare.

Senator EAGLETON. In followup conversations, he had with Mr. Apperson or yourself or others, did he verbally state that part of the benefits and things that he wished to renegotiate would be health, welfare, and pensions?

Mr. APPERSON. No, he did not. Never did he say that.

Senator EAGLETON. What is the status, to date, insofar as the union is concerned with respect to these health and welfare funds? A lawsuit has been filed?

Mr. APPERSON. Yes. Exhibit No. 2 shows you the exact position of the health, welfare, and trust fund at the present time.

Senator EAGLETON. When was the last meeting between yourself and Mr. Chalk or his agents in terms of this matter?

Mr. APPERSON. In terms of this matter?

Senator EAGLETON. The health, welfare, and pension fund payments. Mr. APPERSON. February 1969, I would say, is the last time we met with Mr. Chalk discussing this matter.

Senator EAGLETON. You heard Mr. Chalk's testimony, to use his words, that it was probable. First he said "possible," and then he said "indeed probable," that within the next 90 to 120 days he could dispose of some properties of sufficient value to pay up the delinquent amounts owed by him to the fund, totaling some $1.7 million or thereabouts. Mr. APPERSON. Yes.

Senator EAGLETON. Will that remove the threat of a strike if that is done and accomplished?

Mr. APPERSON. I think if he does this, yes. I would say, yes. Senator EAGLETON. What is the union's view on allowing a public representative to sit on the October contract talks as provided in S. 1814, the public ownership bill?

Mr. APPERSON. We have never had it happen before, Senator, but we are perfectly willing. We don't seem to find any great problems with it, at least from where I sit right now, as far as some distinterested public person, sitting in on our negotiations.

Senator EAGLETON. Have you set a firm date as to the next meeting of your union membership on the question of health and welfare funds?

Mr. APPERSON. No, sir. There is not a firm date. We have up to 120 days, at which time we will go back to the membership and report back to them. There is no firm date.

Senator EAGLETON. When is the 120 days up?

Mr. APPERSON. Within that period of time, I would say, it would be about August 1.

Senator EAGLETON. That is all I have, Mr. Apperson. Thank you for being here.

We will recess, then, until 2:15, to hear about six witnesses in this afternoon's session.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:15 p.m., the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2:20 p.m., Senator Thomas F. Eagleton, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.)

Senator EAGLETON. The subcommittee will be in order. We will commence with our afternoon set of witnesses.

We have Mr. James A. Mollison, a director of the Washington Board of Trade as our first afternoon witness.

Mr. Mollison.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. MOLLISON, A DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. MOLLISON. Thank you, very much.

My name is James A. Mollison, a director of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade and chairman of its Task Force on Mass Transit Bus Service. I appreciate this opportunity to present our views concerning bus service in the National Capital Area, a situation which causes us grave concern.

Our task force met with officials of various agencies concerned with the current crisis in bus transportation and we have studied the record of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission concerning problems confronting D.C. Transit, Inc. Subsequently, our board of directors has reviewed this matter and concluded that rising costs. have reached the point where D.C. Transit can no longer pay for its operations, much less make a profit. Therefore, a basic change in financing bus operations is essential to the continuing operation of bus service.

D.C. Transit management has testified before the House District Committee that financial relief is imperative and it has endorsed the subsidy concept. S. 1813 proposes such a subsidy based upon a 25cent fare. The Board of Trade opposes rolling back the fare. We think the present 30-cent fare is justified in the Washington economy. If subsidy is provided, it should be as small as circumstances demand. WMATC has projected a subsidy of $1,157,102 at the 30-cent fare, and $5,956,332 at the 25-cent fare for the year ending June 30, 1970.

In todays economy, a 5-cent fare differential does not impact heavily on the rider, but the District budget would be increased by nearly $6 million. We do not think the nickel differential is a large enough direct savings to riders of buses to justify asking the community to accept this additional tax burden.

In event, under this bill the whole matter would again come before the Congress for the same reappraisal this committee is now conducting. This bill appears to be a temporary, stopgap measure which would defer the problem to a later date. We are hopeful a solution can be reached now which will provide a satisfactory long term answer.

Therefore, we support S. 1814 which would require the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to initiate negotiations with

D.C. Transit, Inc., for the purpose of acquiring its assets, thereby putting our major bus service and the rail rapid transit system under a single ownership. We support the provision for a temporary subsidy if it is necessary to insure continuity of bus service while negotiations are being conducted and compact amendments are agreed upon.

Long term financial stability should result from a common-fare structure and cost relationship under WMATA and the metropolitan financial base provided by the Transit Authority's compact. Compatability and service by bus and rail rapid transit should be maximized under single ownership especially since a prime function of bus operations will be to serve the rail rapid transit.

We believe S. 1814 provides an equitable approach to resolving the current fiscal crisis and putting the community's mass transit services on a sound basis for the years ahead.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our view on this highly important matter affecting mass transportation in Metropolitan Washington.

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Mollison, have you given any thought, in terms of S. 1814, to what should be done if private negotiations between the two parties break down in the sense that an agreement cannot be achieved?

What should be the ultimate resolution of the dispute condemnation?

Mr. MOLLISON. I think condemnation is the only thing we can lean to on that, because after all, in condemnation, the interests of the seller as well as the buyer are protected.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your appearing.

Mr. MOLLISON. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Bruce Terris, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE TERRIS, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY LANDON DOWDEY, COUNSEL

Mr. TERRIS. The gentleman at my side is Landon Dowdey, who has been counsel in these struggles for sometime.

This hearing is one more step, though we hope the last one, in the long and almost continuous struggle against exploitation of the public by O. Roy Chalk. A half dozen years ago, we, Congress and other community groups were silent, our predecessors on the Central Committee began a series of suits challenging the fares and profits of D.C. Transit. The Central Committee has since that time won several court decisions which have saved the public millions of dollars.

Now, we hope that this committee will report a bill which will deny D.C. Transit an opportunity to exploit the public in the future and guarantee reasonable fares to the public.

First, the Democratic Central Committee supports a subsidy. It is clear that operating costs will continue to rise. The poor cannot afford to pay spiraling bus fares to move from one place to another. Higher fares will mean that more affluent riders will increasingly drive their cars which will result both in increased demands for freeways and