360, 91st Congress, and a renewed appropriation was received under Senate Resolution 35, section 4, 92d Congress.

Eleven days of public hearings into the election were held in February, March, May, June, and September of 1970. Those hearings developed substantial evidence relating to violations of the election protections of the LMRDA, the misuse of the pension fund for campaign purposes, the use of large sums to purchase or influence votes, and situations of violence during that election. The Department of Labor's role in handling this extraordinary case was scrutinized during these hearings and at other times before the committee.

On October 7, 1970, I released a study by the Comptroller General, initiated at my request, indicating that as a result of the substantial pension increase in June of 1969 which we have related to the election matter, the UMW welfare and retirement fund is on the verge of bankruptcy.

In a series of hearings conducted in July and August of 1970, substantial questions were raised concerning the operation of the welfare and retirement fund. Coupled with the evidence presented in the March 1970 hearings concerning the pension increase during the course of the election, substantial concern was raised about the future of the welfare and retirement fund. A lawsuit brought by private parties against the welfare and retirement fund resolved some of these issues against the union and pension fund. Principally, Tony Boyle and Josephine Roche were ordered replaced as trustees of the fund and the fund was required to sever its financial relationship with the union owned National Bank of Washington.

Many of the alleged violations of law that have been brought to the attention of the committee are now before the courts. The election case brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Landrum-Griffin Act to set aside the 1969 election is set for trial in September. A preliminary injunction was granted to the Government in the part of the case which seeks to compel the UMW to improve their recordkeeping operation. In addition, the lawsuit brought some 7 years ago by the Department of Justice challenging the trusteeship and organizational arrangement of the UMW is due to begin trial on July 15.

The Yablonski murder case is of course being prosecuted on both the State level by the State of Pennsylvania and to the extent that it involved a violation of the Landrum-Griffin Act, by the Federal prosecution authorities. One of those charged, Claude Vealy, recently entered a plea of guilty.

The principal focus of subcommittee investigative activity since approximately December 1970 has been into the possible misuse of union funds directly or indirectly to finance the 1969 election. Our investigation uncovered evidence of a pattern and practice of campaign financing which suggests that the quarter million dollar campaign was financed directly and through indirect channels out of the UMWA treasury in violation of the criminal provisions of the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act.

The scheme shows that large contributions to local and national Boyle/Titler/Owens committees were obtained under a quota system from officials subject to appointment by Mr. Boyle. The evidence indicates that such quota contributions were not made voluntarily, but under orders from those with the power to hire and discharge the officials.

In addition to the evidence obtained on the misuse of funds, the subcommittee's investigation uncovered evidence which suggests that numerous individuals have engaged in one or more instances of making false statements, committing perjury, engaging in activities to obstruct justice, and committing income tax evasion. Also, on May 26 the Senate agreed to S. Res. 128 authorizing the committee to make available to the Departments of Justice and Labor the evidence accumulated. This was done and at the June 29 executive session, the subcommittee agreed to refer this part of our investigation to the Attorney General for consideration of criminal proceedings.

Several other matters were previously referred to the executive branch for consideration of criminal proceedings. One of these referrals, a matter relating to perjury before the committee is now being considered by a grand jury.

Besides the public hearings and the recently completed criminal investigation, we have been in rather frequent contact with the Departments of Labor and Justice in monitoring the progress of their investigations and other activities.

Most recently, as a result of my concern expressed to the Secretary of Labor regarding the 1970 election in District 5 of the Mineworkers, the Department of Labor has undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the recordkeeping and financial operations of that district.

Today and tomorrow we will be hearing from members of Miners for Democracy and their lawyers. In addition, tomorrow morning, Senator Griffin, author of the Landrum-Griffin Act, will be appearing before the subcommittee.

I have also invited President Boyle and Secretary of Labor Hodgson to testify. Because of the trusteeship suit scheduled to begin this week, they will be appearing at a later date, as will any other witnesses who should appropriately be heard.

Before we turn to our panel of witnesses, Senator Javits, our ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Labor has a statement he wishes to make.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, first let me say a word on the conduct of the Chair in this matter.

It has been very highly in the public interest, entirely objective, and very credible to the future of union democracy in the United States. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, may I say, that in addition to this entirely correct position of the Chair, which I have had the privilege of sustaining, we have some very serious questions of legislation to consider. For example, Mr. Chairman, we have to determine whether the Landrum-Griffin Act, which gives a remedy after the fact, is adequate, or whether the Secretary should be given the power to move before the election for certain kinds of relief, such as to stop false or misleading statements or other misrepresentations, somewhat of the same character that the SEC has got in respect to use of proxies.

We must also attend to the so-called exhaustion of remedies requirements under the law, and we must determine whether we should do anything about changing the rule of decision made by the Supreme Court in Schultz against the Steelworkers, in which the Court held that only charges made by the workers may be the subject of action by the Secretary of Labor to invalidate a union election, and not matters which he discovers in the course of his own investigation. This is a very difficult thing in any public interest field.

Also, Mr. Chairman, we have to determine whether the Department ought to have authority to enforce fiduciary standards, particularly those involving misuse of funds.

That comes under the Landrum-Griffin Act, that is now enforced, or required to be enforced, only by trade union members themselves, and this is a question of the inadequacy or adequacy of that remedy. Whatever we do will have to be done in the context of the trade union movement of the United States, which is rough and tumble in many cases, and yet in which a rough measure of democracy and lack of restraints may be better than undue restrainings, which will let the Government run the labor unions.

All of these things will be considered here, and, finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say, having worked closely with the Chair, and my brothers, Senator Randolph, Senator Schweiker, Senator Cooper, and others, I must say that my heart bleeds to think that men who have worked so hard and so dangerously, in addition to every other trouble, have been unable apparently in peace and harmony to choose their own leadership and feel secure in the consideration that their welfare will be in the best hands.

It makes things very sad, Mr. Chairman.

As an American, I must say, if we can do anything, at least to assure these men, who have worked so hard and so dangerously, some measure of justice and equity in their future, that will be a great thing to accomplish.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I join with the chairman of our subcommittee and the ranking Republican member, and also Senator Schweiker and others who I hope will have the opportunity of sharing the responsibility of listening to witnesses, and perhaps in colloquy and in discussion of matters of importance which have come before us.

I have no desire to make a statement, Mr. Chairman, except to say that I shall now, as in the past, and hopefully in the future, continue to give constructive attention to points of view which are presented, and to act under your leadership in connection with that which is necessary to improve the legislation, or whatever, under which men, not only work, but work within the unions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Schweiker?

Senator SCHWEIKER. I have no statement to make, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kenneth J. Yablonski will be our first witness. Mr. Yablonski, will you introduce the witnesses. We are very pleased to have this opportunity to hear you.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. YABLONSKI, ATTORNEY, ACCOMPANIED BY CLARICE R. FELDMAN, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING MINERS FOR DEMOCRACY; ALSO MIKE TRBOVICH, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN FOR MINERS FOR DEMOCRACY; LOUIS A. ANTAL AND NICK DEVINCE, MFD CANDIDATES IN THE 1970 DISTRICT 5, UMWA ELECTION

Mr. YABLONSKI. Senator, at this time we would like to be sworn. I think that has been the format which has been followed previously. The CHAIRMAN. We have not sworn in attorneys, but if you want to be included, fine.

Will you all please stand, and raise your right hand?

(Whereupon, all witnesses to testify in this morning's session were duly sworn.)

Mr. YABLONSKI. It is an honor and a privilege to appear before this subcommittee today.

I am Kenneth J. Yablonski and with me is Clarice R. Feldman. We are both practicing attorneys and we represent Miners for Democracy. With us are Mike Trbovich, national chairman of the Miners for Democracy, and Louis A. Antal and Nick DeVince, MFD candidates in the 1970 District 5, UMWA election.

After these men have described some of the things which occurred during that election, Mrs. Feldman and I will discuss with the subcommittee's indulgence the correspondence relating to this election between us and the Department of Labor. Two copies of this voluminous correspondence have been submitted to the subcommittee staff. Before these gentlemen begin, however, we would like to make a brief statement about the district 5 election. As active participants in the 1969 election, we thought we had witnessed the worst: the freewheeling spending of union money, threats, hundreds of violations of law were the cornerstones of the UMWA campaign that year.

Indifference, if not outright contempt for my father and his supporters, best characterizes the Department of Labor's 1969 perform

ance.

But we thought that surely after everything that had happened, things would be different in 1970. We thought the Department would reform after its practices and policies-which surely led to the death of my father, mother, and sister-had been subjected to public scrutiny. But we were wrong. In the district 5 election, the uninhibited performance of the union's officers and the continued "boys-will-be-boys" attitude by the decision-makers in the Department of Labor was at least as bad, if not worse, than they had been in 1969.

True, none of our candidates were murdered. But there were threats of murder. There was also more repression, misuse of funds, violations of Federal law and the union's constitution and all of the other characteristics of a UMWA election.

Throughout all of this, we advised the men to rely on the Federal Government. We do not believe that we can hope for perfect justice and we realize as lawyers that justice is slow.

But we thought we would get something of what was due us and in reasonable time.

And admittedly, unlike the United Mine Workers leadership, our leadership actively went out and kept the men on the job when they were just so outraged by what was happening, with the wildcat strikes and everything else, and men like Louis Antal and Nick De Vince personally went before the courts and assured the courts and the judges in western Penensylvania, that they would go to their men, and this was at some loss of respect with the men they represented, because the men were just that hot about this thing, but we told them don't worry, your vote is going to be counted, and the Department is finally going to do something.

So, we kept telling the men to stay on the job, to depend on the Department of Labor.

We said that we would win, that the law was slow but we were right and therefore we would win.

We would be hypocrites to say that today. And we will never say that to these men again. With respect to the Department of Labor, and LMRDA, there is no law enforcement, and, therefore, there can be no orderly resolution of legitimate claims.

The implications of this to all of us are horrible, and we can only earnestly beg this subcommittee to do its job firmly and fairly so that the law will be enforced.

Until there is justice in the coalfields, we do not think there will be peace or order.

These facts must be remembered about this election. MFD had the support of a majority of the members, particularly the working members of district 5.

The incumbent officers manipulated the results of that election so that they could claim themselves reelected. The Department of Labor has investigated the election, found many of our allegations warrant setting aside the election and was prepared to set aside the election, but at the 11th hour its representatives secretly entered into a waiver arrangement of problematic validity with the general counsel of the UMWA International, thereby:

(1) Assuring that the incumbent officers would hold their jobs for a longer period of time than they are entitled to;

(2) Delaying the prosecution of the election case:

(3) Jeopardizing seriously the rights of the MFD candidates to ever hold office; and

(4) Allowing two district officers, both convicted in Federal court of LMRDA violations conspiring to file false financial vouchers to continue to control the finances and power of district 5.

When Messrs. Trbovich, Antal, and DeVince have completed their testimony, Mrs. Feldman and I will discuss how the Labor Department resolved the critical issues relating to this election, and why we believe reform of departmental procedures and policies is more vitally needed than ever.

We wish to follow this format so that the chronology of events will be more clear and the record easier to follow.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed then, Mr. Yablonski, with the first witness.

Senator RANDOLPH. I would like to clarify, if I may, Mr. Chairman, may I do so?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Please proceed.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Yablonski, you mentioned the wildcat strike. Are you referring to the one just a few days ago?

Mr. YABLONSKI. No; I am not, Senator.

I am referring to the work stoppages that took place immediately after this election was stolen from our candidates in election 5. Senator RANDOLPH. I just wanted to clarify it.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Trbovich.

STATEMENT OF MIKE TRBOVICH, VICE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 6330 AND CHAIRMAN OF THE MINERS FOR DEMOCRACY

Mr. TRBOVICH. My name is Mike Trbovich. I am a working coal miner employed by the Gateway Coal Co. in Clarksville, Pa.