———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

• 
 
• [ Selected Records of the Wage Hour Division ]
 
• 
 
• 
 
• [ The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ]
 
• 
 
• 
 
• [ Introduction and Approval of the FLSA ]
 
• 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Testimony in the Congressional Record - House of Representatives

Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the Second Session of the Seventy-Fifth Congress of the United States of America, Volume 82 - Part 2, December 8, 1937, to December 21, 1937. (Pages 1057 to 2052)

======================================================================

Page 1385        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 13, 1937        (82 Cong. Rec. 1385, 1937)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

THE HOUR AND WAGE BILL

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXVII of the House I call up the petition to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 312.

The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from New Jersey calls up a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of the resolution which the Clerk will report by title.

The Clerk read as follows:

House Resolution 312

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of S. 2475, an act to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Labor, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. DillS. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, as I understand, 20 minutes is to be allowed to a discussion of whether or not the Ru1es Committee will be discharged, 10 minutes to the proponents and 10 minutes to the opponents. As a member of the committee, I ask for recognition and for the 10 minutes in opposition to the discharge of the committee.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, in connection with the parliamentary inquiry, may I say that heretofore on all motions to discharge the Rules Committee the chairman of the Rules Commitee has been recognized for the 10 minutes in opposition to the motion, and that irrespective of whether he personally was opposed to the motion.

I appreciate the exact language of the rule, but I recall the precedents of the bonus bills on several occasions, the Frazier-Lemke bill, and the antilynching bill. Of course, if the Speaker is going to rule that under a strict compliance with the discharge rule that anybody recognized for the second 10 minutes must be opposed to the motion to discharge, I may say to my colleague from Texas on the Rules Committee that, as he well knows, I have always been in favor of the wage and hour bill. I have made speeches in favor of such a bill on the fioor of this House, in the Democratic caucus, and publicly.

Mr. Speaker, now that a majority of my party, 196 Democrats, have clearly evidenced an intention to consider this matter, I purpose to go along with a majority of my own party. I have often said on this floor and in the Democratic caucus that whenever a majority of my party favored legislation I would follow the majority rule, which is the keystone of democracy. Consistent with that invariable attitude, I therefore cannot qualify strictly against the motion to discharge. A number of my colleagues on the Rules Committee take the same position. This being the case, if the Speaker should now rule that I must first qualify as being opposed to the motion to discharge, I cannot qualifY, because I propose to vote for the motion to discharge. [Applause.]

In this way the important proposal of a wage and hour bill can be brought before the House for a thorough consideration. The platform of the Democratic Party adopted at Philadelphia last summer pledged us to take care of the situation as to minimum wages and maximum hours. I ran on that platform and propose to abide by it.

The leader of our Democratic Party, the President of the United States, twice in messages to us, in May and November of this year, requested us to fulfill that party pledge. I propose to follow his leadership.

The SPEAKER. In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Dn:sJ, a member of the Rules Committee, the Chair thinks it proper to read the rule in connection with this matter of the control of time so there may be no confusion about the interpretation of the rule:

When any motion under this rule shall be called up, the b111 or resolution shall be read by title only. After 20 minutes' debate, one-half in favor of the proposition and one-half in opposition thereto, the House shall proceed to vote on the motion to discharge.

The Chair recalls that on some former occasions the Chairman of the Rules Committee has been recognized in opposition to the motion; but in view of the fact that the gentleman from Texas has asked an interpretation of the rule and proposes himself to qualify in opposition to the rule, and in view of the statement of the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR], the chairman of the Rules Committee, that he cannot qualify in opposition, the Chair feels impelled to rule that if someone desires to be recognized who qualifies in opposition to the rule, he should be recognized under the provisions of the rule.

Mr. SABATH. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, there are four or five other gentlemen who are members of the Rules Committee who have been, and I presume still are, opposed to the discharge of the Rules Committee. Would it be fair to them that the time should be allocated to one of the members alone if the others are also desirous of being heard? I think such a course would be manifestly unfair—not that I am opposed to the bill, because I favor the discharge of the committee and am for the bill and for the motion.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is of the opinion, in reply to the question of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SABATH] that there is considerable analogy involved in this proposition to that where the question of recognition for a motion

[PAGE 1385

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1386]

to recommit a bill is concerned. When that occasion arises, under the rules, the Chair first asks if the ranking minority Member in opposition to the bill desires to make a motion to recommit, and if he does not, the practice has been that the Chair should go down the list of Members of the committee in the order of priority; and if the gentleman from Illinois insists that this course should be followed in this instance, I think it proper for the Chair to pursue such a course because that has been the practice heretofore.

Mr. SABATH. I believe in fairness to the other Members here, that rule should be followed.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] for 10 minutes in favor of the resolution.

The Chair will ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR], chairman of the Rules Committee, if he is opposed to the motion to discharge the Committee.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am not. I am in favor of the motion to discharge, and I am in favor of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The ChaJr will ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SABATH] if he is opposed to the motion.

Mr. SABATH. I am in favor of the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GREENWOOD].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox].

Mr. COX. I am opposed to the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman desire to qualify in opposition to the motion to control the time?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Under the procedure on a motion to recommit, for instance, to which the Chair has called attention, the first opportunity is usually accorded to the minority side of the House, the Republican side. That is the normal rule as to the division of debate. Why should it not apply in this instance? The distinguished lady from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON], chairman of the Committee on Labor, has arisen in support of the motion. Why should not a Member of the Republican minority have preference in opposition to the motion?

The SPEAKER. This proposition is different from that because it is proposed to discharge a committee controlled by the majority.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I find no warrant for that conclusion. No committee is controlled except by a majority vote of the individual members, irrespective of party. There are four members of the Republican minority of the House on the Rules Committee. If at any time two or three of those Republican members of the Rules Committee had voted with the Democratic members who were in favor of a rule for the consideration of the wage and hour bill, no petition to discharge would have even been necessary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if any of the members of the Rules Committee are going to be interrogated, I insist that the four Republican members of the Rules Committee be interrogated as to how they stand on this motion to discharge. So far they have clearly indicated they are against any wage and hour bill.

Mr. SNELL rose. The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that it is not in order for the Speaker to interrogate the members of the Committee on Rules as to bow they stand on this proposition. It has been the custom in the House that if anyone is opposed to a proposition and demands the time and rises and asks for the time, that then is when the Speaker may interrogate that Member as to how he stands upon the question before the House, and not interrogate Members who have not made such a demand for time.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. SNELL. I expected the Chair would, but I made the same in all seriousness.

The SPEAKER. Does any member of the Committee on Rules desire to qualify in opposition to the motion?

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I qualify.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia desires to qualify in opposition to the motion, and the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Georgia to control the time in opposition to the motion. The gentlewoman from New Jersey is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on May 24, 1937, the President sent a message to Congress requesting legislation to protect that large group of our citizens, estimated at about 12,000,000, who are working under substandard labor conditions. As a result of that message, a bill was introduced H. R. 7200—upon which joint hearings were held with the Senate. Following the hearings this bill was considered by the Committee on Labor, but before any definite action was taken the Senate passed its own bill—S. 2475—which was referred to the House committee. In order to expedite the passage of the bill, the House committee considered S. 2475, amended it, and reported it favorably to the House on August 6, 1937. Eighteen members of the committee voted in the affirmative, two in the negative, and one man was absent because of illness, but he otherwise would have voted in the affirmative, making the committee vote almost unanimous. The bill was reported to the House on August 6, 1937. The Rules Committee having refused to report the bill for reasons very difficult to understand, the House was denied the right to debate the bill. We contend that it is the business of the House to debate this bill, particularly since it was reported almost unanimously from the Labor Committee. Because that right was denied, a petition was placed upon the Speaker's desk on November 16, to which 218 names have been affixed. Seven days having elapsed since that time, and the petition having been completed, your committee asks the House for full consideration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, very seldom, and I think since I came to Congress only once, has the Rules Committee been as arbitrary in the consideration of a bill as it has in this case. We all understand there are differences of opinion concerning the bill. Members have a perfect right to their opinion, each and every Member of this House has a perfect right to his opinion, but I do say that no committee in the House should dare to deny to the Members of the House the right to consider any legislation that has been passed out by a committee of the House. [Applause.] That is the question upon which you must decide this morning. If you start a precedent here in this House by which the Rules Committee can deny a committee of the House the right to present a bill and debate it before the House, then I say to you there is only one committee necessary in the House and that is the Rules Committee. Are you going to permit the Rules Committee to do this to the Members of the House? If I know anything about the membership of this Houseand I appeal to both sides of the House—if I know anything about you gentlemen—of course I am sure of the ladies—I say to you that you certainly will vote to give your committee the confidence that it deserves to have, and permit this bill to come up for consideration.

There are many things that I would like to say concerning the bill, which will be said later on, but one thing I say is this: If this morning you deny consideration of the bill that has been reported out by your committee, you will live to rue the day that you took that position. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMsPECK], but in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition should use some of its time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, have the proponents of the measure the right to divide up the time—in other words, reserving

[PAGE 1386]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1387]

to themselves the conclusion of the argument on the question?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia can yield a part of his time of 10 minutes if he so desires. The Chair is of opinion that under frequent decisions of the House the gentlewoman from New Jersey is entitled to the opening and closing of the debate.

Mr. COX. The opening and closing?

The SPEAKER. Yes.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES] the full 10 minutes.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. SABATH. Is not the minority that is opposed to this resolution entitled to part of this time?

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Speaker, the regular order.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from lllinois submit a point of order?

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, I do, but I desire to correct my inquiry. When I say "Republicans" I mean some of the Republicans. I do not mean all of the Republicans.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state in reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SABATHJ that the Chair has already announced the provision of the rule. The gentlewoman from New Jersey controls 10 minutes. The gentleman from Georgia has qualified in opposition to the resolution, and controls 10 minutes. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES] has been recognized for 10 minutes. [Applause.]

Mr. DIES. Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the gentlewoman from New Jersey when she says that this is a Democratic measure. If the gentlewoman will take the time to read the Democratic platform, which may not mean anything to some Members, but which should mean a great deal to the Democratic Party, she will find that that platform plainly and specifically calls for a wage and hour bill, providing for both State and Federal action; a bill that clearly contemplates joint cooperation on the part of the State and the Federal Government. That is the pledge upon which we went to the country. That is the wage and hour plank that was endorsed by the American people.

But that is not the kind of a bill that we are asked to consider. The House bill not only violates the Democratic platform, but it repudiates every pledge that the Democrats have made from the day that President Roosevelt was nominated in 1932 until the present time. We went around this country denouncing bureaucracy, and, using the stirring language of the President, we denounced government by supermen. In the language of our great leader, we said that no government could be administered wisely and properly when Congress delegates its constitutional functions to bureaucratic boards or to dictatorial administrators. I do not have the time to quote from some of the magnificent speeches made by our President in which he denounced government by bureaucracy, but I think the following quotation from his farm program enunciated on September 15, 1932, is a fair example of the attitude he assumed with respect to bureaucratic control. In speaking of the farm plan he said:

It must make use of its existing agencies, and so far as possible be decentralized in its administration, so that the chief responsibility for its operation will rest wtth the locality rather than with newly created bureaucratic machinery in Washington.

In this bill we propose to place in the hands of bureaucrats or an administrator, as the case may be, the right to differentiate and discriminate between the same industries in the same sections. The bill proposes to delegate to this "newly created bureaucratic machinery in Washington" the power of life and death over industry and labor. It must never be forgotten that the right to differentiate and discriminate is the right to destroy. If any Member has any doubt as to the effect of the exercise of such power by the board, he need only study the recent report on what the N. R. A. did with respect to minimum wages and maximum hours. He will find that an artificial line of demarcation was established throughout the Nation; that on one side of the line the wages were 15 percent less than on the other, and that in some towns an industry on one side of the street enjoyed a wage differential over an industry on the other side of the street. That was destructive to fair competition. To indulge the vain hope that "this newly created bureaucratic machinery" will prove an exception to the rule is to ignore the experiences of the past and the elementary lessons of history.

When the gentlewoman from New Jersey says that this is a Democratic measure, it should be pointed out that the action of her own committee repudiates that statement. She has now in her possession a new bill composed of 129 amendments which she intends to offer as a substitute for the pending measure. You will not be called upon to consider and pass the bill that 218 Members of this House signed a petition to discharge from the consideration of the Rules Committee. You will be asked to consider a bill radically different from the original bill in many material respects. Does not this action of the Labor Committee demonstrate that they lack the information to prepare a workable bill? If they had any definite ideas about the kind of bill which should be prepared, could they have sidetracked the original bill so completely and at the eleventh hour brought in a measure which no one has had an opportunity to study? When the committee itself lacks confidence in its own work, how can it inspire confidence in the country?

You have before you a bill that labor does not want. The American Federation of Labor is denouncing it from one part of the country to the other. You have a bill which business denounces as discriminatory and dangerous to economic stability. Many businessmen have said that if Congress is to pass the wage and hour bill, the wages and hours should be fixed, or that some definite formula should be agreed upon that will prevent discriminations and abuses. The present bill will give this "newly created bureaucratic machinery in Washington" the opportunity to discriminate in favor of one industry as against another and to literally destroy legitimate industry and labor. You are optimistically assured that the board will not do any such thing. How do you know that they will not? A bill is to be measured by the power that it gives, and wise legislators will always jealously guard the rights of the people.

You have a bill that every farm organization has denounced. The farmers have asked you why they are being denied the benefit of a living wage. By your vote last week you denied to them parity prices which meant a living wage. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this bill and its proposed substitute meets with the universal condemnation of every group in our economic and national life. [Applause.]

When the gentlewoman from New Jersey says that the Rules Committee has no precedent to hold up a bill that has been reported favorably by a standing committee, she evidently overlooks the Frazier-Lemke bill. The Committee on Agriculture reported it favorably and this House refused to consider that bill after 218 Members had signed a petition to discharge the committee.

As a matter of fact, we should not consider this illprepared and half-baked measure that is designed to humbug labor—this measure, which even the Labor Committee has repudiated by its action in agreeing to a substantjally different substitute.

A measure whose proponents say to the southern Members, "Oh, we are not going to hurt your southern industries; we have inserted in the bill many protecting differentials and provisos and generalities; we are going to protect you against any appreciable wage increase," and then say to the northern Members, "You should support this bill because it will stop the trend of industry from the North to the South." This bill is not for the benefit of labor but is a bill to humbug the laboring people until after the next election.

Not more than a handful of laboring people will be benefited by this bill. According to statistics recently released, not more than 500,000 laboring people will come under the provisions of the bill. You haye exempted all agricultural labor and you have exempted many industries engaged in interstate commerce from the operation of the bill. Of

[PAGE 1387]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1388]

course, the bill does not apply to those engaged in intrastate commerce. While few laboring people will be benefited, the bill will be used as a pretext by many business and industrial concerns to do what they did when we passed the N. R. A.— to increase the prices of all commodities to the American consumer.

Let me say this in conclusion, that you and I face a grave crisis in our economic life. Unemployment is increasing by leaps and bounds. Terror and fear have paralyzed the economic life of the Nation. Factories and plants are either closing down or greatly curtailing employment, with the result that millions of men may again walk the streets in search of jobs. We have undertaken by the expenditure of billions of dollars, that have been borrowed from future generations, to take up the slack. With what degree of success the present situation demonstrates.

It will be unwise to impose upon the country this hastily considered, poorly written, and unintelligible makeshift. Labor and industry have made it clear that they prefer a plain and understandable wage and hour law that will treat everyone alike and preclude bureaucratic arrogance and discriminations. I cannot believe that at this critical moment we are so lacking in judgment and wisdom as to impose upon the country a measure that violates everything that the Democratic Party has ever stood for, a measure that gives a lie to our campaign promises of 1932 and 1936. If the proponents of this measure are sincere in their professed zeal to carry out the Democratic platform, why did they not write a real wage and hour bill and not an absurd makeshift designed to humbug and to deceive the American laboring people into believing that Congress is going to help them?

I do not think a proper bill can be written on the floor of the House in view of the situation which has developed. In the first place, it is doubtful if necessary amendments will be held germane. In the second place, the membership of the House lacks the necessary information with which to wisely frame a workable bill. In fact the whole situation is such that the House is not prepared to write an effective bill, and this bill should go back to the Labor Committee where the entire question should be reopened for a fair and impartial consideration. The committee should permit business, labor, and all groups in our economic life to come before it and to present their views for the purpose of enabling the committee to write a bill that is workable, a bill that is effective, and a bill that is honest. Labor does not want a makeshift. In the end it will be wiser to be honest and frank with labor than it will be to seek to deceive them by such a measure as the one you are proposing. We in the South are just as much interested in a living wage as you in the North, but we are suspicious of the motives which actuate you in proposing the present measure. We know that you will dominate whatever board or administrator that is selected. According to statistics released by the Labor Department, not more than 2 percent of your workers will be affected by this bill. Some of you have frankly told us in the cloak room that the urge for this measure in your section is the hope that the trend of the industries from the North to the South may be stopped. Since you are not proposing a bill which will enable you to help the workers in your own section, we are suspicious as to the motives which actuate you to support a measure that will give to a board or administrator the right to discriminate and differentiate. Any bill that is passed should provide for a living wage in the North the same as in the South. This bill does not do that. It is well known that in the East from 30 to 50 percent of the workers' wage goes to rent. The cost of living is extremely high and a wage earner in the industrial East who receives 40 cents an hour is, in many instances, working for starvation wages. But this bill will not enable you to do anything for that worker. Then, too, as has been pointed out, some of the lowest paid workers in the Nation are in New England, where the workers are paid not by the day but by piece work. It has been recently disclosed that thousands of the girls who are doing this work are in pitiful condition. This bill does not propose to help the piece workers in the North. In view of these facts, is it any wonder that many southerners suspect that the real purpose behind this bill is to discriminate against southern industry and labor?

Although we only had eight lynchings in the South last year the majority of you passed an antilynching bill designed to punish the South and destroy State sovereignty.

Coming upon the heel of that infamous bill, is there any wonder that we suspect your motives when you espouse a measure that cannot help the low-paid workers in your section but will give to you a strangle hold upon our industry and labor? I am not saying that these are the motives that actuate you in sponsoring this bill, but I do say that your refusal to write a plain and understandable bill is just ground for our suspicion. If you really want a wage and hour bill designed to help labor, then let us have the courage to write it on the statute books and make it apply to all sections. [Applause.] If you cannot do that, then at least be honest with the country and stop humbugging the workers of the Nation and telling them something that you and I know will never happen.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a bill which exempts some 50-odd industries; a bill that ignores the majority of workers throughout the country; a bill that provides for what you in the North profess to complain about, differentials; a bill that perpetuates by law the very conditions that you say you are against; I submit that such a bill should not be considered on this floor but should be sent back to the Labor Committee, where the entire question can be reconsidered.

If we are interested in good government and in the cause of democracy, we will send this bill back to the committee and tell the committee to prepare an intelligible, workable, and honest measure that will do what the people of this country have been led to believe that we intend to do. [Applause.].

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas always makes a fine speech. Had he been discussing this bill on its merits just before the final vote I would say he had made an applicable argument; but we are not facing the question at this hour of whether we are going to pass a wage hour bill, we are facing in this vote only the question, my friends—and I appeal first to the Members of my party—whether or not we have the courage to face a recommendation sent us by our party leader from the White House and to meet the issue fairly [applause]; and, Republicans, you face the question whether or not you are going to be a party to holding business in suspense for another several months and not have the courage to face the issue of a wage-hour bill. For myself I am going to vote to bring this bill up for consideration. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the worst thing that could happen to the business interests of this country at this particular hour is to leave business in a state of suspense on this question. Let us have the courage, my friends, to vote to consider this bill and then vote our convictions on passage after the bill has been perfected in the Committee of the Whole. I came to Congress 8 years ago while the Republicans had a majority of 160. For more than 12 months they held this country in a state of suspense as to what the tariff law would be. It is my personal judgment that that did more to cause the panic of 1929 than any other single thing that happened in this country. Now let us not put that burden upon business in this country. Let us have the courage to face this party plank in our platform, let us have the courage to act upon the recommendations of the President of the United States who sent his message here last May. Let us remember the fact that your committee from the House and a similar committee from the Senate held joint hearings, morning and afternoon, for 3 weeks, that your House committee gave further consideration to this question in executive session for an additional 3 weeks before reporting this measure. The committee has further considered the matter this session. While I am not here to criticize the members of the Rules Committee, I do differ with them in their judgment. I believe they acted wrongfully in withholding this measure.

[PAGE 1388]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1389]

I appeal to the Democrats to stand by on this issue and face it squarely. Let us vote on the matter and decide this question on its merits. Let us not send it back to the committee of all things, but give business the opportunity now to know what wages they are going to have to pay and what conditions they are going to have to operate under. Let us vote to discharge the Rules Committee and bring this matter up for a fair consideration on its merits. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER. All time has expired. The question is on the motion to discharge the committee.

The question was taken, and the Chair announced he was in doubt.

Mr. DEEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were—yeas 285, nays 123, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 17]

YEAS—285

NAYS—123

NOT VOTING—22

So the motion was agreed to.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On the vote:

Mr. Boylan of New York (for) with Mr. Collins (against).

Mr. Reilly (for) with Mr. Ditter (against).

Mr. Buckley of New York (for) with Mr. Kleberg (against).

Mr. McGranery (for) with Mr. Gasque (against).

Mr. Dickstein (for) with Mr. Jarrett (against).

General pairs:

Mr. Warren with Mr. Case of South Dakota.

Mr. Hennings with Mr. Kvale.

Mr. Cole of Maryland with Mr. Murdock of Utah.

Mr. Weaver with Mr. Costello.

Mr. Disney With Mr. Towey.

Mr. Cole of Maryland with Mr. Whelchel.

Mr. Brooks with Mr. Atkinson.

Mr. LUCKEY of Nebraska and Mr. CARTWRIGHT changed their vote from "nay" to "yea."

Mr. HART. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. TOWEY, is unavoidably detained. If present, he would have voted "yea" on the motion.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the question is on agreeing to the resolution, which the Clerk will again report.

The Clerk again read House Resolution 312.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. SNELL) there were-ayes 171, noes 37.

So the resolution was agreed to.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an extension of time of debate. A great many Members have asked me for time to speak on the bill. The 2 hours on each side will provide only sufficient time for the committee and scarcely that. If agreeable to the House, I ask unanimous consent that the time may be extended to 6 hours.

The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] asks unanimous consent that the time for general debate on the bill as provided in the rule just adopted be extended from 4 to 6 hours. Is there objection?

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for general debate may be extended 1 hour. I make the request for the reason I am sure this House wants to be fair. You do not want to cut this matter off without adequate debate. The majority controlling the time under the rule and the minority controlling the time are in favor of the bill. It seems to me that a few of us who desire to make some remarks on the bill ought to have the opportunity to do so and I trust we may have just a little time. If you pass the bill, you ought to give us time. You will lose more time if you do not give it to us now.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time may be extended 1 hour.

[PAGE 1389]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1390]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDs] ask unanimous consent that the time for general debate be extended to 5 hours. Is there objection?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, reserving right to object, I cannot see where 1 hour will accomplish very much. There are some of us in this House who have obligations. I have had obligations on me for 6 months.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order.

The SPEAKER. The regular order has been demanded. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS]?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I object. If we cannot get 1 hour, we will not have any.

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the time be extended 2 hours.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time for debate be extended 2 hours.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS] may modify his request if he desires to do so. The Chair would suggest in submitting his request he include some provision with reference to the control of the additional 2 hours.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for general debate be extended 2 hours and that proper ·arrangement be made for those of us who are opposed to his bill, to have that time at our disposal.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey and withdraw my objection entirely.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS]?

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I ask the gentleman from Tennessee if it is not the usual procedure that those who are opposed to a bill have to get their time from the minority side, as we have had to do on occasions?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. In answer to the gentleman, may I say that the minority are for the bill. We want a little chance to speak. We hope the gentleman will not object.

Mr. O'MALLEY. I may refresh the gentleman's memory by stating that at times we were opposed to bills from the gentleman's committee and we have had to get time from the other side. I shall not object if the time is in charge of the committee.

The regular order was demanded.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. O'MALLEY] objects.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I renew my request to extend the time for 2 hours, and I promise the Members of the House to be perfectly fair in the distribution of the time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I trust the gentleman will withdraw his objection.

Mr. ANDREWS. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman from New York please withdraw his objection? I believe this bill is very important to every Member of the House.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 2475) to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill S. 2475, with Mr. McCORMACK in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, we believe every rightthinking person is in agreement with the necessity for legislation governing labor in interstate commerce. I would not believe otherwise. The advantage taken today by employers in certain parts of the country where substandard labor conditions exist is apparent. Unfortunately it is more true now than ever before because of changing conditions. That honest employers of labor should be protected is also apparent. That he must be protected if he is to endure is regrettably too true. The difficulty lies in how we are going to help this condition. and also assist the employees in securing a living wage. It becomes obvious that we are faced with two problems therefore. To solve them both is our job. Various methods have been suggested. Your committee has tried to meet the situation, has tried to take into consideration every factor. It has been a difficult task. There are many schools of thought, some of which are governed by personal and political reasoning. These we must discard if we honestly believe that every person in our country is entitled to a fair opportunity to make a living. The suggestion has often been made that this bill strikes at the South. Nothing is further from the truth. It strikes at no particular section of the country. We have found in going over the records in the Labor Department that prior to 1933 in one industry alone, the shirt industry, nine States—New York, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Missouri, and Indiana—a large number of the workers were receiving less than 19 cents an hour. I could give you many other illustrations but time will not permit.

The reasons for establishing fair labor standards are well known to all of us. First, the legislation is based on the promise made to the workers of the country at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia in 1936. This promise is included in our party platform, with which all Democrats are familiar. It is intended to protect employees who are not protected by collective-bargaining agreements. The bill, if enacted, will in no way interfere with the program of collective bargaining. This, because of many misrepresentations I have heard, I cannot stress enough. Like state minimum wage laws, it aims to establish only the basic wage and hour levels. It does not attempt to standardize the pay of workers with special skills and long experience. Such workers are equipped to establish their own terms of employment. This bill does not apply to them. To make doubly certain that collective-bargaining agreements are protected, we have written into the bill at the suggestion of the American Federation of Labor several amendments dealing with this subject which, I feel, protect the worker adequately.

We have also protected the employer, realizing that our problem is not solely that of labor but necessarily that of industry as well. Therefore we have tried to safeguard the employer in one state in which State labor laws operate and who insures to his workers a living wage and reasonable hours, against the employer in another State who takes advantage of the fair employer because he is not bound by any State law nor by a worker's agreement as to the amount of wages to be paid. He has, because of the very absence of legislation such as this I bring before you, been allowed to compete in the same American market with the employer who employs no child labor and who lives up to the prescribed labor laws of his State. Obviously this is unfair to the honest employer.

Then we come to the man who may be either of the above-mentioned groups but who assumes new duties and obligations in the role of consumer. He is protected in this bill because whether or not he is aware of it, he is helping to support, through taxation and through charity, the workers whose wages will not meet bare living costs and whose health is depleted through long hours of work and undernourishment, causing them to become a liability on their

[PAGE 1390]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1391]

communities. This bill will eventually decrease unemployment if the employers of the country will face the issue in a practical manner and cooperate by spreading their work over a greater number. And obviously the bill will reduce relief costs because communities will not be called upon to feed and clothe people who, because of starvation wages, cannot make ends meet.

These are some of the reasons why it is necessary to establish fair-labor standards in industry in interstate commerce.

With regard to the legality of this bill I would refer you to the statement of Mr. Robert Jackson, Assistant Attorney General, in the hearings held before the joint committee. You will find this testimony on page 1, part 1, of the printed hearings. I could add nothing to that and would recommend that you read it.

You are all familiar with the purposes of the bill in their broad aspect. I shall, therefore, enumerate them without going too deeply into the details at this time. They are, to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of goods in the production of which employees worked under substandard labor conditions. Substandard labor conditions are defined in the bill. They are conditions under which first an employee would work for less than the minimum wage set forth by an order, or second, conditions under which an employee would work longer than the number of hours set forth in the order. And last, by no means least, goods produced at the cost of the ruined lives of Ainerican children are definitely banned from the channels of interstate commerce. There are, of course, many exemptions in the bill to prevent unnecessary dislocation of business. These exemptions are set forth and are principally concerned with the production of perishable goods and the employment of handicapped persons, learners, and apprentices. The reasons for their exemption are obvious. Collective-bargaining agreements, as I have already stated, are protected.

As you know, S. 2475 placed the administration in the hands of a five-man board. This met with great objection not only from many Members of Congress but also from labor, industry, and the general public. The objection usually was based on the fact that we had too many boards now operating outside of departments already established for the purpose of carrying on the functions of government, and the granting of too much power to men outside direct governmental supervision. Many Members of Congress assured me that they would sign the petition discharging the Rules Committee if the administration was placed in the Department of Labor. Others objected to placing the power in the hands of the Secretary of Labor. To meet both these suggestions your committee agreed to amend the bill and provided for an administrator to be named by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In order to protect employers, employees, and the public we have followed the lines of minimum-wage administrations in several States and now functioning very satisfactorily right here in the District of Columbia. In simple language this is the set-up of the amendment about which there seems to exist so much confusion.

Your committee proposes to place the administration of the act in a single administrator appointed by the President. A Division of Wages and Hours, of which he will be the head, will be created within the Department of Labor so that full advantage may be taken of the fact-finding facilities and information gathered through the years by that Department.

It is not the intention of this amendment, or of the bill, to start fixing wages in all industries but only in those in which oppressive wages are being paid to a substantial portion of workers and then only after a wage and hour committee representing employers, employees and the consumer has been appointed by the administrator and gone into existing conditions thoroughly. They then submit their recommendation to the administrator, who, if he is convinced that the committee has taken into consideration all factors set forth in the bill, and if he agrees that it conforms to public policy, then orders a hearing held. At this hearing any person included in the industry under scrutiny may present testimony. The record of this hearing is then presented to the administrator and he reviews it in the light of the recommendation of the committee. If he finds that no new testimony has been presented that materially alters the situation he issues an order for that industry. If, however, he finds that the hearing has brought to light any new evidence on conditions in the industry not taken into consideration previously by the committee, he may send it back to the committee for further consideration. The minimum-wage or maximum-hour standards are not fixed until after there has been an investigation and a determination that conditions warrant such action. This is nothing new. It is a procedure that has been thoroughly tested and found practical and fair. It is the procedure now followed in 22 States that have minimum-wage laws.

The part of the bill that appeals to me perhaps more than any other is that dealing with child labor. Let no Member of this House believe that there is no longer a need for legal standards to protect young children from harmful employment. Under the N. R. A. there was an elimination of child labor but since that time the reports of the Children's Bureau reveal that the number of children under 16 years of age going to work during the last 6 months of 1936 increased almost 50 percent over the last six months of 1935 in those States where the minimum-age standards had not been raised in 1936. Presumably it is true that that percentage is now much higher. Time will not permit me to go deeply into this very human problem. It will be dealt with in more detail as the bill proceeds by able men who have made a study of this question. All I wish to emphasize now is that the child-labor provisions of this bill will establish reasonable standards for the protection of the Nation's children and provide for administrative controls which will strengthen State programs. If we really mean what we say when we claim we want the best for our children we now have the opportunity to prove it by enacting this bill into law.

Surrounding this legislation are many forces. Not in all my years in Congress has there ever been a bill subjected to so many false charges and statements as has this bill. Propaganda has reached its perfection. Paid lobbyists are all over the corridors of the Capitol. One group tries to intimidate Members by insisting that factories in their district will close if the bill becomes law. Another group suggests that labor is against it, when as a matter of fact much of the bill has been recommended by labor. Another group will tell you it is a renewal of the N. R. A., as though that were some bugaboo held up to scare children. However, because I have heard it so often and because some Members consider it the most serious indictment, I believe it is worthy of explanation. I have therefore made a short analysis of the features of N. R. A. and compared them with the bill before you.

My findings reveal that it differs from the N. R. A. in policy, administration, operation, and effect. As you will recall, the N. R. A. was intended to put people back to work through the medium of minimum wages and maximum hours for all classes of employees, all types of industries, and without limit as to the minimum or the maximum. The bill under consideration now applies only to employees working in industries having widespread oppressive and substandard labor conditions. The N. R. A. dealt with trade practices among employers. This bill does not. The N. R. A. fixed prices. This bill does not. The N. R. A. controlled production and suspended the antitrust laws. No such plan is found here. Under the Blue Eagle, industry was permitted to "write its own ticket," fix what it thought should be the minimum wage and the maximum hours, sponsor its own codes, and declare what it though unfair. Labor had no participation therein. Under the present labor bill no action can be taken unless instituted by the Government. Such action must be based upon investigations and evidence that oppressive labor conditions exist. No attempt is made to blanket American industry. Labor has equal representation with employers on the fact-finding committees provided for the determination of wages and hours.

[PAGE 1391]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1392]

The public, consumer, and governmental interests had no voice in the drafting of N. R. A. codes. This bill gives consumer and public interests a vote and substantial representation and provides that the Government shall conduct the deliberations leading to the fixing of wages and hours.

The administration of N. R. A. codes was vested in committees composed of employers who had no governmental connection. Labor and the Government had no voice. The wage and hour bill provides for administration of the law by an administrator subject to appointment by the President, approval of the Senate, and further subject to legislative declarations fixed by Congress. Industrial associations and chambers of commerce exercised great power without any governmental approval under the N. R. A. Such organizations under this bill have no vote unless the Government recognizes their interest in the industry and approves it by appointment of a representative to a factfinding committee. Members of industry were obliged, through the vehicle of codes, to contribute financial support to the activities of these industrial committees. This bill puts no such assessment on employers. The N. R. A. set up means of boycott in the form of Blue Eagle posters and labels. No such practice is permitted under this bill. The N. R. A. permitted employers to conduct their own starchamber proceedings under the guise of liquidated damage agreements having the force and effect of law. No such monopolistic practices can be had under this bill.

The N. R. A., under section 7 (A) of its act gave lip service to collective bargaining and the rights of employees thereunder. This bill recognizes the rights of labor unions, the principles of collective bargaining, the presumptive value of prevailing wage rates, and the indicative force of collective agreements.

The conduct of hearings and operations of the administration under the N. R. A. often found principles of due process subject to administrative whimsy. You will find in the wage and hour bill specific congressional declarations as to the method of conducting hearings and requirements so that interested parties may have notice. The little man, the big man, the employers, and employees from all parts of the country can know about and have an opportunity to participate in the determinations of minimum wages and maximum hours.

The N. R. A. was enacted during the very bottom of the depression. Its principles were advertised, publicized, and ballyhooed throughout the country. Speedy and hasty action resulted. Industries far removed from the channels of interstate commerce submitted codes as a patriotic display. The enactment of the present wage and hour bill is founded on the principles of decent living conditions. The needs and necessities of undue haste are not present. The bill as reported requires mandatory investigation and caution. No inducement or ballyhoo is indicated. The bill is a step, a cautious step, toward the removal of oppressive wage and hour conditions.

The law creating the N. R. A. contained general statements of its broad purpose. The power conferred upon the Administrator and the resultant industrial committees resulted in the Supreme Court's pronouncement that there bad been unlawful delegation of power. This bill has been drafted in the light of those experiences, those mistakes, and, in the opinion of the committee, within the principles of the Supreme Court's ruling. Standards, definite, embracing, and in recognition of the interests of employers and employees, based upon considerations of geographical, industrial, and public considerations, are specifically set forth in the bill, and it should be noted that the powers conferred upon the Administrator are limited to these standards with the additional requirement that no labor standard order should unduly disrupt the ordinary conduct of American business.

This bill does not attempt to put the clamp of Federal regulation on local business. Such activities remain within the protection of the laws of the several States. The bill, however, invokes the power of Congress on constitutional grounds to prohibit the transportation of goods in interstate commerce which have been produced under substandard labor conditions. An exercise of this power is well exemplified by the Federal statute, held constitutional by the Supreme Court, prohibiting the movement of prison-made goods across State lines. Another constitutional power invoked by the bill is the one to regulate competition in interstate commerce. The exercise of this power by Congress has long been recognized, dating back to 1890 when antitrust laws were enacted, and if Congress can regulate competition whereby unfair advantages are obtained through price manipulation and other practices, it would seem to follow that wages and hours of work, which are an important component of price structure, render a competitive advantage which, if unfair, warrants the invocation of this congressional power. In addition, the bill invokes the power of Congress as declared constitutional in the Supreme Court's decision in the Shreveport case, to protect an interstate shipper against the unfair competition of an intrastate competitor. This doctrine of constitutional law has never a1fected the local businessman, has applied only in those cases where the activities of local business seriously and directly affect the interstate shipper. The application of this law as set forth would affect only those agencies of business which are now suoject to Federal regulation, and it should be noted that the bill specifically requires a finding by the Administrator that actual Federal jurisdiction exists.

Finally, and in conclusion, I would say that we are confronted in our consideration of this problem with two distinct schools of thought.

There are people who do not want any kind of a bill, and those who really believe, as I do, that something must be done to help the 12,000,000 workers of America who live in conditions under which you would not permit your pet dog to live. Differences of opinion are natural. Honest differences of opinion I respect, but differences based only on selfish considerations are unworthy of us and the high office to which we have been elected. Some Members have told me that the passage of this bill will mean their defeat. I cannot believe that. I have too much faith in God to believe that your vote to help suffering humanity will cause your defeat. If such a thing could happen, then, indeed, we are on the way to communism and even worse. A country that will not heed the cry of the masses of underprivileged will perish in the fire it has helped to kindle. And so I say to you, my fellow Members of Congress, consider well the purposes of this bill and' do not permit yourselves to be swayed by fears and misrepresentations. I would that I had the ability of the beloved former leader of this Labor Committee; whose untimely death deprived us in the House of a real friend and the poor workers of the Nation of the greatest ally the underprivileged has ever had. I appeal to you to vote for this bill. It may not contain everything you desire but it is a step in the right direction. It is establishing the principle of an equal opportunity to all men to make a decent living. It does destroy sweatshop labor in interstate commerce. It does destroy the power of the chiseler over the honest employer. It does give the children of the Nation, upon whom our country shall depend tomorrow, an opportunity to develop properly. And, more important than all other considerations, it shall give to the 12,000,000 under-privileged inarticulate people of this country hope and courage. Those men and women have suffered almost beyond endurance. There is, thank God, not given to us the power to imagine the tragic submission with which these human beings would be forced to endure longer, conditions under which they have barely existed. How can we shut the door on the first glimmer of light they have ever seen? How can we condemn the children of America to a youth made old by starvation and misery? I beg you to deal with this bill with the help and understanding that comes from God alone and as you would have Him deal with you.

If you do this, I have no doubt the bill will be passed. At least it will be a step in the right direction. The time may come when we shall come before the House seeking to amend the bill. We may find we have made mistakes, and we shall then be pleased to acknowledge our mistakes and seek to amend the bill; but let us get together and decide on passing

[PAGE 1392]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1393]

privileged people in this country whose only hope is in us. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, one of the primary purposes of this extra session of Congress was to pass what is known as a wage and hour bill to help underpaid men and women in this country.

I am absolutely in accord with this purpose. There are thousands of men and women who are working in industries for starvation wages. I refer particularly to the textile industry.

Shortly before the enactment of the Walsh-Healey Act a Connecticut firm was awarded a contract by the Navy Department to make a large number of caps. The women employed in this factory received $4 per week. Last spring, so I have been told, there was a strike in a pants factory here in Washington, the factory being located in this section of the city. The women employed in this industry were receiving $5 per week and were working 9 and 10 hours per day. These are only a few of many cases brought to the attention of the Labor Committee during the long and exhaustive hearings before the joint committee of the Senate and House on the wage and hour bill and on the House textile bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have been a member of the Labor Committee since I have been in Congress, or since the sixty-ninth session. During all these years covering three different administrations, the wishes of the representatives of labor have been considered with reference to labor legislation. It has recently developed that the American Federation of Labor is unalterably opposed to this bill under consideration in its present form, and I have been told the C. I. O. is opposed to the administrative provisions of this bill. As a minority member of the Labor Committee, I took a minor part in its preparation and for which I do not shirk responsibility. The committee, through its chairman, will offer an amendment to the bill, changing the enforcement of this bill from a board to an administrator under the Department of Labor. The American Federation of Labor considers this change as jumping from the "frying pan into the fire" and is opposed to the amendment. The American Federation of Labor has submitted a proposal or a bill as a substitute for the pending bill, such a bill has been introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILER]. In my judgment it is a vast improvement of the bill under consideration, and if given an opportunity, under the rules of this House, I shall most certainly vote for it.

Legislation relative to hours and wages of the underpaid thousands in this country should not be regarded as a partisan or sectional matter. It is absolutely humanitarian. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HARTLEY].

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Chairman, there have not been many times during my five terms here that I have taken the opportunity, and may I add, had the honor, to address this body. I therefore ask your indulgence today to speak in opposition to the measure under consideration.

I regret I cannot agree with my chairman and distinguished colleague from New Jersey on this measure. I concede to the proponents of this proposal the utmost sincerity of purpose, the highest of idealism, and the best of intentions. They seek to put an end to the sweatshop and to stop the exploitation of labor, as soon as possible; but who is there among us who does not want to see this accomplished? There is not a Member of this body worthy of the honor of being a Member of the Congress who does not want to better the conditions of the underprivileged of our country. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the worthiness of the objectives of this proposal.

There is, however, great difference of opinion as to the results to be obtained by it. The leadership of the American Federation of Labor wisely recognizes that the passage of this bill may easily sound the death knell of the organized labor movement in the United States, for what will be the incentive to join a union if the Government is going to set wages and hours and other conditions of employment, and who is there who contends that labor's interests will be in better hands in the hands of the bureaucrats and politicians—

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. When I complete this sentence, if you please.

Who is there that contends that labor's interests will be better safeguarded in the hands of the bureaucrats and politicians than in the hands of its recogniZed leaders operating under the principles of collective bargaining?

I now yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Does the gentleman maintain that there is no more to be accomplished by labor than to get people $16 a week?

Mr. HARTLEY. Labor will get better wages than $16 a week and far sooner under collective bargaining than they will under this bill, and make no mistake about that. [Applause.]

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. I yield to my colleague on the committee.

Mr. CURLEY. But there is nothing in the proposed bill that has anything whatever to do with collective bargaining. This bill has nothing whatever to do with that. It has to do with the type of labor below the grade of labor that organized labor can control.

Mr. HARTLEY. That is quite true; but I still contend the minute you give the Federal Government the authority to set wages and hours and establish conditions of employment you destroy the labor movement; and do not forget—as a matter of fact, the gentleman, being a member of the committee, knows—that those who sponsored this bill in the very beginning wanted to raise the authority to 70 cents an hour and to reduce the hours to 35 hours a week, and if this bill is passed that is certainly going to be the objective in a year or two.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I may suggest for the benefit of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. PHILLIPs] that under this bill labor certainly is not guaranteed $16 a week. Under this bill labor is prohibited by order of the board from getting more than $16 a week but may receive much less.

Mr. HARTLEY. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. CITRON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. I yield.

Mr. CITRON. Do I understand the assertion of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] is that under this bill labor is prohibited from getting more than $16 per week?

Mr. GRISWOLD. By order of the board or the administrator.

Mr. CITRON. I do not think the gentleman's statement is correct. Nothing in the bill provides this. The mere fact that the jurisdiction of the board is limited to the under-privileged does not mean that manufacturers cannot pay more than 40 cents per hour.

Mr. HARTLEY. I cannot yield further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Green, the president of the A. F. of L., recognizing the many complications in this legislation—and all you have to do is to look at the bill to see those complications—and in the light of changes that took place, changes, as he said, "in the economic life of labor and the Nation" between the time this bill was first introduced and finally reported out of committee, urged that the bill might be recommitted to the Labor Committee, where hearings might be held and the subject properly explored—something that has not been done up to the moment.

Let us take a good look at this legislative orphan. The chairman of the committee admits that no one knows who are its parents. Look through its pages. Imagine a bill of this size; 63 pages, 24 sections, innumerable subsections, vitally affecting the economic life of the country being jammed through Congress without public hearings. There have been no public hearings on this particular bill.

[PAGE 1393]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1394]

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Are the remarks the gentleman is addressing to us directed at this bill as it is now presented, or at the other bill? Some of us are not straight on that, and I certainly am not straight on that.

Mr. HARTLEY. Frankly, I do not understand whether we are considering this particular bill here or a bill to provide for a board of five. All I know is that either bill is iniquitous.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes.

Mr. DUNN. Is it not a fact that the Labor Committee adopted amendments which Mr. Green offered, and is it not a fact also that those amendments are in the present bill?

Mr. HARTLEY. Those amendments are in the bill which I believe we have now before the committee, and it will be amended so as to put the administration in the Department of Labor; yes.

Mr. DUNN. That is the point I want to make. It has been said the American Federation of Labor is opposed to this legislation. Nevertheless, as the gentleman will remember, we held a joint meeting, and both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Green maintained—I asked the question and a lot of others did, too—that they were in favor of this legislation. When the bill came back to the House, it was not the same; so, therefore, we members of the Labor Committee took Mr. Green's amendments and unanimously voted them into this present bill. Is not that right?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes; that is right.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Has the gentleman had an opportunity to read my bill, introduced a few days ago, a bill following the American Federation of Labor's endorsed plan? Is the gentleman prepared to state his views as to that bill?

Mr. HARTLEY. I should be glad to answer the gentleman. I shall vote for that bill in preference to this. In fact, I would vote for almost anything in preference to this.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey bas expired.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes more to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HARTLEY. As I was about to say before those other speeches were started, let us take a look at this legislative orphan. Do you recognize it? I call it an orphan advisedly, for although we have tried, we have not been able to learn who are its parents. These sponsors, unknown, evidently visited the taxidermist, and there took from the dust-covered shelf the old Blue Eagle, plucked its price-fixing feather, and handed to labor this old bird stuffed with sawdust for labor's Christmas dinner.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes.

Mr. WOOD. The gentleman is a member of the Committee on Labor. Did he not vote for most of the amendments now in the bill?

Mr. HARTLEY. I voted for some of the amendments to the bill, but the substantial amendments that I ain criticizing I did not vote for.

Mr. WOOD. The gentleman is as much responsible as any other member of the Labor Committee for this bill being in existence.

Mr. HARTLEY. Oh, do not charge me with being the father of this child.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes.

Mr. O'MALLEY. I wonder if the gentleman could suggest to us just what type of wage and hour bill he would be in favor of.

Mr. HARTLEY. I would be very glad to discuss that. As a matter of fact, I do not believe any of us have thorughly enough studied this question to bring before Congress a real workable bill. We all have tried suggestions. I have introduced a wage and hour bill, and a goodly percentage of the Members of Congress have introduced similar bills, but I don't believe the question of governmental regulation of wages and hours has been thoroughly explored.

Mr. O'MALLEY. How long does the gentleman think we should explore it, after many of the States have such laws now?

Mr. HARTLEY. I think it should be explored properly.

Mr. O'MALLEY. How long?

Mr. HARTLEY. Just as long as it will take to do it properly.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Are we ever to learn from experience? Old N. R. A proved that when we establish a minimum wage, that minimum becomes the maximum in the great majority of cases. The present so-called business recession has already seriously weakened our wage structure. Are we now going to provide legislative excuse for further reduction?

Mr. HARTLEY. I am sorry. It is not because I do not want to, it is because I do not have the time.

It is interesting to note that farm labor is excluded from the alleged benefits of this humanitarian measure. If it is good for the industrial worker, why is it not good for the farm worker? Those low-paid, long-houred tillers of the soil who constitute a large part of our population who are ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed are denied the so-called benefits, while it raises the cost of everything they have got to buy. Is that the kind of a Christmas present you representatives of the farm districts want to take home to your constituents?

If I wanted to help promote monopoly, I would vote for this bill. It will do more in that direction and to centralize industry, build up industrial dynasties than if we were to repeal the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

This bill does not affect the great, big, highly mechanized industries. Most of them are already operating under conditions that are within the provisions of the act. That is why you have not heard so many protests from big business. The ones you hurt by this bill are the little fellows-those who are still largely relying upon hand labor.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. HARTLEY. The small businesses that are the lifeblood of many hamlets and villages, not alone in the South but throughout the United States, are the industries that are going to be hurt by this bill. You give them a choice of doing one of two things—either they substitute labor saving machinery for other hand labor or they go out of business. After what you have done to them with your tax on undistributed earnings, you leave no other course for them except to go out of business, but, regardless of the result, labor is going to suffer. It is an unenviable position that the supporters of this bill find themselves in—those friends of labor supporting a bill to promote monopoly and the use of labor-saving machinery. Innocently you are perpetrating a cruel hoax upon thousands of workers in department stores and 5- and 10-cent stores and other purely intrastate businesses who expect a pay raise through this bill, but who are, of course, outside its reach. Even those in interstate commerce and included in the bill's provisions are being deceived. The real wages cannot be raised by Government fiat.

If we want to help labor, there is a way to do it—and that is to give encouragement to those who fill the pay envelopes of the workers of this country every week; and, while you are at it, it would not do any harm if you passed on a little of that encouragement to those taxpayers and investors in Government bonds who have kept us going through the depression.

If the time we have spent here in status quo had been used to repeal the nefarious tax on undistributed earnings and to give assurrance to business that Congress and the Government

[PAGE 1394]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1395]

would tend to its own knitting, our labor problems would be far nearer solution.

In the interest of labor and the economic welfare of all of our people, I say this bill should be defeated. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HARTLEY] has expired.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].

Mr. RANDOLPH. Because of the limited amount of time which I have at my disposal, I would rather not yield.

Mr. Chairman, too long in this Nation there has existed for a large proportion of our industrial population the crucifixion of this type of laborer upon the cross of long hours, short pay, and sweatshop working conditions.

In compliance with the pledge made to the working people of the United States in the Democratic platform of 1936, the administration is now concerning itself with the enacting into law of the Black-Cannery Fair Labor Standards Act, which will be another great step forward for the cause of labor.

The workers' right to collective bargaining and self-organization without interference is already a part of the law of this country, and, as a further program of social and industrial legislation, Congress is now engaged in establishing for that class of workers who stand in need of them decent working conditions with respect to hours and wages. To this end the Black-Cannery Fair Labor Standards Act is before us with the sole purpose and aim of raising existing wages in the lower wage groups so as to attain as rapidly as possible and practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour and a maximum workweek of not more than 40 hours.

Briefly, this forward step in the advancement of the cause of labor is an honest and sincere attempt to control unfair labor practices through congressional power which is within the commerce clause of the Constitution. The recent trend of judicial decisions establishing the power of Congress to legislate on our most basic national problems opens the way for achieving success in legislative attempts to abolish child labor, oppressive wages, and overlong hours of labor.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, which has been expressly framed in answer to President Roosevelt's declaration that the time has come "to extend the frontiers of social progress", consists of three main provisions:

First. Creation of a fair labor standards board or administrator charged with the application of the provisions of the bill to the industries which come within its scope.

Second. Granting of power to fix wage and hour standards within the limits set by the Congress with the general aim of minimum wages of not less than 40 cents an hour and a maximum workweek of not more than 40 hours.

Third. Prohibition of oppressive child labor. By specific provision, employees in agriculture and other stated industries are exempt from the standards of the bill and due discretion is allowed to make exemptions which circumstances peculiar to certain industries and certain types of employees will require.

The objective of the Black-Cannery measure is to insure to the lowest and poorest paid wage earner in this Nation his right to the enjoyment of a fair standard of living. The bill is not, contrary to the belief of some, an attempt at Federal regimentation of industry. It is not concerned with that fortunate majority of the laboring classes whose collective bargaining power is sufficiently potent to insure the preservation of their industrial rights.

But it is concerned with those millions in industry who are unprotected and unorganized. For that class of workers the machinery of the Federal Government will be put into motion to study their plight, consider their circumstances, and then seek to provide for them fair and reasonable standards by which they will be enabled to assume their proper place in life. It will provide for the elimination of the substandard factors of wages and hours which in many instances threaten to ruin the possibility of ever attaining the industrial economic level necessary to maintain a decent American standard of living. It will result in a more even distribution of that prosperity which accompanies an industrial peace and democracy wherein each worker shall be assured of his fundamental right to receive a fair recompense for a fair week's work.

The wage and hour legislation which this bill proposes to effect, aside from its social and humanitarian aspects, is vital to the economic stability of our Nation. It is important to both employer and employee. To the employee its economic effects will be felt in an increased purchasing power, in the absorption of unemployed into private industry, and in standard working conditions more in accord with the American ideal. To the employer it will mean an end of the injustices arising out of widely diverse labor practices, a termination of destructive competitive practices and an end to the abuse of the channels of interstate commerce for selfish advantages on the part of substandard manufacturers and producers. The Black-Cannery Act is aimed and directed at the abolition of these defects within the economic structure of the Nation and thereby provide a bulwark for the maintenance of real and enduring economic stability.

The sponsors of this legislation are under no illusions in their honest effort to provide economic security for the working people of this Nation. Untiring energy has been utilized in order that the problem would be met in the best and most effective way open to those of us who worked to perfect it. It is significant that, with all the criticism and abuse directed at the measure, no other adequate or satisfactory solution of the problem was proposed or suggested. That is why the Fair Labor Standards Act, in my sincere opinion, merits the support and encouragement of every thinking American who has the interest and welfare of the laboring classes of America at heart, because it is a step in the right direction. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, those of us who believe in this legislation do not want to cripple industry; we want to heal the wounds of the industrial body as they see it today. Those of us who believe in this bill do not want to kill business; we desire to give it a more sustained life. We who believe in this measure do not want to tear down the structure of our industrial life; we want to rebuild it on a firmer foundation. Certainly, an honest attempt is being made here to bring about a change from huts and hovels to happy homes in this country, to bring about a change from dreadful drudgery to hours of happy toil, to bring added security and happiness for an estimated 12,000,000 working Americans who today exist on the ragged edges of life. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman could not have 60 seconds in which to answer a technical question on the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the time is under the control of the gentlewoman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. FISH].

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that this type of legislation has to be brought up for consideration in the midst of a serious Government-made depression. The principle involved, however, remains the same.

I voted to discharge the committee today in order that the House might have a fair opportunity to consider this legislation. I am not in favor of the pending bill, which creates a board of five to control hours and wages throughout the Nation.

Mr. SIROVICH. One.

Mr. FISH. I think the gentleman is mistaken. The Committee on Labor expects to propose an amendment substituting the Department of Labor as a board of one. I am wholeheartedly in favor of the American Federation of Labor bill as submitted by Mr. William Green, the president of that organization, which by legislation, and legislation alone, sets up minimum wage standards and maximum hours for labor. I believe the time has come to stop creating more bureaucracies, to cease creating more boards and administrative

[PAGE 1395]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1396]

agencies, and, above all, not to give more power to the President and concentrate power in the Executive over labor and business. I believe the time has definitely come to take away some of the powers that Congress has already conferred on the President and restore representative and constitutional government. Feeling very strongly along these lines, I am absolutely opposed to legislation that creates more boards or commissions or puts the control of wages and hours under some Cabinet officer to administer. If we propose to legislate for the benefit of our wage earners, let us legislate. That is our duty; that is what we are here to do; and we ought to be able to write sound and constructive legislation. If the Green amendment suggested by the President of the American Federation of Labor is not sound, if it is not right, if it is not helpful, then let us change it and write a bill that will provide a square deal for our underpaid wage earners. I want to prevent the exploitation of American labor, and especially that of women and children, by sweatshop wages and hours in our factories, shops, and mines. I want to join with those Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats alike, who believe in social and industrial justice, who believe with Lincoln that labor is prior to capital and that human rights are superior to property rights, who want to prevent the exploitation of American labor by low wage scales, by sweated labor, and by long hours. If any country is worth living in it is our own. But how can it be worth living in if more than one-third of our wage earners live on wages that are inadequate and do not provide sufficient pay to properly feed their families, to house them, to clothe them, and to give them a fair chance in life?

This wages-and-hours bill should have been considered by Congress years ago and been enacted into law long ago. Why should one-third of our American citizens be undernourished, be underfed, be underclothed, and ill-housed in the greatest and the richest country in the world? Why should one-third of our wage earners be crucified upon a cross of economic slavery and bondage and be exploited by human chiselers, vultures, and bloodsuckers for profit at the expense of their health, happiness, and lives?

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to talk on this bill in a limited time, for one has to cover numerous phases and ramifications of this wage and hour issue. I am fearful, however, that there is one phase that has not been raised and that may not be raised. How can you enact this kind of legislation, having for its definite and proper purpose the raising the standard of wages for millions of Americans who are getting inadequate wages today without bringing them into direct competition with the cheap labor of Europe or with the sweated goods of Europe which will fiow into our markets? There is a corollary that must go with this type of legislation that is unescapable and unavoidable.

I propose to vote for the Green amendment. I believe in it thoroughly, but when I vote for it I want to vote for it with my eyes open. I know that immediately that kind of legislation is adopted it means that Europe and Asia will dump into this country millions and millions of dollars worth of goods produced by their pauperized labor to replace the goods produced by labor in this country whose wages we are about to raise artificially by an act of Congress. There is only one answer to it, I say to you Democrats; not one that is very palatable to you with your political philosophy and ideology tainted with free trade and your tendencies for mutual exchange of goods. There is only one answer to it: When you adopt this legislation you will have to write adequate tariff protection for our wage earners to prevent millions and millions of dollars' worth of foreign-made goods flooding this country to replace the commodities produced by our labor paid a nonliving wage which you now propose rightly to adjust.

You can not crucify American labor on a cross made of the sweated labor of Europe and the cheap goods produced in Europe and Asia which will be the result and the immediate result of the wage and hour legislation without adequate tariff protection. That is why I said at the outset that I deplore the fact that in the midst of a serious depression we have to consider this type of legislation because temporarily it will tend to increase unemployment.

It will mean, of course, that many wage earners will lose their jobs and that many of our industries will not be able to compete with foreign industries and their low wage scales until they have adequate tariff protection. Thousands, tens of thousands, and maybe even more, of our wage earners will lose their jobs temporarily; but I believe in the legislation because I believe that if there is any country, as I said before, worth living in it is our own, and that we must have adequate American standards of wages and living if we are to take care of the one-third of our people who are now illfed, ill-housed, and ill-clothed. I no not propose to condemn by my vote a large part of our wage earners to perpetual poverty, squalor, undernourishment, and destitution.

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. I yield.

Mr. CURLEY. The gentleman says he is very much against this bill, but I call the gentleman's attention to page 30 of the bill whereon it is provided that when the Administrator finds that imports are greater than normal he shall have the right to cail the attention of the President to this fact in order to change the tariff.

Mr. FISH. Is the gentleman agreeing with me that it will be necessary to change the tariff rates and schedules?

Mr. CURLEY. No. I was talking in the mood in which the gentleman was talking.

There is the possibility.

Mr. FISH. I did not say anything about a possibility. I say that it is an absolute necessity to provide ample protection. You cannot vote for this bill without knowing it must follow immediately afterward.

Mr. CURLEY. You have your relief right in this bill.

Mr. FISH. As I stated, I am not for either the Senate or Committee bill. I am for the Green proposal, establishing by legislation a 40-hour week as a maximum and 40 cents an hour as a minimum living wage, I believe in a living wage of not less than $16 a week in order to maintain our American standard of wages and make America a place worth living in for all of our people. I believe the best way to combat socialism and communism is to provide a square deal for labor and social and industrial justice for all American wage earners.

I am opposed to the pending bill because I am opposed to further regimentation and control of labor and business and to the creation of more governmental bureaucracy.

Mr. CURLEY. Then the gentleman is speaking in generalities.

Mr. FISH. I am speaking against both the Committee and Senate bills and for the Green bill. I am against all the wage and hour bill that propose setting up governmental control over labor and business. The tariff section, mentioned by the gentleman from New York, is very vague and ambiguous and would not be of much help.

Mr. CURLEY. Will the gentleman be specific?

Mr. FISH. It is true that the Green bill does not include the tariff section. I am perfectly willing, however, to incorporate the tariff section referred to into the Green bill and strengthen it, as it amounts to very little as now written. I am for the Green bill because I am for a government by law and not by executive orders and bureaucratic edicts. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD].

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I am coming before my colleagues as a friend of wage and hour legislation, as one who was friendly to and fighting for wage and hour legislation in committees and on the floor of this House when some of those who now constitute themselves the self-appointed friends and spokesmen of labor were unheard of and unthought of as such. We have in this House a superlabor committee, not members of the Labor Committee, not present at the hearings on this bill, and who took no part in the deliberations of the committee but who have constantly endeavored to dictate to the committee as the possessors of all

[PAGE 1396]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1397]

knowledge and an rights in the enactment of wage and hour legislation. I was an advocate of wage and hour legislation under the old Connery bill during the Hoover administration, and I am still advocating the same principle that I advocated then, that principle being that labor legislation passed by Congress should establish a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours. That there should be no differentials between one section of the country and another or between one business and another. That the minimum wage for one should be the minimum wage for all. That if one is to be charged with the commission of a crime he has a right to know with certainty what constitutes the crime and not have such a crime designated by a board or an individual under conditions that would permit of making acts that were perfectly legitimate in one locality a crime in another locality.

In conformity with this principle, I introduced in the House H. R. 8580. It is a bill only 3 pages long; in contrast to the pending bill, which is 66 pages long. It eliminates all differentials. It describes with certainty and in specific terms the crime and fixes the penalty. It does not confuse the issues by setting up a costly bureaucracy for enforcement. It leaves the enforcement with the duly constituted authorities of government to enforce it as all other criminal laws are enforced.

The Black-Cannery bill states in its preamble that the intent is to raise the wages of the underpaid and specifically states that many receive less than $5 a week. If that intent is to be carried out, then let us state by law what the wage shall be and force the wage up to that point by legal enactment and not by bureaucratic whim. I am not wedded to either the wages nor the hours as fixed in my bill. I am willing for Congress to amend my bill so as to make the wages and hours more or less to conform to what Congress believes should be the minimum wage and maximum hours. But I do contend that under the pending Black-Cannery bill, and the amendments placed in the bill by the chairman, we are deceiving both capital and labor as to what this bill will accomplish. That this bill in reality fixes neither wages nor hours but is so drawn that it will leave the low-paid workers where they are today and give those industries in those sections that are now paying the lowest wage under the worst conditions an undue competitive advantage over other sections of the country, and that in the final analysis it will give to the low-paid sections a competitive advantage that will cause an exodus of industries from my State of Indiana and from other Northern and Central States to the South where they can obtain the advantages of low wages and long hours given them under the provisions of the Black-Connery bill.

The gentlewoman from New Jersey in her opening statement said she had mothered this child that was dropped on her doorstep—that it was without a father and she wished Congress to father it. I cannot believe that she really mothered it. If the gentlewoman from New Jersey had really mothered this child it would have had a different aspect from that which it has now.

Mrs. NORTON. I said I was the adopted mother.

Mr. GRISWOLD. This child here is a moron, and the gentlewoman has not really mothered one child. She has mothered four.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mrs. NORTON. I explained I was the adopted mother, and the child is not a moron. He is a very bright child and is going to be brighter later on.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The gentlewoman will have to turn the klieg lights on it. That is the only way that any light will ever appear on the face of this illegitimate child, fathered in darkness and born in obscurity.

Mr. CULKIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I decline to yield.

Mr. Chairman, there is before us now for consideration a bill that was reported presumably on the 6th day of August by the Labor Committee, which bill went to the Rules Committee. On the basis of that bill you were requested to discharge the committee. Then on the 7th of December you had a new bill called "a confidential committee print." This contained the so-called Norton amendment, changing it from a board to the Department of Labor. This gained more signers for the petition but also put some signers in a bad position. On the 11th day of December you had another bill, called "a committee print." Tomorrow morning when you come onto the fioor of the House you will have still another bill to consider. It will be the bill that the chairman will offer as a substitute for all the bills that were born before and became the last of the quadruplet children.

With this House and the Committee in such state of mind that during 4 months' time we have had four bills written by some superlabor committee—and no one knows what constitutes the personnel of that committee—how can you expect to have a workable, proper, consistent, and reasonable bill?

Some exception seems to have been taken to the statement I made a while ago. This is named a wage and hour bill, but it is not a wage and hour bill. As I heard the other night at the Gridiron Club, it is a "no-hours, no-week bill."

Here is what the bill says:

The committee's jurisdiction to recommend labor standards shall not include the power to recommend minimum wages in excess of 40 cents an hour or a maximum workweek of less than 40 hours.

What does that mean? It means that these 12,000,000 people you are told about, which are in the subnormal wage group, cannot be raised beyond 40 cents an hour. It means when you reach the other sections of the bill they cannot even be raised to 40 cents an hour, because on page 22, section (g), you will find that these wages must be fixed under the quantum merit rule. They must be fixed according to the value-of-service rule. That mandatory provision is written right into this bill. These subnormal-wage people are now receiving $5 and $6 a week for their serVices. Under this rule covering reasonable value of services, you cannot raise them. Under section (g) you may have one employer on one street working under one scale of wages and one scale of hours, fixed by the board with a certificate of fair labor practices, and on the same street you may have another plant in the same industry with a different scale of wages and hours. That is what the bill does, and it is mandatory under section (g) that the administrator must fix wages and hours in that manner; and yet you name this a "fair labor practices act."

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GRISWOLD. Will the gentleman on the minority side grant me additional time?

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 5 additional minutes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I thank the gentleman. That is more than you can get on this side in opposition to the dangerous and unjust provisions of the bill.

The bill provides, and this is mandatory, that the administrator must take into consideration "the differences in unit cost of manufacturing occasioned by varying natural local resources and operating conditions." As I stated, that is mandatory, The administrator must penalize the man who has the best operating conditions in his plant and must fix wages on that basis. Then, not being satisfied with the grant of differentials and inconsistencies in the bill, so that all might be covered, the Norton amendment provides further: "and other factors entering into the cost of production." Mr. Chairman, that is what we are getting in this bill. You are getting a vast mass of inconsistencies, glaring differentials, and destructive competition.

Mr. CURLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I refuse to yield. You are getting a provision in this bill which will exempt cotton ginning, cotton storage as well as the processing of cottonseed; but you gentlemen from the Corn Belt do not get any provision in this bill which exempts the milling and storage of wheat and grain. You do not get an exemption for the processing of lard, or butter, or cheese; you do not get any exemption on the processing of soybeans, and this last year there were 459,000 acres of soybeans grown in my State for commercial purposes.

[PAGE 1397]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1398]

Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Dlinois.

Mr. LUCAS. Was the question of including an exemption which affected the corn section of the country discussed in committee?

Mr. GRISWOLD. It was.

Mr. LUCAS. Why was it you exempted one and did not exempt the other?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Because we had a lack of votes—that is all.

Mr. LUCAS. Is there any particular merit in exempting one and not exempting the other?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I may say to the gentleman there is no particular merit in exempting the article most pronouncedly and viciously competitive with the dairy farmer, the grain farmer, the stock farmer, and the hog farmer. There is no merit in it. I say to the men from the Corn and Hog Belt and from the grain and dairying territories that he who will not protect his own when this bill comes before the House is worse than an infidel.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Is it not also true that if you exempt cotton ginning, compressing, oil-mill operation, and work of that type, you virtually exempt the commercial industries of the South?

Mr. GRISWOLD. You do.

Mr. CRAWFORD. You would certainly do that, and their products compete with our corn products.

Mr. GRISWOLD. In such industries there are some of the lowest wages and the longest hours.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. May I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that cotton ginning is a seasonal occupation? They gin cotton only 3 or 4 months a year at the most.

Mr. GRISWOLD. You process cottonseed and you make oleomargarine and all the butter substitutes, and all the cooking compounds which are substituted for lard; and you make them 12 months out of the year and 30 days out of the month.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. That is not a part of the ginning of cotton; it is an entirely separate and distinct industry.

Mr. GRISWOLD. They are all in the same class. If cotton is seasonal, then certainly com and wheat are seasonal.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CRAWFORD. The best proof of what the gentleman has just stated is to refer to the operations of the cotton oil industry since the present crop has been on the market and see what the rendition is and what is ahead of them to be put through the mills in the future months.

Mr. CULKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CULKIN. The gentleman spoke of dairying. Does the gentleman know they milk cows at 4:30 or 5 o'clock in the morning and then do not milk them again until the afternoon, so this bill cannot apply in justice to the dairying group?

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DONDERO. Does the gentleman understand that domestic services are exempted from this bill?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I do.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MAPES].

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, this is probably the worst time in the world to consider the passage of any national wage and hour legislation and the pending bill, or one based upon the same principles or philosophy, ought never to be seriously considered, to say nothing about enacting it into law. Business is already suffering from as bad a case of the jitters as it is possible for it to stand. The passage of the pending bill will only make confusion worse confounded. Congress should direct its attention toward the passage of legislation to remedy existing conditions instead of doing something to make them worse. Labor, in the Fifth Congressional District of Michigan, at least, is much more concerned at this particular time about getting a job that will enable it to make a decent living, and industry is more concerned about keeping its factories open and running at all, than in quibbling over the question of wages and hours. They both want to be left alone for a while.

The 10,000,000 unemployed in the country, who cannot get jobs under any condition, at any wage, or for any length of time, may well look upon the consideration of such legislation as this at this time as a hollow mockery. It will be time enough to pass a proper wage and hour law after jobs are found by, or industry has an opportunity to create or furnish jobs for, this great mass of unemployed.

There are factories in my district that are having a hard time maintaining a 20-hour-week schedule, or 4 hours a day for 5 days a week. They are not worried about being limited to 40 hours per week. They wish they could find enough business to keep them running as long as that.

No Federal wage and hour legislation should be passed without more consideration and study being given than has been given to the effect it will have, not alone on present conditions but upon business and opportunity for employment in the futme as well.

In order to plan for the future, industry must be able to estimate with some reasonable degree of certainty what its costs are going to be and be relieved of the constant fear of persecution with which it is now suffering. It cannot tell what the policies of the Government are going to be from one day to another. It cannot tell how much it will have to pay in taxes next year or the year after or what the value of the money with which it is obliged to carry on its operations will be. It has been harassed already with labor troubles to the point of distraction.

This bill proposes to add to its troubles by giving power to fix wages and to determine the number of hours industry can operate to a bureaucracy here in Washington. It matters not whether that bureaucracy is the Labor Standards Board or an administrator in the Department of Labor under Mme. Perkins. Whoever it is, no industry will be able to tell what its labor costs will be or when the board or administrator will come around and clamp down on it. Under such conditions, it will be compelled more than ever to conduct its business on a day-to-day or hand-to-mouth basis. It is to be hoped that industry will be able to survive this additional burden, if it is compelled to do so, but why should Congress load it down further and subject it to the risks necessarily involved in compelling it to carry this additional load?

The American Federation of Labor, in the statement released by it a few days ago, voiced the sentiment of the country, I believe, when it declared:

We are unalterably opposed to a complex system of Federal wage and hour regulations and their administration by a new Federal board, as contemplated by the Black-Cannery bill. Labor, industry, and the public are fed up with Federal boards. We have had extremely disappointing and dis1llusioning experiences with the National Labor Board. Nor do we believe that the creation of a Federal Administrator with district wage boards under him will serve any purpose but to complicate and confuse enforcement of any wage and hour measure.

Again, Mr. Green, the president of the Federation, in a letter addressed to the Members of the House and received only Saturday, in commenting on the amendment to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Labor to place the administration of the act in the Department of Labor instead of with the Labor Standards Board, says:

It is inconceivable that Congress would vote to confer upon a single Government administrator such broad, definite, and comprehensive power.

[PAGE 1398]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1399]

And, as the analysis accompanying President Green's letter very properly points out:

All the objections which exist against the administration of the act by a board, and all the dangers inherent therein, exist in aggravated form under the set-up of the administrator.

In the language of our distinguished colleague, whose name it is not necessary to mention here:

Who wants the bill, anyway? Chairman NORTON wants it changed so that the Labor Standards Board would go under the Department of Labor. Secretary Perkins said at the White House that she has a lot of changes to suggest. Bill Green isn't satisfied with it. Probably John Lewis has some ideas.

I seem to be the only one who's for the bill.

I resent the statement that the wage-hour bill is locked up in the Rules Committee, in view of these circumstances.

The President's message, even, wasn't very enthusiastic about this legislation.

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Chainnan, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAPES. I am sorry; I do not have the time. I wish I did have.

Perhaps, in order to make the record complete, one should add to this statement of the distinguished Chainnan of the Committee that the rule making it in order to call up this wage and hour legislation was never called up for consideration in the Committee on Rules. No representative of the Committee on Labor ever appeared before the Committee on Rules in its behalf. No hearings of any kind were ever held on it by the committee. No vote was ever taken on it in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAPES. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MICHENER. The statement the gentleman has just made is so important that if it is true I want to impress it upon the membership of the House, and if it is not true, I believe it should be reconsidered.

Mr. MAPES. It is true. There is no question about the facts.

Whatever the answer to the question of our friend may be, there are several questions which Congress itself should make an honest effort to answer, before rushing headlong into legislation of this importance.

How many employees will the legislation directly affect? By its terms it only applies to those engaged in working on goods shipped in interstate commerce, except certain provisions, which are undoubtedly unconstitutional, and the great mass of employees thus engaged would not be affected at all, except adversely as the legislation increases their cost of living and reduces their pay, as it will undoubtedly have a tendency to do.

The big employers of labor, whose products enter into interstate commerce, such as the steel and automobile corporations, and their employees, would not be materially affected by it for two reasons: First, because for all practical purposes they are now on a 40-hour week basis and pay as much, or more, than 40 cents an hour to the great majority of their employees. Second, because of the provision in the bill inserted by the Committee on Labor which exempts from its provisions all corporations and employees where collective bargaining agreements have been entered into that cover a "substantial portion of the employees." This amendment of the Committee on Labor would make it impossible for those in the employ of a great many of such corporations to receive any benefits from the legislation, even though they are paid less than 40 cents an hour. I refer to that amendment which provides that the board can make an order affecting such employees only if the board finds, and I quote the language of the amendment.

That collective-bargaining agreements in respect to such minimum wages and maximum hours do not cover a substantial portion of the employees in such corporation.

Employees in retail establishments, including the big department and chain stores, as well as the small independent ones, are expressly exempted from the provisions of the bill, as are all agricultural labor, seamen, railroad employees, and others. Of course, they cannot escape being affected by the increased cost of living which the legislation will bring upon everyone.

To what extent will the enactment or the legislation disrupt our whole industrial and economic system?

How many now employed will it throw out of employment?

How much will it delay the time when those now unemployed will get back to work?

What effect will it have in compelling industry to discharge the less efficient, including the old, the young, and the marginal worker now employed, and to discourage it in giving new jobs to any such as business improves?

How much will it add to existing relief rolls?

How much will it increase the cost of living to everyone?

What effect will it have on small business and what will be its tendency to increase the already overcentralization of business and of big corporations?

Will it actually help or hurt labor, the underprivileged, and the country?

These are some of the questions that Congress should attempt to answer before acting upon this legislation. No serious attempt to answer them has yet been made.

The codes under the National Industrial Relations Administration attempted to fix wages and hours. Who can tell how much they had to do with throwing old people out of employment and preventing young people from getting employment? Certainly the condition of those along in years and the young people was never more distressing than it was during the life of the codes. It was during that period that the Townsend plan for old-age pensions and the agitation for the C. C. C. camps originated and had their greatest momentum.

Without adequate study and investigation we are asked to pass the bill with no light to guide us, as far as democratic governments are concerned, unless the experience of the State of Pennsylvania and the Republic of France can be said to furnish such light and so far as it goes their experience stand out as a danger signal, rather than otherwise.

No State has ever gone as far as Congress is asked to go in this bill or approached it even. Several States have laws upon their statute books fixing minimum wages and maximum hours for women and children. I do not know of any, however, that has ever passed, or that has ever made any serious effort to pass, legislation fixing minimum wages for men, and only one that I know of has ever attempted by law to limit the hours of work for able-bodied, normal-minded men.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAPES. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. WOOD. I may state to the gentleman the chairman of the Committee on Labor did make several requests to the Committee on Rules for a hearing on that bill.

Mr. MAPES. She never appeared before the Committee on Rules.

Mr. WOOD. She has appeared before the committee, and requested a rule.

Mr. MAPES. As one member of the committee, I know of no such request. The chairman of the Committee on Labor certainly has never appeared before the Committee on Rules in behalf of the rule. The gentleman from Missouri, upon investigation, will find he is mistaken about that.

The Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania, at its last session, passed a law limiting the workweek to 44 hours. It said nothing about the wage scale. By its terms, the law was to go into effect on November 1 of this year; but the mere anticipation of its going into effect created such chaos and disturbance in the State and there was so much objection to it on the part of both industry and labor that the State authorities, who were largely responsible for its enactment, without any authority of law, of course, announced that they would not enforce it, and for all practical purposes the law has been entirely ignored up to this time. Is it possible that anyone supporting this bill entertains the notion or the hope that it, too, will become a dead letter if enacted into law?

The Republic of France about 2 years ago also passed a law fixing a maximum workweek. All accounts of the operation of that law which I have seen are to the effect that

[PAGE 1399]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1400]

it has been disastrous. It likewise made no attempt to fix a minimum wage.

There is no agreement among students of the question on the wisdom or economic soundness of national wage-and-hour legislation. In fact, the concensus of opinion among economists and disinterested students—those uninfluenced by political or other personal considerations—if not actually against it, raises very serious questions in regard to its wisdom. At least one State, or a reasonable number of States, ought to try out a minimum-wage and a maximum-hour law applying to all labor and see how it works within the limits of a State before Congress is asked to pass one applying to the whole United States, if the whole subject matter is not to be left entirely to the States to deal with.

In this connection, I should like to call attention to the plank in the 1936 Republican platform on labor, in connection with this question of wages and hours. It is as follows:

LABOR

The welfare of labor rests upon increased production and the prevention of exploitation. We pledge ourselves to—

Protect the rights of labor to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of its own choosing without interference from any source.

Prevent governmental job holders from exercising autocratic powers over labor.

Support the adoption of state laws, and Interstate compacts to abolish sweatshops and child labor, and to protect women and children with respect to maximum hours, minimum wages, and working conditions. We believe that this can be done within the Constitution as it now stands.

That is a pretty sound platform.

To repeat, who wants this bill anyway? No one endorses it wholeheartedly or without many mental reservations. The American Federation of Labor certainly does not want it. Agriculture does not want it. As a matter of fact, few, if any, want it in its present form. Everybody here knows that. Some thought they wanted it when it was first introduced, but economic and industrial conditions have changed materially since then and the legislation has become so muddled up and confused that many of those who were for it originally have changed their minds about the advisability of passing it now. Eliminate pride of authorship and position and the pride which the majority party organization here in the House has in going through with what it has undertaken, and there would not be a corporal's guard for it now in the shape it is in. And yet Congress is asked to put its stamp of approval upon it. There ought to be some better reason for doing that than just as a face-saving proposition. If it is passed, Congress and Congress alone will have to take the responsibility for it, and if it brings disaster, as so many think it will, Congress will be left holding the bag.

The bill proposes that Congress again abdicate its right and duty to legislate and to turn that power over to a board, or, if the amendment of the Committee on Labor prevails, to an administrator in the Department of Labor. Someone has said that it proposes the greatest abdication of legislative power in all history.

What the legislation will accomplish no one can tell. No doubt it squints at a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour and a maximum week of 40 hours, but whether that obJective will ever be reached for the country as a whole, or not, or in any industry or not, or in any locality or not, is left entirely to the discretion of the Labor Standards Board or the administrator, as the case may be, with practically no legislative standards set up to assist the board or the administrator in reaching a conclusion.

The board can fix wages at 40 cents an hour or 35 cents, or even 20 cents. It can fix the workweek at 40 hours, 44, 48, 60, or more if it sees fit to do so. It can fix wages for one industry at 40 cents per hour and limit the workweek to 40 hours, and for another it can fix a minimum wage of 30 or 35 cents per hour and allow it to run 48 or more hours per week, even though both may be in the same city or locality, or it can fix a 40-cent wage scale and a 40-hour week for industries in one locality and allow a 30-cent wage and a 48-hour week in another.

No two men will agree upon the meaning of such vague standards as are set up or suggested in the bill.

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAPES. I am sorry; I cannot yield. My time will not permit.

For example, and I quote the language of the bill:

It is declared to be the policy of this act to maintain so far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent with health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and the maximum productivity and profitable operation of American business.

Who can tell what minimum wages and maximum hours are "economically feasible" to accomplish "the maximum productivity and profitable operation of American business"? Management for its own interest is constantly striving to do that. That is the business of management. Can a bureaucratic board here in Washington answer the question for all business in all parts of the country better than individual management can do it?

Before fixing a minimum wage the board must find that the application of it "will not curtail opportunities for employment," and before limiting the hours of labor that any such limitation "will not curtail earning power."

The differences between the members of the Gufiey Coal Commission in the administration of that law will appear like 30 cents as compared with the differences between the members of this board in reaching conclusions as to the meaning and practical application of this act.

Is it any wonder that commentators have observed:

Where is the country to ftnd five Solomons at $10,000 a year to fill the board? Or at any price for that matter?

The buck is to be passed by Congress to the board, with the greatest delegation of power in the history of the Nation.

It looks very much as though the sponsors of the bill, because of the great complexity of the problem, have thrown up their hands and determined to leave the matter to a board with broad powers.

It is apparent that the board, or the administrator, will have a perfectly impossible task to perform and one that no one with any sense of responsibility would undertake. The magnitude of the job is beyond all comprehension. As has been pointed out, such broad delegation of power may "end in almost anything from oppression to defeat of the intention of the act altogether."

If the House passes this bill this week, following the passage last week of the farm bill based upon the doctrine of scarcity and clothing the Secretary of Agriculture with power to controland limit the production of farm crops, it will have taken about as long a step as it is possible to take in so short a time toward the further centralization of government, and of putting agriculture, industry, and labor all at the mercy of political bureaucrats here in Washington. What the consequences of such a week's work will be no one can safely predict. We ought to make haste more slowly. This bill should be sent back to the committee. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. DUNN].

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, 5 minutes is insufficient time for me to explain this bill to the Members of the House, especially to those who maintain they do not understand the bill.

There is an old saying, and many of you have heard it, that no one is so blind as those who have eyes but do not see. I do not belong to that class. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman. I respect the opinions of every Member of Congress. We are entitled to express ourselves on every piece of legislation which is presented to us, but here is one thing I have noticed today. No Member who has spoken on the measure has told you that he is opposed to a wage and hour bill. The Members, Democrats and Republicans, who have criticized this measure have said they are in favor of a wage and hour bill.

Is it not a fact that every piece of legislation which President Franklin D. Roosevelt sponsored since he has been in office has met a great deal of opposition on the floor from members of both parties? I venture to say, concerning legislation which has been enacted into law, such as the Social Security Act, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation Act, the

[PAGE 1400]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1401]

Stock Exchange Act, the Banking Act, and other progressive and humane measures, if a bill were brought out on this floor to repeal any of those acts, the Members who fought against them would not vote for their repeal. Why? Because they know the legislation that President Roosevelt sponsored has been damned good legislation for the poor of this country. [Applause.]

It has also been said by some of the opponents of this measure that people who wanted to testify before the committees were not given the opportunity to do so. We had a joint session of the House Labor Committee and the senate Labor Committee for about 3 weeks. People from various parts of the country appeared before the committees and expressed themselves concerning the bill. Some who testified favored the measure and others opposed it. When the public hearing ended the House Labor Committee discussed the bill for 3 or 4 more weeks.

I want to say to the Members of Congress that Mr. John L. Lewis, who represents the Committee for Industrial Organization, and Mr. William Green, who represents the American Federation of Labor, testified before the House and Senate Labor Committees. Both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Green maintained they were not opposed to the wage and hour bill which was being discussed; in fact, both of these gentlemen, as well as other outstanding men and women, said if the bill would be enacted into law it would to a large degree abolish sweatshops and child labor in our country.

When the wage and hour bill passed the Senate it was not altogether the same measure which was discussed at the public hearings. The members of the House Labor Committee put back into the bill many of the clauses which were eliminated in the Senate. Mr. Green presented to the House Labor Committee certain amendments which the American Federation of Labor endorsed and we inserted them in the measure.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I also yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania 1 minute.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I guess I shall have to conclude my remarks.

This is not a perfect bill. It needs considerable improvement. The Members of the House have a right to offer amendments to the wage and hour bill; therefore, if the measure does not come up to your expectation, then take advantage of the opportunity and present the kind of amendments you believe will make the bill practical. I would like to see a 5-day, 30-hour week bill enacted into law, and there are other Members who would also like to see this kind of legislation on the statute books. An outstanding economist who testified before the joint committee maintained that if tbe wage and hour bill would become a law it would put approximately one and a half million people to work. It was also stated before the committee that if we would adopt a 5- day, 30-hour week bill 7,000,000 people could be reemployed.

Let all of us vote for a wage and hour bill that will abolish child labor, sweatshops, and the shum districts in our country. Every person who is employed should receive adequate compensation for their services. There is not any necessity for a person to be out of employment who is physically able to work. There is plenty of work for everybody in our country. All of the people in our country—in fact, the people of every country in the world, are justly entitled to a fair portion of the goods which they produce. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. EATON].

Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I am profoundly depressed by the incredible muddle we find ourselves in as the days go by. We have just passed a farm bill to raise the cost of food to the industrial worker in the city. We are now. engaged in passing a wage and hour bill to raise the cost of the industrial worker's products to the farmer, and the only new thing about it will be a vast new army of bureaucratic maggots who will be engaged in eating up the rest of the meat.

This bill that comes before us today comes clothed in a cloud of mystery. It seems to be an illegitimate child that my dear colleague from New Jersey tells us was placed upon her doorstep last summer by some unknown and ill-disposed person. I am shocked at that. And she is so anxious to get the thing cleared up that today she has invited us to assume its parentage. [Laughter.] I am shocked at that. This legislation was sired down there in the cave of the winds at the other end of the Avenue—conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity. It had no origin here. Mr. Black, of blessed memory, did not write it. My beloved and your beloved friend, Bill Connery, did not write it. It was brought here, as so much of this stuff has been brought in the last 4 years, and placed upon our tongues with orders to swallow it; which we have done.

I am opposed to this bill in its present form. It ought to be recommitted to the Labor Committee for proper study and orderly preparation. I know what stands back of it in our country. We have the sweatshop, a cursed cancer in our economic life. We have the low-wage sections of the country, represented here by distinguished gentlemen.

I recognize and deplore these evils. We have a great and growing passion among our people to get rid of the curse of want in the midst of plenty. We have always active an amazing enduring idea among the American people that you can correct any evil simply by passing a law, even though it is plain that many laws aggravate the very evil they were supposed to cure.

Mr. Chairman, I am in distress over the inadequacy, the uncertainty, and the inability of this legislation to perform the very thing that it is supposed to do, namely, strike a blow at the sweatshop, strike a blow at the low-wage system, and thus improve the condition of that great multitude of our people whom we must put to work sooner or later, if our civilization is not to crumble into dust.

Many years ago I used to be a preacher.

Mr. KELLER. A what?

Mr. EATON. A "what"; yes; and, as I looked around to discover the great elemental forces that were at work in this modem world, I made up my mind that the chief instrument of civilization in this modern time is organized industry. That is where civilization will rise or fall, because there, and there alone, must be found a solution for the problem of producing and distributing wealth among the masses of men in justice to every class and to every man. Believing that, I turned my back on every other instrumentality of social service and went out into the industries of this country, and for 20 years I have been—

Mr. VOORHIS rose.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey yield to the gentleman from California?

Mr. EATON. No; because he is attempting to interrupt me here right in the midst of what I admit is a splendid oration. [Laughter and applause.]

For 20 years I have been fighting in the interest of increased wage levels, improved conditions of labor, decreased cost of unit production and price to the consumer. I have been fighting to lessen the evils of the capitalistic system, which I consider to be, summed up in one sentence, that there are not enough capitalists. I have sought to remove this evil by increasing the number of capitalists. And I believed this could best be done by the instrumentality of a wide spread in employment and a high level in wages.

We are now in a condition of economic depression, and this is no time to introduce a bill of this kind and further disturb business already hampered by too much governmental interference. I believe with John Stuart Mill that the citizen is entitled to the protection of his government and he is also entitled to protection against his government. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have in this country enough moral force and enough brains and character to get rid of this monstrous notion of organizing industry on a

[PAGE 1401]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1402]

war basis as between employer and employee. I believe the time is here when we must have the employer and the employee and the consumer, and, if you please, the Government, get together and recognize the truth that all industry is a service to society; that profit is what the people are willing to pay the investor for that service; that wages are what the people are willing to pay for what a man does who works. On that rational American basis this problem can be solved without eternally mixing it up with unworkable legislation that no one short of omniscience can understand, and no one short of omnipotence can administer.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EATON. Yes.

Mr. WELCH. It has been stated that there are thousands of women employed in this country who are paid less than $5 per week. This statement has been questioned by some Members of Congress. Does the gentleman know whether there are women in this section of the country who are being paid these starvation wages?

Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, Dick told me that he was going to spring that on me. That is in New Jersey. We have a minimum-wage law in New Jersey 2 years old, providing that minimum wages shall be $17 a week, and, according to a recent report, we have 34,000 or 35,000 women working for $5 a week right now. I am against that condition with all my heart. I think it is a social cancer, a social evil, a disgrace to our great State.

Mrs. NORTON. Then the gentleman admits that the State cannot enforce that law?

Mr. EATON. No; I do not admit that, because, then, I would turn my back on the very foundation of our American civilization. [Applause.]

That law is 2 years old, and the reason given why our State has not enforced it is that it had to spend millions and millions of dollars for relief, and could not afford to spend the money to enforce that law. Now, of course, when we get a Republican house and senate we are going to change all that. [Laughter.]

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. EATON. I yield.

Mrs. NORTON. I want to remind the gentleman that New Jersey has been under Republican rule since that law was enacted.

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Chaiman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EATON. I yield.

Mr. HARTLEY. Under whose department in the State of New Jersey is the enforcement of that minimum-wage law?

Mr. EATON. The labor department and law department.

Mr. HARTLEY. And a Democratic labor commissioner and a Democratic attorney general of the State?

Mr. EATON. I did not wish to unveil those horrors before you, but it is a fact. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EATON. I yield.

Mr. CRAWFORD. I desire to get the gentleman's expert opinion. Does the gentleman believe that it is more practical and an easier matter for the State to administer an act with such broad provisions than for the Federal Government to do so?

Mr. EATON. I certainly do. For instance, they talk about differentials. The southern people are told they will only have 10 or 15 cents or dollars, or whatever it is, and we in the industrial North will have 40. That means that all the sweatshops will move at once from New Jersey right down into Georgia and the deep South and make themselves at home, and the South will be swamped instead of being relieved and enriched. I sum up my reasons for opposing this legislation in a few words:

First. It is an invasion of State rights and State duties.

Second. It further slows down business by increased bureaucratic interference.

Third. It will deepen the present depression by increasing uncertainty and fear.

Fourth. It will restrict production and thus raise the cost of living to the worker.

Fifth. It will sound the death knell of organized labor by substituting the commands of a Federal bureaucrat for collective bargaining.

Sixth. It will tend to fix all wages at the dead level of 40 cents an hour.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS].

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes of that time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. WILCOX].

Mr. WILCOX. Mr. Chairman, regardless of what amendments may be offered or what substitutes may be submitted, the fact remains that the bill under consideration by the House at this time is the bill that was reported on the 6th day of August by the Committee on Labor.

I regard the wage and hour bill, in its present form as reported to the House, the most serious threat to representative democracy which has been proposed in this generation. It proposes a bureaucratic control of business and industry and a dictatorship over labor which, if enacted, must ultimately result in a destruction of the right of collective bargaining and which may easily reduce labor to a state of economic slavery.

It proposes the establishment of a Federal bureau or board with autocratic and dictatorial power beyond any ever attempted in any government of free people. It would place in the hands of a little group of Federal bureaucrats the power to regulate the earnings of millions of American citizens. And since, in the words of one of its sponsors, the bill, as drawn, is only a modest beginning, the Federal bureau once established will soon be extended to cover every business, every industry, and every man who works for a living in America.

Once this bill is enacted private enterprise in America will be subject to the whims and caprice of a governmental agency and labor will have sold its birthright without receiving in return the proverbial mess of pottage.

When we set up a board with power and authority to regulate the wages and hours of employment and with power to thus control the working men and women of this country we will have taken a very definite step toward complete regimentation of the people.

The board provided for in the bill will not only have potential power to bankrupt private business and wreck individual enterprise but, what is of vastly more serious importance, it will also have within its hands the power to destroy labor. By the exercise of discretionary power it may reward one business and punish another; it may establish high rates of pay and low hours of employment for one group of workmen and low rates of pay and long hours of employment for those not in favor with the board; it may prefer one section of the country over another; and it may, if it so desires, by the prescription of more attractive terms, force the removal of industries from those sections which may have incurred the displeasure of the bureaucrats. It could control elections, make and unmake political administrations, and direct the lives of the people. Set up such an institution and you have the makings of a dictatorship which, when once installed, may never be removed except by revolution.

I believe, as you do, in decent wages and decent working conditions; and I also believe in representative government; in the right of men to govern themselves without dictation; in the right of men to work out their own problems; and in the right of laboring people to bargain collectively for the improvement of their condition. And because I believe in these things I do not believe in this measure, which ultimately will place 45,000,000 wage earners under the domination of five Federal bureaucrats in Washington.

I want to discuss this bill primarily from the standpoint of its effect upon the workingman. In doing so I do not mean to minimize the evil that will be done to business, industry, and agriculture; but, because the sponsors of the measure have contended that it is designed to elevate the standard of living of the underpaid and underprivileged

[PAGE 1402]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1403]

classes, I want to view it from their angle. I believe that my unbroken record of support of all labor legislation and my recognized attitude of sympathy for the problems of labor qualify me to discuss the bill from that viewpoint.

Now, it is most remarkable that a measure purporting to be in the interest of the underpaid working people of the country should exempt from its operation so many groups and classes of workmen. It does not extend its alleged benefits to all working people. In fact, it specifically says that it shall not apply to certain groups.

The framers of this bill have been very careful to provide that it shall not apply to agricultural labor. God knows if there is any class or group of people in America who are underpaid and whose very existence is made unsafe and uncertain both by man and by nature it is that group who must depend upon agriculture for a livelihood. And yet under this bill there is no board to say to the farmer that he can go to work at 8 in the morning and quit at 4 in the afternoon and loaf on Saturday and be guaranteed a minimum income. No. He must go to work with the crack of dawn and labor into the night 6 days a week and take his chances on the weather for his crop, and after it is made he still has no assurance that it will yield him a living because he still must depend upon the uncertainties of a man-made market.

During the recent debate on the farm bill it wa.s shown that the average income of AmeriCan farmers is $359 per annum, or a little less than $7 per week, while the average income of our southern cotton farmers is only $200 per annum, a little less than $4 per week. But is he given a $16-a-week minimum guaranty in this bill? He is not. On the other hand, he will find that everything he buys will cost him more than it did before. When he buys clothing for his family, implements for his farm, or fertilizer for his crops, he is the fellow who will pay the bill out of his meager $7 a week.

And then the measure says that it shall not apply to those who are engaged in the canning or packing of fish, fruits, or vegetables. It does not apply to retail merchants or their employees. It is supposed to exempt all persons not engaged in interstate commerce. It leaves out those who gin cotton but includes those who spin the cotton into thread.

Why, if this is a good law, are these and other groups of workers left out? Why have you omitted 40,000,000 workers from the bill if it is a good thing for labor?

Why extend the benefits of a good law to one class of our people and deny them to another class? And, on the other hand, if it is a bad law for one class, then why is it not a bad law for the others?

There can be no rational justification for discrimination for or against any group if the Federal Goyernment is going into this business.

Now, one of two things is true; either the legislation deliberately, purposely, and intentionally discriminates against certain classes of working people, or the sponsors, realizing that the proposal would be a bad law, have undertaken to miniinize its bad effects by making it applicable to only a very small number of people. But if it is so bad that some must be left out, then why make it apply to any?

I am not disposed to believe that the sponsors of this legislation would deliberately withhold the benefit of a good law, if they really believed it to be good, from such an enormous group of people as are exempted from this bill. I am driven, therefore, to the conclusion that the sponsors realize that it is a bad law and that they have exempted these people so as to make it applicable to just as few as possible. But the question arises as to whether these people are actually exempted; and, if so, whether they will remain exempted from the provisions of the bill once it becomes a law.

In the first place, let me remind you that although the Federal Government has no jurisdiction except over interstate commerce and those people who are engaged in interstate commerce, nevertheless, this bill provides that any enterprise whose products may come into competition with products shipped in interstate commerce will be subject to the provisions of the law. Therefore, any little neighborhood industry whose products may compete with similar products which have been shipped in interstate commerce will find itself subject to the regulations of this act, and its employees will receive their orders from a five-man board sitting in Washington.

Again, the regulation of wages and hours in one business on one side of the street will be impossible where a business on the other side of the same street in the same community is unregulated. It is not reasonable to believe that the turpentine industry will remain unregulated when the sawmill industry in the same locality is regulated. Such a situation will create such confusion and such disorder that Congress will find it necessary to amend, enlarge, and extend the act so as to cover industries and businesses which are now specifically exempt. Those who are now exempted, therefore, may be lulled into a sense of security in thinking that their wages and their hours of employment will not be regulated under the terms and provisions of this bill; but, once the measure is enacted and once this board is established, it will be a matter of only a few years until the exemptions will be removed and the powers of the board will be extended to cover every man and every woman who works for a living in America.

In the past 40 years organized labor has accomplished much for the welfare of the American workman. It has increased his pay, shortened his hours of employment, and secured more decent working conditions for him. But I would remind you that these things have been accomplished by negotiation, by collective bargaining, and not by Federal law. Organized labor has been able to adjust its differences with capital when it could sit down at the table and negotiate for better working conditions; but, once the Federal Government assumes control, once a Federal bureau is given the power of regulation, organized labor will find it has surrendered its power of collective bargaining and has subjected itself to the dictation and control of the Government. The enactment of this statute, therefore, means the beginning of the end for organized labor and means the substitution therefor of Government control and bureaucratic dictation.

I do not mean to say that all labor will be brought immediately under the terms of this bill; nor do I mean to indicate that the Federal Government will immediately displace collective bargaining. Unfortunately the results will not be immediately discernible. If they were, we would have nothing to fear, because the American people would not stand for it. But the passage of this bill is the entering wedge; it is the establishment of bureaucratic control over labor; and by the gradual extension of authority and the gradual assumption of more power, this Federal bureau will within 5, and certainly not more than 10, years become the autocrat of business, industry, and labor in this country. Another danger that I see in the enactment of this legislation lies in the fact that the establishment of minimum wages is likely to result also in the establishment of maximum wages. The danger of this is recognized in the measure itself because it contains a provision which requires that the five-man board shall exercise due caution to prevent the minimum wage from becoming the maximum. Thus even the framers of the bill understand that they are trying an extremely dangerous experiment and that they are gambling with the welfare of the workmen. They know that in establishing a minimum wage there is a strong possibility of at the same time fixing a top wage beyond which the workman cannot go.

In dealing with the question of whether this measure is actually in the interests of the workmen we should not overlook the fact that in every section of the country there are small industries working only a limited number of people and which do not operate on a sufficiently large scale to permit more than one shift of workmen per day. Suppose such a plant should be required to operate not more than 40 hours per week. This would not result in giving more men a job, but would result simply in requiring the plant to remain idle for 1 day out of each week and this in turn would result not only in the loss of 1 day's output for the plant but also in the loss of 1 day's pay each week to the

[PAGE 1403]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1404]

workman. I am persuaded that the workman would prefer to work 6 days per week and get 6 days' pay rather than be forced to work only 5 days per week and lose 1 day's pay.

Then there is another matter of great importance in the South, and that is the problem of our Negro labor. There has always been a difference in the wage scale of white and colored labor. So long as Florida people are permitted to handle the matter, this delicate and perplexing problem can be adjusted; but the Federal Government knows no color line and of necessity it cannot make any distinction between the races. We may rest assured, therefore, that when we turn over to a Federal bureau or board the power to fix wages, it will prescribe the same wage for the Negro that it prescribes for the white man. Now, such a plan might work in some sections of the United States but those of us who know the true situation know that it just will not work in the South. You cannot put the Negro and the white man on the same basis and get away with it. Not only would such a situation result in grave social and racial conflicts but it would also result in throwing the Negro out of employment and in making him a public charge. There just is not any sense in intensifying this racial problem in the South, and this bill cannot help but produce such a result.

Many of our northern friends may honestly think that by forcing a uniform wage scale upon the South they are doing the Negro a real service. But those who know the facts know that when employers are forced to pay the same wage to the Negro that is paid to the white man the Negro will not be employed. This in turn will mean that he will be thrown onto the relief roll to be fed in idleness. This is just another instance of the well-intentioned but misguided interference of our uninformed neighbors in a delicate racial problem that is gradually being solved by the people of the South. This bill, like the antilynching bill, is another political gold brick for the Negro, but this time the white laborer is also included in the scheme.

I would also call your attention to the difficulty of administering this proposed law. These five men sitting in Washington must deal with the social and economic conditions prevailing in every village and hamlet as well as every large city in the country. They must deal with conditions prevailing in a small sawmill community in Florida and at the same time consider the conditions in New York and Boston and Kansas City and San Francisco. The garment maker in Philadelphia and the turpentine Negro in Georgia; the cigar maker in Tampa and the automobile worker in Detroit must all come under the jurisdiction of five men in Washington. To administer such a law would require an army of snoopers, investigators, informers, and sleuths exceeding even that of prohibition days. It would be physically and humanly impossible for five men to gather the information necessary without such an army, and with their help it will be equally impossible to work out wage scales that will do justice between men in different sections of this vast country. Many things enter into the determination of wage scales just as they enter into every other activity. Living costs, proximity to markets, freight rates, availability of raw materials, climate, all must be considered, and because these must be considered a rate of pay which is just and fair in one section may be grossly unfair in another. And yet under this bill five men are to be given the power to determine these questions upon which the happiness and welfare of millions of Americans depend.

Whatever purposes may have motivated the framers of this bill, whatever their aims or intentions may have been, the result undoubtedly will be to drive industry out of the South and force it into those sections which are closer to the larger markets. When Florida with its warm climate, where fuel costs are low, rents are cheap, and where fruits and vegetables are close at hand, but where its products must be shipped hundreds of miles to market, is forced to meet the living costs of New England it will simply mean that industry will go to New England. And I rather suspect that it is the knowledge of this fact and not their interest in southern workmen that accounts for the New England support behind this bill. Of course, I cannot blame New England Senators and Representatives for trying to get everything they can for their section, but in this instance they are doing an injustice not only to southern business and industry but to southern labor as well. What good would it do a southern workman to have the law or the Federal board fix a high rate of pay for him if the plant where he works shuts down and moves away?

I offer no defense for any employer in the South who pays less than a proper living wage. If employers in my section pay less than the traffic will bear, if they exploit the labor of the South, I condemn them just as I condemn employers in the North, East, or West who are guilty of such practices, and I do not in any sense condone their actions. But while we are on the subject and since it has been made to appear here that we in the South are the chief offenders in the matter of low wages, it might be well to refer briefly to the "sweatshops" of the North and East. I think no one will deny that the worst labor conditions in this country prevail in those industries where employees are paid on a piece-work basis.

Now, either by accident or design, this bill does not attempt to correct any of the evils of the piece-work system. The sweatshops of the North and East will go merrily on their way, free to exploit their employees without restraint and without regulation.

Here again, I should like to ask: If this is a good law why have these people been left out?

If our friends really want to help the underpaid and overworked labor of this country, why do they not extend the alleged benefits of the law to the people in the sweatshops who are paid on a piece-work basis?

Now, to my Democratic colleagues, I want to say this: Many people have been circulating the rumor that the Democratic platform of 1936 binds our party to the passage of this bill. Exactly the opposite is true. The one thing that the Democratic Party has always stood for is the right of the States to settle internal affairs, and the one thing that the Democrat Party has always vigorously opposed is the centralization of power in the hands of the Federal Government.

But let us look at our 1936 platform and see just what it says. This is the section dealing with wages and hours:

We know that drought, dust storms, floods, minimum wages, maximum hours, child labor and working conditions in industry, monopolistic and unfair business practices cannot be adequately handled exclusively by 48 separate State legislatures, 48 separate State administrations, and 48 separate State courts. Transactions and activities which inevitably overflow State boundaries call tor both state and Federal treatment. We have sought and w1ll continue to seek to meet these problems through legislation Within the Constitution.

The language used is significant. It does not say that there shall be a Federal board or bureau with autocratic power. It would have violated every principle of the Democratic Party if it had said so. What it says is that the problem calls for "both State and Federal treatment." Our platform requires joint action, so that each State shall have a part in the program. This is not only democratic but it is necessary. No five men in Washington can possibly solve the problems incident to the enforcement of such a law. But if the people in Florida, who know Florida conditions, are given a voice in the matter they can work it out to fit the needs and requirements of Florida people, and the people of the other States can do the same thing as regards their own localities.

All of these questions are important and are deserving of our careful consideration, but they are of little consequence when compared to the more important question of whether we shall set up a Federal board or bureau to have dominion over labor. Once we establish such a board with the powers proposed by this bill we will have surrendered the last vestige of States' rights and the right to work out our own problems in the manner best suited to our own particular needs. But what is of vastly more serious importance we will have sold labor "down the river."

A great friend of labor once said, "Keep labor from under the thumb of government." How wise, how farseeing he was is evidenced by the plight of labor in every country where

[PAGE 1404]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1405]

government has assumed the right to regulate and thereby the right to control it. American labor enjoys the highest standard of living; it receives the best wages and works under the best conditions which exist in any country on earth. This is true because the American workingman retains his freedom to negotiate collectively with his fellows. He has not surrendered to government his right to work out his problems in the manner that insures to him the maximum income which the traffic will bear. But now, with a great fanfare of trumpets, with the mouthing of honeyed words and high sounding phrases, with great protestations of good faith and high purpose, the Congress proposes a measure which may easily result in the loss of the victories which American labor has achieved as the result of a half century of laborious effort.

Already our Federal Government has traveled a long way along the road toward concentration of all power in the hands of a few bureaucrats. Already we have drifted far from the course charted in our plan of representative government. Let us not take this final step of regimenting those who earn their bread by the sweat of their brows. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell]

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, it is understood that I may reserve the other 10 minutes of my time until tomorrow.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. KNUTSON].

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Chairman, in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to my position or, rather, my feeling toward organized labor, may I say that I have carried a card in the Typographical Union for nearly 30 years and have in my files many letters commending me for positions I have taken on various measures of interest to labor that have come before the House in the 20 years that I have been a Member.

I was amazed to receive a letter in this morning's mail which reads as follows:

Hon. HAROLD KNUTSON,

The House Building, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: The executive board, International Union United Automobile Workers of America, at its special meeting in Detroit, unanimously resolved to send to you and all other Members of Congress whose constituents include any of our 400,000 members the following communication:

1. That our union considers it vital to the security and welfare of its members that you cast your vote and use your influence 1n favor of the Black-Cannery fair labor standards bill;

2. That we consider it equally vital to the security and welfare of all wage earners and therefore of the country as a whole;

3. That Representatives in Congress who vote against or fail to vote or pair in favor of the bill are thereby placing themselves on record as opposed to the best interests of their constituents;

4. That an unfavorable vote on this bill or failure to vote or pair in favor will not be forgotten next year, when Representatives ask their constituents to reelect them, as this will be the acid test of a Representative's real position.

Evidently this young man was alive before the war broke out—"the acid test of a Representative's real position."

Then he goes on to say:

5. That this is not a political threat—

[Laughter.]

but a frank expression of conviction and fair notice that Representatives who do not represent cannot expect support.

Respectfully yours,

HOMER MARTIN,

International President of the

United Automobile Workers of America.

It may not be a threat, Mr. Chairman, but it is certainly a promise.

Mr. :MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KNUTSON. I yield.

Mr. :MICHENER. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the author of this letter assumed a similar attitude recently in the Detroit election, but in that election the city of Detroit overwhelmingly cast that kind of philosophy and leadership into the discard. In Monroe, Mich., the same leadership attempted to defeat for reelection the mayor, who had organized a volunteer police force to protect those who wanted to work during the sit-down strikes in that city. In this instance the mayor was reelected by a 3-to-1 vote.

Mr. KNUTSON. I am not surprised. Thinking people will not stand for such tactics.

This same gentleman, my friends, a short time ago called upon the automobile workers of the United. States to stop buying meat; in other words, to boycott the American farmer so as to depress prices, yet today he is out in my country trying to organize our farmers and trying to bring them into the C. I. O. In this connection I want to read a telegram sent him by Edward A. O'Neal, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation:

American farmers are shocked at newspaper reports of your urge upon all members of the C. I. O. automobile unions to withhold consumption of meat in an effort to reduce prices. Is this an invitation for American farmers to take similar action against products produced by C. I. O. labor? Factory wages are more than 20 percent in excess of 1929 level and retail food prices, including meat, are nearly 20 percent less than during same period. National welfare demands a balance as between agriculture, labor, and industry, and American farmers will resist by whatever means necessary any efforts to aggravate the present disparities.

A Mr. Frazier, down in Lovettsville, Va., wrote Mr. Martin something worth thinking about. I read the article which appeared in the Washington Star recently:

Meat strikes and "meatless weeks" advocated by the United Automobile Workers to force down meat prices were met today with a counterstrike.

The Lovettsville Farmers' Club has begun a boycott against products of industries employing U. A. W. labor, and said its members would call upon other "farmers throughout the country" to follow suit.

W. H. Frazier, club president, in announcing the boycott, declared that 90 percent of the differentiation in the price of meat received by the farmer and that paid by the consumer may be traced to etrorts to "unionize labor."

BLAMES DECLINE ON C. I. O.

He charged the "declining state of business" to the "bargaining tactics of the Committee for Industrial Organization and its constituent unions, including the United Automobile Workers."

Mr. Frazier, in a letter to Homer Martin, U. A. W. president, who encouraged the meat strikes in a letter to U. A. W. members on November 12, asked:

"Do you know what a farmer's hours of labor are, Mr. Martin? If the farmer worked only as many hours a day as does the U. A. W. member, you would pay twice as much for steaks."

CALLS FOR A BOYCOTT

"Farmers, nearly to a man, use automobiles and trucks, Mr. Martin. But they don't buy them when they can't. And when farmers don't buy, you don't sell much, Mr. Martin."

In his letter he explained the Lovettsville Farmers Club is composed of farmers of Loudoun County, Va., who are actively engaged in the production of meat animals.

"In order to combat the effect on all farmers of the U. A. W. propaganda and reduce the market price of meat animals below the cost of production," Mr. Frazier wrote, "we do hereby call upon the farmers of the county to strike against and boycott the products of industries employing labor who partlcipate in and endorse such tactics. In particular, we call this strike against the purchase of automobiles made in plants dominated by the U. A. W. and you, Mr. Martin."

LABOR CALLED MONOPOLY

"You cannot, in truth, plead that your campaign is directed against monopoly in processing and distributing channels; if there is a monopoly there, it is that of organized labor. Do you want the Federal Government to prosecute that monopoly, or other labor monopolies such as the U. A. W.?

"You know, as we know, that up to 90 percent of the spread between the price the farmer receives and the price the consumer pays is labor cost, and you know, as we know, that your parent—the C. I. O.—has endeavored to organize all processing and distributing channels. Are we to believe that you, Mr. Martin, desire that wages of that labor be reduced? Does not the C. I. O. and the U. A. W. stand for, and get, higher wages and shorter working hours? Does that raise the cost of anything, automobiles, for instance, Mr. Martin? What you would dictate then, Mr. Martin, is and can be nothing else but lower prices to the farmer-poverty to the farmer—even though the C. I. O. is trying to organize the farmers in the Middle West."

Reverting to the letter from this man Martin, I can remember the time when, if a man sent a letter like that to 400 Members of this House of Representatives, he would have been hailed before the bar of the House and censured by the Speaker; but, in this day of rubber stamps, we take it and we smile, and we invite more of it.

[PAGE 1405]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1406]

Mr. VOORHIS. I ask the gentleman whether he never received any other letters like that from any other organizations?

Mr. KNUTSON. No; I never have; I never have.

Mr. VOORHIS. I have received a great many of them.

Mr. KNUTSON. That is probably because the writers think such letters will interest the gentleman. I am sure it was an oversight that they sent this letter to me.

We have been assured repeatedly that an agricultural activities are excluded from this legislation. Let us see if such is the case. I invite your attention to page 5, lines 15, 16, 17, and 18, which read as follows:

Independent contractors and their employees engaging in transporting farm products from farm to market are not persons employed in agriculture.

I submit in all fairness that while the man who transports agricultural products from farm to market may not be a farmer he is, nevertheless, an integral and very necessary part of the agricultural organization. Then again on page 28, section 7, I am not sure that under the provisions of this section it would be possible to ship farm products in interstate commerce that had been handled by nonunion truck drivers.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of trouble with labor violences in Minnesota, where a bitter fight exists between the two dominant labor organizations, and it was only 2 or 3 weeks ago that a labor leader was shot down in cold blood in Minneapolis. I regret to say there have been others. In the many strikes that we have had in our State farmers driving their own trucks, and who were not members of any union, have been slugged and unmercifully beaten by hired thugs. Right now the wood-products industry of northern Minnesota is at a standstill because the highways are in possession of thugs and gangsters who absolutely prohibit any trucker from using the highways unless he belongs to the union. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it has become a racket that should be investigated by the Federal Government.

Is this, or is it not, a free country? May I ask who owns our highways? Should it be necessary for a farmer or any other individual who wishes to drive a truck to join the union before he will be permitted to use our highways?

I am probably as good a friend of labor as there is in this House, but I am warning you now that if this lawlessness continues the whole labor movement will be discredited because, after all, the average American believes in liberty, in freedom, and in fair play.

If there be a man in this House who believes in violence, such as I have described, as a means of furthering the labor movement, let him stand up here now and proclaim his adherence to such an indefensible program. As a union man who has carried a card for a quarter of a century and expects to do so until the end, let me issue this warning: The present program, which is nothing less than a racket, if continued, will inevitably set labor back to where it was before it began to organize. It is individuals like Homer Martin who will bring such an unfortunate situation about, and I call upon every member of organized labor who has the movement sincerely at heart to rise up and repudiate such false and dangerous leadership. I believe that this measure is but another step toward fascism and have reason to believe that the American Federation of Labor is of the same opinion. Certainly, our farmers are of this opinion. Its passage would make it almost impossible to hire farm help.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. FITZGERALD].

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I am for this bill because I was elected on the promise to the people of my State that if sent here to Washington I would help write a wage and hour bill which would do away with the abuses from which some of the people of my State are suffering. I am for the pending bill because it is a part of the Democratic platform. I am for it further because the greatest leader that God ever gave to America is in favor of the bill. The people believed in that pledge and swept Members from the South and a great many more on this side of the House into Congress. I do not intend to walk out on my promise when the vote on this bill is taken.

Mr. Chairman, while I was deputy commissioner of labor in my State I saw numerous abuses. The statement has been made here that these abuses exist only in one part of the country, but may I say that they exist in all parts of the country. I come from the East where we have wages as low as $4 a week for 48 and 55 hours of labor.

Mr. Chairman, I learned a trade 40 years ago and worked for a concern that was one of the best in the country. This company worked us reasonable hours and paid good wages, but one day it found it could not compete so it began to reduce wages and salaries. The workers resisted these wage reductions, the same as they are resisting them today. This company did not want to pay a wage sufficient in amount to keep one's family together or educate one's children; it was not willing to pay a living wage. We resisted the cut and it moved its factory to another State, in which men would wear overalls 7 days a week and allow their wives to work with them so that the combined wages of both would amount to a living wage for the family.

All I ask for an American father is that he be paid a wage sufficient in amount that his wife may stay at home and bring up her family and that his children may be educated and that he may set a little aside for his old age. Is there anything wrong with that philosophy?

It has been stated here this afternoon that this matter should be left to the States. The States cannot enforce and carry out the provisions as contained in this bill, because we have had the experience in the past where States have raised their standards and the industries went out of business on account of competition with States that had lower standards.

From the discussion that has taken place here this afternoon, the only conclusion I can draw is that the committee did not bring out a bill strong enough. The methods we will adopt in the enforcement of the bill can be improved upon when the bill is read for amendment. I plead especially with the Members on this side of the House to carry out your program, find a proper method, and enact it into law. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LORD].

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss for a few minutes the farmers of our Nation. We were informed by a previous speaker that no consideration has been given the farmer, this I agree with. My district is composed of farmers and those engaged in industry. The men in the industries work about 8 hours a day, if they can get work to do. The farmer works from about 4 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening and the wages the farmers receive, as you all know, are very small.

If this is a good law for the men in industry, it should likewise be a good law for the farmers. The farmer gets to be an old man before his time on account of hard work and long hours. Why not consider his wages and hours of labor? We have a 40-hour week in New York State for industry but organized labor has always opposed a minimum wage. They claim the minimum will be the maximum. I want to see an labor receive a good wage and reasonable working hours. I believe that 8 hours is long enough to work and perhaps 40 cents an hour is the right figure, but conditions change; most labor in factories so far as I can learn receives more than this amount now, while the farmers receive much less. When we increase the cost too much to the farmer and buying public they must stop buying. The legislation may harm rather than help the workers.

I was home over the last week end and I find our factories when they are running at all are running only on short time. Some of our principal factories that have in the past worked three shifts a day at the present time are entirely closed down. Some of the other factories are working only 24 hours a week. Others have laid off a great many of their employees. Conditions under this new depression created by President Roosevelt are getting worse all the time.

[PAGE 1406]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1407]

Hearings are being held on reciprocal-trade agreements here in Washington, that have for their purpose lowering of the tariff with foreign countries. Tomorrow there is going to be a hearing before the Tariff Commission on shoes down at the old Land Office Building beginning at 10 o'clock in the morning. I have invited the chairman of the Committee on Labor to attend that meeting and bring with her the other members of the Labor Committee. I invite all Members of Congress who are interested in the laboring man to go down there and endeavor to bring before the Tariff Commission the necessity of not reducing the tariff on shoes, for example, that come to this country from Czechoslovakia, but increase that tariff. I have one concern which employs 20,000 shoe workers in my district, as well as other smaller concerns. The employees in the larger factory are working 24 hours a week. Their wages when employed are good, receiving on an average 67 cents an hour. The average for shoe workers throughout the Nation is 51 cents an hour. I am afraid if this legislation is passed providing for 40 cents an hour, these employees will be decreased instead of getting an increase in wages. The fact that the Government says 40 cents is a fair wage scale may be an incentive for those who are losing business to decrease their wage scale. I am informed that child labor is employed in Czechoslovakia at about 13 cents an hour. All we have to protect our workers from starvation wages or no wages at all is the tariff. Yet the majority party does not show any interest in the working man.

The reciprocal-trade agreements have been disastrous to the farmers. It has lowered the price of dairy products coming into this country, especially from Canada into New York and the bordering States. We have a low tariff on shoes, as I said before, and now it is proposed to lower the tariii coming from Czechoslovakia, in which country is located the largest shoe factory in the world, This concern is getting the world trade. It has shoe factories in 10 other nations which are supplying the world market. We in the United states are losing our shoe market. At one time we shipped 22,000,000 pairs of shoes abroad. At the present time we are shipping only about one and one-half million pairs of shoes abroad. If we want to do something for labor, let us do something real. Let us get busy and let the Tariff Commission know we have to increase the tariff rather than lower it if we are going to help labor. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAVERICK].

PURCHASING POWER IS WHAT BUILDS BUSINESs—WAGES CREATE

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a great deal today about the North and the South. (See below I, Wages, North and South Comparisons.) I have heard gentlemen warn the North that industries in the South would never pay a Negro the same wage they would pay a white man, in spite of a Federal law. As far as I am concerned, if a black man does the same work as a white man, he ought to receive the same pay. [Applause.]

I do not see anything terrible about this. I think Negroes should have economic justice. If a Negro makes good pay, he spends it—just like a white man. Purchasing power builds business, prosperity, and the Nation. If a Negro gets fair wages, he will spend, pay taxes, hire a doctor for his health, send his kids to school, be a better citizen, and contribute his part rather than being a burden.

The very fact we have always had this kind of psychology—I mean beating down the wages of the Negro—is what has kept the wages of the white workers of the South at the bottom, the lowest in the United States. I want to see the purchasing power of the South and the North, East, and West raised. (See below II, Subject of Negro Wages.)

THE "BLOODY SHIRT" OF THE NORTH AND THREATS FROM OTHER SECTIONS

Before I came to Congress I beard of these fellows who were always waving the "bloody shirt" on the Republican side. This was a disgusting thing. But I believe it is just as disgusting for any person from another section of the counry to threaten the North when legislation of a National character is brought on this floor for discussion.

Listen, my friends—and this is not partisan talk—our wealth, the wealth of the South, has been drained out ever since the Civil War, and I believe the first President who has ever given the South a real decent break is Franklin D. Roosevelt and the present administration of the Democratic Party. [Applause.]

COTTON SUBSIDIES, MONEY, BENEFITS—ALSO LAWS FOR THE SOUTH

Let us be fair about this thing. We had the Bankhead Cotton Act, and it was a fine thing for the South. We had a cotton subsidy and we had the T. V. A. We down South took money from the P. W. A., W. P. A . and other agencies and we were glad to get it.

This money did a lot of good for the South, and I am happy we got it. However, when you take money from Uncle Sam you must take the laws from Uncle Sam just like the rest of the United States. [Applause.]

They say there ought to be a differential between the North and the South. Yes? Do you think I as a Congressman from Texas, which has the most wonderful and the most balmy climate in the country, would say, "I want you to reduce my salary because Texas has such a wonderful climate"? You would think I had gone crazy if I should do a thing like that. Southern Congressmen and southern veterans get the same pay as Congressmen and veterans in other parts of the country. This despite our delightful climate. Oh, what a wonderful climate! California and Florida Congressmen should compete for the lowest salaries, for they claim to have climates better than Texas! But just the same the practice of uniform wages is followed all over the Nation by the Federal Government, and that is what it ought to do.

In my district I have a special problem. Living there are 90,000 Mexicans, or Latin Americans. They are usually exploited, because they belong to a racial minority, and are of immigrant stock. (See below ill, Wages Paid Mexicans.)

LET US BANISH SWEATSHOPS EVERYWHERE

As far as I am concerned, and I believe this is true of all of my colleagues, solemnly, I do not impute any bad motives to anybody who comes from one section or another, but by the heavens, I do not want any sweatshops or any low wages in my district, if I can help it. Yes, yes, I want the people in my district to get as good wages as the workers in any other part of the country.

When the Federal Government gives me a chance to benefit my district by a decent law, I want my district to come in just as it does on the allotment of money and all the rest of it. This is a nation, a nation, gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today of the Green bill and of the American Federation bill and a lot of talk about the C. I. O. and different organizations. I have heard that this organization and that organization does not want a minimum-wage bill. I am not the man to refuse to accept advice.

I welcome advice; but in the end I must make up my own mind.

SLAVES DID NOT ASK FOR ABOLITION—THEY COULD NOT

But I must say that neither Bill Green nor a half dozen Du Ponts, John Lewis, the heads of the Manufacturers' Association, the chamber of commerce, whoever they are—and it does not make any difference—the sons of both the Texas and American revolutions, do not tell me how to legislate. I am glad to get their advice and their suggestions, but there is no reason why any Congressman should go yammering down the aisles and yelling "aye" to every organization that tells him what to do.

There were no organizations of the slaves asking for the abolition of slavery. They could not organize. And because the people down under have no organizations clamoring aloud for legislation is no sign such people do not want it. It is no argument against the wage bill. It is either right or wrong.

[PAGE 1407]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1408]

GREEN BILL—RIGID; UNENFORCEABLE

Now let me discuss for a moment what is known as the Green bill. It is known as the 40-40 bill. It is rigid and inflexible. (See below, IV, "Constitutionality of American Federation of Labor bill.") Constitutional or not, it will be impossible of enforcement in the United States of America. The imposition of these rigid restrictions will simply cause the break-down of the law, and it will mean that labor will get no bill. The bill proposed by the committee is a fair compromise and a beginning.

I have a telegram I received from the State Federation of Labor in Texas asking me to vote for the American Federation of Labor wage and hour substitute bill, and that in the event it is defeated that I vote to refer the original bill back to the committee.

In other words, the American Federation of Labor in effect tells us that unless we enact legislation exactly as they say, without crossing a "t" or dotting an "i", that the American worker is not to have any legislation, and do without any protection. The Manufacturers Association and the National Chamber of Commerce do not want any legislation. Well, I am sorry, but I am going to vote for the bill the committee puts up to us, and I am going to follow the leadership of the committee. I believe, by doing so, I shall have a chance of doing something for our country. [Applause.]

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RIGID LABOR LAW VERT DOUBTFUL

Also, my friends, we might as well face the constitutionality of the Green 40-40 bill. The constitutionality of the wages and hours by States in relation to women, known as the West Coast Hotel case, from the State of Washington (as well as several other States and the District of Columbia) was based entirely on the fact that it was reasonable for a study to be made of conditions, wages, and rights of employers and employees, and then set the minimum wage. Should we adopt a rigid and inflexible bill not based on reasonableness, it will very probably be declared unconstitutional.

For that reason, it behooves us to enact the most reasonable legislation and also so it can afterward be built up gradually, raising the standards of the American people all over the Nation.

MAGNA CARTA OF LABOR—LET US BUILD

Further, my friends, they say, especially the enemies of this bill, especially those who do not want any legislation of this kind at all, that the bill is not any good, and that it is not good enough for labor. They are right, but they do not fool me, or anybody else interested in the welfare of labor. The false friends of labor always say labor should get more, but they really mean nothing.

Oh, the same thing was said when they went to adopt the Magna Carta, no doubt, that it was not good enough for the British people—and if anyone takes the trouble to read it, they will find out that was true. Yes; the Magna Carta was a selfish document. It was a document for the purpose of protecting selfish barons. But upon it has been built the economic and political liberty of England, and through our constitutional and democratic processes, the rights of the American people.

Therefore I intend to vote for the wage and hour bill, recognizing that it will have grave defects, but with the hope that it will become the Magna Carta of millions of Americans, and that upon its foundations will be built a better America. [Applause.]

I. WAGES, NORTH AND SOUTH, SOME COMPARISONS

Since making my address, I have obtained some tables and figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the differences in wages paid in different parts of the country. I shall first present those generally applying, irrespective of race or color. That is because it is necessary to understand the general wage rates, showing such low rates for the South, before we take up the facts concerning the Negro question.

Common labor rates—North, 55 cents; South, 38 cents

The statistics compiled by Commissioner Lubin of the Bureau of Labor Statistics show the northern average of entrance labor rates to be $0.553, as compared with $0.389 for the southern region. This is principally in well organized industries, paying the best rates of pay.

These tables show that for the country as a whole 14.7 percent of the common laborers in industry receive less than 40 cents an hour—but that in the South, 48.4 percent are paid under 40 cents. Taking the North as one region, only 3.5 percent got under 40 cents an hour.

The table, with comparisons and explanations, is as follows:

Hourly entrance rates of adult male common laborers, by industry and region, July 1937

[NOTE: Insert table]

¹ Less than 50 employees; no average computed.

²In order not to reveal plant identity, district figures are not given.

The industries with averages ranging from 45 to 50 cents were foundries and machine-shop products, soap, rubber tires and inner tubes, leather, paper and pulp, electric street railways and city motorbus operation and maintenance, manufactured and natural gas, electric light and power, and brick and tile, and terra. cotta. The lumber industry averaged 43.7 cents. The average in the fertilizer industry was 36.4 cents.

In each case where the figures are available for both regions, the averages in the North were considerably higher than those in the South. The smallest differential per hour appeared in glass, 2.4 cents; iron and steel, 6.1 cents; petroleum refining, 7.9 cents; and manufactured and natural gas, 8.8 cents. The highest d11ferentials were found in lumber, 30.1 cents; fertilizers, 26 cents; and building construction, 25.4 cents. In the remaining industries the differentials varied from 10 to 20 cents.

In the northern region only three industries, namely, lumber, electric street railways and city motorbus operation and maintenance, and brick, tile, and terra cotta, had any appreciable number of employees paid less than 40 cents per hour.

The southern industries with the highest percentages of common laborers receiving less than 40 cents per hour were, lumber, 97.4 percent; fertillzers, 89 percent; electric street railways and city motorbus operation and maintenance, 83.1 percent; brick, tile, and terra cotta, 74.3 percent; and chemicals, 53.6 percent.

II. SUBJECT OF NEGRO WAGES DISCUSSED

Further, using actual figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I find that in a majority of the well-regulated industries the Negro generally gets the same wages as the white man. Therefore, it appears to me that there is a great hullabaloo about paying the Negro less than the white man, and that the only effect it can possibly have is to force lower wages on both Negroes and whites.

I have followed a study of the Monthly Labor Review of April 1937. Taking 35,444 workers, three-fifths, or 21,501, were in establishments paying exactly the same rate to common laborers of both races.

Some Negroes get higher wages than whites

It is true that in this study there were 142 plants with 12,431 laborers which paid a higher wage to white workers.

[PAGE 1408]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1409]

But just in passing let me note that 21 plants with 1,512 common laborers hired Negroes at a higher rate than white laborers on the jobs to which they were assigned.

Why certain colored workers in same occupations get higher wages, I do not know. I believe a study should be made of that—it will probably indicate that the Negroes are stronger and better nourished workers even than the whites in that particular locality.

As I stated in the main body of my speech, I believe it is unjust to pay one man more or less wages on account of his race if he does equal work, and is of equal skill. And, as far as that is concerned, industries hire people who will work at competitive wages, or less. The truth is that if a man wants a job at common labor, he takes it at the common-labor wage, whether he is white or black. It is specious to argue for the right to pay a lower wage to a man with a black skin. What results is merely the right to pay low wages to all men.

I will admit the argument of some that if wages are placed low enough only Negroes may take the job, and this happens to some extent in the South and in Texas. Some industries and some establishments with very low common-labor rates have only Negroes, or have an extremely large proportion of Negroes, in their common-labor force. As a result all of the wages in those districts are depreciated.

Differentials in some classifications

In most of the southeastern States, where there is a differential between colored and white labor, this differential is only about 1 cent an hour. However, the figures from the Department of Labor show that in Arkansas, Delaware, Mississippi, and Oklahoma there was a differential of 2.6 to 4.5 cents. In the seaboard States from North Carolina to Florida and in Texas, white common laborers averaged 6 to 7 cents an hour more than Negroes. In Louisiana the differential amounted to 8.5 cents. These were mostly in other than the big and established industries, since in the latter there is less differential, or none at all.

However, without burdening this record with a large amount of statistics, I find it difficult to believe that human beings can be found to work at the wages that are sometimes offered. From some of these statistics I find wages running around 6 cents an hour; that 57 percent in a certain industry make less than 8 cents an hour. Anyone can find these full statistics in the Monthly Labor Review of May 1937.

III. WAGES PAID MEXICANS, OR LATIN AMERICANS

Mr. Speaker, in my district there are some 90,000 Mexicans, or Latin Americans, and they are of the white race. They are here called Mexicans for convenience, because they are of Mexican and Spanish extraction, some of them natives who have been naturalized and others descendants of immigrants from Mexico.

Astonishingly low wages paid pecan pickers

Concerning some of the wages paid to Mexicans, I insert the following astonishing figures which came from the NRA and are a result of an investigation:

PECAN SHELLING INDUSTRY-WAGE AND HOUR DATA ON CONTRACT LABOR IN SAN ANTONIO

(N. R. A. Research and Planning Division. Preliminary Report on the Pecan Shelling Industry, March 12, 1935, p. 22.)

As it was impossible to obtain data from the pecan dealers in San Antonio on the wages and hours of employees who worked for the contractors, questionnaires were submitted to a number of these contractors. Fourteen of them furnished complete data for 1,030 employees, of which 878 were pickers, 100 crackers, and 52 cleaners.

These questionnaires indicate that the average weekly earnings for all types of employees during December 1934, were $1.29 weekly. Specifically, by types of labor, the average weekly wages ranged as follows: Crackers, $3.39, pickers, $1.03, cleaners, $1.65.

I do not consider $1.29 what you would call excutive wages. With that wage it is very doubtful if the person would have over three or four Rolls-Royce cars with chauffeurs in livery. Nor would such wages (from 3 to 5 cents per hour> indicate many trips to gamble at Monte Carlo,

A further investigation of the State of Texas shows other common workers receiving wages averaging from 6 to 12 dollars per week; and the average annual wages of cannery workers is $536. It is also shown that the average of petroleum refinery workers—including some Mexicans, but statistics not taken by race—is around 75 cents an hour and moves up to $1 per hour.

Letter says laborers are dumb

But further concerning Mexican labor, I am enclosing herewith a letter without the name of the sender in order that he may not be embarrassed. His letter is as follows:

The prevailing wages for common labor in our line of business is 25 cents per hour. We pay our Mexican truck drivers who have been in our employ a number of years at the rate of 32 cents per hour. They average about 40 hours of work per week.

The common Mexican laborer is incapable of earning more than 25 cents per hour due to the fact that he is slow in motion and also slower in thinking. Their dumbness and slow actions do not fit them for the higher rates of pay such as are paid to laborers in the northern portions of our country.

We are opposed to fixing a higher rate of pay, as a minimum, than 25 cents per hour for Mexican labor, although we are willing to pay more where the individual is capable of earning more. We are opposed to paying more than the usual wage where a man is called on to work for an hour or so overtime, as we do not get more pay for our materials when they are delivered at times other than our usual working hours.

Industrial wages paid Spanish-American groups

I have asked for a report on Mexican common labor from over the States in the usual occupations reported by the Labor Department. In industrial occupations the amounts paid appear to be as follows:

Average hourly entrance rate

Indiana------------------------------------------------- $0.624

California_______________________________________________ .499

Texas--------------------------------------------------- .334

Colorado------------------------------------------------ .507

New A!exico--------------------------------------------- .297

Arizona------------------------------------------------- .340

From this it can be seen that the lowest paid Mexicans are in New Mexico and the next lowest is Arizona, and then follows Texas. The reason for this is apparent. There is an oversupply of that racial group in those places, whereas in Indiana the Mexicans receive for common labor 62.4 cents. Knowing the Mexican people, I have traveled over the United States and I find they receive the same wages as all other groups outside of the Southwest, where they are concentrated. This seems to do away with the argument that they are not as intelligent as others.

At numerous times throughout history when wage rates and labor conditions have been discussed people have said that certain races or groups were not intelligent enough to get decent wages or conditions. Personally, I believe that an effort should be constantly made for better wages for all citizens, and this in order to keep up the purchasing power which alone maintains the stability of business and our capitalistic structure.

IV. CONSTITUTIONALITY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR BILL

Concerning the constitutionality of minimum-wage acts and the principles involved. I quote the following from the syllabus of the West Coast Hotel Co. against Parish et al. It is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States, and which was decided on March 29, 1937:

Deprivation of liberty to contract is forbidden by the Constitution if without due process of law; but restraint or regulation of this liberty, if reasonable in relation to its subject and if adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people, is due process.

WAGES FIXED AFTER STUDY BY COMMISSION

The point is made that wages are fixed after a study of conditions. And the Court further said in the body of the opinion:

The minimum wage to be paid under the Washington statute is fixed after full consideration by representatives of employers, employees and the public. It may be assumed that the minimum wage is fixed in consideration of the services that are performed in the particular occupations under normal conditions.

In fact, the Court had held previously that certain minimum ages set by fixed amounts and without hearing were

[PAGE 1409]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1410]

unconstitutional. In other words, what we need at this time is a bill which is not too rigid, but one in which there are certain flexibilities, in order that it can be administered. The Green bill is an excellent idea, but might very likely be declared unconstitutional in relation to the above and other cases.

Practical features of legislation

In general, I am surprised at the excitement over the wage and hour bill. On the one hand we have those who ask a rigid bill demanding an immediate raise to 40 cents an hour while wages are being paid around 6 and 8 cents an hour; that is the reason that the rigid bill could not be immediately enforceable. The bill that we have before us provides for the setting of lower minimum wages than 40 cents an hour. It is true that no great assistance might be given some of our most submerged groups, as stated by some of the enemies of the bill.

But, if there is legislation which will be continuously showing the facts, and throwing light on the low wages paid in various sections of America, there will naturally be the continuous pressure of public opinion to bring up the lowest of the minimum wages to at least a fair level of decency.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GILDEA].

Mr. GILDEA. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. the question has been repeatedly asked this afternoon, Who wants this bill?

That question should be answered. As a member of the House Labor Committee, I, and every other member of the committee who voted to report the bill out, went on record as wanting the Black-Cannery fair labor-standards bill. The Thirteenth Congressional District of Pennsylvania is a strongly organized labor district. The United Mine Workers of America have been the dominating labor force in that district since 1900. Every member of organized labor in my district wants the passage of this legislation.

A previous speaker made the remark that business today is suffering with the jitters. The speaker had his finger on the wrong pulse. It is not jitters with which industry is afflicted. Instead, it is a lack of orders due to lack of purchasing power in the pockets and in the pay envelopes of American workingmen and workingwomen. The basic industry of my district, anthracite-coal mining, is working part time solely because consumer demand has shrunk from 100,000,000 tons of anthracite coal per year to 56,000,000. We cannot restore lost markets to the anthracite industry, nor can we give purchasing power to American families, who are cold tonight and who would buy coal if they had the means, unless a substantial bottom is placed under the national wage structure and the machine challenge is met by limiting the national workweek.

This the pending bill proposes to do. Forty cents per hour multiplied by 40 hours per week, by 52 weeks in the calendar year gives the workers who will come under the minimumwage standard of this bill a yearly income of $832, an amount equivalent to a Congressman's salary for 1 month. Let those of us elected on the promise to go the full distance with President Roosevelt in making the New Deal fulfill its promise answer to our constituents and to ourselves as to whether or not we can afford to do less than establish this minimum.

Crocodile tears have been shed in the Well of the House this afternoon for fear the minimum may become the maximum.

The safeguard against that fear rests with organized labor. The C. I. O. and the American Federation of Labor have both demonstrated their ability to protect their membership. Organized labor is not worrying about maximums. The effort is continuously being made to better maximums, and this struggle will go on whether this Congress takes steps to protect the unorganized or whether it does not.

There is no real difference between the members of the House Labor Committee on the provisions of this bill. Some members would change the Senate bill and substitute for the Fair Labor Standards Board, provided in the Senate bill, an administrative agency within the Department of Labor which would look to the various State departments of labor set-ups for administrators who would be more or less voluntary.

The American Federation of Labor is opposed to the establishment of a central board of control because, as has been said by Mr. Green, of unpleasant experiences with the National Labor Relations Board.

If ever an agency of this Government has justified its existence, that agency has been the National Labor Relations Board. Conditions in business and industry were most chaotic when the Liberty League lawyers 10 months ago were taking time out to advise industry the National Labor Relations Act was unconstitutional and they should make no effort to live up to it.

The SUpreme Court decided otherwise, and in the short period of a half year we have seen labor and industry get back in stride. The American Federation of Labor increased its membership by some 831,671 new members in the 12 months intervening between August 1936 and August 1937.

The C. I. O. with 1,440,000 members on its rolls in December 1936 now has enrolled 3,718,000 militant workers for better labor conditions.

Two thousand one hundred and fifty cases were filed with the Labor Relations Board by the American Federation of Labor and 720 of these cases were settled. The C. I. O. filed 2,337 cases and have seen adjusted 670 cases.

The greatest gain recorded was the restoration of 7,010 men to their jobs, men dismissed for union activities. The restoration of these men did establish the principle of collective bargaining, more effectively and more efficiently than any hit or miss law could establish that principle, and certainly it is folly to argue against the pending bill, the unsound theory that America does not want a board to enforce the law.

The alternative offered by the American Federation of Labor to place the administrative agency in the Department of Justice is not labor's way, nor is it the American way because of adjustments that must be written regardless of gestures to the gallery that if we want a labor bill, let us write one that will be hard and fast. The only difference between the American Federation of Labor proposed substitute and the bill offered by the Labor Committee is simply this, the Labor Comm1ttee does not feel the country is quite ready for the drastic, though more liberal provisions of the Green substitute.

Another thought advanced here this afternoon is that this is not the original Connery bill. I rode as far as Philadelphia with Billy Connery on his last visit home. He was pleased with the progress made in the joint sessions of the Senate and House committees. He had thrown the full force of his generous nature and undying faith in the integrity of organized lahar behind his effort to write a bill that could be accepted by Congress and the country at large. Nobody knew better than Billy Connery the problems entering into the writing of legislation so important as wage-hour regulation. As I said, he was pleased with the progress made. He was happy to think that this bill would bear his name. If he were here today, he would be at the table steering this legislation through the shoals besetting it, and those who call upon his memory to defeat the measure are not keeping faith with a man who always kept faith with labor.

The esteemed chairman of the Labor Committee, who succeeded to a post that meant carrying on as Billy Connery carried on, is not offering the fair labor standards bill as the illegitimate offspring of an unthinking committee. The House Labor Committee sat through many long and exhaustive hearings in the heat of last summer. The committee worked with an able committee representing the Chamber on the other side of the Capitol. The committee did the best it knew how. It offers a bill that is acceptable to over 50 percent of organized labor as represented by the two outstanding labor organizations. Before our committee John L. Lewis and William Green both endorsed the principle of the measure, but both gentlemen wanted the perfected bill to cover more ground. Sidney Hillman endorsed the measure without reservation.

[Here the gavel fell.]

[PAGE 1410]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1411]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. GILDEA. When Mr. Hillman was asked by Senator Black why he endorsed the fair labor standards bill wholeheartedly and the other two distinguished labor leaders did not, Mr. Hillman said:

I suppose it is because my experience has always been in the underpaid wage class, the class that will benefit most by establlshing minimum standards.

And to you ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I submit that answer as the reason why all of us should support a 40-cent bottom to wages and a 40-hour top to hours. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAVERICK].

STUFFED WHITE OR GREASY BLUE SHIRT-AND JUSTICE

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, at the time I made my talk I did not know of a letter signed by Mr. Homer Martin, international president of the Automobile Workers of America, in which he said:

That an unfavorable vote on this bill or failure to vote or pair in favor will not be forgotten next year when Representatives ask their constituents to reelect them, as this will be the acid test of a Representative's real position.

I want to include Mr. Homer Martin, who is a friend of mine, in what I said about the rest of those writing letters telling us how to vote. I think the time has come for all persons, whether they have a stuffed white shirt or a greasy blue shirt, to understand that information fairly presented is more effective.

Anyhow, I believe the letter sent by Mr. Martin is indiscreet, and I believe that Mr. Martin, as well as a lot of other letter writers in the country, bad better learn a little manners.

HONEST CONGRESSMEN VOTE WITHOUT COERCION

I want to say to my colleagues that there are a lot of organizations in this country, the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers Association, and all the rest of them, taking attitudes. That is their right.

But in the end we must make up our own minds, form our own conclusions, and without coercion.

My attitude has not anything to do with the C. I. O. or the A. F. of L. or Chamber of Commerce, or any other organization. What I do is of my own volition and what Mr. Martin, Mr. Lewis, or Mr. Green says has not anything to do with it.

They are no doubt all good men, but I believe I know something about the rank and file, too. What labor should do is to get together. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ALLEN].

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, legislation of this kind is a very necessary adjunct to the machine age in which we live. Our engineering and inventive genius following the immutable laws of science have solved for the first time in history the problem of mass production, but, unfortunately, our business leadership has failed to realize to a large extent that mass production requires mass consumption at the same time, if our economy is to remain in balance. I believe that every technical advance, every improvement in our machinery in this country, must simultaneously be accompanied by a decrease in selling prices and an advance in wages. I think this statement is self-evident. What good does it do to produce if you cannot sell, and how in the world can you sell goods if the masses of our people do not have the money with which to buy back the very things which they are making day after day in our factories?

The situation today is somewhat akin to that of a voracious monster which turns around and starts eating its own tail and keeps on going until it arrives at its mouth. We produce, but we cannot sell. We build up a great technological machine, a great mechanical force in this country capable of producing in terms of thousands and even millions where a few years ago we were producing by hand in quantities of hundreds.

We have failed to realize that buying power is a necessary adjunct to production. This is the purpose of this legislation being considered today. Instead of passing on the benefits of this machine age in terms of lower selling prices and higher wages, all too great a measure of the benefits which have accrued from machinery have gone into the hands of a few people, those who control our mechanical forces, and this is the real reason for the inequitable distribution of the wealth of the Nation today.

I say that if our people cannot buy back that which they are producing, men will be thrown out of work in ever increasing numbers from now on. If a man receives $50 a week, it is a matter of plain common sense that he can buy only fifty $1 articles, and if the price of these articles is advanced so that he can buy only 40 tomorrow where he bought 50 today, then the men employed in making the other 10 units are automatically thrown out of work. What business needs in America is customers more than it does confidence. If we will furnish business customers, I believe that the confidence end will take care of itself. I think it is an absolute contradiction to say, let us encourage business, let us give business confidence, so that it will expand its productive machinery, when already the productive machinery of business is geared so high that the people cannot consume that which is produced. What common sense is there to increase the productive capacity of business in this country when today under present circumstances we cannot consume that which we are producing? If we will raise the wages among those segments of our population which are on the very fringe of our economic system, the submerged groups, so to speak, and give them buying power, then, and then only in my opinion will the wheels of our factories start turning once more. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers today.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield some time to this side?

Mr. WELCH. I cannot do that. I have demands far in excess of the time I have at my disposal.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman from California is getting his speakers on the floor I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN].

COMPARISON OF SENATE AND HOUSE CHILD-LABOR PROVISIONS

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have some first-hand knowledge of child labor and of long hours and low wages. I left school at the age of 14 years to go into a tobacco factory and work 72 hours a week at $4.50 a week, and since I became of age I have worked on the section a 60-hour week for $6.60 a week.

After a study of the Senate bill and the House committee amendments, I can say that I can go along with the bill as presented except in one very important matter, and that is the child-labor feature of the bill. The original Black-Connery bill carried certain limited child-labor provisions which were replaced by the Senate Labor Committee with the provisions to which I shall refer specifically in a moment, and I invite the close attention of Members to an analysis which I shall make.

When the bill came up in the Senate these provisions were voted down, and in their place was substituted what is known as the Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment by a rollcall vote of 57 to 28.

The House Labor Committee has thrown out the WheelerJohnson amendment in toto and reinstated the discarded Senate Labor Committee amendment. It is word for word the Senate Labor Committee amendment which had been eliminated in the other body and the Wheeler-Johnson amendment substituted.

The action of the Senate was taken not only after searching debate by leaders who are outstanding proponents of child-labor legislation and who had their own bills pending but after it had been agreed by them that the Senate Labor Committee amendment was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the bureau in which it proposed to vest jurisdiction.

[PAGE 1411]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1412]

I find it impossible to understand such an attempted delegation of power to a department bureau as I shall undertake to show this provision to be. In a word, it hands over to the bureau not only all the children under 18 years of age in the country but it also hands over the law.

Before taking up an analysis and comparison of the House committee amendment and the Wheeler-Johnson amendment I want to refer briefly to the genesis and history of this childlabor legislation. The first Child Labor Act was passed by Congress in 1916. It prohibited the transportation in interstate commerce of the products of child labor in certain named industries. It was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court by a 5-to-4 decision in the case of Hammer against Dagenhart June 3, 1918.

That act was sponsored in Congress by Hon. Edward Keating, then a Member of the House from Colorado, and for the past 20 years the managing editor of Labor, the official organ of the 21 standard labor railroad organizations, and, in my opinion, the outstanding labor publication in the United States.

During all the ensuing years, Mr. Keating never lost his interest in child-labor legislation, and encouraged by the liberal trend of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court early this year, he decided to try for the reenactment of his original child-labor bill. At his instance his original bill, with some modifications which it was thought would make it more acceptable to the Supreme Court, was introduced in the Senate by Senator JOHNSON of Colorado and by myself in the House.

Later it was decided by the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee at a hearing on child-labor bills to broaden the approach of the bill in the matter of methods of reaching the objective, and a consolidation of bills by Senators WHEELER and JoHNSON was effected and introduced as Senate bill 2226. At the same time I introduced a counterpart bill in the House, H. R. 8306.

I shall first analyze the House committee amendment, and I shall begin by saying my objections to it are fourfold:

First. It sets up no standards within which the administrator shall exercise the vast discretionary powers ve in him.

Second. It vests discretionary power in the Chief of the Children's Bureau to exclude any and all children under 16 years of age, in any and all occupations, from the protection of the law.

Third. It vests discretionary power in the Chief of the Children's Bureau to exclude from the protection of the law against hazardous occupations any and all children between the ages of 16 and 18 years.

Fourth. It provides but one method of dealing with child labor when several separable methods are available.

Now let me briefly analyze the House committee provision to see whether these objections are sustained by the provision itself. First, let me say that this provision is as unique in its arrangement in the bill as it is in its language. The prohibition of child labor is to be found in paragraph (e) of section 27, page 53, which is the penalty section—a smgular place to put substantive law; while the mechanics of the amendment and its standards and limitations, if any, are to be found in paragraph 10, section 2, page 6—the definitions section. It reads as follows:

No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce any goods produced in any establishment situated in the United States in or about which, within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom, any oppressive child labor has been employed.

Now we must go back to a proposed amendment to the section on definitions for the definition of oppressive child labor and for the standards and limitations, if any, which are to be applied for the guidance of the administrator of the law. In order that it may be easily understood, I boil the definition down to its substantive words, and I shall deal first with the provisions relating to children under 16 years of age.

Oppressive child laber means a condition of employment under which any person under the age of 16 years is employed by an employer—other than a parent—in any occupation pation.

This would seem to be clear and final; but when we go to the last paragraph of the definition of oppressive child labor, we find that the Chief of the Children's Bureau may exempt any employee under the age of 16 years in any occupation which he shall deem not to constitute oppressive child labor. I quote:

Now, listen:

If and to the extent that the Chief of the Children's Bureau determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.

The power to exempt is thus placed in the hands of the bureau chief to the extent that he determines such employment will not interfere with schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being. These conditions, I submit, may embrace all children capable of employment. There is no limit.

The paragraph simply means that the Chief of the Children's Bureau can exempt any one or more children under 16 years of age from the protection of the law; he can differentiate between the same type of children in the same occupation and between the same type of occupations in the same or different localities. I think it was rather clearly pointed out in the debate in the other body, that the opinion of the Chief of the Children's Bureau would be the law of the case. He may decide without let or hindrance who of the 8 to 10 millions of children under 16 years of age brought under this law may work and who may not. The President has placed at 12,000,000 the number of children to be affected by child-labor legislation, that is, 12,000,000 actually employed.

The administration of this provision would require a national network of personnel reaching into every school district in the land. The length of school terms and other conditions may and do differ in 10,000 different school districts. Then every one of these millions of children must necessarily be examined by a physician and must be reexamined and kept under medical supervision to determine whether, if exempt, they may continue exempt from the law. And there is no bottom age limit, no age minimum. They can be exempt at the age of 14 years, 12 years, 10 years, 8 years, or 6 years, and subjected to labor, provided the Chief of the Children's Bureau, who will never see or hear of the individual child, decides through some local supervisor somewhere in the land that it may work or not work; and it will be the same with all the millions of such children under the law. The favoritism, the discrimination, the abuses in any such system would be innumerable and insufferable, to say nothing of the cost.

I now pass to the class between 16 and 18 years of age. For the sake of clearness I shall quote the substantive words:

Oppressive child labor means any such employee between 16 and 18 years of age, employed by an employer (other than the parent)—

Now listen—

in any occupation ·which the Chief of the Children's Bureau declares to be particularly hazardous or detrimental to health and well-being;

Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I am very sorry to deny such a distinguished humanitarian. I have not the time. I wish I could.

Mr. Chairman, I have given you all of the provisions with respect to child labor in hazardous occupations. There are no standards set up; no investigation required by the Chief of the Children's Bureau; no gathering of information; no findings of fact; nothing but that he may from time to time declare an occupation to be particularly hazardous. His naked ipse dixit is the law. The opinion that this provision is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power is not limited to lawyers. Strange as it may seem, in view of the fact that the House committee has brought this discarded Senate committee provision back in, it is shared by no less

[PAGE 1412]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1413]

an official than the Chief of the Children's Bureau. On page 40 of the hearings of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee on a similar provision occurs the following:

The CHAIRMAN. Might there not be a question as to whether or not you could delegate the power to some bureau for the determination of what constitutes and what did not a hazardous occupation?

Miss LENBOOT. I think it would be much better in this attempt to develop a child-labor bill to pick out a few occupations which we know on the basis of experience constitute the greatest hazards and specify them directly in the bill, and not attempt to go into the area of delegation of power, which does raise certain constitutional questions.

The abuses to which this unlimited discretion would be subject in the matter of hazardous occupations are as unlimited as the provision with respect to the exemption of children under 16 years of age. There must be not less than 4,000,000 children between the ages of 16 and 18 years, all to be placed under the chief of a bureau having now no comparable jurisdiction or administrative machinery and without a single standard or limitation for check or guidance in the law.

I may also call attention to the fact that the definition is silent as to employment of children under 16 in hazardous work. That part of the definition applies only to children between 16 and 18. Does this leave a hiatus in the law with respect to children under 16? Are they fully protected from hazardous occupations by the definition of oppressive child labor respecting children under 16? If it does nothing more, the failure to apply the hazard clause to all children under 18 years of age, as is done in the Wheeler-Johnson amendment, raises a question as to the quality of workmanship in the House committee amendment; and if it gets into court, which it will when children under 16 get injured, it may raise a much more serious question.

Here are three more important differences between the bills:

First. The Wheeler-Johnson amendment exempts agriculture. The House committee amendment does not. If it is claimed that the agricultural exemptions of the wage-hour parts of the bill apply, then I reply that you are exempting child labor from all the seasonal industries auxiliary to agriculture. And if the wage-hour agricultural exemptions apply to child labor, where does the application of the wage-hour bill stop? Are we to search the entire bill for child-labor law?

Second. The Wheeler-Johnson amendment protects common carriers, which may rely on the statements of shippers. The House committee amendment does not protect them.

Third. The Wheeler-Johnson amendment empowers the administrator to inspect places of employment and records. The House committee amendment does not. It seems to me this is very important.

Fourth. The Wheeler-Johnson amendment makes it unlawful to aid or assist in the transportation of such child-labor goods or to sell such goods. The House committee amendment is silent on these essential matters.

One parting shot. The 30-day limit in the House committee amendment, after which child-labor goods may be shipped from the plant, opens ways for escapement. A plant could stock up with child-labor goods, shut down for 30 days, then ship and avoid the law. Depend upon the exploiters of child labor to find the ways. The Senate limit is 6 months. There ought to be no limit except ordinary statutes of limitation. However, the Senate limit is six times better than the House committee limit.

Now, let me turn to the Wheeler-Johnson amendment, and let me say, first, that while it includes as one method of approach the prohibition of shipment in interstate commerce, it provides a three-way approach:

First. The first method is the subjection of child-labor goods to the laws of the State or Territory into which they are shipped, and prohibits the shipment in of such goods in violation of the law of such State or Territory. There are now some good State laws, and this provision may result in others.

Second. The second method requires the labeling of child-labor goods, carrying the name and address of the shipper and the consignee, the nature of the goods, and the kind of work with which child labor was utilized in the production of the goods. This is regarded by labor as a strong deterrent.

Third. The third method makes it unlawful to transport child-labor goods in interstate commerce.

It is confidently believed that the first and second methods, subjecting the goods to State laws and labeling, will be sustained by the Supreme Court under the decision on the Prison Goods Act, which employs both of these methods, and other recent liberal decisions of the Court regarding labor legislation.

It is hoped that the third method—prohibition in interstate commerce—will be sustained and Hammer against Dagenhart overruled for the reasons controlling in the Prison Goods case and other recent liberal decisions.

If the third method is not sustained—mark this—if the third method is not sustained, then the House committee amendment, which rests solely on the prohibition of shipment in interstate commerce, would also fall, and nothing would remain.

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I am very sorry, but I cannot yield. I have not the time.

In the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee hearings in May 1937 on five child-labor bills, it was the consensus of committee opinion that all these approaches, which were carried in one or the other of the bills, should be consolidated in one bill, and the result was the Wheeler-Johnson amendment to the wage-hour bill in the Senate. It was stated to the Senate committee by Mr. Keating, who was the first witness at the hearings, that if the prohibition of shipment approach fails in the courts, a great advance would still be made by the other two methods. I do not see how there is any room to question the wisdom and desirability of combining these several approaches to the objective, with a separability clause, as against a proposal which rests upon only one of these methods, and that Qne the most doubtful.

Now, let me pass to the definitions of child labor in the Wheeler-Johnson amendment and the standards set up in the definition. The Wheeler-Johnson amendment defines child labor. I quote:

As employment of a human being under the age of 16 years, and as employment of a human being under the age of 18 years at "extra hazardous work"—

Now listen

at extra hazardous work specified by regulations promulgated pursuant hereto, whieh specifications shall be based on facts found by the Secretary of Labor as to the relative possibility of injury or detriment to health involved 1n the various types of employment, after necessary information on the subject has been collected by him or derived by him from sources known to be reliable.

The difference between this definition and that in the House committee amendment may be seen at a glance and stated in a sentence. In the Senate amendment there is no discretion permitting multitudinous and unlimited exemptions under the age of 16 as in the House committee provision; and under the age of 18 the procedure in determining hazardous work is prescribed, a procedure wholly lacking in the House committee provision.

Administration of the law is placed in the Department of Labor. I shall not quarrel with where you place it. None of these jurisdictional quarrels go to the merits of either wage-hour or child-labor legislaticm, and we should not permit them to do so. But, wherever it goes, it should go as definitely worded as we can make it, and it should go implemented with every arrow that may hit the target.

I have not had time to cover all of the Senate amendments. It is a complete piece of child-labor legislation. There is no comparison between the two proposals. I have pointed out fatal defects in the House committee amendments. I have raised material questions which should be satisfactorilY answered.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chaiirman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I am sorry; I cannot yield.

[PAGE 1413]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1414]

Mr. Chairman, I think the Members ought to have the opportunity of hearing this analysis.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has expired.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I ask the lady from New Jersey to grant me 2 minutes more.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 minute more.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have not the time. Get me the time and you can ask the questions. I understand the gentleman's attitude on this legislation and why. An analysis of the House committee amendment shows that it is nothing more than a gesture. It has not a leg to stand on in any court. It is defective in every important particular. On the other hand, the Wheeler-Johnson amendment was put into this bill in the Senate after a thorough and searching debate by the ablest wage-hour and child-labor leaders in that body and is sound legislation, thoroughly worked out if you will read it, and I propose, when the time comes for amendment, to oppose the House committee amendment and if it is voted down then to move to reinsert in the bill the Wheeler-Johnson amendment. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has again expired.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR].

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MAPES] today made certain remarks in reference to this bill being before the Committee on Rules. Of course, a bill is never before the Rules Committee. It is not a legislative committee. It considers, principally, resolutions for the consideration of bills. The confusion in this respect has been profuse in the press and in statements made on this floor. By the same token the Rules Committee could never prevent the consideration of a bill reported from a standing committee, as this bill was. That subject is another confusion pervading places occupied by persons not familiar with the rules of the House of Representatives.

The gentleman said, first, that the rule was never called up in the Rules Committee. That is correct.

He said that no representative of the Labor Committee ever appeared before Rules Committee. That is correct.

He said that no hearing was held by Rules Committee. That is correct.

He said that no vote was held in the Rules Committee. That is correct.

He said that the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON], chairman of the Committee on Labor, never appeared before the Rules Committee. That is correct.

All those statements are correct. But the explanation, in all fairness to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey and the Committee on Labor, is just this: The gentlewoman from New Jersey asked for a hearing before the Rules Committee several times, in the usual manner, conferring with me in reference to a hearing, the customary procedure. I finally agreed to give her a hearing before the Rules Committee and promptly called a meeting of the Rules Committee for that purpose. For several days, up to the morning of the scheduled meeting, I sought to obtain sufficient votes in the Rules Committee to be able to vote out a rule for the consideration of the wage and hour bill. On the morning of the meeting I consulted with the Speaker and the majority leader, and we all knew there were not enough votes in the Rules Committee to report out a rule. That being the situation, we all agreed that the practical course to take was to call off the meeting of the Rules Committee and make further efforts to receive the necessary votes.

That is the only reason the distinguished lady from New Jersey or other Representatives of the Labor Committee did not appear before the Rules Committee. In fairness to them, I state that they did everything within their power to secure a rule. They were ready and willing to appear, but it was obviously futile to hold a meeting of the Rules Committee when there clearly were not sufficient votes to report out a rule for the consideration of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] has expired.

Mr. KELLER. What was the attitude of the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from California desire to use some more time?

Mr. WELCH. I cannot use any more time right now.

Mrs. NORTON. The gentleman has nobody on his side who is opposed to this bill. That is fine.

Mr. WELCH. There are a number of Members on this side of the aisle who desire to be heard and will be heard tomorrow. They are not available at this time.

Why not proceed and use some of your time?

Mrs. NORTON. I may say I have used considerably more time than the gentleman from California has used. In all fairness, we would like to hear the arguments on the other side.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CURLEY].

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I am one of the 27,000,000 members of the Democratic Party who voted for the New Deal in November 1936 who wishes to keep faith with my own constituency as well as the constituencies throughout the country. And, in direct contradiction to the statements made by my friend Mr. Dies today that the platform of the Democratic Party does not contain anything which calls for Members of Congress on the Democratic side of the House to live up to, may I point to you just a few of the paragraphs in the Democratic platform of 1936:

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that the test of a representative government is its ability to promote the safety and happiness of the people.

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that this 3-year recovery in all the basic values of life and the reestablishment of the American way of living has been brought about by humanizing the policies of the Federal Government as they aJiect the personal, financial, industrial, and agricultural well-being of the American people.

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are:

( 1) Protection of the family and the home.

(2) Establishment of a democracy of opportunity for all the people.

(3) Aid to those overtaken by disaster.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I heard my esteemed friend and colleague from Texas, Mr. Dies, make the statement here today that if this bill were passed it only would affect some 500,000 people. As a matter of fact, if the gentleman had looked over the testimony submitted at the joint hearing, he would have found statistics which would indicate that 4,000,000 at the very least would be affected by the passage of this bill.

I also heard somebody say that William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, was opposed to this bill. Let us look over the history of this situation and let us face the facts. Let us turn to page 211 of the minutes of the hearing on the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937, part I:

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GREEN, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the American Federation of Labor, by action of its executive council on May 28, 1937, endorses, together with the additional sections to be offered herewith, the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937 as formulated in the Black-Cannery bill introduced in the Congress of the United States on May 24, 1937.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CURLEY. I do not yield, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, I object to the gentleman interrupting. He has not been just to 426 Members of this House, as a member of the Rules Committee, when he did not give this House a chance to consider this legislation. Now he asks me to be just to him. Well, well, well. [Laughter.]

[PAGE 1414]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1415]

The time has arrived for the enemies of the true facts to join hands with the disciples of the constitutional right of every person to equal opportunities, in keeping with American traditions, and strive for a frank and intelligent recognition of this wonderful opportunity to rehabilitate the mass of distressed workers of America. Let us join together to drive this existing tragic condition or blight out of our American life. The paralysis which handcuffs misery and poverty to 8,000,000 heads of families, and registers such a colossal financial loss in purchasing power because they cannot find a job, needs strong, powerful social treatment to remove that economic strait jacket. It is my humble judgment that the Black-Cannery bill, if enacted into law,·will help materially in reaching that human objective. Good government exists when those who are near are made happy and those far off are attracted. Go before the people and be laborious in their affairs. The essence of any remedy to relieve poverty and distress is a good job at a decent living wage and reasonable maximum hours of labor. President Roosevelt started us off on a straight course ahead in leading the Nation to economic victories. He did not turn corners to look for prosperity, and he will not do it now. It is strange that every time human efforts are attempted to "jack up" the social floor level of the submerged masses of labor suffering from substandard labor conditions we hear an uproar from the "economic royalists" and their allies among the selfish business groups in industry in opposition. You can easily recognize them—the same crowd of "big business" that bartered and traded the economic birthright of the States—the right to regulate and control unfair competition in intrastate and interstate commerce.

We read of workers in cross sections of the country receiving $5 or $6 a week and of being compelled to work 50 to 60 and 80 hours a week to earn that much. Here is some food for thought for the "feudal barons" of industry and big business who are flooding the mails of the Congressmen in opposition to the Black-Cannery fair standards of labor bill; and who are they? The same old kings of high finance in the boom days of 1929. "By their fruits ye shall know them"; that simon-pure stratum of constitutional lawyers who in the days gone by sold and betrayed the economic birthright of hundreds of thousands of bond, stock, and security holders on the altar of selfish greed. Those so-called saviors of the Constitution of the United States now are the same fraternity who forgot all about their legal code of ethics in the past when they sacrificed for a price the human rights of the public at large with impunity. Have you forgotten them?

SPONSORS OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS BILL FACE ITS ENEMIES

In all my public experience of over 20 years I have never received such an avalanche of mail and telegrams from selfish, prejudiced interests containing invidious attacks as on the Black-Cannery bill. Notwithstanding the concerted propaganda directed through subsidized channels at first, and later, by wide publicity purchased at tremendous expense, to poison the minds of the public and the minds of Members of Congress, the true friends of the shackled workers of America are still battling for a fair and square deal for the underpaid, exploited masses of our people. Though the critics of the wage and hour bill "have sounded the death knell" of this humane, statesmanlike legislation, it bas only been "scotched" and, like Banquo's ghost, it bas come back to plague them.

CONSTITUTION IS NOT A STRAIT JACKET

The Constitution is not a strait jacket, but is meant to serve all the people in all sections of our great Nation. There are critics who challenge the constitutionality of the Black-Connery bill. They allege it violates States' rights. The most of the critics using this specious contention fail to apply the truth in the attempt to reach a logical conclusion. My humble layman's opinion is that the bill is legal and constitutional, and is based on the existing public record of past precedent, which I used as a premise to work from, in the reasoning process leading to my own humble conclusions.

STARVATION WAGES, UNREASONABLE HOURS, AND CHILD LABOR MUST GO

As a member of the Labor Committee of the House of Representatives, I beg to inform my colleagues in the House we have a sacred pledge to keep before adjournment to the millions of our ill-nourished, ill-clad, and ill-housed American citizens and their families dependent upon them. We Members of the Democratic majority were elected on a platform in November 1936 which pledged a policy of humane treatment of this serious social problem affecting the economic structure of the Nation. With this worthy object in mind, the administration recommended constructive social legislation to the Congress of the United States which would tend to strengthen the weakened morale of the handcuffed workers who constitute the "forgotten men and women" of America today. This large group of our people are the exploited type so specifically requiring the protection of the strong arm of Uncle Sam. The Black-Cannery fair standards of labor bill was approved by the Senate. The Labor Committee of the House held a long series of tedious public hearings and executive sessions since the early part of June, under the skillful guidance of the chairman, Bon. William Connery, Jr., who died suddenly while in the midst of the battle fighting for the passage of his bill to help labor. The gentle lady from New Jersey, Hon. MARY NORTON, succeeded to the chairmanship of the Labor Committee, and diligently continued the battle for labor, day after day, for 3 weeks until she finally, with the cooperation of her committee, submitted a favorable report of the Black-Cannery bill to the House for final action thereon, and sincerely trusts the bill will be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New. York has expired.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, how does the time stand?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey has 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 1 hour and 43 minutes remaining.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. McCORMACK, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill S. 2475, the wage-hour bill, had come to no resolution thereon.

[PAGE 1415]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1415]

======================================================================

  Top of page

======================================================================

Page 1463        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 14, 1937        (82 Cong. Rec. 1463, 1937)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (S. 2475) to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the billS. 2475, with Mr. McCoRMAcK in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise those in control of the time, as well as other members of the Committee, that at the present time the gentlewoman from New Jersey has consumed 1 hour and 33 minutes and has 1 hour and 27 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California [Mr. WELCH] has consumed 1 hour and 17 minutes and has 1 hour and 43 minutes remaining. The total time consumed is 2 hours and 50 minutes with 3 hours and 10 minutes remaining.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to make a statement to the Committee.

Yesterday I promised to have in the hands of the Committee today a clean .bill containing all amendments adopted by the committee. Due to a mistake in the Printing Office, three sections of the bill were left out and two others transposed. Therefore we were obliged to send the bills back for correction. I regret this error and the delay resulting from it. We shall have the corrected copy tomorrow morning to present to the committee.

Mr. O'MAlLEY and Mr. KRAMER rose.

Mrs. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. O'MAlLEY. Is it the intention of the gentlewoman from New Jersey to withhold offering amendments until such time as the membership may have the new copy of the bill in their hands?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. O'MALLEY. And it is the intention just to have debate today?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from New Jersey yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. KRAMER. I understand the gentlewoman from New Jersey to say she expects to have the copy of the new bill in the hands of the Members of the Committee tonight—.

Mrs. NORTON. Tomorrow morning.

Mr. KRAMER. I understand that there will be in the hands of the Committee tomorrow a clean bill. I do not know what the gentlewoman from New Jersey means by a clean bill—

Mrs. NORTON. I will explain to the gentleman, if he will yield to me.

Mr. KRAMER. Just a minute, please. I will say this, Mr. Chairman. We should have time enough after we receive this clean bill to find out whether it is clean [applause], and it is high time we had more time to discuss this matter than just a few moments before we go back into the House.

[Here the gavel fell]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one-half minute to answer a question of the majority leader.

Mr. RAYBURN. May I ask the gentlewoman from New Jersey this question? Is it not true that the bill she will have

[PAGE 1463]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1464]

tomorrow coming back from the Printing Office is exactly the bill on the desks of the Members now?

Mrs. NORTON. Exactly.

Mr. RAYBURN. Therefore, there is nothing new about it and no one need be surprised.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from New Jersey yield for another question?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. KRAMER. I want to know whether that bill has a provision in it to take care of the agricultural situation.

Mrs. NORTON. It is exactly the same as the other bill.

Mr. KRAMER. That bill has no such provision to take care of our fruit crops, and so forth.

Mrs. NORTON. There is no difference in the bills.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman. will the gentlewoman from New Jersey yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SNELL. If the new bill is exactly the same as the one we have at the present time, why can we not start reading the present bill?

Mr. RAYBURN. I will say to the gentleman from New York it is exactly the same in substance—

Mr. SNELL. Oh, that is different.

Mr. RAYBURN. Just a moment, I had not finished my statement. I say it is exactly the same, word for word, except the italics are not in the bill as reported out by the committee. It is exactly the same bill without all of the marking out and the printing in italics, and so forth. It is the same word for word as the bill the committee reported.

Mr. KRAMER. As the gentleman knows, at the present time there is not a single, solitary word in the bill to take care of the agricultural situation.

Mr. RAYBURN. I do not know about that.

Mr. KRAMER. I do, because I have read the bill.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. LAMBERTSON].

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, there has been about everything else in this bill rather than wages and hours. This bill has not been pushed forward by labor. It has come from the President of the United States. When his message on this subject came to Congress in May it was in his mind, I think, to make this his second N. R. A. At that time the Senate was in the throes of the Court debate. The President is most determined, refusing to take defeat or admit defeat. He held a grudge against the Supreme Court for throwing out the A. A. A. and the N. R. A. He was determined to pass them both again under a slightly revamped Supreme Court and at the same time arrogate to himself more power in the executive department with the reorganization bill. He planned to jam these three things through the special session without the usual consideration. In his first inaugural he quoted Theodore Roosevelt about being content to bat 75 percent. Franklin has not admitted yet in 4^1/2 years that he has fanned or even fouled the ball.

The joint hearings then came about. In those hearings John L. Lewis and William Green were reluctant to acquiesce in the power given this board. It has been my contention from the beginning of these hearings that the power to fix minimum wages by a board, giving them the power to vary them wherever they please, is giving them the power to fix wages. This, under the original bill, would make the President with his political board a dictator over industry. John Lewis' own words, summed up in the hearing, are as follows:

* * * I do not think that under section 5 of this act the Congress can afford to set up an instrumentality here and vest it with all of the broad powers that may be necessary to confirm wage fixing as such in the country and then go through a struggle of some years with our Federal Judiciary to determine whether, after all, American workmen are freemen or indentured servants.

It was not the urge of labor that put the signers on the petition. It was the Democratic whip and the pressure from the organization on the majority side that did it. When William Green, about 3 weeks ago, finally came out against the bill, the administration leaders in connection with this bill said, "We'll show him who the real labor leader of the United States is." They set about desperately to get these signers. The Labor Committee met and instructed their chairwoman to announce to the House that the objectionable board would be done away with should it be allowed to come to the floor and the Department of Labor substituted. This was done to help get signatures after the Green statement. Then, too, a "pork barrel" was entered into by the southern farm leaders, whose cotton bill was in distress. I say cotton bill because a majority of the Agricultural Committee from the North voted against the farm bill on final passage.

My colleague on the committee from Connecticut said, in substance, yesterday that a lot of the majority had ridden into office on the coattail of the President and they had better stand by him. This all goes to show whose bill this is. The C. I.O. is for the bill now because Mr. Green is against it. You will remember that the threatening letter that was read yesterday was from Homer Martin, not John L. Lewis. It came second-handed.

Some Members are saying they are going to stand by the committee. The committee has three bills—the one that is directly before us which provides for the board, one that I opposed when it was reported out, then the substitute, giving it to an independent administrator in the Department of Labor, which the gentle chairwoman is ready to offer as an amendment, and actually the committee today favors the Green proposal and a poll of them this hour will indicate it. So it is uncertain when you speak about this, what the committee is for.

Permit me to go back to the hearings to say that Gen. Hugh Johnson, who was the first administrator of the N. R. A., was not called to testify, neither was Donald Richberg, but Mr. Richberg sent a statement which I placed in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, opposing the bill. Johnson has opposed it vigorously.

Wages and hours are enticing in title. Shorter hours and more pay, aside from better working conditions are perpetual slogans of labor, and properly should be. So the title is one that no one can oppose. The whole thing might properly be left with the several States, most of whom have already gone a long way on this subject, but to put all wages and hours under the Federal Government, and that is what this bill aims at, is not mature in any bill before this House. It needs to be recommitted for further study.

I want to draw a contrast between the progressiveness of Theodore Roosevelt and the new dealism of Franklin. Progressive Republicans 30 years ago were fighting against intrenched special privilege. In my State, and that was when I went to my first legislature. the progressives had just passed the antipass bill. State utility commissions were just being created to regulate rates. The people were demanding the primary, doing away with the boss-ridden manipulated convention. They were beginning to protest against high tariffs whose equal benefits did not trickle into the Middle and Central West. Teddy was wielding a big stick against monopoly. This was the progressivism of 30 years ago. The New Deal has not hinted at trust busting. The one forgotten Department in the Cabinet is the Attorney General. Has anybody inquired in the last few years into why a 16-hole wheat drill should cost $250? Has anybody looked any further into why cement is all one price?—two things farmers use. Instead of making onslaughts on injustices, the New Deal seeks to jack up the delinquent by artificial means, and almost every New Deal measure is a spending measure primarily, which creates a big overhead set-up with thousands of employees with little regard to the civil service. This is the difference between the two Roosevelts.

One thing that would be delightfully received today by all poor people—farmers and laborers—would be cheaper in-

[PAGE 1464]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1465]

interest rates. The farmers would rather have the Frazier-Lemke bill than the Jones farm bill. The home owner would rather have cheaper interest rates than a political wage and hour bill. Yet last spring the President vetoed it and we passed it over his objection, holding down interest rates on Federal land-bank loans to where they were. The President and Mr. Myers wanted to raise them.

This subject of nationalizing and standardizing wages and hours is too big to trifie with or play politics with. Let us recommit this bill for further study. Let us leave it in the committee then until we have determined in this country for sure whether or not we are going to have a dictator. Let us settle that question first. Let us not settle it over the broken bodies of labor in a political way.

My colleague from Connecticut asked the question yesterday, "Why should not labor have these desired wages and hours?" My answer is, "Why did you defeat parity price for the farmers the other day? You said that parity for farmers would bankrupt the Nation."

My ranking colleague on the minority side said this was one of the objectives of the special session—to pass this legislation. It was the President's object, but there was no emergency in this legislation and it had no business to be brought up in a special session. It was done so it would dramatize it before the country as an emergency and to pass it with curtailed debate, and it is taking a "pork barrel" to do it.

By the way, the "pork barrel" is one of the dignified attributes of the New Deal. Do you remember the closing days of the last session when the Big Thompson, which had not been authorized, was hooked up with the Grand Coulee, the Casper-Alcova, the Central Valley, the Hila, the Natchez Trace, and Skyline Drive, all in one grand "pork barrel," and it met Presidential approval?

Let us swat the "pork barrel!" Let us swat the dictator! Let us stop throwing money to the wind! Let us use our own heads! [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey yielded 20 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS], which action was accepted by the Committee, and the gentleman from Tennessee yielded 10 of those minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. WILCOXJ. The gentleman from Tennessee still has 10 minutes remaining.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS].

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that in consuming 10 minutes at this time the gentleman from Tennessee consumes the remaining portion of the 20 minutes the gentlewoman yielded to him?

Mrs. NORTON. That is correct.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House not to interrupt me during this short time. We were unable to get more than 20 minutes out of this liberal time when we procured 2 hours additional time for general debate—20 minutes for the opposition.

I aided in getting this 2 hours additional time with the understanding that we Democrats representing the opposition should have a fair division, and yet notwithstanding that they have only given me 20 minutes to be divided. This rather indicates to me that they are afraid of proper discussion. It is hard to know what bill we are discussing, because it has been announced that the bill has not yet been printed which it is intended the House shall consider.

This bill deals with the greatest economic question with which this country has ever been faced, and it is the most far reaching, and I am advised that the bill which is scheduled to come in here tomorrow will probably have 60 different changes from the committee, and yet they expect us to take it up and give it proper consideration. The committee itself time and again has changed the bill and there are very few, if any, people on this floor, unless it be a few of the members, have any knowledge of what the specific bill will contain when it comes before us for consideration tomorrow. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] yesterday said that this baby had been dumped on her doorstep some time last summer and she was asking the House to father it. We are trying to find out who its daddy is. Mr. Green, of the American Federation of Labor, says that he had nothing to do with it. Mr. Lewis, at that time, did not insist on or claim any parentage.

The American Farm Bureau is against it, the National Grange is against it. One then is forced to but one conclusion, and that is that this child, born out of wedlock, in impractical idealism, has been abandoned by its repenting parents, and left upon the doorstep of the kindly and gracious gentlewoman from New Jersey, and she, not being satisfied with it, has kept on changing it in an effort to curry favor from labor, proven indifferent to the child, and its self-appointed nursemaids have so mishandled the diapers and safety pins until from too frequent changing the poor child is now suffering from a pernicious skin rash.

[Applause and laughter.] The result is that its identity would not be recognized by its own parents, if indeed it has any. This trying to find the father of the bill reminds me of that great evangelist, Sam Jones, known throughout the United States, and especially in the South, years ago. He was in my town onetime, speaking nightly to five or six thousand people in a great auditorium. He was in a controversy with the editor of the paper there. The editor would shoot him one day and Sam would shoot the editor the next night. Finally the editor of the paper wrote an article in which he denied writing those editorials, and Sam's reply was this:

Whenever you shoot into a hole, something comes out. We cannot find out who is the daddy of the editorials, and it reminds me of the little girl who had a little kitty in her lap. She said, "Poor little kitty, poor little fellow, I know who your mamma is, but I don't know your papa; he must be a traveling man."

[Laughter and applause.]

Mr. Chairman, what is the bill that we are to discuss? We discovered a few minutes ago that this great organization in this House, that would hardly listen to me to make a parliamentary inquiry, had not yet printed the bill that it is proposed to have here as a substitute tomorrow. Do you think that is proper consideration? I charge now that if you pass any bill of the nature of that committee print, you are going to put the life and death struggle of industry in this country in the hands of Mme. Perkins, of the Labor Department, and I shall prove it. They are undertaking to create a dictator in this new bill, who will have more authority than the President of the United States. If there is any tenure on his term of office, I do not know it and no power of removal. He will have authority to send to your businessmen and to my businessmen and demand their books. The procedure is for the commissioner, or otherwise dictator, to appoint a committee consisting of so many representing industry, and so many representing labor, and he appoints a chairman to make investigations and report to him. They have the authority to go into your private books and publish them if they so desire, and if they make a report to the commissioner and he is not satisfied with this report he has the right to fire them and appoint someone else.

Of course, we are guessing at what is going to be in the bill, and we have to do the best we can, but under section 14 it is provided that the Administrator shall utilize the Department of Labor for all the investigations and inspections necessary under this section.

Now, who will make these investigations? That devolves upon the present Commissioner of Labor, Mme. Perkins, who is reported to have said that women and children did not wear shoes in the South. I have seen no denial of that. It is going to devolve upon her, who says that there is no differential between the North and the South. Yet when Harry Hopkins paid our southern people, under P. W. A.,

[PAGE 1465]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1466]

$19 per month he paid workers doing the same jobs in New York $52 per month. Is that not a differential?

In wages we are entitled to a differential in the South. The standard of living is cheaper; we are discriminated against relative to railroad rates. As an illustration, it costs us almost twice as much to ship from the town I live in—Chattanooga—to Chicago as it does from Chicago to Chattanooga. It is further to our market and costs us more railroad transportation. For instance, a manufacturer of lime in my district, and one of my friends, told me that his average market was 400 miles away from his plant, whereas in the East it does not exceed 150 miles. They are more thickly populated in the East than we are.

You can put all you please in this bill to make people pay 40 cents an hour—and that is the policy of the bill—but industry will not work those people who are not worth it. My friends from the South, you know that this bill, if passed, will discriminate against you.

You well know that some northern writers have denounced this as a tariff against the South, and you further know that the South has been the victim these many years of the foreign tariff established by the northern Republicans, and now the Democratic leadership is asking that this additional burden be placed upon us.

You men from the South who vote for this bill, when you go back home and see your factories closed and women and children put out of employment, you cannot plead successfully the alibi that you did not eveh dream of this condition.

You go back home and try to defend the fact that some of the leaders of this House were for this bill, and they will immediately tell you that those leaders were in a different position; that they would like to know how those leaders would have voted had they not been occupying official positions. That is the way I feel about it.

Do not you people in the North know that modem communications and transportation are such that if you destroy one part of our country you destroy the entire Nation's prosperity? We are great feeders to you people in New York. You are the reservoirs. If you dry up the streams that flow from the South, where will you be? You people from Chicago, we in Tennessee do a great deal of business with you. If you kill the goose that lays the eggs, no gosling will be hatched for you in Chicago.

But they say this bill is so drawn that they can grant differentials. Perhaps this is true, but at the same time it is absolutely an impossibility for it to be done. There are tens of thousands of different occupations and tens of thousands of the same occupations, and you cannot work them out separately; they have to be worked out in groups. For instance: They may appoint a committee for the hosiery business; another for the mercerizing business; another for the overalls business, and so on. This is the way that it will have to be done; it is an absolute impossibility to do it otherwise. So you people in the South, or in any other section, cannot expect to be dealt with except by groups. This question arose in the Senate and the question was propounded to Mr. Black, at that time Senator Black, now Justice Black, and he gave the following answer, which I quote:

I will say to the Senator that it is my judgment this board would not have the power to fix one wage scale for one unit or units and another wage scale for another unit or units, because there are tens of thousands of such units and the bill does not contemplate any such action.

My friends, I am as good a Democrat as anybody on this floor. There is nobody on this fioor that has a better record for standing by the administration than I have, unless it be my old friend, BOB DOUGHTON, of North Carolina, and he is with me in this fight. But I am remembering what is at home. I do not want the South crucified. I would like to improve wages and I would like to shorten hours, but you cannot do it this way. There are manufacturers all over my country who say that if you pass this bill they will have to close up and go into bankruptcy. Take the sawmills of your State. What would happen to them? Take the sugar industry in your State, my dear sir. This is the first time I have ever known the business interests of this country to be glad Congress is in session, and they are expecting some aid from Congress. It is no time for reform measures. You know the conditions. It was said the other day that there are more people demanding relief now than ever before. The people of the United States are looking to Congress to do something. So, boys, do not fall down on the job. Do your duty. Do what you think is right. Follow the dictates of your own conscience and your cwn people. Let me say we need legislation for the business interests instead of trying to have reformation at this time. [Applause.] That is what we need. You Democrats cannot discount the fact that we are in a dreadful shape. You might just as well walk up like men and face it. This will put thousands of people out of employment. I ask you southern men to remember your own districts first. There is no sectionalism in my bosom, but I do not want to see any legislation passed that will affect my section differently, and you know it, and you cannot have any alibi for it when you go home if you vote differently on this legislation.

Now, my friends, I appeal to you. I want to appeal to your reason. I want to appeal to your sense of fairness. I say that this is too great a question for us to consider in this way. You see that the opposition has been handicapped; that they had no opportunity to even make a logical discussion.

If a given industry does not obey the mandates of this bill, where do they take the alleged offender? They take him before the district court. But if he bas anything he wants to file in court, they send him to the circuit court of appeals, away from his home. With me, it would be over ' 300 miles that one of my people would have to travel to Cincinnati before they could go to the circUit court of appeals, and there the court will only consider legal matters. The dictator is the whole judge of the facts.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. No; I have not the time. That is the trouble. I appeal to you boys from the South. Open your eyes. Remember the effect it would have on you. You will remember that the Republican Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE] voted for this bill because be thought the State of Massachusetts was getting an advantage. That is the reason. I thank God there are some men in this House from_ that State who are patriotic enough that they will not do it, because they believe in a fair deal for all people. [Applause.]

So, my friends, I owe as much allegiance to my President as any of you, and nobody has been closer to him than I have. But who knows the President is for this measure? I venture to say he has never read this bill. There is a difference between the time when he sent that measure in here in May and this time. We thought we were going in high at that time. Business was good; but now it is different. The President has recognized this fact. Have you heard a word from him? I imagine Mme. Perkins has read the bill, but I venture to say the President of the United States has not even read this bill, and no Democratic platform would ever endorse a bill of this character.

You can put whatever you want to in the Democratic platform, but we have some rights when it comes to constrUing the character of legislation that is to be passed.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have taken about all the ti!lle that was allotted to me. I wonder if the gentlemen on the Republican side can give me any extra time? They are silent.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask what bill are we considering? They are asking us to substitute tomorrow a bill that has not yet been printed. This bill should be recommitted to the committee. In conclusion I appeal to the men from the North, my friends from the East, West, and South not to sacrifice labor, organized and unorganized labor, not to sacrifice industry; and I pray you not to sacrifice the interests of the people of the Nation and in particular the people of the South. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

[PAGE 1466]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1467]

r. DEEN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee has suggested a parliamentary situation which prompts this inquiry. Does a committee have the right under the rules of the House to report a bill which bears the names of two persons, neither of whom are Members of the Congress at the time the bill is under consideration? In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I call attention to line 3 in the bill which states that this act may be cited as the B1ack-Connery Act. And further in connection with the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, may I state that neither Mr. Black nor Mr. Connery, the original authors of the bill, are Members of Congress at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCORMACK). The Chair will state that while the Chair does not feel that the gentleman's inquiry constitutes a parliamentary inquiry; yet, for the information of the gentleman, it is the opinion of the Chair that whatever consideration the gentleman has on the matter he has mentioned would have to be met by way of amendment rather than by any other action. The Chair does not feel that the gentleman has submitted a parliamentary inquiry, but the Chair is of the opinion that if the gentleman has any objection to the references contained in the bill, that they could be corrected by amendment.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it not the probability that they had to go outside of Congress to get somebody after whom to name the bill, somebody who could not be here to protest? [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not consider that a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GREEN.- What percentage of the time has been used by the proponents of this bill and by the opponents of the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to state that. The Chair does not consider that the gentleman has submitted a parliamentary inquiry. Were the Chair able to furnish the gentleman the answer, the Chair would be very glad to do so. All the Chair can recognize is that the gentlewoman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California control the time. How much time has been used by speakers for the measure and by speakers against the measure the Chair is unable to advise the gentleman.

Mr. GREEN. A further parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. GREEN. Has it not been the custom of the House that on highly controversial measures the opposition may have as much as one-third of the time on general debate?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels that the gentleman is sufficiently acquainted with the customs of the House to answer the question himself.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts LMr. GIFFORD].

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, in the remarks I am about to make I sincerely hope that I may still be recognized, considering my many former statements on the fioor of this House.

On May 24, 1937, the President informed us that the time had arrived to take further action to extend the frontiers of social progress. He wrote:

We propose that only goods which have been produced under conditions which meet the minimum standards of free labor shall be admitted to interstate commerce.

The bill before us seems to be the answer of Congress to that message.

Is this purely another socialistic experiment? What a madhouse structure we have erected during the last 5 years. At what a cost to future generations. In this construction the constituency which I represent have heretofore been assigned to the cellar, where the storehouse is generally placed, the storehouse which provides sustenance for those who occupy the upper floors of the structure. This bill purports to provide for the preparation of another room, which we may possibly occupy.

My constituents believe that we had best help in the building of this room, in the hope that they may then enjoy a little of the sunshine and be freed from the darkness to which they have been subjected. Personally, I have extreme fear that the indefinite conditions described in this bill will not greatly alleviate our condition.

I doubt that a sympathetic architect, or architects, will be placed in charge. Carefully and fully have I explained to my people the differentials contemp1ated in this bill. The occupants of the other rooms will probably refuse to pay for proper living conditions in ours. They will probably still be allowed to produce goods at lower cost, if the architect is to be sympathetic toward their protestations regarding climate, economic conditions, locations, willingness to work for small wages and other great variety of reasons advanced. But my constituents, after careful consideration, telegraphed and telephoned me to sign the petition to get a wage-and-hour bill up for consideration. I have not been able to recognize myself since I signed that petition. [Laughter and applause.] Some others of my friends seem to have difficulty in recognition also. I represent a constituency, however, now in an extremity of industrial inactivity, which is wi11ing to grasp at any hope-inspiring proffer of aid from the Government. I should see that they are properly represented. They send me here to speak for them.

It is disconcerting, however, to those who wish to help labor to find it so hopelessly divided and the two factions waging such relentless battle for supremacy. Difficult is the task to help people who are unable to make decisions as to what they themselves desire for their own good. Perhaps you noticed this jingle:

I have witnessed many wonders.

But I fear this won't be seen:

The merging of John Lewis

With Mr. Willlam Green.

It looks like an improbability at the moment.

Long have I pleaded for sympathetic consideration for the northern textile industry. After many years of cheap labor competition from the South, a devastating processing tax was placed upon that industry, to pay the benefits granted to agriculture.

The invalidation of the A. A. A. saved us from complete annihilation. The leaders of industry marched upon Washington, and the President merely assigned Cabinet members to hear their protests. But the Supreme Court came to our rescue. Our southern Members taunted us in those days on our inability to meet that competition. I shall not now take your time, but I will insert in the RECORD an excerpt from a speech I made in 1935 in answer to the rebuke handed to us by that very able leader, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WARREN]:

At no time have we claimed that this tax was even the main trouble, but we do claim that this is the one thing left to this Congress where we as a legislative body can effect relief and perhaps remove this last straw which has had the effect of creating a tremendous sales resistance to the products of this industry. So do not say that we have laid too much stress on this one thing. Far from it. At these various meetings to which the gentleman referred, many other matters were freely and frankly discussed as creating serious difficulties in the carrying on of this industry.

The gentleman demanded to know why we have been unable to keep our mills in New England. He threw that question at us with great emphasis and apparently in ridicule and with personal enjoyment. Every schoolboy knows the answer to that question. As far back as we can remember his section has enjoyed the benefits of cheap labor. Of late years, and even today under the code, it still manages to enjoy that tremendous advantage. With proper pride New England can say that it has for many years been able to meet and overcome this disadvantage through sheer emciency. It is, however, a matter of shame to us that in this great fight for equal opportunity much northern capital has gone into the South, lending additional strength to that competition, and many New England textile operators have also moved their plants there, 1n order to take advantage of these labor conditions. And to make

[PAGE 1467]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1468]

our fight still more difticult, it is feared that there will be those who will secretly endeavor to retain such conditions 1n the code for their own profit.

How does the gentleman from North Carolina dare to taunt New England, which has so long paid much higher wages to labor and, 1n addition, enacted many humanitarian laws to make ll!e for the employees more bearable and the expense of which fell upon the employer? Is he, indeed, proud that his State could bait away our industries by the low wages paid to women and ch1ldren? Is he, indeed, proud of the system of tenantry so largely obtaining in his own section?

Compare the situation of the textile employee of h1s locality with what has, at least been that of those in New England, where labor has been able to own their own dwelling houses without fear of eviction and have the happiness that comes from the enjoyment of a home free from the dictates and whims of an employer. To taunt New England in this matter, to suggest that labor conditions in the South have been and are what they should be, and by implication to suggest that we ought to go backward to similar conditions in order to retain our mills is not an argument such as should win the plaudits of his hearers.

New England has given much to the entire country, not only men of the pioneer type but of her wealth, taking great risks to build up your various industries all over this country. She has paid enormous taxes by comparison with most other States. You know that men of thrift and industry live there. Our people have always worked and saved. They have not bad other people to wait upon them. They have not had cheap labor. The young men 1n our section were not brought up to be gentlemen to be waited upon. Our whalers went to the farthest corners of the earth and made a little money, and when that industry ended they were willing to experiment and invest in the textile industry. In those days how happy the South was that New England did it! Yesterday the speech of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WARREN] was carefully prepared and skillfully read. Seemingly it met with the approbation of a great political party, but to me it gave evidence of too much satisfaction over the thought that New England's mills could not compete with the conditions existing in other parts of the country. So I have now taken my turn to rise here to plead and to protest with all the power I possess, to the end that greatly needed rellef may be afforded to this great but stricken industry, whether located in the North or in the South.

Today the shoe is on the other foot. They are now fearful that they cannot meet fair competition. You people of the South who have been competing against us under such substandard conditions believe that this legislation will prove injurious to you, and, conversely, of great benefit to my part of the country. You who have taken the floor and talked against bureaucratic control and centralization today must fail to recognize yourselves in the looking glass of the recent past.

As I say, you have erected this madhouse. You have exhausted our credit and largely wasted the savings of our people. Now we must occupy the crazy structure which you have built. If we can have but one room in which there may be a little sunlight, my people are urging me to very carefully before rejecting even such poor quarters.

Our worry this afternoon is not only about present conditions. There is the matter of the trade agreement with Great Britain, by which she may possibly buy more of your raw cotton. But when that trade agreement is consummated we are fearful, indeed, of the result to the whole cotton and textile industry of the United States.

Our protests seemingly have not received much attention when other trade agreements have been under consideration.

I want to remind the Members of the House that the Democrats have 80 percent of this body. It was hard for me, one of the little 20-percent minority, to help bail out a measure by signing a petition on an administration proposition.

I sympathize with you Democrats of the South who, in the victory of your party, have been forced to embrace the Democrats of the North. You had more consideration given you in connection with the antilynching and other matters vital to you under the Republicans when that party was in power.

However, if it were not for the plum tree, I think there would be still greater differences. The tree is still shaken for your benefit. You have my sincere sympathy in the predicament in which you find yourselves. The northern Democrat must be sympathetic and responsive to what his own constituents demand of him and he will be unable to accept your point of view.

r. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GIFFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentleman has mentioned the proposed trade agreement with Great Britain that is being talked so much about. Would the gentleman mind giving us his opinion on the amazing and to me most startling statement issued by Mr. Joseph Kennedy last night?

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER].

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to have to be compelled to listen to our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, in opposition to this bill. In fairness to him I must say he is rather enthusiastically misguided. I usually follow him, and am always happy to do so. I admire his fine work as chairman of our Foreign A1fairs Committee. But this bill marks a cleavage in our views.

Mr. Chairman, it is primarily on account of the untoward and sometimes wretched labor conditions that exist in some of our States in the South, and unfortunately in some—thank goodness only a few—of our Northern States, that we are compelled to bring in the instant bill. It is because of the "chiseled" wages paid to the employees and laboring men of those sections of the country that we are compelled to bring into this House a bill of the character we are considering today. I have no desire to be sectional. I deplore arousing sectional feelings. Conditions on both sides of the Mason and Dixon's line cause the instant bill. It is primarily on account of some of the labor conditions that exist in the State of Tennessee and kindred states that the President of the United States came forth with his message and said:

All but the hopelessly reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of manpower, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil child labor, and the exploitation of unorganized labor.

I say beyond peradventure of doubt that any man or woman who opposes the principle enunciated in this bill is, in the language of the President, just a "hopeless reactionary," and I apply that epithet to the gentleman from Tennessee and to anyone else who offers opposition to the bill's underlying tenets. I do not like the bill in its entirety. I disagree with some of its provisions. I shall try to amend the bill. But with its purposes I am in thorough accord.

The President also said:

But there are a few rudmentary standards of which we may properly ask general and widespread observance. Failure to observe them—

Namely, these rudimentary standards

must be regarded as socially and econom1cally oppressive and unwarranted under almost any circumstance.

I ask the gentleman from Tennessee to read again the message of the President. I say that not only is he a haplessly reactionary, if he opposes this bill's intended purpose, but he is blind to progress. I brand all those not in sympathy with the general purposes of this bill—namely, to lift up labor and blot out exploitation of workingmen as to wages and hours and kill child labor—as illiberal obstructionists.

THE BILL IS NOT PERFECT

The bill has lots of flaws. It could be revised in many ways. It will create dislocation in some industries. It will mean severe jolts in certain sections. It will cause difficulties in some plants. That is unfortunate. You cannot satisfy all factions and all sections. You cannot even attempt to placate all schisms in labor's ranks. I am a believer in the pragmatic theory of the greatest good for the greatest number. This bill, with perfecting amendments, will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. We do have shocking hours of labor. We have unspeakable conditions. We have wretched payment of wages. There are thousands of employers who must be chastened and taught to recognize the right of labor. We would indeed be cruel and inhuman if we did not harken to the pleas of labor.

[PAGE 1468]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1469]

These pleas must be answered. This bill is a fairly decent answer.

THERE ARE PROBABLY ONLY 4,000,000 INVOLVED

Frankly, what is all the shooting for? This bill excludes agricultural workers, domestic workers, those engaged in dairy farming, cotton processors, as well as those in the canning industries; salesmen, both on the inside as well as those working on the outside, are excluded; and all workers involved in seasonal industries are outside of the provisions of the bill. Just 4,000,000 employees, I am informed, come under the jurisdiction of the bill. Frankly, that is hardly a drop in the bucket.

WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT'S LEAD

The President suggested that Congress set certain rudimentary standards in the manufacture of products of goods that enter into interstate commerce. These standards involve minimum wages, maximum hours, and the elimination of child labor. Those enlightened States that have been fair to labor in this regard have nothing to fear. Those States that have not been fair to labor in this regard do have something to fear. In a word, all the bill does is to take off the edge of exploitation. In States like New York, standards will be far higher than any that could be set by this bill. If the jurisdiction of the labor authorities cannot go beyond 40 cents per hour and cannot go below 40 hours per week, our people in New York have nothing to fear. Wages in New York are usually above 40 cents per hour, and the hours of labor are rarely above 40 per week.

OBJECTIONS VOICED DO NOT HOLD WATER

The first objection voiced against this bill is that we might be making the same mistakes as we did under the N. R. A. But it should be remembered that the labor standards of the N. R. A. were interwoven with fair trade practices. They were included under one roof in the same code. This was a mistake. It resulted in workers bargaining away their interests as consumers and allowing high monopoly prices to be set and a high price structure to become rigid, in return for wage and hour concessions. Under the instant bill, however, there is no such possibility for such bargaining.

The second objection is that the bill paves the way for Government wage fixing, and that the wage structure will thus become frozen. Some labor leaders believe that any Government action with respect to labor is hostile and will interfere with trade-union activity. There are other labor leaders who believe that the Government has a useful function and can help labor in providing the machinery for collective bargaining, guaranteeing civil liberties for labor, and setting minimum standards. Regardless of these conflicting views, I believe that this bill can be of great help to labor. Labor can go hand in hand with Government. The Government will only step in when it is absolutely necessary. Where labor can take care of itself, the Government can and will step aside. Where labor is weak and tottering, labor has no other recourse but to ask the Government to step in and help.

The third objection is that the bill might put marginal firms out of business and therefore the depression will be made greater. I believe an adequate answer to that is that we can never rescue business from a depression by exploiting labor, by cutting wages, and by having a market which labor cannot utilize. On the other hand, by increasing wages and by making the conditions of labor livable and fair, we can bring about an increase of purchasing power and thereby rescue business from the depression.

As regards the fourth objection, that this bill will do away With collective bargaining: The greatest weapon that labor has is collective bargaining. This bill will not interfere with this weapon; it will simply supplement collective bargaining where necessary. In all cases where collective bargaining does not exist, this bill, like the Wagner Labor Relations Act, comes forward to supplement it. In other words, this bill does not take the place of collective bargaining but simply supplements it. No labor board, no labor administrative group can replace or should replace labor unions.

More can be secured by labor through collective bargaining than by law. I repeat: collective bargaining is not interfered with by this bill.

CHILD LABOR

Let us consider the child-labor provision of this bill. Let us consider the roster of States which have rejected the child-labor amendment. Very significantly, we find that many of the Members who have appeared or will appear in this rostrum in opposition to the pending bill come from States which have rejected the child-labor amendment. Herewith set forth is a list of the States which have actually rejected the child-labor amendment, together with the method and date of rejection, as well as the date on which notification of rejection was received by the Secretary of State:

State rejections

¹ A resolution proposing ratification was voted upon by the Kansas Senate Feb. 15, 1937, the deciding vote in favor of the resolution being cast by the Lieutenant Governor (as presiding officer) to break a 20-20 tie. 10 days later the house of representatives passed the resolution. Judicial proceedings were undertaken challenging the vote of the Lieutenant Governor, and pending settlement of this controversy the Secretary of State of the United States has not been notified of ratification. (See the Topeka Daily Capital, Feb.27, 1937.)

Very likely many of these States, in rejecting the child-labor amendment, wish to continue child labor within their borders. This is, indeed, a dreadful blot on their escutcheon. They certainly cannot come forward under the guise of hackneyed State rights and say, "You cannot come into our borders and say what we shall or shall not do with reference to the foul child labor within our borders." They cannot, and should not, remain impervious to our importunings. Child labor cannot be justified on any grounds.

Mr. LAMBETH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LAMBETH. What did the gentleman's own State do With reference to the child-labor amendment?

Mi-. CELLER. I will tell you that the people of New York want the child-labor amendment. New York neither rejected or accepted the amendment. One branch of our legislature adopted the amendment; the other branch rejected it. It was adopted by that branch of the legislature controlled by the Democrats and was rejected by that branch controlled by the Republicans. The so-called up-State Republicans have stood in the way of the child-labor amendment; be it said to their shame. We, the Democrats of New York, want the amendment. We, the Democrats of New York, will always stand in the way of child labor. [Applause.]

[PAGE 1469]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1470]

In addition to New York, the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Rhode Island have not as yet taken final action on the child-labor amendment. All the other States not heretofore mentioned have ratified the same.

In justice to some of the States that have rejected the amendment I will say the following: New York has an excellent labor law, and in the main these laws prohibit child labor. North Carolina, the State whence comes our distinguished colleague [Mr. LAMBETH], for whom I have a high and affectionate regard, is making impressive strides in its labor laws.

There appeared in the June 9, 1937, issue of the Washington Daily News an interesting article by Thomas L. Stokes, wherein he states that a number of southern legislatures have taken steps recently to improve their State labor statutes, which in many cases have been weakened and riddled with loopholes, and which have been a contributing factor in the southward migration of low-wage industries. He draws attention to impressive improvements in the laws in certain of the Southern States, but, as one reads of these changes, the conclusion is inescapable that the standards are still low and that a Federal statute is imperative.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. JENKS].

Mr. JENKS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, before this House there has been no legislation of greater national importance or more humane significance than this wage-andhour bill. Its provisions, in the main, affect that large group of semiskilled and unskilled workers scattered over the width and breadth of this land, and indirectly affect the interests of every man, woman, and child throughout the entire country. For that reason this legislation deserves and should have the unstinted attention and consideration of every Member of this body.

Let us hastily construct a mental chart of the labor groups in this country. On the basis of the 1930 census—I have been unable to secure any later figures—we had 6,282,687 skilled workers, 7,977,572 semiskilled workers, and 14,008,869 unskilled workers. It is with the latter two groups, minus the farm and other exempted classes of workers, that this bill is concerned. On the basis of the 1930 figures, it could be roughly estimated there are somewhere between twelve and fourteen million semiskilled and unskilled workers. The purpose of this wage and hour legislation is to stabilize employment and raise the general standard of living for this group of workers.

At the outset, I want to say that I most heartily favor the basic principles of this measure—that is, the establishment of a decent minimum wage, the setting of reasonable maximum working hours, and the abolishment of child labor. I believe that the adoption of these principles would be a step in the right direction.

In the course of my lifetime I have stood on both sides of the reservation. In my early years I was a worker, receiving a pay envelope on Saturday nights, after working 10 hours every day, and for many years I was an employer who had to find ways and means to meet a pay roll each week. During my thirty-odd years as an employer of labor not one of my employees ever lost a single day's work on account of strike, lock-out, or any difference with the management. Because of my personal experience as employee and employer, I believe I am in a position to view this issue from both angles, and I have no hesitancy in saying that I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that until such time as there is brought about a more equitable distribution of the profits between industry and labor, so as to enable the mass consuming public to absorb on a larger scale the products of industry and agriculture, the necessary balance between supply and demand, which is so vital to national prosperity, cannot be attained. In other words, the purchasing power must be put into the pockets of the rank and file of the consuming public if the products of industry and agriculture are to be absorbed.

I am fully aware that the administration of this act will present certain problems that only time and experience can solve. I concede the administrative imperfections of the measure as it now stands, which, by inference, are recognized in the bill itself in that it makes specific provision that the administrator shall from time to time make recommendations for further legislation in connection with the matters covered by the act. I am even hopeful that through the numerous amendments to be offered and discussed on the floor of the House before final action is taken on the bill that the measure will be further clarified and improved. I very frankly admit that I am somewhat dubious regarding the administration of this act. I opposed from the beginning the establishment of a board to administer this act, because I seriously question the feasibility of creating a huge Federal agency here in Washington vested with practically unlimited power over industry and labor throughout the entire country, In my opinion, the appointment of an administrator to supervise the enforcement of the provisions of the act in conjunction with the State labor divisions, thus localizing and giving each State a voice in the administration of the act, is preferable.

Unlike many issues that come before us, the division of opinion over this legislation appears to be engendered not so much by partisanship as by sectionalism. Strangely enough it is from the sections where the enforcement of this act would do the most to improve the standard of living that the greatest opposition is coming and the greatest doubt exists as to the wisdom of passing it.

Quite naturally it follows that a heterogeneous population such as ours, spread over an area the size of this country, is bound to develop varying standards and conditions that in due time become stabilized, static, and habitually accepted. Because it is easier to settle in a groove and move along in it as best we can, we are not prone to exert ourselves to change until we reach an impasse that literally forces us to bestir ourselves to meet changed conditions and circumstances that can no longer adequately and efficiently fit or move in the old groove.

But, however, that may be and from whatever section we may come, each and every one of us is confronted with a condition that is universal and that must be adjusted—from the border to the Gulf and from the Atlantic to the Pacific—before we can hope to make any further progress and begin to hit on all 12 cylinders again. It has long been a recognized fact that the rapid strides that have been made in mechanical labor-saving devices, plus high-powered scientific management, has brought about a displacement of labor that is one of the root-causes of the backfire in our economic machinery. We all know that there are more workers than there are jobs; that there are not enough jobs to go around—that labor-saving mechanical devices now do the work that formerly kept many hands occupied, With the result that many hands are now idle.

What is the remedy? Shorter hours, which will mean the employment of more workers, thus dividing up the existing or available jobs and spreading employment. The curtailment of working hours to 40 hours a week, as provided in this bill, makes a step in the right direction. It is my understanding that the first 30-hour week bill was introduced sometime about 1930, so that this question of shortening work hours with a view to spreading employment has been before the Congress for some 7 years. In that time the unemployment situation has not automatically remedied itself, nor will it. Something must be done to adjust it. We may defer action again, but the issue will not down. Sooner or later we must face and solve this unemployment problem that is draining not only the financial resources of the Treasury but sapping the morale of a people able and willing to work but for whom not enough work exists.

[PAGE 1470]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1471]

Let us pass this bill in the hope of destroying sweatshop labor and banishing it at least from interstate commerce, curbing the power of the chiseler over the honest employer, and benefiting children by giving them a chance to have a normal childhood in which to properly grow and develop. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. FORD].

Mr. FORD of California. Mr. Chairman, may I say, first, I am in full accord with the objectives of this bill and expect to support the committee throughout in its attempt to get the bill through.

Secondly, in answer to some of the arguments which have been made against this measure, I believe any industry, big or little, which cannot pay or will not pay a living wage, ha.s no right to exist in this country. [Applause.]

Being in accord with the bill's primary objectives, I want to state my belief that this bill, whether you call it the Black-Cannery bill, the fair labor standards bill, or the wage and hour bill, seeks to afford relief to that great group of inarticulate, because unorganized, workers, numbering between twelve and fifteen millions in all.

The members of this group are confined to no one section of the Nation and for that reason it seems unfair to me to have advocates of this measure charged with sectional prejudice.

The measure should enlist the support of every member of this House because it attempts to mitigate, if not to completely eliminate, child labor in certain classes of industry. The bill seeks to restrict the operations of the sweatshop and the chiseler, whose operations are identical in producing shocking social and economic conditions.

The shorter workweek will, I believe, provide more jobs. The minimum wage will provide a broader market for the products of the mill, the mine, and the farm by increasing and spreading purchasing power. I am sure no member of this House will quarrel with these objections.

It is to be noted that almost every man who has risen in opposition to this bill has at some stage of his remarks professed his approval of the bill's broad objectives, provided, however, that it be amended in this or that particular. In other words, practically all admit the excellence of its purposes, but object to the methods employed to attain the end sought.

I for one am willing to credit the Labor Committee with attempting to do an honest job. It is a big job in a new field. Let's give the bill a chance. If experience proves that the bill is weak in spots, these weaknesses can later be cured by amendment.

This bill is, I honestly believe, a step in the right direction. As such it is entitled to the support of every Member who believes that an honest day's work is entitled to at least a fair days' pay.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU].

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, a good deal has been said during the general debate on this bill with reference to the parentage of this particular proposal. I do not believe anyone need be ashamed of its parentage. As far as I am concerned, the principle involved in this measure has parentage of which each and everyone of us should well be proud. I know organized labor in this country has for several years been sponsoring legislation designed to reduce the hours of labor in industry and fix a minimum wage for those employed in industry. Organized labor time after time in its national conventions has endorsed the so-called 30-hour-week bill. This is the principle involved in the pending bill. Although there have been ·various amendments offered, and although the committee has accepted certain amendments, nevertheless, the fundamental principle of reducing the hours of labor in industry and fixing a minimum wage employees in industry has been sponsored by the American Federation of Labor for many, many years, and in recent years it has had the support of the C. I. O.

As far as the particular sponsorship of this bill is concerned, may I say that in my judgment the man who sponsored this measure in this body will go down in history as one of the greatest friends of the workingman and as one of the clearest thinkers in this country. He was a man with vision, a man with a heart, a man whose devotion to his country was second to none in his day and generation—the distinguished former Member of this body, the late William P. Connery, of Massachusetts. [Applause.] This is sponsorship of a high type for this bill. He fought for this bill year after year, yes, years ago, before the N. R. A. was even thought of. Many of us have had the great honor and the great privilege of working on with him in the ranks, supporting him year after year, working for this legislation, until today we have this proposal before us for consideration.

I am not in entire accord with some of the provisions of the committee bill. I am in accord with its principal objectives. There is one proposal, however, that has been offered which in my judgment comes nearer to attaining the desired objectives than any other. This is the proposal contained in the bill introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILER], which is in many respects similar to the original Connery bill, and which I understand has the support of the American Federation of Labor. I believe in that proposal, because it actually fixes maximum hours of labor and minimum wages in industry. The so-called Dockweiler bill, as I understand, will be offered as a substitute, and undoubtedly will be offered after we read the first section of the pending bill. I hope the Members of this body will give serious consideration to the proposal.

There has been considerable criticism of the committee's proposal on the ground that of necessity a board will be established or an administrator provided for, which board or administrator will have certain powers to fix wage differentials. Members who are opposed to this bill and to all legislation along this line have criticized the committee's proposal because it provides for appointment of an administrator. The distinguished gentleman from Tennessee criticized it because he did not want the Secretary of Labor, or an administrator appointed to work under the Secretary of Labor, to have authority to fix such wage differentials. If you from the sections of the country from which most of the opposition comes do not want this kind of a board or administrative agency established to fix differentials, I assure you I do not want it, and, for one, I shall vote for the so-called American Federation of Labor bill, which does not provide for wage differentials.

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a short question?

Mr. BOILEAU. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. MOTT. Has the gentleman any idea the Dockweiler amendment will be held to be germane?

Mr. BOILEAU. I have no doubt in my own mind it will be held to be germane.

Mr. MOTT. I hope the gentleman is right, but I do not think it will be so held.

Mr. BOILEAU. I cannot conceive of a ruling being made in this instance to the effect that the Dockweiler bill is not germane.

The Dockweiler bill fixes the maximum number of hours at 40 per week, 8 hours per day, at a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour throughout the entire country, with certain exceptions, particularly of agriculture. The bill therefore provides for a uniform minimum wage for American workers of $16 a week. I submit that wages, whether in the North, the South, the East, or the West, if we are to be proud of the American standard of living, should not be less than $16 a week to provide for a decent standard of living. I cannot conceive of any man, living in any section of the

[PAGE 1471]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1472]

country, being able to support a family in decency on the so-called American standard of living at a weekly wage of less than $16.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FISH. I should like to know from the gentleman, who is in touch with the American Federation of Labor, if the proposal to which he refers has the unanimous recommendation of the American Federation of Labor?

Mr. BOILEAU. I do not know, but I assure the gentleman that it is entitled to such endorsement. For several years I have been doing my little bit to promote the proposals contained in the Dockweiler or the so-called American Federation of Labor bill. These principles appeal to me.

I have been advocating these principles for many years and whether this proposed measure has the endorsement of a small or a large group within the American Federation of Labor or any other organization, is not the only question involved. I believe these principles are right. These principles are what I have been advocating, and so far as my own vote is concerned, I shall vote to substitute that bill for the committee proposal. I submit to the Members of the House that if any group of laborers or any organization purporting to represent American labor opposes this bill, they are inconsistent, because this bill is drawn upon principles that their organization has gone on record in favor of, upon numerous occasions.

When the American people talk about minimum wages and maximum hours of employment, they really mean a bill that fixes a minimum wage, and I do not believe anyone can seriously argue that $16 a week is too high a minimum wage for any section of the country, or for any worker, if he is to maintain his family in health and in decency. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER].

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, in considering this type of legislation we should have in mind a general principle that is of the utmost importance to my mind, and that is that advances in standards of living have come as a result of a speeding up of the wheels of industry and a demand for goods. No substantial advance in wages or in living conditions can be accomplished by legislation passed to create such advances unless you have at the same time an absolute speeding up of the processes of industry.

Now, what has happened? We are considering a bill designed to turn over to an administrator in the Department of Labor the right to fix minimum wages and maximum hours. This is one of the things that is acting at the present time as a deterrent against the employment of our people. Its passage will destroy any opportunity for the employment of our people. Its advocates say that it is up to industry to provide the employment. How can industry provide such employment when industry, the greatest employers of labor, consisting of small industries absolutely dependent upon the banking credit of this country, and under the rulings of F. D. I. C. and the Comptroller General these banks have been obliged to deny credit time after time to these small institutions throughout the country, and this bill creates a situation where our Government authorities will more and more close down these plants as a result of the passage of this kind of legislation.

Mr. KITCHEN'S. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TABER. I must decline to yield, as I have not the time.

This bill has other vicious features and those of you who are pretending to be interested in labor must get its meaning through your heads.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TABER. I must decline to yield.

It provides a measure whereby an officer of the Government fixes wages and begins a process which will grow until it covers the entire labor field, including every operation in it. You are starting a process which can do nothing but destroy the freedom of labor and its right to bargain. Do not fool yourselves on this. There is absolutely and positively no escape from such a conclusion. You are paving the way for the absolute enslavement of labor by the fixing of the wages of labor from the top of the Government, and under such a situation no such thing as freedom of labor or its right to bargain or the operation of private industry is possible. You are starting reactionary, destructive processes in the direction of the destruction of our liberties.

Let us defeat this legislation and preserve the rights of the American workingman. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HEALEY].

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD by including certain charts from the Department of Labor.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels that the rule laid down by the late Speaker Byrns with reference to the inclusion of extraneous matter in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD should be adhered to, and suggests to the gentleman that he seek that privilege when we get into the House.

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, we are at the present time considering this bill, termed "the wage and hour bill," by reason of an extraordinary action that was forced upon the House of Representatives, in the discharge of the Rules Committee so that we might have the opportunity to debate and consider this most vital question. Two hundred and eighteen Members of this House were required to sign a petition because a select committee, a sort of iron ring of irreconcilables, usurped unto themselves power and jurisdiction inconsistent with the long-established traditions of this House, and thereby kept this question away from the House during the last session of the House and up to the present time. Let us not be deceived. I am satisfied that no bill dealing with hours and wages would have come before the House at all through that channel unless that extraordinary action was taken. This arbitrary and arrogant attitude was not confined only to the Democratic members who belong to that committee.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEALEY. I cannot yield; I have only a very short time. We now have before us a measure considered important enough to be placed on the agenda of those things that were expected by the President of the United States to be enacted by the Congress during this special and extraordinary session. This bill has been greatly misrepresented. Opponents have tried to accomplish its death by flooding the country from one end to the other with misleading propaganda. This is not a bill to regiment labor or industry. This bill merely proposes to take out of the field of interstate commerce those concerns which refuse to pay subsistence wages to their workers and employ them excessively long hours.

The maintenance of numerous low-wage areas in our country has caused economic dislocations in other established industrial sections, which continue to imperil the standards of decently paid workers throughout the Nation. Moreover, the maintenance of low-wage areas has conferred little benefit upon the persons who reside in those areas, because they cannot possibly subsist as decent American citizens, nor can they furnish to their families the bare necessaries of life on the scale of wages that is being paid to them. Meanwhile the natural resources of these areas are being exhausted by such exploitation.

What does the bill do? The administrative agency which is finally set up to administer this act may only fix as the ultimate wage 40 cents an bour. Forty cents an hour, with 40 hours a week, 50 weeks in the year, will yield the sum of $800. A survey conducted by the Department of Labor within the last year and one conducted by the Works Progress Administration in the last year established beyond peradventure that a family composed of a man and his wife with even only one child cannot hope to exist on the most

[PAGE 1472]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1473]

frugal scale on $800 a year. Yet that is all the authority we are asked to confer on the administrative agency by the terms of the bill, and even that is only a maximum. Yet some members denounce so moderate a reform as this.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER], who just preceded me, talked about this measure, starting the ball rolling for the regulation of all industry and wages. In his State for some years now forward-looking people, represented by a progressive legislature, have established a minimum-wage law relating to the employment of women and children in industry,

That particular Minimum Wage Act is considered one of the model minimum wage acts of the country, and many minimum wage acts—there are 26 of them in 26 different States—had been patterned after the New York one. The people of his State knew that women and children were being exploited and realized that the exploitation of those women and children in industry was detrimental to their morals, health, and efficiency. Who is there that will deny that the enactment of the New York law was a humane act on the part of that legislature and of the legislatures of every State that enacted similar measures. We have now been brought to a realization that not only women and children are being exploited in industry, but that men are also the victims of unfair labor practices which, if permitted to continue, will destroy the stability of our economic system.

My own State of Massachusetts, a State long preeminent in the manufacture of shoes and textiles, known throughout the world because of the efficiency of its workers and the quality of its products, has seen its commanding position swept away by the corrosive competition of sweated industries. Between the years 1923 and 1933 the textile industry in New England lost nearly 120,000 jobs. One hundred and twenty thousand jobs were taken out of that prosperous industrial region because of the establishment of low wages elsewhere, leaving thousands of families to their own resources or the resources of overburdened local public welfare departments.

During the 10-year period between 1923 and 1933 Massachusetts, the largest industrial State in this section, saw its annual pay roll in manufacturing industries decrease from $799,363,111 to $354,523,624. In other words, according to these figures of the United States Bureau of the Census, more than $400,000,000 in annual wages in factory pay rolls was lost by Massachusetts wage earners in this 10-year period, an average drop of $40,000,000 each year. During this same period the average number of wage earners fell off from 667,443 to 398,592. The decline was most pronounced in the cotton-goods industry where pay rolls fell off from $115,080,841 in 1923 to $31,110,036 in 1933. In this same period, woolens slumped from $76,189,812 in yearly wages to $33,072,129; boots and shoes from $82,916,416 to $36,559,127.

These figures regarding Massachusetts are typical of what has also been going on in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and other industrial New England States. During this period the New England Council and various New England manufacturing associations were organized to stem this exodus of industry. State legisiatures tried to solve the problem by interstate compacts. Yet the relentless decline of New England's industrial preeminence continued.

In my opinion the failure of these methods points only to one conclusion. Labor costs in the competing interstate industries through the United States must be made uniform. The only way this can be done is through Federal legislation. The wage and hour bill is a noteworthy start in this direction, and its speedy enactment may ultimately prove the solution of the national problem of industrial insecurity.

That I have not been exaggerating this industrial picture is vividly illustrated by the table which I am inserting in the RECORD at this point illustrating the number of wage earners by States employed in the New England cottontextile industry for the census years 1923-35, inclusive.

[NOTE: Insert chart]

I have said that the principal inducement for the exodus of this industry was the existence of major disparities of wages between New England and South Atlantic States. I now draw your attention to a chart published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing differentials ranging from 20 to 65 percent in each trade or occupation in the textile industry.

TABLE 1.—Average hourly earnings in ootton-goods manufa£turing in New England and South Atlantic States, 1924-34, by occupations

[NOTE: Insert chart]

[PAGE 1473]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1474]

TABLE 1.—Average hourly earnings in ootton-goods manufa£turing in New England and South Atlantic States, 1924-34, by occupations—Continued

[NOTE: Insert charts]

It must be remembered that in the thickly populated cities and towns of New England, industrial pay rolls are the lifeblood of the people. The whole economy of this region has for generations depended upon manufactures.

I cite these facts, not to raise any sectional issue or with a desire to foster legislation discriminating against other portions of the country, but to show that migrating industry causes a blight upon the economic life of our whole Nation. The wage tables I have mentioned show conclusively that these runaway industries do not bring prosperity into the communities to which they escape. They simply impose upon those communities the poverty and wretched standard of living which are the usual incidents of substandard wages and sweatshop conditions. In other words, these industries lower purchasing power in one region without conferring any compensatory benefit in other areas to balance this loss.

I think all of us realize today that only by the establishment of high purchasing power among the workers can we banish the threat of overproduction which continually overhangs American industry. We cannot permit the standard of American living to be continually undermined by antisocial employers.

We now have a golden opportunity to eliminate some of the practices which are drying up the wells of interstate commerce. Most of us are in full accord with the objectives and philosophy of the legislation now before us. There are, however, serious differences of opinion with regard to the machinery which the Government should establish to achieve them. We should, however, cause sad disappointment to the people who put their faith in us if we permitted this opportunity to slip in a protracted dispute over technical differences and fail to acco·mplish one of the primary purposes for which we convened in special session. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL].

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the opportunity go by to express my views on such an important matter as we have before us at the present time. It seems to me there is a very grave responsibility resting upon the Members of this House to give most considerate attention to a piece of legislation that so vitally affects the economic conditions of this country, and especially the future economic conditions.

In the first place, before passing a regulatory measure . of this kind it seems to me we should take into consideration the conditions existing throughout the country as far as business and employment of labor are concerned. If there is one thing that practically all of our people are agreed upon in every part of the country, it is that there should be less regulation of business, and that we should remove some of the burden, rather than adding more restringent legislation. That being the condition, and the fact that today we are in the midst of a real serious depression, I cannot see how anyone can justify the passing of any more legislation that places more restrictions on business and makes it still harder for industry to put men back at work.

Mr. BARRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SNELL. I do not yield at the present time.

Perhaps you can pass legislation raising wages, but you cannot force people to hire them. Today there are more people in the United States who are wishing they could find a job, regardless of what the wages are or the length of the hours, than there are men seeking jobs at 40 cents an hour and 40 hours per week. Now, that is a serious proposition. There may be a time when it would be all right to pass legislation increasing the wages of the country, but with the economic condition as it is today, it is certainly not the proper time.

Right along that line, as proof of this, let me read a short statement from the Standard Statistics of the present issue:

As we have pointed out previously, the standard index of industrial production will probably reach this month the level of 30 percent under a year ago. With steel production now fluctuating between 25 and 30 percent of its full capacity, the automobile output nearly 50 percent lower than December last year, textile and shoe operations off 30 to 35 percent from a year ago, and most other lines declining equally fast—

With that definite statement staring you in the face, is it a good proposition for the American Congress to place more

[PAGE 1474]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1475]

restrictions on business and make it harder to employ labor? That is a serious question that I want to call to your attention at this time. Fundamentally, and back of an this confusion about the bill, is the undisputed fact that intelligent leadership of union labor knows that however desirable it may be to have legislation of this character, this is not the proper time to press it. As far as I am concerned, I want all labor to have its share of the profits of industry, and to be justly and honestly treated by every industry in every part of the country.

Now, there has been a rather anomalous position in connection with this legislation. Some of the people have been telling the manufacturers of the North, "If we can force a wage and hour bill on the South, it is going to restore you to your previous position in the industrial world." Another group of people are telling the industrialists down South, "If we pass a bill of this kind, we will put a differential in that will take care of you."

As a matter of fact, they are fooling both of them. If there is any industrialist in New England or the northern part of this country who thinks they can force southern industrialists to pay the less efficient, colored laborer of the South 40 cents an hour, you are just as much mistaken as you can be, and you ought to know it. There is no more chance of enforcing regulations of this kind on the industrial South than there is of enforcing the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. That is a fact, and every man who stops and thinks, knows you could not enforce such a measure any more than we could enforce prohibition.

There is a friend of mine, who is a Republican, who lives down South. I do not know how he can still hold to the faith and live where he does, but he has so far. He says:

We are not very much disturbed about the wage matter, because we know how to take care of that; but there is another situation in regard to the moral aspect of this bill that we do not like.

As a matter of fact, we have been running around in circles for the last 4 years, and here is another definite example of that. We were called into special session to pass, among other bills, a bill to raise the prices of the products of the farm, so that the farmer could get nearer a parity price for his production. Having passed that bill, now this one is presented that will again raise the price of everything he buys, so he will not receive any benefit. Before that bill was out of the way the President sent in another recommendation, that in order to encourage construction and to set loose from twelve to fifteen billion dollars of private capital into that outlet we must reduce the cost of materials and the cost of labor. Before you have started to consider that recommendation you have another recommendation of the President, which, if it has any object whatever in this world, is to increase the cost of materials and the cost of labor and directly opposed to his message of the week before. How can anyone be expected to follow such a vacilating policy? In other words, the President's poliey is just like a merry-go-round. You keep going round and round and get off just where you started, and the only thing different is that you have lost your fare and somebody has picked your pocket while you have been going around. [Laughter and applause.]

No one claims sponsorship for this bill, and it is opposed by the farm organizations, business, and even labor itself as represented by William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor.

I want to call the attention of the House to what Mr. William Green says about this bill. I think he is about as high an authority and is about as stable an authority as we have on matters pertaining to labor.

Mr. Green charges in connection with the amended bill:

The amended bill would set up a labor czar with the life and death powers over industrial organizations, communities, labor unions, and collective bargaining.

In a letter to Mrs. NORTON, chairman of the Committee on Labor, Mr. Green wrote:

If the Board such as proposed in the original bill was dangerous and unacceptable, certainly the Adminlstrator provision 1n the present bill 1s even more dangerous and unacceptable.

I entirely agree with him in opposing legislation setting up a czar over the economic conditions of this country, a man who can say what labor conditions shall be, what shall be the wages and hours in any industry in any part of the country. This is going further than we have ever gone before even under the New Deal in giving power to one individual man. Furthermore, that man will be an appointee of the administration in power. If this is not one of the greatest political advantages that was ever given any administration at any time I want somebody to tell me what is.

Another consideration I want to bring to the attention of the House and another appeal I want to make to the Members, especially my Republican friends, is based on the fact that if there is one thing on which the extreme radical, the liberal, the conservative, the reactionary have always agreed, it is an opposition to increasing autocratic, bureaucratic control here in Washington. This is one thing upon which we have not only been in agreement, but also a great many of the Members on the other side of the aisle have said in their speeches that they were opposed to this kind of movement. This bill goes further in this direction than any one piece of legislation that I remember that has come before this House in recent years. If you meant what you said to your people back home, that you were opposed to increasing this bureaucratic control here in Washington, that you were opposed to concentrating all the powers possible here, but that you were in favor of leaving something to the States and to the communities back home, you will vote against this piece of legislation. Above all, to me it is untimely. It certainly is against some of the recent recommendations of your own President; and I trust that you will not allow the people to say as the New York Times editorial said yesterday-—and I would refer to it further but it has already been placed in the RECORD today—that they are disappointed in the irresponsible leadership of the Democratic side of this House evidenced in the presenting and passing of this bill at this time. I trust that you will not do anything more to give the impression to the country that you do not think and act for yourselves, but that you are a rubber stamp for the President. The only sensible thing for the true friends of labor to do now is to vote to send this bill back to the committee for further study and consideration. By so doing you will give some encouragement to business, and every man here knows business must be encouraged if we are going to put the unemployed back to work. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BARDEN].

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to discuss the whole bill at this time. In this respect, however, I am somewhat in line with many who have preceded me. [Laughter.]

It is my desire to discuss for just a few minutes one of the amendments which I propose to offer; and may I say right here in this connection that any act affecting as large a percentage of the American people as this act necessarily will must be based upon justice, reason, and practical common sense. In his message to Congress on November 15 the President said:

We should provide flexible machinery which will enable industry throughout the country to adjust itself progressively to better labor conditions.

Following that lead, I prepared this amendment:

In case of an order declaring the existence of substandard wages, said order shall not require the increase in wages to be in excess of 1 cent per hour each 30 days, beginning from the effective date of said order and continuing until the standard wage prescribed in said order is reached.

Everyone, be he Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or a member of any other party, is bound to admit that prices are on a downward grade, regrettable as this may be. Should we permit or force the cost of production of any commodity to go beyond and exceed the consumer or buying market, there is only one of two things for the producer to do—either shut down and wait a rise in the market price or continue to produce at a loss. If he shuts down, unemployment

[PAGE 1475]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1476]

results; if he continues to produce, then his problems increase. Small concerns which carry on a majority of the business of this country but which have not accumulated surpluses or reserves are forced to borrow from the banks, and the minute a bank sees that a concern's production cost is exceeding the buying market price they call in their loans to that concern. This, of course, results in closing down business and increased unemployment. This, in my opinion, can be prevented by a gradual approach. I would certainly like to see the very delicate problem of unemployment given proper consideration and dealt with in such way that those whom we attempt to befriend will not be thrown out of employment completely.

Living costs are up, wages paid labor should go up; but it is no simple problem to solve, for it has taken us approximately 150 years to get into the condition we now find ourselves, and we cannot hope to get out of it in 30 days. Much has been said of a mythical sectional feeling about this matter. This does not appeal to me, and I say in no uncertain terms that I will not be a party to any punitive legislation directed at any section of the United States. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BARDEN: Should I discover such a desire on the part of the proponents of this bill, or any other bill, or that attitude reflected in its terms, you will find me in the ranks of the opposition; and though we may be in the minority, I propose to stand by my people and go down with them, if necessary. [Applause.] I think we could well afford to leave all this aside, for there is enough in the merits and demerits of this bill to occupy our time without going back to 1865 and starting that over again. I wish we could forget that and spend our time in working out reasonable provisions such as the one I propose to offer.

Remember, the South affords a great market for the rest of the country. Thirty-four percent of the population reside there, and 31 percent of the area of the United States is encompassed in the South. Let me call your attention further to the fact that from 1930 to 1935 the population of this country increased by 4,746,000; 2,750,000 of these people were born in the South. So we are providing a future market. One of our big troubles at this time is the selling price on supplies we buy is fixed mostly in New York, and at the same time they fix the price they propose to pay for our products. Let us then forget sectional feeling and see if we cannot tackle this problem and correct the condition under which a man spills his honest sweat for 8 or 10 hours a day only to go home with not enough to feed his family. This is the real problem and by no means confined to any one section. All of us are in favor of the principle involved; all of us favor the results that the authors of this bill seek to bring about, the differences being over the method of treating the problem.

I hope, however, that the amendment I have suggested will be adopted, for it will enable the country to go ahead and industry to approach an increased wage gradually. One cent per hour per month is about as rapid as the small industry can stand it. When you choke them and shut them down, as the gentleman from California said, what have you on your hands? Unemployment. Certain natural and unnatural barriers exist which must be removed before the leveling process will work. A fair example of this is discriminatory freight rates.

Mr. Chairman, I almost shuddered a minute ago when I heard the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] read North Carolina on the dishonorable roll. Just in this connection, I pray God that the gentleman's career at the end of his life may compare at least favorably to the glowing record of North Carolina. I wish he knew more about North Carolina. We have traveled a long way. Only a generation ago we had to start all over again. Help us with our problems. We are not antagonistic toward any section. You cannot hurt us without hurting yourselves. We call for a cooperative attitude rather than one prompted by cynical criticism or an ugly feeling. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CULKIN].

Mr. CULKIN. Mr. Chairman, I am in general sympathy with the purposes of this bill; however, I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that you are now pioneering what is more or less virgin legislative soil. It is true that to some of the sweated industries State laws have been applied but nowhere in any law has it ever been suggested that the processes of agriculture were subject to this type of legislation.

The farmer is a seasonal worker. His job is subject to the changes in season and to changes in weather. He works longer hours during some seasons than he does in others. To write into this bill, even remotely, any qualification on that process is doing violence to our whole economic structure. This bill purports to exempt agriculture, but it does not exempt it in fact. The dairy group was exempted by the Senate.

Then the bill came to the House and the House committee took it out. Then this committee put it back. I am advised now that the House committee will offer an amendment on the floor putting it out again. This is at the capricious and extraordinary demands of certain urban groups.

May I say that the cow cannot be regulated by any law you may pass here. She gives down her milk at 6 o'clock in the morning. You can pass laws until hell freezes over and you cannot change that. Again, in the afternoon, more than 8 hours later, she goes through another donation process to the cause of man. You cannot change that. That milk has to be taken to market. It is a perishable product and has to be handled quickly in order to escape an increased bacteriological count. So I say, for God's sake, Mr. Chairman, do not attempt to invade the God-given province of the cow by this legislation. I am sure this kindly committee is in sympathy with the cow and her duly ordained processes. They must know that she is the foster mother of the human races. Leave the cow alone and allow the amendment to remain that the Senate adopted and the House threw out and then put in again. When the amendment is offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. CURLEY] to strike out this section, just see that it is relegated to the realm of dead suggestions.

The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. McLAUGHLIN] has a. rather more sweeping amendment on this proposition. He would include not only producer-owned cooperatives within the scope of the bill but would include privately owned creameries. I am in sympathy with that. The gentleman from Iowa has a still more inclusive amendment covering agriculture. I am in sympathy with that.

Do not permit yourselves to believe or to be inveigled into the belief by the demands of unthinking, autocratic, and stupid minorities that you can change or regiment Nature's processes. Write a sane bill—a bill that has a basis in sound national philosophy and economics—and in so doing let the cow function as God intended. [Applause.].

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD at this point.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. O'CONNOR of Montana). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Chairman, the bill under discussion is without doubt the most important bill that has been before this body in many years. If it is passed in its present form, no one in this body can foretell its effect upon labor and industry in the years to follow. Viewing the actions which forced this bill to the floor of the House at this time, considering, also, how many times the Labor Committee has changed its mind as to what a wage and hour

[PAGE 1476]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1477]

bill should contain, and. after reading the bill itself, it seems to me that the proponents of this bill do not care what will happen to labor and industry in the years to come. The whole thing appears to be simply a ''face saving" device. The President promised a wage and hour bill and a number of Members who profess to be the friends of labor also promised a wage and hour bill, and they are going to attempt to deliver a wage and hour bill no matter of what kind or nature and without knowing or seemingly caring what its future effect will be upon the country. They simply want to be on record as voting for a wage and hour bill. When and if the bill is passed, they can say to labor, "We passed a wage and hour bill and if it does not work out the way you thought it would, that is your funeral; we did as we promised." The proponents of this bill say, "You have to raise wages and shorten hours, so as to put more men to work and give them greater purchasing power." If that theory is correct, why stop at 40 cents an hour and 40 hours a week? Why not make it a dollar an hour and 30 or 25 hours a week? That, according to the theory of the proponents, would give the worker more money to spend and put more men to work and prosperity would be assured.

The trouble is, however, that the theory of the proponents has never worked out that way and never will work out . that way. The great majority of the workers in this country, and they are the ones who must pay for any increase of wages to others, do not come under the protection of this bill nor under the protection of any labor union, so they never get the benefit of any forced wage increase. When goods are dear they cease to buy. When they cease to buy the merchant curtails his buying. When the merchant curtails his buying the manufacturer ceases to make goods. When the manufacturer ceases to make goods he has no more need for his help and he lays them off and that makes unemployment worse and adds to the relief rolls. To my way of thinking this bill will have just that effect.

Shorter hours and higher pay will raise the price of goods to the conswner. The consumer, who happens to be the great majority of the workers, does not now have sufficient money With which to supply his needs, and if prices are raised he certainly cannot buy more. In fact, he will buy a less number of articles used for human consumption. When he buys less the merchant buys less, the manufacturer makes less, and a small number of employees will be needed to supply the demand and those not needed will be laid off. So it seems to me that this bill will have just the opposite effect to that which the proponents of this bill desire. Before a bill of this nature is passed Congress should give it a great deal of time and careful study. There are many things that we should know about matters pertaining to the bill. We should know how many workers will be affected by the bill. How many workers receive 40 cents an hour and in what industries. How many workers, if any, this bill will throw out of employment. What effect will it have upon industry? How will it affect our foreign trade? How has it worked wherever tried? The probable number of agents and employees that will be added to our ever-growing bureaucracy. What the added expense to the present high governmental expenses will be. These and many other questions just as important should be known and understood by Congress before it passes this bill. We know what effect theN. R. A. had on labor and industry in this country. We know the effect the 40-hour week had on labor and industry in France. Are we going to profit by these examples and experiments, or will we simply ignore them? Before Congress passes a bill of this nature it should have a research made by the best economists in the country. After they have made a complete study of the matter let. them bring the result of their findings to Congress. Then, and not until then, will we Members be in a position to give this matter intelligent consideration. Yet here we are attempting to do something with a matter of greatest importance to our economic life with only 6 hours' debate and without knowing anything about the measure, because those in charge of the bill know very little about it themselves. This bill is of so great importance and its ramifications are so many and of such great extent that

Congress could spend a whole session in its consideration, and even then it would not have the complete answer. But we have got to have a wage and hour bill passed this session, so we go along merrily ignoring previous experiences and without sufficient knowledge as to what effects the bill will have upon labor and industry and seemingly caring less. We go through the motions of spirited debate for 6 hours and pass something that nobody seems to actually want and would like to avoid, if possible. simply to save the face of the administration.

This administration has given the country some severe jolts during the past 5 years, the effects of which will take years to overcome, but when it hands out to the country the present wage and hour bill, the country will receive such a jolt as will send it into into a tail spin. The proponents of the bill may make good their promise to pass a wage and hour bill, but if they pass the present monstrosity, with its five-man control over industry, or a one-man control of industry, with its right—

To establish minimum wage and maximum hour standards, at levels consistent with health, efficiency, and general well-being of the workers and the profitable operation of American business so far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible and without interfering with, impeding, or diminishing in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively in order to obtain a wage in excess of the applicable min1mum under the act—

whatever that may mean, they will have made good their promise by enacting the most vicious and death-dealing blow to labor and industry that this Nation has ever seen and one from the effects of which will take years to recover. The National Grange has carefully considered the provisions of this bill and gives very convincing reasons why the proposed measure is objectionable. The reasons suggested are as follow:

1. Because it would increase the price of commodities that farmers must buy, without contalning any provision for placing farm products on the same price level; thereby destroying any possibil1ty of achieving price parity as between agriculture and industry.

2. Because its enactment would make it virtually impossible for the farmer to secure hired help on wages within his reach.

3. Because it would encourage employers to install more laborsaving machinery in their efforts to keep down cost of production, thereby throwing more people out of employment.

4. Because it would be manifestly useless for us to fix a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour, with a maximum of 40 hours a week, while permitting imports from countries where the going wage is as low in some cases as from 3 to 5 cents an hour.

5. Because those who would be thrown out of employment, when any particular industry could not meet the reqUirements imposed by the proposed Labor Standards Board, would become a burden upon the public relief rolls.

6. Because it would be unwise to give an appointive board of five men so great a power over all the industries affecting interstate commerce.

The reasons set forth by the National Grange apply with the same force to those workers who do not come under the protection of this bill or are protected by labor unions as they do to the farm population of our country. If by some magic waving of a fairy wand we could raise the wages of all of the workers of the country at one and the same time to the point where they would receive a wage sufficient to maintain the present so-called standard of American living, then a general increase of wages in industry might be absorbed, but under the present existing conditions a general increase of wages in industry cannot be absorbed by the other workers of the country. When prices get high they will refuse to buy, and. that does not apply only to the poorer paid workers of the country, but also to those who receive real wages. Recall how the automobile workers attempted to boycott meat because they thought it too high in price. And these same well-paid workers will kick and howl when they have to pay more for rayon dresses, underwear, and stockings and a hundred other articles made by the workers earning under $16 per week and in many instances they will refuse to buy while the goods are high. Human nature has not changed much in 2,000 years, and we are not going to change it by simply passing a wage and hour bill. Mr. Chairman, this measure now before us is one of tremendous importance to the whole country and is of such a nature that its many

[PAGE 1477]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1478]

ramifications and effects cannot be fully inquired into in 6 hours' debate. It, therefore, seems to me that the wisest and best thing that this Congress can do is to recommit the bill and let the committee give the matter further and better consideration and get the necessary facts and then laY the matter before Congress. It is always good policy to look before you leap. Congress appears to be on the verge of leaping without knowing where it is going to land. This bill is another piece of "We don't know where we're going, but we're on our way" legislation. It should be defeated, or the bill be recommitted at this time.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. DORSEY].

Mr. DORSEY. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to discuss the mechanics of the wage and hour bill, that is, the administrative procedure inculcated in its provisions to carry out the will of Congress; Rather, on the basis of practical experience in industry in the enforcement of the labor provisions of seven codes under the N. R. A., in the time allotted to me I intend to make some observations on the underlying principles of such legislation, particularly as it affects the purchasing power of our people.

Much has been said and more will be said during this debate about the N. R. A., using the weaknesses and failures in the administration of the National Recovery Act as a criterion on which to base criticism of this legislation.

PROSPERITY DEPENDENT UPON PURCHASING POWER

If there is one lesson that we have learned from the depression it is that national prosperity, involving contentment of the masses of our people and security of business, depends upon the purchasing power of the people. While the regulation of wages and hours will not in itself definitely solve the manifold economic problems facing us, while it is not a cure-all for unemployment, yet it is a step in the · right direction and is an approach to one of the factors that is upsetting our economy-purchasing power; President Roosevelt in his message of May 24, 1937, said:

We know that overwork and underpay do not increase the national income when a large portion of our workers remain unemployed. Reasonable and flexible use of the long-established right of government to set and to change working hours can, I hope, decrease unemployment in those groups in which unemployment today principally exists.

Reasonable and flexible use of the powers granted in this legislation to responsible administrative authorities should result in increased purchasing power and reemployment. Despite all the talk about lack of confidence in business and all the remedies offered to inject new life into a drowsy patient, the fact remains that what business lacks today is customers, and customers can only be secured through increased purchasing power. That, in substance, is the answer, and a responsible Congress cannot shirk its duty through failure to approach it fearlessly in the enactment of legislation having this as its objective.

N. R. A. EXPERIENCE SIMPLIFIES WAGE AND HOUR ENFORCEMENT

Since enforcement of N. R. A. codes are cited in discussions upon this legislation, let me remind you that there is a vast difference in conditions as they existed then and now. The constitutionality of N, R. A. was always questioned, and the chiseler, who was more interested in immediate profits than national welfare, took advantage ot this to advance his nefarious schemes against its administration.

The wage and hour bill has more definitely and clearly defined constitutional support.

Furthermore, the N. R. A. endeavored to cover the whole range of business and industrial life, including collective bargaining, wages, hours, trade practices, price regulation, and conditions of employment. This bill is more simplified. It deals mainly with hours and wages and certain conditions of employment, particularly child labor. In its administration there will not be the same conflict in objectives as existed under the N. R. A. when some of the enforcement authorities played more upan the raising of the price level than upon reemployment.

The N. R. A. was an experiment in a wide field of business relationships. For the first time in American industrial life business was required to adjust itself to wage and hour standards. This was no easy task, but it should be realized that in a great majority of cases it was accomplished. While the problems then were new, yet the approach to their solution under N. R. A. gives the foundation for the adjustments required under the legislation now being considered. Then, with hours of work limited, working and production schedules had to be adjusted. Floods of protests reached the code authorities that it was impossible to definitely regulate the hours per day or per week, because each protestant said the conditions in their plant were different. But it was done nevertheless. I am familiar with a case bearing directly on this point. Engineers and firemen were working in this plant up to a maximum of 84 hours per week. It seemed to be impossible to adjust the working schedule to a 40- or even 48-hour basis because of the type of equipment and conditions of employment. But through a readjustment in the working schedule and the addition of more engineers and firemen, it was done.

Today business has the benefit of that experience. To the credit of some of our industries, they are still operating under N. R. A. conditions, both as to hours and wages. But that is not true of a great number of industries that have, since the sick chicken brought sleeping sickness to business, increased working hours, and reduced wages. The results of a recent study released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics give evidence of this. That study shows that whereas only 3 percent of the employees in the steel industry were working more than 40 hours per week during the last month of N. R. A.; 67 percent worked more than 40 hours per week during the corresponding month 1 year later. In 177 identical cotton garment establishments studied, the total number of man-hours worked increased 14 percent between May 1935 and May 1936, while the number of employees increased only 2.5 percent. At the same time hourly earnings were reduced and, despite the increase in man-hours worked, the total pay roll was reduced a little over 1 percent.

This study shows that employers who desired to adhere to a 40-hour week and maintain the wage level were forced to increase hours and reduce the hourly rate in order to meet the competition of the chiselers, who were, in most cases, taking advantage of labor in substandard localities. The facts developed in this study show conclusively the necessity for Federal regulation of wages and hours. An analysis of conditions underlying these changes in hours and wages to the detriment of the workingman shows definitely that it is a national and not a local problem. By providing an economic wage, not a so-called living wage which only keeps body and soul together, can purchasing power be increased and customers brought to business. Consequently, through increased consumption unemployment will be reduced through increased production. But increased production brought about by a lengthening of hours, sweatshop conditions, unfair trade practices, and reduction in hourly and weekly earnings will not solve the problem. It will only make a bad condition worse.

MIGRATION OF INDUSTRY CAUSED BY UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

I represent one of the great manufacturing districts of the United States, including one of the largest textile centers. Having lived in the district all my life, and having worked there, rubbing shoulders with both employers and employees in almost daily contact, discussing with them their problems, I think I am somewhat familiar with conditions in industry. In the last 15 years there has been a steady migration of the textile business from Philadelphia. If this were a local condition solely, its remedy would not be in Federal legislation. But it is national in scope by its very nature. Low wage standards, stepping up of production, other conditions affecting labor, and unfair trade practices have driven the industry into competitive situations resulting in the migration of business, closing of factories, loss of employment, labor unrest, and the loss of homes and the savings of those who were forced out of employment.

If the migration of industry from any section of the country, the so-called decentralization of industry, was based

[PAGE 1478]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1479]

on social factors only, and was for the benefit of both employer and employee, it could not be objected to with much logic. However, that has not been the case. I have seen factories move from my city leaving behind them hundreds and thousands of skilled workers, some who had spent the best part of their working life with the industry, leaving them stranded to work out their existence. These factories migrated to take advantage of the inducements involving taxation, free land, even the construction of plants to be amortized in the form of rental over a period of years, and a low-standard labor market. To show the effect of this migration from Philadelphia, in the hosiery industry, at one time one of the largest employers of labor in that city, 1,365 full-fashioned machines were lost from 1930 to 1936. The loss of these machines to the Philadelphia labor market represents employment for approximately 6,000 workers.

During the N. R. A. conditions in the textile industry became somewhat stabilized despite the chiseling that was rampant in some sections of the business. This provides a fair test of the necessity for national legislation to revitalize and rehabilitate this, one of the four leading divisions of American industry. But the "sick chicken" case made a sick industry out of textiles. A comparison of 100 textile mills for the last 6 months under N: R. A. with the last 6 months of 1935, after N. R. A. was declared unconstitutional, shows production increased 30 percent, sales only 9 percent, prices were reduced 5 to 7 percent, hours of operation increased 13 percent, and wages were reduced 5 percent. With practices such as these carried throughout industry, increasing hours and reducing wages, is there any wonder that very little progress has been made in the solution of the unemployment problem?

If the solution of these problems could be found in State or local government, then there would be no need for Federal legislation. But the loss of employment and consequently purchasing power of the workers in my district affects every section of this country. Substandard labor conditions are not confined solely to any section of the Nation nor to any one industry. They are to be found in every section, north, east, south, and west. So, in considering this wage and hour program, it must be realized that we Americans play on the same economic team in war and peace. Sectionalism and group allegiance can take on artificial dignity at times when we should be thinking in terms of all of us. That is the most practical way of promoting the welfare of each of us in the peacetime America of today. Every year as we move away from 1787 we can see that less and less can America be partitioned. More and more, out of sheer economic expediency, are we compelled to embrace the attitude "all for one and one for all" The extension of transportation began with 13 States and welded them together as nothing else could. It put us all on the same economic team, and we have become as interdependent as the members of a wellcoached football eleven. There is no place for prima donna groups in this scheme. We rise or fall together, as the last depression has taught us, because our prosperity bangs upon the purchasing power of the masses without regard to geography or occupation.

PROSPERITY OF FARMER AND INDUSTRIAL WORKER INTERTWINED

The A. A. A. opened the eyes of my people as to what purchasing power of the farmer means to our workers in industry. When farm products were selling at less than cost of production during the Hoover regime, the smoke ceased to pour from the stacks along Allegheny Avenue, Lehigh Avenue, and the Delaware River front back home. We learned in adversity the relationship that exists between farm prices and busy factories. These constituents of the Fifth Pennsylvania District know that I was representing them well and faithfully when I voted for every farm assistance measure that came before this body. We need a prosperous farmer and he requires us, with cash in hand, if his success iS to endure.

Because we are selling goods to each other we have a stake in each other. So I have voted, and will continue to vote for legislation that is designed to promote the farmer's welfare. In doing so I have looked at the economic picture as a whole and now ask that Congressmen from the great agricultural districts do likewise. Unfair wages in industry and excessively long hours lead to cutthroat competition and demoralizes purchasing power which destroys customers for people in your district. Unfair hours mean less employment, and hence a reduced consumption of things your district sells. Manufacturers are people like you and me. They come from the same kind of home atmosphere, have attended the same schools, love their families, see the same shows and movies, and are touched by the same ideals that move most Americans. But just as society at large is afflicted with Capones and Dillingers, so do industry and business suffer from parasitic racketeers within their ranks. But the chiseler within an industry—the operator who will not respect decent standards unless compelled to—drags down the other members of that industry. He may represent only 5 percent of his calling, but the 95 percent are compelled, ever so reluctantly, to adopt the low standards be thrusts upon them. With child labor, subsubsistence wages, and overlong hours he tears at the most vital thing to American prosperity—our purchasing power.

At this very moment men are working in a thousand factories of my district. Of course they are my first concern, but they should be yours, too; for their wives can buy at the corner store the products of the farming districts. The market basket they carry away has a tremendous lot to do with the contentment of your people. We can lay aside ethics, religion, and common humanity from these deliberations if we care to, but we cannot escape the simple fact that a prosperous America is dependent upon prosperous farmers and prosperous industrial workers alike. You can leave your idealism at home, and bring nothing but a dollars and cents attitude to your vote on this wage and hour bill, and you can come to only one conclusion—that we have grown utterly interdependent. Sheer expediency dictates that we follow the course of "all for one and one for all."

The passage of the Wagner Labor Relations Act eliminates from this legislation some of the hurdles faced by the N. R. A. The Wagner Act established the machinery for collective bargaining in industry. It will assure those workers who belong to unions that they will get decent wages and hours. Our present discussion concerns that vast army whose employment does not readily yield to organization and representation. Collective bargaining will put into industry that democracy the founding fathers injected into government. Of course, they could not foresee the coming of tremendous corporations that could become so mighty and tyrannical as any George III. We could not expect them to anticipate a nation stretching from ocean to ocean, and commerce flowing over thousands of miles. It is my notion that we will never thwart the growth of big business in certain lines because it has in these cases many reasons to commend it. If it must endure, let us hold tight to its public virtues while we regulate its harmful features. Where unions are operating we do not require the application of this wage-hour regulation. However, there is a relationship between the provisions of the Wagner Act and what we are now considering. Both are concerned with widely diffused purchasing power and industrial democracy.

With big business growing bigger, the men at the bench are getting more remote from the desk where policy is shaped. Smart executives with labor turn-over in mind have been as cognizant of this as anybody, and have intelligently faced the inevitable. I know some of them who welcome unionism and the regulation of minimum wage and maximum hours. It has spelled easier employee relations and one less serious problem.

And speaking of the inevitable, it is interesting to read columnist Jay Franklin's review of a book written by Samuel E. Morison and Henry S. Commager, entitled "The Growth of the American Republic." The authors are respectively educators at Harvard University and New York University. Morison was exchange professor of history at Oxford and comes from a long line of conservative New Englanders. He is ·of undoubted orthodox background.

[PAGE 1479]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1480]

But this conservative has no love for the old order, nor does he consider the New Deal as a revolution in any sense. Rather he views it as something as typically American as corn on a cob. He states that we are never going back to rugged individualism, and that Hoover represented the last stand of that order; that Coolidge economy was typically New England, but his lack of ideals was not. He shows we evolved into the F. D. R. philosophies. Speaking of the New Deal, this new book says:

It will be easy to see how deep rooted 1n the American tradition was Roosevelt philosophy and how familiar the Roosevelt methods. It was an attempt to catch up with the political lag of well-nigh 20 years and articulate government to economy. • • • In one form or another it was inevitable. It was directed toward preserving capitalistic economy rather than substituting another system, and the methods employed were 1n the American tradition.

Reviewer Franklin adds that it contained nothing that bad not been accepted by conservative Englishmen, Germans, and Scandinavians for a generation. and nothing that had not been foreshadowed by generations of American legislation.

Step by step this world is getting more reasonable despite the chaos we see in many places. We can trace the trend from the Magna Carta, through our separation from the mother country, and up to this very Wagner Labor Relations Act and wage and hour legislation. All are milestones. We will find the pathway strewn with reactionaries and obstructionists. Every improvement has produced its crop of opponents who fought progress or suggested that we should do our reforming tomorrow instead of today. It is the story of the winning of our political freedom; you will find it in the battles for universal suffrage and public education, and in the abolition of debtors' prisons, slavery, and child labor. In one guise or another progressive advancement of our people has been impeded by opposition that resents change. These citizens revere the founding fathers who dared to sever the bond with the mother country and vest new and unheard-of powers in the common men. These well-meaning enemies of progress worship the courage of yesterday's statesmen while they refuse to emulate them in handling today's problems.

DICTATORSHIP—HAS DEMOCRACY FAILED?

They tell us that regulatory powers in the hands of five men is too great for any such group to wield. If we are to accept this reasoning, it is an open admission to the world that democracy is a failure. Meanwhile our form of government is on trial, and let us not forget that fascism has crept into our western world by way of Brazil. Dictatorship will smile approvingly at any of these gentlemen who look askance at the delegation of power to five chosen citizens. If we share their fears, we will be paving the way for the corporate state with that kind of talk. I do not believe that any Member of this Congress wishes to alter our fundamental ideas of democracy. Rather, I cling to the conviction that by casting doubts about its administration, opponents are hoping to obstruct and defer wage and hour legislation. With them tomorrow is always the day to do the job, not today. They would never have us take a bold stride; just a wee step forward.

What is so dangerous about Congress committing the administration of a wage and hour act to a board of five men? Some of these obstructionists were not so greatly perturbed when nine judges—or six, to be exact—erased legislation which we took the pains to draw up, investigate, debate, and vote upon. And did not Congress delegate similar powers to a board when it created the Interstate Commerce Commission? Did we not hear the same arguments then—that too much power was being placed in the hands of a few men? Has it turned out that way in practice? Is this Nation of 130,000,000 people so devoid of intelligent and honest human material that we cannot find five men who can administer this act with wisdom and impartiality? If that is so, we had better shop for a Hitler and set up the Fascist state at once. Why tarry if democracy has failed?

Ask any lawYer or doctor if he has ever heard a client or patient say: "You see, my case is different; it's peculiar." Usually such a person has an ordinary disease or a very common legal problem. But he believes that it is new to the world because it is new to him. Some businesses that have paid substandard wages for years believe their whole structure will collapse if they adjust their pay rolls to the ideas that prevail today. Congressmen have received all kinds of form letters about wage and hour legislation. Some of these letters are a little careless with facts. One of them encloses a story that wage and hour regulation all but ruined France. Considering the monetary problems of France, and other factors, which do not enter into the American situation, the enclosure is not very convincing. The accompanying letter states that France is "scarcely larger than one of the middle~ sized States." I take it that it refers to population, because area has no particular bearing on wage and hour regulation. The French Census Bureau will be as surprised as you are to learn that their nation is so sparsely populated.

The same old cry, "our conditions are different", has ever been made when a forward-looking step has been proposed. The same arguments were offered when efforts were made to reduce hours in the steel industry from the old established 12-hour shifts. It was then claimed that the steel industry was "different", that when furnaces were charged or ingots heated for rolling to finished sizes it was impossible to control the time element; that hours could not be definitely reduced without ruining the steel business. But hours were reduced, and it has not apparently seriously affected the profits of the steel industry.

Every manufacturing concern to a degree is faced with seasonal production. One of the greatest problems of industry has been and still is that of seasonal output. Employment and consequently long hours are at their height during production peaks, and then with seasonal lulls we have the resultant unemployment through lay-offs, furloughs, and short time, decreasing purchasing power. Efforts to correct this have been made in many industries through a diversification of product, manufacturing in the off season articles that are not considered the main product of the factory but in the production of which the equipment of the plant can be used through minor changes. Business itself has seen the advantage of this policy, because continual hiring and firing through lay-offs caused by the disruption in manufacturing routine have paid their toll in financial returns. A contented, stable, and efficient working personnel brings its rewards on the favorable side of the balance sheet.

There has always been opposition on the part of some industries to the reduction of working hours. Too often in the spirit of individualism have they taken the position that the employee is a hireling to be worked as long and paid only as much as they concluded was necessary. If the employee did not like it, he could quit. But when changes were forced upon them through union organization or legislation, or in many cases through voltmtary action on the part of the employer, they soon adjusted their manufacturing and business routine to the new conditions. It is estimated that industries emploYing about 12,000,000 people would be affected by the wage and hour bill and that about 3,000,000 of these employees are now receiving less than 40 cents per hour. Dr. Leon Henderson, a noted economist, for whose opinion I have the highest respect, estimates that at least 6,000,000 are now working more than 40 hours per week, basing his estimates on the study of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to which I previously referred. Considering these estimates, the passage of this bill will affect about 6,000,000 workers, reducing their hours of employment, increasing their income through time and half time for employment in excess of 40 hours, and making it possible for many others to obtain employment.

When we pass this wage and hour bill we will have ceased talking about the third of our people who are at the bottom of the economic scheme, and put the Nation in a position to do something about it. We will be accomplishing it for the submerged third, and for ourselves, our markets, and our national prosperity. We Will be taking this step so that the

[PAGE 1480]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1481]

purchasing power can go round and round. For the velocity of our dollars is something that makes for loaded farm trucks headed for profitable markets and factory stacks that belch forth smoke. An interdependent people have learned through depression that national prosperity hinges upon the wide distribution of purchasing power. There can be no submerged groups and no underprivileged geographical areas if America is to thrive. We will soon vote upon one of the most important measures that ever came before a Congress. You are about to move American civilization up another notch. You can then view the long road our country has traveled in labor relations, and get some satisfaction in pondering over where we were and where we are headed.

DEMOCRACY IN INDUSTRY

It has been a continuous fight to put some of the democracy in industry that we enjoy in government. Too often the battle has been bloody because we have refused to act like human beings. Women and children under 10 years of age worked a 73^1/2-hour week in Philadelphia during the early day of our nationhood. The prevailing workday was from sunup to sundown. The Lord only knows how long they would have been forced to work if Mazda lamps had been invented in the latter days of the eighteenth century. The debtors' prisons always loomed for the person who wowd contemplate a strike to better his sorry lot. When universal suffrage came the working man had his first. real participation in government and the common people elevated their choice—Andrew Jackson—to the Presidency. Gone were the debtors' prisons. The first regulations of child labor and women's hours came into being. Labor had organized from colonial days, and Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, where the first Continental Congress met, still stands to testify to the existence of the craft unions of that day.

But these early craftsmen were interested not one whit in the welfare of any but their own group. They had no concern with the national economy as a whole. Life was so simple in that day that we can understand their position. It has become so complex that we can, by the same token, comprehend the sound reasoning behind the powerful labor organizations of today, and their view of the labor Situation at large, and what it means to all of us. Early attempts at unionization are chiefly of historical interest. The mutual suspicions, which we expect to dissipate with collective bargaining, persisted through the decades. Homestead, the Pullman Co. strike, the coal and iron police, the ever-ready injunction, and the use of the National Guard come marching down the years to meet today in the Chicago Memorial Day massacre, and Tom Girdler's high and mighty remarks in subcommittee. A little of yesterday's bloodiness and some of its czaristic attitudes remain as the Old Guard fights its last battles against the forces of conciliation and reason. We are ascending to high ground at last, and my frank belief is that we have not made the climb so much from grand humanitarian impulses or deep religious convictions. We have come to the stern realization that the average man has to have more than a mere existence if mass production is to continue as part of our economic scheme. Wide distribution of income is so essential to our national well-being that it is impelling us to pass this legislation. I believe we are thinking more in those terms than that we are our brother's keeper. And that observation is less flattering than accurate.

Some Republicans joined Democrats in the emergency legislation that was passed in 1933 and since. They came to see that a crisis is no time to play partisan politics. The effective palliatives were administered with their help, but they should join us in our efforts to effect some permanent cures. We can sometimes understand what they are about when they brand legislation like the Social Security Act and the Wagner Labor Disputes Act as "experimentation." Particularly when we know it is criticism for political purposes. They utter it with tongue in cheek. Some irreconcilables on the other side of the aisle will yell "experimentation" at the legislation we are now considering. I have always maintained that President Roosevelt is no trail blazer—that he has shopped around the world and for the most part has taken proved measures, properly revised, before he applied them into our country. That was my contention when we voted on the Social Security bill. It is interesting to note that the great biographer, Emil Ludwig, concurs in this thought. Ludwig has written splendid biographies of Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, and Goethe. Now his life story of Franklin D. Roosevelt has begun in a popu1ar magazine. Ludwig, a German, has lived and smarted under dictatorship. He is a keen writing man who is in no way interested in either American political party or how it fares in national elections. He is about as capable and as thoroughly impartial an observer as we can quote. In respect to all this talk of Roosevelt "experimentation" he says:

We—

Meaning Europeans—

do not in any way believe he—

Roosevelt—

has discovered new ideas; what he is doing here in this country we have all had long ago in nearly all the European countries. It is how he does it that is significant for us. That impulse which he imparted to the country in the time of the crisis does not become a loss even if some of his enactments become repealed.

Here, from the historic point of view, is perhaps the last attempt to carry out the social revolution without resorting to force. The sons of those Americans who are opposing Roosevelt today will perhaps some day erect a monument to him as the last of those who fought to preserve their system. One thing certain is that the sons of the poor, for whom he took up the fight, will not forget him. For, at the bottom, what is at issue here is nothing other than rich and poor.

That there should be so many to hate him disturbs me as little as it does him. Did not Lincoln in his later years have half the country against him, and that by no means only in the South? I have met Roosevelt's opponents throughout the whole country in all classes. When I put the question to them, they all began by admitting that in 1933 he had saved the country, but added that today he was playing the dictator. Only those can speak thus who have never had the misfortune to breathe the a1r of an unfree country.

And still I can imagine how this enmity grew up slowly 1n the souls of these men. It is the resentment of a proud people against the fact that it once made the gift of the highest powers to an individual, just as a proud woman can never quite forgive the man whom she once permitted to sweep her off her feet.

To those who still cry dictator" and "experimentation" I commend these words from the pen of one who knows dictatorship only too intimately, and who laughs when we view Roosevelt policies as new and untried theories. For Ludwig knows they have been tested in the laboratory of the world. and so does Roosevelt. [Applause.]

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, how much more time remains in general debate?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey has 49^1/2 minutes and the gentleman from California has 43 minutes remaining.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that all?

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] such time as he may desire to use.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention at this time to discuss the merits or demerits of the pending wage-hour bill, but in the few moments allotted me, I want to express my regret and resentment at the letter that I and a number of other Members of Congress received from Homer Martin, international president of the United Automobile Workers of America. This letter was written from Detroit, Mich., under date of December 8 in regard to pending legislation. A portion of the letter reads as follows:

That an unfavorable vote on this bill, or failure to vote or pair in favor will not be forgotten next year when Representatives ask their constituents to reelect them, as this will be the acid test of a Representative's real position.

That this is not a political threat, but a frank expression of conviction, and fair notice that Representatives who do not represent cannot expect support.

[PAGE 1481]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1482]

Who is this. Mr. Martin? He is at the head of one of the affiliates of John L. Lewis and his Committee for Industrial Organization. A number of Members have spoken on the pending legislation, and several have mentioned this particular letter, but I have yet to hear anyone who came to the defense of this indiscreet and insolent letter. As far as I am personally concerned, I wish to state that my vote on the pending bill or any other legislation will not be infiuenced by threats and intimidations from Mr. Martin or anyone else. If I recall correctly, this is the same gentleman who, some weeks ago, wrote a letter to the United Automobile Workers of the United States and suggested that they boycott beef and meat products because they were abnormally high. He wrote this letter at a time when meat products were high, but even then the farmers were receiving only 47 percent of the retail price of this commodity. The remaining 53 percent was the spread between the producer and consumer and was used largely for wages in processing, transportation, and retailing of this commodity.

The pending legislation is of tremendous interest to the farmers of the United States. I was glad to note that a number of farm orgarlizations and citizens generally condemn Mr. Martin's attitude.

It is my intention to discuss various amendments to this bill under the 5-minute rule, and therefore will not take further time from the House now except to state that my personal sympathy is now and always has been with the wage earner. Much legislation has been enacted in behalf of the wage earner and worker, and no doubt we will continue to enact beneficial legislation for them, but I hope it will not be because of threats of reprisals from labor leaders. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. HANCOCKJ such time as he may desire to use.

Mr. HANCOCK of New York. Mr. Chairman, all decent citizens wish to improve the condition of the poor and the oppressed, of that marginal one-third the President frequently talks about. I am sure every Member of this body is decent, despite the unintentionally amusing letter all of us received in yesterday's mail written by a crabbed old man and beginning with the rather immoderate language:

It 1s time the story was told of how the 531 mental derelicts spoken of as numskulls and known as Members of Congress are wrecking our country.

None of us can complacently watch the exploitation of labor by greedy employers, because no one loves a hog except another hog-of the opposite sex. However, in our efforts to improve the lot of the lower one-third among us-if that is the correct fraction, let us be quite sure we do not inflict irreparable harm on the other two-thirds, without benefiting the one-third.

According to my observations, those most interested in the welfare of labor are divided into two principal schools of thought. One group favors the plan of the American Federation of Labor, which would establish a Nation-wide minimum wage of 40 cents an hour and a maximum workweek of 40 hours for employees in interstate commerce. The argument against this plan is clearly and convincingly stated in the bill we are considering (S. 2475) on page 14, lines 12-17, where it is pointed out:

It is impossible to achieve such results (the elimination of substantial wages and hours) arbitrarily by an abrupt change so drastic that it might do sedous injury to American industry and American workers, and it is therefore necessary to achieve such results cautiously, carefully, and without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry.

It is highly desirable that those limits of hours and wages, with certain reasonable exemptions, be established generally throughout the country, and if put into immediate effect I de not believe a single important industry in my district would be seriously disturbed, but there are other sections of the country where the A. F. of L. bill would cause ruin if made suddenly effective.

Let me give you a single example. I am familiar with a company which has been struggling for a number of years to make a success of an antimony mine in Texas on the Mexican border. I am told it is the only antimony mine in the world outside of China. No American will dispute that it is highly desirable to have this American enterprise succeed, particularly in view of recent developments in the Orient. The minimum wage paid in that mine is 22 cents an hour, a figure quite shocking to those who are familiar only with labor conditions and living conditions in our northern cities. But the recipients of those wages are quite satisfied. If the wages were doubled they would work half as much. The only common labor available in that section is furnished by a primitive, illiterate class of people whose wants are exceedingly simple. Perhaps with education in American schools they will aspire to a better way of living in a generation or two and will become more efficient workmen. The Chinese laborers in antimony mines receive the equivalent of 1 cent an hour. If this American company is suddenly required to pay wages of 40 cents an hour it would be compelled to cease operations instantly. Who would be the gainer thereby? No one but the owners of the Chinese mines.

The adherents of the other school of thought would set up an independent board or an administrator in the Department of Labor—it does not make much difference which—with power to fix wages and hours, within the limits of this bill, and to prescribe standards as various and divergent as there are industries and localities in this country.

No individual or group of individuals is wise enough to discharge such a responsibility. No individual or group of individuals should be entrusted with such power if we have any faith whatever in the American system of sovereign States. The argument against the proposal is well summarized in the helpful and courteous communication which Mr. Green, the president of the A. F. of L., sent Members of Congress recently, analyzing the bill before us. He said, in concluding his comments:

He (the administrator), therefore would have in his control the power to destroy entirely industrial organizations, communities, labor unions, collective bargaining agencies, and determine the conditions under which these respective communities, organizations, and agencies shall function or shall llve.

There is a rising tide of protest coming from thoughtful citizens all over the United States against the centralization of power in Washington and the usurpation of State functions through covert and surreptitious laws. As sworn defenders of the Constitution, I believe we violate our oaths of office when we revolutionize the Government by means of a series of legislative coup d'etats.

The two principle plans for the elimination of substandard labor conditions, which I have mentioned, are by no means the only possible solutions of the problem.

In Australia, where local conditions vary almost as much as our own, the country has been divided into districts, each of which, so far as human wisdom can determine it, has the same advantages or disadvantages of climate, transportation facilities, quality of labor, and so forth. A wage scale is fixed for each district, which is intended to place all on a competitive equality. Periodically a study of the cost of living is made in the various districts and the wage scales are raised or lowered accordingly.

One of our colleagues would give broad authority to the Federal Trade Commission to regulate hours and wages on the theory that substandard labor conditions constitute unfair competition.

Another proposes that States be given the power to exclude goods produced under standards lower than those prescribed. by the laws of such States.

Another, seeking to avoid the sectionalism and the State barriers to interstate commerce which would result from the last proposal, would have Congress establish certain minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards and give power to the States to exclude goods made where lower standards prevail.

A substantial number of people believe that the labor movement will continue to progress without any new Federal legislation, believing that organized labor, backed by public sentiment, will have the power to force the enactment by

[PAGE 1482]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1483]

State legislatures of any laws that may be required to correct labor abuses where they exist.

Before I close these remarks let me offer another thought. If I had the power, I would draft about six high-minded, humane, practical employers of labor, of statesmenlike qualities and truly representative of American industry. I would also draft the same number of labor leaders with like credentials. These 12 men I would isolate on some island or in some mountain resort and provide them with every comfort and recreational facility. Under those conditions they should become friends and acquire mutual respect and understanding, for men who reach positions of leadership are bound to have qualities that appeal to other successful men. They would be held incommunicado with the outside world except for purely personal matters. No lobbyist, politician, or reporter would be allowed to approach them. Their staff would consist only of two stenographers and one economist whose sole function would be to supply statistical and other factual data. He would not be allowed to venture opinions or advice.

I might also include in the staff a competent bill drafter and a good constitutional lawyer, if there is one in these parlous days.

Their orders would be to survey the whole field of labor relations and to remain in isolation until they agreed upon a solution consistent with the proposition that "the sole basis of a social system is justice; that justice cannot be perverted either for the rich or the poor, because no group can truly and permanently prosper at the expense of another."

I would not permit any news of the conference to be made public except the conclusions reached.

Perhaps the result of such a conference would be canons of ethics for employers and employees, perhaps it would be specific suggestions for legislations, and perhaps it would be nothing at all. But I should like to see the plan tested, or an approximation of it, before any such far-reaching legislation as is here proposed is enacted into law. With all due respect to the Committee on Labor—and they are entitled to our respect and our gratitude for the ardous and conscientious efforts they have put forth in drafting this bill—I think the best minds of capital and labor should be brought together under the most favorable auspices in an effort to find the remedy for the age-old struggle.

This bill ought to be recommitted. The present emergency does not require any legislation of a reformatory character. Exactly the opposite is true. Business is humbly begging that it be given time to adjust itself to the multitude of regulatory laws that have already been passed under the present administration. Certainly permanent legislation vitally affecting all the industry and labor of this great country should not be passed without thorough study and mature deliberation.

If there is any wisdom in us we will profit by the experience of other democracies having problems similar to ours. I have clippings from newspapers quoting the communique issued by the radical French Cabinet on October second of this year, in which the Council of Ministers unanimously announced resolutions affirming its policies: to remain faithful to free money, to maintain peace, to suppress labor illegalities such as violation of collective contracts and sitdown strikes, to put an end to the activities of foreign agitators, to investigate production methods of industries in an attempt to remedy burdens caused by the 40-hour week. "Fifty million Frenchmen cannot be wrong." At least, the lessons the French have learned through hardship and adversity should have a deep meaning for us and we would be unforgivably stupid to ignore them. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DoNDERo].

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from :Michigan EMr. DoNDERO], yield for a statement?

Mr. DONDERO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Chalrman, Congress now has been in special session approximately 4 weeks. We were called back here under the assumption that there was pressing need for legislation which could not await the convening of the regular session in January. In common with all other Members of Congress, I have been striving very diligently ever since our return to discover just what the emergency situations were that brought tis back. The fact is, I am convinced, and I believe that most all other Members of the House are convinced, that no emergency existed in regard to any of the recommendations made to the Congress.

There is an emergency all right, but it is being ignored. I refer to the emergency that exists for giving some real assistance to business.

Most of our time up to the present has been given to shilly-shallying around in connection with the wage and hour bill. As entertainment, the antics of the House in this connection have been highly diverting, but that is an that can be said for our activities.

The question in connection with the wage and hour bill, which constantly recurs to me, and I am sure to other Members of the House, if indeed not to every man and woman in the United States, is: Who wants this bill passed anyway?

It cannot be either of the original introducers, former Senator Black or the late Representative Connery. Senator Black has a new job with better wages and shorter hours than he had when he introduced the bill. This takes care of the ambition of one simon pure New Dealer. Our late colleague, Representative Connery, has departed this life.

It cannot be that the White House is greatly interested in seeing the bill passed. If it were, certainly the fact would have been made crystal clear in the President's recent message to Congress. He never has hesitated to ask for anything from Congress that he really desired.

It cannot be that this House of Representatives is desirous of seeing the measure passed. The disgraceful scenes that we have witnessed on this floor in the recent past, consisting of horse trading, jockeying, threatening, coercing and villifying, in an effort to obtain the needed majority to get the bill out of committee, proves conclusively what the House thinks about the bill. It just does not want it passed.

It cannot be that organized labor is enthusiastic aboutpassage of the measure. The American Federation of Labor has gone on record definitely against it. John L. Lewis was a long time making up the mind of the C. I. O. as to its attitude toward the measure and the feeble endorsement which he finally gave it demonstrates conclusively what his real feelings are.

It cannot be that the remainder of the gainfully employed workers of the country, that is, the unorganized groups, constituting 82 percent of all labor, wants the bill. Surely they have given no evidence that they feel the legislation is imperative.

It cannot be that the remainder of the adult population of the country is behind the measure. On the contrary, representative businessmen, property owners, and other informed persons who know what chaos would follow enactment of the bill into law in its present fonn, have taken a firm stand against it.

It cannot be that the newspapers, which circulate to the extent of 42 million copies daily, are behind the bill. Their almost unanimous opinion, as expressed in editorial columns, is that it is a piece of hodge-podge legislation designed only to further confuse the muddled business and industrial situation.

The groups that I have mentioned embrace the principal thinking forces of the United States that would have some interest in this measure. Yet we find that none of them is for it.

Why, then, are such strenuous efforts being put forth by a few persons to get the b1ll through the House? The answer is that this is the last desperate effort of the little coterie of brain trusters to put control of wages and salaries in the United States under the Federal Government.

The handwriting is on the wall. Brain trusters as a potent force in Congress are through. However, they may have

[PAGE 1483]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1484]

manipulated this bill into such a position, through trades promoted largely by sectional patriots, that they may get by with it. Then they will take care of the few remaining "hot dogs" of the Felix Frankfurter school who are not now on the Federal pay roll, recruit another army from the needle trades of the lower East Side of New York and start in harassing business from another angle.

This is an unpleasant prospect, but possibly it is the quickest way to bring the people of the United States to a full realization of what is being done to business by the type of persons on Government pay rolls to whom I have referred. Their presence in the Middle West, where I come from, largely as representatives of the National Labor Relations Board, is quickly bringing people to a full realization of the dangers of policies as administered by graduates of Harvard and Columbia Law Schools. Sober-minded citizens realize that these young theorists are absolutely unmindful of the welfare of business so long as they can put their pet plans into practice. Having met these irresponsible agents of the New Deal face to face, not only businessmen, but patriotic Americans generally throughout the Middle West are determined that this sort of domination must be ended. And so it will be ended.

The uncertainty of the sponsors of this measure as to just what they want to do with it, is, in itself, an answer to its hodge-podge nature.

The plan to have a five-member board administer this has been abandoned because of recent revelations of the unsavory activities of the National Labor Relations Board.

A proposal now is made that the administration be placed under the Department of Labor. I say with all possible emphasis that the people of this country have no faith in the Department of Labor as now administered. They do not want powers of the wide-reaching character which are proposed in this bill to be placed in that Department under its present administration.

It is suggested by some that administration of this measure be placed under the Department of Justice. This is not as bad a suggestion as some of the others, but the recent announcement that this Department is going on a trustbusting expedition would indicate that it, too, has lost its balance and is not to be trusted with the administration of this act.

There remains, then, only one Government agency which might administer this proposed legislation fairly and with the least injury to business. While I should favor recommitting the bill to the Labor Committee for a period of eternal sleep, if we must have a wage and hour bill of some kind, I say put it under the Federal Trade Commission. This group, at least, is composed of fair-minded men who are not trying to turn loose a swarm of Felix Frankfurter's boys on the industry of the country. I, therefore, shortly shall propose an amendment to strike out all of the present bill after the enacting clause and substitute my measure which would place administration of the act in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, the best Christmas present this Congress could give to the American people is to send this bill back to the Committee on Labor of the House before this Nation travels along the road any further in the same direction taken by Germany, Italy, and Russia. [Applause.]

I believe it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that all business and industry cannot be regulated from Washington without disastrous results to the Nation as a whole.

After adding $20,000,000,000 to the Nation's debt in 5 years, we are now in the midst of a depression and a recession in business that is bringing want and deprivation to thousands of our people.

Private capital has been driven into a sit-down strike of its own and it cannot take up the "slack" in business because of the attitude of those in authority at the present time. Rebellion, disloyalty, strikes, and violence restrict labor's opportunity to work, destroys the employer's incentive, and causes capital to seek a hiding place for safety.

Nearly $37,000,000,000 have been taken from the value of the personal property owned by a vast number of the people of this Nation. Business has been in a tail spin for the past 90 days. Industry is barely moving. Unemployment is increasing, and the wage earner, because of curtailed production, is receiving less than a year ago.

What is the reason for the present condition? Government has attempted to dictate by regulation nearly every activity of the American citizen. This Congress has passed laws which strangle, curtail, and prevent employers of labor from expanding their business and proceeding in an orderly and sound manner. Unjust taxation has been thrown across their path as an added obstruction to prosperity. Hostility, intimidation, threats, and even Government competition with private enterprise has been the lot meted out to those who meet and provide pay rolls for the laboring man. Utilities have been intimidated by Governemnt experiment to such an extent that they have been placed in fear and are uncertain as to what is coming next.

In the 10 years preceding this administration, private utilities expended for new work, expansion of business, added employment, and material $695,000,000 annually. Since this administration began, with its unfriendly attitude toward the employers of labor, that amount has decreased to $91,000,000 annually.

Now another bill is before us which, in my opinion, will further impede the orderly progress of this country by attempting to place in the hands of five men the authority to tell the employers of the Nation what they must pay, how long men can work, and removing from the people the right to conduct their own affairs. The fate of industry and business will be in the hands of politicians and Government officials. This is bureaucratic control of the most glaring nature. This is regimentation that will further restrict and retard better times. This bill will humbug labor and cause unemployment.

If this bill becomes law, the private affairs of the employer of labor in this country will become the property of a board of politically appointed snoopers. The private records of all business will be open to investigation. Search and seizure will be common. No employer will be safe from the prying eyes of his competitors. An employer would not be permitted to discharge the fomenters of trouble in his own establishment without asking Washington.

The Board provided for in this bill is responsible to the President alone, which gives the Executive absolute control over all industry and business, large and small.

The American Federation of Labor does not want legislation of this kind and has said so in writing to the chairman of the Labor Committee of this House. This bill is bound to increase the cost of production which must be met by the consumers, but it excludes the largest group of consumers in the country, namely, those who labor on the farm. That group works longer hours at lower wages than any other class in the Nation. Their lot is a real sweatshop. When you increase the price of the product of industry and business you reduce the purchasing power of the farmers, and they will buy less instead of more because of the increase in the cost of commodities.

This bill is distinctly class legislation and applies to but one-half of the wage earners of the country.

I want it understood that I stand for labor receiving a fair wage, as much as industry and business can reasonably pay and still continue and expand, but I am unwilling to support any legislation that in my judgment will work to the detriment and injury of labor such as the bill we have before us.

I believe the country is beginning to understand that Washington does not hold the answer to all economic problems.

On March 4, 1933, our President told the Nation that all it had to fear was fear itself. Industry and business is possessed of a real fear today. They stand in fear of further legislative restriction and regulation. They stand in fear of

[PAGE 1484]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1485]

threats, intimidation, and Government competition. They stand in fear of unreasonable and excessive taxation. They stand in fear of further unconstitutional methods employed to reduce them to subjects under dictatorial and bureaucratic control from Washington. They stand in fear of further restraint of freedom of action. They stand in fear of the enactment of this bill.

In section 20 on pages 8 and 9 of the bill, food is not entirely exempt from the provisions of this bill. Food in any form from production to consumption should be excepted from the provisions of this measure if the country must have this form of regulation; and lines 15 to 18, inclusive, should be entirely stricken from the bill. I hold in my hand a large number of telegrams from the distributors and dealers in fruits and vegetables asking that they be excepted from this bill.

The little man will suffer under the provisions of this measure.

The humblest shoemaker who employs one or two in his repair shop will find himself without help on Saturday, when it is needed most, if the man has worked 5 days of 8 hours each during the rest of the week. The clerk in the small grocery store will find he will not have employment on Saturday, when be is most needed, if be has worked the previous 5 days at 8 hours a day. Will it be possible for his employer to obtain another experienced person to take his place for one day a week? The gas-station attendant who works 8 hours a day for 5 days can be idle on Saturday, or his employer can close the gas station or find someone to work the extra day. People want to work but idleness will be their portion under the provisions of this proposed legislation.

These are some of the examples of what will happen if this bill becomes law in its present form.

Every labor union, every agreement or contract, and every working condition, good or bad, will be under the domination of a board with its horde of political appointees here in Washington. We will have another army of investigators to further harass the employers of labor.

Yesterday I heard an appeal made on this floor that you Democrats had made a promise in your 1936 platform and that this bill was to carry out that promise. You aJso made a promise to the American people in 1932 that you would reduce the cost of government 25 percent. Will you carry out that promise by the enactment of this legislation?

The best Christmas present this Congress can make for the welfare of the American people is to recommit this bill to the committee for further study and consideration before this Nation moves farther along the road taken by Russia, Italy, and Germany. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD].

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, we have reached rather a stalemate in this legislation. Whatever may be the legislative situation of this bill now, it is not the fault of the Committee on Labor. The Labor Committee of the House has worked long and arduously to secure a wage and hour bill. In the last session we held joint hearings of the House and Senate Committees on Labor all day long for 3 long weeks. Before this committee appeared, among other witnesses, Mr. Green, of the American Federation of Labor, and Mr. Lewis, of the C. I. O. Both of these gentlemen placed their stamp of approval on the bill, with a few suggested changes. Neither one of them had any objection to administration of the law by a board. They, together with Mme. Perkins, the Secretary of Labor, agreed it should be administered by an independent board.

After the 3 long weeks of hearings the Senate committee met in executive session and reported out a bill which virtually emasculated the original wage-hour bill. Many representatives of the labor movement opposed that bill in the Senate. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, advised the Members of the Senate to vote for the bill with the hope of getting the bill so amended in the House committee that it would overcome the objections of the American Federation of Labor and make the measure acceptable to labor. When the bill came over to the House, the House committee worked on it nearly 3 weeks. Practically every amendment suggested by the President of the American Federation of Labor was accepted by the House committee.

In the latter part of the last session I personally worked many days with the president of the American Federation ot Labor, two attorneys of the American Federation of Labor, and two attorneys of the administration, in an attempt to work out amendments which would make the bill acceptable to the American Federation of Labor. We worked out seven amendments, and six of the amendments, which were the principal ones, were accepted by the committee.

After these amendments were accepted and placed in the bill, on August 9 I received the following letter from President Green, and I suppose every other Member of the House received it:

The wage and hour bill, as reported by the House Labor Committee, is reasonably acceptable and fairly satisfactory to labor. For that reason I am taking the liberty of writing you requesting you to support this proposed legislation when it is presented to the House of Representatives for final passage.

It occurred to me that you wish to know the attitude of the American Federation ot Labor toward the wage and hour bill. In fact a number of Members of Congress have made inquiry as to the position the American Federation of Labor assumed toward this important measure. I am, therefore, writing you this letter, advising you of the American Federation of Labor's endorsement and approval of the wage and hour bill as reported by the House Labor Committee.

I sincerely hope you may find it possible to vote for the enactment of the wage and hour bill into law without any substantial change in the form and character in which it is reported to the House for passage by the House of Representatives.

WM. GREEN,

President, Amertcan Federation of Labor.

I know that this letter represented the honest and conscientious convictions of President Green of the American Federation of Labor at the time it was written.

I have always been deeply interested in and honestly and conscientiously in favor of the passage of the wage and hour bill, and I believe the Democratic Party owes it to the people of this Nation to pass the measure. In the fireside address the President made to the Nation just before election day he told the people in no uncertain terms the Democratic Party intended to raise wages and bring about labor conditions which would result in a more abundant life for the workers of this Nation.

Since this session started we have found there are other objections to the bill. I personally talked to Mr. Green, and he told me over the phone at that time that they would rather have the bill administered either by an administrator in the Department of Labor or by the Department of Justice than in the manner previously provided in the bill. This information was carried to the Labor Committee, and it amended the measure, placing the administration of the law in the hands of the Department of Labor. Since then the bill has been reported out, and we are now asked to accept an entirely new measure.

As far as I am concerned, I am going to vote for any bill which comes before the House for third reading and final passage. I am going to vote against a motion to recommit [applause], because this session was called for the purpose of passing wage-hour legislation and farm legislation, and we are meeting here for no other reason. Since listening to the remarks by a number of Members, it seems we are here to pass farm legislation and wage-hour legislation in the interest of the future aspirations of the Members of Congress. I believe we should pass legislation in the interest of the wage earner and in the interest of the farmer. I voted for the farm bill, although it was not at all acceptable to me, and I did so in the hope that we may correct the bill after it has gone to conference, or that the Senate may bring over an improved bill. as it did on numerous occasions during the 1933, 1934, and 1935 sessions of Congress in respect of the New Deal legislation. I hope some bill will pass this session.

[PAGE 1485]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1486]

A number of Members have made the complaint that farm labor is left out of this bill. I suggest to such Members that they present an amendment bringing under the operation of this law all farm labor working for employers who employ regularly more than five or eight farm laborers. The majority of the farms of this Nation are operated by the owner, With the occasional employment of some help, perhaps a neighbor. However, the large farms where five or eight or more workers are regularly employed or, as in the case in California, where farming has become an intensive industry, should come under the law, and I am willing to vote for such legislation. Whatever the bill, whether it be the original bill, the bill as reported out of the committee with amendments, or the substitute which has been presented by the American Federation of Labor, we ought to be honest with ourselves and with our constituents, and I intend to do so by voting for any bill which will bring some measure of relief to those workers who receive a substandard wage.

It was stated upon the fioor a few days ago by my genial friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MARTIN DIES], in his talk against this bill, that unemployment is increasing by leaps and bounds, and we have tried to take up the slack by the expenditure of billions of dollars. We have not taken up that slack by the expenditure of these billions, and we will never take it up until we give the workers buying power.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. WOOD. Workers were deprived of normal buying power all during the depression, and it is very significant that the income of the farmers and the income of the wage earners went up and down together. It is a fallacy to suggest that raising wages will depress farm prices, as some in opposition to the bill have contended. We must balance production and distribution.

If we are not going to do it by the enactment of wage and hour legislation and farm acreage control legislation, how are we going to do it? Those who have oppased this measure have not offered any solution. As they have not offered any solution, they ought to go along and help us enact legislation that will benefit the workers and give those who are receiving substandard wages in this Nation an opportunity to enjoy some of the comforts as well as the necessities of life.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOOD. Yes.

Mr. O'MALLEY. The gentleman from Missouri, like a good many other Members of the House, is a member in good standing of a labor organization. Does the gentleman know whether any of the rank and file of labor have been polled by their leaders with respect to how they stand on this bill?

Mr. WOOD. No; I do not know about that, but I know that the State Federation of Labor of Missouri has repeatedly gone on record, and, as we have discussed this matter at length in our last five conventions, I do know that the organized and the unorganized workers want wage and hour legislation. [Applause.]

Whatever you may say about the N. R. A., in the mist of time the N. R. A. will be termed by thinking people one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever passed by the Congress. [Applause.] Those unorganized workers who got a reasonable wage under N. R. A., which was afterward declared unconstitutional, had their wages immediately reduced. They now want some legislation that will protect them until they can get an opportunity to organize and defend their own wage standards and improve their working conditions. The workers of the Nation want some kind of wage-hour legislation. They are not so particular about the mechanics, but they want results, and I believe it is our duty, and we should accept the responsibility of voting for and passing wage-hour legislation before this session adjourns. If we do not do this, we have fallen far short of our duty.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Missouri yield?

Mr. WOOD. I yield

Mr. RANDOLPH. The fear bas been broached in the debate here that the minimum wage would become the maximum. The gentleman knows that 1s not a possibility.

Mr. WOOD. I am glad the gentleman has asked that question. The same fear was broached when the N. R. A. was passed, and that was not the case.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOOD. Yes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Under this bill there is no minimum wage, is there?

Mr. WOOD. But this bill is intended to bring up the wage of the substandard worker to 40 cents per hour and reduce his workweek, which will not only give him additional purchasing power but will spread employment.

Mr. GRISWOLD. But so far as the bill itself is concerned, it does not designate any minimum wage.

Mr. WOOD. No; it does not designate any minimum wage, but it authorizes the Board or the Administrator, after making an investigation, to bring up the wage if it possibly can be done.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. WOOD. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Forty cents is the goal sought to be reached?

Mr. WOOD. Forty cents is the goal, and I may say that the six amendments submitted by the American Federation of Labor and accepted by the Labor Committee, I think, and they thought at that time, adequately protects the right of collective bargaining and organization among the workers.

Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOOD. I yield.

Mr. WIIHROW. Does the gentleman intend to support the so-called Dockweiler substitute for this bill?

Mr. WOOD. I shall support any bill that comes up for final passage. There is such a thing as legislative honesty, and our committee has gone along and has told the 218 Members of the House that if the petition were signed and the bilL brought out, we would submit an amendment to eliminate the board and put the administration of the law under the Department of Labor, and that will be done by the chairman of the Labor Committee. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. MOTT].

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, like nearly all of the other major legislative proposals which the President during the past 5 years has sent, ready-made and ready-drafted, to the Congress, this bill, S. 2475, pretends to be something which it is not.

S. 2475, commonly referred to as the Black-Cannery bill, but with the writing of which neither former Senator Black nor former Representative Connery had anything to do, pretends by its language to be a bill to establish minimum wages and maximum hours for labor in business and industry. Not only has the language of the bill itself given that impression to the country generally but the propaganda which has been put out by the administration continuously for the past 6 months has tended further to give the country this impression of the bill. Not only this but the frequent use in the bill of such terms as "a 40-cent minimum wage" and "a 40-hour maximum workweek" have created a general belief among the people that it is the purpose of this bill to establish a minimum wage for labor of 40 cents an hour and a maximum workweek of 40 hours.

Now the fact is that this bill does not establish either minimum wages or maximum hours and that it is not even the purpose of the bill to prescribe minimum wages or maximum hours; and that, in my opinion, is the first thing in any discussion or consideration of this bill that the Congress and the country should thoroughly understand.

[PAGE 1486]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1487]

There is another matter about which the country should be informed in this connection. A part of the propaganda which has gone out to the country in an effort to create favorable opinion for this bill has attempted to convey to the people the idea that the administration, and particularly the President, has long been in favor of legislation which would establish a minimum wage and a maximum workweek for labor. The first and most important piece of propaganda of this kind was the President's message of May 24, 1937, which immediately preceded the introduction of the bill we are now considering. In that message, which carefully avoided mention of a single specific provision of this bill, S. 2475, which accompanied the message, and which was wholly conceived and completely prepared in the executive department, the President plaibly endeavored to give to his listeners the impression that the legislation he was talking about in that message was a bill prescribing a minimum wage and a maximum workweek in industry.

In that message the President also undertook to convey the idea that for a long time he had favored legislation fixing minimum wages and maximum hours but that enactment of such legislation had been opposed and was being opposed by those selfish interests which he had previously described as Tories and reactionaries. The administration publicity which immediately followed this message further endeavored to carry to the people the idea that the President was the champion and, in fact, the originator of legislation which would guarantee to the workers a decent minimum wage and a reasonably short workweek.

Now, the plain fact is that neither the President nor his administration spokesmen in Congress have ever advocated or even approved of legislation establishing minimum wages and maximum hours for labor, as such legislation is generally understood by both employers and employees throughout the country. There are pending in Congress at this time at least a dozen bills, all having for their purpose the mandatory establishment by law of a minimum wage and a maximum workweek. The first of these bills was introduced as early as the Seventy-third Congress. That was the Black-Cannery 30-hour bill. That bill was actually passed by the Senate and was favorably reported to the House by the House Committee on Labor. When the President heard of it, he immediately sent in the N. R. A. bill and demanded that the N. R. A. have the right of way and that no further consideration be given to the Black-Cannery 30-hour bill, and the Black-Cannery bill thereupon was immediately pigeonholed.

After the Supreme Court by a unanimous opinion held the National Recovery Act to be unconstitutional, numerous attempts were made in the House by the liberals on both the Democratic and Republican sides to secure consideration of one or more of the pending mandatory wage and hour bills. The opposition of the President prevented consideration of any of these bills. The most recent of the wage and hour bills, the Dockweiler bill, which has been approved by the American Federation of Labor and which will be offered as a substitute for the pending bill by way of amendment at the conclusion of this debate, was introduced only a few days ago. The Dockweiler bill, without sham, pretense, or camouflage establishes a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour and a maximum workweek of 40 hours. It exempts agriculture and the several other businesses and industries which by common agreement ought to be exempted. It has the universal approval of labor throughout the country and has met with no substantial objection even from the employers. And yet what is the President's attitude on this bill? The President and his administration leaders in the House are definitely opposed to the Dockweiler bill and it is very doubtful, in my opinion, on account of the administration majority's control of the House, that we will be given an opportunity even to vote upon the Dockweiler amendment.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored briefly to tell you what the pending administration bill is not. It is not a bill to establish a minimum wage or a maximum-hour week. I have also endeavored to state briefly what the attitude of the administration is and has been for 5 years on wage and hour legislation, as that term has been commonly understood both in Congress and in industry and in the general field of labor. Let us now examine what kind of a bill it is that the administration, after months of ballyhoo and propaganda, has offered to the Congress and the people upon this subject. Just what is this 63-page document in the form of a bill entitled "S. 2475," which the administration through every known publicity means at its command has been trying to sell to the wage earners of America by representing to them that this is a bill to establish a minimum wage and a maximum-hour week in industry.

In the first place, does this bill provide for a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour? Most certainly it does not. Does the bill establish a minimum wage of any kind in any amount whatever? It does not. Does it prescribe a maximum workweek of 40 hours, as thousands of the overworked and underfed factory toilers in the East and South actually believe it does? The bill prescribes nothing of the sort. Does it establish any maximum-hour week of any kind for any wage earner anywhere? It does not. Does it prohibit the labor of children, about which there has been so much talk in the debate, either in factories or sweatshops or elsewhere? It does not, although it devotes at least two of its 63 pages to talking about child labor in, the same way that it talks about wage and hour standards in the rest of the bill.

What is it, then, that this bill does do? Stripped of all of its Cohenisms and Corcoranisms, of its camoufiage, and of the bombastic insincerity of its preamble or legislative declaration, the bill does simply this and nothing more. It sets up a wage and hour division in the Department of Labor and creates the office ef administrator. The admin!strator is appointed by the President at a salary of $10,000 a year. He is responsible to no one, neither to the President nor to the Congress nor to the Court. In this administrator the pending bill, S. 2475, vests the sole, exclusive, and absolute authority to regulate and establish minimum wages and maxirimm hours for labor in private business and industry.

The bill authorizes the administrator to fix and determine these hours and wages solely in his own discretion and to enforce them through orders made at his own discretion and which, when made, have the full force and effect of law. The bill provides that an order issued by the administrator shall not be subject to review by any other person or agency in the executive department of the Government and that noncompliance with any order the administrator may make shall be puiiishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. The administrator is authorized to cancel or modify his orders at any tiine he sees fit and to hold both employer and employee responsible for noncompliance with the changed order. The bill provides that when the administrator shall bring a suit or action to enforce one of his discretionary orders establishing wage scales or hours of labor in industry, or in any particular plant or factory in an industry, the courts of the United States must assume immediate and unlimited jurisdiction to compel obedience to the order, but that when an employer or employee shall be aggrieved through one of these orders and shall petition the court for a review, then the jurisdiction of the court shall be limited to passing upon questions of law, unless it shall appear "that the findings of the administrator are arbitrary and capricious."

The joker in this particular provision of the bill, as every lawyer knows, is that inasmuch as the entire authority of the administrator under the bill is discretionary, no question of law can possibly arise for the court to pass upon. This provision is a comparatively minor one, but it is typical of the deception and the deceit which a careful examination will disclose on almost every page of the bill.

Within the broad, elastic liinitations of the bill—and I intend to comment directly upon these limitations before I I conclude—this strange and unprecedented proposal which masquerades under the name of a wage and hour bill,

[PAGE 1487]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1488]

gives to the administrator complete discretionary authority to order and enforce compliance with any kind of a wage scale he chooses to make or with any kind of a workweek which he chooses to order. He can make one scale of wages for a sawmill in Oregon and another for the same kind of a sawmill in Alabama. He can even prescribe different wages and different hours of labor for employees in the same sawmill in either Oregon or Alabama. He can fix a minimum wage at 30 cents an hour in a cotton mill in Boston and a minimum wage of 15 cents an hour for its competitor in the same town or in a town a thousand miles distant. He can fix a maximum workweek of 50 hours in one place and of 40 hours in another. He can do anything he pleases on the subject of minimum wages and maximum hours regulation whenever he pleases and wherever he pleases, and to help him do this the bill gives him authority to hire as many assistants, inspectors, investigators, and snoopers as he pleases in any and all parts of the United States.

No functionary has ever been given more sweeping power to do with as he chooses than this bill proposes to give to the administrator. He can, upon his own authority and without leave of any court, issue a subpena duces tecum to any employer in the United States and have that employer, with all of his books, records, telegrams, and letters, hauled before the administrator personally or before any assistant or employee of the administrator whom the administrator may choose to designate.

He is authorized under this bill to tell both the employer and the wage earner what a fair labor standard for their business is. He may tell them what sublabor standards are, what an oppressive workweek is, what constitutes an oppressive wage, and what is meant by oppressive child labor. I call particular attention to the fact that the bill itself defines none of these terms but gives to the administrator the sole authority to define these terms to suit himself and to compel obedience and compliance with that definition both by the employer and the employee. So far as I am able to find, this is an entirely new idea in law making. I know of no statute that has ever been enacted by the Congress or by the legislature of any State which has ever given to an administrative officer the power to make his own definitions of the very subject matter of a statute and then to compel acceptance of these de:finiticms upon pain of fine and imprisonment for nonacceptance or noncompliance with them.

This entire bill constitutes one vast wholesale surrender by the Congress to the administrator of its entire effective jurisdiction over wage and hour legislation and sets up the administrator as an absolute czar in that field. It will be recalled that the delegation by Congress of its legislative powers to an administrator under the National Recovery Act was unanimously held by the SUpreme Court to be in violation of the Constitution. But the delegation of legislative power under the N. R. A. was a mild and conservative delegation compared to that which is proposed in this bill. The Supreme Court of the United States in holding the N. R. A. to be unconstitutional described the delegation of power therein to the administrator as "delegation run wild." What must it say of the delegation proposed in this bill when, in event the bill becomes law, that same question shall come before the Court upon a test of the constitutionality of the act?

It is not conceivable, in my opinion, that anyone who has read the decision which by the unanimous vote of the Court struck down the National Recovery Act, and who has carefully read the bill we are now considering, can seriously believe or contend that the pending bill, S. 2475, is constitutionaL It is my serious opinion that the two executive assistants, Messrs. Ben Cohen and Tom Corcoran, who are credited with having written the original diaft of this bill, knew when they wrote it that it was unconstitutional. I would be utterly unable to understand how any Member of Congress, upon con~ stitutional grounds alone, could support this bill, were it not for the fact that I know it has been the custom of so many of the majority Members of the House to follow the advice of the President upon constitutional questions. That advice which he gave them in connection with the original Guffey coal bill, was that they should not allow their doubts as to the bill's constitutionality, however reasonable, to stand in the way of their voting for the bill.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I desire to revert to the reference I made a moment ago to the broad and elastic limitations of this bill, by which alone the discretion of the administrator is bound. Aside from the slight restraint placed upon the administrator through the provisions of this bill exempting a limited class of industries and occupations, the bill imposes but one limitation upon the administrator's discretionary power. And that limitation, in my opinion, constitutes the supreme joker of this supremely amazing bill. This one limitation, I am sure, will bring joy to the hearts of the millions of underfed and overworked wage earners of the cotmtry, and I know they will be glad to hear about it. The single limitation imposed upon the administrator under this bill is this:

In establishing wage and hour standards the bill provides that the administrator may not fix a minimum wage at more—and I trust gentlemen will mark this, and mark it well—at more than 40 cents an hour, but he is permitted, under the bill, to establish a minimum wage as much below 40 cents an hour as he may desire. He can establish a minimum wage at 10 cents per hour if he wishes to do so. Also, in fixing the maximum workweek the bill provides that the administrator may not prescribe a shorter week than 40 hours. He has complete discretionary authority to establish a 60-hour week if he wants to, but he cannot go below 40 hours. There, I repeat, is the supreme joker, the supreme piece of sham, and the supreme insult to the wage earner of America which this bill contains. I want the wage earner who has been fooled by propaganda to understand this. I want him to know that this bill gives the administrator authority to do everything and anything he pleases in connection with wage and hour regulation except what the honest wage earner wants an honest wage and hour bill to do.

Mr. Chairman, in my humble and sincere opinion this bill is a fraud. It pretends to be a wage and hour bill. It pretends to establish minimum wages and maximum hours for the benefit of the worker. Instead of that, it does nothing for either employer or employee except to put them both under the heel of the most absolute and autocratic bureaucracy that any piece of legislation bas ever attempted to set up in this country.

If this Congress wants a wage and hour bill, and for my own part let me say emphatically and unequivocally that I believe that honest, mandatory wage and hour legislation :s necessary and have always consistently advocated it, let us vote for an honest bill. Let us vote for the Dockweiler bill, which has the endorsement of labor and of the country generally, which actually establishes a minimum wage and a maximum workweek, which prohibits child labor, and which is to be offered as a substitute for this bill. If the Dockweiler bill should be held to be not germane then let us vote to recommit this bill and demand that the Committee on labor report to us a mandatory wage and hour bill, one that we will not have to apologize for or be ashamed of, one that meets legitimate desires both of labor and of industry, and one that is drawn with at least some regard and respect for the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States. For that kind of a measure, Mr. Chairman, I believe there exists a real necessity and a real demand, and I trust that upon recommitment of this bill to the Committee on Labor we will be given an opportunity to vote upon such a measure. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has expired.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CASE].

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of making some remarks upon this bill, and ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD.

[PAGE 1488]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1489]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

A LOT OF MISSTEPS IN THIS BILL

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, if ever a bill took a good name and then proceeded to lead the people into trouble, this so-called labor bill is it.

If the wage and hour bill fails of passage, its sponsors will try to make out that those who vote against it are enemies of labor. That will be far from the truth. Many real friends of labor are supporting this measure, but the best they have been able to say for it is that worn-out excuse, "It is a step in the right direction." But any study of the bill must reveal that there are a lot of missteps in the bill. Otherwise it would not be necessary for it to come before us, patched up on the night before consideration with 129 amendments, or whatever the exact count shows.

The Halls of Congress have heard of child labor and sweatshop conditions during this debate as though that was the rule in America and not the exception. I grant there is too much of it, because any of it is too much. And the truth is that a simple bill could have corrected those conditions—at least could have kept the products of child labor and of sweatshops out of interstate commerce.

Bring a simple child-labor act before this body and it will pass with hardly a dissenting vote. Bring a simple bill to outlaw the products of sweatshop labor from interstate commerce and they will be outlawed as the products of prison labor were outlawed. But this is not a simple, clear-cut bill. It is indefinite, hazy, possible of so many interpretations and so many standards that no man will know whether he is violating it or not.

It proposes to set up an administrator without limit on his term, presumably appointed for life, who can name committees or employers and employees and three individuals to represent the public, but easily outnumbered, who will have the power not only to recommend one standard for one industry and another for another industry, but different standards within the same industry and different standards for different institutions within the same territory doing the same kind of business. Imagine, if you can, how industry can prosper under that kind of a system. Imagine, if you can, how jobs will become more plentiful and how labor will profit in the maze and confusion that will follow such a law.

A little strychnine, they tell us, can stimulate the heart; but there is a dose that kills. Many an employer, who has struggled to pay his taxes and make ends meet, who pays the best wages he can, who is loved and admired by the workmen associated with him, will be sick at heart arid ready to quit if he is subjected to the complex, uncertain, confusing conditions that would follow enactment of such a bill into law.

For, bear in mind, actual violation of labor standards prescribed under any operation of this bill would not be necessary to bring a swarm of inspectors, snoopers, and stool pigeons into any business, factory, or shop. Only a suspicion or a grudge or business rivalrY or the wrong politics. Sections 11 and 12 of this proposed bill do not require the violation of the act to hail the employer into court.

They empower this lifetime administrative czar or czarina or the employees of the labor division or the committees named throughout the country to hail anyone and any records before them merely on the impression of the administrator that the person is about to violate some provision, not merely of the act itself but of any order that may be prescribed under it.

The provisions of sections 11 and 12 are unbelievable until you read them. And you are asked to accept this bill in the name of justice on the plea that it is a step in the rjght direction. That is not a step in the right direction. Labor can never profit from setting up a situation that will destroy its very opportunity for work. Dr. John Dewey, in giving recent impressions of Russia, has said that the mistake there is in believing—

that the end is so important that it justifies the use of any means.

On that basis assassinations are excused, but, as Dr. Dewey points out

In fact, however, it is the means that are employed that decide the ends or consequences that are actually attained.

That is why this proposed fair-labor-standards bill is not a fair bill and will destroy the very ends it pretends to seek to accomplish. It should be sent back to the Committee on Labor for rewriting.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. TEIGAN].

Mr. TEIGAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is easily the most important measure that has been considered by Congress for some time. This is true, notwithstanding the fact that it is inadequate in a number of respects.

What I have in mind in bringing it to the attention of the House is that increased purchasing power on the part of the industrial workers is important in these particulars:

First. It will raise the standard of living of thousands of workers and of their families.

Second. The increased purchasing power of the workers will obviously increase the price of farm products and will thereby improve the lot of the tillers of the soil.

Third. It will have a mast beneficial effect upon business throughout the entire country.

I shall not attempt here to emphasize the importance of improving the condition of the workers. That is generallY recognized and I have no doubt that the 218 Members of the House who signed the petition to withdraw the bill from further consideration by the Rules Committee, did so in the main because they were interested in raising the standard of living for the men who toil. Then, too, the discussion that has taken place on this bill and which will continue until the bill has been acted upon by the House will cover this point.

EMPLOYED SHAMEFULLY UNDERPAID

I shall merely quote what Isador Lubin, United States Labor Commissioner, in his testimony before the joint committee of the two Houses on the fair labor standards bill last June, said:

The fact 1s that when we compare the amount of money spent for food by families of employed workers, with the retail cost of the items that are necessary to maintain a minimum adequate diet, we find that in some cities a third of the employed workers' families do not have enough money to buy the foods that are necessary for an adequate diet.

This in itself is sufficient indictment of conditions as they exist in industry today to justify the enactment of a genuine wage and hour measure with a definite minimum wage provided and a limitation upon the number of hours per week during which the workers may be employed.

FARMERS ASK LIVING WAGE FOR WORKERS

However, the particular thing I desire to bring to the attention of the House is that, contrary to the views that are often expressed in the press and by politicians, the farmers of the country are becoming quite appreciative of the value to themselves of labor enjoying a higher standard of living and thus increasing the latter's purchasing power.

On October 4 last a conference of farmers' organizations was held in St. Paul, Minn. Every important farm organization in Minnesota was represented at the conference. A program was adopted which it was hoped would be embodied in the farm bill then to be considered at the special session. The conference went on record also as advocating cooperation between the farmers and workers. The committee chosen by the conference to carry on the work in behalf of the program adopted state:

In Minnesota the farmer and the worker have cooperated to win many victories. The practice should be extended to the whole Nation, for the cure for agriculture's ills must be brought about mainly on a national scale. Propaganda of the big newspapers and others trying to show that the farmer and worker have little in common should be promptly exposed. Figures show that farm income rises with income of the industrial worker, and vice versa.

FARM ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT WAGE BILL

But not only is this the attitude of farm organizations in Minnesota; it is also the view of farmer organizations in the entire Northwest. I want to read to you a brief statement.

[PAGE 1489]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1490]

signed by the heads of a number of important farm organizatiqns in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. The statement reads, in part, as follows:

Actual farmers know that the income of labor determines labor's purchasing power. They know also that the purchasing power of labor determines the market of farm produce. In short, farmers know that the living standards of labor and the living standards of the farmer are one and inseparable. They go up and down together. Farmers are now fighting desperately to get national legislation that would assure them an adequate income. In this fight they need the strong support of labor. Just so, labor needs the support of the farmer. The real farmers wm give this support.

We deplore and condemn any attempt to dlvide the forces of farmers and labor. We particularly condemn attempts to make it appear that farmers are opposed to Federal legislation establishing minimum wages and decent working standards.

John H. Bosch, President, National Farmers Holiday Association, 4745 Thirteenth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minn.; Dale Kramer, Secretary, National Farmers Holiday Association, 650 Gateway Building, Minneapolis, Minn.; George Nelson, Chairman, Board of Directors, Parmers' Union, and Vice President, National Farmers Holiday Association, Milltown, Wis.; Morris Erickson, Secretary, North Dakota Farmers' Union, Jamestown, N. Dak.; Kenneth Hones, President, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Chippewa Falls, Wis.; Emil Loriks, President, South Dakota Farmers' Union, Sioux Falls, S.Dak.; A. W. Ricker, Editor, Farmers' Union Herald, South St. Paul, Minn.; Charles Egley, Manager Farmers' Union Live Stock House, South St. Paul. Minn.; Tom Cheek, President, Oklahoma Farmers' Union, Oklahoma City, Okla.

GOVERNOR BENSON WIRES SUPPORT

A short time ago I received from Gov. Elmer A. Benson, of Minnesota, a wire asking that I support the pending bill. His telegram reads as follows:

An attempt 1s being made to persuade Members of Congress from agricultural States to vote and work against passage of the Black-Connery wage and hour bill. I am sure you understand that the establishment of minimum wages and maximum hours for industrial wage earners by Federal law will increase the buying power of underfed workers and will increase industrial employment. Markets for farm products will be strengthened and extended by such legislation and farmers will benefit tremendously.

In this and many other directions the community of interest of farmer and wage earner makes It imperative that both groups and their congressional representatives work in the closest cooperation. Minnesota farmers definitely went on record in favor of such cooperation at a State conference held in St. Paul on October 4. I urge that you do everything possible to prevent predatory interests who oppose both farmers and wage earners from creating friction and discord in farmer-labor relationships. Minnesota farmers and wage earners favor immediate passage of the Black-Connery bill.

AMERICAN SYSTEM FALLING DOWN

The United states is today the most highly developed industrial nation in the world. It is rich in natural resources and has developed its machinery of production beyond that of any other country. According to our economists, we are today capable of producing $150,000,000,000 or more of income annually, provided the millions of tdle men and women capable of doing work be permitted to labor at their respective trades and occupations. Inasmuch as the income for the year 1937 will be less than half of this amount, and in view of the fact that there are thousands of idle shops, mills, mines, and factories throughout the land and millions of unemployed, it is well that those in charge of affairs in Congress offer some scheme for solution of the problem.

Our first move in the direction of improving the lot not only of the workers but of the farmers as well, is to pass S. 2475. In my opinion, it will prove a practical aid to the workers and will in the end also prove of greater aid to our farmers than will the so-called farm bill that was passed here last Friday. Let us give the wealth producers of America a chance. Let us pass the pending bill. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CLASON].

Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, for decades Massachusetts has been a pioneer in the field of labor legislation. Its well organized wage earners have enjoyed the benefits of steadily improved working conditions, fair wages, and progressively shortened hours of labor. From the standpoint of the skill of the workers themselves, the Commonwealth has been blessed with an abundance of men and women higbly trained in well diversified industries. Massachusetts has been proud of its public schools and of its colleges, which are in a measure a development from the high standards of living of its citizens. For 15 years, at least, its wage earners, even though unexcelled in ability, have watched many of its most important manufacturing plants torn down or moved away. This was both possible and necessary because products manufactured in other States and foreign countries, where working conditions are less favorable, where the wages are lower for the same kind of work, where the hours of labor are longer each week and where the standards of living are less satisfactory, have been coming upon our home markets in ever-increasing quantities at lower costs of production.

Today, Congress is debating a national fair labor standards act. I would like to vote for such an act, one which would bring to millions of our countrymen a wider measure of happiness, a more abundant life.

For 150 years the States have controlled legislation of this nature. If Federal legislation is to be enacted, it seems indisputable to me that its purpose should be to raise the standards of living among all persons covered by any bill which is passed to the level enjoyed by the wage earners of Massachusetts. To permit one man, however well advised, or a body of five men, the power and the obligation to set up different wage schedules, different schedules of hours of labor, and different standards under which labor is to be performed in different sections of the United States or in different plants in competition with other plants in the same industry, is to allow a political agency to determine the future prosperity of one section of the country as against another section of the country, and of one group of individuals as against another group of wage earners in the same line of work.

I believe that such legislation is wrong in principle, and that the Federal Government should not exercise its overwhelming power except in a uniform manner throughout the country as a whole. It is unfair to the American citizen as an individual; it is unfair to organized labor, which has spent years of devoted effort to the betterment of the working conditions of its members. If legislation is to be enacted by Congress on this most important subject, I believe that the Congress, itself, should determine both the wage and the hour schedules.

With the purchasing value of the dollar as it is today, I sincerely believe that an adult worker, in good health, performing 40 hours of continuous labor, is entitled to receive at least 40 cents an hour for his or her pay. I believe that manufacturers generally in Massachusetts would be perfectly willing to pay wages on that basis—most wage earners in Massachusetts receive more than that amount weekly at the present time—but Massachusetts employers believe it absolutely unfair that employers in one State should be permitted to pay their workers less, or work them longer hours, than in another state.

A family's expenses for the necessaries of life today are high. They will remain high just as long as the present stupendous national debt of $38,000,000,000 exists. In order that the service charges on this great debt and the other expenses of Federal, state, and municipal governments may be met, it is absolutely certain that money must be kept cheap, in other words, of little purchasing power. Otherwise, the various tax burdens cannot be carried. Therefore, $16 is a relatively small weekly wage.

We have just passed in this House farm legislation which is bound to increase living expenses throughout the Nation. It favored the producers of five designated agricultural crops. It was sectional legislation largely in favor of Southern States. If this fair labor-standards bill is passed in a form which permits differentials in wages and standards of employment to be established, then we are again favoring these same Southern States at the expense of Massachusetts and other States which are fair to organized labor and industry alike. I am ready and willing to vote for a Federal law which establishes a national standard of wages, a national schedule of hours of work each week, and a national standard of conditions of employment, applicable on the same basis and on

[PAGE 1490]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1491]

the same terms to all parts of the Umted States. I believe that such an important law should be drawn in committee and not on the floor of the House of Representatives. For that reason, I voted against the motion to discharge the Rules Committee, believing that if the motion was not carried the Committee on Labor would again consider this legislation and remedy its many patent defects. In its final form I believe that it should provide that Congress, and not a board or an administrator, should set the wage and hour standards.

I would call attention to the text of a resolution, adopted last Friday at a meeting called by Governor Hurley in Boston, for textile manufacturers and workers, as follows:

Resolved, That this group wishes to go on record in favor of early passage of the wage-and-hour bill, providing that such legislation does not allow a differential favoring one section over another and that it forbids the employment of women and minors between midnight and 6 a. m., and that such legislation be enacted that will protect the products of American labor.

I commend it to the attention of the House in the discussion of this most important legislation.

I would further suggest that amendments be adopted to this act, whereby there shall be exempted from its provisions outside salesmen, so-called, those employed by storage companies and warehouses, and other persons engaged in handling perishable foodstuffs and other goods, and perhaps other designated classes of employees.

The manufacturers and the wage earners of Massachusetts are in accord on this point; that Federal legislation, if enacted, should not give advantages to States which permit the payment of lower wages, longer hours of labor, the unreasonable employment of women and children, and improper conditions of employment. I am firmly convinced that their demand for equality is reasonable and justified, and that they are entitled to fair and equal treatment at the hands of this Congress.

Let us enact a fair labor standards act, which will bring all wage earners in the Nation to a higher standard of living than is now enjoyed in any State. Let us not enact a fair labor standards bill which will drag down in any degree the present high standards of living now enjoyed by labor in Massachusetts and some other States, after years of continual, unremittent effort on the part of organized labor and high-minded citizens. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. VOORHIS].

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. VooRHIS].

Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, I am for this bill because I believe that the bill is right. The reason I say that is because it affects, not, as many people would have us believe here today, all the employers and wage earners in America, not because it affects in any way whatsoever the organized workers of America, but because it is intended to give a certain degree of protection to a group of people who cannot speak for themselves, who are unorganized and politically and economically powerless. There is all the more reason to pass the bill because of the fact that people are unemployed today. That fact has been given as a reason against the passage of the bill. On the contrary, that is the very time when wage earners need protection more than they do at other times.

It seems to me that the fact that the American Congress is considering the passage of this legislation is evidence of the fact that there is a certain moral sense about this Government, so that when we find there is a group of American citizens who can look for protection for minimum standards to the Congress and nowhere else, then we propose to try to give it to them.

The first time you try to make a step in advance in social progress, it is always difficult to do it. There are always those who say, "We are in favor of this step, but now is not the time." There are those who say, "We are in favor of such a step, but this is not the way." There are those who say, "We are in favor of the step, but after all, you just cannot do it because it never has been done before." All kinds of objections will be found. We are attempting a new step in American Government, we are attempting to say not that we will fix the wages of all American citizens, but to say that there is an irreducible minimum below which no American citizen will be asked to work.

As a matter of fact, I am for this bill not only for the reason that it is a first step in giving protection to our poorest paid workers but because I think it is a matter of justice to those employers who have attempted to maintain good standards.

I was sent a newspaper clipping about the opening of a factory in this country, where the newspaper was proud of the fact, apparently, that the new factory in its town would have a pay roll of 900 employees and every 2 weeks the wages paid would amount to $8,000. If you will take a pencil and paper and figure that out, you will find that means $4.45 a week per person. That kind of wages is not going to give the farmers a market. It will not give the manufacturers who pay good wages a chance. I investigated that very case, and I discovered excellent evidence that this employer's wages were literally fixed for him by a mail-order house that apparently had the power to do so. That man would be glad, if he is a good sort—and I do not know but what he may be—if he could be relieved by the strong arm of the Government from that pressure.

So it seems to me there is every reason for us to attempt to the best of our ability to take this step and put a floor underneath the wages paid in the United States.

Furthermore, we must remember in passing this bill that it is important that we have adequate and workable machinery of enforcement, and it is also important that we should, when we get through amending this bill, have a bill which can be passed.

Now, finally, may I say that one of the main reasons why I am for this bill is because of the child-labor provisions. I believe the House committee has done a very excellent job on these child-labor provisions, although I believe there are one or two amendments that should be made. But the method of enforcement of the child-labor provisions, by enabling the employer who can show he is not employing children to get a certificate from the Chief of the Children's Bureau to that effect, and then to be protected against prosecution, is a sound principle, because it means in effect enforcement beforehand, instead of waiting until after a violation to prosecute.

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VOORHIS. I yield.

Mr. MOTT. Does the gentleman say there is any mandatory prohibitions against child labor in this bill?

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes; I believe there is.

Mr. MOTT. Where is it?

Mr. VOORHIS. The bill provides on page 53, line 17, that there shall not pass into interstate commerce goods which have been produced in a factory or establishment in which children have been employed at any time within 30 days. This means children under 16 years of age, and in hazardous occupations it means children under 18 years of age.

Mr. MOTT. Under oppressive child-labor conditions, which the Administrator is allowed to fix and define himself, in his own discretion?

Mr. VOORHIS. Not exactly, but I will say I believe the Administrator has too much discretion. I think it should be cut down so no special certificate could be issued at all to children under 14 nor to children under 16 in manufacturing or mining.

Mr. MOTT. I agree with the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. McLEAN].

Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, the measure under consideration is known as the wage and hour bill. Its purposes are (1) to establish a minimum rate of wages, (2) limit the number of

[PAGE 1491]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1492]

hours those in industry may be employed, and (3) prevent child labor. These objectives have a sympathetic appeal. Everyone wants those who toil to labor under proper conditions and in proper surroundings and to receive a wage commensurate with the services performed and the wealth produced. It is agreed that child labor should be abolished. Well-developed minds and strong bodies are essential to our civilization, and it is the obligation of society to develop them in the formative years of life.

This bill is an economic experiment, and, when we are struggling to find out why there is lack of employment, it is hardly the time for experimentation. Things changed after the President summoned Congress in special session. When we met on November 15 it was with a realization that, in the meantime, something had happened to retard recovery.

Business is in a state of suspense, anxiety and fear because businessmen do not know what is going to happen next. They do not know what further taxes are to be imposed, what tax adjustments are to be made, or what further bureaucratic control with its inquisitorial and bothersome features is going to be inflicted upon them by their Government.

When business was freed of the A. A. A. and the N. R. A. there was immediate renewed activity, and signs of recovery quickly became apparent. The determination to revitalize similar governmental agencies is in no small measure responsible for our present business recession.

What we need to do is to get business going, put men to work, and the hours and wages will take care of themselves. Prosperity affects employer and employee alike. If an employer has work to do, he will employ men to do it, and the more work he has to do the more men he employs, and the more men employed the greater the demand and the fewer men available, and the price of labor goes up. We can experiment with men's welfare after their welfare is provided for.

You ask me how this can be done—how confidence can be restored and expansion and development replace fear and retrenchment? First of all by the Government cooperating With business and industry; stop backbiting and agitation of class prejudice; give assurance of the Government's withdrawal from the field of private industry; reduce the cost of production by reducing taxes, by keeping the promise to reduce Government expenditures; balance the Budget; stop creating additional expensive Government agencies. We promised this, but only last week the farm bill was passed creating an expensive bureau, and another will be created by this bill. Show good faith to business by repealing, or substantially modifying, the excess-profits and capital-gains taxes. Even before they were passed businessmen called attention to the fact that these taxes would paralyze expansion and new industrial and commercial developments, and today it is obvious that what they said was true. Get the housing program started. Do not pass this bill, or begin any other economic experiment until a more appropriate time. These things, if done promptly, will start the wheels of industry and put men back to work.

The American workingman now enjoys the privilege of negotiating with his employer as to the value of his services and the conditions under which he will work. He is the master of his own destiny. Under the scheme provided in this bill that privilege will be delegated to a bureau in Washington, and with it he will surrender that much of his independence. If experience is to be taken as a guide, there is more to be gained by his negotiation directly with his employer, or through his organization, than by legislation and the tedium and proverbial red tape of bureaucratic determination.

If the bill has any value whatever, it must be as a part of an economic scheme which takes into consideration all the elements which order our lives so that we can approach—may even attain—perfection. We must begin with the basic fact that the law of supply and demand is still in force.

This law requires an approach to economic considerations that is disregarded in our deliberations today. The value of this law must be as a cog in the economic machine where all of the gears mesh harmoniously and must be made of size and texture that will bear the strain required of the several parts. It will not do to enact this law without regard to the effect it will have on its associated or coordinated activities. The laws of nature know no class or creed—constantly working, they find their level like a flood and inundate those who resist them. Until we provide some satisfactory substitute for the law of supply and demand much of the legislation we are enacting will not work and will find resistance on the part of the people which will keep our economic life in a state of turmoil.

If a manufacturer determines to produce an article for which there is a demand, his first thought is to produce it at a price people are willing to pay. His cost of production depends on the cost of raw materials, the cost of labor, and what we ordinarily know as overhead, being the interest on his investment in his plant, insurance, taxes of several sorts, and selling cost. If the price he can obtain for his article will cover these items and give him a reasonable profit, his efforts will be successful. Therefore, if you would fix the price he must pay for his labor, you must guarantee to him, and the consumer must be compelled to pay, a price which will guarantee a sufficient return to pay the compulsory wages. But that is where the scheme breaks down. While you may infiict penalties on the manufacturer, you cannot make a criminal out of a consumer because he does not buy the things you think he should at a price you require he should pay.

Anticipating this situation, the pending bill attempts to meet it by providing for the Administrator to make adjustments of wage levels, and, as to foreign-made goods, by giving the United States Tariff Commission the power to adjust import duties on foreign articles which compete with domestic articles resulting from the operation of this act.

Does it fit into a smoothly working economic scheme that costs of production should be continually artificially readjusted, and would it be consistent—as a matter of fact, can we, under the reciprocal-trade agreements by which we have guaranteed a portion of our markets to foreign nations and committed ourselves as to the quantity of goods to be imported, exclude foreign-made articles in order to make this act effective?

Valuable lessons applicable here were learned from the experience under the N. R. A. The admission is made that this bill was drafted to meet the opinion of the Supreme Court setting aside the N. R. A. That should be sufficient proof that there is an analogy between the two, and that we should have in mind in the consideration of this measure the lessons we learned from our experience in the era of the Blue Eagle and from the legislation to regiment the coal industry. The so-called coal bill was railroaded through the House, and its board of control, after less than 1 year of existence, is already threatened with investigation by the Congress which created it, and whatever effectiveness it might have had has been destroyed by a controversy as to how its patronage should be distributed. As a matter of fact, I am convinced by my observations of what has been going on that if the cloak of secrecy was removed and we could see plainly into the rooms where the professorial staff is working, we would know that the bill to regiment the coal industry, the recently enacted farm bill, and this measure are all related; written to circumvent the recent decisions which set their predecessors aside, and are a part of the program which it was intended to have sustained through the proposed packing of the Supreme Court.

During the life of the N. R. A. it appointed a board of research to observe its operation and determine how it could be improved or how it should be modified. This board was composed of celebrated economists and a large staff of subordinates and employees. Naturally, it was friendly to the philosophy of the N. R. A. It had at its disposal all of the data and information available. Its investigation and observations of the workings of the N. R. A. lead to conclusions that so far as the regulation of wages and hours was concerned, it resulted in curtailment of production, decrease in

[PAGE 1492]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1493]

the average standard of living, lower consumption of raw materials, including farm products and lower prices for them, geographical realinement of industry, and higher production costs for farmers. It also showed that under the attempt to fix a minimum wage, while some were raised, a substantial percentage was lowered to the minimum. This would bear out the often-repeated statement that the so-called minimum wage may automatically be fixed as the maximum.

As I have listened to the debate on this bill I have reached the conclusion that it should not be enacted at this time. A majority of those who intend to vote for it are not satisfied with it, and it is cloaked with so much uncertainty and indefiniteness and it is so much of an experiment that it ought to be defeated or returned to the committee for further study. This would be an indication to business that Congress has some understanding of present business conditions and is willing to cooperate in solving its problems. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [MP. KELLER].

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, it has been my pleasure and my very great opportunity to study this entire question of wages and hours during two long hearings on the Ellenbogen textile bill during two different sessions of this body. The original bill that came to the committee was referred to a subcommittee of which I had the honor of being chairman. We had before us interested men, laboring men as well as operators in the textile field, from all over the United States. We gathered together a great mass of information that really led somewhere. The second time we rewrote the bill in view of the information we had received during the first hearing. Then we held another long hearing and rewrote the bill a third time in view of all the decisions made by the Supreme Court bearing at all on that subject.

It was my idea then, and it is my idea now, that we ought to have gone through with the passage of the textile bill for these reasons: It is the industry that employed the largest number of wage earners; it is the poorest paid of all the industries. Had we passed that bill it would have provided the other industries of the country with something by which to judge their own industry. It would have given the opportunity through experience to learn before we enacted a general bill; and I say here without reservation that I was greatly disappointed when the report was being written for submission to the full committee that Billy Connery came to me and said: "We want you to lay the bill on the shelf for the present and see whether we can pass a general bill." I am a good soldier. I went along. I am going to go along here with whatever bill is finally presented to us for our votes, but I think as I please and I say what I think when the occasion demands it.

Everyone at that hearing and everyone else that I know of is interested in a wage and hour bill, but each of them wants it for the other fellow and not for himself.

There is no such thing as a substandard region. The idea that substandard wages exist only in the South is simply nonsense. It exists in my district and probably in the district of every Member here regardless of whether he lives in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, or California; it does not make a bit of difference, you have got substandards of wages and substandards of living; and it is up to us here whether we are going to stand for a continuation of it or not.

There are before this House four bills. The first one is the bill that we took away from the Rules Committee by petition, Senate 2475; the second is the bill sponsored by the Labor Committee; the third is the bill sponsored by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. PHILLIPS] which is the same as the Berry bill in the Senate; and the fourth is the bill sponsored by the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILER]. There is no excuse for misunderstanding the import of any of them; they are all very simple. The bill we took away from the Rules Committee is the only one of all four upon which hearings were had—any bearings at all. I want you to get that. It is the only bill which the members of the Labor Committee helped in writing; it is the only bill that any Members of this House voted to bring out for consideration; it is the only bill which a majority of the Labor Committee ever voted to report to the House. All of the others are last-minute suggestions that no one has had time to study as bills should be studied before presentation to this House for consideration.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KELLER. No. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I will gladly yield when I have concluded the main part of my remarks. I speak especially of the bill sponsored by our chairman, the baby she said she found on her doorstep, the poor little foundling which has no birth record, which has no mamma and no papa; and which, in all fairness to the child as well as to its parents and to the public at large, ought to be sent to a foundlings' home until it is old enough to show whether it has a sound body and sane mind before asking anybody to adopt it. In the meantime, we ought to seek its parentage, try to find out who is responsible for bringing it into the world. The House is no foundlings' home, in my judgment, and I hope that we promptly reject that bill which is known as the committee bill, for which 9 members of the committee out of 21 voted, and no more.

The bill we took away from the Rules Committee, the bill which resulted from the joint hearings of the House and Senate, 3 weeks of public hearings and 3 weeks of study devoted to it thereafter by members of the Labor Committee, is the only bill, in my judgment, that ought to be considered here, because it is the only one that has been brought out and given the hearings, given the attention, given the consideration that a justifiable bill ought to be given. A bill that is rushed out here at the last minute is bad in spite of the poor little amendments that we put forward here, sometimes to our great disadvantage and discredit; more so when you bring out a whole new bill at the last moment, for no one is smart enough to write a bill in that way.

But any bill is better than no bill. [Laughter.] Get that. There is just one thing worse: No bill; that is the worst thing of all. The one thing that we ought to remedy as quickly as possible is the uncertainty that seems to make business jittery. Everybody knows we are going to have a wage and hour bill; so, the sooner we pass one the better off business is going to be, because it will remove the uncertainty; and it will not be removed until we do pass some bill.

If you let it go over until another session, we extend that uncertainty.

I want to call the attention of the Members of the House to an amendment which can be applied equally well to any bill we may finally bring up for passage. It will be presented by its author, a new Member of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BARDEN]. The amendment provides for a gradual increase of substandard wages, and I call it to the attention of the Members of the House who believe they are getting the worst of something It will solve the entire question of differentials, both for the North and for the South, to the great advantage of employees and employers and the people generally in the whole United States.

The bill we took a way from the Rules Committee is the only one of the four that should be considered here. I am against the Johnson-Wheeler child-labor provision because it is wrong in conception and should not be considered as a part of a bill that is supposed to prevent child labor in America. When the time comes for presentation here there will be no difficulty, I think, in convincing the House of that fact.

I call attention to the fact that those who object to this bill for one reason or another invariably fail to specify just what they are for. When you are put on the spot, you will not hesitate. You will say you are for a wage and hour

[PAGE 1493]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1494]

bill or you are not, one of the two. Then you can go home and explain it to your constituents, which you have a perfect right to do. I do not criticize a man for having an opinion and expressing it. It is the man who fails and refuses to do that whom I criticize. Those people are like the Arkansas traveler and the leaky roof. It was raining very hard and someone asked him why he did not fix the leaky roof. He replied, "When it rains you cannot do it and when it does not rain you do not need it."

My friend here from Michigan, who astounded me by his reasoning, brought out the idea that this is no time to do it. Well, if we were getting along fine, of course, he would be perfectly well justified in saying that was not the time to do it. It is just a case of the Arkansas traveler moving over to Michigan.

Those who object to a necessary means of enforcement ought to know that a law does not enforce itself, more especially the new laws which apply to the new philosophy of life in this world of ours. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOBBSJ.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, the pending bill should be entitled, "A bill to enslave labor, to increase unemployment, to reduce the number of jobs, to multiply the evils of 'technocracy,' to level wages downward, penalizing the skilled for the benefit of the unskilled, the energetic for the lazy, to kill all labor unions and collective bargaining, to shut down all business and industries competing with the tariff-protected and freight-rate-favored East, to drive western and southern businessmen and industrialists back between the plow handles—looking at the east end of a west-bound mule." [Applause·.]

These are the ill-concealed purposes of the proposed legislation.

The proponents of this measure would set up here a despotism—above and beyond the control of the President or the courts—having autocratic power over both capital and labor.

Of course, they say that many groups such as farm labor have been expressly exempted from the operation of the act. But the underlying purpose is made clear by the fact that originally, when the bill was first drawn by the "brain trust" and handed Congress for enactment, there were no such exemptions. The adverse reaction to the bill made it necessary for the proponents to trade with group after group, giving them each, successively, exemption in exchange for support. So that now what was at first a monstrosity has been reduced to something less grotesque only by comparison, when out of the possible 60,000,000 workers whom it was claimed to benefit, 58,000,000 have been exempted. All they are asking now is to be permitted to put the camel's head under the tent—later they will see to it that his whole body comes in.

After all is said and done, under our American system, business and industry must make a profit, or else cease. So, aside from all the other aspects of the problem, it is absurd to legislate a "floor" for wages and a "ceiling" for hours, wholly without regard or reference to what the business traffic will bear. [Applause.]

One of the favorite arguments in support of this bill is that its enactment will infuse purchasing power into the masses of underpaid labor. If this were one of the purposes of the bill, or if the proponents really believed their argument, why did they exempt the largest, most grossly underpaid, and longest-working group in America-the laborers on our farms?

Why do they exempt domestic servants? The next largest group? The answer to these questions is perfectly and instantly clear. The allegation of increasing the purchasing power of the masses of underpaid labor is but a sham and catch phrase to cover the cunningly hidden purposes of this bill. The American people love freedom and insist upon personal liberty. Our forefathers came to this continent to escape tyranny. Domestic servants and farm laborers and their employers do not desire and will not stand for such interference with their constitutional rights and liberties, nor for autocratic control over their personal, individual, private affairs.

Employers everywhere recognize the fact that the higher the wages which can be paid, the better off everyone will be for, of course, an increase in wages increases buying power of the consuming masses. Therefore, in this enlightened age all of us have come fully to recognize the truth that essentially we are all in the same boat and have a common interest in maintaining the highest possible standard of living for all. This is demonstrated in every section of our great Nation. Wherever it is possible to make a. sufficient profit out of any enterprise to enable it to survive and pay a reasonable return upon the invested capital, you will find that enterprise paying much more in wages than the proposed minimum.

Of course, the farmers have to buy practically everything they purchase in a "protected" market—from the beneficiaries of the tariff—which insreases the cost of their purchases some 45 percent on the average. The farmers have no tariff for their protection and so must sell their products in a free market. Preferential freight rates for the same tariff-favored class further discriminate against the farmers of the Nation by an average of some 39 percent. As a result of these twin frauds—high tariffs and low freight rates—the average income of the American farmer is less than: half of the average income of the man in the favored class. [Applause.]

How can the cotton farmer in Alabama, for instance, whose average annual income from cotton—his major crop— is only $200, pay a decent living wage to any employee? The same thing is true in other lines of business. There is no sense in requiring the impossible. Wipe out the unjust discrimination and you will find that wages will rise and hours be shortened without coercion of any kind, much less the kind proposed in this bill.

The platform of the Democratic Party adopted at Philadelphia in 1936 is invoked as authority for this infamy, but of all the arguments based upon this premise, not one has dared quote the words of the platform on this subject. The platform indicates cooperation with the sovereign States, not destruction of their sovereignty. Neither the party nor any Democrat is pledged by that platform to support any such vicious violation of the constitutional guaranties. [Applause.]

There is nothing in this or any other platform of the Democratic Party which pledges the party to any such assault with intent to murder industry and enslave labor. [Applause.]

The unconstitutionality of this bill is frankly admitted by many of its supporters—it can hardly be denied. The onlY vestige of authority for even the asserted purpose of the bill is that giving Congress the right "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." Nothing is further from the minds of the proponents of this bill than to limit its operation to a bona fide regulation of interstate commerce. The real purpose of this bill is to take the first step toward the complete regulation of all wages and hours. It is a product of that type of insanity known as paranoia, of which the inflated ego is the major symptom. This bill is an evidence of the Messianic complex. Its proponents pretend to believe that one man or a board in Washington will be so omniscient as to regulate equitably everything within the practically unlimited power granted. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Schechter case has already, by analogy, condemned this bill in most of its aspects as being unconstitutional and void. The later cases involving the question of the constitutionality of the Wagner Labor Relations Act do not militate against the conclusion announced in the Schechter decision, nor qualify it. There is granted in the Constitution no such

[PAGE 1494]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1495]

power as that which this bill seeks to exercise. Our oath binds us to uphold the Constitution. [Applause.] The Nation is safe only if we do. [Applause.]

God of our fathers, known of old,

Lord of our far-flung battle-line,

Beneath whose awful Hand we hold

Dominion over palm and pine—

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose

Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,

Such boastings as the Gentiles use,

Or lesser breeds without the Law—

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Eight score and one "years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" So spoke the great-hearted Lincoln in dedicating the field upon which was fought the decisive battle of the War between the states.

The Battle of Gettysburg was fought by men in uniform, thousands of whom were killed in the slaughter of those 3 bleeding days.

Today, as representatives of the sons of the sixties we meet again on a great battlefield of another war between the States. We are not in uniform. This "Big Bertha"— the wage and hour bill—aims to destroy the foundations of our Government and of our economic structure, rather than quickly kill those on the other side. As one of the issues decided by the then arbitrament of war was slavery, so slavery is one of the issues to be decided by the outcome of this war. Then the slavery of the colored man was destroyed, once and for all time, thank God. Now, by this bill, it is proposed to enslave all labor without regard to race, color, previous condition of servitude, their constitutional rights, or our oath of office. No matter whether by an oligarchy in the guise of a Labor Standards Board or by a king called an administrator, this bill proposes to set up an absolute despotism over the lives and liberties of the working men and women of this Nation.

Of course, it may be contended that the despotism thus sought to be enthroned will be benevolent—that the purpose is to benefit those over whom it is to exercise its dominion. But such a contention evidences a complete forgetfulness of the bitter lessons of history. What tyranny has ever been established which did not proclaim itself benevolent? Does not every dictator shout himself hoarse in protestations of friendship for the masses, while his chains are being shackled on their necks?

But even if it could be thought that the first dictator or dictators to assume the powers conferred by either of the committee bills, would be partial to labor, what of the successors? Who can give any assurance that the pendulum may not swing to the other extreme in the next administration, or the next, or the next? Once rights are surrendered, they are gone.

The moving finger writes; and having writ,

Moves on: nor all your piety nor wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line

Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

The conclusion of the excellent analysis prepared and submitted to us by the American Federation of Labor dealing with the bill wh1ch the Labor Committee of the House is submitting as a substitute for the Black-Cannery bill is challenging, and I beg your careful attention as I quote it:

PART III—CONCLUSION

All the objections which exist against the administration of the act by a board, and all the dangers inherent therein, exist in aggravated form under the set-up of the Administrator; this for the reason that in the case of the board there are five minds functioning of persons selected from different localities, and with a representative of labor thereon. The principle of checks and balances therefore may apply in the case of the board, but not in the case of one administrator. If the board is dangerous, even under such circumstances, and unacceptable, certainly the Administrator is even more dangerous and should be rejected.

In the proposed set-up of the Administrator, moreover, there is a spec1al provision that—

"The Administrator is authorized to administer all of the provisions of this act as otherwise specifically provided, and his determinations and labor standard orders shall not be subject to review by any other person or agency in the executive branch of the Government." This provision should be considered with the provision "The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law; and findings of fact by the Adminlstrator, when supported by evidence, shall be conclusive unless it shall appear that the findings of the Administrator are arbitrary or capricious."

These provisions apparently were intended to create an independence m the Administrator to reinforce his power and to make him immune from any reorganization bill or any other infiuence from the President or otherwise, and to make him subject to judicial review only under circumscribed conditions not involving his discretion. He therefore would have in his control the power to destroy entirely industrial organizations, communities, labor unions, collective-bargaining agencies, and determine the conditions under which these respective communities, organizations, and agencies shall function or shall live.

But this ignores many of the dangers to the cause of labor which are implicit in these bills.

It is certain that the enactment of any such bill will result in the closing of many plants, which, for various and sundry reasons, would be unable to survive any wage increase or decrease of hours. This would mean increased unemployment and the reduction of the nuinber of jobs, which, while not attractive, yet now provide a living, such as it is, for many of our fellow citizens.

Another inevitable result would be to penalize the skilled for the benefit of the unskilled, by a general leveling down of the wages of the skilled to meet the necessity created by the increase of the lowest wages caused by the minimum wage requirement. The experience with just such measures, not only ancient but also in very modern history; proves the truth of this assertion. The skilled workers in Russia, Italy, and Germany today bear mute testimony that this byproduct cannot be avoided, and that the average of all wages is not raised by fiXing a minimum.

Another effect which would surely follow would be the stimulation of the trend toward mechanization of industry. Machines would still further add to the number of the unemployed. Thus the evils of technocracy would be multiplied.

But over and above all these dire consequences would come, as certain as night follows day, the abolition of the principle of collective bargaining and the doom of all organizations which exist for the benefit of labor. Labor's cause in every case, if any such bill should become law, must be submitted to political despotism for determination—no amount of pleading by its own chosen spokesmen could change the edict of the dictator. His decrees would be governed only by the political complexion of the administration under which he might be serving.

The issue here to be decided is of transcendent importance. It includes questions like these: Shall one favored section further enrich itself by impoverishing the other three-fourths of the Nation? Shall human slavery be reestablished in the United States? Shall we attempt to legalize robbery? Shall we ignore our oath of office and try to trample the Constitution and the sovereignty of the States into the mire of overweening selfishness? [Applause.]

Whatever ma be the fate of this bill, my hope, my prayer, is that a majonty of us will join in saying to the proponents—paraphrasing the words of the Great Commoner—You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify the body of our freedom upon a cross of greed. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HOFFMAN].

Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the reasoning of the gentleman from Illinois is always interesting to follow. The gentleman made the statement that any bill is better than no bill at all.

[PAGE 1495]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1496]

If we apply the same thought, follow the idea to its conclusion, we are given to understand that the fires of hell are better than no fire at all.

There may be one reason why this bill shoUld receive the support of the administration.

If it be true that the campaign contribution of more than $600,000 of John L. Lewis and his affiliated unions to the reelection of the President was based upon a justifiable understanding on the part of Lewis that when labor legislation was considered the debt was to be repaid, then those who follow the administration through thick and thin, hell and high water, should vote for this bill.

That Lewis has such understanding is very evident from his statement, made during the course of the sit-down strikes, when he said:

The administration asked labor to help it repel this attack and labor did help the President to repel the economic royalists. These same economic royalists now have their fangs in labor and labor expects the administration to support the automobile workers in every legal way in their fight.

Some thought the debt had been repaid by the action of the President's Governors-Murphy of Michigan and Earle of Pennsylvania—when they set at defiance the laws of the land and by force and arms drove honest toilers from their places of employment and deprived them of their means of making a livelihood.

It is evident that Lewis did not consider the debt fully paid. Notwithstanding this tremendous aid given to his cause by four departments of the Government and the activities of the head-hunting N. L. R. B. and the activities of the witch-burning Senate Civil Liberties Committee—and that aid contributed in no small measure to the success of the C. I. O. organizing campaign—he still later, when public opinion force a temporary lull in the C. I. O.'s and the Government's attack upon the American Federation of Labor, the independent worker, and industry, demanded his pound of flesh. He expressed that demand in no uncertain terms. He said:

It ill behooves one who has supped at labor's table and who has been sheltered in labor's house to curse with equal fervor and fine impartiality both labor and its adversaries when they become locked in a deadly embrace.

And here we are. And the pound of flesh is to be cut from the heart of American labor, even though free labor be bled to death.

A political debt is to be paid and, as usual, paid at the expense of the toiler, the man least able to make payment. Promises should be kept; but there comes to mind that statement of Shakespeare:

It is a great sin to swear unto a sin, but greater sin to keep a sinful oath.

Then, too, it sometimes happens that a Shylock demands overpayment; and like Shylock of old, Lewis now, demanding his pound of flesh, should be reminded that he does not represent all labor and that he does not even truly represent all of C. I. O.; that, as a matter of fact, he represents but a very small proportion of the 48,000,000 men who toil with their bands and earn their bread in the sweat of their faces.

Hence, with Portia, may we well say:

Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh,

But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed

One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods

Are by the laws of Venice confiscate

Unto the state of Venice.

If needs must, let Lewis have his pound of flesh, if he can get it without destroying the freedom of the worker; without forcing the farm hand to purchase the high-priced products of the well-paid factory worker, while themselves subject to unfair labor competition.

But demand that, in taking his pound of flesh, Lewis shall not deprive the isolated, independent, unorganized workers of their sources of employment and destroy the business of the small manufacturer.

Under a banner which bears the legend, "An act to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes," as, in the farm bill which was advanced as an aid to the farmer, fraud and deception cover the granting to departments of the Government of arbitrary power which will destroy the opportunity and the freedom of the citizen, tend to create monopoly and tend, if I may use that emotion-stirring phrase of those who style themselves progressives, "to make the rich richer and the poor poorer."

There are two very good reasons why this bill should not be enacted. The first has been referred to. It is the centralization of power in the hands of a bureaucratic department. That method has been tried and it has been demonstrated that it not only results in the destruction of the freedom of the citizen, but brings disaster to enterprise and creates strife and unemployment.

Speaking of the centralization of power here in Washington, the President said:

In the hands of a people's government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of polltical puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.

Since those words were uttered, we have had a demonstration that those powers centered in Washington have fallen into the hands of "political puppets," and that the liberties of the people are being destroyed by those who wield these powers.

I need not quote those unfriendly to the administration. Let me produce the evidence from the administration's friends and former friends.

It has been the proud boast made on the floor of this Chamber by the administration's supporters that labor was a unit behind this administration. Yet the activities of the National Labor Relations Board have been such that the American Federation of Labor has denounced it as the mouthpiece of the C. I. O. and John L. Lewis.

And Lewis, if last night's Washington papers be correct, charges it with having altered some of its findings made in favor of the A. F. of L. because of criticism by the A. F. of L.

On December 7 Gov. Charles H. Martin, of Oregon, moving to end the 118-day tie-up of the Portland lumber industry growing out of a decision by the N. L. R. B. in favor of the C. L O., pledged himself to end the threat of "gangsterism" in Oregon, and demanded that the "damned Labor Relations Act should be thrown off the books" or "if that can't be done, it ought to be drastically amended."

The activities of the N. L. R. B. in Oregon have brought to that State the distinction of having an employer, the Inman-Paulsen Co., picketed by both the American Federation of Labor and the C. I. O.

The Governor said:

Homes of workers have been stoned, men slugged and beaten, women and children have been threatened and intimidated by the hired thugs and gun squads that have taken part in the unholy and unnecessary warfare. The people of this State w1ll no longer tolerate the implications of anarchy and disregard for law and order.

The N. L. R. B. has acted so arbitrarily, so unfairly, it has persecuted those who furnished employment so viciously and so continuously that it has established a reign of terror throughout the land, until, like a blinding, choking dust storm, it has stifled all business enterprise.

It has lost the confidence of all the people. Because, acting with the Senate Civil Liberties Committee, it has improperly taken part in the organizing activities of the C. I. O., and because of its attack upon the American Federation of Labor, it has incurred the justifiable animosity of that organization.

When the record forced it to make a few decisions favoring the A. F. of L. and finding against the C. I. O., Lewis tunied on it and charged it with yielding to improper influences.

Like every individual or body which is guided by expediency rather than by principle, it finds itself without one true friend.

Even though the payment of the political debt be demanded, Lewis should not be permitted to kidnap labor, place it in the custody of the Secretary of Labor, Mme. Perkins, hold it to ransom until it pays initiation fees and dues, even

[PAGE 1496]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1497]

though a part of those fees find their way into the New Deal campaign fund.

It is laudable to attempt to provide a minimum wage and a maximum hour, but it is essential that in making the attempt we do not accomplish a result which will leave the worker in worse condition.

It is in motors, in steel, in General Electric that shorter hours and high wages prevail. Have you ever considered the reason? Executive ability, vast resources, mass production, high efficiency, turn-out, although wages be high, a greater quantity of goods at less cost than can otherwise be produced.

Do not make the mistake of believing that this result is accomplished because of the high wages. It is the combination of resources, executive ability, and a continuing improvement in production methods that enable the payment of a high wage.

The establishment of a 40-cent rate, of a maximum 40- hour working period, will in no way affect steel, General Motors, General Electric, or any other large concern. It will, if the bill will do what its supporters claim, affect every small manufacturer, every worker in small city, village, and on the farm.

The inevitable result will be this: A tendency always to establish mass production and to drive labor into massproduction centers, with the consequent destruction of the small business enterprise, the loss of employment in the smaller communities; the inevitable creation of a monopoly.

We have heard complaint against mass production, against the chain stores, against big business. Yet those who have complained so bitterly are back of this bill, when, if they consider, they must realize that in the end its passage must work harm to the independent worker, to the man who toils in the small factories, to the store owner; in fact, to all of those who are not employed in the great industrial centers; and that it will add to the wealth of the Sloans, the Girdlers, the Motts, the Fords, whom they so roundly denounce.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts [Mrs. ROGERS].

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in rising today may I say I have no bitterness of feeling for the South. Many of my best friends are southern Members, or I at least hope they are, and I feel friendly toward them. Some of the finest letters I have ever received in my life came from southern people.

I think when the southern Members make the statement they cannot compete with the same minimum all over the country they are being unfair to labor in other States. The labor of their own States has proved that they can compete with labor in every other part of the country. It is absurd to imply that the southern operators are not capable. In my own district I have the finest and most skilled labor of any section of the country. Of course; that has come from years of training. Even in the woolen industry the South is competing with the North and taking away our woolen industry due to the lower wages that it pays.

Mr. Chairman, I want to pay a tribute to the women of Lowell of 100 years ago. The picturesque Lucy Larcom, with her poems and her writings, did much to bring prestige and honor to Lowell women in industry. The gailant Sarah G. Bagley, who formed the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association, was the pioneer in labor reform activities. As long ago as 1845 she appeared before a legislative committee in the statehouse in Boston, petitioning for the establishment of a 10-hour day. Her efforts showed results. The first to really organize were the women of Lowell, afterward followed by the organization of the men. These women worked steadily for the betterment of women; their success made easier the task of the men workers in industry. The first cotton textile mill in this country was started at Lowell, the city which I have the honor to represent and the city where I live. Massachusetts had the first enforceable hour law for women and children, enacted in 1879. Massachusetts was the first State of the Union to have a minimum wage law. We have the best labor laws of our section of the country. What a step it has been from the 60 hours or more a week of the olden days to the 48-hour week of today. What a change has taken place in the actual working conditions in the mills themselves. All of this is for the good of the whole, and any piece of labor legislation which is fair to both sides—the employer and the employee—will always have the support of Massachusetts. Those of us who come from that great Commonwealth know that our workers are the best paid, most skilled, and most loyal of any section of this country. They know that many other sections of the country have got to go a long ways to match the labor laws of Massachusetts, to protect the workers as do the laws of our Commonwealth. In maintaining these fair conditions some of our industries have been beguiled away by inducements of lower wages and longer hours. If the industries had the same minimum wage all over the country, I believe it would be of great advantage to Massachusetts. We would then be competing on fair terms.

Mr. Chairman, I am definitely and unalterably opposed to wage differentials. Our workers should be treated the same in all sections of the country. I favor the bill which will give our workers an even chance with the workers of other sections of the country. I cannot see why the South, with its natural advantages of raw materials, should be given the added advantage of lower wages. I plead with all of you, those of the South and those of the North. May I tell the southern Members, who go back to years ago, that my forebears, too, lost everything they had in the Civil War. We knew what suffering was as the result of that war.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an even chance for our people. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, when the general debate on this measure is completed the chairman of the Committee on Labor will offer a committee print as an amendment, after the reading of the first section of this reported Senate bill. I presume somebody will then offer the American Federation of Labor bill as a substitute for the chairman's amendment. The parliamentary procedure then, as I understand it, will be to proceed by perfecting amendments to perfect the two confiicting versions of this bill, and then vote as between those two. After one of them is voted down, then another substitute may be offered, and so we will proceed until we finish the consideration of this bill.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman Yield?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I am sorry, I do not have the time.

I want to direct my discussion in the few minutes I have to two measures which I believe will be before the Committee during such parliamentary procedure. First, there will be the committee substitute, as I shall call it, changing the administration of this bill from an independent agency, a five-man board appointed by the President, to an administrator in the Department of Labor. If you will read carefully the committee substitute, you will find the real power lies not in the administrator but in the so-called wage and hour committees which he appoints for each industry where he believes it is necessary to have wage and hour orders.

In Senate Document 65 of the Seventy-fourth Congress you will find, beginning on page 6, a discussion by the Supreme Court of the question of delegation of legislative power; and from page 10 I want to quote this language from the decision of Chief Justice Hughes in referring to code authorities:

Could trade or industrial associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for that purpose because such associations or groups are familiar with the problems of their enterprises? And could an effort of that sort be made valid by such a preface of generalities as to permissible aims as we find in section 1 of title I? The answer is obvious. Such a delegation of legislative power is unknown to our law and is utterly inconsistent with the constitutional preroatives and duties of Congress.

[PAGE 1497]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1498]

The question, then, turns upon the authority which section 3 of the Recovery Act vests in the President to approve or prescribe. If the codes have standing as penal statutes, this must be due to the effect of the Executive action. But Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered ciiscretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable for the rehabilitation and expansion of trade or industry. (See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, supra, and cases there reviewed.)

I believe if you will read this Senate document, and especially the section dealing with delegation of legislative power, you will come to the conclusion I have reached, that the delegation of power to the wage and hour committees set up under the new draft of this legislation goes beyond any power which Congress has to delegate its duties to a body not connected with the Government. [Applause.]

I have other objections to this version, and I regret I cannot go along with the majority of my own conimittee, who have adopted this substitute.

Coming back to the question of the American Federation of Labor bill, which purposes to set up a rigid minimum wage of 40 cents an hour and a rigid maximum of hours at 40 per week, or an absolute minimum of $16 per week; if you will read part I of the hearmgs before the joint committees of the Senate and the House on this bill you will find on page 20 of the hearings that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KELLER] asked the following question of Mr. Robert Jackson, Assistant Attorney General, who presented the legal phases of this matter to the committee and helped draft this bill:

Representative KELLER. It would require very considerable time, would it not, for this board to set the different minimums for the various divisions of our industries?

Mr. JACKSON. I suppose it would take some time. I would not know just what time it would take, but it would take time, of course.

Representative KELLER. Why not set some such minimum wage in this bill which would act as a minimum until a fair minimum wage could be established by the board?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, if you did that you would run the risk of setting a minimum which would be in some particular case a great hardship, and of having your right to fix a minimum tested in the courts under its most unfavorable aspect as a violation of due process.

It is my contention and my belief that under the supposed A. F. of L. bill you would fix a minimum wage of a rigid $16 per week, and some employer would take the case to court and would prove you had imposed upon him the obligation and the duty of paying a wage without any regard whatsoever to the value of the services rendered. You would find some hardship case where it could be proved that the services were not worth $16 a week, and the Supreme Court would necessarily have to invalidate your statute under the due process clause of our Constitution.

For that reason I say to the members of the committee that I hope when this matter is considered we may go back to the bill with the five-man provision, which was carefully considered both by the Senate committee and the House committee, passed by the Senate, adopted by the House committe, and reported to this body last August. It gives every possible consideration any employer might desire to every phase of this matter. It gives hearings back home, where the little employer and his employees may be heard without having to bring employers, employees, their representatives, and their lawyers to Washington at great expense. It gives consideration to differentials, not to geographical differentials but to differentials based upon facts. There could be differentials in the same city, in the same county, and in the same State if the facts warranted the board in fixing a different wage because of different conditions. It is my conception of the type of law we ought to have, it is my conception of what the President asked us to pass, it is a bill which takes into consideration the different conditions in different sections of our country, a bill which would gradually approach the ideal the President discussed in his message. If you will read the President's message, you will find he has no thought at this time of any rigid minimum of 40 cents an hour or a rigid 40-hour week and specifically so stated; and he reiterated it in his message at the opening of this session of Congress.

. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Yes: I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Will the gentleman explain where the line of demarcation is between the delegation of power to an administrator under the Labor Department and to the board as set up under the other proposal?

Mr. RAMSPECK. There is quite a difference, I may say to the gentleman, between delegating power to an independent agency of the Government and delegating power to a voluntary wage and hour committee composed of employers and employees, who may be fixing wages and hours for their own competitors. The courts have gone much farther, I may say to the gentleman from Indiana, as he knows, being a good lawyer, in upholding the delegation of power to independent commissions like the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and others of that type, than they have ever gone in upholding delegations of power in other instances.

Mr. GRISWOLD. It is true they held invalid the delegation of power to the code authorities under the N. R. A. is it not?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Yes; they certainly did, and I think for the very sound reason that there we were delegating power to code authorities, not to an agency of the Government. We did not have the power lodged where it ought to have been, and we did not place proper limits or directions in the act.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated on a previous occasion, I am not an advocate of wage and hour legislation. If I could have my way about this subject, I would like to see all of the employers of our Nation say to their employees, "We will meet at the conference table with your chosen representatives and settle problems of hours, wages, and working conditions by mutual consultation and agreement."

If all employers had accepted the Supreme Court decision in the National Labor Relations cases with a desire to make the National Labor Relations Act succeed, I feel sure that we would have had no demand for this legislation.

All laws are made to control a minority, a small percentage of our population which acts in a selfish manner and refuses to do that which we know is best for all of us.

It is my belief that a large majority of the employers of our country do not wish to exploit labor; that they want to pay adequate wages and maintain reasonable hours. They are in competition with the minority, to whom I have referred. This unfair competition from the chiselers eventually drives down the wages and lengthens the hours in commerce and industry.

Under the N. R. A. we made great progress toward more adequate wages and more reasonable hours. The minority was forced into line for the time being. Since that act was invalidated we have seen a gradual trend toward lower wages and longer hours on the part of this minority. From this trend has come the demand once more for action by the Government.

While I would prefer to see this matter handled by mutual agreement between employers and their employees, I have expressed a willingness to support legislation of this type, provided, when the vote on final passage is reached, the form of the legislation appears to me to be reasonable and fair to management, to labor, and to the consumers.

Before going into a discussion of the contents of the proposal let us review the history of this suggestion.

In May of this year the President sent a message to Congress asking consideration of this subject. In discussing the matter he called attention to the fact that businessmen could not act unanimously because they had no machinery for agreeing among themselves and for the further reason that they had "no power to bind the inevitable minority of chiselers within their own ranks."

Later in his message the President said:

A self-supporting and self-respecting democracy can plead no justification for the existence of child labor, no economic reason for chiseling workers' wages or stretching workers' hours.

[PAGE 1498]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1499]

In another paragraph the President said:

Even in the treatment of national problems there are geographical and industrial diversities which practical statesmanship cannot wholly ignore. Backward labor conditions and relatively progressive labor conditions cannot be completely assimilated and made uniform at one fell swoop without creating economic dislocations.

It will be observed therefore that the President had in mind a gradual adjustment of existing conditions and that he was moving against the chiselers.

The Senate and House Labor Committees in joint sessions held public hearings on this subject for 3 weeks, meeting both mornings and afternoons. Full opportunity was given for everyone to be heard. These hearings covered the entire field. We heard from employers, organizations of employees, trade associations, economists, and many others.

After the hearings ended both committees, acting separately, gave days and days of careful consideration to the matter. The Senate acted first, due in part to the unfortunate death of our beloved friend, the chairman of the House committee, the late Representative William P. Connery, Jr.

With our new chairman [Mrs. MARY NORTON] presiding, the House committee resumed its consideration, and while that was in progress the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 2 to 1. Then our committee made numerous amendments to the Senate bill and reported it to the House early in August. A rule was applied for but never granted. From time to time since then the committee has given the matter further careful consideration.

It has been charged that the matter has not had sufficient consideration. Does anyone contend that the delay from August to the present time has made this proposal any more agreeable to those who oppose it? I think not. In fact, the changes made recently are no less objectionable to business and organized labor and are more objectionable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I am not in agreement with the action of the committee in proposing an administrator in the Department of Labor in lieu of the five-man board proposed in the bill as originally reported.

The five-man board would be appointed from five sections of the country, thus giving representation to all sections. It would have lodged in it the real power which the bill contained to regulate minimum wages and maximum hours. That power would be in this semijudicial board, an independent agency of our Government.

Under the new proposal the real power is vested in wage and hour committees not a part of the Government. That is delegating legislative power to a nongovernmental agency. In my opinion it goes beyond the power given to code authorities under the N. R. A., and the Supreme Court held such delegation of power to be beyond the authority of Congress.

In the bill as reported last August the board was required to hold hearings at points as near as practicable to the principal place of business of the employer. That insured an opportunity for hearing to small employers and their empJoyees. The new plan provides for hearings in Washington only.

We now have two examples of the mistake of placing regulatory agencies under a Department without giving that Department authority over such agencies. I refer to the Bituminous Coal Commission and the Housing Administrator under the Department of the Interior. I am reliably informed that in both cases friction has arisen.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this new proposal. It makes no provision which insures proper consideration for the differences that exist in various sections of our country. It would'require employers and representatives of their employees to incur the expense of coming to Washington for hearings. It empowers wage and hour committees to call witnesses and to delve into the records and affairs of employers and of organizations of employees. Remember that these committees are not public officials, but on the contrary might be competitors of those whom they can investigate under this plan.

IS THIS DIRECTED AT THE SOUTH?

Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues make the charge that this proposed legislation is directed at the South. I find nothing to substantiate that attack. They first said it was hatched in the brain of radical organized-labor leaders. When it developed that organized labor was not enthusiastic about the bill, they shifted their attack and placed the blame on eastern employers. When these employers came out against the bill, they charged that some sinister intellectuals with red leanings were the dark, deep plotters against our section of the country. They appear to be satisfied with conditions as they are in the South. I am not. They claim that it costs less to live in our warmer climate and therefore our workers should get less. They claim that our workers are less productive and therefore should work longer hours. They say we do not have modern machinery and therefore cannot compete with the highly mechanized industry of other sections. Let us see what provision the bill makes for the consideration of such facts, if they should exist.

First, take the cost of living. If it costs less to live in the South, the bill provides that in fixing wages such fact shall be taken into consideration. If it actually costs less to live in the South, why should all of this advantage go to the employer? Is not the worker entitled to be paid a like amount if he produces as much as his brother in other sections? I think so. If it costs less to live, it also costs the employer less to live in the South.

I am not at all sure, however, that the cost of living is less in the South, at least in the larger cities of the South. If you will examine the figures below, gathered in a survey of living costs in 59 cities throughout the country, you will see that in some cases costs are actually less in other sections.

Cost of living per year, 4-person manual worker's family, 59 cities, March 1935¹

Includes sales tax where levied.

If our workers are less productive, I secured an amendment in the committee providing that in fixing wages the unit cost of production shall be considered. If this charge is correct, it means that the unit cost will be higher in the South. This same amendment will also require consideration of the higher costs claimed in our section due to less machinery or more obsolete machinery.

The bill also requires that consideration be given to workers who may be old or otherwise laboring under handicaps. If it is promptly administered, it cannot do injustice to any section.

IS THE SOUTH SATISFIED WlTH PRESENT CONDITIONS?

Those who profit from the low incomes on the farms and among the industrial workers of the South may be satisfied; but those who know the facts and are not profiting therefrom are not content. Some of us would like to see our people lifted up to a point nearer an equality with other sections in purchasing power.

[PAGE 1499]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1500]

In a speech delivered before the Institute of Public Affairs of the University of Georgia last year David E. Lilienthal said:

The average spendable income per capita in 1935 1n the 10 Southern States, according to the best available data, was $279. In Georgia in 1935 the average spendable income for each person 1n the State was $299, rising from as low as $155 in 1932. Now compare $299 with the national average in 1935 of $513, with $881 for New York State, $732 for California, $637 for lllinois, $515 for Ohio. Georgia, which ranks twentieth in area among the States and fourteenth in population, was fortieth in spendable income among the 48 States.

Again in the same address Mr. Lilienthal said:

In the 10 States which we usually refer to as the South—Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, North and South Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana—about 20 percent of the people of the Nation live. In these same States there is about 11 percent of the national purchasing power, measured by retail sales in 1929. With 20 percent of the population and 11 percent of the purchasing power, the South packs only 2 percent of the Nation's meat, it makes about 8 percent of the food products, only about 2 percent of the Nation's clothing, and only about 3 percent of its agricultural machinery. These figures give one something of an idea of the real opportunity there is for industrial growth in this region, simply by the process of the South's supplying a reasonable percentage of some of its own needs.

If, as those from my section who oppose any change, allege, we have superior climate and more natural advantages than have other sections, then something is wrong with the methods we have been using in the South. How can anyone be satisfied with the results we have secured?

FREIGHT RATES IN THE SOUTH

It is true that the South suffers from the fact that our Nation has no national system of charges for transportation. The system under which we operate penalizes the South and gives an advantage to the East: The class and commodify rates from the South average 39 percent higher than those from the East. But the average against Western Trunk Line, Southwestern and Mountain Pacific territories is even higher. I want to see these freight charges corrected, and have introduced legislation for that purpose. I believe that Representatives of other sections will join me in that effort and I further believe that the South can make a stronger case in that matter if we show a willingness to have fairly considered the wage and hour conditions existing in our section. This bill requires consideration of transportation charges.

AMENDMENTS

Mr. Chairman, when the bill is read for amendment, I expect to make an effort to secure certain changes which I believe will improve it.

I would like to strike from the bill section 8, which deals with purely intrastate operations. It was my observation that the effort under the N. R. A. to include purely local activities led to much difficulty and finally to invalidation by the Supreme Court.

I would also like to amend section 10 to provide that the bill could apply only in cases where upon complaint it was found that an employer, because of low wages, long hours, or both, was securing an advantage over competitors and was, therefore, engaged in unfair competition in interstate commerce. I do not believe that we have the constitutional authority to prescribe wages for the purpose of raising purchasing power, but I do believe that we can protect interstate commerce from unfair competition due to low wages —and long hours-wages and hours that constitute chiseling.

I would also like to see section 14 stricken from the bill or at least modified. As it stands now it would be an expensive burden upon those to whom it applies. Business is already burdened with the cost of keeping records for State and national governmental agencies. The last provision of subsection A of this section should never have been placed in the bill.

I would also be glad to see the right of review placed in the district courts of the United States rather than in the circuit courts. The district courts are far more accessible to those to whom the law will apply and will afford adequate protection to the interests of the Government and its administrative officials.

SETTLE THIS MATTER NOW

Mr. Chairman, oponents of this legislation will make an effort to recommit the bill to the Labor Committee. They will say that the matter needs further consideration. They say we should have further hearings. By this method they hope to kill the proposal for all time. I would prefer to see final action now. Let us vote it up—or down—as our judgment dictates. Further delay cannot contribute anything to a proper solution of the problem.

If the bill is sent back to the Labor Committee, the employers of our country will remain in a state of uncertainty. They will not be able to plan ahead, they will be in doubt as to the costs of their operations. We could do nothing worse, in my opinion, at this particular moment.

Today we see the volume of business declining. We know that many factories are operating on short schedules. The owners tell us that they could do better if they knew what to expect of the future. Then they could plan with certainty. Let us tell them what to expect. Let them know whether or not we will have this legislation—now.

If we will do this and early in the next session give prompt attention to the matter of taxes, business can get over its fears. It will be relieved of its uncertainties and I feel sure we shall see a revival of commercial and industrial activity.

WHAT ABOUT THE FARMERS?

The opposition has charged that this bill will hurt the farmers, that it will increase the cost of what they buy. That may be true, but I doubt it. I have already shown that in the South we import much of what we need in the way of machinery, clothing, and food products. We are already paying to other sections the cost of wages much higher than the maximum which this legislation permits.

I would not take the chance of making less bearable the lot of the farmers of the South. They are already in desperate condition as to income.

In 1929, according to the Brookings Institution, in the 11 States of the South, the income of the farm population was below $200, the average for this group of States being $157. In that year the farmers of South Carolina had the lowest income, it being $126 per capita; Alabama was $138 and Georgia, $146. With such deplorable conditiofls existing in the boom year of 1929, I shudder to think what their situation was in 1932.

I believe that with increased purchasing power among the industrial and commercial workers of the South, our farmers will benefit.

MAKE THE BILL REASONABLE

It is my hope that the membership of the House will join those of us who feel that we can support only a reasonable bill, one that follows the suggestion of the President that we approach the ideals of better labor standards of gradual adjustments, one that makes allowances for the existing differences in various sections; a bill limited to that small minority of employers who deliberately engage in unfair competition at the expense of those who toil.

Under the authority given me by unanimous consent I append hereto excerpts from the testimony of the Honorable R. H. Jackson, Assistant Attorney General, the same being taken from his testimony delivered before the Senate and House Committees on Labor on June 2, 1937:

Different judicial theories of the commerce power which this b11l invokes may be classified as follows:

1. There is the power directly to regulate or prohibit movement across State lines of goods deemed for any reason to offend against sound national policy. This power has been applied in many cases and denied in but one, the famous child labor case, to be discussed later. This bill invokes that power to regulate and prohibit by directly forbidding transportation of the products of the labor of children under 16 years of age, which ought not to be accepted ln any fair market, and products made under conditions where workers are denied the right of self-organization by fear of labor spies and where their right to strike and to enforce collective bargaining is rendered ineffective by the use of professional strikebreakers. Such use of espionage and of professional strikebreakers is both a provocation of violence and an excuse for it, and offends against our national policy.

[PAGE 1500]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1501]

2. Congress has the power to regulate competition in interstate commerce. It has exercised this power without question since the adoption of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 and again through the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. In the exercise of this power Congress has prohibited certain practices deemed injurious to competition in interstate commerce. It has prohibited many acts, in themselves local, by employers engaged in productive industry, but which tended to monopoly or to destroy competition. Under this power Congress has prohibited, under certain circumstances, the acquisition of the stock of one corporation by another. It has defined and prohibited unfair methods of competition. What, then, may be said of the employer who cuts wages, employs children, and sweats labor for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage in marketing his product in an interstate market? As pointed out by Prof. Thomas Reed Powell, of the Harvard Law School, and by other students of constitutional law, since Congress has the power to regulate conditions of competition as it has done through the antitrust acts, it may likewise prohibit the securing of a competitive advantage in interstate commerce through the adoption of oppressive and sweatshop labor conditions.

It will be noted that part IV of this bill proceeds upon this theory and its provisions may be sustained, without overruling the child-labor case. The factual basis for this view is that by prohibiting the use of substandard labor conditions by those who compete with employers who use fair labor standards, the great majority of employers who really desire to treat labor fairly are thereby protected against the unfair methods of competition of those who utilize sweatshop methods to gain a competitive advantage.

And since Congress may regulate the conditions of competition in interstate commerce, it may protect the fair employer ship ping in interstate commerce against the unfair competition of even his intrastate competitor under the doctrine of the Shreveport Rate Cases (234 U.S. 342), a case to which the SUpreme Court had occasion to allude with approval in the recent Wagner Act decision.

3. The power to regulate commerce includes the power to eliminate labor conditions which lead to labor disputes which will directly burden or obstruct commerce. (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin.) This power is invoked in ellminating excessive hours, inadequate pay, and child labor insofar as they tend to provoke such labor disputes.

4. The power to regulate commerce is held to include the power to prohibit transportation of goods into States in violation of the laws of such States and making such intrastate goods subject to such State laws. This doctrine is supported by the decisions involving prison-made goods (Kentucky Whip & Collar case, January 4, 1937, and Whitfield v. Ohio, 299 U.S. 431). This bill invokes this constitutional power by prohibiting consignment of goods into a State if produced under conditions that would have been unlawful within that State.

5. The power to regulate commerce has been held to include power to eliminate a condition which affects the movement of goods, the price of goods, or which causes undue price fluctuations in interstate commerce. This doctrine is set forth in the cases relating to the regulations of stockyards and grain exchanges (Olsen. Case, 262 U. S. 1; Staffard Case, 258 U. S. 495). This bill invokes this power by eliminating from interstate commerce goods produced by substandard labor conditions which affect interstate commerce in the manner stated.

6. The power to regulate interstate commerce has been held to include the power to regulate conduct intended to divert or substantially affect the movement of goods in interstate commerce. This is the doctrine of the Caronado Coal Case (268 U. S. 295). This bill invokes such power to regulate such substandard labor practices as are found to be the result of an intention to divert the movement of goods in interstate commerce.

• • • • •

As President Roosevelt has stated, "Even in the treatment of national problems there are geographical and industrlal diversities which practical statesmanship cannot wholly ignore." Portions of the bill relating to wages and hours would become operative as and when the Board created by the act orders their application. This bill does not plunge the Nation headlong into a rigid and widespread policy of regulating wages and hours. It permits the building up a body of experience and prevents the extension of regulation faster than capacity properly to administer is ac- quired. The investigations of the Board will also provide the evidence and the findings .upon which the Government can rest its argument if the constitutionality of the act is a.ssalled

• • • • •

STATE'S RIGHTS

In view of the frequent confusion on the subject it is due to those considering this bill to analyze the effect which it has upon the reserved powers of the States.

Let us assume each State as completely sovereign as a nation could be. No State would then have any right to send its goods into another State. Each State would have the right to stop all incoming goods at its border, to exclude any goods unfairly competing in its own market, or to lay a tariff on those admitted to equalize any advantage that the incoming goods had over its own producers. The exercise of this right by the Colonies threatened to disrupt commerce and to divide our people. The exercise by the several States of their own parochial and conflicting rules to protect their own markets was a powerful incentive to formation of our Government.

Each State therefore largely surrendered its sovereignty over incoming goods to the National Government. This was not intended to surrender the home market place to the under-cutting competitor States. The power was granted to the National Government that the rule of the market place should be fixed by a national policy for the common good.

A State may wish to meet advancing wealth of production with advancing standards of life for those who work in production. But it its own market place, as well as outside markets, are overrun with goods cheapened by child labor or sweated labor it has lost its power over its own working conditions. Is it confined then to appeals to its competitors for protection from such unfair competition? Its appeal is in law, as it is 1n common sense, to the Nation to which was given power to establish the rule by which goods should move among the States.

Mr. Justice Holmes, in his dissent in the child-labor case, demolished the whole argument that States' rights are impaired by such legislation as this, in the following language:

"The act does not meddle with anything belonging to the States. They may regulate their internal affairs and their domestic commerce as they like, but when they seek to send their products across the State line they are no longer within their rights. If there were no Constitution and no Congress their power to cross the line would depend upon their neighbors. Under the Constitution, such commerce belongs not to the States but to Congress to regulate. It may carry out its views of public policy, whatever indirect effect they may have upon the activities of the States. Instead of being encountered by a prohibitive tariff at her boundaries, the State encounters the public policy of the United States which it is for Congress to express. The public policy of the United States is shaped with a view to the benefit of the Nation as a whole."

Care has been taken to hold the pending bill to a good faith regulation of interstate commerce, and nothing more. Any State may use child labor or sweated labor for products of home consumption as much as it pleases so long as it does not divert or affect interstate commerce in so doing. The State may exploit youth in its internal affairs as far as its own conscience will permit, but it cannot dump its children into the Nation's markets to demoralize our national standards.

It has been suggested that the child-labor provisions should be embodied in separate legislation. It is not my function to advise as to policy, but we believe it would be more diffilcult to sustain separately than in company with the other substandard labor provisions.

All of the labor practices attacked by this bill are related. All are types of oppression utilized for the purpose of gaining unfair advantage in interstate commerce. One employer cuts wages, while another employs child labor, and still another employs sweatshop conditions, and all of these practices are a part of the vicious competition used in forcing down labor standards which it is appropriate to treat together in the regulation of interstate commerce. One of the constitutional bases of the pending bill is the principle announced in reference to the National Labor Relations Act, that prolific causes of strife which may have a serious effect upon interstate commerce may be prevented. It is obvious that this principle is applicable to wages, hours of employment, and the use of strikebreakers and spies, for those practices have been prolific causes of labor strife. It is not clear that child labor standing alone has been the cause of industrial strife, although it is clearly one of the elements of unfair labor competition.

One reason for the unfortunate decision of the Child Labor case was that the Court failed to perceive that the legislation was related to the regulation of interstate commerce but regarded it as merely a police regulation to accomplish a local social objective. The inclusion of child labor with the other prohibited practices in an undertaking to prohibit unfair interstate commerce and to foster American standards makes plain that the law in which it is included is a genuine exercise on a broad front of the power to regulate interstate commerce and gives the prohibition of child labor a strength that it would not have it standing alone.

• • • • • • •

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Even it the subject matter is within Federal power constitutional controversialists may claim that it violates the due process of law clause or illegally delegates congressional power.

Regulation of both wages and hours does not of itself violate due process, and is not necessarily "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious," where "there is reasonable relation to an object within the governmental authority (Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332; Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426).

Standards for determination of fair wages and reasonable working hours contained in the present bill are drawn with fairness to the employer. The standards are based on the value of the service rendered and the reasonableness of the period of working time considering the nature of the employment. Furthermore, fairness to all parties concerned and reasonable treatment of special cases are assured by the provisions of the bill which require the Board to grant exemptions from the wage and hour regulations as the need appears.

It is hard to see how employers who wish to maintain decent labor standards, or those who wish to see a better level of purchasing power in the masses of the people, can feel aggrieved at the general purposes and effects of this bill. Advancement of those objectives, State by State, each exposed to the competition of States which tarry has been the foundation of the employers'

[PAGE 1501]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1502]

most legitimate objection to labor legislation. He is so far from being injured by this bill that it may be his chief protection against undermining of his market by methods which his own standards forbid.

Neither in its general scope nor in its special treatment of particular cases can the bill be pronounced arbitrary. For fair labor standards are required to be maintained only to the extent necessary in order to accomplish the interstate-commerce purposes of the legislation-purposes which fall clearly under the regulatory power of the Congress under the commerce clause.

Due process is defined in respect of both Federal and State legislation in Nebbia v. New York (291 U. S. 502, 525):

"The fifth amendment, in the field of Federal activity, and the fourteenth, as respects State action, do not prohibit governmental regulation for the public welfare. They merely condition the exertion of the admitted power by securing that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent with due process. And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. It results that a regulation valid for one sort of business may be invalid for another sort, or for the same business under other circumstances, because the reasonableness of each regulation depends upon the relevant facts."

If regulation may be dependent on "relevant facts" there can be no objection to delegating power to an administrative or quasi judicial board to investigate, hear evidence, and decide those facts.

DELEGATION OF POWER UNDER THE PROPOSED FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

Nearly every legislative proposal dealing with complex economic conditions involves problems of delegation. For such a legislative proposal must meet the charge that it entrusts arbitrary discretion to an administrative agency, or else it must resist the attack that it puts industrial enterprise into a strait jacket and imposes a rigid and inflexible rule without regard to industrial and geographical diversities. The proposed fair labor standards bill has at one and the same time been criticized on both of these grounds. The inconsistency of the attack suggests that the draftsmen of the bill have at least sought to achieve a fair and constitutional balance between the practical requirement of workable flexibility and the legal requirement of adequate standards.

The bill contemplates that the Congress should write into the statute some definite figures to be used as a guide by the administrative agency in establishing a floor below which wages shall not be cut and a ceiling beyond which hours should not be stretched. Let us assume, for the sake of an example, that the Congress fixes 40 cents an hour as the basic minimum nonoppressive wage and 40 hours a week as the basic maximum workweek. That would be $16 for a 40-hour week or $800 for a year of 50 weeks. It wlll scarcely be questioned that in most sections of the country a worker with $800 a year will have no more than is necessary to provide a minimum standard of living to maintain himself and his family. (It is also to be noted that the Board cannot fix even a minimum fair wage which yields an annual income in excess of $1,200. That means that the Board cannot fix a wage in excess of 60 cents an hour for a worker employed 50 weeks a year. A higher hourly week may be fixed in occupations which do not give the worker full employment, but such hourly rate can in no case be in excess of 80 cents. It is clear that the bill protects only poorly paid workers who are not in position to protect themselves.)

In the Washington Minimum Wage case (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, October term, 1936, decided March 29, 1937) the Supreme Court held that the cost of living was a sufficient standard for purposes of the fourteenth amendment, even though no approximate figure was inserted in the statute for the guidance of the adminlstrative agency. Under the proposed bill not only is an approximate figure given to the administrative agency as a guide in fixing a minimum nonoppressive wage but that figure is not to be applied and may be revised downward, if the Board finds it necessary to avoid unreasonably curtailing the workers' opportunity for employment. The figure may be revised upward if the Board finds it possible without unreasonably curta111ng the opportunities for employment, but not above what may fairly be regarded as a mlnimum standard of living necessary for health and efficiency; i. e., substantially the same standard as was approved in the Washington Mlnimum Wage case.

The situation is similar with regard to the number of hours which the Congress may write into the bill as the basic nonoppressive workweek. Under the proposed bill not only is an approximate figure given to the Board as a guide in establishing a. nonoppressive maximum workweek, but the basic number of hours specified is not to be applied, and may be increased by the Board if the Board finds it necessary to avoid unreasonably curtailing the workers' earning power. The basic workweek may also be shortened by the Board if the Board finds it possible to do so without unreasonably curtailing the workers' earning power, but the Board may not so shorten the workweek beyond what it finds is required in the interest of the health, efficiency, and well-being of the workers. And in no event may a workweek be shortened below a fixed number of hours, say, 30 or 35, which it is contemplated shall be specified 1n the bill.

The minimum fair-wage standards and maimum workweek standards which the Board may apply to industries where the facilities for collective bargaining are not adequate or e1Iective are defined in section 5. These standards are patterned upon the standards used in the New York minimum fair-wage statute. While a bare majority of the Supreme Court refused to enforce that statute in Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo (298 U. S. 587) on the ground that the Court was bound by its decision in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (261 U. S. 525), and on the further ground that the Court had not been asked to overrule the Adkins decision, the Chief Justice and three of his colleagues, dissenting, were of the opinion that the New York statute's "provisions for careful and deliberate procedure" made the New York statute constitutional, even though the cost-of-living statute involved in the Adkins case might be regarded as unconstitutional. And there can be no doubt that a majority of the Court, having expressly overruled the Adkins case in the Washington Minimum Wage case, would today view the more carefully drawn New York statute as constitutional. There can be no doubt that the opinion of the Chief Justice in the Morehead case may today be accepted as the law of the land.

The signposts to guide the Board in determining a nonoppressive minimum wage and nonoppresstve maximum workweek, as well as a reasonable minimum wage and reasonable maximum workweek in any particular occupation, are much clearer and more distinct than those approved by the Court in the recent Washington Minimum Wage case. It is significant that the Court in that case attempted to draw no subtle distinction between the Adkins case, which dealt with a congressional enactment, and the Washington case, which dealt with a State statute, but expressly overruled the Adkins case.

A number of the provisions of the present bill give the Board power to make exemptions and qualifications necessary to make the act workable and effective. The purposes of these provisions are plainly stated, and the standards to govern their application are defined as definitely as the practical exigencies will allow. "The industries of this country," as Mr. Justice Cardozo has stated, "are too many and diverse to make it possible for Congress in respect of matters such as these, to legislate directly with adequate appreciation of varying conditions" (Schechter Pooltry Corporation v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 552).

Although the power to exempt, to except, or to qualify may not be left to the arbitrary discretion of the Board to exercise for purposes bearing no relation to legislatively defined policy, the Supreme Court has never nullified such administrative powers to relax the rigors of a rule of law when required to avoid injustice or unnecessary hardship. In invalidating the N. R. A. statute in the Schechter case, the Chief Justice was careful to point out that that statute did not "seek merely to endow • • • groups with privileges or immunities," but it involved "the coercive exercise of the law-making power" (Schechter Poultry Corporaticm v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 529). Both kinds of standards are employed in the act and both kinds of standards find their counterparts and analogies in State as well as Federal labor legislation. But a distinction must be drawn between those standards in the proposed bill which empower the Board to implement the general rules fixed by the Congress and those standards which permit the Board to relax the generality of the rules fixed by the Congress. A broader and wider discretion may be delegated in applying exemptions and exceptions than in applying the primary rule in regulation to be enforced (United States v. Shreveport Grain Co., 287 U. S. 77, 82, 85 (delegation of power to allow exemptions and tolerances under the Pure Food Act); Intermountain Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 476, 484, 486 (delegation of power to allow exceptions from long and short haul); Chemical Foundation v. United States, 272 U. S. 1, 12 (delegation of power to except from public sale requfrement); Heiner v. Diamcmd Alkali Co., 288 U. S. 502 (power to relax application of excess-profits tax); Hampton v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, 407 (delegation of power to make tar11I provisions effective)).

It is important to remember that the Supreme Court very rarely finds fault with a congressional delegation of power. There is nothing in the recent decisions of the Court which would justify the Congress in casting aside a half century of legislative experience in providing for the administrative handling of modern complexities too numerous and diverse to be subjected to a single and intlexible rule directly imposed by the Congress. There is, it should be remembered, no case where congressional delegation of power has been adjudged invalid where the delegation has been made to a permanent governmental, admin1strative commission, independent of the executive branch of the Government. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (293 U. S. 388) involved delegation directly to the Executive; the Schechter case involved not only theoretical delegation to the Executtve but practical delegation to substantially private code authorities. Insofar as the decision in Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (298 U. S. 238, 310-311) rested on the ground of faulty delegation, the vice lay in the delegation having been made not to an official or official body but "to private persons whose interests may be and often are adverse to the interests. of others in the same business."

Indeed, congressional delegations of power to official administrative agencies have been held invalid in only two cases: The Panama Refining Co. case and the Schechter case. In the Panama Refining Co. case the subject of the statutory prohibition, the transportation in interstate commerce of petroleum produced in violation of State law, was defined, but the delegation was held to be improper because the range of administrative discretion was not only unlimited, but wholly undefined (Panama Refining Co.

[PAGE 1502]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1503]

v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 415; Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 U. s. 495, 530). In the Schechter case, on the other hand, the Court was not disturbed so much by the range of discretion granted with respect to any particular subject matter, as it was by the fact that it could find no "adequate definition of the subject to which the codes were addressed." As the Chief Justice stated: "Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable for the rehabilitation and expansion of trade and industry" (295 U. S. at 537-538). The National Industrial Recovery Act had authorized the President to approve codes of fair competition for trade and industry without attempting to limit or define the subject matter of the codes. As Mr. Justice cardazo pointed out, such codes were not restricted, and were not (in the opinion of the Court) intended by the Congress to be restricted, to "the el1mination of business practices that would be characterized by general acceptation as oppressive or unfair" (295 U.S. 552). There is as a matter of fact nothing in either the opinion of Chief Justice Hughes or of that of Mr. Justice Cardozo which suggests that, if the Congress had restricted the subject matter of the codes to the labor provisions of the National Recovery Act instead of merely requiring that codes drafted for other undefined purposes should comply with such labor provisions, the Court would have considered the labor standards, vague as they were, fatally defective.

It must, of course, be borne in mind that the courts have never reqUired the same definiteness of a standard which is set forth for the guidance of an administrative agency and which cannot be enforced against the individual before it has been specifically implemented by the orders or regulations of the administrat1ve agency, as the courts have required of a standard which operates directly upon the rights of the individual and to which the individual must conform at his peril. A standard too vague to support a self-operating provision enforced by criminal liability (United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81) may well state a policy and purpose sufficiently definite to serve as an appropriate standard for the guidance of administrative action (Highland v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Co., 279 U. S. 253; Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U. S. 352, 368).

The Panama Refining Co. case and the Schechter case never purported to question the authority of numerous earlier cases which sustained congressional delegations of power to administrative agencies under extremely vague and general standards for the sole reason that the Court was convinced that in light of the nature and complexity of the subject matter of the legislation the prescription of a more detailed standard would be di!ficult or impractical.

(Cases in which the use of general expressions as a standard has been upheld as proper in view of the nature and character of the specific statute or provision involved, are Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U. S. 266, 385 (public convenience, interest, or necessity); Avent v. United States, 266 U. S. 127, and United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1 (in the public interest); Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153, 168, and Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. United States, 283 U. S. 35, 42 (certificates of public convenience and necessity); Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, 280 U. S. 420 (just and reasonable commissions); Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 (in their discretion deem expedient); Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. s. 470 (purity, quality, and fitness for consumption); Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177; Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 194; Laudsville Bridge Co. ·v. United. States, 242 U. S. 409 (unreasonable obstruction to navigation); Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32 (undesirable resident); McKinley v. United States, 249 U. S. S97 (war powers); United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506 (regulation of forest reserves).) (The leading decis1ons reflect the importance of practical considerations and the necessity for delegation as a means of administering the law, in determining how definite a standard set by Congress for the guidance of an administrative agency must be. Beginning with Wayman v. Southard (10 Wheat. 1), the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, adverted (pp. 34--35, 46- 47) to the need for fiex1billty in conforming the Federal practice to the judicial systems of the States in a statute delegating to the Federal judiciary power to alter the rules relating to process as the courts "in their discretion deem expedient" (p. 39). The statute upheld in Field v. Clark (143 U. s. 649) permitted the President to impose reciprocal duties on goods imported from countries which discriminated against American products, a function which could best be exercised by a governmental agency capable of prompt action after forming a judgment based upon changing conditions. The law sustained in Buttfield v. Stranahan (192 U.S. 470) authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to fix standards of purity, quality, and fitness for consumption with which imported tea must comply. The Court declared: "Congress legislated on the subject as far as was reasonably practicable, and from the necessities of the case was compelled to leave to executive officials the duty of bringing about the result pointed out by the statute. To deny the power of Congress to delegate such a duty would, in effect, amount but to declaring that the plenary power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce could not be efficaciously exerted" (192 U. S. at 496).

(In upholding the statute authorizing the Secretary of War to determine whether a bridge was an "unreasonable obstruction" to navigation, the Court in Union Bridge Co. v. United States (204 U. S. 364, 386) emphasized the fact: "• • • investigations by Congress as to each particular bridge alleged to constitute an unreasonable obstruction to free navigation and direct legislation covering each case separately would be impracticable in view of the vast and varied interests which reqUire national legislation from time to time." And the Court stated (204 U. S. at 387) that a denial of the rights of delegation .. would be 'to stop the wheels of government' and bring about confusion, if not paralysis, in the conduct of the public business."

(Sim1larly, in United States v. Grimaud (220 U. S. 506), the impracticabillty of having Congress proVide general regulations for each of the many different forest reservations was held to justify an authorization to the Secretary of Agriculture to "make such rules and regulations • • • as will insure the objects of such reservations." The Court said: "In the nature of things it was impract1cable for Congress to provide general regulations for these various and varying details of management. Each reservation had its pecul1ar and special features • • •" (220 U. S. at 516).

(Again, in upholding the provision of the Interstate Commerce Act which authorizes the Interstate Commerce Commission to make rules 1n case of car shortage. the Court declared in Avent v. United States (266 U. S. 127, 130): "• • • the requirement that the rules shall be reasonable and in the interest of the public and of commerce fixes the only standard that is practicable or needed." (See also Mutual Fum Corporatum v. Ohio Inclustrial Commission, 236 U. S. 230, 245; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 40; United States v. Chemical Fmmdation, 272 U. S. 1, 12.)

(The emphasis upon the practical need for the delegation is clear in Hampton, Jr., & o. v. United States (276 U. S. 394). In upholding the Flexible Tariff Act, which authorized the President to adjust tariff rates so that they would correspond to the differences in costs of production here and abroad, the Court took into account the inability of Congress to make the necessary adjustments (276 U. S. 405), the need for readjustment because of everchanging conditions (276 U. S. 406), and the uncertainty as to the time when the adjustments should be made (276 u. s. 407). By way of analogy, it referred to the fixing of just and reasonable rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission, stating that: "If Congress were to be required to fix every rate it would be impossible to exercise the power at all" (276 U. B. 407). In view of these considerations, it was held sufficient for Congress to establish a general rule declaring an "intelligible principle": "In determining what it may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental coordination" (276 U. S. 406). Mr. Justice Sutherland in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (299 U. S. 304, 315), suggests that in the tariff cases involving foreign relation a broader discretion may be vested in the President than in matters relating solely to internal affairs, but the reasoning of the Court in the tariff cases there cited is based upon no such distinction.)

There is nothing in the adjudicated cases which suggests that the constitutional rule against the delegation of essential legislative powers is violated by a bill like the proposed b1ll, which dealing with many and diverse industries not only defines the subject matter to which an admin1strative agency may address its discretionary powers, but clearly states the purposes for which the administrative discretion may be exercised. Unlike the statute in the Schechter case, the proposed bill carefully defines the subject matter to which the administrative agency may address itself. Unlike the statute in the Panama Refining Co. case, the bill does not omit to state the range of the administrative discretion vested in the Board, but clearly states the purposes for which it may be exercised.

The extent to which the Supreme Court has gone in sustaining a delegation of power to an administrative agency where the subject matter of the delegation 1s defined, and the purpose for which such power is to be exercised is indicated in most general terms, is strikingly illustrated in the case of New York Central Securities Corporation v. United states (287 U. S. 12), sustaining the validity of the consolidation provisions of the Transportation Act of 1920. In that case Chief Justice Hughes stated (287 U. S. at 24-25):

"Appellant insists that the delegation of authority to the Commission is invalid because the stated criterion is uncertain. That criterion is the 'public interest.' It is a mistaken assumption that this is a mere general reference to public welfare without any standard to guide determinations. The purpose of the act, the requirements it imposes, and the context of the provision in question show the contrary. • • • The provisions now before us were among the additional made by Transportation Act, 1920, and the term 'public interest' as thus used is not a concept without ascertainable criteria but has direct relation to adequacy of transportation service, to its essential conditions of economy and efficiency, and to appropriate provision and best use of transportation facilities, questions to which the Interstate Commerce Commission has constantly addressed itself 1n the exercise of the authority conferred. So far as constitutional delegation of authority is concerned, the question is not essentially different from that which is raised by provisions with respect to reasonableness of rates to discrimination, and to the issue of certificates of public convenience and necessity (Intermountain Rate Case, 234 U. S. 476, 486; Railroad. Commission v. Southern Pacific Co., 264 U. S. 331, 343, 344; Avent v. United States, 266 U.S. 127, 130; Colorado v. United States, 271 U.S. 153, 163; Chesapeake & Ohio By. Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 35, 42" (287 U.S. at 24-25)).

[PAGE 1503]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1504]

In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (293 U. S. 388), Chief Just1ce Hughes emphatically stated (293 U.S. 421):

"Undoubtedly legislation must often be adapted to complex conditions involving a host of details with which the National Legislature cannot deal directly. The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicallty, which w1ll enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establish1ng standards, while leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort we should have the anomaly of a leg1slatlve power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility."

The Chief Justice subsequently employed virtually the same language in Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (295 U. S. 495).

The proposed bill deals with difficult and complex industrial situations. A careful and deliberate procedure has been provided; orders of the board may be entered only after hearing. The draftsmen have been careful and painstaking to make the standards as definite and specitlc as the conditions with which they have had to deal permit, without imposing upon the diversities of American industry inflexible and unworkable rules provocative of serious industrial dislocations. These standards are well within constitutional limitations, assuming, of course, that constitutional limitations are to be construed to make a constitutional democracy workable and not to render it impotent.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. COX].

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the discussion of this measure on the part of most of its proponents proceeds in reckless disregard of every consideration except the possible political necessities of some people which can be accepted as no justification for the harm that will be done as a result of the adoption of the measure. If it is a mere face-saving device, as some declare, then it is a failure, as none but the simple can be misled by its claimed social purposes and the counterfeit political argument made in its support.

To say that it is in fulflllment of the Democratic Party platform pledge of 1936 is to say that the party of Jefferson, of Jackson, of Cleveland, and of Wilson committed itself to a violation and an outrage of every principle that that party has ever stood for and bound the Democratic Members of the Congress to a violation of their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. I deny that the Democratic Party has ever pledged itself to the destruction of States and to the regimentation of the people, as this bill would ultimately accomplish.

The party pledged itself to the enactment of wage-hour legislation in cooperation with the States and within the provisions of the Constitution, thereby recognizing the doctrine of State sovereignty and home rule, but here, through a tortuous and violent interpretation of the commerce clause, it is proposed that the general Government shall go its way all alone without regard to law, to reason, precedent, or principle, and shall gpread out Federal power all the way from the cradle to the grave.

When the principle is once established that under the guise of regulating interstate commerce the Federal Government may also regulate purely local transactions that might remotely compete with interstate commerce, and the power of enforcement is placed in the hands of a bureaucrat here in Washington, we will have governmental regimentation with a vengeance, and the right of self-determination will be a thing of the past.

The adoption of this measure, Mr. Chairman, would send the marginal workers of this country to the bread lines. It would increase unemployment and it would drive this present recession of business into a maJor depression. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. I yield the gentleman from New York [Mr. SIROVICH] 3 minutes.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from New York [Mr. SMOVICH] 8 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SMOVICH] is recognized for 11 minutes.

Mr. SMOVICH. Mr. Chairman, the political and economic writers of our country may be classified into four groups: First, the reactionary, who seeks to undo the political and economic progress of the present, and looks to the cemeteries of the past, in order to find laws to enact that would serve the economic conditions of the day. Second, the conservative, who is opposed to social and economic changes, or innovations, and would conserve everything we have in order to serve the present only. He never looks to the past, nor to the future, but is interested in the present. Third, the liberal or progressive, who stands not only for stability and order in the conservation of existing institutions, but also stands for progress and reform, in order to enhance the social and economic conditions of the present, so that future generations may be the beneficiaries of our statutory enactments of today. Fourth, the radical, who advocates sweeping changes in laws and methods of government, with the least delay, especially changes deemed to tend to equalize or remedy evils arising from social conditions, by substituting for our American economic structure, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would make all men and women the economic slaves of the State.

Mr. Chairman, everything that is produced in our country through agriculture and industry is the result of the labor of the beast of burden, the machine, and the human being. Whether we are reactionaries, conservatives, liberals, progressives, or radicals, whether we are in the habit of looking forward or backward, we must all admit that there is a tremendous difference between the labor of the beast of burden, between the labor of the machine, and the labor of human beings.

Let us analyze the wages of these three groups that I have just enumerated. What are the wages of the beast of burden today in our country? All that he receives from his master, whom he serves loyally and faithfully, is the oats, bran, hay, corn, and other food products necessary to keep him alive, besides the roof that shelters him from the ravages of the weather. In other words, all that the beast of burden receives as compensation is enough to live and to exist.

What is the wage that the modern machine receives for its compensation for producing day in and day out? The machine receives, as its wage for the services and labor that it renders metaphorically speaking, the right to be well oiled, well cleaned, well housed, and better taken care of than the beast of burden in order that the ravages of weather may not disintegrate the highly mechanized machinery.

Now, what are the wages of human beings throughout the length and breadth of our country in agriculture and industry?

First, there is starvation wages which cannot keep body and soul together and is less than the beast of burden receives. Second, living wages which just barely keep body and soul together, and does not equal the food and shelter that the beast of burden receives. Third is the principle involving saving wages, whereby the modem workingman would be able to receive wages that would enable him to save in times of affluence and prosperity, for days of adversity and misfortune, which is the fundamental principle motivating our great President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the New DeaL in order to give purchasing and consuming power, to the millions of underprivileged and undernourished Americans, who are cryiilg and clamoring for a better day in this great and beloved Republic of ours. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this wage and hour bill, which we are now debating on the floor of the House, sponsored by the amiable and gracious chairman of the Labor Committee, our beloved colleague, MARY NORTON, is to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employment, affecting interstate commerce only, and for other purposes that would help to bring about in our industrial organizations in America, the principle of minimum wages, that would freeze a minimum salary, below which no human being has a right to be exploited and commercialized,

[PAGE 1504]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1505]

and would enable the toiler and worker to at least receive the wages that are comparable to that which the beast of burden or modern machine receives today.

Mr. Chairman, this minimum wage of 40 cents per hour would put unskilled labor, the worst-exploited workers in America, in every State of the Union upon a parity and would give to them a purchasing and consuming power which has been denied to them through the inhuman and unjust wages that they are today receiving. This bill would be instrumental in regulating the hours of unskilled labor, so that these inarticulate workers would not work more than 40 hours a week at a minimum salary of 40 cents an hour, which would enable them to earn a maximum of $16 a week, which amounts to $832 a year, if they work an entire year. This salary for 1 year's work paid the unskilled laborer is less than a Congressman receives for 1 month's services to his constituency. What Member of Congress on either side of this House would be satisfied to see his son or daughter earn a maximum salary of $16 per week for 40 hours of work, which is less than the wages of the labor of the beast of burden? [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, if this human and constructive wage and hour bill is passed it would be instrumental in helping to reemploy millions of men and women engaged in work that 1s transported through interstate commerce.

The prosperity of our Nation rests upon four economic pillars: First, production; second, distribution; third, exchange; and fourth, consumption. So long as these four pillars stand erect they will support the superstructure of prosperity. The trouble in our country is that only one pillar stands erect, and that is the pillar of production. The other three have collapsed and with them has gone prosperity. Fifteen to thirty million people have no consuming or puchasing power through the salaries and wages they receive. That is the tragic indictment against the modern capitalistic system that the New Deal is trying to reconstruct.

I have alwayg contended that labor is the producer of capital, and as such should be entitled to a fair share in the distribution of the wealth that it creates. If skilled and unskilled labor woUld receive their just reward for their toll and struggle in the quarries of human endeavor, prosperity would again return in our midst. [Applause.]

A few of our congressional colleagues from the northern sections of our country have pilloried, excoriated, and denounced the South and Middle West for exploiting and commercializing human labor by giving to its workers starvation wages. I shall not subscribe to these denunciations. If the South and Middle West have been guilty of these transgressions, it is because they have been the victims of an industrial North that is commercializing and exploiting the agricultural interests of the South, the Southwest, and the Middle West. Instead of denouncing the people of the South who are trying to earn a living for the millions that live in their midst, our great northern industrial States, that have been the beneficiaries of a protective tariff, that is exploiting and commercializing the South, should put the agricultural and farming interests of these sections upan a parity with industry. Mr. Chairman, if you want to eliminate southern competition against northern industry, place agriculture upan a parity with industry. The southern and midwestern farmers are forced to buy their industrial products in the protected markets of our country, and they are compelled to sell their exportable agricultural surpluses, such as corn, wheat, cotton, in a competitive world market, which has ruined them. By adding the tariff to the world market price of agricultural products, which is the difference between the labor costs of agricultural products in European countries and our own country, we would stabilize and fix prices upon wheat, which would be about $1.50 a bushel; corn, $1 a bushel; oats, 60 cents a bushel; cotton, 30 cents a pound; and hogs, about 14 cents a pound. Such a debenture or equalization tariff would bring justice to 40,000,000 farmers, the victims of a high tariff, that compels them to purchase their goods in the restricted markets of our country and to sell their agricultural products in the competitive markets of the world. If we had passed this kind of agricultural legislation, we would bring justice to 40,000,000 farmers, who would have a purchasing and consuming power to buy all of the industrial products of the East and help to solve the great problem of unemployment which is harassing and destroying the great industrial sections of our country. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, the greatest market for industry, for its products, are the farmers of our country. Let them have an earning capacity that will enable them to save upan the agricultural products that they sell to the industrial East, and you will have a purchasing power that will enable them to buy the products that industry produces.

Mr. Chairman, during my lifetime I have seen the hours of labor reduced from 72 hours a week to 66, to 54, to 48, and now to reemploy all the unemployed we must enact a 40-hour week that will enable every human being in our country that is desirous of being employed to realize his wish.

Two million children, all under the age of 16 years, are today working in mills, in mines, at looms, and in factories, taking the place of men and women throughout the length and breadth of our country. If this bill were enacted into law, as I know it will, it will be instrumental in taking these delicate bodies and innocent minds of these children to the temple of the schoolhouse, where they belong, there to be developed through the light of education, that they may have sound minds in healthy bodies.

Every minister, clergyman, and priest preaches the gospel of the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God, but in the brotherhood of man are not included the beast of burden, or the machine. The most efficient machine is not the brother of man, nor is the most obedient animal a member of man's family. Therefore, human labor should never be placed upan a parity with that of the animal or machine, and should be differently compensated.

If the great captains of industry and those who have been the beneficiaries of legislation that has enriched them and made them happy and prosperous, are desirous of bringing prosperity back to our Nation, they must forever distinguish between human labor, machine labor, and animal labor, and treat their fellow workers with humane ethical standards, which consists in not commercializing and exploiting their fellow man, but in giving to all of their workers 16 ounces of a fair and square deal to every pound of justice demanded. Such treatment will bring happiness and contentment into the hearts of our American workers and prosperity into the hearth, home, and fireside of all of the people of our Nation. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

The gentlewoman from New Jersey has 9^1/2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time on this side to the chairman of the committee.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY].

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, there have been many references this afternoon to my late brother, Billy Connery. It is a great source of consolation to know the high regard in which he was held by the Members of this House. [Applause.] There have been references here today as to his possible position in connection with this bill were he with us today. I want to say to you that because of a conversation going into this entire matter with him jUst 2 weeks prior to his death, I can say definitely that there are many provisions in this bill which are not entirely in accord with Billy Connery's aims, and so I feel constrained, when the time comes to offer amendments, to ask the Members of this House, because of my loyalty to my brother, to vote with me to delete the name of "Connery" from thil bill. This bill is no monument and will be no monument, I feel, to Billy Connery. It does not contain many of those features in which he was so intensely interested.

[PAGE 1505]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1506]

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONNERY. I yield.

Mr. FISH. Is the gentleman for the American Federation of Labor bill?

Mr. CONNERY. I have a bill of my own, I will inform the gentleman from New York. It is H. R. 8437 and includes the features in which my late brother was interested.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONNERY. I yield.

Mr. MICHENER. I take it you would leave the bill named "the Black bill"?

Mr. CONNERY. If the House sees fit to take such course I have no objection to that, as long as the name "Connery" is not in there. [Applause.]

I want the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey, who is so ably carrying on the work of my late brother as chairman of the Committee on Labor, and each and every member of the Labor Committee to know how deeply appreciative I am of their desire and willingness to perpetuate and to honor the name and memory of William P. Connery, Jr., by inserting his name in the title of the pending legislation. I know that they were actuated by the highest motives, the principal one probably being a sincere admiration and affection for him.

But this action was taken by the Committee on Labor a short time after Billy's death and prior to the many drastic changes which now appear in the bill.

The bill now before the House does not contain the features or the principles which my brother, the late Billy Connery, advocated on this floor and in the Labor Committee.

While he represented an industrial district in Massachusetts, he was never selfish and, so I have been told by Representatives of even the farm States, always accorded other Members what help be could, realizing that the injury of any number of our people was an injury to all. Billy Connery, whom I served as secretary for the past 15 years, and whom I succeeded through a mandate of the voters that I carry on the work closest to his heart, fully realized that those he and I now represent could not secure profitable employment so long as manufacturers in other sections of our country or those located in foreign countries could deliver comparable or competitive goods in the American market places at a total cost which was substantially less than the costs of production of similar goods produced by the workers of our district.

Were Billy Connery here today he would fight for those features and principles which I will do my best to have the House incorporate in an honest wage and hour bill, namely:

First. A maximum workweek of 40 hours;

Second. A minimum wage of 40 cents per hour;

Third. No differentials; the maximum workweek and the minimum wages to be specifically set forth in the law by the Congress rather than to delegate to some unknown board or administrator that power which, to my mind, the Congress should never abrogate or delegate;

Fourth. The elimination of the products of child labor in the market; and

Fifth. The imposition of the same restrictions upon all products transported in interstate commerce when such products are comparable or competitive whether such products were produced by American workers or produced by foreign workers.

Hundreds of thousands of decent, self-respecting, Godfearing American workers are today unable to secure work due to the probability of our State Department entering into reciprocal-trade treaties with foreign nations, such as Czechoslovakia and Japan, in which nations it is common knowledge that the wages paid to workers are admittedly oppressively low.

The workers dependent for their employment on the shoe, leather, textile, and other industrial plants of my district realize fully the emptiness of legislation which permits some governmental agency, in the distant future, to declare a minimum wage of not more than 40 cents per hour while they stand helplessly by and see the product of workers of Japan, paid 5 cents per hour, or the products of the workers of Czechoslovakia, paid wages of 10 and 15 cents per hour, flood the only real market there is for American products, namely, the American market.

This bill contains features which my brother told me, a weeks before he died, he would vote against if the Labor Committee did not, as they have not, delete from the bill.

While the pending bill carries the label of wages and hours, I regret to say that such is a misnomer. This is not, in its present form, anything but an empty gesture to the millions of industrial workers who have been led to believe that the Congress would enact in a wage and hour bill legislation prohibiting the transportation in interstate commerce of all manufactured or processed goods the products of workers receiving a minimum wage of less than 40 cents per hour or those employed in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The industrial workers will soon realize that this legislation does not provide such benefits at all. It does create an agency of the Government which promises, at some distant future, after detailed and exhaustive and wholly unnecessary time-killing investigations have been concluded, to issue orders which may provide a minimum wage and maximum workweek in industries, except some of those where it is common knowledge that possibly the greatest exploitation of labor in America has taken place.

You will find on page 23, paragraph (j), that those employed in canneries, in the ginning, compressing, storing of cotton, the processing of fruits and vegetables, or, those employed in cooperative dairies are specifically exempted from certaiil provisions of this bill.

Before the agency created, whether it be a board as advocated by some, or an administrator, as some now favor, can even consider the issuing of an order beneficial to those millions of industrial workers who are looking to the Congress for relief, they must, as shown on page 2i, paragraph (e), take into consideration, among other relevant circumstances, the cost of living, local economic conditions, the reasonable value of the services rendered, differences in unit costs of manufacturing occasioned by varying local natural resources, operating conditions, or other factors entering into the costs of production.

There are others listed but time is short. The first item you will note is the cost of living. We are told that the costs of living to workers in certain sections of our country are lower or less than the costs of living of workers in other sections of our country. This is true, but, why?

The one and only reason is that the workers in certain sections of our country are forced to exist on a lower standard of living due entirely to the fact that they have had an income which does not allow the purchase of those necessities of life which the workers in other sections of our country have been able to secure because they have had a larger purchasing power through receiving higher wages for their work.

Capital has been able to secure lower labor costs, or, perhaps better said, to more profitably exploit the workers in some sections of our country than in others.

However, has anyone noticed the products of those workers having lower living standards, being sold in the market place at a lower price than is asked for and paid for the products of the higher paid workers?

Among other limitations in the pending bill I note on page 33, line 2, that the agency created to administer the legislation must take into consideration such other differentiating circumstances as it finds necessary. Again, on page 33, lines 10 and 11, the agency created is ordered-

To avoid the adoption of any classification which effects an unreasonable discrimination against any person (employer?) or locality, or which adversely a1fects prevailing minimum wage or maximum workweek standards.

While this language may, by some, be said to be ambiguous, I have no hesitancy in predicting that if it remains in the legislation it will be construed to mean that the Government agency must not issue any order which calls for a minimum wage or a maximum workweek which the exploiters of labor will contend prevents them from continuing

[PAGE 1506]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1507]

the operation of their plants in the very places _where sweatshop wages now prevail, and which, presumably, this bill seeks to eliminate.

Further, I note on page 31, lines 16, 17, and 18, that the agency created cannot issue any order which can be construed as permitting action in violation of any international obligation of the United States.

In other words, if and when our free-trade and peace-loving Secretary of State enters into a reciprocal-trade treaty with Czechoslovakia, Japan, or other low-wage-paying nations, and, through such treaty permits the flooding of the American market with the products of labor paid less than prevails any place in the United States, depriving hundreds of thousands of American workers of their employment opportunities, we are then helpless to assist those whom we supposedly are here to legislate for. We are helpless because we, representatives of the American people, have blindly abrogated our power to protect the employment opportunities of our American workers.

We made a mistake when we authorized the State Department to enter iuto treaties without the approval of the Congress. Today, many Congressmen are appealing, almost on bended knees, to the State Department not to use the power which the Congress voted without thought of the possibility that such authority would be used to the detriment of the American people.

Now, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, like Billy Connery I am a firm believer in the principles of wage and hour legislation and like him I want to see this House write upon our statute books a real wage and hour bill that will be to the best interest of all the American people.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has eXpired.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. CITRON].

Mr. CITRON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the debates upon this bill. I have read the reports of both the House and the Senate committees and the joint hearings upon this important social legislation.

CRITICISMS AND STOCK ARGUMENTS

Some of the criticisms that have been leveled yesterday and today at this legislation are similar to some that I have noticed in letters that have come to me from certain of my constituents and are like the arguments I heard in by-gone days in the legislative halls in my State and which you no doubt also heard in the legislative halls of your State, against all kinds of labor, compensation and social legislation and proposals.

The stock arguments are: That the time is not ripe; let us think it over further; minimum wages will become maximum wages; it adds to the cost of production and is a burden upon industry. And have you not often heard the cry raised in State assemblies that such legislation is a burden to the manufacturers of the State, in competition with manufacturers of other States? I remember well how on many occasions the representatives of manufacturers' associations and others raised such a cry in my own State legislature and urged us to advocate this kind of legislation in Congress. In those days they wanted uniformity, national in scope. Today the same critics in my State and in your State talk about States' rights. They do not want legislation of this sort, and no matter what kind of a bill is drafted, what legislature passes it, or how it is to be enforced, opponents find their excuses.

Contrary to what some people may be informed, this subject is being thrashed out as well in this Congress as any legislation that has gone through the mills of a parliamentary assemblage. It is my belief that certain manufacturing interests in every State in the Union are definitely united with conservative interests and through the medium of the Republican Party are attempting to defeat this legislation. They do not want the committee's bill or any bill, because they do not want any wage and hour legislation. Since time immemorial, whether we look back into the pages of history in our own country or other countries, you will always find certain vested interests attempting to block progressive social measures with the help of some political organization. Today that political organization is the Republican Party.

SOME REGULATION IS NECESSARY

It is accepted today that some regulation of industry by the Government is desirable and inevitable to prevent unscrupulous exploitation. Speaking in Portland, Maine, on November 12, 1937, Prof. Melvin T. Copeland, of the Harvard Business School, and a prominent Republican, conceded this. It is admitted that wage and hour legislation, or legislation to aid the needy and oppressed and to prohibit exploitation of child labor, is necessary. This is what we are proposing to do and our great President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in several messages, has urged this course.

Let us not permit minor arguments regarding enforcement and procedure to stray us from our course.

SWEATSHOPS

In Florala, Ala., the Riverside Underwear Corporation, With an office at 262 Broadway, New York, N. Y., paid workers from 2 or 3 cents up to 10 cents per hour on Government contracts, and except for the enforcement of the Public Contracts Division of the Department of Labor, nothing would have ever occurred to stop such exploitation of human beings. I mention this specific case because the same thing has occurred in my own State. It occurs in every State and if there are any State laws and enforcing agencies to meet such situations, the argument is thrown up by some in modem business that they are not intrastate any more but interstate in character, and that the States have no right to interfere with interstate commerce.

The bill before us should be named: A bill to abolish sweatshops and child labor. That is its objective and that is what it will accomplish. For years I have interested myself in such legislation; I have favored minimum wages for the oppressed, I have advocated the abolishment of sweatshops and child labor. Let us, today and tomorrow, in our action in this, the greatest parliamentary body in the world, produce a bill that will help the lll.boring classes of our country. And in doing this, we are helping all labor and all industry.

BUREAUCRACY

The gentlemen who are fighting this measure have tried to frighten us with cries of "Bureaucracy!"

They overlook the fact that this bill calls for the utilization of existing agencies of the Government. It economizes on personnel and services as none of the many substitutes would do. It uses the Department of Labor with its Children's Bureau for the child-labor regulation, and its Bureau of Labor Statistics for the investigations and research. It uses the Department of Justice for the litigation and prosecution in its enforcement. All of these agencies are old-line agencies with established procedures, trained personnel, and years of administrative and professional experience. This bill would integrate the new labor regulation with the established methods and departments of our Government.

Of course, there would be a need for some additional assistants. Any new undertaking would require that. There would be created the office of an administrator under the Department of Labor, and the administrator would utilize the assistance of representative committees. That would involve a minimum of personnel expansion—of the sort that is absolutely necessary. To make minimum-wage legislation effective, an additional staff of inspectors is indispensable. Under the Walsh-Healey administration, there is such a staff. It is a small staff, and yet through its efforts alone, at least 90 percent of all the violations of the Walsh-Healey Act have been discovered. These violations have not been reported by the workers, but have been found only through these inspectors. The various State minimum-wage boards have similar inspectors. This bill provides expressly for the use of all these officials, State as well as Federal, wherever possible. This bill entrusts its enforcement to regular, old-line departments of the Government and provides for the coordination of their employees and State employees under

[PAGE 1507]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1508]

a responsible Administrator within the Department of Labor. This is not bureaucratic expansion. It is the very opposite. It is the economic utilization of existing agencies for new tasks to meet the new needs of Government.

EFFECT OF SMAL-BUSlNESS MAN

The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HARTLEY] said that this bill would not affect the large industrial establishments because they were already paying 40 cents an hour; but would be detrimental to the small-business man who could not pay that wage.

It has become a popular fad to cry, "Pity the poor smallbusiness man," and to shed crocodile tears over the little fellow who is supposed to be helpless and oppressed. When the gentleman from New Jersey states that big business can pay 40 cents an hour and the small-business man cannot pay that low wage, be maligns the small-business man. He places an anathema of incompetence and inefficiency upon the small-business man. He overdoes his sob story and makes the abject creature for whom he pleads unworthy of his pity. I do not believe the small-business man cannot pay decent wages. Thousands of small businesses are economical, profitable, and as capable of paying common labor wage rates as high as those of any large corporate enterprise. In fact, mapy small businesses are noteworthy for their preservation of the rare human interest in workers that is so noticeably absent in many large corporate enterprises today. Where there are small-business men with sweatshops, they as well as their larger models ought to be compelled to raise their wages to a decent level; ·but it is a calumny upon the . traditional American small-business man to say that he cannot pay decent wages and that this act will do him harm.

POWER TO PAY OVER 40 CENTS AN HOUR

Yesterday, in answer to my question, "Do I understand the assertion of the gentleman from Indiana is that under this bill labor is prohibited from getting more than $16 per week?"-the gentleman from Indiana replied, "By order of the board or the administrator," implying that labor will be prohibited under this bill from getting more than $16 per week.

This is such a glaring error that I do not believe he or any of you will, upon sober reflection, continue to share such a misconception of the proposed act. But lest some of you be carried away with the excitement of the discussion, let me point out the language of this bill in section 4, on page 22, line 16, and following:

A committee's jurisdiction to recommend labor standards shall not include the power to recommend minimum wages in excess of 40 cents per hour or a maximum workweek of less than 40 hours, but higher minimum wages and a shorter maximum workweek fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise shall be encouraged. • • •

There can be no setting of a maximum wage, no compulsion against the payment of higher wages, no order even suggesting what the top wages should be. On the contrary, the bill provides for only a minimum wage wherever a minimum up to 40 cents an hour is needed to maintain decency in an industry and the bill expressly recognizes and directs its administrative agents to encourage the establishment of higher minimum wages by collective bargaining or otherwise.

WILL THE MINIMUM WAGE BECOME THE MAXIMUM WAGE?

Instead of guessing, let us look at the actual experience of the Government in the setting of minimum wages under the Walsh-Healey Act. The Government has set a minimum wage of 37^1/2 cents an hour in the cotton garment and allied industries covering work pants, shirts, overalls, windbreakers, lumber jackets, and other work coats, another minimum wage of 35 cents an hour in the hosiery industry, another minimum of 67^1/2 cents an hour in the bat and cap industry. These minimum wages and others have been in effect now for a number of months with respect to a great many contracts. In not a single instance has the minimum wage become the maximum wage. The Division of Public Contracts of the Department of Labor has made inspections of the payrolls in a large number of these factories subject to these minimum wages. In all of the factories, without exception, there have been skilled and semiskilled and some unskilled workers receiving more than the minimum. These facts—not guesses, but actual experiences—show that the minimum wages do not become the maximum wages.

These experiences have been multiplied under State minimum-wage laws ever since the enactment of a $16 minimum wage law for the State of California in 1920. (See the publications of the U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, entitled "The Benefits of Minimum Wage Legislation for Women," pp. 4-7, and "Women in the United States," pp. 110- 111; also "Special Study of Wages Paid to Women and Minors in Ohio," p. 56.)

EXTRACTS OF REPORTS

With your permission I quote and insert the following from pages 110 and 111 of a summary report on Women in the Economy of the United States of America, a 1937 Government document issued by the United States Department of Labor:

WAGES OF WOMEN ABOVE THE MINIMUM

Minimum-wage laws are designed specifically to raise wages at the very lowest levels, and it has been abundantly illustrated that they accomplish this. The experience also has been that the laws have tended to raise the wages of many who were receiving above the minimum, in spite of the fact that such laws are not especially designed to apply to these workers. Instances of this in a number of minimum-wage States may be shown.

California: The experience of California has been that the proportion of women receiving $17 and over has increased steadily from 1920, when the minimum of $16 was fixed, through 1929, with only a slight drop in 1930, and that in September 1931 such amounts were received by 58 percent of the women. Even in this depression period (1931) the following proportions received $20 or more:

Percent receiving $20 ar more

Manufacturing------------------------------------------- 25.6

Laundry and dry cleaning--------------------------------- 22.9

Mercantile----------------------------------------------- 45.7

Massachusetts: In Massachusetts, where the minimum rates were fairly low, usually less than $14, and the orders were not mandatory, the increases in proportion receiving $17 or more were remarkable. These proportions follow:

(NOTE: Insert Chart)

North Dakota: Though without a large industrial population, North Dakota has had long experience with a minimum-wage law. A survey of that State made by the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor in the depression year of 1931 found that almost two-thirds of the experienced women in a large sample were receiving more than the minimum rates fixed for the industries in which they were employed.

Laundry wages in four newer minimum-wage States: The fact has been referred to that several of the newer minimum-wage States fixed such wages first in the laundry industry. Their experience has been that after a minimum was established not only did larger proportions of women than before receive as much as this amount, but larger proportions than before earned more than this minimum. For example, 30 cents or more, an amount above the minimum, was received by the following proportions of women in the States specified:

(NOTE: Insert Chart)

[PAGE 1508]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1509]

similar showing is made even if amounts considerably above the minimum are considered. These proportions of women received as much as $16 and as much as $15 in New Hampshire and New York, respectively:

(NOTE: Insert Chart)

SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF KINIMUM-WAGE LAWS

The universal experience with minimum-wage legislation, wher- ever it has been introduced into the various States in this country, 1s that it has very mater1ally raised the wages of large numbers of women. and that in some cases this etfect has been most marked.

Far from reducing the wages of those receiving above the minimum, this type of law has resulted in raising the wages of many persons who previously had received more than the minimum fixed, and experience has shown that the minimum put in operation does not become the maximum.

In regard to women's employment, the usual experience has been that it continues to increase regardless of whether or not there is minimum-wage legislation, and in the State where the highest minimum was maintained over a long period of years women's employment increased considerably more than in the country as a whole. The constant changes in employment that are occurring are attributable to many factors not connected with the minimum wage, and there is no evidence that such legislation has any general or controlling e1fect toward inducing the replacement of women by men.

In the United States Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, March 1937, publication on Benefits of Minimum Wage Legislation for Women, we find the following, pages 4 to 7:

Minimum-wage laws have not caused the lowering of wages of women paid above the minimum, nor has the minimum become the maximum.

California: In this State the minimum wage has been $16 for most industries since 1920. The report of the California Industrial Relations Commission for 1932 (the latest data available) shows that the proportion of women receiving more than the minimum wage of $16 increased steadily from 1920 through 1930, and in September 1931 approximately 58 percent of the more than 88,000 women reported received $17 or more. In mercantile establishments 72 percent of the women received as much as this, and about 46 percent received $20 or more. In laundry and dry cleaning about 46 percent received $17 or more and 26 percent were paid at least $20. In manufacturing about 44 percent received $17 or more and 28 percent were paid $20 or more.

Illnois: After the laundry order had been in effect 1 month 20.9 percent of the women and minor workers in power laundries received 30 cents or more an hour as compared to 18.2 percent before the order. The legal minimum rates set were 23, 25, and 28 cents for various districts of the State. (The annual report of the Min1mum Wage Division of Illinois, 1936.)

Massachusetts: In druggists' preparations from 1924 to 1929 the proportion of women receiving $18 or more (the minimum set by law in 1924 was $13.20) increased from 14.5 to 26.7 percent.

In laundries from 1923 to 1929 the proportion receiving $18 or more (the minimum set by law in 1922 was $13.50) increased from 9.8 to 17.1 percent.

In retail stores, from 1922-23 to 1926-28, the proportion of women receiving $17 or more (the minimum set by law in 1922 was $14) increased from 26.3 to 38.3 percent.

In office cleaning, from 1920 to 1927-28, the proportion of women receiving 45 cents or more (the minimum set by law in 1921 was 37 cents) increased from 4.6 to 11.8 percent. (Annual report, Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries, year ending November 30, 1929, pp. 74, 75.)

New Hampshire: Before the wage order for the laundry industry was issued 37 percent of the women employed in 66 laundries received 30 cents or more an hour (the legal minimum wage set was 28 cents); after the order 42 percent of the women in 62 laundries earned more than that amount.

New York: In November 1935, 2 years after the minimum wage order for laundries was issued, 58 percent of the laundries in the State were paying more than half their women and minor employees wages higher than the established minimum rates. Forty-two percent of the employees under the order were being paid wages above the minimum prescribed, an indication that the minimum had not tended to become the maximum wage. (Memorandum to Gov. Herbert Lehman, of New York from Industrial Commissioner Elmer. F. Andrews, December 30, 1936, p. 22.)

In an attempt to discover whether the wage rates of women who had been receiving more than the minimum were reduced after the wage order became effective in order to compensate for inreased earnings among the lower-paid groups, a detailed study was made by the Division of Women in Industry and Minimum Wage of New York of the effect of the order on the earnings of 952 women for whom wage data were available both before and after the order was issued. It was found that 81 percent of these women had higher hourly earnings in November 1933, 1 month after the order, than in May 1933; 13 percent were earning the same amounts; and only 5 percent were earning less. The increases ranged as high as 22 cents per hour. In May only 89 of the 952 women had received wages which were higher than the minimum rates later established under the wage order, but of these 89 women, only 5 had had their rates reduced to the established minimum in November; 52 had higher hourly earnings in November than in May. (Factual Brief for Appellant in the New York Minimum Wage Case before the United States Supreme Court, John J. Bennett, attorney general of New York State, 1935, pp. 69, 70.)

North Dakota: A Women's Bureau survey in North Dakota in the fall of 1931 showed that almost two-thirds of the 1,000 experienced women included had a wage rate above the minimum. (The minimum rates varied for different industries, $14.50 being the highest.)

Ohio: In October 1935, after the wage order for the cleaning and dyeing industry had been in effect a year, 63.2 percent of 114 establishments, for which wage data were avaUable both before and after the order, were paying one-half or more of their women employees more than the minimum rate of 35 cents an hour; and 78.1 percent of the women employed in the 114 establishments were receiving more than the minimum rate.

Before the wage order, in May 1933, only 20.2 percent of these 114 establishments paid one-half or more of their employees more than the minimum wage; and only 19.1 percent of the women employed in the 114 establishments received more than the minimum.

In 60 laundries in Ohio 40.7 percent of the women were earning more than the minimum rate of 27^1/2 cents in April 1935, as compared to 23.3 percent in these identical laundries in May 1933, before the order went into effect. (U. S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 145, pp. 56, 57. 76.)

LET US NOT FAIL OUR PRESIDENT

Mr. Chairman, in the words of our President:

Our problem is to work out in practice those labor standards which will permit the maximum but prudent employment of our human resources to bring within the reach of the average man and woman a maximum of goods and service • • •.

We have passed legislation to help the home owner, the farmer, the banker, the depositor, the businessman, and industrialist. Let us also help the oppressed and downtrodden wage earners. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I Yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. TERRY].

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, although I believe in assisting unorganized labor to obtain higher wages and more reasonable hours than it is receiving in some sections, and I am also against child labor, still I do not feel that this is an opportune time to press passage of the bill now before us for discussion. The country is now suffering from a recession in business and we do not know what its duration will be, or the extent it will spread. Thousands of workers are now being put off the employment rolls and will be compelled to go on the relief rolls. In my opinion, the immediate effect of this legislation will be to put more and more unskilled workers on the relief rolls at a time when we should be straining every nerve and devoting whatever intelligence we may possess to reducing the relief rolls and to assisting business to stabilize itself.

In my section of the country hundreds of workers and their families are being maintained by the small industries that operate in the various localitie—little industries that probably could not meet the requirements of better-established industries in regard to wage standards but which have been the means of furnishing the neighborhoods with a means of livelihood. In my opinion the small industries will be squeezed out in favor of the large and established industries of the larger centers of population.

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to ascertain who is promoting the passage of this legislation at this time. The farm groups representing the agricultural sections are against it; and labor is against it. President William Green, of the American Federation of Labor, is bitterly opposed to it. The chairman of the Labor Committee is opposed to the bill which was withdrawn from the Rules Committee, and has stated that she intends to offer a substitute bill at the proper

[PAGE 1509]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1510]

time; and there are at least three other bills which their proponents intend to offer as substitutes. The House has not yet had an opportunity to see the bill which the Labor Committee intends to urge for passage. Why all this rush to pass this bill at the special session? I submit that the more reasonable and logical thing would be to send this bill back to the committee for furtheJ: study along with the other bills that are being urged on the House.

Mr. Chairman, my State is largely agricultural, and its welfare and prosperity are largely affected and influenced by the price of agricultural products and the price that its farm population has to pay for manufactured products, and until there is more of a parity between the prices of farm products and the prices of manufactured products, my people cannot view with unconcern the mounting prices of industrial products, and we must all concede that the passage of this bill means higher prices for industrial goods.

Mr. Chairman, there is another thing about this bill that I do not like and which should concern all of the Members of this House who are in favor of assisting our great President in his laudable ambition to balance the Nation's Budget. This bill provides for the creation of another bureau here in Washington with ramifying branches reaching into every nook and cranny of the country. It will mean the hiring of thousands of additional Government employees, to be put on the Federal pay roll, whose salaries will constitute an ever-increasing burden on the shoulders of the citizens of our country who are compelled to obtain their living from the fruits of private industry.

Mr. Chairman, we should not add to this tax burden at this time. The people of the United States are looking to this Congress to sustain the President in balancing the Budget; and the creation of more and more bureaus and regulatory commissions with their myriad of expense and salaries is not a step in the right direction. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CASEY].

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for giving me the privilege of winding up this debate.

In the brief time allotted to me I can direct my remarks only to one phase of this bill and that is to its attempt to improve and standardize hours and wages. I embrace, with President Roosevelt, the theory that it is the responsibility of this Government to see to it that those employed get their due. Indeed, there is no other agency except the Government which can accomplish this desirable end. Private enterprise cannot accomplish it because those engaged in business have no power to bind the inevitable minority of chiselers within their own ranks.

Human nature is so constituted that there will always be men in private industry who are so greedy and so selfish that they will seize the opportunity to exploit human labor in order to grow unscrupulously rich. Competitors, who are not so base, find themselves forced reluctantly to do the same thing in order to survive this cutthroat competition.

Unfortunately, there exist in this country today certain sections which cater to unscrupulous industrialists. These sections have spokesmen who defend this practice by talking about natural advantages; such as climate, nearby raw materials, and a lower standard of living. If these arguments were real and sincere, I would have no quarrel with them. Every section of this country is entitled to prosper because of its natural advantages. No section is entitled to prosper because it is indifferent and callous to the feelings of human beings who labor.

Make no mistake about it, the only real advantage these sections offer is cheap labor. We can garnish it with all the sauce we wish but it sticks in our throats. It will not go down until we take it with no sauce at all. The plain simple fact is that sections in this country are offering to industry the unrestricted right to exploit human beings. Having this in mind, there is but one course to follow and our duty is plain.

Wherever a wage scale exists that does not permit a decent standard of living we should abolish it as we would slavery, In the past my section of the country has been just as guilty of exploiting labor as any other section. I can remember as a boy in the little town where I was born and still live, the great procession of men and women going to work in the darkness of morning and not returning until the darkness of night. Their plight was so miserable that they were in fact slaves. Gentlemen, I have heard it said that in pre-Civil War days when the question of slavery was being debated, a Southern statesman challenged a Massachusetts antislave spokesman to debate in Massachusetts the question of whether the textile slaves in the North were not worse off than the slaves in the South. The Southern statesman might have won that argument because at least the slaves in the South enjoyed the benefits of fresh air and sunshine while the textile slaves of the North knew nothing but darkness. While that situation existed in Massachusetts no other section of the country could attract her industries.

But gradually there came an awakening of conscience and a feeling of social responsibility. Massachusetts passed humane laws establishing maximum hours, minimum pay, abolishing child labor, and the employment of women during certain hours. When these things had been accomplished, my State became an easy prey to other sections that openly invited capital to come in and exploit labor.

Gentlemen, there is cutthroat competition among our States as well as among our businessmen. This condition should not exist in our enlightened and liberty-loving country. The wage and hour bill offers us an opportunity to abolish it. Let us embrace this opportunity and make the emancipation of the laborer in every section of this broad country an accomplished fact as well as a theory. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. McCORMACK, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill S. 2475, the wage-hour bill, had come to no resolution thereon.

[PAGE 1510]

======================================================================

  Top of page

======================================================================

Page 1511        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 14, 1937        (81 Cong. Rec. 1511, 1937)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD an amendment to be offered by me after the reading of the first section of the bill tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] asks unanimous consent to have incorporated at this point in the RECORD an amendment which she proposes to offer to the bill after the reading of the first section tomorrow. Is there objection?

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I did not quite get the substance of the request.

The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] asks unanimous consent to have incorporated in the RECORD at this point an amendment which she proposes to offer tomorrow after the reading of the first section of the bill. Is there objection?

Mr. MJCHENER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, as I understood the lady today, she announced a new or clean bill would be introduced embodying the 159 amendments. I wonder if additional amendments have been concocted since the bill with its 159 amendments was sent to press this morning.

Mrs. NORTON. The gentleman misunderstood me. As a matter of fact, the difficulty with reference to not having a correct bill rose in the printing of the bill. There were two sections transposed and three amendments left out entirely. We were obliged to send the bill back to be reprinted. That is really what happened. It was not our fault but the fault of the Printing Office.

Mr. MJCHENER. As I understand it, there are 159 amendments or more to be offered tomorrow. Now, are they or not included in this clean bill to be printed?

Mrs. NORTON. r may say to the gentleman nobody said there were 159 amendments; however, all of the amendments agreed to by the committee are to be included in this print. In other words, we merely wish to get the matter in concise form before the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the amendments which the gentlewoman is now offering be available in the bill tomorrow morning?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I ask the gentlewoman from New Jersey whether or not that will preclude me from offering an amendment to the bill which should be in it?

Mrs. NORTON. No.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

The amendment referred to follows:

Amendment proposed by Mrs. NORTON to S. 2475: Strike out the first paragraph and insert:

"That this act may be cited as the Black-Connery Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.

"PART I-LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION; DEFINITIONS; WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

"LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION

"SECTION 1. (a) The employment of workers under substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce, in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or otherwise directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes interstate commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among the workers of the several States conditions detrimental to the physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of such workers; (2) directly burdens interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in interstate commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes directly burdening and obstructing interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce; and (5) directly interfere with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in interstate commerce.

"(b) The correction of such conditions directly affecting interstate commerce requires that the Congress exercise its legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupations in and directly affecting interstate commerce.

DEFINITIONS

"SEC. 2. (a) As used 1n this act unless the context otherwise requires—

"(1) 'Person' includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidating or reorganizing agent.

"(2) 'Interstate commerce' means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or from any State to any place outside thereof.

"(3) 'State' means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States.

"(4) 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division created by section 3 of this act.

"(5) 'Occupation' means an occupation, industry, trade, or business, or branch thereof or class of work or craft therein in which persons are gainfully employed.

"(6) 'Employer' includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee but shall not include the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

"(7) 'Employee' includes any individual employed or suffered or permitted to work by an employer, but shall not include any person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or any person employed in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Administrator) nor shall 'employee' include any person employed as a seaman; or any railroad employee subject to the provisions of the Hours of Service Act (U. S. C., title 45, ch. 3); or any employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 49, ch. 8): Provided, however, that the wage provisions of this act shall apply to employees of such carriers by motor vehicle; or any air-transport employee subject to the provisions of title II of the Railway Labor Act, approved April 10, 1936; or any person employed in the taking of fish, sea foods, or sponges; or any person employed in agriculture. As used in this act, the term 'agriculture' includes farming 1n an its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, forestry, horticulture, market gardening, and the cultivation and growing of fruits, vegetables, nuts, nursery products, ferns, flowers, bulbs, livestock, bees, and poultry, and further includes the definition contained in subcllvision (g) of section 15 of the Agricultural Marketing Act approved June 15, 1929, as amended, or any other agricultural or horticultural commodity, and any practices performed by a tanner or on a farm as an incident to such farming operations, including delivery to market. Independent contractors and their employees engaged in transporting farm products from farm to mai'ket are not persons employed in agriculture.

"(8) 'Oppressive wage' means a wage lower than the applicable minimum wage declared by order of the Adm1nistrator under the provisions of section 4.

"(9) 'Oppressive workweek' means a workweek (or workday) longer than the applicable maximum workweek declared by order of the Administrator under the provisions of section 4.

"(10) 'Oppressive child labor' means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee (as defined 1n this act to exclude employees in agriculture) under the age of 16 years 1s employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing 1n place of a parent) in any occupation, or (B) any such employee between the ages of 16 and 18 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent) in any occupation which the Chief of the Children's Bureau 1n the Department of Labor shall from time to time by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of such children or detrimental to their health or well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by virtue of the employment 1n any occupation of any person with respect to whom the employer shall have on file a certifl.cate issued and held pursuant to the regulation of the Chief of the Children's Bureau certifying that such person is above the oppressive child-labor age. The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees under the age of 16 years in any occupation shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that the Chief of the Children's Bureau determines that such employment 1s confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.

"(11) 'Substandard labor conditions' means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee is employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) any employee is employed for an oppressive workweek; or (C) oppressive child labor exists.

"(12) 'Fair labor standard' means a condition of employment under which (A) no employee is employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) no employee is employed for an oppressive workweek; or (C) no oppressive child labor exists.

"(13) 'Labor standard order' means an order of the administrator under section 4, 6, or 8 of this act.

"(14) 'Goods' means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof. but shall not mean goods after their delivery into the

[PAGE 1511]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1512]

actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.

"(15) 'Unfair goods' means goods in the production of which employees have been employed in any occupation under any substandard labor condition, or any goods produced in whole or in part by convicts or prisoners except conVicts or prisoners on parole or on probation, or inmates of Federal penal or correctional institutions producing goods for the use of the United States Government.

"{16) 'Fair goods' means goods in the production of which no employees have been employed in any occupation under any substandard labor condition.

"(17) 'Produced' means produced, mnufactured, mined, handled, or in any other manner worked on; and for the purposes of this act an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed in producing, manufacturing, mining, handling, transporting, or in any other manner working on such goods, or in any process or occupation necessary to the proquction thereof.

"(18) 'Sale' or 'sell' includes any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.

"(19) 'To a substantial extent' means not casually, sporadically, or accidentally but as a settled or recurrent characteristic of the matter or occupation described, or of a portion thereof, which need not be a large or preponderant portion thereof.

"(20) The term 'person employed in agriculture' as used in this act, insofar as it shall refer to fresh fruits or vegetables, shall include persons employed within the area of production engaged in preparing, packing, or storing such fresh fruits or vegetables ln their raw or natural state.

"(b) For the purposes of this act, proof that any employee was employed under any substandard labor condition in any factory mill, workshop, mine, quarry, or other place of employment where goods were produced, within 90 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom (but not earlier than 120 days after the enactment of this act), shall be prima facie evidence that such goods were produced by such employee employed under such substandard labor condition.

"(c) All wage-and-hour regulations under the provisions of this act shall apply to workers without regard to sex.

"ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

"SEC. 3. (a) There ls hereby created in the Department of Labor a Wage and Hour Division which shall be under the directlon of an Administrator, to be known as the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator). The Administrator shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive a salary of $10,000 a year. The Administrator is authorized to administer all the provisions of this act except as otherwise specifically provided and his determlnations and labor-standard orders shall not be subject to review by any other person or agency in the executive branch of the Government.

"(b) The Administrator and the Chief of the Children's Bureau, under plans developed with the consent and cooperation of the State agencies charged with the adminlstration of State labor laws, may utilize the services of State and local agencies, officers, and employees administering such laws and notwithstanding any other provisions of law may reimburse such State and local agencies, officers, and employees for their services when performed for such purposes.

"(c) The Administrator may, subject to the civil-service laws, appoint such employees as he deems necessary to carry out the functions and duties of the Adm1nistrator and shall fix their salaries in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. The Administrator may establish and utilize such regional, local, or other agencies, and utilize such voluntary and uncompensated services, as may from time to time be needed. In all litigation the Administrator shall be represented by the Attorney General or by such attorney or attorneys as he may designate. In the appointment, selection. classification. and promotion of oftlcers and employees of the Administrator, no political test or quallftcation shall be permitted or given consideration, but an such appointments and promotions shall be given and made on the basis of merit and efficiency.

"(d) The principal oftice of the Administrator shall be in the District of Columbia, but he may exercise any or all of his powers in any other place.

"(e) The Administrator shall submit annually in January a report to the Congress covering the work of the Administrator for the preceding year and including such information, data, and recommendations for further legislation in connection with the matters covered by this act as he may find advisable.

"PART II-ESTABLISHMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS

"MINIMUM-WAGE AND MAXIMUM-HOUR STANDARDS

"SEc. 4. (a) Whereas wages paid in interstate industries vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as low as $5 or less per week; and

"Whereas hours of labor in interstate industries also vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as high as 84 hours per week; and

"Whereas such wide variations create unfair competition for employers who wish to pay decent wages and maintain decent working hours; and

"Whereas the workers who receive the lowest wages and work the longest hours have been and now are unable to obtain a living wage or working hours by individual or collective bargaining with their employers: and

Whereas it is necessary for the development of American commerce and the protection of American workers and their families that substandard wages and hours be eliminated from interstate industry and business; but

"Whereas it is impossible to achieve such results arbitrarily by an abrupt change so drastic that it might do serious injury to American industry and American workers, and it is therefore necessary to achieve such results cautiously, carefully, and without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry: Now, therefore,

"It is declared to be the policy of this act to establish minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent with health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and the profitable operation of American business so far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible, and without interfering with, impeding, or diminishing in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively in order to obtain a wage in excess of the applicable minimum under this act or to obtain a shorter workday or workweek than the applicable maximum under this act.

"(b) Having regard to such policy and upon a finding that a substantial number of employees in any occupation are employed at wages and hours inconsistent with the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being, the Administrator shall appoint a wage and hour comm1ttee to consider and recommend a minimum wage rate or a maximum workday and workweek, or both, as the case may be, for employees in such occupation which shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible to maintain such minimum standard of living: Provided, however, That no such committees shall be appointed with respect to occupations in which no employee receives less than 40 cents per hour or works more than 40 hours per week.

"(c) Such committee shall be composed of an equal number aof persons representing the employers and the employees in such occupation, and of not more than three disinterested persons representing the public, one of whom shall be designated as chairman. Persons representing the employers and employees shall be selected so far as practicable from nominations submitted by employers and employees, or organizations thereof, having due regard to the geographic regions which may be concerned, in such occupation. Two-thirds of the members of such wage and hour committee shall constitute a quorum, and the recommendations of such committee shall require a vote of not less than a majority of all its members. Members of a wage and hour commlttee shall be entitled to reasonable compensation to be fixed by the Administrator for each day actually spent in the work of the committee in addition to their reasonable and necessary traveling and other expenses and shall be supplied with adequate stenographic, clerical, and other assistance.

"(d) The Adm1nistrator shall submtt to such a committee promptly upon its appointment such data as the Administrator may have available on the matter referred to it, and shall cause to be brought before the wage and hour committee any witnesses whom the Administrator deems materiaL A wage and hour committee may summon other witnesses or call upon the Administrator to furnish additional information to aid in its deliberations.

"(e) In recommending a minimum wage, a committee shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following: (1) The cost of living; (2) the wages paid by employers in the occupation to be covered by the order establishing such minimum wage who voluntarily maintain reasonable minimum wage standards; (3) the wages established in similar occupations through collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing; (4) local economic conditions; (5) the relative cost of transporting goods from points of production to consuming markets; (6) the reasonable value of the services rendered; and (7) differences in unit costs of manufacturing occasioned by varying local natural resources, operating conditions, or other factors entering into the cost of production.

"(f) In recommending a maximum workday and a maximum workweek, a committee shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following: (1) The hours of employment observed by employers in the occupation to be covered by the order establishing such maximum workday and workweek, who voluntarily maintain a reasonable maximum workday and workweek; (2) the hours of employment established in similar occupations through collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing; and (3) the number of persons seeking employment in the occupation to be subject to the order establishing such maximum workday and workweek.

"(g) A committee's jurisdiction to recommend labor standards shall not include the power to recommend minimum wages in excess of 40 cents per hour or a maximum workweek of less than 40 hours, but higher minimum wages and a shorter maximum workweek fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise shall be encouraged; it being the objective of this act to raise the existing wages in the lower wage groups so as to attain as rapidly as practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour without curtai1ing opportunities for employment and without disturbance and dislocation of busmess and industry, and a maximum workweek of 40 hours without curta111ng earning power and without reducing production.

"(h) unless the Administrator ftnds that the standards recommended by a wage and hour committee have been made without

[PAGE 1512]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1513]

due consideration of the factors enumerated in this section he shall set down for public hearing pursuant to section 10 a proposed order containing such standards together with such regulations and conditions as he may deem necessary and incidental thereto pursuant to sections 6 and 9. If, after such hearing, the Administrator finds that the proposed standards, so far as is economically feasible, are at levels consistent with the health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers, he shall so declare, and shall issue a labor-standard order applying such standards, regulations, and conditions to the occupation involved pursuant to the procedure hereinafter provided.

"(i) If the recommendations of a committee are not submitted in such time as the Administrator may prescribe as reasonable, the Administrator may appoint a new committee. If the Administrator before or after hearing rejects the recommendations of a wage and hour committee, either in whole or in part, he shall resubmit the matter to the same committee or to a new committee, whichever he deems proper.

"(j) The provisions of this act with respect to maximum workdays or maximum workweeks shall not apply to employees engaged in processing or packing perishable agricultural products during the harvesting season; or to any person employed in connection with the ginning, compressing, and storing of cotton or with the processing of cottonseed; the canning or other packing or packaging of fish, sea foods, sponges, or picking, canning, or processing of fruits, or vegetables, or the processing of beets, cane, and maple into sugar and sirup, when the services of such person are of a seasonal nature; or to employees employed in a plant located in dairy production areas in which milk, cream, or butterfat are received, processed, shipped, or manufactured if operated by a cooperative association as defined in section 15, as amended, or the Agricultural Marketing Act.

"COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS PROTECTED

"SEC. 5. (a) Nothing in this act or in any regulation or order thereunder shall be construed to interfere with, impede, or diminish in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively or otherwise to engage in any concerted activity allowed by law in order to obtain a wage in excess of the applicable minimum under this act or to obtain a shorter workweek than the maximum workweek under this act or otherwise to obtain benefits or advantages for employees not required by this act, and a minimum wage so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it 1s in excess of the minimum wage under this act, and a maximum workweek so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it is shorter than the maximum workweek under this act.

"(b) A labor-standard order establishing minimum wages or a maximum workweek for any occupation shall be made only if the Administrator finds that collective-bargaining agreements in respect to such minimum wages or maximum hours do not cover a substantial portion of the employees in such occupation, or that existing facilities for collective bargaining in such occupation are inadequate or ineffective to accomplish the purposes of this act.

"(c) A labor-standard order covering any occupation shall not establish for any locality in which such occupation is carried on a minimum wage which is lower or a maximum workweek which is longer than the minimum wage or maximum workweek prevailing for like work done under substantially like conditions in such occupation in such locality, unless the minimum wage established by such order in highest wage or the maximum workweek is the shortest workweek that the Administrator is authorized to establish under this act.

"(d) The minimum wages and maximum workweek established by collective-bargaining agreements in any occupation shall be prima facie evidence of the appropriate minimum wage and maximum workweek to be established by the Administrator for like work done under substantially like conditions.

"EXEMPTIONS FROM LABOR STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO WAGES AND HOURS

"SEC. 6. (a) Unless an applicable order of the Administrator under this act shall otherwise provide, the maintenance among employees of an oppressive workweek shall not be deemed to constitute a substandard labor condition if the employees so employed receive additional compensation for such overtime employment at the rate of 1^1/2 times the regular hourly wage rate at which such employees are employed. But the Administrator shall have power to make an order determining that such overtime employment in any occupation shall constitute a substandard labor condition if and to the extent the Administrator finds necessary or appropriate to prevent the circumvention of this act. Any such order may contain such terms and conditions relating to overtime employment, including the wage rates to be paid therefor and the maximum number of hours of employment in each day and the maximum number of days per week, as the Administrator shall consider necessary or appropriate in the occupation affected.

"(b) The AdministTator shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees in any occupation at a wage lower or for a workweek longer than the appropriate fair labor standard otherwise applicable to such occupation shall not be deemed to constitute a substandard labor condition if the Administrator finds that the special character or terms of the employment or the limited qualifications of the employees makes such employment justifiable and not inconsistent with the accomplishment of the purposes of such one or more provisions of this act. Such regulations or orders may provide for (1) the employment of learners, and of apprentices under special certificates as issued pursuant to regulations of the Department of Labor, at such wages lower than the applicable minimum wage and subject to such limitations as to time, number, proportion, and length of service as the Administrator shall prescribe; (2) the employment of persons whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury, under special certificates to be issued by the Administrator, at such wages lower than the applicable wage and for such period as shall be fixed in such certificates; (3) deductions for board, lodging, and other facilities furnished by the employer if the nature of the work is such that the employer is obliged to furnish and the employee to accept such facilities; (4) overtime employment in periods of seasonal or peak activity or in maintenance, repair, or other emergency work and the wage rates to be paid for such overtime employment not exceeding the rate of time and one-half; and (5) suitable treatment of other cases or classes of cases which, because of the nature and character of the employment, justify special treatment.

"PART III-UNFAIR GOODS BARRED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROTECTED FROM THE EFFECT OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS

"PROHIBITED SHIPMENTS AND EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE

"SEC. 7. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly—

"(1) to transport or cause to be transported in interstate commerce, or to aid or assist in transporting, or obtaining transportation in interstate commerce for, or to ship or deliver or sell in interstate commerce, or to ship or deliver or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in interstate commerce is intended, any unfair goods; or

"(2) to employ under any substandard labor conditions any employee engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods intended for transportation or sale in violation of clause (1) of this section.

"PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM EFFECT OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS

"SEc. 8. (a) Whenever the Administrator shall determine that any substandard labor condition exists in the production of goods in one State and that such goods compete to a substantial extent in that State with other goods produced in another State and sold or transported in interstate commerce, in the production of which such substandard labor condition does not exist, the Administrator shall make an order requiring the elimination of such substandard labor condition and the maintenance of the appropriate fair labor standard in the production of goods which so compete.

"(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to employ any employee in violation of any term or provision of an order of the Administrator made under this section.

"(c) The United States Tariff Commission upon request of the President, or upon resolution of either or both Houses of Congress, or if imports are substantial and increasing in ratio to domestic production and if in the judgment of the Commission there is good and sufilcient reason therefor, then, upon its own motion or upon the request of the Administrator or upon application of any interested party, shall investigate the differences in the costs of production of any domestic article and of any like or similar foreign article resulting from the operation of this act, and shall recommend to the President such an increase (within the limits of section 336 of the Tariff Act of 1930) in the duty upon imports of the said foreign article, or such a limitation in the total quantity permitted entry, or entry without increase in duty, as it may find necessary to equalize the said differences in cost and to maintain the standards established pursuant to this act. In the case of an article on the free list in the Tariff Act of 1930, it shall recommend, if required for the purposes of this section, a limitation on the total quantity permitted entry. The President shall by proclamation approve and cause to be put into effect the recommendations of the Commission if, in his judgment, they are warranted by the facts ascertained in the Commission's investigation.

"(d) All provisions of title III, part II, of the Tariff Act of 1930, applicable with respect to investigations, reports, and proclamations under section 336 of the said Tariff Act, shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with this section, be applicable with respect to investigations under this section Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting action in violation of any international obligation of the United States. In recommending any limitation of the quantity permitted entry, or entry without an increase in duty, the Commission, if 1t finds it necessary to enforce such limitations or to carry out any of the provisions of this section, shall recommend that the foreign article concerned be forbidden entry except under license from the Secretary of the Treasury and that the quantity permitted entry, or entry without an increase in duty, shall be allocated among the different supplying countries on the basis of the proportion of imports from each country in a previous representative period. Any proclamation under this section may be modified or terminated by the President whenever he approves findings submitted to him by the Commission that conditions require the modification recommended by the Commission to carry out the purposes of this section, or that the conditions requiring the proclamation no longer exist.

[PAGE 1513]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1514]

PART IV—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

"LABOR-STANDARD ORDERS

"SEC. 9. A labor-standard order-

" ( 1) shall be made only after a hearing held pursuant to section 10;

"(2) shall take effect upon the publication thereof in the Federal Register or at such date thereafter as may be provided in the order;

"(3) shall define the occupation or occupations, the territorial limits within which such order shall operate, and the class, craft, or industrial unit or units to which such order relates;

(4) subject to the provisions of this act, may classify em- ployers, employees, and employments within the occupation to which such order relates according to localities, the population of the communities in which such employment occurs, the number of employees employed, the nature and volume of the goods produced, and such other differentiating circumstances as the Administrator finds necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of such order, and may make appropriate provision for ·different classes of employers, employees, or employment; but it shall be the polfcy of the Administrator to avoid the adoption of ·any classification which effects an unreasonable discrimination against any person or locality or which adversely affects prevailing minimum wage or maximum work-week standards and to avoid unnecessary or excessive.. classifications and to exercise his powers of classification only to the extent necessary or appropriate to accomplish the essential purposes of the act;

"(5) in case of an order relating to wages may contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator may consider necessary or appropriate to prevent the established minimum wage becoming the maximum wage; but it shall be the policy of the Administrator to establish such minimum-wage standards as will affect only those employees in need of legislative protection without interfering wtth the voluntary establishment of appropriate differentials and higher standards for other employees in the occupation to which such standards relate;

"(6) slflall contain such terms and conditions (including the ·restriction or prohibition of industrial home work or of such other acts or practices) as the Administrator finds necessary to carry out the purposes of such order to prevent the circumvention or evasion thereof or to safeguard the fair labor standards therein . established;

"(7) may modify, extend, or rescind at any time in the light of the circumstances then prevailing a labor-standard order previously made: Provided, That at least 90 days' notice from the date of the order must be given before any change is made effective if it increases wages or reduces hours.

"HEARINGS

"SEC. 10. A labor-standard order shall be made, modified, ex- tended, or rescinded only after a hearing held pursuant to this section. Such hearing shall be held at such time and place as the Administrator shall prescribe on the Administrator's own motion or on the complaint of any labor organization or any person having a bona fide interest (as defined by the Administrator) filed in ac- cordance With such regulations as the Administrator shall prescribe and showing reasonable cause why such hearing should be held. Such hearing shall be public and may be held before the Administrator or any officer or employee of the Wage and Hour Division designated by him. Appropriate records of such hearing shall be kept. The Administrator shall not be bound by any technical rules of evidence or procedure.

"INVESTIGATIONS; TESTIMONY

"SEC. 11. (a} The Administrator in his discretion may investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in any occupation subject to this act and may inspect such places and such records (and make such transcripts thereof) and investigate such facts, conditions, practices, or matters as he may deem necessary or appropriate to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of this act or any labor-standard order, or to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this act, in prescribing regulations thereunder, or in obtatning information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation concerning the matters to which this act relates.

"(b) For the purpose of any inve~igation or any other proceeding under this act, a wage and hour committee, the Administrator, or any officer or employee of the Wage and Hour Division designated by him, is empowered to administer oaths and a1Hrmations, subpena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, or ' other records of any employer deemed relevant or material to the inquiry. Witnesses appearing before the Administrator or any omcer or employee designated by him, in obedience to subpenas of ·the Administrator, shall be entitled to such fees and mileage as the Administrator may by rules and regulations prescribe.

"(c) In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena issued to, any person, the Administrator, or the wage and hour committee, as the case may be, may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on or where such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of Witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, and other records. Such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the wage and hour committee, or before the administrator, or officer or employee designated by him, as the case may be, and to produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he may be found.

"(d) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, or other records and documents on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no individual shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transactions, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.

"ENFORCEMENT

"SEC. 12. Whenever it shall appear to the Administrator that any person is engaged or about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute a violation of any provision of this act, or of any provision of any labor-standard order, he may in his discretion bring an action in the proper district court of the United States to enjoin such act or practice and to enforce compliance with this act or with such labor-standard order, and upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order shall be granted Without bond. The Administrator may transmit such evidence as may be avaUable concerning such acts or practices to the Attorney General, who, in his discretion, may institute the appropriate criminal proceedings under this act.

"RECORDS; LABELS

"SEc. 13. (a) Every employer subject to any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him; and the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and shall make such reports therefrom to the Administrator as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder. Every employer subject to a labor-standard order shall keep a copy of such order posted in a conspicuous place in every room in which employees in any occupation subJect to such order are employed, and a schedule of hours of employment on a form published by the Administrator shall contain the maximum number of hours each employee is to be employed during each day of the week With the total hours per week, the hours of commencing and stopping work, and the beginning and end of periods allotted for meals. If more than one schedule of hours is in operation at a particular place of employment, the posted schedule shall contain the names of the employees working on the different shifts and shall indicate the hours required for each employee or group of employees. The presence of any employee at the place of employment at any other hours than those stated in the schedule applying to him shall be deemed prima facie evidence of violation of such order, unless such employee is receiving the overtime rate provided in section 6 (b). Employers shall be furnished copies of such orders and forms upon request without charge.

"(b) No person other than the producer shall be prosecuted for the transportation, shipment, delivery, or sale of unfair goods who has secured a representation in writing from the person by whom the goods transported, shipped, or delivered were produced, resident in the United States, to the effect that such goods were not produced in violation of any provision of this act. If such representation contains any false statement of a material fact, the person furnishing the same shall be amenable to prosecution and to the penalties provided for the violation of the provisions of this act.

"POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU

. "SEC. 14. (a} So far as practicable, the Administrator shall utilize the Department of Labor for an the investigations and inspections necessary under section 11 (a). The Secretary of Labor shall have the powers enumerated therein in the conduct of such investigations and inspections and shall report the results thereof to the Administrator.

"(b) The Administrator shall utilize the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor, or any of his authorized representatives, for all investigations and inspections under section 11 with respect to the employment of minors and to bring all actions under section 12 to enjoin any act or practice which is unlawful by reason of the existence of oppressive child labor.

"REGULATIONS; ORDERS

"SEC. 15. The Administrator shall have authority from time to time, to make, issue, amend, and rescind such regulations and such orders as he may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this act, including but not limited to regulations defining technical and trade terms used in this act. Among other things, the Administrator shall have authority, for the purposes of this act, to provide for the form and manner in which complaints may be filed and proceecdings instituted for the establishment

[PAGE 1514]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1515]

of fair labor standards; to prescribe the procedure to be followed at any hearing or other proceeding before the Administrator or any officer or employee designated by him, or wage and hour committee appointed by him. For the purpose of his regulations and orders, the Administrator may classify persons and matters within his jurisdiction and prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons or matters. The regulations and orders of the Administrator shall take effect upon the publication thereof in the Federal Register or at such later date the Administrator shall direct. No provision of this act imposmg any liability or disability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any regulation or order of the Administrator, notwithstanding that such regulation or order may, after such act or omission, be amended or rescinded or be determmed by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

"VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS

"SEC. 16. (a) Any provision of any contract, agreement, or understanding made in violation of any provision of this act or of a regulation or order thereunder shall be null and void.

"(b) Any contract, agreement, understanding, condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this act or with any regulation or order thereunder shall be null and void.

"REPARATION; RELEASE OF GOODS

"SEC. 17. (a) If any employee is paid by his employer a wage lower than the applicable minimum wage required to be paid by any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order, or required to be paid to make it lawful under this act for goods in the production of which such employee was employed to be shipped in interstate commerce or to compete with goods shipped in interstate commerce, such employee shall be entitled to receive as reparation from his employer the full amount of such minimum wage less the amount actually paid to him by the employer. If any employee is employed for more hours per week or per day than the maximum workweek or workday required to be maintained by any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order, he shall be entitled to receive as reparation from his employer additional compensation for the time that he was employed in excess of such maximum workweek or workday at the rate of one and one-half times the agreed wage at which he was employed or the minimum wage, if any, for such time established by this act or by an applicable labor-standard order, whichever is higher, less the amount actually paid to him for such time by the employer.

"(b) Any employee entitled to reparation under this section may recover such reparation in a civil action, together with costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Any such claim for reparation shall not be the subject of any voluntary assignment, except to the Administrator as herein provided. At the request or with the consent of any employee entitled to such reparation, the Administrator or an authorized regional representative of the Administrator may take an assignment of any claim of such employee under this section in trust for the assigning employee and may bring any legal action necessary to collect such claim, and the employer shall be required to pay costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Employees entitled to reparations from the same employer may bring a joint action to recover such reparations or, if separate actions are brought, such employees or the employer shall have the right to have such actions consolidated for trial.

"(c) The Administrator shall, by order, exempt any goods from the operation of any provision of this act prohibiting the sale or transportation of such goods in interstate commerce if the Administrator finds that every person having a substantial proprietary interest (as defined by the Administrator) in such goods had no reason to believe that any substandard labor condition existed in the production of such goods or that such exemption is necessary to prevent undue hardship or economic waste and is not detrimental to the public interest. Any order of the Administrator under this subsection shall contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers necessary or appropriate in order to safeguard the enforcement and prevent the circumvention of this act. In the case of goods produced under any substandard labor condition relating to wages or hours of employment maintained by any employer having a substantial proprietary interest (as defined by the Administrator) in such goods, no such order shall be granted unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Administrator that adequate provision has been made for the payment, to every employee employed by him in the production of such goods under any such substandard labor condition, of the reparation to which such employee is entitled under this section on account of such employment.

"RELATION TO OTHER LAWS

"SEC.18. No provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than a minimum wage established under this act or a maximum workweek lower than a maximum workweek established under this act, or otherwise regulating the conditions of employment in any occupation and not in conflict with a provision of this act or a regulation or order thereunder.

"COMMON CARRIERS NOT LIABLE

"SEC. 19. No provision of this act shall impose any liability or penalty upon any common carrier for the transportation in interstate commerce in the regular course of its business of any goods not produced by such common carrier, and no provision of this act shall excuse any common carrier from its obligations to accept any goods for transportation.

"COURT REVIEW OP ORDERS

"SEC. 20. (a) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Administrator under this act may obtain a review of such order in the circuit court of appeals of the United states for any circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the Dlstrict of Columbia by filing in such court, within 60 days after the entry of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Administrator be modlfted or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon the Administrator, and tcereupon the Administrator shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive Jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and findings of fact by the Administrator when supported by evidence shall be conclusive unless it shall appear that the findings of the Administrator are arbitrary or capricious. No objection to the order of the Administrator shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Administrator or unless there were reasonable grounds for failure so to do. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence may materially affect the result of the proceeding and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Administrator, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Administrator and to be adduced upon the bearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Administrator may modify his findings as to the facts by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file with the court such modified or new findings, which if supported by evidence shall be conclusive, and his recommendation, if any, for the modifications or setting aside of the original order. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, sees. 346 and 347).

"(b) The commencement o! proceedings under subsection (a) shall not, unless speclftcally ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Administrator's order. The court shall not grant any stay of a labor-standard order relating to wages or hours unless the person complaining of such order shall file in court an undertaking with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the court for the payment to the employees subject to the order of the reparation to which they would be entitled under section 17 in the event that the order should be upheld.

"JURISDICTION OF OFFENSES AND SUITS

"SEC. 21. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of violations of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder, and, concurrently with State and Territorial courts, of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act or the regulations or orders thereunder. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation or an element thereof occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act, or regulations or orders thereunder, may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business, and process in such cases may be served in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, sees. 225 and 347}, and section 7, as amended, of the act entitled 'An act to establish a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,' approved February 9, 1893 (D. C. Code, title 18, sec. 26). No costs shall be assessed against the Administrator in any proceeding under this act brought by or against the Administrator in any court.

"PENALTIES

"SEc. 22. (a) Any person who willfully performs or aids or abets in the performance of any act declared to be unlawful by any provision of this act or who willfully fails or omits to perform any act, duty, or obligation required by this act to be performed by him shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. Where the employment of an employee in violation of any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order is unlawful, each employee so employed in violation of such provision shall constitute a separate offense. No person shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an offense committed after the conviction of such person for a prior violation of this subsection.

"(b) Any person who w1llfully makes any statement or entry in any application, report, or record filed or kept pursuant to the provisions of this act or any regulation or order thereunder, knowing such statement or entry to be false in any material respect

[PAGE 1515]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1516]

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.

"(c) Any employer who willfully discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation or proceeding under or related to this act, or bas testified or is about to testify in any such investigation or proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an advisory committee, or because such employer believes that such employee has done or may do any of said acts, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

"(d) Any person who, without just cause, shall fail or refuse to attend and testify or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce books, papers, correspondence, or other records, if in his or its power so to do, tn obedience to a subpena issued pursuant to this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

"(e) No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce any goods produced in an establishment situated in the United States in or about which within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom any oppressive child labor has been employed: Provided, That a prosecution and conviction of a defendant for the shipment or delivery for shipment of any goods under the conditions herein prohibited shall be a bar to any further prosecution against the same defendant for shipments or deliveries for shipment of any such goods before the beginning of said prosecution.

SEPARABILITY

"SEC. 23. If any provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if any provision of this act or any regulation or order thereunder shall be held Invalid insofar as it gives any effect to any substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any fair labor standard on the part of any person or in any circumstances, the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order shall not be affected thereby insofar as it gives any effect to any ether substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any other fair labor standard on the part of the same person or in the same circumstances, or insofar as it gives any effect to the same substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of the same fair labor standard on the part of any other person or in any other circumstances.

"EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT

"SEC. 24. This act shall take effect immediately, except that no provision requiring the maintenance of any fair labor standard or giving any effect to any substandard labor condition shall take effect until the one hundred and twentieth day after the enactment of this act, and no labor-standard order shall be effective prior to that day."

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the remarks I made today and include therein certain charts and data published by the Department of Labor.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the remarks I made in the Committee of the Whole this afternoon and include therein excerpts from the Supreme Court decision in the N. R. A. case, as well as excerpts from the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Jackson at the hearings on this bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

[PAGE 1516]

======================================================================

  Top of page

======================================================================

Page 1570        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 15, 1937        (82 Cong. Rec. 1570, 1937)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

WAGE AND HOUR BILL

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the use resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (S. 2475) to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill S. 2475, with Mr. McCORMAcK in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, at what point in the reading of the bill will it be in order for me to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the Senate bill?

The CHAIRMAN IMr. McCORMACK). The Chair feels that ordinarily on bills other than revenue, appropriation, and rivers and harbors matters, the bill is read by section for amendment. The Chair feels constrained to follow that practice. In answer to the parliamentary inquiry the Chair would state that an amendment would be in order, with the proper notice of intention to strike out other provisions of the pending bill, if the amendment is adopted, after the Clerk has completed reading the first section on line 22, page 2, of the pending bill.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry if it is proper?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state the inquiry.

Mr. SNELL. It seems to me there is a very complicated parliamentary situation here. It is different from any I have ever been up against in my service here. I think we should have a pretty definite understanding as to just how we are going to consider these various amendments in the clean bill, the dirty bill, and the various other bills. In the first place, I would like to inquire if all of these amendments which the gentlewoman from New Jersey spoke of last night are offered as committee amendments or personal amendments?

Mrs. NORTON. They are all included in the committee amendment.

Mr. SNELL. They will be offered as committee amendments?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. SNELL. As a general rule, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me when the first section of the bill is read, all perfecting amendments should be considered before a committee amendment ilf the nature of a substitute is offered.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, in answer to the gentleman's inquiry, and, of course, the Chair is making no ruling, because the matter is not presented to the Chair requiring a ruling at this time, but it is the opinion of the Chair, reserving the right to change that opinion if a direct point of order is raised and the matter is argued and the Chair has the benefit of the argument, that it would be in order for the gentlewoman from New Jersey to offer her amendment by way of a substitute for the Senate bill after the reading of the first section, if accompanied with notice of intention to strike out the remaining sections of the Senate bill if her amendment is agreed to. Either that or the gentlewoman could wait until the entire Senate bill has been read for perfecting amendments, and then move to strike out all after the enacting clause and substitute the new bill.

The Chair might also say it is the opinion of the Chair at this time, in the absence of the direct matter being presented for a specific ruling, that if the gentlewoman adopts the method which the response of the Chair would indicate she might adopt, the first section of the bill would still be open for perfecting amendments while the amendment offered by the gentlewoman is pending.

Mr. SNELL. Then after the substitute is adopted, provided it is adopted, will that be considered as an original bill, as far as amendmens are concerned?

The CHAIRMAN. In answer to that inquiry, and again with reservation, the Chair is of the opinion that that would conclude the bill.

The Chair might also state that it is the opinion of the Chair that if the gentlewoman from New Jersey should offer an amendment which is in the nature of a substitute, there could be pending at one time an amendment to that, and there could also be pending one substitute to her amendment, with one amendment to the substitute, pending.

Mr. SNELL. So all of these matters would be pending at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN. That could happen.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BLAND. Would the sub§titute be open to amendment with like benefit and privilege as if it were the originally reported bill?

The CHAIRMAN. In response to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair will state that, in the opinion of the Chair, one substitute to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey will be in order, if the gentlewoman offers her amendment, and to that substitute there can be pending at one time one amendment. To the gentlewoman's amendment there can also be pending one amendment at a particular time.

Mr. BLAND. After the substitute is adopted will that substitute then be open to amendment as to its various sections?

The CHAIRMAN. In the absence of a direction from the House, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House would feel constrained to rule that it would not; that the adoption of the substitute would preclude further amend· ment to it.

Mr. BLAND. In that event, Mr. Chairman, amendments that are necessary to all the bills would be precluded and could not be offered.

The CHAIRMAN. Not after the substitute is agreed to.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. RAYBURN. Is this not established: That when the gentlewoman from New Jersey offers her amendment in the form of a substitute, the substitute is open to the same amendments and substitutes as the original bill?

The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey would occupy the same status as an amendment offered by any other Member.

Mr. RAYBURN. But it would be subject to amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be subject to amendment.

Mr. RAYBURN. That is my inquiry. It is subject to one amendment at a time, but when one amendment is disposed of it is then subject to another amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Several Members rose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels that in recognizing Members to submit parliamentary inquiries the Chair should recognize as equally as possible Members on both sides of the aisle. For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan rise?

Mr. MAPES. To submit a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MAPES. Assuming that the gentlewoman from New Jersey offers her committee bill as a substitute at the end of the reading of the first section of the Senate bill, will it then be in order for the gentleman from California, or some other Member, to offer the bill which he has introduced as a substitute for the bill offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, and thus to have both the so-called American Federation of Labor bill and the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey pending at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN. That could be done. The question, of course, as to what substitute will be pending will depend upon the recognition of the Chair.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee rise?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. To submit a parliamentary inquiry.

[PAGE 1570]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1571]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I understand that the Chair bas ruled that if the substitute is adopted it is read as one amendment and subject to amendment in that way.

The CHAIRMAN. Prior to its adoption it is open to amendment.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Then, I submit as a parliamentary inquiry and ask unanimous consent that it be done, that when the substitute is up for consideration—

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state which substitute.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. The committee substitute.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Tennessee permit an inquiry?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, assuming any substitute that is pending is adopted—

Mr. McREYNOLDS. That is not what I am talking about; I am talking about the committee substitute, which is a new bill, and which I am very glad the Members have been furnished with this morning, that we may have it for consideration.

My inquiry and my request is that the substitute offered by the committee be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule as an original bill.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I yield.

Mrs. NORTON. I had intended to submit such a request myself.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. The gentlewoman from New Jersey joins in my request.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Tennessee permit an inquiry?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair might say that there is nothing pending at the present time. Will the gentleman from Tennessee again submit his request?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that when the substitute to be offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is pending that it be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule section by section as an original bill.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Tennessee will yield, that is entirely agreeable to me.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels that it would be better procedure to wait until the amendment is offered before submitting any request relating to the amendment that the gentlewoman from New Jersey or any other Member might offer.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request at the present time.

Several Members rose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, as stated before, desires to recognize as equally as possible Members on both sides of the aisle; that is, the Democrats and the Republicans. For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota rise?

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. KNUTSON. In the event that none of the substitutes are adopted. how many bills will then be before the House?

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is a matter which the Chair will pass upon when occasion arises.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that any substitute which may be offered for the pending bill and adopted shall, when adopted, be open to amendment as though it were the original bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already suggested to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS], who propounded a similar unanimous-consent request, that the gentleman withhold temporarily his request.

Mr. BLAND. I prefer to submit mine now as to the offering of a substitute.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair exercises the right of declining to recognize the gentleman for that purpose.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MICHENER. Can the rules of the House be changed or suspended by unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has asked a very important inquiry. It was for that reason the Chair suggested to the gentleman from Tennessee that he hold in abeyance his unanimous-consent request until an amendment was pending, because the Chair, while not making a specific ruling, recognizes a distinction between the reading of an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a proposed amendment and reading it after its adoption. Does that answer the gentleman's inquiry?

Mr. MICHENER. It does.

The regular order was demanded.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I have before me two copies of the bill S. 2475, Union Calendar No. 535. While the two copies are identical, they vary according to pages and lines. It is important for those who desire to offer amendments to know which copy the Clerk will read from.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will try to be as fair as possible to all Members. In reply to the inquiry made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ELLENBOGEN] the Clerk will proceed to read the Senate bill. Of course, the Chair has no control over amendments which may be offered or what situation might develop as a result of the adoption of amendments. The Clerk will read from the Senate bill and will proceed to do so.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. O'MALLEY. My understanding of the 5-minute rule is that each section of the Senate bill now before us will be read by the Clerk. As each section is read amendments will be offered. Is it the purpose to submit an entirely new bill after the reading of the first section, and may that be done under the 5-minute rule?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unable to advise the gentleman as to what will occur. The Chair has answered certain parliamentary inquiries and has undertaken to convey as much information as possible. The Chair has stated that in his opinion, after the reading of the first section, it would be in order, if the gentlewoman from New Jersey desires, to offer an amendment which would be in the nature of a substitute for the entire bill, With an accompanying notice to move to strike out if the amendment is adopted.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. The Chairman has just stated that after commencement of the reading of the bill and after the first section has been read, the gentlewoman from New Jersey may offer an amendment to strike out the first section of the bill. During the pendency of her amendment a substitute may be offered for her amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's understanding is correct.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Will that substitute have to be acted upon first before another substitute can be offered to the amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The substitute will have to be disposed of before another substitute may be offered.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the matter is cleared up. There will be two substitutes pending.

The CHAIRMAN. One amendment in the nature of a substitute for the Senate bill.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The other a substitute for the amendment.

[PAGE 1571]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1572]

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. What the Chair intended to say, and probably did say, was that the substitute for the amendment would have to be disposed of before another substitute may be offered?

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The Chair is of the impression that is what the Chair stated and, if the Chair did not say so, he intended to say just that.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.

The CHAIRMAN. It is within the discretion of the Chair to recognize the gentleman. The Chair will continue to recognize the gentleman from California.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Chair will be considerate of me because it is common knowledge in this House that I propose to offer a substitute. I have not had a chance to make a 5-minute speech on the subject. I have not been given the opportunity. I do not know whether that is the result of a general conspiracy or not.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman, I am sure, is not intimating that the Chair has not been and will not be fair to the gentleman from California?

The regular order was demanded.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may say that after this parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from California he will recognize another Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILER] will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. As soon as the first substitute is disposed of before the amendment to the section is considered another substitute may be proposed?

The CHAIRMAN. After the first substitute to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is disposed of adversely another substitute will be in order.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Would the substitute amendment or any substitute amendment thereto be read under the 5-minute rule?

The CHAffiMAN. Not unless the Committee so orders.

Mr. RAYBURN rose.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may state he welcomes these parliamentary inquiries at this time, because they may have a tendency to bring about a better understanding of the probable procedure. The Chair is very pleased to have the inquiries made. The Chair has no desire to curtail the propounding of parliamentary inquiries unless the Committee acts otherwise, and the Chair is simply the agent of the Committee.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN].

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I realize it is within the discretion of the Chair to recognize Members for parliamentary inquiries on and on, but I was going to suggest it might expedite the matter if we began the reading of the bill, with the parliamentary inquiries being made when the particular situations may arise.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes that would be the more orderly procedure. However, the Chair does not feel he should undertake to compel such a course under present conditions.

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. CURLEY. Last night when I reserved the right to object to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] I asked whether an amendment I proposed to introduce would be precluded from being offered, and the Speaker's answer was "no." My inquiry now is whether my amendment, which will be in the nature of a perfecting amendment to the substitute the gentlewoman from New Jersey intends to offer, will be in order before the adoption of her amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will repeat what he has already stated to the distinguished minority leader: That there can be pending at one time one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute which the gentlewoman from New Jersey may offer, a substitute to her amendment, and one amendment to the substitute. The gentleman may offer his amendment, but there can be only one amendment to the amendment pending at one time.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I believe Roberts' Rules of Order, under which we are working, provides, and it is my understanding—and I should like to know whether it is also the understanding of the Chair—that when the gentlewoman from New Jersey presents her amendment as a substitute in the shape of an amendment, next in order will be an amendment to that amendment, or a substitute. If an amendment to her amendment is submitted, then is it not in order to submit immediately a substitute amendment, and then, after the submission of such substitute amendment, the next and last thing in order is an amendment to the substitute? Further, all these four propositions may be pending at the same time. If an amendment is presented to the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey and is defeated, then another amendment is in order, but no other amendment is in order until such amendment is disposed of. If the amendment to her amendment is disposed of, then another amendment or a substitute is in order.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the Chair's understanding of the rule.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Chair a question.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.

The Clerk will report the Senate bill.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the Black-Connery Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.

PART I—LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION; DEFINITIONS; LABOR STANDARDS BOARD

LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION

SECTION 1. (a) The employment of workers under substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce, in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or otherwise directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes interstate commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among the workers of the several States conditions detrimental to the physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of such workers; (2) directly burdens interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in interstate commecce; (4) leads to labor disputes directly burdening and obstructing interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce; and (5) directly interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in interstate commerce.

(b) The correction of such conditions directly affecting interstate commerce requires that the Congress exercise its legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupations in and directly affecting interstate commerce.

Mr. LANHAM (interrupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, may I submit a parliamentary inquiry?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would much prefer that any parliamentary inquiry be submitted at the conclusion of the reading of the section.

The Clerk concluded the reading of the section of the bill.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the pending bill, which I send to the desk, with notice that if it is agreed to, as the subsequent sections of the bill are read I will move to strike them out.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. NORTON moves to strike out all after the enacting clause down to and including all of section 1 of Senate 2475, and insert in lieu thereof the following as a substitute for the Senate bill:

"That this act may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.

[PAGE 1572]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1573]

"PART I-LEGISLATIVE DEcLARATioN; DEFINlTioNs; WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

"LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION

"SECTION 1. (a) The employment· of workers under substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce, in the production of goods for intersta~ commerce, or otherwise directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes interstate commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among the workers of the several States conditions detrimental to the physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of such workers; (2) directly burdens interstate commerce and the free :flow of goods in interstate com- merce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in interstate commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes directly burdening and obstructing interstate commerce and the free :flow of goods in interstate commerce; and (5) directly interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in interstate commerce.

"(b) 'Ib.e correction of such conditions directly affecting interstate commerce requires that the Congress exercise its legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupatlQns in and directly affecting interstate commerce.

"DEFINITIONS

"SEC. 2. (a) As used in this act unless the context otherwise requires—

"(1) 'Person' includes an individual, partnership, association. corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, or liqUidating or reorganizing agent.

"(2) 'Interstate commerce' means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or from any State to any place outside thereof.

"(3) 'State' means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States.

"(4) 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division created by section 3 of this act.

"(5) 'Occupation' means an occupation, industry, trade, or business, or branch thereof or class of work or craft therein in which persons are gainfully employed.

"(6) 'Employer' includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee but shall not include the United St ates or any State or political aubdivision thereof, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

"(7) 'Employee' includes any individual employed or suffered or permitted to work by an employer, but shall not include any person employed 1n a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or any person employed in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Administrator) nor shall 'employee' include any person employed as a seaman; or any railroad employee subject to the provisions of the Hours of Service Act (U. S. C., title 45, ch. 3); or any employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 49, ch. 8): Provided, however, That the wage provisions of this act shall apply to employees of such carriers by motor vehicle; or any air transport employee subject to the proviaions of title II of the Railway Labor Act, approved April 10, 1936; or any person employed in the taking of fish, sea foods, or sponges; or any person employed in agriculture. As used in this act, the term 'agriculture' includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, forestry, horticulture, market gardening, and the cultivation and growing of fruits, vegetables, nuts, nursery products, ferns, :flowers, bulbs, livestock, bees, and poultry, and further includes the definition contained in subdivision (g) of section 15 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, approved June 15, 1929, as amended, or any other agricultural or horticultural commodity, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to such farming operations, including delivery to market. Independent contractors and their employees engaged in transporting farm products from farm to market are not persons employed in agriculture.

"(8) 'Oppressive wage' means a wage lower than the appllcable minimum wage declared by order of the Adm1n1strator under the provisions of section 4.

"(9) "Oppressive workweek' means a workweek (or workday) longer than the applicable maximum workweek declared by order of the Administrator under the provisions of section 4.

"(10) 'Oppressive child labor' means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee (as defined in this act to exclude employees in agriculture) under the age of 16 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent) in any occupation, or (B) any such employee between the ages of 16 and 18 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent) in any occupation which the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor shall from time to time by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of such children or detrimental to their health or well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by virtue of the employment in any occupation of any person with respect to whom the employer shall have on file a certificate tssued and held pursuant to the regulation of the Chief of the Children's Bureau certifying that such person is above the oppressive child-labor age. The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees under the age of 16 years in any occupation shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that the Chief of the Children's Bureau determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.

"(11) 'Substandard labor condition' means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee is employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) any employee is employed for an oppressive workweek; or (C) oppressive child labor exists.

"(12) 'Fair labor standard' means a condition of employment under which (A) no employee 1s employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) no employee is employed for an oppressive workweek or (C) no oppressive child labor exists.

"(13) 'Labor standard order' means an order of the Administrator under section 4, 6, or 8 of this act.

"(14) 'Goods' means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but shall not mean goods after their delivery into the actual phyaical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.

"(15) 'Unfair goods' means goods in the production of which employees have been employed in any occupation under any substandard labor condition, or any goods produced in whole or in part by convicts or prisoners except convicts or prisoners on parole or on probation, or inmates of Federal penal or correctional institutions producing goods for the use of the United States Government.

"(16) 'Fair goods' means goods in the production of which no employees have been employed in any occupation under any substandard labor condition.

"(17) 'Produced' means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in any other manner worked on; and for the purposes of this act an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed in producing, manufacturmg, mining, handling, transporting, or in any other manner working on such goods, or in any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof.

"(18) 'Sale' or 'sell' includes any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.

"(19) 'To a substantial extent' means not casually, sporadically, or accidentally but as a settled or recurrent characteristic of the matter or occupation described, or of a portion thereof, which need not be a large or preponderant portion thereof.

"(20) The term 'person employed in agriculture' as used in this act, insofar as it shall refer to fresh frUits or vegetables, shall include persons employed within the area of production engaged in preparing, packing, or storing such fresh frUits or vegetables in their raw or natural state.

"(b) For the purposes of this act, proof that any employee was employed under any substandard labor condition in any factory, mill, workshop, mine, quarry, or other place of employment where goods were produced, within 90 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom (but not earlier than 120 days after the enactment of this act), shall be prima facie evidence that such goods were produced by such employee employed under such substandard labor condition.

"(c) All wage and hour regulations under the provisions of this act shall apply to workers without regard to sex.

"ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

"SEc. 3. (a) There is hereby created in the Department of Labor a Wage and Hour Division which shall be under the direction of an Administrator, to be known as the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator). The Administrator shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive a salary of $10,000 a year. The Administrator is authorized to administer all the provisions of this act except as otherwise specifically provided and his determinations and labor-standard orders shall not be subject to review by any other person or agency in the executive branch of the Government.

"(b) The Administrator and the Chief of the Children's Bureau, under plans developed with the consent and cooperation of the State agencies charged With the administration of State labor laws, may utilize the services of State and local agencies, officers. and employees administering such laws and notwithstanding any other provisions of law may reimburse such State and local agencies, officers, and employees for their services when performed for such purposes.

"(c) The Administrator may, subject to the civil-service laws, appoint such employees as he deems necessary to carry out the functions and duties of the Administrat or and shall fix their salaries in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. The Administrator may establish and utilize such regional, local, or other agencies, and utilize such voluntary and uncompensated services, as may from time to time be needed. In all litigation the Administrator shall be represented by the Attorney General or by such attorney or attorneys as he may designate. In tbe appointment, selection, classification, and promotion of officers

[PAGE 1573]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1574]

and employees of the Administrator, no political test or qualification shall be permitted or given consideration, but all such appointments and promotions shall be given and made on the basis of merit and efficiency.

"(d) The principal omce of the Administrator shall be in the District of Columbia but he may exercise any or all of his powers in any other place.

"(e) The Administrator shall submit annually in January a report to the Congress covering the work of the Administrator for the preceding year and including such information, data, and recommendations for further legislation in connection with the matters covered by this act as he may find advisable.

"PART IT-ESTABLISHMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS

"MINIMUM-WAGE AND MAXIMUM-HOUR STANDARDS

"SEC. 4. (a) Whereas wages paid in interstate industries vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as low as $5 or less per week; and

"Whereas hours of labor in interstate industries also vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as high as 84 hours per week; and

"Whereas such wide variations create unfair competition for employers who wish to pay decent wages and maintain decent working hours; and

"Whereas the workers who receive the lowest wages and work the longest hours have been and now are unable to obtain a living wage or decent working hours by individual or collective bargaining with their employers; and

"Whereas it is necessary for the development of American commerce and the protection of American workers and their families that substandard wages and hours be eliminated from interstate industry and business; but

"Whereas it is impossible to achieve such results arbitrarily by an abrupt change so drastic that it might do serious injury to American industry and American workers, and it is therefore necessary to achieve such results cautiously, carefully, and without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry: Now, therefore,

"It is declared to be the policy of this act to establish minimumwage and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent with health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and the profitable operation of American business so far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible, and without interfering with, impeding, or diminishing in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively in order to obtain a wage in excess of the applicable minimum under this act or to obtain a shorter workday or workweek than the applicable maximum under this act.

"(b) Having regard to such policy and upon a finding that a substantial number of employees in any occupation are employed at wages and hours inconsistent with the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being, the Administrator shall appoint a wage and hour committee to consider and recommend a minimum-wage rate for a maximum workday and workweek, or both, as the case may be, for employees in such occupation which shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible to maintain such minimum standard of living: Provided, however, That no such committees shall be appointed with respect to occupations in which no employee receives less than 40 cents per hour or works more than 40 hours per week.

"(c) Such committee shall be composed of an equal number of persons representing the employers and the employees in such occupation, and of not more than three disinterested persons representing the public, one of whom shall be designated as chairman. Persons representing the employers and employees shall be selected so far as practicable from nominations submitted by employers and employees, or organizations thereof, having due regard to the geocrraphic regions which may be concerned, in such occupation. Two thirds of the members of such wage and hour committee shall constitute a quorum, and the recommendations of such committee shall require a vote of not less than a majority of all its members. Members of a wage and hour committee shall be entitled to reasonable compensation to be fixed by the Administrator for each day actually spent in the work of the committee in addition to their reasonable and necessary traveling and other expenses and shall be supplied with adequate stenographic, clerical, and other assistance.

"(d) The Administrator shall submit to such a committee promptly upon its appointment such data as the Administrator may have available on the matter referred to it, and shall cause to be brought before the wage and hour committee any witnesses whom the Administrator deems material. A wage and hour committee may summon other witnesses or call upon the Administrator to furnish additional information to aid in its deliberations.

"(e) In recommending a minimum wage a committee shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following: (1) The cost of living; (2) the wages paid by employers in the occupation to be covered by the order establishing such minimum wage who voluntarily maintain reasonable minimum wage standards; (3) the wages established in similar occupations through collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing; (4) local economic conditions; (5) the relative cost of transporting goods from points of production to consuming markets; (6) the reasonable value of the services rendered; and (7) differences in unit costs of manufacturing occasioned by varying local natural resources, operating conditions, or other factors entering into the cost of production.

"(f) In recommending a maximum workday and a maximum workweek, a committee shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following: (1) The hours of employment observed by employers in the occupation to be covered by the order establishing such maximum workday and workweek, who voluntarily maintain a reasonable maximum workday and workweek; (2) the hours of employment established in similar occupations through collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing; and (3) the number of persons seeking employment in the occupation to be subject to the order establishing such maximum workday and workweek.

"(g) A committee's jurisdiction to recommend labor standards shall not include the power to recommend minimum wages in excess of 40 cents per hour or a maximum workweek of less than 40 hours, but higher minimum wages and a shorter maximum workweek fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise shall be encouraged; it being the objective of this act to raise the existing wages in the lower wage groups so as to attain as rapidly as practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour without curtailing opportunities for employment and without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry, and a maximum workweek of 40 hours without curtailing earning power and without reducing production.

"(h) Unless the Administrator finds that the standards recommended by a wage and hour committee have been made without due consideration of the factors enumerated in this section he shall set down for public hearing pursuant to section 10 a proposed order containing such standards together with such regulations and conditions as he may deem necessary and incidental thereto pursuant to sections 6 and 9. If after such hearing the Administrator finds that the proposed standards, so far as is economically feasible, are at levels consistent with the health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers, he shall so declare, and shall issue a labor-standard order applying such standards, regulations, and conditions to the occupation involved pursuant to the procedure hereinafter provided.

"(1) If the recommendations of a committee are not submitted in such time as the Administrator may prescribe as reasonable, the Administrator may appoint a new committee. It the Administrator before or after hearing rejects the recommendations of a wage and hour committee, either in whole or in part, he shall resubmit the matter to the same committee or to a new committee, whichever he deems proper.

"(j) The provisions of this act with respect to maximum workdays or maximum workweeks shall not apply to employees engaged in processing or packing perishable agricultural products during the harvesting season; or to any person employed in connection with the ginning, compressing, and storing of cotton or with the processing of cottonseed; the canning or other packing or packaging of fish, sea foods, sponges or picking, canning, or processing of fruits, or vegetables, or the processing of beets, cane, and maple into sugar and sirup, when the services of such person are of a seasonal nature; or to employees employed in a plant located in dairy production areas in which milk, cream, or butterfat are received, processed, shipped, or manufactured if operated by a cooperative association as defined in section 15, as amended, or the Agricultural Marketing Act.

"COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS PROTECTED

"SEC. 5. (a) Nothing in this act or in any regulation or order thereunder shall be construed to interfere with, impede, or diminish in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively or otherwise to engage in any concerted activity allowed by law in order to obtain a wage in excess of the applicable minimum under this act or to obtain a shorter workweek than the maximum workweek under this act or otherwise to obtain benefits or advantages for employees not required by this act, and a minimum wage so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it is in excess of the minimum wage under this act, and a maximum workweek so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it is shorter than the maximum workweek under this act.

"(b) A labor-standard order establishing minimum wages or a maximum workweek for any occupation shall be made only if the Administrator finds that collective-bargaining agreements in respect to such minimum wages or maximum hours do not cover a substantial portion of the employees in such occupation, or that existing facilities for collective bargaining in such occupation are inadequate or ineffective to accomplish the purposes of this act.

"(c) A labor-standard order covering any occupation shall not establish for any locality in which such occupation is carried on a minimum wage which is lower or a maximum workweek which is longer than the minimum wage or maximum workweek prevailing for like work done under substantially like conditions in such occupation in such locality, unless the minimum wage established by such order is the highest wage or the maximum workweek is the shortest workweek that the Administrator is authorized to establish under this act.

"(d) The minimum wages and maximum workweek established by collective-bargaining agreements in any occupation shall be prima facie evidence of the appropriate minimum wage and maximum workweek to be established by the Administrator for like work done under substantially like conditions.

"EXEMPTIONS FROM LABOR STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO WAGES AND HOURS

"SEC. 6. (a) Unless an applicable order of the Administrator under this act shall otherwise provide, the maintenance among employees of an oppressive workweek shall not be deemed to constitute a

[PAGE 1574]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1575]

substandard labor condition it the employees so employed receive additional compensation for such overtime employment at the rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly wage rate at which such employees are employed. But the Administrator shall have power to make an order determining that such overtime employment in any occupation shall constitute a substandard labor condition if and to the extent the Administrator finds necessary or appropriate to prevent the circumvention of this act. Any such order may contain such terms and conditions relating to overtime employment, including the wage rates to be paid therefor and the maximum number of hours of employment in each day and the maximum number of days per week, as the Administrator shall consider necessary or appropriate in the occupation affected.

"(b) The Administrator shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees in any occupation at a wage lower or for a workweek longer than the appropriate fair labor standard otherwise applicable to such occupation shall not be deemed to constitute a substandard labor condition if the Administrator finds that the special character or terms of the employment or the limited qualifications of the employees makes such employment justifiable and not inconsistent with the accomplishment of the purposes of such one or more provisions of this act. Such regulations or orders may provide for (1) the employment of learners, and of apprentices under special certificates as issued pursuant to regulations of the Department of Labor, at such wages lower than the applicable minimum wage and subject to such limitations as to time, number, proportion, and length of service as the Adm1nistrator shall prescribe; (2) the employment of persons whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury, under special certificates to be issued by the Administrator, at such wages lower than the applicable wage and for such period as shall be fixed in such certificates; (3) deductions for board, lodging, and other facilities furnished by the employer if the nature of the work is such that the employer is obliged to furnish and the employee to accept such facilities; (4) overtime employment in periods of seasonal or peak activity or in maintenance, repair, or other emergency work and the wage rates to be paid for such overtime employment not exceeding the rate of time and one-half; and (5) suitable treatment of other cases or classes of cases which, because of the nature and character of the employment, justify special treatment.

"PART III—UNFAIR GOODS BARRED FROM INTERSTATE CoMMERCE AND INTERSTATE CoMMERCE PROTECTED FROM THE EFFECT OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS

"PROHIBITED SHIPMENTS AND EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE

"SEC. 7. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly—

"(1) to transport or cause to be transported in interstate commerce, or to aid or assist in transporting, or obtaining transportation in interstate commerce for, or to ship or deliver or sell in interstate commerce, or to ship or deliver or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in interstate commerce is intended, any unfair goods; or

"(2) To employ under any substandard labor conditions any employee engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods intended for transportation or sale in violation of clause (1) of this section.

"PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM EFFECT OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS

"SEC. 8. (a) Whenever the Administrator shall determine that any substandard labor condition exists in the production of goods in one State and that such goods compete to a substandard extent in that State with other goods produced in another State and sold or transported in interstate commerce, in the production of which such substandard labor condition does not exist, the Administrator shall make an order requiring the elimination of such substandard labor condition and the maintenance of the appropriate fair labor standard in the production of goods which so compete.

"(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to employ any employee in violation of any term or provision of an order of the Administrator made under this section.

"(c) The United States Tariff Commission upon request of the President or upon resolution of either or both Houses of Congress or if imports are substantial and increasing in ratio to domestic production and if in the judgment of the Commission there is good and sufficient reason therefor, then, upon its own motion or upon the request of the Administrator or upon application of any interested party, shall investigate the differences in the costs of production of any domestic article and of any like or similar foreign article resulting from the operation of this act, and shall recommend to the President such an increase (within the limits of section 836 of the Tariff Act of 1930) in the duty upon imports of the said foreign article, or such a limitation in the total quantity permitted entry, or entry without increase in duty, as it may find necessary to equalize the said differences in cost and to maintain the standards established pursuant to this act. In the case of an article on the free list in the Tariff Act of 1930, it shall recommend, if required for the purposes of this section, a limitation on the total quantity permitted entry. The President shall by proclamation approve and cause to be put into effect the recommendations of the Commission if, in his judgment, they are warranted by the facts ascertained 1n the Commission's investigation.

"(d) All provisions of title III, part II, of the Tariff Act o1 1930, applicable with respect to investigations, reports, and proclamations under section 336 of the said tarifff act, shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with this section, be applicable with respect to investigations under this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting action in violation of any international obligation of the United States. In recommending any limitation of the quantity permitted entry, or entry without an increase in duty, the Commission, if it finds it necessary to enforce such limitations or to carry out any of the provisions of this section, shall recommend that the foreign article concerned be forbidden entry except under license from the Secretary of the Treasury and that the quantity permitted entry, or entry without an increase in duty, shall be allocated among the different supplying countries on the basis of the proportion of imports from each country in a previous representative period. Any proclamation under this section may be modified or terminated by the President whenever he approves findings submitted to him by the Commission that conditions require the modification recommended by the Commission to carry out the purposes of this section, or that the conditions requiring the proclamation no longer exist.

"PART IV—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

"LABOR-STANDARD ORDERS

"SEC. 9. A labor-standard order—

"(1) shall be made only after a hearing held pursuant to section 10;

"(2) shall take effect upon the publication thereof in the Federal Register or at such date thereafter as may be provided in the order;

"(3) shall define the occupation or occupations, the territorial limits within which such order shall operate, and the class, craft, or industrial Unit or units to which such order relates;

"(4) subject to the provisions of this act, may classify employers, employees, and employments within the occupation to which such order relates according to localities, the population of the communities in which such employment occurs, the number of employees employed, the nature and volume of the goods produced, and such other differentiating circumstances as the Administrator finds necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of such order, and may make appropriate provision for different classes of employers, employees, or employment; but it shall be the policy of the Administrator to avoid the adoption of any classification which effects an unreasonable discrimination against any person or locality or which adversely affects prevailing minimum wage or maximum work week standards and to avoid unnecessary or excessive classifications and to exercise his powers of classification only to the extent necessary or appropriate to accomplish the essential purposes of the act;

"(5) in case of an order relating to wages, may contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator may consider necessary or appropriate to prevent the established minimum wage becoming the maximum wage; but it shall be the policy of the Administrator to establish such minimum-wage standards as will affect only those employees in need of legislative protection without interfering with the voluntary establishment of appropriate dtfferentials and higher standards for other employees in the occupation to which such standards relate;

"(6) shall contain such terms and conditions (including the restriction or prohibition of industrial home work or of such other acts or practices) as the Administrator finds necessary to carry out the purposes of such order, to prevent the circumvention or evasion thereof, or to safeguard the fair labor standards therein established;

"(7) may modify, extend, or rescind at any time, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, a labor-standard order previously made: Provided, That at least 90 days' notice from the date of the order must be given before any change is made effective if It increases wages or reduces hours.

"HEARINGS

"SEC. 10. A labor-standard order shall be made, modifled, extended, or rescinded only after a hearing held pursuant to this section: Such hearing shall be held at such time and place as tlte Administrator shall prescribe, on the Administrator's own motion or on the complaint of any labor organization or any person having a bona-fide interest (as defined by the Administrator), filed in accordance with such regulations as the Administrator shall prescribe, and showing reasonable cause why such hearing should be held. Such hearing shall be public and may be held before the Administrator, or any officer or employee of the Wage and Hour Division designated by him. Appropriate records of such hearing shall be kept. The Administrator shall not be bound by any technical rules of evidence or procedure.

"INVESTIGATIONS; TESTIMONY

"SEC. 11. (a) The Administrator in his discretion may investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in any occupation subject to this act, and may inspect such places and such records (and make such transcripts thereof) and investigate such facts, conditions, practices, or matters as he may deem necessary or appropriate to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of this act or any labor-standard order, or to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this act, in prescribing regulations thereunder, or in obtaining information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation concerning the matters to which this act relates.

[PAGE 1575]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1576]

(b) For the purpose of any investigation or any other proceeding under this act, a wage and hour committee, the Admin1strator, or any officer or employee of the Wage and Hour Division designated by him, is empowered to admin1ster oaths and affirmations, subpena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, or other records of any employer deemed relevant or material to the inquiry. Witnesses appearing before the Administrator or any officer or employee designated by him, in obedience to subpenas of the Administrator, shall be entitled to such fees and mileage as the Administrator may by rules and regulations prescribe.

"(c) In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena issued to, any person, the Admin1strator, or the wage and hour committee, as the case may be, may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, and other records. Such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the wage and hour committee, or before the Administrator or officer or employee designated by him, as the case may be, and to produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he may be found.

"(d) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, or other records and documents on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no individual shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.

"ENFORCEMENT

"SEc. 12. Whenever it shall appear to the Administrator that any person is engaged or about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute a violation of any provision of this act, or of any provision of any labor-standard order, he may in his discretion bring an action in the proper district court of the United States to enjoin such act of practice and to enforce compliance with this act or with such labor-standard order, and upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order shall be granted without bond. The Administrator may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices to the Attorney General, who, in his discretion, may institute the appropriate cr1minal proceedings under this act.

"RECORDS; LABELS

"SEC. 13. (a) Every employer subject to any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him; and the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and shall make such reports therefrom to the Administrator as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder. Every employer subject to a labor-standard order shall keep a copy of such order posted in a conspicuous place in every room in which employees in any occupation subject to such order are employed, and a schedule of hours of employment on a form published by the Administrator shall contain the maximum number of hours each employee is to be employed during each day of the week with the total hours per week, the hours of commencing and stopping work, and the beginning and end of periods allotted for meals. If more than one schedule of hours is in operation at a particular place of employment, the posted schedule shall contain the names o! the employees working on the dllferent shifts and shall indicate the hours required for each employee or group of employees. The presence of any employee at the place of employment at any other hours than those stated in the schedule applying to him shall be deemed prima facie evidence of violation of such order, unless such employee is receiving the overtime rate provided in section 6 (b). Employers shall be furnished copies of such orders and forms upon request without charge.

"(b) No person other than the producer shall be prosecuted for the transportation, shipment, delivery, or sale of unfair goods who bas secured a representation in writing from the person by whom the goods transported, shipped, or delivered were produced, resident in the United States, to the efiect that such goods were not produced in violation of any provision of this act. If such representation contains any false statement of a material fact, the person furnishing the same shall be amenable to prosecution and to the penalties provided for the violation of the provisions of this act.

"POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU

"SEC. 14. (a) So far as practicable, the Administrator shall utilize the Department of Labor for all the investigations and inspections necessary under section 11 (a). The Secretary of Labor shall have the powers enumerated therein 1n the conduct of such 1nvestgations and inspections and shall report the results thereof to the Administrator.

"(b) The Administrator shall utillze the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor, or any of his authorized representatives, for all investigations and inspections under section 11 with respect to the employment of minors and to bring all actions under section 12 to enjoin any act or practice which is unlawful by reason of the existence of oppressive child labor.

"REGULATIONS; ORDERS

"SEC. 15. The Administrator shall have authority from time to time to make, issue, amend, and rescind such regulations and such orders as he may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this act, including but not limited to regulations defining technical and trade terms used in this act. Among other things, the Administrator shall have authority, for the purposes of this act, to provide for the form and manner in which complaints may be filed and proceedings instituted for the establishment of fair labor standards; to prescribe the procedure to be followed at any hearing or other proceeding before the Administrator or any ofiicer or employee designated by him, or wage and hour committee appointed by him. For the purpose of his regulations and orders, the Administrator may classify persons and matters within his jurisdiction and prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons or matters. The regulations and orders of the Administrator shall take effect upon the publication thereof in the Federal Register or at such later date as the Administrator shall direct. No provision of this act imposing any liability or disability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any regulation or order of the Administrator, notwithstand· ing that such regulation or order may, after such act or omission, be amended or rescinded or be determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

"VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS

"SEC." 16. (a) Any provision of any contract, agreement, or understanding made in violation of any provision of this act or of a regulation or order thereunder shall be null and void.

"(b) Any contract, agreement, understanding, condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this act or with any regulation or order thereunder shall be null and void.

"REPARATION; RELEASE OF GOODS

"SEC. 17. (a) If any employee is paid by his employer a wage lower than the applicable minimum wage required to be paid by any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order, or required to be paid to make it lawful under this act for goods in the production of which such employee was employed to be shipped in interstate commerce or to compete with goods shipped in interstate commerce; such employee shall be entitled to receive as reparation from his employer the full amount of such minimum wage less the amount actually paid to him by the employer. If any employee is employed for more hours per week or per day than the maximum workweek or workday required to be maintained by any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order, he shall be entitled to receive as reparation from his employer additional compensation for the time that he was employed in excess of such maximum workweek or workday at the rate of one and one-half times the agreed wage at which he was employed or the minimum wage, if any, for such time established by this act or by an applicable labor-standard order, whichever is higher, less the amount actually paid to him for such time by the employer.

"(b) Any employee entitled to reparation under this section may recover such reparation in a civil action together with costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Any such claim for reparation shall not be the subject of any voluntary assignment, except to the Administrator as herein provided. At the request or with the consent of any employee entitled to such reparation, the Administrator or an authorized regional representative of the Administrator, may take an assignment of any claim of such employee under this section in trust for the assigning employee and may bring any legal action necessary. to collect such claim, and the employer shall be required to pay costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Employees entitled to reparations from the same employer may bring a joint action to recover such reparations or, if separate actions are brought, such employees or the employer shall have the right to have such actions consolidated for trial.

"(c) The Adm1nistrator shall, by order, exempt any goods from the operation of any provision of this act prohibiting the sale or transportation of such goods in interstate commerce if the Administrator finds that every person having a substantial proprietary Jnterest (as defined by the Administrator) in such goods had no reason to believe that any substandard labor condition existed in the production of such goods or that such exemption is necessary to prevent undue hardship or economic waste and is not detrimental to the public interest. Any order of the Administrator under this subsection shall contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers necessary or appropriate in order to safeguard the enforcement and prevent the circumvention of this act. In the case of goods produced under any substandard labor condition relating to wages or hours of employment maintained by any employer having a substantial proprietary interest (as defined by the Administrator) in such goods, no such order shall be granted unless it 1s established to the satisfaction of the

[PAGE 1576]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1577]

Administrator that adequate provision has been made for the payment, to every employee employed by him in the production of such goods under any such substandard labor condition, of the reparation to which such employee is entitled under this section on account of such employment.

"RELATION TO OTHER LAWS

"SEC. 18. No provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than a minimum wage established under this act or a maximum workweek lower than a maximum workweek established under this act, or otherwise regulating the conditions of employment in any occupation and not in conflict with a provision of this act or a regulation or order thereunder.

"COMMON CARRIERS NOT LIABLE

"SEC. 19. No provision of this act shall impose any liability or penalty upon any common carrier for the transportation in interstate commerce in the regular course of its business of any goods not produced by such common carrier, and no provision of this act shall excuse any common carrier from its obligations to accept any goods for transportation.

"COURT REVIEW OF ORDERS

"SEC. 20. (a) Any person aggrieved by an order of the administrator under this act may obtain a review of such order in the circuit court of appeals of the United States for any circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by filing in such court, within 60 days after the entry of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Administrator be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon the Administrator, and thereupon the Administrator shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complianed of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and findings of fact by the Administrator when supported by evidence shall be conclusive unless it shall appear that the findings of the Administrator are arbitrary or capricious. No objection to the order of the Administrator shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Administrator or unless there were reasonable grounds for failure so to do. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence may materially affect the result of the proceeding and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Administrator, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Administrator and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Administrator may modify his findings as to the facts by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file with the court such modified or new findings, which if supported by evidence shall be conclusive, and his recommendation, if any, for the modifications or setting aside of the original order. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, sees. 346 and 347).

"(b) The commencement of proceedings under subsection (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Administrator's order. The court shall not grant any stay of a labor-standard order relating to wages or hours unless the person complaining of such order shall file in court an undertaking with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the court for the payment to the employees subject to the order of the reparation to which they would be entitled under section 17 in the event that the order should be upheld.

"JURISDICTION OF OFFENSES AND SUITS

"SEC. 21. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of violations of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder, and, concurrently with State and Territorial courts of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act or the regulations or orders thereunder. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation or an element thereof occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act, or regulations or orders thereunder, may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business, and process in such cases may be served in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, secs. 225 and 347), and section 7, as amended, of the act entitled "An act to establish a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia," approved February 9, 1893 (D. C. Code, title 18, sec. 26). No costs shall be assessed against the Administrator in any proceeding under this act brought by or against the Administrator in any court.

"PENALTIES

"SEC. 22. (a) Any person who willfully performs or aids or abets in the performance of any act declared to be unlawful by any provision of this act or who willfully fails or omits to perform any act, duty, or obligation reqUired by this act to be performed by him shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. Where the employment of an employee in violation of any provision of this ad or of a labor-standard order is unlawful, each employee so employed in violation of such provision shall constitute a separate offense. No person shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an offense committed after the conviction of such person for a prior violation of this subsection.

"(b) Any person who willfully makes any statement or entry in any application, report, or record filed or kept pursuant to the provisions of this act or any regulation or order thereunder, knowing such statement or entry to be false in any material respect shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.

"(c) Any employer who willfully discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation or proceeding under or related to this act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such investigation or proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an advisory committee, or because such employer believes that such employee has done or may do any of said acts, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

"(d) Any person who, without just cause, shall fail or refuse to attend and testify or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce books, papers, correspondence, or other records, if in his or its power so to do, in obedience to a subpena issued pursuant to this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

"(e) No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce any goods produced in an establishment situated in the United States in or about which within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom any oppressive child labor has been employed: Provided, That a prosecution and conviction of a defendant for the shipment or delivery for shipment of any goods under the conditions herein prohibited shall be a bar to any further prosecution against the same defendant for shipments or deliveries for shipment of any such goods before the begjnning of said prosecution.

"SEPARABILITY

"SEC. 23. If any provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if any provision of this act or any regulation or order thereunder shall be held invalid insofar as it gives any effect to any substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any fair labor standard on the part of any person or in any circumstances, the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order shall not be affected thereby insofar as it gives any effect to any other substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any other fair labor standard on the part of the same person or in the same circumstances, or insofar as it gives any effect to the same substandard labor conditions or requires the maintenance of the same fair labor standard on the part of any other person or in any other circumstances.

"EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT

"SEC. 24. This act shall take effect immediately, except that no provision requiring the maintenance of any fair labor standard or giving any effect to any substandard labor condition shall take effect until the one hundred and twentieth day after the enactment of this act, and no labor-standard order shall be effective prior to that day."

Mr. RAMSPECK (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the substitute may be dispensed with.

Mr. SNELL. I object, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will resume the reading of the amendment.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the amendment.

Mr. FULLER (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, at times we are unable to follow the reading of the bill and some of us would like io know whether or not what the Clerk is now reading is the committee print of a bill known as H. R. —,introduced by Mr.—?

[PAGE 1577]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1578]

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the Chair has no official knowledge of what is in the amendment, but it is the understanding of the Chair that is the amendment being read.

Mr. FULLER. And it is offered as a substitute?

The CHAIRMAN. It is offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The Clerk resumed the reading of the amendment.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman—

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise? The Chair may state that the Chair will not recognize any gentleman during the reading of the amendment for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to submit a unanimous-consent request.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will adopt a similar procedure with respect to unanimous-consent requests until the amendment js read.

The Clerk resumed and concluded the reading of the amendment.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I submit a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment just read at the Clerk's desk is not germane to the original Senate bill (S. 2475), and I direct my remarks particularly to the lines at the top of page 2 of the Senate bill which states that the object of this bill is to set up a Labor Standards Board.

This was the primary object of the Senate bill.

The bill as presented in the form of a substitute by the chairman of the Labor Committee states in the same relative position in the bill that this is a bill to set up a wage and hour division of the Department of Labor.

I make the point of order that this is not a germane amendment for the reason it changes the purport and main object of the original bill.

I want to read for the benefit of the House paragraph 7 of rule XVI, which is that—

No motion or proposition on a subject diffrerent from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

This is the rule which is generally mentioned as requiring amendments to be germane to a bill or to the particular part of the bill to which the amendment is offered.

The bill we have under consideration sets up a separate, independent board to perform certain duties and, the duties are prescribed in the bill. The amendment offered as a substitute provides for the setting up of a bureau under one of the executive Departments with an administrative head, and the head of this bureau can prescribe duties for various committees throughout the country. The whole general proposition and set-up is entirely changed from that set forth in the original bill.

There are a great many decisions that have been made along this line. I am not going to take the time of the Committee to call the attention of the Chair to all of these various decisions. I would like to call attention to one made by Chairman Fitzgerald holding out of order, as not germane, a proposition to amend a bill providing that funds resulting from the sale of coal, phosphate, oil, and so forth, lands should be paid into the reclamation fund and disposed of in a certain way, should be used to constitute a national good-roads fund. An amendment was offered to use these funds for a national good roads fund, and in his decision Chairman Fitzgerald, after he had read the rule I referred to a moment ago, said:

When, therefore, it is objected that the proposed amendment is not in order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection is simply that if the proposed amendment is a motion or a proposition of a subject different from that under consideration.

And so forth. Now, no man can contend that to a proposition setting up of an independent agency of the Government you can add an amendment creating a bureau under an executive Department and not be talking about an entirely different proposition.

I want also to refer to a decision that was made by Chairman Tilson several years ago when I happened to argue the point of order at that time.

There was a provision providing for the issuance to soldiers, upon the payment of premiums, a proposition for the continuance of such insurance for 2 years without payment of premiums. Of course, these were very closely related subjects and you might say that these other propositions in the two separate bills before us are related subjects, but they are not definitely germane subjects merely because they are related.

After considerable argument in regard to this proposition the Chairman made his ruling about as follows, and I shall not read the entire ruling:

What is the subject under consideration? The subject under consideration is a bill amending the War Risk Insurance Acts in several respects. The subject under consideration is not insurance or even war-risk insurance, but the granting of insurance by the United States upon the payment of premiums. Now, what is the subject of the proposed amendment? The term insurance in force shall be continued in force for 2 years without the payment of premium or otherwise provide for free insurance.

In the decision Chairman Tilson referred to Hinds' Precedents V, 5877, and quoted the following cases in point.

To a bill relating to the sale of public lands, an amendment proposing to give them to settlers was held not germane.

Clearly the two propositions are related, but the subjects are not necessarily germane. The following has also been held as not germane:

To a proposition relating to the terms of Senators, an amendment providing for a change in the manner of their election.

To a general tariff bill, an amendment creating a tariff board.

All of these subjects are related, but they are not germane to the whole line of precedents and the rulings by the Chairman have been against such amendments. That is exactly the situation that we have before us at the present time. The whole proposition in the original Senate bill was to set up an independent board to regulate various matters pertaining to labor, but the amendment here today is an entirely different proposition, and employs an entirely different method to accomplish the same result. There can be no argument as to their being entirely different. They may intend to accomplish the same result, but they proceed along entirely different courses, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I maintain-that the amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Labor is not a germane amendment to Senate bill 2475.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would first ascertain whether or not any other points of order are to be advanced at this particular time.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment offered in the nature of a substitute to the pending bill on the ground that it is not germane and that it seeks to write a tariff bill and violates the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. I especially invite the attention of the Chair to the provision appearing on page 21 of the pending amendment, section 8, paragraph (c), down to and including paragraph (d) and ending with line 19, page 23. I request the privilege of being heard briefly on the point of order if the Chair desires to hear me now or to wait until further argument is made on the point already presented.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to hear the gentleman on his point of order.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, of course there can be no doubt that if any part of an amendment is subject to a point of order, of course the whole amendment is subject to the point of order. Naturally, the question here presented

[PAGE 1578]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1579]

turns on the language appearing in the pending bill, and the language appearing in the amendment here proposed.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me to make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that one point of order ought to be disposed of before we start on another point of order, that that would be the better procedure and more orderly than to have all of these points of order made at one time, because they are all entirely different. When the gentleman from Tennessee began to state his point of order I thought it was along the same lines as my own.

Mr. COOPER. Of course, my point of order was raised at this time at the invitation of the Chair.

Mr. SNELL. I think one point of order should be considered at a time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COOPER. From my viewpoint I think they should all be presented.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels it is within the discretion of the Chair to hear all points of order at the same time that relate to germaneness, and also in the discretion of the Chair as to which one he will rule upon in the first instance.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it is within the discretion of the Chair, but I merely request that one be heard at a time. If the Chair rules otherwise, that is all there is to it.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels it would be in the best interest of orderly conduct if the procedure indicated by the Chair is followed.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee has the floor.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, would not the general point of order to the effect that the amendment is not germane to the section and is not germane to the bill be broad enough so that it is not necessary to make particular points and to call particular attention to an amendment? Is not that broad enough so that the Chair can act on the proposed amendment if it be not germane on any particular provision of the bill that might come to the attention of the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would rule upon the specific points of order advanced and the reasons advanced in support of the points of order. The Chair could not go beyond that. As far as the present points of order are concerned, the Chair will confine his ruling to those points of order. To be frank, the Chair can conceive of a situation where rulings on various points of order relating to germaneness might vary. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I was in the act of inviting the attention of the Chair to the language appearing in the pending bill and, in comparison with that, to the language appearing in the amendment and the entirely different purposes sought to be accomplished.

The Chair will notice that the language appearing in the Senate bill—

That the United States Tariff Commission (1) upon request of the President, (2) upon request of either or both Houses of Congress, or (3) upon request of the Board, or upon notice, when in the judgment of the Commission there is good and sufficient reason therefor, upon the application of any interested party, shall investigate.

Investigation is the point to be borne in mind.

Then, with reference to paragraph (d) of Senate bill 2475, it is provided:

All provisions of law applicable with respect to investigations under section 336 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, including the provisions applicable to reports of the Commission and proclamations by the President, shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with this section, be applicable in like manner with respect to investigations.

I desire to emphasize the fact that in paragraph (d), which I have just quoted, at the very beginning of the paragraph, and again at the end of the paragraph, the definite limitation as to investigations is imposed. That disposes of the language appearing in the Senate bill on the question here raised.

Then I invite the attention of the Chair to the provisions of the pending amendment, the so-called new bill which is here offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without quoting the entire provisions, I simply invite the attention of the Chair to the fact that this provision seeks not only to require investigations as to tariff matters but goes far beyond that. It seeks to definitely impose quotas on imported articles into this country. It goes further and definitely imposes embargoes upon the importation of articles from other countries. And, perhaps most important of all, it definitely provides for the transfer of articles from the free list to the dutiable list and the transfer of articles from the dutiable list to the free list of the Tariff Act of 1930.

I especially invite the attention of the Chair to the fact that under section 336 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the socalled flexible provision, it is definitely prohibited that those transfers from the free list to the dutiable list or from the dutiable list to the free list may be made.

Therefore it is my insistence that the provision here presented by way of an amendment is far beyond the scope or purpose sought to be accomplished by the provision of the pending bill. It violates the rules of the House. It invades the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, allows the writing of a tariff bill, for all practical intents and purposes, that would take the place very largely of the present tariff law, and yet is brought in under color of an amendment to the pending bill.

There are many precedents to which attention may be invited with which the Chair is thoroughly familiar. Of course, those presented by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] would in many respects be applicable with equally as great and perhaps greater force to the point of order here presented as they were to the question raised by him. I would especially invite the attention of the Chair to the decision, rather famous in the parliamentary proceedings of the House, made by Speaker Clark on the point of order raised by Mr. Underwood, of Alabama, which, in substance, provides that an amendment is not germane which seeks to provide for the creation of a tariff commission in a tariff bill.

Many other decisions directly in point could be cited, but, of course, the Chair has ready access to them and is familiar with them.

Therefore I make the point of order on the grounds here presented.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the child-labor legislation which is to be found on page 5 of the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, paragraph 10, section 2.

My point of order, briefly, is this: In the Senate bill complete jurisdiction of the child-labor law is vested in the Secretary of Labor. In the committee amendment jurisdiction is vested in the Chief of the Children's Bureau, to the complete exclusion of the Secretary and the Department of Labor.

I am not passing on the merits of the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL], but it strikes me that these propositions are fairly similar. The point of order raised by the gentleman from New York was that the Senate bill provided for the administration of this law by a board of five, appointed by the President, whereas in the House amendment it is to be administered by an administrator appointed by the President; while with respect to child labor complete jurisdiction is given to the Secretary of Labor in the Senate bill, and complete jurisdiction is given to the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the House bill. If one of these propositions is not germane, the other is not germane. I submit the point of order for ruling.

[PAGE 1579]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1580]

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] desire to be heard?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I do, Mr. Chairman.

As to the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN] my remarks as to that will be substantially the same as those directed to the point of order made by the distinguished minority leader, Mr. SNELL.

But, first, let me express my views as to the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. COOPER].

As to that point of order, I frankly agree with the distinguished gentleman that his point of order as to the so-called amendments to the Senate bill, which were placed therein by the House Labor Committee relating to the tariff are out of order, except in one small particular, I believe. On page 23, the language at the top of that page of the amendment, in the nature of a substitute reads:

Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting action in violation of any international obligation of the United States.

I do not believe that particular language is out of order on the ground of any jurisdictional dispute between the Ways and Means Committee and the Labor Committee, nor do I think there is any question as to its germaneness; but as to the amendments put on the Senate bill by the House Committee on Labor relating to the tariff, I agree that they are not in order. If the chairman of the Committee on Labor supports my admission it would require her to submit a substitute amendment eliminating those matters which were not in order; provided, of course, the Chair should hold that the point of order made by the gentleman from Tennessee was well taken.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I admit the point of order and will send an amendment to the desk at the proper time.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I could not hear what was said.

Mrs. NORTON. I said that I would admit the point of order if necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey admitted that the point of order raised by the gentleman from Tennessee would lie.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, while that might dispose of the whole matter, may I not suggest that all these points of order be discussed at this time?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would prefer to pass on the specific point of order raised by the gentleman from Tennessee at this time.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SNELL. If the Chair please, I understood the Chair to say that the Chair was going to pass on all the points of order at once. It seems to me, my point of order being made first, should be ruled upon first if the Chair is not going to treat them in a general way.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York misunderstood the Chair. The Chair said the Chair would hear all points of order at the same time and then would exercise judgment as to the manner in which they were passed upon.

The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Tennessee.

The chairman of the committee admits the point of order. The distinguished gentleman from New York, one of the outstanding parliamentarians of the House, concedes the point of order, and the Chair is of opinion that the amendment reported by the committee, so far as it relates to the point raised by the gentleman from Tennessee, clearly exceeds the scope of the Senate amendment, which is the basis of any action that the House committee might take by way of committee amendment. The original of the Senate amendment is the existing law itself, section 336 of the Tariff Act, which confines itself to recommendations of commodities upon the dutiable list not to exceed 50 percent either way, either downward or upward. No authority is found in that law for the recommendation of quotas, nor does it contain authority to take commodities from the free list and put them upon the dutiable list, or vice versa. There is no authority in the Tariff Commission to do anything other than confine its investigations to commodities or items upon the dutiable list. There is no authority in that particular provision of existing law for the creation of a license system as provided in the amendment relating to tariff proposed by the committee.

The amendment clearly exceeds the provisions of the Senate bill and enlarges it to such an extent, as the gentleman from Tennessee has well said, as to virtually write a new tariff law. It is clearly out of order.

The Chair sustains the point of order.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I send an amendment to the Clerk's desk.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask a ruling on my point of order before any new business is transacted.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule upon the gentleman's point of order at the appropriate time. The Chair has already sustained a point of order which affects the entire amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey. There is therefore nothing for the Chair to pass upon at this particular time.

Mr. SNELL. Then the entire amendment is ruled out?

The CHAIRMAN. At this time. The gentlewoman from New Jersey offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mrs. NORTON moves to strike out all after the enacting clause down to and including all of section 1 of the bill S. 2475 and insert in lieu thereof the following as a substitute for the Senate bill:

"That this act may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.

"PART I-LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION; DEFINITIONs; WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

"LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION

"SECTION 1. (a) The employment of workers under substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce, in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or otherwise directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes interstate commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among the workers of the several States conditions detrimental to the physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of such workers; (2) directly burdens interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in interstate commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes directly burdening and obstructing interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce; and (5) directly interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in interstate commerce.

"(b) The correction of such conditions directly affecting interstate commerce requires that the Congress exercise its legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupations in and directly affecting interstate commerce.

"DEFINITIONS

"SEC. 2. (a) As used in this act unless the context otherwise requires—

"(1) 'Person' includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidating or reorganizing agent.

"(2) 'Interstate commerce' means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or from any State to any place outside thereof.

"(3) 'State' means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States.

"(4) 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division created by section 3 of this act.

"(5) 'Occupation' means an occupation, industry, trade, or business, or branch thereof or class of work or craft therein, in which persons are gainfully employed.

"(6) 'Employer' includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee, but shall not include the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

"(7) 'Employee' includes any individual emoloyed or suffered or permitted to work by an employer, but shall not include any person

[PAGE 1580]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1581]

employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or any person employed in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Administrator), nor shall 'employee' include any person employed as a seaman, or any railroad employee subject to the provisions of the Hours of Service Act (U. S. C., title 45, ch. 3), or any employee with respect to whom the Interstate Commerce Commission has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 49, ch. 8}: Provided, however, That the wage provisions of this act shall apply to employees of such carriers by motor vehicle; or any air transport employee subject to the provisions of title II of the Railway Labor Act approved April 10, 1936; or any person employed in the taking of fish, sea foods, or sponges; or any person employed in agriculture. As used in this act, the term 'agriculture' includes farming in all its branches and, among other things, includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, forestry, horticulture, market gardening, and the cultivation and growing of fruits, vegetables, nuts, nursery products, ferns, flowers, bulbs, livestock, bees, and poultry; and further includes the definition contained in subdivision (g) of section 15 of the Agricultural Marketing Act approved June 15, 1929, as amended, or any other agricultural or horticultural commodity, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to such farming operations, including delivery to market. Independent contractors and their employees engaged in transporting farm products from farm to market are not persons employed in agriculture.

"(8) 'Oppressive wage' means a wage lower than the applicable minimum wage declared by order of the Administrator under the provisions of section 4.

"(9) 'Oppressive workweek' means a workweek (or workday) longer than the applicable maxiplum workweek declared by order of the Administrator under the provisions of section 4.

"(10) 'Oppressive child labor' means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee (as defined in this act to exclude employees in agriculture) under the age of 16 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent) in any occupation, or (B) any such employee between the ages of 16 and 18 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent) in any occupation wh1ch the Ch1ef of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor shall from time to time by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of such children or detrimental to their health or well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by virtue of the employment in any occupation of any person with respect to whom the employer shall have on file a certificate issued and held pursuant to the regulation of the Chief of the Children's Bureau certifying that such person is above the oppressive ch1ld-labor age. The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees under the age of 16 years in any occupation shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that the Chief of the Children's Bureau determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.

"(11) 'Substandard labor condition' means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee is employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) any employee is employed for an oppressive workweek; or (C) oppressive child labor exists.

"(12) 'Fair labor standard' means a condition of employment under which (A) no employee is employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) no employee is employed for an oppressive workweek; or (C) no oppressive child labor exists.

" (13) 'Labor standard order' means an order of the Administrator under section 4, 6, or 8 of this act.

"(14) 'Goods' means goods (including ships and marine equipment}, wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but shall not mean goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.

"(15) 'Unfair goods' means goods in the production of which employees have been employed in any occupation under any substandard labor condition, or any goods produced in whole or in part by convicts or prisoners except convicts or prisoners on parole or on probation or inmates of Federal penal or correctional institutions producing goods for the use of the United States Government.

"(16) 'Fair goods' means goods in the production of which no employees have been employed in any occupation under any substandard labor condition.

"(17) 'Produced' means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in any other manner worked on; and for the purposes of this act an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed in producing, manufacturing, mining, handling, transporting, or in any other manner working on such goods, or in any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof.

"(18) 'Sale' or 'sell' includes any sale, exchange, contract, to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.

"(19) 'To a substantial extent' means not casually, sporadically, or accidentally, but as a settled or recurrent characteristic of the matter or occupation described, or of a portion thereof, which need not be a large or preponderant portion thereof.

"(20) The term 'person employed in agriculture' as used in this act, insofar as it shall refer to fresh fruits or vegetables, shall include persons employed within the area of production engaged in preparing, packing, or storing such fresh fruits or vegetables in their raw or natural state.

"(b) For the purposes of this act proof that any employee was employed under any substandard labor condition in any factory, mill, workshop, mine, quarry, or other place of employment where goods were produced, within 90 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom (but not earlier than 120 days after the enactment of this act), shall be prima facie evidence that such goods were produced by such employee employed under such substandard labor condition.

"(c) All wage and hour regulations under the provisions of this act shall apply to workers without regard to sex.

"ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

"SEC. 3. (a} There is hereby created in the Department of Labor a Wage and Hour Division wh1ch shall be under the direction of an Administrator, to be known as the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator). The Administrator shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive a salary of $10,000 a year. The Administrator is authorized to administer all the provisions of this act except as otherwise specifically provided and his determinations and labor-standard orders shall not be subject to review by any other person or agency in the executive branch of the Government.

"(b) The Administrator and the Chief of the Children's Bureau, under plans developed with the consent and cooperation of the State agencies charged with the administration of State labor laws, may utilize the services of State and local agencies, officers, and employees administering such laws and notwithstanding any other provisions of law may reimburse such State and local agencies, officers, and employees for their services when performed for such purposes.

"(c) The Administrator may, subject to the civil-service laws, appoint such employees as he deems necessary to carry out the functions and duties of the Administrator and shall fix their salaries in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. The Administrator may establish and utilize such regional, local, or other agencies, and utilize such voluntary and uncompensated services, as may from time to time be needed. In all litigation the Administrator shall be represented by the Attorney General or by such attorney or attorneys as he may designate. In the appointment, selection, classification, and promotion of officers and employees of the Administrator, no political test or qualification shall be permitted or given consideration, but all such appointments and promotions shall be given and made on the basis of merit and efficiency.

"(d) The principal office of the Administrator shall be in the District of Columbia but he may exercise any or all of his powers in any other place.

"(e) The Administrator shall submit annually in January a report to the Congress covering the work of the Administrator for the preceding year and including such information, data, and recommendations for further legislation in connection with the matters covered by this act as he may find advisable.

"PART II-ESTABLISHMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS

u:MINIMUM-WAGE AND MAXIMUM-HOUR STANDARDS

"SEC. 4. (a) Whereas wages paid 1n interstate industries vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as low as $5 or less per week; and

"Whereas hours of labor in interstate industries also vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as high as 84 hours per week; and

"Whereas such wide variations create unfair competition for employers who wish to pay decent wages and maintain decent working hours; and

"Whereas the workers who receive the lowest wages and work the longest hours have been and now are unable to obtain a living wage or decent working hours by individual or collective bargaining with their employers; and

"Whereas it is necessary for the development of American commerce and the protection of American workers and their families that substandard wages and hours be eliminated from interstate industry and business; but

"Whereas it is impossible to achieve such results arbitrarily by an abrupt change so drastic that it might do serious injury to American industry and American workers, and it is therefore necessary to achieve such results cautiously, carefully, and without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry: Now, therefore,

"It is declared to be the policy of this act to establish minimumwage and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent with health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and the profitable operation of American business so far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible, and without interfering with, impeding, or diminishing in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively 1n order to obtain a wage in excess of the applicable minimum under this act or to obtain a shorter workday or workweek than the applicable maximum under this act.

"(b) Having regard to such policy and upon a finding that a substantial number of employees ln any occupation are employed at wages and hours inconsistent with the minimum standard of

[PAGE 1581]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1582]

living necessary for health, etficiency, and general well-being, the Administrator shall appoint a wage and hour committee to con- sider and recommend a minimum-wage rate or a maximum workday and workweek, or both, as the case may be, for employees 1n such occupation which shall be as nearly adequate as is eco- nomically feasible to maintain such minimum standard of living: Provided, however, That no such committees shall be appointed with respect to occupations in which no employee receives less than 40 cents per hour or works more than 40 hours per week.

"(c) Such committee shall be composed of an equal number of persons representing the employers and the employees in such occupation, and of not more than three disinterested persons representing t he public, one of whom shall be designated as chair- man. Persons representing the employers and employees shall be selected so far as practicable from nominations submitted by employers and employees, or organizations thereof, having due regard to the geographic regio,ns which may be concerned, in such occupation. Two-thirds of the members of such wage and hour committee shall constitute a quorum, and the recommendations of such committee shall require a vote of not less than a ma- jority of all its members. Members of a wage and hour com- mittee shall be entitled to reasonable compensation to be fixed by the Administrator for each day actually spent in the work of the committee in addition to their reasonable and necessary traveling and other expenses and shall be supplied with adequate stenographic, clerical, and other assistance.

"(d) The Administrator shall submit to such a committee promptly upon its appointment such data as the Administrator may have available on the matter referred to it, and shall cause to be brought before the wage and hour committee any witnesses whom the Administrator deems material. A wage and hour com- mittee-may summon other witnesses or call upon the Administrator to furnish additional information to aid in Its deliberations.

"(e) In recommending a minimum wage, a committee shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following: (1) The cost of living; (2) the wages paid by employers in the occu- pation to be covered by the order establishing such minimum wage who voluntarily maintain reasonable minimum wage standards; (3) the wages established in similar occupations through collective labor ~DTeements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing; (4) local economic conditions; (5) the relative cost of transporting goods from points of production to consuming markets; (6) the rea- sonable value of the service rendered; and (7) differences in unit costs of manufacturing occasioned by varying local natural re- sources, operating conditions, or other factors entering into the cost of production.

"(f) In recommending a maximum workday and a maximum workweek, a committee shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following: (1) The hours of employment observed by employers in the occupation to be covered by the order establishing such maximum workday and workweek, who voluntarily maintain a reasonable maximum workday and workweek; (2) the hours of employment established in similar occupations through collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing; and (3) the number of persons seeking employment in the occupation to be subject to the order establishing such maximum workday and workweek.

"(g) A committee's jurisdiction to recommend labor standards shall not include the power to recommend minimum wages in excess of 40 cents per hour or a maximum workweek of less than 40 hours, but higher minimum wages and a shorter maximum workweek fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise shall be en- couraged; it being the objective of this act to raise tlie existing wages in the lower wage groups so as to attain as rapidly as practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour without cur- tailing opportunities for employment and without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry, and a maximum workweek of 40 hours without curtailing earning power and without reducing production.

"(h) Unless the Administrator finds that the standards recom- mended by a wage and hour committee have been made without due consideration of the factors enumerated in this section. he shall set down for public hearing pursuant to section 10 a proposed order containing such standards together with such regulations and con- ditions as he may deem necessary and incidental thereto pursuant to sections 6 and 9. If after such hearing the Administrator finds that the proposed standards, so far as is economically feasible, are at levels consistent with the health, efiiciency, and general well-being of workers, he shall so declare, and shall issue a. labor-standard order applying such standards, regulations, and conditions to the occu- pation involved pursuant to the procedure hereinafter provided.

"(i) If the recommendations of a committee are not submitted in such time as the Administrator may prescribe as reasonable, the Administrator may appoint a new committee. If the Adm1nlstrator before or after hearing rejects the recommendations of a. wage and hour committee, either in whole or in part, he shall resubmit the matter to the same committee or to a new committee, whichever he deems proper.

"(j) The provisions of this act with respect to maximum workdays or maximum workweeks shall not apply to employees engaged in processing or packing perishable agricultural products during the harvesting season; or to any person employed in connection with the ginning, compressing, and storing of cotton or with the processing of cottonseed; the canning or other packing or packaging or fish, sea foods, sponges, or picking, canning, or processing of fruits or vegetables, or the processing of beets, cane, and maple into sugar and sirup, when the services of such person are of a seasonal nature; or to employees employed in a plant located in dairy production areas in which milk, cream, or butterfat are received, processed, shipped, or manufactured, if operated by a cooperative association as defined in section 15, as amended, or the Agricultural Marketing Act.

"COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS PROTECTED

"SEC. 5. (a) Nothing in this act or in any regulation or order thereunder shall be construed to interfere with, impede, or diminish in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively or otherwise to engage in any concerted activity allowed by law in order to obtain a wage in excess of the applicable minimum under this act or to obtain a shorter workweek than the maximum workweek under this act or otherwise to obtain benefits or advantages for employees not required by this act, and a minimum wage so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it is in excess of the minimum wage under this act, and a maximum workweek so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it 1s shorter than the maximum workweek under this act.

"(b) A labor-standard order establishing minimum wages or a maximum workweek for any occupation shall be made only if the Administrator finds that collective-bargaining agreements in respect to such minimum wages or maximum hours do not cover a substantial portion of the employees in such occupation, or that existing facilities for collective bargaining in such occupation are inadequate or ineffective to accomplish the purposes of this act.

" (c) A labor-standard order covering any occupation shall not establish for any locality in which such occupation is carried on a minimum wage which is lower or a maximum workweek which is longer than the minimum wage or maximum workweek prevailing for like work done under substantially like conditions in such occupation in such locality, unless the minimum wage established by such order is the highest wage or the maximum workweek 1s the shortest workweek that the Administrator is authorized to establish under this act.

"(d) The minimum wages and maximum workweek established by collective-bargaining agreements in any occupation shall be prima facie evidence of the appropriate minimum wage and maximum workweek to be established by the Administrator for like work done under substantially like conditions.

"EXEMPTIONS FROM LABOR STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO WAGES AND HOURS

"SEC. 6. (a) Unless an applicable order of the Administrator under this act shall otherwise provide, the maintenance among employees of an oppressive workweek shall not be deemed to constitute a substandard labor condition if the employees so employed receive additional compensation for such overtime employment at the rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly wage rate at which such employees are employed. But the Administrator shall have power to make an order determining that such overtime employment in any occupation shall constitute a substandard labor condition if and to the extent the Administrator finds necessary or appropriate to prevent the circumvention of this act. Any such order may contain such terms and conditions relating to overtime employment, including the wage rates to be paid therefor and the maximum number of hours of employment in each day and the maximum number of days per week, as the Administrator shall consider necessary or appropriate in the occupation affected.

"(b) The Administrator shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees in any occupation at a wage lower or for a workweek longer than the appropriate fair labor standard otherwise applicable to such occupation shall not be deemed to constitute a substandard labor condition if the Administrator finds that the special character or terms of the employment or the limited qualifications of the employees makes such employment justifiable and not inconsistent with the accomplishment of the purposes of such one or more provisions of this act. Such regulations or orders may provide for (1) the employment of learners, and of apprentices under special certificates as issued pursuant to regulations of the Department of Labor, at such wages lower than the applicable minimum wage and subject to such limitations as to time, number, proportion, and length of service as the Administrator shall prescribe; (2) the employment of persons whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or Injury, under special certificates to be issued by the Administrator, at such wages lower than the applicable wage and for such period as shall be fixed in such certificates; (3) deductions for board, lodging, and other facilities furnished by the employer if the nature of the work is such that the employer is obliged to furnish and the employee to accept such facllittes; (4) overtime employment in periods of seasonal or peak activity or in maintenance, repair, or other emergency work and the wage rates to be paid for such overtime employment not exceeding the rate of time and one-half; and (5) suitable treatment of other cases or classes of cases which, because of the nature and character of the employment, justify special treatment.

[PAGE 1582]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1583]

"PART III-UNFAIR GOODS BARRED FRoM INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROTECTED FROM THE EFFECT OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS

"PROHIBITED SHIPMENTS AND EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE

"SEC. 7. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly—

"(1) to transport or cause to be transported in interstate commerce, or to aid or assist in transporting, or obtaining transportation in interstate commerce for, or to ship or deliver or sell in interstate commerce, or to ship or deliver or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in interstate commerce is intended, any unfair goods; or

"(2) to employ under any substandard labor conditions any employee engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods intended for transportation or sale in violation of clause (1) of this section.

"PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM EFFECT OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS

"SEC. 8. (a) Whenever the Administrator shall determine that any substandard labor condition exists in the production of goods in one State and that such goods compete to a substantial extent in that State with other goods produced in another state and sold or transported in interstate commerce, in the production of which such substandard labor condition does not exist, the Administrator shall make an order requiring the elimination of such substandard labor condition and the maintenance of the appropriate fair labor standard in the production of goods which so compete.

"(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to employ any employee in violation of any term or provision of an order of the Administrator made under this section.

"(c) The United States Tariff Commission (1) upon request of the President, or (2} upon resolution of either or both Houses of Congress, or (3) upon request of the Administrator, or (4) upon its own motion, or (5) when in the judgment of the Commission there is good and sufficient reason therefor, upon application of any interested party, shall investigate the differences resulting from the operation of this act in the costs of production of any domestic article and of any like or similar foreign article, with a view to determining whether or not an increase should be made in the duty upon such foreign article for the purpose of equalizing such differences.

"(d) All provisions of law applicable with respect to investigations under section 336 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, including the provisions applicable to reports of the Commission and proclamations by the President, shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with this section, be applicable in like manner with respect to investigations under this section. Nothing in subsection (c) or (d) of this section shall be construed as authorizing action in violation of any international obligation of the United States.

"PART IV-GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

"LABOR-STANDARD ORDERS

"SEC. 9. A labor-standard order—

"(1) shall be made only after a hearing held pursuant to section 10;

"(2) shall take effect upon the publication thereof in the Federal Register or at such date thereafter as may be provided in the order;

"(3) shall define the occupation or occupations, the territorial limits within which such order shall operate, and the class, craft, or industrial unit or units to which such order relates;

"(4) subject to the provisions of this act, may classify employers, employees, and employments within the occupation to which such order relates according to localities, the population of the communities in which such employment occurs, the number of employees employed, the nature and volume of the goods produced, and such other differentiating circumstances as the Administrator finds necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of such order, and may make appropriate provision for different classes of employers, employees, or employment; but it shall be the policy of the Administrator to avoid the adoption of any classification which effects an unreasonable discrimination against any person or locality or which adversely affects prevailing minimum wage or maximum workweek standards and to avoid unnecessary or excessive classifications and to exercise his powers of classification only to the extent necessary or appropriate to accomplish the essential purposes of the act;

"(5) in case of an order relating to wages, may contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator may consider necessary or appropriate to prevent the established minimum wage becoming the maximum wage; but it shall be the policy of the Administrator to establish such minimum-wage standards as will affect only those employees in need of legislative protection without interfering with the voluntary establishment of appropriate differentials and higher standards for other employees in the occupation to which such standards relate;

"(6) shall contain such terms and conditions (including the restriction or prohibition of industrial home work or of such other acts or practices) as the Administrator finds necessary to carry out the purposes of such order, to prevent the circumvention or evasion thereof, or to safeguard the fair labor standards therein esabllshed;

"(7) may modify, extend, or rescind at any time, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, a labor-standard order previously made: Provided, That at least 90 days' notice from the date of the order must be given before any change is made effective if it increases wages or reduces hours.

"HEARINGS

"SEC. 10. A labor-standard order shall be made, modified, extended, or rescinded only after a hearing held pursuant to this section. Such hearing shall be held at such time and place as the Administrator shall prescribe, on the Admnistrator's own motion or on the complaint of any labor organization or any person having a bona fide interest (as defined by the Administrator), filed in accordance with such regulations as the Administrator shall prescribe, and showing reasonable cause why such hearing should be held. Such hearing shall be public and may be held before the Administrator, or any officer or employees of the Wage and Hour Division designated by him. Appropriate records of such hearing shall be kept. The Administrator shall not be bound by any technical rules of evidence or procedure.

"INVESTIGATIONS; TESTIMONY

"SEC. 11. (a) The Administrator, in his discretion, may investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in any occupation subject to this act, and may inspect such places and such records (and make such transcripts thereof) and investigate such facts, conditions practices, or matters as he may deem necessary or appropriate to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of this act or any labor-standard order, or to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this act, in prescribing regulations thereunder, or in obtaining information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation concerning the matters to which this act relates.

"(b) For the purpose of any investigation or any other proceeding under this act, a wage and hour committee, the Administrator, or any officer or employee of the wage and hour division designated by him, is empowered to administer oaths and affirmations, subpena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, correspondence, or other records of any employer deemed relevant or material to the inquiry. Witnesses appearing before the Administrator or any officer or employee designated by him, in obedience to subpenas of the Administrator, shall be entitled to such fees and mileage as the Administrator may by rules and regulations prescribe.

"(c) In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena issued to, any person, the Administrator, or the wage and hour committee, as the case may be, may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, and other records. Such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the wage and hour committee, or before the Administrator or officer or employee designated by him, as the case may be, and to produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he may be found.

"(d) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, or other records and documents on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no individual shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.

"ENFORCEMENT

"SEC. 12. Whenever it shall appear to the Administrator that any person is engaged or about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute a violation of any provision of this act, or of any provision of any labor-standard order, he may in his discretion bring an action in the proper district court of the United States to enjoin such act of practice and to enforce compliance with this act or with such labor-standard order, and upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order shall be granted without bond. The Administrator may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices to the Attorney General, who, in his discretion, may institute the appropriate crimlnal proceedings under this act.

"RECORD; LABELS

"SEC. 13. (a) Every employer subject to any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him; and the wages, hours. and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by

[PAGE 1583]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1584]

him and shall preserve such records for such periods of time; and shall make such reports therefrom to the Administrator as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this act or the regulat ions or orders thereunder. Every employer subject to a labor-standard order shall keep a copy of such order posted in a conspicuous place in every room in which employees in any occupation subject to such order are employed, and a schedule of hours of employment on a form published by the Administrator shall contain the maximum number of hours each employee is to be employed during each day of the week with the total hours per week, the hours of commencing and stopping work, and the beginning and end of periods allotted for meals. If more than one schedule of hours is in operation at a particular place of employment, the posted schedule shall contain the names of the employees working on the dif!erent shifts and shall indicate the hours required for each employee or group of employees. The presence of any employee at the place of employment at any other hours than those stated in the schedule applying to him shall be deemed prima-facie evidence of violation of such order, unless such employee is receiving the overtime rate provided in section 6 (b). Employers shall be furnished copies of such orders and forms upon request without charge.

"(b) No person other than the producer shall be prosecuted for the transportation, shipment, delivery, or sale of unfair goods who has secured a representation in writing from the person by whom the goods transported, shipped, or delivered were produced resident in the United States to the effect that such goods were not pro- duced in violation of any provision of this act. If such represen- tation contains any false statement of a matertal fact the person furnishing the same shall be amenable to prosecution and to the penalties provided for the violation of the provisions of this act.

"POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OR LABOR AND OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU

"SEC. 14. (a) So far as practicable the Administrator shall utilize the Department of Labor for all the investigations and inspections necessary under section 11 (a). The Secretary of Labor shall have the powers enumerated therein in the conduct of such investigations and inspections and shall report the results thereof to the Administrator.

"(b) The Administrator shall utilize the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor or any of his authorized representatives for all investigations and inspections under section 11 with respect to the employment of minors and to bring all actions under section 12 to enjoin any act or practice which is unlawful by reason of the existence of oppressive child labor.

"REGULATIONS; ORDERS

"SEC. 15. The Administrator shall have authority from time to time to make, issue, amend, and rescind such regulations and such orders as he may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this act, including but not limited to regulations defining technical and trade terms used in this act. Among other things, the Administrator shall have authority, for the purposes of this act, to provide for the form and manner in which complaints may be filed and proceedings instituted for the establishment of fair labor standards; to prescribe the procedure to be followed at any hearing or other proceeding before the Administrator or any offtcer or employee designated by him, or wage and hour committee appointed by him. For the purpose o! his regulations and orders, the Administrator may classify persons and matters within his jurisdiction and prescribe dif!erent requirements for different classes of persons or matters. The regulations and orders of the Administrator shall take effect upon the publication thereat in the Federal Register or at such later date as the Administrator shall direct. No provision of this act imposing any liability or d1sabll1ty shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any regulation or order of the Administrator, notwithstanding that such regulation or order may, after such act or omission, be amended or rescinded or be determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

"VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS

"SEC. 16 (a) Any provision of any contract, agreement, or understanding made in violation of any provision of this act or of a regulation or order thereunder shall be null and void.

"(b) Any contract, agreement, understanding, condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this act or with any regulation or order thereunder Shall be null and void.

"REPARATION; RELEASE OP GOODS

"SEC. 17. (a) If any employee is paid by his employer a wage lower than the applicable minimum wage required to be paid by any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order, or required to be paid to make it lawful under this act for goods in the production of which such employee was employed to be shipped in interstate commerce or to compete with goods shipped in interstate commerce, such employee shall be entitled to receive as reparation from his employer the full amount of such minimum wage less the amount actually paid to him by the employer. If any employee is employed for more hours per week or per day than the maximum workweek or workday required to be maintained by any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order, he shall be entitled to receive as reparation from his employer additional compensation for the time that he was employed in excess of such maximum workweek or workday at the rate of 1^1/2 times the agreed wage at which he was employed or the minimum wage, if any, for such time established by this act or by an applicable labor-standard order, whichever is higher, less the amount actually paid to him for such time by the employer.

"(b) Any employee entitled to reparation under this section may recover such reparation in a civil action together with costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Any such claim for reparation shall not be the subject of any voluntary assignment, except to the Administrator as herein provided. At the request or with the consent of any employee entitled to such reparation, the Administrator or an authorized regional representative of the Administrator may take an assignment of any claim of such employee under this section in trust for the assigning employee and may bring any legal action necessary to collect such claim, and the employer shall be required to pay costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Employees entitled to reparations from the same employer may bring a joint action to recover such reparations or, if separate actions are brought, such employees or the employer shall have the right to have such actions consolidated for trial.

"(c) The Administrator shall by order exempt any goods from the operation of any provision of this act prohibiting the sale or transportation of such goods in interstate commerce if the Administrator finds that every person having a substantial proprietary interest (as defined by the Administrator) in such goods had no reason to believe that any substandard labor condition existed in the production of such goods or that such exemption is necessary to prevent undue hardship or economic waste and is not detrimental to the public interest. Any order of the Administrator under this subsection shall contain such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers necessary or appropriate in order to safeguard the enforcement and prevent the circumvention of this act. In the case of goods produced under any substandard labor condition relating to wages or hours of employment maintained by any employer having a substantial proprietary interest (as defined by the Administrator) in such goods, no such order shall be granted unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Administrator that adequate provision has been tnade for the payment. to every employee employed by him in the production of such goods under any such substandard labor condition, of the reparation to which such employee is entitled under this section on account of such employment.

"RELATION TO OTHER LAWS

"SEC. 18. No provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than a minimum wage established uncrer this act or a maximum workweek lower than a maximum workweek established under this act, or otherwise regulating the conditions of employment in any occupation and not in confiict with a provision of this act or a regulation or order thereunder.

"COMMON CARRIERS NOT LIABLE

"SEC. 19. No provision of this act shall impose any liability or penalty upon any common carrier for the transportation in interstate commerce 1n the regular course of its business of any goods not produced by such common carrier, and no provision of this act shall excuse any common carrier from its obligations to accept any goods for transportation.

"COURT REVIEW OF ORDERS

"SEC. 20. (a) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Administrator under this act may obtain a review of such order in the circuit court of appeals of the United States for any circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by filing in such court, within 60 days after the entry of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Administrator be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon the Administrator, and thereupon the Administrator shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and findings of fact by the Administrator when supported by evidence shall be conclusive unless it shall appear that the findings of the Administrator are arbitrary or capricious. No objection to the order of the Administrator shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Administrator or unless there were reasonable grounds for failure so to do. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence may materially affect the result of the proceeding and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Administrator, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Administrator and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Administrator may modify his findings as to the facts by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file with the court such modified or new findings, which if supported by evidence shall be conclusive, and his recommendation, if any, for the modifications or setting aside of the original order. The Judgment and decree at the court shall be final, subject

[PAGE 1584]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1585]

to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, secs. 346 and 347).

"(b) The commencement of proceedings under subsection (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of a labor-standard order relating to wages or hours unless stay of a labor standard order relating to wages or hours unless the person complaining of such order shall file in court an undertaking with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the court for the payment to the employees subject to the order of the reparation to which they would be entitled under section 17 in the event that the order should be upheld.

"JURISDICTION OF OFFENSES AND SUITS

"SEC. 21. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of violations of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder, and, concurrently with State and Territorial courts, of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act or the regulations or orders thereunder. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation or an element thereof occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act, or regulations or orders thereunder, may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant ts an inhabitant or transacts business, and process in such cases may be served in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, sees. 225 and 347), and section 7, as amended, of the act entitled "An act to establish a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia", approved February 9, 1893 (D. C. Code, title 18, sec. 26). No costs shall be assessed against the Administrator in any proceeding under this act brought by or against the Administrator in any court.

"PENALTIES

"SEC. 22. (a) Any person who willfully performs or aids or abets in the performance of any act declared to be unlawful by any provision of this act or who willfully fails or omits to perform any act, duty, or obligation required by this act to be performed by him shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. Where the employment of an employee in violation of any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order is unlawful, each employee so employed in violation of such provision shall constitute a separate offense. No person shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an offense committed after the conviction of such person for a prior violation of this subsection.

"(b) Any person who willfully makes any statement or entry in any application, report, or record filed or kept pursuant to the provisions of this act or any regulation or order thereunder, knowing such statement or entry to be false in any material respect shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and. upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.

" (c) Any employer who willfully discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation or proceeding under or related to this act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such investigation or proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an advisory committee, or because such employer believes that such employee has done or may do any of said acts, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

"(d) Any person who, without just cause, shall fail or refuse to attend and testify or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce books, papers, correspondence, or other records, if in his or its power so to do, ln obedience to a subpena issued pursuant to this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

"(e) No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce any goods produced in an establishment situated in the United States in or about which within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom any oppressive child labor has been employed: Provided, That a prosecution and conviction of a defendant for the shipment or delivery for shipment of any goods under the conditions herein prohibited shall be a bar to any further prosecution against the same defendant for shipments or deliveries for shipment of any such goods before the beginning of said prosecution.

"SEPARABILITY

"SEC. 23. If any provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 1f any provision of this act or any regulation or order thereunder shall be held invalid insofar as it gives any effect to any substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any fair-labor standard on the part of any person or in any circumstances, the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order shall not be affected thereby insofar as it gives any effect to any other substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any other fair labor standard on the part of the same person or in the same circumstances, or insofar as it gives any effect to the same substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of the same fair labor standard on the part of any other person or in any other circumstances.

"EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT

"SEC. 24. This act shall take effect immediately, except that no provision requiring the maintenance of any fair labor standard or giving any effect to any substandard labor condition shall take effect until the one hundred and twentieth day after the enactment of this act, and no labor-standard order shall be effective prior to that day."

Mrs. NORTON (interupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAMNECK and Mr. SNELL objected.

Mr. MICHENER (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, the substitute resolution was declared out of order for the reason suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. COOPER]. A point of order to another part of the same substitute was made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL]. The Chair did not rule on this point of order. The parliamentary inquiry, therefore, Mr. Chairman, is this: We must now start to read the entire substitute, which is the substitute that has once been read, minus the part held out of order by the Chair. When the Clerk has finished the reading we shall then again go through the procedure by the gentleman from New York renewing his point of order, and it will then become the duty of the Chair to rule upon the point of order. Can we not have a ruling on the Snell point of order now without this additional delay?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no official knowledge of what is in the amendment, although we all personally have knowledge that the pending amendment is the same as the substitute with the exception of the objectionable tariff features, which are eliminated, the Chair assumes. Under the rules of the House, reading of the amendment is in order unless unanimous consent is given to dispense with its further reading. Unless this be done the amendment must be read. It is within the control of the committee to bring this matter to an immediate head by giving unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment. This, however, is a matter over which the Chair has no control.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his parliamentary inquiry; but the Chair will not entertain further parliamentary inquiries until the reading of the amendment has been completed.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for the chairman of the Committee on Labor to withdraw her amendment so we may proceed with the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. That may be done only by unanimous consent.

The Clerk will read.

The Clerk continued reading of the amendment.

Mr. PEARSON (interrupting the reading of the amendment). I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?

Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.

Mr. MOTT (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGRANERY). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oregon?

[PAGE 1585]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1586]

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I desire to renew the point of order I made earlier in the afternoon against the committee amendment on the ground of germaneness. I am not going to take the time of the House to go over the argument I made before or point to the various precedents and decisions made by former chairmen.

I call the attention of the Chair very briefly to one matter. The original Senate bill, 2475, has for a title the following:

To provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes.

The title of the amendment offered by the committee is exactly the same as the title of the original Senate bill. In other words, the intent and purpose of each bill is exactly the same, but as set up in the very first paragraph in the first section of the Senate bill, it proposes to accomplish this end by setting up an independent board consisting of five members with certain specific qualifications, and there is also the proposition to give them certain authority to do certain things.

The committee amendment, offered by the chairman of the Labor Committee, tries to accomplish the same end, but does so in an entirely different method. It sets up a Wages and Hours Division under the Department of Labor to be headed by one man, and the authority given to that one man is entirely different from the authority given to the board set up in the original bill. In other words, it is distinctly a new method which was never mentioned in the original Senate bill.

There is nothing about wages and hours in the title or the objects of the Senate bill. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, without going over the complete argument I made earlier in the afternoon, that the method proposed by the amendment is entirely ditferent from the method proposed by the original bill, therefore is not germane and should not be held to be germane at this time.

:Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I desire to renew my point of order against the child-labor provision of the substitute bill offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, being paragraph 10, section 2, page 5 of the amendment. I will again call attention to the fact that while the Senate bill vested jurisdiction over the legislation in the Secretary and in the Department of Labor, the House committee amendment vests jurisdiction in the Chief of the Children's Bureau exclusively. That is, to the exclusion of both the Secretary and the Department of Labor.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I should like to be beard further on the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL].

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCORMACK). The Chair will hear the gentleman later.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that all of the proponents be heard now.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment upon the ground that the committee amendment contains matter not contained in the original bill. In this amendment, agriculture is brought under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency set up, whereas in the bill, agriculture is entirely excluded.

I make a further point of order against paragraph (j), section 6, of the amendment on the ground it is matter which was not approved by the committee reporting the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. What page?

Mr. COX. Page 16. I make the point of order against the amendment on the ground that the committee having jurisdiction of the bill has taken no formal action thereon.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I would invite the attention of the Chair to the two methods proposed because they constitute a very material change in the scope of the bill.

The original Senate bill in section 3, on page 9, proposed to create a Labor Standards Board to be composed of five members to be appointed by the President by and with the consent of the Senate.

That draft of the bill set up a Labor Standards Board with judicial or, at least, quasi judicial functions. At least, it would have meant a regularly constituted governmental agency.

The amendment now offered proposes an Administrator in the Department of Labor, but the Administrator is directed to create wage and hour committees, industry by industry throughout the country. The determination of substandard labor conditions will then depend upon the findings of these wage and hour committees, which are not governmental agencies in the same sense. They clearly are not governmental agencies in the sense pointed out by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK]. when he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the old N. R. A. case.

The wage and hour committees are not to be composed of a fixed number of impartial men, but the amendment says they—

Shall be composed of an equal number of persons representing the employers and the employees in such occupation, and of not more than three disinterested persons representing the public, one of whom shall be designateq as chairman.

This does not mean a standard; it means a chaos of standards.

In one industry this wage and hour committee may be composed of 103 members—50 employers, 50 employees, and 3 members representing the public. In another industry the committee may be composed of nine members, with equal representation of all parties. The inevitable result will be that these committees determining substandard conditions will not be impartial fact-finding bodies, such as proposed in the original bill, but will be bodies of partisans contesting for the interests of the persons on the committees.

We will not have governmental determination of substandard conditions, as contemplated by the original proposal,but will have self-serving, barter-and-trade negotiations.

That is a vital difference in method, Mr. Chairman. One seeks to assess facts; the other will seek to assess prejudices and partisan interests. The difference is so great that when it is proposed to delegate legislative powers to these bodies we should remember the Supreme Court has said one is a constitutional delegation of power and the other is not.

This point is more clearly emphasized as you go through. the bill and find the different things the two agencies are called upon to consider in making their findings. As you analyze these provisions you find they change not merely the scope but the purpose of the bill. The change in method changes the objective.

I submit that the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL], namely, that the amendment is not germane because it changes the scope of the bill by vastly changing the method and, in fact, the purpose and effect of the bill, should be sustained.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important parliamentary matter, in the opinion of many Members, because it goes to one of the fundamental rules of the House, rule XVI, relating to "germaneness." This rule as to "germaneness" when adopted early in the history of the Congress in 1790 was a new departure in parliamentary law and without any precedent. It has been interpreted countless times. Sometimes it has been strained, reflecting the particular attitude of the membership at that time, and sometimes it has reflected the attitude of the then presiding officer.

The argument I shall make will be directed at the point of order made by the distinguished minority leader [Mr. SNELL], the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN], and the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] all going to the same point.

With regard to the point of order made by the gentleman from South Dakota, I believe he bas directed his argument more against the merits of the proposal than against the parliamentary procedure.

[PAGE 1586]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1587]

as to the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. COX], as I understood his first point it was that the committee amendment contains new matter not in the original bill. Of course, I hope all committee amendments do have something new in them and add something to the bill. If not, they should never be offered.

The second point made by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. COX] was that one particular feature of the bill had not been approved by the House Labor Committee. Of course, that is a question of fact, and I am informed by several committee members that it was approved by a vote of 11 to 6 or 9 to 6. If that is correct, that particular point of order falls.

The distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] the minority leader, has admitted in his second argument on his point of order the crux of this question, when he states that the "intent and purpose of these two bills is the same." This is the whole issue here.

The gentleman has referred to the titles of the two bills. Of course, it is well held in parliamentary procedure, as announced in section 2916 of Hinds' Precedents, that the title of a bill is of no influence whatever in deciding what is in the bill.

In his first argument the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] referred to subtitles and pointed out that the subtitle of the Senate bill referred to a Labor Standards Board while the subtitle of the committee amendment referred to a Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. If they are important, they are not so unrelated as to affect the question under consideration. Furthermore, they are merely titles.

What subject are we considering here? How would anybody briefiy describe it in a few words? He or she would say we are taking up the subject of wages and hours. Minimum wages and maximum hours are what we are discussing, and this is the issue in every one of at least a half dozen bills which have been introduced in the House.

The point of order of the distinguished minority leader [Mr. SNELL], however, is directed toward the method by which we shall approach this goal, to do something about minimum wages and maXimum hours. The point I make is that the subject matter of the bill being wages and hours, this amendment offered by the lady from New Jersey is in the nature of a substitute. It also deals with wages and hours. Any other amendments which may be offered hereafter dealing with this subject, is germane irrespective of the particular method proposed to be adopted to reach the ultimate objective.

As far as I know, I have examined every single, solitary precedent in Hinds and Cannon and in other works, and I have not found one precedent which would sustain the point of order made by the distinguished minority leader. Every one of the precedents cited by the gentleman from New York can be distinguished from the question in point, because this is a new proposal.

Congress and the Government are engaged in a new venture, you may call it, in legislation. There is nothing on the statute books today in reference to "minimum wages and maximum hours." We are not amending any existing law. We are not giving any new powers to any existing agency of the Government. We are starting on an entirely new venture, an attempt to do something about wages and hours in industry.

As everybody knows, the amendment offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] in the nature of a substitute, is offered as a new, complete, clean bill, as it has been called, for the purpose of avoiding confusion as far as possible. The Senate bill went to the House Committee on Labor, which first reported some 60 amendments to the Senate bill. Then the House Labor Committee reported other amendments, and then finally decided to bring in a clean copy of the bill, including all of the House committee amendments, and to offer that as a substitute, treating it as one new bill. All the amendments included in this committee substitute, except one, are practically minor perfecting amendments, about which there can be little complaint, and possibly no point of order.

The issue all comes down to the question of the method of administration of the act. The issue devolves as to section 3 of the original bill and section 3 of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON]. Section 3 of the original bill was entitled "Labor Standards Board." Section 3 of the new bill is entitled "Administrative Agency." Section 3 of the Senate bill, the original bill, provided for the setting up of a board of five members, and the section had five or six subsections relating to the place of office, the appointment of employees, the making of reports, and other minor matters. Section 3 of the House Labor Committee amendment is the same, except that it provides for the appointment of an administrator in the Department of Labor rather than a board of five members. Outside of this one detail, both sections are substantially the same.

Now, no one can say that whether or not we put tha administration of this act in the Labor Department or in a board of five, or in some other agency, or in no agency, is the outstanding feature of this bill. The outstanding feature is the proposal to do something about minimum wages and maximum hours, and there is no one who can now dispute that point. How we shall do it is another question.

I wish to call to the attention of the Chair an authortty directly in point, in my opinion. I have seen no authorities to the contrary. They all point in the direction which I am arguing, but this authortty is directly on the point and should be conclusive.

In Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, at section 3056, the headline is:

To a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one method a proposition to achieve the same purpose by another closely related method is germane.

To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out of informal contracts with the Government through the agency at the Secretary of War, an amendment proposing to adjudicate such claims through the agency of a commission appointed for that purpose was held to be germane.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I gladly yield to the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. SNELL. The gentleman has just read a precedent which states that where one method is closely related to the other, it is germane, but it does not say that a method that is entirely new in every single step of its procedure is germane; and the method presented by the committee amendment is new from top to bottom with not a word or a single action similar to the old one.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. The precedent to which I have just called attention is just the reverse of the situation we have here today. Here the first suggestion made was as to a board, and the change is to a department of the Government, the Labor Department. In the precedent I have cited, it was first the Secretary of War who was charged with the duty, and then that was changed to a commission or a board, in effect. There is no difference in principle between the precedent and the present time.

Mr. SNELL. The gentleman has omitted one step. One is a separate, independent board not connected with any executive department and the other sets up a bureau under an executive department.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I have been trying to tell the distinguished gentleman that the precedent I have just read is just the reverse of the present issue, but on all fours to our problem. It changed the administrative agency from the executive branch of the Government, the Secretary of War, to a board, whereas we have the reverse situation before us now. The precedent is exactly in point. Let me read on. When this question arose in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on January 9, 1919, Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, one of the

[PAGE 1587]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1588]

greatest parliamentarians of Congress, was presiding as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. The point of order was made by another great parliamentarian, Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, later Democratic minority leader of the House. Chairman Crisp said, in part, as follows:

The blll before the House provides that the Secretary of War or any of his agents or representatives can adjust and settle these differences. The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. J. Hampton Moore) provides a different method or a ditterent agent or a different tribunal to settle these differences. The Chair believes that it is germane to the bill before the House. The Chair does not believe the House is confined to the particular method of settlement of these claims that the Committee reports. The Chair believes the amendment is germane proposing another vehicle, and tt 1s for the House to determine which sball be adopted.

In view of this precedent, supported by all the other precedents, and especially in view, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that the prime, outstanding purpose of this bill is to meet the situation as to "minimum wages and maximum hours," I contend that the points of order in reference to this matter including the child-labor amendment, which is in the same category, are not well taken and the points of order shoUld be overruled.

Mr. COX and Mr. MICHENER rose.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard to say just a word on a point of order I raised? This amendment contains matter that is entirely foreign to anything contained in the bill that the Committee had before it. The amendment is the product of the cbairman of the Labor Committee, who was acting under blanket authority given by the committee to report a clean bill.

Mr. SABATH. I object to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. COX. The point is just this: That the committee has taken no formal action approving the pending amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, anything I may say shall be in answer to what has just been said by the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR].

In beginning I may say that parliamentary procedure in this House is based upon precedents.

Point 1: The last precedent deciding a given matter is the precedent—the same as in court—that should be, and is, followed by the House. I think we are an agreed on this.

Point 2: The gentleman from New York has made exactly the same argument that was made here when the Farm Board bill was before the House a number of years ago and when an attempt was made to offer a substitute to bring about exactly the same objective, only by a different method. The objective was the same, but a difierent method was pursued to reach the goal.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] has called attention to the fact that we are dealing with a new matter, that this bill does not amend anything, and, therefore, even though we do pursue a different course in the substitute than in the original bill, that nevertheless the substitute is germane. I call the attention of the Chair to the last decision made on this very point within the last 10 days by the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WARREN] holding that a bill relating to agriculture, by attempting to relieve, to help, and to deal with the present condition of agriculture, was not in order because of the decisions which he there cited, and which the Chair has before it, which clearly demonstrates that if that decision is correct, then this substitute is out of order. The gentleman from North Carolina in a very clear and concise way reviewed the decisions heretofore dealing with this subject of germaneness so far as the question here involved is concerned. He called especial attention to the Mapes decision—in 1929, I think—which was the Farm Board decision, and referred to that as a decision in which all of the decisions previously made were taken into consideration, that coalition of decisions included the decision away back in 1919, made by Chairnlan Crisp, on which the chairman of the Committee on Rules now relies.

In concluding, all I have to say is that if the present chairman follows the parliamentary precedents reiterated by the gentleman from North carolina in the farm bill ruling within the last 10 days, must hold that this substitute is not germane. It seems to me that to hold otherwise woUld be to change the established philosophy on which the rule of germaneness is based

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on just one point raised by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MICHENER].

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. In regard to the "Mapes" decision, about which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MICHENER] has had so much to say, that decision I have examined carefully, and I contend it is easily distinguished from the present question. That particular decision was made on April 24, 1929, and reported in section 2966 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 8. A bill was then pending before the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to establish a Farm Board for the merchandising of farm commodities. The distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Loring M. Black, Jr., offered an amendment to establish a "Federal Farm Beverage Board" to issue licenses for the sale of beer, wine, and so forth.

Not only was there proposed a different agency but to handle a difierent subject. It was an entirely different subject matter, changing from wheat, corn, oats, and so forth. to beer and wine. That is why the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MAPES], then the presiding chairman, rules as he so ruled That decision has no application whatever to the issue in point. Here we have the same subject involved, minimum wages and maximum hours. The only question is what agency shall administer it. That question of the administrative agency is secondary to the main purpose and objective of the bill and the substitutes submitted.

The goal at which we aim is that we do something about fair wages and reasonable hours. Who will execute our will is secondarily important.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] makes the point of order against the amendment, one of the reasons advanced being that the substitute provides for the setting up of a bureau as a division of the Department of Labor under an administrator, whereas the Senate bill provides for the establishment of a board. Also, that the method proposed by the amendment pending establishes a different one from that set forth in the Senate bill. Points of order raised by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN] and the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] are involved in the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York, and in part the point of order raised by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. COX is also involved, but in part it is not.

The Chair recognizes the seriousness of this question. The Chair is indebted to those who have presented their arguments on both sides. The Chair realizes that the matter of germaneness at times is one filled with great uncertainty. The Chair realizes that there is a twilight zone. The Chair also realizes that too narrow an interpretation of the rule might interfere with the conduct of the Committee of the Whole House or of the House in the proper consideration of a bill.

The Chair anticipated this particular point of order and has had an opportunity of giving consideration to the precedents interpreting the rule which prompted the point of order being raised. During the general debate on the pending Senate bill, the Chair was informed by a number of Members that certain amendments would be offered to it, some in the nature of a substitute and others in the nature of perfecting amendments thereto. The Chair has taken notice and has utilized its opportunity during the general debate to review the decisions on germaneness embodied in Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives. The Chair has also listened intently to the discussion of the point of order on the floor and has examined

[PAGE 1588]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1589]

the precedents cited by gentlemen on both sides of the question.

In deciding this question it may be appropriate to examine into the meaning of the word "germane" as it relates to parliamentary law. In this respect the Chair calls attention to a statement made in a decision on germaneness by Mr. Chairman Fitzgerald, of New York, on September 22, 1914. which is to be found in Cannon's Precedznts, volume 8, section 2993. The Chair quotes from that decision:

The meaning of the word "germane" is akin to, or near to, or appropriate to, or relevant to, and "germane" amendments must bear such relationship to the provisions of the blli as well as meet other tests; that is, that they be a natural and logical sequence to the subject matter, and propose such modifications as would naturally, properly, and reasonably be anticipated.

The Chair also calls attention to a decision made by Mr. Chairman Garrett, of Tennessee, September 19, 1918, section 2911 of volume VIII of Cannon's Precedents, wherein it was held generally that the rule providing that amendments must be germane was construed as requiring that the fundamental purposes of the amendment be germane to the fundamental purposes of the bill to which it is offered. The Senate bill pending before the Committee of the Whole at the present time provides generally for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce. To accomplish that result the bill sets up a board, conferring upon that board certain specified powers; asserts that the declared policy of the act is to maintain minimum wage and maximum hours standards, fixing the limits to be achieved in the one case at a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour and in the other a maximum of 40 hours per week. Certain discretionary powers are lodged in the board and certain conditions and limitations are placed upon such discretion. It is a broad plan, attempting to achieve a definite result.

Coming more directly now to the immediate question presented to the Chair, involving the question of germaneness of the amendment offered by the lady from New Jersey to the Senate bill, the Chair finds that the amendment, of course, differs somewhat from the Senate bill. It necessarily follows that it would do so; otherwise it would not have been offered. The question for the Chair here is to ascertain whether it differs so widely in its details from the Senate bill to justify the Chair in holding it not germane. The Chair has listened attentively to the citations of precedents involving the question of germaneness of amendments to farm legislation which have occurred during the past 12 years. The Chair studiously examined those decisions prior to the time when the pending question presented itself, and the Chair believes that they can be distinguished from the instant question as well as from the decision referred to by the gentleman from Michigan in connection with the ruling made by the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WARREN] only several days ago.

It seems to the Chair that this entire question turns upon one point, and that is whether a new agency proposed by the amendment offered by the lady from New Jersey to administer the provisions of the pending bill is so different from the agency set up in the Senate bill to accomplish that purpose as to warrant the Chair holding the amendment not germane. It seems to the Chair that the other provisions in the pending bill involve solely a question of detail, and do not, in and of themselves, provide a great departure from the terms of the Senate bill. Therefore, it appears to the Chair that the point for him to determine is whether the change in agency to administer this act is so different as to make the amendment not germane. Again referring to those decisions of germaneness made in the past, in the consideration of farm legislation, the Chair would distinguish them in this manner: The amendments in those cases, it seems to the Chair, were not ruled out on the ground that the substitution of a new governmental agency to administer the terms of the bill were not germane, but went, rather, to the authority of the new agency proposed to use a new and unrelated method in accomplishing that end. The Chair thinks that there is a decided difference between the substitution of a new agency to administer the law and the substitution of a new method of accomplishing a predetermined end.

The Chair happily finds, however, that it is not necessary for him to rely entirely upon his own opinion in reaching a conclusion on this question. The Chair has found, and the gentleman from New York has referred to a precedent involving a similar question. The Chair has found what he regards to be a direct and pointed decision on this matter.

The Chair has before him the following decision which the gentleman from New York has referred to, which may be found in Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 3056, wherein it was held that—

To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out of informal contracts with the Government, "through the agency of the Secretary of War," an amendment proposing to adjudicate such claims through the agency of a commission appointed for that purpose was held to be germane.

The Chair thinks that the decision by Mr. Chairman Crisp, of Georgia, is of sufficient importance that it should be read in its entirety. Mr. Chairman Crisp on that occasion said:

The bill before the House has for its object the validating and settling of damages arising out of informal contracts made by the War Department. The bill before the House provides that the Secretary of War, or any of his agents or representatives, can adjust and settle these differences. The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania provides a different method or a different agent or a different tribunal to settle these differences. The Chair believes it is germane to the bill before the House. The Chair does not believe the House is confined to the particular method of settlement of these claims that the commlttee reports. The Chair believes the amendment is germane, proposing another vehicle, and it is for the House to determine which shall be adopted.

For the reasons stated, Chairman Crisp overruled that point of order.

In conclusion, the Chair thinks that the fundamental purpose of the amendment proposed by the lady from New Jersey is germane to the fundamental purposes of the bill now before us. The Chair, relying more specifically upon the decision of Mr. Chairman Crisp, just quoted, thinks the amendment comes within the rule of germaneness, and overrules the points of order. [Applause.]

Dealing now with the point of order raised by the gentleman from Georgia, the Chair, in the limited time at the Chair's disposal, has examined the Senate bill, and the Chair is of opinion that the changes recommended in the amendment are within the purview of the provisions of the Senate bill, and for this reason overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I observe the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILERJ on his feet in an attempt, I assume, to present the Green amendment. My inquiry is whether we are going to be permitted to consider section by section the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, or whether these new substitute bills are first to be presented? Some Members are claiming on the floor of the House that if these other bills are permitted to be presented that there will not be any consideration of the pending substitute section by section.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, of course, has no control over that situation. All the Chair can do is to interpret the rules. Further answering-the gentleman, the Chair advises him that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now being considered in its entirety.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to section 2 of the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I merely ask unanimous consent that the amendment which I offered may be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and read section by section.

[PAGE 1589]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1590]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my right to object until I can find out what the parliamentary situation will be if this request be granted by the House; whether or not after consideration of this substitute intervenes, other substitutes can be offered, or whether the action of the House on this amendment would preclude it.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I yield.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. As I understand the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey, it is that her amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which means—

Mr. DOCKWEILER. That it is to be read?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. It has already been read in its entirety. There is really no reason to read it again. Under the request submitted by the gentlewoman from New Jersey amendments would be offered to the sections in numerical order, amendments being first offered to section 1, then to section 2, and so on. The gentleman can move to amend section 1 and offer the substitute bill he has in mind.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. The gentleman means that I or any other Member would offer whatever substitute I or or they had in mind after the first section of the pending substitute is read?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I do not understand that it is necessary again to read the substitute. To restate the proposition as I understand it, the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now to be considered open to amendment in any section, amendments being offered first to the first section, then to the second section, and so on throughout the substitute. It would be in order for the gentleman to offer his substitute as an amendment to section 1.

Mr. DOCKWEITER. I would like to hear that from the Chair. Is that the case, Mr. Chairman? If I withdraw my objection, Mr. Chairman, will I stand in the position that nothing else has intervened, that no action the House may take can prevent my substitute from being considered?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair appreciates the caution of the gentleman from California and admires him for it and will undertake to answer the parliamentary inquiry.

If the unanimous consent request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey is granted, the Chair understands that amendments will be offered section by section. Amendments will first be in order to section 1. The gentleman from Californaia, if recognized by the Chair or any other Member recognized—

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from California permit the Chair to complete the statement?

Mr. OOCKWEILER. The Chair has answered my question.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will complete the statement. Amendments first in order are those affecting section 1 of the substitute; and any gentleman recognized by the Chair may move to offer a substitute for the entire amendment by striking out section 1 and inserting a new text giving notice that he will strike out the remainder of the sections of the committee amendment if his amendment be adopted.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. SNELL. Is it not a fact that if the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey is granted that we shall have liberalized the consideration of this bill and that no one loses any rights by granting that request?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot, of course, answer that as a parliamentary inquiry; but it is the personal opinion of the Chair that that would be the result.

Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chalrman, reserving the right to object, and I do so to propound a parliamentary inquiry as to the order in which amendments are to be offered. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now pending. Would not perfecting amendments have priority of consideration over a substitute amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no knowledge of what amendments may be offered; but ordinarily a perfecting amendment has precedence over a motion to substitute insofar as voting is concerned. If the unanimous-consent request is granted, it is the understanding of the Chair that amendments will be offered section by section.

Mr. BOILEAU. Nevertheless, it is the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey that would be before the House.

The CHAIRMAN. That is before the Committee now.

Mr. BOILEAU. Would not perfecting amendments have priority over an amendment to substitute?

The CHAIRMAN. So far as voting is concerned, yes.

Mr. BOILEAU. I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior right to recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to the amendment now pending?

The CHAIRMAN. It does not necessarily follow that such Member would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. BOILEAU. I recognize it does not necessarily follow, but I am trying to have the matter clarified. Therefore I ask the Chair whether or not a Member who qualifies as offering a perfecting amendment does not have prior right of recognition in offering such amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has tried to be as helpful as he could, but the Chair does not feel he should estop himself of his own discretion in the matter of recognitions.

Mr. BOILEAU. Does the Chair then rule that is within the discretion of the Chair rather than a right of the Member?

The CHAIRMAN. In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair is of the opinion it is within the province of the Chair whom the Chair will recognize, having in mind the general rules of the House.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman, I demand the regular order.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON]?

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard, and the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I made the unanimous request for the purpose of helping a great many of the Members who seemed to desire it and who seemed to fear they would be precluded from the offering of amendments.

The discussion here today is very strange, it seems to me. May I say to the House that the chairman of the Labor Committee is not trying to put anything over on anybody and I want that distinctly understood. [Applause.] The only reason your committee considered changing the adminministration feature from the Senate bill was because a great many Members of the House came to me and stated they objected to another board. I thought they meant what they said, yet I hear the Members who came and asked me to change this administration feature now objecting to the very thing that we tried to do. Mr. Chairman, may I say that we were perfectly willing to go along with the five-man board if the House wanted us to do so, but we of the Labor Committee felt we were doing the thing the Members of the House would like us to do.

In addition to that, I have received thousands of letters since I became cha.innan of the Committee on Labor objecting

[PAGE 1590]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1591]

to so many boards and asking, "Why do you not put the administration of this law into the hands of the Labor Department where it belongs?" [Applause.] Therefore, acting on the suggestion of the Members of the House, and taking into consideration the great number of objections received through the mail, this matter was presented to the committee.

I heard a Member state here today, and I resent the statement, that this is a suggestion of the chairman of the Labor Committee entirely and that the Committee on Labor did not approve the action. I say, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely untrue. Your committee approved this by a vote of 11 to 6, and I challenge anybody to dare say that the chairman of the Committee on Labor tried to put anything over on any member of the committee. [Applause.]

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DUNN. I want to substantiate the statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Labor. She did not put over anything on anybody, because she came out on the floor and told the Members here that she was authorized by her committee to make a statement in order to get Members of the House to sign the petition. [Laughter.] So, Mr. Chairman, she was very successful in getting that petition signed and she did a "damned" good job. [Laughter.]

Mr. RANDOLPH. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to reaffirm what the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON], chairman of the Committee on Labor, stated, in that the matter offered here as a substitute amendment is not her own amendment but that of the Committee on Labor by a vote of 11 to 6, or 9 to 6. It was by a majority vote of the committee.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we are wasting a lot of time here. Every Member of the House has gotten up here in the last couple of days of debate and said he approved the principles of the bill. If they mean that, they certainly are not showing any indication of it today. I do not believe any Member who is trying to prevent this bill from being discussed on the floor of the House believes in any part of the bill. May I say that this is a test of your sincerity as to whether or not you want to give relief to 12,000,000 men and women in this country who are now working under substandard labor conditions? That is the object of this bill. That is the thing we want to consider above everything else, and I beg all the Members to consider the bill on its merits without filibustering and using all kinds of tactics to delay its consideration.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute to the Norton amendment.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I should like to ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] if this is known as the Green bill or the A. F. of L. bill?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no knowledge of what the amendment may contain.

The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. GRISWOLD offers the following amendment as a substitute: In lieu of the matter proposed by the pending amendment insert the following:

"That as used in this act unless the context otherwise requires—

" ( 1) 'Person' includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidating or reorganizing agent.

"(2) 'Interstate commerce' means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States, or into or from any State to any place outside thereof.

"(3) 'State' means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession pf the United States.

"(4)'Occupation' means an occupation, industry, trade, or business, or branch thereof or class of work or craft therein, in which persons are gainfully employed.

"(5) 'Employer' includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee but shall not include the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

"(6) 'Employee' includes any individual employed or suffered or permitted to work by an employer, but shall not include any person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity or any person employed in the capacity of outside salesman, nor shall 'employees' include any person employed as a seaman, or any railroad employee subject to the provisions of the Hours of Service Act (U. S. C., title 45, ch. 3); or any employee of any common carrier by motor vehicle subject to the qualifications and maximum-hours-of-service provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (U. S. C., title 49, ch. 8): Provided, however, That the wage provisions of this act shall apply; or any air-transport employee subject to the provisions of title II of the Railway Labor Act, approved April 10, 1936, or any person employed in the taking of fish, sea foods, or sponges; or any person employed in agriculture. As used in this act, the term 'agriculture' includes fanning in all its branches, and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, forestry, horticulture, market gardening, and the cultivation and growing of fruits, vegetables, nuts, nursery products, ferns, flowers, bulbs, livestock, bees, and poultry, and further includes the definition contained in subdivision (g) of section 15 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, approved June 15, 1929, as amended, or any other agricultural or horticultural commodity, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to such farming operations, including delivery to market. Independent contractors and their employees engaged in transporting farm products from farm to market are not persons employed in agriculture. The term 'person employed in agriculture' as used in this act, insofar as it shall refer to fresh fruits or vegetables, shall include persons employed within the area of production engaged in preparing, packing, or storing such fresh fruits or vegetables in their raw or natural state: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall exclude from the operation of section II of this act persons employed in forestry or in the taking of fish, sea food, or sponges, or in the tapping or chipping of pine trees for crude gum or the collection or handling of gum spirits of turpentine or gum rosin.

"(7) 'Emergency work' means any work necessary for the protection or preservation of life or health, for the prevention of damage to property, or for maintenance or repair of property or equipment, or made necessary in the due course and conduct of production and to avoid undue disruption of business.

"SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful to employ any person in any employment affecting interstate or foreign commerce at a wage less than 40 cents an hour, or at work in excess of 8 hours per day or more than 40 hours in any 1 week, or to employ any person under conditions of oppressive child labor as hereinafter defined: Provided, That in case of emergency the provisions of this act shall not apply during the period of such emergency: Provided. further, That such employer affected file with the State labor commissioner or other proper State official designated by law a sworn statement as to the necessity for such action: Provided further, That such employer shall pay to his workers during such emergency wages of not less than time and one-half for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours in any 1 week.

"SEC. 3. Any person in any State or Territory or possession of the United States or the District of Columbia guilty of violation of any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than $100 for each offense. The employment of each employee at a wage less than that fixed in this act, or for hours longer than those fixed in this act, unless excepted as provided ln section 3, shall constitute a separate offense.

"SEc. 4. The district courts of the United States and possessions shall have jurisdiction of the violations of this act. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation or any element thereof occurred. The Attorney General of the United States may petition, in the district court having jurisdiction to issue, upon proper showing, a permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of this act by any defendant in any criminal proceeding. Any district court in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business or where the violation of the act occurred has jurisdiction of said suits in equity. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Act as amended (U. S. C., title 28, sees. 225 and 347, and D. C. Act, title 18, sec. 26). It shall be the duty of each United States district attorney, to whom satisfactory evidence of any violation of this act has been presented, to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted in the proper court in the United States for the enforcement of the foregoing penalties or any of them.

"SEc. 5. It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, offer to transport, or offer for transport in interstate commerce any goods in the production or processing of which any person so employed for longer hours per week or for less wages per hour or

[PAGE 1591]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1592]

under the age of 16 for hire as provided in section 2 hereof when applicable.

"SEC. 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, offer to transport, or offer for transport, in interstate commerce, any goods in the production or processing of which convict, prison, forced, or indentured labor has entered.

"SEC. 7. The provisions of this act shall not supersede any State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the wage established by this act or maximum hours shorter than those established by this act.

"SEC. 8. Any employer under a collective-bargaining contract with the union of his employees affiliated with a recognized, bona fide national labor organization providing for higher minimum wages and shorter maximum hours shall be exempted from the provisions of this act as to the employees covered by such agreement and insofar as the agreement covers hours and wages.

"SEC. 9. All laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Should any provision of this act be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, the other provisions shall not be affected by such decision.

"SEC. 10. This act shall become effective 90 days after the enactment thereof.

"SEC. 11. 'Oppressive child labor' means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee (as defined in this act to exclude employees in agriculture) under the age of 16 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent) in any occupation, or (B) any such employee between the ages of 16 and 18 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent) in any occupation which the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor shall from time to time by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of such children or detrimental to their health or well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by virtue of the employment in any occupation of any person with respect to whom the employer shall have on file a certificate issued and held pursuant to the regulation of the Chief of the Children's Bureau certifying that such person is above the oppressive child-labor age. The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees under the age of 16 years in any occupation shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that the Chief of the Children's Bureau determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere With their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and wellbeing."

Mr. SHANNON (interrupting the reading of the amendment>. Mr. Chairman—

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri rise?

Mr. SHANNON. For information. There is an inquiry all through the House to ascertain whether this is the Griswold or the Dockweiler bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asks the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] if this is the Dockweiler amendment or the Griswold amendment?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, this is the so-called Dockweller amendment, which is the bill proposed by the American Federation of Labor.

The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.

Mr. RAMSPECK and Mr. LAMBERTSON rose.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the substitute.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will state his point of order.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this substitute for the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] is not germane to the amendment to which it is offered for the reason that it not only sets up a different procedure and a different agency but it is for a different purpose.

The pending amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey proposes to set up fair labor standards. It proposes not one wage scale or one hour limitation but different wage scales and different hour limitations to be arrived at by the procedure outlined in her amendment. The proposal offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD], on the contrary, is a penal statute solely and exclusively. It makes it unlawful for any person to employ anybody for more than 40 hours per week except for the exemptions named in the bill. It makes it unlawful to pay anybody less than 40 cents per hour and therefore it is for a different purpose which is to set up a single standard of wages and hours, whereas the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey sets up plural standards and plural hours, to be administered by an administrative agency in the Department of Labor. This proposal would be administered by the officers enforcing the criminal laws of the United States and by the criminal divisions of the district courts of the United States, whereas the proposal of the gentlewoman from New Jersey is administered by an executive department and the amendment provides for a series of steps before reaching the maximum purpose.

I would like to call the Chair's attention to this language taken from the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, who presented the legal phases of the bill as originally introduced, to the House and Senate committees, and it applies likewise to the purpose sought to be accomplished by the proposal now before the Committee of the Whole offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey. Mr. Jackson said this:

The bill recognizes the very practical exigencies which make it impossible to prescribe for all goods which enter into interstate commerce a single minimum fair-wage standard or a single maximum reasonable workweek standard. Even in the treatment of national problems there are geographic and industrial diversities which cannot be ignored. For that reason the bill makes a distinction between labor conditions which are clearly oppressive under any circumstances and labor conditions which may be found unreasonable under circumstances prevailing in particular industries or in particular geographic areas. As to labor conditions that are clearly oppressive, the regulatory provisions of the bill are largely automatic, but as to labor conditions which depend for their unreasonableness upon particular circumstances, the regulations become effective only after appropriate administrative findings and audits. The administration of these provisions is placed in a labor standards board of five members.

The only difference between Mr. Jackson's statement and the proposal of the gentlewoman from New Jersey is that instead of a board we have wage and hour committees appointed by an administrator, but the method provided is for consideration of economic factors, of the cost of living, of the cost of transportation, of wages paid for like work of comparable character in the community under investigation, and the unit cost of production, all of which are ignored in the substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana, who proposes to set up a single rigid standard, which I submit to the Chair, under his own ruling a few moments ago on the point of order made by the gentleman from New York, is a different purpose arrived at also by a different method, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe the substitute is not germane to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. GREENWOOD and Mr. LAMBERTSON rose.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. GREENWOOD. The point of order has been raised by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] that because of substantial changes which the substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] proposes in the administration of the law, in that the substitute takes its administration to the courts instead of being administered by an intervening agency of an administrator, which shall find certain facts before they are taken to court, that the substitute is not in order.

Under the former ruling of the Chair the subject matter of both of these proposals is the regulation of wages and hours in interstate commerce. It is true that the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey provides the intervening agency of an administrator in the Department of Labor that shall set up certain standards and make certain findings, but eventually, under this substitute they can take the findings to a court and the Department of Justice is to enforce the penalties which are similar to the penalties offered in the substitute by the gentleman from Indiana. Under the former ruling of the Chair, these are incidental matters in enforcing a regulation which shall be determined by the House of Representatives in considering these two substitutes, and the subject matter is the regulation of wages and hours in interstate commerce. The substitute of the

[PAGE 1592]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1593]

gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] lays down a fixed standard to be considered by the court. The substitute of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] lays down provisions whereby there is flexibility, where changes can be made in hours or wages according to certain provisions and stipulations set out in the law. I contend, Mr. Chairman. that under the previous ruling on the point of order made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] we get back to the subject matter of the bill and of both substitutes, and that the question of whether the penalty shall be enforced by the court directly under a rigid standard or whether it shall be enforced after a board in the Labor Department shall make certain findings is merely incidental, and that the point of order should be overruled.

Mr. LAMBERTSON rose.

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Kansas rise?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to corroborate what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GREENWOOD] just said, that certainly this is germane. All through the hearings the question of administration of this proposition was brought forward. I want to read a couple of questions and answers in the hearings in which Mr. John L. Lewis was very emphatic. He was really supporting the present Green bill at that time. I asked Mr. Lewis if he favored this bill with section 5 out. Section 5 deals With the powers of the Board. My question was:

Would you rather see this bill reported adversely than reported with sections 5 and 23 in?

Mr. Lewis answered:

Well, I would not want to put it that way, Congressman. I think that the bill is entirely meritorious, eminently economically sound, and justifiable from every standpoint, if we do not undertake in this measure to set up a board with power to fix the wage structure of industry.

That is John Lewis' testimony, and on the next page I asked the further question and he answered in the same way:

In other words, you would rather see labor have the power that it has today to strike and take care of itself whenever necessary, rather than under any Federal board which even might be appointed under the present President?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would be very glad to hear the gentleman from Kansas on the point of order. The Chair, however, feels that the gentleman is not addressing the Chair upon the point of order.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I beg the Chair's pardon, but I think I am, and that the question of a board or no board went all through this hearing, and I am quoting a couple of important paragraphs of a gentleman by the name of John L. Lewis. He was against any board but in favor of the bill, and I would like to read his last answer to my question.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not want to curtail any Member who is addressing the Chair trying to assist the Chair.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I have not used much time today.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, recognition rests with the Chair, and the Chair would be glad to hear from the gentleman on the point of order.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I think that the last answer is germane, that Mr. Lewis gave to my question.

The CHAIRMAN. The testimony of Mr. Lewis, of course, is not involved in this question.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Certainly, it is germane if it were a question all through the hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is very anxious to hear the views of the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. My view agrees with that of John L. Lewis on this point. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman: His answer to this last inquiry—

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is constrained to suggest to the gentleman that the gentleman from Kansas is not assisting the Chair in the matter before the Chair.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. If the Chair will let me read this, I think it will assist him. I am sure that it is illuminating.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will proceed.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. This is what Mr. Lewis said:

I do not think that under section 5 of this act the Congress can afford to set up an instrumentality here and vest it with all o! the broad powers that may be necessary to confirm wage fixing as such in the country.

He was against the Board or a delegation of the power given them, which still is in the bill and the Norton substitute.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard upon the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be glad to hear from the gentleman from New York on the point of order.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I said I believed that any bill that approaches a possible solution of the question of wages and hours is germane as a substitute to the pending bill. [Applause.]

The original bill provided for a board to administer its provisions. The Norton amendment provides for an administrator in the Department of Labor. The Griswold substitute provides for no administrator whatsoever. In that respect all these proposals are germane. The original bill and the Norton amendment provide for flexible wages and flexible hours. The Griswold amendment provides for fixed wages and fixed hours. Surely, if you have a flexible schedule, you could always offer an amendment to make a rigid or fixed schedule.

There has been some talk about enforcement of the act, putting such enforcement into the courts. That result has nothing to do with administration of the measures. Probably in the other bills before us there are provisions whereby some parts of the measures will be enforced by the courts, but any bill that deals with wages and hours, irrespective of any schedule of wages and hours, irrespective of whether such schedules are flexible or rigid, irrespective of what method of administration is selected or whether there is no administration at all, I contend all these measures are germane to the Senate bill first under consideration by the House. They all aim at the ultimate objective of solving the national problem of minimum wages and maximum hours for our workers.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCORMACK). The Chair is prepared to rule.

The Chair is of the opinion that the ruling made by the Chair a short time ago on the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] applies as well to the point of order raised by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

In addition to the citations mentioned by the Chair on the previous occasion, the Chair calls attention in connection with the point of order raised by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] to a precedent in section 3054 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, where, in the syllabus, it is stated:

To a proposition providing for the attainment of an objective by a specific method a proposal to achieve the same objective through the adoption of another method closely related may be germane.

To a bill authorizing the Secretary of War in his discretion to discharge enlisted men, an amendment directing the Secretary of War to prescribe regulations permitting the discharge of such men was held to be germane.

An instance wherein a proposal to instruct an executive to take deflnite action was held to be germane to a proposal to authorize him to take such action.

The Chair believes, having in mind the broad objective of this bill, the establishment of minimum wages and maximum hours, that the Committee of the Whole and the House are not precluded from considering another method or another means of accomplishing that purpose than the one recommended by the Senate bill or by the House committee, both methods being germane. The Chair believes it

[PAGE 1593]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1594]

germane for the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union under the rules, to consider a mandatory minimum-wage and maximum-hour provision in preference to the amendment of the committee or the provisions of the Senate bill. Which is the desirable course to take is a matter for the Committee to determine.

In the opinion of the Chair, the substitute offered _by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD], for the reasons stated, is germane, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Under the present procedure is it now in order to offer amendments to the Norton substitute, but not in order to offer amendments to the Griswold substitute?

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to offer an amendment to either the Norton amendment or the Griswold substitute.

The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, this Griswold substitute which I have just offered is the original Dockweiler bill It differs from the original Griswold bill only in the hours. The Griswold bill fixed a maximum of 44 hours. Mr. DOCKWElLER cannot, under the rules, obtain recognition, so I have refrained from offering the substitute I intended to offer, and at Mr. DOCKWEILER's request I am now offering this substitute.

Because I am a friend to labor and to wage and hour legislation, because I have eaten its bread and salt, because I have toiled with it and fought for it when its friends in this House were few in the days before the flag of labor became a popular flag to wave; because I, myself, have labored and represented to the best of my ability labor organizations in wage and hour disputes with employers in bygone days I am introducing this amendment. I know what it means to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread." I know what long hours and low pay mean in a factory. I know what they mean in the most dangerous occupation in America-that of a switchman. I know these things not because I have obtained my knowledge from a book, not because I have heard parlor pinks, social workers, and others who make a profession of being friends of labor talk, but because I have had the experience-because the life that labor leads was mine. I know it from backache and muscle ache and sleeplessness and weariness.

Because I do not want to see labor exploited and made the victim of deception, I have presented my amendment.

Under the chairman's bill you set up an administrator in the Department of Labor with power to create differentials. You send him forth with a mandate to fix one scale in one locality and another scale in another. You send him forth to destroy labor with a knife in its back while he approaches it with a smile. By the pending bill you cut the throat of every industry and laboring man in the North with the "differential" ax:

If you want a true wage and hour bill, adopt the Griswold amendment. By so doing you strike out differentials. You strike out both boards and administrators. You establish a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours. Congress defines the crime instead of leaving it to the caprice of an appointive officer. Every American has a right to expect that under the Federal law he will be treated the same whether he be in Alaska or Florida, in California or New York. State laws may differ, but Federal laws should rest equally on all. We, not some bureaucrat, should designate what constitutes a crime. If you pass this bill without the Griswold amendment the people will soon learn to their sorrow that a man may be convicted of a crime under the Federal law in New York and Pennsylvania that is not a crime under the Federal law in Georgia and Alabama.

Under the pending bill if wages are increased 90 days' notice must be given, but not 1 second's notice of a decrease. Under the pending bill if hours are decreased 90 days' notice must be given, but if hours are increased above 40 hours a week not 1 second's notice need be given labor.

The Black-Cannery-Norton bill does not fix wages or hours. Under it wages cannot be fixed above 40 cents per hour, but they can be fixed as low as 10 cents. Hours cannot be fixed at less than 40, but they can be fixed as high as 70 hours per week. The Griswold amendment would cure this error.

The Bourbons of France used the fleur-de-lis, the Plantagenets the broom plant, the N. R. A. Administrator the blue eagle as a symbol of power and emblem of authority. If you vote down the Griswold amendment and pass the Norton amendment creating this new administrator in the Department of Labor, I suggest you add a proviso making his symbol the stinkweed, for this bill in its present shape has a putrid smell.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I am personally opposed to both the Norton amendment and the Griswold amendment or substitute. I am in favor of the original bill as reported last summer by the House committee.

On yesterday, our friend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY] made a speech on the floor of the House in which he used this language:

Were Billy Connery here today he would fight for those features and principles which I will do my best to have the House incorporate in an honest wage and hour bill, namely:

First. A maximum workweek of 40 hours;

Second. A minimum wage of 40 cents per hour;

Third. No differentials; the maximum workweek and the minimum wages to be specifically set forth in the law by the Congress rather than to delegate to some unknown board or administrator that power which, to my mind, the Congress should never abrogate or delegate.

I have the highest regard for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I am sorry that I have to make this comparison of his statement made here yesterday with the language of my beloved friend, Bill Connery, who has passed away, as expressed in a speech made by him on June 8, 1937, a few days before he died, which was placed in the RECORD on June 10 of this year by the gentleman from New York [Mr. MEAD] and which appears on page 1430, part 10, volume 81, the bound RECORD of the last session of Congress. Here is what Bill Connery said. I quote:

The Black-Cannery bill recognizes the practical necessities which make it impossible to prescribe for all goods which enter into interstate commerce any single minimum fair-wage standard or any single maximum workweek standard. We all know that it is impractical to ignore the differences and diversities among industries and localities. We all know that uniform national standards cannot suddenly be imposed upon many and diverse industries without causing industrial dislocations which might seriously curtail the earning power of the workers and their opportunities for employment. The proposed legislation deals realistically with the tough realities of American industry. It states clearly and definitely the objectives to be achieved and the standards to be applied. But it leaves the application of these standards and the progressive realization of these objectives to an administrative board, because that is the only practically feasible way that such legislation can be enacted and administered. As Mr. Justice Cardozo bas stated, "the industries of this country are too many and diverse to make it possible for Congress in respect to matters such as these to legislate directly with adequate appreciation of varying conditions" (Schechter case, 295 U. S. 495, 552).

This is the language of the former chairman of this committee, the House Committee on Labor. He was one of my dearest and most beloved friends, and I discussed with him personally this very measure time and time again during the time we were holding hearings on this bill. I feel confident, Mr. Chairman, that if Bill Connery were alive he would take the position here today that I am taking now. [Applause.]

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[PAGE 1594]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1595]

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONNERY. I hope the gentleman is not attempting to give the impression to the House that I am not in position, as the late Congressman's brother, to know his real feelings in regard to this matter.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I think the gentleman was thoroughly honest, but I think he was mistaken. I have read the words of his own brother, made over the radio in a public speech, and I say to the gentleman that Bill told me the last time I talked to him about this matter that he understood the situation in the different sections of this country and that he felt that at last we had a bill which would take those things into consideration, a bill which we could all support.

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a further question?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Yes.

Mr. CONNERY. My statement yesterday was based on a conversation, as I then stated, with the late Congressman on his second last visit home, which was 2 weeks prior to his death. At that time we sat in his house until probably 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning discussing nothing but wage and hour legislation.

At that time he stated definitely and emphatically to me that he was in favor of no differential.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I think the gentleman misunderstood his brother in this respect: Billy was not in favor of geographical differentials and neither am I. I am in favor of differentials which can be justified by the facts. It may be done in Massachusetts as between different cities, or it may be between one State and another, but it must be based upon the facts as proven before the wage and hour committee or before the board, whichever we have. I want to pass now to another subject.

May I say to my friends in the North and East that I am the only member of the delegation from the State of Georgia who up to this hour has been willing to support this legislation or who has been willing to stand up and defend the bill reported last August. [Applause.] I do not want to make a sectional appeal to this House. I have done everything I could to keep the sectional issue out of this matter. I have appealed to my colleagues from the South not to raise the sectional issue. Let us debate and pass on this matter on its merits.

May I say to you who come from the North that we cannot go along with a sudden raising of wages to 40 cents an hour as a minimum, nor a sudden rigid fixing of 40 hours per week, as proposed by the Griswold amendment. I hope you will in your wisdom see the position in which I am placed in this matter and in which others are placed and not support this amendment.

I say to you in all candor and fairness that the majority sentiment in the American Federation of Labor today is not for any wage or hour bill, else they would not be in the position they are in now. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD] read to you yesterday a letter, a copy of which I have, and I think every Member has a copy, written last August stating that the A. F. of L. was in favor of the bill as reported by the House Labor Committee. You all know what happened after that. They went out to Denver and had a convention. Mr. Green was overruled, and the men who have been fighting this bill in the A. F. of L. all along are still here fighting it. They have forced President Green to change his position.

We cannot go along on a 40-40 rigid bill. It would disrupt industry, not only in the South but all over the United States. There are small employers in your State, as well as in mine, and in every small community of this country, which this sort of legislation would absolutely disrupt under existing conditions. It would throw many people out of work.

May I call your attention to one other matter? If we are sincere about this matter, if we really want a bill that will stand up when it reaches the Supreme Court, and of course it will go there, we cannot ignore the fact that Bob Jackson, perhaps the best lawyer in the Department of Justice, has said that we cannot, under the due-process provision, impose any obligation upon an employer to pay a wage without giving reasonable consideration to the value of the services. Any lawyer knows that is true. We cannot make it stand up. It would be an idle gesture and it would upset business from one end of this country to the other. It would cost the businessmen hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Let us be sensible and reasonable about this matter. Let us vote against the substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana, and then let us perfect the Norton amendment. After that, vote whichever way you want to as between the administrator and the board. Personally, I am going to vote for the provision for a board because I believe that we will come nearer working this problem out under an independent agency set up for this purpose only, which can gather experience, do a reasonable job and do it as the President has requested. This independent agency can gradually bring into adjustment the low-pay industries and bring down the long hours until a fair basis throughout the country is reached, which will give relief to the sweated workers of this country.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee desire to offer a perfecting amendment?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I want to speak in support of the amendment.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer a perfecting amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Perfecting amendment proposed by Mr. RANDOLPH to the substitute amendment offered by Mrs. NORTON: Page 4, line 9, after the word "vehicle", strike out the word "or" and insert "nor shall 'employee' include."

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, this perfecting amendment is offered simply to clarify the meaning of the committee in exempting agriculture from the provisions of this bill. That is all I care to say.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer another perfecting amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Perfecting amendment proposed by Mr. RANDOLPH to the amendment offered by Mrs. NORTON: Page 16, line 19, strike out the word "or" and insert tne word "of."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].

Mr. WTICOX. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. WILCOX. Is it in order for the House to consider amendments to both of the substitutes at one time?

The CHAIRMAN. It is.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kansas yield to the gentleman from Tennessee for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Did I understand the Chairman to hold we have two bills before the House in the form of amendments, and that amendments may be offered to each of them, perfecting both amendments at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's understanding of the rules is that a perfecting amendment may be offered to the Norton amendment and a perfecting amendment may be offered to the Griswold amendment.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Can an amendment which is not perfecting, except according to our own ideas of perfecting, be offered if it is germane? Have we ever had a precedent,

[PAGE 1595]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1596]

Mr. Chairman, where we had two bills before the Committee at the same time? There are three bills, for we are going to have another one. Have we ever had such a precedent? Mr. Chairman, do you not believe we had better rise and look into this situation? I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I did not yield for that purpose, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas did not yield for that purpose.

The gentleman from Kansas has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. RAYBURN rose.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, will this be taken out of my time?

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman yields, it is taken out of the gentleman's time.

Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make two unanimous-consent requests.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Kansas may be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes instead of 3 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. RAYBURN; Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if we cannot have an agreement which will get us out of this confusion, and I now ask unanimous consent that until the Griswold amendment is disposed of only amendments to the Griswold amendment may be in order.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to have introduced the same amendment the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] introduced. Since John L. Lewis and the Democratic administration are supporting the bill providing for the board or single administrator, I believe in all fairness a Republican member of the committee should have been recognized to introduce this so-called A. F. of L. bill.

I was one of two who voted against this bill being reported out of the committee in August, and I want to read into the RECORD a part of the minutes from the Labor Committee's records:

Mr. Woon moved that the bill (S. 2475) be reported out of the committee with amendments. It was so agreed, with two dissenting votes. Mr. LAMBERTSON stated he would not vote for any bill that establishes a new board or commission. Mr. BARDEN also voted against the bill.

The gentleman who took this bill away from me is not on record as having voted against the bill to establish a board, but this afternoon that gentleman has offered as a substitute the so-called Green bill, thus reversing his former position. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BARDEN] and I were the only ones who voted against reporting the Senate bill out of the committee. I want my record straight on that. I voted primarily against a board and White House dictatorship.

I want to quote John Lewis a little further. As appears on page 281 of the hearings, he testified:

I think the power of the board should be limited to cases which run below the level of the standards fixed by Congress. I see endless confusion in the adoption of section 5 now. I see a drift toward the complete fixation of wages in all industry by governmental action.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. No; I cannot yield. I have only 5 minutes.

May I say I came here on the Committee on Labor with the gentleman from Georgia 9 years ago. I have. served with Billy Connery the 10 years the gentleman from Georgia has, and I never knew Billy Connery in that 10 years ever to be one iota away from William Green. The gentleman from Georgia must agree with me on that. Who can speak for him?

Mr. DUNN. I can.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Not once in 9 years was he ever tn disagreement with William Green.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. No; I do not yield.

Mr. DUNN. I will answer that question.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. The gentleman from Georgia says this bill has to meet the test of constitutionality before the Supreme Court and infers that the committee hodge-podge substitute is sounder than the Green bill. How well have the administration measures fared in the Supreme Court up to date? This so-called Green bill is not an administration measure. Mr. Green is conscientious and sincere; he was not for this board at any time through the hearings, I felt that. I can also say that John Lewis was not for it then. Of course. John Lewis is for the bill now because Green is against it, and this is the only reason. He was with him at heart all summer. In the hearings both of them were together. They were really against the board, against which I voted and am against today. John Lewis can be quoted a dozen times in the hearings as against the board or a board substitute, the proposed administrator, and the danger of their fixing wages in industry.

I hope the so-called Green substitute amendment does pre· vail. You talk about doing something for unorganized labor in the country. Why, has anybody ever before said that organized labor did not come here to champion the cause of labor generally? Has anyone ever before said organized labor was against the interests of unorganized labor? I do not believe so. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman. I offer a perfecting amendment to the Griswold amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. GREEN to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: On page 3, line 23, strike out the colon, insert a period, and strike out all down to and including line 4, on page 4.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, all that this amendment proposes is to exempt from the provisions of the bill persons employed in forestry or in the taking of fish, sea food and sponges, or in the turpentine industry.

The other bill has this exemption and in the main, these are considered farm products. The turpentine industry has been so considered, and I do not believe any of you would want to put forestry under any other classification because we have our C. C. C. camps working in our forest areas trying to reforest them and they are working on a far less wage than is provided in this bill. It would not be consistent to have a different wage scale in forestry service C. C. C. camps than in the forestry work of the individual.

Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN. I yield.

Mr. SIROVICH. What is the salary per hour today in these various industries which the gentleman would want to exempt for the State of Florida?

Mr. GREEN. Different rates obtain, of course, and the Forest Service is about the same as the others, but in the fishing service I believe there is a difierence when you go all the way up and down the east coast as far as New England. The bill will not be injured by this amendment and the same provision obtains in the bill offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, so I hope the Committee will adopt the amendment.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. GREEN] is adopted, it will remove from

[PAGE 1596]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1597]

the operations of this bill the canning industry, which is seasonal in its operations.

Mr. GREEN. No; only the taking of the fish.

Mr. WELCH. It was never intended by this bill or any ether bill dealing with the question of hours and wages to include the canning industry.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELCH. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. This refers to the taking of the fish from the water and does not involve the canning industry, as the gentleman will see from the language on page 4.

Mr. WELCH. I am reading from page 3 of the amendment. The gentleman's amendment would cover packing and storing, which would include canning.

Mr. GREEN. No; that is not included. My amendment refers to the language beginning in line 24, on page 3—

That nothing in this section shall exlude from the operation of section II of this act persons employed in forestry or in the taking of fish, sea food or sponges, or in the tapping or chipping of pine trees for crude gum—

And so forth.

Mr. WELCH. The gentleman states his amendment will not affect packing or storing of fresh fruits or vegetables.

Mr. GREEN. No; the amendment would eliminate the fishing man just like you do the man engaged in agriculture.

Mr. MOTT. What does the gentleman from Florida understand to be the meaning of the term "forestry" as used in this bill?

Mr. GREEN. Forestry means where you have persons employed to work on forests.

Mr. MOTT. Would that include logging operations?

Mr. GREEN. No; that would not be included, because that would be processing the logs. If you wanted to plow the land and plant trees to reforest such areas, that would come under my amendment.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I feel it would be a serious mistake to amend this particular section in any manner. This section of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] has been carefully considered by the proponents of the amendment, of which I am pleased to say I am one, and I may say it is the hope that no further amendments along these lines will be adopted.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. WELCH. I yield.

Mr. SNELL. Did I understand the gentleman to say that all agriculture is exempt from the provisions of this bill?

Mr. WELCH. Yes; all agriculture.

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. WELCH. I yield.

Mr. MOTT. What does the gentleman understand to be the meaning of the term "forestry;" does that include logging operations?

Mr. WELCH. The gentleman, like myself, comes from one of the greatest logging countries in the United States, if not in the world, and his judgment is as good as mine.

Mr. MOTT. My own interpretation would be that this language would include any work pertaining to the forests and would include logging and sawmill operations.

If we are going to pass this bill, those operations should not be excluded.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. GREEN].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. GREEN) there were—ayes 15, noes 65.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand tellers.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida demands tellers. Those in favor of ordering tellers will rise and stand until counted. [After counting.] Five Members rising, not a sufficient number, and tellers are refused.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any members of the committee who desire to offer an amendment to the Griswold amendment?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the committee, but I desire to offer an amendment to the Griswold amendment. I move to strike out section 11 of the Griswold amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MARTIN of Colorado to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: Page 7, of the substitute amendment, beginning in line 11, strike out section 11.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that in the copy of the Dockweiler bill, the Griswold amendment, there is no such thing as section 11.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from South Dakota makes that point of order?

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment sent to the Clerk's desk contains section 11. The point of order should have been made at that time. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I do not blame Members a bit for acting as they are, because they are acting just the way I feel. The point of order raised by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] might not have been good from a parliamentary standpoint but it is certainly good from the standpoint of the manner in which this legislation is being cooked up and handled. As the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] said, section 11 was not in the printed Griswold or Green bill distributed among the Members a half hour ago. It came in as an afterthought, after the reading had been concluded, and was offered merely as a typewritten amendment. This child-labor amendment which has been offered as an amendment to the so-called Green bill by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] is, word for word, the provision which was thrown out of the wage and hour bill in the Senate after a thorough and searching debate by the most prominent wage and hour and child-labor leaders in that body, and in its place was substituted the Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment. The House Committee on Labor rescued that discarded amendment from the wastebasket of the Senate and stuck it back in this wage and hour bill and threw out the Wheeler-Johnson amendment, which I propose to offer if and when, in the course of human events, we ever get to that point in the consideration of this question.

Mr. SIROVICH. What is the difference between them?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. There are a number of differences. I made an analysis of this same child-labor provision the other day in general debate on the Labor Committee bill. I pointed out the objections. This is nothing but the House Labor Committee child-labor amendment tacked on to the Green bill. I am struggling against the confusion in the Hall in the knowledge that my position is futile, but what I am trying to get at is going to be thoroughly considered before this bill ever gets down to the other end of the Avenue.

I pointed out that under the language of this pending amendment, which I have moved to strike out, complete power and discretion is vested in the Chief of the Children's Bureau to exempt any and all children under 16 years of age and subject them to labor in any occupation, if the Chief of the Children's Bureau shall be of the personal opinion and shall merely declare that it does not interfere with their education or with their health and well-being. There are no standards set up, there is no limitation, not even a bottom age limit. We have over 10,000 school districts in this country, and we have different school terms and different conditions in all of them; but if the Chief of the Children's Bureau is of opinion that any children under 16 years of age should be exempt, she can exempt them and subject

[PAGE 1597]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1598]

them to labor and, as there is no bottom age limit, she can exempt them not only under 16 years of age but under 6 years of age.

Let me read you the language:

The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide, by regulation or order—

Even an order—

that employment under 16 years of age shall not constitute oppressive child labor if, and to the extent that the Chief determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.

Where, may I ask, is the limit on that? It will take 10,000 investigators and 10,000 doctors to administer that clause. Every child will have to be examined by a doctor and, if exempt and put to labor, continue under a doctor's supervision to see whether he remains fit to work. No such unrestricted delegation of power was ever attempted in legislation. It would not stand in any court 5 minutes.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I cannot. As to the hazardous work class between 16 and 18, let me read to you the language. As to children between the ages of 16 and 18 years, their employment shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor—

If and to the extent that the Chief of the Children's Bureau determines that such employment 1s not detrimental to the health or injurious otherwise.

There is no standard set up, no procedure laid down, as there is in the Wheeler-Johnson bill that the House committee threw out. All she has to do is to declare that an occupation is or is not hazardous and that settles it for all children falling within the category.

She can exempt any one or more classes of industry in any community or in different communities under the same or different conditions. There is no limit and no rule of guidance.

Under the Wheeler-Johtlson amendment, regulations must be laid down, investigations must be made, and information gotten from reliable sources, and facts must be found before an occupation is classed as hazardous.

Another defect in the pending section of the Griswold bill is that the hazardous-work clause applies only to children between 16 and 18 years of age, while the Wheeler-Johnson amendment applies to all children under 18. It shows how unconsidered this legislation is, about like putting the tariff in the House bill, which is now out on a point of order. The question is, under that language, Where are the children under 16 as to hazardous work? The courts will answer when some of them get hurt.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has expired.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I ask for 1 minute more.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. EDMISTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1 additional minute.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, when the Senate threw this proposition into the wastebasket, where the House committee found it, it had been agreed upon by all Senate leaders that it was an absolutely unconstitutional delegation of power to the Chief of the Children's Bureau, without any limits or standards whatever. That is not all. When child labor bills were before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce similar language was put up to Miss Lenroot, Chief of the Children's Bureau, and she advised against such delegations of power, raising constitutional questions. Yet in face of the opinion of the Chief of the Bureau herself, the House Labor Committee has dug this discarded amendment out of the wastebasket and now, at the last moment after the Griswold bill is read, it is attached to the bill. I ask you to vote it out.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has expired.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion to strike out section 11, which is the child-labor definition that was written into the Dockweiler bill, but only on the copy on the Clerk's desk. That definition, except for the power of exemption given to the Children's Bureau, which I believe should be amended, has been given the best consideration of all those in this country who are interested in the welfare of children. It is the same as the definition of "oppressive child labor" in the Black-Connery bill as reported by the House committee, and is also contained in the committee substitute. It has been approved by the National Child Labor Committee and all those who are in favor of protecting children in employment.

The child-labor provisions in the Black-Cannery bill are unlike the Wheeler-Johnson amendment, which was put into the Senate bill on the floor of the Senate because of certain representations that were made with reference to that amendment. That amendment that was put in by the Senate, and which is about to be proposed now as a substitute to this section, providing the amendment before us is carried, is a bad proposal.

It is one that entails the labeling of child-labor products. It requires the employer to place upon every article that goes into commerce a label designating that it is made with child labor. It makes great complications for the employer without accomplishing the purpose for which it is intended. It destroys the real purpose of child-labor legislation. The proposal in the Black-Cannery bill substitute is one for the purpose of preventing the employment of children in industry. It requires a certificate on the part of the employer, when he employs children under 18 years of age, to be filed. That is his protection from prosecution because of the employment of child labor. The other bill permits the employment of child labor and prosecutes the employer afterward. It is a prosecution bill. Therefore, may I not call your attention to the importance of this bill, and that the motion to strike out should be defeated?

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I yield.

Mr. KELLER. May I not call attention to the fact that instead of picking this out of the wastebasket, it was contained in both the original Senate bill and the House bill?

)Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. That is entirely correct. This bill has the approval of all Members of this House who have studied the question.

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I Yield.

Mr. HEALEY. As I understand it, the Wheeler bill would depend, first of all, upon prosecution after the child has been employed in industry, whereas the bill as written prevents the employment of children from the start.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. That is correct.

It is significant that there are 43 States and the District of Columbia now using some form of employment certificate by which it is determined whether a child is of legal age for employment. The proper operation of such a system results in preventing child labor. Undoubtedly, the cooperative working arrangements between the Federal Government and the States which are proposed will result in all of the agencies and staffs of these 43 States and the District of Columbia working together. This will eliminate child labor from interstate commerce with the greatest responsibility in the hands of the States and the least call upon the Federal Government.

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[PAGE 1598]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1599]

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I yield.

Mr. SHORT. Is not the effect of this provision to take the control of children from their parents and delegate it to a board or bureau in Washington?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. All time on this amendment has expired.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN].

The amendment was rejected.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey moves that all debate on the Griswold amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mrs. NORTON) there were—ayes 117, noes 113.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts and Mr. O'MALLEY demanded tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. GRISWOLD and Mrs. NORTON.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 140, noes 114.

So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I submit a preferential motion.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. BOREN moves that the Committee do now rise and report the b1ll back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I have not made this motion without mature thought. I do not care to discuss it at length, except to say that in my district we have industry that is very vitally affected by this bill. I have felt that it was a matter of great interest, particularly to the oil industry, that sufficient time be allowed for proper consideration of amendments to this measure. I have an amendment to offer for particular application to the oil industry.

May I say, furthermore, that it is my impression that, with all the confusion here, the floor is not the proper place to draft important legislation, such as a new wage and hour bill. The present wage and hour bill has not been properly drafted. I believe that every man here in his honest conviction will recognize that this is not the proper place to try to perfect the legislation.

This bill is a mockery, is a bundle of empty platitudes. As aptly put by one of the Members of the House, the bill is designed to humbug labor.

We now have three different bills before the House and some hundred amendments or more. All is confusion and doubt, and I am convinced that no judicious action can come out of this melee of confusion and uncertainty.

The Labor Committee has not been fair and honest with the House in bringing here a bill which the committee itself now say should be withdrawn in favor of a substitute measure equally poor in its preparation and presentation. If the Labor Committee is itself so uncertain, how can we intelligently vote to approve or reject the committee proposal?

I am for the principle of maximum-hour and minimum-wage legislation, but I am opposed to this confusing method of drafting legislation. I am also convinced that neither of the committee bills is worthy of the use of the time of this body.

Furthermore, we have shown the comniittee that we do not favor the establishment of any new bureaus, boards, or administrations. We have a thousand too many bureaus now.

Labor does not want a bureau or a board. Labor wants a good law.

In the name of labor's wish for an honest wage and hour bill, in the name of a Nation of people who are dependent upon serious, thoughtful, and wise action on our parts here today, I urge the passage of my motion, which will, in effect, defeat these monstrosities that the Labor Committee have brought here and will serve notice on the committee that we want a sensible, workable, valuable measure before we make it law.

In closing I appeal to you to support my motion, which is simply that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

Mr. SABATH. Did I understand the gentleman to say he was withdrawing that motion?

Mr. BOREN. No; I am not withdrawing it.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Chairman, we have two propositions before this House, either of which can be acted upon. In all fairness to your committee, it must be recognized that if this motion is adopted it simply means there is not going to be any wage and hour bill at all.

It is my impression that every Member of this House pretty much knows exactly what he wants to do about this bill. I believe that fair play demands that this motion be · defeated, be voted down.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. BOILEAU. I agree with the gentlewoman entirely that this motion should be voted down, that we should give fair, complete, and thorough consideration to the various proposals now before the House. I ask the gentlewoman, however, if she does not believe that we are not giving fair consideration to the so-called Griswold amendment when we limit debate to 30 minutes on this most important proposal?

There are many of us in the House who are interested in this amendment, but if it is defeated we will want to support the committee amendment, and we want an opportunity fairly to present our preference and our views. In all justice to those of us who might want to offer amendments—and I know of two or three who do—will not the gentlewoman agree to let the vote go over until tomorrow on this most important amendment, an amendment that is sponsored by American labor movement, a proposal that has been before this Congress time and time again? In view of the fact that this is the first time we have had an opportunity to give consideration to this proposal, I appeal to the gentlewoman to see if she cannot prevail upon the majority leader and the other leadership, including herself, in all fairness to the Members of the House, to move that the Committee do now rise that we can give careful consideration to this proposal and vote upon it tomorrow after we have had ample time to consider it, and also have had ample time to propose any amendments we might see fit to offer.

May I suggest further that the majority leader would not have received unanimous consent to consider the Griswold proposal before the consideration of other amendments had I thought we were going to continue here at this late hour, when the Members are somewhat nervous and tired? I appeal to the leadership to give us an opportunity to thrash this thing out on its merits and give us an opportunity to perfect it and vote on it tomorrow rather than today. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. I may say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that we have already debated this motion for over an hour, about an hour and a half, and we still have a half hour more.

Mr. BOLIEAU. I appreciate that.

Mrs. NORTON. Does not the gentleman believe that every Member of this House is ready now to vote on this proposal? Mr. BOILEAU. Not on this proposal, I submit. I know of three or four bona fide amendments that are of vital

[PAGE 1599]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1600]

importance, the success or failure of which will in large part determine bow the individual Members will finally vote on this proposal.

There have been only three of them offered. The proponent of the amendment gets 5 minutes, and then a member of the Committee on Labor uses another 5 minutes. Other Members who desire to address themselves to the Green, Griswold, or Dockweiler proposition, whatever you may call it, do not have an adequate opportunity to express themselves. I appeal to you in the name of fair play to reconsider and give us an opportunity for extended debate so that this matter may be decided fairly.

Mr. RAYBURN. Will the gentlewoman from New Jersey yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RAYBURN. May I say that no one can charge that the chairman of the Committee on Labor has not been fair.

Mr. BOILEAU. I did not mean to leave that inference.

Mr. RAYBURN. I do not think my fairness ought to be appealed to either. We ought to get along with the consideration of this legislation. When one amendment receives consideration of an hour or an hour and forty minutes it seems to me that is certainly fair and just.

Mr. BOILEAU. Does not the gentleman admit this proposal is the most vital and the most controversial? This amendment presents to the House the question whether we shall have differentials or shall not have differentials. Does not the gentleman agree that the amendment is the most important of all and perhaps 2 or 3 days' debate on the one amendment would not be amiss. It is of great importance.

Mr. RAYBURN. I certainly do not agree that an hour and a half is not sufficient time.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN].

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chainnan, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Will the Chair explain the effect of the motion offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will again report the motion offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN].

There was no objection.

The Clerk again read the motion.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chainnan, a further parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. O'MALLEY. From which bill will the enacting clause be stricken?

The CHAIRMAN. The motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma is directed to the enacting clause of the Senate bill.

Mr. HANCOCK of New York. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. HANCOCK of New York. Is that motion divisible?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, in answer to the gentleman's inquiry, will say the motion is not divisible.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BOILEAU. Would it be in order now to offer as a substitute for the motion to strike out the enacting clause a motion that the Committee do now rise? Would that be a preferential motion at this time?

The CHAffiMAN. The Chair may say that a simple motion that the Committee do now rise would have precedence over a motion to strike out the enacting clause.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion that the Committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BOILEAU) there were—ayes 73, noes 147.

So the motion was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs to the motion offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN].

The motion was rejected.

Mr. DEEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DEEN to the substitute offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: Page 4, line 1, after the word "sponges", strike out the comma, insert a period, and, beginning with the last word "or" at the end of line 1, strike out lines 2, 3, and through the word "rosin" and the period at the end of line 4.

The CHAIRMAN. In view of the fact there are evidently numerous amendments to be offered, with a limitation of 30 minutes, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DEEN] and others for 3 minutes only, if there is no objection.

There was no objection.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I think the gentleman's amendment merely makes it conform to all the other legislation. I have no objection to it being accepted.

Mr. DEEN. My amendment makes the Griswold amendment conform to the Norton amendment and other legislation in the Senate bill.

Mr. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. GREEN. It is in no way in conflict with either one of the bills?

Mr. DEEN. No. The amendment simply makes the Griswold amendment conform to the AgricUltural Adjustment Act, the Social Security Act, and some other acts with reference to naval stores. It is simply a perfecting amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DEEN].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. MOTT) there were—ayes 53, noes 76.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: Strike out the period at the end of section 2, page 4, and insert a colon and the following: "Provided further, That in industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or handling dairy products, poultry or poultry products, or livestock or livestock products, or in those industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or handling other agricultural products which are seasonal or perishable there may be employment beyond the established maximum workweek (or workday) without penalty by way of overtime payments or otherwise."

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, this is the Grange amendment. I think you are all familiar with it. I realize the temper of the Committee. I did not intend to offer this amendment at this time. However, the parliamentary situation is such that should the pending Griswold amendment carry it would not be subject to perfecting amendments. Consequently, it is necessary, if agriculture is to be protected under the present substitute bill, that this amendment be adopted now.

This amendment makes it possible for handlers or processors of seasonal or perishable agricultural commodities during rush periods to handle such products without the penalty of overtime.

Mr. KELLER. Would that include livestock?

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. It includes livestock.

Mr. DONDERO. Does it include fruits?

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. It includes all kinds of fruits and vegetables.

Let me read the amendment to you so you will realize what it is.

Mr. CITRON. Does it include any kind of factories?

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska (reading):

In industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or handling dairy products, poultry or poultry products, or livestock

[PAGE 1600]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1601]

or livestock products, or in those industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or handling other agricultural products which are seasonal or perishable, there may be employment beyond the established maximum workweek (or workday) without penalty by way of overtime payments or otherwise.

Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. No; I have only 3 minutes. This amendment is endorsed by the National Grange, the National Cooperative Council, the National Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation, the American National Live Stock Association, and practically all the farm organizations. This amendment is essential if you want to protect agriculture. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska speaks of the National Grange as authority for his amendment. It should be understood the National Grange is opposed to any legislation affecting the hours and wages of the underprivileged and underpaid people of this country.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. WOOD) there were—ayes 158, noes 67.

So the amendment to the substitute amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips: On page 4, line 13, after the word "than" strike out "40 cents" and insert "53^1/2 cents"; and in line 14, strike out the words "40 hours" and substitute the words "30 hours."

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, ever since I was a child I have been raised in the manufacturing industry, and my family and I have been born and bred in it for three generations. I have seen the stopping place in the workday in hours drop from 10 to 9 and from 9 to 8 hours. I believe some of those within the sound of my voice will see the working day cut to a stopping place of 30 hours a week, with a commensurate increase in pay.

I am not going to take time at this late hour to make a speech on this subject, beyond saying that I am for a 30-hour workweek because it is my conviction that unemployment cannot be done away with in the United States, and that the products of industry, the products of labor, and the products of the farm cannot have ample distribution in this country until we come to a 30-hour week with a commensurate raise in pay. [Applause.]

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am not rising in opposition to the Phillips amendment. I rise at this time because of the "gag" rule. It is my only chance to print the views of my people. I am supporting the Griswold motion because it eliminates differentials and gives northern industry a chance to live.

The greatest cqntribution we can make to the progress of the Nation is through bringing more of the comforts and happiness of life to the working people. As the masses go forward, so will the country and everyone in it.

Many of the States in the Union have long realized this, and through wise State legislation have advanced the welfare of the workers and given them protection as to health, safety, and higher standards of living. Shorter work hours, a minimum wage which guarantees a living wage, the abolition of child labor, and the ending of the so-called graveyard shift for women and children in factories, have all come about in many of the advanced industrial States.

No one who lives in these progressive States would for one moment want to go backward. The misery and despair which would be the certain result would create a crisis such as this country has never seen. No; we cannot go backward. The call of the day is to go forward to higher and better levels. These States are face to face, however, with a cold reality. Increased costs have naturally resulted from larger payments to those who toil. These higher costs have placed the progressive states at a disadvantage as they struggle in a highly competitive market to sell the products of their factories and workshops. The result has been short time and a depression pay envelope for the workers in the progressive States, while their competitors in the low-wage areas have been able to have full time.

And capital seeking these low-wage areas has moved factories, with the result thousands have lost their jobs altogether. Will this situation be allowed to continue until eventually all reach the lower level?

I hope not, because I know the grave dangers which it would bring about. Yet that is what the bill reported out of committee would do. It specifically provides there shall be sectional differentials. We are now asked to write into law an unjust advantage which has brought the more progressive States into a condition of great economic distress. It is bad enough to permit this unwholesome situation, but it is a great injustice if we give it the official seal of approval.

This legislation was proposed because it was to help the wage earners receive a better break. It was supposed to elevate industrial conditions and give protection from the chiselers and those who wax rich by paying starvation wages and working women and, children long hours. I hope this objective will be retained.

Manifestly, if it is economically and sociologically sound to enact this legislation, then the way to do it is to do it.

The committee bill provides for an administrative agency which would be empowered to grant exemptions in innumerable cases. These exemptions would arise from claims of regional differences, differences between the same classes of industry in the same areas, differences between different lines of industry, and a thousand and one other claims for preferential discrimination. It is obvious that every exemption allowed by such an agency would operate to vitiate the effects of the act and would set up and freeze into the economic structure and unpredictable number of differentials of every character as between various sections of the United States, as between various industries and as between various classes of labor in the same industries.

I fear if we are to have an act that is to be made simply a gigantic controversial bill of exceptions—with each exception further vitiating the effects of the legislation and creating tremendous and unpredictable economic dislocations, no no one will be helped, and by creating more uncertainty we will precipitate and increase the magnitude of the threatened depression.

Legislation of this character should be a clear, simple, and concise act of the Congress, etablishing such minimum hourly wages and such maximum workweeks as may be determined to be the most practical, and specifying in the bill all of the exemptions which are to be made in the operation of the act.

Those who advocate the legislation say the differentials will be small—only 15 or 20 percent. It might just as well be 50 percent. All that is needed is a sufficient margin to market goods at a lower cost.

It is claimed the Southr because of its climate, has lower living costs. That is a fallacy. It costs just as much for a pair of shoes, an overcoat or a suit in the South as in the North, and perhaps a little more if the article is of the same quality. It costs a man as much for meat. if he eats meat. It is true his rent and coal bills may be lower, but that is no great amount. The chief reason for the lower living costs in the South is because the workers do not get wages sufficient to buy the things available to the better-paid workers of the North.

Higher wages bring a higher standard of living. Give the worker in the South better pay and the lower cost of living idea will be exploded.

For the sake of argument, let us admit there is a substantial difference in living costs. If this were true, I have never received a satisfactory answer why the difference should not go to the worker instead of the manufacturer. Give the worker the benefit of the lower costs and you will bring to the

[PAGE 1601]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1602]

country a larger purchasing power, which will be a real stimulant to business.

I want to see a wage and hour bill enacted because I know the need for it. But I insist it must be a measure fair to every section of the country. A bill that steals the birthright of the progressive industrial States of the Union will not be satisfactory. You cannot fool the worker by giving him a bill containing no real substance for him. If these differentials are continued, the bill will not accomplish its purpose. New England will continue to struggle under a deadly handicap.

Let us eliminate these sectional differentials; let us eliminate the deadly and destructive "graveyard shift" for women and children; let us banish child labor. Let us give to the workers and industry a real wage and hour law, plainly recorded in the statutes, and without giving all control of labor and industry to a bureau. Let us provide also that the cheap workmen abroad shall not take our home markets as we go forward to higher standards.

The abolition of the "graveyard shift" in the textile industry would be a humane and health measure. It would have a great stabilizing effect on the cotton-textile industry, as it would mean two 8-hour shifts instead of three. Every textile factory in the country would benefit from the restriction of the machine output, and this would mean enough orders to keep all busy on the new schedule.

Labor organizations and labor leaders have advocated these proposals. Indeed, the administration itself has recorded its approval on different occasions.

Write these great progressive labor proposals into law, and the workers themselves, through their collective-bargaining mediums, will bring about further progress as conditions warrant it.

Let us quit playing politics and decide this greatest of American problems on the solid basis of justice and merit. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amen~ment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. PHLLIPS].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DUNN to the substitute offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: On page 4 of the substitute, line 13, after the word "than", strike out "forty" and insert "fifty;" and on page 4, line 14, after the word "than", strike out "forty" and insert "thirty."

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WELCH: Page 3, line 1, after the semicolon, strike out the word 'or" and insert in lieu thereof the word "to."

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to~.

Mr. VOORIDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. VOORHIS to the substitute offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: On page 7, section 11, after the words "The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees", strike out "under the age of 16 years in" and insert "of any age in theatrical employment or of the age of 14, but under the age of 16 years, in occupations other than manufacturing, mining, or hazardous occupations."

Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment and I hope it will be included in the child-labor sections of any bill that is passed. The amendment provides that the discretionary authority of the Chief of the Children's Bureau shall not extend to the point where that official shall be able to give a certificate to absolutely any child if in the judgment of the Chief of the Children's Bureau that the child might work without interference with health or schooling. It limits that discretion by saying it cannot extend to children under 14 years of age, nor may it extend to children between 14 and 16 in any manufacturing or mining industry, and it takes care of Shirley Temple by exempting from this provision anybody working in theatrical occupations. That is what the amendment does. There has been a great deal of discussion about it. The only reason that I am offering it at this time is that I want the childlabor provisions strengthened no matter what bill passes.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. As I understand it, this applies only to the product of children working in interstate commerce.

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. DIES. Do I understand that children engaged in theatricals are exempt?

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes.

Mr. DIES. How can the gentleman justify such an exemption?

Mr. VOORHIS. Merely because of the fact that many people feel that little children would like to learn to act and build up to the profession, and a lot of people want to see them act. I agree the exemption may not be logical, and frankly I do not like it. I included it in the hope I would have a better chance of carrying the rest of the amendment.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, this takes care of the Shirley Temple situation and that of other such young actors or actresses. However, I feel that the child-labor amendment, section 11 to the American Federation of Labor bill, is sufficient to do that, because a certificate could be obtained from the Children's Bureau.

Mr. VOORHIS. What I am trying to do is to prevent service of children in mining and manufacturing industries. I do not think the Chief of the Bureau should have discretion to allow children to work in those occupations.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Does the gentleman agree with me that the present provision in the bill, section 11, takes care of the Shirley-Temples, and the like?

Mr. VOORHIS. Yes; but I think it is too broad, and this narrows it to the extent of taking that discretion away in the case of children between 14 and 16 years of age in manufacturing and mining, and children under 14 years of age in any industry in interstate commerce.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. NICHOLS: Page 3, line 1, after the word "shall", insert the word "not."

Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Chairman, this is simply a perfecting amendment to make the bill read as the authors of the bill advise me they want it to read, and make it so that it will read as the other two pending bills read, in that the provisions of the bill do not apply to agriculture, and the amendment which was just adopted, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. WELCH], should have included this word "not." That is, it should have added the word "not." This is simply a perfecting amendment.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NICHOLS. Yes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will adopt this amendment, because it was in the original print, and it has been misprinted in this Dockweiler bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think there is a misunderstanding. I would like the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] and the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILER] to say whether they want this amendment adopted. As I understand it, the provision to which this is offered says:

Provided, however, That the wage provisions of this act shall not apply.

That goes back to the provision appearing in subsection 6, which provides:

(6) "Employee" includes any individual employed or suffered or permitted to work by an employer, but shall not include any

[PAGE 1602]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1603]

person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, profession, or local retailing capacity as outside salesmen nor shall "employees" include any person employed as a seaman, or any railroad employee subject to the provisions of the Hours of Service Act. (U. S. C., title 45, ch. 3); or any employee of any common carrier by motor vehicle subject to the qualifications and maximum hours of service provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935.

And then says:

Provided, however, That the wage provisions of this act shall apply.

As I understand it, you want to save the hours provisions and not the wage provision, or is this an entirely typographical error?

Mr. NICHOLS. It is a typographical error.

Mr. BOILEAU. I want to be sure that we are not making any mistake.

Mr. GRISWOLD. It is a typographical error. It did not appear in the original draft of Mr. DOCKWEILER's bill.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. It is a typographical error in the Bureau of Printing. That is all.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. NICHOLS].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded-by Mrs. NORTON) there were—ayes 119, noes 83.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Has not the 30 minutes expired?

The CHAIRMAN. There are still 12 minutes remaining.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HARLAN: Page ·2, line 21, after the word "the", strike out "hours of service act (U. S. C., title 45, chapter 3") and Insert "Railway Labor Act of 1926, as amended."

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Chairrpan, I wauld like particularly to have the attention of the gentleman who introduced this amendment. On page 2, line 21, the term "Hours of Service Act" is used with the evident intention of including employees of railways. The fact of the matter is the Hours of Service Act only includes a small fraction of the railway employees.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARLAN. Just let me make my statement, please. The Railway Labor Act of 1926 includes them all. Now you have included all of the employees of the motor vehicles. and other transportation companies, and it does seem to me that you do not want to include all of the employees of other methods of transportation and only include a fraction of the railway employees. Now I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I did not draw this amendment.

Mr. HARLAN. The gentleman will agree to my amendment, will he not?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I agree to the fact that you only take in a small portion of the employees—telegraph operators, the train service men, and a few others.

Mr. HARLAN. But you would agree to the fairness of the amendment?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARLAN. I yield.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Does your amendment fix it so that the shopmen are taken care of?

Mr. HARLAN. Shopmen, trackmen, and all the rest of them.

Mr. CRAWFORD. It takes them all in?

Mr. HARLAN. Yes.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise- in opposition to the amendment.

I want to say to the House that we have been sitting now for nearly 7 hours. There is so much confusion in the temple that none of us knows what is going on.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota moves that the Committee do now rise.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. KNUTSON) there were ayes 65 and noes 157.

So the motion was rejected.

Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. About 6 o'clock there was a motion made that within 30 minutes the Committee would rise. It is now 10 minutes until 7 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. About 6 o'clock there was a motion made that the debate on this amendment should close in 30 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot take judicial notice of the time when the motion was made.

Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. There was a motion made that debate would continue for only 30 minutes. The debate has now lasted 50 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not aware of that fact. There still remains 10 minutes of debate.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HARLAN].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. HARLAN) there were ayes 50 and noes 91.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I affer an amendment which is at the Clerk,s desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BATES: Page 5, line 4, after the word "taking" insert the words "freezing, curing, or processing."

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is somewhat in line with the amendment adopted by the House relative to perishable agricultural commodities. The pending amendment excludes those employed in the freezing, curing, or processing of fish. Eveiy Member of this House realizes as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that fish is a perishable commodity and that the catching of fish is a seasonal occupation.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. BATES. I yield.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman what Will be the effect of his amendment, bearing in mind that in one place that section of the bill reads—

Or any person employed in the taking of fish—

And then down at the bottom it reads:

However, nothing in this section shall exclude from the operation of section 2 of this act persons employed in the freezing and taking of fish.

These two provisions are contradictory.

Mr. BATES. That will be cleared up either by further action of the committee, or when the bill goes to conference.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GREEN: Page 4, line 3, strike out "gum spirits of turpentine."

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has not been explained. I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BATES] that this amendment does for workers in turpentine what his amendment did for workers in the

[PAGE 1603]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1604]

fish industry. This will give the producers of gum spirits of turpentine, which has been declared to be a farm commodity, the same consideration that we have under the Norton amendment. It has by law been declared a farm commodity. You will do a grave injustice to the turpentine farmers of my district and State if you do not accept the amendment. You have accepted a similar amendment for the fish people, the amendment otfered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN. I yield.

Mr. HOOK. Is it not a fact that the lowest paid workers in the United States are those in the turpentine industry?

Mr. GREEN. Not at all; we pay a fair wage.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. GREEN) there were—ayes 64, noes 111.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BOILEAU to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON].

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment to the Norton amendment?

Mr. BOILEAU. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Such an amendment is not in order.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the ru1es governing the procedure of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union are prescribed by the House of Representatives. These rules provide that before a vote is taken on a substitute to an amendment, that perfecting amendments offered to the first amendment must be first disposed of. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] was offered as a substitute to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON]. My amendment is in the nature of a perfecting amendment to the Norton amendment.

The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union some time ago this afternoon, by unanimous consent, tried to change the rules prescribed by the House governing procedure in the Committee of the Whole, but that was not within the power of the Committee.

I make the point of order, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment is in order because it is a perfecting amendment to the first amendment.

I make the point of order we have a right to perfect the so-called Norton amendment before a vote is taken or before consideration is completed on the so-called Griswold amendment, which is a substitute for the other.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.

Under ordinary circumstances the gentleman's statement is correct, but earlier this afternoon the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, by its own action through unanimous consent, limited amendments to be offered to the Griswold amendment. It was within the gentleman's power at that time either to object or to have raised a point of order and not having done so the gentleman is estopped at this time from raising the question.

The Chair therefore rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU] is not in order at the present time.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I make the further point of order that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, even by unanimous consent, cannot change the rules as prescribed by the House of Representatives for the consideration of bills by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks the decision he has just announced covers this situation and overrules the point of order.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WOLCOTT to the Griswold substitute: Page 3, line 5, after the word "agriculture", strike out the period and insert "and the processing of agricultural products."

Mr. WOLCOIT. Mr. Chairman, this merely covers the processing of agricuitural products. The processing of agricu1tural products is mainly seasonal. I have in mind particularly the bean and pea industry, with which those from the Midwest are acquainted. It is a seasonal business, and this applies particularly to the pickers, sorters, and the packers in the bean and pea industry.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Does that not also apply to a great deal of the fruit industry?

Mr. WOLCOTT. It applies to citrus fruit.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOLCOTT].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. WOLCOTT) there were—ayes 110, noes 112.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. WOLCOTT and Mr. GRISWOLD to act as tellers.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there were—ayes 150, noes 94.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] as amended.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. BOILEAU) there were—ayes 119, noes 158.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mrs. NORTON and Mr. GRISWOLD to act as tellers.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there were ayes 131 and noes 162.

So the substitute amendment was rejected.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee arose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. McCORMACK, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration S. 2475, the wage-hour bill, had come to no resolution thereon.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to Mr. GAVAGAN, for 1 day, on account of illness.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD a substitute which I am going to offer to the Norton amendment tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

The amendment referred to follows:

In lieu of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, as amended, insert the following:

"SECTION 1. (a) The employment of workers under any substandard labor condition in occupations in commerce, or directly and substantially affecting commerce. shall be an unfair method ot competition in commerce within the meaning of section 5 of the act entitled 'An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,' approved September 26, 1914.

"Such unfair methods of competition in commerce shall be in all respects and to the same extent subject to the provisions and to the operation of said act as though the same had been specifically denominated by section 5 of said act as written.

"(b) When used in this section the term 'substandard labor condition' means a condition of employment under which (1) any worker is employed at an oppressive wage, or (2) any worker is employed for an oppressive workweek, or (3) where oppressive child labor exists.

"In the determination of whether a wage is an oppressive wage there shall be taken into account the cost of living in the community in which the employment exists; those considerations by

[PAGE 1604]

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

[PAGE 1605]

which a court of law would be guided in a suit tor the recovery of the value of services rendered at the request of the employer, where the compensation for such services had not been fixed by agreement between the parties; the wages established for work of like or comparable character in the same general locality by collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing; and the wages for work of like or comparable character in the same general locality paid by employers maintaining minimum~wage standards.

"In determining whether a workweek is oppressive there shall be taken into account the relation of the work to the physical health, efficiency, and well-being of the worker; the number of workers available for employment in the occupation involved; and the hours of employment established for work of like or comparable character in the same general locality by collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing.

"There shall also be taken into account in arriving at either or both of such determinations, the contemporaneous financial condition of the employer and his record of earnings for the period of 6 years next preceding the determination, and such other considerations, general and particular, as may be relevant in the judgment of the Federal Trade Commission to the determination to be made.

"In neither of the above considerations shall any one of the considerations spectfted be governing, but weight shall be given to each to the end of securing for employees fair and reasonable compensation for services rendered and the most reasonable hours of work compatible with continuity of employment for the maximum numbers of workers and with due regard for the maintenance of fair and reasonable profits to employers.

"In determining whether employment of minors is oppressive child labor the employment of any individual under the age of 16 years, shall be deemed to be oppressive child labor, and the employment of any individual between the ages of 16 and 18 years in any occupation generally recognized as hazardous for the employment of children of such age or detrimental to their health and well-being shall be deemed to be oppressive child labor.

"SEC. 2. Compliance by an employer with the laws of any State, within which such employment exists, prescribing wage and/or hours and/or child-labor standards applicable to the work covered by such employment shall be prima facie evidence that the conditions of any such employment are not substandard Within the meaning of section 2 hereof, in the respects covered by such State law or laws.

"SEC. 3. (a) Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in section 2 hereof shall have the same meaning as when used in Federal Trade Commission Act, approved September 26, 1914, and the application of this act shall be subject to the same exceptions as are expressly provided for in the case of the Federal Trade Commlssion Act by the terms thereof.

"(b) When used in section 2 or 3 hereof

"(1) The term 'employment' does not include services in an executive, adminlstrative, supervisory, or professional character or as an agricultural laborer;

"(2) The term 'State' shall include the Dtstrict of Columbia and any Territory or possession of the United States, except the Philippine Islands;

"(3) The term 'wage and/or hours and/or child-labor standards" means provision for min1mum wages and/or maximum hours of employment and/or prohibition or limitation of child labor in employment;

"(4) The term 'employer' or 'employers' includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, joint-stock company, or any unincorporated organization; and

"(5) The term 'worker' or 'workers' shall mean any individual who is employed for hire in occupations specified in section 2 (a) hereof, subject, however, to the lim1tations imposed by subsection (b) (1) of this section 4:, and subject further to the terms of such reasonable administrative regulations as the Federal Trade Commission may from time to time adopt limiting or moditying the operation of section 2 hereof in the case of learners, apprentices, handicapped workers, and in the case of overtime work, emergency work, continuous processes, and other situations requiring exceptional treatment in the judgment of the said Federal Trade Commission.

"SEC. 4:. The Federal Trade Commission in the administration of this act shall from ttme to time adopt and enforce such regulations hereunder as may, after ascertainment of facts, be necessary in its judgment and calculated to carry into effect the purpose and intent hereof.

"SEC. 5. If any proviston of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby."

Mr. WHITE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my own remarks in the RECORD with reference to the Czechoslovakia trade proposal and include therein some facts and figures presented by the glass-workers' union.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 26 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December 16, 1937, at 12 o'clock noon.

[PAGE 1605]

======================================================================

  Top of page

======================================================================