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

• 
 
• [ 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 1660        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 16, 1937        (82 Cong. Rec. 1660, 1937)

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

THE HOUR AND WAGE 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 bill (S. 2475) with Mr. McCORMACK in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Mr. HEALEY, Mr. LAMNECK, and Mr. WILCOX rose.

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts rise?

Mr. HEALEY. To propound a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HEALEY. Do I understand the Norton amendment is now before the Committee for consideration?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. HEALEY. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if there is any objection to that amendment being read by the Clerk by paragraphs so that Members may follow the bill and its consideration proceed in a more orderly manner?

The CHAIRMAN. Prior to that time the Committee of the Whole will have to consider any substitutes that may be offered for the Norton amendment, and the House has already given its direction to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HEALEY. Is there any objection to its being read by paragraphs so that the Members may follow the amendments more closely?

The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, that is a matter which may be submitted when the Norton amendment comes up for consideration and it is in order to offer perfecting amendments.

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute for the Norton amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. May the Chair inquire whether any member of the Committee on Labor desires to offer a substitute? If not, the gentleman from Ohio offers a substitute amendment which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. LAMNECK as a substitute for the committee amendment: In 1ieu of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, as amended, insert the following:

"SEC. 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 of 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 speciftcally; 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 o! whether a wage is an oppressive wage, there shall be taken into account the cost of living in the communlty in which the employment exists; those considerations by which a court of law would be guided in a suit for 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 locallty 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 5 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 specified 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 comparable 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 chlld 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 chlld 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 chlld-labor standards applicable to the work covered by such employment shall be prima facie evidence that the concllt1ons 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 Commtss1on Act, approved September 26, 1914, and the application of th1s act shall be subject to the same exceptiona

[PAGE 1660]

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

[PAGE 1661]

as are expressly provided for in the case of the Federal Trade Commission 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, administrative, supervisory, or professional character or as an agricultural laborer;

"(2) The term 'State' shall include the District 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 minimum 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 limitations 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 modifying 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 time 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 provision of this act, or the appllcation 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."

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Chairman, I have only 5 minutes, and I do not know whether I can tell this story in that time or not.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to submit a unanimous-consent request.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that purpose unless the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAMNECK] yields.

Mr. LAMNECK. I yield, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARLAN. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman, who has the burden of presenting this matter, be granted an additional 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Chairman, I hope I may have the attention of the Committee, as I am not going to detain you long, but I would like to have the members of the Committee get the picture as I see it in introducing this amendment.

This proposed substitute places under the Federal Trade Commission the administration of this act. The Federal Trade Commission has been in existence since 1914. It has the confidence of the American people, and any bill that is referred to it for enforcement, in my opinion, will be enforced without any favoritism whatever.

My bill provides, in brief, that the Federal Trade Commission shall have the power to declare as unfair trade practices if any concern pays subnormal wages, employs persons for abnormal hours, or employs child labor; and by a simple order to cease and desist they can prohibit the shipment of goods produced under such conditions in interstate commerce.

This sort of law will not burt business, except such business as ought to be hurt. It will not hurt the employees. It will not mean the losS of a single job in this country for anybody who is now working. The bill applies equally to every American citizen.

It is not a sectional bill. You do not need to make any exceptions under this bill You do not have to exclude the man who produces turpentine, the man who is in the dairy business or in the com business or the wheat business or any other business. This is an American bill that applies equally to every American citizen and shows no favoritism whatever.

I go back to the original intent of the hour and wage legislation and in my judgment the proponents of that bill wanted to control the pay and the hours of every man and woman who worked in the United States regardless of whom they worked for or how much money they got.

I will admit that the bill now before us in the Norton amendment provides for a limit of 40 cents, but that was not the intention, and I contend that the real promoters of this legislation want to pass a bill and adopt a principle that the President of the United States, whoever he may be, and a board or commission, shall have the right to say how many hours you shall work, how much money you shall receive, and I claim, Mr. Chairman, with all the sincerity I have, if such a bill is ever passed and the President in power uses the power under that bill, he can remain in office as long as he wants and can also name his successor.

Another thing I believe, and I believe it sincerely, the real intent of the hour and wage legislation as proposed and as was intended by the original sponsors is to distribute—I want you to hear me on this—the earnings of business regardless of whether the man or woman who works for that business is underpaid or not. This is what I think the intent of the bill is.

I want to call your attention to another fact. We are dealing with dynamite when we are dealing with this bill. Business is all shot to pieces, and it will be further destroyed if we pass any such bill.

I want to read from an authority. Here is a man who was with the N. R. A. for 2 years.

He had under his control 65 statisticians and when he was asked for an opinion as to the effect of hour and wage legislation said:

It will mean the curtailment of employment of at least a half million men the first year of its operation.

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

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the gentleman be extended 5 minutes.

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objection?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be heard in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I do.

The CHAffiMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, the House knows that I have opposed the pending substitute for the Senate bill, and everything that I have in mind in the way of opposition to that, and everything that those of us who believe in the fixing of hours and wages by Congress object to in the Norton amendment is also contained in this, but this goes much further than the Norton substitute. This substitute fixes no yardstick whatsoever. Under this you give labor not a thing in the way of fixing minimum wages or maximum hours. There are a lot of words, much to do about nothing, but it does contain vital errors. For instance, I read the provision:

There shall be taken into account in arriving at either or both such determinations the contemporaneous financial condition of the employer and his record of earnings during the period of 5 years next preceding the determination.

To what employer does it refer? The employer in which plant? Is one employer on a particular street to have his inability to properly finance himself used as a basis for fixing of wages, while another employer on the same street, with ability to properly finance himself, with more energy devoted to his business, with better ability and more mental equipment, to have that taken into consideration and weighed in the scale against the inefiicient employer, for the purpose of fixing wages and hours in those two plants on the same street? Is that the kind of wage and hour legislation you are going to adopt here? Will you adopt this substitute and penalize labor because it happens to be working for an inefiicient employer, something over which it has no control? Or did the author fail to consider labor and did he want only to penalize progress and efiiciency in industry? This Lamneck substitute destroys both.

[PAGE 1661]

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

[PAGE 1662]

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a fact, is it not, that the Federal Trade Commission is overburdened now with duties not even close to what this substitute would affect?

Mr. GRISWOLD. The Federal Trade Commission started about 2 years ago to hold hearings on the pottery industry and is still holding hearings. It has never reached a decision yet on that one industry. How can we expect it to render a decision in all the industries of the United States with their varied ramifications when we fail even to set up a yardstick to guide them?

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

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes.

Mr. MAVERICK. The next section provides that compliance by an employer with the laws of any State shall be prima facie evidence that the conditions of such employment are not substandard. In other words, if that particular State should happen to have a low standard, that would break down the Federal control.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I would think it would, or even if the state had no law at all. In fact, this amendment contains not a thing that fixes any wage either high or low. The principal objective of the bill seems to be to increase the personnel of the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. MAVERICK. In other words, this demoralizes the whole purpose of the legislation?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes.

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

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Will the gentleman explain under this proposal what would become of those wage and hour contracts that have been settled by unions and employers, whether they would be open to controversy, and also what becomes of the Wagner Labor Relations Act, whether it goes out of the window?

Mr. GRISWOLD. In my opinion, the Wagner Labor Relations Act would be annulled, and the wage and hour ·contracts made under it abrogated. Further, it would by implication repeal the Emergency Railway Labor Act and all other acts now in effect governing labor relations.

Mr. CELLER. I notice the following provision:

There shall 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 5 years next preceding the determination.

Would not that give rise to endless controversy, would it not be impossible to determine as far as the Federal Trade Commission is concerned?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I just discussed that phase. I think it would be impossible.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman tell us in what way people can be kept on the pay roll of any given institution if in the failure to take into consideration the financial position of that company, wages are set beyond the ability of the financial structure of the company to bear?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I may say this to the gentleman, and it is my position and my position only, that any industry in the United States or any plant in the United States that · cannot pay a living wage and that reduces its employees to serfdom should not survive and that the Nation and labor and industry will be better off to have that plant bankrupt and out of business. Such a plant in its struggle for existence is a detriment to the rest of the industry, a danger to financial institutions, of no benefit to labor, and a menace to the community.

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

Mr. CRAWFORD. That comes back to what constitutes a living wage under given conditions.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chainnan, I move to strike out the last word. It so happens that when the Federal Trade Commission Act was under consideration in the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in 1914 I was a member of that committee, and was appointed as a member of the subcommittee that wrote the Federal Trade Commission Act. The only reason that I take the floor at tbis time is because I think I know something about what the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed for, and what its functions were to be. For years the Federal Trade Commission did not function as those of us who were friendly to it hoped it would, and on the floor of this House during the consideration at one time of the appropriation for the Federal Trade Commission I made the statement that if the Federal Trade Commission were to go on with the personnel it then had and were to transact its business in the future as it had in the past, I thought the act ought to be repealed. But within the last 10 years there has been no commission in the Government that has done more to establish itself in the confidence of all right-thinking people than the Federal Trade Commission. [Applause.]

Being friendly to it, and knowing something about its functions and wanting it to go on serving the Nation in the next decade and in the decades to come as it has in the last 10 years, and with the overcrowded condition of its calendar and with a job big at the present time as its membership can perform, it would be most tragic if ue put this extra work upon them; something, regardless of what may be said by the proponents of this amendment, that is entirely foreign to anything that anybody who had anything to do with the bringing into existence of the Federal Trade Commission ever thought it would function upon at any time.

I trust, therefore, that the friends of the Federal Trade Commission and the friends of wage and hour legislation of any sort or any kind will join in voting down the substitute. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

I am very glad, indeed, to hear our distinguished leader praise the Federal Trade Commission, although at one time when we had a bill here during the last session, I remember he was trying to give certain duties to another commission. With this, we know who is going to perform. We have evidence now that they are high-class men, that they do their duty, but if you pass this other bill and let somebody else administer it, you do not know who it is going to be.

I say to you that the Federal Trade Commission has always handled these things satisfactorily and they are in a position to handle them satisfactorily. I think the House has confidence in that Commission, and you need not be afraid that that membership cannot handle this bill, if one man appointed under the other bill. can handle it at all.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Does not the gentleman from Tennessee think that if the Federal Trade Commission would function to eliminate unfair trade practices and unfair competition and bring about an adjustment of prices in the country, we would be relieved of many of the problems that face the country today?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I think they are acting on all those matters that are before them. They have always been very diligent, within the means of their appropriation. They will be diligent in this matter.

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

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I yield.

Mr. COX. I would like to make the observation that I got out of the statement of our majority leader, evidence of very great friendship for the Federal Trade Commission and very great concern in sustaining the reputation of that Board, and that he would regard it as tragic that administering an impossible monstrosity, as this proposed legislation is, would have to be put under their jurisdiction.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I think the gentleman is exactly correct. I think it is a monstrosity, but I would rather have the Federal Trade Commission try to administer the

[PAGE 1662]

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

[PAGE 1663]

monstrosity than anyone appointed whom we do not know anything about. [Applause.]

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

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I yield.

Mr. RAYBURN. I find this to be true, if the gentleman will let me make this statement, I find especially on this side of the House that those who are opposing wage and hour legislation appear to be rather unanimously in favor of the Lamneck substitute.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I think that is correct, because it is so much better than what you are offering.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The pro forma amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words.

Mr. Chairman, I do not rise so much in opposition to the substitute that has been offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAMNECK] as I do to methods of bill drafting. Of course the Lamneck substitute is palpably unconstitutional since it delegates to a Federal agency legislative powers, without proper standards or limitations. Why Brother LAMNECK selected the Federal Trade Commission to carry out his wage and hour proposals is beyond me. Clearly he is an obstructionist. He opposes the bill and wants to clog the legislative machinery considering the bill. Republicans and reactionary Democrats will join with the gentleman from Ohio to support the substitute amendment. "Anything to beat the bill" is their motto. They are doomed to defeat. This substitute amendment should be voted down and will be voted down.

WHEREAS CLAUSES

I notice in the Lamneck substitute amendment of the gentleman from Ohio a sort of a declaration of policy. I notice also in the bill that came over from the Senate there is a declaration of policy, together with a great many "whereas" clauses. I notice in the committee print, which is the substitute offered by the lady from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] there is likewise a declaration of policy embodied in the bill, and on pages 10 and 11 about a half dozen "whereas" clauses. "Whereas, the hours of labor," and so forth; "Whereas, such wide variations"; and "Whereas, substandard conditions," and so forth.

Now, "whereas" clauses have no place in legislation. Scan the statute books for 150 years, and you will find only rare occasions where they occur in completed Federal statutes. Sometimes in periods of emergency, such as in a war, bills or statutes may contain "whereas" clauses. I say to the gentlewoman from New Jersey that it is very dangerous to put "whereas" clauses in any kind of a bill or statute. They clutter up a bill. We on the Judiciary Committee uniformlY strike out "whereas" clauses. Ofttimes, resolutions contain pages and reams of "whereas" clauses and finally at the end we find a simple statement of declaration as to the action contemplated or desired.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mrs. NORTON. The purpose of putting those in is to declare the intent of the bill.

I remind the gentleman further that we are advised that under a decision rendered by the Supreme Court it was shown that where the intent of the bill was declared it was held to be constitutional.

Mr. CELLER. Only in a case of "declaration of intention" did the Court so construe. I do not recall any decision of the Supreme Court giving an imprimatur of approval to "whereas" clauses in a statute. I do not stress these statements in opposition to the gentlewoman's substitute. I favor it and urge its adoption. I desire to perfect her substitute.

Page 1, line 7, contains the words "legislative declaration." Then follows section 1 (a) as such declared intention. That is fine. That is proper. But why the additional "whereas' clauses on pages 10 and 11? They add nothing. They are surplusage at best.

I am given to understand that former Senator Black, now on the Supreme Court, in pique and in anger wrote in these "whereas" clauses. They have no place in the bill. Furthermore, they delimit and narrow the purposes of the bill, because if in future years the conditions embraced in these "whereas" clauses no longer exist, then the Court, in endeavoring to find out what the statute means, would go back to these "whereas" clauses and say that, since such conditions do not exist, the act is not applicable. That may be the opposite of what you want. Let the law expand and be embraced in conditions which may arise in the future. The applicability of the law should not be limited to the conditions that existed at the time of the passage of the act. I am quite convinced that many of the conditions outlined in these "whereas" clauses will not exist 5 years or 10 years hence. When, then, a case comes before it the Court will say in construing the statute: "Since the conditions that were embodied in the 'whereas' clauses do not exist. the law is not applicable to the facts in the instant case." So I say to the gentlewoman from New Jersey that the "whereas" clauses delimit the jurisdiction of the bill. She should broaden, not lessen, the application of the bill.

"Whereas" clauses are nothing but propaganda; they are arguments for the bill; they are arguments that should be presented in the Well of the House, not in the bill. They are argumentative, and in many instances they are faulty. If they be faulty, then, again, the bill is jeopardized with reference to construction. I say to the gentlewoman that it would be well indeed for her to ponder this situation very carefully, and when the time comes a motion should be made to strike out these "whereas" clauses.

The Members of Congress are well aware of the reason for the passage of the bill, and we need not have them in the bill itself in the form of "whereas" clauses.

LABOR SCHISM

It is indeed regrettable that labor cannot and does not present a united front on this bill. We Members are every moment importuned by this faction and that faction of labor. Their demands are irreconcilable. I have always been a friend of labor. I have striven constantly, I can pardonably say, to carry out labor's wishes not only in advocacy and support by legislation sponsored by labor but also in my votes thereupon. I have always been endorsed for reelection by labor every time I ran. I have earned, I hope, those eight biennial endorsements. I am here 15 years. I hope I can continue to earn labor's approval. In my work on this bill before us I am acting, according to my belief, sincerely in the interests of labor as a whole. Unfortunately I cannot please all labor factions. Let these factions realize the plight and difficulty of a Representative. I hope they will be sympathetic and understanding.

How glorious it would be if labor were not divided. May the day be near at hand when peace and harmony will prevail and labor schisms no longer will exist.

DIFFICULTY IN PASSING ANY BILL

The geographic and economic and political divisions of this House makes passage of any labor bill difficult. There are scores here who would oppose any labor wage and hour bill, no matter what its provisions. They glory in the present labor's schism. They aid and abet dissension and disunion. They applaud the causes of labor's discomforture and are happy at our embarrassment.

CHILD LABOR

These opponents do not want any interference with child labor. Frankly, I want to take immature children from mill and factory. I want to save those millions of children from industrial slavery, from economic serfdom. The salvation of these children trenscends all other considerations. At least all factions can agree that child labor must be no more. Reactionary Republicans and blinded Democrats can rant and rail all they desire, but I say even if the bill before us is not perfect, and it is not perfect mainly because it banishes child labor, regardless of its faults the bill must primarily win my vote.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma motion.

[PAGE 1663]

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

[PAGE 1664]

Mr. Chairman, throughout the debate, much discussion has been indulged in as to the attitude of William Green, president, American Federation of Labor, and John L. Lewis, head of the Committee for Industrial Organization, toward the legislation we are now considering. Two definite conclusions, however, can be stated with certainty:

First. The pending bill is opposed and condemned by the American Federation of Labor.

Second. The pending bill is sponsored and advocated by the Committee for Industrial Organization.

If the Members of Congress want to follow the leadership of William Green, they have but one course to pursue, and that is to vote to recommit the bill, and in case that vote fails, then to vote against the passage of the bill.

On the other hand, if the Members want to follow the leadership of John L. Lewis there is but one course to pursue, and that is to vote against recommitment, and for the passage of any bill presented for a final vote.

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

Mr. MICHENER. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I would like to ask the gentleman if he is really in favor of wage and hour legislation.

Mr. MICHENER. I am certainly not in favor of any such extreme legislation as the gentleman proposed in his amendment introduced on yesterday—

Mr. PHILLIPS. The gentleman has not answered my question.

Mr. MICHENER. I am answering the gentleman's question. Just give ine time. The amendment offered by the gentleman yesterday is not supported by any reliable labor organizations, or business or industrial leaders, and I hope that the gentleman did not want to demagogue when he made the proposition.

Mr. PHTILIPS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a further question?

Mr. MICHENER. I am sorry, but I cannot yield further.

Mr. PHILLIPS. The gentleman is not answering my question.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan declines to yield further.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a short question?

Mr. MICHENER. My time is very limited, but I yield for a short question only.

Mr. COLMER. Do I understand a fair inference from the gentleman's statement is that a vote in favor of this bill would be a vote in favor of the C. I. 0. as against the A. F. L.?

Mr. MICHENER. That is not only the inference but the fact so far as the support of this bill is concerned. Some of the Members, including the chairman of the committee, smile at this. The truth about this particUlar matter, though, may have much effect on the vote of some Members of the House. In the langUage of one of our very distinguished national figures, "Let us look at the record."

The Senate bill, S. 2475, passed the Senate and came to the Labor Committee of the House during the last session of Congress. Apparently the committee was divided, and quarreled over the bill for a long time. Finally, the distinguished chairman, the lady from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON], advised the House that she had directed communications to both William Green and John L. Lewis as to their attitude toward the Black-Connery bill. In response to those communications, on November 22, 1937, William Green addressed a letter to the chairman, stating clearly the position of the A. F. of L. Among other things, he said:

On August 9, 1937, the American Federation of Labor stated as its position on the fair labor standards bill as approved by the House Labor Committee, that the bill "was reasonably acceptable and fairly satisfactory to labor."

However, Mr. Green, continuing, advised that the American Federation of Labor had changed its attitude and protested most strenuously against the Board set up in the bill. He called attention to the unfairness of the National Labor Relations Board, and feared a repetition. He also called attention to the fact that economic conditions were different in the country at this time than they were when the original approval was given. Speaking of these conditions, he said:

For labor this recession already has assumed the proportions of a serious depression.

He concluded his letter to Mrs. NORTON, as follows:

The American Federation of Labor feels, however, that the character of the changes in the present draft of the fair labor standards bill, now before the House Rules Committee, are such that proper consideration thereof can only be had before the House Labor Committee, where it was originally considered, rather than on the floor of the House. It seems, therefore, that the draft should be referred back to that committee for amendments or that a new bill be substituted.

The Norton amendment, which is now before the House as a substitute, changes the administration of the law from a board of five to an administrator in the Department of Labor.

On December 10, 1937, Mr. Green, as president of the American Federation of Labor, addressed a letter to every Member of Congress, enclosing an analysis of the Norton substitute for the Black-Cannery bill, which the House is now considering. In that analysis he condemned in no uncertain terms the bill the committee is now asking us to enact into law. Among other things in that letter, Mr. Green said:

It 1s inconceivable that Congress would vote to confer upon a single Government administrator such broad, deflnite, and comprehensive power. Under this amended act the power of the Board, as provided for in the original measure (to consist of five members), would be fixed in a single administrator.

Continuing further in the analysis, he said:

If the Board is dangerous, even under such circumstances, and unacceptable, certainly the Administrator is even more dangerous and should be rejected.

Understand, Mr. Green is speaking of the Norton amendment, which is now being suggested by the committee.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind as to the attitude of the American Federation of Labor? If so, let him remember that the Dockweiler amendment—the American Federation of Labor bill, presented by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD]—was defeated at the behest of the House leadership and a majority of the Committee on Labor.

I pause here to read a telegram just received, addressed to me from William Green, president, American Federation of Labor, which is as follows:

Because the pending wage and hour blll is highly objectionable to membership of American Federation of Labor, I respectfully request you vote to recommit to the appropriate committee for revision, study, and necessary changes, in order to make it a practical and constructive measure.

Of course, this clinches the matter, and everything said heretofore about the position of the American Federation of Labor is prologue.

Now, let us see what the Committee for Industrial Organization has to say about this legislation. In answer to Chairman NORTON's letter, addressed to John L. Lewis, at the same time she inquired of William Green, labor's Non-Partisan League gave out a statement, under date of November 18. 1937, stating that—

The league favors immediate enactment of the Black-Cannery fair labor standards bill. The league will exert all the influence at its command through its Nation-wide organization on behalf of prompt passage of this legislation.

Under the same date John L. Lewis, referring to the bill, replied to Chairman NoRTON's letter, and his letter concludes as follows:

That every effort should be made to bring about its passage at the earliest possible moment.

If there is still doubt in anybody's mind as to the attitude of the C. I. O. toward this legislation, let me call your attention to letter dated December 17, 1937, addressed to every Member of Congress, signed by Homer Martin, international president, United Automobile Workers of America, the largest affiliate of the C. I. O., and the organization that introduced sit-down strikes in the labor movement in America. Mr. Martin's letter reads in part as follows:

[PAGE 1664]

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

[PAGE 1665]

. That our Union considers it vital to the security and welfare of its members that you cast your vote and use your influence in favor of the Black-Connery 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 fall 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.

5. That this is not a polltlcal threat but a frank expression of conviction and fair notice that Representatives who do not represent cannot expect support.

Again I ask, is there any doubt in any Member's mind as to the attitude of the C. I. O. toward the Black-Cannery bill, or its successor, the Norton amendment? This threat is an insult to the independence of every Member of Congress. Members will vote their convictions.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHENER. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mrs. NORTON. In the consideration of this bill, is the gentleman following the labor organizations or is he following the purposes of the bill?

Mr. MICHENER. I am not following these two labor organizations, because that would be impossible and, in the second place, there is much difference of opinion as to just what the purposes of this bill are. Being uncertain as to that, I say again that I must be better satisfied as to just what will be accomplished before I would be justified in voting for the measure.

Inasmuch as the chairman of the committee has indicated that possibly there may be Members among us who follow a particular labor organization, let me say that, as one Member of Congress, it makes no difference to me whether the A. F. L. is for legislation, whether the C. L O. is for it, whether the National Chamber of Commerce is for it, whether the National Manufacturers' Association is for it, whether Frank Hague, of New Jersey, is for it, or whether the great farm organizations of the country are for it. All of these organizations represent groups of our citizens with various interests, and their suggestions and advice in connection with legislation should not only be welcome but sought by Congress. In the final analysis, however, Congress must do the sifting, taking the good from the bad, and any bill when it leaves the Honse should be the composite of the best conscientious conclusion of the majority of the House. There are too many blind followers of partisan, selfish, and prejudiced organizations or leaders in the country today. I hope none of these followers are in Congress.

If the chairman of the committee wants to know whether or not I believe in organized labor and collective bargaining, my answer is an emphatic "yes." If she wants to know if I believe in the philosophy of sit-down strikes, my answer 1s an emphatic "no." If she wants to know whether or not I am in favor of pushing this bill through because the C. I. O. is back of it, my answer is "no." And if she wants to know if I am opposed to the bill because the A. F. L. is opposed to it, again my answer is "no."

I am opposed to the bill because:

First. The Black-Cannery bill sets up another bureau or commission. The Norton amendment places the same powers in an administrator or the head of another bureau. More, more expense; more power in Washington.

Second. I do not believe that any agency responsible to the Executive or to any bureau chief should have the discretion to fix and limit hours and wages throughout the length and breadth of our land.

Third. I am satisfied that if this bill became a law at this time it would throw many thousands of people out of work and would increase instead of decrease unemployment.

Fourth. The wage fixed would be the maximum wage, and the hours fixed would be the minimum hours.

Fifth. Arbitrary fixing of wages by any bureau or agency would militate against small industries and prevent the development of new industries.

Sixth. Every farm organization and the farmers generally throughout the country are absolutely opposed to this regulation.

Seventh. I believe that the bill would be a direct hindrance to economic recovery, and agree with William Green that its enactment at this time would be a national menace to recovery.

Eighth. I believe that a yearly income, rather than an hourly income, must be at the bottom of proper living standards for our people. In many industries in my State the wage earners would actually receive a smaller weekly check under this law than they are now receiving. These people do not want such legislation.

Ninth. This legislation is an effort to revive the drastic provisions of the defunct and discredited N. R. A.

Tenth. I believe that a vast majority of my constituents do not favor the enactment of any law at this time that will increase the cost of living, as this law surely will.

Eleventh. Industry and labor should be given a chance to revive. This epidemic of governmental control, social and economic reform, and planned economy should stop and stop now. Let us begin by recommitting this bill to the committee.

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

The CHAffiMAN. Has the gentleman reduced his motion to writing?

Mr. DIES. I will do so if the Chairman requires it.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would request the gentleman to reduce his motion to writing.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last three words.

Mr. Chairman, I have not taken any time to speak on this bill, and I would therefore appreciate your close attention.

A great deal has been said about the South in connection with this legislation. My home is away down in Georgia. I believe the people of my state and the representatives of my State desire that our wage earners have just as good wages, just as many pleasures, and just as many comforts as those in any other part of the Nation. I have not been enthusiastic about the committee bill, but I believe the situation is partially taken care of in the pending substitute. If you were to go to my home, you would find that the committee bill will do two things. It would throw thousands of people out of employment and it would close down thousands of places of business. What is to become of the small businessman or the man whose business is in bad financial shape, those who are not able to pay 40 cents an hour or to comply with the standard fixed by the Board or the Administrator? Must they go out of business?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that those men in my section and your section of the country who have a little business, who are fighting for their wives and their children, have just as much right to keep up their fight as have the wage earners. [Applause.] And what would you do with those thousands and thousands who are kept on the pay roll today for the sole and single purpose of keeping them from starving to death? Shall we cut them off? Those who cannot produce a product that we can sell commensurate with $3.20 a day at present prices.

Mr. Chairman, all I am asking for my section—and I want my people to have everything your people have—is that you be reasonable, that you fix it so that we can take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, and that we can take care of that man who is in business and who is trying to make an honest fight to support his wife and children, because he is still, if you please, an American citizen. [Applause.]

Would it be wise to pass a law that would run the little man out of business and leave the public at the mercy of big business? What would happen to the cost of living? Would it be wise to pass a law that would deny work to the unfortunate and less able?

That the committee bill is not satisfactory, not even to those who labor, is shown by a telegram which I have just

[PAGE 1665]

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

[PAGE 1666]

received from Mr. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, as follows:

Because the pending wage and hour bill is highly objectionable to membership of American Federation of Labor, I respectfully request you to vote to recommit to the appropriate committee for revision, study, and necessary changes 1n order to make it a practical and constructive measure.

From this telegram it will be seen that Mr. Green and the millions of workers who are members of his great organization want a practical measure and that they do not consider the pending committee bill either practical or constructive.

And what kind of law does the President of the United States want? We also received a message from him, and what did he say? The President said:

We should provide flexible machinery which will enable industries throughout the country to adjust themselves progressively to better labor conditions.

The pending committee bill is not practical nor constructive as wanted by the wage earners. It is not drawn so as to insure industry that it will be permitted to adjust itself progressively to the higher standards which the President requested. It is not drawn so as to protect the small-business man or the less efficient workers.

On the other hand, it seems to me that this substitute now before us is practical, constructive, and guarantees a progressive and orderly adjustment of low wages and long hours, referred to as "substandard labor conditions." I refer to the following provisions:

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 ch1ld labor exists.

In the determination of whether a wage is an oppressive wage there shall be taken into account the cost of living 1n the community in which the employment exists; those considerations by which a court of law would be guided in a suit for 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 Uke 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 Iocallty paid by employers maintaining m1n1m.mn-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 h1s record of earnings for the period of 5 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 specified 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 my opinion these provisions, this yardstick, would progressively bring about better wages and shorter hours, abolish the sweatshop and child labor, and do it in a reasonable, practical, and constructive manner, fair both to those who do the work and those who provide the jobs. And more than that, it will be a sensible step toward solving one of the greatest problems facing us today; that is, providing private employment for the millions now without work.

I want to see the men and women who work from day to day receive not onlY a living wage, but a profitable return from their daily efforts. Progress has been slow for the wage earner in securing improvement in his living conditions, a better and safer place in which to work, and recognition of his rights in the economic set-up. But there has of late been substantial progress along those lines.

During the last few years, through the cooperation of a sympathetic Congress, and under the leadership of a great Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt, the rights and necessities of the wage earner have received greater recognition than in all the years before.

The right to organize and bargain collectively is a part of the basic law of the Nation.

The right of the worker to choose his own representative or spokesman is now protected by law.

A Federal old-age-benefit program has been set up, under which 32,000,000 have applied, including 527,000 in the State of Georgia.

Every State, except one, now has a program for aid to the needy and aged, under which nearly $30,000,000 of Federal, State, and local funds are paid out each month to 1,500,000 of those in distress.

Unemployment compensation has been arranged for over 21,000,000 workers, of which 306,000 are in the State of Georgia.

From the dawn of human history man has striven, without ceasing, to maintain and improve his economic welfare. The struggle for existence controls not only man, but all creatures under heaven. The wage earner first struggled to exist, and now, with a certain condition of existence assured, he struggles to improve his manner of living.

This desire, this yearning to climb the scale of living, is just as human, just as real, as was the earlier struggle for bare existence. Our forefathers assaulted the barriers and overcame the burdens which Nature itself had thrown up against the march of civilization. Their children's children now seek to overcome the obstacles and improve the social and economic conditions which bar their way to a happier. a healthier, and more abundant life.

In this struggle for better things I woUld counsel the selection of wise, loyal, and 100-percent American leadership.

To our zeal, enthusiasm, and determination I would add a good portion of common sense, patience, tolerance, and understanding.

I would always bear in mind the fate of the one who killed the goose which laid the golden egg.

The most poweriul force in this Nation today is public opinion, and there is one characteristic of the American people which is outstanding and which should never be overlooked in treating with any public question. That is good sportsmanship, in that the people demand a fair and a square deal, and they will not support any person or any movement that bears evidence of unfairness or taking undue advantage.

That is why we condemn that corporation which pays its president a salary of one hundred or two hundred thousand dollars a year and then works its employees long hours at starvation wages.

That is why we refuse to uphold the money lender who takes advantage of the misfortune or urgent needs of a borrower and charges an unconscionable rate of interest.

That is why we must legislate against the employer who regards the worker as no more than a cog in the machine; who forgets that from the heart of him who labors there springs every motion of hope, love, and ambition known to the human spirit.

That is why one who seeks to speak for those who work from day to day, which high privilege I claim, can find no sympathy for those employers who would deny the workers a fair share in the profits of their employment, and who seek to increase their own gain by denYing the worker a safe and healthy place in which to work, reasonable hours of labor, and a living wage.

A wage in keeping with the type of work, the nature of the business, the conditions of employment, the cost of living, the proper maintenance and education of the family, the need for recreation, and some provision for that day when the worker's strength is gone and his uncertain step turns toward the setting sun.

That employer who forgets or refuses to recognize these rules of the game of life, these standards of a fair and square

[PAGE 1666]

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

[PAGE 1667]

deal, can never hope to gain and hold the support of that all-powerful force known as public opinion.

But, on the other hand, he who labors from day to day must remember that the divine command, "Do unto others as you would be done by" applies with equal force to him.

While there rest with him definite human rights and social privileges, he can make no permanent progress if he disregards the fundamental rights of those who have made the investment and provide the employment.

Neither can any good come to any of us through creating and inflaming a spirit of class hatred. This Nation was founded in order to escape the harmful effect of class arrayed aginst class; its future greatness will depend upon our respecting the natural and constitutional rights of every citizen, be he high or low, great or small.

I refuse to believe that every man who has made a success has done so at the expense of others. I refuse to believe that every man who has accumulated some of this world's possessions is an economic royalist and should be shot at sunrise.

I refuse to believe that ambition, intelligence, untiring energy, executive ability, and the practice of thrift and economy are no longer entitled to their just rewards.

I refuse to believe that through organization or for human or sentimental reasons a man gains any right to become lazy, inefficient, disloyal, or to disregard his contracts.

On the contrary, when through organization and legislation we compel the employer to respect the human, the economic, and the social rights and needs of the worker, in return the worker should respect and protect the economic and constitutional rights and needs of the employer.

To the employer the worker owes a high degree of loyalty and sympathetic cooperation. His job is his business and the success of the enterprise in which he is engaged is refiected in the character of the service he renders.

In return for such loyalty and cooperation a profitable business should pay a profitable wage.

I have been deeply impressed by the loyalty and active support which the railroad employees give to the railroad management. It seems that every man on the road is a salesman and a booster. They help to find business, to keep business, to create business. They try to do 8 hours' work for 8 hours' pay. And from this fine spirit of cooperation has come the fine relationship that now exists between the railroad employee and management.

We can draw another lesson from the same source. Industrial disorders have practically ceased in railroad circles, and in my judgment this condition has been brought about by two things—paying a profitable wage and the arbitration of all wage ditierences which arise.

I look to the day when the same condition will exist in every branch of industry; when the costly strike will come no more; when through collective bargaining, mutual respect and understanding, and a proper balance of the human and commercial impulses, the employer and the employee, either in person or through their chosen representatives, may draw up their chairs and settle their differences promptly and peacefully; having due regard not only for their own respective rights and needs, but also for the rights and needs ot that greater multitude, the consumer, who must pay the bill in the end.

There are some who have said they would be master. But if I know the American people, they do not want and will never submit to any master. In our veins fiows the blood of free men, inherited from forefathers who loved liberty better than life, and I can never believe that either capital or labor will permit the other to enter a servitude that is out of place in this land of the free.

No; that is not what we want or need. All we must have is a mutual understanding and for big business to recognize and respect the rights and needs of those who have labored to make it big.

If I judge correctly the sentiment of the American people today, they want peace.

They want peace among the nations of the earth, and they insist that this Nation remain free from the passions, the prejudices, and the propaganda so prevalent in foreign lands. They insist that the profits be taken out of war; that sordid selfishness and the passion for personal gain shall never again put our boys in the trenches at a dollar a day while the munitions makers are making millions out of war profits.

And the American people also want peace within our own shores, domestic and industrial peace and understanding around our own firesides. They want civil strife to cease and the principles of mutual respect, tolerance, and sympathetic understanding to prevail.

Industrial disorders cause an enormous economic waste. They slow down production, reduce pay rolls, and increase the burden of the consumer. They have been regarded as necessary in the past, but the Wagner Labor Relations Act has given labor such solidarity and cohesion that it is now able to meet capital on equal terms.

Capital, out of respect for that act as the law of the land, and labor, in grateful acknowledgment and appreciation of the rights and protection which that law affords, should now both be willing to adjust their affairs and settle their differences promptly, peacefully, and in keeping with the respective rights of each other.

I hope it can be said that I tried always to promote the welfare of the employee and protect the fundamental rights of the employer. And that, in my effort to be fair to both. I also tried to guard and defend the interest of those millions who must buy the necessities of life which are produced through the joint efforts of capital and labor.

We should drive the alien agitator from the ranks of labor and free the American worker from the burden of alien competition.

Social unrest gives the alien agitator a fertile field in which to work. While in the midst of a fight, we are all tempted to accept the assistance of anyone who offers help; but the Communist organizers have no real interest in the worker's permanent welfare, and are seeking to take advantage of discontent and disorder in order to promote their frightful communistic beliefs.

They welcome economic dislocation. They delight to see class arrayed against class. They fan the fires of hatred between capital and labor. They preach the doctrine of hate. They conceal their purpose. They despise American ideals. They seek revolution and the overthrow of democratic government.

We should drive them out. Treat them with no more consideration than you would the prowler at night who seeks to destroy your home or harm your family.

In this land of freedom, American citizens want neither the communism of Russia nor the fascism of Germany. One is just as bad as the other.

Have you investigated the condition of labor in those two countries, the two that are in greatest contrast to democracy? Both live by force, and force alone. Both have dictators as ruthless as an emperor.

In Russia the laborer is denied all personal gain and must work only for the common good.

In Germany the laborer is in slavery, is denied the right to strike, the right to organize, the right to bargain, and must work as, when, and where the ruling power dictates.

Do you know what communism is? It stands for hatred of God and all forms of religion; the abolishment of marriage; the destruction of private property; the promotion of class hatred; the denial of all forms of representative or democratic government; the abolishment of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and trial by jury; and the promotion of a class or civil war by force, violence, and revolution.

And what do they promise you for this destruction? They say that neither you nor anybody else will have anything, and therefore you will then be as good as anybody. In return for being on the bottom and having everybody else down there with you they would destroy the American system of

[PAGE 1667]

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

[PAGE 1668]

government, under which our forefathers have builded the greatest, the most powerful, and the richest nation on earth, where our wage earners are even now the best paid, the best housed, the best fed, the best clothed, and the most contented and free on the face of the earth.

When they sing the song of the Soviet ask them why they let 6,000,000 people starve to death in 1933 and 1934, right in the middle of that part of Russia that was once the granary of Europe. Why, if we let just one person starve in this country we never hear the last of it. Half of the population of Russia would move out tomorrow if the immigration barriers were let down.

Free American labor should drive out the alien agitator who would make them like the regimented, ticketed, terrorized, and forced labor of Russia and Germany.

I call upon you, if you love your home, if you prize the right to work, if you appreciate your family, if you value freedom of speech, if you enjoy the profits of labor, if you fear God and love liberty, I call upon you to drive out any alien agitators who seek to arouse passions to the point where some would destroy the greatest blessings known to civilized government—the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is of equal importance that we close our doors to the aliens coming to our shores and deport those now in this country.

While we struggle with the intricate problems of unemployment and distress among our own citizens, we shelter at least 4,000,000 foreigners who entered this country illegally and in utter disregard of our laws.

They can never secure American citizenship because they came here in violation of law. They owe no allegiance to our flag and have no respect for our Government.

They grasp every opportunity for personal gain, receive the benefits of our charitable impulses, swell our relief rolls, and hold jobs while loyal American citizens are without work.

We are living in the age of the machine. Every year new machines are invented to do the work of thousands and thousands of men and women. Without any additions from foreign lands we are going to have our hands full in trying to provide employment for those being displaced by inventive skill and for the natural increase of our own population.

We treasure our American citizenship as a priceless heritage. It is, and we should keep it so. We should guard and defend it and our democratic form of government against all enemies.

Yet we keep open our doors to foreign elements of most every race, class, and creed, who journey here solely to cash in on the great resources of this Nation. Many of them, while claiming the protection of our laws, seek to undermine and defeat constitutional democracy.

Thus we cheapen and endanger the citizenship which we cherish so highly. I believe the time has come to close our doors to such immigrants and rid our shores of such undesirables.

No longer should we permit America to be the asylum for the people of other landS or the dumping ground for Europe.

Instead we should make it and we should keep it, as our forefathers intended, the land of the free and the home of the brave—first, last, and always, an America for Americans.

Mr. BERNARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last four words.

Mr. Chairman, every Member of this House is a friend of labor: Every Member who has spoken on this bill has come put and told us frankly, without mincing words, that he is a friend of labor. Never before has labor had so many warm friends in Congress. I am worried about big business, which seems to have lost its old friends and spokesmen, all of whom, from both sides of the House and all sections of the country, have suddenly gone over to the side of the workers. As one who has always spoken for the underdog, I wonder if ;r ought not speak today for America's friendless and downtrodden industrialists.

All these friends of labor have become friends of wage and hour legislation. Some kind of wage and hour legislation, but not this legislation. Not the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is before us now. Not the bill 218 Members acted to bring before this House. What kind of legislation do these new friends of labor and of fair labor standards want? They want any kind of legislation guaranteed not to pass.

That is why they point out weaknesses in the present bill and do nothing to strengthen it. The gentleman from Texas, labor's friend and one of the best orators in this House, is against the bill. Why? Well, for one thing, because he estimates that it will aid only half a million workers.

I have a constituent back home, a good American in spite of his Italian accent, a worker who has toiled in this country for 40 years and raised 10 good American children. If I told this old friend, Tony, "Tony, I voted against this bill because it only helps half a million people," I know what Tony would answer.

He would say:

Mistre BERNARD, whassa matter? You meana to tella me you not vota for dissa bil because it joosta help halfuna million peepla? Whassa matter you no fixum up so help five milliona—ten milliona—peepla? If you no can flxum up, atsa better to help halfuna mllliona peepla than netting. If you can help one peepla, is pully good. Mistre BERNARD, I no understand thata kind business.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KELLER] agrees with Tony. He said that any bill is better than no bill. I agree with my friend Mr. KELLER, and my friend Tony.

But there are some friends of labor who seem to think that no bill is better than the best bill. This morning's New York Times describes their position like this:

Republican and Democratic opponents of any Federal legislation of this nature view the situation with considerable satisfaction, believing that they can throw their strength to various groups among the bill's supporters in such a manner as to produce a large group of dissidents who will finally combine with them to recommit the bill.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the President's urgent recommendation of its passage, this bill has already gone over from the first session of this Congress to the special session. We have already delayed too long. Having just freed it from the smothering embrace of one committee, are we going to send it to its death in the arms of the committee that mothered it? Senate 2475 is not a perfect bill. But it is the best bill we have got. Let all true friends of labor get together and pass it—now! [Applause.]

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last five words.

Mr. Chairman, all right-thinking people are interested in proper wages and proper hours of work for those who toil; but, in my judgment, the measure as proposed by the committee, which is the one I am persuaded we shall finally be called upon to vote, is a step away from any assurance of permanent security in that regard.

My principal objection to that proposal is that I believe it to be decidedly and dinstinctly un-American. It provides for the establishment of a dictatorship over labor and over industry, the identity of the dictator yet unknown and undisclosed. Dictatorships may arise in an hour, a day; or a year, but democracies come through long periods of time in growth and development, attended by suffering, turmoil, and hardship, and sometimes even by battle and bloodshed. Such has been the history of our country. It did not come to us through the inspiration or the impulse of a moment. It was a heritage of the ages and represented the struggle of the Anglo-Saxon people throughout many centuries to get for themselves the privileges that were rightfully theirs.

Though George Washington did not give expression to the proverbial phrase, "Government of the people by the people and for the people," he sponsored the principle that made that phrase possible.

Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, this dictatorship proposal of the GOmmittee is an effort to start in our country some of the things that are in vogue in certain countries across the sea. Free peoples seldom lose their liberty on the battlefield, but frequently they sacrifice and surrender it through lack of

[PAGE 1668]

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

[PAGE 1669]

vigilance in times of peace. With all these spurious governmental isms from abroad being preached in this country, I think the American people should be notified that over there among those who live under such regimes 90 percent of the people would come to our shores if they could possibly find a way to do so, in order that they might live under the free Government of America and under the Stars and Stripes.

This bill proposes a step in the direction of autocracy and bureaucracy, which was the initial step in depriving the people of some of those countries abroad of the liberties which were rightfully theirs.

Let us not launch upon this dangerous policy. In those very lands they who labor have been reduced to serfdom and to slavery, and they live in a state of abject fear, denied even the right of freedom of speech.

What would happen in those countries if the present dictators should pass from the scene? You do not know and I do not know, because those governments and those policies are ephemeral They cannot endure through the ages as the principles of our Government have endured. When we built we built for permanence and we established this Government of ours upon those rights of the people which must endure through all the ages if government itself is to endure.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. LANHAM. In that regard, let me bring this to your attention. James RU8Sell Lowell was a great American poet, but in addition be was a statesman of no mean ability. In the early days of our governmental history on a visit to France he met Francois Guizot, the distinguished historian, who had served as Prime Minister. This great Frenchman asked him how long the American Republic would endure, and James Russell Lowell answered wisely, "As long as the principles of its founders remain dominant in the hearts of its people" [applause]; and that, my friends, is true. Let us also be true to those age-old hard-won principles which those founders gave us, and not turn this country of ours into a totalitarian state based upon the combined principles of fascism, nazi-ism, and communism. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BERNARD] stated that labor had many friends in the House, perhaps meaning that some of those who professed to be its friends were not friends of labor.

Mr. BERNARD. I meant that.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Granting to all Members of the House the same honesty and sincerity which the gentleman claims for himself, it may be true that some of those who in their own wisdom and, may I say, egotism think they alone are friends of labor, are not doing as much for labor as they think they are. Neither the gentleman from Minnesota nor any group has the right to claim to be the only friends of labor in this body.

I recall very distinctly that last spring when John L. Lewis and his C. I. O. had driven hundreds of men from their work in Michigan, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BERNARD] was up in the northern part of Minnesota talking about striking and closing mines.

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

Mr. HOFFMAN. No; I decline to yield now.

I have been wondering how much, if anything, the gentleman received at that time as an organizer.

Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order the gentleman who is addressing the Chair is addressing his remarks to my colleague and is acting in a manner unbecoming his office.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I am replying, if the Chair please, to the statement made by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BERNARD] that those who professed to be friends of labor were not, and who directed his remark to me.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.

The gentleman from Michigan will proceed in order.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Who are the friends of labor, those who go about closing the places where jobs are given, those who organize and drive men from their work, or the men who keep the factories open, who meet the pay rolls, and who provide the jobs? Who are the true friends of labor?

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

Mr. HOFFMAN. No; I do not yield.

Comparisons are odious; none will be made. It should not be forgotten that last January and February—yes, on through into March and April—when, on the floor of this House, some of us were doing battle for the right of the worker to his job, were fighting for the worker's right to employment, to retain the job he had held perhaps for years, for the privilege of earning his own food, clothing, and shelter; were opposing the riots, the civil strife brought to our cities and our State by the C. I. O. and its supporters, others were supporting that organization at the very time it was driving the laboring man from his job, demanding that he sign on the dotted line, pay tribute to its leaders, in order that he might retain his job.

No one can camouflage the issue; no one who does not see through their hypocrisy; no one is longer deceived as to their real purpose, which was to subject labor to the yoke imposed by them to levy tribute upon the honest toiler.

When the attack was made on the American Federation Of Labor; when the N. L. R. B., the Senate Civil Liberties Committee, John L. Lewis, and the C. I. O. were wrecking that organization, long the safeguard of American labor, where were these men who claim the exclusive right to pose as the friends of labor? Were they in the ranks fighting the battle for the A. F. of L., or were they in the camp of the C. I. O.? The records of the House will answer the question.

Get this issue of friendship for labor on a practical basis. How many jobs were ever created by those fellows who are organizing the workers? How many dollars did any one of those organizers or those who are spokesmen in this House for labor ever give to workers? How many jobs did they ever give? How many dollars did they ever add to a pay roll?

After all, you cannot eat those free speeches, those eloquent pleas in behalf of the oppressed and the underpaid; those denunciations of employers. The only things you can eat are the groceries, the meat, the flour, and the bread the workers purchase with the money paid them by the men these spokesmen day after day condemn.

Workers are alive today because of the food, clothing, and shelter—all of which they earned—which they have been enabled to purchase through the employment given them by the men you would crucify. And when you have crucified these employers, what have you left?

This does not mean that all workers are adequately paid, for of course they are not. But it is an argument that, until a better way which is practical is found, we should not destroy what we have, even though what we have be unsatisfactory or insufficient.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN. No; I do not yield.

Last spring in Michigan, after they had closed the factories and had driven the workers from their jobs, they thought they had control of our State.

Their candidate for mayor of Detroit announced:

Labor must seize the reins of government in Detroit and every other Am:erican city.

He failed in that move.

And the people of Monroe, who courageously fought and won the battle against the C. I. O., who decided and insisted that 99 C. I. O. workers should not deprive 1,159 mill employees who desired to work of their jobs, within a month repudiated the C. I. O.'s candidate for mayor and returned Mayor Knaggs to office by a vote of 5 to 1.

But the battle continues.

[PAGE 1669]

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

[PAGE 1670]

When a national magazine gave Governor Murphy as the authority for the statement, shortly after his return from the Philippine Islands to become a candidate for Governor of Michigan, that President Roosevelt said:

If communism breaks in America, it will be in the Detroit area, where it will first manifest itself—

many were surprised.

When, on the last day of December following Murphy's election, John L. Lewis and his C. I. O., with armed invaders, struck the plants of General Motors in Flint, drove thousands of workers from their jobs, closed the plants, fortified themselves, and, by Murphy's use of Michigan's National Guard, held possession for 44 days, at a loss in wages to General Motors employees throughout the area of $44,000,000, independent workers and citizens generally began to wonder whether these armed forces were carrying out the orders of "red" Moscow, and how it was that the President, if Murphy quoted him correctly, had obtained his information about the coming of communism.

Still later and after Governor Murphy had shown his friendship for, and his support of, these armed Communists, they took over and held possession for a day of Lansing, Michigan's capital.

Of this and the Communists' prior activities, Governor Murphy said:

Communists deliberately created disorders in the Lansing labor holiday, the Consumers' Power Co. strike, and in some phases of the sit downs. They not only sought disorders but they sought bloodshed. They wanted bloodshed, and they sought to draw us into a fight.

But it is a matter of record that throughout the strike and down to the present time, the Governor has assisted these Communists in their attempt to take over Michigan.

His latest move is to appoint a C. I. O. organizer and an officer of the U. A. W. A., a man who ran as C. I. O.'s candidate for councilman of Detroit, Richard T. Frankensteen, as a member of the State welfare board.

Frankensteen said, according to the morning paper, they had $500,000 in the treasury—to do what? To compel the workers of Ford to join the C. I. O. and to pay tribute to Lewis. [Applause.] Yes, you applaud, and I should think you would, if you believe in giving Lewis the right to levy tribute. They are forcing workers to pay for the right to work in America.

Is the Governor and the C. I. O. getting ready for another strike in Michigan? They did their share toward putting the motor industry on the rocks last spring.

Does the Governor intend to assist the C. I. O. in closing Ford and, if they will not sign a new contract, General Motors and Chrysler?

And did he appoint Frankensteen to the welfare board so that the public treasury would be available for the support of the strikers? Does Governor Murphy mean that the taxpayers of Michigan and those who want to work are to be compelled, during the coming winter, to support in idleness U. A. W. A. workers who will not work, who will not let others work?

You may remember that when the last relief appropriation was made by Congress, Congressman MICHENER inquired of Buchanan, then chairman of the Appropriations Committee, whether that relief money was to be available for the support of strikers, and Buchanan replied that it vias not.

However, Governor Murphy apparently has overruled that statement and he intends to finance Lewis' strikes by the use of welfare funds distributed with Frankensteen's help—something you should think about. [Applause.]

There is one phase of the labor situation that I have not heard discussed on the floor.

Throughout the country there is a vast number of small industrial plants and business enterprises which employ many persons at a relatively low wage.

If this bill be enacted with a minimum wage of 40 cents and maximum hours of 40 per week, we all know that it will be but a short time before a strenuous drive will be made to increase the minimum wage and lower the maximum hour limit. Nor does anyone doubt that such drive will, in a measure at least, be successful in some if not in all industries.

It is a matter of common knowledge that railroad companies, many large corporations, including some few of the larger industrial plants, a far greater number of the smaller plants, carry on the pay roll old employees at a reduced wage who are unable either because of age or some other physical handicap to return a full measure of value for even the low wage paid them.

There are hundreds of thousands of persons throughout the country who are employed, some at full time, some at odd hours, at less than 40 cents per hour, performing tasks, domg work, which is not absolutely necessary but which is given to them, either because they have served as workers over a long period of time or because the employer desires to assist them personally.

Perhaps all here can recall some such instance in his own experience or among his own acquaintances.

If we establish a minimum wage and make it as in the end it will be made, applicable to all workers this, multitude made up in large part of those who have passed their prime: of the aged, of the physically unfit, will be thrown out of employment; they will be forced into idleness; they will be forced onto the relief rolls or the pension rolls, and the workers, as a class, will be required to support them, for they will by law be deprived of all opportunity to assist themselves.

I can understand why John L. Lewis would like to see this bill enacted into law. If it becomes a law, he will at once begin to organize the group of workers referred to above. If the law provides for a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour, industry, as a matter of self-preservation, will be forced to discharge the incompetent, the nonproductive and to distribute the work among those who can turn out the goods.

This wholesale discharging of those who have passed middle age, of those who, for any reason, are incompetent or nonproductive on a 40 cents per hour basis, will throw open wide the door of opportunity for Lewis and his organizers. They will be permitted to prey upon these defenseless and fearful workers.

In view of the experience of the past few months, we know what will happen. Immediately Lewis' organizers will enter this field. He will induce those who are about to lose their jobs to pay an initiation fee, to pay monthly dues, or, if this cannot be done, he will take them into membership without the payment of dues. Then when industry cannot longer employ them because it must pay at least 40 cents per hour and when they are discharged his newly organized union will file a complaint with the N. L. R. B., charging that these employees were discharged because of their union activities, because of their union membership, and the small employer will be subjected to the same methods of persecution which have been used in the larger industries.

In every city, town, and hamlet throughout the Nation where industry is unable to pay 40 cents an hour and is forced to discharge some of its employees you will have these complaints by the C. I. O. and the N. L. R. B., and the effect upon business will be ruinous.

The small businessman cannot meet the heavy expense of defending himself, as Ford and Weirton and the large corporations have been able up to this time to do.

Anticipate the working of this law and judge for yourself how it will affect the industries in your home community. If you do this you will refuse to sacrifice your workers your local industries, upon the altar of Lewis' ambition.' You will vote to recommit this bill. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The pro forma amendment was withdrawn.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Cbairman, I move to strike out the last four words.

[PAGE 1670]

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

[PAGE 1671]

Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Green amendment for the purpose of getting ourselves out of an entanglement. The Green amendment provided for a 40-cent minimum wage and a 40-hour maximum week. The Senate bill, as reported out by the House committee, provided a lO-cent maximum wage and a 40-hour minimum week.

I did this with the hope that the bill might be referred to the conferees and the conferees would then not be disturbed by any restrictions whatever, but could bring in a bill that would provide either a 30-cent minimum wage or a 40-cent or 50-cent minimum wage or a 10-cent minimum wage, and a 40-, or 44-, or 45-, or a 50-hour week, whichever they may choose. But the Green amendment was defeated.

Now, the bill as reported by the committee is before you, and I have noted that the same tactics are better employed now that ware employed by some of the Southern Members on the Green amendment. They deliberately came down the aisle and voted for that amendment because they thought if that amendment were passed they would stand a better show of defeating it in the House. They told me this.

Now, you have before you the Norton amendment to the Senate bill, which was reported out of the committee and the Lamneck substitute for that amendment. Of course, if this substitute passes, the bill is destroyed.

Let us be fair and not engage in so much disgraceful demagogy. There are three ways to defeat legislation. One is to honestly vote against it. Another is to get in such amendments as will make the bill so drastic that they know it will not pass or get to such damaging amendments as will emasculate the bill, so that any man or woman would be ashamed to vote for it.

Let us be honest with the workers of this Nation. Talk about dictatorship. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. LANHAM] knows as wen as I do that every dtetatorship that has been established since the World War was not established, because of the establishment to those countries of boards or departments, but every dictatorship has been brought about by misery and suffering and despair among the people of those nations. [Applause.] If you want to kill this bill then vote against it and be honest enough to let your constituents know your true position, and be honest enough then, if you want to help prevent a dictatorship to vote for the passage of a wage and hour bill giving the workers sufficient buying power, to keep body and soul together, so they will be more contented. That is the only way you are going to prevent a dictatorship.

This bill does not suit me, and Iresent the disgraceful and ungentlemanly statements made upon this floor by a number of Members referring to this bill as an illegitimate piece of legislation. This is an insult to the Labor Committee and a reflection upon the character of the proponents of this bill. It is a reflection upon the character of the immortal Billy Connery.

It is not the gentlemanly way to defeat legislation. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WOOD. Mr. chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 more minutes.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Cbairman. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for 5 minutes.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. I rise for the purpose of presenting to the membership of the House, and particularly the committee, the plight that exists in reference to the oil field and refinery workers in my congressional district. A vast majority of the workers are engaged in the refining, drilling, or production of oil at a minimum wage far to excess of what is proposed by this bill, working on a 36-honr basis. The International Oil Workers Union, headed by Mr. H. C. Fremming, a very prominent and capable union exreutive, has presented certain very serious objections to the proposed legisiation. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] will propose an amendment at the proper time which I hope O committee may accept. Mr. Fremmlng and his organiation is affiiatad with tha C, I. O. Mr. Fremming says in reference to the bill:

The proposed wage and hour bill provides for a 40-hour maximum workweek and a 40-cent minimum hourly rate. If this becomes the law of the land without suutable amendment applying particularly to the petroleum industry, it will defeat the very purpose that the act intends to accomplish; that is, added employment. This act would reduce the load in the petroleum industry approximately 18 percent, because the industry would tahe advantage the specific fact that they have gone from 30 hours' employment as a standard weeh to 40 hours by direction of the Congress of the United States.

While it is true that certain collective bargaining agreements exist within the industry establishing 36 hours as a maximum workweek these companies would faced with an unfair comnpetitive relation with other oil companies if they attempted to maintain, by virtue of collective bargaining, 36 hours as against a 40-hour week that would become effective with the adoption of the bill by the Congress.

It is because of this special situation applying to the great petroleum industry that the attached amendment is proposed. All Congressmen coming from oil-producing and refining centers, such as the great refineries on the Atlantic seahoard, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Gulf coast, Great Lakes, and Pacific coast, would be a party to increasing the hours of employment of their constituents 4 hours per week if they voted for the bill without the proposed amendment applying to the petroleum industry.

The 36-hour workweek in the petroleum industry is an accepted principle, and surely the great arm of the Federal government is not going to be used to disturb this equitable principle which is now operating favorably, both to the employee and to the employer.

It is because of the unique situation as it affects the petroleum indurtry where we have weekly hours of employment less than the bill provides that we urge this special amendment to safeguard this forward-looking program established in 1933.

Mr. Chairman, I have read the foregoing in order that the amendment which will be proposed by Mr, Boren at the request of this organisation, which represents hundreds of thousands of oil and refinery workers throughout the United States may understood in advance, and that the vast organization may understand.

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

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to opposition to the amendment. The first mistake I desire to correct is this: The statement has been made here many times that we are trying "to fix wages." The fact is that we are trying to transfix the poverty of this country, to strike it down, to banish it, and give decent living conditions to the men and women who are now denied them. That is the main object of this bill we are talking about. I do not blame any man for belonging to a wrecking crew, but we ought to remember that a very small number of men can tear down in a few days what it takes a hundred men a year to build. That ought to be one of the considerations for the Members of this body. I respect the man who, like my friend freon Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS], stands up and says frankly that he is against all wage and hour legislation. I do not blame him if he feels that way about it. But I am sorry to see that some of our friends, as my friend from Minnesota suggests, are tremendous friends of labor, but who want to deny any opportunity to labor. I suggest to my friend away down in Georgia who spoke a few moments ago, telling of the conditions of poverty existing in his State, that Georgia has been a State in charge of its own business and its own laws for 150 years. If Georgia has not done away with conditions of poverty in 150 years, in the name of God, how long is it going to take Georgia to do away with these disgraceful conditions? Then there are other States of which that is also true—all of them, to fact, except for the length of time they have been States. How long is it going to take any State to do awy with conditions of poverty? The answer ought to be perfectly clear to any man who thinks this over, and that is that no State alone can do it; that industry is national, and must be dealt with nationally. Only the Nation can deal successfully with this question. You cannot get away from that fact. You will never do away with poverty to the different States by State government; it cannot be done. The Nation alone can and must do it.

Mr. ANDRESEN of Minnesota. How about Illinois?

[PAGE 1671]

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

[PAGE 1672]

Mr. KELLER. It is in the same class, and I said here the other day that there is not a man representing a district on this floor in whose district there are not substandard wages, including my own and yours and that of every other man here, and instead of objecting to this bill you ought to be helping us pass it.

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

Mr. KELLER. Referring to my friend from Texas, Mr. LANHAM, who suggested powerfully and eloquently that we are better off than the people of Europe, and that we ought to let well enough alone, he might just as well have said that we are better off than the people of China, and why not let that alone. That is not the question. The question is, Are we as well off as we ought to be, and as well off as we can be? No other question is worthy of consideration here.

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

Mr. KELLER. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. To continue the thought you have expressed relative to the argument of the gentleman from Texas, there is no vestige of a dictatorship in the proposed legislation to help labor when we ask the employer, the employee, and the consumer to come together and iron out their differences and logically raise sublabor standards, is there? I feel that such a plan is the carrying out of the finest principles of a true democracy.

Mr. KELLER. The gentleman from West Virginia is entirely right. Oh, any thought of dictatorship is arrant nonsense. Any man who has thought about it knows this is true.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to two splendid speeches expressing generalization of viewpoint. One was intended to counteract the effect of the other, and the applause was almost equal in intensity. If that reflected the fate of the bill itself, the result of our deliberations is very much in doubt.

But I rose at this moment to congratulate our popular leader of the majority. He referred to the original personnel of the Federal Trade Commission. How tragic their failure! He had even contemplated the repeal of the act itself, although he was largely responsible for its creation. No one will express the present situation better. We are very fearful of the Board or Administrator provided in this bill. Their possible action may, indeed, prove tragic.

It was a sparsely settled country and the wayfarer said to the Scotchman, "How can you ever get a doctor here?" He said, "We can't. We just dee a natural death." [Laughter.]

I have been favoring a proper wage and hour bill. The textile industry wanted me to do so—both the employer and the employee. This morning, after their careful consideration, I am requested by the textile employers of the North to vote against the bill which will be before us today. I had been willing to cast aside my own perhaps somewhat prejudicial feelings and do everytlting I could to help that industry in its extremity. The two great labor parties seem hopelessly divided. So what can I do for them? It seems now that the textile industry of the North, rather than accept the doctors to be provided under this bill and the prescription the doctors must inflict upon them, evidently prefer to "dee a natural death." [Laughter and applause.]

[Here the gavel fell]

The pro forma amendment was withdrawn.

PASS THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. I was unable to obtain time to speak on the wage and hour bill during the general debate. I am taking this opportunity to show the need for the passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said about the necessity for establishing a ceiling of hours beyond which any particular industry may not go, and for establishing a bottom of wages below which it may not fall. It has been pointed out during the debate on this bill how necessary it is to do both, in order to abolish excessively long hours and to increase the standard of living of the lowest-paid workers in the United States.

TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT

I would like to ask the Members of this House another question. I would like to call their attention to another problem. That is the question of technological unemployment. What are we going to do about it? For instance, I am reliably informed that in the steel industry in the next 3 yeats improved machinery and improved plant facilities will probably displace between 100,000 and 125,000 workers. In the coal industry installation of new or improved machinery will probably displace some 200,000 or 250,000 workers in the next 10 years. The same thing is going on in every other industry.

MAN-HOUR PRODUCTIVITY HAS BEEN INCREASED BY 20 PERCENT

Man-hour productivity today is 20 percent greater than it was in 1929. If we want to go back to the level of employment and unemployment that prevailed in 1929, we would have to produce 20 percent more goods and give 20 percent more services than we did last spring.

What are we going to do about that problem? How are we going to meet the steady advance of science, the steady improvement of machinery, and the resultant technological displacement of workers? Remember that every time new machinery is installed, every time a new plant is put into operation, men and women are thrown out of employment. I am in favor of progress. I am in favor of new machines.

I am in favor of new plants, but I am not in favor of throwing these hundreds of thousands of men and women on the scrap heap. We must go forward, but we should not go forward by jeopardizing the economic existence of hundreds of thousands of industrial workers and their wives and children who are dependent upon them for support.

THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL IS THE SOLUTION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT

The only solution to this problem that I know of is an increase in the purchasing power of the people which will keep pace with the increased productivity caused by the installation of new machinery or the construction of new plants. The best way to achieve increased purchasing power is by increasing the wages of the lowest-paid workers and by decreasing the hours of those working men and women who are forced to work excessive hours. This is exactly what the wage and hour bill proposes to do.

AN INCREASE IN THE PURCHASING POWER BY 10 PERCENT WOULD MEAN OPERATION OF INDUSTRY AT FULL CAPACITY

It has been said by leading economists that if we could raise the purchasing power of the underprivileged one-third of our population, we would obtain such an increase in our purchasing power that it would enable the operation of all of our factories at full capacity. This, I believe, would mean the end of unemployment.

PROTECT THE UNORGANIZED FROM WAGE CUTTING DURING BUSINESS RECESSIONS

Let me present to you still another problem. We are now in the midst of a serious business recession. This means that the total amount of business to be divided among the employers of labor is diminishing. Every businessman, every manufacturer will naturally endeavor to prevent a reduction of his own volume of business. He will endeavor to preserve the size of his own share of business, although the total amount of business has declined and is still declining. He can only do that by taking business away from other businessmen or other manufacturers.

In such a situation the temptation for the employer to slash the wages and lengthen the hours of his employees and thereby obtain lower prices will be great, particularly if his employees are unorganized. This would decrease the purchasing power of these employees, which, in turn, would cause further reduction in the operation of other industries, further unemployment, and the vicious cycle downward into another, a deeper depression would get into full swing.

[PAGE 1672]

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

[PAGE 1673]

THE PASSAGE OF THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL WILL PREVENT WHOLESALE WAGE SLASHING

This is exactly what is going to happen unless we pass this bill. The passage of the wage and hour bill will protect /the wage level of the unorganized and preserve fair standards of hours for them.

ABOLISH CHILD LABOR

The wage and hour bill, now pending, will also end the exploitation of little children. It will abolish child labor. It will permit young children to go to school, to develop mentally and physically, instead of being sweated in factories for long hours at miserable wages.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON WAGES AND HOURS, SUPPLEMENTED BY STATE LEGISLATION, IS NECESSARY

I know of only one good reason why a decent, far-sighted, and socially minded employer would pay low wages and work long hours. The only reason that can be advanced for such action is the fact that a competitor in another State or even in the same State, where there is no State legislation, is doing so. Competition is a great force and it may force a decent employer against his own will to pay wages which he himself considers too low. This can only be remedied by Federal legislation—legislation which will fix minimum wages and maximum hours for industries serving interstate commerce. Such wage and hour standards would be the law in every State in the Union and would prevent an unscrupulous employer from sweating his own labor and thereby force his competitors to lower their wages and lengthen their hours. Federal legislation should be supplemented by State legislation regulating intrastate industry and business.

Just as the United States could not continue to exist as a Nation half free and half slavery, so in this generation it is impossible for our industries to exist half decent shops, half sweatshops.

THE SWEATSHOP IS NOT LIMITED TO THE SOUTH

Let no one believe that the sweatshop, the payment of starvation wages, and the working of excessively long hours only exists in the South. It exists in the North, in the East, as well as in the West. No one section in the country has a monopoly on decent conditions or on the existence of the sweatshop.

THE PASSAGE OF THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL IS NECCESSARY FOR BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

The passage of the wage and hour bill will secure the gradual elimination of underpaid labor and the abolition of excessive hours. It is not a labor measure. It is a business measure. It is true that the passage of this bill is necessary to protect and advance the standard of living of several millions of underprivileged, underpaid, and exploited workers. But it is just as necessary to protect the decent employer against the unscrupulous competitor who endeavors to obtain a larger share of the market at the expense of labor.

The passage of the wage and hour bill is necessary to stabilize employment, to increase the income of millions of Americans, to enlarge the market for goods and services, to permit increased production, to stabilize prices, and to reduce unemployment. The choice before us is whether we want to continue the spending of billions for relief or establish decent and fair wages and a higher standard of living. The bill before us is not simply a humanitarian measure. It is, as I have said, just as much a business measure. The choice before us is whether we shall continue to spend billions for unemployment and work relief or whether we shall increase employment and the purchasing power of our working population by decreasing hours and raising the wages of the lowest paid workers. With that alternative before us there can only be one choice for reasonable and enlightened men—the passage of the wage and hour bill.

A VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL IS A VOTE FOR GREATER APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I hope my colleagues will carefully consider the problems before us. I hope they will remember that if they vote against this bill they vote for greater and ever greater appropriations for the W. P. A. and unemployment relief.

I hope my colleagues will understand that the failure to pass this bill means the continuance of an unbalanced Budget and greater expenditures by the Federal Government and State governments for the support of the unemployed.

Failure to pass this bill means even more. Unless we increase the purchasing power of our lowest paid workers and further decrease unemployment by the shortening of the working day and the working week, we make it impossible for our industrial system to function. Unless we pass on to our working population a proper share of increased industrial productivity we disturb the necessary balance between productive capa-City and purchasing power and lead our Nation into a depression which will be deeper and longer than the last depression.

A VOTE AGAINST THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL IS A VOTE FOR A NEW AND EXTENDED BUSINESS RECESSION

Our people still remember the horror, the suffering, and the starvation of the last depression. I doubt if our people are willing to go through another depression and suffer until so-called natural forces will correct the lack of balance between production and consumption. This is our opportunity. We can pass the wage and hour bill. Intelligently administered it will mean a tremendous step forward. It will mean a higher standard of living for the lowest-paid workers and their families. It will mean greater purchasing power for the entire population. It will mean a revived demand for goods and services and renewed business prosperity.

PRESENT BILL IS NOT PERFECT

I realize that the bills now before us—the Senate bill and the Norton substitute—are not perfect. I have prepared, several amendments which I propose to submit. I realize that every Member of the House has some criticisms. We can never get a perfect bill. If we would wait for a perfect bill we could never legislate at all

I believe that the need for the passage of the wage and hour bill by the Federal Government is so great that I willing to accept the bill in the best form in which we can get it.

I am going to vote for the wage and hour bill, and I hope that a majority of my colleagues will do likewise. I hope that they will do so in the interest of labor, in the interest of business, in the interest of our entire economic system, and for the sake of suffering humanity.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this substitute and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.

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

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. JOHNSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, many of us do not agree entirely with what either Mr. Lewis or Mr. Green proposes. I introduced a bill, H. R. 8698, setting up a 40-40 scale enforceable in the Federal courts on petition of a majority of the workers in an industry, but after listening to the debate yesterday and today I have come to the conclusion that if I introduced this bill as a substitute I would be acting in a filibustering manner and I have decided not to offer it but to support the committee bill. [Applause.]

The-committee bill is a good bill. If for no other reason, this bill can be defended even if in a small measure it corrects the abuse of child labor in the United States. Any Member of this House can justify his vote for the committee bill on this ground. The child-labor proposition has been kicking around the 48 States now for nearly 14 years, and if this committee bill can in some small way correct this situation, this legislation is justified. I say to my southern friends who are opposing the bill that the only thing the North fears from the South is competition. The other day

[PAGE 1673]

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

[PAGE 1674]

the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU] offered an amendment to the farm bill prohibiting the use of cotton lauds for grazing and dairying purposes. The object behind that amendment was to protect the North from southern competition in the dairy industry.

The South bas got to get out of the cotton business partially, at least, with 21,000,000 bales in the market. They are going into other lines of business. If the South is sensible enough to see, they will raise the purchasing power of their people and they will be on a par with the North. These things are important.

After carefully rereading this bill last night I have reached the conclusion that it is a good bill, one that will meet many of the demands of labor in this country. Rome was not built in a day, neither can legislation such as this be written in a day and be satisfactory to all parties concerned. If John Lewis and William Green do not want this kind of bill and cannot agree on one, let us lock them in a room until the bill is passed and at least put some kind of labor-standards legislation on the statute books. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. DEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who preceded me and made the statement that when the South gets sensible enough it will remedy its condition. The gentleman's indictment against the South constitutes a greater indictment against his own sense of fairness.

I hold in my hand an interesting story that I can give my colleagues in 3 minutes; so I hope you will give me your attention. The people of my State are entitled to as high a wage and to as good working conditions as are the people in any part of the country; and they want them. But here is one reason why we cannot do what our friends from the North want us to do, and the figures that I read you were furnished me on yesterday by a representative of the Interstate Commerce Commission: A carload of 50,000 pounds of iron bars from Cleveland, Ohio, to Atlanta, Ga., carries a freight charge of $285. The same carload of iron bars moving from Atlanta to Cleveland carries a freight charge of $395, or $110 more. The workers in the foundries and factories of Atlanta, Ga., the district of my colleague who spoke in favor of the bill on yesterday are discriminated against under the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The manufacturer is likewise discriminated against.

The present rate on canned goods, moving in carload lots of 60,000 pounds from Atlanta, Ga., to San Francisco, Calif., is 87 cents per 100 pounds. Effective January 1 it will be 92 cents; while the same carload moving from San Francisco to Atlanta, Ga., carries a rate of only 85 cents. In other words it costs us in Georgia $42 more when we ship our canned goods from Atlanta to San Francisco than it does the people in San Francisco shipping similar goods to Atlanta.

Another case: From Charleston, S. C., to Baltimore, Md., baking pans shipped in packages of 1,000 pounds or less carry a rate of $1.08 per 100 pounds, or $10.80 per 1,000 pounds. The same packages from Baltimore to Charleston carry a rate of only 85 cents, or $8.50 per 1,000 pounds. This makes a difference of $2.30 per 1,000 pounds.

I say to you, my colleagues, from every section of the United States, that as long as any board or bureau or administrator in Washington discriminates against any section of the country, whether it be mine, or yours, it is time for this Congress to assert itself and to recommit to the committee the pending bill which will set up another similar condition. I claim that the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio and the committee bill would set up under the Federal Trade Commission, without discrimination or without authority to make differentials, a proposition that will further penalize the South in its present sufferings.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. DEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

Mr. DEEN. A shipment of firebrick weighing 40,000 pounds moves from Albany, N. Y., to Birmingham, Ala. If shipped yesterday at a rate of 37^1/2 cents the freight would be $150. Effective on December 20, the rate will be changed' to 37 cents. If, however, the same brick moves from Birmingham, Ala., to Albany, N. Y., although the rate is 37 cents, the minimum carload is 60,000 pounds, the freight would be $216. When you people in Albany buy our brick you pay one rate and when we buy your brick we pay another.

The workers in Birmingham in the brick kilns are depressed because of these discriminatory and indefensible freight rates. [Applause.]

Likewise the manufacturer of firebrick in Birmingham, Ala., is a victim of these discriminatory, indefensible, and unjust freight rates. Effective December 20, the manufacturer of firebrick in Birmingham must pay $220 freight charges on a minimum car, or 60,000 paunds, moving from Birmingham, Ala., to Albany, N.Y., while the manufacturer of firebrick in Albany, N. Y., pays only $150 freight charges on the same carload of brick. Granting there was ever justification for this discriminate favoritism to foster industry in the North and in official territory, despite its handicaps by higher freight rates, the South has made substantial progress in every State in the South.

Another case in point will be interesting. A carload shipment of green cabbage under ventilation, weighing 24,000 pounds, moves from Athens, Ga., to Watertown, N. Y., at a rate of 74 cents per hundred pounds, or $177.60 freight charges for the carload, while a carload shipment of green cabbage under ventilation, weighing 24,000 pounds, moving from Watertown, N. Y., to Athens, Ga., takes a rate of 68 cents per hundred pounds, or $163.20, or a difference of $14.40. This difference of $14.40, which the shipper in Athens, Ga., pays in excess of the amount paid by the shipper in Watertown, N. Y., is a direct charge upon labor in the vicinity of Athens, Ga., which produces that cabbage.

If my colleagues of the North and East, who live in what is known as official tertitory with reference to freight rates, are to render a great service to the farmers of the South, they can do so by assisting those of us from the South in adjusting this iniquitous and most intolerable situation.

Another interesting case in point is that of a carload shipment of fiberboard boxes, not corrugated, weighing 36,000 pounds, and moving from Atlanta, Ga., to New York City, and which takes a rate of 77 cents per hundred pounds, or $277.20 for the carload, while the same carload of fiberboard boxes shipped from New York City to Atlanta, Ga., over the same railroad takes a much lower rate, that of 68 cents per hundred pounds, or $244.80, or a defference of $32.40.

This charge of $32.40 which the manufacturer and shipper of fiberboard boxes in Atlanta, Ga., must pay in moving his merchandise to New York City in excess of the amount paid by a manufacturer of fiberboard boxes in New York City and shipping them to Atlanta, Ga., is a direct charge both upon labor and capital in the vicinity of Atlanta, Ga. No one can deny this fact.

Time will not permit me to recite the many interesting cases in point, cited in various reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission, showing that freight rates paid by southern industry, manufacturers, and business are not only discriminatory, indefensible, and unjustifiable but these unwarranted "supercharges" which have been and are being borne by southern people, including labor, constitute a "crown of thorns" pressing down upon the brow of nearly one-third of the citizens of the United States—those people living in the South.

It is known to all of us that legislation to correct this freight-rate situation is not necessary. The Interstate Commerce Commission has the power under existing law to make proper adjustments.

[PAGE 1674]

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

[PAGE 1675]

It is well known to my colleagues and to many in the country that the United States is divided into three divisions with reference to freight-rate charges. The western territory is west of the Mississippi River; southern terrttory is east of the Mississippi River and south of Richmond, Petersburg, and the Ohio River; offical territory is that part of the country east of the Mississippi River and north of Richmond, Petersburg, Charleston W. Va., and the Ohio River.

Perhaps there was a time when all industry and manufacturing was confined to official territory. This is not the case at the present time. Southern and western territories are paying tribute to industry in official territory. This tribute is shared in by both capital and labor.

Industry should be allowed to develop wherever capital, labor, climatic conditions, raw materials, and so forth, are available and best suited.

Some of my colleagues from the North are clamoring against the trend of the textile industry to the South. They have enjoyed a monopoly on this industry for many years. The truth of the matter is there is as much justification tor coal-mining plants a thousand miles from the coal fields as there is for textile mills in New England, a thousand miles from the cotton fields. Neither one makes common sense.

The present bill under consideration, known as the Black-Connery wage and hour bill, would set up either an administrator or a board to administer the act from Washington, D. C. Either the board or the administrator would determine minimum wages and maximum hours, and what in its judgment would be proper working conditions, child labor, oppressive hours and working conditions, and so forth. For one Member of the Congress, I am unwilling to set up an administrator or a board, for all intents and purposes to ultimately become a dictator, both to American industry and to labor in the United states. I do not think it is fair for either labor or industry to be harpooned, regimented, regulated, stampeded, and slaughtered upon the altar of dictatorship.

If a dictatorship is set up by the Congress for labor or industry under a board or administrator and the same policy is pursued for agriculture and for all other activities of the American people, we will then have destroyed our form of government and will number ourselves among those nations of the world which are not democracies but which are dictatorships. Dictatorship leads to fascism, nazi-isin, socialism, and communism.

I accord to every Member the same honesty and sincerity of purpose in supporting the legislation which I reserve for myself in declining to support it. I have always supported measures which I thought would benefit labor, and labor knows this; but I do not propose to support what I consider a half-baked and ill-advised piece of legislation which, if it becomes law, will be a perfect example of disappointment and disillusionment for labor and will paralyze and destroy what little progress the South has made in an industrial way during the past 70 years. Of course, this is only my honest and humble opinion.

Time will not permit me to discuss what I consider proper labor legislation, but such legislation can be afforded by the Congress. In my judgment, the pending bill would destroy what progress labor has made through the Wagner Labor Relations Act and through collective bargaining and would throw the country back to that barbarous stage of sit-down strikes through which we emerged during the late summer of this year.

I therefore plead with my colleagues not to further penalize the South and the West by setting up another board or administrator to discriminate against our people in a similar manner to that which we are bearing in connection with the iniquitous freight-rate problem.

The problem is being attacked for the first time in an effective way by the Governors of nine of the Southern States. Shortly a conference between the Governors of these States and the President of the United States, so I am informed, will be held for the purpose of bringing to the President's attention the seriousness of this situation. Heretofore efforts have been made to correct the injustices perpetrated against the South by individual Members of Congress and Governors of the various States. It is hoped that this concentrated and unified effort will result in a satisfactory adjustment of the matter. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending substitute and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.

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

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. RAYBURN. Will the gentleman withhold his objection?

Mr. RUTHERFORD. No. I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the pending substitute amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. REED] in opposition to the pending pro forma amendment.

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have been a very interested listener to many of the speeches, and very able speeches, made on both sides of the House. I do not question the sincerity of any man who has spoken on this measure. There are certain things, however, that have come to my mind since I have been listening to this debate. I wonder if we have lost sight of just exactly how inconsistent we are?

I start with this premise, which no man can successfully dispute: That is, the United States has the highest cost of production of any country in the world. England probably comes next. Then we go down the scale until we get to Japan, where the wages are about as much per day for 14 hours' work as we are paying for an hour's work. As a result of this disparity between the cost of production in other countries and our own, we see them gradually displacing our labor with their goods. Only recently we found the wages of a very large factory in the North to be 90 cents an hour for a 6-hour day. In Japan they work 14 hours a day for 90 cents. When you get out into Ohio and note the pottery business there, you will find a disparity between 70 cents an hour as compared with 37 cents a day in Japan.

Mr. Chairman, practically every piece of major legislation that bas been enacted into law by this Congress has had a tendency to raise the cost of production in this country. I think no one will be able to successful]y dispute that fact. This bill, of course, will further increase the cost of production. Rightfully or wrongfully, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are engaged in competition with the industries of other nations.

The administration—and I am not speaking politically—has had for its objective regaining a part of our lost world market. In that market the country that must of necessity succeed is the one with the lowest cost of production. So we are going right ahead here with two philosophies that are diametrically opposed to each other. The only feature in this bill that could possibly have protected labor was the tariff provision, which has been stricken out. The result is that the administration is hoping to get into the markets of the world in competition with low-cost production countries and depreciated currency and with other countries that have every advantage so far as transportation rates are concerned. At the same time, the administration comes in here with bill after bill to increase the cost of production in this country. Until those two philosophies are reconciled in some way, we are faced with the situation that we must either have a lower cost of production or we must protect our home market. [Applause.]

Here the gavel fell.]

[PAGE 1675]

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

[PAGE 1676]

The CHAIRMAN. There are a number of Members who are seeking recognition in the 25 minutes remaining on this substitute amendment. Without objection, the Chair will recognize each gentleman for 3 minutes.

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. TAYLOR].

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, having been unable to secure time to speak on this bill when it was being considered under general debate, I have requested this privilege to register my further views on the subject. On August 20 of this year I addressed the House at some length on the legislation which is now pending, and in that address I outlined my objections to the so-called Black-Connery bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am motivated today by two reasons for further discussing the measure. First, I desire to categorically deny and courteously resent an insinuation made by my distinguished friend from New York [Mr. CELLERJ while the bill was under general debate to the effect that Tennessee affords an example of low labor standards. This statement was probably made inadvertently, because it is certainly not borne out by the facts. I doubt if any State in the Union has fewer sweatshops than the State of Terinessee. I would be willing to gamble "dollars to doughnuts" that for every sweatshop that can be found in Tennessee 100 sweatshops can be found in the State from which my New York friend comes. And whatever sweatshops we may have in Tennessee are not to the "manor born," but come from the section of the country represented by my New York friend—probably several of them coming from his own district. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this proposition because it is a species of fascism, and it is a well-known fact that fascism is an inveterate foe of free enterprise and free labor. For proof of this fact I cite you to what has happened in Italy and in other nations governed by dictatorships.

One of the first acts of the Fascist Party in Italy when it came into power was to completely put an end to labor unions as they then existed and to create new unions in each trade or craft as a part of so-called state corporations which bear a strong similarity to the principles of the legislation proposed in the pending bill. Under the Italian system those who are selected to represent labor are not named by the workers but by the politicians, and the same is also true of the representatives of the employers. The will of the government is final and determinative with both. Under this system it is unlawful to strike, and the employer is prohibited to close, expand, or contract his operations without government, which means political, approval.

Mr. Chairman, if this legiSlation is enacted into law, I predict that in the not distant future the same thing will haPpen to both labor and industry in the United States.

Under the regimentation of labor in Italy and its subservience to political domination, the pay of the worker has not been increased, his hours shortened, or his living conditions improved. The exact reverse has happened. The living standard of the Italian worker under the Fascist regime has steadily been lowered and is still going down.

The effect of fascism upon the labor organizations in Italy presents a tragic spectacle. The workingman has been deprived of his right to strike, to have any determinative voice in dealing with wages, hours of labor, or working conditions. He has been bereft of his right to choose those who may represent him in negotiating these matters. He is absolutely at the mercy of the political leaders, whose whims he is compelled to serve. The industrialists are in a similar plight. It was the support of the industrialists which made it possible for Mussolini to march on Rome 15 years ago. At that time the industrialists in Italy thought it would be a magnificent achievement if labor unions could be subjected to political control. They thought they would be able to control the politician and all would be well, but they were soon disillusioned. While the politicians promptly put an end to labor agitation, dosed the agitators with castor oil, or, when necessary, exiled them, thereby destroying labor unions by setting up a so-called corporative system, they also set up a corporation for each industry and thereby dominated industry in the same manner. The inevitable result was that both the freedom of labor and the freedom of industry was definitely destroyed. Thus the great industrialists of Italy found in fascism an escape from labor disputes, but they also found themselves shackled in abject enslavement to a political machine which they ineptly helped to create.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I predict that if this measure becomes law, it will signify the first step in the disintegration of organized labor and will mean ultimate serfdom for both the workingman and industry. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. SHAFER] for 3 minutes.

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, because of my inability to obtain time during the general debate I am taking this method of making known my position relative to the pending legislation.

The proposed wage and hour bill, known as the Black-Connery bill which has been offered as a substitute for the Senate bill by the gentlewoman from New Jersey, in my opinion, would be but a futile gesture toward accomplishing what it is claimed it will achieve.

The theory underlying the demand for wage and hour legislation is that an increase of wages in the lower-paid labor brackets is necessary to increase consumer purchasing power; that hours must be shortened to provide more jobs, reduce unemployment, lighten the relief load on the Federal Government, and encourage more retail spending,

It is obvious, of course, that if these assumptions are correct, the greater the number of workers whose pay is increased and whose hours are shortened, the greater will be the beneficial effects of the act and the more consumer-purchasing power will be increased.

But the administration bill, or Labor Committee substitute for the Senate bill, by providing for a method of whittling away the beneficial effects of the act by vesting in an administrative agency the power to grant a multitude of preferential exemptions, has implanted within the bill itself the seeds of its own destruction.

It is conceded, even by proponents of the bill, that the exemptions would run into thousands upon thousands. The result of these discriminatory exemptions and differentials would not only whittle away the beneficial effects of the bill by taking from under it thousands upon thousands of workers, but it would also have a bad effect on labor as well.

The only practical approach to the whole question is through an act by Congress establishing whatever minimum wages and maximum hours are found to be the best, granting exemptions in the act itself to such workers as agricultural labor, transportation employees, and others whose occupation makes it clearly impractical for them to be brought under the operations of the act, leaving enforcement to existing agencies of the Government, such as the Department of Justice.

I personally. agree in principle with the purposes sought to be achieved by the committee substitute, but believe the whole question is so complex that it is highly dangerous to vest some new administrator with this new instrument of power of life and death over industry and labor and then leave this act to become the football of sectional, regional, political, and industrial disputes and manipulation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. GREEN].

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, the time has been allotted among those who had asked for time.

Mr. GREEN. The gentleman from Michigan has yielded to me.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has yielded the balance of his time. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak to the actual merit of this legislation, but having served on the Committee on Labor for several years I be-

[PAGE 1676]

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

[PAGE 1677]

believe I should in the interest of labor express my views on the substance of the legislation and express the hope that the Members of the House will recommit the bill to the Committee on Labor, provided the pending amendment to the amendment does not prevail.

The organized labor groups are divided upon this legislation. Hon. William Green. president of the American Federation of Labor, has called upon us to vote to recommit or to defeat this legislation. The president of the Florida Federation of Labor has taken similar action. I quote from a telegram just received from him:

TALLAHASSEE, FLA., December 14, 1937.

Congressman LEx GREEN,

House of Representatives:

If you cannot support Dockweiler substitute for wage and hour suggest recommitment. I believe that adm1nistrat1on of regulatory measures should be left to State labor departments.

WENDELL C. HEATON,

President, Florida Federation of Labor.

The Dockweiler substitute to which he refers was introduced on yesterday by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD]. It was defeated. If I am to obey the wish of the president of the federation of labor of my state, I am now to vote for the recommitment of this bill and to vote against its final passage if it is not recommitted. In casting this vote, it is my belief that I am serving the best interests of labor of my State and casting their vote as they would have it cast if they knew the circumstances.

Ever since I have been a Member of the House, I have earnestly endeavored to vote on every occasion in the best interest of labor for my district because my sympathies are with them and I know the burdens they bear from my own experience, and I also know the important part in our American society and American institutions which is filled by the millions of laborers in our Nation.

The purpose of this bill is to foster monopoly and big business and giant industrial plants at the sacrifice of the small businessman and the small factory or plant. I find among my colleagues many of those representing districts in which giant industry has the balance of power are supporting this legislation. In these giant industries the wage scale is far higher than that proposed in the bill. Neither these industries nor their employees will be affected by this bill directly. On the other hand, the small industries and the small-business men will suffer greatly and thousands of them will be forced into bankruptcy as the result of the operations of this bill if it becomes a law. They will be sacrificed to the giant industries and the workers in these small factories will be thrown out of employment and many of them placed upon the charity or relief rolls. Mass production in the large factories and plants will go on unabated and, in fact, their business will be increased on account of the drying up of the small factories, the small sawmills, and the little industries. The purchasing power in the dried-up areas will likewise diminish and the relief rolls in these areas will increase. Probably three persons in America will be thrown out of employment by this bill where one would gain employment.

Another purpose of the bill is to attach industries in their present localities and thus prevent the free migration of business and industries to new areas where it is needed, even to supply local demand. Many of my colleagues will recall that the late Congressman Connery, of Massachusetts, said in substance that the industries of New England must be protected and kept in New England and that their migration to the South must cease. It is obvious that the smallscale production in the South cannot survive the monopolistic effect which this bill will cause. For the past three-quarters of a century the South has been gruesomely penalized by the North in many respects. One of the most glaring examples of discrimination and penalty ever placed upon a free people is the freight-rate differentials made against the South in favor of the northern industrial centers. The sponsors of this bill know that with the freight-rate yoke now around the neck of the South, our industries there will not be able to compete with the industries in the North if the wage scale is uniform.

As much as I would like to do so, it is impossible for me to forget that almost half of the wealth of the South was destroyed by one stroke of the pen about three-quarters of a century ago. This was done by a President from the North who desired to destroy the South economically. It worked all too successfully. Ever since this conflict practicallY every law of trade and economic balance has been against the South and for the North.

The bill before us, however, goes even further. It would penalize the West and all sections of our country where industry is now trying to develop. In my humble opinion, this measure, if enacted into law, will crucify labor upon the cross of sectionalism. It will enable fascism and communism to use the industrial East as the means of driving a dagger in the heart of the farming West and of the persecuted South. As I see it, this legislation brings America to the very crossroads of democracy. The vote which you cast on this bill may be the controlling vote on whether democracy in America shall survive or whether America shall be regimented into final dictatorship.

This measure will destroy a large portion of the purchasing power which is now disseminated through the various parts of our country. It will further unequalize the now limited distribution of purchasing power in the hands of the rank and file of the American people. It will regiment the rank and file of the American people and destroy their present economic freedom. It will establish in America what now exists in the nations of Europe and Asia which are under dictatorships. When you destroy the power of the rank and file of the American people. you destroy the very soul of democracy, upon which we have thrived. When you pass this legislation you destroy the fundamental principle which was uppermost in the minds of the representatives of the Thirteen Colonies when they breathed life into America's Constitution.

When you undertake to destroy industry and labor alike in certain areas of our country in the hope industry in other sections of our country may thrive by their downfall, you are establishing a philosophy of government which will weaken the Nation. No other process of regimentation and dictatorship has been offered to the American people with force equal to this measure. [Applause.]

Many of those in the higher ranks of labor organizations believe that this bill, if enacted, will destroy existing power of labor to bargain collectively. They fear that, if the wages are written into law, the usefulness of labor organizations will cease and the ultimate goal may be reached whereby the entire power of labor and its organizations as such may be destroyed. Labor has been regimented in many of the dictatorial forms of government. Regimentation in many of them has taught us that the power and rights of labor through regimentation have been destroyed. I do not believe that the American people desire a dictatorial form of government. I do not believe that they desire regimentation as such. I caution my colleagues that this is no time to regiment and throw laborers out of employment; but, to the contrary, it is a time when Congress should exercise every possible wisdom in order to give employment to laborers who are now unemployed.

Many believe that the passage of this legislation may throw the Nation into a depression of broad propartions. The result is grave. I urge my colleagues to think carefully before the final vote is taken. Let the bill be committed to the Labor Committee for further study and deliberation. By doing this we will comply with the greatest exponent of labor in America.

I have just received a telegram from him, as follows:

WASHINGTON,. D. C., December 16, 1937.

Hon. LEX GREEN,

Washington, D. C.:

Because the pending wage and hour bill is highly objectionable to membership of American Federation o! Labor, I respectfully request you vote to recommit to the appropriate committee for revision, study, and necessary changes in order to make it a practical and constructive measure.

WILLIAM GREEN,

President, American Federation of Labor.

[Here the gavel fell].

[PAGE 1677]

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

[PAGE 1678]

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BERNARD] needs any defense at my hands or the hands of any other Member of the House. This afternoon some references were made to the gentleman. May I say that in my judgment, and I believe the views I entertain are shared by an overwhelming majority of the Members of the House, the gentleman from Minnesota has demonstrated during his service here not only that he is well able to represent his district and the people of this country but a desire to work for the best interests of the laboring man and the people of this country who are in need of assistance.

I want to commend the gentleman particularly because of the fact that any association he may have had with those who are attempting to organize labor was largely in his own congressional district; and I, for one, commend him for his courage in going back into his district and there assisting labor to organize. He did this not only by lip service but by actual assistance to what he felt was in the best interest of organized labor.

Something has been said about this country going headlong into dictatorship if we adopt the pending committee proposal. In my judgment, the fact this country is going toward dictatorship is the reason we need this type of legislation if we are to preserve democracy in this country. [Applause.] The test here, as has been suggested, is whether or not we are going to have dictatorship or democracy. I believe if we do not do something to remedy the conditions which have prevailed in this country for several years, and if we do not do something along the line of regulating hours and wages in industry, there is a greater likelihood of a dictatorship being developed in this country. I, for one, believe the passage of this legislation will do more than any other one thing to preserve democracy in the United States of America. [Applause.]

Yesterday and on previous occasions during the discussion on this bill I have expressed the view that it would be better to adopt the proposal generally known as the American Federation of Labor's proposal with reference to hours and wages in industry. I believe it would be better to avoid wage differentials. I think that bill is proper. However, I do say to the membership of the House that since this amendment has been turned down, I, for one, want to do all I possibly can to support the committee proposal in this instance. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last five words, and these five words are "shall not be affected thereby." I am wondering whether these last words would not have a real meaning if this amendment were adopted, because the exploitation of labor would not be affected thereby.

I am not going to talk of sectionalism, but I am going to go back for a few years and say, if you will pardon a personal reference, that a number of years ago I worked in the lumber camps of the North from 5 o'clock in the morning until 8 and 9 o'clock at night for the meager and paltry sum of $12 a month. All the oppression is not in the South. Just recently, as late as 2 years ago, certain lumber companies in my district paid starvation wages and I know personally that men worked for 2 or 3 weeks and after paying their board and tobacco they were in debt to the company. Conditions like this should not exist in this Nation. This condition does not prevail in all woods operations, because some are real good to labor, but those chiselers and labor exploiters make it impossible for the real operators to be as fair as they want to and still meet competition. A survey was made in my district last summer as to what was the prevailing wage, and it was found, after all industries had been taken into consideration, that the prevailing wage was less than 36 cents an hour; oh, yes; the last five words are applicable all right, because these conditions, as mentioned by me, "shall not be affected thereby." The Lamneck amendment should be defeated and the amendment proposed by the chairman of the Committee on Labor should be put into effect.

Let us not talk about my distriCt alone. Down in the turpentine industry in the South, after a survey the National Child Labor Committee found in Georgia, and Florida that in 17 out of 24 camps visited, children from 9 to 16 years of age were employed, and that men were in a state of peonage and being paid from 75 cents to $1.25 a day, while the children from 9 to 16 years of age were getting 35 to 70 cents a day. In these camps 45 children or 5 percent of the entire force were under 16 years of age. The 1930 census shows 1,713 children-between ages of 10 and 16 were employed in Georgia and Florida, and, I understand, mostly in the turpentine industry. The committee estimates 1,600 this year in these States will be employed by the larger turpentine producers.

Wages for men ran from 50 cents to $1.25—seldom higher. For dippers—collecting gum—75 cents to $1.75. The day is about 14 hours. Sunup to sundown.

On the false plea that the industry is agriculture, this industry is exempt from the Social Security Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act, and all State labor laws, including this bill. For God's sake, are we going to allow peonage to exist in a nation that is supposed to have reached a high state of civilization? Company-owned camps and high prices at commissary stores add to a picture of exploited labor equaled by few, if any, industries in America.

If industries of this nature will not act human we must bring them in and force better living conditions.

Oh, it is in the North, it is in the South, it is in the East, and it is in the West that the low-wage conditions exist and that low-paid labor is exploited. It is up to us men and women of this Congress to face the problem fairly, openly, honestly, and fearlessly, and put into effect legislation which will do away with the sweatshops and bring us freedom. [Aplause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman. I am supporting the pending bill as representing the best compromise that could be obtained by the Committee on Labor. I think the philosophy of their measure is correct. The purpose of a democracy is to protect the weak of the Nation, and this measure seeks the regulation of wages and hours of those in the lower brackets, those who are inarticulate and have no union or other organization to enforce a contract for them. As their friends, we are attempting to lay down a yardstick with which to measure their services.

I am against the proposal of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAMNECK]. I can think of no amendment that would cause more confusion or bring about more uncertainty in the matter of labor standards with respect to wages and hours. It provides no standard or yardstick whatever. It throws the whole labor problem wide open for the Federal Trade Commission, a Government agency that is already burdened with other problems and activities.

The substitute proposed by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAMNECK] is an entire reversal of the philosophy of the pending bill, which is based upon the idea of Congress laying down some kind of standard with respect to organized industries engaged in interstate commerce under which their employees may work. This amendment would throw it all open and would conflict with the Wagner Labor Relations Act, under which we have collective bargaining and have contracts already entered into. Such contracts would be thrown into the hopper with all the others and the entire matter would have to be decided by the Federal Trade Commission. There could be nothing that would cause more confusion than to pass such an amendment, containing a philosophy entirely different from the pending bill, opening up the whole question of labor conditions with respect to hours and wages and leaving it to the Federal Trade Commission, not to settle the matter for any particular industry, but to settle the matter as would be done in lawsuits with respect to a particular board.

I do believe in the pending bill. If we are to have differentials, they should not be based upon climate or geography, race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but upon the ability of the worker to produce, and this formula should be

[PAGE 1678]

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

[PAGE 1679]

used in determining whether there should be a differential or not. [Applause.]

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, I have only 3 minutes and I am going to confine my remarks to the particular substitute that is now before the Committee.

There has been considerable complaint about the committee bill based on the fact that it does not fix definite hours and wages and because it may, in its administration, permit differentials. Now, we have a substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio. The purpose in offering it is plainly obvious to most of us. It is an attempt to deliberately emasculate the bill the committee has reported. It provides no maximum or minimum standards. It leaves the whole field of wage and hour determination entirely to the unlimited discretion of the Federal Trade Commission; and if this substitute bill ever went to a court for construction it would undoubtedly be held unconstitutional because it is altogether vague and indefinite in its provisions affecting wages and hours.

The Labor Complittee bill is patterned after the minimum-wage statutes in effect in a great many of our States. In every one of those statutes certain legislative guides or standards are provided. The administrative authority in fixing or determining the minimum wage must be guided by these standards and whether or not they will stand the test of constitutionality in the courts depends entirely upon a reasonable finding in accordance with the legislative standards set up in the act.

In my opinion, this is the only way we can legislate, particularly with respect to minimum-wage legislation, but this Lamneck substitute bill leaves that question entirely open, provides no yardstick or legislative standards whatsoever for the administrative authority designated in the bill in determining reasonable and fair labor standards.

[Here the gavel fell.]

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION NO PLACE FOR LABOR LEGISLATION

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a great many interesting speeches this morning. For instance, one of the gentlemen said we ought to have the provisions of this bill under the Federal Trade Commission, because we do not know who is going to be appointed on the commission which is provided. My answer is that Franklin D. Roosevelt is going to make the appointment, and I will be satisfied with such appointment.

Now, we will take up the matter of the Federal Trade Commission, because that is going to be voted on immediately after I get through. The Federal Trade Commission is not suited to this character of legislation. It would be just as foolish to put this legislation under the Federal Trade Commission as it would be to put the Marine Corps under the Department of Agriculture.

One of my friends on the Republican side, who is today posing as one of the pals of organized labor, is getting up here and defending the A. F. of L. As far as he is concerned, I have never seen him vote either for the A. F. of L. or the C. I. O. or the labor movement. This worthy colleague on the Republican side is terribly worried about other people being demagogues. I did not know that demagogues were anything new. Nobody need get pious.

OIL MEN OF TEXAS NOT COVERED BY BILL

Then my good friend from Texas got up and defended the oil men of Texas. Well, everybody knows the oil men working in the oil fields of Texas get from 75 cents to more than $1 an hour, and the fact we will provide 40 hours as the maximum will not affect the oil workers of Texas in the slightest. One day the gentleman is out for the A. F. of L. bill and the next day for the C. I. O. In any event, the bill before us does not affect the oil workers.

If we adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAMNECK] we have defeated the entire purpose of this proposed legislation. You will see that the people who are opposed to minimum-wage legislation are the ones who are all for this particular legislation, because it puts the ppwers back in the States that have no wage legislation and makes it so that the legislation is worthless.

One of the gentleman on the other side who spoke today said that you cannot live on speeches. We cannot live on his speeches either. We cannot live on speeches of either side. But we can use our heads and legislate.

So I say this Lamneck amendment ought to be voted down so we can pass on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MAVERICK. I yield to the distinguished lady from New Jersey.

Mrs. NORTON. Is it not a fact, too, that the Federal Trade Commission directs its activities against persons singly and not against organized groups, and therefore they could not act in this matter?

Mr. MAVERICK. They act against certain businesses, too; but they have not anything to do with labor whatsoever. The only purpose of the Lamneck amendment is to make this ineffective and sabotage it. If we follow any principle of legislation or any rule of logic, even the enemies of the bill could not vote for that amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. And is it not a fact also that it would take them years to get close to any one of these cases?

Mr. MAVERICK. They would have to reorganize completely, and, as I said before, it would be similar to having the War Department and the Department of Agriculture in one department. Vote it down, vote it down, because the elements do not mix any more than oil and water. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LAMNECK].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. LAMNECK) there were—ayes 84, noes 126.

Mr. LAMNECK. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. LAMNECK to act as tellers.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported—ayes 95, noes 144.

So the substitute was rejected.

Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Substitute offered by Mr. BACON to the committee amendment:

"To provide for the establishment of a Federal Commission of Inquiry for study and report on the abolition of unfair labor conditions.

"Whereas sound public policy urges the humane principle that excessive and oppressive hours of labor, wages so low as to deny a decent standard of living, and the exploitation of child labor, should not be tolerated as necessary evils in our economy, and that remedies for such conditions should be sought; and

"Whereas the Black-Connery fair labor standards bill, so-called, reported from the Committee on Labor on August 6, 1937, signally fails as a legislative remedy in attaining such constructive purpose and objective, and threatens instead to aggravate unemployment, impede the Nation's economic rehabilitation, and introduce serious encroachments on constitutional government; and

"Whereas industry, agriculture, and labor, buttressed by wide pubUc sentiment, are charging that the said measure, 11 enacted into law, would impose governmental dictatorship over industry, constitute a menace to the collective bargaining rights ot labor, and add further burdens on the farmer; and

"Whereas the debate on the said bill in the Senate of the United States exposed its grave imperfections and called public attention to the lamentable lack of realistic study given the subject by the joint committee of the Congress considering the proposal, evidenced by the fact that the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives, in reporting the measure, was entirely silent on the probable application of the bill in its fundamental effects on industry, labor, and agriculture, the economic sequences and repercussions that might be expected to follow its enactment, and on matters that the Nation as a whole has a right to be informed upon, in terms:

" (a) The number of employees, employers, and industries that would be affected, their distribution, and whether engaged in direct interstate commerce or atrecting interstate commerce;

[PAGE 1679]

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

[PAGE 1680]

"(b) The effects on existing employment of subefficient workers and the inexpert young or elderly from the possible unwillingness or inability of employers to raise wages or reduce hours to the regulatory "standards";

"(c) The tendency to effect the displacement of women in gainful occupations or to force them into the minimum or lowest wage classifications;

"(d) The tendency to have present higher wages gravitate to the "standard" minimum wages, and the tendency to effect wage reductions above "standard minima" by offsetting reduction ot "substandard" hours of labor to "standard hours";

"(e) The tendency of lower-paid agricultural labor to migrate to higher wage industrial centers;

"(f) The effects on the continuance in business of small or marginal firms and industries;

"(g) The influence on agricultural producing costs in terms of farmer purchases of industrial goods subject to wage-hour regulation;

"(h) The effects on local and Federal relief programs resulting from possible swelling of rellef rolls due to discharge of subefficient workers;

"(i) The operation of the bill on the general cost of living, influencing prices, production, and employment;

"(j) The dangers to industry, agriculture, and the American workman resulting from increased competition caused by larger foreign imports produced at 'substandard' wage and hour rates;

"(k) The lack of safeguards thrown around administrative machinery against setting up political rather than economic or social wage and hour standards; and the arbitrary imposition of discr1m1natory standards and exemptions in the application of the b1ll;

"(I) The tendency toward ultimate Government price-fixing and production control;

"(m) The Federal bureaucracy necessary for administration with consequent vulnerabillty of administrators to be politically coerced and influenced;

"(n) The tendency to impede or destroy labor's collective bargaining rights and to freeze and make secondary labor's power to achieve better wage and working conditions; and

"Whereas any true and fair labor-standards proposal looking to the abolition of excessive and oppressive hours of labor, wages so low as to deny a decent standard of living, and the exploitation of child labor, should have such purposes as its sole aim and not be linked and joined to dictatorial regulation of industry and labor as embodied in the Black-Connery b111, so called, which is utterly abortive of its declaratory objectives, tyrannical in its projected application, and represents a serious encroachment on constitutional government and democratic processes; and

"Whereas it is notoriously apparent that there has been no adequate and responsible study and examination of the measures that may be available or attainable looking toward the abolition of excessive and oppressive hours of labor and wages so low as to deny a decent standard of living, without at the same time imposing on our economy and democracy the dangers and defects inherent in the so-called Black-Connery bill, and it being in the highest public interest that the potential field of State, Federal, or joint State-Federal legislative regulation of the subject be examined in all of its fundamental aspects and interrelations: Theretore be it

"Resolved, etc., That a commission to be composed of 15 members, 1 of whom shall be elected as chairman, is hereby authorized and directed to be established, and it shall be the duty of the said commission to explore and examine all the fundamental aspects and the potential field of legislative regulation or remedy that may be available or attainable looking to the objective of abolishing or ameliorating excessive and oppressive hours of labor, wages so low as to deny a decent standard of living, and the exploitation of child labor, to the end that such conditions may be removed from our economy as rapidly as possible; and the appointments to said commission shall be made as follows: Three members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House from the membership of the House of Representatives; three members shall be appointed by the Vice President from the membership of the Senate; and nine members shall be appointed by the President, representative of industry, agriculture, labor, and the general public, subject to confirmation by the Senate; and be 1t further

"Resolved, That the said commission, in submitting its findings, shall include as exhaustive report as possible on the social, economic, and legal factors involved in the problem; and in making its recommendations the commission shall in nowise be limited as to the remedies it may propose but shall be left free to declare its independent judgment.

"For the purpose of this joint resolution, the commission, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such hearings; to sit and act at such times and places; to employ such experts and assistants; to administer such oaths; and to take such testimony and to make such expenditures as it deems advisable. The expenses of the commission, which shall not exceed $100,000, are hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated."

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think this substitute iS clearly subject to the point of order as not being germane and I therefore make the point of order that it is not germane.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard upon the point of order?

Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, the substitute which I have offered has the same objective as the pending bill, and provides that sound public policy urges the human principle that excessive and oppressive hours of labor, wages so low as to deny a decent standard of living, and the exploitation of child labor, should not be tolerated as necessary evils in our economy, and that remedies for such conditions should be sought.

Yesterday the able chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR], in arguing in favor of a point of order stated:

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 amendment.

The present Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union apparently agreed with the gentleman from New York, and stated:

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 House on the state of the Union and the House are not precluded from considering another method or another means of accomplishing that purpose than the one recommended by the Senate b111 or by the House committee.

Mr. Chairman, I claim that this substitute has the same objective, but approaches the whole question in a different manner. I have nothing further to say. I rely entirely upon the Chair's decision yesterday.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. BACON. Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Of course, there is quite a lot of difference between the objective of a bill where you undertake legislation and the objective of an investigation which is preliminary to any legislation, if ever. I was talking about bills which enact legislation. The gentleman drops all legislation when he suggests an investigation, and pushes the whole thing into the future.

Mr. BACON. I suggest that some investigation ought to be made in view of the present chaotic condition of the legislation at the present moment.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. But it would be well to assume that investigation was made before this legislation was proposed.

Mr. BACON. The committee bill also calls for an investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. It is very clear to the Chair that the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. BACON] is subject to the point of order. There are various grounds upon which the Chair could sustain the paint of order, but the Chair will sustain the point of order on the ground that it is not germane to the bill under consideration.

The ruling made by the Chair yesterday was on the point of order that was before the Chair at that particular time, and was addressed to the substitute which was offered, and to which the point of order was made. The Chair has before him Cannon's Precedents, volume 8. Section 2989 states:

To a proposal to authorize certain activities, an amendment proposing to investigate the advisability of undertaking such activities is not germane.

Disregarding any other grounds upon which the proposed substitute may be held to be out of order, the Chair rules that the substitute is not germane.

The Chair sustains the point of order.

There beiilg no other substitute to be offered, the question now recurs upon the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute which I offered be read by sections.

[PAGE 1680]

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

[PAGE 1681]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey asks unanimous consent that the amendment under consideration be read by sections for amendment. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the first section of the substitute.

The Clerk read as follows:

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.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last three words.

Mr. Chairman, I notice on page 10 of the bill now under consideration, the wage and hour bill, this statement:

Whereas wages paid in interstate industries vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as low as $5 or less per week.

I took occasion to step downstairs about 10 minutes ago to ascertain what we pay to the men who serve us daily in the restaurant of the House of Representatives, beneath the dome of this Capitol. Apparently we have imported to this Nation the fair labor standards of Japan, for, to my great surprise and amazement, I was informed we were paying to those men the munificent sum of 66^2/3 cents a day, $5 per week, $20 per month.

If this House passes this bill you are saying to the American people through their Congress, "Don't you dare do as I do, but you do as I say," because under the provisions of this bill I discover that the Government of the United States, every State, and every political subdivision thereof is eliminated or excluded from the provisions of this proposed legislation.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[Applause.]

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I desire to address myself in opposition to the remarks made the day before yesterday by my distinguished friend, our colleague from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK], wherein he implied that the delegation of power—as is involved in the Norton substitute—to one administrator is, as he indicated, palpably unconstitutional.

My argument will be purely a legal one. All factions of labor are pulling in different directions. One wants a board; one does not want a board. One wants an administrator; one does not want an administrator. Frankly, we are going to be damned if we do and damned if we do not. Under such circumstances, I am going to stand by the committee. This is the usual practice in the House. It is the only practice in a legislative body composed of 435 Members. We would get nowhere unless we were willing to follow the committees. The committee is the natural authority to follow, and particularly so, when those who are to be benefited by the bill are in hopeless disaccord.

THE SET-UP OF AN ADMINISTRATOR IN THE NORTON SUBSTITUTE. IS CONSTITUTIONAL

That is a very important proposition and should be considered most carefully by every Member of the House. I have taken the trouble to examine many precedents during the last 48 hours, and I fail to find that the delegation of power to the Administrator in the instant substitute, as compared with other unwarranted delegations, is in the slightest degree unconstitutional. The delegation of rights and authority to the Administrator is sound and proper.

NO STANDARD OR PROPER GUIDE IN N. R. A.

We have the famous Schechter decision, wherein, in a word, the Court held that Congress could not delegate legislative power to the President to exercise unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable for the rehabilitation and expansion of trade and industry. I use the word "unfettered" advisedly. The delegated power can never be unlimited. It must always, to be legal, be circumscribed and delimited.

Under the N. R. A. the President was authorized to pass upon codes that were fashioned and devised by various groups in various industries, but in the act we gave the President unlimited power to do whatever he wished with these codes. He could act apropos of these codes without let or hindrance. There was no standard devised. There was no limitation. There was a wholly unlimited frontier of power. The President could act upon good grounds or "coffee grounds." There was a complete abdication by us to the President in passing on those codes.

THERE IS PROPER STANDARD IN NORTON SUBSTITUTE

Unlike N. R A., the substitute offered by the gentlelady from New Jersey contains a sufficient guide or standard of conduct for the administrator to follow. We have definite standards enunciated throughout the bill. We have definite guides. We have a definite catalog of delegated power. Nothing is left in the air. The power granted is definitely limited. There is a complete and definite standard fixed. The Administrator has the right to appoint committees of capital and labor, but in their negotiations, in their work, in their deliberations, they must come within the confines of the standard of power and limitations set in the bill; that is, in their establishment of minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards there must be considered by them these standards, namely:

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 or impeding or diminishing in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively.

These are the exact words of the bill, page 11, lines 20-24.

There are general limits and standards with reference to a substantial number of employees in any occupation. The Administrator and his committees must operate under such guide and standard. There are other specific limitations. For example, that committee has no power to go beyond a certain amount of money per hour as wages; a certain number of hours per week. The Administrator must be very careful that in that committee there is equal representation between employers and employees. Capital and labor must be equally represented. That is a definite standard under which the Administrator must operate. He is not given uplimited power as was the President with reference to code authorities. Further, in the membership of these committees, the Administrator must select members representing the public. The Administrator must also, in his appointments, give due consideration to geographic conditions obtaining in the industry.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the gentleman may be extended.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

[PAGE 1681]

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

[PAGE 1682]

Mrs. NORTON. The gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. RAMSPECK] said yesterday that my amendment delegates legislative power to committees, the members of which are not Government officials. Is it not true that those members are appointed by the Administrator, receive compensation from the Government, are required to take an oath of office, and does that not make them Government employees?

Mr. CELLER. I think the lady from New Jersey is quite right in her conclusions, but let me say further, Mr. Chairman, because of these limitations, because of this very definite standard that is set forth in the bill, there is no unwarranted nor illegal delegation of our power to the Administrator. I think, therefore, that the substitute is eminently constitutional.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The pro forma amendment was withdrawn.

PRECEDENTS—N. R. A.

The last word on the subject of unwarranted delegation of legislative power to an administrative official is, of course, the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corporation and others against the United States, reported in the October 1934 term of the United States Reports, volume 295, at page 495 and following pages. Among other things, the Court said:

• • • the President in approving a code may impose his own conditions, adding to or taking from what is proposed, as "in his discretion" he thinks necessary "to effectuate the policy" declared by the act. Of course, he has no less liberty when he prescribes a code on his own motion or on complaint, and he ia free to prescribe one if a code has not been approved.

Be it remembered, in the instant legislation before us there is no such unrestricted, sweeping delegation of power. The Administrator is not given the right to impose his own conditions. He cannot act in any way he sees fit, as could the President under the N. R. A.

The Court, in the Schechter case, furthermore, said the following:

Section 3 of the Recovery Act is without precedent. It supplies no standards for any trade, industry, or activity. It does not undertake to prescribe rules of conduct to be applied to particular states of fact determined by appropriate administrative procedure. Instead of prescribing rules of conduct, it authorizes the making of codes to prescribe them. For that legislative undertaking, section 3 sets up no standards, aside from the statement of the general aims of rehabilitation, correction, and expansion described in section 1. In view of the scope of that broad declaration and of the nature of the few restrictions that are imposed, the discretion of the President in approving or prescribing codes, and thus enacting laws for the government of trade and industry throughout the country, is virtually unfettered.

No such factors enter into the legislation before us. There is a definite standard, and there are prescribed rules of conduct which must be followed. There are not a "few restrictions," as was the case in the N. R. A., but many restrictions. A careful examination of the bill before us indicates these many restrictions.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Many attacks were leveled against the Interstate Commerce Commission on the score that Congress delegated to that Commission unwarranted powers. But Congress was careful to prescribe certain limitations of powers. Congress hewed out paths leading to direct objectives. There were limitations as to short hauls and limitations as to long hauls. There could be no changes in rates unless and until public hearings had been held. In a word, definite guides were set within which the members of the Commission were permitted to act.

Congress was solicitous in its endeavor to keep open the channels of competition. The courts repeatedly have held that this was not "a delegation to the Commission. of legislative power which Congress was incompetent to make." (See 234 U. S. 476 at 486, citing Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 (1892); Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 24 Sup. Ct. 349 (1904) ; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 367 (1907); and Manangahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177, 30 Sup. Ct. 356 (1910).)

FEDERAL RESERVE ACT

The Federal Reserve Act has repeatedly been subjected to attack on the ground of unwarranted delegation of power. The Federal Reserve Board was given authority—

To grant by special permit to national banks applying therefor • • • the right to act as trustee, executor, administrator, or registrar of stocks and bonds under such rules and regulations as the said Board may prescribe.

In First National Bank v. Fellows ex rel. Union Trust Co. (244 U. S. 416, 37 Sup. Ct. 734 0917)), the Court said (244 U.S. 416 at 427, per White, Chief Justice):

• • • We think it necessary to do no more than say that a contention • • • that the authority given by the section to the Reserve Board was void because conferring legislative power on that Board is so plainly adversely disposed of by many previous adjudications as to cause it to be necessary only to refer to them.

Citing Field v. Clark (143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 485 (1892); Buttfield v. Stranahan (192 U. S. 470, 24 Sup. Ct. 349 (1904)); United States v. Grimaud (220 U. S. 506, 31 Sup. Ct. 480 (1911)); Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States (216 U.S. 177, 30 Sup. Ct. 356 (1910)); and the Intermountain Rate Cases (234 U.S. 476, 34 Sup. Ct. 986 (1914)), Van Devanter and Day, Justices, concurring on another ground.

DRAFT BOARD

In the Selective Draft Law Cases (245 U. S. 366, 38 Sup. Ct. 159, 1918) an argument based on the administrative features of the Selective Service Act-act of May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76, c. 15) was dismissed in much the same language and on many of the same authorities (opinion by White, C. J.). This case was followed in Jones v. Perkins (245 U.S. 290, 38 Sup. Ct. 166 (1918)) ; Goldman v. United States (245 U. S. 474, 38 Sup. Ct. 166 (1918)) ; Kramer v. United States (245 U.S. 478, 38 Sup. Ct. 168 (1918)); Ruthenberg v. United States (245 U. S. 480, 38 Sup. Ct. 168 (1918)); Yanyar v. United States (246 U. S. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. 332 (1918)) ; Stephens v. United States (247 U. S. 504, 38 Sup. Ct. 579 0918)) ; Pierce v. United States (252 U. S. 239, 40 Sup. Ct. 205 (1920)); and O'Connell v. United States (253 U. S. 142, 40 Sup. ct. 444 (1920) ). The same summary manner of sustaining wartime legislation was also exemplified in McKinley v. United States (249 U. S. 397, 39 Sup. Ct. 324 0919)). The case upheld a provision of the Selective Service Act (40 Stat. 83, c. 15, sec. 13) authorizing the Secretary of War to fix a limit around military stations within which the maintenance of a bawdy house should be a Federal crime (memorandum opinion by Day, J.).

MAIUTIME AUTHORITY

The next case again involved what may be termed the "maritime authority of the Secretary of War." This authority included (by act of Sept. 19, 1890, 26 Stat. 454, c. 907, sec. 7, and act of July 13, 1892, 27 Stat. 110, c. 158, sec. 3) power to approve the construction of bridges over navigable waters. Under this power the Secretary had approved the construction of a railroad bridge across the Sacramento River in replacement of another on condition that the piles of the former bridge should be razed down to 7 feet below the lowest low-water mark. This was done, and when a dredge was injured by running on the stumps so left, the Secretary's order was pleaded in defense of a suit for damages (in Southern Pacific Co. v. Olympian Dredging Co., (260 U. S. 205, 43 Sup. Ct. 26 (1922)). In upholding this defense, the Court said (per Sutherland, J., 260 U. S. 205, at 208, 210) :

By this legislation Congress • • • committed to the Secretary of War administrative power insofar as administration was necessary • • •. In the light of this general assumption by Congress of control over the subject and of the large powers delegated to the Secretary, the condition imposed by that officer cannot be considered otherwise than as an authoritative determination of what was reasonably necessary to be done to insure free and safe navigation • • •. "Congress intended by its legislation to give the same force and effect to the decision of the Secretary of War that would have been accorded to direct action by it on the subject. It is for Congress, under the Constitution • • • to prescribe the way in which the question of obstruction shall be determined." (Quotation taken from Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States (216 U. S. 177, 30 Sup. Ct. 356 (1910).)

[PAGE 1682]

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

[PAGE 1683]

A STATE PRECEDENT

Then followed a case—Douglas v. Nobel (261 U. S. 165, 43 Sup. Ct. 303 (1923) )—involving a State statute—Washington Laws of 1893, chapter 55—establishing a dentistry examining board, and requiring all persons wishing to practice dentistry to pass an examination in order to be licensed. No further provision was made as to the examination. To a claim that this statute delegated legislative power to the examiners the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandeis, replied (261 U. S. 165 at 169-170) :

The legislature itself may make this finding of the facts of general application, and by embodying it in the statute make it law • • •. But the legislature need not make this general finding. To determine the subjects of which one must have knowlege • • • the extent of knowledge in each subject; the degree of skill requisite; and the procedure to be followed in conducting the examination; these are matters appropriately committed to an administrative board. (Citing Mutual Film Carparation v. Industrial Comm., 236 U. S. 230, 35 Sup. Ct. 387 (1915). The principal case was followed in Fife v. Louisiana State BoarcL of Medical Examiners, 274 U. S. 720, 47 Sup. Ct. 580 (1927), and in Griffin v. Powers, 275 U. S. 495, 48 Sup. Ct. 83 (1927), and in Dr. Bloom, Dentist, Inc., v. Cruise, 288 U. S. 588, 53 Supp. Ct. 320 (1933).)

TRANSPORTATION ACT

In Avent v. United States (266 U. S. 127, 45 Sup. Ct. 34 (1924), per Holmes, J.) setting up of a board was confronted by an attack on the validity of a provision of the Transportation Act of 1920 (act of Feb. 28, 1920, 41, Stat. 456, at 474, c. 91, title IV, sec. 402 (15)) empowering the Commission in emergencies to make "reasonable directions" "in the interest of the public and the commerce of the people," including directions "for preference or priority in transportation." The case involved a conviction for obtaining a shipment of coal in violation of the Commission's rules as to priority, and the Court said (266 U. S. 127, at 130-131) :

That it (Congress) can give the powers here given to the Commission • • • no longer admits of dispute. • • • The statute confines the power of the Commission to emergencies, and 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. • • • Congress may make violation of the Commission's rules a crime.

Citing Interstate Commerce Commission v. ILLinois Central R. R. (215 U. S. 452, 30 Sup. Ct. 155 (1910) ) , United States v. Grimaud (220 U. S. 506, 31 Sup. Ct. 480 (1911) ), Union Bridge Co. v. United States (204 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 367 (1907)), the Intermountain Rate Cases (234 U. S. 476, 34 Sup. Ct. 986 (1914)), and Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission (236 U. S. 247, 35 Sup. Ct. 393 (1915)).

TARIFF ACT

In Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (276 U. s. 394, 48 Sup. Ct. 348 (1928)), discussed 31 Mich. L. Rev. 786, at 795 (1933) >, an attack was made on the so-called flexible provision of the Tariff Act of 1922 (act of Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, title m, sec. 315, 42 Stat. 858, at 941). This empowered the President to increase or decrease customs duties up to 50 percent of those specified in the act upon ascertaining that the cost of production in competing countries was not equalized with such cost in the United States by the duties already imposed. In ascertaining such cost the President was to consider "insofar as he finds it practicable" produced by foreign persons or governments, and "any other advantages or disadvantages in competition." In upholding the action of the President under this power the Court said (276 U. S. 394, at 405-406, 409, per Taft, C. J.) :

The well-known maxim "Delegata postestas no potest delegari" • • • has had wider application in the construction of our Federal and State constitutions than it has in private law • • • (They) divide the governmental power into three branches • • • and the rule is that in the actual administration of the government, Congress or the legislature should exercise the legislative power • • • and in carrying out the constitutional division into three branches it is a breach of the national fundamental law if Congress gives up its legislative power and transfers it to the President. • • • This is not to say that the three branches are not coordinate parts of one government and that each in the field of its duties may not invoke the action of the two other branches insofar as the action invoked shall not be an assumption of the constitutional field of action ot another branch. 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.

The field of Congress involves all and many varieties of legislative action, and Congress has found it frequently necessary to use officers of the executive branch, within defined limits, to secure the exact effect intended by its acts of legislation, by vesting discretion 1n such officers to make public regulations interpreting a statute and directing the details of its execution, even to the extent of providing for penalizing a breach of such regulations.

Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I offered my resolution as a substitute in good faith; in fact, I introduced it on December 9. I fullY appreciate that it was probably subject to a point of order, but in view of the rather broad and startling decisions of the Chair yesterday, I felt its submission justified.

I believe that the bill in the Senate was amended some 35 times. Since the original Black-Connery bill was reported last August the Committee on Labor has made some 60 amendments. Then, at the suggestion of the Department of Labor, additional amendments were made; so the committee made some 159 amendments in all, I believe, which are now consolidated in the so-called Norton amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BACON. I yield.

Mrs. NORTON. I think the gentleman is mistaken. So far as I know, no amendments were suggested by the Department of Labor.

Mr. BACON. Then 159 amendments were made to the original bill which are now all incorporated in the Norton amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. I have not counted the amendments.

Mr. BACON. I inquired of a member of the Committee on Labor. I cite this merely to show the confusion surrounding this whole legislation. It seems to me that we are not approaching it in a judicial and careful way. Nothing can be more important to the future of this country than that we have proper legislation on wages and hours; and I am thoroughly in favor of the principle that is sought to be established. I therefore suggested a Federal commission of inquiry of 15 members to investigate this whole broad problem from a national point of view and the relations of this problem to the Federal Government.

I took my analogy from the old Monetary Commission, out of which came the Owen-Glass bill providing for the Federal Reserve Board; from the Morrow Commission, out of which came legislation on aviation and from which date our entire aviation development may be said to have started. This is just as important as any other legislation that has ever come before this Congress, and it seems to me that a national commission should have investigated this whole subject. I suggested a commission of three Members of the House, to be appointed by the Speaker; three Members of the Senate, to be appointed by the Vice President; and nine members to be appointed by the President, which are to represent industry, agriculture, labor, and the public. The resolution contemplated that final action on the Black-Connery wage and hour bill should be postponed until the proposed commission reported to the Congress at the next regular session. It was not intended to postpone this proposition indefinitely.

The resolution declares on its face that oppressive hours of labor and substandard wages and exploitation of child labor shall not be tolerated as necessary evils in our economy and that remedies for such conditions must be found. The resolution provides that the country should have full knowledge of where it is going before it gets underway. That is the only sound legislative procedure. My resolution was offered in good faith and to my way of thinking provided a sensible approach to this very important and vital question. [Applause.]

The gentlewoman from New Jersey tells me that so far as she knows no amendments were suggested by the Department of Labor. This makes the confusion even worse, because it is public knowledge that the Department of Labor

[PAGE 1683]

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

[PAGE 1684]

certainly intended to submit some. And I am wondering why the Department was not given the opportunity. It would seem that the Department concerned would be conSulted, especially after the Secretary of Labor, after a White House conference, stated she would propose changes in the administration's wage and hour bill.

The Washington Star, either in its issue of November 10 or November 11, carried the following item under an Associated Press line:

Secretary of Labor Perkins said after a White House conference today that she would propose changes in the administration's wage and hour bill when congressional committees start new hearings on the subject.

The Secretary said she had discussed the blll with President Roooevelt but preferred not to say what changes she had in mind.

She told newsmen that if congressional committees seek her views she would have some modifications to suggest in the light of studies the Labor Department has made since the bill won Senate approval last session. • • • Asked about proposals to have Congress, rather than a board, fix control of minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards, Secretary Perkins said a board would be necessary if the program was to be approached "from the point of view of flexibility."

She said if the standard were to be fixed by Congress all that would be needed would be an enforcement.

I think it is perfectly fair to rely on information of this sort, especially when the Secretary of Labor is directly quoted.

All of the Labor Committee's amendments were agreed to in closed session of the committee and public hearings denied. It seems more than strange that Secretary Perkins was not given an opportunity to advance her views on the subject, and especially so when her Department had made studies and had definite modifications to suggest.

In other words, to put it bluntly, the vital changes made by the Labor Committee were made without affording labor, industry, the public, and even the administration's own Department of Labor an opportunity to go on record.

The whole bill is permeated with confused thinking and represents a hodgepodge of compromise that satisfies no one. The resolution I submitted, I think, states the case fairly, and, I believe, also proposes the sensible approach to the problem.

Under leave to do so, I append an editorial from the Baltimore Sun, which is captioned "The Bill Nobody Knows." It is a singularly appropriate title for the measure under consideration. The editorial follows:

THE BILL NOBODY KNOWS

In the consideration of the wage and hour bill, the House and the House Labor Committee would do much better to get down to questions of fundamental policy and quit fiddling around with matters of administrative detail. Matters of administrative detail may be important, of course. It may conceivably make a good deal of difference whether the proposed bill is administered by a supposedly impartial board of five members or by a single administrator working with the advice of groups representing labor, industry, and the public. There are certain questions that ought to be weighed in this connection, and weighed thoroughly, before a final choice is made as between the two plans, if indeed either of them is accepted.

But these questions and their like are, after all, of secondary consequence in a matter o! this kind. It is far less important to know how the proposed wage and hour measure is going to be administered than to know what it will do. And nobody in either House of Congress has yet told us what 1t is going to do. The reason seems to be that nobody knows. The Senate passed this bill last spring without any clear apprehension of its consequences and the House committee has approved it without any clear apprehension as to how many industries it is going to affect or how many workers will be subject to its provisions. There seems to be no clear understanding of the possible effect the operation of wage and hour standards may have on employment as a whole or on the employment of particular groups. It may work out in such a way as to prejudice agriculture. It may prejudice the interests of the South and give other sections an advantage in the competition for the home market. Nobody knows.

And, what is worse, nobody seems to want to know. The House committee fiddles around with the question of administration and passes the buck on the matter of fundamentals. The House leaders are, according to Mr. Trussell's dispatch from Washington yesterday, out to pass the bill by the end of next week. Neither the Speaker nor the majority leader seems to have much of an impression as to what it is all about. They just want to pass a bill and leave all fundamental questions up to five men, or to one man, as the case may be. Most of those who do not take one of these allternatives will probably be for the American Federation of Labor's plan to fix a single minimum wage and a single maximum working week for the whole country and then hope for the best.

The only man who seems to have the slightest desire to find out what the bill means is Representative BACON of New York, a Republican, who has proposed in a resolution that a Federal commission be appointed to find the answers to a few of the fundamental questions to which this proposal gives rise. Mr. BACON wants to lay a factual foundation for the legislation before final action is taken. His is a counsel to which his colleagues might appropriately pay greater heed than they have been paying 1n their zeal to pass a measure the effect of which is still obscure.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include therein an editorial commenting on my resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will have to secure that permission in the House.

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at the time Henry Ford announced his $5-a-day policy some wise men of the country foretold the doom of the automotive industry. A great many in the industry also echoed their remarks and said, "It can't be done." My purpose in coming before the Committee today is to say a word about the automotive industry, to which directly this wage and hour bill does not apply.

This industry is confined in great part to my city and State, but every State in the Union supplies materials used in the manufacture of its product.

Directly and indirectly, 1 out of every 11 gainful workers receives a pay envelope, to a number in excess of 4,000,000.

For the purpose of information and instruction, I am inserting in the RECORD a chart prepared by me and based upon information supplied by the Automobile Manufacturers Association, which figures are taken from the 1930 census, setting forth employment in the industry in the individual States, not including truck drivers and raw-material suppliers, and totaling 2,007,688 persons. Moreover, the chart will show the number of automobile retail stores in each State as well as the number of automobile factories and gasoline refineries. The chart further sets forth the materials purchased from each State, and it ranks the States numerically in the order of such employment. A study of the chart and the return purchases by the industry from your State will prove most interesting.

[NOTE: Insert "Chart No. 1"]

[PAGE 1684]

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

[PAGE 1685]

[NOTE: Insert "Chart No. 1"]

[NOTE: Insert "Chart No. 2"]

Why do I set forth these charts? Because, by comparison, the industry, almost from its inception, astounded the country by its pay rate, and accordingly it attracted from the South, the West, and the East those peculiarly fitted geniuses and others who have found a fitting place for the outlet of their skill and to themselves proper remuneration.

The industry enjoys first place in the business of the Nation. It pays an annual tax of one and a half billion dollars. It paid the railroads in 1936, $450,732,000. Fifty-four percent of the families in the United States own its product. And with it all the industry has not received the treatment it should rightfully enjoy because of the indirect discrimination against its product in certain industries and sections of our country due to the payment of misery-creating wages.

The industry ranks as the first consumer of steel strips, bars, sheets, malleable iron, alloy steel, and steel of all forms. Also it is the first consumer of gasoline, lubricating oil, rubber, plate glass, nickel, lead, and mohair. And in this connection let it be remembered that the industry last year made in excess of 4,000,000 automobiles.

The following figures are applicable to field and farm materials necessary in the construction of 1,000,000 Ford cars:

Cotton: 69,000,000 pounds—the yield of 431,250 acres.

Wool: 3,200,000 pounds—the product of 800,000 sheep.

Lumber: 112,000 feet—the product of 20,500 acres.

Cattle: Leather from 30,000 head.

Soybeans: 1,800,000 pounds—the yield of 30,000 acres.

Flax: 2,400,000 pounds, the equivalent to 118,000 bushels—the product of 17,500 acres.

Tung oil: 728,000 gallons—the product of 16,000 acres.

Corn: 500,000 bushels—the yield of 12,500 acres.

Goats' hair: 350,000 pounds—the product of 87,500 goats.

Turpentine: 2,000,000 pounds—manufactured from pine pitch.

Sugarcane: 2,300,000 gallons of molasses—produced from 12,500 acres of sugarcane.

It is a humming industry, friends, and even the honey bee serves us to the number of 93,000,000 to supply 6,000 pounds of beeswax.

And finally last, but necessary, castor oil—341,000 pounds used for lacquers and artificial leather for rumble seats.

These items of farm production have been mentioned to impress the Committee of the glorious part the automotive industry plays in every State of the Union.

[PAGE 1685]

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

[PAGE 1686]

Increase the buying power where it is inadequate today and extend it to those who have it not and thereby assist both industry and agriculture.

Those are the business facts and the hope of the wage and hour bill.

But through the maze of figures, through the technicalities of parliamentary procedure, through the noise and heat of debate comes the cry of the weak, in supplication to the strong, "How strong are you?" Oh, I have heard here today, "This is not the time to pass this legislation"; but I say to you, "Procrastination, thou art the thief of time." "How strong are you" when property rights conflict with human rights? When remembering the phrase, "I am my brother's keeper", how strong are you? [Applause.]

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last three words.

Mr. Chairman, it has been singularly significant that those who oppose this bill have been allied, in numerous instances, with those who have proposed certain substitutes: The substitute which we just voted down, proposed by Mr. LAMNECK, of Ohio, I think could have been characterized as the chamber of commerce bill. They act upon the theory that if they must take a bill they would take the one that would be the least effective. I have heard no discussion on this floor that would lead me to believe that those who oppose this bill are willing to advocate the continuance of the low-wage scales in this country. Instead, we have heard an academic discussion that it would disrupt industry, that it would disturb the industrial equilibrium throughout the Nation. No one has dared to take this floor, and I would like to see a single Member take it and try to defend the justice of $7 and $8 a week as an American standard of wage. You have not heard one opponent of this bill attempt to justify such a low wage scale.

Mr. Chairman, we have been subjected to a barrage of propaganda from the opponents of this measure who seek to instill fear, who seek to intimidate Members of Congress by saying that if this bill passes it will disrupt industry and will create further unemployment throughout the country. I do not think we have any need to worry about disturbing industry or about increasing unemployment. The only disturbance that will be caused by a bill which seeks to correct intolerable conditions, will be a disturbance of the nefarious practices some people seek to perpetuate through low wage scales and substandard wages throughout the United States. I do not think anyone is justified in saying that certain sections of the country would be subjected to unfair competition. I recall that a couple of years ago an analysis was made of one of the leading textile corporations in the southern part of the United States, the Bibbs Manufacturing Co. This analysis showed that on an original investment of $25,000 of preferred stock they had paid approximately $1,000,000 of dividends. That was the Bibbs Manufacturing Corporation, one of the greatest textile concerns in the southern part of the United States. For anyone to maintain that they cannot pay the same wage as prevails in other sections of the country is to follow an erroneous assumption.

They cannot pay it if they seek to declare a million-dollar dividend on an investment of $25,000, but if they are content with a normal profit they can pay a wage equal to the standard provided by this bill. I think myself there has been a sit-down strike of industry in this country in an attempt to influence Congress.

I have a communication, and I think perhaps every Member of the House has received it. This concern admits that in order to influence Congress to defeat this legislation it has deliberately refrained from purchasing goods and has ceased its operations. Here is what it says:

About 7 or 8 months ago, when this bill was first discussed and advocated, we, together with hundreds of others, immediately discontinued our expansion and our purchases.

Mr. KELLER. Who is it from?

Mr. BRADLEY. This is from the Grogan Manufacturing Co., of Bivins, Tex., a lumber concern.

They continue further and intimate if this wage and hour bill is killed and uther progressive legislative measures repealed we can have prosperity back again.

I appeal to Congress not to be influenced by the threats of manufacturers' organizations and Liberty League affiliates, and to refuse to place its stamp of approval on these intolerable conditions, but by its passage of this bill to write into the law the principle that the American worker is entitled to protection by the Federal Government against exploitation. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. IZAC. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I notice this morning a great many Members are wondering just who is for the pending bill. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MICHENER] seemed to think it was only a section of the American Federation of Labor or the C. I. O. that was interested. In California we have a $16-minimum wage for women and I want to assure you when that law went into effect we saw the wages of women in industry raised from $5 and $6 a week to at least $16 a week. It does not result in a ceiling. We still have our stenographers and others getting $125 a month. Let us not worry about that.

I do not care what the American Federation of Labor or the C. I. O. or anybody else thinks about my vote on this question. I have received from some units of organized labor a plea that I vote for this bill. Yesterday morning, however, I received a telegram from the American Federation of Labor of my State to this effect:

Either support the Dockweiler amendment or kill the bill.

I want to read what I said in reply:

In justice to labor, both organized and unorganized, in recognition of the need of increasing the purchasing power of the low-income group of America, and in loyalty to the man best fitted to know the needs of the Nation, our President, I shall support the best hour and wage bill that we are able to pass now. Even if we can make only the first step, I believe it imperative to take that step now.

[Applause.]

Mr. RANDOLPH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. IZAC. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Will the gentleman also include the wire he received?

Mr. IZAC. I will be glad to read it. This is from Edward D. Vandeleur, secretary of the California State Federation of Labor. I understand similar telegrams were received by Members, from not only the American Federation of Labor of my State but of other States.

Strongly request you support American Federation of Labor wage and hour bill introduced by Congressman DOCKWEILER. If Federation bill not substituted, urge you vote recommittal.

There is just one danger, as I see it, in the conduct of the Members on the floor today and that is, we may be so anxious to give everybody a chance to get his amendment accepted that we will not only emasculate the bill but render it so bad that no one will want to support it. We see the social-security legislation with so many exemptions that it applies to perhaps only one-third of our people. Last week we passed a farm bill and we exempted from its provisions, at least from its benefits as I see it, practically all of the people of my State because we do not raise any one of the five major crops. I do not believe we should pass that kind of wage and hour legislation.

I am happy to be able to stand here and say it is this committee of the House of Representatives and not the American Federation of Labor, the Chamber of Commerce, or anyone else that is giving me a chance to vote on this bill. It is the best thought of the membership of the Labor Committee, who represent us, that is giving us the pending bill today. I for one am going to go down the line for it and I firmly believe we must accept this bill, even though some may think it inadequate, or else we are not going to have any bill at all. It has been an inspiration to me the

[PAGE 1686]

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

[PAGE 1687]

way many groups of organized labor, disregarding the fact that this bill does not directly aid them, have come to the rescue of those of their comrades less fortunate than themselves.

This bill, to my mind, will be the charter of the unorganized workers of America. By it I hope to see the underprivileged groups of our population become articulate and gain for themselves rights heretofore denied them under our economic system. It has likewise been of material encouragement to me that many employers have also assured me of their belief in the merits of this bill. The president of the largest industry in my district assured me personally that he was in favor of good hours and wages legislation. And I believe we will be keeping faith with those in every walk of life if we will make it possible to raise the standard of that one-third of our Nation whose purchasing power at the present time is barely sufficient to sustain life.

My colleagues, how can you or how can we in California, however enlightened our policy of employment may behow can we expect to sell the fruits of our soil and the products of our factories unless we make it possible to increase the purchasing power of the people in all sections of the country whereby they may share with us the good things we produce?

Because I believe that this bill will directly aid many millions of people and indirectly better the economic conditions of all the people of the United States, I am resolved to support the bill and appeal to you to do likewise. [Applause.]

Mr. FLANNERY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard much debate pro and con on the merits and demerits of the pending legislation. We must, as men of honor, accept the integrity and good faith of the opponents and proponents of the various proposals that have been offered. In doing this it is well to survey generally the field as it is at the present time. There are those who are honestly opposed to wage and hour legislation, those who are opposed to this specific bill, and those who are in favor of this bill or in favor of it as amended.

I would like to revert very briefly to some of the remarks that were made this morning on the floor of the House. Our distinguished friend and colleague from Texas [Mr. DIES] in his opening remarks pointed out in stentorian tones that industry must collapse if this bill is passed, that cobwebs would gather on the wheels of industry, and that business would be prostrated, a very convincing and very persuasive argument, except for the fact, as Mr. DIES went on to say:

Mr. Chairman, if you propose to assist wages and hours, do not do it by this legislation; because it affects only 2 percent of the employees.

I respectfully submit to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES], if this affects only 2 percent—and as I recall it, that was his figure—of the employees in industry to be affected, how can it have this terrifically devastating effect on our national economy? Frankly, I do not believe that makes sense.

Let us go further. We are told, "If you do this you will wreck industry." My family traditions go back into the hard coal fields, when my grandfather worked in the mines and got 70 cents a day. He did not see daylight from one end of the week to the other. There they went down into the bowels of the earth before dawn and they came up after dark. When they struck and asked for a living wage they were told, "Oh, the industry cannot survive." But the industry has survived and they have received a living wage, and the industry went on to prosper.

When the men who worked in the steel mills in 12-hour shifts, 12 hours on and 12 hours off, asked for better working conditions they were told, "The industry cannot survive. If you do this you will place such a burden upon us we cannot carry on." But the steel industry, hearty industry that it was, kind of pulled through.

We have heard this argument pro and con whenever labor has asked for an opportunity to live and breathe. Let us think back to the days of the company store, when you were born in a company house, probably brought into the world with the assistance of neighbors and friends, played in the company street, traded at the company store, called in the company doctor, worked all your life for the company, were owned body and soul by the company, and when you died were buried by the company undertaker, and you still owed the company money. Those, or similar conditions, are the conditions which still prevail in some sections today.

Business says, "Oh, we cannot stand reasonable regulation of wages up to $16 a week." If business does not have some such legislation as we have before us today, then legitimate business, honest business, fair, decent, and reasonable business will be put out of business by chiselers and frauds. Business needs this legislation to protect itself. I know of the lofts of the piece-work and the pants factories where the widows and orphans slave all day and take their material home to work on it all night. When they get back and submit it for a pittance they are frequently told by the superintendent, "We are sorry, that particular garment must be rejected and you cannot be paid for it." I am not talking about any section, and I am not talking about any locality, I am talking about the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the undernourished people of this Nation, whether they be in the North, the South, the East, or the West. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section close in 10 minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe this so-called wage and hour bill is the most dangerous piece of legislation I have ever seen come to the floor of the House. It would wipe out the Bill of Rights and destroy those great constitutional guaranties of human liberty for which our forefathers fought and bled.

The Bill of Rights, the most sacred provision of the Constitution, was placed there at the request of Thomas Jefferson and is embodied in the first 10 amendments. That was probably Jefferson's greatest contribution to mankind.

The fifth amendment provides that no one shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," which means without legal proceedings in a legally constituted court of law.

The most powerful address ever delivered by a human being on this earth, outside of Holy Writ, was that delivered by Patrick Henry before the Virginia Convention at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. It excels Demosthenes' Oration on the Crown. It far surpasses Cicero's reply to Catiline. It aroused the American people to a consciousness of their rights, a realization of their responsibilities to themselves and to their posterity. It shook the thrones of Europe, and stirred the nations of mankind to a new resistance to tyranny and a new determination to enjoy that freedom, that liberty, which the "God of the Nations" intended for them to enjoy.

His subject was human liberty-—he liberty for which the Revolutionary War was fought, the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and specifically by the Bill of Rights to which I have just referred.

This measure, if enacted into law, and upheld by the courts, would sound the death knell of that liberty. Men who do not seem to understand, or appreciate, the far-reaching and dangerous effects of legislation of this kind appear, or pretend, to think that they are voting to raise wages and put people to work.

As a matter of fact it will not put people to work, but will throw thousands of people out of work and deprive them of the only means they have of earning a livelihood. By the passage of this law, you would deny to the very people you are talking about—the underprivileged—the right to work at all. If they could not get the minimum wage provided

[PAGE 1687]

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

[PAGE 1688]

for in this bill, or set by the board, or the Department of Labor, they could not work at all. That happened in the District of Columbia when the minimum-wage law for women was in effect here 15 years ago. Women who could not get the minimum wage were forced to beg or starve. It was at their instance that the measure was taken to the Supreme Court at that time.

Shakespeare said, "You take my life when you do take the means whereby I live." What greater liberty could a man or a woman have than the liberty to work for their daily bread, or for bread for their children? This bill would wipe out that liberty and strike that part of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution of the United States. It would then be but a short step to wipe out the rest of those sacred rights which guarantee religious and personal liberty of all kinds.

Then we would be swept into either communism or fascism. They are both symptoms of the same disease; one of them 1s the fever and the other the chill of a dying democracy, the dying liberties of mankind.

If this measure passes, and becomes law, in its present form, the men who vote for it will live to hear themselves cursed by the laboring people of America as the worst enemies the laboring man ever had in public omce.

I have devoted my time since I have been in Congress to the cause of the laboring man, whether in the factory or on the farm. I know that, taken as a whole, this measure would be disastrous to them. You men from the Northeastern States do not hesitate to say that what you are trying to do is to stop the growth of industry in the South. You want to close our factories and throw our laborers out upon the street without employment.

How do you expect them to live? Shall they go back to the farm, which is already crowded? Shall they go on relief, and live at Government expense? If so, who is going to pay that expense? Where are we going to get the money to maintain the enormous relief rolls this bill would create? You are not fooling anybody in the South by your prating about raising wages. What you want is to keep the workmen in the South from getting any wages at all. You want to force all the factories in the South and West back into the cities of the East; such as Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

You say you already pay your laborers in Boston, Pittsburgh, New York, and Baltimore 40 cents an hour. But you fail to tell the public that you turn right around and take it away from them in overcharges for house rents and exorbitant prices for food, clothing, fuel, electricity, and other necessities of life. You do not seem to be interested in the people getting the truth about those things, but only in destroying southern industries and bringing them back to your localities, concentrating them in the great cities of the East and preventing the people in the South and West from engaging in any industrial activities at all.

The real friends of labor do not want this bill. The American Federation of Labor is asking that it be recommitted to the committee. They know that it would not only throw thousands of people out of work who are now drawing less than 40 cents an hour, but that it would create a virtual dictatorship over all industrial labor and ultimately result in reducing the wages of the ones who are now well paid and well satisfied.

When you attempt to compare the wages paid in the South with the wages paid in the great cities of the North, you fail to give credit for the difference in living expenses. I should like to see the wages of people in all southern industries raised, but you would not; you want to see their plants closed and their people thrown out of work, to keep them from competing with the people you represent.

Some of you have recently admitted on this floor that house rents in Boston and New York cost the laboring man about $6 a room per month, or from 3 to 10 times what it costs industrial workers in the Southern States. In the South large numbers of these workers live out on the farm where they not only have cheap house rent, or live with members of their own families, but they have their own gardens, corn patches, cows, their own milk and butter, their own chickens and eggs, their own potatoes and beans, which the man in the northern city would have to buy in a tin can or a paper sack, and pay from three to five times what it would cost the man on a southern farm—to say nothing of the heavier clothing and the extra money you must spend in your northem climates for heat and electric energy.

We are decentralizing our industries in the South and bringing them as close as possible to the man who tills the soil, in order that the people in those areas may live at home and enjoy the benefits of industrial employment.

In addition to the evil consequences of this measure from a standpoint of human rights and from a standpoint of the penalties it would impose upon industrial workers, it would be the greatest blow to the farmers of the Nation that could be delivered at this time. It would raise the prices of everything he has to buy, without in any way increasing the prices of the things he has to sell. He is already burdened to death. When he buys back the products of his own farm, after they have gone through a manufacturing establishment he pays such exorbitant prices that he is barely able to live. This bill would increase that spread and intensify the farmer's burden. If the farmers of America got a real parity price for farm commodities today, cotton would sell for not less than 20 cents, and wheat at not less than $2 a bushel, and corn and other products of the farm in proportion.

But, as I said, you propose to increase this spread and pile these burdens higher upon the backs of the tolling farmers of America by increasing the cost of production of industrial commodities, outlawing industry in agricultural States, and raising the prices of the things the farmer has to buy.

If you are in earnest about wanting to help the poorly paid laborers, why not include the farmers in your scheme? Why not make it possible for them to earn 40 cents an hour? They work equally as hard and invariably much harder than do workers in industry. The cotton farmer only receives 1 cent an hour for his work for each cent a pound he gets for his cotton. Today, when cotton is 8 cents a pound, the farmer is only getting 8 cents an hour for his work. Instead of piling additional burdens on his back, why not raise his income to 40 cents an hour by fixing the price of cotton at 40 cents 81 pound?

If you will do that, we Members from the South could afford to vote with you. Forty-cent cotton means $4 wheat and $3 corn. If you are going to fix industrial labor's wages at a minimum of 40 cents an hour, why not be honest with the farmers and fix the prices of their commodities in proportion? That would guarantee the farmer 40 cents a pound for his cotton, the wheat grower $4 a bushel for his wheat, and the corn grower $3 a bushel for his corn, and other agricultural commodities in proportion.

But that is not what you are after. You are not interested in the farmers' welfare, nor in the welfare of the people in the agricultural States.

Besides, you cannot affect the price of labor in foreign countries; therefore you would have to increase the tariff to keep foreign manufacturers from underselling you. The farmer would get no benefit from that tar11f but would reap its burdens, which would further grind him down into the economic dust and impoverish him and his family.

No wonder the farmers of the Nation are against this legislation; no wonder the American Federation of Labor is against it; no wonder the people of the South are against it; no wonder the people of the North and West are pouring in their protests against it. They realize its far-reaching and dangerous effects.

Let us recommit this measure to the committee and turn our attention to other matters that will help to promote the peace, prosperity, and happiness of the American people as a whole. [Applause.]

Mr. MITCHELL of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, the wage and hour bill proposed here today will not be helpful to either labor or industry in the South. There is no demand for the passage of the bill at this time. It will work more harm than good. A great depression and slowing up in business is on and has been for weeks. No one can deny this fact.

[PAGE 1688]

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

[PAGE 1689]

Then why pass another Federal regulatory measure? Why not give business and industry a breathing spell? The patient needs time for recovery and not additional regulation. No man in the House is more anxious to help the workingman than am I. I have every desire and reason to aid him. He is entitled to this at my hands. I believe in the dignity of honest toil. I believe sincerely in the precepts of the Bible that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." I want to help the cause of the workingman in every possible and legal way, for I know from experience the hardships he has to undergo. I have shared them all. I have worked in mills and mines, and know from actual experience the need for every favorable consideration being extended to him. I am always ready and anxious to support legislation that I think will be helpful to the great mass of our working people. My record on this question speaks for itself. Since I have been a Member of the House I have had the endorsement and support of labor and the labor organizations. I appreciate the support of the American Federation of Labor and note that they do not endorse the bill we are now considering.

I do not believe that the Federal Government should further extend its power into the individual States. We have done enough of this already. To do so is contrary to the Constitution. It violates every principle of the sovereignty of States' rights. No Member of this body favors child labor or would endorse sweatshop conditions in any mill or factory. Certainly I do not. These practices, if they exist, can be corrected, as they should be, in the respective States.

To pass this bill will be injurious to our farmers. It will add to the cost of all he buys. It will increase the expense of his farming operations. While under the provisions of the bill he is exempt in its wording, nevertheless he will not be exempt from its effects when it goes into operation. An administrator is provided for, to be appointed by the President, to administer this bill if it is passed. He will be empowered to regulate all industry and labor.

This is too much power to delegate to any man or to any set of men, or to any board or bureau. It is un-American. It is dictatorship. The highly industrialized sections would profit from the passage of this law at the expense of other sections, and, especially the South and my own State of Tennessee. Industrialized centers and sections would naturally dominate the action of the Administrator and have a very great advantage over other sections of our country, now struggling to promote new business in industry. No man can predict how much the enforcement of a bill of this kind would cost the taxpayers in administrative expense. No one dare predict how many Government employees will be named to enforce its provisions. No estimate has been forthcoming as to any of these questions. Practically unlimited authority is vested in the Administrator, who is empowered to preside over the destiny of both business and labor in America. The small manufacturer and mill operators, who are now at work, employing many men, would be put out of business by regulation and price fixing from Washington. Big business, only, could assert itself and come here to Washington and demand its rights and secure favors, while the small operator in my State and district is struggling to meet his pay rolls, would not be able to do this. Why put him out of business and force those now at work out of employment to favor capital and big business? Why deny the small operator the right to live and pursue his business? Why also penalize the consumers with higher prices? All manufactured articles will advance in price as a result of this bill. Shoes, clothing, building material canned fruits, meats, ·and vegetables will increase in price. Purchasing power will be reduced, rather than increased in my judgment. All creameries, cheese factories, cotton gins, canning plants, rayon mills, hosiery mills, stave mills, heading mills, shirt factories, pencil factories, overall factories, and sawmills throughout the country would have the price of wages fixed and the hours of employment, by the administrator under this act. It will result in closing many small factories and driving many from their places of labor. Where they are now satisfied with working conditions and the pay they are receiving, and they will be forced out of employment during the winter months. Surely this should not be done. It simply means more will have to go on the relief rolls and more distress and unemployment will exist in our country.

In addition, the farmer will be required to pay increased cost for labor. He will be forced to compete with the prices paid by industry. This will mean lower production for him in the future. The added cost of the canners, the creameries, and the mills will be passed back to the farmer producer and it will be reflected in reduced prices that he will receive for his farm products.

I confidently believe labor will be better off to make its own contracts as to hours and wages and to bargain collectively, as they now have the right to do, rather than to be further regimented by passing this bill. Why create more Government investigators to embarrass, harass, and annoy both labor and industry throughout the country. If labor cannot earn what is set out in the bill, if minimum wages are enforced, then they will be forced to work at whatever job and wage they can obtain in business to which the law does not apply or be forced to make independent contracts with the employer.

This measure is largely another N. R. A. It is a dangerous experiment and un-Democratic in principle. It will affect the prosperity of the whole Nation. It will affect the destiny of millions of wage earners. It will affect the future welfare of all business in America. The economic conditions and widespread unemployment now existing do not justify this. It cannot benefit either labor or industry but will result in confusion, unrest, and further depression in business. It will result in taking millions of jobs out of the salaried class and put the worker on a production basis or piece work, and largely destroy individual enterprise. Either this will be the result of an attempt to legislate better salaries and shorter working hours or we will shortly find that goods of foreign manufacture have entered our ports and will dominate the domestic markets. For we know that we can have no control over labor or working conditions in other countries.

I cannot lend my support to setting up new Federal bureaus and additional Government agents to further harass and annoy my people. I cannot support this bill. I do not want to further restrict labor's right to freedom of action, nor do I want to further restrict legitimate business in my section. I think every individual should have the right to work and the opportunity to earn an honest living and an honest wage. I believe in good wages and all that business can legitimately bear to bring this about, but in our efforts to help labor we should not destroy the business interests of the country which make possible its employment. I believe in the Democratic principles of government and in the mandates of our Constitution. I do not want to rob youth of its opportunity nor old age of its security.

Labor and business should be at peace, for neither can survive without the other. They have kindred interests and should have mutual interests. I sincerely believe that the interest of each can be best served by refraining from the passage of this bill and affording to labor and industry a much-needed rest from regulation out of Washington. Fewer poards and bureaus, with a reduction in the expense of government and a reduction in taxes, will reach the end so much desired. These fundamental principles should have our attention, rather than to further regulate and intimidate labor and industry with a horde of Government agents working out of Washington who are not familiar with local conditions in different sections of our common country and who would be more interested in drawing their salary than helping the workingman or his employer.

Thomas Jefferson, who was the greatest political philosopher this Nation ever had, once said.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

This was true when he said it over a hundred years ago and is equally true today. [Applause.]

[PAGE 1689]

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

[PAGE 1690]

The Clerk read as follows:

DEFINITIONS

SEc. 2. (a) As used in this act, unless the context otherw1se 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, admin1strative, 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 provislons 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 Admin1strator 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 issued and held pursuant to the regulation of the Chief of the Children's Bureau certifying that such person is above the oppressive chlld-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 wlll 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 standards" 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 sections 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, m1ll, 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 thls act shall apply to workers without regard to sex.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I offer the folloWing amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 4, line 19, strike out all of lines 19 and 20 to and including the comma after the word "amended" in line 21.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I ask the attention of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER]. I intend to withdraw the amendment I have just offered, but I ask his attention because he was the author of the amendment in the committee. On page 4, beginning in line 19, we find the language:

And further includes the definition contained in subdivision (g) of section 15 of the Agricultural Marketing Act approved June 15, 1929.

This, it will be recalled, did not appear in the original Senate bill, and was placed in this, I think, upon the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin. The Agricultural Marketing Act of June 15, 1929 (46 Stat., pt. 2, p. 11), does not contain any paragraph (g). and never did contain any paragraph (g). That act designated paragraphs only as far as para· graph (f). Thereafter, in 1931, under a separate act, which was an act to amend an act entitled "An act defining butter"—

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

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes.

Mr. CULKIN. Does not the gentleman think that would be corrected by striking out paragraph (g) and making it apply simply to section 15, which, as I understand, it defines cooperative marketing?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I am not endeavoring to tell the gentleman how it should be amended. I am. telling the gentleman that as it now reads it cites one to nothing.

Mr. CULKIN. May I suggest that the gentleman offer an amendment striking out paragraph (g) and letting section 15 be descriptive?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I am not interested in it. I am calling the attention of those gentlemen who are interested in it to the fact that so far as this reads now they have cited something that does not exist in the statutes or anywhere else,

[PAGE 1690

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

[PAGE 1691]

and that no court could possibly know from this citation to what they refer.

Mrs. NORTON. I think the gentleman should make the correction that it is not a committee amendment, but that it was in the original Senate bill.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The gentlewoman from New Jersey informs me that this is not a committee amendment, that it was in the Senate bill.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I did not offer that amendment in the committee.

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

Mr. GRISVIOLD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be withdrawn.

There was no objection.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment by Mr. ScHNEIDER of Wisconsin: Page 6, line 4, after the word "employment", insert "of the age of 14 but".

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, most of the discussion of this bill has been upon the matter of hours and wages, notwithstanding the fact that a very important part of the bill deals with child labor. That has been given very little consideration. I have offered this amendment to set a bottom to the age prescribed in the bill under which child labor cannot be employed, and that would be 14 years in other than manufacturing and mining. Employment between 14 and 16 years would be permissible at the discretion of the Chief of the Children's Bureau, in case such a permit to a child would not be used in manufacturing and mining nor interfere with its schooling nor with its welfare. Children between 16 and 18 years of age may not be employed in any hazardous employment. The amendment as it would read in the bill, perfecting that part of the bill, would provide that the Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order, that the employment of children of the age of 14 but under the age of 16 except in mining and manufacturing 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. I have another amendment pending that will strike out the words "and occupation" and substitute "occupations other than manufacturing and mining." Children between 14 and 16 would not be permitted employment in mining and manufacturing.

This bill applies only to products moving in interstate commerce. There is not much employment for children between 14 and 16 years of age. outside of mining and manufacturing, in interstate commerce, so there would be few who would be employed between the ages of 14 and 16. Further, there need be no fear with reference to abuses of the discretionary power by the Chief of the Children's Bureau. The bill, with reference to child-labor administrative machinery, provides that there shall be cooperation between the Federal Children's Bureau and the respective States, all of which now have some form of child-labor regulation, and there are State officials who administer those child-labor laws. The bill directs that there shall be cooperation with them. The bill provides for establishing administrative machinery a good deal the same as is provided in practically all of the States, at least all of the progressive States that have child-labor legislation that is effective, and it provides for work certificates that children shall have before they can be employed.

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

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the committee accepts this amendment. It merely limits the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Children's Bureau to children of 14 or over. Not to do this would certainly mean a great deal of confusion of jurisdiction, as nearly all States have laws governing the employment of children under 14 years of age.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the committee is inclined to accept this amendment.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Perhaps some of you ladies and gentlemen think I am just a little prevalent on the floor on this bill; but if you do, I want to say in extenuation that the duty devolves on me to present the Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment, which I am glad to do, and I have been conducting a little one-man insurrection against the House Labor Committee child-labor provisions of the bill, trying to tell you what is the matter with it. I have explained my objections twice to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that a member of the committee comes in now at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute, under the 5-minute rule, with a bunch of amendments, the effect of which you cannot possibly understand in the limited time, on a bill which has been in the Committee on Labor since last summer, and which from time to time they have been amending until some House mathematician has calculated there are 159 amendments in the bill. But none of those amendments, until this amendment by Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin, touched the child-labor committee amendment. That was presumed to be the one perfect thing in the bill, that, like Minerva, sprang full-orbed from the brow of Jove. It was perfect. It could not be touched. Now, at the last moment, a bunch of amendments are brought into it. It reminds me of an old engineer named Steve Weir that I used to fire for on the Dodge division of the Santa Fe. We had an old rattletrap that we had to nurse over the division, and when we finally got her back to the roundhouse, Old Steve went in to put his work-repair report on the book, and he put on a report that came very near costing him his job. He simply wrote on the book, "Engine No. 562. Jack up whistle and bell and run new engine under them." [Laughter.]

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the only way they can repair this alleged child-labor bill is to jack up the title to it and run a new bill under it.

I said in my analysis of this House provision in general debate, and I said yesterday, that it is the most unconstitutional delegation of power to a bureau chief ever attempted by legislation, perhaps with the exception of the first "hot oil" bill. The first "hot oil" bill undertook to delegate power to the President to define and put into effect prohibitions against interstate commerce in oil, and it was unanimously held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.

I want the members of the Committee on Labor who said they could convince this House of the merits of this legislation to take this floor and read the definition of "oppressive child labor," and if it does not convince the Members of this House that it is a mere gesture, that there is no law in it, that it hands over to a bureau chief the law as well as the children, I will get up in the presence of this House and I will eat that page and swallow it. [Laughter.]

That does not rest on my word alone, Mr. Chairman. It rests also on the word of the Chief of the Children's Bureau, who, when asked by the chairman of the Senate Interstate Ccmmerce Committee whether Congress could undertake to delegate such powers as were contained in a provision of that sort, said that she did not think such delegations of power ought to be made and constitutional questions raised. Now, you are going to vote on perfecting amendments to the thing and you cannot know in a few minutes what they mean. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the pending amendment.

The child-labor provisions of the bill we have before us constitute one of the best child-labor laws that has ever been brought before the Congress ot the United States. The

[PAGE 1691

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

[PAGE 1692]

amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER] simply does this: It answers all possible objections which have just been made by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN], because it provides that the Chief of the Children's Bureau shall not have the power to issue special certificates to any children less than 14 years of age, if employed in interstate commerce. Neither shall that official be able to issue certificates for manufacturing and mining employment. It is simply a perfecting amendment to make more clear and plain the intent and purpose of this legislation as drawn and introduced by the committee.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield?

Mr. VOORHIS. In just a moment I will. If this amendment is not adopted, it is true that the Chief of the Children's Bureau might be subjected to great pressure from certain groups in order to issue special certificates. Under the present administration of that Bureau, I have no fear whatsoever that that pressure would be effective. In the future, however, it might be. Therefore, I believe it is wise to adopt this amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

But, above all things, I believe it is wise for us to stick to this legislation as it has been drawn by the committee. This is merely a perfecting amendment and seems to be worthy of suppnrt by all means.

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

Mr. VOORHIS. I yield.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. As I understand this amendment, and as the gentleman has just stated, this amendment would not permit the Children's Bureau to issue a certificate for the employment of any child under the age of 14 years in any circumstances. Is that correct?

Mr. VOORHIS. This applies only to children employed in interstate commerce.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. All right; the sending of reels of motion-picture film for the entertainment of people through exhibition of the pictures in movie theaters has been construed to be interstate commerce. How in the world are you going to employ Freddie Bartholomew or any other minor in the light of such an amendment, notwithstanding the fact that our State protects them and forbids that they be contracted with except under supervision of the court? Should we not think of this phase of the question?

Mr. VOORHIS. The gentleman knows perfectly well what I did yesterday afternoon in the amendment I myself introduced to the Griswold substitute, wherein theatrical work was still left in its present situation and special certificates could still be issued for such work. But I feel that it is more important that we protect the millions of children in this country who might be employed in interstate commerce at very low wages. I am supporting this amendment because it meets the main issue squarely. I hope the theatrical problem can be cared for in another amendment.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I am not alone in this position.

Mr. SIROVICH. If the gentleman from California will yield, if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is not adopted, then we shall have exceptions under which a million boys and girls under 16 will still work in the mills, the mines, the looms, and the factories producing goods that enter interstate commerce and taking the positions of men entitled to them.

Mr. VOORHIS. And undercutting the wage scale of their fathers who ought to have their places.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VOORHIS. I yield.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Is it not true that there are tens of thousands of children who would like to work just the same as the children employed in the motion-picture industry? If we start to make exceptions for the motion-picture industry we shall have all that pressure placed upon the Children's Bureau in behalf of the tens of thousands of other children who probably are in greater need of employment for many reasons than the children employed in the motion-picture industry.

Mr. VOORHIS. I think the gentleman is absolutely right, and he is to be commended for the big thing he is doing in such a fine, clean way.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VOORIDS. I yield.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I understand that this amendment would be a very definite and real protection for children under 14 who might otherwise be allowed to work without this provision in the bill.

Mr. VOORHIS. That is right. This bill is the best piece of legislation that Congress can pass. We should make it a matter of law that children under 14 cannot work in interstate commerce occupations instead of leaving it to the Children's Bureau.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment.

Mr. Chairman, like the other Members, I do not wish to see child labor continued as we generally understand it. I am just as strong in my opposition to child labor as any Member, but there must be exceptions to the rule. The arts, the sciences, the theater represent such exceptions. The businesses that I represent in my district produce moving pictures. As I understand, the courts have through various cases established precedents holding the motion-picture business to be interstate commerce. The transportation of motion-picture film in interstate commerce is just as much interstate commerce as the transportation of any other packages.

Under this amendment clearly it would not be possible to employ children under 14, because the Children's Bureau is forbidden to issue a certificate to any person under that age. This clearly means that it is forbidden to issue a certificate to the industry in my State and will keep us from having such fine entertainment, as you and I know it to be, as is given us by Shirley Temple, Freddie Bartholomew, and many other notable child actors and actresses. Forbid the use of their talents and you help destroy a business that employs 300,000 people in this country and do an injury to these children.

These children are protected, they go to school daily; and not one child can be employed in California, irrespective of all the rumors one hears about the motion-picture industry, without the contract being approved by the court of general jurisdiction. All the moneys that the child receives are impounded in the name of a guardian, or the person that stands as parent to that child.

This sort of amendment, Mr. Chairman, would eliminate this kind of good entertainment. The women present here today know that the best sort of entertainment they can offer their children is the entertainment provided by these little actors and actresses.

Mr. SIROVICH. But that is intrastate commerce.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I beg the gentleman's pardon; it is not intrastate commerce, it is interstate commerce. The sending of any sort of theatrical entertainment by way of motion pictures has been held to be interstate commerce, and the people employed in making those pictures are employed in interstate commerce.

Mr. SIROVICH. Can the gentleman cite any decision that so holds?

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I cannot at the moment refer the gentleman to a specific decision, but I know it has been so held.

I have read, reread, and analyzed this provision and I am 100 percent for the provision as it stands in the bill. Let us stand by the bill and not try on the floor of the House to amend it so as to forbid something else. This provision on child labor has been properly worked out and makes it

[PAGE 1692]

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

[PAGE 1693]

possible to have the exceptions I have mentioned. If you try to go further on the floor of the House, it will mean the destruction of the bill and its defeat on final passage.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. O'DAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, when my colleague the gentleman from Colorado, yesterday said that the Senate amendment to the child-labor provision had been thrown into the wastebasket, in one respect he was right. It was put in the wastebasket because it was opposed by the National Child Labor Committee and by every body of men and women I know of who have been working on the child-labor proposition for 20 years or more. His fear of domination by the Children's Bureau has been removed by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER]. I am told that the Bureau wishes no more power because of the great political pressure that would be brought to bear upon it.

Let me say a word with reference to the interstate movement of goods manufactured partially at least by child labor. There is a county, Washington by name, in a certain State in our country in which mines are located. There are children working with their parents in those mines. An investigation was made by the National Child Labor Committee and it was found that most of the children of that district were employed in these so-called mines. The work is not done underground. Holes are dug and the earth is brought up in buckets. The children sort the material. We have the case of a mother with three sons, one 6, one 10, and one 12-years old and they all work at that kind of mining all day long. Their combined wages were found to be $4.20 per week.

Mr. SffiOVICH. Does the gentlewoman from New York approve that?

Mrs. O'DAY. I do not. There is a similar condition existing in certain sections where shrimp canning goes on. The children do not can the shrimp, but they take the heads off and they take from the shrimp that very stiff cellophanelike covering. Those children go out at 4 and half past 4 in the morning to meet the shrimp people who come in. They work for their parents and their work is thrown in with that of their parents. Those shrimp are canned and sent all over the country. Now, does that come under the interstate feature?

Mr. VOORHIS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. O'DAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. VOORHIS. For the sake of those children, we want to try to pass this amendment.

Mrs. O'DAY. We do.

Mr. VOORHIS. But if the gentlewoman will pardon me, may I say I think we understand the point of view of the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILER]. I would suggest to the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILERl that he could accomplish his purpose by adding a provision at the end of the section to the effect that the Chief of the Children's Bureau shall have discretion in the case of children employed in theatrical work. I should be glad to vote for such an amendment. Young actors and actresses will then be eligible to special certificates. Let us pass the Schneider amendment as it is though.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I have prepared such an amendment.

Mr. SIROVICH. Is the gentlewoman in sympathy with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER]?

Mrs. O'DAY. Yes; I am.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the consideration of the pending amendment be passed over until my amendment is considered.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

Mr. SIROVICH and Mr. HOOK objected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ScHNEIDER]. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin: Page 6, line 5, after the word "in", strike out the words "any occupation" and insert "occupations other than manufacturing and mining."

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment perfects tbe committee amendment by striking out "any occupation" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "occupations other than manufacturing and mining." This will not permit the employment of children between 14 and 16 in manufacturing or mining. In industries other than that, they may be employed in case it does not interfere with their schooling or welfare. The amendment is a perfecting amendment to the effect that children shall not be employed in manufacturing or in mining and, of course, there will not be a large number of children who may be employed at the discretion of the Chief of the Children's Bureau between those ages. Aside from manufacturing and mining there are not a large number of occupations having to do with interstate commerce in which children participate.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin to the committee amendment: On page 5, Une 14, after the word "parent" and before the parenthesis at the end of the line, insert "employing his own child or a child in his custody under the age of 16 years in an occupation other than manufacturing or mining."

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment perfects the bill in respect to the ambiguous language on page 5, line 14. After the word "parent" and before the parenthesis there are added the words "employing his own child or a child in his custody under the age of 16 years in any occupation other than manufacturing and mining." This change will perfect such language to the extent it will be definite that parents can employ only their own children or a child in their custody.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Yes.

Mr. CELLER. Does the gentleman mean they would be exempted from the supervision of the Administrator?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Yes.

Mr. CELLER. Except in manufacturing and mining. There they could not be employed without exemption?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. The language is, "other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent."

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, where will this be inserted?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. At the end of line 14, following the word "parent" and before the parenthesis. This amendment clarifies that language so that the intention of Congress will be clear that in the case of a parent he can employ only his own child and in the case of a person standing in the place of a parent, he can employ only a child to whom be has the definite relation of a parent in the eyes of the law.

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

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. Is not the language of the bill better than the language of the gentleman's amendment?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. The language of the bill is improved to the extent that it is made very definite.

Mr. CELLER. A good many of the Members on this side do not get the import of the gentleman's amendment. I believe it would be well to repeat it.

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

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

[PAGE 1693]

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

[PAGE 1694]

Mr. LANZETTA. Does not the gentleman believe the word "custody" to be too broad, and that it may encourage evasion of the law whereas the original language used in the bill would limit the employment of children to the natural parents and legal guardians?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Has the gentleman a substitute for the word "custody"?

Mr. LANZETTA. I believe that the language "one who stands in the place of a parent" should be used.

Mr. KELLER. I believe the gentleman is right.

Mr. LANZETTA. Using the word "custody" broadens the limits to the point where children may be "farmed" out for the sole purpose of employment.

Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me biiefly?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Yes.

Mr. VOORHIS. May I ask the gentleman whether it is not true that what this amendment really does is to state that children may not be employed by their parents in manufacturing and mining, but the amendment does not affect anything else?

Mr. CELLER. May I ask the gentleman if that would not be purely intrastate commerce?

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment. As I understand, if the present words are left in the amendment, children—for instance, orphans who might be in the custody of someone—could be employed. I believe if the phrase "in loco parentis" were put in there it would take care of the situation.

Mr. SIROVICH. And would include guardians, too?

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. And guardians, yes, in loco parentis; otherwise I fear there might be very grave abuses in the employment of children. But the gentleman from Wisconsin meant that only parents or guardians in loco parentis should be exempted; and I know that is the will of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER].

Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. As I understand, the employment of children in industry would not be permitted. For instance, a parent could not employ his children in a mill.

Mr. CELLER. That would be intrastate commerce. It would not be applicable at all.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. That will be taken care of?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. That will be taken care of.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ScHNEIDER].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin: On page 5, lines 17 and 18, strike out the phrase in parentheses, "(other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent.)".

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this language has reference to the employment in dangerous occupations of children of parents or children in their charge, and covers children 16 to 18 years of age. This precludes them from being employed, and the language of the phrase I am striking out is ambiguous. It reads, "(other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent.)".

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

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RAYBURN. We are having quite a number of amendments here. If these amendments have been passed upon by somebody who has gone over this bill and it is understood they are perfecting or clarifying amendments, that is one thing; but if they are substantive amendments, it is quite different. I cannot sit here and hold this bill in my hand and tell what may be the effect of these amendments. I believe this is a bad way to legislate.

Mr. KELLER. If the gentleman will yield, I may state they are clarifying amendments.

Mr. RAYBURN. They do not change the substance?

Mr. KELLER. They do not; as a matter of fact they are really clarifying amendments.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, these are clarifying amendments, and are perfectly acceptable to the committee.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the Committee on Labor ought to go into an executive session and rewrite this bill. This is about the only way they can amend it, in my judgment. [Applause.]

You understand all of this is preliminary to the introduction of the Wheeler-Johnson amendment by myself, if and when, in the course of human events, we reach that stage of the bill. [Laughter.]

I think I can reassure my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. DOCKWEILER], unless I have completely misread this bill—one of the Members has just asked me, sotto voce, to explain the Wheeler-Johnson amendment. This is not the time or place to do so, but I hope to explain it a little bit when I propose it as an amendment. I started to say I did not think the gentleman from California need be unduly exercised about Shirley Temple, because as I read this legislation—and this is one of my objections to it as an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Chief of the Children's Bureau—she can exempt any and all children under 16 years of age and subject them to work in any or all occupations. This is the way the bill reads. Under the language in the House committee amendment, Shirley's parents could go into court and prove that her work does not affect her education, health, and well-being, and get an order allowing her to work.

Mr. SIROVICH. Not according to the amendment now made to the bill.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Yes; you put in an amendment taking mining and manufacturing out of this grant of power to her over children between the ages of 14 and 16 years to exempt them from the law and suffer them to work; but the way this bill is framed, and I cannot take time to read it all over to you, that means she has been deprived of her power and discretion as to children between the ages of 14 and 16 years to exempt them from the law and subject them to labor in manufacturing and mining, but how about the children under 14 years? I say she has the power. I do not say she will exercise it. But I do say that under the bill, even as amended, the Chief of the Children's Bureau has power to exempt any child under 14 years of age and subject them to labor in a mill or in a mine. You have only limited her discretion as to children between 14 and 16 as to mining and manufacturing. I repeat under the bill as now amended she can exempt all children under 16 and let them labor, except children between 14 and 16 in mining and manufacturing.

She has the same discretion as to hazardous occupations under the language of the House definition, and I challenge any Member to get up here and read it and explain it and contradict my statement. Under the language regarding hazardous work she can without any investigation, or any findings of fact, declare any occupation nonhazardous and subject children between the ages of 16 and 18 years of age to labor in hazardous industries.

There is no law in this definition. It is simply a grant of power to the Chief of the Children's Bureau to write the law.

Another thing, there is nothing in the hazardous-work clause about children under 16 years of age. The Wheeler-Johnson amendment exempts all children under 18 years of age clear down to the cradle from employment in hazardous child labor. This is the way good legislation ought to be written. The way this provision is written, it simply exempts children between the ages of 16 and 18 years and is silent

[PAGE 1694]

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

[PAGE 1695]

with respect to children under 16, and you ought to be satisfied from what you have seen here in the last 15 minutes that they have not a well-thought out and well-drafted child-labor bill. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BULWINKLE: Page 6, line 15, strike out the period, insert a semicolon and the following: "(D) minors are employed between the hours of midnight and 6 o'clock a. m.; or (E) any employee is employed in the operation of productive machinery between the hours of midnight and 6 o'clock a. m. in any manufacturing industry which the Administrator may find and by order declare does not require continuous operation, unless such employee is paid at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the rate otherwise payable. The provisions of section 24 (relating to the effective date of labor-standard orders shall not apply to orders made to carry out the provisions of clauses (D) and (E) of this paragraph."

Page 6, line 20, strike out the period, insert a semicolon and the following: "Or (C) no oppressive child labor exists; or (D) no minor is employed between the hours of midnight and 6 o;clock a. m.; or (E) no employee is employed in the operation of productive machinery between the hours of midnight and 6 o'clock a.m. in any manufacturing industry which the Administrator may find and by order declare does not require continuous operation, unless such employee is paid at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the rate otherwise payable."

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has for its purpose cutting out the "graveyard" shift in manufacturing—that is, the shift that works between the hours of 12 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning. Many manufacturing establishments, largely but not altogether chiselers, carry this night work on, which is detrimental to the health of the employees and detrimental to industry over the United States.

Mr. SIROVICH. What industries are they?

Mr. BULWINKLE. There is quite a number, but especially do I have in mind the textile industry at the present time. You cannot continue to work these 24 hours a day without increasing quite an amount of production. The amendment does that on the one hand. On the other, it prohibits minors under 21 from working at night, between the hours of 12 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. What would be the effect of the gentleman's amendment on those who work producing a morning newspaper?

Mr. BULWINKLE. The amendment provides "in the operation of productive machinery in any manufacturing industry," and it would not apply.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I think the newspapers are interpreted to be manufacturing industries, and that would include the working of linotype.

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

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

Mr. DONDERO. Would that apply to men working in foundries at night who prepare the iron for the day's use in the factories.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Not if it is a continuous operation.

In the plants where they manufacture rayon from wood pulp and cotton this is a continuous operation.

Mr. DONDERO. That is what I had in mind. That applies to the automobile factories in my district.

Mr. BULWINKLE. This is where a continuous operation is not required, but is overproduction. The third proposition puts it into effect just as soon as your board or administrator is appointed and will declare it so. I will be glad to answer any questions, if gentlemen wish to ask them.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, w1ll the gentleman yield?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Would the gentleman's amendment apply to smelters?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Does not that require continuous operation?

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. It does.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Then it would not apply to them.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Nor in mining operations?

Mr. BULWINKLE. No.

Mr. DONDERO. Could the gentleman's amendment be so modified as to except industries where the operation has to be continuous by the very nature of the industry?

Mr. BULWINKLE. That is provided for in the amendment.

Mr. DONDERO. That is in the amendment?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

The CHAmMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has expired.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes more.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. BULWINKLE. In any manufacturing industry which the administrator may find does not require continuous operation, then this amendment applies.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Will the gentleman inform the House whether or not his amendment has any definition of what is meant by "continuous operation"?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Continuous operation is where the product to be manufactured requires a continuous operation to be produced or manufactured.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. In my district I have literally thousands of employees who are engaged in the refining of oil. Those plants never shut down. Under the gentleman's amendment, would that eliminate the "graveyard" shift, that third shift in the oil refinery?

Mr. BULWINKLE. No.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Is the gentleman sure about that?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes. The amendment says productive machinery in any manufacturing industry.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. I want to go along with the gentleman, if he is satisfied it will not shut down my oil refineries.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Does not the gentleman feel that refining oil is necessarily a continuous operation?

Mr. BULWINKLE. It is a continuous operation.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. How about the operation of sawmills? Is that a continuous operation that would be exempted? In your opinion, would a meat-packing plant come under your amendment?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Answering your two questions, if these are continuous operations the administration would so find and declare and they would be exempt. I have seen in times past instances where women were worked night after night from 10 o'clock until 6 o'clock in the morning, and they are doing it some places yet. It is not right or just to those people, and it also spells ruin to many industries.

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

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

Mr. RAYBURN. I think the gentleman presents one of the best thought-out amendments and in fine form, and I absolutely believe it is necessary to protect this great industry and the people who work in it.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

Mr. RANDOLPH. This amendment was before the committee, and received consideration. Certain deletions have been made by the gentleman, which bring it in line with what the committee believed.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Would this apply to sawmills?

Mr. BULWINKLE. It would if it were not a continuous operation on productive machinery in a manufacturing industry.

[PAGE 1695]

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

[PAGE 1696]

Mr. LEAVY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BULWINKLE. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. LEAVY. Who would interpret the question as to whether it was or was not continuous?

Mr. BULWINKLE. The Administrator or the Board.

Mr. HEALEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes; I yield.

Mr. HEALEY. I was not present when the gentleman offered his amendment. May I ask him to please state whether or not this is entirely confined to minors, working on this shift?

:Mr. BULWINKLE. No; minors cannot be employed after 12 at night and before 6 in the morning and ought not to be. Others may be employed if they are paid time and a half between 12 night and 6 in the morning.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take the 5 minutes to which I am entitled, but I take this opportunity to read to the members of the committee a telegram which I have just received, which I think is important to be read at this time.

This wire reads as follows:

Because the pending wage and hour bill is h1ghly objectionable to the membership of the American Federation of Labor, I respectfully request you to move to recommit to the appropriate committee for revision, study, and necessary changes, in order to make it a practical and constructive measure.

It is signed by William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor. [Applause.]

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CASE of South Dakota to the amendment offered by Mr. BULWINKLE: At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted in line 20, page 6, strike out the period, insert a colon and the following proviso: "Provided, That this shall not apply to the production of morning newspapers."

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MORNING NEWSPAPERS

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to use all the 5 minutes, but I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the production of morning newspapers is not necessarily a continuous operation. That depends on the definition given to the term "continuous operation."

It is perfectly true that practically every person working on a morning newspaper, working on a machine, receives more than 40 cents an hour. Some apprentices may not and some pressmen helpers may not. I do not object to increasing their pay, but I do not want to see them or other workmen squeezed out of a job.

On its face the Bulwinkle amendment sets up time-and-a-half pay for morning-paper employees but not for their afternoon competitors. That will drive some morning papers to drop employees who do not produce time-and-a-half results.

Qualifying provisions elsewhere in the bill may make my amendment to the amendment unnecessary—that depends on the definition of continuous operation—but it is difficult to tell, with the amendments that are being offered and the changes in the bill, whether proper provision is made.

There can be no harm done by the additional amendment. It may be superfluous, but it is impossible to tell, and I submit the amendment to the amendment should be agreed to unless the intention is to set up unequal competitive conditions between morning and afternoon papers.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I will only take a minute. I am not only heartily in favor of the amendment now pending offered by Major BULWINKLE, upon which we are going to vote, and I not only agree with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN] in saying it is one of the best thought-out amendments, but I think I ought to tell you where it came from and the consideration it had. It was a provision written into the Ellenbogen textile bill that was worked out by a subcommittee of the Committee on Labor of which I have the honor still to be chairman, and on which six other men on the Labor Committee, namely, Messrs. RAMSPECK, WELCH, SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin, WOOD, SMITH of Maine, and GILDEA cooperated to eliminate the graveyard shift without actually prohibiting it in industry. It was finally decided that if we provided for time and a half from midnight to 6 in the morning in all industry excepting only the necessarily continuous operating industries, it would take the profit out of the graveyard shift. This would eliminate it in ordinary industry in normal times and yet permit its use whenever a special seasonal profit would justify the payment of time and a half. It will work to that very desirable end. It is a splendid amendment to this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, insofar as it applies to women and children, is perfectly satisfactory, and I am heartily in favor of it; but I do oppose it as it applies to all workers in industry, because it abandons the theory behind this wage and hour bill. Insofar as it applies to all workers, it is an attempt to curtail production. It will result in the cutting off of all third shifts in industry and make them increase the amount of machinery they use so they can use the same number of men they are now using, with more machinery, in two shifts a day.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Yes; I certainly yield.

Mrs. NORTON. We discussed that in committee, and we have a great deal of evidence that that is not true. In fact, it has been proven to us that if we could do this it would do more to spread employment than any other thing concerned in the bill. That is the purpose of the bill—to try to spread employment.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. It is the purpose of the bill, and I am in favor of that; but I do not believe this amendment will bring that about. In some industries I realize that men are forced to work a third shift for the same wage at which they work the other two shifts, and it is not fair, because it is at a time when it is more difficult to work. It is not as desirable to work at that time as during the day time. There are some industries which offer a bonus of, say, 10 percent for working those hours, where men desire to work those hours some months in the year and shift from one shift to another in order to increase their pay.

These industries usually pay more than 40 cents an hour, and I think that this is a production-curtailment amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. I yield.

Mr. DOWELL. Does not this amendment discriminate as to who shall work during that time; and if the purpose of the amendment is to curtail production should it not be prohibited in the same way?

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. I am afraid I do not understand the gentleman's inquiry.

Mr. DOWELL. As I understand, this amendment would prohibit employment during certain hours.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. It does not prohibit, but it requires the payment of so high an extra wage during certain hours that this would have a tendency toward curtailment.

Mr. DOWELL. The gentleman states that the purpose of this amendment is the curtailing of production, and I understood the chairman of the committee so to state. If this be true, why should it not apply to all alike?

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. It should if that be true; and my principal objection to it is that it gets away from the theory of the bill, a theory with which I am entirely in accord, that of setting a wage floor below which no one shall be allowed to work and setting a ceiling in the number of hours beyond which people shall not be required to work.

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

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. I yield.

Mr. CELLER. I am in sympathy with the gentleman from Connecticut. Will he explain more in detail, however, how the amendment will curtail production?

[PAGE 1696]

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

[PAGE 1697]

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. It shuts down the time within which men can work on individual machines.

Mr. CELLER. It affects the machinery inrespective of the person operating it?

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. It shuts off entirely all work at certain times of the day.

Mr. CASEY of Massaehusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. I yield.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman understand that by this amendment men are not precluded from work between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a. m., but an employer desiring to employ them within these hours must pay time and a half.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Yes; and that is calculated to reduce a lot of the night work.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the pro forma amendments will be withdrawn.

There was no objection.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak for the amendment or against the amendment. Frankly, I do not know what it all means. The gentleman from North Carolina said one thing and the gentleman from Connecticut said another. Somebody ought to explain this amendment so we can understand what we are voting upon.

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

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. RAMSPECK. The amendment provides that any person employed between the hours of midnight and 6 a. m. shall be paid time and a half.

Mr. CELLER. Does that mean that the machines must stop?

Mr. RAMSPECK. It does not. It means that the employer must pay time and a half during those hours. In other words, it means a maximum of 60 cents an hour. It does not keep the plant from operating but it does put a penalty on overtime work.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. It does not mean a maximum of 60 cents an hour. Many of them are now receiving $2 an hour. This amendment means that they must be paid $3, or time and a half of the wage received on the day shift.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. CELLER. Certainly.

Mr. CRAWFORD. May I ask the gentleman this: Is it the gentleman's understanding—and I shall have to go about this on a triangular basis—is it the gentleman's understanding that this amendment will so operate against industry as to have the effect of preventing production between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 in the morning; and, if so, why am I not justified to demand time and a half because I have to work on the shift from 6 o'clock in the afternoon until midnight, because the other fellow has the favorable time during the daylight hours?

Mr. CELLER. The gentleman from Georgia tells me that this will not curtail production, that the wheels of industry will still turn, that the machines will still operate.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I said it required the payment of time and a half for employment during these hours, but that it did not prohibit production.

Mr. CELLER. If they continue working during those hours, they must pay their employees time and a half.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in order that we may have the viewpoint of the president of one of the largest textile concerns in the country, I want to read a letter concerning this very proposition which the president of the Pepperell Manufacturing Co., Mr. Russell H. Leonard, recently wrote to Dr. Claudius Murchison, president of the Cotton Textile Institute. I inserted a copy of this letter in the RECORD of last Friday, by the way. The letter reads as follows:

PEPPERELL MANuFACTURING Co.,

December 3, 1937.

Dr. CLAUDIUS MURCHISON,

President, the Cotton Textile Institute, Inc.,

Washingtom, D. C.

DEAR MR. MURCHISON: It seems to me that our industry has right now a great responsibility. It has also the best opportunity it has ever had to correct the fundamental abuse which is contributing more than any other factor to its continuing uncertainty and wretchedness.

No one who has studied the industry and whose vision is at all clear has failed to realize that the productive capacity of cotton textiles and rayons on three 40-hour weekly shifts is completely out of relation to any conceivable demand. On this basis there are still, at least, ten or more millions of surplus spindles. Does the industry propose to continue on through another 10 years of depression while these spindles are being junked? Of course, no one in his senses would look forward to such a period except with despair. And yet this will happen inevitably if the unregenerate, chiseling minority are permitted to continue their selfish ways.

Besides being an economic monstrosity, the midnight to sunrise shift is, to say the very least, not a pleasant or healthful occupation for anyone. Especially is it of positive harm and danger to the health of women.

Our industry should assemble its enlightened membership, I believe, and insist upon a law passed now in the present Congress, as part of the wage and hour bill, or separately, which will wipe out unequivocably and for all time this injudicious, disgraceful, uneconomic practice which a small minority must inevitably force on everybody who desires to remain in business.

According to my view, the institute will never find a finer purpose for its leadership, and its accomplishment would justify the existence of the institute for years to come.

With regards,

Faithfully yours,

It is my understanding that the Pepperell Manufacturing Co. conducts plants in both the North and South. Certainly this letter is most pertinent to the proposed amendment, and, in my judgment, presents a sound and eloquent argument for the adoption of this amendment.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BULWINKLEL].

Mr. DOWELL. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a wide difference of opinion as to the provisions of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk may again read the amendment for the information of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will again read the amendment.

There was no objection.

The Clerk again read the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BULWINKLE.]

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CROSSER: Page 4, line 1, strike out all of line 1 after the semicolon, all of line 2, and all of line 3 to and including the semicolon and insert: "or any employee of an employer subject to part I of the Interstate Act."

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have the highest regard for my friend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER] and for my distinguished fellow Member from Texas, the majority leader; but let me point out that one of the main purposes of this bill is to protect the weak and protect the man who cannot help himself.

I call the attention of the Committee to a statement made before the joint committee of the House and Senate at the time hearings were held on this bill by Mr. L. E. Keller, representing the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.

[PAGE 1697]

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

[PAGE 1698]

This statement appears on page 1194 of the hearings, as follows:

[NOTE: The page number above - "1194" - appears to be a typographical error as the statement just below appears on page 1149 of the Hearing.]

By way of digression, I might say that while some of the other organizations do not want to be under this bill, I might indicate our position at this moment by saying that nobody appreciates the discomfort of a sore thumb as much as a person who is afflicted with it. That is why we are taking a different position here.

Senator Black, the chairman, asked:

In other words, you are the brotherhood that has the sore thumb of low wages?

Mr. Keller replied:

That is right.

Further, may I call attention to his statement appearing on page 1158 of the same hearings. He was enumerating the wages paid in different sections of the country to these track boys who work in all kinds of weather—freezing weather, rainy weather, hot weather, and dry weather. He stated, on page 1158, in enumerating the wages paid these track boys in different sections of the country, the following in reply to a question which I asked him, as follows:

Do you have the figures as to what the railroads pay these boys in Texas and the Southwest?

He said:

Yes. The Missouri Pacific pays a minimum of 17^1/2 cents an hour. That is paid on the Gulf Coast lines. International-Great Northern and the Missouri Pacific line itself, so that takes care of that Texas situation pretty well.

Think of it, 17^1/2 cents an hour. There are over 200,000 of these boys who are getting wages now of less than the maximum provided in this bill. I certainly hope the committee will vote down the gentleman's amendment and give these underprivileged, underpaid employees a decent wage. I will go along with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER] if he will make his amendment provide that they shall be placed under the Hours-of-Service Act, namely, 8 hours a day. I shall not object if they only work 8 hours a day, but they should be under the pay provisions of this bill.

Mr. CROSSER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the Clerk read this telegram and letter from the president of the organization about which the gentleman is speaking.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas yield to the gentleman from Ohio for that purpose?

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER].

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read as follows:

DETROIT, MICH., December 13, 1937.

Hon. ROBERT CROSSER:

Since August 5, the effective date of our recent national mediation wage agreement, the condition in respect to minimum wages for employees represented by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees has mate1a1ly changed, and we now find a majority of these employees receiving in excess of 40 cents per hour. There are, however, a group of railroads situated in the southeast and southwest regions of the United States where less than a 40-cent minimum is paid for trackmen and those in general lower wage brackets. On November 15 a notice was served under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act on this latter mentioned group of railroads having for its purpose establishment of a 40-cent minimum wage, and negotiations are now in progress with these railroads. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we would prefer to deal with the situation through collective bargaining directly with railroads, as we are now attempting, and would therefore ask that we be excluded from pending wage and hours-of-service legislation. This is in line with my letter addressed to you under date of August 10.

F. L. JOZDAL,

President, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman. I do not yield any further.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman who wrote that telegram, and I have great respect for the fine work he has done in the past but according to his statement, even though the railroad employees in the Southwest have received a 5 cents an hour increase, they are still getting 22^1/2 cents an hour, and this is not enough.

I respectfully ask the Committee to vote down this amendment.

Mr. MEAD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard a number of Members say this afternoon that at one time or another they had worked in the mines, on the railroads, or in some shop or factory. Therefore, in keeping with this practice, I may say I was formerly a railroad track worker, and now that the subject is before the House I hope you will indulge me a moment in order that I may tell you something about their hopes and aspirations.

For a long period of time the House has eliminated railroad workers from various acts which apply to industrial workers. This was done in the case of the Wagner Labor Relations Act, again in the passage of the Social Security Act, and prior to that in the passage of the National Recovery Act. The railroads and the railroad industry have their own social and labor legislation. As you know, they have the Adamson Hours of Service Act, the Railroad Labor Act with its Mediation and Arbitration Boards, and they have the Railroad Retirement Act. Therefore there is sufficient precedent for the committee to accept the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER] and in doing so eliminate all railroad workers from the provisions of this bill.

Collective bargaining has advanced to a marked degree in the railroad industry. There industrial democracy actually exists. Never in the history of industry in America has there been such statesmanship displayed as has taken place on several occasions in recent years by the railroad executives and the representatives of the railroad brotherhoods. I need but recall for your benefit the manner in which they adjusted the railroad retirement controversy. I can also remind you of how they adjusted their wage schedules only a few months ago. When this high degree of real industrial democracy exists let us use it as a pattern and an example for other industries to follow.

True, some employees of the railroads are working for less than what I deem to be a satisfactory wage, but in view of the fact that already 90 percent of all railroad employees are organized and operate under collective-bargaining agreements, it will perhaps be only a short time—yes; a short time, and made shorter by the passage of this bill—until 100 percent of the railroad employees will be under collective-bargaining agreements. There is real democracy on the railroads, and this is the same democracy we hope this legislation will develop among the low-wage groups employed in private industry.

In conclusion, I ask you to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER], who on numerous occasions has espoused the cause of the railroad employee. I ask you to keep railroad employees separate, because they have their own acts; and they have their own operating machinery and instrumentalities of government which have been set up for them. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio will be agreed to. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, no one has made his mark higher on the standard of friendship for railroad labor than the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER]. For that reason, without knowing any of the facts in the case, I would gladly support the amendment. Aside from that there are other

[PAGE 1698]

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

[PAGE 1699]

strong reasons for supporting it. According to the statement of the president of the maintenance-of-way workers himself, because of collective-bargaining agreements, the only employees of railroads who now receive less than 40 cents an hour are located in the southeastern and southwestern regions of the United States. They are the workers in whom the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THoMAs] is interested. The men out on the track should -have more pay, but the fact is they are not getting it now. If they are left in the bill they will have no more hope of getting it than they now have when you consider the provisions of the bill which refer to the value of services in that particular locality, the economic conditions which must be considered, and the labor conditions.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I decline to yield, I have so little time.

Under this bill they could ·not hope to better themselves. They are bettering themselves all over the country by their collective bargaining agreements, made possible by legislation passed by this Congress giving them the right to bargain collectively.

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

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

Mr. CROSSER. The people of whom the gentleman speaks are now negotiating under the Railway Labor Act to better their working conditions.

Mr. GRISWOLD. They are negotiating an agreement, which we hope will give them better conditions.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. As a matter of fact, they have been negotiating for about 8 or 10 years under that act, and they still are getting only 22^1/2 cents an hour. How much longer are you going to give them to negotiate to get a fair and decent wage?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I believe that, probably, if the people in the gentleman's section of the country would set a higher standard of wages generally, and if the citizens of the gentleman's section of the country would promote collective bargaining for the men, these employees would probably have had it long ago. Besides, the gentleman is very gifted with exaggeration as the bill was not passed until about 3 years ago.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Does the gentleman know what standard of wages we have in our part of Texas, particularly Houston, Tex., which is reached by the railroads the gentleman is now defending, who pay the boys 22^1/2 cents an hour?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I am not defending the railroads. I say it is a shame and a crime that they pay these men 22^1/2 cents an hour when they have higher freight rates than do the roads which are paying their men 40 cents for the same work. The gentleman complains about the freight rates in my section being lower than in Texas, yet we pay these men a higher wage in my section. We now pay them more than 40 cents. I want them to receive as much as they do on the railroads in my part of the country. They receive it with us through collective bargaining. It is strange to me that in the gentleman's section they cannot.

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

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

Mr. BOILEAU. Is it not a fact that all that is necessary for the railroads to do to avoid coming under the provisions of the bill is to go ahead and pay the men 40 cents an hour?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes.

Mr. BOILEAU. If they would pay that, what would be the idea of not including them in the bill? They would not be bothered by it then.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The gentleman forgets that so far as the railroads themselves are concerned they are probably not interested in raising the wages.

Mr. BOILEAU. I know they are not, and that is why we ought to keep them under the proviSions of the bill.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Keeping them under the provisions of this bill will not increase the wages, because, as the gentleman knows, and as I before stated, this bill provides for differentials. It provides for the basing of wages on the value of services and the cost of living and, indirectly, on climatic conditions. The value of their services, according to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS], is now 22^1/2 cents an hour. Under the yardstick laid down in the Norton amendment it would remain 22^1/2 cents an hour.

The president of the maintenance-of-way men's organization and their official spokesman says they prefer not to come under the bill. The employer and employee are both satisfied to be left out. More than that, they prefer to be. Here is one place where we have the consummation of all that is most desirable in labor legislation. Both employer and employee agreed on a proposition. I hope we will refuse to disturb that agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. O'CONNELL of Montana) there were—ayes 107, noes 45.

So the amendment was agreed to.

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 and hour bill, had come to no resolution thereon.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, this morning in addressing the Committee I prepared two charts, and I ask unanimous consent to include them in my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the remarks I made today excerpts from certain letters pertinent to my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

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

[PAGE 1699]

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

  Top of page

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

Page 1770        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 17, 1937        (82 Cong. Rec. 1770, 1937)

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

[PAGE 1770]

EXPLANATION OF VOTE

Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one-half minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the Illiinois State Senate each member of that body has the privilege, on roll call, of using 5 minutes to explain his vote. That rule is not in vogue here. When in Rome do as the Romans do.

I therefore, under the rules of the House, ask unanimous consent to explain my vote on the pending wage and hour bill at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman?

There was no objection.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, in connection with my vote on the so-called wage and hour bill, I wish to make the following statement:

My position on the so-called wage and hour bill follows the recommendations of William Green and the American Federation of Labor. Those recommendations were:

[PAGE 1770]

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

[PAGE 1771]

First. Vote to send the bill back to committee to be rewritten.

Second. Failing in that, vote to substitute the American Federation of Labor wage and hour bill for the Senate bill.

Third. Failing in that, vote to recommit the bill.

Fourth. Failing in that, vote against the bill on final passage.

BrieflY, the reasons for those recommendations are as follows:

(a) The so-called wage and hour bill does not establish a minimum wage, but does give the Administrator set up in the bill the authority to establish a minimum wage of $16 8 week for my district and a minimum wage of $6 a week for industry in the Birmingham, Ala., district. Does organized labor want that?

(b) The so-called wage and hour bill does not establish a maximum workweek, but does give the Administrator the authority to establish a fiexible workweek of 40 hours for my district and 60 hours for the Atlanta, Ga., district. Does organized labor want that?

(c) The American Federation of Labor wage and hour bill seeks to fix by law a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour for all labor that now gets less than that, and a maximum workweek of 40 hours for all labor that now works more hours than that, and these standards of wages and hours are to be fixed and uniform in North and South, East and West. This is exactly what organized labor has been fighting for all through the years, and is what every real friend of labor wants. This so-called wage and hour bill that is now before us is nothing but a delusion and a snare, and should either be recommitted or defeated.

[PAGE 1771]

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

  Top of page

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

Page 1772        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 17, 1937        (82 Cong. Rec. 1772, 1937)

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

[PAGE 1772]

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 bill S. 2475, the wage and hour bill, with Mr. McCORMACK in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 2 is still open for amendment.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RAMSPECK: Page 6, after each of the Bulwinkle amendments, add the following: "Provided, That this provision shall not apply to mining, milling, or smelting opertions."

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, if I may have the attention of the Members from the West particularly, for they are interested in mining operations, they were fearful yesterday that the Bulwinkle amendments would interfere with the operation of mines and smelters and the milling of ore. For the purpose of making certain that the Bulwinkle amendments do not cover these operations, I have offered this proviso, which is satisfactory to them. It is also, I understand, satisfactory to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield.

Mr. SNELL. It seems to me a peculiar situation in connection with the consideration of this bill that several of its most ardent proponents want to have their special bloc of laborers in certain parts of the country in which they are interested exempt from the provisions of the bill. We have already exempted so many that I do not know to whom the bill applies. What is the reason for all these exemptions?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I may say to the gentleman from New York that this does not exempt the mining industry from the general provisions of the bill but only from the provisions of the Bulwinkle amendment relating to the so-called graveyard shift.

Mr. SNELL. If you are going to exempt the mining and smelting interests, why not exempt the paper-mill interests throughout the United States that run 24 hours a day every day in the week if they have enough orders? At present they are not bothered.

Mr. RAMSPECK. If they have a continuous process, they are out of it.

Mr. SNELL. They certainly do.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Because it does not apply to any continuous-process industry. My own personal opinion was that the amendment would not apply to the mining industry, but these gentlemen wanted to be sure.

Mr. SNELL. It seemed to me as I read over the Bulwinkle amendment this morning that it would apply to the paper-mill industry.

Mr. RAMSPECK. It will if they are not a continuous-process industry. My understanding of paper making is that it is a continuous process.

Mr. SNELL. They usually run 24 hours a day. The gentleman states that any industry that usually runs 24 hours a day would be exempt.

Mr. RAMSPECK. No; I did not say that. It depends on the process itself, whether it is necessary to continue the process once it is started; that is what I call a continuous-process industry. I am not familiar enough with the paper industry to say.

Mr. SNELL. A paper mill could shut down and start up again, but it is a very expensive proposition, and when they hava any orders they run 24 hours a day.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I would say that industry, under the gentleman's statement, would be exempt.

Mr. SNELL. Would the gentleman allow me to offer an amendment to his amendment including the manufacture of paper?

Mr. RAMSPECK. The gentleman has that privilege, of course. I, personally, would have no objection.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, I shall offer such an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose of offering an amendment to the amendment?

Mr. RAMSPECK. The gentleman can do that in his own time. I yield now to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Would the gentleman construe the word "milling" to apply to the lumber industry?

Mr. RAMSPECK. No; I would not. It is a term connected with mining operations.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I want this Bulwinkle amendment to apply to the lumber industry; and I am glad to get the gentleman's statement that the term "milling" would not apply to lumbering.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I do not think this exemption would apply to the lumber industry.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Will the gentleman explain the reason for making a distinction between the mining and milling of the ore and subsequent operations upon the metal manufactured from that ore whereby the metal is worked, rolled, and further manufactured into articles of commerce? Why should the first process be exempted but not the second, the manufacturing industry, which is the next step in making the crude product usable?

Mr. RAMSPECK. The purpose of the Bulwinkle amendment, as I understand, is to prevent overproduction through the use of the third shift; and that is the difference. Mining is a continuous process, necessarily, as I understand it, and I do not think it would be covered by the Bulwinkle amendment, but the gentlemen who represent the mining sections were not satisfied.

The gentlemen who represent those sections were not satisfied and I have definitely satisfied them, because I made a promise I would try to do so and I am doing it now.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Is not the Bulwinkle amendment aimed at industries which have a large number of productive units now not in production?

Mr. RAMSPECK. That is true.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Which may use the present labor and present equipment even in peak times, whereas other industries are not in that position?

Mr. RAMSPECK. That is true.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman offer. an amendment to the amendment, adding the pulp and paper manufacturing industries.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SNELL to the amendment of Mr. RAMSPECK: After the word "operations" in the amendment, insert "pulp and paper manufacturing industries."

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Chairman, if there is any industry in the country in which it is absolutely necessary to work 24

[PAGE 1772]

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

[PAGE 1773]

hours a day it is the pulp and paper manufacturing industry. If you shut down a paper machine at 6 o'clock at night, for instance, it will take from a half to three-quarters of an hour to shut it down and probably an hour to get it started again. In addition to that, you lose quite a large amount of the product in the process of shutting down and starting your machinery; so that it is absolutely essential for these industries to run 24 hours a day during the time they have orders to keep the plant moving.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SNELL. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BULWINKLE. In the first place, I call the gentleman's attention to the fact this only applies to the shift from 12 o'clock at night to 6 in the morning. If your proposition is a continuous operation, then it will not apply to them at all.

Mr. SNELL. The gentleman from Georgia stated he could not tell for sure whether it would or not and to make it absolutely certain the gentleman could have no objection to placing my amendment in the bill. Of course, if you run 24 hours you run between the hours of 12 and 6 in the morning.

Mr. BULWINKLE. But it especially provides for a continuous operation.

Mr. SNELL. There seems to be some question in the gentleman's mind as to what is a continuous operation.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Under the N. R. A. did these pulp and paper mills work continuously for 24 hours?

Mr. SNELL. Whenever they run at all they run 24 hours a day.

Mr. BULWINKLE. I mean during the N. R. A. time.

Mr. SNELL. Yes. Whenever a paper mill runs it runs 24 hours a day.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Then this does not apply, because it is in the same situation it was under the N. R. A.

Mr. SNELL. I do not know anything about that. If there is no question about it, that is one thing.

Mr. BULWINKLE. There is no question about it.

Mr. SNELL. Then there is no reason why it should not be put in the bill.

Mr. BULWINKLE. It is not intended this should cover a continuous operation necessary to produce something.

Mr. SNELL. There seems to be a question with reference to what is a continuous operation.

Mr. BULWINKLE. A continuous operation is an operation in which it takes 24 hours of continuous running in order to bring out the completed product.

Mr. SNELL. It may run only 12 hours a day. You can stop at any time. But that would make it so expensive so far as the production of paper is concerned that they could not afford to do it that way.

Mr. BULWINKLE. This applies only to productive machinery in a manufacturing industry.

Mr. SNELL. This is all productive machinery.

Mr. BULWINKLE. On the gentleman's statement it would not apply.

Mr. BOILEAU. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SNELL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BOILEAU. Paper mills in some sections close down on Saturday night and do not operate Saturday and all day Sunday. They start up the next shift Sunday night. Would that in the gentleman's opinion be a continuous operation?

Mr. BULWINKLE. No; because they expect to shut down.

Mr. BOILEAU. I cannot see any harm in the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SNELL. There can be no harm in the amendment, and it might help out the industry very materially.

Mr. FADDIS. May I ask the gentleman from North Carolina if he believes his amendment would apply to the glass industry?

Mr. BULWINKLE. I do not know anything about the manufacture of glass.

Mr. FADDIS. It is a continuous operation.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Then it will not apply.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, these attempts to gain exemptions from the Bulwinkle amendment as it applies to all workers illustrate the difficulty of writing an amendment of this sort on the fioor of the House. They also illustrate the fact that this amendment is really aimed at cutting down production in an industry. There is no question but that it is aimed at the cotton-textile industry. If you cut off some of the men working on certain spindles part of the day, you put them at work during the day on some of the idle spindles, and that might be all right in that case or in that industry. Today with bad conditions existing in most industries perhaps this amendment would not have a very bad immediate effect, but let us go back to reasonably good times. This spring in my home town, which is a city of a little over 100,000 people, we had working in the factories and the larger stores in the town about 38,000 people.

Several thousand of them were working on this night shift, most of them at somewhat higher wages than were being received by the workers on the day shift. Many of the day workers applied to get on the night shift because of the higher rate of pay. All these workers are being paid considerably in excess of 40 cents an hour. and in some cases the average is over a dollar an hour.

If you cut out this night shift in reasonably good times you cut off several thousand people in my city from opportunity of employment, because there are not more machines in the industry on which to put them to work. This industry has not the great problem of overcapacity which is faced at this time by the industry represented by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BULWINKLE]. I believe it is altogether unfair to wite into the bill an amendment covering all industry which will operate to cut production in normal times and reduce employment, 1n order to help a particular industry which is now stricken.

Since the Bulwinkle amendment has already been adopted, I hope the conferees will alter the amendment, or if they cannot alter it so it will apply only to the cotton-textile industry—and to be frank, I do not see how they can—then I hope they will cut it down to apply only to women and minors, and bring this provision back within the spirit of this wage and hour bill. [Applause.]

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KELLER. Yes; I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well for us to arrive at an agreement as to some reasonable time for debate on these amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I should like to have at least 5 minutes so some Member from the metal-mining section may present our side of the case. If we may be assured of 5 minutes, I have no objection to the request.

Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I did not get any time in general debate, and I should like to have 10 minutes sometime during the discussion of this important bill.

Mrs. NORTON. There are many other sections of the bill to be read, so I am sure the gentleman will have plenty of time to debate whatever he has in mind.

Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky. I have been trying to help in hurrying the bill along, and have not wanted to interrupt heretofore.

The CHAIRMAN. May the Chair inquire of the gentlewoman from New Jersey whether her unanimous-consent request was addressed to this particular amendment and all amendments thereto, or to the section?

[PAGE 1773]

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

[PAGE 1774]

Mrs. NORTON. To this amendment and all amendments thereto, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRiMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey asks unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I expect to offer an amendment to the amendment, and I should like to have some time to discuss it. If I may be assured of 5 minutes on my amendment, I shall not object.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can give the gentleman no such assurance.

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. Then I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to call the attention of the Committee to a general abuse which exists all over the country in all industries in regard to the graveyard shift. I have not compared the Bulwinkle amendment with the provisions of the textile bill as originally written. but I want to call the attention of the Members who are trying to think this problem through properly to the fact that the graveyard shift has always been a misfortune where it could be eliminated. This statement applies, of course, especially to the textile industry, but it applies to all other industries as well, in my judgment.

A committee of seven—and I observe that unfortunately a statement regarding it has been left out of the RECORD, although I included it in my remarks of yesterday—worked ardently for many weeks at two different periods on this and many other subjects which apply to all industry. If the Bulwinkle amendment does what I understand it does—that is, follow the original provisions—it will meet all the conditions about which gentlemen have asked. In other words, "continuous operation" does not mean you cannot close down and cannot start up again, but it does mean you cannot close down and start up again economically, and that is all. This amendment will cover the paper mills, the furnaces, and every other industry which needs to run continuously, of course. There shoUld not be a lot of amendments piled onto it, because you will only muddle it and arrive nowhere. You already have all you need, if you have a business where it is necessary to run 24 hours a day.

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

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

Mr. SffiOVICH. To what other industries besides the textile industry does this question of the graveyard shift apply?

Mr. KELLER. It would apply to all industries where continuous operation is not involved, and, of course, it should so apply.

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

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Congress recognizes the principle of time and a half for night work. Are not the printers in the Government Printing Office paid time and a half for such work?

Mr. KELLER. Yes.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Are not the railway mail clerks and others employed at night paid 10 percent additional?

Mr. KELLER. Yes. This principle is already established in industry also to a very large extent, and this amendment ought to make it universal. The intent of this bill, as I tried to bring out yesterday, is to do things the States cannot do, and which the States have not done and are not going to do. We are trying to nationalize and make general a provision which ought to apply to all industry, in aid of the States, in aid of the communities, and in aid of the men and women who are doing the work, and for no other purpose. We ought not to muddle it up with a lot of unnecessary amendments, because if there is a necessity for continuous operation, such operation is already provided for in the original amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] to the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMsPECK].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. SNELL) there were—ayes 71, noes 17.

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the metal-mining industry of the West is not asking for any exemption at all from the provisions of this bill. I believe almost unanimously every Member from the metal-mining section of the West has gone down the line with the committee in support of the Norton substitute. I believe it is our intention to support this bill finally on its ultimate passage.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Is it not a fact that the Ramspeck amendment is offered in the interest of the health and safety of the miners where they spread the shifts as far as possible to let the tunnels clear after blasting?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. That is absolutely true.

We have a special condition out there that does not exist, in my opinion, in any other industry. After the day shift has been on for 8 hours and blasts, just before the miners come out of the mine, it takes all the way from 1 to 2 or 3 or 4 hours for the gases and smoke to clear from the workings of the mine so that the next shift can go in. When such time is allowed to intervene between shifts, then, of course, the night shift is carried into the graveyard shift; that is, they have to work for several hours after midnight.

The very purpose of the Ramspeck amendment and the reason that all of the Members here from the metal-mining States are insisting upon its adoption is because it will be conducive to the good health and welfare of these miners.

We feel this is a special condition which you have in no other industry; and while I think the wording of the Butwinkle amendment was intended to except mining, there is just a chance that it might not be eliminated or excepted by the language of the Bulwinkle amendment, and to be sure about that we are asking you to go along with us in exempting mines from this provision.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Is it not true that in the mining West where a system of three shifts per 24 hours is carried on, the employees are rotated so that each employee works one-third of the time in the graveyard shift?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. That is quite true. The shifts are alternated about every 2 weeks, so that a man who works on day shift for 2 weeks spends the next 2 weeks on the night shift; and I may say from my actual experience that the night shift is really the preferable shift of the two.

Mr. :MURDOCK of Arizona. If the gentleman will yield further, is it not true that time and a half for the graveyard shift would cause a great many men to seek to remain on that shift regularly?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. That would be true, provided the graveyard shift was continued; but in my opinion, if the Ramspeck amendment is not adopted, the operators out there, if they have to pay time and a half to the night shift, will simply lay off the men who are engaged in that shift, and by erroneously trying to coddle the industry you will kill it outright.

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

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. SIROVICH. How long does it take to aerate a mine from the noxious gases that accumulate, and does such a condition occur every day?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. That is necessary by reason of the blasting on every shift, and the aerating of the mine depends exclusively on the facilities and the depth of the

[PAGE 1774]

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

[PAGE 1775]

workings, but the gases must be eliminated from the mine before it is safe for another shift of men to go into the workings.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. Mr. Chainnan, I offer an amendment to the Ramspeck amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SHAFER of Michigan to the Ramspeck amendment: After the word "industry" in the amendment offered by Mr. SNELL, insert "and food-processing industry."

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am faced with a rather different situation from the one that has been presented here. In my home city of Battle Creek we have one of the original 6 hours a day manufacturers. At the early part of the depression this manufacturer reduced the working hours in his plant to 6 hours per day and added one shift, increasing from three shifts to four shifts. One of these shifts works from midnight to 6 o'clock in the morning, the graveyard shift.

It is my thought that if the Ramspeck amendment is not adopted with this amendment, this manufacturer will close down one of these shifts, thereby causing a number of men to lose their jobs.

I have offered this amendment especially to bring this situation to the attention of the conferees if the amendment is not agreed to now.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. I yield.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Does not that same argument apply to any manufacturing process which uses a night shift?

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. Yes; I believe it does.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Where they have not a great excess of machinery that they could use the man on during the day shifts.

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. This is a case where they have put more people to work by reducing the hours and adding one shift.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to see my amendment adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman. I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WOOD: Page 5, line 2, after the period, insert "Nothing in this section shall exclude from the operation of the oppressive child-labor provisions of this act persons employed 1n forestry or in the taking of fish, sea food, or sponges or in the tapping or chipping of pine trees for crude gum or in the collection or handling of gum spirits of turpentine or gum rosin."

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, these industries were exempted in the bill, and I know that no member of the committee had any intention of exempting the employment of children in these industries. This amendment merely prevents the employment of children under 16 years of age in all of these enumerated industries. The turpentine spirits and gum industries in the South present one of the most sorrowful examples of the exploitation of both child and adult labor. I do not believe there is any Member of the House who believes that children should be allowed to work in these industries. This amendment merely makes it clear that children under 16 years of age shall not be allowed to work in these industries.

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

Mr. WOOD. Yes.

Mr. SffiOVICH. I have looked up the statistics of the 1930 census and they show that over 1,000 children under 16 years of age were working in forestry, down to the ages of 11 and 12, earning from two to four dollars a week. So far as the taking of fish, sea food, and sponges is concerned, in the 1930 census it was shown that over 500 children under 16 years of age were engaged in those industries. So far as tuipentine is concerned, the 1930 census showed 1,713 children under those ages, down to 9 and 10, working in that industry, earning one dollar, two, and three dollars a week. I think the gentleman from Missouri should be complimented for endeavoring to prevent the exploitation of such children in those industries.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. It is very hard to ascertain the number of children working in the pine forests. They are scattered over a wide expanse of territory and they work in places far removed from any industrial centers. The Census Bureau believes there are far more than 1,713 children working in the pine forests of the South. It is true there are children 10, 11, and 12 years of age who are working there, and, for that matter, the testimony before our committee upon this bill revealed the startling fact that children do work for a dollar or two dollars a week, children of 8, 9, and 10 years of age, in these pine forests.

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

Mr. WOOD. Yes.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I have not seen the amendment, but will the gentleman state whether his amendment would apply to the making of sirup?

Mr. WOOD. No; that is a different amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to say that the committee will not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD].

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. My. opposition is not directed to the entire amendment. I realize there are difficulties that should be corrected, but it is to that portion of the amendment which deals with the taking of fish, sea foods, and sponges that I object. It just shows the difficulty that we are running into in attempting to write general legislation now that is going to affect so vitally interests all over this country. I wish at the beginning of my remarks to say that I do not share, after hearing the debate here, the feeling of bitterness that is engendered on one side or the other. We are dealing with very delicate problems that reach to the future welfare of America, and we need to approach them conservatively.

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

Mr. BLAND. In a moment. The chairwoman and all of the members of the committee have labored honestly, intelligently, and zealously in an effort to reach a solution, but let us take the sea-food industry itself. I do not know where those children are employed, and undoubtedly there are many phases of the sea-food industry in which they should not be employed, and where I believe they are not employed, but when it comes to the taking of crabs, when it comes to going out in a boat, as, for instance, around Tangier Island, in my district, where the men are absolutely dependent upan the sea for their living, where they cannot raise even the chickens and vegetables that they use, where they must have recourse to all of the members of the family in an honest effort and in a healthy way to carry on their work, I say they should not be penalized in this way. Why, bless your soul, as a boy I have gone around the banks of the river and felt it was a great privilege to go down with a net along the shore and catch a few soft crabs or a few hard crabs and things of that kind. My health was benefited, no harm was done. In such instances the children are taken away from environment that may be vicious.

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

Mr. BLAND. Yes.

Mr. WOOD. The gentleman may have enjoyed fishing for crabs, but did the gentleman work 8 or 9 or 10 hours a day as an employee of someone else?

Mr. BLAND. No. That is true. I did not, but you are bringing in here the question of wages and employment, and if it were only to a number of hours that should be worked, then, so far as that is concerned, I would not have much to say about it.

Mr. SffiOVICH. No one has objection to my good friend or anyone else fishing as a boy, but this has application to children who are commercialized and exploited by employers.

[PAGE 1775]

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

[PAGE 1776]

r. BLAND. Yes; and whose commercialization is necessary for their livelihood. Gentlemen, let us be conservative, for the protection of the interests of the whole country.

Mr. SIROVICH. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BLAND. I do not yield further.

Mrs. O'DAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLAND. I yield to the lady from New York.

Mrs. O'DAY. In the canning of shrimp in certain districts children under 15 years, and sometimes 14 years, are employed—

Mr. BLAND. I would ask the lady not to make an address in my time. I only have a few minutes.

Mrs. O'DAY. Could not men be substituted for the children who are at present called at half past 4 o'clock in the morning to get up and meet the shrimpers, the fishermen, and spend from 4 until 7 in the morning canning shrimp.

Mr. BLAND. That condition I would not justify.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the words "in the taking of fish, seafood, or sponges."

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLAND].

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND to the amendment offered by Mr. WOOD: Beginning in line 3 of the amendment, strike out the words "in the taking of fish, sea food, or sponges."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: Insert on page 4, line 12, after the word "sponges", the following: "or 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 processmg of cottonseed; the canning, freezing, storing, curing, or other processing, packing, or packaging of fish, sea foods, sponges, or other products of the fishery industry; or picking, canning, or processmg of fruits or vegetables, or the processing of beets, cane, and maple into sugar and sirup when the services of such persons 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, of the Agricultural Marketing Act:"

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLAND. If it is not taken out of my time I would be delighted to yield.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no control over that situation. If the gentleman yields, it is taken out of his time.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, if this all comes out of my time, I refuse to yield further.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not take this out of the gentleman's time.

The gentlewoman from New Jersey asks unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Reserving the right to object, the lady from New Jersey knows that the duty devolves on me to present the Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment, a most important matter, affecting the second principal objective of this law, if not the first. It has never been presented yet, but I propose to present the amendment when I am recognized by the Chair, and I would like to have 8 minutes on that, to give the notice a closely prepared statement and analysis of the legislation. If I can get that 8 minutes I am willing to go along. If I cannot I am not.

Mrs. NORTON. I will say that we want to close all debate on this bill and pass it some time today. We have been told that, if necessary, we will be kept here until midnight tonight, and unless we have some reasonable agreement on time I am afraid we will be here until tomorrow morning.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Members have been permitted to talk ad lib up until now. Now they propose to choke everybody off.

Mrs. NORTON. There are other sections of the bill, and if the gentlemen will just bear in mind that they will have an opportunity to express themselves on the bill in the other sections I think we can arrive at some reasonable determination about the time. I certainly hope that the gentleman will not object. I think 30 minutes on this section is reasonable. I believe it is absolutely necessary if we are going to conclude this bill tonight.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I do not believe I will even be reached in 30 minutes, to say nothing about getting any tine.

Mrs. NORTON. I am sure the gentleman will be treated fairly as to time.

The regular order was demanded.

The CHAIRMAN. The regular order is demanded. The regular order is, Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that various Members have sent forward amendments. Eight or nine Members desire recognition. In view of the 40-minute limitation, if there is no objection, the Chair will recognize, with the exception of the gentleman from Virginia, who has been recognized already for 5 minutes, and the Chair cannot have the suggestion apply to him unless he consents thereto; if there is no objection, the Chair will recognize each gentleman offering an amendment for 2^1/2 minutes.

There being no objection, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment might properly be designated an amendment for the benefit of the farmers and the fishermen of America. It is true it does not comprehend all farm products, because when framing this amendment I took the provisions appearing on page 16, as I recall, subsection (j), in which certain industries were exempted from hours. It is necessary, if they are to be exempted also from the wage requirements, that the provision be transferred.

The only additional features deal with the sea-food industry and the processing or packing of perishable agricultural products during the harvest season. This includes canning.

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible within the limited time of 5 minutes to discuss intelligently and fully all of these matters. I call the attention of this Committee to the fact that this is a vitally different bill now from what it was at the time we commenced its consideration. With due regard for the interests of this country and with what I believe to be a conscious recognition of the need for relief, the chairman and the committee wrote into the bill certain tariff provisions which have been eliminated, properly, under a point of order. The result is we are facing a different situation now.

I am dealing with the canning industry—and I have more cannerles in my district, small canneries, than possibly any other district in the United States. We are dealing with the ginning, compressing, and storing of cotton, which is not coming in conflict with your textile industries of the North. We are dealing with the canning, curing, and so forth, of fish; and we are dealing with packing and processing of fruits. All of these things draw upon a reservoir of labor in my district. If you undertake to carry the wages above what they are now, it means still more

[PAGE 1776]

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

[PAGE 1777]

unemployment. Talk about our exploitation of labor in the South; I am pleading now for the colored labor in my district and in the South—those people who are unable to meet the skill of more highly skilled laborers in the North and who will be thrown out of work.

These industries draw first upon labor working on the farm, then in the canneries, then in the fish factories. They turn from one to the other. If skilled labor is to be forced in, you are going to have these people out of work.

The other day you passed a bill for the relief of agriculture, yet with the elimination of the tariff provisions in this bill you are bringing about a situation that is serious. Do you realize that in the fishing industry we have item after item on the free list: Shellfish, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimps, prawn, other shellfish, fish scrap, and fish meal. Men engaged in this industry are existing today with only $500 annual wage, and this is partly due to the fact that we are in competition with the labor of Japan and other cheap labor nations now flooding our country. The chairman wisely provided that these items ought to be taken off the free list. O my countrymen, it demonstrates what a delicate problem we are dealing with. Will you adopt this amendment or not? I ask that you vote this amendment in the bill.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GILCHRIST to the amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: After the words "sea foods" insert the word poultry."

Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to add the word "poultry" after the words "sea foods" in case this amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia is adopted. Poultry is an industry which is carried on as a household industry throughout the country; it is the business of the housewife and it ought to be exempted from the purview of this bill.

Mr. KELLER. Does the gentleman think we are going to exempt all that and everything else?

Mr. GILCHRIST. I am saying that poultry occupies a very distinct place, a very special place in American industry, because it is a household industry; it is the work of the farm women and of the farm children. They care for and raise this poultry throughout the whole country. It is a wholesome and proper and happy labor for them to perform. That is the reason it ought to be included in this amendment and why it ought not to be regimented and controlled by bureaucratic officers here in the city of Washington.

I understand that we ought to have regard for the household industries. They should not be under the control of this Board or of that Administrator. They occupy a peculiar place in American life and they ought to be exempted from any regimentation that will be placed on the processing of agricultural products if this bill is passed. It regiments wages just as well as hours, so that agricultural products will cost the consumer more in dollars, but this rise in price will reflect back to and against the farmer and be subtracted from the amount he gets. It will be taken out of the pin money and the pittance which the farm housewife now gets for her chickens.

This amendment will not hurt industry or labor for the reason I have stated, that most of the industry is a home industry. I know there are some large poultry ranches, but they do not produce much in the aggregate because most of the poultry is raised on the farms of America and is in charge of the women on these farms. They need help. They need a little money to supply household expenses. We should do nothing that will reflect back in a lessened income for them.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. · GILCHRIST].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. GILCHRIST) there were—ayes 53, noes 57.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLAND].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer another amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: Page 4, line 18, after the word "poultry" and the comma at the end of the line, insert the following: "and the canning, packing, and processing of perishable agricultural products."

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, this simply takes out canning from the other provisions of the amendment that was voted down. I cannot add to what has already been said and will not take any further time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLAND].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer another amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: Page 4, line 12, insert a comma after the word "sponges" and add the following: "or in the processing, curing, storing, or freezing of fish, sea foods, or sponges; or in the manufacture of fishery products."

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, the same situation exists with reference to this amendment as to the other amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer another amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: Page 4, line 19, insert at the beginning of the line before the words "and further" the following: "and the operators of sawmills and the manufacturers of lumber products where not more than 25 persons are employed in operating such sawm1lls or in manufacturing such lumber products."

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, the general situation is just the same as with respect to the other amendments.

Mr. KELLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. KELLER. Did the gentleman ever hear of a sawmill operating day and night that did not work more than 25 men?

Mr. BLAND. It would not apply to the night services.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLAND].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. KERR: Page 8, line 10, after the word "State", in line 10, strike out the period, insert a comma, and insert the following: "or in the manufacture of packages or containers used in the shipment of fruit, fish, or vegetables."

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the chairman of the Committee on Labor to the amendment I have offered. I think the amendment will be best understood if I read the section covering "definitions," to which section I am offering the amendment. It reads as follows:

The term "person employed in agriculture," as used in this act, insofar as it shall refer to fresh fruits ot 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.

My amendment simply extends. that provision to the manufacture of packages and containers used in the shipping of fresh fruits, vegetables, and fish.

Mr. KELLER. What does that mean?

Mr. KERR. You cannot pack and ship vegetables, fruit, and fish unless you have a particular kind of container, a container that is usually made in the East and West and throughout the country by certain veneer plants. This is seasonaL work and these plants only run when the vegetables, fruits, and fish are being shipped. Their operation is determinated by the weather and by the amount of vegetables and the catch of fish; it is a hazardous industry, and these

[PAGE 1777]

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

[PAGE 1778]

containers and shipping packages must be furnished daily to those engaged in this industry. You cannot anticipate the demand much ahead of the time of shipments. You cannot store this kind of container and keep them for any length of time. I repeat that it is seasonal work and the plants only operate when fruits, vegetables, and fish are being shipped. The manufacture of these containers is so intimately connected with the production and distribution of fruit, vegetables, and fish that those engaged in this industry have a right to be classified as "persons employed in agriculture." You could not distribute these agricultural products and fish without these containers.

Mr. KELLER. Would that not be classed as a necessary exception under the rule?

Mr. KERR. It ought to be classed as a necessary exception—come within the definition referred to in my amendment. Knowing the merit of this proposition and knowing something about these little industries that exist all over our country, I think the amendment ought to be accepted. and I hope the Committee will vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. KELLER. It is already excepted.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. KERR].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ROBERTSON: Page 8, line 1, strike out all of lines 1 to 5, inclusive.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman. I am offering an amendment which I hope the chairman of our Labor Committee will be willing to adopt. It provides for the elimination from this bill of subsection 19 of section 2, which seeks to define the meaning of the words "to a substantial extent." The elimination of that subsection from the bill does not, in my opinion, affect anything that can be legally done under the bill, but to leave the section in the bill with full knowledge of what it seeks to do, vitally affects our good faith and intellectual honesty.

The drafter of this measure, Messrs. Cohen and Corcoran, have written into subsection 19 the statement that "substantial extent" means a "settled or recurrent characte1istic of the matter or occupation described, or of a portion thereof which need not be a large or preponderent portion thereof." That strained and unnatural definition of the word "substantial" did such violence to my conception of the meaning of the word that I searched the dictionaries and the law reports to see if at any time, under any circumstances, anyone had ever given or attempted to give such a definition to the words "substantial extent." That search confirmed my personal opinion that neither in law nor in common usage could any such meaning be ascribed to the word "substantial." And naturally I wondered why anyone should attempt to define "substantial extent" in that manner, and I found the answer on page 21 of the last committee print of the bill, where in section 8, under subsection A, the drafters of the bill, Messrs. Cohen and Corcoran, disclose their objective. That subsection provides that when goods produced in one State compete "to a substantial extent" with goods produced in another State, and sold or transported in interstate commerce, the production in the first state, regardless of all other facts and circumstances, become goods in interstate commerce and under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

The first section of the pending bill expressly states that the bill is to deal with the employment of workers under substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce. Everyone who has spoken in favor of the measure—and I have followed the debates very closely with that point especially in mind—has distinctly stated that the bill relates only to interstate commerce, and, as the Supreme Court bas said, to the necessary implication of the power to regulate interstate commerce by taking jurisdiction of actions, otherwise local, which directly affect, obstruct or burden interstate commerce.

That is all the bill purports to do. That is all the advocates purport to do. That is all that the Congress can legally do. And yet the drafters of this measure who have clearly shown dnring the past 5 years that they believe the end justifies the means, and who apparently are willing to sacrifice the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or any other instrumentality or agency that blocks their conception of the way to "the more abundant life," are now seeking to have us put our stamp of approval upon their false interpretation of the two simple English words "substantial extent" and to become a party to their scheme to have the Federal Government attempt to do what clearly the Constitution prohibits. Mr. Cohen and Mr. Corcoran have taken no oath to uphold and support the Constitution, but we have.

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

Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. MOTT. Is the provision which the gentleman is discussing the only provision in the bill the gentleman believes is unconstitutional?

Mr. ROBERTSON. I cannot discuss the entire bill in the short time allotted me.

Mr. Cohen and Mr. Corcoran may sincerely believe that a totalitarian state may best promote our future economic development, but many of us do not agree with them. Mr. Cohen and Mr. Corcoran may sincerely believe that it is both desirable and necessary to wipe out the last vestige of States' rights by this indirect method of changing the commerce clause of the Constitution, but there are many of us who agree with that able and scholarly statesman from Texas, Mr. LANHAM, who on yesterday quoted Lowell's reply to the French historian Francois Guizot as to how long the American Republic would endure:

As long as the principles o! its founders remain dominant 1n tbe hearts of its people.

What were the principles of its founders? I will quote some of them in their own words. One founder, James Madison, said in offering the first 10 amendments:

If they are incorporated into the Constitution independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security there is a great probability that such a declaration in the Federal system would be enforced, because the State legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of government as a declaration of the rights of the people.

Not long thereafter another founder, Thomas Jefferson, said:

It (the Government) can never be harmonious and solid while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the Federal Constitution to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that. Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. • • • I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail of a common law being in force in the United States • · • • it would become the most corrupt government on earth. • • • What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office building, and office building would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands o! the general government. The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.

In modern times our greatest teacher of democracy was Woodrow Wilson. In his book, The New Freedom, we find these expressions:

For indeed, if you stop to think about it, nothing could be a greater departure from original Americanism, from faith in the ability o! a confident, resourceful, and independent people, than the discouraging doctrine that somebody has got to provide prosperity tor the rest ot us.

[PAGE 1778]

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

[PAGE 1779]

I don't want a smug lot of experts to sit down behind closed doors in Washington and play Providence to me. There is a Providence to which I am perfectly willing to submit. But as for other men setting up as Providence over myself, I seriously object. I have never met a political savior in the fiesh, and I never expect to meet one.

I have never found a man who knew how to take care of me, and reasoning from that point out, I conjecture that there isn't any man who knows how to take care of all the people of the United States.

If any part of our people want to be wards, if they want to have guardians put over them, if they want to be taken care of, if they want to be children patronized by the Government, why, I am sorry, because it will sap the manhood of America. I do not want to live under a philanthropy. I do not want to be taken care of by the Government, either directly, or by any instruments through which the Government is acting. I want only to have right and justice prevail, so far as I am concerned. Give me right and justice and I wtll undertake to take care of myself.

I don't care how benevolent the master is going to be, I will not live under a master. That is not what America was created for. America was created in order that every man should have the same chance as every other man to exercise mastery over his own fortunes.

Only 7 years ago, namely, on March 2, 1930, we find the present leader of the Democratic Party, then Governor of New York, expressing these views on the inherent necessity for preserving the fundamental principle of States' rights:

As a matter of fact and law, governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the eighteenth amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of Social welfare, and of a dozen other important features. In these Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.

This week our Nation is celebrating in a national way what we call Golden Rule Week. In explanation of trus national movement an editorial of today in the Washington Post states that the sponsors of Golden Rule Week "are endeavoring to arouse for spiritual recovery in the United States an enthusiasm comparable to that which swept the country a few years ago in behalf of blue eagle industrial recovery." In officially inaugurating the national observance of Golden Rule Week Secretary Hull said "the roots of our tragic shortcomings lie in the realm of the spirit."

Twenty centuries may not be looking down upon us as we deliberate today, but at least a century and a half of the most successful form of government in the world looks down upon us. One hundred and thirty million people look to us for leadership and guidance and to set the standard for personal as well as official action. Would it not be a fine example of high ethical action and an incentive to the rank and file of the people to observe the Golden Rule if we would deliberately adopt a definition of the term we know to be untrue and seek to do indirectly and by subterfuge what we know we are prohibited by the Constitution from directly doing?

May I remind you of the words of Lord Bacon in his essay on Truth wherein he said:

Certainly it is heaven upon earth to have a man's mind move in charity, rest in providence, and tum upon the poles of truth.

Without truth how can there be any Golden Rule? And if men are to decay as the price for the accumulation of wealth our Nation is hastening to some ill not to be found in any proper definition of "the more abundant life." Again, as Mr. LANHAM told us yesterday:

Let us also be true to those age-old, hard-won principles which those founders gave us.

[Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the power of the Board.

Mr. ROBERTSON. To interstate commerce.

Ms. NORTON. It would limit the definition.

Mr. ROBERTSON. It would limit the power of the Board to interstate commerce.

Mrs. NORTON. The definition would limit the power of the Board.

Mr. ROBERTSON. It would limit the power given by this bill to interstate commerce and those local actions which directly affect, burden, or obstruct interstate commerce. If this provision is left in the bill, it is a pronouncement that we want to do what the Constitution prohibits.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by - Mr. RoBERTSON) there were—ayes 66, noes 57.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mrs. NORTON and Mr. ROBERTSON to act as tellers.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported. that the~e were—ayes 83, noes 96.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. KRAMER: Page 6, line 10, strike out the period and insert a semicolon and the following: "Provided, however, That the hour-and-age limit as provided in this act shall not apply to any child now engaged, or who may hereafter engage, in professional acting in the production of motion pictures."

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 5 additional minutes. This is a very important matter.

. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman under the circumstances for more than 2^1/2 minutes, unanimous consent having been granted for the Chair to recognize Members for 2^1/2 minutes.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment, simply granting to a child the right to take advantage of an opportunity which is open to very few children. The ability to perform in motion pictures requires an intellectual gift and quality, something which is born in the child. We have seen child actors who have been on the screen from the beginning of the motion-picture industry, such as Mary Pickford, who has become famous throughout the world. Her portrayals were marvelous, and most of us remember her in the production of Tess of the Storm Country and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. She was such a great favorite as a child actor, she became known as "America's Sweetheart."

Jackie Coogan, who played in The Kid, Peter Pan. Freckles, and Tom Sawyer; Spanky McFarland and the group who compose "Our Gang," have furnished us with much pleasant entertainment. Certainly no Member of this House would want to impose a hardship upon the industry, public entertainment, and perhapg deprive your child or some child in the family of a friend of the opportunity which so few of us ever have—the chance of manifesting his talents, which are really a gift of God. This industry gives to these children every possible opportunity for education. They receive an education in the art, are taught discipline, poise, and enjoy the routine at the same time a scene has been made for a screen picture. The child is allowed to play, to go to school, has private tutors, and is like any normal, healthy child, only much more intelligently capable. It is unfortunate that the children outside the profession could not have the same amount of instruction. There are very few children employed in the industry, perhaps not over 10 or 15 of them in the entire industry, and the children are not worked in the same manner they are in other industries.

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

Mr. KRAMER. I yield to my colleague the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SIROVICH. The gentleman has introduced a very interesting amendment, and it ought to be agreed to. However, I believe we should add to the amendment language which would protect the sale of newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and publications in interstate commerce, and I refer to the Saturday Evening Post and other magazines

[PAGE 1779]

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

[PAGE 1780]

which would be discriminated against. Will the gentleman accept such a modification of his amendment?

Mr. KRAMER. Yes; I shall be very glad to add this very important change which the gentleman from New York mentioned.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. The gentleman's amendment would apply to very few children.

Mr. KRAMER. Yes; very few children have ever been so fortunate to have this opportunity.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Very few children would be involved, and these children are necessary in the industry in order to produce certain plays and certain kinds of pictures; otherwise these pictures really cannot be produced.

Mr. KRAMER. The gentleman is absolutely correct. Otherwise they cannot produce such pictures, and one of the greatest industries in the world would be stifled without this amendment being passed.

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

Mr. KRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HEALEY. There is a State law in California which adequately protects these children?

Mr. KRAMER. Yes; and this act is right in line with our State law.

The author who writes of the beauty, purity, love, and realness of children will be crudely cut off from production, like Gene Stratton Porter's Girl of the Limberlost; Storm Child, by Ruth Carmen; and many other writers.

It is like the mechanic dictating to the artist who paints not crudeness but loveliness. Why should the outside world interfere with the professional world and theatrical principles, that are far beyond reproach and do not allow children to work, or labor, as the unacquainted man calls it, because movieland and directors are strict in the number of hours a child shall work?

Children make pictures beautiful—Shirley Temple in Wee Willie Winkle, Jackie Coogan in The Kid, Jackie Cooper in Our Gang, Freddie Bartholomew in Captains Courageous, and many others. Look at all of these children. Do they impress you as being worked? By far, no. But they are exceedingly more intelligent and even more so than some of those who are trying to enforce a child-labor law, yet this law mould apply to every child outside of filmland; yet in filmland, without children, that charm and sweetness will be lost to the world.

Do you want adults to play children's parts or a politician to administer medicine as a doctor? Let everyone look to the principles pertaining to his own particular profession, and labor laws are essential, especially for children outside of the theatrical profession, which no one, unless he belongs, understands. The children in this profession are better care1 for than the children in other walks of life.

The theatrical profession is in a world by itself. The rules, codes, and discipline are much stricer than the ordinary life of a child in the nonprofessional environment.

The rules and restrictions passed upon for child labor should absolutely exclude film children. The children of the movies are reared under an entirely different form. Rest and relaxation come first; education comes next. The amount of time in labor as the outside world calls it is much less strenuous than lessons in the public schools in communities.

Lovely Anita Louise was one of our child stars whose talent was allowed to develop, and she is now one of the most charming and gracious young ladies playing in motion pictures today. Deanna Durbin and Bobbie Breen are two more children whose talents were discovered. Their work in motion pictures has been an education to them, and we are fortunate in having the opportunity to see and hear them perform. Without the opportunity presented them as children they might never have had the opportunity to display their remarkable talent which is not considered as work to them.

Employment of these few children gives us pleasant and wholesome entertainment and the child is given the opportunity of displaying his or her talent which they love. No one can cast slurs or aspersions on this as being conducive to child labor because in every instance when a child is permitted to play on the screen he has become famous when he grew up.

It is interesting to know that the various professions, talents, crafts, and vocations whose services are utilized in the production of a picture are more than 80 in number. They consist of writers, directors, technicians, cameramen, wardrobe men and assistants, designers, draftsmen, hairdressers, clerks, stand-ins, fitters, electrical workers, and various other crafts too numerous to mention.

During the past year the motion-picture studios listed more than 375 pictures, yet in this vast number only a few had child characters. The public receives keen enjoyment in watching a child star perform, and these children have endeared themselves to the heart of every human. In addition to this enjoyment the Government obtains a large sum in box-office tax receipts because of the attraction of the public. An enormous percentage of each production goes into industry for materials and supplies, including costumes, electrical supplies, wood, lumber, and innumerable other materials. Because of this it would be most unfortunate to curtail such an industry which furnishes employment to such vast numbers. I most sincerely hope the Members of the House will unanimously support the adoption of this amendment and will not deny these privileged children the opportunity of displaying the talent they enjoy. Many of these children are the support of their parents, brothers, and sisters, who, lacking in talent, have been denied the opportunity of providing for themselves.

Last summer many of the Members. including the Honorable ROBERT RAMSPECK, CLAUDE FULLER, JACK DEMPSEY, SCHUYLER BLAND, Minority Leader BERTRAND H. SNELL, and his able assistant, JOE MARTIN of Massachusetts, were my guests on a visit to one of the large motion-picture studios in Hollywood and it so happened that we were privileged to see a stage where a bunch of "kids" were enacting a play. Those of you who made this visit were amused at the children performing in this play which was in the making and has not yet been completed. To all the Members of the House I extend a cordial invitation to visit HollyWood and grant me the privilege of escorting them through one of the HollyWood studios. I should be more than happy to have that privilege.

In conclusion may I prevail upon you, my dear colleagues, to realize the importance of this amendment and to give me your wholehearted and unanimous support and vote for its adoption. [Applause.]

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot recognize any Member to strike out the last word, under the circumstances. much as the Chair may like to do so.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MARTIN of Colorado: Page 5, beginning in line 10, strike out of the substitute bill all of the matter beginning with line 10 on page 5 down to and including line 10 on page 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(A) All goods, wares, and merchandise produced on or after January 1, 1938, wholly or in part through the use of child labor, transported into any State or Territory of the United States and remalning therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage, shall, upon arrival and delivery in such State or Territory, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory to the same extent and in the same manner as though such goods, wares, and merchandise had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced in the original package or otherwise.

[PAGE 1780]

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

[PAGE 1781]

"(B) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport or cause to be transported, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for or in transporting any goods, wares, or merchandise produced on or after January 1, 1938, wholly or in part through the use of chlld-labor, from one State or Territory into any State or Territory, where said goods, wares, or merchandise are intended by any person interested therein to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State or Territory.

"(C) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport or cause to be transported, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for or in transporting in interstate commerce any goods, wares, or merchandise produced on or after January 1, 1938, wholly or in part through the use of child labor, unless the outside of such goods, wares, or merchandise, or the package containing the same if they be packaged, shall bear a conspicuous label conforming to the requirements of this section. Such label shall truthfully set forth—

" (1) The name and address of the shipper;

"(2) The name and address of the consignee;

"(3) The nature of such goods, wares, or merchandise; and

"(4) A summary statement of the kind or kinds of work in connection with which child labor was utilized in the production of such goods, wares, or merchandise and the type or types of places where such work was performed. In case a label conforming to the requirements of this section has been removed from goods, wares, or merchandise, or from a package containing the same, or such goods, wares, or merchandise have been removed from a package bearing such a label, prior to the time such goods, wares, or merchandise shall be otfered for shipment in interstate commerce, the information set forth in such label pursuant to the requirements of clause (4) of the preceding sentence or of this sentence shall be incorporated in a new label affixed to such goods, wares, or merchandise so offered for shipment, or to the package containing the same if they be packaged, together with a statement that such information was taken from another label. The incorporation ot such information and statement in the new label shall constitute compliance with the requirements of said clause (4) unless child labor shall have been used in connection with processing or fabricating such goods, wares, or merchandise after removal of the label therefrom or from the package containing the same or after removal thereof from the package bearing such label, as aforesaid, in which event the incorporation of said information and said statement shall be a requirement as to said new label in addition to those defined by said clause (4)".

"(D) It shall be unlawful for any person who—

"(a) has produced goods, wares, or merchandise in any State or Territory, wholly or in part through the use of child labor, on or after January 1, 1938; or

"(b) has taken delivery of such goods, wares, or merchandise in any State or Territory with notice of their character whether by purchase or on consignment, as commission merchant, agent for forwarding or other purposes, or otherwise, to transport or cause to be transported, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for or in transporting such goods, wares, or merchandise in interstate or foreign commerce or to sell such goods, wares, or merchandise for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce or with knowledge that shipment thereof in interstate or foreign commerce is intended.

"(E) For the purposes of this section the term 'child labor' shall be defined, (a) as employment of a human being under the age of 16 years in any occupation, and (b) as employment of a human being under the age of 18 years at 'extra hazardous work' specified by regulations promulgated pursuant hereto which specification shall be based on facts found by the Secretary of Labor as to the relative possibility of injury or detriment to health involved in various types of employment after necessary information on the subject has been collected by him or derived by him from sources deemed to be reliable; the term 'package' shall be defined as a wrapping, container, or crate, and as a unit of rolling stock in which goods, wares, or merchandise may be shipped or transported in bulk; the term 'person' shall be defined as an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, or any unincorporated organization; and the phrase 'State or Territory' shall be defined to include the organized States and Territories of the United States, any district or possession thereof, or place noncontiguous but subject to the jurisdiction thereof; the words 'produced' and 'production' shall be defined to include manufacturing, processing, fabricating, and mining operations, but as used in this section shall not be construed to mean planting, cultivation, and harvesting of fruits, grains, vegetables, and other agricultural products or agricultural work in connection with dairying, livestock husbandry, and poultry husbandry.

"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 childlabor age.

"(F) Any person violating any provision of this section shall for each offense, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, and such goods, wares, or merchandise shall be forfeited to the United States and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the seizure and forfeiture of property imported into the United States contrary to law: Provided, however, That no person who in conformity to paragraph (C) of this section and in good faith sets forth in a label information stated to have been taken from another label shall be deemed thereby to have violated this act so as to render himself subject to conviction, or goods, wares, or merchandise bearing or contained in a package bearing sueh label subject to forfeiture, in the event any of the information so stated to have been taken from another label proves to be false: And provided further, That no common carrier shall be deemed to have violated this section if, at the time it accepts goods, wares, or merchandise for transportation in interstate commerce in the regular course of its business, it shall rely in good faith upon a signed statement of the consignor that the obtaining of transportation for or the transportation of such goods, wares, or merchandise will not constitute a violation of this section. but any consignor who shall knowingly sign any false statement made to a common carrier as aforesaid shall be deemed thereby to have violated this section. The failure of any consignor to furnish such a statement to a common carrier at the latter's request shall excuse the common carrier from its obligations to accept any goods for transportation in interstate commerce. In any proceeding arising out of an alleged violation of this section, a showing that the goods, wares, or merchandise with respect to which the violation is alleged to have occurred were procured wholly or in part by a person who used child labor subsequent to January 1, 1938, and within 6 months of the date of the alleged violation at the place of employment where said goods, wares, or merchandise were so produced in whole or in part shall be prima facie evidence that the goods, wares, or merchandise with respect to which said violation is alleged to have occurred were produced wholly or in part through the use of child labor. In any such proceeding a copy of, extract from, or statement summarizing a record kept by or document filed with a government, church, or school authority establishing or purporting to establish the age or date of birth of a human being whose labor is alleged to have been used in the production of goods, wares or merchandise shall be admissible in evidence when certlfted by or on behalf of such authority without further identification or authentication as prima facie evidence of the age of such human being. The adduction of such prima facie evidence shall cast upon the defendant or the party objecting to the forfeiture of goods, wares, or merchandise, as the case may be, the burden of rebutting or repelling such prima facie evidence by affirmative proof to the contrary. All records, returns, applications, and other information filed with or kept by any public office, officers, or authority pursuant to the act of August 14, 1935 (ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620), or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, shall be available for inspection by any public offcial authorized or qualifted to enforce this section or to prosecute a violation thereof, and such public official may require that copies of, extracts from, or statements summarizing any of such records, returns, applications, or other information be certified and delivered to him by or on behalf of any public office, officers, or authority by whom the same are kept or with whom they be filed. Any public official authorized or qualified to enforce this section may ut111ze in that connection, and shall be entitled to rely upon, any and all records, returns, applications, certificates, and other information collected by or filed with authorities charged with the adminlstration and enforcement of the laws of any State relating to the education and employment of human beings that may be made available to such public officials by such authorities and are deemed by such public officials to be useful and reliable.

"(G) Any violation of this section shall be prosecuted in any court having jurisdiction of crime within the district in which said violation was committed, or from or into which any such goods, wares, or merchandise may have been carried or transported, or in any State or Territory, contrary to the provisions of this section.

"(H) (a) The Secretary of Labor, through the Children's Bureau or such other agency within the Department of Labor as he may designate, shall be charged with the enforcement of this section and shall be vested with full authority to administer its provisions and to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary for its enforcement.

"(b) The Chief of the Children's Bureau or any persons designated by him, pursuant to the regulations issued under the preceding subsection, shall have authority to enter and inspect at any time factories or other places in which articles are produced or held for interstate commerce and to inspect records relating to the employment of or to the shipment of articles therefrom, and to make periodic reports of such inspections: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize any invasion of the privacy of any home by search or inspection or otherwise."

Mr. HARTLEY (interrupting the reading of the amendment).

Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Chairman, is this an amendment that is being read or a pill?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado has offered an amendment which the Clerk is reporting.

[PAGE 1781]

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

[PAGE 1782]

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. It Is the Johnson-Wheeler child-labor bill which has passed the Senate.

The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, it is manifestly impossible to discuss such an important piece of legislation as the Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment in such a limited time. It is making a joke of this legislation, vitally affecting 12,000,000 children. But if no one present knows what is in the Johnson-Wheeler amendment, I have one consolation, they also do not know what is in the House committee amendment.

I made an analysis of both propositions in general debate, and have specified the objections to the House committee amendment on two occasions under the 5-minute rule, but down to this moment not one member of the House Committee on Labor has taken the floor to explain to the membership the child-labor provisions of their amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I cannot yield now.

The Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment is a consolidation of five child-labor b1lls, effected by Senate leaders who are outstanding in the field of human welfare legislation, in cooperation with Hon. Edward Keating, managing editor of Labor, a pioneer in this field and author of the first and only Federal child-labor legislation in the United States, which he piloted through Congress in 1916, and it is under such sponsorship as this and in spite of it that certain Members of this House have been carrying on a whispering campaign calculated to make Members who do not know what is in the measure believe that a Member who is for the Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment is an enemy of child-labor legislation. I think they are going to be wiser before they get through with this amendment.

The Wheeler-Johnson amendment carries a three-way approach to the child-labor objective as against one way in the House committee amendment.

The first method is found in paragraph A, which subjects the child-labor goods to the laws of the State into which shipped, while paragraph B prohibits shipment into States in violation of State laws, or aiding or assisting such shipment in any manner. There are some good state laws. and this legislation will encourage more of them.

The second method, paragraph C, requires labeling of the child-labor goods, giving name and address of shipper and of consignee, nature of the goods, and kinds of work with which child labor was utilized in their production. The paragraph is specific and circumstantial.

The third method, paragraph D, is prohibition of interstate transportation. It is made unlawful for any producer of child-labor goods, in whole or in part, or any person who has taken delivery of such goods with notice of the child labor, either by purchase or on consignment, or as commission merchant, agent for forwarding, or otherwise, to transport or aid or assist in transporting such goods for such shipment in interstate commerce, or to sell such goods for such shipment, or with knowledge that such shipment is intended.

A showing that goods were produced by a child-labor employer within 6 months of the date of shipment, not 30 days, as in the House amendment, but 6 months, is made prima facie evidence of violation of the section. The goods are also forfeited to the Government.

This appears to be a complete piece of legislation. It looks airtight. It ought to be. It was drafted by experts 1n interstate-commerce legislation.

Now let me contrast it with the House comnlittee provision. It is short; too short. It merely prohibits interstate shipment or delivery for shipment by any producer, manufacturer, or dealer of goods produced in a place where child labor has been employed within 30 days prior to removal.

That is all. That is everything. None of the other safeguards of the Senate amendment. Nothing against aiding or assisting. Nothing against selling. Nothing to cover the divers methods of escapement known to the trade. A manufacturer may set up a dummy and transfer to it, or arrange with others to handle his products, and evade the law. Or he may stock his warehouses or his confederate dealers and brokers, and commission men may stock theirs, hold 30 days, and ship. He and his sweatshop lawyers will find the ways.

The House amendment grants complete immunity after 30 days. The Senate amendment grants no time-limit immunity. It only loses the benefit of the prima facie rule after 6 months after removal.

The superiority of the Senate transportation provision over that of the House is obvious. They are identical in substance, excepting the 30-day limit, up to the point where the Senate bill specifies and prohibits a wider and more inclusive category of violators and violations.

What is the criticism of the Senate provisions?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin said Wednesday:

The proposal in the Black-Connery bill substitute is one for the purpose of preventing the employment of chlldren in industry.

So is the Senate amendment. The House proposal is in five lines, in paragraph (e), section 22, page 41. It is all there. It can be nowhere else. There is no prohibition of child labor in either bill, only of interstate shipment.

On reading Mr. SCHNEIDER's remarks one would be led to believe there is nothing in the Senate amendment but labeling. He mentioned only that. You have learned differently.

Let me say a word about the labeling and subjection to state-law methods in the amendment. Both methods were sustained in the prison-goods case under the Vinson-Ashurst Act. It is believed they will be sustained in this legislation. It is hoped the third method, transportation, will be sustained and Dagenhart against Hammer reversed. But if transportation is knocked out by the Court in this bill, we will have the other two methods left; and Mr. Keating advised the Senate committee they would be of substantial benefit. If transportation goes out as unconstitutional in the Senate bill, it will go out in the House bill, too, and there will be nothing left. Why put all our eggs in one basket?

Several proponents of the House amendment have stressed to me the age certificate issued to employers by the Children's Bureau as the chief merit of the legislation. Well, it is in the pending amendment word for word. I hope it will not add another method of escapement through fraudulent certificates.

It is claimed that the House amendment is preventive and the Senate amendment only penal. They are both penal. And again I repeat that the substantive law of the House amendment is in five lines at the end of section 22, page 41. Prevention is there or nowhere. If it is there, it is also in the Senate bill, and more of it.

I turn now to the definitions of oppressive child labor in the two proposals. In the Senate definition it is defined as the employment of a human being under the age of 16 years in any occupation. The words "produced" and "produces" are defined to include manufacturing, processing, fabricating, and mining operations, but exclude farming. There are no other exemptions. The House bill gives the Administrator carte blanche to exempt and subject to labor any and all children under 16 in any and all occupations to the extent the Administrator thinks it will not affect education, health, and well-being.

The Senate amendment prohibits the employment of a human being under the age of 18 years in "extra hazardous work," specified by regulations based on facts found by the Administrator as to relative possibility of injury or detriment to health in various types of employment, after necessary information has been collected from sources deemed to be reliable. In the House committee amendment there is no provision whatever to govern or restrict the Administrator, who may simply declare occupations to be hazardous or not. The House amendment is also limited to the ages 16 to 18 years, and is silent as to children under 16. I repeat again, the House amendment is an unlimited delegation of power and discretion to the Administrator.

Mr. HEALEY has circularized the Members against the Senate amendment. If it is so bad and the House amendment so good, as he represents. I invite him to explain and defend

[PAGE 1782]

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

[PAGE 1783]

the House amendment. My good friend, KENT KELLER, stated there would be no difficulty in convincing you of the superimity of the House amendment. I invite him to do the convincing. And if these gentlemen or others do not convince you, I invite you to give the Senate amendment a break on the vote.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, practically every child-labor organization in this country is opposed to this amendment. Your committee considered this very carefully and as a result rejected the proposed amendment. This is all I have to say about it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from New Jersey yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Is it not true that your amendment attacks this evil right at its source by giving manufacturers an opportunity to receive a certificate?

. Mrs. NORTON. That is absolutely true.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. And is it not also true that 43 States of the Union already have a certificate law.

Mrs. NORTON. That is true.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. So your amendment works right in line with the State legislation.

Mrs. NORTON. Forty-three States out of the 48 have such a law.

. Mr. FORD of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentle-woman from New Jersey yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. FORD of California. Is it not true that the child-labor provision in this bill was considered by the best lawyers in the United States and its provisions delicately balanced in order to get by the court decisions that now exist?

Mrs. NORTON. That is true.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. And, if the gentlewoman from New Jersey will permit, the age certificate is in the amendment just read from the Clerk's desk.

Mrs. NORTON. Yes; that is perfectly true.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Word for word as in the House bill.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. But if we were to follow the amendment just offered by the gentleman from Colorado, the enforcement would take place after the evil had been done or after the goods had been made.

Mrs. NORTON. Exactly; yes. This protects the manufacturer as well as the child.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. It protects both, because the child will never go to work.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BARDEN: On page 4, line 18, after the last comma in line 18, insert "and any person employed in connection with the selling of tobacco in auction warehouses."

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to take care of the man who usually stays around the warehouse for the assistance of tobacco farmers who come in at all hours of the night, and day, too, as far as that is concerned, to unload their tobacco cargoes, a service heretofore rendered tobacco farmers.

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

Mr. BARDEN. Yes.

Mr. COOLEY. Is it not a fact that the tobacco auction warehousemen employ this labor to assist the farmers in unloading their tobacco and placing it upon the market for the purpose of sale?

Mr. BARDEN. That is about the only use they have for them there.

Mr. COOLEY. And is it not entirely seasonal employment?

Mr. BARDEN. Absolutely.

Mr. COOLEY. And in the event an attempt is made to regulate the hours of these employees, I will ask the gentleman if it is not a fact that these warehousemen would not be able to find ready labor to take the place of these men to aid farmers in placing their tobacco on the market.

Mr. BARDEN. That is true. The work only lasts 3 or 4 months, at the most, in the fall of the year.

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

Mr. BARDEN. I yield.

Mr. FULLER. What is the difference in exempting people of this class and the sawmill men working out in the country, hauling their logs into town and unloading them. who want to have them taken care of at night or the man who is hauling his wheat into town or his cotton, and wants to have tt taken care of at night?

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me to answer the gentleman from Arkansas?

Mr. BARDEN. Yes.

Mr. COOLEY. These laborers are employed in the warehouse, on the floor, to assist farmers, and have to be there at all hours of the night. That does not mean that they actually work all night, because the farmers bring their tobacco in at all hours of the night and even at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning sometimes, and until the farmers arrive with their trucks and wagons these employees sleep. When the farmer arrives the floor manager calls out for labor to aid the farmer, and then they wake up and unload the tobacco and then may go back to sleep.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has expired.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. COOLEY) there were—ayes 8, noes 38.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment by Mr. LEA: Page 8, lines 7 and 8, strike out the words "fresh fruits or vegetables" and insert in lieu thereof the words "fresh or dried fruits or vegetables, nuts or eggs", and on line 10 of the same page, strike out the words "fresh fruits or vegetables" and insert in lieu thereof "such products", and after the word "raw", in line 10, insert a comma and the word "dried."

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEA. Yes.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.

Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute may be considered in lieu of my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois offers a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from' California and the gentleman from California asks unanimous consent that the substitute be considered in lieu of his amendment. Is the understanding of the Chair correct?

Mr. LEA. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the substitute.

The Clerk read as follows:

Substitute amendment offered by Mr. LUCAS to the amendment offered by Mr. LEA: Page 8, beginning with the comma in line 7, strike out down to and including the comma in line 8, and in lines 9 and 10, strike out "such fresh fruits or vegetables" and insert in lieu thereof "agricultural commodities."

Page 8, line 10, after "state", insert "and shall include persons employed by any cooperative association as defined in section 15, as amended, of the Agricultural Marketing Act, if such cooperative association is engaged in preparing, packing, or storing agricultural commodities in their raw or natural state."

Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, subsection (20) grants an exemption to labor engaged in preparing, packing, or storing fresh fruits and vegetables within the area of production. This amendment is necessary to give to the fruit industry, and agriculture generally, that exemption that has been promised and which is clearly within the purpose of the bill. The defect in subsection (20), as it stands, is that it is confined to

[PAGE 1783]

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

[PAGE 1784]

fresh fruits and vegetables and omits all other farm products equally entitled to the exemption. Part of the farmer's labor should not be in the bill and the same laborers exempt when performing other argicultural labor.

Mr. KELLER. Fresh or not fresh?

Mr. LEA. Fresh or not fresh.

Mr. KELLER. That is what I am asking the gentleman.

Mr. LEA. The section is confined to fresh fruit and vegetables and omits to give similar exemptions to all other products. Mr. Chairman, I am agreeable to the substitute of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LUCAS], which would include agricultural commodities and relieve the section of the unfair discrimination it now contains.

Mr. KELLER. What does that mean?

Mr. LEA. Ordinary agricultural commodities of the farm.

Mr. KELLER. What does the gentleman mean by that?

Mr. LEA. The exemptions of this section are confined to preparing, storing, and packing in the area of production.

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

Mr. LEA. Yes.

Mr. LUCAS. In paragraph 7 of section 2 of this bill you will find a definition of "employees." Read along and in line 12 you will find the words "or any person employed in agriculture."

There is nothing further than that so far as the definition of people employed in agriculture is concerned until you arrive on page 8, subsection (20), where you have a definition of the term "persons employed in agriculture," which limits it to fresh fruits or vegetables, but you do not find in this bill at any other paragraph anything about who a person employed in agriculture is unless you refer back to section 2. This amendment merely provides that a "person emplayed in agriculture" shall include persons employed within the area of production engaged in preparing, packing, or storing agricultural commodities in the raw or natural state."

It broadens the definition and will adequately protect the farmers of my section. It exempts agriculture in all its branches and work incidental thereto, including the necessary handling and preparing for market commodities when performed by the farmer or by a farmers' owned and controlled cooperative. It should be understood that it applies only to the employees in the area to be determined by the Administrator where the commodity is produced.

I have taken this up with the gentlewoman from New Jersey and I am of the opinion she will agree to this amendment.

Mr. KELLER. Does the chairwoman agree to this amendment?

Mrs. NORTON. No.

Mr. KELLER. Then the gentlewoman better say "no."

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. If this amendment is accepted it virtually kills the entire section, since it takes out of the bill everybody who has anything to do with agriculture.

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. MAVERICK. I want to say that in my district there are pecan pickers or shellers who work for 3 to 5 cents an hour! Think of it! If this amendment goes on these people are apparently without any protection whatever, and this bill will do them no good. So this amendment ought to be rejected.

Mrs. NORTON. The gentleman is exactly right. I have letters from a number of those workers, and if there is anything to help them. it is to kill this amendment.

Mr. MAVERICK. If there is anything to be done, it can be done in conference. The conference can iron out these points.

Mrs. NORTON. Exactly.

I sincerely hope this amendment will be voted down.

Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. LEA. I call attention to the fact that the amendment does not affect picking, to which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAVERICK] refers. It has nothing to do with picking. It simply relates to the preparation of the farmer's product for the market after the fruit has been picked.

Mr. MAVERICK. When I say "pick," it does not mean picking it off the tree. It means breaking it and taking the nut out of the shell. These people are industrial workers, not agricultural. They should be protected by the minimum-wage law.

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

Mr. LEA. I yield.

Mr. CURLEY. On page 16, subdiviSion (j), part 2, you will find this amendment you have just offered is included.

Mr. LEA, Oh, no.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LUCAS].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. SHORT, Mr. LUCAS and Mr. BuCK) there were ayes 81 and noes 48.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. LucAS and Mrs. NORTON to act as tellers.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there were—ayes 107 and noes 65.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Is that the substitute amendment for the Lea amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from California [Mr. LEA], did the Chair understand the gentleman from California to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LUCAS]?

Mr. LEA. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I stated that I accepted the substitute.

The CHAIRMAN. And does the gentleman withdraw his amendment?

Mr. LEA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the understanding of the Chair.

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. HOOK. An amendment of that kind can only be withdrawn by unanimous consent; is that not correct?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair at the time submitted the unanimous-consent request, and there was no objection.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MAGNUSON: On page 4, line 1, strike out the first four words.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to state there are five Members who desire to offer amendments. The Chair would like to recognize all Members for a part of the time. There are 8^1/2 minutes remaining, which includes the time which the gentleman from Washington will consume.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each amendment be granted 2 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already recognized the gentleman from Washington for 2^1/2 minutes.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, for 2 days everybody in the House has been trying to get someone out of this bill. The effect of my amendment is to put a class of people into this bill. The bill on page 4 excludes seamen. As I understand the purpose of this legislation, it is to raise the standard of wages and the standard of living of the low-class groups. If there is a class of workers in the United States who are underpaid and who have the worst working conditions of anybody I know of it is the seamen of the United States.

The committee will answer my amendment to this effect, that they come under the Maritime Act. The Maritime Act regulates the wages and hours of only one-tenth of the seamen of the United States, only those who work on Government subsidized boats. including about 10,000 men. There are 114,000 seamen in the United States who are working under bad conditions. This bill absolutely excludes them.

[PAGE 1784]

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

[PAGE 1785]

The committee will probably say, "We cannot regulate the wages and hours of seamen." Let me inform the committee that the United States Maritime Commission regulates the wages and hours of seamen working on Govemment-subsidized boats. I am here making a plea for those seamen who do not work on Govemment-subsidized boats, and who, in my opinion, are one of the lowest-paid groups of workers in the United States. If you are going'to help someone, for God’s sake help those people in this bill and raise their standards.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Do the seamen want to come in under this or do they not?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I do not care whether they want to or not; I know that they are underpaid and that the purpose of this bill is to raise the standards of the low-class groups, I realize that there probably are some of the unions that maybe do not want them under the bill, but I am speaking for the rank and file.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr, Chairman, if this amendment be adopted it will be one more stroke for the destruction of the American merchant marine, that is now fighting for its existence. The gentleman has said that the Maritime Commision fixes hours and wages. They are authorized to regulate wages, but the hours are fixed by legislation of Congress. While I do not care to make a personal reference, the late Billy Connery told me just shortly before the last session that the Merchant Marine Committee had done more in the interest of the seamen in the last few years than had been done in the history of the Republic. I am asking that you leave this subject alone.

It goes further, however; it regulates the fishing boats; it regulates every boat on intercoastal waters and also on the inland waterways. You cannot afford to deal with that proposition in this way. I do not believe that the seamen themselves want this legislation. They are fighting in their own way and by their own contracts to make suitable provisions with respect to their wages; and I appeal to this House, if it wants to preserve a merchant marine as an auxiliary to the Navy of this country and for foreign commerce, that it defeat this amendment; if it wants to preserve the boats on coastwise and intercoastal waters, on the inland waterways, and on our bays and rivers, that it defeat this amendment and net allow another complication and handicap at this time. Leave us to work out the problems as we are trying to work than out and as we have in a measure worked them out in the interest of these people.

I appeal to you to defeat this amendment, [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Dunn of Pennsylvania) there were—ayes 7, noes 51.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chataian, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pace: Page 4, line 17, strike out the words “and growing" and insert a comma after the word “cultivation" and the following words: "growing and harvesting."

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairmam I am quite sure that this is only a perfecting amendment and that it carries out what the committee intended. You will notice on lines 16 and 17 of page 4 it describes agriculture as the cultivation and growing of certain crops, but does not mention the harvesting of the crops, The crop naturally, has to be harvested. I do not think it is significant except the fact that it is left out and those who enforce the bill may attach some significance to the fact that the word “harvesting" is left out. The amendment, therefore, males this provision read simply, “the cultivation, the growing, and the harvesting." That is all amendment does, and I am sure it does what the committee intended to do.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the committee will not oppose that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WHITTINGTON: On 4, line 12, after the ward “sponges", insert “or any person employed in correction with the ginning of cotton."

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I hav but this to say respecting the amendment: That the ginning of cotton is local and often done on the plantations. It is really covered by the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LUCAS] and previously adopted. It is in line with the definition of prrsons employed in agriculture contained in the bill. This amendment is included in the Senate bill and was originally reported by the committee. The amendment confines the exemption to those employed in the ginning of cotton, which is comparable and equivalent to the packing of other agricultural commodities. I believe that the amendment should be accepted, because it is really a clarifying amendment. Ginning cotton is purely an intrastate business.

Mr. TERRY. It is a seasonal one, too.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is seasonal also. I appeal to my friend from Georgia [Mr. RamspeckJ to urge the Committee to accept the amendment.

Mr. RAMSPECK I may say to the gentleman that it has been my view all along that cotton should not come in this bill. This bill applies solely to interstate commerce. The ginning of cotton is really nothing but the servicing of a commodity, and certainly is nothing but intrastate commerce.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I agree with the gentleman. I trust that the Committee will accept the amendment. Cotton ginning is local, and it is purely intrastate business. I may remind the gentieman from Georgia that others oppose the amendment I propose because they say that it is wholly unnecessary. They maintain that persons employed in connection with ginning cotton are not included within the terms of the bill, but if they are they come under the Lucas amendment already adopted to paragraph (20), page 8, section 2, of the bill. The ginning of cotton is included in the Lucas amendment, inasmuch as ginning cotton is synonymous with packing cotton. I agree that ginning cotton is synonymous with packing cotton. Of course, cotton is an agricultural commodity. I may say further, in reply to the gentleman from Georgia, that I offered the amendment on page 4 in line 12 because at that point persons employed in agriculture are exempt from the terms of the bill.

Under section 4, subparagraph (j), persons employed in connection with ginning cotton are included with respect to minimum wages but are not included with respect to maximum hours. I am offering the amendment, therefore, to clarify the meaning of the bill, and I am offering it at the proper place. I agree it will be necessary to offer a further clarifying amendment under said section 4, subparagraph (j). If those engaged in the ginning of cotton are to be exempt from the maximum hours of the bill, they should certainly be exempt from the minimum wages.

I may say, furthermore, that under the so-called Lucas amendment persons employed in compressing and storing cotton are exempt from the terms of the bill. The gentieman from Nebraska [Mr. Coffee] will offer an amendment that will include the procesing of cottonseed, which I favor. I believe that said section 4 should be clarified so as to make persons employed in connection with ginning and compressing cotton and in the processing of cottonseed exempt from the entire provisions of the bill. I shall propose such an amendment. The bill should be clarified to state that gins, compresses, and oil mills are exempt from all provisions of the bill.

I remind the gentleman from Georgia that the committee, contrary to his good judgment, has included a purely local

[PAGE 1785]

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

[PAGE 1786]

and intrastate work in the wages provision of the bill with respect to ginning of cotton in said section 4. If the decision of the Supreme Court in the N. R. A. case means anything, surely this act is void with respect to a purely local or intrastate work. I repeat, therefore, that my amendment will clarify and assist in eliminating the unconstitutional provisions respecting cotton ginning in section 4 of the bill. Let me say in this connection that section 8 authorizes the Administrator to interfere in purely intrastate matters. It is not only void, but revolutionary. The Administrator would thus rule all industry, local and national.

Mr. Chairman, I extend my remarks further to say that S. 2475 is known as the Fair standards Act of 1937, and it is commonly referred to as the Wage and Hour Act. The bill proceeds upon the theory that "there is a scarcity of purchasing power and that this scarcity will be converted into plenty by increasing wages and reducing hours. The bill directly affects interstate commerce, but it does not affect nor does it apply with respect to purely local or intrastate work or industry.

Moreover, the Board or the Administrator is permitted to determine minimum wages and maximum hours only in those industries where subStandard labor conditions exist. It does not apply to industries where there is a high type of labor. The bill does not apply to organized labor. It applies only to unorganized labor in the substandard labor groups.

Persons employed in agriculture are not included in the terms of the act. The growing and preparation of crops for market is purely local; it is intrastate. If agriculture is to be exempt, surely industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, and handling dairy products, poultry products. livestock products and other agricultural commodities should be exempt. The works are seasonal. The products in many cases are perishable. Cotton gins should be exempt, compresses should be exempt, and oil mills should be exempt. those engaged in transporting agricultural products from the farm to the market should be exempt. The National Grange, the National Cooperative Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, and the National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, as I understand, are against the legislation. Organized labor is against the legislation. The legislation has been loosely prepared. In many respects the bill is contradictory. I oppose the bill.

I believe in improving working conditions, but to place 12,000,000 workers under a bureaucracy in Washington is not a solution. I believe the better method is State controL Congress could extend existing Federal legislation to supplement State statutes. Legislation could be passed to aid and protect those States that have enacted fair labor legislation. Competitive conditions would hasten the enactment of state laws in all the States that are fair and just to labor.

I believe it is unwise to concentrate Federal power at the continued expense of the States. If one-third of the workers of the United states are working under substandard conditions and if they are now getting less than 40 cents an hour, a drastic readjustment of both industry and production would result in widespread unemployment. We cannot increase employment with laws alone and laborers cannot get rich by merely working less. The proposed adjustments are unsound. There should be no mandatory provisions. Provisions for readjustments and for wages and hours should always be directory rather mandatory.

Unemployment would be aided. Laws cannot make a man worth a wage. Those that are not worth 40 cents an hour will not be employed. The older groups and the younger groups would be discriminated against.

Regulation by government is expensive. A new board or a new administrator in Washington is provided for. Bureaucracy is multiplied. It is too much, I repeat to emphasize, to place 12,000,000 workers under a bureaucracy in Washington. It is no time for additional administrators, commissions, or boards, with additional public expenditures.

The President of the United States recently urged a reduction in labor costs in the building industry. The legislation proposes to increase labor costs. The President urged that housing be encouraged by reducing the costs of construction. The President is right. The need now is to encnurage industry and to help business. The situation is materially different from what it was 12' months ago. The present recession may easily become a slump. All efforts at further bureaucracy should be halted.

It has been said that the manufactnrers of New England believe that the legislation will aid them. I believe they are mistaken. The South cannot afford to pay unskilled labor the price that it pays skilled labor. If there are natural advantages of climate and other living conditions in the South, if the laborers in the South can live more cheaply because of climate and other natural advantages, a moment's reflection will convince those who advocate the pending bill to promote manufacturing in the East, that manufacturing in the South will be aided rather than retarded. If the same wage is paid in the South, the laborer can save more. There is a better opportunity for his acquiring and maintaining a home. The legislation is intended to disciiminate against the South, but instead of discriminating against the South it will discriminate against the small employer in all parts of the country. While aimed at the South, it will be ineffective. The costs of living are less, the climate is milder, the laborer will accumulate more. If labor flourishes in the South now on less wages, it will flourish in the South more on still greater wages.

Employment, however, cannot be guaranteed merely by passing laws. Laws do not provide jobs. I oppose the bill because it will not only injure labor in the South but in all parts of the Nation.

Differentials are recognized under the Works Progress Administration. The present administration time after time has recognized differentials in wages. There are variations in the costs of fuel, in the costs of housing, and in the costs of living generally. The National Industrial Conference Board in 1929 showed that the average cost of labor per man-hour in South Carolina was 23 cents, while in New York it was 60 cents. I believe that the Public Works or the Works Progress Administrations have pursued a correct policy in providing for differentials in employment in various sections of the country.

The tariff is involved. What will become of the displaced labor? The provisions of the bill respecting tariffs, although stricken out, may be retained in conference and may complicate the trade treaties now being initiated by the administration.

It is said that the Democratic platform of 1936 called for labor legislation. However, the platform provided for Federal and State cooperation. The bill places too many laborers in a strait jacket.

Some 26 States have passed fair standard-labor acts; they are making progress. All states oppose oppressive child labor; all States oppose oppressive work for women. As a nation we have grown in 150 years under the State and Federal system. Let us not abandon the system of state government. Let us move cautiously as we enlarge and extend the Federal jurisdiction. At a time when agriculture should be encourged, business and commerce promoted, the passage of the pending bill would be exceedingly unwise.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired; all time on this section bas expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by .Mr. WHITTINGTON) there were—ayes 39, noes 76.

So the amendment was rejected

The Clerk read as follows:

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

SEC. S. (a) Tbere is hereby created tn 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 sball be appointed by the President, by and with the

[PAGE 1786]

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

[PAGE 1787]

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 ut111ze 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 Admln1strator may establish and utilize such regional, local, or other agencies, and utillze such voluntary and uncompensated services, as may from time to time be needed. In 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 omcers 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 emciency.

(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.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will object unless I can be assured of an opportunity to present an amendment that has been pending for 3 days—

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can give no assurance to any Member.

Mr. BOREN. Then, Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey moves that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BLAND. Is that motion in order until there has been debate on the section?

The CHAIRMAN. Answering the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair may say the motion is not in order until there has been debate.

Mr. BLAND. I make a point of order against the motion then.

The CHAmMAN. The point of order is sustained.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RAMSPECK: Page 8, strike out lines 22 to 25, inclusive, strike out all of page 9, and lines 1 to 16, inclusive, on page 10, and insert in lieu thereof:

"LABOR STANDARDS BOARD

"SEC. 3. (a) There is hereby created a Board, to be known as the Labor Standards Board, which shall be composed of five members who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and one shall be from the Northeast, one from the Northwest, one from the Southeast, one from the Southwest, and one from the central part of the United States, and one of such members shall be a representative of employers and one shall be a representative of employees. The President shall from time to time designate one of the members of the Board to act as chairman. One of the original members of the Board shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, one for a term of 2 years, one for a term of 3 years, one for a term of 4 years, and one for a term of 5 years, and their successors shall be appointed for terms of 5 years each, except that any individual chosen to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which h1s predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. The Board shall appoint a director for each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia to serve the Board as it shall direct.

"(b) A vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remainlng members to exercise all the powers of the Board. The Board shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including provision as to the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum, but no order declaring a minimum wage or a maximum workweek shall be made except by a majority of the Board. The Board shall have an omcial seal which shall be judicially noticed.

"(c) Each member of the Board shall receive a salary of $10,000 a year, shall be eligible for reappointment, and shall not engage in any other business, vocation, or employment.

"(d) The Board may, subject to the civil-service laws, appoint such employees as it deems necessary to carry out the functions and duties of the Board and shall fix their salaries in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. The Board 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 Board 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 Board, 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.

"(e) The principal office of the Board shall be in the District of Columbia, but it may meet or exercise any or all of its powers at any other place. The Board may, by one or more of its members or authorized representatives, or by such other agents or agencies as the Board may designate, prosecute any inquiry necessary to its functions in any part of the United States.

"(f) The Board shall submit annually in January a report to the Congress covering the work of the Board for the preceding year and including such information, data, and recommendations for further legislation in connection with the matters covered by this act as it may find advisable."

Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Not if it comes out of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. It will come out of the gentleman's time.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, with so many amendments pending, I do not think it is right for a member of the committee to take all the time and not give the Members of the House a chance; and I object.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN] objects.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman. I withdraw the objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK]?

Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. TRANSUE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for an additional 5 minutes. He has an important provision here, and I would like to hear it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I may be wrong in my inference, but I understand that when the gentleman's time is up the chairman of the Labor Committee has indicated she will make a motion to limit debate to 40 minutes. Then what will be the result?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. RAMSPECK. May I say to the gentleman that the argument I am going to make is purely a legal argument, and it is utterly impossible to discuss the legal questions involved in 5 minutes.

Mr. HOOK. Being an attorney, I am in sympathy with the gentleman and withdraw the objection.

The CHAmMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, the most important question involved in this bill is before the Committee now. The amendment which I have offered is the language appearing in the bill reported last August by the House Committee on Labor, and if you want to have it before you, you may get copy of S. 2475 as reported last August.

[PAGE 1787]

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

[PAGE 1788]

You will see the amendment provides for the establishment of an independent quasi-judicial board outside any 'department of the Government' and vested with the power contained in this bill. This is not a new position, I may say to the Members of the Committee, so far as I am concerned. I made this same fight 1n 1935 when the Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act. I have before me the printed proceedings of the House of June 19, 1935, at which time I opposed the Committee on Labor in a similar situation. At that time I called the attention of the Members to the fact that in dealing with this subject of delegation of power on the part of Congress, in discussing the Rathbun case, generally known as the Humphreys case, where there was tested the power of the President of the United States to remove a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. the Supreme Court said, with regard to the establishment of said Commission, this:

To make this possible, Congress set up a special procedure. A commission. a quasi-judicial body, was created. Provision was made for formal complaint, for notice and hearing, for appropriate findings of fact supported by adequate evidence, and for judicial review to give assurance that the action of the Commission is taken within its statutory authority.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Marcantonio, took the same position on the floor of the House that I did, and I quote further from the language of the Supreme Court as follows:

Thus, the language of the act, the legislative reports, and the general purposes of the legislation as reflected by the debates, all combine to demonstrate the congressional intent to create a body of experts who shall gain experience by length of service—a body which shall be independent of Executive authority, except in its selection, and free to exercise its judgment without the leave or hindrance of any other official or any department of the Government. To the accompllshment of these purposes it is clear that Congress was of opinion that length and certainty of tenure would vitally contribute. And to hold that, nevertheless, the members of the Commission continue in office at the mere will of the President might be to thwart, in large measure, the very ends which Congress sought to realize by definitely fixing the term of office.

Further in that same opinion the Supreme Court said:

The Federal Trade Commission is an administrative body created by Congress to carry into etfect legislative policies embodied in the statute in accordance With the legislative standard wherein prescribed, and to perform other specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid. Such a body cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive. Its duties are performed without executive leave and, in the contemplation of the statute, must be free from executive control. In administering the provisions of the statute in respect of "unfair methods of competition"—that is to say, in filling in and administering the details embodied by that general standard—the Commission acts in part quasi-legislatively and in part quasi-judicially.

If I understand the intent and purpose of Congress in th1s legislation it is to do just that thing; that is, to create a quasi-legislative and a quasi-judicial body which shall have the power to do in detail what the Congress finds it impossible to do in the act, namely, to set up labor standards of wages and hours.

I read that quotation for the purpose of emphasizing the legal difference between delegation of power by the Congress to such an agency as the Federal Trade Commission or such an agency as this would be under my amendment, and the same delegation of power to an administrator in the executive department, if you please, or to the President himself, as we did in the N. R. A. or as the Norton amendment sets up the delegation of power, as I contend, not to any agency of the Government but to wage and hour committees outside the Government.

Let me read to you from the brief submitted by Assistant Attorney General Jackson to the House and Senate committees holding joint hearings. This appears in the RECORD of December 14, on page 1502, as an extension of my remarks. Mr. Jackson said:

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 modem complexities too numerous and diverse to be subjected to a single and inflexible rule directly imposed by the Congress.

I call your special attention to this:

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 administrative commission, independent of the executive branch of the Government.

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (293 U. B. 388) involved delegation directly to the Executive; the Schechter case involved not only theoretical delegation to the Executive but practically delegation to substantially private code authorities. Insofar as the decision in Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (298 U. B. 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."

It is my contention and my understanding of the provisions in the Norton amendment that the real power is delegated to the wage-hour committees. It creates a situation similar to the Carter Coal case and to the code authorities under N. R. A., that is, delegation of power to an agency not within the Government, not an official of the Government, or not an agent of the Government. This goes beyond the power of Congress to delegate its authority. If you say this power delegated to the wage-hour committee cannot become effective until it is approved by the Administrator, I grant you that is true, but similarly a code recommended by a code authority could not become effective until it was approved by the President of the United States.

In its decision in the Schechter case the SUpreme Court said:

The Government urges that the codes will "consist of rules of competition deemed fair for each industry by representative members of that industry—by the persons most vitally concerned and most familiar with its problems." Instances are cited in which Congress has availed itself of such assistance, as, e. g., in the exercise of its authority over the public domain. With respect to the recognition of local customs or rules of miners as to mining claims, or, in matters of a more or less technical nature, as in designating the standard height of drawbars. But would it be seriously contended that Congress could delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups so as tn empower them to enact the laws they deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and expansion of their trade or industries? 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 permlssible 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 prerogatives and duties of Congress.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I call attention to a statement issued by Senator WAGNER immediately after the N. R. A. decision and before the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, in which he stated:

An important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States always provokes speculation concerning its effects upon existing or pending legislation. I am convinced, however, that the invalidation of the main provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act did not cast any serious shadows upon the propriety of enacting the national labor relations bill.

The mainspring of the Court's decision in the Schechter case was that the National Industrial Recovery Act embodied an unwarranted transfer of legislative power to the code-making authorities and to the President. Contrasting this "sweeping delegation" with the valid exercise of congressional authority in creating a Federal Trade Commission to prevent unfair competition, the Court said:

"To make this possible, Congress set up a special procedure"—

And so forth. He then describes this agency, the Federal Trade Commission, as I described it a while ago.

I have read this simply to emphasize the fact that the Supreme Court has made a distinction between delegation of authority to independent agencies and to the Executive. The two cases where the Supreme Court has invalidated the acts of Congress have been cases where we did not set up an independent agency.

If we want to do a real job here, if we want to pass a law which the courts will uphold, we ought to make this an

[PAGE 1788]

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

[PAGE 1789]

independent agency, outside of the executive department, and set it up as we did the Interstate Commerce Commission, tile Federal Trade Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board, so it will have a real chance to function, with a personnel who will achieve expertness through experience and who will have a tenure of service.

Mr. Chairman, I hope my amendment will be adopted.

[Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto may close in 40 minutes.

Mr. DIES. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that 50 minutes be allowed in order to accommodate all those who wish to speak?

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I modify my request and ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto may close in 50 minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I find it necessary at this time to rise in opposition to the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. RAMSPECK], for I want the House to know there is no man on the committee and, in fact, no man in the House, for whom I entertain more admiration and respect, but on this question I am absolutely opposed to his amendment.

So far as the legal question is concerned, as you gentlemen well know, I am not a lawyer and therefore I am not qualified to talk on that subject, but I do think I am qualified to speak of the reasons we adopted the amendment in committee. The gentleman has told you that when this bill was reported out, it was reported out with the administrative section that is in the Senate bill. This is true, and it is also true that following the reporting of the bill your committee met and discussed this question from many angles. From a great many complaints that had been sent in with regard to the National Labor Relations Board and several other boards that had been set up, the country seemed to be rather fed up with boards generally, and as a result we tried to meet the objections presented from all sides and keep faith with the House. I appeared before you as you will recall, and told you what your committee contemplated. I heard no objection at that time. The committee met and adopted my amendment by a vote of 11 to 6.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this action of the committee was well taken. I think, under my amendment, not only are our employees protected, but employers are protected and the outside public, or, in other words, the consumer, because under this amendment the administrator cannot act unless his action finds support in the recommendations of a wage and hour committee composed of representatives of employers, employees, and the public. When you consider the great number of people who are going to be affected by this legislation, I think we should have a very fiexible provision dealing with its adminiStration.

Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a determined effort in this House to vote down, if possible, every amendment that is offered by the committee. A little while ago in the back pf the Chamber I heard some men discussing this bill and they said, "Let us load it down with every damned amendment we can, and when we have done that, let us recommit it." If this is the purpose of the committee, there is very little use of my standing here and pleading for the adoption of this amendment or any part of it, but I say to you that your committee has acted in good faith. We have spent long months on this legislation. We have given every bit of honesty we have in our minds and hearts to the legislation: that is, those of us who want to help the 12,000,000 underprivileged people in this country, and that is what all of you gentlemen are forgetting. You are loading this bill down with amendments. You are taking care of your districts, of your Grange, and your this and your that. I do not believe that Members are justified in taking so selfish a view of legislation designed to help those who cannot speak for themselves and who have :;lUt their faith in us. Please let us have some fair play in this matter and forget the selfish lobbyists who have come to your door threatening you, for they do not represent the great mass of people in this country. If communism shall ever rear its ugly head in America, it will be due to the stupidity and selfishness of those who denied the workers of America the right to a living wage.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes, not to be taken out of the time heretofore fixed.

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

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is built upon the generally accepted minimum-wage standards in 23 States in this country, and I am going to present to you a list of the States: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia—and by the way, in this connection I would like to place in the RECORD at this point an editorial from a Washington newspaper telling how this minimum-wage law in the District of Columbia is working out—Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Puerto Rico.

The clipping referred to follows:

ORDERLY PROCEDURE

Although, of course, no comprehensive appraisal may yet be made as to the efficacy of the minimum-wage law for woman workers in the District, the orderly and harmonious manner in which the groundwork is being laid for this important economic experiment augurs well for the success of the endeavor and reflects credit on those who are supervising it.

At this point the administrative board has determined the minimum wage to be applied to woman workers in the retail merchandising trades, it is in the process of determining such a wage for hotel and restaurant workers, and it bas received applications for similar determination for women employed in beauty parlors, laundries, and offices.

Throughout democratic procedure bas prevailed and progress attempted only after careful study. With the board representing all interested parties—business, labor, and the public—similarly inclusive representation was chosen democratically for conference purposes. Through these conferences contrasting estimates on costs of living were submitted and reconciled and the wage figure finally set to cover such costs.

In the case of the retail-trades wage, fixed several weeks ago, the board announced that it would consider any objections in public hearings on December 14. Thus far not a single representative of business or labor has evidenced any desire to protest the $17 figure established in the prescribed order.

Contributing further to orderliness of the whole procedure, the board's ruling making the m1n1mum mandatory does not become effective until 2 months after the hearing on objections, sufficient time for any necessary adjustments by those involved.

This year the minimum-wage board w1ll receive its baptism of fire before the Appropriations Committees of Congress. The members of the board itself serve without compensation, the only cost being for necessary clerical assistance. The high standard of work established already by the board should not suffer by arbitrary reductions in appropriations or any injection of polltics into the selection of clerical personnel.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if this wage and hour set-up is unconstitutional, as the gentleman from Georgia seems to think it is, why has not this been held in connection with the laws of all the States that have adopted the same principles, and almost exactly the same kind of minimumwage law, that we are setting up in this bill?

Mr. TRANSUE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I cannot yield now.

I may say further that your committee is giving you the best kind of administration under this amendment, because it is an administration that is taking into consideration all of the people who would be involved in the legislation, and you people who claim you want these exemptions have the right to go before this wage and hour committee and present your claims before any wages and hours can possibly be put

[PAGE 1789]

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

[PAGE 1790]

into effect. I think this is a very fair procedure, and I sincerely hope the Committee will vote down the amendment. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to express my deep appreciation of the fine service that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] has rendered to the Labor Committee, and I usually follow his most capable leadership, but I regret that I cannot in this instance. Let me briefly explain the reason why. Down in my own country the vast majority of the complaints against this bill have been to the Board, and I believe Members will find, if they analyze their own situations, that a great deal of the complaints in their own districts is to the Board.

Let us see what is the difference between the Board and the Administrator as we have it in the Senate bill and in the bill prepared by the committee. There are two differences. One, the Administrator has far less authority than the Board, and here is where the difference is. Under the Board we have committees throughout the country and those committees make a recommendation to the Board. The Board is not bound to accept those recommendations of the committees. It can receive those recommendations and then throw them out without even considering them and set up its own findings. In other words, under the Board neither labor nor business has any say-so in fiixing those standards within the law.

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

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Not now; I shall in a minute. Let us see how it works under an administrator. We set up three divisions under the administration, one composed of representatives of labor, one from the employers, and one from the public. Suppose the division from the employees and the division from the employers cannot agree? Naturally the representatives from the public will be the leveling infiuence, and let me point out to you in that regard that the chairman of those groups will come from the public, not from the representatives of employees or employers. The chairman ss a representative of the public.

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

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. No; let me proceed. After they get together and study the problem they come in and make a report. What happens? Here is the important thing. After they make their report, suppose the Administrator does not like it. Yes; he can kick it out, but that is all that he can do.

Mr. KELLER. He can appoint another board.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Yes; but he cannot set up his own ideas in substitution for those of the committee. Under the Board set-up, the Board can kick out the recommendations, then set up its own ideas. There is one other difference. Under the Board it is written into the law that the Board will have to sit in a place nearest every complaint that is made. Under the Administrator feature, the Administrator can set the place of meeting. Bear in mind that neither the Board nor the Administrator can promulgate and put into operation an order until a public hearing has been held. If you want to defeat this legislation, substitute the Board for the Administrator.

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

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the Committee bas already limited the time. Does the gentleman ask for that time, not to be taken out of the time fixed?

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Yes.

Mrs. NORTON. I ask that the time be not taken out of the time fixed.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute, not to be taken out of the time fixed.

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I shall object unless the gentleman consents to answer the question I tried to ask him.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Will the gentleman permit me to make my statement? Then I shall be glad to yield.

Mr. MOTT. No. If the gentleman does not answer my question, I shall obJect.

Mr. CLUETT. Mr. Chairman, this problem confronting us today is a momentous one, a problem which has hardly been given overnight study, but which in its far-reaching consequences should have the most careful, most searching investigation of the best minds this country can produce. This Congress must not at this time place on the statute books such hurried, ill-advised legislation.

I believe I can speak with some authority on this subject, having been connected as an officer and director of a large industry for nearly twoscore years. In the 75 years of our existence we have had one minor strike in one department, and that occurred 30 years ago. We call our men and women fellow workers, not employees. Most of our departments are unionized. We do not object to that. We take these workers into our confidence. We give them good working conditions. We pay them wages satisfactory to them and to us. When they worked 54 hours a week, and 75 percent of them are women, they were happy and contented, and while today our hours are 40, I venture to say that a large majority would welcome that Saturday night pay envelope in return for more 54-hour weeks.

Yesterday I received a telegram urging me to favor a wage and hour bill, signed "A Group of Your Employees." I answered it at once: "What group? What bill? I do not know what the bill is myself." My friends, is not this the same kind of propaganda we have had on this subject since the wage and hour proposal has been brought to the floor of this House? I have asked to be advised who sent that telegram, who inspired it, what kind of a wage and hour bill they wish me to support, and if they know what the consequences of any such legislation may mean to them now and in the future? That is an example from industry.

How about the farmers, about labor organizations, about the small businessmen? The Tower of Babel is a plaything compared with the utter confusion that has arisen over this unwanted, unwarranted legislation. Have we asked ourselves about the costs, or how it can be enforced? Are we going to rush into this mess as we did the prohibition amendment, only to find that human souls cannot be regimented and enslaved? Why speak of child labor? No red-blooded man or woman approves of that, and yet right in the city of New York, in the dead of night, with the shades drawn, this nefarious practice is going on contrary to the law. Can the Government regulate the sweatshop and chiseler better than the State or community? Public opinion will drive these slave drivers out of business. Has the time come with the affairs of government that we must forget all the political economy forced into our unwilling minds in schooldays, the teachings of John Stuart Mills, and Henry James, and John Bascoms, the inexorable laws of supply and demand as they apply to our fellow men as well as the fruits of their labor, and by the stroke of a pen say, "No. You are all wrong—just theories of fagged-out school teachers." Are we sure as we gather here in this honored Chamber that the time has come to deny these teachings, and that we are the chosen ones toreverse these economic laws which have served us here for a century and a half?

A government cannot put a price on the value of a man's labor, whatever the cost may be. The Government should be the guardian of its citizens, not the regulator or destroyer of them. Inequalities and injustices in business, on the farm, in industry, in the household, have been with us for 150 years of our Nation's history, and yet have we not been the happiest and most prosperous nation on the face of the earth, and the envy of every other nation? Why then this hue and cry?

[PAGE 1790]

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

[PAGE 1791]

A major depression has made us rush in with all kinds of ill-advised panaceas, some of them unconstitutional. We all know the country is suffering today. All the billions we have poured out have only alleviated a worse condition, and billions more, if we can find them, may give a respite, but not a permanent cure. The country today is waiting and ready for a prosperity long overdue. What is my answer? It lies in what this administration honestly intends to do. Will it not in aiding the forgotten man, aid the employer who is the only one who can remember him? Those employers have been vilified, held up to contempt as economic royalists and public enemies because they meet a pay roll. The great men who helped make this country what it is have been held up to scorn—money barons, selfish industrialists, with no thought of anything but their own personal gains. The hand of the Government on them! In Heaven's name take that hand off. Do not kill another Andrew Mellon, disgracefully and unjustly acquitted without a word of apology to the thousands who loved and admired him. Who are these royalist scoundrels? The Rockefellers, senior and junior, who gave us one of the greatest benefits to mankind; the Hills, the Harrimans, who linked with iron the Atlantic and the Pacific; the Edisons, the Fords, the Carnegies, all wealthy men, most of them gone, yes, but who gave their riches for the benefit of humanity, and in their lives gave employment to millions of men and women. What an example for men of the younger generation to follow. What an incentive to men of genius to find that these men after all were not builders, but destroyers, with a jail yawning to take them in.

Yes; the businessmen of this country, large and small, are watching Washington. If confidence in the administration and in this Congress could be restored it would do more to bring this country back to normal than all the wage and hour bills that could ever be written. Confidence, not regimentation. Confidence, not wasteful spending. Confidence that an administration must have, or fail miserably in the high trust placed in it. [Applause.]

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the legal argument presented by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK], and I must take emphatic exception to his legal conclusions, because he fails to take into consideration that a very careful reading of the substitute of the gentlewoman from New Jersey would reveal that there is a definite standard fixed in the substitute which must guide the administrator in all of his functions. He quotes the Schechter decision, reported in volume 295, United states Reports, but I construe that decision quite differently than he. The factors that existed in the N. R. A. which caused the Supreme Court to declare the N. R. A. unconstitutional are absent in the present bill. The headnote in that case reads as follows:

Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President or any other admln1strative agency to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed.

The words "unfettered discretion" are used in that headnote advisedly. We cannot willy-nilly give the President or any administrator unlimited power. If we do so, then that power is improperly delegated. But we do no such thing in this substitute. We set up sharply defined limitations. We say that the administrator can go thus far and no farther. We set up definite standards, and insofar as we set those limitations, the substitute therefor must be considered as eminently fair and eminently legal, in contradistinction to what we did under the N. R. A, when we said the President could do anything he saw fit on good grounds or "coffee grounds," as it were.

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman Yield?

Mr. CELLER. In just a moment. Now, what are these limitations? What are these definite catalogs of power that we outline into this substitute? We say, for example, that the administrator, with the advice of these committees, shall establish minimum-wage and maximum-hour schedules, but they must and can only do that when they take into earnest consideration these limitations: Levels consistent with health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers, and profitable operation of American business, so far 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, and to obtain a shorter workday or workweek than the applicable minimum under this act.

Those are limitations, well defined; and because we have those delimitations in the bill I say to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] that his argument is beside the point, because this delegation of power comes within the foursquare of constitutional delegation of power as defined in the famous Schechter case.

I say, therefore, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, familiar with these cases, that this delegation is eminently fair and is constitutional.

The gentleman from Georgia claims that the wage and hour labor committee mentioned in the bill has unlimited power, and he implies that said committee can act without interference by the Administrator. This is contrary to the provisions of the act. The committee has only advisory powers. If that were not the case, then the contentions of the gentleman from Georgia would be well taken. If the committee could act without hindrance, then there would be an unlawful delegation of power. But this is not the case. On page 12, line 8, we note that the committee is to "recommend" a minimum wage; on page 13, line 17, provision again is made that the committee is to "recommend" a minimum wage, and in so doing shall consider among other relevant circumstances, (1) the cost of living; and (2) the wages paid by employers in similar occupations established. Also, on page 14 of the bill, provision is made for the committee to "recommend" a maximum workday; while on page 15, line 22, the bill again speaks of the "recommendations" of the committee. Thus, throughout the bill, you will find that the committee's powers are to recommend and advise, and that the Administrator may accept or reject these recommendations. He may hearken or refuse to hearken unto the advice received from these committees.

But it must be remembered also that in any action that the Administrator may take, consistent or inconsistent with the advice or counsel of the committee, he must act in pursuance of the well-defined standards that we set forth in the bill. Please note on page 23, part IV of the bill, under the general title "General Administrative Provisions," that there is a subtitle called "Labor Standard Orders." And the bill proceeds to indicate with meticulous care how these laborstandard orders may be issued by the Administrator. There must be hearings; there must be publication in the Federal Register; and other conditions must be complied with.

Page 26, section 10 of the bill, specifies the character of the hearings by again limiting the nature thereof. Page 26, section 11 of the bill, speaks of the type of investigations and of the testimony taken. Here again we have limitations.

A careful reading of the bill indicates scores of limitations set upon the action of the Administrator. All of these limitations indicate that the Administrator has no unlimited power. On the contrary, he is limited to what we, the Members of Congress, say he can or cannot do.

Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, I am not a recent convert to the cause of the workers of this country. No Member of this body has a better record in support of labor. The records of the House and Senate, over a period of many years, as well as the reports issued by all the railroad brotherhoods, by the United Mine Workers, and by the American Federation of Labor fully substantiate this statement.

I have always opposed the exploitation of child labor. I voted to submit the child-labor amendment to our Federal Constitution, and urged its ratification by my own State. It was ratified by Kentucky. Welfare, labor, and many business organizations and enterprises procured the adoption by

[PAGE 1791]

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

[PAGE 1792]

Kenttucky of child-labor laws which are in line with the childlabor provisions of the measure we have under consideration, and these laws are enforced in Kentucky. May I point out to some of our friends from New York and Massachusetts condemning some of the other States that neither Massachusetts nor New York has ratified the child-labor amendment, although the Democrats have been in control of those States many years since the Federal child-labor amendment was submitted. President Roosevelt did not procure its adoption during the many years he was Governor of New York. I wonder if our colleagues from New York and Massachusetts appeared before their respective legislatures and urged the ratification of this child-labor amendment. Its ratification was defeated before their State legislatures. We do not have, so far as I have ever learned, any sweatshops in Kentucky. New York City is the great sweatshop center of this country.

I have never failed to support any measure that would be helpful to the workers of this country in giving them better wages, shorter hours, better working conditions, and giving them the right to organize and to bargain collectively. I have always been most active in speaking and voting for measures to cut out foreign immigration and prevent the dumping of the products of foreign farms, mines, and factories into our country in competition with our American workers.

Many of those from New York and other States who are fighting for this measure fought vigorously those salutary measures for the benefit of American labor. I am one of those who contend that this country cannot be prosperous unless the farmers and the workers of the Nation are prosperous. I voted to discharge the committee that had this bill under consideration in order to bring it before the House in the hope that a sane, workable, helpful bill might be adopted.

FACED WITH A MAJOR DEPRESSION

Recent reports of governmental agencies disclose that all business is off 30 percent. Steel production has been reduced to only 28 percent of its normal production. Automobile production is off 50 percent, shoes and textiles are off 30 percent, corn has dropped from $1.35 per bushel last spring to 35 cents per bushel locally in corn sections. The price of cotton is off more than 50 percent, wheat is off approximately 50 percent. and there has been a like fall in prices of other farm commodities. Farm labor employment dropped 13 percent between November 1 and December 1. Unemployment among industrial workers has increased approximately 3,000,000. Hundreds of industrial plants have closed and thousands and thousands of others have curtailed their production.

These great reductions occurred for the most part in the last 3 months. There has been a decline in gilt-edge stocks and bonds since last January of perhaps more than $30,000,000,000. This situation is especially alarming because the downward trend is on the increase.

There are now altogether more than 10,000,000 workers in industry out of work and several milllons of farm workers, and from all reports the number of unemployed is growing.

There are those employed in industry and on the farm who are receiving less than a living wage. It is of vital concern to me and to everyone interested in the welfare of our country to find employment for these unemployed and to increase the pay of those who are underpaid. Many of the great labor organizations and labor leaders, as well as many of those engaged in industry, point out that the measure before us will not accomplish either one of these desirable purposes, but on the other hand will accentuate the business depression, create more unemployment, break down and destroy industrial unionism and collective bargaining, and on the whole will be hurtful and not helpful to either labor, industry, or our country.

NOT BLACK-CONNERY BILL

The bill before us is not the Black-Connery bilL Mr. Connery died, and his brother, LAWRENCE J. CoNNERY, was elected to succeed him as a Member of the House. This brother insisted that the name of his brother be taken from the bill because it no longer represented the bill his brother advocated. He asserted on the floor:

This bill is no monument, and will be no monument, I feel, to Billy Connery.

The Senate added many amendments to the Black-Connery bill. Three or four new bills displacing the Black-Connery bill have been introduced in turn in the House; no one will claim to be the author of the bill before us, and the one before us has had already adopted approximately 175 amendments; but the impression has gone out to the country that it is the Black-Connery bill. The names "Black" and "Connery" have been stricken and are not on the bill before us. Neither former Senator Black nor the late William Connery had anything to do with writing the present bill before us. The bill before us is so different that it is not even a distant cousin to the Black-Connery bill. Those pushing this legislation, however, it seems to me, tried to get the impression to the workers of the country that we had before us the Black-Connery bill. This bill will not be helpful to labor, as the Black-Connery bill might have been; and Mr. CONNERY has signified his purpose to vote to recommit it.

No one in my congressional district has urged me to support the Black-Connery bill or the bill before us. Two persons in another part of Kentucky and two persons outside of the State have urged me to support the Black-Connery bill. I represent a great district of railroad workers and mine workers. I have received hundreds and hundreds of protests against this bill.

OTHERS OPPOSE THE BILL BEFORE US

Gen. Hugh Johnson, the first director of the N. R. A., in speaking of the bill before us, said:

It is no good. The administration knows it is no good. Bill Green knows it is no good, and said so.

Donald R. Richberg, the only other administrator of the N. R. A. and the man who had much to do with the drafting and administration of the Railway Labor Act, and who has had exceptionally long and extensive experience in the adjustment of labor relations, in a formal statement used this language:

It invites a repetition of practically all of the errors of the N. R. A., without providing some of the safeguards which were provided for the administration of the N. R. A.

The Black-Connery bill provided for a board of five to administer it. The present bill provides for a one-man administrator. I have seen no statement from Mr. Lewis indicating that he favors the measure now before us with all its changes and 175 amendments. He and Mr. Green both found serious objection to the five-man board and the threat the board offered to weakening and breaking down industrial unions and collective bargaining. Mr. Green says the one-man administrator is much more objectionable than the five-man board. If Mr. Lewis opposed the board of five, I do not see how he could favor one man having all this power. Mr. Lewis, according to press reports, at the recent national convention of the C. I. O. held on October 13, 1937, said of the wage and hour bill: "That halting, miserable wage and hour bill."

Mr. Green and other labor leaders—and I agree with them—are of the opinion that the bill before us is much more unsatisfactory and offers less hope for labor than the Black-Connery bill. The American Federation of Labor and other labor groups strongly backed the Wagner Labor Act setting up the National Labor Relations Board. It was claimed by labor that it was to be the Magna Carta for labor. However, the American Federation of Labor changed its attitude as to the National Labor Relations Board. At its national convention recently, the federation, according to press reports, went on record as denouncing it and urging that the Wagner Act be amended. The national convention of the C. I. O. steelworkers, claiming to represent 500,000 American workers, in its convention at Pittsburgh on December 15 criticized the National Labor Relations Board for tending to "disrupt and destroy" industrial unionism. Press reports also quote Mr. Lewis in his speech at

[PAGE 1792]

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

[PAGE 1793]

Pittsurgh on yesterday, December 16, to this C. L 0. convention of steelworkers as saying that the Roosevelt a"dministration was "doing nothing about the threat of another depression." The administration's wage and hour bill was at that time before us and had been for some time.

William Green, after submitting a careful analysis, on December 10, 1937, wrote Members of the House, including myself, expressing strong opposition to the bill before us. He and his great labor organization contend that the one-man administrator is much more objectionable than the five-man board. He points out that this one-man administrator will be a czar over labor and industry, and in concluding his statement he used this forceful language:

He (the Administrator), therefore, would have 1n h1s control the power to destroy entirely industrial organizations, communities, labor unions, collective-bargaining agencies, and determine the con- ditions under which these respective communities, organizations, and agencies shall function or shall live.

There could be no more severe indictment of the bill before us, coming as it does from this great labor leader and his great organization.

So far as I have been able to learn, every farm organization in this countty is against this bill. The hundreds of thousands of industrial enterprises, both large and small, and especially the smaller concerns, are greatly alarmed over this bill and strongly oppose it.

NO MAN WAS EVER GRANTED SO MUCH POWER

Scores of Democrats, many of them favoring this bill, have made speeches during the last few days on the floor of this House in which they asserted most positively that no man in this Nation has ever been given as much power as this bill would give to this one-man Administrator. It is asserted that no such sweeping and autocratic powers were ever given to President Roosevelt, and he undoubtedly has been given Dlenty.

A number of" the members of the Labor Committee who are supporting this bill have made strong efforts and strong appeals to have the five-man board restored as provided in the Black-Connery bill, instead of this one-man administrator, but their efforts have been unsuccessful, and therefore the only bill before us is this one-man administrator with as great power as the dictators of Russia, Germany, and Italy have over labor and industry in those countries. Are you going to stand for that? I, for one, am not. [Applause.]

CONGRESS SHOULD NOT ABDICATE BUT LEGISLATE

If it is desirable to have minimum living wages and maximum hours in this country, let Congress fix those wages and hours directly, as proposed by the American Federation of Labor under the Dockweiler substitute bill or the Griswold substitute and amendment. Let us fearlessly and honestly meet the issue. Could not the 531 Members of the House and Senate, coming from 435 Congressional Districts and 48 States, more nearly fix just and honest minimum wages and maximum hours for the workers of this country than some one individual? Let Congress fix the wages and hours, or at least provide a well-defined formula by which they may be fixed instead of leaving it to the caprice of one man and the committees that would be controlled by him and under the hundreds of exceptions in this bill would give to him opportunities for favoritism, partiality, political and economic oppression. Under this bill he could have 10,000 or more committees investigating every industrial plant in this country.

It can be seen at once that Mr. Green is quite rightthat the czar under this bill would have the power to destroy labor unions, industrial organizations, collective-bargaining agencies, and communities. Yes; this administrator could favor one community as against another community in fixing wages and hours. This is the very condition that obtains in Russia, Italy, and Germany. There free labor unions and collective bargaining and free industrial organizations have been destroyed. President Green and other labor leaders realize that they and those before them have fought for more than a century and a half for the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively. Business organizations have struggled to create their own organizations to promote their interests. This great democracy of ours cost too much of treasure and blood to have it sacrificed in this way. I, for one, am unwilling to give to one man the power to destroy labor unions, collective-bargaining agencies, industrial organizations, and communities. I am unwilling to take away the freedom and representation of these millions of American workers and their organizations. [Applause.]

FORTY CENTS MAXIMUM—FORTY HOURS MINIMUM

The Black-Connery bill received considerable support among the workers of this country, railroad workers and others, because they felt that it would provide for a 30-hour week and with minimum pay per hour. There are no such provisions in this bill.

Forty cents an hour is the maximum—the highest rate of pay that could be fixed by this Administrator under the terms of this bill. He could with the power given to him under this bill fix wages at 10 cents, 20 cents, or 30 cents, or any sum up to 40 cents; but he could go no higher. He could not fix a workweek at less than 40 hours. That is the absolute minimum under the provisions of this bill. He could, however, fix 44, 48, or even 60 hours, but he could not in any event fix a workweek at less than 40 hours.

The American Federation of Labor bill, as set forth in the Dockweiler or Griswold substitute, fixed the minimum wage at 40 cents per hour and the maximum workweek at 40 hours. In other words, no wage could be fixed lower than 40 cents and no workweek could be longer than 40 hours. It is just the opposite of the bill before us.

The bill before us might be called a "bill of exceptions" rather than a wage and hour bill. No industrial plant and no group of workers could possibly know by reading the bill what their rights would be under it.

RAILROAD BROTHERHOODS AND MINE WORKERS

The 22 standard railroad brotherhoods urgently requested that they be eliminated from the provisions of this bill. An amendment was offered to that effect and adopted, and therefore none of the railroad workers will come under the provisions of this bill, although there are railroad workers who are receiving less than 40 cents an hour, and there are about 800,000 railroad workers out of employment.

The 22 standard railroad brotherhoods have, as a general rule, over a period of many years, selected men of great wisdom, sound judgment, great capacity, and loyalty to the workers to head their organizations. These organizations many years ago secured the 8-hour day with time and a half for overtime, and many other favorable conditions, and likewise secured recognition from the Government of their organizations, and these organizations through their members and leaders obtained advances in pay and other favorable benefits for the railroad workets.

The leaders of these great organizations in my opinion very wisely asked to be excluded from the provisions of this bill. I voted to grant their request. They no doubt realize, as does President William Green, that the Administrator under this bill has the power to destroy industrial unions and collective bargaining. He could increase the hours above 40 and he could fix the pay at less than 40 cents per hour. Do you not know that the 22 standard railroad brotherhoods, the American Federation of Labor, the oil workers, and other groups would be actively supporting this measure if it were in the interest of the workers of this country? The fact that they are not for it should cause all the friends of labor to "stop, look, and listen" before giving it their support.

The United Mine Workers under the able leadership of John L. Lewis and others of their organization have accomplished a great deal for the mine workers. They now have a 2-year contract by the terms of which the mine workers have a 7-hour day and 5-day week, or 35-hour week. This administrator under this bill could not help the mine workers in giving them shorter hours. He could not fix the workweek at less than 40 hours per week. No mine worker under this contract receives less, as I understand it, than 50 cents

[PAGE 1793]

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

[PAGE 1794]

per hour, and on an average they receive more than 70 cents per hour. This administrator could not help the mine workers in the way of pay because he could not fix any wage above 40 cents per hour. He does have the power, however, to make it less than 40 cents per hour.

The oil workers and other workers have asked that they be excluded from this bill. The oil workers have a 36-hour week and some other workers have a 30-hour week, but we must bear in mind that this Administrator could not fix any week at less than 40 hours.

I give this warning to my friends among the workers: Would not this measure have a tendency to reduce the wages of those who are receiving 40 cents or more per hour, and after a while would not the workers of this country find there would be little use of their unions, as this Administrator would have the power to fix wages and hours? Would it not be an inducement to organized workers to remain unorganized? Is not the objections of President Green, the American Federation of Labor, the oil workers, and others based upon solid ground when they assert that this measure will not be helpful but will prove rusastrous to unionism and collective bargaining?

I have for more than 18 years given my support to measures that would strengthen the right of workers to organize and to bargain collectively. If I voted for this bill, I honestly feel that I would be undoing and overturrung what I had helped to do in the many years I have been a Member of the House and Senate.

This measure undoubtedly will not help labor. Its uncertainty and the extraordinary powers given over industry will create a feeling of fear and unrest among those who have money to build factories and shops and operate mines, and this unrest will reflect itself in my opinion in the closing or the cutting down of production in industrial plants and accentuate the depression in which we find ourselves and add to the army of unemployed. Sensible and reasonable men must at all times bear in mind that neither the Government nor the Members of the House and Senate can provide jobs for the millions of workers of this country. These jobs must be provided by agriculture and industry. Let me repeat, if it is felt desirable to have a wage and hour bill, let us have a simple, workable bill as suggested by the American Federation of Labor. Let the terms be clear and definite, and let it be enforced, as recommended by the American Federation of Labor, by the Department of Justice.

MILLIONS OF UNDERPAID WORKERS EXCLUDED

If this measure means anything, the administrator could give an increase of wages to perhaps 500,000 workers out of more than 40,000,000 workers of this country. It expressly excludes all the millions of farm laborers. Most of these workers receive approximately $1 per day and work from daylight to dark in all kinds of weather—snow, sleet, rain, and intense heat. Then there are millions of laborers engaged in intrastate work. The bill before us applies only to those engaged in interstate business. This measure offers no relief to the intrastate workers.

It is said that there is a desire to increase the purchasing power of the people. The purchasing power of these millions of workers excluded is just as important as those who are included. If Congress has the power to legislate about pigs, rice, and so forth, it certainly has the power to legislate for the underpaid workers of the country. There is no justification for workers receiving only $1 per day and working 10 or 12 hours per day in agriculture or intrastate business. I want to help all the underpaid and underprivileged workers of the country. I would not pull down those who are receiving good wages but I would raise those who are underpaid and underprivileged. If we are to have a wage and hour bill, let it be a fair and just measure, giving just and fair consideration to all of our citizens.

The measure before us does not include piece workers. Do not the proponents of this bill know that the failure to include piece work within its provisions will induce many concerns in interstate commerce to avoid its provisions by putting its workers on piece work?

It is a little amusing to contemplate how this bill will operate, it has so many exceptions. It gives dictatorial power to one man over industry and over labor. This bill will cut out all newspaper boys and telegraph messengers who are under 16 years of age if they handle interstate papers or magazines. For instance, in my own district, in every county seat and in some other towns, papers are received from Cincinnati, Ohio, Chicago, Ill., and Knoxville, Tenn.

Under this bill no boy under 16 years of age could sell or deliver those papers on the streets or to the homes of our citizens, and no boy could be a telegraph messenger if be was under 16. Many distinguished men of the House and Senate and many other great men of the country owe their start in life to selling newspapers in their home towns or cities. I know a great many boys under 16 in my district who are paying their own way in school or helping a widowed mother or a disabled father by selling newspapers or working as telegraph messengers.

If this bill becomes a law, it will be very interesting as to its operation. An amendment was adopted to exclude the processing of agricultural products. If language means anything, it will exclude from the operation of this bill the great packing houses, textile mills, tobacco factories, distilleries, and thousands of industries that are engaged regularly the year around in the processing of agricultural products. This measure excludes any and all concerns, large and small, engaged in the processing of agricultural products. There is nothing much left of the workers except steel, automobile, railroad, and mine workers, and all of them have as short or shorter hours and higher pay than could be fixed under the provisions of this bill.

I might say, however, in each community there are some small factories that operate largely by hand. The output per each man-unit is small. These little factories, unless they can put in machinery and compete with the big concerns, will be put out of business.

WE HAVE A DUTY TO OUR CONSTITUENTS AND OUR COUNTRY

This bill is predicated on the wrong premise. It is born out of sectional feeling and jealousy. The proponents, in some of the sections of the North and East, do not disguise their purpose. They claim that it will stop the movement of industries, factories, mills, and shops in the North and East, and force those that have gone South to go out of business or go back to the North and East. They do not manifest the spirit of George Washington, the Father of our Country, who said the North needs the South, the East needs the West, and all four sections of our great land need each other. It would not help the North and East to destroy the factories, shops, mills, and mines of the South. The South is one of the great markets for the North and East. In one way or another they get about all the earnings of agriculture, labor, and industry of the South. We get much of our shoes from Massachusetts and other New England States. We buy much of our clothing from the North and other northern and eastern centers. We buy our automobiles from Michigan. We get steel, farm machinery, corn, wheat, meats, and countless other products from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa, and other central and midcentral States. We buy much fruit from the far West and we buy much of our clothing, furniture, and thousands of other articles from the North, East, and West. On the other hand, those sections receive from the South a lot of its cotton, tobacco, coal, and other raw materials. It would be most unfortunate if one section of our great country could feel that it could get along without the other section. The dependence of all of these sections, one upon the other, promotes the solidarity, strength, wealth, and power of our Nation.

I am strongly opposed to sweatshops, North, East, West, or South, wherever they may be found. I am opposed to substandard wages, to oppressive working hours and conditions. It is a fact and not a theory, however, that the freight differentials in the South, North, and East are very great, and, strange to say, the freight rates are greater from the South to the North and East than they are from

[PAGE 1794]

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

[PAGE 1795]

the North and East to the South. This undoubtedly came about because of the greater influences in government of the North and East.

While the South has much of raw materials, the North. East, and central part of the country have the great consuming centers far removed from the South, and the South. in order to get its products to the North, East, and West must pay these heavy freight-rate differentials.

The United Mine Workers, in making their contract, recognized this condition, and if they did not do so the coal mines in Kentucky could not operate under the United Mine Workers schedule of wages, because the Kentucky coal must go through bituminous coal-bearing States of lllinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to get to the great coal-consuming markets.

In the very nature of things the cost of living is some less in the South than in the North, East, and West. Coal, rent, articles of food are cheaper. The Federal Government makes a difierence itself. It pays the W. P. A. workers in rural sections of my State a little over $22 per month. It pays the same character of workers in the rural sections of New York approximately $60 a month, and in the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio somewhere between $55 and $60 per month.

The proponents of this legislation are not looking after the welfare of the workers or the industries in my district or State. As I have pointed out, many of them have in mind, as they expressly state, to keep industries from going from the North and East to the South, and, if possible, force those that are in the South to move to the North and East. They are not directly interested, as I am, that the little factories, shops, sawmills, brick plants, and other small industries in my district and Kentucky survive. They would shed no tears if we were put out of business entirely; but would I be acting in the interest of the people that I have the honor to represent to stand idly by and permit the industries of my district and Kentucky to be destroyed, when such action would not be in the interest of our country as a whole? This is our country. We all have an interest in it and a right to work, live, and support ourselves and our families. If we destroy the productivity of the South we force the people of my district and Kentucky and the South into bankruptcy, but in the long run it would hurt our country as a whole, and I might add there are many little factories in each and every one of our congressional districts.

One great trouble with the N. R. A. was that it helped the big fellow and put the little man out of business. The little man in this country has a right to survive. I certainly am not going to give my support to any measure that would give one man the power to destroy the industries, communities, or the right to organize and collective bargaining in any part of our land. Some of the very men from the North and East that are urging this measure and denouncing the South have fought vigorously every effort of others and myself to cut out foreign immigration and cut out foreign products and have fought protection to the American workers in agriculture and industry.

THIS ADMINISTRATION COULD HELP

The constitutionality of this measure is seriously questioned by many of the ablest constitutional lawyers in the House and Senate. The N. R. A. was held unconstitutional by unanimous vote of the Supreme Court of the United States. They point out if the N. R. A. was held unconstitutional because Congress had abdicated and delegated its powers to others instead of legislating as it should have done, the measure before us is even more objectionable.

We have had many great depressions in this country. Recovery came about in less than 4 years. We have bad more than 8 years of this depression, yet economic conditions now are much worse than they were a year ago.

The administration has had more than 4^1/2 years with dictatorial powers and with the expenditure of more than $40,000,000,000 to bring about recovery. It seems that every one of these important "must" bills put before Congress by the President in some way or other violates the Constitution of the United States, gives to one or more bureaucrats dictatorial pow~rs. and takes away the rights and the liberties of the people. The trouble with this administration is it is bent on reform instead of. recovery. They are trying to force a change in our form of government instead of bringing about a restoration of prosperity.

The bill before us goes further than any bill that has yet been submitted. No measure has ever yet proposed to give to one man, as President Green says, the power of a czar over hundreds of thousands of industries and business enterprises and tens of millions of workers of this country.

There are many things that this administration, in my opinion, could do that would bring about recovery within the Constitution and without placing our people under bureaucrats here in Washington and taking away their freedom.

The President and his friends say that we are having a "business recession."

If the Republicans were in power, the Democrats would claim it was a depression or a panic. The President and the country have discovered that we cannot tax and squander ourselves into prosperity, we cannot destroy our products, bringing about misery and starvation, and we cannot regiment agriculture, labor, and industry and place the activities of 130,000,000 Americans under a bureaucracy in the Nation's capital, and bring about good times. There must be a reversal of this policy.

At every session of Congress in the last 4^1/2 years this administration has put forward and passed a new tax bill, creating new taxes and increasing other taxes. The slogan was "Soak the rich-soak every business concern in this country, large and small." Do something, yes, anything, to harass business. This was carried on until the tax revenues collected by this administration had increased more than 200 percent. These taxes, with more than twenty billions of borrowed money and the proceeds of other bonds guaranteed by the Government, have been squandered; yet the Nation has not recovered. Industrial plants are closing or reducing their output. Millions have been thrown out of work. Now the administration says that it is going to pass a tax-relief bill and encourage business. Business needs to be encouraged and not harassed and browbeaten at every turn.

Congress has been in session now 5 weeks considering the so-called wage and hour bill as well as the farm bill. In my opinion, the wage and hour bill will be recommitted and nothing will be done about the farm bill at this special session and nothing will be done about the tax matter. In fact, the only two bills that have been, or perhaps will be, passed at this special session are the bills appropriating money to pay the pages and the mileage of the Members of the House and Senate, although this special session will cost the American taxpayers more than $1,000,000.

The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Wallace, and the people generally of the country have urged this tax relief. While business conditions continue to decline and unemployment increases, nothing will be done until the next session of Congress.

GIVE FARMERS, WORKERS, AND INDUSTRY AMERICAN MARKET

We took about 40,000,000 acres of productive land out of production and took away the jobs of millions engaged in agriculture. They were forced on relief and to compete with the workers in industry. The farm bill recently passed possesses substantially the same objectionable features. It is admitted that we are the greatest agricultural and industrial country of the world. We have not only cut out our products but have entered into reciprocal-trade agreements with foreign countries, cutting out or cutting down our tariff protection on farm as well as industrial products.

Under this cut-out and reciprocal-trade agreements, our farm exports, according to the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, for the year 1937 dropped to $732,839,000, the least exports of this country of farm products in 60 years. Our imports were $1,538,324,000, an increase of 35 percent over 1936. It would have required these 40,000,000 acres to have produced the foreign products we brought in this year from those foreign countries.

[PAGE 1795]

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

[PAGE 1796]

Let us give the American farmer the parity price and at least the cost of production, and then let us protect him in that market. In doing so we must have the home market price and the world market price. This can be accomplished by the principle set forth in the McNary-Haugen bill that I spoke and voted for some years ago. Let us put our American farmers to work. Let them produce these products consumed by the American people. If we are going to have a good price, let our own people get the benefit of that good price and not turn it over to foreign farmers and farm workers. If this policy is adopted, it would give millions of the unemployed in America employment, and this would be within the Constitution and without surrendering the rights and liberties of the American people. As we cut out acreage in this country, they increase acreage in other countries; and if we keep up this policy we will lose our world market and a big part of the American market.

These reciprocal-trade agreements do for industry and the workers in industry what they do for agriculture. We cut down hours in this country and increase wages, and then under these trade agreements we cut down or cut out our tariff protection, and this puts American industry and American workers in direct competition with the long hours and low wages of foreign countries, and they are filling up our country with these foreign products and taking away the business and wages of our own people.

The Black-Connery bill contained a provision to protect American industry and American labor against these very things, but those salutary provisions have been stricken from this bill. Whatever wages and hours we establish under this bill will apply to American industry only. The outlawing of child labor, sweatshop work, and conditions proposed in this bill cannot and will not apply to the goods and products manufactured in foreign countries and shipped into this country. If there was no other reason for my opposition to this bill there would be this strong reason.

Why in the name of high heaven did the self-styled "best" friends of labor in charge of this bill cut out the protective features contained in the Black-Connery bill, and why did they resist placing any protection, either tariff or otherwise, against these foreign products, and why do not they insist upon foreign goods being produced under the same conditions as we require them to be produced in our country?

If we cut out these foreign goods and give this business to American capital and the work to American workers it would provide employment for millions of American workmen who are now idle. Why should we give the American market to foreign farmers and peon laborers and give the American market for industrial products to foreign capital and the sweatshop, low wages, and long hours of foreign workers?

GIVE PREFERENCE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS

Our first duty is to provide employment with good wages and reasonable hours to American citizens.

This administration, in carrying on the activities of this Government, does not give that preference. A good Democratic Member at the last session read a long list of foreigners who have good jobs at good salaries with the United States Government. The Government owns and operates the Panama Canal and Panama Railroad Co. The American Federation of Labor at its last convention called the attention of the Congress and the country to the fact that there are approximately 13,000 workers employed by our Government in operating the Canal and railroad. Approximately 10,000 of these are foreigners from European countries, and only about 3,000 are American citizens. Of these nearly 10,000 European aliens who are employed, about 3,000 are skilled or semiskilled workers.

It is a strange situation, indeed, to have three to one aliens operating this Government-owned Canal and railroad. We took it over because it was the cross roads of the world. It seems to me that no one but Americans should be on guard. The Government is building very extensive fortifications and doing other work in that same locality. Most of these workers are aliens. Other public works are being carried on throughout the country by the Government and, altogether, thousands and thousands of aliens are doing the work for the Government. Why not give these jobs to American citizens and let these aliens return to their own countries? This would help the unemployment in this country materially.

CUT OUT FOREIGN IMMIGRATION AND ILLEGAL ALIENS

It is claimed on good authority that more than 500,000 alien seamen have deserted their ships in American ports and are scattered throughout our country. For some time aliens have been pouring into this country in violation of law over the Mexican and Canadian borders and slipping into our country along our seashores. In fact, it is asserted that there are now at least 3,500,000 aliens in this country who came into the country illegally in violation of law—in fact, in coming into this country without our permission they committed a felony. Of course, some of these are engaged in racketeering, but a very large number of them have found employment on our farms or in our factories, shops, mills, and mines, or are on relief.

Many of us have been urging the passage of bills to require aliens to register so that we may ascertain who are in this country illegally and then deport them. If this policy should be carried out, it would provide, no doubt, millions of jobs for unemployed Americans.

The relief agencies of the Government provide employment for about 1,500,000. Somebody must provide employment for the other 40,000,000 or more workers of this country. These pay rolls must be supplied largely by industry. I wonder how many of our friends in the House and Senate, who are denouncing business generally, are now or have ever provided a pay roll for any group of workers?

Let us encourage the investment of capital, the expansion of business, the increase of pay rolls. Let us get out of this depression before we attempt too much in the way of socalled reform. When agriculture and business get going good, it will not be so difficult to shorten hours and increase wages.

REDUCE HIGH COST OF LIVING

The Government, again, can do a great deal for the workers of this country by reducing the high cost of living. Strange to say, while industrial and agricultural commodities have tumbled in price, yet the cost of living in many places has increased as much as 2 percent.

The farmers are not getting this money, because they only get 47 percent out of each retail dollar of farm commodities. The Government could help the workers and needy people wonderfully by bringing about a reasonable cost of living. In this way it would greatlY increase the purchasing power of the workers' dollars.

Believing as I do that the bill before us will not reduce hours or increase wages, but, on the contrary, will bring about chaos, further curtail production, increase unemployment, and reduce wages, and that the extraordinary powers given to this one-man administrator may be used to destroy many business organizations, communities, labor unions, and collective-bargaining agencies, and that the freedom of the American people will be greatly abridged, I shall vote with others to recommit the bill, in the hope that after more study a bill helpful to labor, industry, and our country may be brought before the House for consideration. [Applause.]

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, as between the proposal recommended by the committee in the new substitute and the original board proposal, if we must accept either, I shall favor the committee amendment, because I believe that it is a little less bureaucratic than the original board proposal. In connection with this bill I believe that you and I should listen to the words of our great leader, President Roosevelt, on the subject of bureaucracy made in 1932, which, I think, is a complete answer to those who favor bureaucratic control as proposed by this bill. He said:

Later in this campaign I propose to analyze the enormous increase in the growth of bureaucracy. We are not getting an adequate return for the money we are spending in Washington, or, to put it another way round. we are spending altogether too

[PAGE 1796]

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

[PAGE 1797]

much money for Government services which are neither practical nor necessary.

In addition to this we are attempting too many functions and we need a simplification of what the Federal Government is giving to the people.

I accuse the present administration of being the greatest spending administration in peacetimes in all our history, one which has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs or reduced earning power of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats have been retained at the expense of the taxpayer.

I read that the President is at work on a plan to consolidate and simplify the Federal bureaucracy. Four long years ago, in the campaign of 1928, he as a candidate proposed to do this. Today, once more as a candidate, he is still proposing. I leave you to draw your own inferences.

In this connection likewise I call your attention to this further statement made by President Roosevelt in the 1932 campaign—

We must then have a "supergroup of masterminds in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce. Masterminds so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interest or private prejUdices; men almost God-like in their ability to hold the scales of justice with an even hand."

I feel that the President of the United States cannot favor this proposal to place in the hands of a Board or Administrator the rtght of life or death over industry and over labor. This much can be said in favor of the committee amendment: It at least places some responsibility in a head that is responsible to some extent to the people, whoever is appointed administrator.

I recognize that at the present time there is a great deal of prejudice against Mrs. Perkins, but we must remember that whoever is appointed will at least to a little extent be responsible to the people. But when we create this gigantic bureaucracy in absolute violation of everything that we have ever promised the American people, in defiance of the speeches of our President, of our campaign promises and pledges; when we further strengthen the cause of bureaucracy in the United states, we will be doing a great injury to democracy. Let us recommit this miserable humbuggery and indefensible makeshift. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls attention to the fact that when time was fixed on this section those who sought recognition at that time were listed and the gentleman did not rise at that time. The gentleman is a member of the committee. If he insists, of course, the Chair will recognize him.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I insist that I be heard, Mr. Chairman, because as a member of the committee I gave a great deal of thought during the hearings to this problem.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entitled to recognition. The Chair recognizes the gentleman with the understanding that he takes the place of some other Member who requested time at the time the limitation was fixed.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot permit the gentleman to take my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended 3 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?

There was no objection.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I have served on this committee since I came to this session of Congress. The committee has heard arguments on both of these questions. Over 75 percent of the objections to this whole bill was in regard to the board feature. There was dissension on that point even in the committee, but the majority of the committee decided that it should be administered by an Administrator instead of a board.

It has been the experience of my State, as well as the experience in 26 other states where these boards were created, that after hearing the representatives of the public and of industry decisions were arrived at. I say in all fairness to the chairman of the committee and to the members of the committee that this is the intelligent way to administer this law if you want a law.

I ask the Members who have been objecting to bureaucracy and boards whether they would rather have a Federal inspector go into the plants of their States carrying on investigations of violations of the act or whether they would rather have it done through the labor department of their State.

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

Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield.

Mr. HEALEY. Just to keep the record straight, the gentleman who preceded the gentleman from Connecticut said that administration under the committee plan would be under the direction of the Secretary of Labor. I call attention to section 3 of the bill which provides that the Administrator will be subject to no review or direction.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Subject to no executive interference.

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

Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Under the committee plan, the Administrator would be assisted by wage and hour committees. Would not that tend to decentralization?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Absolutely. Again I ask whether you would rather have Federal inspectors walking through your plants or whether you want it handled by your own department of labor?

Now, I want to pay a compliment to the chairman of this committee, this gentlewoman who walked in at the eleventh hour and has made a better fight than any man in this House could make in defense of this bill. [Applause.] I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for 8 months—and I have been in legislatures before in my life—but I have never seen anything so disgraceful as the proceedings of the last few days on this important legislation. [Applause.]

For the purpose of securing to the worker a living wage and decent hours of employment and in order that unfair competition among employers may be ended, we propose to enact into law a Federal wage and hour bill. Substandard labor conditions exist the country over, and it is because of these conditions that the circumstances of one-third of our people are deplorable. The lot of the workingman will not be improved until the cause has been removed. It is my earnest belief that the establishment of minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards at proper levels in industry will remedy these conditions and accomplish the result that so many of us desire.

While this bill is of some length. this is necessary if the bill is to be simple, definite, and free from ambiguity. I intend not to discuss the constitutionality of the measure other than to point out that instead of relying on the Constitution's general-welfare clause the pending legislation depends for its constitutionality upon the Federal Government's right to regulate interstate commerce.

The philosophy of the living wage is not new; in fact, Pope Leo expounded it in his encyclical of 40 years ago. The theory of shorter hours is in accordance with reason, since such a policy is consistent with health, efficiency, and the general well-being of workers. The wage and hour bill allows as an absolute minimum wage for workers a level of 40 cents per hour; it also provides that if an employer would work his employees more than 40 hours a week, that employer must pay a wage equal to time and one-half for each hour above the level of 40 hours. If a worker receives less than 40 cents per hoUr or works in excess of 40 hours per week and does not receive time and one-half, he is working under substandard labor conditions.

This legislation is not, and should not be considered, a burden upon the employer. It is merely giving to the worker what is justly due to him. This minimum wage will assure to the worker a pay envelope containing $16 in 1 week. At this rate the worker will receive no less than $800 in 1 year in return for his 2,000 hours of labor. Eight hundred dollars is not a lot of money for one family to receive over

[PAGE 1797]

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

[PAGE 1798]

the period of a year. W. P. A. statistics reveal that most families are barely able to survive on such an amount, but in localities where abuses of labor are common, and where the workingman is exploited and paid but $5 for 48 to 55 hours of toil, in those localities $800 is quite a sizeable sum in comparison.

It is often heard said that such a minimum wage will become the maximum. I do not agree that such is likely to be the case. Certainly such was not the case under the N. R. A. On the contrary, during the period of the N. R. A. many factories that were previously closed opened their doors for manufacturing and other forms of production; economic conditions throughout the country were vastly improved and real recovery was had. Under the N. R. A. employers not only willingly paid the minimum wage required but many employers found it possible to pay and did pay a wage in excess of the minimum. Consequently, I have no reason to believe that $16 will be the maximum wage of our workers in industry. Should it be the tendency of employers to pay no more than the minimum wage, still the workers are not obliged to accept such a figure, because under the provisions of the bill their right to bargain collectively is preserved. Collective bargaining upon the part of the worker is not only recognized but the bill expressly stipulates that its policy is not to interfere with, impede, or diminish in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively.

Another problem with which this bill seeks to deal is the one involving child labor. Modern labor laws have been enacted in the spirit that the welfare of labor is of peculiar importance to society. Child-labor legislation was perhaps the earliest and most typical of this constructive legislation. It has been clearly understood for a good many years that young men and young women in industry need strictly enforced legislation lessening their hours of employment and improving the conditions under which they are employed. This knowledge has been strengthened by experiment and by experience in the field. Each State has in some manner or other taken drastic steps to eliminate and prevent the exploitation of child labor. In fact, the more advanced States have already incorporated in their laws a provision requiring employers of child labor to give the children a specified amount of child training, or time to secure such training, in institutions provided by the State.

The Federal Congress has made attempts in the past to fix standards for child labor. One Federal statute of 1916 sought to debar from interstate commerce goods produced in factories where children were employed under conditions not of the standard set by the act. In 1919, under another statute, the income of an employer who did not maintain standards for child labor fixed by the act was subject to a 10-percent excise tax. Both of these statutes, however, were declared unconstitutional and void as dealing with subjects not entrusted to Congress but left or committed by the supreme law of the land to the control of the States. This wage and hour bill proposes to eliminate from the channels of interstate commerce the products of oppressive child labor. Oppressive child labor is included within the definition of "substandard labor condition." It means a condition of employment under which a child under the age of 16 years is employed in any occupation, except farming, or a condition of employment under which a child between the ages of 16 and 18 is employed in an occupation which is either hazardous or detrimental to his health.

I am very strongly for the enactment into law of these provisions pertaining to child labor. I have been for years an exponent of such legislation. Federal regulation of child labor is badly needed, as I am convinced that children bear the brunt of the abuse that is suffered by workers in industry in this country. It is expedient and for the best interests of the country that legiSlation pertaining to the welfare of the child be adopted as soon as possible. Not only are children the victims of lowest wages imaginable, but it is a well-known fact that there are sections of our country where children of 8 and 10 years of age are allowed. by their parents to work all week long far a dollar or two, depending entirely upon what must be termed the generosity of these unprincipled employers. The child worker is the most defenseless of all employees. He is young and consequently easily imposed upon; he works his little body from sunrise to sunset and receives practically nothing in return. He has not the protection of a labor union behind him, and there is no one to see that he is protected. It is for these reasons that there is a heavy burden upon us to pass this child-labor provision with the remainder of the bill. An incident of child labor is the question of unemployment. With the abolishment of child labor there will be provided more opportunities for adult employment, which at this time is one of our major problems. The adult employee will demand and will receive a higher wage, which in turn will tend to the elimination of sweatshops, and prevent such sweatshops from producing its goods at a cost far below that of the shop in which there are decent wages paid and standard hours are maintained.

To my mind, the outstanding feature of this proposed legislation is not that it will give to the majority of workers better wages and hours; in other words, this bill is not one designed to benefit the majority, and in that respect differs from most laws. The reason that this is not beneficial to the majority is because the greater number by far of our workers are employed by concerns that voluntarily or through collective bargaining have agreed to and do pay a living wage to the workers and maintain other standard working conditions. This bill is designed to benefit the minority, and I am happy to say that the victims of substandard conditions of employment are in the minority. Abuses of workers, exploitation, and substandard conditions of labor are not sectional or centralized, and most often such are found to exist in the smaller shops in crowded cities, where the employees are not organized or where they have been discouraged from organizing by intimidation and threats. These are the people that will be protected and who will reap the benefits of the bill, because under the provisions of this bill the Government will set up a means by which 40 cents an hour will be paid for 40 hours of labor in 1 week.

It has been said that such a standard will force the little concern out of business. I contend that it will not force little businesses into insolvency where proper standards are maintained. It may, however, drive those employers out of business who are not accustomed to and are not inclined toward paying a minimum wage, since it will necessitate their competing with shops where standard conditions are maintained, which competition they have not had to meet in the past.

From the point of view of the small concern that has treated its employees fairly it will be encouraged, because it will no longer have to contend with unreasonable employers who in the past have been able to submit ridiculously low bids for contracts.

The larger industries will not be opposed to this law, because in these industries the employees are working under good conditions, they are receiving good wages, and have definite agreements as to hours, all of which are the result of good labor organization and collective bargaining. These larger industries will be under Federal jurisdiction and subject to Federal regulation, but because of their proper standards but little interference from the Government will be necessary, for the reason that since there are no violations of the act, there will be no occasion for interference.

Not far afield from the subject of child labor is the important subject of apprenticeship. The section dealing with exemptions for the employment of apprentices has been materially strengthened. This problem, which is of national consequence, has had almost no attention. There is no doubt but that at the present time there is a tremendous shortage of skilled labor, and this scarcity exists the country over. All employers of skilled labor and labor leaders concur in the belief that the most successful method for producing skilled workers is through actual work under the immediate supervision of a skilled worker. You gentlemen have recognized this fact, because during the first session of this Congress you have accepted without a dissenting vote the

[PAGE 1798]

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

[PAGE 1799]

Fitzgerald bill, which will enable the Department of Labor to formulate and promote standards to protect and develop apprentices. I am happy to inform you that this legislation was enacted into law. It was decided by the Labor Committee that the apprentice standards developed in the Labor Department should be the standards to be used for the employment of apprentices under this wage-hour bill. This view was adopted because it was evident that there could be no advantage in having two sets of standards for the same trades. A further consideration, too, was the fact that not all trades would be subject to the provisions of the wage-hour bill, so that by the adoption of this plan standards applicable to all apprentices will be the same, even though some apprentices and their employers would not be subject to Federal regulation. This bill now before us will serve to stimulate proper apprenticeship while at the same time it will prevent the exploitation of child labor.

Before closing I would like to say a word or two concerning the administration of the bill. In executive committee I proposed an amendment which would place the administration of this bill within the Department of Labor. This amendment was later adopted by the Committee on Labor, and the bill now provides for the creation in the Department of Labor of a Wage and Hour Division to be under the direction of an Administrator. I am convinced that this important bill should be within that Department for the reasons that I have outlined to you on the floor of the House this afternoon. I am happy to have the opportunity of presenting you with my views on this bill; I am strongly in favor of it and urge all to unite in order that its successful passage may be assured.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the time has been fixed and those requesting time have been listed, although the gentleman is a member of the Committee on Labor and entitled to recognition.

Mr. GRISWOLD. At that time I was on my feet requesting time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's name is not included on the list.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time may be extended 5 minutes in order to give the gentleman, a member of the Committee on Labor, a chance to express himself.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if fixing time means anything, it should mean something; therefore I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman withhold his objection?

Mr. TAYLOR of South Carolina. I withhold my objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important matter and your committee has spent a great deal of time in the consideration of the amendment. I think it is only fair that members of the committee should be recognized in preference to Members who have not served on the committee and who are not familiar with the bill. I hope, therefore, the gentleman will not object.

Mr. TAYLOR of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time may be extended so that no one whose name appears on the list now on the Chairman's desk will be deprived of time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey asks unanimous consent that the time heretofore fixed may be extended to allow time for members of the committee to speak, whose names do not appear on the list. Is there objection?

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object how long was the first time fixed?

The CHAIRMAN. The first request was for an extension of 5 minutes. The request now is that the time may be extended to allow members of the committee to be recognized, the time not to be included in the time heretofore fixed.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Does the list on the Chairman's desk include any members of the minority?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it includes the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. TAYLOR of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, those who are not members of the Committee on Labor will not benefit by this elasticity?

The CHAIRMAN. It will affect only those whose names appear on the list.

Mr. TAYLOR of South Carolina. It would apply only to members of the Committee on Labor?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I object. It should apply to the House generally.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana desire recognition under the explanation made by the Chair?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I shall limit my request to 3 minutes.

Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman: 2 minutes of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his courtesy in granting me a part of his time.

Mr. Chairman, I have been opposed to either an administrator or a board. My position before this House is known to everyone. But if I must choose, if you are going to put me into the position of choosing between facing a battery of cannon and the sword of Damocles, I think I have that right to choose. In this case I would choose the administrator. I take that stand for one reason above all others. This Board as constituted in the Ramspeck amendment would include one member from the Northeast, one from the Northwest, one from the Southeast, one from the Southwest, and one from the central part of the United States.

Under this Board set-up, that part of the United States which contains the vast industrial area and that part of the United States which holds within its bounds the greater percentage of the population would have but one member on this Board while those places in the United States with the least population would have a greater membership. The delegation of power under this Board or under the Administrator provision is the same, except that under the Administrator your laboring men and your businessmen would have but one man to go to, and they could look to that one man, whereas under the other system it would be divided up, and you would have five dictators instead of one to conciliate. The enforcement should be in the Department of Justice, where the Griswold substitute would have placed it. You voted down that substitute. With it you voted down also the provision that would have protected the people of the industrial States from unfair differentials that will eventually crucify labor if left in this bill, by causing the factories of my State and other States north of the Ohio either to move south or go bankrupt. It is my sincere hope that you will vote down the Ramspeck amendment, with the Board it creates, and if we must have bureaucratic control let it be control by an administrator as the lesser of two evils.

Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. FADDIS to the amendment offered by Mr. RAMSPECK: After the words "the Board may", strike out the word "subject" and insert in lieu thereof the words "without regard", so that the paragraph will read:

"The Board may without regard to the civil-service laws appoint such employees as it deems necessary."

Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, I should think the membership of the House in the last year or 18 months would have had sufficient experience with putting the civil service into

[PAGE 1799]

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

[PAGE 1800]

such agencies as this, the Social Security and other agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, wherein the personnel is taken from the civil-service list, to avoid doing the same in connection with this agency.

If you are going to set up an agency to take care of the welfare of the workers of the United States, if you are going to ctstribute this Board over the United States, then let us give the Board an opportunity to take its personnel from the length and breadth of the United States instead of setting it up under the Civil Service Commission, in which event it will take practically every employee from the Dlstrict of Columbia. The rest of the United States is concerned in the administration of the laws that we write on the floor of the House and they are entitled to representation on the boards. Under the civil service they never have and never will have it because the Civil Service Commission has absolutely refused to carry into effect the provision that they must select the personnel according to the population of the various States. Therefore, in writing this law, we should not hamper the Board in the choice of its employees so that it may function efficiently and carry into effect the laws that we have written on the floor of the House. Let us leave the civil service out of the composition of this Board. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HOOK] for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Chairman, after having heard the arguments on this bill and after having witnessed the adoption of some of the amendments which permit exemptions under the terms of the bill, I cannot see why we are so disturbed over deciding on the administrative agency, because when they get through there will be nothing to administer.

Just a short while ago you adopted an amendment to exempt agricultural products. I do not believe you really intended that. Does the membership of this House know that products of the forestry commodities are considered agricultural products? Does the membership of this House know that turpentine and other products involved in the turpentine industry are considered agricultural products? In my opinion, you have exempted the two most flagrant offenders of the conditions we are trying to remedy.

Further, you will have submitted to you a little later an amendment which was adopted the other day but was taken out of the bill when the substitute amendment in which it was contained was voted down. This amendment is known as the Coffee amendment. You were led to believe it applied only to agricultural products, but may I say it applied also to the processing of agricultural products. When you exempt the processing of agricultural products you exempt everything in this Nation except minerals. When you exempt the great meat-packing industry, when you exempt the canneries of this country, and when you exempt the factories which process agricultural commodities, then what in the world is left to administer?

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

Mr. HOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. FERGUSON. The gentleman is leaving the impression the processing of all agricultural products is now exempted under the Lucas amendment. As far as I can tell, the Lucas amendment is merely a definition of the persons employed in agriculture. In no place in the bill up to the present time, unless the Coffee amendment is adopted, are persons employed in the processing of agricultural products exempted.

. Mr. HOOK. After you have exempted the packing of agricultural products and the preparing and marketing of them, if you put the Coffee amendment on top of this, I believe the people who want to vote for recommitment may just as well go home, because they will not have any bill here anyhow.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. HOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

r. LUCAS. I want to call the attention of my distinguished friend to my amendment. I do not believe it goes as far as he is telling the Committee it goes. My amendment is strictly confined to the area where the commodity is produced. I had no intention of including in this amendment packers or anyone else outside of the particular area where the commodity is produced, and that is all this amendment covers.

Mr. HOOK. A large amount of the agricultural products are packed and processed in the area in which they are produced; and certainly, if the Coffee amendment is adopted, then this bill will be of no value.

:Mr. LUCAS. I presume the Board or whoever is going to administer the act would have the right to determine what an area is and would do so.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, in view of the importance of the matter that has just been discussed by the gentleman from illinois [Mr. KELLER], that the gentleman be given 5 additional minutes not to be taken out of the time heretofore fixed.

Mrs. NORTON. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, this, in my opinion, is the most important amendment that has been offered to this bill since it has been under consideration. I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK], as introduced, and opposed to the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FADDIS].

It is beyond me to understand how any Member of the House, regardless of whether he or she is for or against the wage-and-hour bill, can refuse to vote for a board to administer the law, rather than one individual, although that individual would not be subject to any dictation from the Secretary of Labor. If a board is provided for, then the President could appoint a representative of labor, a representative of industry, a representative of the consumer, and so forth. If the bill remains as is, then the administrator will be the representative of all. In some instances I favor an individual administrator, but in connection with a law which goes to the very bottom of our economic system I certainly do not want to place the responsibility in a single individual.

Of course, we delegate power in this bill and it is absolutely necessary that we do so; but as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] has pointed out, the Supreme Court has never questioned the right of Congress to delegate power to an independent board or commission, but it has questioned the right of delegating power to an executive officer, and very properly so. We can and must delegate power in order to have this bill properly administered, but we cannot delegate our responsibility, and it will be a grave mistake if we do not provide in this bill for the creation of a board rather than a single administrator.

I know that those who propose to vote to recommit the bill and, if they are not successful, intend to vote against the passage of the bill, will vote for a single administrator in the hope that some Members of the House who are opposed to a single administrator will rebel and join in their efforts to defeat the bill. In this, I am sure, they are mistaken, because you can remember that the Senate bill does not provide for an administrator; and even though the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] is defeated, the conferees can still agree to have the law administered by a board.

Let me ask if you would favor a one-man Federal Trade Commission, a one-man Securities and Exchange Commission, a one-man Federal Communications Commission, a one-man Federal Power Commission, or a one-man Tariff Commission? Of course, you would not. Then why should we provide for a single individual to administer this very important piece of legislation?

Of equal importance is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FADDIS]. Always opposed to

[PAGE 1800]

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

[PAGE 1801]

the civil service, the gentleman is consistent when he offers his amendment which would provide for the spoils system in selecting the employees who will serve in the adminiStration of this law. If there is one delegation in the House that I have heard complain of not being able to secure any positions from the Federal Government, it is the Pennsylvania delegation, who have continually maintained in the cloak room that a Member of another body gets all the patronage. There is nothing in this bill that provides for the House to approve of either an administrator or a board, but there is a provision in the bill that says either the AdminiStrator or the Board must be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Those of you who are complaining that you cannot seclire any patronage will do well to remember that.

This law is of such vast importance that it would be a serious mistake to have a tum-over every time there is a change in the administration, or when it happens that new Senators are elected from various States. If the spoils system prevails, naturally, one can be disrrllssed at any time, so that some Member of the House or the Senate or the administration can place his friend in a position.

I have had my experience with both the civil service and the spoils system, and I find that my constituents can pass civil-service examinations, and when they do and their name is reached on the eligible list they are appointed in Government agencies. On the other hand, I find where a Member of Congress will secure one position, bureau chiefs and those outside of the Congress will secure four. I insist that it will be to the advantage of your constituents as well as mine to make these positions subject to the civil-service laws and regulations, and it will likewise be beneficial to those who will be affected by the administration of this act.

I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FADDIS] providing for the spoils system will be defeated, and that then the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK], providing for the Board, will be adopted. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to see a wage and hour bill enacted into law, not next year but tonight, or at least before we adjourn this special session of Congress.

We have been informed that the Government is spending approximately $15,000,000,000 annually to keep down crime. There is one way to prevent crime; there may be other ways, but my way is to abolish sweatshops, child labor, and the slum districts in the United States. The way to do this is to put men and women to work at a living wage, make employment permanent, reduce the number of hours of employment to no more than 6 hours a day and 5 days a week, and 1 month vacation every year with full pay, and provide adequate pensions for the aged, widows with dependent children, and others who are physically incapacitated. If such human legislation were enacted into law, we would not be compelled to spend $15,000,000,000 for the prevention of crime.

Many people today who are committing crimes are not altogether to blame. Members of Congress and the members of the State legislative bodies in the United States who intentionally, because of selfish motives, refuse to support legislation which will eradicate sweatshops, child labor, slum districts, and other social evils are, in my opinion. responsible for a great deal of the crime wave and unnecessary human suffering which is prevailing throughout our land.

The great God of the universe has made it possible for every person in the world to have an abundance of everything that is necessary to have an enjoyable life. We men who have been elected to Congress by the people of our district—and thousands of them who have chosen us to represent them were coal miners, women who scrub and wash for a living, factory workers, farmers, unemployed people, and others—desire that we enact into law legislation which will promote the welfare of mankind. [Applause.]

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, to correct an impression which I am afraid the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES] left with the Members here that under the committee plan the administration would be in the Secretary of Labor, I want to call your attention to section 3, on page 8, of the bill, which continues on page 9, and partially through page 10, providing that this Admi.nistrator shall be appointed by the President, that his orders shall not be subject to review by any other person or agency or any other branch of the Government, and providing that his administration shall be subject to no direction or review by the Secretary of Labor whatsoever. He may appoint personnel, subject to the civil-service laws, and he may carry out the administration of this act without any direction and without any review whatsoever by the Secretary of Labor.

I merely wanted to correct this impression, so we may have the record straight and know what we are voting for. This is to be an independent agency in the Labor Department.

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

Mr. HEALEY. I yield.

Mr. COCHRAN. But the independent agency, so-called, is a one-person administration agency.

Mr. HEALEY. That is correct.

Mr. COCHRAN. And only one person is going to administer a law of such vast importance.

Mr. HEALEY. It provides for administration by one man.

M. COCHRAN. And, of course, if this provision is agreed to the law will be administered actually by bureau chiefs, is not that true?

Mr. HEALEY. I would not say so, necessarily.

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

Mr. HEALEY. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The actual work will be done, however, by the hours and wages committees established throughout the country. Is not that true?

Mr. HEALEY. That is true, and I thank the gentleman for his statement.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCORMACK). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FADDIS] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECX].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. FADDIS) there were—ayes 89, noes 105.

Mr. FADDIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the Chair have the amendment again read so we may know exactly what we are voting on?

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is in process of voting, and the amendment cannot be reported at this time.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MICHENER. Does this mean that all those who vote for this amendment get a patronage job?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a parliamentary inquiry is not in order until the vote has been taken.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is well taken, and the Chair sustains the point of order. The Committee is in process of voting, and a parliamentary inquiry is not in order.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mrs. NORTON and Mr. FADDIS.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported—ayes 95, noes 123.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.

[PAGE 1801]

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

[PAGE 1802]

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. RAMSPECK) there were—ayes 77, noes 134.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

PART II-ESTABLISHMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS

MINIMUM-WAGE AND MAXIMUM-HOUR STANDARDS

SEC. 4 (a) Whereas wages paid in interstate industrtes 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 famllies 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 maxlmum-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 1n 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 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 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 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 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 1n its deliberations.

(e) In recommending a minimmn wage, a committee shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following: (1) The cost ot 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 simi1ar 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 mlnimum 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, be 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 pacldng 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.

Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Chairman—

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey rise?

Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CURLEY: Strike out, beginning with the colon in line 15, page 16, down through and including the word "act" in line 19, page 16, and insert a period after the word "nature" in line 15, page 16.

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I say at the outset, as a member of the Committee on Labor, that I resent the unfair inference cast against our esteemed and distinguished chairwoman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON]? I am one of the new members referred to by the gentleman from illinois [Mr. KELLER] a few moments ago. I attended the meetings of the Labor Committee since the early days of June and ever since our distinguished chairwoman has been acting as the chairwoman of that most difficult committee, and I have no hesitation in saying that in an my 22 years of legislative experience I have never met with a presiding officer of any committee who carried on in such a diligent, hard-working, conscientious, and sincere manner as has the gentlewoman from New Jersey. [Applause.]

What is the reason for trying to abandon these underpaid and exploited workers engaged 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?

[PAGE 1802]

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

[PAGE 1803]

This bill was never intended to protect the exploiters of workers who are handcuffed to poverty by the straight jacket used by the so-called dairy cooperatives throughout the Nation and, unless exempted from the provisions of this bill, the workers will not be protected as intended.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL] succeeded in having the paper manufacturers exempted, and if we keep on exempting these employers, we will kill the wage and hour bill. I know of no better way to kill a bill than to use the strategy employed by the opponents of this bill, namely, by the introduction of a multiplicity of amendments exempting certain types of employers.

With respect to this amendment, may I say, that I offered this amendment in committee, and the amendment was adopted, striking out this exemption which would include dairy cooperatives. I do not know how it got back in the bill, except through inadvertence.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CURLEY. Yes.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, as has been explained to the gentleman from New York, that is a typographical error and the committee will accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield for that purpose?

Mr. CURLEY. I do not yield.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a request for unanimous consent.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain that unless the gentleman from New York yields.

Mr. CURLEY. I do not yield. Yesterday we exempted 200,000 railway maintenance-of-way men, notwithstanding the fact that my distinguished colleague from Texas [Mr. THOMAs] explained that a large number of these men were working on the railroads at a low substandard of wages. I do not want to stress the fact that every Member of the House opposing this bill is unfair, but they have certainly used a lot of tactics that I have never seen employed before in an effort to defeat legislation. We had a hard job getting the matter before the House for consideration. And some of the Members who are fighting these amendments were among the group with the Rules Committee who did their best to stop this legislation from coming before the House for consideration.

I move the adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to qualify to speak on this bill. I have few manufactprers in my district who are affected by this legislation. I have received no letters or telegrams in support of this bill and many against this bill. I did not trade out on the farm bill because, although representing a big wheat district, I voted against the farm bill. However, I signed the discharge petition to bring this bill before the House, and I have been conscientiously trying to bring myself into a position to support this legislation.

The amendment offered attempts to take out the processing of milk and make it one of those industries which is not exempt from the provisions of this bill. This House will have a chance to vote on the Coffee amendment, to exempt the processing of agricultural products. I happen to be in the cattle business and I handle a great many cattle. I know about the markets of livestock and how they operate. One day in Kansas City or Chicago or Omaha there will be 50,000 cattle. That may be as many cattle as they have in the next 2 weeks. Agricultural commodities are forced to be marketed, because of drought, because the feed has been consumed and the end of the grazing season approaches in the fall, and the stock has to go to market. Hogs, for instance, are farrowed at a particular time, and when they are fattened they go in, more or less, in waves of marketing. The packing industry pays a very reasonable scale of wages. If the processing of agricultural products is not exempted it means that although those workers are in many instances paid $1 an hour for the processing of those products, under the terms of this bill, if the Labor Board determines they are working more than 40 hours, any number of hours they work over that time will cost the employer time and a half. Now, who will pay that bill? Certainly it will be taken out of the pockets of the farmers who have their livestock on a glutted market. We will have to pay that bill.

As I said before, I yoted against the farm bill. The farmer was guaranteed no price for his quota of wheat. He will be forced to accept the market value as the world establishes it. We have quotas but no guaranteed price for wheat. In addition to the fact that the farmer got no guaranteed price for his crop, if we pass this legislation without accepting the Coffee amendment, we are going to burden him with the additional load of paying time and a half for overtime, which occurs when he markets his products in seasonal surges as he must market them. If you had to pay the bills that I have to pay at the present time, fifty and a hundred dollars a day for feed for your cattle, you would realize you cannot hold your livestock when the bill piles up day after day. Neither can the packer hold livestock and process them over a week's time. I would like to vote for this bill. Conditions exist among our low-paid workers that must be corrected. However, the farmer as yet has been guaranteed no fair price for his product. I hesitate to vote for a bill that will raise the price of what the farmer buys when the Congress has refused to guarantee the farmer a fair price for what he sells.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have already said I would accept the amendment, so I have nothing further to say about that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the motion. I move to amend the motion to make it 50 minutes instead of 30 minutes.

Mrs. NORTON. I will compromise and make it 40 minutes.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. No, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to amend the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

The question was taken; and the motion to amend was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey that debate be limited to 30 minutes on this section and all amendments thereto.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now comes on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. CURLEY].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RAMSPECK to paragraph (j), section 4: On page 16, line 12, after the comma following the word "picking", insert "wholesale marketing" and a comma, so that the text will read: "or picking, wholesale marketing, canning, or processing of fruits or vegetables."

NIT.RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman—

Mr: BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to permit me to submit a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes which is to be devoted to debate on this

[PAGE 1803]

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

[PAGE 1804]

section be divided equally between all Members offering amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objeCtion to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment I have offered is to include in the exemption from hours only—not from wages but from hours—employees engaged in the wholesale marketing of fruits, produce, or vegetables. Under the present language of the bill, I am informed, the wholesale dealers who receive this fruit and produce in the cities get most of it in trucks nowadays, and they have to be there at all hours because these goods are perishable commodities, and a farmer coming in who happened to have a puncture and got to market 30 minutes late might have his whole truckload of perishable products spoil. I think this amendment is in line with the other provisions of subsection (j) on page 16, and I hope the committee will accept the amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the committee accepts the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels that members of the committee must be recognized first. The Chair feels that then a Member of the minority side should be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment if any Member of the minority so desires.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman—

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. To submit a unanimous-consent request.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each Member who offers an amendment be recognized for 2^1/2 minutes so that more Members may have a chance to speak in support of their amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks unanimous consent that within the 25 minutes now remaining of the time limit, gentlemen recognized for the purpose of offering amendments be recognized for 2^1/2 minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask that the request be modified to permit the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE] to be recognized for at least 5 minutes to offer an amendment known as the Grange amendment in which many Members of the House are very much interested.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. I so modify my request, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD].

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: On page 14, line 3, strike out the semicolon and the remainder of the paragraph and insert a period.

Mr. GRISWOLD. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would strike out these words in the bill, which action I think is very important:

Differences in unit costs ot manufacturing occasioned by varying local natural resources, operating conditions, or other factors entering into the cost of production.

Under this bill as it now reads with this language in it, it will be mandatory upon this Board, or this Administrator, to go into each separate community, not only into each separate and distinct community in the United States, but into each plant in the United States; and you can realize what that means in an endeavor to administer this bill. It means that the Administrator must go into each plant and examine the unit cost of operating that plant. He must examine the books of that plant. He must examine everything in that man's business so that he can determine the unit cost of production in that particular plant and then weigh that in the scales as against the unit cost of production in another plant in the same town.

They might, in the case of two manufacturers in the same town and on the same street, because of differences in unit cost of production, fix one scale of wages and hours for one while fixing a different scale of wages and a different set of hours for the other, both plants engaged in the same industry in the same city, and perhaps on the same street. It goes further than that, they must consider not only operating conditions and the efficiency of the plants, but they must consider other factors entering into the cost of production. It might even reach the place where they enter into an investigation of that man's ability to procure money to operate the plant and the extent of his credit.

Mr. Chairman, this provision has such vast ramifications, the authority that you grant is so great, that if you are really interested in this legislation, if you really want to deal with wages and hours, then, by all means, these particular words should be stricken out so that we can have a bill that will work sometime before the next millennium, because it will take years and years to do the things that you mandatorily direct them to do.

Under this bill the administration may penalize one man for his efficiency in the operation of his plant and reward another man for his inefficiency. And labor that has no control over the operation of the plant is penalized because of the inefficient management.

This bill is bad enough without this provision. I signed the petition to bring this bill before the House for the reason that labor is discontented and business is nervous. Many plants in my district are now working part time or shut down entirely. We are here in special session. Labor is wondering what we are going to do and business does not know what to expect. This uncertainty is disturbing the country. We, as a Congress, should make every effort to place the Nation at ease concerning its future.

The Griswold substitute for this bill was defeated. A majority of the House, in defeating that amendment, declared for bureaucratic control and in favor of an administrator.

Now we are told that there will be a motion made to recommit the bill. I shall not vote to recommit it. I think we should vote on the bill on its merits, that we should vote for or against the bill. By sending it back to the committee on a motion to recommit we do not settle the matter. It should come to a roll-call vote on the bill and be passed or voted down. You have no right to leave both labor and industry in doubt of the future.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to get recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment to this section, but because debate has been shut off and Members denied the right to amend this very material and vital section of this bill, I am forced to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by a member of the committee. The amendment that I desire to offer and that I hope the committee will accept—

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman is not proceeding in order. There is so little time that I shall be compelled to press the point of order unless the gentleman is genuinely opposed to the proposed amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has recognized the gentleman, and the Chair feels that the gentleman will proceed in order.

Mr. COOLEY. I am trying now to proceed in order. I am inviting the attention of the committee to this very section with which we are now dealing. I would like very much to have inserted in line 14, after the comma, this language: "or any person employed in connection with the selling of tobacco in auction warehouses."

[PAGE 1804]

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

[PAGE 1805]

This is on page 16, line 14, after the comma, insert the language: "or any person employed in connection with the sale of tobacco in auction warehouses."

I realize when I mention the words "auction warehouse" a large majority of the Members of the House have no idea of what an auction warehouse is.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mrs. NORTON. The effect of the gentleman's amendment is to exempt them from the hours provision?

Mr. COOLEY. Yes. We were defeated when we attempted to exempt them from the wage provision.

In this connection, I may say that the entire tobacco crop of the State of Georgia is marketed by being sold in auction warehouses in the short space of 3 weeks. Can it be that the sponsors of this measure would undertake to regulate labor and wages in an industry that operates only 3 weeks out of 12 months? That is exactly what this bill will do.

In North Carolina the entire crop is marketed in about 3 months and the warehouses have to stay open 24 hours of the day.

Mr. LANZETTA. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. LANZETTA. Is it not possible to hire more men to carry on the work?

Mr. COOLEY. No; because, in the first place, the labor is not available. In the second place, the tobacco is being brought into the market at every hour of the day and night.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mrs. NORTON. To relieve the mind of the gentleman, I may say the committee will not oppose the amendment

Mr. GRISWOLD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The gentleman's amendment has nothing to do with the amendment which I have just offered?

Mr. COOLEY. Oh, no.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. GRISWOLD) there were—ayes 18, noes 53.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BARDEN: Page 16, line 14:, after the comma, insert "or any person employed in connection with the sale of tobacco in auction warehouses."

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. CELLER. Did I understand that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York struck out lines 15 to 19? If so, the amendment just offered refers to those lines that have been stricken out.

Mr. BARDEN. My amendment applies to line 14.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his point of order?

Mr. CELLER. I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take about half a minute to say that this is the amendment the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY] just discussed and which the committee chairman agreed to accept. As I understand it, there is no objection to the amendment.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BOILEAU. Will the gentleman yield for the purpose of propounding a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. If it is not taken out of my time, I will be glad to yield.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may say that if the gentleman yields it will be taken out of his time.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. I am sorry, I cannot yield.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina should not be adopted. There is no reason why we should exempt this industry from the jurisdiction of the Administrator to be appointed under this bill. If it is impractical to limit the hours of labor in this particular industry, the Board and the Administrator will not impose them, but there is no reason why we should exempt them here from the operation of this bill.

THE JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE MINIMUM WAGES UNDER THIS BILL SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO 40 CENTS

And now, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee of the Whole House, I would like to call attention to another aspect of the bill. I call the attention of the Committee to page 12, line 14.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the amendment pending before the House.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule the same way as the Chair ruled when the point of order was raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ELLENBOGEN] will proceed in order.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the members of the Committee to page 12 of the bill, line 14, which says:

That no such committee 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.

Under this provision the Administrator to be appointed under this bill would have no jurisdiction to fix minimum wages in any industry which pays 40 cents an hour or more. Let us remember that we are not dealing with temporary or emergency legislation. We are dealing with permanent legislation.

In my congressional district and in many other congressional districts throughout the United States there are very few industries which pay less than 40 cents an hour, so that my congressional district and these other congressional districts would receive no direct benefit whatever from this legislation.

As I previously stated, this is permanent legislation. It is legislation that, we hope, will be in force many years from today, and we certainly should give the Administrator the power to act in regard to industries that pay 50 cents or less.

I will offer an amendment to increase the jurisdiction of this bill so that it will apply to all industries which pay 50 cents or less per hour.

I hope this amendment will be agreed to by the Committee.

May I again state that such an amendment does not mean that the Administrator will fix 50 cents as the minimum wage; but it does give him the power to fix more than 40 cents and up to 50 cents per hour. I hope the Committee will adopt the amendment, because, if the amendment is not agreed to, the bill does not mean much so far as most of the cities of the Nation are concerned.

Last winter, I had the honor to serve as an arbitrator in the mass-transportation industry in my county and we fixed a minimum wage of 60 cents an hour in that industry. We should give the power to the Administrator to go into industries that pay less than 50 cents an hour and not limit him to those which pay 40 cents or less an hour.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO FIX 40 HOURS AS A MAXIMUM-HOUR WEEK

I also want to call attention to another part of the bill which provides that the Administrator shall not concern himself with the hours of industries which operate 40 hours or less.

Again, I want to emphasize that we are dealing with permanent, and not with temporary, legislation. It might well be that in the future it may become necessary to impose less than 40 hours in a particular industry as a maximum workweek. For instance, the coal industry now operates on a 35- or 36-hour week.

[PAGE 1805]

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

[PAGE 1806]

I will offer an amendment which will give to the Administrator the power to fix a maximum workweek of 30 hours if that should be appropriate in a particular industry.

I do not intend to stipulate that 30 hours shall be the maximum workweek under this bill, but I do believe that the Administrator should have the power to fix 30 hours as a maximum workweek in a particular industry if that should become appropriate or necessary.

I will offer these amendments as soon as I have the opportunity. I hope that they will be adopted.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to be informed on the rules of the House concerning this point. I believe I am entitled to recognition for the purpose of moving to strike out the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entitled to recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment to the pending amendment.

All debate on this amendment has closed, under the rules of the House, there having been 5 minutes of debate for and 5 minutes' debate against the proposition.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BARDEN].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BARDEN) there were—ayes 79, noes 37.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: Page 16, line 9, after the word "with", strike out the remainder of line 9 and all of line 10.

Mr. GRISWOlD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes out the following words: "the ginning, compressing, and storing of cotton or with the processing of cottonseed." Under this bill as it reads at present the processing of cottonseed, the storing of cotton, and the ginning of cotton are exempt, but you do not exempt the milling or storing of wheat or corn, and you do not exempt the processing of lards and butterfats, and these are articles produced in this country which are in the most severe competition with the products made from cottonseed.

Cottonseed is also strongly competitive with soybeans. In this country last year 29,616,000 acres were planted to soybeans, with a total value of $33,000,000 for the crop for processing purposes, exclusive of haying. At the present time soybeans go into the manufacture of an oil which is in competition with linseed oil, and they also go into the making of lacquer. The soybean production in this country has increased by leaps and bounds during the last 5 years, and all over the Corn Belt there are plants for the purpose of processing soybeans into oil.

Under this act as it now reads you are giving an undue advantage to one article and taking advantage of another article, and this is an act you call a fair labor practices act.

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

Mr. GRISV!OlD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LUCAS. Does the gentleman know that during the calendar year 1936 the soybean factories in this country crushed approximately 25,000,000 bushels of soybeans, producing 184,000,000 pounds of oil, and that the soybean industry of this country is in direct competition with the industry engaged in the processing of cottonseed? And will the gentleman further tell me, because of such competitive conditions, why it was that the committee exempted the processing of cottonseed and did not exempt the processing of the commodities about which the gentleman is speaking?

Mr. GRISWOlD. I will tell the gentleman why. It was simply because there were more votes in the committee to exempt cottonseed than there were to exempt anything else. I fought this exemption, but my fight was unsuccessful.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. In case the Grange amendment is agreed to, all these articles will be exempted and will be on a parity? Is this not true?

Mr. GRISWOlD. I do not know. I hope it is true, if this amendment is not adopted.

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

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Mis-- sissippi.

Mr. WIITITINGTON. There is a difference between the processing of cottonseed and the ginning of cotton, but the gentleman has included the ginning of cotton. Will the gentleman eliminate ginning? Ginning has nothing to do with soybeans.

Mr. GRISWOlD. I will, because of the fact I realize the difference. However, there is no difference between the ginning and storage of cotton and the storage of wheat and corn.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I grant that, but the ginning and storage of cotton and the storage of wheat and corn have been eliminated under the amendment of the gentleman from illinois [Mr. LUCAS], which has been agreed to.

Mr. GRISWOlD. May I inquire of the gentleman from lllinois [Mr. LUCAS] if that is true?

Mr. LUCAS. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. GRISWOLD. If that is the case, I am willing to modify my amendment so as to strike out only the processing of cottonseed.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What the gentleman would like to do, I am sure, although I oppose his amendment, is to strike out of his amendment the words "the ginning, compressing, and storing of cotton" and leave in it the words "processing of cottonseed." The ginning of cotton is not in the bill, and the language of this section should be clarified in conference.

Mr. GRISWOlD. Yes; leave "the processing of cottonseed" in the amendment. I am willing to modify my amendment in that way.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may modify my amendment so that, on page 16, line 10, the words "or with the processing of cottonseed" will be stricken out.

Mr. SAUTHOFF. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, may I ask the gentleman from Indiana just what effect his amendment will produce? Will it make the butter makers of the North pay 40 cents an hour but exempt the oleomargarine manufacturers?

Mr. GRISWOlD. My amendment would cure the very thing of which the gentleman is speaking. The oleomargarine people, under this bill the way it now reads, are exempted from such payments, while the butter people are not exempted.

Mr. SAUTHOFF. The gentleman is including them?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I am seeking to strike out the processing of cottonseed to keep the oleomargarine industry from having an advantage over the butter people.

Mr. SAUTHOFF. Good; we are with you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. Chairman, will the Chair restate the request?

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment as modified.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD, as modified: Page 16, line 10, after the word "cotton", strike out the words "or with the processing of cottonseed."

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by :Mr. CHANDLER) there were—ayes 97, noes 36.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[PAGE 1806]

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

[PAGE 1807]

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. THoMAS of Texas: Page 15, line 7, after the word "production", insert a new paragraph, as follows:

"In drilling, production, refinery, and pipe-line operations the maximum hours for clerical employees shall not exceed 40 hours in any one week. All other employees in these operations, except executives, supervisors, and their immediate staffs, and pumpers of 'stripper wells', and employees on isolated properties, shall not work more than 40 hours in any one week, nor more than 72 hours in any two weeks, nor mare than 16 hours in any two days. The minimum daily rate of pay, based upon 6 hours maximum employment per day, shall be $5 per day."

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for my colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN], who has not had any chance to be heard, and I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN].

Mr. BOREN. Is it not true that in the oil industry after some 14 years of hard fighting they have established a 36- hour workweek and a minimum wage of $5 a day?

After the N. R. A. code days more than 80 percent of these companies stayed in line with this 36-hour week and more than 80 percent today are giving to all of their employees, with the exceptions listed in the amendment, a 36-hour week and $5 a day minimum wage.

We want this amendment in the bill to maintain the status quo. We want this amendment to bring the 18 or 19 percent of chiselers into line.

The oil unions are 100 percent behind this amendment. I hope the committee will accept it, because this is giving both industry and labor what they want and allowing them to keep what they have got by maintaining the status quo.

The 12-hour day will find its way back into the oil fields if this amendment is rejected.

The company that does not now practice the 36-hour week is in unfair competition with the company that does. The fair company will be gradually drawn by lines of competition into the bracket with the chiseler.

The only fair way to legislate wages and hours is to legislate for each industry in a special sense. Give us this law for the oil industry. Give us a law for labor, not a board and not a bureau. Let us give labor something to live for and something to live on.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the committee will not oppose the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman froin Texas [Mr. THOMAS].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. HOBBS) there were—ayes 54, noes 91.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members who have amendments pending be permitted 2 minutes' time to debate them.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska asks unanimous consent that all Members who have amendments pending to this section be permitted 2 minutes' time in which to debate the amendment. Is there objection?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. SCHULTE. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asks Members having amendments to submit them to the desk. All amendments will be submitted without debate; but the Chair will again submit, for the purpose of certainty, the request of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE] that all Members who have amendments pending in relation to this section be permitted 2 minutes' debate. Is there objection?

Mr. SCHULTE. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE] offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment otiered by Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska.—

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentag inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska has submitted a unanimous-consent request which has been objected to. He is about to present a Grange amendment. The inquiry is this: If the gentleman from Nebraska were to move to strike out the enacting clause, could he not then have 5 minutes in which to debate the amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not consider that to be a parliamentary inquiry. The Clerk will report the amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska: Page 16, after line 19, insert:

"(k) In industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing or handling dairy products, poultry or poultry products, 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 ordinary maximum workweek or workday without penalty by way of overtime payments or otherwise."

Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Is not this amendment under consideration the Grange amendment which was agreed to yesterday in Committee of the Whole House, when the Committee was considering the Griswold amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not consider that a parliamentary inquiry. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. HEALEY) there were—ayes 130, noes 35.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BATES] offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BATES: Page 16, line 11, after the word "the", insert "taking, freezing, curing, storing."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BATES) there were—ayes 49, noes 67.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. PATRICK] offers an amendment. which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PATRICK: Page 16, line 15, after the period, insert ": Prvvided, however, That the provisions of this act shall have no application to any area or section of the Umted States wherein charges for the transportation of property between such section or area or any other such section or area. of the United States or within which such section or area shall differ from those in effect in or with respect to, distance considered, that section or area which is designated by the Interstate Commerce Commission as 'offcial territory:"

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. PATRICK) there were—ayes 35, noes 93.

Mr. PATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama demands tellers. As many as favor taking the vote by tellers will rise and stand until counted. [After counting.] Thirteen Members, not a sufficient number, and tellers are refused.

Mr. WHIITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WHITTINGTON: On page 16, line 6, after the word "workweek", insert "and with respect to minimum wages."

The cHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. O'TOOLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[PAGE 1807]

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

[PAGE 1808]

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. O'TOOLE: On page 12, line 14; page 14, line 22; and page 15, line 3, after the word "than", on page 12, line 14, and after the word "of", on page 14, line 22, and page 15, line 3, str1ke out the numerals "40" in each place and insert the numerals "50" in each place.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LANZETTA. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. LANZETTA. Is it the purpose of this amendment to raise the wages from 40 cents an hour to 50 cents an hour?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the amendment speaks for itself. The gentleman's inquiry is not a parliamentary one.

Mr. LANZETTA. If it raises the wages, I am in favor of the amendment, because I do not think that any man can decently raise a family on $16 a week, the maximum which he will be able to earn under the bill as it stands now.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'TOOLE].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BARRY: Page 14, line 22 after the word "hour", insert the words "or less than 30 cents' an hour"; and on line 23, after the word "hours", insert "or greater than 44 hours."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ELLENBOGEN: On page 12, line 14, after the words "less than", strike out "40 cents" and insert "50 cents."

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. We have already voted on a similar amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman press his point of order?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I withdraw the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BUCK: Page 16, line 12, strike out the word "picking" and the comma following.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. WILCOX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amedment offered by Mr. WILCOX: Page 12, line 23, after the word "thereof", insert a period, strike out the remainder of the sentence, and insert a new sentence to read as follows: "All members of such committee shall be bona fide residents of the State or States in which the proposed minimum wage and maximum. workday or workweek are to be made applicable."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. WILCOX) there were ayes 27 and noes 58.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. WILCOX. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WILCOX: Page 16, following subseetion (j), as amended, add a new subsection to read as follows:

"(k) The provisions of this act with respect to minimum wages and maximum workdays or workweeks shall not apply within any State which, prior to January 1, 1940, shall have adopted minimum wage and maximum hour legislation applicable within sucb State; nor shall the Administrator have any Jurisdiction to issue labor-standard order with respect to wages or hours of employment within any such State."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: On page 10 strike out lines 22 to 24, inclusive; and on page 11, strike out lines 1 to 17 inclusive.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ELLENBOGEN to the Norton amendment: Page 14, line 22, after the words "in excess of", strike out the words "40 cents per hour" and insert "50 cents per hour."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ElLENBOGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ELLENBOGEN to the Norton amendment: Page 14, line 23, after the words "less than", strike out "40 hours" and insert "30 hours."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CREAL: Page 16, line 8, after the semicolon, insert "or to employees of weekly or semiweekly newspapers."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HOBBS: Page 16, line 6, after the word "workweek", insert a comma and hereafter add "or minimum wages."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DIES: At the end of section 4 add the following paragraph: "Within 90 days after appointment of the Administrator she shall report to Congress whether anyone in the United States 1s subject to this bill in view of the numerous exemptions.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 5?

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on each section be limited to 10 minutes. On this basis we shall be here until 9 o'clock. If any Member would like to limit debate to less than 10 minutes a section I am perfectly willing to so modify my request.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey asks unanimous consent that debate on each section be limited to 10 minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on each section shall close in 10 minutes.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MICHENER. I make the point of order that there has been no debate on section 5.

[PAGE 1808]

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

[PAGE 1809]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is sustained. The motiou is not in order until there has been debate on the section.

Are there amendments to section 5?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MAGNUSON. May section 5 be read?

The CHAIRMAN. Not under unanimous consent previously granted to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. McLEAN]. I read:

Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

This means that the further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.

The Chair will entertain amendments section by section.

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MAVERICK. As I understood the request of the gentleman from New Jersey, it was that the reading of the amendment that had been offered to the amendment be dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. The language used by the gentleman from New Jersey is unequivocal and susceptible of no interpretation other than what its plain import shows:

I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

And the amendment was the entire Norton amendment before the Committee.

The point of order, therefore, is overruled.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ANDREWS: Page 18, after subsection (d), ending on line 9, insert a new subsection (e) to read as follows:

"Any and all organizations of employees organized for the purpose of bargaining collectively as allowed by law shall within 6 months after the effective date of this act be incorporated under the laws of the States or District of Columbia wherein such organizations maintain their headquarters or pricipal offices, and it is further provided that such organizations shall file annually, upon a date to be determined by the Administrator, an annual report to the Administrator showing the aggregate in receipt of all moneys by such organization, together with the names, addresses, and salaries of all officials, agents, or employees of such organization receiving annual salaries from or through such organization of $5,000 or more."

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the section to which offered nor to the bill itself, for the reason it undertakes to regulate labor organizations, while the pending bill does not deal with labor organizations.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman briefiy.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the statement has been made this bill does not apply to labor organizations, but it does apply to organizations of employees who engage in collective bargaining. I do not say that there is no limitation. My amendment is a perfection and, in my opinion, would assist the administrator in administering this act for the benefit of labor itself.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.

The amendment offered by the gentleman is clearly beyond the scope of the amendment pending before the committee, and it is apparent the amendment is beyond the scope of the Senate bill. The Chair does not feel it is necessary to cite authorities, the amendment being so clearly not germane. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I trust the Committee will bear with me briefiy because I have not spoken for 2 days. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that for 3 days members of the committee which reported this bill out of the committee have been offering dozens of amendments to the bill. It is a very ridiculous spectacle. We have a bill reported by a committee, the members of which committee have been standing up here for 3 days, not fighting for the substitute that the gentlewoman from New Jersey proposes, but offering amendments covering every phase of the bill. Under the circumstances it is ridiculous for anybody to say that we have a bill ready for passage. Can you imagine such a thing as members of a committee that reported a bill standing up here for 3 days offering amendments to the bill?

Mr. Chairman, this bill should be returned to the Labor Committee for at least a decent burial. I just want to call the committee's attention to that fact. I am not trying to be an obstructionist at all in this matter. I will take only 5 minutes at the most and will yield for a question.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Did the gentleman himself reserve the right in committee to offer amendments and oppose the bill?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I do not think so.

Mr. RAMSPECK. That is my recollection.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I did?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I certainly reserved my right.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I have no recollection of reserving any right.

Mrs. NORTON. I think the record will show that.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I doubt it very much.

Mr. THOM. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. THOM. Can the gentleman give us any information about the new college head or professor who heads the platform committee of the Republican Party at the present time? Is he from Kansas?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. He is a very brilliant man, a delightful speaker, and a clear thinker.

Mr. THOM. Is he a college professor?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Yes; but he is more than that.

Mr. BOILEAU. He was a college professor.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. He is an exemplary man. I reiterate that the Members who defended this bill, the Members who went through the hearings, the men who defended it in committee, and have reported it to the House, have stood here most of the past 3 days offering every conceivable amendment that you can think of.

Mr. McFARLANE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McFARLANE. Is that the Dr. Frank who was fired from the University of Wisconsin who is now heading your party?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Well, I will answer that. Glenn Frank was president of the University of Wisconsin, the La Follette boys' college. He so justly and severely criticized the administration for its crazy un-American policies and reckless spending that he was kicked out by the La Follettes as many believe at the suggestion of the President. He, at least, was no rubber stamp, as most of you Democrats are. He is a very brilliant man and we will put him up aganist anybody you can offer from the New Deal.

Mr. LEAVY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

[PAGE 1809]

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

[PAGE 1810]

Mr. LEAVY. The gentleman has made a blanket statement that the committee has offered numerous amendments.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I said members of the committee; not the committee. Committee members.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting back here doing a lot of voting on various parts of this bill, but this is the first word I have said on the pending measure.

I want to call this matter to the attention particularly of the Members who have weekly newspapers in their districts, and this includes several of you. The committee is in doubt whether or not this provision includes weekly newspapers, because of the simple fact that a very small percentage of the subscriptions to such newspapers are from people who live in other States, thus making the delivery of the newspapers to them a part of interstate commerce. You have exempted the big department stores in your county-seat towns. Ninety-eight percent of the business of the news shop is strictly local, but because some papers go to a few of the home-town boys in other States, these weekly newspapers may be, and, in my judgment, probably are included under this provision.

With the limited number of employees involved, the number of hours required by the bill cannot be maintained. There are only one or two employees in some of these newspaper plants, because the particular talent is not there to do that particular kind of work. Further, on the profits made by the 3,800 weekly newspapers in the United States, they cannot maintain the daily-paper standards. The daily papers are not affected.

I offered an amendment here without debate, because I could not get the time, and you voted it down. Some of you voted against the county weekly newspaper in your district without knowing what you were doing. I am going to offer this amendment again at another place in this bill. Some members of the committee have told me they doubted that the weekly newspaper would not be included, and they do not want any doubt about it.

What are you going to do with the old maid who travels about over a town of 1,500 people to gather the society items? Such an activity takes no time from her ordinary duties. She gets three or four dollars per week, because she does not take any time away from her regular duties. You cannot put her under a $16 a week requirement. What are you going to do with the janitor boy who hangs around and carries the mail bags? He is not worth any $16 a week.

These newspapers ought not to be included, because of the extremely limited amount of their circulation which goes into interstate commerce. This is what will happen if you do include them: The boys in other States who write back for their home-town paper, those 200 or 300 subscribers, will be stricken from the subscription list. The weekly newspapers will not engage in the out-of-State business if they have to comply with this requirement. The only difference would be that these papers woUld not furnish papers to subscribers out of the State. The average circulation of these weekly newspapers is 1,800, and there are nearly 4,000 such papers. Thirty-one of them are in my own district.

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

Mr. CREAL. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Is it not true the acceptance of national advertising by a small weekly paper puts that weekly paper into interstate commerce, even though all its papers are distributed in the county?

Mr. CREAL. All the national advertising the county weekly gets in a year at the present time you could put in one vest pocket.

Mr. PETTENGILL. But would this not make it interstate commerce?

Mr. CREAL. Perhaps so; but I say that circulation makes it interstate commerce.

At another point in this bill I am going to offer this amendment, and I want you who are friends of the county weekly to keep your eyes open.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. LUECKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman I rise at this point to refute the statement that this bill will hurt the farmer. In order to prove that statement I herewith submit figures which I obtained from various departments, which speak for themselves. It shows that the farmer's income is very much affected by the income of the factory worker.

The Department of Labor in a recent report on family expenditures of city wage earners shows in detail how much more workers' families spend for food as their wages are increased.

In families having a total expenditure of less than $400 per person per year and those spending $400 per year or over, it was found that the latter group spend on an average $175 per year per person for food as con1pared with $117 per year per person for the lower-income group.

The report, in detail, lists families spending under $200, $300, $400, $500 a year, and shows that each increase in income results in increased food purchases.

Some experts on the question of how the workers' dollar is spent say that 60 percent of his income goes for food while others say as much as 70 percent is spent for food. That is why the worker pays through the nose, as they say: wherever a sales tax is in effect.

In another report—Labor Review, April, 1936—we find that families with total expenditures of from $300 to $400 per person per year spent 22 percent more for meat, 34 percent more for eggs, 24 percent more for butter, 56 percent more for cereal and grain products other than flour, 81 percent more for fresh fruits, 74 percent more for miscellaneous food, and 11 percent more for staple products than families whose total expenditures were under $300 per person.

From the foregoing figures it will be seen that the problems affecting the worker and the farmer are mutual. When one has money to spend the other has also. It was refreshing to read the statement issued not long ago by a group of farmers in the Middle West when they said:

The 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.

[Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this section. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 6?

Mr. PATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PATRICK: On page 20, line 10, after the period, insert a colon and the following:

"And provided further, That none of the provisions of this act shall apply in any area or geographical section of the United States wherein charges for the transportation of property between dif!erent rate-making sections of the United States as designated by the Interstate Commerce Commission for rate-making purposes, or within which sections, shall be greater for the transportation of property moving from one such section into another, or within such section, for the transportation of the same or like classes of traffic than that made or designated for the same or like classes of traffic moving wholly within the destination rate-making section or

[PAGE 1810]

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

[PAGE 1811]

sections, distance considered, tn which the charges d~~gnated by the Interstate Commerce Commission are the lowest so designated by it."

Mr. PATRICK. Mr. Chairman, this is a statement of a matter I wish I could discuss for 1 hour. Every man from whatever section of the United States, and all those who want fairness in this bill, should note that this is the problem we face.

There is a district which is called official territory, ours being the southern territory, and there are three other recog· nized areas with their different rate-making burdens involved, with their discriminatory transportation rates. I signed the petition to bring this bill on the floor for debate. I am one of the southerners who has bared his back to this burden and helped you get the bill out here to fight it. We want you to help us. If my amendment becomes law, imme. diately the Interstate Commerce Commission may be de· pended upon to declare the entire United States one rate· making area. This can easily be done, and the Commission will naturally do it, because the official territory man will immediately rush in to help get it done.

If we in the South pay the same or similar wages and have the same hours they have in the East, and then have to absorb a further transportation expense, either going in or out of this or another area or within our area, how can we meet competition in the markets of the Nation? This is one of the thorns that has been in the side of the United States these years. This change must come in this Nation, and will either have to be brought about by action of the Interstate Commerce Commission or by specific law. If this is done, that will get it, so it must naturally follow. As men make laws in this world they are learning they must hew to the line and let resultant activities take care of human consequences. This is a natural method. This will do that thing, and it will not take long to do it. This is fair. This is democratic. This is not meant to and cannot hurt or harm any area. However, until there is a redistricting so there are no areas in which transportation rates are unfair and discriminatory this provision will apply only in the one in which the minimum rate arises. I want to make that clear. My amend· ment is coming up here now, and I want you to understand it. I have much I would love to say on this, but I know you want to ask questions. I will answer any questions.

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

Mr. PATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HEALEY. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that on page 14 it is provided that one of the standards which will have to guide the administrative authority in determining wages and hours is that they must consider the relative cost of transporting goods from the point of production to the consuming markets.

Mr. PATRICK. Exactly; but why not solve that problem? Here is the point involved in the proposition. I am manufacturing goods in Birmingham or Dallas today; tomorrow, next week, and I ship to Chicago, Cleveland, and different places involving different rate-making codes, and each time the Board has got to decide the matter. There is no way under high heaven by which the Board can accumulate the facts to determine the matter justly week by week. This offers us our great opportunity. -The only way it can ever be done is by breaking down these rate transportation barriers, so that Oklahoma, New York, Pennsylvania-all of usare able to reach out and have the matter taken up and dealt with fairly, and until that is done the situation will always be a thorn in our side.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

Mr. CITRON. Mr. Chainnan, I believe the pending amendment is not only vicious but would vitiate the entire

urpose and intent of the bill which we are trying to pass today. Only yesterday the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DEEN] criticized somewhat the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, claiming that they are prejudicial to the southeastern section of the United States. For this reason be stated be was opposed to all kinds of boards, administrative bodies, and was also opposed to a wage and hour bill. Let me call your attention to the fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission is a quasi judicial organization. We do not need to defend that body. It is a nonpartisan Com .. mission, composed of men of the highest integrity and honor, and is performing its duty in an effective and fair manner to all sections of the country, The prejudicial rates that the -gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DEEN] talked about are not prejudicial to one section and are not as prejudicial as the gentleman would give us to understand. It is true there are some differentials in· volving possibly about 15 percent of all freight rates, but these differentials are due to historical conditions and to business factors as well as to the direction of the movement of the traffic. Let me submit a statement of freight rates and trans· portation charges on various articles between southern and northern Doints.

[NOTE: Insert Shipping Rate Chart]

A study of the reports of hearings before the Commission shows the standards and principles and numerous factors involved in this problem, which is complex and difficult to solve in a large country as ours. But to exempt the operations of the proposed bill to any region because of any fancied grievances about freight rates would be sufficient to defeat the bill, or at least to grant a special favor and privilege to a section of our country. It would give some section an excuse to seek a special favor. For that reason, because I oppose any special favors. I oppose this amendment. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. The qu,estion is on agreeing to the amendment. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. HoBBS) there were-ayes 43, noes 75. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consen~ that sectiori 7 of the Norton amendment be thrown open to amendment in any of its particulars, and that debate upon the Norton amendment and all amendments thereto close not later than 6:30 o'clock. The CH.Am.MAN. Is there objection? Mr. PE'ITENGn.L. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman withhold his objection for a moment?

[PAGE 1811]

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

[PAGE 1812]

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana reserve his objection?

Mr. PETTENGILL. I affirm my objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Are there any amendments to section 7?

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on section 7 and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.

LETTER TO WILLIAM GREEN FROM MAVERICK

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, every Member of this House received a telegram from Mr. William Green, and I have written an answer to him which I think is possibly of some little importance and I am going to read that letter which I have written to Mr. Green.

It is as follows:

DECEMBER 17, 1937.

Hon. WILLIAM GREEN,

President American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. GREEN: Concerning your courteous telegram, in which you ask that I vote to recommit, or in effect kill, the minimum· wage bill, I regret I cannot comply. Your attitude is taken upon the basis that the exact wording of the "American Federation of Labor bill" has not been adopted by Congress. Where I must make a decision, even though I run the risk of the displeasure of the highest figures in America, I do it unhesitatingly.

There is no question in my mind but that the bill suggested by you is clearly unconstitutional, according to present opinions of the Supreme Court. The constitutionality of minimum-wage legislation is based upon hearings, consideration, conditions, and flexibility; your bill has none of these elements, and the committee bill has. Aside from that, I believe its infexible provisions make it utterly impossible of enforcement. Therefore I could not have conscientiously voted for it. I shall in the main follow the leadership of the House Committee on Labor, tried and true friends of the labor movement, and who have worked earnestly for this particular legislation for several years.

Let me read more of the letter:

The time has come for legislation to be regarded from the view point of the common good and not for the good of any particular organization—the C. I. O., the National Manufacturers Association, the Southern Pine Association, or the A. F. or L. Only in that way and by the exercise of our own judgment can Congress honestly and independently serve the American people.

At the present time the wage bill is in a formative stage; and though it may be greatly improved, you ask that it be killed. Others say that it is not a very good bil1. To this I answer that no effort should be killed before it has even had a chance; and the fact that the bill is not perfect is no reason to refuse to legislate and thereby forestall any opportunity for improvement and progress.

I am frankly of the opinion that the millions of American labor, organized and unorganized, want this legislation; also, that they deserve it; and more, that the legislation is a good thing for all classes in this country, business and labor.

RANK AND FILE OF LABOR DISCOURAGED WITH LABOR LEADERSHIP

In the past few months I have talked to literally thousands of the rank and file of labor. They are frankly discouraged and deeply dissatisfied with the split between the leaders of American labor.

If this situation continues, the leaders of labor will find that they are without a labor movement. The rank and file of labor fervently hope for unity and there is literally no dispute whatever among them. They have absolutely no quarrel with each other.

They do not understand and do not approve of the split of the leaders.

I continue reading my letter to Mr. Green:

In the meantime the greatest necessity in times like these, when the reactionary forces are well organized and fighting every move of labor, is the unity of which I spoke. You, and men like John L. Lewis, A. F. Whitney, president of the great rail brotherhoods, are the ones who can by mutual patience. sacr1fice, and foresight bring about that unity.

The American people expect that of you and the other gentlemen I have mentioned, just as they expect of me and other Members of Congress to do our duty according to our own consciences and judgment. I have made my decision, believing it to be right, and will take the responsibility just as you wW for yours. Very truly yours,

Maury Maverick, M. C.

FAIR LABOR LEGISLATION SHOULD BE STARTED

Mr. Chairman, I want to say just one or two things in this connection. Mr. Green has told us that he was for the bill and has changed his mind. I have not changed my mind.

This bill is not final; and if you vote to recommit this bill, you vote to kill the legislation outright. We want to do something, even though this bill is not very good, to get fair labor legisla:tion started in this country.

If we pass this bill, if we vote against recommitting the bill, we are not finally voting upon it. I think everyone should vote for the bill, and then, if you really want to vote against it, vote against it on the conference report which will come in the beginning of the regular session, but vote to put it through at this time. [Applause.]

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. Debate on this legislation has been in progress for about 5 days, and I assume by this time every Member has definitely made up his mind regarding his vote on this bill. I have listened rather attentively to my colleagues, and with a great deal of interest, seeking information regarding the provisions of these various proposals and the effect and consequences of this legislation if and when it is enacted. I know there has been much confusion, but now it is pretty well detemtined that if any bill passes it is going to be the bill that has been recommended finally ' by the Committee on Labor. It is not of great importance to me whether we have a board or an administrator. The resuits will be the same. After all, it involves a delegation of power that the Congress ought not to surrender. I do not believe we should create a new Government agency and vest it with authority not to set up one board but to set up an unlimited number of boards or committees to go out to the various industries of the country and undertake to dictate what shall be done and what shall not be done. Many of you who are sponsoring this legislation, and who are supporting it so ardently, are conscientious. You believe you are doing right, but we who are opposing it are equally sincere.

I, too, would like to vote for any bill that has a labor label on it. My experience in life, my training, and my background naturally have created in me those sympathies that would tend to cause me to want to assist labor and agriculture. I would not knowingly vote against any bill that in the end and in its final application and effects would benefit labor. But today the greatest problem in America is unemployment, not low wages, but no wages. We know wages in many instances are too low, but the tragedy in America today is unemployment, and that is the condition we ought to be trying to remedy at this hour. We should be trying to stimulate employment rather than to devote all of this time to the problem of low wages while millions beg for work. Talk about increasing wages to the class that needs it most! Mr. Chairman, I live in the South, where tenant farming thrives. I live in that section of the country where the average farmer, with the help of his wife and children, goes out in the fields and toils without limitation of hours or guarantee of price and earns a total average of $200 a year. That is the condition and problem this Congress should be trying to remedy. If you will make the farmer prosperous, laborers in industry will have jobs and good wages. This is a price-fixing bill. We are creating an authority here to fix the price of labor. As I stated a few days ago on the floor of this House, if you do this for labor, then my friends, the next demand that will be made upon you—and you ought to respond to it—will be to give the farmer parity prices for his products, which means a reasonable profit above the cost of production. [Applause.]

It we are going to embark as a Nation on a policy of guaranteeing to those who toil every dollar that it is worth, then let us not exclude from that policy the great millions who are engaged in agriculture, the basic industry of the world. [Applause.]

How many of you who are going to support this bill are ready to give the farmers and their wives and children a

[PAGE 1812]

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

[PAGE 1813]

fair price for their labor? Parity for the cotton grower of the South would mean a price of 40 cents per pound on the basis of a 40-hour week and 40 cents per hour for industrial labor. Remember the farmer has got to pay this extra cost you propose to add to what he must buy. The farmer has borne injustices in the price of his labor and products for many years. He is now crushed and oppressed to the extreme, and now you propose to place on him this increased burden.

I want to help labor, but what we are a.sked to do here will, in fact, create more unemployment. It will do more harm than benefit. Thousands of small businesses in the SotJ,th that are now furnishing employment will have to cease operation.

The legislation is in the raw. It is not digestible in its present form. The dictatorial powers it confers are obnoxious.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, we are going afar in the creation of new boards and vesting them with both legislative and executive powers as we are doing in this bill with the administrator and the unlimited committees he is empowered to appoint. We are spinning a web around our freedom and liberties which in the passing of time will strengthen into unbreakable chains. [Applause.]

I do not have time to discuss the measure in detail. The evils of it have been pointed out in the lengthy debate that has ensued. I cannot support it. The Labor Committee has been and is still confused. It is only concerned with getting out a bill; to pass some kind of a law; but, my colleagues, the American people are beginning to think and weigh the character of legislation we are enacting. They want quality, and in this concoction we are now a.sked to vote for we are further polluting the stream of economic recovery. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate upon this section and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words.

Mr. Chairman, there is, I feel, a demand by our people for legislation that will fix minimum wages and maximum work hours. Whether that demand is for this bill is uncertain. The bill from which the Committee on Rules was discharged by the petition signed by a majority of the Members of the House is a bill so changed by the amendments to the bill that in the changes and the amendments to the changes there is difficulty in passing judgment upon them. Portions of the original bill have been taken out altogether in some sections and replaced in others. A labor bill-labor is divided, and widely divided, in opinion as to its merits. I approach the vote upon the legislation with uncertainty and there is, I believe, a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of Members of the House from my State of New Jersey.

I wish tonight that I could be sure of myself to vote for what I regard as the most important measure during my service as a Member to come before the Congress. I would like to have that sureness, that certainty, which the Representatives of New Jersey had 150 years ago this very night. Here let me remind the Congress that 150 years ago tonight, on December 17, 1787, at about the hour of 8 o'clock, the men who then represented the people of New Jersey, with certainty about their action, knowing full well the desires of their people, signed the proclamation which gave the impetus to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Although Delaware had ratified on December 7 and Pennsylvania had followed on December 12—the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SNYDER], who is a historian, will bear me out—it was not until New Jersey had ratified that the other States made up their minds that ratification and adoption of the Constitution was the wise course for the country.

Up to that time there had been considerable aloofness by most of the States, but when the New Jersey delegation in unanimity signed the proclamation of the ratification of the Constitution, other States quickly fell in line, and the Government of the United States of America under the Constitution was established.

Oh, yes, there was no uncertainty at that time. I wish there could be no uncertainty now. I want to vote for wage and hour regulation. But a better bill than that before the House could have been drawn and the Labor Committee owed it to the House to present a bill with as little uncertainty as possible. Recommittal, if voted, will not kill wage and hour legislation, which is bound to come.

Whatever action is taken now the Members of the House and the Members from New Jersey especially must regard this as an auspicious night, the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the proclamation of the ratification of the Constitution of the United States by the State of New Jersey. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. KENNY] who preceded me stated that on December 17—150 years ago today—a patriotic citizen of New Jersey signed the greatest document of all times, the Constitution of the United States. He also stated there was some loathness on the part of some delegates to sign it, but notwithstanding that fact, he continues in asserting there was no uncertainty about it at that time and followed by saying he hoped there would be no uncertainty of benefits accruing to the people under this bill. By his own words he admits that there was opposition and loathness to the signing of that great document, because he points out that it was not until days thereafter that other delegates attached their names to the Constitution. Not only, as he no doubt knows, was there loathness on the part of some delegates to sign the Constitution, but if he will study the history of those days he will find that there were a great many men in that great convention who fought bitterly the adoption of nearly every provision; and it was months before it was finally adopted The gentleman will also find that within a short space of time it became necessary to give effect to the Constitution to adopt 10 amendments.

If that action was necessary, which clearly proves that even these great men did not perfect immediately their great task, and if be will examine the legislative history of this House or any legislative body, he will find that no new important legislation has been enacted that was perfect. In fact, there is nothing under the sun that is perfect, and I will not claim that this is a perfect bill. Personally, I wish it were possible for us to write one that would be perfect. But be knows as well as the House that when the bill passes this House that it will go to conference and that the conferees on the part of the House will endeavor to eliminate any unfair or unworkable provisions in the bill, and when it comes back we will have an opportunity to vote on it again.

Mr. Chairman, thus we find that history and records prove that there were a great many men opposed to that great original document, the same as today as many are opposed to this humane legislation to bring relief to the intolerable conditions under which millions of our wage earners have been living.

I myself have waited for many, many years to be accorded the privilege and opportunity to vote for legislation that would eliminate the conditions under which millions of underpaid and undernourished people have been working and regret exceedingly that there are so many gentlemen who for years have professed friendship for labor that when they have an opportunity to do so are not displaying that professed friendship. No piece of legislation that I can recall which we have ever passed in these many, many years was ever perfect. But we can perfect the same as the days and years roll on. I hope this is the beginning and that it is a step in the right direction.

All those who actually desire to aid the millions of undernourished and underpaid men and women in the United States who are entitled to our consideration will vote for the bill and will vote against recommitment, because that

[PAGE 1813]

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

[PAGE 1814]

would mean the death of our years and years of effort for humane legislation.

Mr. Chairman, during my long service I have witnessed a great deal of propaganda, have seen many lobbyists, dating back 30 years, lobbying against workmen's compensation, Federal Reserve, equitable revenue, 8-hour, security exchange, social security, holding company, and other legislation, as well as lobbying against certain investigations sanctioned by the House, but never have I seen the hordes of lobbyists that have taken possession of nearly every large hotel and who swarm through the congressional office buildings and the Capitol itself. Aside from these lobbyists, I have also noticed some scared and frtghtened businessmen.

I never surmised that even these lobbyists and propagandists possessed the ingenuity and resourcefulness which they are displaying to mislead, browbeat, and cajole Members of the House as they have against this bill. This undeclared war against the pending bill closely resembles the undeclared Asiatic war where hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children are being slaughtered, but to my mind this war is being aimed to put to death 9,000,000 of our wage earners by slow starvation and exhaustion. The generalissimos in this war are the Wall Street directors of hundreds and hundreds of our industries, manufacturing and commercial organizations who are now in complete control of the United States Chamber of Commerce, the United States Manufacturers' Association, and the Liberty League who, through their conscripted highly paid poison pen marshals and lieutenants—inventors of falsehoods—are endeavoring to poison your minds and kill your hearts, and who feel they can lead some of you astray by alluring promises. But what surprises me most is that they have been able to enlist the cooperation of gentlemen like Mr. Green. the president of the American Federation of Labor, and other leaders.

For 32 years on this floor and for 50 years in my home city I have aided and cooperated with organized labor and therefore, am greatly grieved to see the leadership, of what appears to me, for personal spleen, join with opponents to postpone or delay for many years the action on this legislation. I fully appreciate that this bill does not generally affect organized labor but is aimed to lift from serfdom the underpaid and overworked 9,000,000 American men and women and children who, in many instances, are obliged to work for a few cents a day of 10 or 12 hours. During the Hoover prosperity women in sweatshops worked for three or four dollars a week, saying nothing of the nearly 1,000,000 children between the ages of 10 and 16 who made a meager weekly pittance, whom this bill aims to protect from the exploiters.

Mr. Chairman, in view of my own personal knowledge and experience, I say to the Members of the House and to the country, do not be misled, do not be intimidated by the hordes of lobbyists, frightened manufacturers, and businessmen that by the passage of this bill you will bring about destruction to America or any section of our country.

Personally, I deplore that some of the gentlemen for whom I have the highest regard should feel that this legislation is aimed at their sections of the country. I predict now that this legislation instead of being detrimental will be helpful and beneficial, because these selfish groups of manufacturers and labor exploiters who for years have followed their unfair practices will, in keeping with the policy of the old-line textile manufacturers, when they were no longer able to continue in their human exploitation in that section, have gradually unloaded their holdings in New England and transferred their operations to the South. Not in the interest of the fair land of Dixie and the good people there, but so they could utilize cheap child labor which, unfortunately, is still permissible in that section of our great country.

You gentlemen who represent that section, instead of fighting as you do against this humane measure, which I know in your heart of hearts the principles of the proposed legislation you believe in, I suggest that you had better protect yourselves and, your sections against these ever avaricious, greedy corporate interests that are sure to engulf you. You should not fail to recognize their underlying motives and aims as sponsored by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Manufacturers' Association, aided and abetted by the Liberty League, who seek to avoid contributing their share toward the Nation's needs by creating artificial opposition, not only to the pending legislation but in urging the repeal of the capital-gains tax and the undistributed-surplus tax, to prevent the passage of the loophole-elimination tax bill shortly to be reported.

I believe there should be an exemption of from $10,000 to $25,000 on the undistributed-surplus tax, but I believe the capital-gains tax, which is a profit on investments and stock manipulations, must not be changed or weakened. The clumsy excuse which the opposition 'Offers for the need of the repeal of the undistributed-surplus tax is that the industries are restricted in expending and increasing their operations. Even many businessmen who have approached me have been so misled as to believe it is a tax on their capital and not simply a small tax withheld from stockholders' profits. From 1930 to 1934 every one of these gentlemen would have been more than pleased to pay these taxes from profits instead of sustaining the tremendous losses which they suffered.

Mr. Chairman, in the effort to bring about the repeal of the undistributed-surplus tax and capital-gains taxwhich is the speculators and profiteers tax-and to kill this bill, I again charge, regardless of any denials, if, not a conspiracy, then of a gentlemen's agreement-gentlemen's-are responsible for bringing about a recession in business and in employment.

It was the courageous, constructive legislation enacted upon the recommendation of President Roosevelt in 1933 and 1934-and this no one can deny-that made possible the advancement that has been made-which brought about the reopening of our plants and saved industry from bankruptcy. Therefore, it is amazing how these very gentlemen who have been so vastly benefited should have the audacity in accusing the administration of retarding progress.

Some of you, no doubt, are familiar with the panic of 1873. Many of you may recall, not perhaps as vividly as I, the 1893, 1907, 1914, 1921, and 1929 panics. In each and every instance it can be shown and proven that these panics or recessions were caused by well-laid plans on the part of the banking and speculating gentry, due to their recklessness and greed. These recessions always meant an accumulation of great wealth to them by the acquirement of securities and holdings at their own prices. Later on, through reorganization, as first practiced on the railroads, followed by commercial and industrial lines, and lately on the part of the power companies, they merged and rewatered their holdings, enabling them to make not only tremendous profits, but to obtain millions and millions of shares of common stock gratis for services which are in addition to the tremendous fees which they received from the defunct institutions.

This time, however, though they have shorn thousands of lambs and succeeded in scaring business and instilling fear, they have not and w1ll not succeed in their contemptible vicious plan. They might, to some extent, retard business and throw some people out of employment, but I have positive evidence, and every economist not controlled by them is confident that business, even before the bill is finally acted upon, is again improving.

Mr. Chairman. many statements have been made on the floor and numerous reasons advanced by economists for the present recession. I charged some weeks ago and I charge again today with greater proof and positiveness that this recession was brought about willfully and deliberately on the part of the financial and industrial leaders of this country. I can prove and, in fact, I am speaking from personal knowledge that the steel industry in January of this year deliberately informed all users of steel that no orders could be filled inside of 2 or 3 months and that for their protection they should place their orders and secure their requirements without delay.

[PAGE 1814]

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

[PAGE 1815]

In March 1937 every steel plant in the United States worked overtime, and many of them 24 hours a day, for the purpose of overloading the manufacturers. Their object was twofold: They planned to increase the price of steel, and in this they were successful, in that steel did advance 22 percent in price. Their second object was to depress conditions in that industry to aid in the planned general recession in business shortly before congress would convene to enable them to prevent the passage of any labor legislation. In this plot they were joined by other industries, and it is an absolute fact, gentlemen, that this planned conspiracy is responsible for the present recession. However, as the Steel Age and other reliable magazines and newspapers point out, the great stocks unloaded upon the market have nearly disappeared and many have been obliged to place their orders now.

Mr. Speaker, they may deny as they will, but these are the facts and they are true. They also seized upon the unemployment census, timing their plot so that it would reflect adversely upon employment conditions. With glee they pointed out the large unemployment and deliberately increased unemployment by further restricting production. Proof of that is in Ford's report, which states that production has been delayed for no legitimate reason. I could cite many such other instances and, mind you, I am citing from the reports of accredited financial publications. Oh, it is to be regretted that you and the American people have not all these reports before you. All that is being fed to the country and to the membership of this House are false and malicious statements emanating from Wall Street headquarters and the institutions which I have mentioned, all to the effect that unless we cease legislating there will be a duplication of the 1929 crash.

The Wall Street interests have left nothing undone to affect business and increase unemployment, spreading propaganda that business is suffering and sustaining great losses and actually on the verge of bankruptcy. This diabolical plot has been solely engineered because we are trying to provide a living wage for unorganized labor and to prevent the use of child labor.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago to disprove the alarming propaganda, I was fortunate enough to show that business has not suffered, although there have been some minor reverses, and I am happy that today I have before me the financial pages of the New York Times, and I give the headings of articles appearing in the issues of December 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16.

Here they are:

Hits business fear of stock market—Campaign on cowardly policy urged by Stedman before business editors—Sees "recovery rhythm"—Surveys show consumers plan heavy 1938 outlays—Rise in products cited.

Equipment makers meet new demands—American Car & Foundry aide cites specialized types of rolling stock.

Wool market shows signs of betterment—More business now being done and foreign prices are rising.

Upturn for week in bond financing—Total of $24,512,000 compared with $16,114,300 in the preceding period.

Bethlehem Steel votes $1 dividend—Year-end disbursement 18 payable on December 24 to stock of record of December 17—Lifts year's total to $5—$1,150 was paid on common stock in 1936—$6.75 to $7 profit in 1937 looked for.

Car & Foundry doubles profit—$1,483,135 made in 6 months to October 31, compared with $729,376 last year—Up to 78 cents on the common—Results of operations given by other companies, with comparative figures—Treasury's bond issue subscribed 16 times.

GENERAL MOTORS EXPORTS RISES

Sales of General Motors cars and trucks in the overseas markets in November amounted to 29,338 units, a gain of 21.8 percent over the same month in 1936. Sales for the first 11 months of 1937 were 334,438, an increase of 13.5 percent, a new record for the period.

Utility increases earnings in year-American Gas & Electric nets $13,517,967, or $2.53 a share-Other companies report.

$2,946,403 earned by Western Union—Net income to October 30 equals $2.82 a share against $5.54 similarly in 1936.

$1,524,585 earned on farm machines—Minneapolis-Moline reports net profit for year equal to $1.26 a common share—Assets put at $12,563,78—Results of operations listed by other corporations, with comparative figures.

Dividends voted by corporations—The Albany & Susquehanna declares special payment of $2.50 a share—Extra by Sears Roebuck-Regular year-end and extraordinary disbursements by other companies.

Passenger gain for New York Central—Volume in October rose 9.6 percent, and 24.9 percent in 10-month period.

Dividend actions continue heavily—Many special disbursements augment regular ones as year nears close—Will spend $17,000,000— 0hio Bell Telephone maps expansion program.

LARGE STEEL INQUIRIES

Contracts have been awarded for the construction of a new building unit at the River Rouge plant of the Ford Motor Co., to cost about $2,000,000. This undertaking is part of the $40,000,000 program recently announced by the company.

In view of these reports would you say, gentlemen, that this indicates a recession and that these companies are fearful that a falling off of business is in the offing? Surely, these companies would not declare dividends at this time if they were fearful of a real depression.

It may be of interest to the House to note the column which appears daily in the New York Times under the title "Dividends Announced," and I insert at this point a partial list in the December 14, 1937, issue, giving the names of over 200 corporations which declared dividends the previous day, saying nothing of the tremendous bonuses to the highly paid officials and every day you will observe new dividends, extra dividends, accumulative dividends, and special dividends being declared. I am satisfied when the tabulation is completed for 1937 the profits and dividends will exceed those of the so-called banner year of 1928.

[NOTE: Insert DIVIDENDS ANNOUNCED Chart

[PAGE 1815]

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

[PAGE 1816]

[NOTE: Insert DIVIDENDS ANNOUNCED Chart

The CHAIRMAN. There are 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CREAL] is recognized.

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a unanimous-consent request. The gentlemen will remember my talk a minute ago pertaining to the weekly paper. In the confusion that prevailed I did not understand what was being done, and they took up section 7 before I could hear what was doing. My amendment was on the Clerk's desk, and I ask that it be voted up or down.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to return to section 6 for the purpose of offering an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CREAL: Page 20, line 10, at the end ot the sentence, strike out the period, insert a comma, and add the words "and shall exclude employees of weekly or semiweekly newspapers from the provisions of this act."

The CHAmMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CREAL) there were—ayes 54, noes 45.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there perfecting amendments to section 8?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to section 8.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RAMSPECK: On page 21, lines 9 to 22, inclusive, strike out all of subsections (a) and (b) in section 8.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, the language which I am moving to strike out would give the administrator the power to interfere with purely local employers. I think it would be wise to limit this act to purely interstate business. It was my observation that under the N. R. A. the greatest objection that we heard from our people back home was the effort to include under codes and under regulation the purely local businesses. We all know that the Supreme Court in the Schechter case held that Schechter was not engaged in interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress.

I do not care to make any further statement about this matter. I believe that in the interest of getting a bill which might stand up when it is tested by the Supreme Court we ought not to have this section in the bill. My own judgment is that it is totally beyond the power of Congress in its right to regulate interstate commerce.

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

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield.

Mr. COOLEY. I would like to ask the gentleman, a member of the committee, whether in his opinion this bill would affect the newspaper publishers of the country; particularly the publishers of weekly papers, some of which go into interstate commerce.

Mr. RAMSPECK. It woUld be a question for the administrator to decide after investigating the business and determining whether or not, in his judgment, they do business in interstate con1n1erce.

Mr. COOLEY. If I understand the gentleman, it might extend far enough to reach even newsboys engaged in selling papers published by these particular publishers.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I think that is true. If it is determined that an employer is engaged in interstate commerce, as I understand it, all of his employees are subject to regulation under this proposal.

Mr. SIROVICH. Are not most newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and publications interstate in their sale?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I think so.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Certainly.

[PAGE 1816]

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

[PAGE 1817]

Mr. COOLEY. Would the gentleman think that a weekly newspaper with a very local circulation. but which occasionally sent its paper into other States, would be engaged in interstate commerce?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I think it is a doubtful question, I will say to the gentleman.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Would not the elimination of subsections (a) and (b) in section 8 remove a great deal of the teeth of this bill? Would it not weaken its enforcement?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I do not think so, because it deals solely with businesses which are local, on the theory that because they may compete in their own State with somebody in interstate business, that they are affecting interstate commerce. I think that is stretching the interstate-commerce clause to the breaking point. That is my own judgment.

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

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. If these two subsections are stricken out, will there be anything left-will there be anything left in section 8?

Mr. RAMSPECK. No; there will be nothing left in section 8, because the remainder of the section was the tariff provision, and that went out on a point of order.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is agreed to, there is no way to prevent chiseling competition with the standards set up pursuant to the bill from intrastate industries, and I sincerely hope the amendment will be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. RAMSPECK) there were—ayes 58, noes 86.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 8? If not, are there any perfecting amendments to section 9?

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 26, after line 2, after subsection 7, insert a new subsection 8, as follows:

"Subsection 8. 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."

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides that in case an order shall be issued by the administrator with reference to wages, the order shall become effective at the rate of 1 cent per hour each 30 days. In other words, in 5 months the hourly wage could advance 5 cents per hour and no more until it approached or reached the standard wage prescribed by the Board.

The reasonableness of that provision appealed to me. We discussed it in committee, but it was not presented in time for the committee to vote on the matter. It comes in here as an amendment, but it was discussed in the committee and many of the committee members are very favorable to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it has been stated several times on the floor of the House that in order for legislation of this kind to become effective without serious injury or shock to industry and certainly to small industry that has not sufficient capital or reserve to operate there cannot be too sudden a jump. Of course, legislation of this kind is to some extent revolutionary and to some extent experimental; but this will serve as a shock absorber.

I want to read a statement made by the President of the United States in his message to Congress on November 15. If the amendment I have offered is not exactly what the President had in mind, then I am a bad guesser. I quote from the President's message:

We should provide flexible machinery which will enable industries throughout the country to adjust themselves progressively to better labor conditions.

This is an opportunity for industry to adjust itself progressively. The question has been raised that this might serve to cut wages temporarily because it would cut off some of the hours. Mr. Chairman, no movement as great as this is, and no movement from which we expect as much as we do from this, can ever be a success without sacrifice, both on the part of industry and on the part of those who will ultimately benefit from it. We must approach this problem from a reasonable, practical, common-sense point of view. Take the small-business man who is borrowing money from the banks. You know, they have not built up much reserve and have not much in their treasuries. This man goes to a bank and borrows $5,000. The bank sees that his production cost is going up to a point where it exceeds the buying market price. What would any sensible banker do? He would call the loan and the man would have to close up his plant. There would be no earthly way for him to prevent it.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did present this amendment to the committee the last day we met. It was not acted upon, and I did not hear any member of the committee express himself in favor of this amenctnent.

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

Mr. WOOD. No; not now; in just a minute I will yield.

This law will not become effective until 120 days after it has been signed by the President. If, perchance, after many months of survey and investigation by the Administrator or any board he may appoint to investigate wages and hours in any given industry such Administrator or board should happen to grant the employees in that industry a 5- or 10-cents-an-hour increase in wages—and we know there are industries in many localities where employees are working for wages far below 40 cents an hour—then is it possible we desire such employees to wait another 5 or 10 months before the order goes into effect?

I hope this amendment will not be adopted. It will practically kill the effect of the bill. On the theory that the Administrator or the board appointed by the Administrator is not going to clamp upon an industry any arbitrary hours or wages until a full, fair, and exhaustive investigation has been made of the whole matter, I hope the amendment will not be adopted.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BARDEN].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak on the Barden amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Debate on that amendment has been closed.

Mr. KELLER. I would like to know when and how. We just now had 10 minutes of debate allowed on it.

Mrs. NORTON. No; that was on the section.

Mr. BARDEN. There was no restriction put on the amendment, as I recall it, and I was the first one who spoke 5 minutes.

[PAGE 1817]

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

[PAGE 1818]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD] spoke in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BARDEN. May I inquire if there was a restriction of time put on that amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, unless a proper motion had been made by a Member—and it was not the Chair's duty to inform a Member as to the motion he should make to obtain recognition—all time had expired.

Mr. KELLER. I was on my feet to submit a motion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: On page 25, line 23, after the colon, strike out the remainder of paragraph 7.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment would be to strike out these words:

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.

The bill as it now reads is to the effect that if the Board or the Administrator saw fit to increase wages he would be required to give 90 days' notice, but if he saw fit to decrease wages he would not be required to give one second's notice. If he desired to increase hours from 40 hours to 60 or 70 or 80, he would not be required to give a moment's notice, but if he wanted to decrease the hours he would be required to give 90 days' notice.

I believe the labor which is going to be affected should have at least as much right to notice as the employer who is going to be affected. This provision is very discriminatory, and, on the theory that labor should be given at least an equal break, I believe this provision should be stricken out, so both parties will be left on the same basis.

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

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

Mr. CITRON. There are no other provisions in this bill that an order does not go into e1Iect for as long a period as 90 days. I believe an order granting an increase of wages should go into effect at once and favor this amendment.

Mr. GRISWOLD. This is the only place I know of where the giving of notice is required, and then the notice shall be given only when it is beneficial to the employer. It will not be given when it is beneficial to labor.

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

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

Mr. BOILEAU. Does the gentleman contemplate that wages will be reduced in any instance under the operation of this bill?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I say that under the operation of this bill wages could be reduced.

Mr. BOILEAU. Does the gentleman mean that? I did not appreciate that under the operation of this bill the Board or the Administrator would have authority to issue to an industry an order which would reduce wages.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes, because they can fix wages anywhere below 40 cents an hour.

Mr. BOILEAU. However, the employer would not then be compelled to reduce wages to that figure?

Mr. GRISWOLD. The employer would be compelled to do so if it were an order of the Administrator.

Mr. BOILEAU. The gentleman does not mean to give the impression the Administrator could order an employer to reduce wages lower than they were?

Mr. GRISWOLD. I say that under the provisions I endeavored to have stricken out and which you would not strike out, the cost of production and operating costs provisions, the Administrator has power by reducing the wages in one plant in the town to equalize them with the wages in another plant in the town. He does have the power to reduce wages.

Mr. BOILEAU. I do not understand the Administrator has any authority under the provisions of this bill to tell the employer he must reduce the wages paid to his men from 50 cents an hour to 40 cents.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Certainly, to change the competition which is based on operating costs. You refused to strike that out of the bill. He does not have power to reduce them from 50 to 40 cents, but he does have power to make an order requiring a reduction from 40 cents to less than 40 cents. He is prohibited from exercising his authority above 40 cents, but has unlimited power either to increase or decrease below 40 cents. This power is limited only by the mandatory provisions of the bill.

Mr. BOILEAU. But the employer would not be ordered to do so.

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

Mr. GRISWOLD. I yield.

Mr. HOBBS. Is it not a fact that under this bill the Administrator would have the right to order an employer to reduce the wages from 40 cents to 30 cents?

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes; he could, as to an individual employer.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want first to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Administrator would have no power to reduce wages under any conditions. There is no such intention and no such expression in the bill. The Administrator may raise the wages to a less amount than the standard, little by little, if he wants to and as he sees fit, but he could not reduce the wages at all. He has no such power and there is no such intention expressed in the bill. This is perfectly clear and ought to be well understood.

I have got to refer now to an unfortunate thing that happened about 5 minutes ago. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BARDEN] introduced an amendment to which I had referred you last Tuesday. I called the attention of the committee to it. This amendment is one that offers a way out of all differentials. It is the solution of that subject. No one regrets so much as I do the fact it was not put into the bill.

The gentleman has studied out an amendment to this bill that would in due course raise the wages in those substandard localities and put them on the same basis as everybody else is in all other localities in due course. This is something we all ought to be for, and the amendment ought not to have been beaten. If there is another way to bring the matter before this body the amendment ought to be passed unanimously, because it would solve the entire question of dilierentials and give everybody a chance where wages of necessity are low—and they are in my district the same as they are in yours—and this would give them an opportunity to come up little by little without killing the business or throwing men out of employment.

This is what we have all been trying to do down South and in southern Illinois and everywhere else. Everybody has been struggling to do this, and the Barden amendment would have accomplished that very thing to the great advantage of the entire American people. I hope some means may be found to reconsider that amendment. If this is done I think the committee ought to support it unanimously, because it would take effect in Georgia, Illinois, or anywhere else where they are paying low wages, and give them plenty of time to adjust themselves while the wages are being brought up to where they ought to—the minimum of 40 cents an hour.

This would establish a national standard of wages all over the United States. This would work to the great advantage of every place where the wages are low at the present time, it would make secure the wages already above 40 cents an hour. And this was the intention of the bill and the purpose of the whole movement, and the amendment offered a solution of the question.

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

Mr. KELLER. I yield.

[PAGE 1818]

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

[PAGE 1819]

Mr. CITRON. Does not the gentleman believe that 90 days is too long a period for workers to wait when awarded an increase of a few cents?

Mr. KELLER. No. This is a big country and I have spent many months looking into this subject with respect to the textile industry. I have been in conference after conference, and if it could be done in 3 years or 5 years it would be the greatest thing we could do, because it would mean the permanent solution of the entire problem.

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

Mr. KELLER. I yield.

Mr. KITCHENS. There being more than 200,000 industrial plants in America scattered over three or four thousand miles, does the gentleman think it is possible for any board or committee properly to make an order within 3 months affecting all the business of America?

Mr. KELLER. No; certainly not. and probably not in 3 years, for that matter. We are not going to revolutionize the world before you can say scat. It is going to take time and it ought to take time, and I am pleading that we give it time so that we may accomplish our purpose without injuring business or throwing men out of employment.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman Yield?

Mr. KELLER. I yield.

Mr. HOBBS. I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, who is a member of the committee, if it is not a fact that under this bill, the administrator and the committees are charged with the consideration of several items in fixing the wage?

Mr. KELLER. Oh, yes.

Mr. HOBBS. And if they should, after investigation, find an employer who is paying 40 cents or less per hour, they could order him to reduce the wage he was then paying, could they not?

Mr. KELLER. Oh, no; they could not; they could not reduce the wages under this bill. That is certain.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana.

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. CITRON] desire to offer an amendment?

Mr. CITRON. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 10?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. The Clerk read· as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RAMSPECK: On page 26, line 4, strike out all of section 10 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"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 a point as near the principal place of business of the employer involved as is practicable and at such time as the Administrator may prescribe, and reasonable notice must be given to those involved by registered mail or by personal service. Such hearings shall be held only after a complaint is filed with the Administrator by any labor organization, any competing employer, or any employee or other person having a bona fide interest (as defined by the Administrator), and such complaint shall allege that the employer complained of, because of the wages paid or the hours required of his employees, is securing an advantage over competitors. Such hearings 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 hearings shall be kept. The Administrator shall not be bound by any technical rules of evidence or procedure."

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment makes certain changes in the proceedings under section 10. In the committee amendment now before the body there is no provision for notice to the people who may be affected by the hearings. There is no designation as to where the hearing shall be heard, but I presume it would be in Washington. My amendment makes a further limitation, and limits this act in its application to cases where it would be alleged that because of low wages or long hours, or both, the employer was getting an advantage over others in his industry, which means chiseling. I know everyone is tired and I do not want to go into any long argument, but I do feel that it is unfair to require people to be subject to an act and to be bound by hearings for which no provision is made for notice. A man might be put under a wage and hour order under this section without ever having had any notice whatsoever that he is being affected by it or that his business was under consideration.

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

Mr. RAMSPECK. Yes.

Mr. HOBBS. I have high regard for the gentleman's opinion. Does he think for one minute that the administrator or the board, such as he wished, would pay any attention to anything that any employer said?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I would prefer an impartial and independent board, but I cannot go as far as the gentleman does in saying I think the President would appoint an administrator who would not pay any attention to business. I presume that he will appoint a man who will pay attention to business, but I think we ought to write into the law proper safeguards for business, the right of notice, so that a man can appear and have his case heard. I believe that the power of Congress to fix wages and hours is limited, because we have only the power to protect interstate commerce. I do not believe we have any power to fix hours and wages as such for the purpose of raising the purchasing power of the people. I think we have that power only by virtue of our right to protect interstate commerce from unfair competition, and, therefore, I desire to limit this proposition to the chiseler, to the man who is out of line in his own industry, and that will be as big a job as any administrator will ever be able to do in this country.

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

Mr. RAMSPECK. I cannot yield.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Does this require personal notice to each one of the industries affected?

Mr. RAMSPECK. It would require notice by registered mail or personal notice.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. How is the Administrator or this committee going to find out everybody who is affected? Would not a public notice be better? It seems to me rather difficult to find everybody in an industry, even in a certain territory, who might be affected.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Of course, it would be a difficult matter if you undertake to take in a whole industry at one time, which I think is utterly impossible from a practical standpoint. I think he is going to have to take this thing up by communities or sections. I do not believe any man ought to be subjected to a law that has penalties such as this law has without actual notice of the fact.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Even in a community he might by chance overlook somebody who had two or three or four employees in a certain industry.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Of course, that is possible. At the same time I think that a man before he is made subject to criminal penalties ought to have notice of the fact that he is going to be put under a law so that he will not be taken into court and tried for an offense that he did not know anything about.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Is not the matter of notice a matter of regulation and procedure to be adopted by the Administrator, and would it not be taken care of if in line 7 you add the words "as the Administrator shall prescribe, after reasonable notice"?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I am afraid to risk that.

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

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes. The motion was agreed to.

[PAGE 1819]

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

[PAGE 1820]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not intend to take 5 minutes. I just want to say to the Committee that the orders of the Administrator do not relate to individual employers. The orders relate to industries and occupations, and it would be absolutely impossible to hold hearings at the place of business of every employer in an occupation.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope this amendment will be voted down.

The CHAffiMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 11?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RANDOLPH: Page 27, line 15, after the word "before", insert "a wage and hour committee"; and, in line 17, strike out the words "the Administrator" and insert "a wage and hour committee, the Administrator or any officer or employee designated by him."

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to debate the amendment. It comes from the committee. It is simply a perfecting amendment, to include a wage and hour committee as well as the Administrator, any officer or employee thereof.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the committee amendment will be agreed to.

There was no objection.

Mr GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GRISWOLD: Page 27, line 6, after the period, insert "the information obtained by such investigation and examination shall be confidential and not be divulged by the Administrator, his officers, agents, or employees, except in a proceeding in a court of law."

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that the language of this section provides that they may investigate when a man is about to violate a law, I have made this amendment, which makes the information obtained confidential. The chairman of the committee has agreed to accept it. It simply makes it conform to all other Federal laws where they obtain information.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that section 11 be read. It is the most important and the most vicious section in the bill, because it provides for the greatest system of espionage, without a crime ever having been committed, that has been proposed in a free country. It will be a millstone not only around the neck of the Democratic Party but the administration. The section should be read.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CASE of South Dakota: Page 27, line 1, strike out "or is about to violate."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAmMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 12?

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to section 12.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CASE of South Dakota: Page 291 line 3, strike out "or about to engage"; and in line 4 strike out "or :wiD constitute."

THESE SECTIONS SET UP AN INQUISITION

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I shall use most of my time not to give my opinions but to read you the language of section 11, which bas just been approved without amendment:

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.

(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.

And in case any person refuses—

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.

And further under paragraph (d):

(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.

If that stands as the law of this country the Bill of Rights is gone. If that becomes the law of this country no man who is subject to the provisions of this bill can refuse to appear on the ground that it will incriminate him, not because he has violated the act, btit because in the opinion of the Administrator or the committee he may be about to violate it. If this be democracy, the Democratic Party had better change its name. If this be democracy, then this country: will cease to be a democracy. Drop section 11. Section 12 continues the same kind of power:

Whenever it shall appear to the Administrator that any person is engaged or about to engage in—

How does the Administrator know? It is only his idea. A committee is set up composed of employers and employee$ who will be competitors, and under these sections they can compel other competitors, just on suspicion that they might be about to violate the law, they can compel them to bring in their records and if they do not they can bring to bear the power of the Federal court to compel them and then they cannot refuse even on the ground that it might incriminate them. This is the kind of legislation the House is passing under the mood the Members are in at this time. There is only one thing to do now and that is to recommit the bill and rewrite it.

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

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.

Mr. MICHENER. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that this provision is in the Black bill, which was presented to the Senate and passed by the Senate under the whip and the lash of this Senator Black who is now on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. CASE of south Dakota. Just a word in conclusion. This bill sets up the greatest system of espionage that has ever been proposed in America. Those of you who vote for this legislation with these sections in it will have to answer to the people. You talk about the middle classes of this country, or the man who is trying to get along and do something; you talk about helping business. You ask employers to take up the slack; you ask them to provide jobs; yet you subject them to this kind of inquisition. It certainly is the most un-American thing that has been proposed in this Congress since I have been a Member. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

[PAGE 1820]

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

[PAGE 1821]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close 1n 1 minute.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

The motion was agreed to.

r. FULLER rose.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the enacting clause.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will have to reduce that motion to writing. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. FULLER. The Chair recognized me for 1 minute. I shall use that time to write out a motion to strike out the enacting clause, a preferential motion.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the enacting clause. This is a preferential motion.

Mr. McFARLANE. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. McFARLANE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a motion to strike out the enacting clause must, under the rules of the House, be in writing.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is sustained.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquLry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Early this afternoon when they were holding a conference or discussion over there, we on this side could not hear much of what was said, but I heard one word, "midnight." Now, do we vote on this Black bill at midnight?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not submitted a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RAMSPECK: Page 30, line 5, after the word "employed," strike out the comma, insert a period. and strike out the remainder of line 5 and all of lines 6 to 21, inclusive.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, the language which I am proposing to strike out on page 30, beginning with line 5, after the word "employed" requires every employer who is put under a wage and hour order to post in every room where any employee of his works, a schedule showing the time every employee goes to work and quits work. Further than that, if any employee stays on the premises after his time expires, it is prima facie evidence of a violation of the order for which the employer may be fined $500 or put in jail for 6 months for each employee that remains on his premises. I say it is absolutely absurd to put business under any such regulation as that. It does not add anything to the bill. It certainly would not help to popularize wage and hour legislation with the public in this country. I tried to strike it out in the committee and I am going to try to do it here. I think if the members of this committee will simply read that language they will agree with me that it ought to be taken out and that no business man ought to be put under such a regulation as that which might make him subject to criminal prosecution.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield.

Mrs. NORTON. The comlnittee will not oppose that amendment.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I thank the gentlewoman very much.

The CHAmMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.

The amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further perfecting amendments to section 13? If not, are there any perfect- ing amendments to section 14?

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerks desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. THOMAS of Texas: Strike out all of subsection (a) of section 14 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"The Admin1strator shall utilize the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor for all investigations under section 11 (a)."

Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Labor Committee will not oppose this amendment, so I will not take very much time.

The purpose of the amendment is to simplify the investigating agencies. It will save money and do away with duplications and overlapping of investigating agencies. This amendment puts all the investigations now under the Bureau of Labor Statistics and, in my judgment, that Bureau is now functioning and doing a very fine job. This will save money and will prevent, one, two, or even three investigating agencies calling upon some man and more or less causing him discomfort.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS].

The amendment was agreed to.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ScHNEIDER of Wisconsin: Page 31, line 15, strike out lines 15 to 21, inclusive, section 14 (b), and insert:

"(b) The Chief of the Chlldren's Bureau in the Department of Labor, or any of his authorized representatives, shall make all investigations and inspections under section 11 with respect to the employment of minors, and bring all actions under section 12 to enjoin any act or practice which is unlawful by reason of the existence of oppressive child labor, and to administer all other provisions of the act relating to oppressive child labor."

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a substitute for subsection (b) in section 14. It does not materially change the subsection except to make it conform to the bill so far as the child labor features are concerned. It strikes out in line 15 the words "the administrator shall utilize" and leaves the section then with the Chief of the Children's Bureau to administer, which is in line with the bill in a general way so far as child labor is concerned.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mrs. NORTON. The Committee on Labor will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Labor is agreeable to accepting the amendment. For the support by the gentlewoman from New Jersey and members of the Committee on Labor to this and other amendments offered by me, I am deeply appreciative.

Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing individual sections of the wage and hours bill dealing with child labor as we have reached those sections in the course of our consideration of the bill. I believe that the members of the House of Representatives might like to know more of the general purposes of these child-labor provisions.

In general, their object is to define clearly what are oppressive types of child labor in interstate commerce and to provide for their elimination as far as possible through preventing children from ever going to work in forbidden occupations. The bill also provides for prosecution of those who use child labor in defiance of the law. Provisions are set up which tend to make the results of such prosecutions so certain that they act as a general deterrent to others. Let us take the definition of oppressive child labor, section 2, subsection (a), subsection 10. This definition clearly

[PAGE 1821]

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

[PAGE 1822]

stamps the general employment of children under 16 years of age in industry outside of agriculture as a practice which is unnecessary and undesirable as far as the production of products for interstate commerce is concerned. It further brands the employment of youths between 16 and 18 years of age in hazardous occupations as undesirable. This is the dangerous age when venturesome youths are only too apt to experiment with machinery, electricity, and other hazards of industry so that the result is often injury or death. Because of the frequent new inventions and changes in industrial processes, the duty of determining what are hazardous occupations is delegated to the Chief of the Children's Bureau.

In order that the child-labor provisions of the bill should not be too rigid, the Senate Committee on Education and Labor added a clause, page 6, line 2 to line 10, giving the Chief of the Children's Bureau power to exempt minors from the child-labor provisions of the bill if and to the extent that their work does not interfere with schooling, health, or well-being. In the judgment of the House of Representatives this power of exemption, which I believe was unprecedented, was far too broad and for that reason it has been curtailed, through the amendment which I offered, so that it may apply only to children between 14 and 16 who are not engaged in mining or manufacturing.

Certain other loopholes in the bill through which children might be exposed to the evils of labor abuses have been corrected by other amendments. Two offered by myself and approved by the House refer to clauses in the bill which would have exempted from the child-labor provisions any children employed by a parent or a person standing in the place of a parent. While the intent of these clauses, page 5, lines 13, 14, 17, and 18, was undoubtedly to exempt children engaged in the ordinary occupations of home they would unfortunately have permitted continuance of the employment of children in such grossly improper occupations as tiff mining in Missouri and other types of piecework in which children can be used, no matter how dangerous or undesirable. The House of Representatives has wisely eliminated this possibility.

The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD] also introduced an amendment which the House has adopted which closes certain loopholes in the bill as passed by the Senate. In writing in certain exemptions which are obviously intended by the Senate to apply to wage and hour provisions for adults, child labor in forestry, in commercialized fishing, and in turpentine work, where very serious abuses occur, were all excluded from protection.

It should be noted also that the gentleman from California [Mr. KRAMER] presented an amendment which was adopted exempting young children engaged in professional acting in the production of motion pictures from the age and hour limits of the bill.

Another amendment, which was presented by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BULWINKLE] and adopted, added under the definition of "substandard labor condition" (p. 6, line 15) the employment of minors between midnight and 6 o'clock a. m., thus putting such employment under the general prohibitory clauses of the bill.

One of the most significant clauses with reference to child labor in the whole bill, is that, page 5, line 22 to page 6, line 2, which provides for an age certificate as a test of a minor's legal employment. The effect of this provision, coupled with another section of which I shall speak in a moment, which greatly simplifies prosecutions, is that the vast majority of employers insist upon work certificates for all minors applying for work. The outstanding advantage of such a plan is that under it State and local labor and work certificate agencies, in cooperation with the Children's Bureau, as provided in section 3, subsection (b), page 9, see that children do not obtain age certificates for illegal work. Thus child labor is prevented. The experience under the 1916 child-labor law proved conclusively that this arrangement is the mast satisfactory, effective, and economical one. Not only are children prevented from going to work, but the supervision of this is in the hands of State and local authorities whose prestige and authority in the protection of their own children is strengthened. The supervision required of the Federal Government is reduced to a minimum. Only 17 Federal inspectors were required for administration of the 1916 child-labor law for the entire country. The total cost of this enforcement to the Federal Government was $125,000 a year, and the total number of Federal employees reqUired was 51.

CONTRAST WITH WHEELER-JOHNSON PROVISIONS

This is in sharp contrast to the provisions of the Wheeler-Johnson bill which have been proposed as a substitute for the child-labor provisions of the Black-Connery bill. That bill depends upon prosecutions after children have been illegally employed. Its provisions for the labeling of goods, as a supposed aid to prosecution, are complicated and it has been shown, in testimony before the Interstate Commerce Committee of the Senate, that they would be ineffective.

I have already spoken of the wise provision of the wage-hour bill now before you, page 9, lines 10 to 17, that the Chief of the Children's Bureau may develop plans of cooperation with State and local agencies charged with the administration of labor laws. It would be difficult to point to a more striking example of sound cooperative relationship between the Federal and local governments than that which was developed in the administration of the 1916 Federal child-labor law. It was most effective in preventing child labor with a maximum of home rule consistent with effective enforcement of the act, and a remarkably small Federal inspection force of 17. This is in sharp contrast to the procedure which would be necessary under the Wheeler-Johnson bill. The enforcement of the provisions of that bill would depend upon prosecutions by Federal agents and the number of such agents which would be required to watch the products of many thousands of factories in the United States and to prosecute violations of the law is painful to consider.

Another extremely important child-labor provision of the wage-hour bill now before you is the clause, page 41, section 1 22, subsection (e), making illegal the shipment of goods from a factory within which oppressive child labor has been employed within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods. This is a key provision upon which the effectiveness of the regulation of child labor largely turns. It sweeps aside the subterfuges and evasions which would be multiplied indefinitely if it were incumbent upon the Government to prove that a child worked on a particular piece of goods which is being shipped, as would be required by the Wheeler-Johnson bill. Proof of this would require the stationing of inspectors in the various factories and other establishments of the country which might use child labor, to watch the actual processes on which children work. Under the 1916 child labor law, which included the sound principles of the wage-hour bill, now before you, enforcement was relatively simple and, because of this, honest employers insisted upon age certificates for minors who worked in their factories, thus reenforcing the whole trend of this legislation which was to prevent children from going to work rather than to depend primarily upon prosecuting employers after the harm had been done.

The Wheeler-Johnson bill makes a futile gesture in the direction of making enforcement easy through a provision that the employment of children in a factory is prima facie evidence that they have worked on any goods shipped from that factory. Those who are familiar with the administration of such laws know well that the unscrupulous sweatshop type of employers who use child labor in the face of such a law would inevitably have someone beholden to them who would testify that no child worked on the particular goods in question. The Government would then be forced to produce original evidence that the child did work on such goods or articles, perhaps at a much earlier time than the prosecution and in some distant State. Under these circumstances evasion would be so easy as to invite a general disrespect for the law. The House, therefore, has been very wise in restoring the direct and simple provision for the securing of evidence. which I have described and which made the 1916

[PAGE 1822]

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

[PAGE 1823]

law so readily enforceable, and in writing out the Wheeler-Johnson substitutes which would make such enforcement complex and extremely difficult, if not impossible.

SUPREME COURT HAS IN EFFECT REVERSED ITSELF

Mr. Chairman, the question has been raised whether the House in restoring the principle of the 1916 child-labor law in the wage and hour bill has not made a mistake because of the fact that the Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional in the famous Hammer-Dagenhart decision. I for one, and I know that many agree with me, will heartily welcome the presentation of exactly the issues of the 1916 child labor law to the Supreme Court again. I would do so in the belief that the Supreme Court would reverse itself even though I had no specific opinion of the Court to confirm my belief. As a matter of fact, however, we have in the opinions of the Court itself ample evidence that it would so reverse itself. In the Kentucky Whip and Collar case the Court definitely removed the contention that the fact that the usefulness and harmlessness of goods being shipped need have anything to do with the validity of an act forbidding their transportation in interstate commerce. In the Jones and Laughlin and Friedman-Harry Marks cases the Supreme Court removed the contention that because the production of goods was a local matter the regulation of the interstate shipment of those goods was beyond the power of Congress. It is clear, therefore, as the Court itself pointed out, that the effect upon interstate commerce of the labor practice involved in the production of such goods is the controlling factor. The effect of the use of child labor upon interstate commerce is now generally conceded by all, and abundant evidence could be presented to prove it. We may rest assured, therefore, that the reenactment of the principles of the 1916 child-labor law, as proposed in the wage-hour bill now before you, would be sustained by our highest court.

In a clarifying and perfecting amendment offered by myself and adopted by the House, the administration of the child-labor provisions of the wage-hour bill have been placed in the hands of the Chief of the Children's Bureau. This is consistent with the whole course of the Senate and the House with reference to the child-labor provisions of this bill. It has been clearly the thought of Congress that procedures intended to eliminate child labor, whose existence can be determined with promptness and exactness, should not be delayed or confused by being made dependent upon procedures for dealing with wages and hours and correlative matters of collective bargaining which are of necessity far more complicated. The wording of section 14, subsection (b), page 31, as now amended, eliminates questions of overlapping and divided jurisdiction which would have made the enforcement of the child-labor provisions complicated and difficult. The responsibility of the Children's Bureau is made more clear and specific for those procedures which involve continuance of the same sort of cooperative relationships, with various State and local work certificate offices and agencies for the enforcement of childlabor laws, in which the Bureau has already established such an enviable record.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the Members of the House on the highly intelligent and thoughtful consideration given to the elimination of child labor in these various provisions of the wage-hour bill which I have discussed. Taken together they establish an excellent system of control of child labor in interstate commerce through cooperative relationship between Federal and State Governments. They follow tested procedures which we know will work successfully because they have already done so under the 1916 child-labor law. Under these provisions, if finally adopted by the House, we may be sure of rapid progress in the elimination of child labor from interstate commerce such as has been long overdue in this country.

May I remind you and the Members of the House, however, that according to the best estimates, the child labor that is used in the production of articles for interstate commerce constitutes only 25 percent of nonagricultural child labor that exists today. We must not flatter ourselves that we have completed the job if such legislation as this is put on the statute books. We will have done our duty so far as we can go under the Constitution as it stands today. To eliminate the remaining 75 percent of nonagricultural child labor will require ratification of the Federal child-labor amendment.

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know very much about the pending amendment, but I do know something about an amendment adopted here a while ago, which absolutely kills this bill as far as Americanism is concerned. Nothing like it has ever occurred in the history of this country.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman is not talking about the pending amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is confident that the gentleman from Arkansas will proceed in order.

Mr. FULLER. The gentleman from Arkansas will proceed in order and he knows how to proceed. I will not be called off my feet but proceed in order, and I will not yield the floor.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated, the amendment adopted a little while ago is against everything that America or American people have ever stood for.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that section 14 is under consideration.

Mr. FULLER. Yes; and I have the right to compare that with other amendments that have been adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 14 is the section under consideration. The gentleman from Wisconsin has offered an amendment which relates to subsection (b). The Chair notes that section (b) covers a rather broad territory and any Member who is recognized would be warranted in going into a rather broad field of debate if he so desires.

Mr FULLER. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is the same as turned down a little while ago.

The common law of England is the prevailing law today in the United States where statutes have not changed it, and that prevents you from going into a man's castle, or into his home, or into his place of business to search, investigate, and take charge of his private papers. A little while ago you adopted an amendment which is in contradistinction of the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

WOOD. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

Mr. FULLER. I fear the gentleman does not realize what point I am discussing.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Missouri raise a point of order?

Mr. WOOD. I wonder if it is possible for the gentleman to talk in order?

Mr. FULLER. Not from your viewpoint, at least.

The CHAffiMAN. Does the Chair understand the gentleman is making a point of order?

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not talking to this amendment but to an amendment to another section that has been disposed of.

The CHAffiMAN. So far as the Chair can observe from a very cursory examination, the former amendment has relationship to the present matter under consideration. The gentleman will proceed in order.

Mr. FULLER. To show the fallacy of this bill, when you want us to adopt this amendment you show just how little knowledge you have of history and how little knowledge you have of Americanism and of what ought to be placed upon the statute books of this country.

Under the amendment you have just adopted you not only allow detectives to come in your front door in the morning and in your side door in the afternoon, but under the cover of darkness you allow special investigators to come in and not only investigate your books but take certified copies of

[PAGE 1823]

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

[PAGE 1824]

them back to Washington to see whether you may have violated the law, or whether the evidence might be valuable in framing future legislation.

This bill you are seeking to place upon the statute books, and which we of the South consider an insult and attack upon our industry, is a bill originated in Pennsylvania, the last State in the Union to come into the Democratic fold and probably the first to go out of it. The men who drew this bill did not care anything about the Constitution. They did not know what the Constitution was. The law was drawn by "brain trusters," who hope the Supreme Court of the United States will forget our organic law, or repudiate it, and forget there ever was a constitutional provision such as the fourth amendment. Here we find the committee trading and accepting amendments in order to get votes. But when the roll is called you will find this bill recommitted to the committee where it should sleep for always.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER].

The question was taken, and on a division (demanded by Mr. ScHNEIDER of Wisconsin) there were—ayes 92, noes 0.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 15?

If not, are there any perfecting amendments to section 16?

If not, are there any perfecting amendments to section 17?

If not, are there any perfecting amendments to section 18?

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: On page 36, line 6, insert a new paragraph to read as follows:

"Nothing in this act shall apply to any labor engaged in manufacturing or producing any commodity which is in competition with any similar commodity which is on the free list when imported from any foreign country, or which is in competition with any similar commodity on which there is an excise tax when imported from any foreign country."

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the section to which it is offered. The section referred to was stricken out.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, if there is any question about the point of order, I want to be beard.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be pleased to hear the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, the point of order, as I understand, is based on the fact that the tariff section has been stricken out. This amendment is not directed to the tartif section but to a section which is entitled "Relation to other laws," and the paragraph which is in the bill deals with other laws. The amendment which I am offering also deals with other laws, and I submit it is germane. If there is any question whether the amendment is germane to this section, I am perfectly willing to offer it as a new section, but I wanted to avoid the possibility of a point of order being made, because I had failed to offer the amendment at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to hear the gentleman from Virginia on the point of order.

Mr. BLAND. I thought I had addressed the Chair on the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thought the gentleman from Virginia might desire to be heard further.

Mr. BLAND. If the objection is to offering the amendment to this particular section, I have no objection to offering it as a new section, but I offer it here to prevent a point of order being made for failure to offer it at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from New Jersey desire to be heard?

Mrs. NORTON. I do not, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has indicated the amendment would be offered as a separate section, so the Chair will consider the point of order from that angle.

The amendment of the gentleman from Virginia confines itself to labor engaged in manufacturing or producing any commodity in the United States—while "in the United States" is not in the amendment, that is what the effect of the amendment would be—which is in competition with any similar commodity which is on the free list when imported from any foreign country or which is in competition with any similar commodity on which there is an excise tax when imported from any foreign country. The amendment confines itself to the domestic market.

This bill relates to interstate commerce, and as the amendment is framed and drafted as a separate section the Chair considers the amendment to be in order, and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment as a new section.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: On page 36, line 6, insert a new section to read as follows:

"Nothing in this act shall apply to any labor engaged in manufacturing or producing any commodity which is in competition with any similar commodity which is on the free list when imported from any foreign country, or which is in competition with any similar commodity on which there is an excise tax when imported from any foreign country."

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, it is astounding to me that when the point of order was sustained, and properly sustained, striking out provisions which had been placed in this bill for the protection of American industry, a motion was not then made by some member of the Committee on ' Labor to send this bill back to that committee for further consideration.

This bill might be termed very properly "A bill to favor the importation of foreign goods into the American market, and a bill to destroy the tariff provisions that now obtain for the American farmer and American industry." [Applause.]

The strongest argument I could make comes in the language of the committee itself. The provisions which were stricken out on a point of order are as follows:

(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 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.

This is a confessed admission that the result of this bill without the protection they sought to afford would be to protect the foreign market and to enable foreign goods to flood the American market including the goods from the cheap-labor nations of the world, like Japan. This would be the effect of the bill without the protecting clauses.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment only goes to those things that are on the free list. I could not apply it to all industry, yet it applies to industry in every respect; and whether you accept this amendment or not, it demonstrates the fact that this bill should be recommitted and not passed. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman I make a point of order against that motion. The rules of the House prescribe for 10 minutes of debate—5 minutes for and 5 minutes against.

Mr. DOWELL. Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House provide that after there has been 5 minutes of debate a motion to close debate can be made.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the Chair's understanding of the rule is that after 5 minutes has been

[PAGE 1824]

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

[PAGE 1825]

consumed in debate, a motion to close debate is in order and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

The question is on the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLAND].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. McMILLAN and Mr. DONDERO) there were—ayes 74, noes 82.

So the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 19?

Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

I just want to say a few simple things. So far as I am personally concerned and so far as my section of the country is concerned, the kind of bill we would have liked best was a bill fixing flat standards. That kind of bill, however, when you are trying to do a new thing for the whole Nation and to take a new step in social progress is far more difficult to pass than a flexible bill, such as we have before us. It would be more difficult to enforce and obviously would bring about greater adjustments in certain sections of the Nation.

It seems to me we have here an illustration of how difficult it is to take even a short step forward in the direction of social progress and the protection of the poor. We are trying to do a big thing here today, big in its principle, but how small in its application. We have exempted from the hours provisions of the bill the processing of perishable agricultural products and from all provisions their preparation for market in the raw state. We are setting up machinery which can raise the wages of labor in other industries affecting interstate commerce to 40 cents an hour, a wage which gives an annual income of only $800 a year, and we are setting up machinery which can reduce the hours of labor to no fewer than 40 hours a week—what a bare minimum standard that it—and yet every possible obstacle or objection is put in its way.

The excellent child-labor provisions are alone enough to make every person who sincerely does not want to see little children laboring and undercutting their own fathers' chance to work vote for this bill and against recommittal.

For my part, I would vote for tariff protection for industries that were harmed by low-wage foreign competition; but, obviously, we cannot do that in this bill. This has to be done somewhere else, and it can be done somewhere else.

The people who are sincerely opposed to this bill on the ground that they believe in unlimited individual liberty and think the average workman without property can protect himself against all the power of wealth and all the blind economic forces, I understand; but if anyone wants to do something, not for organized labor, but for the poorest people in this Nation, he will not vote against this bill.

This is a step, a step that none of us believes is 100-percent perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. As a matter of fact, the method of carrying out the purpose of this bill, as provided here, is eminently democratic. Substantially, in spite of all the oratory to the contrary, wage and hour standards are to be fixed by committees representing employers, labor, and the public. I have heard a lot about Americanism. I always believed Americanism meant a square deal for the little fellow. I have always believed it meant that the little fellow had a government in Washington that sought to the best of its ability to give him protection, and I have always believed that Americanism meant affording equality of opportunity. I still believe it, and it seems to me that if this Congress can take a step in the direction of protecting the rights of these people by establishing these minimum standards, it will have done a good thing.

About the present recession in business, it has, as is customary, been blamed again today on the progressive legislation of this administration. I am for fair taxes. I am for making such modifications in our taxes as ought to be made, but let me tell you that the manufacturing and mining industries of this country spent only $3,400,000,000 on new capital goods in 1935 before those taxes were levied, while they spent $5,400,000,000 on new capital goods in the calendar year after the taxes were levied. Does that sound like taxes are the basic trouble? The trouble today is that, whereas a year ago the Government was putting into the stream of purchasing power in the form of wages to the unemployed people, and in other ways, $300,000,000 a month, last spring we quit doing that, and we quit doing it too soon. We quit before we had brought about an increased production of wealth and balanced our Budget up instead of balancing it down at the expense of our people and our consumer demand and our business. And now the quicker we open up public works to these unemployed workers the shorter our present difficulties will be.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have big problems ahead of us. Let us keep big things in mind and not let little things get too much in the way. [Applause].

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 20?

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HOBBs: Page 37, lines 4 to 8, after the word "part", strike out the remainder of line 4 and all of lines 5, 6, 7, and 8 down through the word "capricious."

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, at this late hour it would be the height of presumption to address this distinguished group of men and women unless there was good reason for it. There is good reason for me to do so, and I ask your attention.

This amendment seeks to strike out the iniquitous provision which takes away from the court of law, to which this bill says appeal may be made, the right to pass on questions of fact. Questions of fact are the only questions of any importance which could conceivably be involved in any appealed case. This provision is a fraud upon its face. It purports to give the right of appeal and review in the courts and does absolutely nothing of the kind. Read what it says:

And findings of fact by the Administrator when supported by evidence—

How much evidence? What kind of evidence?-

shall be conclusive unless it shall appear that the findings of the Administrator are arbitrary or capricious.

Of course, there is no one intelligent enough to occupy a position of this kind, who would be such a fool as to be unable to clothe his deliverances with some semblance of seriousness and plausibility. He could easily fix them so that they would pass muster under that definition. How shall it appear that the findings are arbitrary or capricious? Obviously the answer is, from the record prepared by the Administrator himself. Therefore, I ask you, not as partisans, but as Members of this House and on your honor as such, to rise above partisanship and do justice. No matter how you vote on the bill as a whole, do not go to the country with a provision like that in it. It is fraudulent, unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and every Member of this House who will read it impartially must agree with those statements. I hope the Committee will accept this amendment, but whether it does or not I beg of you to vote it "up." [Applause.]

Mr. O,MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. During the last 3 days nearly everyone in the House has discussed the bill and I rise mainly for the purpose of outlining my position upon the principle of wage and hour legislation.

The language in the bill, which the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama seeks to strike out, ends most appropriately upon the word "capricious" which seems to be

[PAGE 1825]

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

[PAGE 1826]

particularly characteristic of the procedure on this legislation during its consideration here. Amendment after amendment has been offered to the bill, most of them designed to exempt from its provisions certain industries or to please certain groups or factions, so that tonight I, like so many others in the House, find myself in the position of the old man in the famous Aesop's fable, who with his three sons was the proud owner of a jackass. As the old man led the animal along with the three boys astride its back, passers-by and neighbors questioned his kindness to the animal with such a heavy burden, until finally each son in turn dismounted. Even that treatment of the jackass did not please all the bystanders until, in his effort to appease all commentators, the old man finally found himself carrying the jackass upon his shoulders. As the party crossed the bridge the animal kicked, fell from the old fellow's shoulders into the stream below, and drowned. Gazing sadly upon the carcass of his possession as it floated down the stream the old man turned to his sons and said, "You see, in trying to please everybody I have pleased nobody and have lost my jackass in the bargain." [Laughter and applause.]

That is largely the position the original sponsors find themselves in at this late hour. The Democratic platforms and the Democratic Party have for years promised the underpaid wage earners of the Nation a bill to provide for decent living standards through a minimum wage and maximum work hour bill. As we have proceeded here we have tried to please everybody and we are now at the point where I doubt if we have pleased anyone.

I frankly do not like many of the provisions of the bill which we shall finally, under parliamentary procedure, have to vote upon. But because I firmly believe that the principle of minimum wages and maximum hours should become a part of the basic law of the United States and that such principle, when adopted, will give evidence that the American Government does not condone either starvation wages or sweatshop working conditions, I propose to vote for the bill when we reach that point. My vote, to my mind, will be not so much a vote for a particular piece of legislation which has been amended right and left until certain portions of it are very controversial, but will give evidence of my keeping faith with the majority of my distict, who have unmistakably time and again indicated their approval of legislation enactiug minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards.

I prefer to vote for the Senate bill as it came to the House, but a vote of this kind is not possible under our present procedure. Many Members are under the impression that separate votes on the amendments adopted in Committee may be obtained in the House, but that will not be the case. The only vote, as I understand the situation from the Parliamentarian, will be as to whether we shall accept the Norton substitute as amended here in the Committee of the Whole or take the Senate bill as it came from the other body.

When that question arises I shall vote for the Senate bill because it provides for the administration of the law by a board, and it is my personal opinion that the administration of what will undoubtedly be a highly controversial statute can be better accomplished by the combined minds of five persons than of one. At least where the board is concerned, when disputes arise, we Members of Congress who are often called upon by our constituents to intervene or intercede will, I feel, stand a much better chance of fair treatment from five men than from one man, and our chances of getting at least one of five persons on the telephone in an executive department would probably be just five times greater than the possibility of locating one administrator, if previous experience is any indication of the conduct of a governmental department.

In closing I will say that while it is contemplated that a straight motion to recommit will be offered, everyone knows that a bill recommitted to a committee is usually dead and embalmed, and a vote for a motion to recommit is nothing but a vote to kill wage and hour legislation for all time. I cannot vote for such a motion because I believe that we should enact, in keeping with the platform promises of our party, wage and hour legislation here and now and not dodge the issue by putting it off to some far-distant future. I plead with you who claim you are friends of labor not to follow a discredited and reactionary Republican leadership whom the people of the United States for more than 5 years have refused to follow, and whom we as Democrats cannot follow without betraying nearly every word spoken by us and other Democratic elected officials only 1 short year ago.

As a candidate for Congress in five elections in my city over a period of 10 years, I have advocated a national standard of living wages for the workers with the power of the Federal Government behind the maintenance of such a uniform Nation-wide standard. In campaign after campaign I have pledged inyself to exert every effort to try to better the living conditions of the overworked and underprivileged.

I have never seen a perfect bill come before this House during my service, and I never expect to see a perfect piece of legislation. I have never been able to vote for a bill that pleased me in every word, line, or paragraph, but when a piece of legislation embodies a great basic principle to which I and my party are committed I could not vote against such legislation without betraying not only my own words but the hopes, desires, ambitions, and faith of the majority of my district who have made possible my service in this House. The workers and the wage earners of the United States are not concerned with details or mechanics. They do want to know whether their Government and their Representatives believe in decent living standards and humane working hours, and the Member of Congress who votes to send this bill back to committee to molder in the dust of a committee pigeonhole demonstrates that he believes the hours of work a man must do and the pay he should receive should be no concern of the Government that the worker votes for and looks to for protection. This philosophy of disregard for the workers' rights is the philosophy of fuedalism and exploitation that a good Democrat cannot follow and only a bad Democrat and friend of selfish minorities will admit he favors.

Whether I remain here a short time or a long time, when the roll call comes on any legislation, I propose to continue to stand upon the side of my kind of people, those who toil for their daily bread, who work in the shops, factories, stores, and mills and on the transportation systems and in productive fields of American industry. They are the kind of people that send me here, the kind of people who have no one to defend them from ruthless exploitation but those public officials who they elect and must depend upon for defense and fair treatment. These people have no highpaid lawyers to voice their sentiments in the lobbys of the Congress. They have no great slush funds obtained through unjust profiteering and stock and bond gambling to load the mail of Congressmen and Senators with costly literature and expensive letterheads to plead their cause; no funds left over from family needs to pour down a deluge of telegrams upan the Legislature. Their only hope, these workers and toilers, for better conditions and a fuller life that the Democratic Party claims to stand for, is in the Members of Congress who vote upon the legislation that may help to improve their conditions. These people, the toiling masses whose votes will be eagerly sought again next year, will know by the RECORD who their friends are tonight and who the others are who plead friendship while wielding the knife of the money changers against their interests as exemplified in this bill to make the basic principle of fair wages and decent hours as a part of the American code of law.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate upon this section and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HARLAN and Mr. EBERHARTER rose.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio for 2^1/2 minutes and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 2^1/2 minutes.

There was no objection

[PAGE 1826]

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

[PAGE 1827]

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Chairman, the provision to which the motion applies on page 37 specifies that on all questions of fact unless the Administrator has shown his decision to be capricious or willful, the court shall not reverse the decision.

It is very similar to provisions in laws to which all lawyers are accustomed. It amounts to the fact that in reviewing these cases the upper court shall proceed in error instead of appeal. Now, that is not an unconstitutional provision. It deprives no one of any rights. It is a similar provision to the one contained in the act controlling radio. That act contained this exact wording. It went to the Supreme Court for test and the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co. (289 U. S. 266), held that provision constitutional, fitting, and proper for this kind of legislation.

I am not more interested in depriving anybody of any rights than the gentleman who proposed the amendment. I would not be in favor of that. But there are certain conditions under which a reviewing court ought to be limited to the law in the case and not to the facts. We have that in ordinary civil proceedings, and there is no reason why we ought not follow the former precedents of the Congress of the United States in the act that controls radio communication.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. EBERHARTER] is recognized for 2^1/2 minutes.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I have personally seen the operation of other acts wherein the words in this section or words to the same effect were in the law. For instance, in the act pertaining to veterans' compensation, the words "arbitrary" and "capricious" are used.

In a case within my personal knowledge, wherein the lower State court had found, after consideration, that a World War veteran was legally dead and had signed an order or decree to that effect, the Assistant Administrator of the United States Veterans' Bureau said that the fact of death was not proved, and denied adjusted compensation to the widow of the veteran. When the matter came up in Federal court, it practically placed the widow in the position of showing, by affirmative proof, that the action of the Administrator was arbitrary or capricious. We all know how difficult it is to prove this.

We must realize that the boards set up in this act will not be composed of men who are legally trained. The evidence on which they base their findings of fact may not be legally sufficient; it may not be morally sufficient; it may be evidence which is entirely irrelevant to the point at issue, or it may be evidence which is unfair, yet if the Administrator makes a finding of fact under the language in this section of the act, the courts would not have the right of review to such an extent that they could set aside the ruling of the Administrator, unless the court found the action of the Administrator was arbitrary or capricious. Arbitrary orcapricious—these words "arbitrary" or "capricious"—have a vastly different meaning than sufficiency or relevancy of evidence.

In my opinion, lad1es and gentlemen, this would be a step toward bureaucracy. We have been taking away from the courts, little by little, the right to render judgment. I have seen this language in operation in laws heretofore, and I know that it has worked hardships.

In my opinion, it would be a great mistake to pass this act as it is now written, with respect to this particular section. We do not want to take too much power away from the courts. We well know that we are taking a step toward a dictatorship and toward bureaucracy in leaving the law in the bands of administrators and committees who have not had the proper training to sit in judgment in important affairs of this kind.

I ask you to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. HOBBS].

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

All time has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOBBS].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mrs. NoRTON) there were ayes 123 and noes 54.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further perfecting amendments?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McREYNOLDS: Page 36, line 16, after the word "the", strike out "Circuit Court of Appeals" and insert "District Court"; page 36, line 17, after the word "any", strike out the word "circuit" and insert the word "district."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee.

The amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further perfecting amendments to section 20?

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HOBBS: On Page 37, beginning in line 24, strike out the words "which, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive".

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 21?

Are there any perfecting amendments to section 22?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McREYNOLDS: On page 39, at the end of line 25, after the word "both", strike out the period, insert a comma and the following words: "Provided, the court has no authority to inflict a fine not exceeding $100 for the first offense."

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I merely take this time to bid a last farewell to this bill. [Applause.] It has been thoroughly demonstrated on the floor of this House that even the committee is not in harmony about the bill they are asking you to pass. The last two speakers before the House, who are supporting this bill, said: "We know it is not a good bill, but we want to pass some bill."

I ask you: Do you want the conference committee to write the bill on this great question? I do not believe you do.

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. The gentlewoman from New Jersey says "yes." She says "yes" because she is going to be on the conference committee. She is not in harmony with the views of this House; and that is what you will have to contend with.

Mr. Chairman, they have even set up an Administrator who has more authority than the President of the United States, as I see it. His time is not limited and you could not get him out of office unless you passed a bill repealing the act. Not only that, but he has the authority to appoint all ofiicers, all attorneys, and to fix their salaries. Never in this country was a king set up like this bill sets one up. Do you not want to write this bill yourselves?

To my Democratic friends I say that because the rules of the House will not recognize us to make a motion to recommit, I have asked the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HARTLEY] to make this motion, as I understand the gentleman who outranks him is for the bill and the gentleman from New Jersey will be recognized under the rules as such—I have asked him to make that motion for us Democrats so they will not charge that it is a Republican motion. They have already been around here trying to tell us it is a Republican motion and I see one of them who did it: "Why, you would be following a Republican," he says. Under the rules of the House, as you well know, the minority is entitled to

[PAGE 1827]

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

[PAGE 1828]

preference in recognition. First comes the ranking minority member of the committee, and then the man next to him, which is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HARTLEY]. He has agreed to make the motion for us to recommit the bill; and we can recommit the bill. Later on we can write a bill in the true interests of the laboring men and women of this country, a bill the people really want, and not turn our duty over, as we do in this bill, to some administrator not answerable to the people. [Applause.]

My friends, come now and let us reason together. The quotations on the stock market today are the lowest of any day recently, so I am informed. The people are watching us. They are asking: "What is Congress going to do? Are they going to pass this act and destroy business?" If you refuse to pass this bill I venture to say that you will begin to see business conditions change within 2 days. [Applause.] So I appeal to you Members of the House to recommit this bill when that motion is made.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RANDOLPH. I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Labor of the House for three terms, I take the floor at this late hour as we debate this measure toward conclusion. My sincere desire will be to assist, if I can, the passage of such a bill, which, even though it may not gain favor at this time, will sometime become a part of the law of the land.

I recognize the sincerity of purpose of every Member of this body, no matter whether he be Democrat, Progressive, or Republican. I observe, however—and I state it with no malice toward any Member—that those who have asked you now to recommit this measure are not the individuals who have tried during the progress of this lengthy debate so to perfect the bill that they might vote for it, but they have worked by one method or another to scuttle and defeat the measure. Now, in the last minutes they come in and say: "We are the friends of labor legislation." I say to you, and you know it, that they have not attempted during the consideration of this legislation to try and help those of us who are honestly endeavoring to bring about a flexible and workable bill which can go from the House to the Senate and then to conference to perfect the measure. [Applause.]

I cannot add anything new to this debate, but in the few remaining minutes I shall simply call attention of the members of this Committee to that which has happened during historical debates in this Congress upon the initiation of all experimental legislation. During the administration of President Taft there came up for consideration in the Senate a bill for an increase in the weight limit on fourth-class mail from 4 pounds to 11 pounds, or in other words to create a system of parcel post in the United States Postal Service. The Honorable DAVID LEWIS, of Maryland, the author of the parcel-post law, still a worthy Member of this body, remembers that which I now bring to your attention. A witness said when that bill was being considered before the committee: "I have just returned from Europe. Over there I found things exceedingly bad under their system. They are now having bread riots in England."

The chairman asked, "Due to parcel post?"

The witness replied: "It is due to their system, and parcel post is a part of that system."

Now, I have not brought that up in a light vein, but simply as a historical reference as to what actually happens when new legislative paths are being blazed for the betterment of mankind.

When the Interstate Commerce Commission was established, Senator John H Reagan, of Texas, was the sponsor of that law. I have a high regard for the gentleman from Texas who spoke yesterday [Mr. LANHAM], but I cannot agree with his statements. I would remind him and all those who speak about dictatorships, who speak about alien ideas, who speak about despotism, who speak about the concentration of power, that we have had those same objections raised with regard to every piece of progressive and humanitarian legislation passed in this country.

It was charged at the time the Interstate Commerce Commission was created, a body which today we recognize and take for granted almost as we recognize the Post Office—that all kinds of dire consequences would happen, and that America would be doomed and our system destroyed. Senator Stanford, a great railroad leader, said when that bill was before Congress:

If this bill shall become law, its consequences will be most disastrous.

Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, cried out:

The passage of this bill w1ll create a panic.

Senator Platt, of Connecticut, admonished:

It is anti-Christian, the old pagan idea, an old despotic idea.

Mr. Chairman, when the income-tax measure was before the Congress in 1893 in the attempt to raise yearly a sum of $30,000,000, it was said, according to the New York Sun that "never in the history of this country has so effective a measure been proposed for the creation and maintenance of tramps as the income tax."

Fighting the revenue proposal was Senator David B Hill who said "it was a discriminating, a sectional, a communistic tax." It was "socialism, communism, and devilism" to Senator Sherman of Ohio.

My fellow Members, in 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed, but the same type of opposition was faced. Bank presidents called it unjust and un-American, and dictatorship was hurled at those who aided its passage, while debate raged m Congress prior to its enactment. National banks would have their death knell, it was predicted.

I only wish I might say something just now to open the ears of those in this Chamber who plot the death of this measure. Would that they might hear the heartbeat of humamity, that faltering multitude of underpaid and overworked laborers, who look to us for aid in their hour of need. [Applause.]

In the light of history, remember that experimental and initiative legislation must be written here tonight by those who believe in progress and in developing democracy. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDs].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ENGEL: Page 40, line 1, strike out lines 1, 2, 3, and all of line 4 to and including the word "offense."

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, section 22 is the section which provides for penalties, and reads in part as follows:

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.

Then the section goes on and reads as follows:

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.

Mr. Chairman, there are 80,000 employees on the River Rouge pay roll of the Ford Motor Co. If this section remains in the bill, Mr. Ford, the Ford Motor Co., and every employee who aids or abets in the failure to perform a duty or who omits to perform any act, duty, or obligation, is subject to imprisonment for a term of 40,000 years and to a fine of $40,000,000.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. ENGEL].

The question was taken; and there were on a division (demanded by Mr. MOTT)—ayes 123, noes 97.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

[PAGE 1828]

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

[PAGE 1829]

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mrs. NORTON and Mr. ENGEL to act as tellers.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported—ayes 132, noes 121.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MARTIN of Colorado: On page 41, line 9, strike out, beginning with line 9, down to and including the word "employed", in line 14, and insert:

"(e) It shall be unlawful for any person who—

"(a) has produced goods, wares, or merchandise in any state or Ten1tory, wholly or in part through the use of ch11d labor, on or after January 1, 1938; or

"(b) has taken delivery of such goods, wares, or merchandise in any State or Territory with notice of their character whether by purchase or on consignment, as commission merchant, agent for forwarding or other purposes, or otherwise— to transport or cause to be transported, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for or in transporting such goods, wares, or merchandise in interstate or foreign commerce or to sell such goods, wares, or merchandise for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce or with knowledge that shipment thereof in interstate or foreign commerce is intended."

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, it would have been utterly incredible to my mind until the last 3 days that the House of Representatives would adopt any such flimsy skeletal thing as the five-line paragraph I have moved to strike from this bill, for the purpose of abolishing child labor in these United States. The House is not even willing to consider the legislation, and without anaiysis and without explanation it swallows the whole thing as brought in by the House committee blindly. You have beard about the mountain laboring to bring forth a mouse, but so far as the foundation of this child-labor legislation as contained in these five lines is concerned, the mountain is laboring to bring forth a gnat.

The five lines I have moved to strike from the bill constitute the whole formula and foundation of the child-labor law, and the foundation is as full of boles as a Swiss cheese; and when it crumples, as it will if it gets on the statute books, it will bring down the whole superstructure with it.

This House Labor Committee amendment simply prevents manufacturers, producers, or dealers from shipping goods manufactured by child labor in interstate commerce. It leaves out whole categories of persons—brokers, factors, commission merchants, and other agents, and aids and assistants—who can take these goods over under this act and ship them in interstate commerce, with nothing in the law to prevent it. It is permissible to sell child-labor goods for interstate shipment and to sell with knowledge that the goods are intended for such shipment. The manufacturers and their sweatshop lawyers will have no trouble at all in finding in these five lines holes big enough to drive a 10-ton truck through. As the substantive law of child labor it is not worth the paper it 1s written on.

On the other hand, the language which you have beard read in the form of my amendment, which is the Senate amendment—the Wheeler-Johnson amendment—prohibiting goods manufactured by child labor from moving in interstate commerce, is a thoroughly worked out, comprehensive piece of legislation which takes in not only producers, dealers, and manufacturers but commission merchants, brokers, sellers, aids, assistants, and any other persons who may handle these goods in any way. It prohibits the sale of these goods, knowing they were produced by child labor, or as intended to be shipped in interstate commerce.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Yes; here the gavel fell; and ended the allotment of 2^1/2 minutes in which to present a substitute child-labor amendment to the wage-hour bill in lieu of the provisions inserted in the bill by the House Committee on Labor. Perhaps, instead of crabbing about the allotment of time as niggardly in view of the fact that the legislation would affect 12,000,000 children, a Member ought to be thankful to the Labor Committee for not moving to cut off debate entirely on proffered amendments, which would have carried hands down, such was the mood of the House.

When the wage-hour bill passed the Senate I analyzed it carefully and it impressed me as a good piece of legislation.

I could have voted for it just as it came from the Senate. I was impressed with its flexible wage and hour standards.

I was impressed with its differentials, permitting its adaptation to the differing natural and economic conditions throughout the country.

I was impressed with its administrative set-up of a fiveman board to exercise the great powers conferred by the act.

I was impressed with the three-way approach of the Wheeler-Johnson amendment to the suppression of child labor instead of one way as in the House bill.

On the whole, I thought it, and still think it, a reasonable, moderate, practicable approach, and a very great step toward the solution of the greatest problem confronting the country, the great army, the millions of overworked, underpaid, and unemployed workers.

But the House Committee on Labor thought otherwise and reported the bill with 159 amendments. On the floor came amendments from the committee and from individual members of the committee, so many that by the time committee members had exhausted their rights of priority in offering amendments and in debate the committee chairman and the House were impatient to take up the next section of the bill. Hence the 2^1/2 minute allotment of time to the mine run of Members.

Still, I had secured the floor several times, ranging all the way from 2^1/2 minutes to 11 minutes by the timekeeper's watch. On each of these occasions I analyzed and criticized the House Labor Committee child-labor provisions. I shall content myself by saying here that I pointed out, or thought I pointed out, that the House definition of "oppressive child labor" was an unconstitutional delegation of power to a bureau chief, and that the substantive law proposed against child labor was not worth the paper it is written on. The Labor Committee said it was perfect, too perfect to be either debated or amended, except the half dozen amendments a committee member got into the definition of oppressive child labor on the floor at the last minute.

Somebody is very wrong. Somebody is dead wrong. I propose to devote some time to finding out before the reappearance of the bill in the House. If I find out I am wrong, the House provisions will have no stronger supporter next time.

Meantime I shall set down here for the benefit of those who may wish to compare and analyze them, the House and Senate child-labor provisions. The first of these is claimed by its supporters to be the last word in child-labor legislation, and the second is represented by them to be hopelessly bad. The first is supposed to prevent child labor, the second is supposed only to punish after the fact. Study them for yourself.

THE HOUSE LABOR COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

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 chlld labor has been employed.

THE WHEELER-JOHNSON AMENDMENT

It shall be unlawful for any person who—

(a) has produced goods, wares, or merchandise in any State or Territory, wholly or in part through the use of child labor, on or after January 1, 1938; or

(b) has taken delivery of such goods, wares, or merchandise in any State of Ten1tory with notice of their character, whether by purchase or on consignment, as commission merchant, agent for forwarding, or other purposes, or otherwise, to transport or cause to be transported, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, or aid or assist in obtaining transportation for or in transporting such goods, wares, or merchandise in interstate or foreign commerce, or to sell such goods, wares, or merchandise for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce or with knowledge that shipment thereof in interstate or foreign commerce 1s intended.

WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN?

The newspapers attributed the defeat of the wage-hour bill in the House to a coalition between the Republicans and southern Democrats.

[PAGE 1829]

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

[PAGE 1830]

It is true that only 9 Republicans were among the 218 signers of the petition taking the bill from the Ru1es Committee and placing it on the calendar. It is true that only 6 of the 198 votes cast against recommitting the bill, which meant its death, were cast by Republicans. It is true that all but a dozen or so of the southern Democrats voted to recommit.

But this coalition did not kill the bill. It was killed by the labor split. Yet, very significantly, the labor split did not cost the bill a single genuine wage-hour vote in the House. I have checked and rechecked the roll call. The Farmer-Labor and Progressive Members, 13 in number, voted against the motion to recommit. Of the Democrats who voted for recommittal, I find only 4 of the 133 Democrats who were rated as being in favor of wage-hour regulation, and they voted to recommit for other reasons.

What the labor split did was to furnish an alibi, an escapement, for many Members not favorable to such legislation, but who would not have dared to vote agatilst it on the final roll call. They can now go back to their districts and, availing themselves of the Green letters and telegrams, say they were for a "real" wage-hour bill, but not the "abortion" before the House, and get away with it. There will be few political casualties growing out of the death of the wage-hour bill, and perhaps as many among its friends as among its enemies. Such is the game.

WAGE-HOUR LEGISLATION IS NOT DEAD

The issue is not dead, or even sleeping. There will be no more sleep for the opponents of such legislation. Imperative and fixed conditions have placed it on the calendar to stay. Not even the prosperity of 1929 will solve unemployment. It must be solved.

The trouble with Congress is not a lack of honesty. It is not a lack of any good qualities. The main trouble with Congress is a lack of social consciousness. It is a lack of realization of what has happened, what is happening, what will continue to happen in the industrial and economic processes of the country. They do not know that a door has closed behind us, never to reopen. They are deeply troubled. They look longingly back at the old familiar road, hoping that by some hap, somehow, we will again find ourselves upon it. Nevermore. The industrial age has swallowed up their world. Henceforth it is the machine, and evermore the machine, and forty million, fifty million workers running it. Mankind mechanized, farmers as well as laborers. Production already socialized in private hands, and to meet the challenge, distribution socializing in public hands.

The political-minded statesman is obsolete. He is rooted in the dead past. He is passing from the picture. The machine will get him. He must go. The social-minded statesman is coming in. He is an effect, not a cause. He is a product of change. He will live and think and act in the terms of the environment and the conditions which produced him.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN].

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any perfecting amendments to section 23?

If not, are there any perfecting amendments to section 24?

Mr. KITCHENS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. KITCHENs: On page 42, lines 20 and 21, after the word "until" in line 20, strike out the words "the one-hundred-and", and in line 21 the words "twentieth day" and insert "12 months."

Mr. KITCHENS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment gives the business of America and the labor of America time to adJust themselves to meet the conditions under which they will have to operate if this bill be passed. There are more than 225,000 separate industrial plants in America. There are more than 40,000,000 employees in America and about 12,000,000 of these are unemployed. I submit no board, no committee, no administrator can investigate and reach any sort of just conclusion as to the proper wages and hours of labor of these concerns in 120 days. If they considered 1,000 per day, it would take them 225 days to investigate these plants and conditions. I believe in a more reasonable time within which to put this bill into operation.

A great majority of the American people have made heavy sacrifices for certain sections and its industry and labor. A great majority of the American people have been paying a tariff for the benefit of industry in certain sections of the country, and for the benefit of its labor. The American people have had forced upon them the importation of foreign labor, aliens from Europe by the millions, whose labor has been exploited by industry in certain sections of the country. Now they cannot exploit this kind of labor any more and therefore seek to prevent or curtail industry in my section.

Further, the freight rates of the country grievously penalize my section by being higher than in any other sections. But that is not all, Mr. Chairman. I am against the bill This bill is a new governmental adventure in economics. I do not oppose it on that basis. Its ostensible objectives are praiseworthy and humanitarian. I am for those objectives, but they should be achieved justly with an equal opportunity for all labor and not a few at the expense of the many. There are lurking and concealed objectives in this bill which to me appear selfish, sectional, discriminatory, and destructive to small industrial plants and their labor to the great advantage of the large monopolistic plants.

Let it be understood that this bill does not fix 40 cents per hour or 40 hours per week for any labor, and the rate may be fixed at any number of cents per hour below 40 cents. Furthermore, the bill affects only labor engaged in interstate commerce and does not give any protection to labor in intrastate commerce. Those engaged in intrastate labor, including all farmers, will have to bear the burdens of the increased cost of labor in interstate commerce.

I shall not be misled by the loud clamor of those who publicly profess their love for the laboring man. Neither shall I be deceived by those motivated by sectionalism and for the advantage and immense benefit of the large units of industry. Nor can I forget that some of those, who now lift their faces to high heaven and raise their hands in holy horror, proclaiming their humanitarianism and love for the laboring man, do not stop to recall that for years and years the larger units of industry sponsored the importation of aliens from foreign countries, exploited their cheap labor, and thereby gained and centralized the wealth and industry of the Nation, and, in great part, inflicted upon us many of our present evils and labor troubles. Nor am I able to forget that these large industries and their labor in certain sections have been fostered and protected by tariffs and cheaper freight rates at the expense of all other labor, farmers, and other consumers, and thereby have been given special privileges and financial favors not enjoyed by others. This bil1, as I see it, will operate to create and foster further centralization and monopoly rather than decentralization of industry.

The American laborer has become quite ingenious. He now builds powerful land machines by the millions that dash up and down our streets and highways at a rate faster than a horse can travel. He builds seagoing machines that travel faster under the water than the denizens of the sea. He constructs other machines that rise into the air and fly faster than birds. Likewise, he invents and constructs machines that magnify his voice a million times, and other machines that transmit his voice around the world more rapidly than he can think. He builds machines that enable him to see through wood, iron, and steel, and machines that progressively destroy need for his own labor. Yea, we have become so industrious, ingenious, and efficient that we grow and manufacture more than we can buy or consume under our monetary system. In fact, we produce so much we are gravely and financially burdened with surpluses of everything and are unable to control same while one-third of our popu1ation suffers from the want of the very things we grow and produce in such great abundance. This is certainly an anomaly and unprecedented in human affairs.

[PAGE 1830]

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

[PAGE 1831]

There must be a more fundamental cause for this situation than the one that now attracts our attention. We are more concerned. with the effect than the cause. In my humble opinion those who control the emission and circulation of our coin and currency and regulate credit and flow of money in this country must bear, in large part, the responsibility for this condition. The undue contraction or expansion of our currency or credit can in a day destroy the value of wages as well as of property. I for one feel that the time has come when we should do something about money. In order to do so the power over same should be restored to the people and their representatives, as provided by the Constitution of this country, so the purchasing power of the dollar more nearly may be stabilized.

At times our dollar is worth 150 cents to 200 cents of labor or property. At other times the same dollar is worth 50 cents or less of labor or property. This bill does not provide for such contingencies. So any wage you may legislate and fix today may be lowered tomorrow by those who now control our medium of exchange, whether actual money or credit pyramided loans.

Another cause of our periodical depressions and sufferings and low wages of labor is the imperfect and inadequate control of those who speculate in our commodities, both actual and fictitious, and in the equities, both actual and fictitious, of business institutions of the Nation. The fictitious sale and purchase of nonexistent commodities and equities of nonexistent stocks in our business institutions in such great volume make insignificant the real value of actual commodities or stock. Industry is unduly affected, and the wages of labor are diminished and destroyed in many instances. I mention this as another most fundamental cause of our labor troubles, but this also, as we are taught, is such a mysterious institution in its operation that many dare not interfere with it. For my part, knowing the evils, I am willing and anxious to learn and correct them for the protection of labor and for the general welfare.

In America today there is a great movement for the development of water power, generation of cheap electricity for the use of people in their homes, their farms, and in the little factories now existing, or which may be constructed, in various sections of the country. Likewise, we have gas in unlimited quantities now beiiig conveyed and easily distributed to most sections of the Nation. We have also oil and coal available for all needs of the people of this country. Are we going to use them to bring about a decentralization of industry, or are we going to allow them to be monopolized by large units of centralized industry? I am one of those who believe that decentralization rather than centralization of wealth, industry, or government is for the best interest of the people.

As I look at this bill from a practical standpoint I find that the shoes we wear, clothes on our backs, gloves on our hands, knives in our pockets, watches that keep our time and chains that hold them, belts around our bodies, pencils and fountain pens we carry, ties around our necks, and hats on our heads are all manufactured in a territory covering about 5 percent of the country.

As I go into my apartment or my home and find a rug, carpet, clock on the wall, bed in the corner, trunk, refrigerator, radio, electric-light fixtures, cooking utensils, plate and tableware, gun in the rack, shells in the pouch, then I know that those articles, including about 95 percent of all others, have been manufactured in a section of the country other than mine.

As I go into the retail department stores and wholesale houses in any part of the country I find nothing there that was manufactured by any of my people.

When I look at statistics on manufacturers, find that the whole South has only 17 percent of the industry of America and produces only 12 percent of the total output, I feel that this condition exists not only in the South, but in the West, Middle West, and other sections of the North. Yet, there are those who would penalize the labor in those sections and destroy their means of employment and livelihood because, forsooth, the employees of such plants do not produce 17 percent of the manufactured products but only 12 percent. Then you will force labor in certain sections to produce as much as labor in other sections, or you will force small industrial plants to pay the same wage as larger plants, or be destroyed. All of this will redound to the benefit of centralized and monopolistic industry and its labor to the great harm of labor in the other sections of the country. Walls will be erected against small industries and its labor over great sections of our country.

When I inquire as to the freight rates, I find that the South and other sections are discriminated against in favor of territory where industry is centralized. I find that freight rates in my section of the country are nearly twice the rate in other sections of the country. Who bears this increased cost of freight? Certainly it is taken from labor's wages, paid by him and by consumers of the products. Industries in favored sections do not have to pay this excess freight. Therefore, that labor does not have to absorb these higher freight rates. We must not forget that the farmers, laborers, and other consumers bear the cost and burdens of all industry.

In my State there is produced this year 1,800,000 bales of cotton. Not over 5,000 bales of that cotton will be manufactured into cloth in my State. This is true notwithstanding we have some of the most wonderful water power in America. We are obtaining cheap electricity, we have untold quantities of oil, gas, and coal, and as fine labor as there be in the world. We lack capital, factories, and an opportunity for our labor. By reason of the unjust discriminations mentioned and now existing, and lack of factories, our cotton is shipped far away to other sections, and to Europe and Japan, where labor is given employment to the great loss and injury of our own people. The South is just beginning to obtain a little industry, in spite of the handicaps, and I do not care to stop it.

This bill has for its purpose the fixation of wages and hours of millions who have no wages and very little opportunity to earn wages and, instead of creating jobs with which to earn wages, will curtail, if not destroy, opportunity to do so, so far as interstate business is concerned.

This bill, if enacted, will bring about an emigration of labor from the smaller industrialized sections to the more centralized sections of industry, and thereby create greater and more serious problems than you have today. I wish it thoroughly understood that I have no sympathy or consideration for an industrialist, be he small or great, who chisels or robs those employed by him. He should be shunned and scorned by all decent people. But you cannot, by law, compel payment of a certain wage if the wage cannot be earned or paid any more than you can force, by law, a cow capable of giving 2 gallons of milk per day, to give 3 gallons per day. Certam owners, managers, and workmen, for various reasons are unequal in capacity to others and no law can make them equal.

I hear some on this floor openly state that small industrial plants, regardless of conditions, if unable to compete with the larger plants, and pay same or comparable wages should perish, and allow the labor of such plants to be ignored, disregarded, and permitted to starve. This would be the result, and I cannot agree to any such philosophy.

I have statistics from Fifteenth United States Census Report of Manufactures, volume 1, which show that in 1929 there were 69,423 small establishments not producing over $20,000 worth of products per year. Each man working in those establishments produced an average value in products of $3,083. There were 46,618 slightly larger establishments producing from $20,000 to $50,000 of products per year. The value of the products per man in those establishments was $4,739. There were 28,617 establishments producing from $50,000 to $100,000 of products. Each man in those establishments produced products of value of $5,544. There were 28,704 establishments producing from $100,000 to $250,000 of products. Each man therein produced products of the value of $5,765. At the same time, there were

[PAGE 1831]

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

[PAGE 1832]

15,449 establishments producing from $250,000 to $500,000 of products. Each man in those establishments produced products of the value of $6,102. There were 10,395 establishments producing from $500,000 to $1,000,000 of products. The value of the products per man in those establishments was $6,504. There were 7,430 establishments producing from one million to two million dollars in products. The value of products for each man in those establishments was $7,089. There were 2,479 establishments producing from two and one-half to five million dollars of products. The value of the products for each man therein was $7,801. There were 1,854 establishments which produced $5,000,000 and over of products per year. Value of products per man in those establishments was $11,789.

It thus will be seen that the large factories, through use of machinery, better facilities, more capital, more scientific organization, coordination, and operation, better trained labor, with a larger volume of products, can produce per man $12,000 worth of products for the owner of the factory, while the man in the smaller establishment can produce only $3,000 of products, or one-fourth of man-product in the larger establishments. The earning power of plant or man under this bill will not be considered, and it is clear to me that the result will be the destruction of all small industrial plants and the further creation and protection of the larger ones.

In 1925 the man-product of the smaller establishments was one-half of larger establishments, according to statistics of Fifteenth United States Census on Manufactures. Prior to that time the man-product of smaller establishments was about equal to the man-product of larger establishments. This shows that machinery is fast supplanting the labor of man, and under this bill factories will be progressively enlarged, mechanized, and centralized. I believe that those of you who advocate and vote for the centralization of industry and a further creation of monopolies to crush out small plants with their wage earners will live to regret the day.

You offer no relief to the small industrial plants, nor to the labor of such plants, if they cannot operate or work and compete with the larger plants. You say, "Down with them and let them perish." Under this bill you are going to destroy the means of livelihood of many today who are supporting themselves and their families. I cannot vote for a bill which I sincerely believe will mean the elimination of small industrial plants, prevention of building of others, and thereby destroy the livelihood of millions of people and bring about a further centralization and monopolization of industry. I cannot vote for a bill which will mean, in my humble judgment, elimination of four men who now work in small plants in order to bring about an increase of only one man in the larger plants. I cannot vote for this bill when I consider that today we have and can have in every home and on every farm in the land, in every village and small city of this country, the enormous privileges of power, electricity, oil, gas, and coal, and the resulting advantages of industry.

I shall not discuss the impossibility, as I see it, of administration by a bureau, board, administrator, or committee here in Washington of more than 200,000 industrial plants constituting all the business of America. I shall not discuss the possibilities and dangers, as I see it, of regimentation and control of all labor of America. For lack of time, I cannot discuss the effect this bill will have upon our form of government. My considered opinion is that the proposal is unworkable; un-American, impractical, and dangerous to our institutions. I oppose government by orders, decrees, and fiats, rather than by law.

Under this bill the orders, decrees, decisions and proclamations, classifications, groups and zones will be so numerous, complex, contradictory, and contentious, that the bill cannot be effective or its provisions enforced. This bill. carried to its logical conclusion, will destroy State sovereignty, State rights, local self-government, and individual liberty. It will mean that the Government will take charge of labor and supplant all the present organizations for the protection of labor, but the Government will not pay labor.

Mr. William Green, head of the American Federation of Labor, in his analysis of this bill, conclusively shows that it is un-American, unworkable, and delegates too much power to an individual or individuals. Referring to the provision regarding the administrator under this bill, Mr. Green stated:

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.

I submit that any bill, carrying such powers and possibilities .for dangerous and unwise action, should be defeated.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey moves that debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas.

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further perfecting amendments to section 24?

Are there any other amendments?

Mr. O'CONNELL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. O'CONNELL of Montana: On page 42; lines 20 and 21, after the word "the" strike out "one-hundredand-twentieth" and insert "ninetieth."

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further perfecting amendments to section 24?

Are there any other amendments to the committee amendment?

Mr. STARNES. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amendment to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may inquire of the gentleman from Alabama if this is the same substitute amendment as the one offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD], the so-called American Federation of Labor plan, with the exception of the fact the provisions regarding minimum wages are stricken out?

Mr. STARNES. All reference to wages has been stricken from the amendment. This is an hours bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the substitute amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. STARNES offers the following amendment as a substitute in lieu of the matter proposed by the pending amendment:

"SECTION 1. (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 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 of 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 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 o! the Motor Carrier Act. 1935 (U. S. C., title

[PAGE 1832]

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

[PAGE 1833]

49, ch. 8); 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. 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 prepartng, 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 work in excess of 8 hours per day or more than 44 hours in any one week, or to employ any person under the age of 16 years for hire: Provided, That in case of emergency the provisions of this act shall not apply during the period of such emergency; provided such employer affected filed 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 44 hours in any one week.

"SEC. 3. Any person in any State or Territory of possession of the United States or the District of Columbia guilty of violations 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 for hours longer than those fixed in this act, unless excepted as provided in 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 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, secs. 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 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 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 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.

"SEC. 9. All laws or parts of laws in con1lict herewith are hereb:r 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."

Mr. COFFEE of Washington (interrupting the reading of the substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the substitute amendment may be dispensed with.

Mr. PEARSON. I object, Mr. Chairman.

The clerk resumed the reading of the substitute amendment.

Mr. HILL of Washington (interrupting the reading of the substitute amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the substitute amendment may be dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection.

Mr. STARNES. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered as a substitute to the so-called Norton amendment is identical with the American Federation of Labor bill, except for the elimination of the wage provisions. This amendment is a straight "hours" bill, providing for 44 hours per week. It provides for a workweek of 5^1/2 days of 8 hours per day, and is offered in good faith as a sensible and workable approach to the solution to our vexing labor problems.

The hours of work per day and week affect the health and the happiness of our people. The hours provided in this amendment are reasonable. They will not work undue fatigue or injury to our industrial workers, neither will they upset our economic balance.

Under the terms of my amendment, the persons concerned and the term "interstate commerce" are clearly and explicitly defined. The exemptions of farmers, railway employees, and others are stated in the bill. No bureau or costly administrative set-up is provided for under the terms of the amendment.

The enforcement of the terms of the amendment and the punishment for violations thereof are provided for by the use of the courts of this country, where both the employer and the employee may fairly set forth their respective positions and have their rights impartially determined by a judicial tribunal.

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

Mr. STARNES. I cannot yield, and I will not yield. I am very sorry.

It is true that courts are administered by human beings, and therefore are subject to the frailties and imperfections of humanity, but for 150 years the nearest approach to even-handed justice in America under our democratic form of government has been the judiciary system provided for under the Constitution.

No reference was made in this amendment to wages. This is a matter left to collective or individual bargaining between the employer and the employee, taking into consideration working conditions, living conditions, transportation, and other conditions which may affect the living standards of the people in any respective area.

Under my amendment there is no delegation of power to an administrator or a board to fix wages and hours. There is no attempt to strait jacket employer and employee. There is no opportunity for discriminations to be practiced at the whims. fancies, and economic predilections of another bureaucracy such as are provided for under the Norton amendment.

We need at this hour a closer cooperation between capital, labor, and our Government. Our problems should be calmly and sanely considered. We, the Congress, can provide reasonable regulation for capital and labor, but we cannot establish and maintain prosperity by legislative fiat alone. It will take understanding and teamwork between capital and labor to maintain employment, produce wealth, and leaven our economic life.

I know each Member of Congress is approaching this problem in a sincere effort to solve it, to make progress in bringing about a better distribution of wealth among those who produce the wealth of this Nation. I am not afraid of a

[PAGE 1833]

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

[PAGE 1834]

single dictatorship, Mr. Chairman. I fear more the enmeshing rules and regulations of a mushroom and an evergrowing bureaucracy which stifies individual initiative, strikes down the hand of genius, and stills the tongue of liberty. I had rather raise my right hand to strike down another bureaucracy in its inception than to water with blood and tears the flowers which will blossom upon the grave of our democracy laid to rest in a shroud of enmeshing rulei of an ever-growing system of boards and bureaucracies. [Applause.]

I plead with all my heart for serious consideration of this amendment and I plead for its adoption, because I believe it is a sensible and a workable approach to a solution of this problem. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman I move that all debate on the substitute amendment of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. STARNES], and all amendments thereto, and on the committee amendment, and all amendments thereto; close in 5 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask recognitio'n for 2^1/2 minutes. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman and my friends of the Honse of Representatives on both sides of the aisle, this debate has been rather long and to a great many rather tiresome, but I have enjoyed every minute of it.

The substitute offered by my friend from Alabama is a defeat of wage and hour legislation. A vote this evening for the motion to recommit the bill, if it is recommitted, is the death of wage and hour legislation. I therefore trust that we, it matters not what our personal opinions may be about a small amendment or about some sections of the bill, will vote down the motion to recommit, vote to pass the bill and send it to conference, and let us see then how we desire to vote when the measure comes back from conference. [Applause.] That will be the crucial vote, and that will be when we know what is in wage and hour legislation and therefore I ask my colleagues to let us send this bill to conference and see if we cannot stop this great fight and bring about peace in labor and industry. [Applause.]

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York rose.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] is recognized for 2^1/2 minutes. [Applause.]

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, this has been a great debate in the House of Representatives. If it has any deficiency, it is in the effort to amend a bill on the floor of the House.

If I know anything, I do know that the rank and file of the working people of America are interested in the Democratic Party carrying out the specific pledge in its platform to do something about minimum wages and maximum hours in America. [Applause.]

You cannot expect the Republicans, who are playing politics on this bill, who gave no such pledge to the electorate, to have any interest or sympathy with this venture, this progressive step toward solving the fundamental problems of America in taking care of the people who are underpaid and who are compelled to work unconscionable hours. This is our Democratic pledge, which I, for one, accept as a covenant.

A motion to recommit this bill is a deliberate stab at the bill, because I have never known any bill that was recommitted ever to see the light of day. So I do not believe anybody can rest safely on the alibi that he voted to recommit for further study, because nothing will ever come of any such further study. When you vote to recommit this bill, you give the bill an indirect stab in the back. You sound its death knell.

This is the gruesome fact, and no one can gainsay it.

Our people want a step taken or a start made toward providing a living wage, reasonable hours, and the elimination of child labor. The method by which we reach that goal is relatively unimportant. If we pass this bill, it will be, undoubtedly, amended and improved every year for 10 or 20 years to come. [Applause.] The working people of the country want their conditions improved as to hours and wages. They want child labor abolished.

Now is our opportunity to carry out the solemn pledge in our Democratic platform adopted at Philadelphia in the summer of 1936. Let us at least make a start in the direction of doing something about wages and hours by voting down a motion to recommit and then vote for the passage of this bill. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. All time has expired. The question is on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. STARNES.

The amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question recurs now on the committee substitute for the Senate bill.

The committee substitute was agreed to.

· Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike out the remaining sections of the Senate bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the Committee will rise.

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 had had under consideration the bill, S. 2475, and that, pursuant to House Resolution 312, he reported the bill back to the House with two amendments adopted in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the previous question is ordered. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?

Mr. HOOK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote upon the amendment that exempts packers and processors, commonly known as the Coffee amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is advised that under the proceedings had in the Committee of the Whole that is a perfecting amendment, and it is not in order for the gentleman from Michigan to request a separate vote on a perfecting amendment to the committee amendment.

Mr. MAPES rose.

The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan rise?

· Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a division of the question. I did not know that there was more than a committee substitute in the nature of an amendment. The chairman announced that there are two amendments.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is advised that there are only two amendments that must be voted on. One is the substitute adopted in the Committee of the Whole and the other is an amendment to strike out sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and so forth, of the senate bill.

The question is on agreeing to the amendments.

The amendments were agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.

The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer the following motion to recommit which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. HARTLEY. I am.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman a member of the minority of the Committee on Labor of the House?

Mr. HARTLEY. I am.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. HARTLEY moves to recommit S. 2475 to the Committee on Labor.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.

The question was taken.

[PAGE 1834]

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

[PAGE 1835]

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were—yeas 216, nays 198, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No 20]

YEAS—216

NAYES—198

NOT VOTING—17

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will call my name.

The Clerk called the name of Mr. BANKHEAD, and he answered No."

So the motion to recommit was agreed to.

The Clerk announced the following pairs.

On this vote:

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

Mr. Fish (for) With Mr. Buckley of New York (against).

Mr. Kleberg (for) With Mr. Greever (against).

Mr. Whelchel (for) with Mr. Sutphin (against).

General pairs:

Mr. Reilly with Mr. Costello.

Mr. Hennings With Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Weaver with Mr. Binderup.

Mr. Cole of Maryland with Mr. Ryan.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. WARREN. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. Speaker, I qualify and vote "aye."

[PAGE 1835]

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

  Top of page

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

Page 2045        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE        December 21, 1937        (82 Cong. Rec. 2045, 1937)

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

THE HOUR AND WAGE BILL

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2475, "To provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes," be printed, showing the bill as agreed to in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and recommitted to the Committee on Labor.

Mr. SNELL. Reserving the right to object, what was the gentleman's request?

Mr. RAMSPECK. It is a request for the printing of the wage and hour bill in the form in which it was when it was recommitted. The document room cannot have it printed that way without unanimous consent or a resolution passed. The document room informs me they are having requests for it.

Mr. SNELL. I do not understand yet what the gentleman wants to do.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I want to have the bill which was recommitted to the Committee on Labor last Friday reprinted in the form in which it was when it went back to the committee.

Mr. SNELL. Do you think anybody understands how it was when it reached the committee?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I cannot answer the gentleman.

Mr. SNELL. I should not object to that request if anybody is smart enough to inform the Public Printer how it should be printed.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I will say that I have no interest in it except that the document room wants it.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

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

  Top of page

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