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

• 
 
• [ 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 Third Session of the Seventy-Fifth Congress of the United States of American, Volume 83 - Part 7, May 20, 1938, to June 7, 1938. (Pages 7181 to 8462)

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

  Page 7274              CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE              April 21, 1938             (83 Cong. Rec. 7274, 1938)

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

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

House Resolution 478

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of S. 2475, an act to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Labor, the bi11 shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on Labor, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the b111 to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER. The question is whether the House will discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of the resolution.

Under the rules the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] is entitled to 10 minutes and some member of the Committee on Rules opposed to the resolution is entitled to 10 minutes.

Does the gentleman from New York, chairman of the Committee on Rules, desire recognition in opposition to the resolution?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I cannot qualify in opposition because I am whole-heartedly in favor of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia?

[PAGE 7274]

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

[PAGE 7275]

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say I am in position to qualify. I claim the time and will yield to the gentleman from Texas.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 10 minutes in opposition to the resolution, and the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now recognized for 10 minutes.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, on May 24, 1937, the President sent a message to Congress requesting legislation to protect that large group of our citizens who are working under substandard labor conditions. As a result of that message a bill was introduced—H. R. 7200—upon which joint hearings were held with the Senate. Following the hearings this bill was considered by the Committee on Labor, but before final determination on it was reached the Senate passed its wage and hour bill, S. 2475, which was referred to the House Committee on Labor. In order to expedite passage of the bill the House committee substituted the Senate bill for its bill. The bill was reported to the House on August 6, 1937. The Rules Committee refused to give us a rule, and a petition was placed on the Speaker's desk on November 16, 1937. The required names were placed on that petition and the wage and hour bill was therefore brought up in the House for debate on December 13, 1937. As you all know, the bill was under consideration in the House from the 13th of December through the 17th. During that time opponents of wage and hour legislation adopted the procedure of amending the bill until it had been stripped of its effectiveness, and on December 17, by a vote of 216 to 198, the bill was recommitted.

I cannot help but feel that many Members voted for recommittal because the bill contained differentials and because they honestly believed that that was not the proper type of wage and hour legislation.

When the House reconvened for the third session of the Seventy-fifth Congress the President again asked for a wage and hour bill, and your Labor Committee again started consideration of S. 2475. We studied the bill from every angle, weighed carefully all schools of thought on this subject, and finally arrived at the conclusions now contained in the bill you have before you. It is entirely different in form, method of administration, and philosophy from that presented to you at the special session. We believe that it meets the objections which many reasonable Members presented during the consideration of the last bill, and we further believe it to be an equitable and fair bill to regulate labor practices of industries engaged in interstate commerce.

Notwithstanding all of this, and notwithstanding the fact that the bill was recommitted presumably for redraft, which we surely accomplished, the bill was again denied a rule. This time a hearing was given the Labor Committee, at which many members of the Labor Committee testified, but when the vote was taken in the Rules Committee we were again denied a rule.

Mr. Speaker, although I had said when the bill was recommitted last year that I would never place another petition on the desk, I knew that House sentiment was so strongly in favor of a wage and hour bill this year that I decided to break my word and again place the petition on the desk. I did not feel that I could stand in the way of Members who were anxiously waiting for a chance to vote for wage and hour legislation, nor did I feel that I was morally justified in denying to the workers of this country a chance for better working conditions, which so many of them now lack because of the unscrupulous practices indulged in by chiseling employers.

I know that I need not remind you Members of the House of the unprecedented success with which that Petition met. In 2 hours and 20 minutes on May 6, 218 names were affixed to the petition. Many other Members who were anxious to sign were not able to do so because the necessary signatures had been secured.

I feel that I need make no plea to the membership of the House to vote to discharge the Rules Committee from the resolution providing for the consideration of the wage and

LXXXIII-459

our bill. I know that most of you join me in my desire to see the ill-treated workers of the country given the rights and privileges which are actually theirs. I therefore ask you to vote to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of the resolution when the proper time arrives. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, I. yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR].

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time until the 10 minutes in opposition has been taken.

Mr. COX. Now, Mr. Speaker, will the advocates of this resolution be permitted to split the time allotted to them in such a manner as to claim both the opening and the conclusion of the debate on this proposition? I insist, Mr. Speaker, that the proper practice and the fair thing to do is for the committee sponsoring this bill to proceed to exhaust the time given it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state in answer to the statement of the gentleman from Georgia which the Chair takes as a parliamentary inquiry, that the practice heretofore has been that on discharge motions the proponents and opponents of the measure shall have the right to allot their time as they see fit. Under the procedure heretofore followed the proponents of the motion to discharge will be entitled to conclude the debate. This is in conformity with the precedents and practices heretofore prevailing.

Mr. COX. Is that the position now taken by the Speaker on this proposition, that the proponents shall have both the opening and the conclusion of the debate?

Mr. SABATH. That is the usual practice, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. This ruling is not initiated by the present occupant of the chair. This question has been up before and it was determined by Mr. Speaker Garner when the, same question arose that the right to close the 20 minutes debate on a motion to discharge a committee is reserved to the proponents of the motion, which is the identical question here presented.

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

Mr. DIES. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, the original House bill, which was recommitted on December 17, 1937, was all flexibility—the present bill is all infexibility. The bill we recommitted represented one extreme in legislation, while the bill we will presently consider represents another extreme. Under the former bill a board or administrator could fix wages from 1 cent to 40 cents an hour and could fix hours from 40 on without any limitation. This bill represented an unprecedented concentration of power in a Federal bureau. Because the country revolted against this dangerous delegation of power in a Federal bureaucracy, the Labor Committee veered to the other extreme with reference to wages and hours, but at the same time retained the same vicious principle of vesting wide discretionary power in a nonelective Cabinet officer. The present bill has one thing in common with the recommitted bill: It reveals the same stubborn and persistent attempt to delegate vast discretionary power in Miss Perkins to determine what industries shall come under the act, to determine what retailing establishments shall be subject to the act, and to make exemptions in favor of apprentices and persons who are physically and mentally incapacitated to do efficient work.

Between these two extremes there must be a middle ground that we can all occupy. I do not believe that anyone can deny that there must be some flexibility with reference to wages and hours. Even the Government attorneys who appeared before the committee made this very clear, and ardent new dealers, such as Robert Jackson and Ben Cohen, testified before the committee that some provision would have to be made for fact finding in order for the bill to have any chance to be declared valid. It must be remembered that the Supreme Court has never, directly nor indirectly, recognized the right of Congress to enact Federal wage and hour legislation. The furthest that the Court has ever gone was to approve State statutes which provided for fact-finding commissions. In the States which have minimum-wage and

[PAGE 7275]

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

[PAGE 7276]

maximum-hour laws, such as New York, flexibility was provided, and as a result there are differentials throughout the State.

I want to make it clear that I am not asking or seeking any differentials for the South. I am not asking for any special treatment for the South. I believe that southern labor is entitled to the highest wage that an industry can pay and still operate with reasonable profit. If an industry in my section of the country can pay 40 cents an hour, it should do so. If it can pay 70 cents an hour, it should do so. But I do contend that every industry, regardless of where it is situated, should be able to appear before some decentralized agency to present the facts and arguments if it contends that it cannot pay the 40 cents an hour. If the industry can, as a matter of fact, pay the 40 cents, the decentralized agency, or ultimately the Secretary of Labor of the United States, will order it to do so. The laboring people will lose nothing by giving the industries this day in court, and I am convinced that unless this is done the act will be declared invalid.

I believe that a limited flexibility can be provided that will afford some ground for compromise of this controversial issue. The platform of the Democratic Party of 1936, with reference to wages and hours, contains the following language:

Transactions and activities which inevitably overflow State boundaries call for both State and Federal treatment.

In order to advance some plan of compromise I have prepared and printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD several amendments. I sent a copy of these amendments to every Member of the House and of the Senate. I do not claim that these amendments are free from objections, but I am advancing them with the hopes that some compromise can be reached that will avoid a bitter fight in the Senate and further misunderstanding between Democrats. My principal amendment provides that an employer may apply to his State labor commissioner, or other State agency designated by law, for the fixation of a wage and hour scale in accordance with facts and circumstances of his particular case. A public hearing is had and the record is reported by an official reporter, and only in the event that the labor commissioner, or other State agency designated by law, finds that the request of the employer is justified upon the grounds enumerated in the amendment can he fix the wage and hour scale. In no event can he fix a wage less than 25 cents an hour or a workweek more than 44 hours per week. Most of the States of the Union have labor commissioners. Some 20 States have minimum wage and maximum hour boards already in operation. My amendment does not involve the creation of any new bureau. It merely proposes to use the agencies now existing and to give the States some voice in the determination of wages and hours within its own boundaries.

In order to safeguard against abuse, favoritism, or wide differentials with respect to States, I have provided that the record of the hearing before the State agency, together with the order, shall be immediately transmitted to the Secretary of Labor of the United States and that she can reverse or modify the order of the State agency if she finds that his order was not supported by the evidence. Like the present bill, I provide for an appeal to the circuit court of appeals by any aggrieved employer.

The virtue of this plan is that it carries out the Democratic platform pledge of 1936 and at the same time provides for limited flexibility in accordance with the messages of the President on the subject, and the opinions of the Government attorneys that such flexibility is essential to the enactment of a valid law.

I feel that a State agency would be more accessible to an employer than a Federal agency and it would understand the needs and circumstances of each particular case better than some Federal bureau. I also believe that the recognition of the States in the wage and hour set-up would be a safeguard against concentration of undue power in Washington and would provide a wise distribution of such power so as to create and maintain the necessary checks and balances. It would encourage the States to enact minimum wage and maximum hour laws dealing with intrastate commerce. At the same time the ultimate control placed in the hands of the Secretary of Labor of the United States would safeguard against wide discrepancies, inequalities, and State favoritism.

The fact that neither the State nor Federal agency can fix wages less than 25 cents an hour and hours more than 44 hours in any one week provides a definite floor for wages and a definite ceiling for hours. I think that we can all agree that any industry that serves a useful economic purpose should be able to pay this wage and operate on this workweek.

I am also proposing an amendment that will make all industries engaged in interstate commerce subject to the act, and will take away from the Secretary of Labor the right to determine what industries come under the act. The present provision constitutes a dangerous and unnecessary delegation of power to the Secretary of Labor and even though Members may have confidence in the present Secretary of Labor, they have no assurance that some future Secretary of Labor might not use this power to the very detriment of labor.

The present provision will bring about inequalities and injustices. Under the bill, the Secretary is directed to hold hearings with respect to all the numerous industries of the country and as soon as practicable to issue orders determining whether or not such industries shall be subject to the act. After she issues an order with respect to an industry the act will then become effective at such time not more than 120 days after such order has been issued. The Secretary may fix one date for the act to become effective as to one industry, and another date for another industry, or since hearings have to be held with respect to each industry, great intervals of time may intervene between the date when the act is made effective as to one industry and that which may be made as to some other industry. The two industries may in fact be competitive and this would bring about inequalities and injustices. An industry may appeal to the courts and the court may order a stay of the Secretary's order thereby postponing the effective date as to some industry while some other industry may not have the benefit of such stay or postponement.

In a letter addressed to Miss Perkins, I pointed out these administrative difficulties and in reply she made the following suggestion:

Before concluding, I desire to suggest that the administrative difficulties which are raised by questions considered in (7), (8), and (9) could be avoided by amendments which would eliminate from the bill section 6 and other provisions which contemplate that the Secretary of Labor shall determine what industries are affecting commerce. As the bill is now drafted this determination is necessary because the criminal prohibition is placed on employment at less than a specified wage, etc., in industries affecting commerce. As no employer would know whether he was engaged in an industry affecting commerce, the hearing and notification must be provided as a legal and practical necessity.

It is believed that the same results which this legislation seeks to achieve, that is the establishment of a fiat minimum wage and maximum hour standards, could be obtained by rewriting the penalty section so as to place the principal prohibition not upon employment at wage rates less than those specified, but upon the transportation, shipment, delivery, or sale of goods into interstate or foreign commerce when such goods are produced by employees receiving less than the statutory minimum wage, etc. No notice or hearing would be necessary if this technique were employed, as every employer would know that his goods could not move in the channels of interstate commerce unless he observed the wage and hour and child labor requirements of the law. The technique suggested was the one used in the child labor law of 1916 (39 Stat. 675). While this act was, as you know, declared unconstitutional in the case of Hammer v. Dagenhart (247 U. S. 251) in a 5-4 decision, it seems reasonably certain that the Supreme Court today would follow the reasoning of Justice Holmes' dissent and uphold such a statute. This assumption is warranted by recent decisions of the Supreme Court construing the powers of the National Labor Relations Board such as Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (301 U. S. 1).

Therefore, even the Secretary of Labor will approve the amendment which I have offered and which is in line with her suggestions.

I have also proposed an amendment to provide that overtime employment can only be permitted in the case of emergency work. I have defined emergency work to mean any work necessary for the protection or preservation of life or

[PAGE 7276]

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

[PAGE 7277]

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. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent any employer from exercising favoritism in favor of certain of his employees as against others. The object of the hour limitation is to spread employment and furnish greater opportunities for work. I do not think, therefore, that overtime employment should be permitted except in emergency work.

I am offering also an amendment which is as follows:

Any person in any State subject to this act who shall evade or attempt to evade the provisions of this act by increasing charges for housing, fuel and lights furnished to his employees, or who shall decrease the wages of any of his employees now receiving in excess of the minimum wage provided in this act in order to offset the increase in the wages of those who receive less than the minimum provided in this bill, shall be deemed guilty of the violation of this act, and upon conviction shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of section 14.

The need of this amendment should be apparent to everyone. I have statistics which show that hundreds of industries now furnish either free or at a nominal cost, housing, fuel, and lights. It is plain to see that chiseling employers will increase these charges for housing, fuel, and lights in order to offset the increase in the wages of those who receive less than the minimum provided in the bill, and legitimate employers will be placed at a great disadvantage and in the end the act will be so completely evaded that it will amount to nothing.

Mr. Harry W. Acreman, executive secretary of the Texas State Federation of Labor, in a letter to me dated May 19, 1938, said that:

Consideration should be given in the bill to the possibility of a chiseling employer defeating the purpose of the act by the subterfuge of service charges, and while we are on this question, I believe this is one of the most destructive conditions we have in the South, and particularly in Texas, where the employer, through furnishing services or conducting commissaries, maintains a condition of employment that is virtually peonage.

I have also proposed an amendment which exempts from the bill any employer who maintains either voluntarily or under collective bargaining contract with the union of his employees a higher minimum wage and shorter maximum hours than that provided in the bill. Mr. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, demanded a similar amendment to the original House bill before he would endorse it. The refineries in my district now pay a higher minimum wage than that provided in this bill and have a shorter workweek. If this bill goes into effect, it will apply to these refineries since they are certainly engaged in interstate commerce. What the effect of this bill will be on the employees in these refineries no one can predict. However, I wish to quote at length from a statement by Mr. H. C. Fremming, president of the International Oil Workers Union. who insisted that the Black-Connery bill be amended to take care of the petroleum industry. The following is his statement, which wili be found on page 363 of the Appendix of the RECORD, Seventy-fifth Congress, second session:

The petroleum industry made an extraordinary adjustment of hours of employment under the National Industrial Recovery Act, Code of Fair Competition tor the Petroleum Industry, signed by the President August 19, 1933, and as a result of 36-hour workweek insofar as employees, other than clerical, are concerned became the maximum hours of work for the entire industry and for the most part has continued in effect throughout the industry. There are, however, a few of the smaller companies that have conducted themselves beyond the law and failed, both under the code of fair competition as well as now, to observe the universal application of the 36-hour workweek.

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 suitable amendment applying particularly to the petroleum industry, it will defeat the very purpose that the act intends to accomplish, that is, added employment. The act would reduce the employment load in the petroleum industry approximately 18 percent, because the industry would take advantage of the specific fact that they have gone from 36 hours' employment as a standard week 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 30 hours as a maximum workweek, these companies would be faced with an unfair competitive 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 seaboard, 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 industry 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.

I understand that my colleague the Honorable LYLE H. BOREN will again offer the amendment requested by the Oil Workers' International Union. This amendment was offered to the original Black-Connery bill but was defeated by a slight margin.

When the Rules Committee was requested to grant a rule upon this bill, we were told that the granting of the rule did not mean that we approved the bill; that the bill could be amended, recommitted, or defeated in the House. Even the President in his letter to Mrs. NORTON emphasized that the bill could be amended. However, as many predicted, the sponsors of this bill have united for the admitted purpose of defeating all amendments. Since they have the votes, it will probably prevail, and it is doubtful if any will be adopted. However, I cannot condemn too strongly such unfair procedure. Here is a bill which violates the platform pledge of the Democratic Party. It violates the several messages of the President on wage-and-hour legislation, because in all these messages he emphasized the necessity of some flexibility. The bill is also admitted to be unconstitutional even by Government attorneys and those who are most liberal in their interpretation of the Constitution. The bill is full of obvious loopholes that will render the act ineffective if it becomes a law in its present form, and yet, in spite of this, we are told by the proponents that they will not permit any amendments no matter how much the amendments strengthen the bill. It is such an attitude as this which makes it dimcult to pass intelligent and workable legislation in the House. It was this attitude with reference to the N. R. A. and other acts of similar importance that was responsible for the failure of these praiseworthy measures.

Of course, no one believes that this bill as written will become a law. It is fairly certain that the Senate will insist upon changes and amendments to make the bill workable. This being true, I cannot understand why the sponsors of this bill do not join hands with us in a sincere attempt to write a workable and valid law. They know full well that the Senate or the conference committee will do this, and yet we are asked to vote for a bill which every lawyer in the House knows to be invalid and full of loopholes.

The original House bill was recommitted on December 17, 1937. Mrs. NORTON then selected a subcommittee to write a new wage and hour bill. The subcommittee held private hearings at which Members of Congress and Government officials were permitted to testify. After 3 or 4 months the subcommittee reported a bill to the full committee, but the full committee rejected it and hastily wrote the present expedient so that a bill could be presented to the House. If anyone believes that this bill is going to become a law as now written, I think he will be sadly disappointed. The general strategy is to pass the bill and then rewrite it in conference. It is my opinion that this strategy will succeed. [Applause.]

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

Mrp DIES. Yes.

[PAGE 7277]

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

[PAGE 7278]

Mr. COX. Is the gentleman not in a position to appeal to this House to turn down this effort to discharge the Committee on Rules, upon the ground that the bill is an attempt to sweep away all those basic guaranties upon which the whole structure of justice is erected?

Mr. DIES. The gentleman knows perfectly well that such an appeal would fall on deaf ears. I therefore do not indulge the hope that this House will refuse the rule. Personally I was against the rule before the committee, and I am still against the rule, and if the bill is not substantially amended to make it workable and valid, I shall oppose the bill regardless of what organization or what political power or influence endorses it. [Applause.]

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

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York. [Mr. O'CONNOR].

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the distinguished lady from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] for yielding me this time. I have been a member of the Committee on Rules for 15 years. I think that is longer than any Member of this body has served on that committee except it may be the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL]. I have heard a lot of charges made on the floor and I have seen them made in the press about the "smothering" or "stifling the democratic processes of government" by the Rules Committee. Casually glancing around the Chamber I cannot see anybody here, nor can I recall anybody in high place who has not at some time asked the Rules Committee to "smother" one particular piece of legislation if not many such measures. That goes for everybody, bar none.

This wage and hour bill is a hotly controverted subject. I have never seen anything like it outside of the issue of prohibition. I do not want any of my good friends to rise on the fioor today and argue for States' rights if they were for prohibition, because I think I am one of the few surviving States' rights Democrats. That is why I was against prohibition. I trust some of the Members will not use the States' rights argument today if they were for prohibition-the eighteenth amendment.

What do we have here? We have a bill pertaining to wages and hours that the working people of this country demand. You can have your differences about differentials, I will not argue with you about that. We in New York can stand some differentials between New York and other places in the country. What we want is a start on this momentous national problem. If we have backward States-and if I be the last Member here, I am against centralization of government-we have got to put the urge behind some of the backward States not to underpay their employees and not to overwork them.

It is estimated that 900,000 people will be put to work under this bill and that the working hours of over 2,000,000. would be shortened.

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

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I gladly yield to the distinguished gentleman for a question.

Mr. COX. Is it not the belief of the gentleman that the effort to force compliance with such a bill, rather than putting 800,000 people to work would throw at least 2,000,000 people out of work?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I do not believe that.

Mr. COX. Is the gentleman prepared to identify those backward States to which he said Federal power should be applied in order to make them change conditions?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I have an affectionate regard for every one of the 48 States, so the gentleman is not going to engage me in that argument. We have before us a great national problem on the solution of which we should get started. It does not matter about the detail of the bill; it is the principle involved. We ought to get started on it. As long as any of us will ever be here we shall be amending this bill every year. It is the greatest problem we have ever tackled. Let us today make a start by passing a wage and hour bill embracing the principle of decent wages and decent hours for our workers in order that we may stamp out underpayment of workers and overworking of people in industry. Let us do it today; let us start this ball rolling. Let us pass it on to the other body. Let us enact wage and hour legislation as a law on this great national problem. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired; all time on the resolution has expired.

The question is, Shall the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of the rule?

The question was taken; and Mr. Cox demanded a division.

Mr. COX (interrupting the division of the House). Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 322, nays 73, not voting 33, as follows:

[Roll No. 83]

YEAS—322

[PAGE 7278]

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

[PAGE 7279]

NAYS—73

NOT VOTING—38

So the motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of House Resolution 478 was agreed to.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On the vote:

Mr. Griswold (for) wtth Mr. Snell (against).

Mr. O'Day (for) with Mr. McMillan (against).

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

Until further notice:

Mr. Weaver wtth Mr. Ditter

Mr. Boykin with Mr. Woodruff.

Mr. Smith of Oklahoma with Mr. Douglas.

Mr. Sumners of Texas With Mr. Gearhart.

Mr. Kelly ·of New Yor.k with Mr. Cluett.

Mr. Steagall With Mr. Kvale. · Mr. ·peterson of Georgia with Mr. Burdick.

Mr. Mitchell of Tennessee with Mr. Cannon of Wisconsin.

Mr. Doughtoi:l with Mr. Barden.

Mr. Rogers of Oklahoma with Mr. Champion.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule. the question recurs on agreeing to the resolution which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

House Resolution 478

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

Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Speaker, on the roll call just concluded I was in the Chamber during the call of the roll and did not hear my name called. However, I went out of the Chamber temporarily just before the conclusion of the roll call, to see Roy Fine, one of my constituents from home, and was not in at the conclusion so I could qualify and vote. Had I been here at the close of the roll call I would have voted "yea."

The SPEAKER. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 2475) to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time of general debate may be extended to 5 hours in order to satisfy the many requests for time I have received this morning, with the understanding that general debate be concluded today, and with the further understanding that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, may I inquire as to whether or not any provision will be made for the opposition, as little as it may be, if the vote taken on the motion to discharge is indicative of the attitude of the membership toward the bill? There are still some minority views here, and I am wondering if we may be permitted to speak by those in charge of the time.

Mrs. NORTON. If the gentleman will yield, I may say to him the purpose of asking unanimous consent to increase the time 1 additional hour is in order to satisfy the Opposition.

Mr. COX. I thank the gentle Woman from New Jersey.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, as I understand it, there will be no effort to read the bill for amendment today. General debate will be concluded, and we will start reading the bill for amendment tomorrow?

Mrs. NORTON. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, do I understand that general debate is to be limited to the bill?

Mrs. NORTON. The general debate is to be limited to the bill, yes. The rule so provides.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON]?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

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

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with my general statement on this bill I want to take this opportunity to thank the Committee on Labor for the very excellent work done on this bill. It has been, as you know, a very controversial bill. I. believe that every member of the committee is anxious for a wage and hour bill. There are a few of us who differ on the form of the bill, but we are all in agreement that a bill of this kind is very necessary if we are going to help the underpaid workers of our country, reduce the relief rolls, and spread employment.

At this time I also want to thank the unofficial steering committee for the very excellent work they did in conjunction with the Labor Committee in bringing about the signing of the petition and the help -they have given us on this bill. I am deeply grateful to all of you for your unselfish and able support. I know that you are just as anxious as I am to pass the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the philosophy of this bill is entirely different from the bill we had before us last December. That b11l, judging from the debate which took place in the House at that time, was not wanted. It was loaded down with amendments and finally recommitted. When the committee decided to consider the recommitted bill it realized that it had to bring to the House an entirely different bill, and that we have done. In the other bill, as will be recalled, there were many differentials and a great many exemptions; in fact, as the bill was finally recommitted there was very little left of it.

I understand there is to be an attempt made to amend this bill in much the same manner. May I say to the Members of the House if that is successful we will again be

[PAGE 7279]

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

[PAGE 7280]

confronted with the same situation we had in connection with the other bill. I do not believe that effort will be successful: I believe the floor of 25 cents we have established in this bill no reasonable person can say is too high.

May I say we have had a great deal of pressure brought to bear on us to establish a floor of 35 cents. Many of us would much prefer to have had a bill of that kind, but we realize that to do so might possibly dislocate certain interests.

I have no objection to any person differing with me as to the principle of a bill, but I have a great deal of objection to a person who has done that, then telling me that this kind of a bill is all wrong because there are no differentials in it, nor are there the right kinds of exemptions. Some men voted to recommit a bill that did provide differentials and did provide the very exemptions they are now seeking to put into this bill. So in all fairness to the committee, I sincerely hope the Members of the House will give this bill the consideration that is due it, because it is an entirely different bill from that which was brought before you and which it now seems certain Members are seeking to place in this bill through amendment.

As I have stated, the philosophy of this bill is entirely different from that of the recommitted bill. It creates a rigid floor on wages and a rigid ceiling on hours in connection with goods in interstate commerce. I shall tell you briefly what is contained in the bill.

First, the Secretary of Labor shall give to the interested parties due notice of hearings to be held. He shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not a particular industry affects interstate commerce sufficiently to come within the privisions of the act. At this hearing he is bound by certain standards set up in the bill, namely, (a), (b), and (c) of section 6, which you will find in the bill. If he finds from the facts adduced at the hearing the industry does affect interstate commerce, he issues an order which is effective at the date designated by the Secretary, but not more than 120 days after its issuance. Every employer in that industry who is himself engaged in interstate commerce must then pay his employees 25 cents an hour and work them not more than 44 hours a week, and employ no children under 16, except by special certificate from the Chief of the Children's Bureau. This is to continue for 365 days. At the end of 365 days the employer must pay his employees 30 cents an hour and work them not more than 42 hours a week. This is to continue for the second year. At the beginning of the third year the employer is to pay his employees 35 cents an hour and work them not more than 40 hours a week. This is to continue for the third year. At the beginning of the fourth year and for each succeeding year thereafter the employer is to pay his employees 40 cents an hour and work them 40 hours a week.

Let it be understood right here that this does not in any sense compel any person who is paying more than 40 cents an hour or working his employees less than 40 hours a week to do otherwise. We are not interested in that employer for the purposes of this bill. I say this because this question has been continually raised.

Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the Secretary may obtain a review of that order in the circuit court of appeals. He may ask that the order be modified or set aside in whole or in part.

The Secretary has the power to investigate to determine whether or not the order is being complied with. He may use the existing State agencies for this purpose. Every employer is to keep records of conditions of employment under his jurisdiction.

The following exemptions from the provisions of the bill are included in it: First, executive employees; second, professional workers; third, administrative workers; fourth, local retailers; fifth, outside salesmen; sixth, seamen; seventh, employees subject to part I of the Interstate Commerce Act; eighth, persons employed in the taking of sea food, fish, or sponges; ninth, persons employed in agriculure; tenth, partial exemption of learners, apprentices, and handicapped people; eleventh, air-transport employees subject to title II of the Railway Labor Act.

The maximum-hours provision will not apply to employees coming under the Motor Carriers Act, section 204. No chlld who is under the age of 16 may be employed other than by a parent or a person standing in place of a parent except by special certificate issued by the Chief of the Children's Bureau, and no child under 14 may be employed at all other than by a person standing in place of a parent or a parent, or except in agriculture. Children between 16 and 18 may not work in occupations deemed to be hazardous by the Chief of the Children's Bureau.

No order may take effect before 120 days after the enactment of the act. It is presumed that by the time an order is made, 2, 3, or possibly 4 months will probably have elapsed, and then 120 more days elapse before the order goes into effect. Therefore nobody can claim this bill will dislocate business. It is simply absurd to think that a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour and maximum hours of 44 to start with is going to upset any business. The employers in industry know exactly what they have to contend with, which they did not know in connection with our other bill. Therefore they ought to be in a very much better position to meet the requirements of the bill, since they know exactly what is expected of them.

I wish now to refer to some of the persistent complaints I have heard on this bill, and I may say to the Members that I have been listening to people for the last 2 or 3 weeks from every part of the country. I have had a stack of letters as high as this desk from all over the country, and it is very interesting to note that very few of these letters contain objections to the bill. They are mostly letters asking for information. These letters and complaints that I have had have been more on hours than they have been on wages. I think this is rather interesting. Most of the complaints I hear on the bill are directed against the Secretary of Labor and they all have as their theme the criticism that she is given too much power.

Now, much as I regret to say so, and you Members who know me know that I am pretty fair, I am constrained to believe that a good deal of this criticism arises from the fact that the Secretary of Labor is a woman. I say this because I know that most men, and even some women, still cling to their illogical belief that no woman is capable of handling a so-called big job. Well, they might just as well get over that because they are going to have to get over it in a very short time. [Applause.]

I do not like to hear the Secretary talked of in this way, as I believe her record not only in the Cabinet, but during her long public career bears out the fact that she is an extraordinarily capable and intelligent person. However, since these arguments are raised, let us examine them. First, take the broad statement that she has been given too much power.

The only power that the Secretary of Labor has under the bill-and I want you to mark this--is to determine the relation of the various industries to interstate commerce. The Secretary is given no discretion but is directed to determine this relation of the various industries to interstate commerce by standards set forth in the bill. Whether this relationship is sufficiently close and substantial to bring the industry within the regulatory power of Congress depends upon facts. And that is why the bill contains section 6. The facts of the relationship in the case of each industry is to be established at a hearing, which will be public, and any person may examine the record of the hearing if he so desires. Any employer has the right of appeal from this decision of the Secretary, if he feels that he has been aggrieved by the order, by application to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now, surely, this is far less power than is already vested in many bureau heads who are not even Cabinet members.

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

[PAGE 7280]

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

[PAGE 7281]

Mrs. NORTON. Just for a question. I would rather complete my statement and then I shall be pleased to yield.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Following up your statement, would a competitor have the right to appeal from the decision of the Secretary of Labor with respect to relation to interstate commerce?

Mrs. NORTON. Why, certainly; anybody has the right of appeal.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Not only the employer but a competitor?

Mrs. NORTON. Why, surely.

Clearly this is less than the power that has been lodged in the five-man board as contained in the administrative provisions of the Senate bill and which I believe will again be offered on the floor during the consideration of this bill.

I may say to the Members of the House that every person I have come in contact with has been opposed to a fiveman board, so I do not believe the House will consider that amendment very seriously.

Many Members of Congress have also asked why the Secretary of Labor is given power to define and delimit the term "executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or in the capacity of outside salesman."

First, let me give you an illustration of the administrative difficulties, were this provision not contained in the act, of the way those terms could be used to circumvent the intent of the act. You are all familiar with the roadside stands which dot the countryside where you drive in for a sandwich and a cooling drink served you in your car. It would be possible, were it not for the provision allowing the Secretary the right to define the term, to call these young men and women who serve you at your car outside salesmen.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

Now, clearly, this act does not intend that this term should be so used to create loopholes, yet it might be if no one had the right to define it. Therefore, in answer to the complaint I would say that the Secretary is given this power for only one reason, to enable persons to know definitely whether or not they are to be subject to the law. The Secretary has no power to exempt anything or anybody.

Reasonable men may differ as to whether· a particular employee is included or excluded and it is in such cases that definiteness is both desirable and necessary, and hence the Secretary is given the power, by regulation, to define these terms.

In conclusion, let me say this: Since this b1ll was sent to the House I have been asked by many Members of Congress, most of whom are friends of the bill, to accept amendments for the benefit of some particular industry in their districts. I wish I could accept such amendments, but to do so would necessarily destroy the bill. I know the terrific pressure exerted by the very people who in all right should come under the provisions of the bill and who want to be excluded. The principal criticism, as I said before, has been on hours. This is to be expected. It is well known that one of the aims of the bill is to spread employment; and of course, if we except industries from the hours provision, we defeat that purpose, which is so important at this time, when relief rolls are getting larger and larger, and immense amounts of money have been paid out by the Government to make up the deficit between starvation wages and absolute maintenance, which people must have. So I ask you to join me in voting against all emasculating amendments, no matter how innocent they may seem at first glance, and I have a few that seem very innocent, but upon examination, let me say to you, they would take the entire heart out of a bill. In urging Members of the House to follow the Committee on Labor, to whom was given this stupendous task of preparing wage and hour legislation, I am hot going to appeal to your emotions, though I know that none of you would want to feel that he was responsible for denying the right of existence to any man. I know there is not a man or woman in the House who does not wish to do his part in driving out of our business life today chiseling competition which threatens to cripple our economic structure. I am sure that we are all in accord in wanting to wipe out this sort of thing in this country, and to blot out child labor, but rather I would appeal to you to vote for this bill because it is the most equitable method of correcting these ills. We have found in our study of this subject that there .are open to us many courses, many ways of legislating and regulating wages and hours .and abolishing child labor, but it was the task of the committee to do the work in the simplest and most understandable manner, and that we have tped to do.

Many years ago I worked in welfare in my city. I never dreamed at that time that the day would come when I would be here in the House of Representatives and have the great privilege of appealing to you Members to help the underprivileged.

If you could see what I saw in those days, if you knew the misery, and the misery has continued, I am sorry to say, through all the years since, I know that you would feel that what we are attempting to do is merely human. It is not giving anything more than human beings are entitled to. It is simply giving them a chance to live, a chance to buy the necessities of life. In this great rich country of ours it seems terrible to think that there are people starving, and yet letters that I have received from employees all over the country-not from the South alone, but from every part of the country-would indicate that men and women are working for as low as two and three dollars a week, and 60 and 70 hours in the week. We cannot allow this sort of industry to be carried into interstate commerce. We have no jurisdiction over the States. We cannot do anything about intrastate commerce, but let me say to you that an obligation rests upon us to destroy such conditions when we legally can do so. I feel that the obligation is a sacred one, to do something for the underprivileged people of this great country. Therefore, I appeal to you to do your part, and it is a small part that we are asking you to do in voting for this bill.

[Applause.]

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

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes in order to answer questions.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 2 more minutes.

Mr. KOPPLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. Gladly.

Mr. KOPPLEMANN. I call attention to one paragraph in the letter sent out by the Hartford Chamber of Commerce generally to its membership, which letter has been sent throughout the State of Connecticut. I read from that letter:

There is a prevision in the bill, section 11 (a), which when first examined will appear to eliminate any employee employed in "local retailing capacity," but it is likewise provided therein that the Secretary of Labor has the right to define and delimit the term "local retailing capacity." With section 6 as a mandate as to what is interstate and what is local, the Secretary would be justified in defining a local retailer as a retailer who is not engaged in any industry described in section 6. There are very few.

Mrs. NORTON. May I say to the gentleman that "local retailing capacity" is exempt from the operations of the bill.

Mr. KOPPLEMANN. And the statement adds:

If this bill is enacted as it stands now, it covers retailing.

Mrs. NORTON. It absolutely exempts retailing.

Mr. KOPPLEMANN. That is clearly understood?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. MERRITT. Does that also include where merchandise is bought in other States, such as in department stores? Will that be exempt?

Mrs. NORTON. I do not think I quite understand the gentleman's question.

[PAGE 7281]

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

[PAGE 7282]

Mr. MERRITT. These are goods that flow in interstate commerce but are sold at retail.

Mrs. NORTON. I still do not think I understand the question, but goods flowing in interstate commerce, of course, are included under the terms of the bill.

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

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. HEALEY. It is my understanding that in such an instance they would not be included under the terms of this bill as the bill does not affect local retailers. They would, therefore, be exempt from the terms of the bill.

Mrs. NORTON. Local retailing is excluded.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. DEMPSEY. Will not the gentlewoman yield herself a little additional time? The important part of this bill is to find out what it contains; that is what we want to know.

Mrs. NORTON. I have tried to explain to the Members all the provisions of the bill.

Mr. DEMPSEY. My question will take but half a minute.

Mrs. NORTON. I am sorry, but I cannot yield any more time to myself. All time, I regret to say, has been allotted.

Mr. DEMPSEY. I think it is unfortunate.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the wage and hour bill now under consideration is one of the most important humanitarian measures ever considered by Congress. Its purpose is twofold-it will bring relief to several million underpaid, underfed, and underclothed workers, and it will eliminate the evils of child labor.

I cannot understand the reasoning that this measure is sectional and is a blow at the Southern States. Nothing could be further from the intent and purpose of its proponents. It is estimated that between the Potomac and the Hudson Rivers, there are at the present time over 35,000 workers, nearly all women, receiving as little as $5 and $6 a week and working 9 and 10 hours a day. Before the Supreme Court gave a recent decision, women were working in an industry in the District of Columbia, within the shadow of the Capitol for $5 a week, based upon a 9- and 10-hour workday.

Shortly before the enactment of the Walsh-Healey law, a Connecticut firm was awarded a contract by the Navy for a large number of caps. The women employed in this factory received the munificient sum of $4 a week. Countless other cases were brought to the attention of the joint House and Senate Committee on Labor during the long-drawn-out hearings on the wage and hour bill and before the House Subcommittee on Labor when it had under consideration the textile bill.

Mr. Chairman, in it second purpose, this bill contains, without a doubt, the best child-labor provision ever presented in the history of the country. If enacted into law, as I hope it will be, it will not only bring a little sunshine and happiness into the hearts and homes of lowest of the lowpaid workers in the United States, but in addition, it will do that which every right-thinking person has been trying to accomplish for years and that is, remove one of the blackest pages in our history-"child labor"-which has long been regarded as a social cancer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make a brief announcement of how I would have voted on the discharge rule

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to the fact that he will have to submit his request in the House or get time from one of the Members in charge of time on the bill.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, when the question of discharging the committee from consideration of this bill was voted on I was absent on an important conference at the White House. Had I been here, I would have voted to discharge the committee.

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, re- ported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (S. 2475) to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

[PAGE 7282]

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

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

  Top of page

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

  Page 7283              CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE              May 23, 1938             (83 Cong. Rec. 7283, 1938)

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

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 (8. 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. 247.5, the wage and hour bill, with Mr. McCORMACK in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SHANLEY].

Mr. SHANLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to incorporate in the RecorD at this point a statement of how I would have voted on the motion to discharge. I was absent on important departmental business. Had I been here I would have voted yea.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentlewoman from New Jersey whether she has determined as to what time the opposition will have to discuss the pending bill and if any will be allotted, and to whom?

Mrs. NORTON. I have arranged to give the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] 40 minutes of time for those in opposition.

Mr. COX. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, if that is the entire time that is to be yielded to the opposition? I am opposed to the bill and would like some time. I hope that I may get it.

Mrs. NORTON. I am sorry to state to the gentleman from Georgia that I have no more time to give. I have given 40 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK]. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CURLEY].

NEW MILESTONE FOR LABOR REACHED WITH PASSAGE OF THIS BILL

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Labor Committee of the House of Representatives, I beg to inform my colleagues in the House, that we have a sacred pledge to keep before adjournment to the millions of our ill-nourished, ill-clad, and ill-housed American citizens and their families, who are dependent upon them. We members of the Democratic majority were elected on a platform in November 1936 pledged to a policy of humane treatment of this serious social problem. To be consistent, therefore, the administration recommended this constructive social legislation to the Congress of the United States, which, it is believed, would strengthen the weakened morale of the handcuffed workers who constitute the forgotten men and women of America today. This vast helpless group of our unskilled labor are the exploited type so specifically requiring the protection of the strong arm of Uncle Sam. There is no conftict of jurisdiction, under the provisions of this fair standards of labor bill, and the existing labor organizations of this country. The bill concerns only of relieving the paralysis which, at present, shackles misery and povery to millions of heads of families, who are underpaid and causing a colossal financial loss in purchasing power because of existing deplorable conditions. The essence of any remedy to relieve such terrible conditions is decent work at a decent living wage with reasonable maximum hours of labor; and that is what this pending bill will provide if adopted by the Congress.

The chronic ulcer of substandard labor conditions, which are constantly practiced in interstate commerce by chiseling employers, must be removed by a major national operation on the Nation's body politic. Child labor must go; and Uncle Sam, through the passage of this bill, will rescue the exploited workers of America from their present tragic plight, and guarantee to them that security which the Constitution of the United States of America provides for them.

AMERICA FAVORS WAGES AND HOURS

Mr. Chairman, it must be evident to all unprejudiced minds, that the pending Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is conceded to be one of the most popular humanitarian pieces of welfare legislation yet sprung from the platform of New Deal measures. The Institute of Public Opinion proved in a Nation-wide poll taken by the Institute in a recent cross section survey that 59 percent of the electorate want Congress to pass a wage and hour bill at this session. The statistics gathered show that only 41 percent was against it. No

[PAGE 7283]

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

[PAGE 7284]

geographical section was found opposed to this type of legislation. In the South the majority favoring it was 56 per._ cent with 44 percent opposing it. The complete record of the statistics gathered are as follows:

Percentage, by groups of States

According to this poll the sentiment for the bill clearly splits along party lines. The measure is favored by 71 percent of Democrats and opposed by 66 percent of Republicans. It goes on further to say that opinion also divides sharply along economic lines with the upper income group strongly opposed to the legislation, the middle group slightly in favor of it, and the lower group overwhelmingly for it.

The aforesaid statement should dispose of the unauthorized attacks of the critics of this labor bill from certain sections of the country.

Now what will this proposed wage and hour bill do?

First. It will establish a specific and universal floor for wages.

Second. A specific and universal ceiling for hours.

Third. It will abolish child labor in interstate commerce. Fourth. It will be administered by the Department of Labor. Fifth. It will be enforced by the Department of Justice.

To be more specific, the bill will prohibit the employment of children under 16 and regulate employment of children between 16 and 18 in hazardous occupations. It will prohibit employment of substandard labor engaged in interstate commerce at less than 25 cents an hour for the first year, 30 cents for the second year, 35 cents for the third year, and 40 cents thereafter. It will also prohibit employment for more than 44 hours per week the first year, 42 hours per week the second year, and 40 thereafter. It will further provide for enforcement through the Federal courts.

Under the terms of this proposed bill no fair-minded employer should object to paying a minimum week wage of $11 or $12.

Pump-priming alone, without decent wages and hours, will blook recovery. It has been said that the statistics indicate that only 3^1/2 percent of unskilled industrial workers started their working careers at less than 40 cents an hour in the North, while in the South, it is said, the percentage is 48 percent. This differential is too wide to help the poor exploited workers in that section. This unfair competition is one of the main obstructions to the sections meeting on a common ground on this fair wage and hour bill. It is the well-considered opinion of many legal minds that geographical lines should prevail and not differentials which the South demand.

If this bill should become law, and I believe it will, the Department of Labor estimates it will provide jobs for about two and one-half million workers, Which is a pretty good contribution to any program for recovery.

Mr. HARTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. GIFFORD.

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak but briefly on the pending measure. I represent a very hard-pressed textile city. We see some hope in this legislation. Many years ago when that city embarked in the textile business, our southern neighbors were very glad indeed to have this market for their raw cotton. A great industry was built up under the protection of the tariff, which largely prevented competition from cheap foreign labor; but it was finally found that cheap labor could be secured in the southern States. Gradually that section learned how to manufacture as well as raise cotton and even northern capital went to the South and built textile mills because they could take advantage of this cheap labor.

The South always has had cheap labor. We in the North have not been able to take such advantage, but we have attracted the highest quality labor from the various textile centers of the world. My city was known as the key city in the manufacture of high-grade textiles. They are very hopeful now that through the medium of this legislation, wages can be made approximately the same and unfair competition be somewhat eliminated.

I have heretofore stated that I visited the South and learned the conditions in this industry there. I found rows of houses all very similar in construction, rented to the employees, who were not allowed to purchase them. When the employees were not satisfactory they had to get out. They had no chance to establish permanent homes. We once tried that method in New England. We built attractive houses for the help, but we found it did not work.

People like to own their own homes. They like to improve and beautify them. We abandoned that plan. The result is that our employees have settled permanently. Their savings and investments are there and they wish to remain in that locality.

I visited those homes in the South. The rents were most reasonable. Under the workings of this bill I predict the rents would be raised to compensate somewhat for the higher wages that might seem to be imposed by it. I was informed that their mills made money for one reason only; that is, the wheels turned 24 hours a day. We have an orderly set of workers here. And they have. I asked, Are there any foreigners in your mill? And an executive of one of the largest mills of the South said, Yes, two, but they are leaving today. Our employees do not want them.

That brings an understanding to us that when aliens are considered in the W. P. A. projects they are denied assistance. We have them in the North, many of them very good people, although they may not be able to read and write, but from the economic standpoint they are just as good as your workers of the South. You try to cut them off because they are aliens, although they may have been in the country for 40 or 50 years. They may have brought up families. Members of their families were sent to the war and all that sort of thing. I regret to hear southern Members express themselves so forcefully against them. You always have had your labor problem solved for you.

Regarding this legislation, my people think it is time that we not only be protected from the cheap labor in foreign countries but that we be protected from the cheap labor within our own boundaries.

Mr. COX. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GIFFORD. Gladly.

Mr. COX. In 1828—

Mr. GIFFORD. I was not here. That is pretty far back.

Mr. COX. But it affects the gentleman's statement. In 1828 when the Senate had the tariff under debate, speaking with respect to a particular amendment, Mr. Abbott Lawrence, of Massachusetts, the economic and political adviser to Mr, Webster, stated to Mr. Webster:

I must say I think it would do them much good and that New England would reap a great harvest by having this bill adopted as it now is. This bill, if adopted as amended, will keep the South and West in debt to New England for the next hundred years.

That time has expired. Is the gentleman advocating the passage of this bill and the employmeht of Federal force to the end that he will impose a further handicap upon the South under which it must struggle for another hundred years?

Mr. GIFFORD. It is hard to reply to the gentleman because he knows my general attitude of mind. This bill particularly affects my district but I am quite convinced that the legislation may in the end be for the general welfare of his section, and the Nation as a whole.

Mr. COX. Very true, but is the gentleman not prepared to concede it to be a fact that this whole measure has

[PAGE 7284]

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

[PAGE 7285]

degenerated into a purely sectional row, and that the purpose of the bill when stripped of its emotionalism is nothing hut an attempt to continue a great section of this country under a handicap under which it has labored for 100 years.?

Mr. GIFFORD. Indeed I am not ready to admit that. I confess that when this bill was considered before, I had considerable misgivings, taking the broader aspect of it, but I do not believe it is wholly emotional when this great majority here today stood on their feet and voted to take up this measure.

Mr. COX. It is difficult for me to believe, knowing something of the gentleman's general attitude toward governmental affairs, that he has brought himself to the position, no matter what the political exigencies may be, wherein he is advocating the setting up of a law which sends the Federal Government out into the States, asserting the Federal power to the point of complete federalization of all the activities of the people.

Mr. GIFFORD. I can fully appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I believe he must have understood my attitude on many occasions. As I have said, I have wrestled with this problem since its very inception and have studied it with great care. I believe this bill is for the general welfare of the entire country. We have built a new structure in this country in the last 5 years, and we have to live in it. You have done certain things for the benefit of certain localities and certain classes of people, and now it is my plain duty to look after the interests, perhaps, even of my own section. New England has been greatly injured by this administration through such things as processing taxes and trade agreements, and it has been forced to contribute far more than its just share in taxes to pay largesses granted to other sections. It is not to be wondered at that we grasp at something that might be of a little benefit to us.

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

Mr. GIFFORD. For a brief question.

Mr. COX. Is the gentleman now contending that this bill is upon the lap of Congress as a result of political pressure? Does not the gentleman know and is he not willing to concede that politics is responsible for this terrible thing being done?

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

I sympathize with the gentleman and deplore with him the political mind of his President, who has fastened upon us, because of the mandate he thought he had from the people, very many of these things I have had to vote against.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

MF. GIFFORD. I cannot yield at this time.

The reason I took the floor is that I wish to pay tribute today to the city which I represent. Lately a compact has been made in the cotton-textile industry in my State, a compact which is probably unlike anything in the country today. Labor and industry have got together.

I am pleased to share with you the good news I have received relating to a charter of industrial self-government adopted in the city which I represent

THE NEW BEDFORD PACT.

The cotton-textile industry of New Bedford has done a remarkable thing. Labor and management have come together in a pact which outlaws strikes and lock-outs and makes arbitration compulsory for the settlement of all disputes. Many thousands of workers and a score of mills are covered by this contract.

This agreement is a bargain between the labor organizations of a single city and the operators of the industry which dominates that city. The labor groups have nothing whatever to do with either the C. I. 0. or the A. F. of L. This is a rare situation, which was brought about by local differences between the locals and the C. I. 0. Last January a wage reduction was negotiated with the manufacturers by representatives of the several craft unions. While these unions technically were embodied in the C. I. 0., they went ahead with their bargaining, and the C. I. 0. officials learned first of the results through the press. Thereupon the C. I. 0. suspended the secretaries of the several craft unions. The unions proceeded as independent units to come together with the managements in this comprehenstve compact.

Thus these labor forces constitute a city-wide union of the textile crafts, with the suspended secretaries included. The management recognizes the counciL as the exclusive bargaining agency for the workers, and the pact includes the machinery for investigation of disputes and the enforcement of arbitration decisions.

The management feels it has scored a distinct gain by emancipation from the C. I. 0. Plainly this is something to watch. If the managements keep the letter and spirit of the pact and the workers seize the opportunity to demonstrate their reliability and perform each day a fair stint of work, an illustration of what ought to be will be provided for the whole country. Considered simply as a pact, without reference to its background, this must be regarded as an example of industrial statecraft.

This agreement is an example of industrial statesmanship. It ts an honest and serious bid for industrial tranquillity. It is a local pact, locally conceived and locally administered. The thousands of local textiie workers should be congratulated that they have available the opportunity for protection and human consideration in all matters covered by the agreement. They are under no necessity to experiment with organizations controlled by strangers hundreds of miles away, with little or no actual first-hand knowledge of our industry; and to whom we may be simply a dot on the map or a mere collection of names in some far-distant office filing system. The community is to be congratulated that the stabilization of industrial relations through mutual guaranties of peace is assured for a considerable period. Industry and labor lacally have publicly declared it to be their solemn purpose to seek peace and tranqutllfty in its industrtes.

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

Mr. GlFFORD; I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. COX. I take it the gentleman's understanding of this proposal is, that it is to do something for the substandard worker.

If this be. the real purpose of the bill, does not the gentleman realize that in the exceptions that are made you destroy the virtue of the assertion the gentleman has made?

Mr. GIFFORD. I cannot yield further. We have to have a rule. Everybody knows a law should not be ironclad and that there should be exceptions, and when the exceptions get to be too many, we have to change the rule.

Mr. COX. Is the gentleman not prepared to concede that agricultural labor is the lowest-paid labor in the world?

Mr. GIFFORD. I am prepared to concede that agriculture has got everything it has asked for—billions of dollars and all kinds of loan facilities—but industry has had practically nothing,

Mr. COX. Does the bill in anywise promise to alleviate the economic and social condition of agricultural labor? If the purpose of the bill is to alieviate the condition of the substandard worker, and if the agricultural worker is the lowest paid in the world, then why exempt agriculturai labor? You exempt them simply because you know agriculture cannot live under the provisions of this law.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GIFFORD. I was quite willing to yield to the gentleman; but under the permission I have to revise and extend, I hope to make a proper ending to my own remarks. [Laughter and applause.]

The passage of this wage and hour law would add greatly to the encouragement of the workers of the North, who have so long been obliged to compete with the cheap labor conditions in other parts of the country. However, the good results which ought to flow from this legislatton should be regarded as by no means sectional or of especial benefit to northern industry. This legislation is rather aimed to benefit the workers now being exploited in other sections of the country in order to take business away from the more progressive areas. In fact, the charge of sectionalism is amply disproved on the floor today by the tremendous vote in favor of the consideration of the bill coming from all sections of the country. After careful consideration of the broader aspects of this legislation we have decided that the measure is for the beaefit of the Nation as a whole. Certainly it should result in bringing to the low-paid areas a greater purchasing power, which has been the burden of our arguments for the past several years. The wage worker in any industry should be protected against the loss of his job or the lowering of his living standards in the endeavor of industry to exploit him by forced acceptance of a low standard of wages. American business should not all go to the low-wage employer.

[PAGE 7285]

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

[PAGE 7286]

This is not sectional legislation. This is uniform legislation, national in scope and character.

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

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad, indeed, to intervene just at this point between my two friends on this floor, whose discussion has shown something to exist that does not exist at all—that is to say, sectionalism—in this wage and hour bill.

I want to call your attention to this fact, and I do not want any of my friends from the South to kid themselves into believing that this is or can be considered a sectional question, because it is not, as proved by the facts I am going to cite you right here and now.

The good old State of Pennsylvania in 1936, at the peak of the recovery period, had to grant relief aid to full-time workers whose wages were as low as $7 a week. This was revealed to be the case in 29 percent of the 190,000 relief grants that were examined. That is to say, out of the 190,000 cases examined, 74,000 working full time received relief from the State of Pennsylvania.

Further proof of this is that the same survey, which I take from the October number of the Monthly Labor Review, an official publication of this Government, shows that in 79 cities in 39 States divided among the North, South, East, and West, similar relief grants had to be made to full-time workers, many of whom received no more than six or seven dollars a week—not enough to exist on at those points. Hence these grants and hence this bill. The South does not encompass 39 States, and the South is not being mulcted by this law. It is being lifted out of the condition it has fallen into during a century and half of its self-control through these State governments.

These facts, therefore, show clearly that this bill is not a sectional measure; it is purely a national measure. It is not anything else, and never can be.

I want now to call your attention to another subject. We have in this bill what is coming to be known as the escalator provision, which is a provision to start at a sufficiently low figure as to permit as little shock as possible, or as little fear of shock as possible to business in adapting itself to the new wage and hour law. We begin there and advance it little by little until 40 cents an hour is reached.

This escalator provision does another thing: It starts at a limited number of hours above 40 hours per week and reduces the hours by easy stages to 40, so that in due course we will have 40 cents an hour and 40 hours a week all over the whole United States, not have that in some part but have it in all parts of the country.

This so-called escalator-provision, let me say to you, is the idea of a southerner, a man of brilliant mind, great heart, good soul, a thoroughgoing southerner who knows exactly what this thing means and what it is going to mean, because he knows that the South must raise its wages if it is going to prosper along with the rest of this country. His name is GRAHAM A. BARDEN, a new Member of this House, a new member on the Labor Committee, a man who thinks all the way through, fairly to all sides, and then gives expression to his brilliant mind. He did this in what we are coming to know as the escalator clause.

This in all fairness ought always to be known as the Barden amendment, because out of BARDEN'S mind, out of BARDEN's brain, and out of BARDEN's soul came this amendment which was offered last year to the bill which came before this House. I do not propose that his name shall be cut away from this legislation or that his name shall be forgotten. He has the ability, the character, the education, the aspiration, the sympathy for his fellowman that in due course will make him one of the recognized leaders of the new South. He has vision, but he also has practical sense and a wide experience in the affairs of men that are bound to stand him in hand in the adjustments that the coming years are certain to require. He, above all things else, is honest and unafraid. This Barden amendment is an earnest of his future service to his country.

I now want now to present one more point, and only one, and that is this: When the N. R. A. came on it saved the industries of this country from chaos, nothing less. And how did it do it? Although we had 500 codes, every one of them made a floor for wages and a ceiling for the workweek. It was, in fact, our first wage and hour law.

I am simply calling attention to the facts, and I want you to get the facts, and I challenge any opponent of this bill to successfully dispute what I am here presenting.

In the South the codes set $12 a week for 40 hours of labor as the minimum wage and in the North $13. What happened? The South prospered as it never had prospered before. The South paid $12 for 40 hours' work. It could afford to pay and did pay the wages, and it did prosper. And so did the North. What is the use of trying to cover the fact? As chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on Labor I carried on for 2 years an investigation of the textile industry. I took up that question of the effect of the N. R. A. before the subcommittee time after time, with many businessmen from many sections of the country. All of them agreed the N. R. A. had saved the business of the country from chaos. Nobody denied it, and nobody who knows and has a regard for the truth can.

The trouble did not come under or because of the high wages. Here came the trouble: The Supreme Court nullified the N. R. A. and then began the difficulty, because the chiselers in business in this country began to cut the wages and to lengthen the hours of labor. Immediately, we started into a tailspin economically in this country. We ought to know enough to stop the thing where it is. It is for that reason that this bill is an absolute necessity nationally, just as much for the South as for the North, just as much and no more for New England as it is for South Carolina and Georgia. And Georgia needs it, and you will never have what you ought to have in Georgia until you get something of this kind and put it into force and effect.

I have no illusion as to what this wage and hour bill may accomplish. It may not give many new jobs.

This is, however, a vital matter to industry itself as well as to the men and women who work in industry. When we reach a 40-40 basis nationally, the cheaters and chiselers in industry will be through with the exploitation of abject and helpless poverty for profit. We can then legislate effectively without any fear of injury or injustice to any business or any section. This laying of a wage fioor and the establishment of an hour ceiling is the first very necessary step to effective permanent labor legislation.

We can then proceed to the procurement of a much shorter workweek, to a much greater purchasing power, to the assurance of a job for every man and woman who wants to work, to the provision for the opportunity for universal employment so that the 700,000 young people coming ready for industry each year shall know that a job is ready for them when they are ready for the job, and that it will so continue so long as they are able to work. That even then old-age pensions will provide security against the paralyzing fear of poverty as they approach the sunset of life. This is not too much to expect. We shall indeed do vastly more.

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. LAMBERTSON].

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just left the floor, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KELLER], said a good deal about the N. R. A. The N. R. A. decision of 9 to 0 by the Supreme Court was one of the finest things that ever happened for this administration, because it saved it the stigma of failure. The N. R. A. was soon to fall of its own weight. While the N. R. A. raised some of the lower wages, employers pulled down some of the higher ones, and that answers your argument that this will increase the purchasing power. It will not increase it one dollar, because they will take it off the higher wages if they have to put it on the lower ones, and that is the N. R. A., and the 9-to-0 decision by the Supreme-Court was the greatest face saver

[PAGE 7286]

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

[PAGE 7287]

this administration has had. The N. R. A. would have fallen in a short time of its own weight. It drove small businesses to the wall, just as this will do. It drove thousands of small concerns out, and this bill will do the same thing. This was proposed in May by the President, in the middle of the Court fight, with a determination that it should be a second N. R. A. That is why this is before the House. It is before us as a second N. R. A., pure and simple. It is not the intention of the Chief Executive to fail in anything. He put the second A. A. A. over, and my farmers do not like it; and he will put the second N. R. A. over if he can, and I feel that a rubber-stamp House will let it go through. Our hope is on the other side, in the Senate, and that is all that is left for us.

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

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Yes; I yield to the brilliant gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. COX. Did I understand the gentleman to say, in effect, that the pending bill is the result of a marriage between politics and the C. I. 0.?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I think so. The C. I. 0. led the procession.

Mr. COX. And that this bill would not be here except for the political exigencies of some people?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. It is only here because there is a fight in labor. In spite of the President's persistence, this bill would not be on the floor of the House today if it were not for the fight between the C. I. 0. and the A. F. of L. That is all that brought this bill here; John Lewis' Labor's Nonpartisan League led the procession. Mr. Green had finally to fall in; but neither one is for this bill, and the Denver convention of the A F. of L. a year ago was not really for any wage-hour bill.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, will ·the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Yes.

Mr. FLETCHER. The gentleman implies that he is opposed to both the agrtcultural legislation that has been passed, and which is approved by a member of his own party on the Agricultural Committee, and from his own State, and he is opposed to labor legislation that we are now considering. Has he any substitute for either one of those measures?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. You bet I have, for both of them.

Mr. FLETCHER. What would be the gentleman's substitute? Will the gentleman put it in the RECORD?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I will put it in here. The farmers never asked for this farm bill. All they wanted at most was a soil-conservation program and cheap money. They would have been satisfied with that.

Mr. FLETCHER. Did any farmer ever write the gentleman about cheap money? Nobody I ever knew of wrote about cheap money.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Did not the gentleman ever hear about BILL LEMKE? What we want is to put 13,000,000 men to work and not to raise the wages of some who have jobs already. There is an absolute fallacy in this bill ever putting anybody to work. It will throw plenty of them out of work. For this bill I would substitute one giving the Federal Trade Commission power to declare any wage in interstate commerce unfair which was substandard.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman explain how we can put 3,000,000 people back to work unless we provide sufficient buying power for them to buy back the very things they make?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. That is the fallacy that runs throughout the theories of this administration.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has not yet explained the fallacy.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. How can you put people to work by raising the wages of those who have the jobs already? You bad better create more jobs, spread the work.

The hour principle of the bill is all light but the minimum wage is the asinine part of the bill and the real bad part of it.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. You create more jobs if you create more buying power.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield two additional minutes to the gentleman from Kansas.

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

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Did the gentleman ever hear of buying power being created anywhere on the face of God's earth other than through the toil of man?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. That is the real thing. You are not going to bring about prosperity by priming the pump, nor are you going to increase employment by raising the wages of those who have jobs. Both are fallacious.

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

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. KITCHENS. The gentleman spoke of the farmers wanting cheap money. Will not this bill create monopolies, destroy small industries and small factories, and place them in the hands of capitalists and great industrialists? They are the ones who fix the value of money. In that way they will have control of the wages and of all labor.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Yes; by destroying small business and throwing all business into the hands of monopoly. That is the vice of this bill.

Mr. KITCHENS. Without control by the Congress of money and its value we cannot fix wages, can we?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I do not think so.

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

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I yield.

Mr. BRADLEY. If that is the case will the gentleman explain why the chambers of commerce in all the industrial cities are practically opposed to this bill?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I do not know that to be the case. The point is that a wage-hour bill that was considered after the one that was recommitted did not exempt farmers. What if all farm labor were given $4 a day. Immediately half of it would be unemployed. Ostensibly this bill exempts farmers but in reality it does not. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McREYNOLDS].

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I have been very much interested in this discussion. Especially was I attracted to the words and the admissions of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GIFFORD] that he favors this bill because he feels it will give New England a sectional advantage. I had hoped—while I knew that that was true—I had hoped that every Member of this Congress would at least want to leave the impression that he was supporting the bill for the good of the whole country.

Since this orphan child was exhibited before us at the special session last year it has had some growth. The brain child of last December was a foundling dumped upon the doorstep of the gentlewoman from New Jersey. It now blushes forth as the robust child of those who a few months ago knew him not. Cradled upon the pillow of sectional advantage, suckling upon the breast of tariff discrimination, the child has been snatched from its assumed parents, Labor, and is now championed by the representatives of northern and eastern industry. His little playmates, the men and women employed by southern industry, their clothing rent by freight discriminations, their feet long calloused by the sharp stones of Republican tariffs, stand alone, forgotten by those who would have us believe they are the champions of labor.

The battle lines are drawn between those who wish to cut off southern competition by throwing up but another protecting tariff wall around the industries of the North and East to the detriment of tlle wage earners of southern factories.

[PAGE 7287]

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

[PAGE 7288]

The last words I said during the discussion of the bill at the special session was an appeal to send the bill back for further study so that later on we could write a bill in the true interests of the laboring men and women of this country, a bill that the people really wanted, instead of turning our duty over, as we did in that bill, to some administrator not answerable to the people.

I had hoped that a bill would be brought before the House that I could support. There is no one more against cheap labor than I. If I thought this bill would do what they say it will I would be for it, but it cannot under the present conditions. If you know the conditions and throw away political incentives you know in your own heart that this bill is not in favor of the laboring man or of labor organizations.

The argument is made for the passage of this bill that in order to increase prosperity you have to increase the purchasing power of the laborer. This is true, provided each laborer who has a job now retains that job and receives an increase in his pay. But it is not true if many who are now employed, even at a low wage, are thrown out of employment, or if the minimum wage set forth in this bill in many instances proves to be the maximum wage. This has occurred here in Washington where they have a minimum and maximum wage law, and it will occur all over the country whenever this bill is passed and becomes a law. I think no one would make the argument that if this bill is passed it will increase employment, as the facts are very evident that it win not. At present we have many millions of people out of employment and this is no time for experiments. If we did not have these unemployed and times were good, this bill might improve conditions.

One provision in this bill which I can heartily support is the child-labor amendment. [Applause.] I favor that, but I do not favor this bill and shall vote against it if it 1s left in its present form.

I insist that 25 cents an hour is not enough for any man or woman who can perform decent labor and do it under proper circumstances if the party by whom he or she is employed can afford to pay more. But what do you propose to do? You propose to put upon us in the southland the same rates, regardless of the character. and kind of conditions. You give no incentive to the man or woman to receive more for his or her work. You propose to make us pay the inefficient just the same as the efficient. Let me say that, in my opinion, this minimum wage in many instances will prove to be the maximum wage. Let me say to my laboring friends in the gallery that I have voted for the principal bills in favor of labor from the Hewell-Barkley bill, the railroad retirement bill, the arbitration bill, to do away with the yellow dog contract, the National Labor Relations bill, and the Guffey coal bill, but if this bill is passed, remember it will fix a precedent; it will fix the minimum and the maximum wages; and if it is held constitutional by the Supreme Court, which is very doubtful, you will regret the day this bill passed. Why do I say it?

Not long will it be until the automobile workers, not long will it be until the steel workers and others, will come back and ask this body to fix wages for all industry, big and small, which only the big industries can pay. When that time comes you will need no labor organization and you will have none, and I do not want to see that occur, because I believe in organized labor and collective bargaining. In my opinion, that is as true as God made little apples. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Mr. FLETCHER. Will the gentleman yield for a brief question?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I have not the time.

I say that because I believe wages should be fixed by collective bargaining. You cannot fix wages all over the United States at one price. May I say further that this is not the President's bill. You heard his message to this House, and I will give just one quotation from that message, which he delivered on January 3, 1938:

No reasonable person seeks a. complete uniformity in wages in every part of the United States.

If, referring to the President's remarks which I have just quoted, that no reasonable person seeks a complete uniformity in wages in every part of the United States, why are you trying to push it down our throats?

A few days ago, when the relief bill was before the House for consideration, I offered an amendment to that bill providing that the unskilled workers of the W. P. A. be paid a uniform wage with no discrimination. I explained to you at that time that in certain sections of the South the W. P. A. were paying our workers $19.20 a month, and under the same conditions in northern New York they were paying $40 a month, here in Washington $45 a month, and in New York City $55 a month. Mr. Gill, Deputy Director of the W. P. A., advised me that these rates were figured out by the Labor Department on the cost of the standard of living. I told this House at that time you people who are advocating this wage and hour bill today and who are asking our southern industries to pay the same rate as they pay in the North, should certainly vote for that amendment, and you had a chance to be consistent, but you refused to do it and voted it down. If you had voted to pay our W. P. A. workers the same, then I would have had reason to vote for this bill. By passing this bill and refusing to pass my amendment you are putting the Government in the position of recognizing a difference in their pay from $19 to $40 between the North and the South. Our distressed people in the South are entitled to the same consideration as yours are in the North.

Pass this bill in its present form and who will gain by it? Northern and eastern labor? No. You gentlemen charged when I offered my amendment to the relief bill that the wages of W. P. A. were paid according to existing wage rates. If that be true, then the scale paid in the North and in the East by the W. P. A. proves that your workers already are getting more than 25 cents per hour. Who then will benefit by the passage of this bill in its present form? The northern and eastern industrialists. Why? Because added to the burden of excessive freight rates, the age-long discriminations placed against struggling southern industry, this bill will be the final blow to competition of goods made by many small industries in the South and sold in the eastern and northern markets.

Who will be the losers by the passage of this bill in its present form? The southern worker, and you know it. If the goods he makes cannot compete in the northern and eastern markets he will lose his job. What good will a 25-cent or a 40-cent rate be to him then?

It may be good politics to pass legislation stating that these fine spring days must continue throughout the year. I would like them to stay on throughout the year myself. Especially so for the poor fellow who has no overcoat. But you know as well as I that no matter what laws you may pass to the contrary winter and snow and frost will come.

You also know that no matter how much you may like to see the workers of this country make good wages and work short hours that alone depends upon the economic conditions of this country; that the employer, in whatever industry, can pay wages—good or bad—alone from the profits he gets from the products he makes. You may pass a law stating that John Jones, who sweeps the floor of the factory, shall get 25 or 40 cents per hour and that he shall work but 44 or 40 hours per week. Fine and dandy, no one would like to see John get those wages or work those hours more than I. What I know, and what you know, however, is that unless John's employer makes a profit from his mill, John will sweep no floors at all. He will go on relief. Now, if John's employer has to pay discriminatory freight rates, if his mill is located far from the markets both of his finished product and the raw material from which his product is made, that cuts the margin of profit out of which John is paid. Add to John's employer the added burden of having to pay John the same hourly rate as that paid in another mill close to the source of raw materials and closer to the market and you cut the margin of profit still further, perhaps you eliminate it altogether. What then for John? By statute the sun shines and the flowers bloom throughout the year. John has his wage rate, his shorter workweek. If he only had a job,

[PAGE 7288]

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

[PAGE 7289]

that would be swell. But as sure as the coming of the snow in winter, John's employer will fold up if he cannot make a profit, and then John's wage scale will avail him nothing.

And so, my friends, much as I should like to vote for a bill that will be in the true interests of the wage earners of my district, my conscience will not permit me to vote for this bill, knowing as I do that it will punish the workers I represent here in Congress.

Mr. HEALEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I cannot yield, and I say that in the greatest of friendship.

A few days ago I saw in the press where my good friend from Massachusetts [Mr: HEALEY] had assumed command of the forces toward the passage of this bill and he gave out an interview that they would not allow any amendments of any character. I am very sorry to know this. I had thought while they are determined to pass a bill that any amendments we might offer which would have a tendency to improve the bill would not be turned down without consideration. This bill has made strange bedfellows. I imagine as General HEALEY approaches and gets ready for this fight, he discovers on the Republican side a tall black-headed handsome gentleman who has never in any way associated himself with the administration. The General assumes, of course, he is carrying the fiag of the administration but the gentleman on the other side is not marching under this fiag; he carries the fiag of the northern and eastern industries and we discover that it is Lieutenant FISH in command of a small squadron. I imagine a conference occurred among these gentlemen that went something like this:

Why, of course, I could not carry your flag, General, because on this reorganization bill in one sense I actually pronounced the man a dictator or words to that effect. General HEALEY replied, You must remember this is a camouflage. While I voted for the reorganization bill, most of the boys from the East voted against it. So this is a camoufiage. You know. these boys in the South are real Democrats. They were Democrats before we ever thought about it. We have this camouflage here and perhaps we might get some of them to follow and march under that banner. So you see why my friend from New York is advocating this bill. He thinks it will give him some sectional advantage, and I make that statement with the greatest respect. I read that quotation from the President's message to show that this is not the President's bill. I have stood by the President as well as any man in this House. My record is as clear as anyone's in that respect. But may I say when that section of my country is involved, I shall stand and fight as I see best for my own people.

[Here the gavel fell.]

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

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, you are familiar with how we are discriminated against so far as freight rates are concerned. It costs almost twice as much to ship from my town, Chattanooga, to Chicago, 330 miles, as it does from Chicago to Chattanooga. We have tried to do away with these discriminations, but have been unable to do so. It is not the big fellow who will feel the effects of this.

It is the little fellow for whom I am talking. It is the little industries in my district, the little canneries, the little sawmills in my district that are giving employment to those few people situated way up on the mountains and out in the country that cannot pay this wage. Those people will be out of employment. As the gentleman from Kansas said a while ago, the minimum will be the maximum, as the higher will be reduced to the lower.

Mr. Chairman, I stand up here today speaking for the little man. Instead of increasing employment, this bill is bound to put at least 2,000,000 more people on the relief rolls, in my opinion. God knows we want to keep these people off of relief as much as possible. Let us put some amendments in this bill that will aid in the direction of keeping people off the relief rolls.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the gentleman from Massachusetts has seen fit to raise the sectional line. I thank God there is no sectionalism in my veins, but when the southland is being attacked, and when discrimination is being registered against that country in which I was born and raised and upon whose hills and valleys my dear ones sleep, you may expect me to stand up for justice to that section of the country. Just after the great Civil War our people accepted defeat and when they returned to their homes many found no homes. The homes had been destroyed. Their loved ones were gone, their houses were burned, their fences destroyed, and they had no personal property. But they had more than personal property. They had that true manhood and womanhood of the southern people. The southern woman showed the same spirit as the Spartan mother when she sent her son forth to battle: Return, my son, upon thy shield or with it.

We worked and did the best we could, and as we progressed we sold in an open market and we bought in a closed market because we were an agricultural section and the other was industrial. But we continued to grow on account of climatic conditions; closer to raw material and with no labor troubles, and manufacturers came to the South, and we have been competing with northern industry regardless of the fact that we are discriminated against by railroad rates and have longer shipments to market. These conditions eXist now, and the northern industries are trying to stop the progress of the South and they feel if they can pass this bill it will really be a tariff against southern goods. I had thought this country was big enough and great enough, with improved communication and transportation, that the eastern and northern sections could realize that the prosperity of one section affected the prosperity of another. I think some day you will recognize you have made a mistake, because our moneys are constant feeders to the eastern cities.

I am sorry this question has been raised, but since it has, I, for one, shall stay with that southern country regardless of what may be my political sacrifice.

Let us salvage what is best in the bill and eliminate that which is designed to give sectional advantage to one section of the country at the expense of the other. Let us amend the bill in the true interests of the workers everywhere. Let us make of it a bill that will help the worker and the man who pays the worker his salary. It can be made to work in the mutual interest of both worker and employer. Unless it does the bill should not be passed. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU.]

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee referred to the differentials in wages paid W. P. A. workers. I wish to remind the Members there is no discrimination in W. P. A. wages in any section of the country. The law provides that wages paid to W. P. A. labor shall be equal to the prevailing wages in the respective areas of the country.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Is not that as to skilled and not unskilled labor?

Mr. BOILEAU. No; as I understand, as to all labor in the W. P. A. it is intended the prevailing wage shall be paid.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. No; I beg the gentleman's pardon, that is as to the skilled labor.

Mr. BOILEAU. I believe the gentleman is in error.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. No; I am not.

Mr. BOILEAU. The W. P. A. pays the prevailing wage, whether or not it is written into the law. On that particular point, the fact of the matter is that it does pay the prevailing wage. It makes only such difference in the wages in the various areas as unskilled labor receives in such areas. The reason you have the 16-cent per hour rate in the Southern States as compared with the 38-cent per hour rate in some of the Northern States, in communities of comparable size, is that the prevailing wage in the respective communities varies to that extent.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BOILEAU. Yes.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. I made inquiry of the W. P. A. as to how the unskilled labor was paid and I found that the

[PAGE 7289]

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

[PAGE 7290]

officials of the W. P. A. have drawn zones which include from the edge of Kentucky south. They stated to me they had figured out the rate in accordance with the standard of living, and furthermore, that what affects it is the cities or towns in the county or adjoining counties.

Mr. BOILEAU. Yes; they determine the wage according to the prevailing wage in the community. If the gentleman will read the bill we passed in the House just the other day he will find it contained a provision to the effect that W. P. A. wages should not be less per hour than the hourly wage prevailing in the various communities. The only reason there are differentials in the W. P. A. wages in the South and the North is that industrial labor bears the same differential in wage rates. I predict that if you pass this bill with a minimum of 25 cents an hour for industrial labor there will be no justification for paying one cent less than 25 cents an hour to W. P. A. workers in any section of the country, and you will automatically bring up the wage paid to W. P. A. labor in the South. I am for it. Personally I do not believe any man in the country, whether he be in the North or the South or the East or the West, should be obliged to work and provide for a family on a wage of less than 25 cents an hour or $11 per week. That is little enough for any man, and it is all we contend for in this bill. If we were fixing wages for all labor throughout the different sections of the country there would then be some justification for this claim of setting up differentials, but as long as we are only fixing a minimum wage, a wage that is so low that below it nobody could be expected to live and maintain a family in health and decency, no one can claim we are trying to discriminate against any section of the country.

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

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield very briefly to the gentleman.

Mr. COX. If the gentleman had the power to fix the wages of labor, would he in the exercise of that power totally and completely disregard the ability of the employer to pay the wage fixed, and would the—

Mr. BOILEAU. All right; I will answer the question. I do not want the gentleman to take too much of my time. The gentleman finished the speech of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I do not want him to finish my speech.

Mr. COX. Would the gentleman in the exercise of that power disregard the right of a free person to sell his own labor as he might wish?

Mr. BOILEAU. You put this hour and wage legislation into effect as it is written here, with a minimum of 25 cents, and inside of a year there will not be any employer in my State who will not pay half again that much to his employees. Most are already paying that much. In those industries where less than 25 cents an hour is being paid in my State the industries are forced to compete with certain sections of the country that are paying a lot less. You bring your standards up to standards of health and decency and we will increase ours greater than they are today. What is more, we are preserving for organized labor its right to bargain collectively, and it will bargain for a higher wage than that . By this law you merely enable our people to maintain a decent standard while you are having a decent standard in the South. We will pay higher wages than you will because-—and I say this without any reflection on the South—I believe we have been a little more progressive along these llnes in the North, and I think most of you will agree with that statement.

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

Mr. BOILEAU. I am sorry, I cannot yield. I should be very glad to yield, but I must answer the question the gentleman propounded. I have not finished answering it yet.

All we ask of you is just to give us half a chance to maintain decent levels. Something was said here about some of the northern industries paying less than 25 cents an hour. That is true, but if you will examine the northern industries that are paying less than 25 cents an hour, I believe you will findI have not finished answering it yet.and I do not claim to have studied this thing through, but make this statement simply after reflecting on some of the industries that came to my mind a moment agoI have not finished answering it yet, that practically all of the northern industries that are paying less than 25 cents an hour are in direct competition with your industries in the South. That is the trouble.

You bring your wages up to a minimum of 25 cents an hour and we will increase our wages to a much higher level than that.

The gentleman from Georgia asked me if I would be willing to fix all wages without regard to the cost of living or the cost of maintaining a family. Of course, I would not do that.

Mr. COX. No; that was not my question.

Mr. BOILEAU. I understood that to be the last part of the gentleman's question.

Mr. COX. I said without regard to the ability of the employer to pay the wage.

Mr. BOILEAU. I will say this to the gentleman: That so far as I am concerned, any industry that cannot pay a decent wage has no justification for existing. [Applause.]

Mr. COX. Then the gentleman favors monopoly?

Mr. BOILEAU. I want to be courteous to the gentleman, but my time is limited and I must refuse to yield further.

I want to make that very clear so there will not be any misunderstanding about how I personally feel about it. I think the men working in an industry have just as much right to get a living out of that industry as the man who owns the capital invested in the industry, and I do not believe in destroying capitalism either. I believe in the capitalistic system, although I believe our present capitalistic system is in need of a good deal of reform. I maintain there are more people who have a right to get a decent living out pf a business than the man who happens to own the factory. No American citizen should be required, because of the force of economic conditions, to accept a job because it happens to be the only one available and then be denied of the right to a decent living for his family and himself.

We are just fixing a minimum wage here. If we were fixing minimums and maximums, I would say there might be some cause of objection from some sections of the coun- try; but when we· are fixing the minimum wage as low as we are in this bill, I cannot see how anybody, who has any desire to help out the underprivileged in this country; can object to the standard we fix here on the ground that ·the wages are too high.

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

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FLETCHER. The gentleman said he believed that labor should have its fair share. What does the gentleman think of the profit-sharing plan that is being widely discussed now as a means of providing an equitable distribution?

Mr. BOILEAU. The trouble with most of those plans I have seen is that about 25 percent of the profit goes to 99 percent of the people in the industry and about 75 percent of the profit goes to about 1 percent of the people in the industry. The proportions are all wrong in the few experiments I have seen worked out. The idea is sound, and if it can be worked out, well and good. One good way to start distributing some of these profits is to say to the employer, You employ your men, but you are not going to ·be · permitted to employ a man at a wage so low that you ruin the whole industry, so that no one else can make a decent living out of the industry but yourself.

The gentleman from Tennessee referred to sawmills in his State, and said they could not afford to pay these wages. The remarkable thing about that is that some of the lumber mills up in my State have taken the same position. This is the thing that convinces me we have got to adopt a national program, because the lumber industry in our State is making the same complaint that the lumber industry is making down in Tennessee. If you put them both on a par and say, You cannot pay less than 25 cents an hour at the present time, and that you must gradually increase wages so that inside of 3 years you must pay at least 40 cents an hour, they will then be on a fair basis of competition, and both will be able to pay these minimum

[PAGE 7290]

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

[PAGE 7291]

wages without ruining the whole industry; but if you permit the southern industries to chisel on the northern industries, and the northern industries to chisel on the southern industries, you are not going to have decent wages in any part of the country. You must take the whole industry and make these necessary changes, and I want to emphasize this fact.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

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

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the gentleman this question: If I understand this bill correctly, the minimum wage goes up 5 cents per hour for 4 successive years on an 8-hour day, which would be an increase of 40 cents a day. Is that correct?

Mr. BOILEAU. Eleven dollars a week now and $16 a week in 3 years.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Assuming that we raise the price level up to the 1926 price level of commodities and necessities of life, where will you be the first year or the second year, or. the third 'year? Will not the increase in the price of necessities more than offset the increase in wages over the full 3-year period?

Mr. BOILEAU. It may to a certain extent, but not to the full extent, and let me say to the gentleman that the one thing this country needs more than anything else is an increased commodity price level and an increased level of property values, because if we are to stabilize at present wages and present values of real estate and all other holdings this country will continue to be in a bad condition, because the only way this country can ever pay its public and private debts is to have those debts more easily paid by increased income and increased values of property. If you increase the income of the people, of course, that will increase living costs to some extent, but you will also increase property values and the debt burden upon private citizens and upon the Government of this country and the States and municipalities will be that much more readily and easily liquidated. It is necessary for progress that there be an increased wage and an increased property value. We cannot hope to get out of the hole that we are in if we stay at the present price level and wage level.

Mr. CRAWFORD. And in that respect the gentleman is referring to the payment of debts only?

Mr. BOILEAU. Yes.

Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentleman leaves out of the question the man who has no debt?

Mr. BOILEAU. No; because that man who has no debt coming to him has property if he is solvent. He has property or he can transfer his cash into property. He gets an advantage through an increase in the value of his property. The man who has no wealth and no debts will be in the same position as he was before this change takes place. He is going along with the trend of the times. His position would not be changed one way or the other.

I do not want to indulge on any further discussion on that point, not because I would not be glad to do it if I had the time, but I want to conclude by emphasizing the point that in my mind is the controlling feature in this argument. We are fixing only a minimum wage, and that wage is only $11 a week. I submit that most of us spend that much money every week on pure luxuries, and perhaps more, and we ought to be willing that the fellow who works hard to earn a living for his family should have at least that much in order to keep body and soul together for his dependents and himself. [Applause]

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

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, for a few moments I wish to direct the attention of this Committee away from sectionalism. This is not a bill which aggravates sectionalism. The State of Pennsylvania and the industrial States of the North need this bill just as much as do the States of the South. We must think in this country in terms where we realize that one section cannot prosper at the expense of another, that one industry cannot benefit itself at the expense of another. We are all bound together inextricably, closely, by division of labor and division of services, so that the effects in one part of the country are immediately felt in other parts. This is a bill which will do more good, in my opinion, than any piece of legislation that has come before us at this session of Congress to preserve for the future our entire system of private enterprise. We have gone along for years solving the problem of mass production, but we have failed to realize in our endeavors that mass production carries with it as necessary corollary mass consumption. While we have developed producing power in America, we have entirely ignored the fact that there are millions of people who are potential customers whom we need today and that until they become customers in fact and in reality, we are going to have this depression and this serious business stagnation.

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

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Not now. This bill has a threefold purpose as I see it. First, it eliminates sweat shops-it seems to me at this point that this answers the accusation by the opposition that we who are defending the bill are doing so for political reasons or under pressure from great labor organizations. The bill does not affect organized labor, but those 5,000,000 American working men and women who have not yet been benefited by organized labor. It affects 5,000,000 people who are outside the protection of labor organizations. The A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0. are for the bill because they realize that there is a vast submerged group of our citizens which needs this help and which they cannot give them at this time.

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

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Not yet. This. bill will increase employment and aid industry by eliminating that ruthless type of competition which pays substandard wages and works labor long back-breaking hours, and it will further aid industry by furnishing those customers whom I described a few moments ago. How anybody on the floor of this House could object to this bill is more than I can understand. It demands a minimum weekly wage of $11 only. Let me remind my colleagues that the average American family today consists of four persons, and if we divide that four into the $11 a week, it gives $2.75 for a breadwinner to house and to clothe, to feed and to educate, and to give medical attention to each member of his family. That is 40 cents per day if you please. You could not do it and I could not do it. We have no right as representatives of our people to expect 5,000,000 of our fellow men to do the impossible. Any industry that cannot pay its labor $11 per week has no right to exist. It is a constant menace to our economic structure. If we are going to pull ourselves up from this depression we must provide American business with customers, customers with buying power. If we pass this wage and hour bill we are taking the first determined, constructive step in that direction. [Applause.]

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

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

BILL SUPPORTED BY A. F. OF L., C. I. 0., AND RAIL BROTHERHOODS

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the fact that this is not a C. I. 0. bill. The C. I. 0. bill that was defeated last session was a mild affair. This is the A. F. of L. bill. And the reason it was given consideration is because the American Federation of Labor is for it. So this is not a conspiracy of Moscow or the C. I. O. or of that alleged bad man, John Lewis. This is a bill of that nice gentleman, Bill Green, who is opposed to Government spending and stands well in respectable circles.

[PAGE 7291]

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

[PAGE 7292]

But, seriously, this bill is supported by the American Federation of Labor, the Committee for Industrial Organization, and the four brotherhoods. It is supported by hundreds of other organizations and opposed by all reactionaries. It is favored by Labor's Nonpartisan League. In truth it is a piece of legislation which seeks to protect labor all over our country.

IT IS FUNDAMENTAL LEGISLATION AND OF GREAT IMPORTANCE

This bill is of considerable importance to this Nation and not of superficial importance. It goes to the very economic fabric of the entire country.

It is a national matter.

As I said the other day when my friends from my part of the country said they wanted the same wages on W. P. A., it is a thing that involves our history and our present conditions.

IS THE BILL SECTIONAL? YES; IT WILL BENEFIT ALL SECTIONS

It has been said that this bill is sectional in character. Let us see whether it is or not.

No lower wages are paid in the United States of America that are paid in my district. I am not criticizing Alabama or Mississippi or Georgia. Wages paid in my district are just as low as wages paid in theirs.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this is a sectional bill, because I want the people of my district to get as good wages as the people do in the North and the West. [Applause.]

We are representatives of the United States of America, which is a nation; so we must look at this thing from a national viewpoint. When this bill was up for consideration before, the representatives of the South bitterly assailed it and defeated it.

But listen. Some of us, I think, see a little spirit of revenge on the part of our colleagues from the North and the West; they are going to put this bill over, no matter whether anybody likes it or not. My only hope is that if a reasonable amendment is presented they will give it careful consideration.

SOUTH PERSECUTED BY TARIFFS AND FREIGHT RATES

I want to say this much about the South, and it is true the South has been persecuted. For a hundred years it has been persecuted by a tariff, it is persecuted now by unfair freight rates.

As a result of all this and as a result of the incubus of the colored people who were brought there as slaves—and some of them have never really gotten out of that condition and have brought the white sharecropper to their level-—the South has the lowest living standards of any part of the United States of America.

I come before you and say: 0. K.; I throw in with you people from the North and the West; I will vote with you; but I want you to give my people in the South a square deal on freight rates and all the rest. Be fair to my people.

THE MINIMUM WAGE IS PROTECTION, NOT TARIFF ON THE SOUTH

As for this being an additional tariff on the South, it is no such thing by any stretch of imagfnation. It is a benefit to the South, because if you have tariff for the protection of industry, and we have minimum wages, you are giving our people in the South a break, some protection, some equality. This is one of the reasons I am for the bill.

Industry is advancing in the South, but the South is still an agrarian region. One thing I look upon with the highest contempt is the attitude of some of the chambers of commerce of the South. My own chamber of commerce did it once, but they do not do it any more—they advertised cheap and docile labor.

NO LONGER LET US BE DOCILE

For my part, I want the laboring people in my section of the country to exercise again that spirit of independence they exercised in the Civil War and not be docile. No violence, if you please; just ballots; and a demand that we have better standards of living. No; I don't want my people to be docile, bowed-down beggars, but upstanding, courageous Americans demanding all their rights.

Yes, sir; I want them to demand the same wages as those received by the rest of the people of the United States of America. Some say they want a differential of 10 percent lower for the South. That is nothing. ·Common labor in the South gets about one-third or one-fourth of what it does in the North. It is not a matter of 10 percent; it is the matter of a huge amount. Laborers in the South get 60 and 70 cents a day, while the same kind of labor in the North gets $3 a day. The difference is tremendous and reflects itself in health, education, and living standards in general.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

BUT JUSTICE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SOUTH

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, when we pass this bill we are asking that justice be given the South as it is to the rest of the Nation—the same kind of justice. I believe that if some concessions are asked by the South they should be considered, but I want everybody to know that, insofar as I am concerned, I am going to vote for this bill just exactly as it is, and I am not going to be soreheaded if you do not adopt amendments.

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FEDERAL DOLLARs-WHY NOT FEDERAL LAWS?

Oh, you voted and spent tens of millions of dollars in the South for the T. V. A. in Tennessee; you poured millions of dollars into Texas for the Colorado River Authority; you poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the Soath for cotton subsidies and flood control; you poured billions of dollars into the South for the W. P. A., so why, in God's name, shouldn't the South observe the laws of the land as the rest of the Nation does? If you let your Federal man come into the South with money, they are going to put laws on the South, and, as far as I am concerned, he can come on.

The people of the South are for the minimum-wage bill, and there is plenty of proof of this. LISTER HILL, our good colleague, just beat the socks off his opponent, and that was the only issue.

Down in Florida—and this is no personal reflection on our good colleague—Senator PEPPER was elected on that issue.

You who accuse the people of the South for being reactionary and stupid have got to wake up, for that just is not so. The people down South want the same protection people get over the rest of the United States.

Everybody knows that, and time will surely tell.

I believe if able enough men run for Congress upon this and other New Deal issues they will surely be elected, and I do not mean to be personal about that. As far as I am concerned, coming from a district which pays low wages, I welcome this bill.

Let it come on, because it will benefit the United States of America as a nation. We want a nation with decent standards. [Applause.]

THE WASTED LAND, BY GERALD JOHNSON; AND SOUTHERN REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, BY HOWARD ODUM—TWO GOOD BOOKS

Mr. Chairman, exercising my right to extend and revise my remarks, I wish to add certain excerpts from a book by Hon. Gerald W. Johnson, of North Carolina, who is on the Baltimore Evening Sun. His book is entitled The Wasted Land, and it concerns the South. I want to point out this Mr. Johnson is no wild-eyed Yankee meddling with our institutions; he is a first-class southerner and so accepted over the South.

Mr. Johnson gives full credit to Howard W. Odum, author of Southern Regions of the United States. Johnson's book uses Odum's, which is long, detailed, and monumental. In fact, I believe that Mr. Odum's book is the best account of the condition of the South that has ever been written.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL HURDLES OF THE SOUTH

I shall take the liberty of quoting from Mr. Johnson's book, The Wasted Land. He says: The first step for southerners is to accept the inevitable and prepare for a long pull.

But he adds:

The next step is not the introduction of any new activities, but a more compact and eftlctent organization of those already in

[PAGE 7292]

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

[PAGE 7293]

progress. This involves getting over a terrific psychological hurdle, invisible, but nonetheless formidable. It consists of the imaginary lines that bound the States.

These quotations display rather well the psychological barrier to any solution of southern problems. That is because the hurdle exists in the mind of the southerner, and likewise in the man of the North and West.

Unfortunately, some feeling is being developed among regions and their political, labor, and business representatives. What I hope is that our problems can be worked out without unpleasant statutory force upon any region.

THE SOUTH ROLLS IN RICHES; SOUTHERNERS LIE IN POVERTY

Mr. Johnson proceeds to show the unsatisfactory condition of the South, and says, By comparison with the rest of the United States the South is very rich and southerners are very poor. Then he adds:

When a region is conspicuously rich and the people who inhabit it are conspicuously poor, it is a fair presumption that their economy and statecraft are not up to the average, poor as that is by comparison with the ideal.

He proceeds:

Whether one assays its physical wealth or its spiritual wealth the result is the same—the South has much and uses little; or rather, it displays relatively small intelligence in the use it makes of them, and therefore derives a relatively small return from its immense possessions.

FORCES OF DESTRUCTION; NECESSARY WISDOM NOT DEMONSTRABLE

Answering the question as to whether the South can regain some measure of importance in the Nation, and improve itself, we read:

Granting that the region has exhibited splendid energy and vitality, especially since the turn of the century, the fact remains that there are even now tremendous forces of destruction at work in the South. Recently there has been increasing reason to believe that these forces are gaining on the forces of construction, and it is by no means unimaginable that they may eventually become dominant, sweeping the region back to a level of civilization far lower than that which it occupies today.

The destiny of the South is not yet fixed and determined.

Apparently its opportunity is great; but to improve that opportunity will require great wisdom, great tenacity, and great labor. The existence of the opportunity is demonstrable by examination of objective fact; but the existence of the necessary wisdom, tenacity, and industry is not demonstrable at all. On the contrary, it is evident without demonstration that they have not existed in the past in the measure required, for, if they had, the South would already occupy a position very much higher than the position it does occupy.

THE NEGRO AND THE CIVIL WAR—TWO MENTAL EXCUSES

There follows a southerner's explanation of two points so frequently mentioned as to the reason of the South's low standards. It is interesting.

Naturally southerners have found other explanations more flattering to their self-esteem, but none of these other explanations stands up under critical examination. The two that are most commonly advanced are the problems presented by a biracial population, and the destruction that accompanied and followed a disastrous war. There is a measure of truth in both these explanations. The problems that they involve are certainly no figments of the imagination, but they do not account for the present low estate of the region. The presence of the Negro complicates every social, political, and economic phase of southern life; but his presence likewise adds millions of brawny laborers to the South's available manpower. Intelligently handled, it is very efficient labor, too; but it is, to say the least, open to doubt that the South has ever handled the Negro in such a way as to make him the most valuable asset he is capable of becoming.

As for the war, firing ceased more than 70 years ago. Two full generations have lived since the end of the conflict. If the South has not recovered from the war by this time, then it is idle to expect it ever to recover. Indeed, it is easy enough to see, now, that the economy under which the South was operating before 1860 was virtually in a state of collapse when the war struck_ it; had there been no war, slave labor and a one-crop agricultural system would have proved ruinous, just the same.

It is arguable that the most serious injury inflicted on the South by the war of the sixties was not the material and moral destruction that it caused, not the bloodshed, not the aftermath of reconstruction, but simply the providing of a convenient scapegoat on which the South could lay the blame for all its subsequent economic, social, and political failures. Had our economy crashed without a war, then we might have searched more diligently and more intelligently for the economic causes of that collapse, instead of attributing everything unpleasant to the military calamity.

The terror of waste is described—which is the curse of the South. Indeed, he says, the South has thrown away 97,000,000 acres of land, and three and one-half million people have been forced to emigrate in recent years.

EVIDENCES OF FAILING CIVILIZATION

He is convinced there are strong evidences of a failing civilization. But read:

The evidences of a failing civilization are sufficiently well known. Some of them are an increasing dispossession of the tillers of the soil or their reduction to a state bordering on peonage; increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a progressively smaller group; a sort of mental and spiritual fatigue resulting in chauvinism and suspicion of new ideas; fanatical, religious, and social orthodoxy that resents fiercely any suggestion of a reexamination of established concepts; the exacerbation of racial, sectarian, and factional animosities; a growing distrust of the processes of government, reflected in an impatient refusal to tolerate the delays inseparable from the orderly administration of justice. All these are present in the South; and their presence certainly raises a question as to the permanence of its present level of civilization, nay, a question as to whether it has not already begun to subside.

CHANGE WILL SUBJECT SOUTH TO STRESSES AND STRAINS

A conclusion is then made which applies to every question in the South, whether it is of hours and wages, agriculture, or any phase of life. Indeed, he indicates that any reorganization of southern life is not going to be any easy matter.

Upon this, I quote:

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the existing economy of the South is soon to be forced into a reorganization that will subject it to some appalling stresses and strains.

SOUTHERN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ADVERTISE CHEAP LABOR

The hope is expressed that the South can learn by experience in other regions. But that the employers and employees in the Southeast will do it is by no means certain, and

Chambers of commerce in some southern towns are still advertising cheap labor and absence of union organization as advantages. In some localities there have been outbreaks of violence in industrial disput.es in which labor resorted to , sabotage and capital to the use of hired gunmen. The road is wide open to a repetition of the old error of ordeal by battle, with all its frightful waste of money and men.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 14 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MAPES].

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is neither in the interest of labor nor of the Nation as a whole. It will have the directly opposite effect upon both. The reaction against it on the part of labor in days to come may well be something akin to the reaction of the corn farmer against the recent farm legislation.

This is not an opportune time even to consider it. It is ill-timed. People, especially the people of Michigan, are in no frame of mind to consider it now. They are sick and tired of the constant agitation and turmoil of the last few years, both in industry and Government. All, except apparently a few in key positions, are praying for peace and cooperation between the Government and capital and labor. Political and industrial strife and uncertainty and persecution are largely responsible for the plight the Nation is in. This legislation will make it worse. [Applause.]

There are 13,000,000 people unemployed now. The President, in his message to Congress, on February 10, stated that 3,000,000 lost their jobs in 3 months. Mr. Hopkins, in his statement before the Senate committee a few days ago, said the number had now increased to 4,000,000 This legislation will augment the number.

The question of wages and hours is a purely theoretical one as far as the 13,000,000 unemployed are concerned, and there are more of them than are employed or at work at any wage or hours at the present time in all industries which will come within the scope of this bill. The number of those employed who can, by the wildest flight of the imagination, be benefited by this legislation by having their wages increased or their hours shortened is infinitesimal as compared with this great army of unemployed.

It will be time enough to talk about wage and hour legislation when people have something to do. Let business recover and the unemployed get back to work first. It will

[PAGE 7293]

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

[PAGE 7294]

then be time to discuss wages and hours. Business and work must precede wages and hours. The unemployed ask for bread. By this legislation we give them a stone.

The legislation is misnamed. It should be called a facesaving rather than a wage and hour bill. Take away the face-saving feature of it and it would not be here. [Applause.]

Why is it that the people of Michigan, especially, are in no frame of mind to consider legislation of this kind now temperately? Let me call as a witness to answer that question one of the advocates of the legislation.

The United Automobile Worker, printed in Detroit, in its issue of May 14, 1938, quotes Homer Martin as saying, in a speech to the executive board of his organization, that weekly production in the automobile industry is less than 50 percent of what it was last year, and now listen to this—I quote him verbatim:

This falling off in production has brought with it consequent unemployment amounting to approximately 70 percent of all employees in the industry. The balance who are working are only part-time, and it is safe to say—

He continued—

that the total pay roll of the automobile industry has fallen off nearly 80 percent

That is one of the reasons why the people of Michigan are in no frame of mind to consider legislation of this nature at this particular time.

Think of it! The total pay roll of the great automobile industry has fallen off nearly 80 percent in less than a year. How much of that falling off is due to his work and leadership Mr. Martin does not say, but he has been in Washington in the last few days lobbying some of the Members of the Michigan delegation in Congress to vote for this bill, which will bring about a further reduction in employment.

It may be that the Federal Government can fix the wages and hours of a going concern as long as it can keep going, although there is some doubt about that among good lawyers, but there is no way for a concern to keep going if it does not have the business nor money to meet its pay roll unless the Government is prepared to furnish it the money. When its capital is exhausted it is obliged to stop and its employees are obliged to seek employment elsewhere. That is the condition of a great many businesses today.

Mr. FLETCHER. Wlll the gentleman yield for a brief question?

Mr. MAPES. I am sorry. I have not time to yield to my friend.

Mr. FLETCHER. The enactment of this legislation will improve conditions.

Mr. MAPES: On the contrary, it will make them worse. The enactment of this legislation will further increase unemployment, not reduce it.

It is bound to increase unemployment unless all human experience is reversed. It will put more people out of work than it will help to get work. The less efficient wili be compelled to give way to the more efficient.

A news item in the Washington Post last Tuesday, May 17, speaking of the minimum-wage law for the District of Columbia, operating, as it does, in a restricted area and administered, as it is, by an administrative board, gives some indication of what may be expected if this bill is passed. I quote from the story in the Post, as follows:

Scores of women are losing. their jobs because of adoption of minimum-wage scales in industries here, Rose Brunswick, business agent for the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Alliance, charged yesterday. • • •

Miss Brunswick said 50 waitresses have been discharged since the basic rate went into effect May 8—that is in 1 week's time. Many hotel maids also have been dismissed, she said. • • •

The union representative sald certain employers were discharging part-time employees in the public housekeeping industry, because they were unw1lllng to pay the prescribed 40 cents per hour for part-time work.

That news story was followed the next day by an editorial, as follows:

JOBS AND MINIMUM WAGES

Reports that minimum wages recently established in Washington have resulted in the dismissal of a substantial number of employees should be of special interest on Capitol Hill where the wage and hour bill is still under consideration.

The rates of pay for women employed in local retail establishments and in the public housekeeping industry were fixed after careful studies by groups representing employers, employees, and the public. Undoubtedly these minimum-wage conferences analyzed the conditions within each industry and made an earnest effort to protect the interests of female workers. The minimum wages they established are by no means exorbitant—ranging from $14.50 for hotel maids to $17 for retail clerks. Yet they appear to have resulted in the dismissal of a considerable number of women whose services are valued by employers at less than the minimum fixed.

Under the national wage and hour bill sponsored by the House Labor Committee there would be no careful adjustment of minimum wages to the conditions of each industry in each locality. On the contrary, a rigid minimum would be fixed for all industries affecting commerce throughout the country. And within s years that minimum would be considerably higher than the lowest rates established in Washington, despite the fact that in most of the States living costs are lower than they are here.

Congress ought not to ignore the very real implication in the District's experience that the wage and hour bill would cause a good deal of unemployment at a time when a staggering number of individuals are already without jobs. That measure was pressed in the House largely as a means of creating purchasing power. Insofar as it might raise wages, this reasoning is correct. But sponsors of the bill entirely overlooked the counteracting effect of dismissals likely to result from the elevation of low-bracket wages above the ability of many employers to pay.

In some industries there are large numbers of employees who are kept at work only because their inefficiency can be offset by low wages. If minimum wages are fixed with no allowance for such conditions Congress ought to prepare for a permanent expansion of relief rolls.

A rigid national law, such as the bill before us contemplates, would multiply a hundred or a thousand fold the evils and distress caused by this law for the District of Columbia.

A law applying alike to all industries the country over, With its vast expanse of territory and its varied climatic conditions, does not appeal to me as either fair or workable. Different wages are paid by different industries in the same locality and frequently by different concerns in the same industry. Nor does the contention that it costs as much to live in a warm climate as in a cold one, or in the South as it does in the North, appeal to me. It just does not make sense. Everyone knows, instinctively, that that is not true. Rents are higher and fuel costs more in the North. Snow plows and winter overcoats are necessities in the North. They are more than useless in the South. Furthermore, evezyone knows from his own personal experience that he is more efficient and can accomplish more on a cool day than he can on a hot one. For one, I have no disposition to be a party in the passage of legislation to punish any section of the United States or to tell it how it must conduct its business and I have no thought that any such legislation, if passed, will succeed. The northern industrialist who advocates this legislation as a protection to him against southern competition may well be asked what has become of his criticism and bitterness against regimentation.

Labor is by no means united in support of this bill, any more than it was in support of the b111 which was before the House in December, as is indicated by the fact that some units of the American Federation of Labor have gone on record against it in spite of the recommendation of their national officers for it.

This legislation will weaken organized labor and the cause of collective bargaining. Restore prosperity and the labor unions will take care of wages and hours, instead of a paternalistic government fixing them at a point far below a living standard. When times are good there is no trouble about wages. The minimum fixed in this bill would be ridiculous in prosperous times, when the cost of living is higher and the necessities of life are moving at a high dollar cost.

What labor wants and is entitled to is a fair division of profits, whether times are bad and wages low or whether times are good and wages are higher.

[PAGE 7294]

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

[PAGE 7295]

Organized and skilled labor, especially, should keep in mind that the passage of the legislation will reduce the wages of more people now employed than it will raise. Whether the minimum becomes the maximum or not, the tendency is bound to be in that direction. We are told that 96 percent of industry in the United States now pays more than the minimum fixed in the bill for the first year. Why fix a wage below what American labor receives today?

This legislation will further disturb business and postpone the time when the great mass of unemployed will be able to get jobs and back to work in private industry. It has already had its effect in that respect.

It will not do away with the chiseler. It will only enable him to cite the law in justification of his chiseling.

It will not benefit anyone in Michigan. We have no sweatshops nor child labor in Michigan.

With a world in want, it proposes to put a further limitation on production.

It will have no material effect upon the big employers of labor anywhere, such as the United States and other steel companies and the automobile industry. The burden of it will fall upon small business, which is already having all it can do to keep going. What effect will a law fixing a minimum wage of 25 cents or 40 cents per hour have on the Ford Motor Co., for example, that maintains a minimum wage of $6.00 per day? Big business, if it wants to run more than the maximum hours can do so without increasing wages or its weekly pay roll one iota, by the simple process of reducing the hourly wage for 40 hours enough to enable it to pay one and one-half for as much overtime as it cares to run. The wage and hour provision of the bill are meaningless as far as big business is concerned.

No adequate study has been made of the ultimate effect of the legislation to justify its enactment into law at this time. No one knows or has any reasonable idea how many employees it will affect or how much it will disturb our whole economic and industrial system.

Mme. Perkins, speaking over the radio a few days ago of the estimates of the Department of Labor, had this to say:

Our calculations concerning the number of persons who would be affected by wage and hour legislation have been based upon the assumption that business activity will return to the level of the summer of 1937, and upon the minimum of 40 cents per hour and the maximum of 49 hours, which will eventually be reached under the present proposal.

Since the summer of 1937, 4,000,000 people have lost their jobs and this bill for the first year fixes a minimum wage pf 25 cents per hour, not 40 cents, and a maximum work· week of 44 hours, not 40 hours. Mme. Perkins makes no attempt to estimate the number that will be affected under conditions as they exist today under the provisions of this bill for the first year providing for 25 cents per hour and a 44-hour week.

It is said that the committee substitute now before the House was drafted in the Department of Labor and that it was not considered or discussed more than 1 hour by the whole Committee on Labor of the House before it was reported out.

It should be recommitted to the committee for further study and consideration at a more opportune time.

Few men in this House have supported as much labor legislation as I have and let no man say that I am not a friend of labor or the man who works because I am not in favor of the passage of this legislation now. No one can get away with any such statement. I am a better friend of labor in opposing this legislation than are those who are advocating its passage as time will show. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. RABAUT].

Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Chairman, when my colleague from Michigan, Mr. MAPES, across the aisle, undertakes to speak for the whole State of Michigan, it seems proper that one on the Democratic side spould take the floor in defense of the wage and hour bill. There was a time years ago when you stood at your mother's knee and you thought something of the phrase: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It has been amply said here this afternoon that this legislation will provide a minimum of $2.75 a week for each member (four in a family) on which to subsist. Yes, $11 a week is the minimum-wage provision set in the proposed legislation, yet my colleague says the people of Michigan are sick of it. I cannot let that statement go unchallenged, for I, too, represent some of the people of Michigan, and while to many in my district the passage of this legislation will mean nothing personally to them, nevertheless I feel that from a broad point of view they, too, still remember and believe: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

My colleague refers to the bill as theoretical. Yes, theoretical; except to those suffering without its provisions. I differ with his statement as to labor's position on the bill, for it is my distinct understanding the two major labor organizations have approved the measure. As to his reference to the chiselers I bid him regard his words as a consolation to them as compared to my vote.

Mr. Chairman, when the wage and hour bill was pending before the House during the last session I put in the RECORD a statement showing how many automobiles were bought in States where the wages are low. I also placed in the RECORD a statement showing the amount of material bought by automobile companies from those same States. There is no ratio at all between the two purchases. The purchases made by the automobile people are far greater than those made by the buyers of its product in the low-pay wage States. Therefore an injustice is done to many in the industry—the owners of the industry, the workers in the industry, and, indirectly—because of State relationship to the Nation itself.

Mr. Chairman, there can be no argument about this bill. It is a bill that needs the downright, sound attention of a nation and it needs it now. There is nothing. to the gentleman's statement this is not the opportune time. In legislative bodies you have had that argument for years, and you will continue to have it until the rocks, worn with age, crash at Niagara Palls. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SAUTHOFF].

Mr. SAUTHOFF. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the wage and hour bill and shall support it even though some of the amendments that I hope will be adopted are not favorably received. I am in favor of the Coffee and Biermann amendments and trust that they will be adopted. In addition to the ills which these amendments seek to remedy, I find another weakness in the bill which I desire to call to the attention of the Committee.

As I listened to the arguments of those opposed to this bill—unemployment, the little fellow, and the threat that the minimum wage will become the maximum wage—my mind went back some 25 years to similar arguments advanced in my own State of Wisconsin when we passed the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Minimum Wage Act. None of the dire prophecies uttered at that time came to pass. In fact, my State can challenge comparison with any State in the Union on labor matters.

I was also reminded of the fact that a few days ago, when the legislative expense appropriation bill was up, I offered an amendment that instead of 20 cents per mile each Member be paid only his actual expenses. On that amendment I received only a handful of votes. Imagine my surprise when I see some of the gentlemen who voted against my mileage reduction now taking the floor and vigorously opposing the proposal to give $11 for a week's wages. Plenty for themselves, but a pittance for the underpaid.

Section 6, on page 53 of the bill, empowers the Secretary of Labor to issue an order declaring what industries affect interstate commerce. Such order shall take efiect not more

[PAGE 7295]

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

[PAGE 7296]

than 4 months after it is issued. Now let us examine the practical application of sueh a procedure. It will take the Secretary 4 months, if not 6 months, to make out a list of industries afiected by this bill. Any industry feeling itself aggrieved may, of course, ask for a hearing, and after such hearing is heard, and the decision is adverse to the industry, · it may go into the courts and may by various legal processes delay the full operation of the wage and hour bill in that industry for a year or two.

In order to prevent such a defeat of the objects and purposes of this legislation, it is my suggestion that the bill apply to all industries engaged in interstate commerce, as set forth in section 6. It might be advisable to set up a percentage basis because we would not want to define interstate commerce as applying to the weekly newspaper, which sends perhaps only 5 percent of its product across State lines. If we had such a provision there would be no delay whatever and the law would be applicable as, soon as it was signed by the President. This would do away with the delay now set up in section 6.

In addition to the foregoing, I have one other recommendation which pertains to the evil of dragging out these cases through a long, legal procedure. In low-wage industries the payroll turnover is very large. Many of these transient employees have not sufficient money to maintain themselves while litigation is in progress. Lay-offs are frequent and naturally this shifting population goes from place to place wherever a job is obtainable. As a result, when the litigation is finally disposed of, even though it is adverse to the industry in question, nevertheless it avoids proper payment to many of these employees because they have drifted away and their addresses are not furnished. Therefore, I suggest that as a condition precedent to, the right to hold up any wage payments under this act, the industry taking the appeal be required to pay into court, weekly, sums sufficient to take care of its employees adversely affected. This will guarantee some measure of security to the employee and also will point out quite forcibly to the employer that he cannot side-step his duty to society by resorting to a legal subterfuge. Of course, I appreciate that there are industries that will have a preper legal claim to be exempt from the provisions of the law and that no hardship should be imposed upon them, but I am satisfied that the court will properly impound these funds and in the event that the industry is successful in its action, the money will be returned intact to the proper officer of such industry, and as a result no honest employer with a sound legal claim will suffer any damage; while on the other hand, the industrial sharpshooter and chiseler will be balked in his efforts to cheat his employees out of their rights. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON~ Mr ~ Cha.irman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GILDEA].

Mr. GILDEA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that tomorrow when this bill is read under the 5-minute rule, the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. RAMSPECK], who is chairman of our Labor Subcommittee, will offer an amendment substituting for this bill the subcommittee bill. I am hopeful the members of this committee will give serious consideration to Mr. RAMSPECK's substitute bill.

A determined efiort will be made to stop all amendments. That is the announced program and apparently the bill will go through as scheduled.

I said before the Committee on Rules and before the Committee on Labor, when we put enforcement in the hands of the Department of Justice we are doing something that to my mind is contrary to all labor efforts down through the years. Labor has always fought injunctions. Enforcement by the Department of Justice of all provisions of this bill may turn out to be legislative injunction. It has been my contention that with enforcement of the wage-hour bill in the hands of the Department of Justice, a labor organizer going into unfriendly territory will be told, Get out or go to jail. Labor organizers will be told we have no need for labor organizers--we have Federal law governing the hours to be worked and the rate to be paid.

By unfriendly territory I do not infer the Mason and Dixon's line to be the equator between friendly and unfriendly. Pennsylvania has had its Hershey, New Jersey is still afflicted with Hagueism, and Florida just this last week put three labor organizers—a woman and two men—in jail for no other offense than because they sought to add 1 cent per box to the 4 cents workers were being paid to pack tomatoes.

It seems unbelievable but I want to read into the RECORD the instance as recorded in the current issue of Labor—official organ of 15 recognized standard railroad labor organizations. In the issue of Thursday, May 24, 1938, we find under a two column front page head this article:

YEAR JAIL SENTENCE PENALTY FOR ORGANIZING IN FLORIDA—ATTEMPT TO ADD A PENNY TO WAGES OF LOW-PAID WORKDS CALLED CONSPIRACY BY COUNTY JUDGE; TESTIMONY OF EMPLOYER JUSTIFICATION FOR HARSH SENTENTCE

BRADENTON, _ FLA., May 19. It's a crime, punishable by a year's imprisonment at hard labor, for trying to unionize low-paid workers in this vicinity.

County Judge Sam J. Murphy has just imposed that sentence on three workers—a woman and two men—who were leaders in a newly organized A. F. of L. local union for agricultural workers. They were arrested when they began a movement to secure an increase of 1 cent a box on the 4 cents workers were being paid for packing tomatoes.

The original charge against them was conspiracy to organize. This was changed to conspiracy to prevent divers persons from going to work, after local authorities had been reminded that the Wagner-Connery labor-relations law guarantees the right of organization to all workers.

Virtually the only evidence against the union leaders was the testimony of an employer that the trio were leaders in agitation for the 1-cent pay raise, and that a woman employee had been made nervous when approached to sign a petition for the increase.

Pending the outcome of habeas corpus proceedings, the three defendants are held 1n Jall in default of $350 bail each.

Mr. Chairman, in asking support for the Ramspeck amendment, I do not base the request solely on objections to Department of Justice enforcement. In my estimation the setting up of a commission or five-man board to have complete jurisdiction over the whole problem of wages and hours, to establish rates on the value of service rendered, to regulate hours with a view to the economic problems involved—these are the paramount questions at issue. They will not be solved by an inflexible act of Congress, and we must not delude ourselves into believing that passage of this bill will automatically settle controversies that have disturbed this country since industry took over the regulation of our national living conditions.

Forty-four hours per week at 25 cents per hour will give a weekly wage rate of $11 per week to full-time workers coming within provisions of the bill.

A Pennsylvania survey of over 170,000 cases of direct-relief grants in July 1936 showed that more than 29 percent of the cases were receiving grants-in-aid of wages. A large proportion of these workers had full-time employment. Average full-time earnings amounted to less than $11 a week in more than half the cases, while over 10 percent of the cases had full-time earnings of less than $7 a week.

To aid the submerged wage group by setting a minimum standard of wages, to spread employment by establishing maximum hours beyond which industry cannot work its employees, to eliminate for all time child labor—these are the purposes of the pending bill. My vote will be recorded in favor of its passage.

Believing its administrative features to be almost as important as the bill itself, I intend voting for the Ramspeck substitute, and I am hopeful when that amendment is offered the North will forget all sectionalism and support a sincere effort on the part of a most distinguished Member of the House, the gentleman from Georgia, who is determined to write the best bill that can be written for all sections of the country. Tomorrow I hope all true friends of wage-hour legislation will prove their friendship by supporting the Ramspeck amendment.

[PAGE 7296]

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

[PAGE 7297]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. MEAD].

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

Mr. MEAD. Mr. Chairman, I should like a larger allotment of time to discuss the fundamental and underlying question at issue today. However, in the brief time allotted to me, I wish to express the thought that I believe every Member of Congress can vote for this bill, feeling deep down in his heart that if he does so it will result in an improved economy throughout the country as well as in his own district. The Nation's economy is like the anatomy of the individual. If it is sick in one of its various essential organs, it is sick all over. If a part of the body of an individual is weak or suffering, that individual is suffering all over. Therefore, in view of the fact that this country of ours is suffering from a widespread epidemic of unemployment, any attack upon that evil is bound to result in much good not only to the sections that may be suffering most but to the entire United States.

It is difficult for many men whose economic education takes root away back in the crude tool period of insufficiency and whose philosophy is grounded in the philosophy of the rugged individualist to understand the need for such a bill as this. In that early period of our country's existence it was difficult for mechanics and workingmen to produce with crude tools sufficient to give all the people of the United States the necessities of life, but such a man does not realize, unfortunately for him and for our economy, that we are living in an age of abundance, that the distribution of our devastating surpluses is the crying need of the hour, and that these destructive surpluses, such as cotton and wheat, can be distributed only when the country is free from the economic paralysis that exists in industry today. If my State of New York is prosperous, it is because it is the best market on earth for the cotton of the South and the wheat of the West, and if the great cotton-growing States of the South and the wheat producing areas of the West are enjoying prosperity, then the businesses of the industrial sections of the country will likewise enjoy a wholesome economy. In the crude-tool period of our Government's history there may have been some justification for long hours and low wages, because under those conditions a meager sufficiency of essentials could have been produced for distribution among the people of the country.

As this is but a minimum-wage and a maximum-hour bill, differentials are not a consideration.

Differentials will exist due to demands for labor, due to the effectiveness of labor organizations, and for other causes.

However, in a modest proposal such as this, a wage differential as well as an administrative board are not required.

Today, due to the operation of the uncanny machines that engage in the production of articles, long hours and low wages cannot be justified, because we have a surplus of every known and essential commodity. We could feed and clothe 200,000,000 people, and the fact that millions of our people are unable to buy when we have everything to distribute is the shame of the age and must be corrected by legislation such as that which is now before us. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. DIXON].

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, as I stand before you today I cah say that I attended all of the hearings before this committee with our good pal, Billy Connery, who has passed away, and his successor as chairman of the Labor Committee, Mrs. NORTON.

Something has been said here about Mme. Perkins and reference has been made to her being a lady. I want to tell you that if it had not been for that grand lady who is chairman of this Labor Committee I am fearful we would not have a labor bill before us here today. [Applause.] Her trials and tribulations have been something terrible. You have received letters from your district, but I want to tell you that you have not received anything like the letters she has received. She has steadfastly held to her job and has brought this bill before you today.

Mr. Chairman, it is a sad story when we think of the South and the East and the North and the West being in some kind of a controversy here. When we were having our meetings the North was there, the South was there, the East was there, and the West was there. There was no one who made application to come before the committee who was not heard. We did everything we could possibly do, and I can tell you now that the gentlewoman from New Jersey, the chairman of our committee, deserves the congratulations of the poor people throughout the length and breadth of our land whom we are trying to help, because it has been with her help that we have been able to bring this measure to you.

So I am anxious that you be very careful because there are going to be some damnable amendments offered here today, and if you permit those amendments to be put on this bill you are going to be responsible for allowing it to be killed the same as they killed it before. So be on your guard. If an amendment is something that you think is going to be for your district, but is going to hurt the bill, be a man and vote it down. [Applause.]

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

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, this is a fair, a just, and a humane proposal. [Applause.] I do not care what the attitude of the President is, it is the duty of Congress to legislate and it is the duty of the President to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. I have heard it claimed that this was the President's bill. That is not an accurate statement. This bill was sponsored by the American Federation of Labor and was opposed by President Roosevelt. The President sponsored the original bill setting up a commission that was defeated in the House. In speaking in opposition to that bill, the original wage and hour bill, on February 6, 1938, over the radio, I stated:

I hold the President strictly responsible for blocking wage and hour legislation by law and insisting that the Congress create more bureaucracy and virtually turn the entire control of labor and industry over to the Chief Executive through his appointees. Both labor and industry are opposed to such control and regimentation. If President Roosevelt w1ll withdraw his demand for a board or commission to control hours and wages, the Congress could put through, without further delay, legislation establishing minimum wages and maximum hours by law, as advocated by the American Federation of Labor. Failure to enact that type of legislation rests squarely with the President and not with the Congress, which is ready to legislate.

I made this statement over 3 months ago. It was an accurate statement at that time and it is still an accurate statement, and yet there are those who are trying for partisan reasons to give the President credit for this bill. This ought to be a nonpartisan measure. It is a humanitarian proposal. It crosses all party lines. By no stretch of imagination or New Deal propaganda can the President claim authorship of the present Uniform wage and hour bill. Although President Roosevelt has been acclaimed as being friendly to labor, I believe he is solely responsible for the present depression through his economic fallacies which have destroyed business confidence and caused tragic unemployment and destitution among 13,000,000 American wage earners, and that he has done more harm to both labor and the country than any other President in our history.

However, that is not the issue. The issue before the Congress is whether you are or are not in favor of the new wage and hour bill. The present bill, as written, sets up a uniform standard of hours and wages throughout the Nation, by law and not by bureaucracy.

We must not forget that this is exactly the bill that a few months ago was turned down when it was offered as a substitute for the Roosevelt commission bill, and I reiterate that those of us who opposed the commission bill then will continue to oppose it in whatever form it may be brought up. We opposed it on the fundamental grounds that we are against any further regimentation, further bureaucracy, further centralization and control over industry and labor. We are opposed to giving the President any additional power to control through Executive orders either business or labor.

[PAGE 7297]

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

[PAGE 7298]

As far as the Republican side of the House is concerned, we are ready and willing to take back some of the powers that have been already conferred Upon the Chief Executive by the Congress and thereby restore representative government as soon as possible. There is a misunderstanding back home, not in the Congress, but among the people, who still think that this bill sets up a commission. It does no such thing. The original bill would have established a commission and created a superbureaucracy by giving it a strangle hold over labor and industry. It concentrated more power in the hands of the President and would have set up additional New Deal regimentation by bureaucratic edicts and administrative agents.

Under the new bill wages begin at a minimum of 25 cents an hour and go up to 40 cents over a period of 3 years. The same thing is true in regard to the hours of labor, the hours beginning at 44 and going down to 40 in 3 years' time. It sets up certain definite standards throughout the country by way of uniform law and uniform legislation and I do not know any bill in many years that I have supported in this House to which I have given my support with more real satisfaction, more genuine conviction, and more absolute appreciation of the justice of the proposal and that I am doing the right thing, not only by my constituents, but by all the American people, labor and industry alike. I realize that in the South they have different problems and that they know their problems there far better than we know them in the North, but I :cannot understand how anybody from the North, whether he be Democrat or Republican, can oppose this bill, establishing minimum wages of $12 a week and maximum hours of 44 hours, going down to 40 hours in 3 years, and going up in wages to $16 a week in the same period. The gentleman from New York [Mr. MEAD], who has been a champion of labor for many years in the House, very properly said that we are a great and rich country.

I believe that this is the greatest country in the world, and that if any country is worth living in it is the United States of America, but it must be worth living in for all of our people, not for just a few of us or for you and me who have $10,000 salaries as Members of Congress. Speaking for myself, I have never known want, I have never gone without food, I have never had to struggle for a home or shelter and clothes, but there are two or three million American citizens who are just as good as you and I who today are not getting the necessities of life and who are working for starvation wages at long hours, destructive of both their happiness and health. I say to this House that if you desire to combat communism and radicalism, then you should support this kind of humanitarian legislation providing a square deal and social and industrial justice for the two or three million wage earners who are not getting a square deal today. This bill seeks to put an end to sweatshop wages and hours and to intolerable labor conditions in certain factories, mills, and mines doing interstate business where employees are working long hours and getting starvation wages. I do not propose by my vote to condemn these two or three million industrious and loyal American citizens to a continuation of poverty, squalor, destitution, undernourishment, and long hours. We have by this bill a chance to strike a biow for social and industrial justice and a square deal for labor in America, and I hope it will be done regardless of party lines, and regardless of sectional lines. I say to you people from the South, this is not an agricultural bill. This bill only affects interstate commerce, and the wage earners in factories, mills, and mines. The South will be much better off when you pay a minimum wage of $16 to your wage earners in your mills and factories. This is not sectional legislation. Every State in the Union today is accustomed to free trade among the States, but how can you continue to have free trade if some of the States pay wages of less than $12 a week and others have humane standards of wages. If you people in the South will not put your house in order by establishing minimum standards of wages and maximum hours for interstate commerce then we in Congress propose to legislate in this bill and give you 3 years in which to put your economic house in order.

There is one thing that I want to call to the attention of the Democratic side of the House and I know that it will not be palatable. I believe this bill will be enacted into law almost as it passes the House of Representatives, not as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES] said. I do not believe it will be rewritten and patched up in the Senate.

This bill is fair, equitable, and just, and I believe it will pass the Senate by the same majority that it passes the House, but once the bill is enacted into law you on the Democratic side will have to follow it up with adequate tariff protection. You cannot permit the low-priced and cheap-labor goods of Europe and Asia to be dumped into the American markets to take the jobs of those American wage earners who are now being poorly paid, who will continue to be poorly paid even under this bill. You cannot crucify honest and industrious, patriotic and loyal American labor on a cross made by the cheap, sweated labor of Europe and Asia out of the cheap and sweated commodities of Europe and Asia. Our American wage earners must have adequate and proper protection against these low-priced goods that will be dumped into America once this bill goes into effect. Let me, on the other hand, call attention to those friends of labor who may seek to increase this bill to 40 cents an hour and 40 hours a week immediately, that if they bring in that kind of an amendment to this compromise American Federation of Labor bill, they will be doing a disservice to labor, and the friends of labor in this House should vote such amendments down. Anyone who introduces that type of amendment under the circumstances is doing so only for home consumption and for his own political advancement and against the interests of labor. I hope all such amendments will be voted down and that all the friends of labor who want to provide a square deal for our wage earners and for social and industrial justice will vote for the passage of the Norton wage and hour bill setting up a uniform standard of wages and hours throughout the Nation. [Applause.]

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

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, there are reforms in legislation which come about quickly and there are those which come about slowly as the mills of the Congress grind year in and year out here at the Nation's Capital. Certainly here is a reform from the standpoint of humanitarian legislation which is long overdue by direct action of the Congress of the United States in attempting to fix wages which are right and hours which are right, and working conditions which are right for the masses of those who are underprivileged in industry in this country.

Stripped of all its technical verbiage; stripped of all its coloring, this proposal brought to the floor by the House Committee on Labor simply defines oppressive child labor and substandard labor conditions. What does this measure that we are considering today propose? It simply proposes that we forbid the employment of children under 16 in industry and there is regulation for those between the ages of 16 and 18 in hazardous industry and enterprise. We attempt a fair and just regulatory provision to take care of that group. It also prohibits the payment of less than 25 cents an hour in the first year, 30 cents an hour in the second year; 35 cents an hour in the third year, and 40 cents an hour as it goes into operation thereafter. In the next place it prohibits employment for more than 44 hours a week in the first year, 42 hours in the second, and 40 hours thereafter. Lastly, it provides for simply the enforcement of the provisions of this measure through the Federal courts of the country.

When the wage and hour bill was before us last December there were those Members who stood on this floor and opposed its provisions because they said it was a further delegation of authority and that it made for added

[PAGE 7298]

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

[PAGE 7299]

bureaucracy and that it provided for the seizure of factory records and the policing of factory premises. Those who opposed the legislative proposal on that score, when it was being considered here before, cannot in all justice to the pending measure oppose it for those reasons now. Certainly the Congress of the United States, acting upon a bill which brings the issue clearly before us, cannot base its opposition to this measure upon the charges of bureaucracy, delegation of power, and unfair seizure which was written according to the opponents of the other bill into the previous measure which was recommitted to the House Committee on Labor.

I say to the Members this afternoon that certainly we as legislators, not only for the districts we represent but as legislators for the Republic at large, cannot fail longer in our obligation to the millions of men and women—and remember a large percentage are women—who are laboring today under sweatshop conditions not alone in the Southern States but in the North, East, and in the West as well. We certainly, as Members of Congress, will not allow this opportunity to go by without saying by our voices and our votes that the intolerable conditions existing in industry today shall be wiped out regardless of any sectional issue which is raised upon this important matter. [Applause.]

Passage of this measure will bring about no dislocation of business and industry. The minimum-pay scale starts at the very low figure of $11 a week for the first year, $12.60 for the second year, $14 for the third year, and $16 thereafter. Those industrialists who desire to pay decent wages must not continue to be subjected to unfair competition brought. on by sweatshop conditions with substandard pay.

The editor of the Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette has well said in an editorial of a few days ago that—

No lasting prosperity, no real sound economic system can be built upon the foundation of low wages. To restrict sharply the wages of those who are your customers is silly on the face of it. Cheap wages never have brought real prosperity and they never will.

The present administration has an obligation to bring about enactment of a wage and hour bill. It is gratifying for me, as a member of the Labor Committee of the House, to find today the membership of this body, regardless of party or section, joining forces to write into the law of the land this badly needed social and humanitarian legislation. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I Yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. DEMPSEY].

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. DEMPSEY].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. DEMPSEY] is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am certain there is not a Member of this House who thinks that 25 cents an hour is too high a wage for any industry. I believe also that, in view of the unemployment situation as it exists today, 44 hours a week is certainly sufficiently long to work any employee.

The bill we are now considering can be a great boon to the country or it can work a great injury to the Nation, depending entirely upon the manner in which it is administered. No matter what we write into this bill, if improperly administered, it will be a failure. The great fear I have heard expressed does not exist with persons or concerns engaged in interstate commerce but is felt by small business concerns who feel that they are going to come within the provisions of the bill, when, as a matter of fact, I find on accurate information from the committee they will not be affected at all. The owners of small business houses are not afraid of the wage provisions, not afraid of the hour limitations, but they are afraid of the tremendous amount and prohibitive cost of the bookkeeping and records involved—matters with which they are unfamiliar.

That is what really is feared. I have taken this time, not to make a speech on the bill but to ask the chairman of the Committee on Labor, who is thoroughly informed on the measure, one or two questions with reference to how it will affect local people and concerns or those engaged purely in intrastate business. May I ask the gentlewoman from New Jersey whether by the wildest stretch of the imagination, or regardless of any possible administrative interpretations, this bill can in any way affect such business as that of the local groceryman, druggist, clothing store, meat dealer—any mer-chant, in fact—laundry, hospital, hotel, or even transportation companies operating solely within a State?

Mrs. NORTON. Absolutely not.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Insofar as I am concerned, that satisfies most of the complaints I have received about this proposed legislation. I think the fear arises from a misunderstanding of the bill rather than from the bill itself.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEMPSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. I have been unable to get time.

The gentleman is familiar with the Grange amendment. Does the gentleman not feel that is quite essential to perfect this bill for the protection of agriculture and livestock producers?

Mr. DEMPSEY. I do; and I voted for the Grange amendment when the bill was last considered.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it plain at the outset that my position in opposition to the committee substitute does not mean that I am advocating a differential between the North and South. As a matter of fact, in committee I declined to support a bill drafted by representatives of the administration which would have arbitrarily written into the law a differential in favor of the South. I would not vote for such legislation and I am at a loss to understand how anybody can justify an arbitrary differential based solely on a line drawn across the country. When the bill comes to the amendment stage I expect to offer as a substitute the bill H. R. 10538, which was drafted by a subcommittee of the Committee on Labor of which I had the privilege of being chairman. I am not going to attempt in the short time I have available at this time to go into a discussion of the details of that proposal. Suffice it to say that in substance it follows the line of procedure adopted by the Senate bill, which was the line of procedure adopted by the House committee last August when on August 6 it reported a bill substantially like the one I expect to propose here tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I contend that the present proposal is not in accordance with the request made by the President of the United States in his message to Congress dated May 24, 1937. In that message the President stated very plainly that we could not expect by one fell swoop to bring into line the low-wage conditions existing in some sections of the country with the higher-wage conditions in other sections of the country. He asked for a flexible procedure by which those things could gradually be brought together. That is the procedure followed in the subcommittee bill which I expect to offer tomorrow.

In addition, may I call the attention of the committee to the fact that with the exception of the general counsel of the American Federation of Labor no lawyer who has discussed this matter before the Labor Committee has contended that a single wage standard, such as this proposal contains, is constitutional. The present Solicitor General, Mr. Jackson, in testifying during the joint hearings before the Senate and House committees last May or June stated most positively in response to a question asked by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KELLER], that he doubted the constitutional power of Congress to fix a single rigid wage provision or a single hours' limitation. You will find that statement on page 1969 of the RECORD of December 14, 1937, when this bill was considered before.

You will also find in the RECORD of that day the legal brief submitted by Mr. Jackson, which discusses in detail the legal

[PAGE 7299]

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

[PAGE 7300]

questions involved in this proposal. We had before the subcommittee the Solicitor of the Department of Labor, Mr. Gerard Reilly, who filed a brief with that subcommittee. The substance of his opinion was that the only possible way to handle this question was by providing a delegation of power to some governmental agency. He questioned also the possibility of Congress fixing a single wage standard applicable to all industry in the various States of the Union.

We also had before the subcommittee Mr. Benjamin Cohen, a lawyer of some note, who is one of the employees of the Federal Government and is considered to be one of the most expert draftsmen in the present administration. Mr. Cohen stated in substance the same thing that Mr. Jackson and Mr. Reilly stated; that is, it was questionable whether the Congress had the power to establish a single minimum wage and a single hour's limitation. It is true that all of these lawyers stated—and it is the fact, of course, that we have no legal precedent for the establishment of wage and hour legislation by Congress. No such law has ever been attempted before, and therefore none of us can say with definiteness what the Supreme Court may do in regard to this act.

It is true, however, that we do have precedent for this type of legislation on the part of the States and in every case where there is a State law in operation the law itself does not prescribe the wages to be paid nor the hours to be worked. This power is delegated to a commission or a board under standards laid down in the act.

May I call attention to the fact that under this State-law procedure in every case that I have been able to find out anything about the results different wage scales have been prescribed for the same occupation in the same industry in the different sections of the States involved. We find also that different wage scales have been prescribed for different occupations in different industries in the same communities. It seems to me, therefore, that the experience we have with State laws, they being the only laws in existence in this country, demonstrates that we ought to pause before we adopt a rigid inflexible provision such as is contained in the present proposal.

I call your attention to the fact that in the State of New York the conditions which I have just described have resulted from the law in operation in that State, as they have in the District of Columbia from the statute which was revived last year by the Supreme Court decision in the Washington State minimum-wage law case. We find in the District of Columbia that the wage scale set was from $13.50 to $18 per week, and these wages vary according to occupations and industries. In no case has any State, as far as I have been able to find out, attempted to put into effect a single minimum-wage standard.

May I also call attention to the fact that under the Walsh-Healey Act the Secretary of Labor has fixed variations in wage scales in accordance with the authority contained in that law.

The British Government for nearly 30 years has operated under statutes providing for the imposition of minimum wages and maximum hours, and in those cases, with the vast experience of our neighbors across the water, we find they follow the technique prescribed by the Senate bill and prescribed by the substitute which I expect to offer tomorrow. In no case has the British Government attempted to fix a single wage standard for the various industries in that great country.

May I call your attention to the fact that there are varying wage scales in existence in this country. For instance, in the city of New York you will find in the five counties composing Greater New York different wage scales in existence for the same occupation in the same industry. We find differences between New York City and the smaller communities in other sections of that State. We find variations in the rentals in the different communities of the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor states that in cities of 5,000 population and less the average wage earner making less than $1,000 a year pays on the average $11 per month for housing facilities. The same wage earner making the same amount of money in the cities of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit, pays on the average $23 per month for the same type of housing. It therefore follows that if you limit the wage earner in those large cities to the same figure you give in the smaller communities, the wage earner in the smaller community has a definite advantage in real wages, and we are not bringing about equality but are simply shifting the burden from one section of the country to another.

I have before me a tabulation of rents paid in various sections of the country and I wish to use one illustration to show how rents vary in different communities in the same section of the country. A wage earner in Columbia, S. C., making less than $1,000 a year, pays on the average $12.60 a month for housing. In Gastonia, N. C., about 100 miles away, but in the same general section of the country, a similar wage earner making the same amount of money gets the same housing for $7.40 per month, on the average. It is my contention that we cannot afford to disregard the practical fact that differing conditions exist in various sections of the country, and that it is impracticable to apply a rigid wage and hour provision to the whole country.

In the subcommittee bill we fix a bottom to the minimum wage which we call the weighted average wage. I should like to call your attention to the method prescribed there and how it will operate. For instance, if we have 50,000 employees in the textile industry engaged as spinners and 5,000 of them get $8 a week, 25,000 of them $12, and $20,000 of them $14 a week, the weighted average for the 50,000 employees would be $12.40 per week, which would result in a higher minimum to start with than would be the result under the present proposal of the Committee on Labor.

The way you arrive at the weighted average is to take the number having the same occupation in a given industry and multiply the number getting each wage by the wage received, and then divide the total that you get by the total number of employees in that occupation. It is my candid judgment that under the subcommittee bill I shall offer tomorrow, H. R. 10538, you would get a higher starting wage than you would under the present proposal of the Committee on Labor.

May I call your attention to the fact that last August, when the House Committee on Labor reported a provision similar to the one I am going to offer tomorrow, that bill was endorsed by both factions of labor in this country. I have in my hand, although I will not take the time to read it now, a letter signed by William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, substantiating that statement under date of August 9, 1937. I will place that letter in the RECORD.

In addition, I have a letter dated August 4, 1937, expressing the appreciation of Mr. Green for my personal consideration of the amendments he offered to the committee and which the committee accepted. Further, I am going to ask permission to place in the RECORD the minority report which I filed on this measure. In conclusion, may I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are faced in this proposal with a problem which is more complex, in my judgment, than the fixing of freight rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is my honest and sincere opinion that if we are to pass a wage and hour bill which has any hope of being successful it must be a bill which delegates authority to an independent board which can take into consideration all of the varying factors existing in the various industries and in the various sections of this country. This board must have the power, after consideration of those factors industry by industry, to fix a fair wage, one which can be paid by the employer and one which will give justice and eliminate unfair competition. [Applause.]

In his message of May 24, 1937, on wage and hour legislation, among other things, the President said:

These rudimentary standards will of necessity at the start fall far short of the ideal. Even in the treatment of national problems there are geographical and industrial diversities which practical

[PAGE 7300]

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

[PAGE 7301]

statesmanship cannot wholly ignore. Backward labor conditions and relatively progressive labor conditions cannot be completely assimilated and made uniform at one fell swoop without creating economic dislocations.

With the establishment of these rudimentary standards as a base we must seek to build up, through appropriate administrative machinery, minimum wage standards of fairness and reasonableness, industry by industry, having due regard to local and geographical diversities and to the effect of unfair labor conditions upon competition in interstate trade and upon the maintenance of industrial peace.

During the hearings on the subject, the following colloquy took phice between Mr. Robert H. Jackson and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KELLER] :

Representative KELLER. It would require very considerable time, would it not, for this Board to set the different minimums for the various divisions of our industries?

Mr. JACKSON. I suppose it would take some time. I would not know just what time it would take, but it would take time, of course.

Representative KELLER. Why not set some such minimum wage in this bill which would act as a minimum until a fair minimum wage could be established by the Board?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, if you did that you would run the risk of setting a minimum which would be in some particular case a great hardship, and of having your right to fix a minimum tested 1n the courts under its most unfavorable aspect as a violation of due process.

In the brief Mr. Jackson filed with the committee, among other things, were the following statements:

As President Roosevelt has stated, "Even in the treatment of national problems there are geographical and industrial diversities which practical statesmanship cannot wholly ignore." Portions of the bill relating to wages and hours would become operative as and when the Board created by the act orders their application. This bill does not plunge the Nation headlong into a rigid and widespread policy of regulating wages and hours. · It permits the building up a body of experience and prevents the extension of regulation faster than capacity properly to administer is ac- quired. The investigations of the Board will also provide the evidence and the findings upon which the Government can rest its argument if the constitutionality of the act is assailed.

• • • • •

Due process is defined in respect of both Federal and State legislation in Nebbia v. New York (291 U. S. 502, 525):

The fifth amendment, in the field of Federal activity, and the fourteenth, as respects State action, do not prohibit governmental regulation for the public welfare. They merely condition the exertion of the admitted power by securing that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent with due process. And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. It results that a regulation valid for one sort of business may be invalid for another sort, or for the same business under other circumstances, because the reasonableness of each regulation depends upon the relevant facts.

If regulation may be dependent on relevant facts there can be no objection to delegating power to an administrative or quasijudicial board to investigate, hear evidence, and decide those facts.

The following was submitted to the subcommittee:

BRIEF SUBMITTED BY MR. GERARD REILLY, SOLICITOR OF THE LABOR DEPARTMENT, MARCH 8, 1938

You have asked my opinion as to whether there is any authority for the view that Congress may validly enact a bill providing for a uniform minimum wage of 40 cents an hour throughout the country. After examination of the authorities I have been unable to find any decision or constitutional law sustaining this view. Moreover, the decisions in the field of minimum wages and minimum prices create serious doubt as to whether such an enactment would be upheld in the light of the present state of the authorities.

While it may be assumed in the light of N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin (301 U. S. 1) that Congress has the power under the commerce clause to enact labor legislation with respect to factory employments affecting interstate commerce, it must be remembered that the exercise of this power is limited by the due process clause of the fifth amendment. This results in the same restriction upon the power of the Federal Government that the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment imposes upon the States.

For years the Supreme Court held that legislation providing for minimum wages or minimum prices in private industries (not publicly owned or affected with a public interest) violated due process by interfering with liberty of contract. Recently the Supreme Court in two decisions which must be regarded as establishing new outposts in the permissible area of industrial regulation conceded the validity of statutes regulating price fixing (Nebbia v. N. Y., 291 U. S. 502) and wage fixing (Parrish v. West Coast Hotel, 300 U. S. 379).

On each occasion, a divided court by the narrow margin of a 5-to-4 vote, while recognizing the general doctrine against impairment of liberty of contract, found that whatever infringement upon this right had taken place was justified by consideration of health, the preservation of life, or the protection of a business essential to the economic vitality of the State.

In other words, the Supreme Court has not as yet conceded plenary power to Congress or State legislatures to enter the field of price or wage regulation.

It should be emphasized that the statutes upheld in these two cases did not propose to fix price or wage rates in the provisions of the statute, but the power of so doing was delegated to factfinding agencies which under the terms of these statutes were directed to establish varying prices and wage rates in accordance with the guides and standards set forth in the laws.

In the Nebbia case the Court said that its function in the application of the fifth and fourteenth amendments was to determine in each case whether circumstances vindicate the challenged regulation as a reasonable exertion of governmental authority or condemn it as arbitrary or discriminatory, And the guaranty of due process as has been often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected Sihall have a real and substantial relation to the objects sought to be obtained. It results that a regulation valid for one sort of business, or in given circumstances, may be invalid for another sort, or for the same business under other circumstances, because the reasonableness of each regulation depends upon relevant facts (p. 525).

Assuming that Congress passed an act fixing a single inflexible minimum-wage rate and a maximum workweek, upon what relevant facts could they be sustained when applied to the various localities, industries, and classes of workers of the United States? It would seem that most factors, such as cost of living or value of services, set forth as standards for minimum wages in pending legislation may vary with localities and industries. If these factors do differ substantially with localities, industries, and classes of employees, a uniform and inflexible wage rate may deny some employees the necessities of life and grant luxuries to others. Such a wage rate, while uniform in amount, would be unequal and discriminatory when translated into living wage. If the purpose of minimum-wage legislation is to assure all employees a living wage, it is more important to secure uniformity in real wages rather than money wages.

Furthermore, if an inflexible wage law had the effect of establishing a minimum wage for a substantial number of workers which could be shown to be in excess of that required for cost of living, it is doubtful whether there is any authority in the recently decided case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish to sustain it. The decision sustained a minimum-wage statute for the State of Washington which directed the Industrial Welfare Commission to establish such standards of wages • • • as shall be held hereunder to be reasonable and not detrimental to health and morals, and which shall be sufficient for the decent maintenance of women. In commenting upon the statute, the Chief Justice who wrote the opinion stated:

The legislature was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the 'sweating system,' the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living, thus making their very helplessness the occasion of a most injurious competition.

And further:

The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well-being but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met (p. 399).

There is nothing in the decision which indicates that the State of Washington would have been at liberty to fix a minimum wage in excess of that which was needed for cost of living.

Moreover, the Chief Justice observes that minimum wages under the Washington statute are fixed in consideration of services performed and often full consideration by employers, employees, and the public. (See p. 396.)

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morehead v. N. Y. ex rel. Tipaldo (298 U. S. 587) must also be considered in connection with this question—the case in which the minimum-wage law for women in the State of New York was held invalid. The reasoning of the dissent written by Chief Justice Hughes and concurred in by Brandeis, Stone, and Cardozo upheld the statute because minimum wages were to be based upon two standards, one of which was the reasonable value of service performed.

This minority opinion is now of utmost importance since the reasoning of the dissenting judges was used in part to sustain —the Washington statute in the Parrish case.

Another aspect of Supreme Court history on the minimum-wage question which is not without significance is that after the doctrine of the Adkins case had been established an Arizona minimumwage act was considered by the Court in the case of Murphy v. Sardell (269 U. S. 430). Unlike the District of Columbia statute which had been invalidated in the Adkins case, this act instead of creating a board to set wages, fixed a uniform minimum of $16 a

[PAGE 7301]

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

[PAGE 7302]

week. It was therefore argued that this statute was distinguishable from the one reviewed in the earlier case. The Court, however, in a memorandum opinion held this statute also invalid, and an Arkansas statute, similarly drafted, suffered the same fate a year later (Donham v. West Nelson Mfg. Co., 273 U. S. 657). Yet when the Supreme Court specifically overruled the Adkins case last year, it did not overrule these two cases. Therefore it may be that these cases are still regarded as law by the Court today—an influence which is strengthened by the fact that Mr. Justice Brandeis was the only member of the Court to vote a dissent in these two cases, although there had been a dissenting minority ot three (not including Brandeis) in the Adkins case.

Mr. Reilly made this statement to the subcommittee:

MR. GERARD) REILLY, SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Reilly expressed himself in agreement with the preceding testimony of Mr. Ben Cohen. He added the following statements:

1. The only case that has ever been passed on by the Supreme Court in which a flat minimum was established was the Arizona minimum-wage case and that was ruled on adversely. When the Supreme Court overruled its decision in the Washington minimum wage case they did not expressly overrule the Arizona case so that it is presumed that they did not mean to do so; in other words, that the establishment of a rigid minimum is still unconstitutional. However, of course, this can only be presumed but it is the only basis anyone has in trying to establish or determine the constitutionality of a rigid minimum if argued on these grounds. There is really no precedent which has been upheld for a rigid minimum-wage law. It is as yet untouched ground.

2. There must be some provision in the bill for its enforcement and administration. No law ever enforced itself. Even giving the right of complaint to employees and employers and unions is not effective. This has been proven in the enforcement of the Walsh-Healey Act. Ninety percent of the violations of this act have been reported by investigators of the Government and only 10 percent by individuals acting under the right given them in the statute. In many cases these inspectors were those already employed by the State labor departments working in this case in cooperation with the Federal Government.

3. If the administration of the act were put in the Department of Labor as is the Walsh-Healey Act, it would be much less expensive than the establishment of a new bureau or commission or board. The Walsh-Healey Act, covering contracts of more than $3OO,OOO,OOO, has cost only about $300,000 to administer.

4. There is little or no legislative history in the States for a graduated minimum-wage scale. Its principal difference with a rigid minimum is the immediacy With which the minimum would be reached. This would be new ground in principle, legislatively speaking. There would also be this difficulty that the bill on which Congress held hearings is in no way like this type of legislation. In revieWing a case the Supreme Court often goes to the hearings held before Congress to detrmine what factors were actually taken into consideration. The hearings before the Labor Committee were on the establishment of a flexible minimum, an entirely different theory, and therefore would have no weight with the Court on deciding the constitutionality of the b111 you propose.

The following statement was made to the subcommittee by Mr. Cohen:

TESTIMONY OF MR. BEN COHEN

Certain questions were put to Mr. Cohen and answered in the following manner:

Question. Do you think Congress can write a specific inflexible minimum wage into a bill and have it declared constitutional?

Answer. The courts have never had occasion to pass squarely upon that specific question. The Supreme Court, in the Washington minimum-wage case, upheld a flexible minimum wage which delegated to a wage board the power to fix a minimum cost-of-living wage. I think it is clear also that the Supreme Court would today adhere to the Chief J:ustice's dissenting opinion in the New York minimum-wage case and uphold a flexible m1nimum wage based upon the reasonable value of services rendered. So far as the due-process clause is concerned, therefore, we know that the flexible minimum wage is constitutional. Before the Supreme Court passes upon the issUe, it is impossible to predict with absolute assurance whether or not an inflexible minimum wage established by Congress would or would not be held constitutional. Much might depend upon the particular State. The test of due process is the test of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness, and the Court would and should undoubtedly give great weight to the judgment of the Congress.

It is true that it might possibly be argued that it is unconstitutional to fix one single minimum wage for the entire country with its diverse industries and its diverse local conditions. Stlll 11 the majority of the Congress after considering the problem decides that it is the best and most reasonable way of dealing with the situation the Supreme Court might well hesitate to pronounce unreasonable what the Congress found to be reas6nable. A few extreme cases of hardship are not usually deemed sUfilcient to make a statute of general application unconstitutional. If the inftexible minimum wage is low enough so that it may be urged that if it provides not more than a minimum decent cost of living even in those parts of the country where the cost of living is relatively low, there should be a reasonable chance of its being upheld. I should not be prepared to say that such a b1ll would be held unconstitutional.

Question. Has Congress the power to delegate authority to fix wages to a wage and hour committee or board or commission providing, of course, that these committees are appointed by the administrator and take an oath of office?

Answer. I should say that I think that Congress has the power to delegate to an administrative board the power to fix minimum wages in conformity with reasonable standards laid down by Congress.

Question. Suppose Congress were to fix a bottom minimum of 20 cents and a top minimum of 40 cents and give to a commission or some other body the authority to apply this wage scale between he two figures on the basis of certain standards outlined in the bill. Would this be constitutional?

Answer. I should think that would have a good chance of standing up: Certainly the Congress should have the right to fix the top minimum standard so as to confine the bill to workers clearly in need of protection. I should think that the Congress should also have the power to fix some bottom minimum like 20 cents which is clearly not in excess of a minimum cost of living in almost any locality.

Question. Do you think the delegation of power to wage and hour committees such as those contained in the recommitted bill would be unconstitutional?

Answer. Much would depend on the form of the particular bill. In the Carter coal case the decision was based on the fact that the wage committees were designated by private industrial groups and they spoke for only factions of that industry and they based their findings on almost no standards whatever. In the recommitted b111 the committees would include representatives of employers, employees, and the general public, and they would be selected by Government ofticlals and not by private groups. Their decisions would be based on definite standards laid down in the statute and their decisions would be accepted or rejected by the Government administrator or board. I think you would be fairly safe in establishing these committees if defln1te standards are prescribed to control their action and if they are appointed by a Government agency which has the final word in their decision.

Question. Would we be safer with a flexible minimum, legally speaking?

Answer. It seems to be the best type of legislation in dealing with a country as large and as diversified as ours. I do not want, however, to be quoted as saying that an inflexible minimum would necessarily be unconstitutional if it were confined to workers clearly in need of the protection of the Government.

Question. Suppose Congress sets 20 cents as the basic minimum and says that over a period of a certain number of years this minimum would be brought up to 40 cents by gradual increases at stated intervals. Would this be constitutional in your opinion?

Answer. This, of course, presents the problem that in some cases the minimum wage that Congress sets would not be applicable for some years hence. Conditions may change very radically over a period of months and the industry affected might not be in a position to meet this added obligation at the stated time. It would prefiumably add to the uncertainty of an employer running his business. If you write this sort of b111, conditions may arise some years hence which could not now be foreseen by Congress. A gradual ascent might work greater hardship than the establishlishment of a flexible minimum adjustable from time to time by administrative action.

Question. Do you think that exemptions speciflcally written into the bill are necessary?

Answer. I think it is advisable to have some general exemptions for agricultural workers, because the very nature of the work is so different from industrial work, but I certainly do not think that the bill should be emasculated by numerous specific exemptions. There are too many exemptions in the Senate bill.

Remarks : There is a mistaken impression that a bill will enforce itself. This, of course, is not true. State experience with laqor legislation has demonstrated the need of detailed administrative provisions for inspection and enforcement. If Congress thinks best it could put the administration and enforcement of the act in the Department of Labor. However, the act shoUld provide administrative machinery for the granting of special licenses to those subject to mental or physical handicaps.

The following letter was received after the House Labor Committee reported a bill on August 6, 1937, similar to the substitute I will offer:

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,

Washington, D. C., August 9, 1937.

Hon. RoBERT RAMSPECX,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR Sir: The wage and hour blll as reported by the House Labor Committee is reasonably acceptable and fairly satisfactory to labor. For that reason I am taking the liberty of writing you requesting you to support this proposed legislation when it is presented to the House of Representatives for final passage.

It occurred to me that you wished to know the attitude of the American Federation of Labor toward the wage and hour bill. In fact, a number of Members of Congress have made inquiry as to the position the American Federation of Labor assumed toward this important measure. I am therefore writing you this letter advising you of the American Federation of Labor's endorsement

[PAGE 7302]

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

[PAGE 7303]

and approval of the wage and hour bill as reported by the House Labor Committee.

I sincerely hope you may find it possible to vote for the enactment of the wage and hour bill into law without any substantial change in the form and character in which it is reported to the House for passage by the House of Representatives.

Thanking you in advance, I am,

Sincerely yours, WM. GREEN,

President, American Federation of Labor.

The following letter was received after the Labor Committee had adopted certain amendments sponsored by Mr. Green:

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,

Washington, D. C., August 4, 1937.

Han. ROBERT RAMSPECK,

Member, House Labor Committee,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CoNGRESSMAN: I am writing to express to you my deep appreciation of the courteous and considerate treatment you accorded me when I requested of the House Labor Committee that an opportunity be accorded me to present amendments to the wage and hour bill, providing for the protection of collective bargaining and collective bargaining agreements.

Your response to my request was generous, prompt, and sincere. I thank you for the fine spirit you manifested and the fine attitude you assumed when I asked for an adjournment of the House Labor Committee for 1 day, and for the approval which you gave to the amendments to the wage and hour bill which I submitted.

Very sincerely yours,

WM. GREEN,

President, American Federation of Labor.

I include below the views filed by me on the present committee bill:

SEPARATE VIEWS ON SENATE BILL 2475

In the opinion of the undersigned, the bill being reported by the majority of the Committee on Labor of the House as a substitute for the bill passed by the Senate is not a reasonable exertion of governmental authority, but, on the contrary, is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is our opinion that it violates the due-process clause of the Constitution, and therefore will be held invalid when it reaches the Supreme Court if it should be enacted into law.

The history of minimum-wage legislation is as follows: In 1923 the Supreme Court held invalid in the Adkins case (261 U. S. 525) the District of Columbia statute providing for regulation of minimum wages through wage boards. Later the State of Arizona passed a minimum-wage law in a different form. Instead of creating a board to set wages the statute fixed a uniform minimum of $16 per week. In a memorandum opinion this statute was held invalid, and likewise a statute from Arkansas simllarly drafted was held invalid a year later. The Arizona case is reported in Two Hundred and Sixty-nine United States Reports, page 430, and the Arkansas in Two Hundred and Seventy-three United States Reports, page 657.

Last year in the case of Parrish v. West Coast Hotel Co. (300 U. S. 379), the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, reversed its previous holding in the Adkins case and specifically overruled that case. It is significant to note that the Court failed to specifically overrule its previous decisions in the Arizona and Arkansas cases.

There is only one other Supreme Court decision in the history of this type of legislation. It is the case of Morehead v. New York (298 U. S. 587). In that decision the Supreme Court held invalid a minimum-wage law for women in the State of New York. Chief Justice Hughes wrote a dissenting opinion which was concurred in by Justices Brandeis, Stone, and Cardozo. This opinion upheld the statute because the minimum wages were to be based upon two standards, one of which was the reasonable value of services performed.

It seems that this minority opinion in the New York case is now of the utmost importance, since the reasoning contained therein was in part used to sustain the Washington State statute in the Parrish case.

It must be remembered that the Supreme Court has never yet conceded plenary power to Congress or to State legislatures to fix prices or wages. The exercise of such power has been upheld in only two cases, one of which, the Parrish case, has already been discussed.

In the other case, which is Nebbia v. New York (291 U. S. 502), the Supreme Court upheld the statute permitting price fixing with regard to milk, but in this case and in the Parrish case the power to fix prices and wages was delegated to fact-finding agencies, and these agencies were directed to establish varying prices and wages in accordance with standards incorporated in the laws. The Court pointed out that such statutes must be reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, and that the right to infringe upon liberty of contract must be justified by considerations of health, the preservation of life, and the protection of a business essential to the public.

It may be contended that the bill reported by the majority of the committee provides for uniform wages and for uniform hours is therefore not discriminatory, but when these figures are translated into actual wages in the terms of what the dollars will buy, it wm be found that the proposal does not provide uniformity in that respect.

In the Washington State case, Chief Justice Hughes based his decision largely upon the theory that a workman should at least receive the bare cost of living, and pointed out that if this was not the case, the taxpayers were called upon to pay the difference.

The foregoing is a discussion of the legal questions growing out of the due-process aspect, but we must also keep in mind the fact that before the Federal Government can regulate wages and hours the interstate-commerce clause comes into play.

In respect to this question the bill favored by the majority delegates the right to the Secretary of Labor to determine what industries shall be affected, which seems to be an unwise if not actually an 1llegal delegation to a single officer in the executive branch of the Government. This authority is found in section 6 of the bill. The standards prescribed upon which the Secretary is to base a decision are not sufficiently definite.

The bill reported by the majority provides for no fact-finding procedure and totally ignores the fact that in a country as large as the United States there are thousands of varying conditions to which this inflexible proposal must be applied.

For instance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in towns and villages of a population of 5,500 and less, an average monthly rental of $11 is paid by those in the income group of less than $1,000. This monthly rental shows a gradual increase as the size of the community increases, and averages $23 per month in cities having a population of more than 1,000,000. It will be seen, therefore, that although this proposal would prescribe the same minimum wage in the city of less than 5,500 population as it does for the city of more than a million, the worker in the latter city would necessarily pay more than twice as much rent per month as the worker in the small community, and therefore his real wages would be less.

Another illustration of the complexities to be faced by an inflexible statute can be had from a comparison of rents in Columbia, S. C., and Gastonia, N. C. In Columbia, the worker making from $500 to $1,000 per year will pay $12.60 per month rent, while in Gastonia a worker with the same income will pay only $7.40 per month. The worker in Gastonia will, therefore, get in actual wages an advantage of $5.20 per month over his brother worker in Columbia.

We must also consider, from the standpoint of the employer upon whom this burden is to be imposed, the cost of transportation. He must secure raw materials and his finished product must go to the market.

Fifty-one percent of the population of our country lives in what is known as eastern or official territory with regard to freight rates. Using this territory as the base for 100 the following are the average freight rates for the other sections of the country: southern, 139; western trunk line, 147; mountain Pacific, 171; and southwestern, 175.

To impose a rigid inflexible wage in all parts of the United States will unquestionably mean that some employers cannot longer compete in the eastern market where a majority of our consumers reside. That means, therefore, retirement from business, and their employees, instead of having their wages raised, will find themselves on relief.

It seems to the undersigned, therefore, that to approach a solution of this problem, we must have a fact-finding process to which Congress must delegate the power to determine what wages and what hours shall be applied after a thorough consideration of the facts. To do otherwise would be arbitrary and capricious, would be discriminatory, and would violate the due-process re-uirements of our Constitution.

Below I offer two editorials from the Christian SGience Monitor:

[From the Christian Science Monitor of April 15, 1938]

ASSURING WAGE-LAW DEFEAT

The House of Representatives Committee on Labor has tentatively decided, according to report from Washington, to report a still further redraft of the much-redrafted wage and hour bill in which flat standards for all industries and all sections of the country would be provided, grading up by annual steps to a 40-cent minimum wage and down to a 40-hour maximum week. This is evidently in deference to the demands of the American Federation of Labor.

Of course, it does not apparently matter much what kind of wage and hour b1ll is written now. There is every indication that no bill of the sort can obtain a rule from the Rules Committee or the necessary 218 signatures to a petition to put it on the calendar at the present session. But if the Labor Committee wishes to make sure of a thumping defeat for the measure it could hardly do better than to take the course now reported. The attempt to impose a flat, uniform statutory standard everywhere without regard to differences of geography or between industries is so preposterous as to raise a presumption that the committee is more concerned with providing the A. F. of L. with a face-saving political slogan than it is with formulating a workable proposal.

[PAGE 7303]

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

[PAGE 7304]

[From the Christian Science Monitor of May 18, 1938]

WAGES OF RECOVERY

The new wage and hour bill continues to agitate Congress and country. Both parties' treatment of it gives more evidence of temporary political maneuvering than of hopeful humanitarian reform. This newspaper agrees with the general aim of putting a floor under low wages and a ceiling over long hours. But we oppose the Norton bill for two reasons: It is wrong in method and wrong in time.

Labor standards, as President Roosevelt has pointed out, should take into consideration differences in industries and in living conditions. This bill fails to do that. It fixes rigid standards which would cause unemployment at a time when more employment is desperately needed. And continued political agitation over it is most untimely when the Nation's chief need is for cooperative business recovery. Further efforts to legislate a fairer division of national income might well be suspended until the decline in national income has been reversed.

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

[From the New York Times of May 21, 1938]

DIFFERENTIALS IN WAGES

While neither the Department of Labor nor the supporters of the wage-hour bill in Congress have gone to any trouble to ascertain and publicize the facts, private research has made amply clear the great extent of the differentials existing in wage rates between different sections of the country and between large cities and small towns in the same section. Studies by the National Industrial Conference Board have shown, for example, that wages in the furniture business are now about 50 percent higher in the far west than in the South, while wages in the lumber industry are about 130 percent higher in the far West than in the South. Similar if less striking differentials exist in other industries. Again, within the same geographical district it has been found that hourly wages are from 15 to 35 percent lower in small communities than in the larger cities.

Nearly all the State minimum-wage laws and procedures have recognized the need of taking these existing differentials within a State into account when fixing minimum wages. In New York different minimums have been fixed for workers in beauty parlors and in laundries; and in the laundry industry itself three different minimums are fixed in accordance with the size of the town in which the laundry is located. In Illinois the laundry industry is also divided into districts, and minimum wages in effect in 1937 ranged from 23 cents an hour to 28, while 87 cents an hour was fixed in the wash-dress industry. Similar differentials could be cited from most other States that have adopted minimum-wage laws.

The principle of geographical differentials is recognized even by the Federal Government in the wage scales fixed by the W. P. A. These begin by setting up wage scales for five different classes of workers—unskllled, intermediate, skilled and professional and technical. The country is then divided into four different wage regions. Within each region itself there are five different geographical classltications depending on the size of populations of towns.

Finally, the President himself recognized the need for differentials in minimum-wage legislation in his message of May 24, 1937, originally recommending a Federal wage-hour law:

Even in the treatment of national problems there are geographical and industrial diversities which practical statesmanship cannot wholly ignore. Backward labor conditions and relatively progressive labor conditions cannot be completely assimilated and made uniform at one fell swoop without creating econoinic dislocations.

Yet by imposing a flat uniform wage rate on all industries and sections, this in effect is what the House wage-hour bill proposes to do.

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

[From the New York Times of May 22. 1938]

THE QUESTION OF HOURS

The wage-hour bill is scheduled to come up in the House tomorrow for debate. Comment upon that measure up to now has tended to focus on the question of wage rates to the neglect of the question of hours. And yet it is quite possible that the restriction of working hours at first to 44 and at the end of 2 years to 40 a week may prove in practice much more serious in its adverse effect on recovery. The French 40-hour week, which has had a disorganizing effect on French industry, and which the parties of the left as well as of the right have been trying to circumvent in practice while retaining it in principle, ought to be a huge danger signal to ourselves. So far as the proponents of the present wage-hour bill are concerned, however, the French law and the subsequent economic history or France might just as well never have existed.

If it were now proposed that the Federal Government should restrict hours to conform with the standards adopted by the most advanced States, for the purpose of prohibiting conditions deemed to be harmful to the health or morals particularly of women and minors, the only serious question at issue would be the constitutional one of whether it was wise for the Federal Government to take over these powers. But what is actually proposed goes much beyond this. The proposed Federal restrictions are to apply not to selected industries but to virtually all of them; they are to apply to men as well as women, and they are based on a different principle. Few people argue that a 48-, not to speak of a 44-hour week, is in most industries seriously harmful to health or even to efficiency. The demand for the 40-hour week rests largely on the assumption that there is a fixed volume of production to be turned out, that there is therefore a fixed number of working man-hours to go round, and that if individual hours are restricted there will be a larger number of jobs. This assumption is quite fallacious. The most probable effect of a shortening of working hours, as experience has shown, is reduced reciprocal demand and reduced national production.

The average number of hours worked per week in manufacturing industries last March, according to the figures of the National Industrial Conference Board, was 33.4. Such figures are sometimes cited to show that a 40-hour legal week could do no harm. But these hours reflect the part-time work brought about by the current depression. As they are average figures they include many 48-hour weeks, and the reduction of the latter to 44 or 40 would doubtless reduce present working hours still further. But apart from that, the short legal working week would present expansion, and the increased leisure would be dearly bought. The Brookings Institution has pointed out that even in 1929, when actual goods and services produced had a value of about $81,000,000,000 (as compared with a rate estimated at $56,000,000,000 today), great unfulfilled wants existed for the masses of people, both rural and urban. The 1929 production was accomplished on an industrial workweek which averaged close to 51 hours. Unless we can be sure of a vast increase in productive efficiency, the institution pointed out, the working week cannot be appreciably shortened without a curtailment of production, and, in consequence, without reducing consumption standards below the level of 1929. Yet we not only need to restore that unsatisfactory level of living; we need greatly to exceed it.

The House wage-hour blll, it is true, does not absolutely prohibit a working week in excess of 40 hours, but provides that hours in excess of that must be paid for at the rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly rate. For many marginal firms and others this will be equivalent to prohibition, particularly in view of the increases provided in regular hourly rates by the bill. Most of the advocates of the wage-hour bill have still to learn the simple principle that no matter how much we may increase wage rates with a view to expanding purchasing power, we will not find available in the market places the goods which minister to the satisfaction of human wants unless they are produced.

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

[From the New York Herald Tribune of May 21, 1938]

TODAY AND TOMORROW

(By Walter Lippmann)

THE SECTIONAL WAGES BILL

The wage and hour blll, which is now before the House, directs the Secretary of Labor to hold hearings and to decide, subject to review by the Federal courts, whether a particular kind of employment anywhere in the United States is an industry affecting commerce. If she finds that it is, and if the circuit court of appeals agrees with her, no one may be employed at less than a minimum wage fixed in the act. At the end of 3 years he may not be paid less than $16 for 40 hours' work or less than $18.40 for 44 hours' work or less than $20.80 for 48 hours' work.

The bill is regarded with considerable favor by northern employers and workingmen in those industries, like textiles, which are in competition with the South. So much is this the case that conservative Republicans like Mr. LODGE, of Massachusetts, and Mr. DAVIS, of Pennsylvania, are in favor of it. They regard the bill as the equivalent of an internal tariff to protect northern industries by excluding the products of the cheaper southern labor from the national market.

To meet this the southerners in Congress are asking for differentials, that is, for a lower legal wage in the South than in the North. If they succeed, they will have defeated the real purpose of the bill. For the whole point of the bill is to deprive the South of the competitive advantage resulting from its lower labor costs. And, therefore, a law which fixed a higher minimum wage in the North than in the South would legalize the very thing which this bill is designed to prevent.

The sponsors of the bill should be asked to say just what they think will happen in the southern factories. Do they believe that the southern employers can pay the Federal wage and still compete successfully with the North, or do they believe that this bill will prevent them from competing? Do they think southern employers can pay this higher wage out of profits or do they think they can raise prices and still sell as many goods, or do they think southern producers will be forced to contract and will be discouraged from opening new factories in the South? Just what is the theory of the b111?

The question is important. For the South is in an earlier stage of industrial development than is the North. It has many handicaps. Since the Civil War it has been the victim of a tariff system which forced it to buy in a protected market and to sell its cotton and tobacco in a free market. Since the World War its free world market has been closing, partly as a result of the northern tariff policy. The South suffers from high railroad rates. It has not until recently had access to the prtvate-capital market. But it has cheaper labor and this labor lives nearer the raw materials and nearer a considerable part of the national market.

[PAGE 7304]

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

[PAGE 7305]

If the South is to raise its standard of life, It must turn away from its dependence on the export of a few staple crops, like cotton and tobacco, and it must diversify its agriculture and develop local industries. To do this it must compete with the older and more favored industrial regions, and the one real advantage it possesses in the competitive struggle is the fact that southerners are willing and able to work for lower wages.

If this advantage is to be taken away from the South, then it seems only fair that steps should be taken to equalize conditions in other respects. The spokesmen of the South might well take the position that wages are only one factor in production. If wages are to be equalized, then railroad rates, credit facilities, interest rates, and tariffs should be equalized too, and the monopolistic prices for capital goods produced largely in the North should be broken down.

For the fact of the matter is, to put it brutally, that in the long period of Republican rule after the Civil War, the South has had the status of a colony, and the net effect of the Nation's commercial policy has been to keep the South impoverished. Tariff policy, railroad policy, the toleration of trusts and monopolies, and the concentrated control of credit have worked one and all to retard the industrial development of the South and to keep it in the position of a colony producing cheap raw materials. It seems to me the irony of ironies that a Democratic administration should be insisiting on a wage law that will place one more handicap on the South's struggle to raise its standard of life.

For let us have no illusions about it. The statistics about southern wages which horrify northern reformers represent on the whole—there are marginal cases, of course—a distinct and substantial improvement over what the South has hitherto known. The industrial wages are very low. But they are an improvement over the income that can be earned in other ways, from the eroded and depleted land and from casual labor. To forbid men to work except at a wage which protects competing northern industry is almost certainly to interfere with the struggle of the South to raise its standard of life.

This is in truth a sectional bill disguised as a humanitarian reform. It is supported in part by reactionaries who know just what it really means and in part by northern reformers who have never been in the South or have never grasped the tremendous problems which the South has been left with as a result first of the Civil War, and its aftermath of reconstruction, and then of the World War, and its aftermath of economic nationalism.

In conclusion I include a statement I recently prepared for certain newspapers explaining my views on this question:

WAGE AND HOUR LEGISLATION

(By Representative ROBERT RAMSPECK, of Georgia)

On Monday, May 23, the House of Representatives will be faced with a choice as to the type of legislation it shall adopt dealing with minimum wages and the regulation of hours throughout the United States.

The choice will be made between two different proposals which present differing philosophies, both economically and legally.

The Norton bill, favorably reported by the House Committee on Labor, assumes that the Federal Government has plenary power to fix wages and hours throughout the United States for the purpose of increasing purchasing power in the hands of the employees who would be affected. This bill does not take into consideration existing differences in economic factors entering into competition in the 48 States. It does not consider the cost of living, the value of the services rendered by employees, or the cost of unit production.

As opposed to this philosophy, I expect to offer a substitute in the form of a bill drafted by a subcommittee. This latter bill would fix no minimum wages, nor would it regulate hours, but the authority to do so would be delegated to an independent board. Definite standards by which the board must be guided are contained in the proposed act.

In considering these different philosophies on the subject of minimum wages and the regulations of hours, we should not forget the legal and economic aspects involved.

It appears to me that the Federal Constitution does not give Congress plenary power to fix wages or hours. I think it can be done only as a part of the constitutional right to regulate and protect commerce. We must also keep in mind the constitutional provision requiring due process.

The Supreme Court of the United States has in many cases held that neither the State nor the Federal Government can interfere with the right of employees and employers to contract for services unless some special reason exists which makes it imperative that the public good demands such interference.

It must also be remembered that any Federal wage and hour legislation is a legal experiment. No such law has ever been enacted, and therefore doubt must exist as to the attitude which the courts will take toward this attempt to enter a new legal field.

On the other hand, the States, through their police power, have enacted minimum-wage and maximum-hour legislation for women and minors, but have never attempted minimum-wage legislation for men.

Until recently the Supreme Court had held invaiid such State law on the ground that the States had no right to interfere with the freedom of contract which the Constitution gives to the citizens. Last year the Supreme Court reversed this position, and it now holds valid State laws on this subject dealing with women and minors on the ground that the failure of employers to pay a living wage makes it necessary for the Public Treasury to supplement the earnings of such employees, and for this reason it has permitted the States to interfere with freedom of contract.

In this matter the Supreme Court has held valid a law which does not fix minimum wages but which delegates that power to an agency of the State under standards prescribed in the act. The method of fixing these wages is through a fact-finding process, where both employer and employee have an opportunity of being heard. The results in this procedure have been to fix varying minimum wages based upon actual conditions. The minimum fixed has varied as to occupation and as to industries, and has been different in large communities as compared with smaller ones.

It seems to me that this latter method is the only one which has a chance of being held valid by the Federal courts. If we disregard the actual variations in wages and the differences in competitive conditions which everyone admits do exist, I am of the opinion that due process has not been provided and the courts will hold such an act to be invalid.

The Norton bill does not provide for any consideration of facts. It prescribes an arbitrary wage which is to be uniform in every part of the country. It is a criminal statute, and any person who violates it must depend upon the criminal courts for a hearing.

Under the subcommittee bill, an independent board would consider economic conditions, the cost of living, the value of the services rendered, the cost of transportation to the consuming market, and the unit cost of production.

The board would then fix varying minimum wages, in accordance with the facts shown in the hearing. Such a policy would protect commerce from the chiseler who profiteers at the expense of his employees. It would prevent one employer from getting an advantage over another by virtue of low wages and long hours.

In the District of Columbia, where a minimum-wage law similar to the one I am supporting is now in operation, the minimum wages fixed have varied from $13.50 per week to approximately $18 per week, depending upon the occupation under consideration and the industry in which such employees work.

In the State of New York, under a similar statute, the board to which is delegated the power to fix minimum wages has made differences of a similar nature. These differences exist between communities of differing sizes, and variations have been made for the same occupation in the same industry because of the facts developed by the board.

Last year the Senate passed a bill which follows the method used in the District of Columbia and in the New York and Washington State statutes. This is the type of legislation for the States which the Supreme Court has now held valid.

The bill I am proposing does not provide arbitrary differentials. It does not propose a lower wage scale in the South, as has been charged. It does contain the possibility of differentials, but these differentials would be based upon facts and upon competitive conditions. The bill is quite similar to the one passed by the Senate last year.

It is a recognized fact that differentials in wages do exist. It is known that different hourly wage scales are paid in Greater New York for the same type of work in different sections of the city. It is also known that the wage scales in the larger cities are generally higher than those in the smaller communities, and there are also differences in wage scales between different sections of the country. I do not believe that we can ignore these facts. We cannot say that they are unjustified without going through a process of hearings by which their fairness or lack of fairness can be determined.

With reference to the cost of living, we know that the average cost of living in Detroit, for instance, is higher than it is in Mobile, Ala. We know that a person earning less than $1,000 per year pays twice as much monthly rental in New York and Detroit as does a similar worker residing in a town of 5,000 population in any of our States. We cannot ignore these facts.

If any of the existing differences in wage scales are fair, then the Norton bill would not be fair because it disregards such variations. Instead of equalizing competition in commerce it would shift the burden from one group to another.

We cannot ignore the fact that the object of engaging in business is to make sales. The chance of making a profit in business depends upon the ability to compete with others engaged in the same business. The consuming market is largely concentrated in the northeastern part of the country, and factories located away from the consuming center must pay the difference in the cost of freight. That is another factor which the Norton bill overlooks.

In view of the fact that it costs an employee less to live in a small community, such employees' real wages under the Norton bill would be more than the wages of the workers in New York and Detroit and similar large communities. To create such a situation does not protect commerce. It would result in forcing employers to move their places of business to the larger centers.

It is my belief that the solution of the problem of the regulation of wages and hours cannot be fairly met by prescribing an arbitrary wage for all industry to be applied equally in every section of the country. I think it must be met by a consideration of the existing variations and by determining the fairness or the want of fairness in such variations, after which an adjustment should be made.

I would like to emphasize the fact that I do not favor less wages for the workers of the South, and I would not be a party to any

[PAGE 7305]

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

[PAGE 7306]

plan which would give the South an advantage at the expense of its workers. I favor the highest wage possible for every section, but believe that since all wages must be paid from the sale of what the worker produces they must depend upon the fair consideration of the facts and upon the ability of the employer to maintain his business in competition with others.

It is my hope that the Congress will recognize the practical differences existing in regard to the regulation of wages and hours and will provide a process which will be fair to all concerned and which has some hope of being held valid by the Federal courts.

In order to accomplish this purpose I feel that it is necessary to delegate the authority to fix wages and hours to an agency of the Government, under proper standards, which will engage in a factfinding process through which the proper wages can be determined.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have not the time to reply to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK], so I would like to have included in the RECORD at this point a letter from Mr. Robert H. Jackson, one paragraph of which I shall read:

I have not expressed, and do not hold, the opinion that it is unconstitutional. No precedent or decision of the Supreme Court requires such a conclusion.

I also have here the statement of Mr. Benjamin Cohen before the subcommittee of the Committee on Labor considering the wage and hour bill which I would like to have included in the RECORD in answer to the statement of the gentleman from Georgia relating to this particular question. In one sentence of this statement Mr. Cohen states:

I would hesitate to say that a statute providing for a wage that Congress fixed as being necessary to provide a decent standard of living was unconstitutional.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks and include both of these documents in the RECORD at this point.

The CHAffiMAN (Mr. WALLGREN). The Chair will state to the gentlewoman from New Jersey that she will have to obtain that permission when we go back into the House.

Mrs. NORTON. Very well, Mr. Chairman.

The matter referred to follows:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,

Washington, D. C., May 20, 1938.

Mrs. MARY T. NORTON,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MRs. NORTON: In answer to your request as to whether my statement before the committees of the House and Senate, when wage and hour legislation was first proposed, can be construed to mean that I think the bill now pending before the House as reported out by your committee unconstitutional, I beg to advise you:

I have not expressed and do not hold the opinion that it is unconstitutional. No precedent or decision of the Supreme Court requires such a conclusion.

In discussing the constitutional basis for a Federal wage and hour bill at the opening of the hearings, I did point out a caution that will be appreciated by every practical lawyer who understands the strategy by which enemies of an act contest its constitutionality. Of course, such opponents would attempt to select a case in which the facts would present the maximum hardship possible in the application of the legislation. An act may be unconstitutional in respect to a situation of particular hardship, while completely constitutional as to all other cases; and, therefore, a declaration of unconstitutionality on the first set of facts brought before a court would not interfere with the general applicability of the act. But for purposes of forming public opinion against legislation on the basis of unconstitutionality, such a first decision would be important to enemies of the legislation. I, therefore, pointed out an advantage in fiexible provisions to be applied by an administrative board, as provided by the bill then under consideration, in that cases of hardship could be weeded out by the application of administrative discretion by the boord, and opponents of the legislation would have to test its constitutionality only under cases in which the board had found that the act should wisely be applied.

In connection with this caution, I pointed out that the application of one standard wage throughout the country would be apt to create a wider field of unanticipated situations of hardship available for lawyers challenging the act than if the administrative board had the discretionary power which I had discussed.

A caution against this practical situation should not be construed as an opinion that the bill as reported to the House by your committee is unconstitutional.

The power in Congress over interstate commerce is the same, whether it is exercised by a flexible rule administratively applied, or by a rigid rule fixed by Congress in the terms of the statute. The Constitution does not prescribe either method, nor does it prohibit either method for the exercise of congressional power, and the choice of methods is for the· Congress.

The limitation upon this power over Interstate commerce imposed in the due process clause as construed by the Supreme Court requires simply that the interstate-commerce power of Congress shall not be used to obtain an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable result. There is no authority for saying that a fixed standard for wages and hours in legislation asserting Congress' power over interstate commerce is of itself arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable under the due-process clause.

I trust this letter will clarify any misunderstanding of the testimony which I gave before your committee.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT H. JACKSON,

Solicitor General.

STATEMENT OF MR. BEN COHEN BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE

Question. Do you think Congress can write a. specific minimum into a bill and have it declared constitutional?

Answer. The courts have never passed on the type of statute in which Congress provides that no one may be employed for less than a certain wage when the goods in the production of which he is engaged are shipped in interstate commerce. Assuming that Congress has the right to delegate the power to fix minimum wages at all, then arises the question of due process. The courts have gone so far as to say that due process is just a requirement of reasonableness and an absence of arbitrariness. I would hesitate to say that a statute providing for a. wage that Congress fixed as being necessary to provide a decent standard of living was unconstitutional. On the other hand the differences already existing in different parts of the country do create problems that would afford an opportunity for a case to be made out and reviewed which would be held unconstitutional. I feel that the problem is more legislative than judicial, however.

A minimum cannot be set without taking into consideration the value of services rendered. If you set a minimum of $1 an hour it would be difficult to prove that in all cases the services were worth tbis. If, however, you set a very low minimum it would not be so difficult although, because of existing differences in this country, it might be held unconstitutional. I think you are more likely to be safe from attack with the establishment of a flexible standard. I cannot say, however, that if an inflexible minimum were provided which did not go beyond what one might regard as reasonable compensation for services rendered it would be unconstitutional. I think Congress, after studying the situation thoroughly, could itself recommend certain rates and it would be held constitutional if Congress had been in a position to be so certain of all facts that no one could go into court and say he had not taken certain factors into consideration in a certain situation.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CROWTHER] such time as he may desire to use.

Mr. CROWTHER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to quote from an address I delivered in the House on May 18, 1928, during a discussion of the tariff, as follows:

IMPORTANCE OF GOOD WAGES

The question of a high wage, with opportunity for its increase with the development of industry and the skill of the workmen, is a vital necessity to continued progress of the people of this Nation. The workers and their families, who are the producers, are also the consumers, and their purchasing power must be gradually increased, for no longer are we satisfied that our American workmen shall be able to just barely exist, but must be able to purchase not only necessities but some of the comforts and luxuries and still have a margin that will permit them to keep an account in a savings bank or a building and loan association.

In line with my views at that time, I shall support this wage and hour bill. However, I desire to call attention to the fact that the policy we are about to adopt is at complete variance with the plan of this administration to gradually destroy the protective-tariff policy. If this legislation is effective, it means increased production costs and in view of that fact, to open the gates at our customs houses and invite the world to dump its cheaply produced merchandise on our market at reduced tariff rates, is the essence of inconsistency.

This piece-meal reduction of our protective-tariff system by consecutive trade agreements is eventually going to be thoroughly analyzed by the workers in this country and when they are confronted with the facts they will realize that we shall soon be on so low a tariff basis that every country in the world will flood us with its products, which are in many instances produced by sweatshop methods and child labor, two conditions which we are endeavoring to eliminate in our own country. Who among you honestly believes that such a program contains the element of common sense?

[PAGE 7306]

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

[PAGE 7307]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HEALEY].

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, the bill that today is before the House for a second time as a result of the extraordinary method of a petition to bring it to the floor for consideration, embodies a great struggle in this country for this social legislation.

The fact that the health, morals, and efficiency of many of the poor, the weak, the unorganized, and the underprivileged of our country have been exploited by unscrupulous employers was recognized as far back as 40 or 50 years ago, and the struggle to improve their conditions has gone on unremittingly since that time. It has always been a difficult fight to obtain passage of legislation of this character because the people most directly affected are inarticulate, they are unorganized, they cannot afford to maintain a lobby to press their fight. But neither have they had lobbyists back in their state capitols. Yet 24 State legislatures as well as 2 of our Territories have passed legislation based on the same philosophy which has given protection to women and minors in industry. Today we have at last come to the realization that we ought to do something to protect those States, to safeguard the laws which they have passed for the protection of their workers in order that the standards which they have established may not be undermined by States which have consistently refused to recognize progressive and humane standards. It has always been argued, and it will be argued here, that such legislation is an attempt by the Federal Government to regiment and regulate all labor and all industry. My State, as far back as 1912—and it led the whole parade—passed an act regulating the hours of labor for women and children, and we have not yet attempted to regulate or regiment either labor or industry. After we passed that humane law along came all of those other States that recognized the need to conserve the health of the women and children of this country by humane laws that would protect them from the merciless employer who would sweat them for long hours and for pitiably small wages. As far as I know, not a single one of those States has ever attempted to use such legislation as a means to regulate or regiment industry or labor.

This ought to be the answer to those who will contend that this is an attempt by the Federal Government to regulate and regiment labor and industry. Oh, no, that is not the purpose of this bill. The States have contended right along that through the police power they ought to have the right to conserve the health, efficiency, and morals of their people. Only last year the Supreme Court decreed that they do have that power when the Court upheld the Washington minimum-wage law in the Parrish case, the first case in which a minimum-wage act has been validated by the Supreme Court.

So, Mr. Chairman, now that the Supreme Court bas determined that the Constitution does not forbid such legislative enactment by the several States, why should not this Congress, with its power to regulate interstate commerce, as a supplement to the 24 State laws, protect those States by the passage of this bill, thereby not only safeguarding the laws which they have passed for the protection of women and children in industry but also protecting men engaged in interstate commerce against sweatshop exploitation? Certainly we must recognize the fact that if we are to protect women and children in industry, we should also, under the police powers of the State, together with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, protect men employed in industry.

Mr. COX. Mr. Cha.U:man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEALEY. I cannot. I have only a few moments. I would like to yield to the gentleman. I have just listened to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] for whom I have the greatest respect, and who has a profound knowledge of this subject, state that he believes it is necessary to have a board make factual findings before wage and hour determinations can be fixed. If the Congress has power to delegate to a board the authority to make such determinations, then it seems to me that where we are already in possession of the facts we ought to have the power to write into legislation fixed and inflexible standards where the conditions warrant them. I am going to read a few excerpts from the dicta in the majority opinion of Chief Justice Hughes in the Parrish case:

The legislature of the State was clearly entitled to consider the situation of women in employment, the fact that they are in the class receiving the least pay, that their bargaining power is relatively weak, and that they are the ready victims of those who would take advantage of their necessitous circumstances. The legislature was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the sweating system, the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living, thus making their very helplessness the occasion of a most injurious competition. The legislature had the right to consider that its minimum-wage requirements would be an important aid in carrying out its policy of protection.

There is an additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well being but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met. We may take judicial notice of the unparalleled demands for relief which arose during the recent period of depression and still continue to an alarming extent despite the degree of econonrtc recovery which has been achieved. It is unnecessary to cite official statistics to establish what is of common knowledge throughout the length and breadth of the land. While in the instant case no factual brief has been presented, there is no reason to doubt that the State of Washington has encountered the same social problem that is present elsewhere. The community is not bound to provide what is in effect a subsidy for unconscionable employers. The community may direct its lawmaking power to correct the abuse which springs from their selfish disregard of the public interest. The argument that the legislation in question constitutes an arbitrary discrimination because it does not extend to men, is unavailing. This Court has frequently held that the legislative authority, acting within its proper field, is not bound to extend its regulation to all cases which it might possibly reach. The legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and it may confine its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest. If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied. There is no doctrinaire requirement that the legislation should be couched in all-embracing terms (300 U.S., pp. 398, 399, 400).

I believe I have read enough to show that in this particular case the Court itself took judicial notice of economic conditions without requiring formal proof of facts that are within common knowledge. Congress certainly has power to fix a minimum wage in accordance with a cost of living standard rather than delegate the task to an executive board or agency—if it has facts showing what wage the cost of living warrants.

Where · a single minimum wage is prescribed by the Congress for all localities in the United States, as is the case in the proposed bill, under the doctrine of the Parrish case, it should only be necessary to show that the wage established in the statute is not in excess of that which is required by costs of living for the region of the United States where living is the cheapest. In other words, if the cost of living for industrial workers engaged in interstate commerce is cheaper in Alabama than in any other State in the Union, and the cost of living in that State requires a wage rate of 40 cents an hour to provide the necessities of life, such a wage rate for the entire United States would appear to be reasonable and valid. No employee could show that he was aggrieved.

In my judgment statistical studies which have been made within the last 2 years demonstrate that the minimum wages provided in the present bill are not in excess of the requirements of cost of living. In an elaborate official study entitled Intercity Differences in Cost of Living in March 1935, 59 Cities, made by Works Progress Administration in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is stated that the cost of a specified standard of living does not differ widely among most cities; ditferences in living costs are to be explained to a considerable extent by the differences in the standard of living. This is illustrated by the following excerpt from this study:

The cost of living in the maintenance level ranged from a high of $1,415 in Washington, D. C., to a low of $1,130 in Mobile, Ala., at March 1935 prices. The average in the 59 cities combined was $1,261. The cost of the emergency level was also highest in Washington, $1,014; but was lowest in Wichita, Kans., $810. The average was $903. At both levels the necessary outlay in the most expensive city averaged about 25 percent above that in the least expensive; in more than one-half the cities living costs were within a range of $100 per year.

[PAGE 7307]

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

[PAGE 7308]

The significance of this excerpt cannot be fully appreciated unless the terms maintenance level and emergency level are understood. The maintenance level is explained in the study to provide only for the cost of living necessary for material needs and some psychological needs. Emergency level provides almost exclusively for physical needs, and the study adds, but it might be questioned on the ground of health hazards if families had to live at this level for a considerable period of time. • • • Neither of these budgets approaches the concept of what may be considered a satisfactory American standard of living, nor do their costs measure what fam111es in this country would have to spend to secure 'the abundtant life.' In this study the cost of living figures were based on the living requirements of industrial workers for a family of four (husband, wife, and two children). Maintenance and emergency level budget costs, after sampling in the 59 cities studied, were found to be composed as follows:

[NOTE: Insert table "Maintenance level" and "Emergency Level"]

It should be noted that the lowest cost of living in any of the 69 cities on an emergency-level basis was found not in the South but at Wichita, Kans.—$810 a year for a family of four. Now the greatest annual wage which an employee could receive under the present bill after the 40 cents became operative is $832. This would require him to work 52 weeks per year, 40 hours per week. However, the act prescribes a minimum wage of only 25 cents an hour for the first year which would produce an annual income of only $520 for an employee working full time at 40 hours per week.

On the basis of this survey, how can it be said that $520 or even $832 is more than enough to provide the costs of living necessary to health and decency or even anywhere near enough?

Then if the wage fixed in this bill is so low that it does not even meet the necessary amount for the lowest wage area, how can any court say that it is arbitrary, how can any court say that it is unreasonable or capricious?

Mr. RANDOLPH. And more than that, the Congress in setting that wage has added a double safeguard by approaching it over a 3-year period.

Mr. HEALEY. Yes.

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

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

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

Mr. HEALEY. Yes.

Mr. SEGER. The gentleman knows that I come from a district that is largely textile and labor, where all labor is in favor of this bill as well as many of the industries. I am going to vote for the bill. I received a telegram which I would like the gentleman to clear up for me.

The telegram reads:

Subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 6 are unfair and discriminatory. The business of all the dealers in newspapers would be unfairly and seriously affected if these subdivisions were included as part of the b1ll.

What shall I reply to the writer of this inquiry?

Mr. HEALEY. Retail establishnlents are absoutely out of the provisions of the bill, they are exempted. The bill specifically exempts persons engaged in retail capacity.

Mr. SEGER. What about the newspapers?

Mr. HEALEY. They would be exempt if they were intrastate and if their activities were not so involved in interstate commerce as to have any great effect.

Mr. SEGER. Would that be true despite the fact they import newsprint from Canada?

Mr. HEALEY. I do not think it would have any effect on that at all.

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

Mr. HEALEY. I yield gladly to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. COX. If the purpose of the bill is to relieve the distressed condition of substandard workers, and if the lowest-paid workers today in this country are found in the fields of the farm and retail establishments, then why did the committee exempt these classes from the provisions of the bill?

Mr. HEALEY. I am sure the gentleman knows the answer: Because that would exceed the powers of Congress. We are limited by the Constitution to business in interstate commerce. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. SMITH].</p>

Mr. SMITH of Maine. Mr. Chairman, your labor committee, under the splendid leadership of our faithful chairwoman [Mrs. NORTON] worked diligently to present a wage and hour program for your consideration.

If we are sincerely in favor of improving working conditions throughout the Nation, especially to help those who are underpaid and unorganized, it is a timely duty of the Members of this Congress—North, South, East, and West—to meet the situation businesslike, man-fashioned, and un-selfishly, with friends and foes, Republicans and Democrats, willing to forgive and forget, to give and take.

My interests are in the far East, where workingmen expect, deserve, and do enjoy more wages and shorter work days than are specified in this bill.

It was in the hope of establishing a principle on which to found well, build well to that goal of fair wages and good profits for every man, irrespective of race or section that prompted me to subscribe to a 25-cent hour and a 44-hour week.

According to records there are more than 3,000,000 fathers and mothers who are working for five or less dollars per week. Parents thus handicapped certainly cannot be of any good to themselves, their families, or to society, wherever they may reside. Neither do these laborers create a buying power, so necessary for a return to better days, so essential to stop pump priming, debt increasing, and tax extensions.

The 40-cent-per-hour maximum, an annual average wage of about $650, suggested, will not support a family of four comfortably, normally, humanely, whether residing in the sunny South or the frozen North.

From time immemorial welfare departments in every village, hamlet, and town have so declared. Social security boards throughout the Nation have likewise determined. Last, but not least, the Labor Department, by exhaustive and untiring investigations, place the amount for decent living very much higher.

Yet there are those with mystic deductions, with mythical delusions, who say this bill would be unconstitutional because it does not expend millions and millions of dollars for creating a fact-finding commission to prove that fathers and mothers do not need six or seven hundred dollars to exist on.

Let me say that, in my judgment, no court in this day and generation would rule on such a fantastic basis, because human beings are entitled to more than a mere subsistence, the best of mediical care, the chance to educate the children, and the opportunity to save for old age. Thank God, it is part of this life's program.

Hours of work suggested in this bill will mitigate torture and suffering for millions who are working too many hours. But the 44-hour week specified will not materially solve our unemployment situation which is now wrecking governmental fundamentals.

Furthermore, we must not overlook the fact that this problem will continue to embarrass our Nation, even when prosperity reaches over the threshold of every home. Modern methods, labor-saving devices, that shatter all kinds of employment, can only be combatted by shortening the working day, far beyond the hours now being considered.

The opposition argues, wearingly on, that such a change will increase production costs, they not realizing that relief expense creates, by far, a more serious burden, not only in dollars and cents, but in challenging the pride, the hope, the ambitions, the initiative of our working people, the greatest sacrifice of them all now being made by man and men.

[PAGE 7308]

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

[PAGE 7309]

Farmers who have not thought clearly on this subject feel that wage and hour legislation will salvage their last cent, their only hope. While agriculturalists are exempt from all provisions of this bill, such legislation may increase production costs of the farmers' produce, and apparently lessen his profit. But let us take account of stock.

At the present time there is a very limited market for his goods, and at low prices, simply because his customers are out of employment or working at starvation wages.

Reinstate these unfortunate men and women by giving them a fair salary, thereby creating a demand for the farmers' produce, the merchants goods. This will give business a chance to develop and expand. Then the butcher, the baker, and candlestick maker will bless the day when all can pay better wages.

Differentials, suggested from time to time, have been the bone of contention, the fiy in the ointment, that have prevented a fairer workday.

We are told that the laborers of one section of the country are slow, lazy, and indolent, hence industries, employing such people, cannot operate on an efficient basis.

Many of the facts presented at our labor hearings proved this to be an idle dream, for manufacturers, owning factories in all sections of this country, testified that efficiency was as good in one as in the other; but that under the prevailing working differentials they were able to manufacture at lower cost in sections where subnormal working conditions prevail, thus proving that inefficiency is not the controlling factor. But instead, that human beings are being sacrificed by the way of lower wages and longer hours to induce industries to move from one section to another.

Now then, if we cannot have a bill, free from gain and greed, free from favors and favoritism, many of us will be obliged to vote against it, trusting that in the near future the laboring people, in the lower-paid communities, will assert themselves by demanding a wage that will provide for them the same advantages enjoyed by their fellowmen in other parts of the country.

I am hoping that the virtues of this proposed legislation will not be destroyed by amendments, sometimes presented in disguise, and that the bill will be accepted in no uncertain terms. [Applause.]

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

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I am for this bill because I remember well the appeals that were made to me by the class of people from the State of Connecticut who will be benefited by this bill.

I am for this bill because I have suffered under the same competition this bill will eliminate. Possibly no other man in the House today has had my experience in learning a trade 35 years ago, working at it, joining in all the labor organizations that built my standards and protected my family, only to have the day come that in order for the company for which I worked to compete with chiseling cutthroat companies the demand was made on me to wear overalls 6 days a week, work long hours, and at wages reduced to such a stage that I could not take care of my family. This I and others in working for that company refused to do. The company was forced to move from the eastern part of the country to another section where men were willing to work long hours for low wages and to wear overalls 6 days a week.

What did I want? Just enough after working long hours to feed my family, to shelter them, to educate them, and to put a little away for old age that would take care of me when old age overtook me. Was I wrong? I say to you Members of this House today that the quicker we get back to that philosophy the better it is going to be for this country.

I am for this bill because I have seen the same situation time after time when I was deputy commissioner of labor in the State of Connecticut where people were willing to sacrifice, strike, resist these low standards being forced upon them; and what happened? Reductions of wages were put into effect. Strikes took place; and then overnight these plants moved to other sections of the country and left ghost villages. Do you know what it means where there is but one industry in a small town and it folds up and goes out of business? Do you know the heartaches it causes?

I am for taking out of business the industrialist who lives on the blood of women and children—and we have them in my State. You talk about low wages in the South; we have them in our section of the country, wages as low as $2, $3, and $4 a week. We have the type of industrialist that goes into the section bought by the chamber of commerce, enticed from one city to another, taking women in for a 6 weeks' training period at no salary at all to learn a job that would be learned in 2 hours. That is the fellow in my State that I want this bill to reach and have him give way to the manufacturer who does want to pay a good wage and furnish good conditions.

Mr. Chairman, this is my first term and I have been trying to find a way out for the 300,000 of our boys who are in the forests of this country today.

[Here the gavel fell.]

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

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, we have failed miserably. Only a few weeks ago we appropriated an additional $50,000,000 to keep these forests and camps open. There is industry in America today doing Government work and, even with the penalty of time and a half, they are working men 60 and 74 hours a week because, they claim, they have not trained men. Let us consider these 300,000 boys.

Mr. Chairman. in a few years we will not even have 40 hours a week. We have modern machinery that has increased production a hundredfold. Our hours of labor are going down until the boys and girls of our country can be given the opportunity to work in industry. During the last 15 years, with the immigration laws as strict as they have been and with 9 years of depression, there have been imported into this country one and a quarter million menchanics, and this in face of the fact that we have 300,000 boys, the flower of our youth, in the forests. I am appealing to you to give these boys who are in the forests a chance to learn a trade. Let us pass legislation which provides that these industries doing Government work may employ people only 40 hours a week except in time of wa1 or in time of emergency or disaster. We will have to come to that eventually unless we intend to keep these boys in the forests forever. I, as a father, do not want to see the boys and girls of America at 17 years of age told they are going to live off the Government when actual opportunities for them to work should be provided. [Applause.]

In my opinion, the American people in 1936 voted in favor of governmental action to improve working conditions for the workers of this country, to reduce long hours, to increase wages which spelled starvation, to end the labor of children, and to wipe out sweatshops. They expressed their desire to have the best possible wage-hour bill that could be devised enacted into law at the earliest possible date. This was not merely an emotional urge to make a few unscrupulous employers grant standard labor conditions; rather it was an indication of a determination to turn the increasing use of labor-saving devices into increased wealth and security, of a deterinination to convert our abused and exploited workers into actual buyers of billions of dollars of industrial and farm products.

In accordance with this desire, bills calling for wage-hour legislation were introduced very early in the Seventy-fifth Congress, and although this legislation received the favorable consideration of the Senate last year, it seemed to have been doomed when the House recommitted its bill during the special session. Strong public sentiment and the will of our President were instrumental in its being resurrected from committee this spring, only to have it blocked again, this time by the Rules Committee.

Two weeks ago there occurred in the House of Representatives one of the finest demonstrations that it has been my

[PAGE 7309]

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

[PAGE 7310]

pleasure to observe. As you recall, the Rules Committee by an 8-to-6 vote had decided against allowing the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to be submitted to the House for debate. In order to discharge the Rules Committee from further consideration of this bill, it was necessary that 218 Members of the House of Representatives signify their desire to have this bill debated by signing the discharge petition.

In little more than 2 hours, after the petition had been laid on the table, the required number of signatures had been obtained, thereby assuring the House of Representatives an opportunity of voting upon this proposed measure.

In general, the passage of this Fair Labor Standards Act will result in the raising of wages and a shortening of the working hours for the underprivileged of our country. It proposes to establish a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours, and to abolish child labor. This bill, however, does not intend to fix an immediate minimum wage or an immediate maximum number of hours; instead it will operate on a scale until it reaches its objective of 40 hours at 40 cents per hour. The bill provides for a minimum wage of 25 cents, which minimum will automatically increase 5 cents yearly until its peak of 40 cents has been reached. In the matter of the hours, the bill contains a provision for a maximum hour workweek of 44 hours, which will automatically reduce 2 hours per week each year until there is a 40-hour week.

By the operation of this bill the 40 cents per hour wage will be reached at the end of 3 years, and the 40-hour workweek will be reached at the end of 2 years.

The theory behind this automatic increase in wages and decrease in hours is sound. In the last few months there has taken place a sharp decline in business activity; with that decline have come the inevitable wage cuts. It is the belief of the majority that a gradual approach to the desired standards for wages and hours will not cause the economic dislocations that might otherwise result.

This bill also retains the provisions in relation to child labor. It has been clearly understood for a good many years that young men and young women in industry need strictly enforced legislation of a protective nature—legislation that will eliminate much of the abuse and exploitation. This bill will accomplish the desired ends, since it defines oppressive child labor as being the employment of a child under the age of 16 in any occupation, or the employment of any person between the ages of 16 to 18 in any occupation which the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor shall declare to be particularly hazardous or detrimental to his health or well-being. Children above 14 may be employed in occupations other than mining or manufacturing when it does not interfere with their schooling; for example, working during vacation.

I am an exponent of wage and hour legislation. It is something in which I have the utmost faith and confidence. I believe that legislation of this sort will do more toward promoting permanent recovery than any other single piece of legislation that could be proposed. Labor organizations and the unskilled workers of this country strongly favor it and urge that it be adopted at the earliest possible time. Nor is it labor alone that is in favor of it because I have received telegrams and letters from enough industrialists to warrant my conclusion that they, too, as a class, are in favor of the wage-hour legislation.

It is my opinion that those who are opposed to wage-hour legislation are the very ones who are opposed to humanitarian legislation of any kind; they are the ones who do not believe that the workingman is deserving of a living wage, nor that his family should have a sufficient income to assure it of the bare necessities of life. I would have you observe that this proposed legislation will not improve the wages and hours of the majority of workers, nor does it attempt to. For I am greatly pleased to say that the majority of workers do not need this legislation because they are receiving a living wage and are not forced to work unreasonable hours. This happy condition has been brought about by collective bargaining or by the voluntary act of an employer. I feel that the outstanding feature of this bill is that it will benefit the minonty of our workers, who for years have been abused and exploited by unscrupulous employers and who have been forced to accept a wage that will not allow comfortable living, and who have been compelled to work 60 to 70 hours a week under intolerable working conditions. These are the people that will be protected and it is they who will reap the benefits of a bill that has a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours.

It has been said that a minimum wage and maximum hours will force the little concern out of business and that small concerns will not be able to pay 40 cents an hour for a 40-hour week. I contend that this was not the case during the N. R. A. and it will not be true under a minimum-wage bill. Nor will it affect the larger industries, because with very few exceptions workingmen in those industries are already receiving a wage in excess of the minimum proposed by this bill. I do not believe that the minimum wage will become the maximum wage, because during the period of the N. R. A. prosperity was returning rapidly. Should there, however, be a tendency upon the part of employers to look upon the minimum wage as a maximum, let me point out that the workers can always have recourse to their rights to bargain with their employer.

The wage and hour bill is an honest and sincere effort to meet and not to avoid the just demands of the workingman that his fundamental rights be· observed. In guaranteeing to ·the workingman a minimum wage a few employers may suffer some inconvenience. I feel, however, that the automatic increase in the minimum wage from 25 to 40 cents over a 3-year period will give an employer ample time in which to adjust himself to the minimum wage and its yearly increase.

The employer who in all probability will feel this minimum wage most keenly and from whom we may expect much opposition is that employer who is not accustomed to and is not inclined toward paying a minimum wage, since it will necessitate his competing with shops where standards conditions are maintained which competition, and because of his low cost of production, he has not had to meet in the past.

The administration of the bill is in the hands of the Secretary of Labor, who, having certain rules as guides, has the power of determining what industries affect the commerce between the States. The Secretary will have the power to utilize the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor for all investigations and inspections necessary under the act.

Let me again express the opinion that this legislation is most worthy of the favorable action of this House. I am confident that it will accomplish its purpose, and it is my sincere recommendation that it be enacted into law at this session of Congress.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from New York [Mr. SIROVICH] 15 minutes.

Mrs; NORTON. Mr. Chairman; I yield the gentleman from New York [Mr. SIROVICHJ 15 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. SIROVICH] for 30 minutes.

Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Chairman, when a symphonic orchestra with diversified mechanical instruments plays in harmony, in unison; and in one accord, we have unity of musical expression which is called rhythm and melody. Here we behold how a cooperative tendency results in transforming diversity to unity. Evolution always means the change from diversity to unity. This constant change from diversity to unity is not only true of mechanical nature but is true of biological nature, as well as of all manifestations of the historical process.

In religion, for instance, we see polytheism, the worship of the many gods, dying out slowly and being replactd by monotheism; that is to say, going from diversity to unity

Political life of man begins with tribalism. In the course of political development tribes unite and form a nation. The way from tribalism to nationhood—many tribes and one nation—is again the way from diversity to unity.

[PAGE 7310]

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

[PAGE 7311]

In science we observe a similar evolution. First, man tries to gain knowledge of simple phenomena. When he accumulated a greater knowledge of a multitude of phenomena, he tried to discover the one principle governing them all. In seventeenth century physics Newton discovered that principle, gravitation. In twentieth century physics, Einstein discovered that principle, relativity. The greatest triumph of science is the discovering of one principle as the explanation for a multitude of phenomena. The fundamental and underlying principle of science consists, therefore, in going from diversity to unity.

The literary process shows a similar tendency. First, there are local expressions and then there is national expression. Before a nation produces its Shakespeare or its Goethe, its Hugo or its Tolstoi, it experiences literary localism and regionalism. When a national expression embodies in the figure of one creative genius it replaces all local expressions; the literature of a nation has therefore reached its peak of development.

It stands to reason that economic development is not an exception to the ironclad law from diversity to unity. The many economic standards and the many economic laws governing our Nation must be replaced by one standard and one law of minimum wages and maximum hours. A fully developed Nation of 48 States can no more have 48 different and contrary economic laws than it can have 48 different languages, different civilizations, or different cultures. But as it is today, we have in America two different economics, governed by two different laws, and representing two different standards. In one section of our country the economic toiler is paid a living wage, though not a saving wage. In another section the worker receives starvation wages and is often so underpaid and so badly exploited that he can hardly meet both ends and can scarcely have a real feeling of human dignity. He is not only the underdog but he is also the underworm. The underworm, struggle as hard as he does, cannot be creative and cannot contribute to the physical, spiritual, and moral strength of the Nation. What the wage and hour bill really represents is an attempt to create one uniform minimum-wage standard for the entire fabric of our American economic life, replacing a diversity of wage-slave standards that is a reflection upon human dignity and the respect that America owes to its producing and toiling workers that have made our Republic great and glorious. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, everything that is produced in our country through agriculture and industry is the result of the labor of the beast of burden, the machine, and the human being. Whether we are reactionaries, conservatives, liberals, progressives, or radicals, whether we are in the habit of looking forward or backward, we must all admit that there is a tremendous difference between the labor of the beast of burden, between the labor of the machine, and the labor of human beings.

Let us analyze the wages of these three groups that I have just enumerated. What are the wages of the beast of burden today in our country? All that he receives from his master, whom he serves loyally and faithfully, is the oats, bran, hay, corn, and other food products necessary to keep him alive, besides the roof that shelters him from the ravages of the weather. In other words, all that the beast of burden receives as compensation is enough to live and to exist.

What is the wage that the modern machine receives for its compensation for producing day in and day out? The machine receives as its wage for the services and labor that it renders, metamorphically speaking, the right to be well oiled, well cleaned, well housed, and better taken care of than the beast of burden in order that the ravages of weather may not disintegrate the highly mechanized machinery.

Now, what are the wages of human beings throughout the length and breadth of our country in agriculture and industry? First, there is starvation wages which cannot keep body and soul together and is less than the beast of burden receives. Second, living wages which just barely keep body and soul together and does not equal the cost of the shelter that the modern machine receives. Third, is the principle involving saving wages, whereby the modern workingman would be able to receive wages that would enable him to save in times of amuence and prosperity for days of adversity and misfortune, which is the fundamental principle motivating our great President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the New Deal, in order to give purchasing and consuming power to the millions of underprivileged and undernourished Americans who are crying and clamoring for a better day in this great and beloved Republic of ours. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, the human personality revolts against the identification of machine, cattle, and man. Human labor must not be treated as is the labor of the beast of burden, or of the machine, for they are of different qualities and orders. The machine or the animal is not held responsible for its work for being deprived either of intelligence or consciousness, or of both; it cannot be called to accountability. But man, being endowed with intelligence and moral consciousness, owes responsibility for his labor and its quality to his employer. Consequently, to treat human labor as other labor is treated is not only inhuman but even economically unsound, resulting in strikes, boycotts, and general labor upheavals.

This consideration that man cannot be used as a means, like the machine or the animal, is the main motive animating the labor legislation of wages and hours of the present administration. In conformity with our religious traditions that man has been created in the image of God—that is to say, that he is a spiritual being—the present wage and hour bill seeks to humanize our economic order and raise the standard of life of the American people by—

First. Standardizing a minimum wage by freezing a minimum below which no human being can be exploited, and thus curbing the acquisitive powers of the captains of industry and commerce.

Second. Raising the general economic life of the Nation by a gradual, more equitable redistribution of wealth by increasing through minimum wages a greater purchasing and consuming power of the exploited worker.

Third. Securing greater leisure for the working people through the maximum of 40 hours of work per week, so that working people will have more time to attend to the education of their children, to the improvement of their own knowledge, and to their participation in the spiritual pleasures of life. In times gone by painters and poets, composers and writers created for the select few only. The rich and the mighty alone were the patrons and beneficiaries of the arts and letters, for the masses of people having been used as tools and labor devices were precluded from enjoying the higher pleasures of life that accompanied the beautiful, the good, and the true. It is the ardent desire of our great President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that the American people as a whole, and not the select few alone, be the patrons and beneficiaries of the arts and the letters and of everything that is noble and beautiful in life. Such an order of things requires greater leisure time, economic security, and social tranquillity. The vision of our humane President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is not so much a satisfied party as a contented and happy American people. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, to achieve the objects of the wage and hour bill we must first bring about a standardization of our economic life. This is most important, since it will complete in America the entire economic process from diversity to unity. We have to bear in mind that only five generations ago our Nation consisted of a variety of political and economic units, representing a maximum of diversity and a minimum of unity. Within this short span of time we have become a united Nation. We have produced a civilization of our own, which is the envy of representatives of other civilizations. We have developed a culture of our own which promises to become the culture of tomorrow, largely because it is a fusion and a synthesis of the best and noblest that can be found in all great European cultures of all times. We have marched through the road from diversity to oneness at a much faster pace than any other nation in the Old World. The

[PAGE 7311]

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

[PAGE 7312]

tendency toward unity in America must be considered nothing short of miraculous because, in the course of that process, millions of people not belonging originally to Anglo-Saxon nations have been made an organic part of American civilization which is basically Anglo-Saxon. The only missing link in this unity is the economic factor. In the economic field we are still divided. We still represent a house divided against itself. This division will be eliminated and a complete unit established by the adoption of the wage and hour bill. When there will be one minimum wage for every American worker, no matter whether the scene of activity is in the North or in the South, the East or the West, the process of American civilization will be complete. I dare say that President Roosevelt, who is vitally interested in seeing this bill passed, is only completing the work of our great unifier, the immortal Abraham Lincoln. Just as Abraham Lincoln has united the Nation politically so Franklin Delano Roosevelt is trying his utmost to unite it economically. [Applause.] In these trying days unity is more desirable than at any other time. For in unity there is not only strength but hope. A united Nation will be in a better position to weather the storm and to resist diversified forces than a nation divided against itself.

Mr. Chairman, if we fail to pass this bill, we will only be instrumental in continuing the exploitation of millions or workers, condemning them to a life of misery and squalor; and we will create tlie conditions for the rise and development of destructive forces. When the worker has a minimum of security he is likely to listen to all kinds of agitators trying to capture him for their dubious causes. The satisfied worker is sober-minded, patriotic, and conservative, but the dissatisfied toiler, whose starvation wage is scarcely sufficient to provide him and his family with the most elemental necessities, is just the ideal objective of the agitator and the false prophet.

Mr. Chairman, we often hear reactionaries singing the praise of a feudal order, because in that order the workingman, while deprived of freedom and many liberties, enjoyed a modicum of economic security. Today the American workingman enjoys all the liberty and freedom he desires, but he bas no economic security, because he is badly underpaid, and has neither the benefits of feudalism nor the advantages of industrialism.

Mr. Chairman, we are all familiar with the contentions advanced against a wage and hour law, but all these arguments become invalidated by the one simple consideration, that a unified wage and hour law will once and for all do away with unfair competition in our economic life. The American people simply do not care for cheap, exploited labor, and are ready and willing to pay the price for well-paid services.

The shameful commercialization of labor in many parts of our country means that the well-paid workingman is always endangered by cheap labor. The manufacturer who pays his worker a living wage is always threatened by the manufacturers who pay their workers a starvation wage. This is unfair competition, and can be eliminated by the wage and hour law. If we fail to pass this bill, we only punish those manufacturers who pay their workers a decent living wage. Instead of penalizing we should encourage them, and the only encouragement we can offer them is to make this bill the uniform law of the land. A united American Nation wants one basic American economic law and one economic standard.

Mr. Chairman, American labor, like American civilization, must grow organically. It must grow like a plant. The symbol of the American worker is the tree, deeply rooted in the fertile soil, holding its position against all odds, weathering the storms, resisting the winds, and holding its own no matter what comes. Such growth testifies to health, to strength, to creativeness. But, in places where labor is cheap and the worker underpaid, he is always on the go, he is always moving, and is symbolized by the insect and not by the tree. The result is that localities that exploit labor, and treat them as economic slaves, undergo more changes than is good for them, and are interrupted in their development, to assume the character of armed camps, ultimately to be abandoned and deserted because a great section of the population migrated to other places, to look for better labor conditions. Cheap labor is the curse of every community. Well-paid labor is a source of strength and a blessing to every locality.

I have often heard foreigners traveling through our country tell me that there are two Americas, and two American civilizations, one in well-paid sections and the other in poor-paid sections. Their strange impression of our country is primarily traceable to the fact that in one part of our country labor is well paid, and consequently, towns and cities flourish, while in the other section, labor is underpaid, and the demarcation line between wealth and poverty is so sharp that where wealth ends, poverty, misery, and squalor begins. It is this kind of poverty, and the sort of squalor to which there is not any analogy even in the poverty-ridden countries of the Old World, that make us shudder at man's inhumanity to his fellow man. The adoption of the wage and hour bill will remedy these terrible conditions. It will make an end to that misery, suffering, and squalor which are a disgrace to American civilization.

Mr. Chairman, this bill must not be considered from the point of view of party interests, of local economic interests, of sectonal, racial, or group interests; it must be looked upon from the point of view of our Nation at large, of the exigencies and requirements of the American civilization, and of the most elementary postulates of ethics. Its adoption will complete the minimum wage economic process that swings from piversity to unity. It will make the unity of our Nation and the American civilization complete and absolute. It will be a source of helpfulness and humaneness to our fellow man in places where labor is cheap. It will prove to be a source of strength in those localities in which the worker is always on the go in quest of better labor conditions. It will remove unfair competition. It will create a minimum unified economic wage standard in America. And it will make the dubious agitators and false prophets superfluous, for it will shut up the sources of agitation, discord, and propaganda, and especially of foreign propaganda, with its variety of isms. The adoption of this bill must therefore be considered an event of great historic significance. The adoption of this bill, Mr. Chairman, will be the greatest patriotic act imaginable, for it will create for our Nation a source of health, strength, and happiness, and will make millions of suffering human beings contented. What greater service can a man do in life than make his fellow man happy?

Mr. Chairman, the Declaration of Independence established the principle that all men being born equal must share a minimum of equality, at least, extending to all spheres of life-political, economic, and social. At the time that great document was composed man had but a vision of equality, the Declaration of Independence becoming a promissory note calling for future redemption. The present administration, in its efforts to emancipate the struggling masses of the American people from the many fetters to which it is bound, and to bring about greater economic equality, merely is honoring a note signed by the founding fathers of our Republic. And the honoring of thls note will be completed when the American people will enjoy greater happiness, greater freedom, and greater security. Mr. Chairman, this state of economic justice can only come by adopting the wage and hour bill, which will emancipate millions of exploited, inarticulate, unskilled American workers, who are praying for a better day in this great Republic of ours. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, the great prophet Isaiah once said, And a little child shall lead them. That profound, mystic, occult, and intuitive vision has come down to us through the ages. Asia is the mother of every religion and is the founder of all culture. Europe is the father of all civilization. America is the child. That is the result of the fusion and synthesis of these diversified, continental groups that have come to our country in the past and have made America great, glorious, and prosperous. These same groups are responsible for the creation of the shibboleth and slogan of our Nation and our Republic, "E Pluribus Unum." Out of the diversified many

[PAGE 7312]

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

[PAGE 7313]

has come one nation unified, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The passage of the wage and hour bill, with the abolition of child labor forever, will make America the child lead all the nations of the world in progress, in culture, in civilization, and in the respect and refining infiuences it pays to American labor that has made our Republic the greatest in all the world. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman; I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. JoHNSON].

Mr. JOHNSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, this so called wage and hour bill is just one of the component parts that are included in what you might call a program for social justice in the United States. I really believe that when the history of the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt is written the outstanding thing to which the historians will point is recognition of the fact he came into office as President of the United States at a time of great stress and disturbance, took cognizance of a great technological change in the country as well as other changes in the various economics of the country, and set forth a program.

One of the speakers today said this bill did not originate with the President but with labor. This may be true, but I believe had it not been for the steadfast hammering of the President on the anvil this bill would not be up for discussion at this time.

For the remaining couple of minutes I should like to discuss one of the aspects of this measure as it affects certain groups of Government workers. Knowing the immensity of the program before the House and the Senate in the last 5 years, I believe this fact has perhaps been overlooked. It happens that the bill now under discussion covers only interstate commerce arising out of private business, whereas today we have in the veterans' hospitals of the United States men who are working as orderlies, diet kitchen workers, laundry workers, caretakers of the various hospitals and others, working as many as 60 to 72 hours a week, for wages of $60, $70, $80, and $00 a month; in addition these men and women are subject to a rather unfair so-called Q. S. and L. deduction for quarters, sustenance, and laundry whether they actually receive them or not.

If we are suffering today from a maladjustment in the field of labor, if we are suffering from a lack of buying power in the field of labor so labor cannot buy the products of the farmer, this bill should be all-embracing and should cover also the men and women who work for the Government. They should be given the same limitation of 40 hours a week as the workers in private industry. Moreover, the men who are on duty in the various Government hospitals, and there are thousands of them today, are serving men who are sick, men who served their country on the field of battle, and who need extraordinary care.

I really believe that at the proper time an amendment should be offered to this bill, in line with H. R. 10574, which I introduced with 75 cosponsors, to make the bill a little bit more all-embracing and have the Government do in its own field of employment what, it asks the people of the Nation to do in their private establishments. It is no more than fair and it is no more than honest that this be done. I believe a 40-hour week for all Government employees is no more than fair, if you are asking the same consideration for the people in the field of private employment.

Those of you who know we are in the midst of a social transition in the United States, regardless of whether you come from the country or the city, can honestly vote for this bill, because after you consider all the other attempts we have made in this country to bring back to the people of the Nation buying power and the right to live, you finally will come to this one show-down, that if the men who work in industry do not have jobs and incomes they cannot buy the product of the farm, whether that product be grains like wheat or corn or a product from the fields of the South, like cotton.

If you are going to bring normal national economics back you have to have legislation like this. You can call it a poor bill if you want to, as some have, but I think the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs; NORTON] and her able committee and the leaders of the administration who have brought it into the House at this time deserve the thanks of everyone who is going to benefit by this legislation. Thanks are due also to the gentleman from California [Mr. WELCH] and those of his colleagues on the Republican side who signed the petition to discharge the committee, and who are lending their aid and support to this measure. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan rMr. WooDRUFF] such time as he may care to use.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Mr. Chairman, throughout my 20 years of service in the House of Representatives my record will show that I have never failed on any occasion to support any measure which would genuinely and actually benefit the wage earners.

For 50 years Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, and recognized throughout the world as the greatest labor leader and statesman of all time, preached in season and out against organized labor ever admitting or permitting the principle of governmental control or regulation of wages, hours, and working conditions. Gompers constantly warned that if ever the Federal Government successfully assumed the power of regulating wages, hours, and working conditions in any manner whatsoever that that power could be extended to the regulation of wages, hours, and working conditions in their entirety.

No one can deny that the same principle which permits the Federal Government to establish minimum wages and maximum hours will permit the Government to establish maximum wages and miniinum hours.

That is my principal reason for voting against this wage hour bill. I consider the introduction of this principle of Federal control to be dangerous to the welfare of labor as well as of industry.

A second reason why I cannot support this measure is that I am convinced that amendments will be adopted in the Senate, or that compromises will be agreed upon in conference, which will permit the reintroduction into this measure of the very objectionable features which the American Federation of Labor opposed. Those objectionable features were all in the Senate bill, and they were responsible for a majority vote of this House to recommit the original House wage-hour bill.

I consider the e1fort to force this measure through the House as being designed primarily to get it into conference, where some, or even all, the objectionable features of the bill may again be injected into this measure under such circumstances that we will be left with the slim chance of defeating such a conference report.

Every Member of this body realizes that it is immeasurably more dimcult to defeat an objectionable measure by refusing to adopt a conference report than to defeat the original measure on the floor.

My third reason for voting against this bill is that it will benefit such a very small percentage of the low-wage, longhour workers it is claimed it will reach. In all probability not to exceed 2,000,000 wage earners will be touched by the provisions of this bill at all within the next 2 years. If our experience with wage and hour legislation in the past teaches us anything, it is that of those affected thereby a substantial proportion will lose such jobs as they now have.

The fourth reason why I cannot support this measure is because, according to the best analysts who have studied the bill and its probable operation, this measure will not reduce, but will increase, unemployment precisely as occurred under the efforts along this line attempted under the N. R. A.

A fifth reason why I cannot support this measure is that while the bill exempts farm labor, its enactment would create conditions that would make it virtually impossible for the farmer to secure hired help at wages within his reach.

[PAGE 7312]

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

[PAGE 7313]

A sixth reason why I cannot vote for this bill is that those who would be thrown out of employment when any particular industry or activity could not meet the requirements imposed by the bill would become a burden upon the public relief rolls.

A seventh reason why I cannot support this measure is that admittedly it will increase the cost of manufactured commodities to both American farmers and American wage earners, as well as all other classes, so that the few additional cents put into the pay envelope will again be taken away at the retail counter.

The eighth reason why I am compelled to vote against this measure is that under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, and with organized labor amply able to secure a just and fair settlement of these questions by collective bargaining, labor is able to adjust its own minimum wages and maximum hours.

The ninth reason why I cannot support this legislation is that it represents only another step, and a very far step, toward a planned economy, which is another name for the complete regimentation of the citizens of this Nation under the objectionable regulations of a gigantic bureaucracy. This, in turn, is the machinery of a political autocracy that has never for one moment in the last 5 years ceased to move in the direction of autocratic control and the destruction of our constitutional free Republic.

The time has come when, if this advance toward such a political autocracy is to be stopped, the Members of this and succeeding Congresses will be compelled to have the courage of their convictions and to vote against such measures as this, baited with promises of benefit to labor or to business, but concealed behind the bait the steel trap of centralized power in the Federal Government that would hold the citizen fast in subservience to a political autocracy.

The trap is set. The bait is in place. Its odor is alluring. Its consequences would be ruinous.

Mr. Chairman, American business is still further disturbed by the evident determination of the administration to continue to harass and control all business through the medium of this legislation. We already have 13,000,000 unemployed, and this proposal will add to this number. We have as many on relief today as we have had at any time. Instead of doing the things which inevitably make conditions worse why, in the name of Heaven, do we not lay aside these pending so-called reform measures, at least until such time as a reassured business has taken up a substantial portion of the unemployment slack?

It is not new legislation our unemployed want and need at this time. They want and they need jobs. They are rapidly coming to the realization that jobs are to be had only when the handcuffs and leg irons are removed from private American business.

Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of regret to me that the American Federation of Labor has in this instance been led astray by the political emotionalism of the moment; and I am convinced that when this bill is finally reported back from the conference that the American Federation of Labor, because of changes in the bill then confronting us, will be asking us to vote against the conference report.

Even if the bill were passed by both Houses as it is presented here it still opens the door to a principle utterly dangerous to the independence and welfare of labor and of industry-namely, the power of the Federal Government to interfere in the right of free contract by the employee and employer and to dictate the terms of all such contracts.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. DUNN].

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Labor Committee I am mighty glad to have the opportunity to speak on the wage and hour bill, which was reported from our committee.

According to the Bible, it has been said man came into possession of this earth about five or ten thousand years ago. According to the science of geology man existed about 500,000 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate to say that is too long a time to wait for a wage and hour bill. [Laughter and applause.]

I am positive that if this bill is enacted into law it will accomplish a great deal of good for unfortunate humanity. Sweatshops, child labor, slum districts, and other abominable social evils will disappear.

I have been informed that the Government spends approximately $15,000,000,000 annually to protect society against violators of the law. A great deal of the crime committed is perpetrated by those who come from the slums. If we would eradicate the slums, the Government would not be compelled to spend the gigantic sum for law enforcement against criminals.

The bill which is now before us is a constructive, progressive, and humanitarian measure. It has been said by outstanding labor leaders and economists that if we would enact this wage and hour bill about 3,000,000 persons who are unemployed would obtain employment, and it has also been stated that if we would adopt a 5-day, 30-hour workweek, approximately 7,000,000 persons would be reemployed. We should not hesitate to support legislation which will benefit mankind. Hundreds of thousands of people in our country are being compelled to work 12 and 14 hours daiJy, 7 days a week, for about 14 cents per hour. Such wages and long hours of employment are rank slavery. The sooner we adopt legislation to correct this damnable and vicious practice the better off society will be.

It is the duty of Congress to pass legislation which will abolish all social evils which are responsible for the unnecessary suffering of its people. Every man and woman who is physically and mentally able to work should have a position and be paid a saving wage. The aged, widows with dependent children, and those who are unable to work because of a physical disability should be provided with an adequate pension. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CREAL].

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to take one sentence to answer in a way the economic philosophy which has been interjected into this debate from time to time by the man who says, What do you think about disturbing the natural right and the constitutional right of individual bargaining? I want to say that that is an awful bad thing, and if it had never been disturbed by capital, I do not believe you would have to have any wage-hour bill.

Did you know that every other capitalist fixes the wages of your employees, whether they work for him or not? When you pay him and he goes down the street to get a pair of shoes the price he has to pay for that pair of shoes is fixed by some people in Boston, indirectly fixing your man's wages. When I went in here to get a Coca-Cola a while ago he might have made a profit by selling for 4 cents, but if he undertook to sell that article for 4 cents they would stop it. There is no longer any competition in the factory product. Therefore the capitalist is fixing the wages of the people who do not work for them, and hence the only way to compete with that situation is to fix a bottom limit for wages.

Then they say it is a terrible thing when we undertake with respect to agriculturists to let them limit their production. There is a better system, if the factory would follow it, and when they cannot make a profit of 10 percent would keep on producing and take a profit of 5 percent, or any profit at all, then 2 bushels of corn would still buy what it bought in the old days. However, they will not do this. It might be a better system if everybody would overproduce and sell for what they could get, but one side carefully limits their production, and the only way to meet that situation is by the same kind of business method. For this reason some bottom is necessary for wages and hours.

I wonder how many Members of Congress would be willing to pass a bill providing that the Members of Congress should be selected by the bargain-counter method What will you serve for? to be the question.

[Here the gavel fell.]

[PAGE 7314]

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

[PAGE 7315]

Mr. WELCH. ·Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. CREAL. I do not think we would be willing to let the job of serving as a Congressman out to the low bidder.

Of the vast millions spent here in wages by the Government, there is only one Government worker who is asked, What will you do this for? and that is the old star-route mail carrier. That is the only man in the history of the Government who is employed on such a basis.

With everybody else we fix the price and then bring him in. What I started out to say primarily was that there is one business never intended to be here by any labor group, Mr. Green, or the C. I. O. or anybody else, and that is that this bill will probably affect 4,000 weekly county-seat newspapers, because of about a 2 percent circulation that goes into different States, thus putting them in the interstate commerce class. This bill was never meant to reach those people. Every other piece of interstate commerce product is governed by the national or even international market. That is not true in that case. It is governed by the amount of population of the town, the county seat, or the county. At the proper time I expect to offer the amendment which was adopted in the other bill exempting the county weeklies, as they were never intended to be included by the labor leaders to go into this bill.

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. MOTT].

THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, every Member of the House, I presume, vividly recalls the prolonged and bitter fight that was made to recommit the wage and hour bill, so-called (S. 2475), which was considered in the House at the last special session of the Congress. The whole country, for that matter, will remember the debate which for 4 tense and anxious days held the attention of employers and employees alike throughout the Nation. In my opinion, it was due entirely to the complete success of the fight then waged on the floor of this body by the opponents of that bill that the House is privileged at this time to consider a wage and hour bill that is really worthy of consideration.

Although the bill which comes to us today for debate bears the same title and number (S. 2475) as the one which we recommitted to the Committee on Labor on December 17, 1937, there is no similarity whatever between the bill that was then recommitted and the bill we now have before us.

That bill, the special-session bill, was not a wage and hour bill at all. It was nothing but a bald piece of deceit masquerading under the name of a wage and hour bill. It was a bill the real purpose of which was to put the effective control of both industry and labor into the hands of the Federal Government.

It was a bill which was not made in the Congress. It was a bill made entirely in the Executive Department of the Government. It was a bill the real authorship of which was never disclosed to any Member of the House, but which, according to common belief at the time, was the brain child of either Ben Cohen or Tom Corcoran, or both. The Congress was not even consulted in tbe making of it, but it was sent into the House and Senate ready-made under orders from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to pass it.

Mr. Chairman, I have before me the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of December 14, 1937, and in connection with what I have just said, I wish to read an excerpt from the conclusion of my remarks in the debate in opposition to that bill upon that day. I said:

Mr. Chairman, in my humble and sincere opinion this bill is a fraud. It pretends to be a wage and hour bill. It pretends to establish minimum wages and maximum hours for the benefit of the worker. Instead of that, it does nothing for either employer or employee except to put them both under the heel of the most absolute and autocratic bureaucracy that any piece of legislation has ever attempted to set up in this country.

If this Congress wants a wage and hour bill, and for my own part let me say emphatically and unequivocally that I believe that honest, mandatory wage and hour legislation is necessary, and that I have always consistently advocated it, let us vote for an honest bill. Let us vote for the Dockweiler blll, which has the endorsement of labor and of the country generally, which actually establishes a minimum wage and a maximum workweek, which prohibits child labor, and which is to be offered as a substitute for this bill. If the Dockweller bill should be held to be not germane, then let us vote to recommit this bill and demand that the Committee on Labor report to us a mandatory wage and hour bill, one that we will not have to apologize for or be ashamed of, one that meets legitimate desires both of labor and of industry, and one that is drawn with at least some regard and respect for the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Par that kind of a measure, Mr. Chairman, I believe there exists a real necessity and a real demand and I trust that upon recommitment of this bill to the Committee on Labor we will be given an opportunity to vote upon such a measure. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, the proposal which was then before us under the false label of a wage and hour bill was recommitted by the House. It was recommitted by a bipartisan vote, approximately one-third of the majority party joining with virtually the entire membership of the minority party in sending that bill back to the Committee on Labor.

Now, the Committee on Labor has wisely heeded the mandate of the House as expressed in the recommittal vote. By that vote the committee was given to understand that if it expected favorable consideration by the House of a wage and hour bill it must report out a mandatory bill, naming a definite minimum wage below which no employer should be allowed to go in compensating his workmen for their labor, and a definite maximum-hour week above which no employer should go in requiring his employees to work. The House by that vote also clearly indicated that it would not consider a wage and hour bill which did not provide proper and definite exemptions for agricultural and seasonal industry and for other industry which, by its nature, could not properly come within the provisions of wage and hour legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Labor, in my opinion, has now brought in such a bill. The bill we have before us today from that committee is not as good a wage and hour bill as I would like to see. I think the wage floor is too low and the hours ceiling too high. It is not as good a bill as the Dockweiler bill, for example, which was endorsed by the American Federation of Labor and by the workers of the country generally, and which was not seriously objected to by the more progressive and far-seeing employers of labor.

But, Mr. Chairman, the bill now before us is at least a mandatory bill. It is at least an honest bill. It actually establishes minimum wages and maximum hours. It was not made in the Executive Department of the Government. It was made in Congress, where all Federal legislation should be made. It is self-executing. It is a simple mandatory law which everyone can understand. It eliminates entirely all of the offensive features and provisions of its predecessor which we recommitted at the special session. It gives no discretionary authority to any board, administrator, or other agent of the Executive. It contains simple and direct provisions for proper exemptions. And although, to begin with, at least, I think the wage minimum is too low and the hours maximum too high, yet it provides for a gradual and mandatory raising of the wage floor and a lowering of the wage ceiling for a period of 4 years, so that at the expiration of that period the bill will become to all intents and purposes the equivalent of the Dockweiler bill.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I shall support the bill, because in the main, and in principal, it meets the requirements I outlined in debate on the wage and hour bill which was recommitted at the special session of Congress. The bill, I think everyone agrees, is in need of some amendment, but I understand that the principal amendments which are to be offered are not objected to by the Committee on Labor.

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this: The House, by its vote to recommit the original Senate bill and by its vote which will shortly be cast to pass the bill now before us which technically, of course, is an amendment to the original Senate bill, although there is no similarity between the two has plainly shown to the Labor Committee what kind of a wage and hour bill it wants and

[PAGE 7315]

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

[PAGE 7316]

it has just as plainly shown to that committee what kind of a wage and hour bill it will not tolerate. Let us remember that when this bill is passed and when it goes to conference. Let us not forget that the House conferees have a mandate from the House not to permit the Senate con- ferees to restore any of the objectionable features of the original bill which the House has already objected.

If the House conferees should recede from the position the House has taken in this regard, and if they should concur in any of the proposals of the original bill which put the regulation and control of hours and wages under the discretionary jurisdiction of an administrator or board, appointed by and removable at the will of the Executive, then it should be the duty of the House to refuse to adopt the conference report and to send the bill back to conference with instructions to the House conferees to insist upon every material provision of S. 2475 as it was amended by the House Committee on Labor and as it will be passed by the House upon the conclusion of this debate.

I say this now because I know that the position taken by the Senate when it passed S. 2475 and sent it over to the House is the same now as it was then. I mean, of course, the position taken by the majority of the Senate. The Senate is not going to recede and concur in the House amendments without a struggle and when the bill comes back from conference the House should stand by its guns and be prepared for the struggle.

In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, the bill now before the House is the immediate business of the House. And, furthermore, it is the immediate and exclusive product of the House, notwithstanding it still bears its original Senate number.

I am glad, at last, to have the opportunity of supporting a real mandatory wage and hour bill, which this bill is. I congratulate the Labor Committee and its distinguished chairman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON], for bringing to the House a bill of this kind, a bill, as it stands now, really made in Congress by herself and her able committee, and it is a pleasure now to be able to say to her that I intend on final passage to vote for it. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD].

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, in the light of our experience in the past 9 years, 4 without any program at all, and the last 5 with a real program, it ought not to be necessary for us to be discussing the feasibility of the passage of a wage-hour bill today. To my mind this is the most sensible, the most logical, the most understandable, and the most workable bill that has been presented to this House with reference to wages and hours. I think it is the most important piece of legislation that has been presented to the Congress.

Since I came here on March 4, 1933, the administration of the Government under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt has performed a wonderful task. In the past 5 years many, many constructive measures have been enacted into law, some permanent, others emergency measures. All of them have played their part in bringing this country out of the throes of depression. The effect of these measures has brought order out of chaos and brought us from the black depths of misery and despair to the place where confidence has been instilled in the hearts of the people of this Nation, confidence in this administration, and confidence in the Government itself.

Among those measures was the National Recovery Act, designed to elevate standards of wages and lower the hours of labor, thereby spreading employment. It abolished child labor and through the codes of fair competition enabled the employers of this country to eliminate cutthroat competition. Since the voiding of the N. R. A., as you all know, it is a matter of history, a matter of common knowledge, that wages have been rapidly reduced and hours have been stretched. In some instances we have gotten back almost to 1932 cutthroat competitive practices. At that time the employers of this Nation told our Committee on Labor and other committees of the Congress that unless soemthing was done by this administration these practice woudl destroy the people.

It is very singular that under N. R. A. the southern cottontextile mills, whose employees were raised from an exceedingly low wage to a minimum of $11 to $12 a week—$11 for women and $12 for men—it is indeed remarkable that through all of that period there was not a garment factory, to my knowledge, or a single cotton-textile mill closed in the South, or in the North, either. Wages were increased, hours were shortened, business became better through the elimination of the chiseler and cutthroat competitor. The N. R. A. was a godsend to this country. After the voiding of the N. R. A., we passed the Wagner Labor Relations Act, and that supplanted section 7 (a) of the N. R. A. that was declared unconstitutional.

Since that time we have not been successful in enacting legislation to take the place of the codes and the fair competition provided under the N. R. A., which regulated wages and hours. The result, as I previously stated, has been reduction in wages and the lengthening of hours.

Mr. Chairman, we have had before this House in the past 5 years every type of wage-hour bill known. In the last special session we had our choice between three types of legislation. There was an amendment submitted as a substitute. The House had the choice between administration of this law by a board or bureaucracy or administration of the law by one administrator in the Department of Labor or administration of the law by the Department of Justice. When that bill came from the committee it was replete with exemptions. It was loaded down with exemptions and different!als.

When the bill came to the floor of the House many objected to the bill because it had no minimum, and really it did not. It regulated the wages up to 40 cents an hour, a ceiling, and regulated hours down to 40 hours, a floor so far as hours are concerned. I agree that this bill is the reverse. We had an opportunity to vote on the substitute in the last special session, which put a floor on wages, a higher one than this, and a ceiling to hours.

A member of the Rules Committee told me, If you will bring out a bill that is clear, concise, and understandable, and stripped of all its verbiage, with a 30-cent minimum, I will vote for it. But he has not voted for it yet. As I said before, I think this bill is pretty well understood by every Member of the House. We have discussed this matter pro and con for 3 or 4 years. I do not think it is necessary for any Member of the House to get up on the floor and say that he is just as good a friend of labor as anybody, but I am opposed to certain features of this bill. If we are going to pass wage and hour legislation, let us pass this bill in its present form. Do not load it down with exemptions or differentials. If we get into the realm of differentials and exemptions, we will not know what kind of a bill we have passed. The way to establish a wage and hour principle, in my opinion, is to vote for a bill which is clear and concise, one that can be understood by any reasonably intelligent man.

This bill does start with a 25-cent minimum, which is too low as far as I am concerned, but there are no less than 5,000,000 wage earners in this country today working for less than 25 cents an hour; some of them for as low as 5 cents, 10 cents, and 15 cents an hour. The principal purpose of the pending bill is to put a floor under wages in order to eliminate this cutthroat competition which destroys the living standard of the higher paid as well as the substandard wage earner. That was clearly demonstrated in 1932 and 1933. It was the cutthroat competition, low wages, and long hours that was affecting the whole country. The President of the United States has sent some seven messages to this Congress urging and imploring the Members of Congress to pass a wage and hour bill with a floor under wages and raise the American standard of living. I believe this House will pass the pending bill by an overwhelming majority. I hope the Members will not permit the opponents of this measure to destroy it by amendments, like they did

[PAGE 7316]

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

[PAGE 7317]

last time. Load this blll down with amendments and you will cause the bill to be recommitted.

[Here the gavel fell.]

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that anything which I may offer in this debate on the wage and hour bill will materially change the opinion of the opposition or of my friend [Mr. MAPES]. I do, however, want to discuss the subject matter as to the effect on our Michigan industries; and this, after all, is most important to my people.

The bill which the administration advances in the House for consideration is one which will not have any direct or immediate effect upon 97 percent or more of our Michigan employers and employees. This bill provides for a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour and a maximum of 44 hours per week. Progressively for a period of 3 years the basic wage scale or minimum will be increased at the rate of 5 cents per hour, thus attaining a minimum wage at the end of that time of 40 cents per hour. The 44-hour ceiling will be brought down to 40 hours within 2 years. It was said that the 40-40 provision as originally proposed in the bill which was recqmmitted would not affect Michigan's industries and Michigan's employees to any great extent, possibly 2 or 3 percent. This modified bill, therefore, could not possibly apply even to this small percentage.

I am for the wage and hour bill and hold uncompromisingly to the principle within it which seeks to correct abuses by employers who cling tenaciously to what they claim as their right of peonage and exploitation, and I am proud to add here and now tbat this charge of exploitation and peonage does not apply as a general rule to our Michigan industries and employers.

It is because I want to be helpful to Michigan's industries and the country as a whole, because I want to add stability to our banks, our homes, our cburches, apd public institutions, and because, above all else, I want to make secure the high standard of living based on compensation of our Michigan workers that I favor the wage and hour bill.

This measure is directed against the unscrupulous and unyielding exploiter of the workingman wherever he may ply his nefarious trade within the boundaries of the United States. The abuse of labor is not confined to any one section, although it may be worse in one part of the United States than in another.

The map of the continental United States is pockmarked with localities and areas involving entire states where conditions are intolerable, and where it is said that industry cannot adjust itself to a higher standard.

This attitude is unjust, unfair, and cannot be condoned by right-thinking people, and the constant appeal to allow more time for adjustment is without justification. They will never voluntarily adjust these industries to better, higher standards, meantime their actions may result in the undermining of the higher wage and living standards in such progressive States as Michigan. In fact, this enslavement of labor in the backward States has already handicapped Michigan's industries and impaired the happiness and destroyed the confidence of our workers, and through it all retarded business, slowed down credit, to say nothing of the detrimental effect upon the banks and community life in general.

When we read advertisements in national magazines, covering double-page spreads, costing thousands of dollars, bearing the signatures of eight or nine Governors of their respective States, which call attention of employers and industrialists of the North to the fact that they can move their plants to the particular locality referred to in the advertisement and save money because of the availability of cheap labor free from labor troubles, offering as an additional inducement exemption from taxation for a period of many years and free land grants, then it is time for us to take notice.

It appears to me that Michigan industrialists, manufacturers, and employees would be of one mind when it comes to the question of maintaining or raising the standard of living for humanity in large and populous sections of the United States, if not for humane reasons, then for selfish reasons.

Frankly, I cannot understand the philosophy of employers in my State who stand opposed to the wage and hour legislation, which will protect their industries and the investment in these industries against the burrowing of industrial termites.

I know only too well the sapping effect of this parasite upon the majority of our industries. I remember when the city of Detroit. industrially. was the largest producer of quality overalls in the world; the largest and oldest among these was the Hamilton Carhart Overall Co. Then there was the Finck Detroit Overall Co. and the Larned-Carter Overall Co., and maybe othets. You will find that all of these concerns were forced, in the face of unfair competition, to move to the Southland. Labor conditions and wages in these plants were based on a broad and generous policy, but this basis has no doubt been impaired if not completely destroyed since this industry en masse left the confines of the city of Dtroit. If you will go with me to Trumbull and Michigan Avenues in Detroit, you will find that what was once a teeming, busy industrial plant is now but a bat roost.

The overall industry is not the only one that found it could not compete with the cheap and exploited labor in other localities. At one time Detroit was the second largest producer of cigars in the world, but for the same reasons this industry too was lost to Detroit; and we need not stop there. Even the automobile inqustry has built factories in certain southern cities for the production of parts because cheap labor was available, and such labor as has been employed heretofore in Detroit is now being engaged elsewhere.

This burrowing beneath our Michigan industries certainly has a detrimental effect, not only upon the industries but also upon the real estate business, the values of homes, upon the banks, and even upon the neighborhood church. Our employers cannot compete against unlimited uncontrolled, cheap labor-especially so where the curse of child labor exists. I cannot agree that this legislation is objectionable or unfair to any section. The only detrimental effect following enactment, as far as I can see, will come as a result of the determination on the part of die-hards to resist the law, and the adoption of an attitude of noncooperation even if the legislation is intended to be helpfuL This is a philosophy of desperation and destruction which I cannot understand and which I conscientiously believe to be sinful, wrong, and un-American.

Michigan's industries pay higher wages than the minimum stipulated in the act, and our employers work their employees as a rule a reasonable number of hours. I fail to see why other States cannot follow this good example.

More than that, I cannot understand why an element of our Michigan employers rated above the slavetraders will plead for the maintenance of a damnable system which threatens their own very existence unless it is that an outlet is desired in case moving or transfer is intended. Such outlet should be blocked. Such an avenue of escaping fair obligations to labor and to a community should be eliminated. This legislation will not, however, prevent decentralization of industry, it will not restrict the right of an industrialist to move his plant but it will equalize costs of production so that moves and decentralization will not be induced by cheap labor and conditions bordering upon industrial slavery. 1- can understand these objections emanating from affected areas where some of the feudal lords still insist that there should be no invasion of their right to exploitation within their own do- main, and while I disagree with their objections and philosophy, sharply, definitely, and uncompromisingly, yet, I can be more sympathetic and tolerant to such objections than I can to the evident similar objections coming from an employer within the State of Michigan or other high-wage-paying States.

This legislation will not only add security, stability, and happiness to the workingman but will give security, stability,

[PAGE 7317]

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

[PAGE 7318]

and added profits to industry. It is not a one-sided or a lopsided piece of legislation and its objectives are sound.

I remember the late Judge Elbert H. Gary stating during the great steel strike that the steel industry could not under any circumstances work less than 7 days a week and I believe at that time employees in this industry were working 12 hours a day. Well, today the steel industry seems to be able to get by on a 40- or 44-hour week, employing more men than ever when business is good and showing greater profits.

The interchurch movement and public sentiment reinforced by the just demands of labor corrected the situation in the steel industry but this great and established industry was forced to capitulate only under duress.

The wage differential existing between two given parts of the United States makes it mandatory for the employers in higher-wage-paying States, in order to meet the unfair competition, to either reduce the salaries paid to the producing workers or to move their plants to the competitors' cheap labor market. The alternative to this would be to bring about the raising of the wage and hour levels in the backward areas to meet the higher standard. The wage and hour legislation will level off these inequalities through the constitutional control of interstate shipments. Our Michigan goods will be shipped everywhere without restraint, but the movement of goods produced by peonage and child labor will be restricted by the law.

Clothed in respectability, the exploitation and enslavement of immature children is abroad in the land. It thrives in the most advanced sections of the country. It is the lowest form of prostitution on earth and should be wiped out by civilized society. Industrial panderers should not only be estopped forthwith but penalized by law to the point of extermination. Of all times when job competition of this sort should be eliminated, the present is most distressing. Microcephalic emplayers bent only on profits, with hearts of rodents and devoid of all human kindness, will insist upon their constitutional rights and due process. I would give them their rights and plenty of lefts, process or no process.

There is about as much reason to arguments against this legislation as there might be to the insistence of unrestricted sale of prison-made goods in competition with free labor

The wage and hour bill if accepted in the right spirit should be a godsend to the employer and the employee not only in the higher-wage-paying States but in every part of the United States. Its passage is inevitable and its constitutionality unquestionably will be sustained. [Applause.]

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

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, while I realize the good faith of these gentlemen who are espousing this bill, and the humanitarian motive that our great President, to whom all have paid tribute, has in his heart, yet I cannot but feel that every word said in advocacy of the passage of this bill today is aimed at a symptom instead of the disease! How, in God's name, can they stand here and plead for the passage of a bill which gives to only 1 in 25 a wage of 25 cents an hour and exempts five times as many American laborers who work for one-fifth of that amount or less? I refer to the American farmer.

Everything in this bill except the child-labor part, which everyone favors, is as cockeyed as the reference to the lady who insists on being called Miss Frances Perkin" as he.

The Honorable JIM MEAD, bless his heart, says: Make New York prosperous, and that will give the South a market for its cotton, and the Middle West a market for its wheat and corn. That is the philosophy back of every bit of this sectional legislation, make us rich, fill our buckets to overflowing, and a drop or two of prosperity will eventually drip down upon the rest. Make us rich and that will give you a market for your cotton and your corn and your wheat. But at what price? At the price they fix. The American farmer is the only man living who has never had one word to say about the prices the products of his brain, brawn, sweat, and blood have brought in the market.

JIM MEAD'S folk fix the price of everything they sell from a plow point to a reaper or a mowing machine, from a shoelace or a box of breakfast food, to an automobile.

The prettiest vacuum cleaner, that has sucked every dime out of the pockets of the American farmer since the year 1, is in beautiful working order. Make us rich. That is exactly what the system has been doing, is doing, and will continue to do. They do business behind a tariff wall that adds 45 percent to the cost of everything the unprotected farmer has to buy. Alexander Hamilton said that was stealing, and he ought to be a pretty good authority for Mr. HAMILTON FISH, who stood up here and said to the South today, We will give you 3 years to get your house in order, and 1f you do not do it by that time we will take other means!

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. HOBBS. I appeal to the distinguished lady, the chairman of the committee; I was promised 10 minutes.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 additional minutes to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you so much.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for an observation?

Mr. HOBBS. Certainly.

Mr. COX. This campaign of discrimination against the weaker member, industrially and politically, will mean that that section at some future time will be forced to close its gates against the admission of the goods that come from these other sections, which will bring them to their knees.

Mr. HOBBS. In addition to the 45-percent robbery which is practiced by means of the high protective tariff wall—and the farmer has never had any protective tariff wall or any benefit of that kind whatsoever—the American farmer has had to pay an average of 39 percent discriminatory robbery in freight rate differential; and nobody can dispute that, either. The machine goes merrily on. They rob us with the tariff wall—and I mean the farmers of the West and South alike—and they rob us with discriminatory freight rates. They say, By all means, make us rich, us industrial barons, and then we will give you a market for your farm products—of course, at our own price. Have you never heard of the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table?

I said in the last debate on this question that the real aim of this bill is nothing less than to put the American citizens, of the West and South alike, back where the industrialists—who have consistently robbed us—believe we ought to be, and to make us stay there, looking at the east end of a westbound mule, on the farm, producing the raw product so we can send it up there and have it manufactured and pay four prices for it on its return!

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

Mr. HOBBS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FLETCHER. The gentleman states that the industrialists have been able to exploit the farmer. Is it not true that the industrialist is opposing this bill? He is not offering it.

Mr. HOBBS. I believe that is exactly where it is coming from, and I appreciate that question. I think that is exactly where it came from. These good people who are pleading the cause of humanity here, are being absolutely fooled into playing the fiddle of the group to which I referred and about which the gentleman now asks. The proponents are representing organized and entrenched industrial capital—not labor.

The point I wish to drive home is that there is today a great disparity between the income of the farm laborer and the farmer, on the one· hand, and of the industrial workers on the other.

The distinguished Secretary of Agriculture will tell you there is no hope, not even under the new farm bill of 1938, with all its benefit payments, of raising the income of the American farmer, and farm laborer, up to one-half of what the industrial workers' income already is. I want you to get this. I am talking sense. Even taking into consideration

[PAGE 7318]

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

[PAGE 7319]

the living which the farmer gets off bis farm, his average income is still less than half the aveiage income af his fellow worker in industry. I maintain that until there is parity of income, between the workers in American agriculture and American industry, we ought not to raise the income of that group which is now getting an income more than twice as large as that of those in agriculture. We ought not to increase the disparity which exists at present. We ought to raise the average income of farmers to a parity with those who work in industry, immediately, and then raise the income of all.

Mr. FLETCHER. If what the gentleman states is true, then why are the industrialists opposing this bill?

Mr. HOBBS. Southern industrialists are fighting for life, the life of their infant industries. Northern industrialists are not opposing this bill. They daddied it, and are pushing it to destroy all industry of the South. The only thing they think we can do in the South and West, the great agricultural areas, and the only thing they think we should do, is to produce the raw product and ship it to them to be processed and sold back to us from behind their high protective tariff walls and unjust, discriminatory, freight-rate structures. So, they can continue to coin the sweat and blood of the teeming millions on our farms five times as many as they even claim will be benefited by the provisions of this bill.

There are many, many reasons why this bill should not pass. Thinkers in every State of the Union are advancing them daily. In today's New York Times is a thoughtful article by Mr. Leo Wolman, a recognized authority:

MINIMUM-WAGE LAWS ARE FOR STATES—BUT ANY LEGISLATION OF THIS CHARACTER IS REGARDED AS BAR To TRADE REVIVAL AND REEMPLOYMENT

To the EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Everyone will agree that the most pressing problems of this country today are the persistence of a severe depression in business and a high and probably increasing rate of unemployment. Upon the solution, or mitigation of these problems depends our ability to deal satisfactorily with related problems of expenditures for relief, burdens of taxation and, indeed, our whole fiscal policy. Everyone will probably also agree that the adoption of economic policies at this time that may be expected to hinder the recovery of business and to add to our already large army of unemployed will amount to a grave disservice to American industry and its employees.

For some years now we have put all of our faith in a simple and plausible measure of reform and recovery. With great persistence and by a variety of methods, the Govenment has undertaken to increase the purchasing power of American labor. One of the foremost devices it has used to effect this purpose is raising the rate of wages or the price of labor. Under the influence of this belief, frequently and emphatically advocated by influential persons, many have become persuaded that along this path lie more stable business, fuller employment, and a more equitable distribution of income.

STEADILY MOUNTING WAGES

It is probably rare in economic history that a doctrine has been more effectively exploited than this one. The combined resources of Government, organized labor, and public opinion have been directed toward raising wage rates. Since 1933, consequently, wages have steadily mounted so that they now stand at their highest point for all time.

Some idea of the size of this increase can be had from the movement of wages of factory employees. In March 1938 the average hourly wages of factory labor were nearly three times their amount in 1914. Meanwhile the cost of living had increased by no more than 40 percent. Put in another way, the real hourly earnings (money earnings adjusted for changes in the cost of living) of factory employees in March 1938 were 100 percent greater than 1n 1914, 60 percent greater than in 1920, and 40 percent higher than in 1929. These are impressive figures, difficult to duplicate in any earlier period of so short a duration. They are, moreover, not peculiar to manufacturing industry. And they mean that we have ascended to a substantially higher level of real wages than has ever before prevailed in this country.

UNSOUND POLICY

In the face of this record it is hard to see that much of a case can be made for the doctrine that has so dominated our recent policy. The considerable advance in real wages bas clearly failed to acconlplish its purpose. Even at the peak of the last period of business expansion the volume of unemployment was exceptionally large, and since last summer it has again almost doubled. While no doubt a variety or forces may oe held responsible for both the continuing unemployment of 1936-37 and the obstacles to reccvery at the present time, the conclusion is inescapable that an unsound wage policy is one of the most potent of them. If this is so,

American workingmen can hardly be said to benefit from a policy that has contributed to keeping a substantial proportion of them wholly or partially unemployed and to reducing the aggregate pay roll of industcy.

Now that the business of this country is in deep depression and existing wage levels are, with few exceptions, successfully resisting adjustment, we propose to make matters still worse by legislation designed to raise the rates of wages of many hundreds of thousands of employees. Yet this is the purpose of the fair labor standards (wages and hours) bill now awaiting action by Congress.

Although the supporters of this legislation like to make us believe that this kind of law will have only a limited application because it undertakes to raise the wages of only the lowest paid employees, there are two considerations which they fail to mention. The one is that a minimum wage cannot be fixed without upsetting existing wage differentials and forcing a scaling up of wages of all classes of labor. The second is that the bill provides for schedules of maximum hours. In the present temper of labor, it will prove impossible to reduce hours of work without at the same time granting proportionate increases in wage rates.

The numbers aifected by the law, therefore, are likely to be substantially in excess of current estimates. If this bill is enacted. it will be raising wages at a time when they are already abnormally high, when there is good reason to believe that prevailing wages are contributing to the unemployment rate and the difficulties of recovery, and when heavy industries to which the minimum rates may be expected to apply cannot afford to assume any heavier burdens than they are now carrying.

Aside from the purpose of this bill to establish minimum rates of pay, it has, perhaps, a more important purpose of equalizing wages throughout the United States. In this respect the provisions of the bill are directed mainly against the industries of the South that are believed to possess an unfair competitive advantage over other parts of the country. In supporting this purpose, advocates of this measure fail to take into account the long-term movements of southern wages and the conditions prerequisite to a rising wage level.

SOUTHERN PAY UP

Over the last several decades wages in the South have increased with the growth of capital in southern industry and the improving efficiency and productivity of southern labor. The estimate may be ventured that average hourly earnings of factory labor in the South is at this writing in excess of 50 cents an hour.

Considering the stage of development of industry in the South and the composition of their labor force, this cannot be considered a low rate. Average wages in the cotton-goods industry of the South are now about as high as they were in 1920; they are more than three times the 1914 rate; and they exceed that rate of 1928 by about 11 cents an hour. The North-South differential in this industry also is much smaller than it used to be, having declined from an excess of northern over southern rates of wages of 61 percent in 1924 to 26 percent in July 1937. While this differential is somewhat higher than that prevailing during the N. R. A., it is not excessively so.

The wage and hour bill is no doubt the product of good motives and a desire to raise the labor standards of American workingmen. But when its most probable effects will be loss of employment and further delay in the necessary adjustment of wages to business conditions, the wisdom of pushing such a measure may well be questioned.

If we are to have minimum-wage legislation in this country, it is the wiser policy to depend on State legislation, drafted and administered by persons close to the local situation and familiar with its problems. If also we desire legislation of this type, Federal or State, it is wise for everyone to know that raising the rate of wages is no magic formula, that it will on occasion throw people out of work and keep others from being employed, and that regulated and uniform wages remove one of the most potent forces for breaking the log jam of depression and initiating revival and reemployment.

LEO WOLMAN,

NEW YORK, May 21, 1938.

In the same paper is the following editorial:

TO MAKE IT WORKABLE

We have frequently expressed the opinion that the proposed Federal wage and hour bill, scheduled to come before the House for debate today, is unwise—that its tendency will be still further to raise production costs, to retard recovery and to intensify unemployment. We print on this page today a letter from Leo Wolman, one of the foremost students of labor problems in this country, which presents an impressive economic argument against the bill. Unfortunately, it does not seem likely that the question will be decided in the present Congress on economic grounds. It seems altogether probable at the moment that it will be decided by political considerations, by emotional slogans and plausible formulas.

The House wage-hour bill has the simplicity and directness of a campaign document. It provides at the end of 3 years for a minimum of 40 cents an hour pay, in all sections and in all interstate industries, and a maximum of a 40-hour standard week. This 40-40 formula has such political neatness and charm that it will not be easily abandoned merely because of awkward practical consequences.

We do not believe that any amendment to the House wage-hour bill would make it economically acceptable. The problem is one

[PAGE 7319]

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

[PAGE 7320]

which, by its very nature, can be satisfactorily dealt with only by State law and close study of local situations. But on the assumption that the House wage-hour bill in its main outlines is destined to be passed in any case, it is important to ask what amendments would be necessary to remove or reduce its more dangerous possibllities.

There are several such amendments. The most essential is one that would substitute for the blindly automatic character of the present bill's standards special study and reasonable administrative discretion. This need not and should not take the form of a permanent five-man labor standards board with the sweeping powers provided in the Senate wage-hour bill passed last year. It should follow the procedure incorporated in the overwhelming majority of existing State minimum-wage laws—the appointment by an administrator in the Labor Department of special boards in each industry, composed of representatives of labor, employers, and the public, to investigate the particular conditions in that industry and to make recommendations for the administrator to adopt. The minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards of the present House bill, for the first 2 and succeeding years after its passage, might be retained as the extreme limits within which legal changes could be ordered. This would make it possible to exercise caution where the facts of an industry obviously made this desirable. It would also make it possible to introduce fiexible sectional differentials in wages.

Whether or not such an amendment were incorporated, another amendment should be considered which, while not in itself removing the purely automatic application of the proposed minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards, would at least guard us from acting entirely in the dark. In the House bill as it stands, the Secretary of Labor is directed immediately after passage to determine which industries affect interstate commerce and to order them to adopt the wage and hour standards within a period of not more than 4 months. Instead of this, the bill could provide that none of the proposed wage-hour standards should be imposed before the end of the present calendar year; but that the Secretary should meanwhile determine the industries affected by the bill, and that all firms in those industries should as of a given date report the number of persons on their pay roll receiving less than 25 cents an hour, and those receiving less than 30, 35, and 40; with similar reports regarding hours above the maximums fixed in the bill. In this way we could learn before the standards went into effect how many persons would be directly affected by them, and in what sections, industries, towns, and firms these persons were. We would then be in position to determine the scope and incidence of the measure and to trace its effect upon the particular workers involved.

The criticisms of those who have argued that the wage-hour bill would put many of its intended beneficiaries out of work have been ignored by the advocates of the measure. But if those advocates are so confident that these criticisms are baseless, they should welcome all the statistical light possible on the measure's effects on marginal workers. It is a strange fact that those who have talked most of social experiment in recent years have been least interested in tracing the exact results of their experiments, though this would be the very first concern of any scientist.

While organized labor is supporting this measure it will affect few, if any, of its members directly or immediately. But in the long run it will affect, and adversely, the interests of all organized labor.

It is certain that the enactment of any such bill will result in the closing of many plants, which, for various and sundry reasons, will be unable to survive any wage increase or decrease of hours. This would mean increased unemployment and the reduction of the number of jobs, which, while not attractive, yet now provide a living, such as it is, for many of our fellow citizens.

Another inevitable result would be to penalize the skilled for the benefit of the unskilled, by a general leveling down of the wages of the skilled to meet the necessity created by the increase of the lowest wages caused by the minimumwage requirement. The experience with just such measures, not only in ancient but also in very modern history, proves the truth of this assertion. The skilled workers in Russia, Italy, and Germany today bear mute testimony that this byproduct cannot be avoided, and that the average of all wages is not raised by fixing a minimum.

Another effect which would surely follow would be the stimulation of the trend toward mechanization of industry. Machines would still further add to the number of the unemployed. Thus the evils of technocracy would be multiplied. But over and above all these dire consequences would come, as certain as night follows day, the abolition of the principle of collective bargaining and the doom of all organizations which exist for the benefit of labor. Labor's cause, in every case, if any such bill should become law, must be submitted to political despotism for determination—no amount of pleading by its own chosen spokesmen could change the edict of the dictator. His decrees would be governed only by the political complexion of the administration under which he might be serving.

The vast majority of you are so determined to pass this bill, however, that I doubt if any of these arguments will change a single vote. They have been advanced in the hope that they may serve as a background for the final appeal I am now to make. This final appeal is to your enlightened selfishness. Even if you care not for the wreck and ruin you are threatening to cause; even if you have forgotten the Golden Rule and the fact that we are supposed to have here in our great Nation a sympathetic sisterhood of free and equal States, bound together in indissoluble union for the common good; nevertheless you should not hurt yourselves in order to hurt us!

The crying need of industry everywhere is of expanded market demand—more purchasing power. Give the Cotton Belt parity, either in prices for its products or in income, and you have strengthened and expanded that market by the infusion of a new buying power of an added billion dollars a year. Parity prices for cotton and cottonseed alone last year would have added $1,000,000,000 to what the farmers got for those two products.

Add another billion to farm purchasing power by giving parity to the wheat farmers, another billion for corn, and so on.

That extra money will circulate with the velocity enhanced by long-pent-up and unsatisfied demand. That money will not stay in the hands of the farmers 1 day! It would be spent to buy the products of industry. It would circulate at a terrific rate. Economists tell us that circulation multiplies each dollar at least 10 times and that it is the velocity of circulation rather than the quantity of the circulating medium which creates prosperity.

Therefore, three billions of new dollars in the hands of the farmers of the Nation—three billion more units of initial buying power—would mean a $30,000,000,000 increase in annual business. If the farmers had received parity prices or income last year there would have been no recession!

The fact that parity prices would give the farmers so much additional money is no argument against the basic equity of the proposition. Parity of prices means nothing more nor less than cost of production plus a reasonable profit. Parity means equality. Prices on a par with or equivalent to those which are fixed for the products of industry.

Parity is fair. It would wipe out only unjust discrimination. You Republicans swear by Alexander Hamilton's brief for a high protective tariff, designed to benefit our infant industries of a century ago. You should not forget that in that brief of Hamilton's he stated that while a high protective tariff was desirable for the benefit of industry, its effect would be to rob the farmers. He advocated in that same brief bounties to farmers not as gratuities but as restitution. Those infant industries for the protection of which Hamilton pleaded are now hardly to be classed as infants. They are United States Steel, Standard Oil, General Motors, and many others which look to the unprotected farmer more like giants than like babies. Yet many of you still insist upon the same or even higher tariff benefits to protect them in their enjoyment of their artificially high prices. All we are saying is that this policy cannot be justified unless the circle is completed and parity with the prices of industrial products be assured to the farmers, who have no tariff protection.

The average cash income of each cotton farmer in Alabama last year was $200! On such an annual income, how can they buy your products? How can such incomes furnish a market to Alabama, much less to you? How can those who receive such incomes compete in the market for labor, when this bill proposes as its goal $832 as the minimum annual wage for industrial workers?

This is a national problem. We are all in the same economic boat. You cannot get money from us which we have

[PAGE 7320]

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

[PAGE 7321]

not. So why bore a hole in our end of the boat? Do so, and your end will sink with ours. In conclusion, I beg of you your carefUl consideration of the amendment which I shall offer tomorrow. Its purpose is to postpone the time when this bill should become effective until the present disparity of income against those who feed and clothe us all—the farmers af the Nation—shall have been removed!

One word, and I am done. Do not think for a moment that by increasing disparity of income at the expense of the farmer you can benefit anyone! The first and best remedy which should be applied to sick business is to do justice to the American farmer! [Applause.l

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY].

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, I am very thankful to the genial gentleman from California for the few minutes allotted to me. I am going to take but a few minutes because I can see there is a great deal of pressure here for additional time. There is no need of my taking any great length of time because this House should know how any Connery would stand on a real wage and hour bill.

I feel that the bill falls short of the goal that Billy Connery had originally set for it, but there is no question about the fact that this bill is far superior to the monstrosity which was presented to us last fall and which I joined with other Members in recommitting to the House Committee on Labor for reconsideration. However, I feel that at last we have a real bill before us.

I said a few seconds ago that I feel it falls short of some of the ideals, as well as the goal that Billy Connery set for it, but I would like to say in connection with that statement that I believe one particular provision in which he was wholeheartedly interested cannot be included in this bill because of a ruling rendered heretofore, that it would not be germane to the bill and that such a provision must come from the Ways and Means Committee. This matter was brought up here this afternoon by the gentleman from New York lMr. FISH] and it is the provision with reference to foreign importations. In connection with that, Billy Connery prior to his death a year ago foresaw the necessity of such legislation and introduced a resolution covering that very situation which, if coupled with a real wage-and-hour law, would take care of foreign competition in fine style. There is now a petition on the Speaker's desk, petititon No. 35, by which I am seeking to discharge the Ways and Means Committee from consideration of his resolution in order to clear up this situation. Naturally, those who wish to protect the job opportunities of American wage workers realize the absolute need of having these provisions apply to products of foreign workers which compete in the American markets with products of American workers.

Tomorrow I feel that Billy Connery will be looking down upon his former colleagues as they overwhelmingly pass this wage and hour bill, happy in the knowledge that his great desire has culminated in the successful passage of a real wage and hour bill.

In connection with the bill, tomorrow I intend to offer an amendment calling for a straight 40-cent minimum hourly wage and a maximum workweek of 40 hours, with a time and a half for overtime provision. Instead of having the millions of workers now unemployed and those exploited workers who lack real purchasing power wait 4 years, we ought to put into the present bill right now this provision for a 40-cent minimum wage and a 40-hour workweek, with time and a half for overtime. In closing, may I remind the House that last December the Members of the House rejected a 40-cent minimum wage and a 40-hour maximum workweek provision by a majority of less than a dozen votes. I hope the Members of the House who realize the deplorable conditions of those who are asked to live on an income of less than $13 a week will support this amendment.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. MURDOCK] such time as he may desire to use.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I may vote for this bill as is, but I would much prefer to see it amended.

I want to say that for the good of my country I want to see a floor under wages and ceiling over hours, to the end that our unorganized labor, and all labor in sweatshop industries, may be properly considered and treated by this Government. My support of this type of legislation in general arises out of the need as I recognize it of the industrial portion of our country, rather than any need in the agricultural, pastoral, intermountain portion of the country which I represent.

Out in my part of the great West, labor is chiefly engaged in the extractive industries. This is true of most mining, smeltmg; and lumbering, as well as agriculture, horticulture, and livestock raising out there. I feel that these extractive industries such as we have in the great open spaces very properly require a different set of regulations in keeping with the different set of conditions, which are in marked contrast with conditions controlling manufacturing industries here in the crowded cities.

If I had time I should like to indicate why I would be willing to have a wage differential and an hour differential based, not on political considerations or even on sectional considerations, but based on the natural differences appearing in the wide diversity of American industry over a vast continent. We must be careful in our efforts to aid labor in general that we do not harm both laborers and employers in the remote mountain regions of the West.

I feel that this type of legislation should apply to those industries and areas where there is a surplus of laborers and not so much to those industries and areas where there is a scarcity of laborers. Is it not possible to recognize this natural diversity of conditions over a wide territory in shaping this national legislation? I trust it may be done in this bill by proper amendments.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BIGELOW] such time as he may desire to use.

Mr. BIGELOW. Mr. Chairman, I address myself to those employers of Cincinnati who are asking me to vote "no" on this wage and hour bill. I have to disappoint them and vote yes.

Their opposition is·based on what, no doubt, is an honest conviction that this sort of legislation will do more harm than good. They believe that when tbe Government, although with the best of intentions, interferes with economic law, the law strikes back and defeats the good intentions. They say that when we raise wages by law we raise prices more than wages, and thus lower in buying power the wages we seek to raise. This, it is contended, can have no effect but to shrink the volume of the Nation's business and increase the numbers of those who are crowded out of all employment. They say that we drive a wedge in to lift people up, forgetting that the underside of the wedge is pressing people down.

To this I reply. Yet, gentlemen, no one disputes this fact that there are in State and interstate industries as many people as there were chattel slaves of the South, who are wage serfs today, with less security than the chattel slaves enjoyed.

I agree that there is a better way to free these wage serfs than the one proposed. But we are not presented with an alternative. It is this way or nothing now. I therefore disregard this business logic. Above this logic I hear the voice of One who said:

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Whatever the ultimate economic effect of this wage and hour legislation may be, we are sure that the immediate effect will be to improve the conditions of millions of our people, the kind of people to whom it was said:

Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden.

[PAGE 7321]

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

[PAGE 7322]

It may be that if we passed this bill and stopped here we would accomplish little or no lasting good. But if we have the will to pass this legislation, we are more likely to move on to more fundamental remedies. If, however, we close the heart now, it is apt to stay closed against better ways of doing justice.

There is an economic institution, described in the old Bible, called the Year of Jubilee. It was recognized that the dollars of the rich bred dollars, while the debts of the poor bred debts, until the burdens of rent and interest that were laid on men's backs were too grievous to be borne. So it was arranged that every 50 years all mortgages should be canceled, all accounts wiped out, and society should make a fresh start debt-free. Our method of doing this is to have a depression every 10 or 15 years. This old Bible idea was to make this debt-unloading process a religious festival instead of an epidemic of foreclosures and suicides.

The workers of America are staggering beneath a load of debt. Out of their labor comes $15,000,000,000 a year tribute for the use of our portion of the God-given earth. Out of their labor comes another $15,000,000,000 interest, tribute that is paid for the use of the money monopolized by the money changers. Out of their labor comes also a $15,000,000,000 annual cost of a bureau-spawning Government.

This load of debts has grown too big to be endured. This wage and hour bill will hardly lift a feather's weight of this burden. Sober-minded men are filled with dread as they think of the next few years that are before us. They are convinced that we are in for it—a vast liquidation when dollars will turn to dimes, bonds will be bushels of waste paper, houses of ivory will come down, the rich with the poor alike will bite the dust. This wage and hour legislation is pitifully poor insurance against these evil days.

Here is the legislation I would prefer to this poor little 25-cent bill: I would take over the Federal Reserve banks and use the Nation's credit to bring down the interest rate on productive industry to a mere service charge. I would abolish taxes on all improvements on the face of the earth and redistribute this tax burden on land, not according to its acreage but according to its site value.

Use the taxing power, not to penalize improvement but to more fully bring land and labor together, and reduce the interest rate to further encourage industry and increase jobs.

This, I am convinced, is the way to open up so many jobs for men that, instead of passing laws to bolster wages up, we will have men running to Congress foolishly demanding laws to keep wages down.

But my businessmen in Cincinnati will not listen to such counsel. They do not read the signs of the times. They do not even want this grudging little wage and hour bill. All they want, they say, is confidence. Well, the people who are buried beneath the lava of Vesuvius had too much confidence.

As for me, I shall vote for this wage and hour bill, if that is all that Congress will do, because I know that it will at least buy a little more milk for hungry children and ease a bit the aching backs of old scrub women and light some flickering candles of hope in darkest America. It is worth something to give this assurance that a great Government is regardful of these humblest of its citizens.

But I will continue to plead for more than minimum wages. I will plead for maximum justice, a justice that will give the American people freer access to their land and freer use of their money. Thus, I think, we might turn the day of judgment that we dread into a year of jubilee.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. LUECKE] 3 minutes.

Mr. LUECKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MAPES] made a statement to the effect that Michigan was not in a frame of mind at this time for the wage and hour bill. Now, I have a lot of respect for my colleague and I am surprised to think he would get up on the floor and make a statement to cover the entire State, because I have received telegrams and letters from manufacturers in my district saying they want the wage and hour bill, and I know, too, that not only do the manufacturers want this bill but the workers to a man want the bill; and not only in my district but in his district as well.

I regret very much that sectionalism has been injected into this discussion because this is a problem which affects the entire country.

I had a novel experience while coming to Washington not long ago. I stopped in an industrial town and went into a store to make a purchase. I was standing at the counter and noticed the proprietor had in his hand a number of pay checks.

I asked him it is was pay day in town, and he said yes, that the garment factory was paying off. I became interested right away and said that I supposed they paid a pretty fair wage, as this was in the northern part of the country.

He said, Oh, I don't know about that. Do you want to see some of these checks?

That was just what I wanted to see. In looking over the checks I found they ranged from $2 to $17 for 2 weeks' work, and that happened in the North. From that it will be seen that this is not a sectional bill. It applies to the whole Nation.

The thing to remember about this bill is that it is not designed to be a cure-all for industrial wages. It is merely aimed at wiping out sweatshop conditions and child labor. Those are the two salient features and should be kept in mind. And if it will do that and nothing more this Congress shall not have met in vain.

Democracies are being pressed on all sides the world over. Dictatorships are fast displacing a heretofore free people in many parts of the world. And why? Because no thought was· given to the welfare of those people.

It is as plain to me as the night follows the day that our democracy shall not endure unless liberal and progressive legislation is enacted for the benefit of the masses. The very essence of democracy is liberalism and surely there is nothing radical nor unreasonable in this bill.

Sweatshop wages and conditions are the breeding places of crime. It is from there that immorality springs. Wages of $5 and $6 per week have caused more girls to go wrong and sent more boys on a life of crime than anything else in our Nation.

President Roosevelt in a speech to the House last year said that we have now arrived at the social frontiers and that hereafter our greatest concern should be correcting abuses which prevail to the detriment of humanity.

This bill is a step in that direction. We have overcome territorial frontiers and are now at the social frontier. It is going to take as much courage and determination to conquer the social frontiers as it did to overcome the territorial frontiers.

I do not mean to say that those who oppose this bill have not the courage of their convictions. I believe that they are honest and true in their opinions. But I do think that they do not understand the situation which confronts us today. We are no longer a pioneer nation.

I believe this bill is constitutional. It does not delegate any power except to a constituted authority, the Secretary of Labor. Any law must be administered by some executive department.

What I mean to say is that the bill says so much must be paid, so many hours must be worked. It does not leave it to the discretion of any department or board or commission. I believe that this is the only way a wage and hour bill can come within the Constitution. This is the democratic way to attack the problem of underpaid workers in industry.

Mr. Chairman, the workers of the Nation look to us for the enactment of this kind of legislation. They are watching us with anxiety. We cannot afford to let them down. If we do we will shake their faith in democratic government, and

[PAGE 7322]

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

[PAGE 7323]

once that faith is shaken it can never be retrieved. The very life of the Nation as a democracy depends on this bill and bills of a like nature.

The next step which we should take should be toward a cost of production program for the farmer. The two go hand in hand in my opinion. The workers of the Nation should not be asked to work for less than a certain amount and the farmers should not be asked to sell their products for sweatshop prices. That is the next step.

The workers and farmers are the foundation of society. If the foundation is not secure we cannot have a sound and firm nation. That is a law which holds good not only in structures built of material, but in society built up of humanity.

I am firmly convinced that a floor under wages is a solid cornerstone in the social foundation, and I hope the time will come when we will insert another cornerstone in the shape of minimum farm prices. [Applause.]

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania [Mr. DEMUTH].

THE "NO MAN'S LAND" OF ETHICS

Mr. DEMUTH. Mr. Chairman, the American manufacturers, businessmen, and merchants have established in the United States a relation of confidence between the buyer and seller because of established policy, price, quality, and business ethics nowhere equaled in the entire world. This condition existing between the producer used in the broad sense and the consumer has worked to the great advantage of both producer and consumer, has built a feeling of confidence, fair play and brought about a most healthful condition in this relationship and has made business transactions most pleasant. Nowhere in any particular branch of our economic and industrial system is ethics so well established and to great advantage of business in particular and to the benefit of all our peoples. All our manufacturers, producers, and sales organizations boast of their definitely established policies and business ethics. Morals, fair play, and law of self-preservation and true American sportsmanship no doubt were the driving factors in establishing this condition in this particular zone of industrial, commercial, and business America.

The social relations of the people of America compare most favorably with those of any other country. Our people are most honorable, charitable, unselflsh, and moral to the end that our lives on this earth are much more pleasant than would be the case without these fundamental laws which are indelibly imprinted on the soul of each man through the teachings of the Bible and brought to us by Christ.

There are many established rules and customs in the producer-consumer relations which no doubt are based on morals and self-preservation. I do not think that a man would claim that any of the rules of fair play on the field of sports hurts the game of football, racing, boxing, baseball, tennis, or any other game. In fact we condemn poor sportsmanship here in America and hiss the offenders.

There is a moral obligation felt by every human being and a deep sense of responsibility established in every man to support his wife and his offspring. I am inclined to think that man labors and receives his pay more as a partner in that family and that money is delivered by him as agent to the members of his family that in no small part it is also theirs. So great is his feeling of responsibility to his family, if he squanders the money he feels he is squandering their money. In industry therefore he is in a sense the representative of the family. He renders a service for wages for the family. The family is the fundamental and necessary foundation of society and our existence. You must agree that because of great inherent humane responsibility man toils merely to feed, cloth, and educate his children and support his wife. The wage relationship concern them really more than they do him.

Incentive and ambition is the driving force of progress and all businessmen like to be successful and a profit is necessary for continuance in business. Likewise, accumulation of wealth brings with it a certain amount of prestige and honor. In America, unfortunately, we do not consider so much how it was brought about. We do not consider whether or not the children of these employees went hungry and fell victims of tuberculosis because of lack of nourishment; that members of the employee's family went without medical attention, proper clothing, or education. We are apt to pass that off as not his responsibility, but part of the work of charity. We are inclined to reserve our charity, humane consideration and fair play until we have accumulated sufficient wealth to practice it professionally, which in most instances are a failure. The many victims we have left in the wake of our reckless drive for profit are never compensated. Nor is paternalism in industry born out of charity, but generally with thought of trading a shiny dime for a quarter.

Certainly it is not necessary that there be a no man's land in morals, fair play, and fundamental ethics, and obligations of the employer-employee relationship. While the employee is the only part of the family with whom the employer contacts, nevertheless, the obligation is with the family and in turn with all the people, and therefore is of vital importance to the general welfare and the continuance of our democracy.

It would be as inconsistent to contend that such fundamental laws, rules based on moral laws, obligations to society and our humane existence in regard to wages cannot apply with great good to all the people including the employers as to contend with these established policies, and business ethics have not helped in producer-consumer field of our business economy or to contend that all rules for fair play ruins all our athletic contests, and all our social and economic relations.

No industry can be but of negative value to society if its existence is predicated upon the paying of wages lower than that required to support the American family up to established standards in America. Because of their morals and filial obligation, men in industry are in a vulnerable position. Should good order and decency prevail in this field or should laissez faire be permitted in order that certain citizens might carry on their depredations? Certain fundamental standards are established in the wage and hour bill that will so materially benefit the industries and producers as well that it will greatly improve our capitalistic system which is so greatly in need of strengthening at this particular time. This wage and hour bill is the first step in our economy toward improving the purchasing power of a large group of our people and it will reengage some of our productive forces. Our economy is not a one-sided proposition. To date all our attention has been directed toward production and increasing the standards in that field. Much more attention and effort must now be directed toward making these benefits accessible to the people of our Republic. It can be done and when it is there can be no doubt but that the capitalistic system can flourish and improve under our democratic form of government.

Mr. Chairman, we must establish labor standards and principles in our country.

In this particular part of our economy we have a no man's land of ethics.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentleman from California [Mr. VOORHIS].

Mr. VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, this wage-hour bill amounts simply to an attempt to raise a little the standards of the poorest paid workers of this country. It represents a statement by Congress that there is a standard below which no American citizen shall be asked to work. Certainly the standard is modest enough. With millions unemployed it is indeed difficult to see how a logical argument can be made for a longer workweek than 40 hours.

[PAGE 7323]

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

[PAGE 7324]

But even that standard will not be reached for 2 years' time; and the bill, of course, does not actually forbid a workweek of a longer duration, but requires that if a man does work additional time he shall be paid time and a half for it.

The 25-cent minimum wage for which the bill provides in the first year of operation spells only $10 a week, and about $40 per month, and $480 a year. Even when we get up to a 40-cent minimum at the end of 3 years workers proteeted by the act will only be receiving $768 for a year's work if they do not lose a single regular working day. Can anyone say these standards are too high? Can anyone say that if there are people working for less wages than these—and we know there are—the whole Nation will not benefit by an increase in their incomes? These are the people who need sheets and bread and a little meat. They are the people whose lack of buying power presents the most serious problem of all for our agriculture.

This bill is not an organized labor bill at all. There probably are not more than a handful of organized workers in the Nation who get wages as low as those provided in this bill. This bill is for the protection of a group of people who have no means of speaking for themselves—millions of them women, all of them underpaid workers. They have no lobby here. They cannot have. That probably is the reason it has been such an uphill struggle to pass this bill.

Finally the bill means that the Congress is saying that competition shall not extend beyond a certain point so far as wages and hours are concerned. Congress is saying that competition must be conducted by means of greater efficiency, better products, wiser planning, but not by means of taking it out of the very minimum livelihood of the wage earners.

And so the bill offers protection to the employer who has tried to do the fair thing but has not always been able to because his competitors have undercut him in the matter of wages.

This bill is right. Above all, its passage will be proof that the Government of the United States has a sufficient sense of social responsibility so that once in a while the Congress will pass a law which is not wrung from it by political pressure, but which is passed just because it gives a small measure of justice to a group of our people all too long neglected. It is easy to enact measures which powerful groups demand. The test of our sincerity comes only when we are called upon to pass a bill like this one where only a sense of justice drives us to action.

It is true that the South has been terribly exploited by northern and eastern finance and industry. But this exploitation has been accomplished primarily by the exaction of interest payments and the drawing off into northern treasuries of the profits of absentee-owned southern mills and factories. Wages which these mills and factories pay to their workers however, are not so easily or so quickly siphoned out of the South. Those wages must and will be spent in the South. I sincerely hope that the effect of the bill will be to narrow, not to increase, as some have suggested would happen, the spread between the standards of living for the masses of people in the various parts of the Nation.

This bill clearly is only a feeble beginning. Its standards are, when we analyze them, tragically low. But I am convinced it is a start in one of the right directions we must go.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON].

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, the Labor Committee of the House of Representatives having recommended a wage and hour bill for approval by the Congress of the United States it is regrettable, that under the rules of the House, it was possible for eight members of the Rules Committee to prevent action by the House until 218 Members of the House, a majority of the whole membership, had signed a petition that would enable the membership to vote upon the question of whether the bill should be considered. Although the action of the Rules Committee was within the rules of the House, nevertheless it was a denial of a right that is fundamental in our form of government.

During my service in the House I have always deemed it to be my duty to assist in bringing to the floor of the House any bill, favorably recommended by a committee and having the support of a considerable portion of our citizenship. The purpose, or, underlying theory, of our form of government is that the will of the majority should prevail. As representatives of the people, to express by our votes what we conceive to be the will of those whom we represent, our right and duty to do so is precluded when action is taken by the Rules Committee to prevent any bill from coming to the floor of the House. Consequently in this, as on other occasions, I have signed the petition that has made action by the House possible-and upon the vote being taken I have voted to discharge the committee of the bill. The overwhelming majority by which this motion was carried indicates the strong demand there is for such legislation.

The wage and hour bill represents an endeavor to provide a foundation for wages and a ceiling for hours. The conditions that exist in many sections of our country are appalling and create a necessity for this type of legislation if we are to maintain our American standard of living. Sweatshops and child labor have no right to exist anywhere in this Nation. Their continued existence is indefensible.

The bill, as recommended by the committee, provides a universal, Nation-wide minimum rate of pay of 25 cents per hour with a provision that it shall be increased to 40 centS within a period of 3 years; and a ceiling for hours of unemployment which provides for 44 hours per week with a provision that it shall be reduced to 40 hours within a period of 2 years. Thus, the bill provides a rate of wage below which no employee can go, and a limit for hours above which no employer can require his employees to work.

It is estimated that the enactment of this legislation will immediately benefit 3,000,000 workers who are now underpaid and overworked. It will extend to those who work in industries that are interstate in scope the same protection as is now accorded to workers in States that have minimum wage laws affecting industries that are local or only Statewide in character. Thus, this bill gives national scope to a principle that is already recognized by many of our States. The fundamental principle upon which this, and all similar legislation is based, is that no industrial worker should be allowed to work for wages which are less than the amount required to provide a decent standard of living.

A further reason that justifies the enactment of this legislation relates to the employer. It is within the knowledge of all that there are employers throughout the Nation as to whom it is unnecessary to enact laws to compel them to fix decent wages and hours of work. They have done so voluntarily. But every one of such employers is at the mercy of the chiseler in his particular industry, who by low wages and long hours creates an unfair competition that is difficult, if not impossible, for the employer paying the higher wages to meet. Thus, this legislation will directly benefit those employers who are compelled to face the unfair competition created by the unscrupulous employer who gets all he can out of his employees and at the lowest possible wage.

The critical unemployment situation that now exists must be remedied. With 13,000,000 unemployed we are faced with a problem, the solution of which is of paramount importance. So long as this continues to exist it will be necessary for the Federal, State, and local governmeuts to contribute huge sums of money for relief. This cannot continue indefinitely without creating a situation that will become increasingly difficult to handle both from the standpoint of the financial burden and the morale of the people who are unemployed. These latter will not continue to be satisfied with a small dole or work-relief projects that pay only meager wages. The amount being received from either of these is so small that it cannot do anything more than

[PAGE 7324]

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

[PAGE 7325]

keep body and soul together, and hardly that. For 8 years many of these unemployed have not enjoyed any of the comforts that brings joy into life. Our much-talked-of American standard of living—the highest in the world—has been greatly undermined and for many has become only a memory. There can be no real change in this situation until the unemployed are again able to find employment in regular jobs and at regular wages. I realize that this is no easy task. I realize, however, that much that could have been done by the administration to bring this about has been either overlooked or refused.

The present legislation, fixing wages and hours for those engaged in industry that is interstate in character, is a step in the direction of remedying the unfortunate conditions that now prevail. It will not cure the entire unemployment problem. No wage and hour bill could be drawn that would do so. This bill, however, does seek to remedy the situation in one important particular. It is generally recognized that in a time of widespread unemployment the quest for jobs creates a condition that makes it easy, for employers so inclined, to increase hours of labor. Those who seek employment under such circumstances are willing, by force of circumstances, to work any number of hours for any kind of pay in order that they and their families may survive. It is a condition such as this that enables sweatshops to operate to the advantage of those who operate them, and, likewise drive children into industry to help piece out the meager wages received by the father or mother. When we realize that these unjustifiable conditions exist today in many industries, in different sections of the country, without any restraint of law it becomes clear that something must be done for those who are the victims. Common decency demands it and our prestige as a nation suffers as long as it is permitted to exist.

In addition to the desire to improve working conditions there is also an expectation that this legislation will have a beneficial effect in reducing the number of unemployed. This expectation is based upon the thought that limitation of hours of employment should produce a wider spread of employment and thereby reduce the number of unemployed. If this desirable end is accomplished then this bill will prove a valuable contribution to the solution of the most pressing problem with which we are faced today.

In conclusion, I wish to make some reference to those who have communicated with me expressing their opposition to the enactment of this bill. Some of these have objected merely because of some particular clause in the bill, or, because of what may seem to be a possible injustice in the application of the bill under certain contingencies. Amendments have been made to the bill that will correct some of the objections that have been mentioned, particularly with reference to seasonal occupations and preservation of goodstuffs, and, others that deal with particular conditions that are possible of amendment without destroying the underlying purpose of the bill. Some of those who have objected, however, have done so upon an apparent misunderstanding of the reasons that make this legislation necessary. I am confident that many such have done so without any personal knowledge of the actual conditions which now exist and which make this legislation necessary. It is all too true that one half does not know how the other half lives. If they did, then, I am sure they could understand the purpose that actuates the desire to enact this legislation. Knowing as I do, from intimate contact with those who labor, the conditions that make this legislation necessary I would be false to my conscience and lax in my duty if I did not give my support to this measure. I have done so each time the matter has been before the House and feel justified in doing so until it is written into the law of our country.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON].

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have asked these 5 minutes in order to yield them to the gentleman fro:r:n Iowa [Mr. BIERMANN], whom I promised to yield to earlier in the day. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. BIERMANNJ.

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman, I signed the petition to bring out this bill and I hope to be able to vote for it. But, like many other Members from farm areas, it will be hard for me to vote for it unless some of the hardship it now imposes on farmers is removed from the bill. We concede to the Members from the large cities a better knowledge of the labor situation there than we possess. And, by the same token, we believe we have a better knowledge of what should be done in the farming areas than Members from the large cities.

The bill, as presently worded, imposes hardships on the farmers; which in no way serve the purpose of the bill. In section 2 the purpose of the bill is declared to be to remedy substandard labor conditions. Nobody complains of substandard labor conditions in the creameries, cheese factories, and similar institutions in the farming areas. As Charles W. Holman, secretary of the National Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation, says:

Persons employed in agricultural processing plants in country districts are well paid and are envied persons in their community. Farm labor and, indeed, many farmers themselves would be happy to change places with those persons fortunate enough to be employed in creameries, cheese factories, and country milk plants.

Tomorrow I shall offer the following amendment, which I hope the committee will accept:

Strike out subsection (g) of section 3 and insert in lieu thereof:

(g) 'Employees engaged in agriculture' includes individuals employed within the area of production engaged in the handling, packing, storing, ginning, compressing, processing, pasteurizing, drying, or otherwise preparing agricultUral commodities for market.

Nearly every large farm organization in the United States has endorsed this amendment. I know of none that opposes it. It is a well-known fact· that moot of the cost-in most cases ·an of it-of running these farm factories is taken out of the amount the farmer receives for his product.

And here is the point, important for the big factory laborers—employment of labor goes up and down, closely following the total income of the American farmers. In 2 to 6 months after farm income drops, employment in the cities declines. In 2 to 6 months after farm income booms, employment in the cities increases. So, in arguing for this amendment, we are, in effect, pleading the cause of city labor.

Now why do we want farm factories exempted from the terms of this bill? Because they have to be conducted in most cases in a way very different than the way the big city factory is run. Referring to plants handling milk, Charles W. Holman says:

The hours which they work are dependent upon the flow of milk from the farms into the plants. • • • At certain times of the year production is much higher than others, resulting in keeping plants open longer hours than in normal times. In the Winter, snow and slush make deliveries from farm to plants erratic, but they must keep open until all of the farmers' milk has been taken care of. Truck break-downs require the keeping open of plants longer than normal on certain occasions. In addition the plants are active at certain periods of day and during other periods there is very little work for men to do. Nevertheless they must be around the plant.

I have a letter from E. S. Estel, secretant-treasurer of the Iowa State Dairy Association, in which he says:

If your amendment fails to pass the wage and hour bill would place a serious handicap on dairy plants and especially the smaller ones that are so numerous in the northeastern section of Iowa.

Because a large volume of the butter made in Iowa, as well as the other principal dairy States, is produced during the period May 1 to August 1, or during the grass season, it is extremely difficult for dairy plants to obtain additional satisfactory workers during this short, busy season.

Mr. Estel directed my attention to the fact that creamery employees in Iowa in district meetings held last winter overwhelmingly favored the present hourly working basis which necessitates longer days during the short, busy seasons and provides short days in the slack periods. The employees in these farm factories are not complaining. They know that the nature of their business requires

[PAGE 7325]

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

[PAGE 7326]

elastic hours—and they know that the rigid rules laid down in this bill would not work in the farm factories. We should not disrupt these little businesses, which are handling farm products directly from the farm and which are supplying good jobs to satisfied employees. I want to quote from a letter received from H. H. Woldum, manager of the. Decorah Produce Co., in my home town. He says:

So far as we are concerned it would be absolutely impossible to conform with the requirements of this law and stay in business. At certain times of the year when we are not busy we could possibly comply with the provisions of this law if it was possible to get the necessary help whenever it was needed, but during the rush of the egg or poultry season it would be impossible as we then have to work overtime and sometimes work half the night and even longer 1n order to take care of the business.

The amendment I have proposed would strengthen this bill without sanctioning substandard labor. It would save the farmers of America from an expense they should not be subjected to. No good purpose would be served by including farm factories in this bill. Wage and hour legislation on a national scale is an experiment in America. Is it not wise to move cautiously? The bill is framed with big factory conditions in mind. Why include little farm factories, where labor conditions are good? The organized farmers of America ask that this amendment be adopted. Its adoption would not weaken the bill. The bill is aimed at substandard labor conditions. We ask you to exempt industries in which substandard labor conditions do not exist. [Applause.]

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. PATRICK].

Mr. PATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I was very heartily impressed by what my colleague from Alabama [Mr. HOBBS] said. There is no controverting most of the things that he said, in fact all of them are true, perhaps, but I am supporting this measure. I do not see how we can ever reach the conclusion that we can lift our section, the South, out of the condition that has prevailed for several years by keeping it on a low-wage plane. The only way that we can do it is to go along with whatever legislation is necessary to lift it to a better station among the activities of the Nation. We can only do this one leg at a time. I suppose always, when sweeping legislation of this kind is offered, which covers a whole Nation, every section wants its boost first. I was disturbed over the previous wages-hours measure which we voted to recommit because of the rate discrimination and the extra haul expense we have to absorb to get our goods into the South. I do not see now how any fair lawmaker can take half a glance in the direction of this measure and not vote to get away from the unhappy discrimination that has assailed our section of the country so long. But we must be content to see our laws passed one measure at a time. So, unless it is ruined by amendments, I shall vote for this bill.

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chainnan, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON].

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, having no further requests for time I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, when the unanimous-consent request was submitted for the extension of time for general debate I raised no objection, having in mind, of course, in view of the fact that I have been consistent in my opposition to this proposal, that I would have some time to debate this vital and all-important measure.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman submitting a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. COX. I am.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. COX. At that time, however, those in charge of the time were not permitted to give me, I presume in view of the fact—

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

Mr. COX. I yield.

Mrs. NORTON. I did not have any request for time from the gentleman, but I shall be very glad to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox].

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I made the request on the fioor, and the answer to my request was that 40 minutes would be yielded to the opposition, and the gentlewoman yielded that time to one of my colleagues from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK]. In view of that statement I did not later petition for time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman from New Jersey is willing to yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] the balance of her time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I could not even scratch the face of this important question in a discussion of 1, 2, or 3 minutes. I take this opportunity to say that I have the hope and expectation of being able at least briefiy to discuss the bill on tomorrow on my own time and within my own rights.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

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

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the Committee arose; and Mr. RAYBURN having taken the chair as Speaker pro tempore, 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) to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and a1fecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days from the final vote on the wage and hour bill in which to revise and extend their own remarks in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the general authority which has just been granted, I ask unanimous consent to include in the extension of my remarks a short editorial and statement.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?

There was no objection.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in connection with my address certain excerpts from the President's message, from the hearings on the bill, as well as certain letters and editorials.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

Mr. VOORIDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD and to include a short excerpt from an article appearing in the Saturday Evening Post of December 21, 1907.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the remarks I made this afternoon a news item and an editorial in the Washington Post, to which I referred.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD and to include therein a short table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

[PAGE 7326]

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

[PAGE 7327]

Mr. SWOPE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the Appendix of the RECORD.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the extension of my remarks quotations from a letter from Miss Perkins to me, and also a letter from the executive secretary of the A. F. of L. in Texas, as well as the statement of Mr. H. C. Fleming, president of the International Oil Workers' Union.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. At Kirksville, Mo., on the evening of May 19, I spoke at a banquet in honor of the new president of a great teachers' college at that place. As it was a propitious moment, I recounted some of the educational achievements of earlier presidents, such as John R. Kirk and Eugene Fair. I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD the address which I made on that occasion, thinking that it has some educational as well as commemorative value.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?

There was no objection.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend the remarks I made today and to include therein a statement with reference to the foreign trade agreements as applied to this bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. WHITE] may extend his remarks in the RECORD and include several short tables.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend the remarks I made today and include therein a table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in iny remarks a letter from Mr. Jackson, Solicitor General, also the statement of Mr. Cohen before the subcommittee of the Committee on Labor considering the wage and hour bill, and I request that that follow immediately the statement of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

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

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. COCHRAN], may be permitted to extend his own remarks in the RECORD and include therein an editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to therequest of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.

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

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the RECORD, may I say that the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. O'DAY, is unable to be present on account of illness. If she were present, she would be glad to support the wage and hour bill.

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. GRISWOLD, a member of the Committee on Labor, is unable to be here on account of illness.

HOUR OF MEETING

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns this evening it adjourn to meet tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.

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

There was no objection.

[PAGE 7327]

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

  Top of page

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

  Page 7373              CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE              May 24, 1938             (83 Cong. Rec. 7373, 1938)

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

The Wage and Hour Bill

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

The motion was agreed to.

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

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BOILEAU. How far have we read in the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Section 1 of the committee substitute has been read.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. RAMSPECK moves to strike out the first section of the committee substitute, being lines 18 and 19 on page 48, and offers the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, with notice that if it is agreed to he will move to strike out the remaining sections of the committee substitute as read.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the substitute may be dispensed with, in view of the fact that it is in print as the bill H. R. 10538, and is available to the membership.

Mr. BOILEAU. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I shall not object, but I desire to reserve all points of order on the amendment.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order the reading has already started.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that if the unanimous-consent request is granted the point of order would have to be made before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from· Georgia.

Mr. BOILEAU. That is my intention, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia asks unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the amendment be inserted in the RECORD at this point. Is there objection?

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to reserve a point of order to give the gentleman from Georgia an opportunity to explain the amendment. It is impossible to make a point of order without knowing what is in the amendment, and I therefore desire to have a point of order reserved so the point can be made after there has been some discussion of the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can reserve his point of order.

Mr. BOILEAU. But they might insist upon my making the point of order, and I am not equipped to make the point of order without knowing what the amendment contains.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, of course, has no control over that situation.

Mr. BOILEAU. I realize that, and neither have I, and therefore, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. RAMSPECK moves to strike out the first section of the committee substitute, being lines 18 and 19, on page 48, and offers the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, with notice that if it is agreed to, he will move to strike out the remaining sections of the committee substitute, as read:

Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

PART I—LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION; DEFINITIONS; LABOR STANDARDS BOARD; LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION

SECTION 1. (a) The employment of workers under substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce, in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or otherwise directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes interstate commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among the workers of the several States conditions detrimental to the physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of such workers; (2) directly burdens interstate commerce and the free fiow of goods in interstate commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in interstate commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes directly burdening and obstructing interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce; and (5) directly interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in interstate commerce.

(b) The correction of such conditions directly affecting interstate commerce requires that the Congress exercise its legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupations in and directly affecting interstate commerce.

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 2. (a) As used in this act, unless the context otherwise requires—

(1) Person includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidating or reorganizing agent.

(2) Interstate commerce means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or from any State to any place outside thereof.

(3) State means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States.

(4) Board means the Labor Standards Board 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.

[PAGE 7373]

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

[PAGE 7374]

(6) Employer includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee but shall not include the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

(7) Employee includes any individual employed or suffered or permitted to work by an employer, but shall not include any person employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity as outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Board) 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., 1934 ed., title 45, ch. 3); or any employee of any common carrier by motor vehicle subject to the qualifications and maximum hours of service provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 49, ch. 8): Provided, however, That the wage provisions of this act shall apply, or any air transport employee subject to the provisions of title II of the Railway Labor Act, approved April 10, 1936; or any person employed in the taking of fish, sea foods, or sponges; or any person employed in agriculture. As used in this act, the term "agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities, the raising of livestock, bees, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to such farming operations, including preparation for market delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market. The term person employed in agriculture as used in this act shall include persons employed w1thin the area of production engaged in storing for the farmer, preparing (but not commercial processing), or packing agricultural or horticultural commodities in their raw, natural, or dried state, but shall not include employees of transportation contractors engaged in transporting farm products from farm to market.

(8) Oppressive wage means a wage lower than the applicable minimum wage declared by order of the Board 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 Board 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 employing his own child or a child in his custody under the age of 16 years in an occupation other than manufacturing or mining) in any occupation, or (B) any such employee between the ages of 16 and 18 years is employed by an employer in any occupation which the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor shall from time to time by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of such children or detrimental to their health or well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by virtue of the employment in any occupation of any person with respect to whom the employer shall have on file a certificate issued and held pursuant to the regulation of the Chief of the Children's Bureau certifying that such person is above the oppressive child-labor age. The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees of the age of 14 but under the age of 16 years in occupations other than manufacturing and mining shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that the Chief of the Children's Bureau determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.

(11) Substandard labor condition means a condition of employment under which (A) any employee is employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) any employee is employed for an oppressive workweek; or (C) oppressive child labor exists.

(12) Fair labor standard means a condition of employment under which (A) no employee is employed at an oppressive wage; or (B) no employee is employed for an oppressive workweek; or (C) no oppressive child labor exists.

(13) Labor standard order means an order of the Board under section 4 or 6 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.

(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) Average wage as applied to an occupation in any industry means the average of the various wages paid as of September 1, 1937, in such industry with respect to such occupation weighted by the number of employees receiving each wage used in computing the average, as determined by the Board on the basis of representative samples, the latest available statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, or otherwise.

(b) For the purposes of this act, proof that any employee was employed under any substandard labor condition in any factory, mill, workshop, mine, quarry, or other place of employment where goods were produced, within 90 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom (but not earlier than 120 days after the enactment of this act), shall be prima facie evidence that such goods were produced by such employee employed under such substandard labor condition.

(c) All wage and hour regulations under the provisions of this act shall apply to workers without regard to sex.

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, and shall have authority by Executive order to require the Board to report to him through the head of an executive Department. 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 his 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 remaining 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 official 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.

PART II-ESTABLISHMENT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS; MINIMUM-WAGE AND MAXIMUM-HOUR STANDARDS

SEc. 4. (a) Whereas wages paid in interstate industries vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as low as $5 or less per week; and

Whereas hours of labor in interstate industries also vary greatly between industries and throughout the Nation, reaching as hlgh as 84 hours per week; and

Whereas such wide variations create unfair competition for employers who wish to pay decent wages and maintain decent working hours; and

Whereas the workers who receive the lowest wages and work the longest hours have been and now are unable to obtain a living wage or decent working hours by individual or collective bargaining with their employers; and

Whereas it is necessary for the development of American commerce and the protection of American workers and their families that substandard wages and hours be eliminated from interstate industry and business; but

[PAGE 7374]

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

[PAGE 7375]

Whereas it is imposstble 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 maintain, so far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible, minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent with health, efliclency, and general well-being of workers and the maximum productivity and profitable operation of American business.

(b) Having regard to such policy, and upon finding after notice and hearing, as hereinafter provided, that the application of the mlnimum-wage prov1stons of this act to any occupation or occupations will not curtail opportunities for employment, the Board shall by order from time to time declare, for such occupations, minimum wages which shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible, without curtailing opportunity for employment, to maintain a minimum standard of living necessary for health, eftlciency, and general wellbeing: Provided, That the Board's jurisdiction in declaring minlmum wages shall not include the power (1) to declare minimum wages in excess of 40 cents per hour, but higher minimum wages 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; (2) to declare in any order a mlnimum wage for an occupation in any industry which is lower than the average wage paid ln such industry with respect to such occupation at the time of the hearing on the order; (3) to declare, in the first order issued pursuant to this subsection with respect to an occupation in any industry, a min1mum wage which exceeds the average wage paid in such industry with respect to such occupation at the time of the hearing on the order by more than 5 cents per hour; (4) to declare, in any subsequent order, a minimum wage with respect to such occupation which exceeds the wage applicable under the immediately preceding order by more than 5 cents per hour; or (5) to declare in any order an increase in the wage applicable under the immediately preceding order if, on the effective date of the order declaring such increase such wage has been in effect for less than 365 days.

In declaring such minimum wages the Board shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following:

(1) the cost of living;

(2) the relative cost of transporting goods from points of production to consuming markets;

(3) local economic conditions;

(4) such considerations as would be relevant in a court in a suit for the value of serv1ces rendered where services are rendered at the request of an employer without contract as to the amount of the wage to be paid;

(5) the wages established for work of like or comparable character by collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing;

(6) the wages paid for work of like or comparable character by employers who voluntarily maintain minimum-wage standards in the occupation to be subject to the order establishing such minimum wage; 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.

(c) Having regard to such policy, and upon finding after notice and hearing, as hereinafter provided, that the application of the maximum workweek provisions of this act to any occupation or occupations will not curtail earning powers, the Board shall by order from time to time declare for such occupations a maximum workweek (and the maximum workday therein), which shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible, without curtailing earning power, to maintain health, e1ficiency, and general well being: Provided, That the Board's jurisdiction in declaring maximum hours shall not include the power (1) to fix maximum hours less than 40 hours per week, but shorter maximum hours fixed by collect1ve bargaintng or otherwise shall be encouraged; it being the objective of this act to reduce the maximum working hours of the groups now working excessively long hours, so as to attain the maximum workweek of 40 hours as rapidly as practicable without curtalling earning power and without reducing production; or (2) to fix maximum hours in excess or 48 hours per week: Provided however, That an employer shall not be deemed to be employing his employees for an oppressive workweek if such employer is operating under a plan approved by the Board, for employing his employees on a yearly basis, and the average workweek during the year does not exceed the maximum workweek applicable under an order of the Board: Provided further, That the provisions of this subsection shall not be applieable with respect to any person employed in connection with the canning or other packing or packaging of fish, sea foods, sponges, or picking, canning, or proeessing 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: And provided further, That the provisions of this paragraph (c) shall not apply 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.

In declaring such maximum workweek, the Board shall consider among other relevant circumstances the following:

(1) the relation of the work to the physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of the employees;

(2) the number of persons available for employment in the occupatinn to be subject to the order establishing such maximum workweek;

(3) the hours of employment established for work of like or comparable character by collective labor agreements negotiated between employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing;

(4) the hours of employment for work of like or comparable character maintained by employers who voluntarily maintain a maximum workweek in the occupation to be subject to the order establishing such maximum workweek; and

(5) the provisions of thls subsection shall not apply to employees engaged in processing or packing perishable agricultural produets during the harvesting season.

COLLECTIVE-BARGAINIING AGREEMENTS PROTECTED

SEC. 5. (a) Nothing in this act or in any regulation or order thereunder shall be construed to interfere with, impede, or diminish in any way the right of employees to bargain collectively or otherwise to engage in any concerted activity allowed by law in order to obtain a wage in excess of the appllcable minimum under this act or to obtain a shorter workweek than the maximum workweek under this act or otherwise to obtain benefits or advantages for employees not required by this act, and a minimum wage so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it 1s in excess of the minimum wage under this act, and a maximum workweek so sought or obtained shall not be construed or deemed to be illegal or unfair because it is shorter than the maximum workweek under this act.

(b) A labor-standard order establishing minimum wages or a maximum workweek for any occupation shall be made only if the Board finds that collective-bargaining agreements in respect to such minimum wages or maximum hours do not cover a substantial portion of the employees in such occupation, or that existing facilities for collective bargaining in such occupation are inadequate or ineffective to accomplish the purposes of this act.

(c) A labor-standard order covering any occupation in any industry shall not establish for such occupation a minimum wage which is lower or a maximum workweek which is longer than the average minhnum wage or average maximum workweek prevailing for such occupation in such industry, unless the minimum wage established by such order is the highest wage or the maximum workweek is the shortest workweek that the Board is authorized to establish under this act.

(d) The minimum wages and maximum workweek established by collective-bargaining agreements in any occupation shall be prima facie evidence of the appropriate minimum wage and maximum workweek to be established by the Board for like work done under substantially like conditions.

EXEMPTIONS FROM LABOR STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO WAGES AND HOURS

SEC. 6. (a) Unless an applicable order of the Board under this act shall otherwise provide, the maintenance among employees of an oppressive workweek shall not be deemed to constitute a substandard labor condition if the employees so employed receive additional compensation for such overtime employment at the rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly wage rate at which such employees are employed. But the Board shall have power to make an order determining that such overtime employment in any occupation shall constitute a substandard labor condition if and to the extent the Board finds necessary or appropriate to prevent the circumvention of this act. Any such order may contain such terms and conditions relating to overtime employment, including the wage rates to be paid therefor and the maximum number of hours of employment in each day and the maximum number of days per week, as the Board shall consider necessary or appropriate in the occupation affected.

(b) The Board shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees in any occupation at a wage lower or for a workweek longer than the appropriate fair labor standard otherwise applicable to such occupation shall not be deemed to constitute a substandard labor condition if the Board finds that the special character or terms of the employment or the limited qualifications of the employees make such employment justifiable and not inconsistent with the accomplishment of the purposes of such one or more provisions of this act. Such regulations or orders may provide for (1) the employment of learners, and of apprentices under special certificates as issued pursuant to regulations of the pepartment of Labor, at such wages lower than the applicable minimum wage and subject to such limitations as to time, number, proportion, and length of service as the Board shall prescribe; (2) the employment of persons whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury, under special certificates to be issued by the Board, at such wages lower than the applicable wage and for such period as shall be fixed in such certificates; (3) deductions for board, lodging, and other facilities furnished by the employer if the nature of the work is such that the employer is obliged to furnish and the employee to accept such facilities; (4) overtime employment in periods of seasonal or peak activity or in maintenance, repair, or other emergency work and the wage rates to be paid for such overtime employment not exceeding the rate of time and one-half and (5) suitable treatment of other cases or classes of cases which, because of the nature and character of the employment, justify special treatment.

[PAGE 7375]

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

[PAGE 7376]

PART III—UNFAIR GOODS BARRED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE; PROHIBITED SHIPMENTS AND EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE

SEC. 7. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly

(1) to transport or cause to be transported in interstate com- merce, or to aid or assist in transporting, or obtaining transportation in interstate commerce for, or to ship or sell in interstate com- merce, or to ship or deliver or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in interstate commerce 1s intended, any unfair goods; or

(2) to employ under any substandard labor conditions any em- ployee engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods intended for transportation or sale in violation of clause (1) of this section.

PART IV-GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS LABOR-STANDARD ORDERS

SEC. 8. A labor-standard order—

(1) shall be made only after a hearing held pursuant to section 9;

(2) shall take effect upon the publication thereof in the Federal Register or at such date thereafter as may be provided in the order;

(3) shall define the occupation or occupations, the territorial limits within which such order shall operate, and the class, craft, or industrial unit or units to which such order relates;

(4) subject to the provisions of this act, may classify employers, employees, and employments within the occupation to which such order relates according to localities, the population of the communities in which such employment occurs, the number of employees employed, the nature and volume of the goods produced, and such other differentiating circumstances as the Board finds necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of such order, and may make appropriate provision for different classes of employers, employees, or employment; but it shall be the policy of the Board to avoid the adoption of any classification which effects an unreasonable discrimination against any person or locality or which adversely affects prevailing minimum wage or maximum workweek standards and to avoid unnecessary or excessive classifications and to exercise its powers of classification only to the extent necessary or appropriate to accomplish the essential purposes of the act;

(5) in case of an order relating to wages, may contain such terms and conditions as the Board may consider necessary or appropriafe to prevent the established minimum wage becoming the maximum wage; but it shall be the policy of the Board to establish such minimum-wage standards as will affect only those employees in need of legislative protection without interfering with the voluntary establishment of appropriate differentials and higher standards for other employees in the occupation to which such standards relate;

(6) shall contain such terms and conditions (including the restriction or prohibition of industrial home work or of such other acts or practices) as the Board finds necessary to carry out the purposes of such order, to prevent the circumvention or evasion thereof or to safeguard the fair labor standards therein establlshed;

(7) may modify, extend, or rescind at any time, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, a labor-standard order previously made: Provided, That at least 90 days' notice from the date of the order must be given before any change is made effective if it increases wages or reduces hours applicable under a previous order.

HEARINGS

SEC 9. 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 places within the United States, to be designated by the Board, readily accessible to interested persons at reasonable travel and subsistence expenses and with minimum loss of time, on the Board's own motion or on the complaint of any labor organization or any person having a bona fide interest (as defined by the Board), filed in accordance with such regulations as the Board shall prescribe, and showing reasonable cause why such hearing should be held. Such hearing shall be public and may be held before the Board, any member thereof, or any officer of the Board designated by it. Appropriate records of such hearings shall be kept. The Board shall not be bound by any technical rules of evidence or procedure.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES ON FAIR LABOR STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO WAGES AND HOURS

SEC. 10. Before making an order under section 4 establishing a minimum wage or a maximum workweek, or both, for employees in any occupation, the Board shall appoint an advisory committee or committees to investigate and report upon the value of the services rendered by employees in such occupation or the number of hours of employment reasonably suitable to the nature of the work therein, or both, as the case may be. Each such advisory committee shall be composed of an equal number of persons representing the employers and the employees in such occpation, and of not more than three disinterested persons representmg 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, in such occupation. Two-thirds of the members of such advisory committee shall const1tute a quorum, and the recommendations or report of such committee shall require a vote of not less than a majority of all its members. Members of an advisory committee shall be entitled to reasonable compensation to be fixed by the Board for each day actually spent in the work of the advisory committee in addition to their reasonable and necessary traveling and other expenses and shall be supplied with adequate stenographic, clerical, and other assistance. The Board shall submit to an advisory committee promptly upon its appointment such data as the Board may have available on the matter referred to it. Any such advisory committee shall, after investigation, hearing, and conference with the principal interested parties, submit a report upon the matter on which its advice was requested within such reasonable penod of time as may be determined by the Board. If its report is not submitted in such time, the Board may appoint a new advisory committee. The Board may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the recommendations of an advisory committee or may resubmit the matter to the same advisory committee or to a new advisory committee, as the Board deeins proper; but the Board shall make its order only after a hearing held pursuant to section 9. If the Board rejects, in whole or in part, the recommendations of an advisory committee, it shall publish its reasons therefor in the Federal Register. The Board shall not reject any recommendation of any advisory committee if there is substantial evidence to support such recommendation in the record of the hearing held pursuant to section 9.

INVESTIGATIONS; TESTIMONY

SEC. 11. (a) The Board in its 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 it may deem necessary or appropriate to determine whether any person has violated any provision of this act or any labor-standard order, or to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this act, in prescribing regulations thereunder, or in obtaining information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation concerning the matters to which this act relates.

(b) For the purpose of any investigation or any other proceeding under this act, including any proceeding under section 9 or section 10, any member of the Board, or any officer thereof designated by it, is empowered to administer oaths and amrmations, 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.

(c) In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena issued to, any person, the Board may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, and other records. Such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the Board, or a member or officer thereof designated by the Board, and to produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he may be found.

(d) No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, or other records and documents before the Board or any member thereof or any officer designated by it, or in obedience to the subpena of the Board, or in any cause or proceeding under this act on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, but no individual shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled to testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.

ENFORCEMENT

SEc. 12. Whenever it shall appear to the Board that any person is engaged or about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute a violation of any provision of this act, or of any provision of any labor-standard order, it may in its discretion bring an action in the proper distnct court of the United States to enjoin such act or practice and to enforce compliance with this act or with such labor-standard order, and upon a proper showing a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order shall be granted without bond. The Board may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices to the Attorney General, who, in his discretion, may institute the appropriate criminal proceedings under this act.

RECORDS

SEc. 13. (a) Every employer subject to any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order shall make, keep, and preserve

[PAGE 7376]

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

[PAGE 7377]

such records of the persons employed by him; and the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and shall make such reports therefrom to the Board as the Board shall prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder. Every employer subject to a labor-standard order shall keep a copy of such order posted in a conspicuous place in every room in which employees in any occupation subject to such order are employed.

(b) No person other than the producer shall be prosecuted for the transportation, shipment, delivery, or sale of unfair goods who has secured a representation in writing from the person by whom the goods transported, shipped, or delivered were produced, resident in the United States, to the effect that such goods were not produced in violation of any provision of this act. If such representation contains any false statement of a material fact, the person furnishing the same shall be amenable to prosecution and to the penalties provided for the violation of the provisions of this act.

POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU

SEC. 15. (a) The Board shall utilize the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor for all the investigations and inspections necessary under section 11 (a). The Secretary of Labor shall have the powers enumerated therein in the conduct of such investigations and inspections and shall report the results thereof to the Board.

(b) The Chief of the Children'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 shall administer all other provisions of this act relating to oppressive child labor.

(c) In performing his duties under this act, the Secretary of Labor may, under plans developed with the consent and cooperation of the State agencies charged with the administration. of State labor laws, utilize the services of State and local agencies, officers, and employees, and notwithstanding any other provisions of law may reimburse such State and local agencies, officers, and employees for their services when performed solely tor such purposes.

REGULATIONS; ORDERS

SEC. 15. The Board shall have authority, from time to time, to make, issue, amend, and rescind such regulations and such orders as it may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this act, including but not limited to regulations defining technical and trade terms used in this act. Among other things, the Board shall have authority, for the purposes of this act, to provide for the form and manner in which complaints may be filed and proceedings instituted for the establishment of fair labor standards; to prescribe the procedure to be followed at any hearing or other proceeding before the Board or any member of the Board or any officer thereof designated by it or any advisory board appointed by it. For the purpose of its regulations and orders, the Board may classify persons and matters within its jurisdiction and prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons or matters. The regulations and orders of the Board shall take effect upon the publication thereof in the Federal Register or at such later date as the Board shall direct. No provision of this act imposing any liability or disability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any regulation or order of the Board, notwithstanding that such regulation or order may, after such act or omission, be amended or rescinded or be determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS

SEc. 16. (a) Any provision of any contract, agreement, or understanding made in violation of any provision of this act or of a regulation or order thereunder shall be null and void.

(b) Any contract, agreement, understanding, condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this act or with any regulation or order thereunder shall be null and void.

RELEASE OF GOODS

SEC. 17. The Board shall, by order, exempt any goods from the operation of any provision of this act prohibiting the sale or transportation of such goods in interstate commerce if the Board finds that every person having a substantial proprietary interest (as defined by the Board) in such goods had no reason to believe that any substandard labor condition existed in the production of such goods or that such exemption is necessary to prevent undue hardship or economic waste and is not detrimental to the public interest. Any order of the Board under this subsection shall contain such terms and conditions as the Board considers necessary or appropriate in order to safeguard the enforcement and prevent the circumvention of this act.

RELATION TO OTHER LAWS

SEC. 18. No provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than a minimum wage established under this act or a maximum workweek lower than a maximum workweek established under this act, or otherwise regulating the conditions of employment in any occupation and not in conflict with a provision of this act or a regulation or order thereunder.

COMMON CARRIERS NOT LIABLE

SEC. 19. No provision of this act shall impose any liability or penalty upon any common carrier !or the transportation in interstate commerce in the regular course of its business of any goods not produced by such common carrier, and no provision of this act shall excuse any common carrier from its obligations to accept any goods for transportation.

COURT REVIEW OF ORDERS

SEc. 20. (a) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board under this act may obtain a review of such order in the district court of the United States for any district wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, or in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia by filing in such court, within 60 days after the entry of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Board be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon any member of the Board or upon any officer thereof designated by the Board for that purpose, and thereupon the Board shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, or, if it is not in accordance with law or if the Board arbitrarily rejected a recommendation of the advisory committee, to modify or set aside such order in whole or in part. The judgment and decree of the court affirming, modifying, or setting aside any such order of the Board shall be final, subject to review as provided in sections 128, 239, and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 28, sees. 225, 346, and 347), and in section 7, as amended, of the act entitled An act to establish a Court of Appeals for the, District of Columbia, approved February 9, 1893 (D. C. Code, title 18, sec. 26).

(b) The commencement of proceedings under subsection (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay ot the Board's order.

JURISDICTION OF OFFENSES AND SUITS

SEC. 21. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of violations of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder, and, concurrently with State and Territorial courts, of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act or the regulations or orders thereunder. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation or an element thereof occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this act or regulations or orders thereunder may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business, and process in such cases may be served in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 28, secs. 225 and 347), and section 7, as amended, of the act entitled An act to establish a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia;, approved February 9, 1893 (D. C. Code, title 18, sec. 26). No costs shall be assessed against the Board in any proceeding under this act brought by or against the Board in any court.

PENALTIES

SEC. 22. (a) Any person who willfully performs or aids or abets in the perforanance of any act declared to be unlawful by any provision of this act or who willfully fails or omits to perform any act, duty, or obligation required by this act to be performed by him shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. Where the employment or an employee in violation of any provision of this act or of a labor-standard order is unlawful, each employee so employed in violation of such provision shall constitute a separate offense. No person shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an offense committed after the conviction of such person for a prior violation of this subsection.

(b) Any person who w1llfully makes any statement or entry in any application, report, or record filed or kept pursuant to the provisions of this act or any regulation or order thereunder, knowing such statement or entry to be false in any material respect, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.

(c) Any employer who wlllfully discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation or proceeding under or related to this act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such investigation or proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an advisory committee, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

(d) Any person who, without just cause, shall fail or refuse to attend and testify or to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce books, papers, correspondence, or other records, if in his or its power so to do, in obedience to the subpena of the Board, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

(e) No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in interstate commerce any goods produced in an

[PAGE 7377]

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

[PAGE 7378]

establishment situated in the United States in or about which within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom any oppressive child labor has been employed: Provided, That a prosecution and conviction of a defendant for the shipment or delivery for shipment of any goods under the conditions herein prohibited shall be a bar to any further prosecution against the same defendant for shipments or deliveries for shipment of any such goods before the beginning of said prosecution.

SEPARABILITY

SEC. 23. If any provision of this act or of any regulation or order thereunder or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if any provision of this act or any regulation or order thereunder shall be held invalid insofar as it gives any effect to any substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any fair-labor standard on the part of any person or in any circumstances, the application of such provision of this act or of such regulation or order shall not be affected thereby insofar as it gives any effect to any other substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of any other fair-labor standard on the part of the same person or in the same circumstances, or insofar as it gives any effect to the same substandard labor condition or requires the maintenance of the same fair-labor standard on the part of any other person or in any other circumstances.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT

SEC. 24. This act shall take effect immediately, except that no provision requiring the maintenance of any fair-labor standard or giving any effect to any substandard labor condition shall take effect until the one-hundred-and-twentieth day after the enactment of this act, and no labor-standard order shall be effective prior to that day.

Mr. MAVERICK (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that the gentleman from Wisconsin have the right to submit his reservation of a point of order.

Mr. BOILEAU. If it is to be understood, Mr. Chairman, that I can make a point of order against the amendment after the gentleman from Georgia explains the amendment, I have no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. If the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Texas is granted, the Chair understands that the gentleman from Wisconsin has a reservation of a point of order which can be exercised upon the termination of the gentleman's remarks.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. And it is understood I might make one also?

Mr. MAVERICK. Anyone can make a point of order at that time.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if this amendment is adopted, will the members of the committee have an opportunity to submit any amendments to this amendment, inasmuch as it has not been read?

The CHAIRMAN. The substitute is open to amendment. If the substitute is adopted, that would preclude further amendments from being offered. Amendments must be offered while the substitute is pending.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 5 minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, this substitute is H. R. 10538 and is the bill agreed upon by the majority members of the subcommittee on labor of which I had the privilege of being chairman. The members of that committee, in addition to myself, were the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GILDEA], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THOMAS], the gentleman from California [Mr. WELCH], the gentleman from Maine [Mr. SMITH], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SCHNEIDER]. The Democratic members adopted this and it was reported by the subcommittee to the full committee. and it was rejected by the full committee by a vote of 10 to 8.

I wish to pay tribute to the faithfulness of every member of that subcommittee for their diligent efforts to work out this vexing and controversial problem. The minority members, of course, never agreed to this proposal and the full committee preferred the Norton substitute, which is pending now.

This bill, in substance, is the same as the bill that passed the United States Senate last year. The only difference between this bill and the Senate bill is that the board of five provided for in both bills, in this proposal is selected on a geographical basis, one coming from the Northeast, one from the Northwest, one from the Southwest, one from the Southeast, and one from the central portion of the country.

In addition to this, we have provided a weighted average minimum wage to start with, which, in my judgment, will provide a higher starting wage than the Norton proposal.

In addition to this, we have provided a limitation above the bottom minimum wage for any increase in any 12 months of 5 cents per hour.

We have also put a top on hours, which the Senate bill did not have, of 48 hours, giving the board discretion between 40 and 48 hours and discretion as to wages between the weighted minimum bottom, and I call your attention to the fact that the Senate bill had no bottom, and 40 cents an hour as the top of the minimum wage.

In addition to this, we took out section 8 of the Senate bill which gave the board authority to prescribe wages and hours for purely intrastate or local business when it was contended or shown to the board that somebody from another State was coming into that State and competing with the local manufacturer or employer.

We also took out the requirement that the manufacturer or employer should post in every room in his place of business a list of all of the employees, the hours when they went to work and when they left work, and provided that if any employee stayed beyond his period of working hours it was prima facie evidence of overtime employment. These things just simply interfere with business and are not necessary to a proper functioning of the law.

I emphasize the fact that, in substance, this is the bill which passed the United States Senate. It is in substance the bill which had the endorsement last August, of both the C. I. 0. and the American Federation of Labor, and I put the letter of Mr. Green in the RECORD on yesterday, and you will find it at pages 7302 and 7303 of the RECORD. It is the type of legislation which Mr. Jackson, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Cohen, and every other lawyer, except the general counsel of the American Federation of Labor, have said is the safe way to approach this question from a legal standpoint, and if we want wage and hour legislation, instead of making simply a gesture to the sweated laborers of this country, we are going to have to take this sort of bill to get it. If gentlemen have any doubt about that, I hold in my hand a page from the United States News of May 9, in which Senator WALSH, of Massachusetts, is quoted as follows:

In my opinion, a blanket control applying equally to all industries is preferable in respect to hours of employment, but with respect to minimum wages, the Board should be empowered to use its own discretion within limits in applying a minimum-wage law industry by industry.

Also in this same newspaper there is a statement from Senator THOMAs, chairman of the Senate committee, in which he said in part:

Regional differences may be taken into account in the Senate bill, and I trust that this effort will prevail. I do not believe it is the wish of Congress to destroy an industry or a section of the country.

From the information that I am able to get, the Norton proposal has no chance of being enacted into law by agreement on the part of the United States Senate. Therefore, I say if you want to prevent delay, if you want to get legislation now, adopt this method, a flexible method, a method

[PAGE 7378]

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

[PAGE 7379]

which gives consideration to the facts which we know exist in various sections of the country. It provides an independent commission with authority delegated within limits prescribed in the bill, to apply the facts to the case and to fix minimum wages between certain definite standards laid down in the bill. It provides a bottom minimum wage which is the weighted average of the best that is in industry today and a top minimum 40 cents an hour. It gives discretion as to hours between 40 and 48. I believe, Mr. Chairman, most sincerely, that this is the only method that has a chance of being sustained by the courts of the country when the test comes, as we know it will inevitably.

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

Mr. RAMSPECK. I am sorry; not now. I call attention again to the fact that I put in the RECORD yesterday, on pages 7301 and 7302, the legal opinions which the subcommittee had before it by Mr. Reilly and Mr. Cohen, and they show beyond a shadow of doubt that the only safe method for attempting this new legal experiment, this new legal power we are undertaking to give to the Federal Government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is by the method which has been tried in the States and has been sustained by the United States Supreme Court. They tell you frankly they find nothing in the decisions or the Constitution which would indicate that any other method would be held constitutional; and I read just a few words from Mr. Reilly's brief. He says:

You have asked my opinion as to whether there is any authority for the view that Congress may validly enact a bill providing a uniform minimum wage of 40 cents an hour throughout the country.

After examination of the authorities I have been unable to find any decision or constitutional law sustaining this view. Moreover, the decisions in the field of minimum wages and minimum prices create serious doubt as to whether such an enactment would be upheld in the light of the present state of the authority.

Therefore, I appeal to Members to adopt this method which has been found satisfactory in the District of Columbia, in the State of New York, in the State of Washington, in the State of Massachusetts, and in some twenty-odd other States of the country, and which has over a period of 30 years been applied satisfactorily in Great Britain. It is the only method with which we have any experience. It is the only method the courts have tested and held to be valid, and it is the only sane and sensible program, in my judgment, of applying a wage and hour law to the varying and complex facts that we find in the 48 States of our great country. It is the method asked for by the President. I hope that the Committee may see fit to adopt this method. [Applause.]

When this matter was before the House last fall I signed the discharge petition, voted to discharge the Rules Committee, and also voted against the motion to recommit the bill. My position today is the same as it was then. I am willing to support a bill which provides a fact-finding process for regulating wages and hours-a bill which provides a hearing for employees and employers; a bill which is fair and has some chance of being held valid. I cannot support the Norton bill because in my opinion, it i~ not legal and is arbitrary and not practical.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] is not germane to the substitute amendment now being considered by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union under the 5-minute rule. I desire to be heard on the point of order.

We are considering this Senate bill under a rather unusual rule, a rule that provides that the committee substitute shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill. Therefore, if it is being considered in the form of an original bill, in order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia may be germane, it must be germane, not to the Senate bill, but it must be germane to the committee substitute. In drawing up this rule the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] apparently had that in mind, because, as stated in the rule approved by the House, we find the following:

It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on Labor.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that had that language waiving points of order not been in this rule, the amendment offered by the committee wouid not have been in order, because it is not germane to the Senate bill, but the waiving of the points of order makes the committee substitute in order. Otherwise it wouid not be in order as not being germane.

The rule continues:

And such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill.

The point of order must be sustained against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia unless the amendment is germane to the committee substitute which we are reading now as an original bill, and I contend that it is not germane to the committee substitute. There have been numerous rulings and precedents to the effect that because a substitute or an amendment deals with the same general subject matter does not necessarily mean that it is germane and can be considered as a substitute. The Chair will undoubtedly recall the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Rainey several years ago when the House was considering the bill to refinance farm-mortgage indebtedness. I recall it very well, Mr. Chairman, because at that time I offered as a substitute another method of refinancing farm-mortgage indebtedness.

I offered as a substitute for that committee bill the so-called Frazier-Lemke bill, and Mr. Speaker Rainey, after giving the matter considerable thought and going through the precedents, ruled that that substitute, although dealing with the same general subject matter of refinancing farm-mortgage indebtedness, proposed to accomplish the purpose in such a different way that it was not germane to the bill then under consideration, and my amendment was ruled out of order. I recall also—I believe it was last year or year before and I have forgotten who was in the chair, I believe it was in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union when we were considering the Frazier-Lenike bill, after 218 Members of the House had discharged the committee from consideration of the Frazier-Lemke bill. The bill was brought to the floor for consideration and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. JONES], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, offered as a substitute for the Frazier-Lemke bill another method of refinancing farm-mortgage indebtedness, perhaps following closer the provisions of the Frazier-Lemke bill than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia follows the committee substitute in the present instance as an original bill. The presiding officer at that time, whether it was the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, sustained the point of order against the Jones amendment on the general ground that although it dealt with the same general subject matter, it provided an entirely different method of financing farm-mortgage indebtedness and was not germane to the bill under consideration.

I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by again pointing out that we are considering the committee amendment as an original bill, An amendment, therefore, that might be germane to the Senate bill nevertheless is not germane to the committee amendment because it must stand or fall upon the principle of germaneness to the committee substitute which we are considering as an original bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia desire to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I do, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that when this matter was under consideration last December the situation was reversed. We

[PAGE 7379]

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

[PAGE 7380]

had a bill embodying a flexible principle similar to the one provided in my amendment. At that time the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] o:ffered an amendment similar to the present committee bill. The Chair held it in order. It seems to me that it is simply a difference in method, that it seeks to accomplish the purpose by a little different set of mechanics, and, therefore, should be held to be germane.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, will the Chair hear me briefly on one further point?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman from Wisconsin further.

Mr. BOILEAU. May I not point out, Mr. Chairman, that the committee substitute does not provide for a board, it provides a general principle applicable all over the country? The substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia differs in that it provides for the setting up of a board, an entirely different agency; a bureau of the Government. It provides for differentials. It was upon this very proposition that the former rulings to which I have referred were made by the Speaker and by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman from New York.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask to be heard on the point of order principally because of what the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin has said about the rule. There is nothing unusual in the rule whatsoever. Similar rules are brought in here time and time again. Whenever a committee strikes out all after the enacting clause in a Senate bill and substitutes its own bill as an amendment the fairest way to handle the measure is to have the committee amendment read as an original bill. One reason for this is so that there will be the usual opportunity for amendments without running into third-degree amendments right away.

So the only salient point the gentleman from Wisconsin makes is that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia is not germane to the committee amendment which we are reading as an original bill. This subject of the germaneness of such substitutes was discussed last December.

The gentleman from Wisconsin is, of course, correct when he says that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECKJ must be germane to the committee amendment which we are now considering as an original bill. Last December, when we were discussing the wage and hour bill, the same question was brought up, and in fairness to everybody concerned, the Chair then ruled properly that such substitutes were germane. I engaged in the discussion on that point of order. I said then, in effect—

We have here a new subject—wages and hours. We are entering on a new venture, and any bill that carries out a plan of effecting the ultimate result and deals with wages and hours, in my opinion, is germane, irrespective of the methods provided, the administration, a board, or what not, set up. I think in all fairness every measure that deals with that big subject of wages and hours should be considered 1n this House and not brushed aside by any technicality.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in reply to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] with reference to the ruling of the Chair last year upon the so-called Griswold amendment, I call attention to a real difference in the situations. Last year, when the amendment was presented it would have the effect of curtailing the bill. It did not contain any matter that was not distinctly referred to in the bill. In this instance the proposed substitute goes beyond the bill that the House has voted to consider. The amendment of the gentleman from Georgia is beyond the scope of the bill which the rule puts in order. As the gentleman from Wisconsin well stated, the Ramspeck amendment sets up a new bureau entirely to regulate wages and hours, and that provision certainly is not germane, and in my opinion the point of order of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU] is well taken.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the argument of the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] answers itself. The gentleman does not refer to precedents of the House; neither does he refer to the rulings of the Chair on any previous occasion. He bases his argument entirely on expediency, equity, and fairness. Every one of those grounds was urged in extension on every occasion when this matter has been before the House; and the Chair. adhering to the original precedents—and as the present occupant of the chair well knows there is a long line of precedents—has religiously held exactly opposite to what the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] now contends, for even though what he now contends for may be expedient, equitable, fair, and expeditious to accomplish an objective, regardless of the route we pursue. I am arguing for the integrity of the rules and the precedents of the House. I am not in any way speaking of the merits of the proposed amendment or substitute.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. The gentleman is talking about precedents. I listened to the ones discussed by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU]. I remember them. I can see no relevancy in them; but, as I said, you are dealing with a new subject, wages and hours. It is a brand new field. There is no precedent in this particular instance.

Mr. MICHENER. Yes; there is. When the Farm Board bill was being considered a few years ago we were dealing 'with a new subject and a new method of approach. It was held at that time by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, after reciting the precedents, that even though we were dealing with a new subject we could not change diametrically the method of procedure provided in the bill to reach a desired objective.

Mr. BOILEAU. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHENER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BOILEAU. May I suggest to the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] that so far as the Frazier-Lemke bill was concerned, so far as legislation along that line is concerned, that was and still is just as new a subject as when that method was established. We never had any legislation along that line; so the argument it is new legislation is absolutely immaterial and has nothing to do with the point at issue.

· The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.

When this bill came up for consideration last December, the present occupant of the chair presided over the Committee of the Whole and at that time the present occupant of the chair as the then Chairman of the Committee of the Whole had to pass and did pass on several substitutes offered to the then committee substitute for the Senate bill. The Chair does not intend to take much time of the Committee of the Whole in reviewing the situation that existed when the bill was being considered before, nor to read the entire opinion of the Chair at that time. However, the Chair feels there are parts of the decision rendered at that time which are decisive of the question rendered to the Chair today,

The Chair feels that House Resolution 478, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CONNOR] stated, so far as the language therein contained and referred tp by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU] is concerned, provides the method of procedure in the consideration of the pending measure. The Chair feels this question should be decided upon whether or not the substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] is germane to the committee substitute.

When this bill was under consideration last December the Chair stated in detail the reasons for overruling the points of order made against the several substitutes that were then offered to the committee substitute. The opinions of the Chair made at that time will be found on pages 1588 to 1593, inclusive, of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of December 15. 1937.

[PAGE 7380]

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

[PAGE 7381]

At that time the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole stated, and I quote from page 1593 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of December 15, 1937:

The Chair believes, having in mind the broad objective of this b111, the establishment of minimum wages and maximum hours, that the Committee of the Whole and the House are not precluded from considering another method or another means of accomplishing that purpose than the one recommended by the Senate bill or by the House committee, both methods being germane. The Chair believes it germane for the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union under the rules to consider a mandatory minimum-wage and maximum-hour provision in preference to the amendment of the Committee or the provisions of the Senate bill. Which is the desirable course to take is a matter for the Committee to determine.

It seems to the Chair that the position today is the reverse to what it was on that occasion. It seems to the Chair that the same question is fundamentally presented to the Chair today as was presented to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole when the bill was being considered on December 15 last year.

Without reciting all the reasons stated by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on the occasion when the bill was last up for consideration, the Chair feels that the reasons stated at that time are just as applicable today as they were on that occasion. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 additional minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this additional 10 minutes in order that the committee's viewpoint in opposition to the substitute amendment, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, may be clearly understood. I regret that my colleague from Indiana [Mr. GRISWOLD] could not speak on this matter. He had made a special study of the subject, but illness keeps him from being present.

I should like to preface my remarks in connection with the pending substitute amendment by saying I was a member of the subcommittee of the House Committee on Labor charged with an attempt, and it was an honest attempt, to bring before the full Committee on Labor a measure which that group might report to the House for consideration. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] certainly contributed splendid service as the chairman of that subcommittee, and I pay him deserved tribute at this time. It was hoped the subcommittee's findings and draft of a measure might be acceptable to the full committee, but the full committee decided otherwise, and so after the vote of 10 to 8 on the subcommittee bill, which has been mentioned by the gentleman from Georgia, there was a further expression by the committee, and by a vote of 14 to 4 the committee amendment, now being considered as an original bill, was reported and is before us at this time.

I rise, therefore, with the firm conviction in my own heart that the establishment of the principle is absolutely necessary at the present time. My remarks made in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia can in no wise be construed as an opinion which has been arrived at hastily, and I certainly believe the viewpoint of the Committee on Labor is entitled to the very careful and sympathetic consideration of the Members of the House in connection with the pending substitute, because it was not so long ago that the Congress of the United States itself recommitted to the House Committee on Labor a bill which would be revived by the gentleman from Georgia.

Proposals to fix minimum wages and maximum hours by Federal legislation raise two basic constitutional questions:

First. Does the Congress have the power to enact legislation of this character?

Second. If so, is the legislative means adopted a reasonable and valid exercise of that power?

The opponents of the bill which is before us generally admit that Congress has the power to legislate on the subject of wages and hours, but contend the particular provisions of this bill are unreasonable and arbitrary. In answer to the first proposition, it may be said, in brief, that the power of the Congress to enact minimum-wage and maximum-hour legislation emanates from the commerce clause of the Constitution. Congress has authority to stop practices which threaten to obstruct or unduly burden the flow of interstate commerce. It may exercise such control and regulation over the industrial relationship of employers and employees as is necessary to avoid disputes and strife which burden the free flow of commerce (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1; National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Co., 301 U. S. 49; Texas and N. 0. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U.S. 548; Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U. S. 515; Second Employees, Liability Case, 223 U. S. 1; Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relaticms Board, decided March 28, 1938).

In considering the second question, I shall direct my remarks to the argument advanced by Representative RAMSPECK that this legislation is invalid because it does not constitute a reasonable and valid exercise of Congress' power. Two reasons are advanced for the invalidity of this bill:

I. It prescribes rigid minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards for the entire United States, and, therefore, is not a reasonable exertion of governmental authority but, on the contrary, is arbitrary and discriminatory.

II. It constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power to the Secretary of Labor as the standards prescribed upon which the Secretary is to base a decision are not sufficiently definite.

I believe I can demonstrate that both of these contehtions are unsound. I shall consider the points separately.

I. (A) The fixation of a reasonable minimum-wage and maximum-work period by the Congress for the protection of health, safety, morals, and welfare of workers does not constitute a deprivation of liberty to contract forbidden by the dueprocess clause of the fifth amendment (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379 (overruling Adkins v. Children,s Hospital, 261 U. S. 525, and distinguishing Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U. S. 587) ).

The Washington minimum-wage law for women is the only minimum-wage statute which has been sustained by the United States Supreme Court (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, supra), except as that case in overruling Adkins against Children's Hospital can be said to have sustained the validity of the minimum-wage law for the District of Columbia. Both the Washington statute and the law for the District of Columbia authorized a board to fix minimum wages for women based on the cost of living necessary to health and decency. Chief Justice Hughes, in the Parrish opinion, at page 399, stated:

The legislature was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the sweating system, the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living, thus making their very helplessness the occasion of a most injurious competition. • • • What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met.

It can be concluded from the above quotations and the provisions of the Washington statute which were under attack that the Supreme Court regards cost of living, as a reasonable standard upon which to base a minimum wage. Hence any minimum-wage requirement reasonably related to cost of living, whether prescribed by statute or fixed by a board, should have a fair chance of being sustained. Viewed in this light, the rigid minimum-wage rates fixed in this bill should be upheld.

Admittedly the Congress can fix a minimum wage in accordance with a cost-of-living standard rather than delegate the task to an executive board or agency, if it has facts showing what wage the cost of living warrants. Where a single and rigid minimum wage is prescribed by the Congress for all localities in the United States, as would be the case

[PAGE 7381]

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

[PAGE 7382]

in the proposed bill, under the doctrine of the Parrish case, it should only be necessary to show that the wage established in the statute is not in excess of what is required by costs of living for the region of the United States where living is the cheapest.

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SABATH. What the gentleman desires to make clear to the House is that the Congress cannot delegate to any board it creates greater power than the Congress itself possesses. If the Congress does not have the power, surely no board would have the power to fix the minimum or the maximum wage, and minimum or maximum hours.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The gentleman is correct. Certainly the Congress is in possession of sufficient facts to go forward itself and legislate instead of delegating the same power to a board.

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HEALEY. The only purpose in delegating to a board the power to determine wage and hour standards would be that Congress itself would feel it was not in possession of the facts, but the contention of the gentleman is that the Congress is in possession of the facts and does know that the wage and hour standards set up in this bill are not unreasonable and will meet the terms that the Court may lay down.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct. If I have the time, I shall put into the RECORD all the cases in question, and shall show that studies which have been made produce the facts on the basis of which the rigid requirements in this bill are proposed.

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. KELLER. I should like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he recalls the Shreveport decision, the coal case involving this very point, and if he does, will the gentleman state what it is?

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MAVERICK. The gentleman talks about this being based upon a reasonable standard of living, but the Supreme Court decision was based on a hearing of the facts regarding a particular trade, occupation, or job in a particular part of the country. What I want to know is, how is the statute going to do that? We are not going to have a hearing under the present bill and we will have one under the Ramspeck b1Il. That is what I wish the gentleman would explain.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The Bureau of Labor Statistics certainly has already set up the figures, and if given the time now, I can put that information in the RECORD at this point. I should like to proceed, if I may.

For example, if the cost of living for industrial workers engaged in interstate industries is cheaper in Alabama than in any other State in the Union and the cost of living in that State requires a wage rate of not less than 40 cents an hour to provide the necessities of life, such a wage rate for the entire United States would appear to be reasonable and valid. No employer could show that he was aggrieved and required to pay too much.

Statistical studies which have been made within the last 2 years demonstrate that the minimum wages provided in the present bill are not in excess of the requirements of cost of living. In an elaborate official study entitled Intercity Differences in Cost of Living in March 1935, 59 Cities, made by Works Progress Administration in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is stated that—

The cost of a specified standard of living does not differ widely among most cities; differences in living costs are to be explained to a considerable extent by the differences in the standard of living.

This is illustrated by the following excerpt from this study:

The cost of living in the maintenance level ranged from a high of $1,415 in Washington, D. c., to a low of $1,130 in Mobile, Ala., at March 1935 prices. The average tn the 59 cities combined was $1,261. The cost of the emergency level was also highest in Washington, $1,014, but was lowest in Wichita, Kans., $810. The average was $903. At both levels the necessary outlay in the most expensive city averaged about 25 percent above that in the least expensive; in more than one-half the cities living costs were within a range of $100 per year.

The significance of this excerpt cannot be fully appreciated unless the terms maintenance level and emergency level are understood. The maintenance level is explained in the study to provide only for the cost of living necessary for material needs and some psychological needs. Emergency level provides almost exclusively for physical needs, and the study adds:

But it might be questioned on the ground of health hazards 1f families had to live at this level for a considerable period of time. • • • Neither of these budgets approaches the concept of what may be considered a satisfactory American standard of living, nor do their costs measure what families in this country would have to spend to secure the abundant-life.

In this study the cost-of-living figures were based on the living requirements of industrial workers for a family of four—husband, wife, and two children.

It is to be noted that the lowest cost of living in any of the 59 cities on an emergency-level basis was found at Wichita, Kans., $810 for a family of four. Now, the greatest annual wage which an employee could receive under the present bill after the 40 cents became operative is $832. This would require him to work 52 weeks per year, 40 hours per week. However, the act prescribes a minimum wage of only 25 cents an hour for the first year which would produce an anriual income of only $520 for an employee working full time at 40 hours per week.

On the basis of this survey it cannot be contended reasonably that $520 or even $832 is more than enough to provide the costs of living necessary to health and decency, when $810 is the lowest cost of living for the United States on an emergency-level basis.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from West Virginia may proceed for 5 additional minutes on this important dicussion.

Mr. COX. Reserving the right to object, I trust that if unanimous consent is granted, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] who offers the amendment, may be given 5 additional minutes in which to reply.

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

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia submit a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. COX. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I do submit it as a unanimous-consent request.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from West Virginia yield for that purpose?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] asks unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] may be given an additional 5 minutes, the Chair to recognize the gentleman later for that purpose. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Now let us consider the assertion that the costs of living differ greatly for the various regions of the United States for industrial employees. This assertion has been made repeatedly and is the principal basis for the contention that the bill seeks to achieve an arbitrary and unreasonable end and therefore contravenes the due-process clause of the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

The research and technical staff of the National Industrial Conference Board provides industry with information from time to time on wage and hour differentials and cost of living. The National Industrial Conference Board is composed of manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, oil companies, public utilities, and railroads. Its statistical

[PAGE 7382]

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

[PAGE 7383]

service is probably as accurate in the field in which it serves as that of any nongovernmental organization in the country.

A recent survey on wage and hour differentials and cost of living published by the Board this year in book form. Differentials in Industrial Wages and Hours in the United States, demonstrates the acute need for a Federal wage and hour law.

The following table on average hourly earnings for seven industries shows, for example, that the lumber industry which is especially concentrated in the South and far west pays an average wage of 32.7 cents in tbe South and of 74.9 cents in the far West. The wage differential for the two regions in this industry is 129.1 percent. But the cost of living difierential for the two regions is only 7.4.

TABLE 1.—Avemge earnings and hours of male workers in specified industries in September 1937, by regions

[Source: National Industrial Conference Board]

[NOTE: Insert table]

It is enlightening indeed to contrast existing wage differentials with difierentials in cost of living for the various geographical regions of the United States. While it can be said that living costs in the South are lower than in the East and far West, 5.8 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively, the differential in living costs is considerably less than in wages. Moreover, while there is only a moderate difference, 2.3 percent, in living costs between the South and Middle West, wages differ considerably. Discrepancy between differentials in living costs and wages exists principally in the South. For example, the cotton industry is concentrated almost wholly in the East and South. According to this study, hourly earnings for the industry averaged 42.4 cents in the South and 52.7 cents in the East, a difference in hourly earnings between these two regions of 24.3 percent. But the cost of living in the South is only 5.8 percent lower than it is in the East. In this connection, it must be emphasized that in compiling the data on living costs it is assumed that the same standard of living prevails throughout the United States, except that allowance is made for differences in local housing conditions and for variations dictated by differences in climatic conditions.

TABLE 2.—Indexes of earnings and hours of male workers tn specified industries and the cost of living September 1937, by regions

[Base, United States average=lOO. Source: National Industrial Conference Board]

[NOTE: Insert table]

An analysis of the cost-of-living data on a population basis points to the conclusion that living costs are higher in the larger than in the smaller communities. The difference between the lowest and highest population group amounted to 5.7 percent.

TABLE 4.—Indexes of earnings and hours of male workers in specified industries and the cost of living, September 1937, by population groups

[Base, United States average=100. Source, National Industrial Conference Board]

[NOTE: Insert table]

NOTE.—Little difference in cost of living between citizen of 1/4 million and 10,000; the difference in living cost is only 1.1 percent.

The differentials in living costs, however, on either a geographic or population basis, when the same standard of living is applied, are ccnsiderably less than the differentials in wages. Hence, the variations in living costs are not sufficient to account for the wage differentials. The latter must be explained on other ground. (Direct quotations from National Industrial Conference Board Service letter of January 27, 1938, analyzing a study of wage and hour differences and costs of living.)

It will be noted that the greatest cost of living differential in the United States based on population is only 5.7 percent and based on region is only 7.4 percent. These two maxi- mum cost of living differentials expressed in terms of per-- centages of $832-which is the greatest sum which is guaranteed a person who works 40 hours per week at 40 cents per hour for 1 year by the provisions of the wage and hour billare $47.42 and $61.56, respectively.

Moreover, using 100 as the average cost of living for the United States, the cost of living for the South is shown to be 96.5, or only 3.5 less than the average cost for the country. Three and five-tenths percent of 40 cents is 1.4, or less than a cent and one-half. So based on cost of living—not standard of living—the South cannot show that it is entitled to a favorable wage differential or even a cent and one-half.

So it does not appear that the cost of living for the various regions and population areas of the United States differs so greatly as to require the Congress as a matter of reasonableness to fix differentials in minimum-wage legislation.

Second. The standards set forth in section 6 of the bill to guide the Secretary of Labor in. determining what industries come within the purview of the law were taken from language used in recent decisions of the Supreme Court which fix and define the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. It is believed that they are sufficiently specific to meet the test of constitutionality.

In connection with the constitutional question of delegation it is important to remember that the Supreme Court very rarely finds fault with a congressional delegation of power. There are only two cases where congressional delegation has been adjudged invalid in 150 years of constitutional practice. There is nothing in recent decisions of the Court which would justify the Congress in casting aside legislative experience in providing for the administrative handling of modern, complex problems by delegation to administrative agencies—where proper guides have been employed to direct the exercise of the delegated power. The two cases in which congressional delegation to administrative agencies has been found invalid are Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (293 U. S. 388) and Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (295 U. S. 495). In the first case the subject of the statutory prohibition, the transportation in interstate commerce of petroleum produced in violation of State law, was defined but the delegation was held to be improper because the range of administrative discretion was not only unlimited but wholly undefined. In the latter case the Court was not disturbed so much by the range of discretion granted with respect to any particular subject matter, as it was by the fact that the Court found no adequate definition of the subject to which the codes were addressed.

[PAGE 7383]

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

[PAGE 7384]

Neither of these objections can be urged against the wage and hour bill. The range of administrative discretion is defined and limited. Section 6 directs the Secretary of Labor to determine the relation of various industries to commerce. His action is not made discretionary but mandatory. Secondly, the bill contains an adequate definition of the subject matter upon which his discretionary power is to operate. A recent case before the Supreme Court considered a delegation problem which is strikingly similar to the one which we have before us. Under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board which administers that law is authorized to prevent unfair labor practices where the unfair practices complained of are affecting commerce. The Board has no power to prevent all unfair practices. It must find in each case that the unfair practice is affecting commerce. Hence, the words affecting commerce are all-controling in determining the powers of the Board.

In the case of Santa Cruz Fruit Co. against National Labor Relations Board, supra, the Chief Justice observed that the words affecting commerce did not furnish an exact formula but said that because of the very nature of the power of Congress under the commerce clause that the criterion must necessarily be one of degree and must be so defined. The following excerpt from the opinion in that case illustrates the problem clearly:

It is clear that where Federal control is sought to be exercised over activities which separately considered are intrastate, it must appear that there is a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce in order to justify the Federal intervention for its protection. However difficult in application, this principle is essential to the maintenance of our constitutional system. The subject of Federal power is still commerce and not all commerce but commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The expansion of enterprise has vastly increased the interests of interstate commerce but the constitutional differentiation still obtains. Schechter Carparation v. United States (295 U. S. 495, 546). Activities local in their immediacy do not become interstate and national because of distant repercussions (Id., p. 554).

To express this essential distinction, direct has been contrasted with indirect, and what is remote or distant with what is close and substantial. Whatever terminology is used, the criterion is necessarily one of degree and must be so defined. This does not satisfy those who seek for mathematical or rigid formulas. But such formulas are not provided by the great concepts of the Constitution such as interstate commerce, due process, equal protection. In maintaining the balance of the constitutional grants and limitations, it is inevitable that we should define their applications in the gradual process of inclusion and exclusion.

There is thus no point in the instant case in a demand for the drawing of a mathematical line. And what is reasonably clear in a particular application is not to be overborne by the simple and familiar dialectic of suggesting doubtful and extreme cases. The critical words of the provision of the National Labor Relations Act in dealing with the described labor practices are affecting commerce, as defined (sec. 2 (6)).

Standards set forth in the bill to govern the actions of the Secretary of Labor cannot be said to be more indefinite than the phrase affecting commerce. Under the standards of the bill, the evidence taken at required hearings would have to show that an industry was one within the purview of Federal regulation because of its close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce, and so forth, before it could be subjected to the Fair Labor Standards Act. [Applause.]

In the minority opinion of the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECKl, he advances three grounds upon which he expresses the opinion that the Supreme Court will hold that the pending bill exceeds the legislative authority of the Congress; in other words, will be held unconstitutional.

(1) That to approach a solution of this problem we must have a fact-finding process to which Congress must delegate the power to determine what wages and what hours shall be applied after a thorough consideration of the facts.

The answer to this assertion is plain. If Congress can delegate the power to an agency it creates, certainly it possesses such power itself. If the· delegation of power would make such legislation comply with the Constitution. the assertion by the Congress itself of that power would seem to be equally constitutional. It would seem rather strange if an agency created by the Congress would possess greater powers than the Congress itself.

(2) To do otherwise would be arbitrary and capricious, would be discriminatory, and would violate the due-process requirements of our Constitution.

If the Congress possesses the power under the Interstate Commerce clause, and if the Congress, as in the pending bill, provides what shall be minimum wages and maximum hours in the fields of business activity therein mentioned, it is exceedingly doubtful if the courts will declare the pending bill unconstitutional. Having jurisdiction to legislate under the Interstate Commerce clause, and the Congress undertaking itself to do so, instead of delegating the power to do so to a created agency the manner of exercise of a constitutional power when done by Congress itself will not be questioned by the judicial branch of the Government. For the courts to act otherwise would place a coordinate branch of the Government with no constitutional power of veto in the position of vetoing an act of Congress upon the ground that the Congress did not exercise the powers delegated to it in a proper manner. I doubt very much if the judicial branch would place itself in such a position of judging whether or not the Congress exercised its powers in a proper manner. The application of the rule of arbitrary and capricious action is plainly different when the direct act of the Congress itself is being considered than when the action of an administrative agency is being reviewed.

The proper and the probable course that the courts would take under our form of government with our three coequal branches of government, where the Congress legislates on a subject matter that comes within its constitutional powers, is to leave the question of arbitrary and capricious actions or of reasonableness or unreasonableness of exercise to the voters; to let such question, being political, rest for approval or disapproval with the people. To declare unconstitutional an act of Congress which the Congress had the power to legislate upon, on the ground that the Congress did not exercise its powers in a proper manner would result in serious confusion, grave misunderstanding, and controversy between at least two of the three coordinate and coequal branches of our Government.

It would seem that if the Congress has the power to pass legislation prescribing minimum wages and maximum hours in interstate business, that the judicial branch will not question the manner of the exercise of the power, but will take the position that the forum for such judgment is the people.

(3) The standards prescribed upon which the Secretary is to base a decision are not sufficiently clear.

This relates to the powers delegated to the Secretary of Labor by section 6 of the bill, relating to the authority of the Secretary to determine what industries shall be affected.

This section establishes definite standards that the Secretary must follow and comply with. The section also provides for due notice to interested persons and giving them an opportunity to be heard. Not only in determining the relations of the various industries to commerce, but also where an order issued under this section shall be modified or revoked.

In connection with the powers delegated to and authority given to the Secretary of Labor under the provisions at section 6 of the bill, section 8 must also be considered. Section 8 provides for court review of orders. It provides:

Any person aggrieved by an order issued under section 6 may at any time obtain a review of such order by filing in the circuit court of appeals • • • a written petition praying that such order be modified or set aside in whole or in part.

Not only is such action on the part of the committee wise and proper, but it strengthens the provisions of section 6. If there were a grave question of the constitutionality of the provisions of section 6, which I do not concede, the power of court review of the actions of the Secretary, and of court interpretation of the section would seem to meet the argument an improper or unconstitutional delegation of power. [Applause.]

[PAGE 7384]

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

[PAGE 7385]

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr: Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words and ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes.

Mr. McKEOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I object, on the ground that we have taken up over an hour and have not proceeded very far with the consideration of the measure. I hope gentlemen will not ask for any extension of time, and I object to this request.

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to no man in this House as a friend of labor. With all my heart I believe in organization for him who toils and in his right to bargain collectively. As a matter of fact, I have carried a union card for well nigh on to a quarter of a century and expect to continue to do so until the end. I believe in organization of labor, because it means better wages and better working conditions. In my zeal to help promote the welfare of labor I voted for the Wagner Labor Act 3 years ago—something that I heartily regret now. At that time we were assured that its enactment would make for greater security for the toiler and above all would bring peace and contentment to the labor world. Alas, for the dream of the New Deal, the very opposite has resulted from the operation of that law.

According to official figures there have been more strikes and labor disorders since the law went into effect less than 3 years ago than in the preceding 7 years. To be more specific, during the almost 3 years that the law has been in effect, or from July 1935 to March 1938, there have been 8,012 strikes, as against 8,172 strikes for the preceding 7. years.

Now we are asked to pass another piece of hocus-pocus legislation that is going to be even worse for the employee and employer. It is here proposed to put a ceiling on hours and a floor under pay.

Invariably, when a minimum level is fixed it becomes the maximum. The older Members of the House will recall that during the late war Congress passed a law which permitted the Executive to fix the price of wheat. At that time wheat was bringing the grower between $3 and $4 per bushel. The Food Administrator set the minimum price of wheat at $2.20 per busnel at the terminal market, and immediately that became the maximum price, causing American wheat growers to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

What assurance have we that in the operation of the proposed wage and hour law 40 cents will not become the maximum rate of pay as happened in the fixing of the wheat price 21 years ago? If the Government is given the power to fix a minimum wage, it naturally follows that it will also have the power to fix maximum wages, and that would strike at the very heart of the principle of collective bargaining.

Several preceding speakers evidently labor under the delusion that the passage of a wage and hour bill will do much toward taking up the present labor slack. Let me remind those who nurse this hallucination that France passed a 40-hour law several years ago which all concede has had a demoralizing effect on employment, production, and industry.

Instead of providing more work the operation of this law will have the very opposite effect. It will create more unemployment because it would further stimulate the use of labor-saving machinery. We have in operation in the District of Columbia a minimum-wage law that has been in effect less than a month and already has been responsible for scores of waitresses, hotel maids, and others being laid off. My authority for this is Miss Rose Brunswick, business agent for the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Alliance, who was quoted to this effect in the Washington Post on May 17.

In my opinion the passage of an inflexible national law, such as is here proposed, would multiply all over the country a thousandfold the unfortunate situation that has already resulted from the operation of the District minimum-wage law.

I do not understand how a proposal like this can have any appeal for a practical-minded person. The bill before us is inflexible in that it makes no provision for differentials that will take into consideration the vastly different conditions in various parts of the country, such as climate and difference in living costs. How can any sane person contend that such a proposal is based upon sound economic laws? As I see it, it is political in all its implications and is designed solely for the purpose of catching votes.

Why do we not profit by the experience of France and the District of Columbia? This is merely another Utopian dream similar to the national labor relations law Congress enacted 3 years ago and I prophesy that when the thousands of Government snoopers, who will be employed to enforce this law, get into operation it will be about as popular as was enforcement of the Volstead law. Already we are snooped to distraction. Rarely a day passes by but that some Government or State inspector drops in to snoop around. I fail to see any necessity for a law such as is here proposed but I can see grave dangers to labor arising out of its enforcement, not to mention the additional harassments to employers that will result from its enforcement.

In the larger centers labor is already organized and drawing wages far in excess of the rate provided for in this bill, consequently it follows that the legislation is aimed at the rural sections of America and, frankly, we do not want it. I hold in my hand telegrams and letters from a score or more creameries, cooperatives, the Farm Bureau, the Grange, from produce dealers, canners, small-business men—all bitterly opposed to this new nostrum that is going to work out exactly in the same way as has the Wagner labor law. You will recall the wonderful promises that we were assured would result from its operation. It was to do away with strikes and labor difficulties. How miserably it has failed I need not remind you. Then there is the bituminous-coal law which was also to perform wonderful miracles but that has also bogged down and about all that it has done is to increase the price of coal to the consumer from 75 cents to $1 a ton.

Let us be done with this fanciful and impractical program and get back to earth. The crying need today is to get the thirteen or fourteen million who are now idle back to work and to giye the farmer a market for his products at parity prices.

If this legislation will do anything, it will increase the price of commodities that the farmer must buy without making any provision for increasing the price of what he has to sell. In addition to that, it will make it practically prohibitive for the farmer to go into the labor market and hire farm help. Do you suppose that anyone is going to hire out to work on a farm, where the hours are long, when he can get a job in town at better pay and half the hours? The whole thing simply does not make sense, but it is in line with the whole New Deal program of giving the farmer the short end of it.

You have given away his home market to Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Europe. Now you propose to complete the job by making it impossible for him to hire help. This is nothing more or less than a face-saving piece of legislation that the New Deal leaders want to use this fall in retaining control of Congress, and I, for one, am not going to vote to again make the farmer the goat for such a deceptive program. It will pass because the President wants it, but bear in mind this is not the first time that the President has asked for legislation that will cripple and hamper legitimate industry. O Lord, how long? Let us hope that the people will take matters into their own hands and apply the necessary remedy at the next election. [Applause.]

At this point I desire to insert an editorial from the Minneapolis Tribune which presents in a comprehensive manner the attitude of rural America toward this legislation:

THE FARMER AND THE WAGE-HOUR BILL

The case which agriculture presents against the Black-Cannery wage and hour bili has seldom been more vigorously and effectively stated than it was on Thursday by W1111am S. Moscrip, of Lake Elmo. As a leader in the dairy and livestock Industries of Minnesota and the Northwest, Mr. Moscrip thinks naturally in terms of the farmers' best interests, and he has no illusions as to the adverse effect which this bill, if enacted into law, would have on those interests.

As he so clearly points out, the measure which comes to a vote before the House of Representatives next Monday, will inevitably tend to increase the prices of commodities which farmers must buy, while making no provision whatsoever tor increasing the

[PAGE 7385]

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

[PAGE 7386]

prices of what the farmers sell. It is calculated, by its very nature, to make price parity between agriculture and industry impossible. Furthermore, the Black-Connery bill would make it extremely difficult for farmers to secure labor at prices they can afford to pay, and for the simple reason that they would have to compete for labor with industries in which minimum wages and maximum hours were fixed by Government fiat.

Again, this proposed bill is certain to encourage employers in industry to install more labor-saving machinery in an effort to keep down production costs, and Mr. Moscrip wisely warns the farmer' what this will mean to him in new unemployment, with its further weakening of the American market for food and other agricultural products.

The fact that the National Grange, the National Cooperative Council, and the National Cooperative Milk Producers' Association are all opposed to the Black-Cannery measure is deeply significant. These organizations, like Mr. Moscrip, perceive serious threat to the farmer's welfare in this bill, and they are accordingly waging a militant fight against it.

The friends of agriculture are not misled by the eloquent claims on its behalf; the fact that it is well-intentioned does not blind them to the fact that it bodes no good for the farmer. The Black-Cannery bill does not even provide differentials in wages and hours between urban and rural communities. It does not even exempt from its provisions persons engaged in the processing of seasonal or perishable agricultural commodities. What it does is to create a system of bureaucratic control over industry, and through that control and the disparities it will create, threaten to impose new burdens on the farmer.

The wage-hour bill is a snare and a delusion. Agriculture has nothing to gain by its enactment, and it has a tremendous stake in its defeat. If the House passes it on Monday, it will be voting against every interest of the farmer, and agriculture will do well to hold to strict account whoever sanctions its betrayal.

During the life of the N. R. A. it appointed a board of research to observe its operation and determine how it could be improved or how it should be modified. This board was composed of celebrated economists and a large staff of subordinates and employees. Naturally, it was friendly to the philosophy of the N. R. A. It had at its disposal all of the data and information available. Its investigation and observations of the workings of the N. R. A. lead to conclusions that so far as the regulation of wages and hours was concerned, it resulted in curtailment of production, decrease in the average standard of living, lower consumption of raw materials, including farm products and lower prices for them, geographical realinement of industry, and higher production costs for farmers. It also showed that under the attempt to fix a minimum wage, while some were raised, a substantial percentage was lowered to the minimum. This would bear out the oft-repeated prediction that the so-called minimum wage may automatically be fixed as the maximum.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment, and in favor of the Ramspeck substitute for the pending Norton bill.

Mr. Chairman, this body is going to pass a wage and hour bill today. It ought not to be a question of dispute except as to the facts in the case. I am sorry that I must call the attention of my friend from West Virginia to the mistake he made in his statement that the Ramspeck bill was recommitted last year. That is a mistake. The Norton bill of last year, very similar to the present Norton bill, was recommitted and not the Ramspeck bill.

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

Mr. KELLER. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I inadvertently used that term. I meant a bill in which differentials were recognized. It was the Norton bill which was recommitted.

Mr. KELLER. The gentleman admits the mistake, and I am glad of that. But I know he had no possible desire to misrepresent anything. He is not built that way.

The only difference between these two bills of any real importance is simply that the present bill may or may not be constitutional, while the Ramspeck bill, beyond reasonable doubt, is constitutional, and that is the meat in the coconut, here and now.

The question, therefore, that this body is going to decide today is whether we want to take a chance that is entirely unnecessary, or whether we do not. I do not see why we should try to put up to the Supreme Court a matter which it has not yet decided, when we can get exactly the same result by following the rulings which the Supreme Court has

aleady made. Why should we exchange a certainty for a very uncertain hope?

I want to call the attention of my learned friend from Massachusetts to the question I put to him a while ago, and that is that a reading of the Supreme Court decision in the Guffey coal case will convince any man that the Supreme Court holds, really, to just one means of permitting the setting of prices and the settling of conditions, and that is through the hearings of a semijudicial body which the Ramspeck bill proposes. There have been no hearings by this body that could be used by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court gave this Congress a very gentle slap on the wrist in the coal case along that line, saying that the Congress had nothing before it to justify any arbitrary action.

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

Mr. KELLER. Yes; I yield.

Mr. HEALEY. The philosophy of these minimum-wage cases in almost every instance is based on the cost of living, and in the States boards or minimum-wage commissions are set up to determine the cost of living, and in some there are two standards, the cost of living and the value of services.

Mr. KELLER. The value of services has always been the basis in law and in equity. But the gentleman does not answer my question.

Mr. HEALEY. In the Parrish case, in the dicta, Chief Justice Hughes said, The cost of living must be met. Now, every Member of this Congress knows that the wage standard set up in this bill does not overmeet that cost of living. Therefore, why should we delegate the power to a commission to determine that question?

Mr. KELLER. And still the gentleman does not answer the question I asked him. I asked what the Supreme Court said in the Guffey coal case, and he does not tell us.

Mr. HEALEY. I do not believe the situation is a parallel one.

Mr. KELLER. It cannot be a parallel situation ever. There is hardly such a thing in lawsuits. But there is certainly a parallel of reasoning in relation to them. And if the Supreme Court refused to accept the opinion of Congress as binding on the Court in the Guffey coal law, it will naturally follow the same rule in relation to this law.

Now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we are going to do one of two things. First, we are going to take a chance or we are not, and it ought to go without saying that if the committee sustains the Norton bill I shall vote for the Norton bill, of course. Everybody knows that; but also I ought to call your attention to the fact that during two sessions of this body it was my great opportunity to study this question and had before me as great lawyers as there are in America on this very subject while I was chairman of the subcommittee of the Labor Committee on the textile bill. The whole subject was thrashed out two or three times, and the accepted doctrine of the Supreme Court was brought forward then very plainly, and was perfectly understood and was included in the textile bill which was reported by the subcommittee, and the Ramspeck bill follows that bill, completely and entirely. The Ramspeck bill is our safest way out. [Applause.]

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

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words. I am in favor of a wage-hour bill. I am in favor of it because I believe it will elevate the position of labor. I favor it because I think the welfare of this country depends on the elevation of the condition of labor, the shortening of hours to reasonable limits, and the raising of wages as high as possible. Therefore, I shall vote for any bill that we can get out of this committee, but I regret to be in a position where I must disagree with the Labor Committee on this proposition of the amendment. I favor the Ramspeck amendment, for two reasons. I think that of all the bills before this House the committee bill is too risky and too radical for us to accept at this time. Inasmuch as we are breaking new legislative ground, why do we want to

[PAGE 7386]

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

[PAGE 7387]

take in more territory and run more risks than are necessary? We are blazing new trails, and why jump off a precipice when we can go down stairs? There is no precedent for this committee bill. The Supreme Court in the child labor cases has expressly stated that such a bill would be turned down by the Supreme Court. They have modified that obiter recently in the Wagner labor decisions by inference only. There has been no express decision that any labor bill will be supported. Why not accept a bill that will give us as little risk on that proposition as possible and follow precedent as nearly as possible? The committee bill attempts to legislate against fact, because the geographical and production conditions in the country are so different. We cannot have a uniform bill that will work in a country where conditions are not uniform.

Furthermore, in considering conditions of work throughout this country we must measure in some way the value of services rendered. It is not only a question of the cost of living, as the gentleman from West Virginia intimated, but it is the value of the services which the Court will consider in passing on the constitutionality of this bill—the extent of the use of hand labor as against machine labor, the cost of transportation, taxes, proximity of fuel and water power—all of these make changed conditions throughout the country that I believe the Supreme Court will say must be determined by some legislative-judicial body before it will accept a universal law out of this body with no more facts than we have available at the present time. This proposed law is against what precedents we have. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] has reviewed the decisions.

Mr. Chairman, the most important reason why we should accept this Ramspeck amendment is the fact that the measure we have before us is creating a needless division on this side of the House. It is going to flaunt before another legislative body the almost inevitable exigency of a filibuster. When we are all working for the common purpose, why do we want to pass a bill that will divide our forces, divide the forces that are interested in the welfare of labor, when it is not necessary? In a year or two we can probably eliminate differentials while approaching a uniform standard; but in approaching a uniform standard why not do it one step at a time? Why do we want to go the whole way, which will certainly inevitably create friction and hatred, sectional feeling and a filibuster in another legislative body and probably mean no legislation at all? I respect the opinion of the great labor leaders in this country. Both of them have been on both sides of this subject. I am for the welfare of labor also. I shall respect their opinion, but as long as I am a Member of Congress I shall try to merit their respect. That means that under my oath I must exercise my own best judgment on legislation. I am not willing to agree to change my opinion every time some labor leader changes his, regardless of my respect for him or his ability. [Applause.]

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the paragraph. Those who are advocating wage-hour legislation are holding a rendezvous with elements which they must soon disavow or else be utterly consumed in the conflagration of hatred which they will build. When they see what a menace to society they are nurturing, what a Frankenstein they have created, they will flee from them and seek shelter under the protecting care of the Constitution, which today they treat as if it were a worn-out and worthless thing. They will support it with a glowing patriotism; they will demand that it be preserved, that it be not destroyed by an unrestrained Congress, or made meaningless by a jittery, frightened court. Mr. Chairman, truth is truth and right is right, and can be made nothing else either by a maddened Congress or a frightened court. It sickens me to see States surrendering their sovereign rights, to see the people exchanging their liberties for a full stomach. That this bill violates every principle of State rights and home rule, no student of government will deny, and if enacted into law and not quickly repealed, it will utterly destroy the States, and lead to the concentration of all power in Washington and the complete federalization of all the activities of the people, all informed persons admit. Take this fatal step, Mr. Chairman, and there will be no turning back short of State socialism. Take this step, and you change our whole civilization.

You make of the fine, free, and independent manhood and womanhood of America little cogs in the iron wheel of a great and all-powerful socialized state. The people who support this bill upon so-called humanitarian grounds have become intoxicated by its emotional appeal. They do not see the all-important principle that is involved. That it changes our dual system of government, they do not know and are unwilling to be shown. That it will destroy indiVidual initiative and private enterprise is to them seemingly of little concern.

Mr. Chairman, the need of the hour is a change of attitude toward the idea of law and toward one another, and this change cannot be brought about by evasion of the Constitution but must be aided by its observance and the enforcement of its mandates. Mr. Chairman, this Congress has neither the wisdom nor the goodness to be entrusted with unrestrained power to legislate for a free people. For sympathy, charity, good example, and unselfish public service there will always be room.

[Here the gavel fell.]

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

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

Mr. COX. For the suppression of native powers, for public dictation based on arbitrary rules, for the assumption that society is more important than those who compose it, and for the forcible exprppriation of success for the relief of failure there is no place in a free republic.

Mr. Chairman, are we going to wrench our American democracy from its moorings and set it adrift upon the sea of failure? Are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness no longer inalienable human rights which government must respect? Are the people no longer sovereign, Mr. Chairman? Is reason to be supplanted by force? Is democracy to give way to imperialism?

Mr. Chairman, our American constitutional democracy is on trial. Who will come to its defense? [Applause.]

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

Mr. Chairman, my able friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CoxJ, made a very great oration. I believe he is one of the most finished orators of the House, but after he concluded we still find ourselves with the problem of substandard wages and long hours. He did not suggest any remedy in lieu of the present bill.

I desire to address myself, Mr. Chairman, for a few moments to the Ramspeck substitute. Insofar as the legal question is concerned, insofar as its constitutionality is concerned, being a layman, I have no way of knowing whether this proposed bill that has been drafted by the Committee on Labor and is now before us is constitutional. We have, I believe, some of the best constitutional lawyers in the United States among the membership of this Congress. I have heard many able attorneys in the past 5 years express their opinions as to the constitutionality of many New Deal measures that were declared void by the Supreme Court. These very same able lawyers, and they are among the most astute attorneys in the United States, were wrong in many of their contentions. They held that N. R. A. would be declared constitutional; many of them held that the A. A. A. would be declared constitutional. Measured by the viewpoint of the Supreme Court at that time these constitutional lawyers of the House and the Senate were wrong in their contentions as to the constitutionality of those measures.

[PAGE 7387]

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

[PAGE 7388]

I quote from the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Hughe's with reference to the minimum-wage law, as follows:

The exploitation of a class of workers who are tn an unequal position with respect to bargaining powers and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well-being, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met. The duty of Congress is plain. It owes a duty to the fair employer.

An so forth.

Justice Hughes declared the minimum-wage law constitutional. I believe he will take the same position with reference to this wage-hour bill providing a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we shall hot again get into that realm of exemptions and differentials, the annual wage, and all of the technical ambiguities that are contained in the Ramspeck substitute. If we are going to have a wage-and-hour law we ought not to try to load it down with so many amendments that no one can understand it, as we did the bill we considered in the last special session. As you well know that bill was loaded down with exemptions and differentials to such an extent that no one in this House understood what was in it, neither the committee nor anyone else. The pending bill is clear and concise. Almost any man or woman can understand it. It is the most understandable bill that has come before us. It is a fair start, and I hope we will not adopt the Ramspeck substitute but that we will vote it down together with all other ambiguous amendments and vote finally for the passage of the committee substitute we are now considering. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. Under the terms of the consent agreement the Chair now recognizes the gentleman for Georgia for 5 minutes.

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

There was no objection.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Chairman, may I compliment the gentleman from West Virginia, who is not a lawyer, upon the very splendid presentation he made of a most difficult legal side of this problem. He has rendered splendid service in our efforts to reach a solution of this problem and has demonstrated his sincere interest in the workers.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is true I am not a lawyer, but I am a student of law in one of the schools in Washington, and I will try to become a lawyer.

Mr. RAMSPECK. The gentleman ought to make a good lawyer, because he tried to do an impossible thing and did it with great ability.

Mr. Chairman, if you are interested in the legal questions that the gentleman from West Virginia undertook to discuss before you vote on this matter, I hope you will turn to page 7301 of yesterday's RECORD and read the brief submitted by the Solicitor of the Department of Labor, Mr. Gerard Reilly, who discusses in detail the very questions raised by the gentleman from West Virginia. He states there is nothing in the decision of the Washington State case which indicates that the State of Washington would be at liberty to fix a minimum wage in excess of that needed for the cost of living.

I have not the time to go into a legal argument on this. matter. The gentleman attempted to justify this bill on the ground that theW. P. A. 3 years ago made an investigation of the cost of living in certain cities in the United States. I am familiar with that study, and I put part of it in the RECORD in December. I stated then that I wanted my people to get just as much wages as anybody else. However, he is basing his argument on the fact that the W. P. A. made a study in 59 cities. The Labor Committee has made no such study. When the Supreme Court comes to pass on this law it will have to pass on a single case involving a single employee coming from a particular community. The decision must be made on the facts in such a case. If any gentleman wants to stand here and say you cannot produce thousands, yes, tens of thousands, of individual employees in the United States who are making today less than 25 cents an hour and are living on that sum, which I do not justify nor defend; why, then, he is saying things that are not in accord with well-known facts.

I can produce from my own State and from every state in the South thousands and thousands of employees who never made 25 cents an hour, and they can prove that they have lived on that amount. Their employers can prove it. When your law goes to the Supreme Court, as has been pointed out by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Cohen, if it can be proven that in a single case the employer must pay more than is necessary to produce the cost of living in that identical, single case, why, then, your law may be thrown out.

Mr. BOILEAU. Will the gentleman yield?

[Mr. RAMSPECK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BOILEAU. The gentleman is not confusing subsistence and living, is he?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I am talking about the cost of living.

Mr. BOILEAU. The gentleman does not contend that one can live on 25 cents an hour?

Mr. RAMSPECK. The State laws operate on a fact-finding basis. The employees and the employers come in and they submit their estimate of what it costs to live. These committees go into the facts and determine what the cost of living is in a particular community. That is the only precedent we have for this type of legislation.

In answer to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD], may I say that the bill I have presented here today as an amendment is the same bill the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOOD] supported last August, that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] supported last August, that the chairman of the Committee on Labor supported last August, that the American Federation of Labor supported last August, that the. C. I. 0. supported last August, and it was not until the Denver convention of the American Federation of Labor that there was a change. At that convention the Federation of Labor changed its opinion, and they had the right to do that. I do not criticize them for that. That convention was the sovereign body of the American Federation of Labor, and of course Mr. Green is bound by their action and he ought to follow it. This bill I have proposed today as an amendment to the pending measure is the one the Senate passed; it is the one the House committee reported last August, and every member of the committee, with the exception of three, voted for it last August.

There is nothing confusing about the bill. There are no exemptions in there that the committee did not put in last August. None of them were put in on the floor of the House. It is a fact-finding process that has some chance of being held legal. I may say I am more interested in finding a solution to this problem than in making a political issue out of wages and hours. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I hardly feel it is necessary to say that we are unalterably opposed to the Ramspeck amendment. It is true that the committee reported one similar to it last year. It was not this bill because nobody can tell what is contained in the bill. You would be compelled to take a pencil and paper and work out all your averages before you would know on what it is based. However, that bill did contain differentials. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECX] has forgotten to say that while the

[PAGE 7388]

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

[PAGE 7389]

committee reported the bill, the House definitely turned it down. That bill was recommitted to the committee last December.

We then tried to bring in a bill that would be acceptable to the House and to all parts of the country. I am not going to enter into a discussion of the legal questions because I am not a lawyer and my opinion, therefore, would not be worth very much; but I do want to say that I have been reading the newspapers recently and I find that many things that were considered unconstitutional yesterday are considered constitutional today. I do not think anyone can venture an opinion whether or not this bill is or is not constitutional. When the time arrives and there is a test made of it, we will then be able to understand that.

May I say further that the bill before you today, the bill that has been reported to the House, is the best bill that we can bring to the House in order to take care of all parts of the country and do the thing we are aiming to do; that is, set a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours. This bill was reported by the Labor Committee by a vote of 14 in favor and 4 against.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope the Ramspeck amendment will be voted down and I now ask for a vote on the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. RAMSPECK) there were-ayes 70, noes 139.

So the substitute amendment was rejected.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee: Strike out section 1 of the committee substitute amendment and insert in lieu thereof the following as a substitute for the committee amendment:

"That as used in this act unless the context otherwise requires—

"(1) 'Person' includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidating or reorganizing agent.

"(2) 'Interstate commerce' means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States, or into or from any State to any place outside thereof.

"(3) 'State' means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession 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 otlicer 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, profession, or local retailing capacity as outside salesmen nor shall 'employees' include any person employed as a seaman, or any railroad employee subject to the provisions of the Hours of Service Act (U. S. C., title 45, ch. 3); or any employee of any common carrier by motor vehicle subject to the qualifications and maximum-hours-of-service provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 (U. S. C., title 49, ch. 8) : Provided, however, 'That the wage provisions of this act shall not apply to 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 preparing, packing, or storing such fresh fruits or vegetables in their raw or natural state: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall exclude from the operation of section II of this act persons employed in forestry or in the taking of fish, sea food, or sponges, or in the tapping or chipping of pine trees for crude gum or the collection or handling of gum spirits of turpentine or gum rosin.

"(7) 'Emergency work' means any work necessary for the protection or preservation of life or health, for the prevention of damage to property, or for maintenance or repair of property or equipment, or made necessary in the due course and conduct of production and to avoid undue disruption of business.

"SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful to employ any person in any employment affecting interstate or foreign commerce at a wage less than 25 cents an hour, or at work in excess of 8 hours per day or more than 40 hours in any one week, or to enJploy 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 further, That such employer affected file with the State labor commissioner or other proper State otlicial designated by law a sworn statement as to the necessity for such action: Provided further, That such employer shall pay to his workers during such emergency wages of not less than time and one-half for work in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours in any one week.

"SEC. 3. In order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment for learners, apprentices, and persons suffering from physical handicap, it is hereby provided that section 2 shall not apply to learners and apprentices until they shall have had 6 months' experience in the work they are engaged to perform, and neither shall section 2 apply to the employment of individuals whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury, and in such cases a wage shall be paid to be fixed by the State labor commissioner, or other proper State labor commissioner, or other proper State official designated by law upon a sworn statement of facts in each individual case.

"SEC. 4. Any person in any State or Territory or possession of the United States or the District of Columbia guilty of violation of any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than $100 for each offense. The employment of each employee at a wage less than that fixed in this act, or for hours longer than those fixed in this act, unless excepted as provided in section 3, shall constitute a separate offense.

"SEC. 5. The district courts of the United States and possessions shall have jurisdiction of the violations of this act. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation or any element thereof occurred. The Attorney General of the United States may petition, in the district court having jurisdictron to issue, upon proper showing, a permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of this act by any defendant in any criminal proceeding. Any district court in the district wherein the defendant is an inhabitant or transacts business or where the violation of the act occurred has jurisdiction of said suits in equity. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Act, as amended (U. S. C., title 28, sees. 225 and 347, and D. C. act, title 18, sec. 26). It shall be the duty of each United States district attorney, to whom satisfactory evidence of any violation of this act has been presented, to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted in the proper court in the United States for the enforcement of the foregoing penalties or any of them.

"SEC. 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 any person so employed for longer hours per week or for less wages per hour or under the age of 16 for hire as provided in section 2 hereof when applicable.

"SEC. 7. 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. 8. The provisions of this act shall not supersede any State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the wage established by this act or maximum hours shorter than those established by this act.

"SEC. 9. Any employer under a collective-bargaining contract with the union of his employees affiliated with a recognized, bona fide national labor organization providing for higher minimum wages and shorter maximum hours shall be exempted from the provisions of this act as to the employees covered by such agreement and insofar as the agreement covers hours and wages.

"SEC. 10. All laws or parts of laws in confiict herewith are hereby repealed. Should any provision of this act be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, the other provisions shall not be affected by such decision.

"SEC. 11. This act shall become effective 90 days after the enactment thereof."

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee (interrupting the reading .of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

[PAGE 7389]

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

[PAGE 7390]

Mr. SABATH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, very few Members know what the substitute amendment of the gentleman is.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I shall be pleased to explain the amendment.

Mr. DIES. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Tennessee may have 5 additional minutes in which to explain the amendment, without having the amendment read.

Mr. SABATH. If the gentleman will explain the amendment I shall withdraw my reservation of objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee asks unanimous consent that the further reading of the substitute amendment be dispensed with and that the substitute be inserted in the RECORD at this point. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I reserve all points of order on the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES] asks unanimous consent that the gentleman from Tennessee may proceed for 5 additional minutes. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I am not offering this amendment as a dilatory measure. I am offering it in absolutely good faith. I may say I have been greatly interested in the subject of wages and hours and have really devoted more study to it during the present session of Congress than I have given to any other subject that has been before this body since I became a Member. I am tremendously interested in the wage earners of this country, as I set out in detail in the address I delivered to the House a few days ago. I am offering this amendment because I believe the bill which it includes is a distinct, a decided, and a substantial improvement on both the House and the Senate bills.

On yesterday my distinguished friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. FISH], and others, took the position that the committee bill is the American Federation of Labor bill. I challenge that statement. The American Federation of Labor bill, which was voted down last December, was a bill which vested exclusive authority as far as enforcement was concerned in the Department of Justice and the courts af this country.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. WOOD. As the gentleman knows, this bill is not the American Federation of Labor bill, but it is one on which labor is united.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I do not know about that.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me? The gentleman referred to me.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FISH. Does not the gentleman know that Mr. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, is wholeheartedly in back of this bill?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I understand that, but I am talking about the American Federation of Labor bill that was voted down last December. That bill vested absolute authority of enforcement in the courts of the country to the exclusion of the Labor Department or any board, as does my proposal.

Mr. FISH. Does not the gentleman know that the bill that was voted down last December was opposed by Mr. Green, the president of the American Federation of Labor?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I do not know that. I voted for that bill, the A. F. of L. measure.

Mr. FISH. He opposed it in letters sent to every Member of Congress, because he did not believe in establishing another commission.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I understand that is true, but this bill about which I am talking is not a parallel to the bill that was supported by Mr. Green last year.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield to the chairman of the Committee on Labor.

Mrs. NORTON. I wish to make it very clear that this bill was not written by the American Federation of Labor, by the C. I. O., or by any other labor organization. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the writing of the bill.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I am not saying this bill does not have the support of the American Federation of Labor. I am simply saying this is not the bill that was proposed by the American Federation of Labor last year, as was stated by the gentleman from New York on yesterday.

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SHAFER o! Michigan. Does the gentleman know that the American Federation of Labor has a bill in the House and that there is a petition on the desk right now to discharge the committee from the further consideration of that bill?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I am not familiar with that. I really do not know what the attitude of the American Federation of Labor is on this particular proposal, but I do know this bill is a distinct departure from the bill which was proposed and supported by the American Federation of Labor last year. My bill is substantially the American Federation of Labor bill which was voted down last December. The only difference is that my bill provides for a 25-cent floor. In providing for a 25-cent floor I do not mean to say I favor a 25-cent-an-hour wage for the laboring people of this country, because I want to see them get all the wages the traffic will bear.

There has been some discussion of the constitutionality of the committee's measure. I concede there is some question of the constitutionality of my measure, but it is not nearly as vulnerable to adverse action on the part of the courts as is the committee bill, because the committee bill in the final analysts is a 40-cent-an-hour-wage bill and that is the question the Court will pass upon if the matter ever goes before the Court. In my judgment, my bill does provide for differentials in this way. As I stated in my speech a few days ago, I have an idea that if this question is submitted to the Supreme Court it will perhaps say that an industry which cannot pay a wage of 25 cents an hour to its employees does not deserve to exist.

I believe that the escalator which is provided in the committee bill, the graduated scale, is fraught with great danger both to industry and to labor for this reason: Just before the increase of 5 cents an hour in the wages goes into effect the great buying businesses of the United States will rush in and fill their warehouses with goods, with the result that after this 5-cent increase goes on there will be a lapse and stagnation of purchasing activity, and industry will have to close down for a considerable period until this stock has been diminished. This will result in the laying off of millions of working people in this country during that period, which will result in great hardship and distress.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Does not the gentleman think that if there is such a demand for goods because of merchants wanting to buy them on a lower scale labor can organize and demand an increase in spite of the law providing for a wage of 25 cents an hour?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. Of course, this does not preclude labor from receiving more than 25 cents an hour. This simply provides that industry cannot pay less than 25 cents an hour.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield.

Mr. KNUTSON. The Washington Post the other day carried the statement from the head of the local union of

[PAGE 7390]

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

[PAGE 7391]

waitresses and hotel maids that over 50 waitresses and hotel maids have been laid off since the minimum-wage law went into effect in this District on May 8. So, instead of making labor, according to her statement, it has deprived people of work.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I took the position in my remarks a few days ago that if this bill becomes law it will result in the increase of unemployment in this country by at least 2,000,000.

Mr. KNUTSON. Is not that the way all of this Utopian legislation works out?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. Well, I do not regard minimum-wage legislation as Utopian legislation exactly.

Mr. KNUTSON. Well, it was conceived by dreamers.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I think it is up to the Congress to pass a wage and hour bill that is reasonable to both labor and industry and one that will weather the test of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, this bill, of course, does not conform to the recommendations of the President of the United States in any respect. I want to call attention to the fact that on May 24, 1937, in a special message to the Congress on this subject the President said:

Most fair labor standards as a practical matter require some differentiation between different industries and different localities.

Further on in the same message he said:

We must seek to build up through appropriate administrative machinery minimum-wage standards of fairness and reasonableness, industry by industry, having due regard to local and geographical diversity.

On January 3 of this year in his annual message to the Congress the President stated it in even more explicit and more emphatic terms when he said:

No reasonable person seeks a complete uniformity in wages in every part of the United States.

This bill does seek a uniformity in wages. The President himself has said that is unreasonable. I regret to hear members of the Labor Committee charged with being unreasonable. I have too high a regard for them, but under this criterion set up by the President they are indicted and condemned as being unreasonable persons.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Does not the gentleman's substitute provide for the same 25 cents an hour that the committee amendment provides?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. It does; but, as I stated a moment ago, in my judgment, if this question comes before the courts they will hold that the 25-cent wage does not violate the due-process clause of the Constitution and is not confiscatory and would permit of the differentials which would naturally follow.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield.

Mr. WELCH. Does the gentleman's bill provide for increases over the 25-cent minimum provided in the bill?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. It does not make any provision for that, but after industry and labor adjust themselves to this new order, it will be an easy matter for Congress to pass another act increasing the minimum wage if it is found to be expedient and advisable.

Mr. WELCH. In other words, the gentleman is attempting to establish a uniform wage of 25 cents an hour throughout the entire United States?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. That is right.

Mr. WELCH. That is the meaning and intent of the gentleman's bill?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. That is exactly what I do, with the understanding, of course, that later on the minimum may be increased.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield.

Mr. DUNN. Does the gentleman know that the American Federation of Labor, the C. I. O., and the Brotherhood of Trainmen have endorsed the Norton bill?

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. The brotherhoods have certainly not endorsed it. As I understand it, all the railroad brotherhoods have asked to be excusep from this straitjacketing piece of legislation.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I yield.

Mr. BOILEAU. The maintenance-of-way men have not asked to be excluded. They desire to be included.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. I understand the 21 railroad brotherhoods have asked to be excluded, and they certainly are not included.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 more minute.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. My bill goes on to provide for the handicapped people in industry by providing that the labor commissioners of the various States shall inquire into each individual case and fix the wage for people who are handicapped on account of age or physical disability, and it also takes care of the period of training for 6 months when those who are employed as apprentices may have 6 months' time within which to familiarize themselves with the work before coming under the provisions of the bill. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment. There is much merit in what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. RAMSPECK] said and what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. TAYLOR] has just said with reference to the constitutionality of the pending bill. If I had the confidence or if I have the confidence to believe the Supreme Court will adhere to the position, extreme though in many instances it has been, which has already been taken, then there would be no doubt whatever in my mind but that the Court will, if this bill is passed and is attacked in the Court, hold it unconstitutional. The bill seeks to establish Federal control over production, and under the continuous stream of commerce doctrine to apply Federal control at the point of the formation of intent in the mind of the individual to produce for commerce which shall run all the way to the point of consumption of the article produced. The Secretary is empowered to hold that a local producer who competes with an interstate operator in supplying a purely local market, which the interstate operator would otherwise serve, is in interstate commerce. The Secretary is also empowered to hold that a manufacturer, though selling nothing across State lines, if he use in his manufacture any article shipped in across State lines, is in commerce and comes under the law, or if in disposing of his production he should send an article across State lines, he would fall under the provisions of the law. It is, of course, known to all that the Supreme Court still holds that production is a local activity, subject alone to local control. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] sponsoring this bill stated yesterday that little power was delegated to the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Chairman, the power of life and death over all industry and, therefore, over all of the activities of the people, is, by the express provisions of the bill vested in the Secretary of Labor.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HEALEY], who happens to be, as I understand, the legal expert of the Committee on Labor charged with the responsibility of defending the bill against attack on constitutional grounds, stated yesterday that while the purpose of the bill is to relieve the condition of substandard workers, yet the lowest-paid workers in the Nation, the farm laborers and the clerks in retail stores, are exempt under the law because they are not in commerce.

[PAGE 7391]

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

[PAGE 7392]

The CHAmMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes more.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. COX. By that solemn declaration on the part of the gentleman from Massachusetts he made disclosure that he is unacquainted with the provisions of his proposed law, because, Mr. Chairman, all production may be brought under the law. There can be no control of the activities of enterprise and the relationship as between employer and employee except that power be found drawn from the commerce clause of the Constitution, as is attempted in this instance, projecting it into the States to the exterit of taking away from the free citizen the right to contract as he sees fit and the setting up of Federal control not only of his activities iri productive operations but holding that he is in commerce from the point of the formation of an intent to engage in commerce.

Mr. Chairman, broader powers were never vested in a single individual than are given to the Secretary of Labor under the proviSions of this bill. No such Federal dominion over the activities of the people ever dreamed of heretofore.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an attempt at oratory on my part; but is an attempt to strip away from this whole proposal all of the sentimentality with which advocates have endeavored to drape it and thereby conceal its wicked intent and purpose to establish Federal dominion over the lives of the people of this country.

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

Mr. COX. I regret I cannot yield. What will be the consequences, Mr. Chairman? Pass this law and into every hamlet in this Nation where men toil you will have a representative of the Secretary of Labor hand in hand with a representative of the C. I. O., which is gnawing away at the very vitals of America, going into the individual's place of business and virtually taking charge in the sense that the Secretary is vested with power to initiate inquiry and the making of investigation to determine if there be an excuse for the employment of Federal power to compel complete surrender of all those rights heretofore understood and believed to be natural and inalienable, and beyond the power of Congress to take: [Applause.]

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

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. TAYLOR], the author of this amendment, quoted me as saying that the pending bill was sponsored by the American Federation of Labor. I repeat that in principle the pending bill is similar to that legislation which has been consistently advocated by the American Federation of Labor. I further empnasize that this pending bill, the Norton wage-hour bill, has the wholehearted support of the American Federation of Labor through its president, William Green.

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

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Mr. BOILEAU. The gentleman, I imagine, also wants to make it clear that it has the support of the C. I. O.?

Mr. FISH. That is correct with certain reservations.

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

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Mr. COX. Is the gentleman not willing to make some careful study of the pending measure and come to a conclusion which to the gentleman's mind represents right and justice and support it entirely disregardful of the judgment or recommendation of any other political or social or business group?

Mr. FISH. That is precisely what I have done.

Mr. COX. Does the gentleman not represent what he believes is right?

Mr. FISH. I will tell the gentleman exactly what I beHeve. I believe that this is a fair, a just, and a humane bill. I say to the gentleman from Georgia and to the House that I think it is a justifiable criticism of Congress that this bill was not enacted into law 20 years ago. [Applause.] I have been waiting ever since I have been in Congress to vote for a uniform hour and wage bill to do away with sweatshop hours, wages, and intolerable labor conditions. I do not care who is for the bill or who is against the bill, it is a sound and equitable bill. Furthermore, as one who has fought communism for many years, I believe if the Members of the House want to help to stop the spread of communism and rad!calism, they should support humane legislation of this type in order to provide social and industrial justice and a square deal for labor.

Mr. COX. Or else abandon the Government to them.

Mr. FISH. The people still control the destiny of our Republic through a free ballot and through free institutions. It does not make any difference who is for the bill or who is against it, the bill is meritorious, it is right, and it is in the interest of the American people. I believe in the Federal Constitution as much as does the gentleman from Georgia. I have stood for social and industrial justice for 20 years in public life, and I believe in those principles more today than ever before and in putting them into effect under the Constitution. I believe that is exactly what we are doing by this bill. [Applause.] The gentleman from Wisconsin wanted me to say that the C. I. O. is for this bill. That is correct; the C. I. O. is for this bill, all labor organizations are for it, unorganized labor as well as organized labor. Whether a certain person or group is for or against a bill does not make the bill meritorious. I am for this uniform wage and hour bill because I want this country to be worth living in for all the people, and to do so we must pay living wages.

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

FISH. I cannot yield further, I am sorry.

It is up to us as Members of Congress to legislate. Let us, as Al Smith says, look at the record, which discloses that the C. I. O. and President Roosevelt were combined in favor of the old bill that set up a comniission and a differential in wages which was defeated in the House. That bill set up not only a commission but a superbureaucracy to control and regulate labor and industry. In all fairness to Mr. Green, the President of the American Federation of Labor, he opposed that bill, primarily because he was against setting up a board or commission to have a strangle hold over labor and industry. He fought that bill on principle without compromise, and he, more than any other factor, was responsible for its defeat. He is for the pending bill because it is almost identical in principle to the bill he has advocated from the very beginning. Whether you call it the American Federation of Labor bill or the Norton bill makes no difference to me, it is in line with Mr. Green's recommendations; but whether it is or not, I propose to support it because it is a meritorious, sound, fair, just, and humane bill. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's time be extended in order that I may ask him a brief question.

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

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, I object. The gentleman could not find time to yield to me.

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

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

There was no objection.

Mr. MEAD. Mr. Chiarman, I am sure everybody enjoyed the philosophical discussion of the purposes of our Constitution by the distinguished constitutional lawyer from Georgia. His legal talents are highly regarded. His observations are always interesting and illuminating. While his particular observation on this important subject is refreshing, it falls short of being sustaining so far as the millions of unemployed are concerned. They are clamoring for this bill; workers located in your district, in my district, and in the gentleman's district. I am sure that the gentleman's

[PAGE 7392]

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

[PAGE 7393]

observations as they apply to the pending amendment will be neither convincing nor effective.

Now, then, the attitude of labor as it applies to this measure has been mentioned. In order to clear the atmosphere let me say that from the information I have no measure considered at this session has received more emphatic approval of labor organizations than this particular bill. I want to congratulate the committee, both Republicans and Democrats, for the work they have so ably completed in bringing this measure before the House. It has received the wholesome approval of labor; it has the sympathetic support of railroad labor. Railroad labor, however, asks for the adoption of an amendment which will extend the authority contained in the bill. That amendment will be presented at the proper time by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CROSSER]. I trust the committee will accept his amendment.

The escalator clause has been subject to some critical analysis because of the fact that it might apply too severely to the industries of the country. We are informed by the United States Weekly which reached us a week ago that average wages throughout the United States, including every portion of the country, range, if I recall the figures correctly, from a low of 39 cents an hour to a high of 59 cents an hour for unskilled labor. Surely a wage proposal that begins at 25 cents an hour and gradually increases until it attains a high of 40 cents an hour should not injure industry; and the modest proposal with regard to the regulation of hours beginning at 44 hours a week, lower than the average now applying in industry, and eventuating after 3 years in a 40-hour week, will not endanger the industries of America. This is a modest proposal; a proposal that will gradually permit indtistry to gear itself to the minimum standards contained in the bill.

Of course the bill. is not by any means a perfect measure, but it is a forward step in the solution of this complex problem of unemployment.

It establishes minimum standards; it offers a small measure of protection to the lowest-paid group of workers in industry.

Another thought I would like to leave with you: This bill will no doubt go to conference, and there it will meet a Senate proposal which contains numerous provisions, including some of the provisions contained in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. Let us send this clear-cut proposal to conference so our conferees will have a House bill to work upon. This action on our part will result in a better bill. It will speed it on its way to passage.

The House committee no doubt considered the proposal submitted by the gentleman from Tennessee. They gave it all of the thought and consideration that that measure was entitled to receive. They found that the bill pending before us is immeasurably superior. For that reason the Republicans and the Democrats on the committee voted to report this bill. The House bill exempts agriculture. It will ultimately aid industry, and it will not set up additional bureaus for its enforcement.

Let us therefore vote for this bill and send it to conference. The conferees will have a wide field from which to bring back a conference report. At that time we will have opportunity for further expression.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have requested this time merely to answer the remarks made by the gentleman who sits at my left during the course of his very eloquent speech, in which he referred to the fact that on yesterday he asked me why it was the underpaid workers in retail stores were not included within the terms of this bill. As I recall, I replied to him yesterday that he knew the answer. Of course, it does not lie within the power of Congress, as most of those stores are engaged in purely intrastate actiVities, to regulate hours and wages in those instances.

The gentleman stated in his remarks that in making that statement I was not familiar with the provisions of the bill. I call his attention to section 11, page 58, of the bill. Included among the exemptions are those of persons engaged in local retailing capacity. I do not know what caused the committee that reported this bill to include among those persons exempted, from the terms of the bill persons engaged in local retailing capacity. I assume the reason was that they believed that because of the intrastate activity in which such persons were engaged the Congress would not have the power to legislate minimum wage and hour standards affecting them.

So far as persons on farms are concerned, I am sure if this committee attempted to regulate the hours and wages of persons engaged in agriculture my friend would be one of the very first to protest most vehemently against that. We all realize it is impossible for us to legislate the hours and wages of persons working on farms. They have seasons and their remuneration is based on an entirely different plan.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This bill was introduced on May 17 and has never been considered by the Labor Committee. Nobody knows what is contained in it. The bill has been brought in here without any discussion whatsoever and certainly does not meet the wishes of the Labor Committee. The members of the Labor Committee have discussed this bill among themselves and they are very anxious that the Committee of the Whole vote down the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. TAYLOR].

The amendment was rejected.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this bill and shall vote for it, but I want to take an exception most respectfully to what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HEALEY]. just stated concerning whether or not this bill covers employees in retail establishments. While I have the greatest confidence in the gentlewoman from New Jersey, my esteemed friend, Mrs. NORTON, and her colleagues on the committee, I do not think the bill is clear enough in its terms and can readily be interpreted to embrace those in retail stores. Congresswoman NORTON said yesterday that employees in retail stores were not embraced in the bill: I am happy to hear that, but does the present wording of the bill say so? I doubt it. To fathom this bill as to retailing, we must make sure as to what two sections mean, towit, sections 6 and 11. The gentleman from Massachusetts read from page 58 (sec. 11), which implies at first blush that employees in local retail establishments may be deemed to be exempted from the provisions of the act; but he did not read far enough, because if you will refer to lines 5 and 6, page 58, you will find a delimitation; that is, as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary of Labor. So that she is given discretionary power to place a meaning upon what is intended by local retailing capacity. She is given free and untrammeled power. Her word is law. Her discretion is tremendous. In one breath we exempt retailers, and in the other breath we say, but only provided Miss Perkins says so.

Furthermore, refer to page 56 of the bill, lines 4, 5, 6, and 7. They are part of section 6, which also determines what industries and business are embraced in the act. There are three standards. First, substantial sales to other States; second. substantial purchases from other States; third, substantial deliveries or transportation to and from other States. It matters not if the business is local, purely local. If substantially that local store buys and receives substantially its stock and merchandise from outside the State, it affects the stream of commerce and is considered embraced in the bill.

That standard is as broad as a barn door and will allow almost anything to come in. It may embrace any business. Let us take a retail butcher shop in my district. I should say that practically all the purchases of that retail butcher in my district must involve interstate commerce in the sense

[PAGE 7393]

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

[PAGE 7394]

of this bill; namely, all the meat would come from outside New York State. The pork loins would come from Des Moines, possibly, the beef from St. Louis, the tenderloins from Chicago, and the fowl from New Jersey. Where can they buy outside the large packing establishments, most of which are located—where? Not in Brooklyn, from whence I come. Of course, they may have a branch establishment there, but most of that meat in fact would come from Chicago, from Cudahy, Swift, or Armour. There is no local meat. It practically comes entirely from the large packers. That the butcher depends for his existence by substantial purchase of goods in commerce, he comes under the act, despite the words of section 11.

Let us take a building contractor in my city. All that he purchases for the erection of a building in my district would have to come from outside the State. His purchases are substantially from outside New York.

The iron and steel come from Michigan or Pennsylvania, as well as the planks; trim and flooring from Oregon or Washington, the brass and the porcelain appliances likewise come from outside our State borders. Thus contractors doing a purely local business would come under the bill. I do not instance these facts in opposition to the bill, as I am in favor of it, but I believe we must use a greater degree of exactitude in our definitions.

The flour which the local grocery store sells will very likely come from Minneapolis, the pickles and the catsup from Pittsburgh, the preserves from California, the sugar from Colorado, the maple syrup from Vermont, the rice frcm Louisiana, and the fruit from Florida. That grocer might be deemed affecting the stream of commerce if the present wording of the bill remains.

I shall later offer suitable amendment to section 11.

I could take almost every single solitary retail establishment in my district, and if I were the Secretary of Labor I could very easily proclaim as the result of an examination that either the sales went substantially into other States or the purchases were from other States and, therefore, that business was associated with interstate commerce and was thus embraced in the bill.

Assuredly specific exemption without equivocation or reservation is needed to have local retailing employees removed from the jurisdiction of the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. MEAD] made it very clear to us that this bill is going to conference. There is no Member among us so credulous that he believes the bill now before the House is going to be enacted into law in its present form. Our action today is for the purpose of sending the Senate bill to conference. The House Committee on Labor had its option. If the committee had wanted the bill before us today, and no other bill, it would have reported such bill, and it would have gone to the Senate for consideration on its merits. However, the committee adopted the other route, making it possible for the conference committee, and not the Congress, to write the law.

The bill we have before us today will never become a law. When the Ludlow resolution came before the House on mo- tion to discharge the committee, as has this bill, the chairman of the Rules Committee said, No bill has ever yet become a law by the method of discharging a committee.

The gentleman from New York has impressed upon us that organized labor, unorganized labor, and all people who labor are for this bill. I see the gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he did not say all people who labor, but that was the import of his statement. I come from a district where we have considerable organized labor.

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

Mr. MICHENER. I cannot yield for a speech, just for a question.

Mr. MEAD. I may say I stated that no bill has come before the House that has had so much approval from labor as this bill. I believe the gentleman will see that the remarks he attributed to me were made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. FISH].

Mr. MICHENER. The gentleman is always very fair. He is a representative of organized labor on this ftoor. He was elected as a representative of organized labor and always has been. The gentleman does a mighty good job, and as a rule I am able to go along with him. However, this is a time when the gentleman is wrong, and I cannot agree with him. I cannot believe that he is enthusiastic about this bill.

I realize that the national headquarters of the A. F. L. and of the C. I. O. have indicated to all Members of Congress their support of this measure. Their national conventions, however, have never given their approval. The locals throughout the country have been asked by their headquarters to write and wire the Members of Congress to support this bill. Along with other Members, I have received a number of such requests. I have also received letters from individuals who, when voting with the local union, loyally stand by the orders from the national headquarters, but who, when expressing their private views in a confidential way, have no hesitancy in condemning this Norton bill.

Inasmuch as the gentleman from New York [Mr. MEAD] attempts to impress upon us that all organized labor is for the bill, and that the Members of Congress should, therefore, vote for it, I read to you a letter received from Monroe Local No. 132, International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, Monroe, Mich., an affiliate of the A. F. L. The entire letter, printed on International Brotherhood stationery, under the seal of the local, is as follows:

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERs,

MONROE LOCAL, No. 132,

Monroe, Mich., May 9, 1938.

The Honorable EARL C. MICHENER,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MicHENER: The members of Monroe Local, 132, of the International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, Monroe, Mich., have been out on strike for the last 5 weeks against drastic wage reductions put into effect by the River Raisin Paper Co. of that city.

We note the House Committee on Labor have finally accepted the American Federation of Labor's point of view and are bringing up the wage and hour bill, which provides for a universal Nationwide minimum rate of 25 cents per hour with a provision this is to be increased to 40 cents per hour within a period of 3 years.

At the request of our members, I am asking you in all fairness, do you think any American worker can support himself and family in decency and according to our American standards of living on that rate? If you do, then our members suggest that you try it yourself; that is, you limit your income to a rate the equivalent of 25 cents for an 8-hour day rating and give it a fair trial, and at the end of said trial vote as your experience of a 25-cent rate and your conscience guides you.

We think this wage rate to be the most unfair piece of legislation ever suggested for the American worker, and ask that you give your support to kill any attempt made to pass it.

Very truly yours, MoNROE LOCAL, 132,

CARL EBY,

Recording Secretary.

Now, it is evident that this local is opposed to this bill because its members feel that 25 cents an hour for the first year is what the bill defines and establishes as a fair labor-standard wage. I am personally acquainted with a number of the members of this local and I am sure they are splendid, patriotic citizens and my friends. I am just as sure that this letter expresses their view.

I know nothing about the strike referred to ln the letter, other than what I have read in the newspaper. This local was organized by my good friend, our colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. SCHNEIDER. We all recognize that Mr. SCHNEIDER is one of the outstanding leaders of the A. F. of L. in the Congress and in the country. He naturally thinks in terms of his organization. He is. not radical. He has the confidence of all who know him, and he is another organized labor leader whose judgment I often seek on matters pertaining to organized labor. Mr. SCHNEIDER tells me that Monroe Local No. 132 has between 1,000 and 1,500 members; and that the men are striking because of a threatened 15- percent reduction in wages below last year's contract. My understanding is that last year's contract called for around 50 cents an hour, and it is easy to see why these organized

[PAGE 7394]

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

[PAGE 7395]

union men are opposed to the Congress, by legislative fiat, fixing 25 cents an hour as a fair minimum wage when the men themselves are now on strike for double that amount. They undoubtedly feel, as many others throughout the country feel, that a minimum wage fixed by Congress will in many instances automatically become the maximum wage paid in many industries. Samuel Gompers, the great leader of the A. F. of L., always fought any suggestion to fix by legislation hours and wages for working people. He felt that job could be done better through the medium of collective bargaining and around the council table, where the employer and the employee, each having a stake in the venture, could compare notes and arrive at an equitable decision.

Again I assert that the gentleman from New York [Mr. MEAD] is wrong if he thinks that all of organized labor is ready to permit Congress to fix the hours employees may work and the compensation employers must pay.

Now, Monroe Local, No. 132, is one of the largest A. F. of L. locals in the congressional district which I represent; and if I follow the request of this local I must do everything within my power to prevent the passage of this bill. For the reasons mentioned by the local, and for the additional reasons which I shall give, I shall vote against this bill.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin and Mr. KITCHENS rose.

Mr. MICHENER. I regret that time makes it impossible for me to yield to my colleagues. I know they each appreciate the situation.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. MICHENER.· Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 additional minutes.

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

There was no objection.

The debate up to this time has been largely emotional rather than factual. I know of no one who favors sweatshops and the degradation of labor except possibly those few despicable individuals who indulge in the practice. No one is more bitterly opposed to this group than I am, and no one is more ready to do away with such practice, but this bill will not do the job.

It seems to me that it is well that we consider some of the salient features of this bill rather than vote blindly just so we can say that we voted for a wage and hour law. We all know there is little in a name of a bill. It is substance that counts. The enactment of a wage-hour law is of value to the people only to the extent that it gives relief and betters the general economic condition of the country. Having this in mind, let me call your attention to a few provisions of this bill:

In the first place, section 1 boldly proclaims that this law may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Section 4 in substance establishes 25 cents per hour as a fair standard of wages for the first year after the enactment of the law, with 5 cents an hour increase per year, and reaching a maximum of 40 cents an hour at the end of the third year.

Section 5 provides for an 8-hour day and a 44-hour week for the first year, reaching a 40-hour week at the end of the third year. Time and a half at the regular hourly rate is provided for all overtime.

Section 6 provides in part as follows:

The Secretary, as soon as practicable after the effective date of this section, shall, after due notice to interested persons and giving them an opportunity to be heard, determine the relation of the various industries to commerce. If, in the case of any industry, the Secretary finds (a) that the activities of such industry are Nation-wide in their scope, or (b) that such industry is dependent for its existence upon substantial purchases or sales of goods in commerce and upon transportation in commerce, or (c) that the relation of such industry to commerce is in other respects close and substantial, the Secretary shall issue an order declaring such industry to be an industry affecting commerce. Such order shall take effect at such time not more than 120 days after it is issued as the Secretary may designate in the order.

The wage and hour bill which was rejected by the Members of the House a few months ago placed discretion in a board to fix hours and wages and other standards of employment under certain conditions. The Congress overwhelmingly rebelled against such delegation of power. Here power is given to the Secretary of Labor to determine the relation of the various industries to commerce. We found in the Schechter N. R. A. case that it was very difficult for even the Supreme Court to determine whether or not a particular industry was engaged in interstate commerce. Yet here we delegate to Mme. Perkins the authority and power to issue an order declaring such industry to be an industry affecting commerce. I shall not consent to any such proposal.

The next section to which I want to call your particular attention is section 9, which is in part as follows:

SEc. 9. (a) The Secretary or his designated representatives may investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in any industry subject to this act, and may enter and inspect such places and such records (and make such transcriptions thereof), question such employees, and investigate such facts, conditions, practices, or matters as he may deem necessary or appropriate to determine whether any person has violated any provision of this act, br which may aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this act.

(c) Every employer subject to any provision of this act or of any order shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him, and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and shall make such reports therefrom to the Secretary as he shall prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder.

Now, section 9 is of special interest because this is one of the snooping sections of the bill. Imagine the feeling of the merchant or the industry up in your district when a designated representative presents himself in the office and demands the right to make an investigation and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in the industry. Yet the bill goes further and provides that this representative of Madam Perkins may enter and inspect such places and such records. Yes; and that is not all; and here the ultimate is reached. I know of no previous law going quite so far, because this bill provides that this ,investigator may make such transcripts thereof—having reference to the books and records of the industry—as this investigator may deem advisable. Has the time come when a representative of a bureaucrat in Washington may brazenly enter the business offices of all industry throughout the country and, for reasons best known to himself or the Secretary of Labor, take away with him transcripts and copies of the records kept in the offices of these private business institutions? And all of this because the Secretary of Labor is given authority to determine whether any person has violated any provision of this act, or which may aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this act. This would sound all right in Russia, but somehow it just does not seem to me that it fits in America. We do not want any pro-labor or pro-capital czars threatening or intimidating labor or capital. Bureaucratic tyranny is intolerable.

May I impress upon you that subdivision (c) above referred to requires every employer subject to any provision of this act to keep and preserve such records • • • and make such reports therefrom to the Secretary as he shall prescribe. Talk about letting up on business! Here we go again. More reports, more work, more fear, more investigation and the end not in sight.

Section 10 is the child-labor provision of the bill and the portions of this section to which I want to especially call your attention are as follows:

SEC. 10. (a) No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in commerce any goods produced in an es- tablishment situated in the United States in or about which within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom any oppressive child labor has been employed.

(b) No employer engaged in commerce in any industry affecting commerce shall employ any employee uder any oppressive child-labor condition.

(c) The Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor, or any of his authorized representatives, shall make all investigations and inspections under section 9 (a) with respect to

[PAGE 7395]

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

[PAGE 7396]

the employment of minors and bring all actions under section 15 to enjoin any act or practice which is unlawful by reason of the existence of oppressive child labor, and shall administer all other provisions of this act relating to oppressive child labor.

I have read section 10 to you, but lest you do not fully appreciate, let me call your attention to the fact that any producer or manufacturer, or even dealer, who ships, or delivers for shipment, in commerce any goods produced in any industry, where child labor has been employed within a period of 30 days before the shipment, shall be guilty of a violation of the law. We are all opposed to child labor, and I have been one of those most insistent upon the enactment of the child-labor amendment to the Constitution, to outlaw the employing of children in industry. Yet I am not ready to send to jail a manufacturer or a dealer who inadvertently happens to sell or ship some goods where the law has not been lived up to, when the manufacturer or the shipper has no knowledge of the violation. That is unreasonable. It is morally wrong.

Subdivision (c) of section 10 gives the chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor about the same powers that are given to the Secretary of Labor to make investigation in private business, and, places in this official the discretion to determine if and when industry is complying with this law. Now, the chief of the Children's Bureau is a very splendid woman, and I do not believe that she would knowingly desire anything that would be injurious to industry. Yet the principle is wrong. Such vast and extensive power should not be given to any bureaucrat.

Page 51 of the bill defines oppressive child labor. Without quoting this long section, suffice it to say that the chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor is given authority to determine what oppressive child labor is in specified cases where the children range from 14 to 18 years of age.

Section 12 provides as follows:

The Secretary, to the extent necessary in order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulations or by orders provide for (a) the employment of learners, and of apprentices under special certificates as issued pursuant to regulations of the Secretary, at such wages lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 4 and subject to such limitations as to time, number, proportion, and length of service as the Secretary shall prescribe, and (b) the employment of Individuals whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury, under special certificates to be issued by the Secretary, at such wages lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 4 and for such period as shall be fixed in such certificates.

I wish I had time to elaborate on section 12, which permits Secretary Perkins to control the employment of learners and of apprentices. Maybe I am a little skeptical; but for one I do not want to grant these powers without more study and consideration. I know how the National Labor Relations Board has used the powers given to it in the law. The A. F. of L. says its decisions are pro-C. I. O., and the employers and the independent unions join in the charge. The result is that business is harrassed. There were more strikes last year than any year in our history, yet Congress passed the Wagner Labor Act ostensibly to do away with strikes. Let us profit by that expenence.

Section 13 defines what are prohibited acts as set up in the bill. Paragraph 2, subsection (a), is of special interest in that it provides that it shall be unlawful—

To transport, offer for transportation, ship, deliver, or sell in commerce, or to ship, deliver, or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in commerce is intended, any goods in the production of which any employee was employed in violation of section 4 or section 5, or in violation of any regulation or order of the Secretary issued under section 12; except that no provision of this act shall impose any liability upon any common carrier.

The part of section 13 above quoted makes it unlawful to transport, offer for transportation, ship, deliver, or sell in commerce • • • any goods in the production of which any employee was employed in violation of this act. Common carriers are excepted. Does it seem right, fair, or just to pass such an arbitrary law without the necessity of showing at least knowledge of violation on the part of those transporting or selling? It may be necessary to write such drastic regulations and statutes to control the business of our country, but it is this kind of thing that is driving businessmen out of business and bringing the Government into business. It is less legislation of this type and not more legislation of this kind that will help solve our present economic problems.

Subsection (b) of this section 13 provides as follows:

For the purposes of subsection (a) (2) proof that any employee was employed in violation of section 4 or 5, or in violation of any regulation or order of the Secretary issued under section 12, in any place of employment where goods were produced, within 90 days prior to the removal of the goods therefrom, shall be prima facie evidence. that the goods were produced by such employee.

In other words, in order to make a case against an employer for paying less than the standard wage or working more than the maximum hours, all that is necessary for the Government to do is to prove that any employee was so employed, and that makes a prima facie case. The question of intent, knowledge, or willfulness of the employer is apparently not of concern to the framers of the bill. Imagine an employer, acting in good faith, hauled into court because he bas violated some rule of the Secretary of Labor or of the statute itself without any knowledge of so doing or actual intent so to do.

Section 14 places a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, on the violator of this law or any of the rules or regulations authorized therein; The law is written by Congress, but the rules and regulations are promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.

I am wondering how many Members who are going to vote for this bill have studied its terms carefully. There is too much desire here to get on the organized-labor band wagon. The primaries and elections are just around the corner and anything that bears the name of fair labor standards and wage and hour legislation is thought by some to be helpful.

There are few Members here who would vote today for the Senate bill, to which this Norton bill is an amendment, yet you are voting to make it possible for a half dozen Members of the House and Senate to write the kind of a bill they see fit, limited only by the House and Senate bills. This House bill contains no differentials; that is, it fixes a flat and uniform wage for each spot and place in the United States, regardless of working conditions, climatic conditions, cost of living, and what not. Without this provision the Members, from the North will not support the bill. With this provision a majority of the Members from the South will not support the bill. The Senate bill permits a lower wage rate in the south, and if this bill comes back from the conference, it is almost a sure guess that it will contain differentials. Then, where are you Members from the North going to find yourselves? You are voting for this bill today on the theory that you are going to prevent your northern industries from going south. Oh, you may say, I will vote for the bill today and get credit for voting for a wage and hour bill, because I know it will not come back from the Senate, and if it does come back from the Senate and is not as I want it, I shall then vote against it. The groups that are compelling you to vote today will be just as compelling when the conference report comes back. You are not helping yourselves politically and time will tell the story. You are not fooling anyone.

So far as I am concerned, there has been very little propaganda in regard to this bill. Not to exceed 40 telegrams and letters have been written to me for and against the bill. Five or six of these communications are from organized labor groups endorsing the bill. The remainder come largely from small-business men who are opposed. Every farm organization, expressing its views to the Members of Congress, is absolutely opposed to the enactment of this bill. The National Grange submitted a letter to each Member, a copy of which has already been inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, and I, therefore, quote but one paragraph which is:

if the enactment of the new wage and hour bill could reasonably be expected to do the country any good, we would be in

[PAGE 7396]

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

[PAGE 7397]

favor of it. Since we harbor the conviction that the net results of the passage of this proposed legislation would be harmful and demoralizing, we are against it.

The National Cooperative Milk Producers' Association likewise has submitted a long brief to the Congress, and I quote but one sentence, as follows:

The bill if enacted in its present form will be ruinous, not only to dairy farmers but to agriculture as a whole.

Time prevents further citations from organizations and individuals.

The best aid that can be given to the working man or woman today is a steady job with private industry at a living wage. When I say a living wage, I do not mean a wage that will simply provide shelter, buy the clothing to prevent suffering, and food that will prevent starvation. Industry should have the cost of production plus a profit and, by the same token, labor should have a living according to the American standard, with sufficient to provide for old-age security. Labor must have an adequate annual wage, not a niggardly hourly wage. If this bill even tended in this direction, that would be another thing.

We all realize that there are 13,000,000 people unemployed in tha country today; that legislation has already been enacted making our national debt more than $40,000,000,000; that unemployment is increasing; that the reserves of our people have been exhausted; that our economic conditions are growing steadily worse; and that something must be done if our Nation is preserved. We have borrowed and spent. We have primed the pump. The remedies thus far advanced have been unavailing. It is high time that Congress faces the fact that the patient is gradually dying; that our American system of government is day by day being undermined; that a new economy is upon us; that the effort of the administration seems to be to change the very system under which we have become the greatest country in all the world—a system which undoubtedly has its shortcomings, but a system that has made the laboring man's standard of living, even now in America, superior to that anywhere under the sun. There is no need of telling the average American worker that this is the only country in the world where he may even aspire to most of the conveniences which he here enjoys. We have but to visit a modern factory, an ordinary construction job, or any other place where workingmen assemble to do their daily tasks to realize that our people own and ride in their own automobiles.

We have but to visit the average home of the average industrial worker in the United States to know for ourselves the neat and tidy, the wholesome homes in which most of these workers reside. We need but to inspect the telephone directories and make inquiry as to who buys radios to know what proportion of American workers enjoy these comforts of life. We need but visit the average public or parochial school to learn whose children constitute the vast majority of the students in these institutions. We need not go further than the floor of this very House to ascertain the possibility of the children of honest toil and labor holding positions of responsibility and honor in the councils of the Government. This is as it should be. This was not brought about by regimentation and spending but rather by thrift and toil plus American opportunity. I yield to none in my admiration for and my allegiance to the average American workingman. I come from among them. Like them, if I have made any success or accomplished anything in life, it has been due to the opportunities afforded me under the system of government which some now tell us is a thing of the past and should be changed. I resent any such philosophy.

Let me conclude with the statement that, in my judgment, the passage of either this bill or the Senate bill will at this time add to, rather than decrease, unemployment. This is not what we want. I am confident that the thinking workingmen in the Second Congressional District of Michigan, which I have the honor to represent, would much prefer to have the Congress devote its time to working out a program that will provide jobs rather than haggle over a bill regulating to death the few jobs we now have.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chalrman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section do now close.

Mr. HOOK. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

The pro forma amendment was withdrawn.

The Clerk read as follows:

FINDING AND DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) The employment of workers under substandard labor conditions in occupations in commerce, in the production of goods for commerce, or otherwise affecting commerce (1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of 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) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce.

(b) The correction of such conditions affecting commerce requires that the Congress exercise its legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States by prohibiting the shipment in commerce of goods produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupations in and affecting commerce.

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 3. As used in this act

(a) "Person" means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, or any organized group of persons.

(b) "Commerce" means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or from any State to any place outside thereof.

(c) "State" means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory.

(d) "Employer" includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to employee but shall not include the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State, 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.

(e) "Employee" includes any individual employed or suffered or permitted to work by an employer.

(f) "Agriculture" includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying. the cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities, the raising of livestock, bees, foxes, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.

(g) "Employee employed in agriculture" includes individuals employed within the area of production engaged in storing for the farmer, preparing (but not commercial processing), or packing agricultural or horticultural commodities in their raw, natural, or dried state, but does not include employees of transportation contractors engaged in transportation of farm products from farm to market.

(h) "Employ" includes to suffer or permit to work.

(i) "Industry" means a trade, business, industry, or branch thereof, or group of industries, in which individuals are gainfully employed.

(j) "Industry affecting commerce" means an industry with respect to which an order issued under section 6 is in effect.

(k) "Employer engaged in commerce" means an employer in commerce, or an employer engaged, in the ordinary course of business, in purchasing or sell1ng goods in commerce.

(l) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Labor.

(m) "Oppressive child labor" means a condition of employment under which (1) any employee under the age of 16 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent employing his own child or a child in his custody under the age of 16 years in an occupation other than manufacturing or mining) in any occupation, or (2) any such employee between the ages of 16 and 18 years is employed by an employer in any occupation which the Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor shall from time to time find and by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of such children or detrimental to their health or well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by virtue of the employment in any occupation of any person with respect to whom the employer shall have on file a certificate issued and held pursuant to the regulation of the Chief of the Children's Bureau certifying that such person is above the oppressive child-labor age. The Chief of the Children's Bureau shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees of the age of 14 but under the age of 16 years in occupations other than manufacturing and mining 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.

[PAGE 7397]

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

[PAGE 7398]

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to section 3.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by .Mr. MARTIN of Colomdo: On page 51, line 12, strike out the paragraph down to and including line 14 on page 52 and insert in lieu thereof the following.:

"(A) All goods, wares, and merchandise produced on or after January 1, 1939, who1ly or in part thraugh the use of child labor, transported into any State or Territory of the United States and remaining 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.

"(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, 1939, wholly or in part through the use of child, labor, from one State or Terrtory 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, 1939, wholly or in part through ;the use of child labor, unless the outside of such goods, wares, or merchandise, or the package conta1n1ng 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 offered 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 of such information and statement in the new label shall constitute compliance with the requirememts 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 Territoryy, wholly or in part through the use of child labor, on or after January 1, 1939; or

"(b) has taken delivery df 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 the 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, a.nd ..as a unit of ~oiling .stoc.k in which goods, wares, or merchandise may be .shipped or Jkansported 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 child labor age.

"(F) Any person violating any provision of this section shall for each offense, upon conviction thereof, be punished by 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 proceedlngs 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 such 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 vdolated 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 fa1th 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, 1939, 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 certified 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 official authorized or qualified 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 de1ivered to him by or on beha1f 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 utilize 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 administration and enforcement of the laws of any State relattng 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 Chlldren's Bureau or any person 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 emplooyment of or to the shipment of articles therefrom, and to

[PAGE 7398]

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

[PAGE 7399]

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. MARTIN of Colorado (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment, which is quite lengthy, may be dispensed with and that the amenment may be printed in the RECORD at this point.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I dislike very much to object, but I do not know what this amendment is and I would like to hear it read, because I think it is a very imporant amendment.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. I intend to explain the amendment.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, based on my former experience with this amendment last December, I appreciate the futility of offering it at this time, but it becomes my duty to again offer what is known as the Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment, and I do so with something more than a suspicion in my mind that eventually this amendment will receive something it has thus far never received at this end of the Capitol, to wit, consideration.

The Wheeler-Johnson child-labor amendment provides a three-way approach to the child-labor problem. First, it prohibits the sale or transportation of child-labor goods in interstate commerce; second, it subjects child-labor goods in interstate commerce to the child-labor laws of the States into which they are shipped; and, third, it provides for the labeling of the goods:

These last two methods—and they have the approval of such men as Edward Keating, the author of the first Federal child-labor law, who appeared in behalf of the Wheeler-Johnson amendment before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor—are intended to take care of the problem of child labor to the extent of labeling and of subjecting them to State law, in the event the first method falls under the constitutional ban as did the original child-labor legislation. If the first method stands, these two methods will be superfluous.

There is only a one-way approach to this problem in the House bill, and that is the prohibition of transportation in interstate commerce, and I have boiled down the substantive words of these two propositions so you can understand them simply and determine for yourselves which is the superior method of attempting to reach this great evil.

In the House bill the child-labor provision reads as follows:

No producer, manufacturer, or dealer—

Mind you, it is limited to those three—

shall ship or deliver for shipment any goods produced tn an establishment in or about which within 30 days prior to the removal of such goods therefrom any oppressive child labor has been employed.

Mind you, there is no prohibition of sale of child-labor goods or other handling or disposition of them. There is simply a prohibition that the producer or the manufacturer or the dealer shall not ship in interstate commerce. Now let me read you the comprehensive and all-inclusive language of the Senate amendment:

It shall be unlawful for any person who has produced goods, wares, or merchandise wholly or in part through the use of child labor on or after January 1, 1939;

Or has taken delivery of such goods, wares, or merchandise 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,

Or to sell such goods, wares, or merchandise for shipment, or with knowledge that shipment thereof is intended.

It will be noticed that under the House bill child-labor goods will be released 30 days after the cessation of child labor in the plant. This will open the door to many legal evasions.

In the Senate bill the bari on child-labor goods is permanent after January 1, 1939, and there is a further provision in the Senate bill making the employment of child labor in a plant after that date prima facie evidence that the product of the plant was produced by child labor.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes more.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, a material difference between the two bills is that only producers, manufacturers, and dealers are specified in the House bill, and they are not forbidden to sell or dispose of the goods, while in the Senate bill any persons connected in any way with the processing, sale, handling, or transportation of the goods are specified. It includes purchasers, receivers, consignees, commission merchants, forwarding agents, aids, assistants, all persons. There can be no evasion through loopholes or omissions in the law and tricks in the legal trade under the Senate bill. Another material difference is that while under the Senate bill occupations are to be classified as hazardous only after notice and hearing, under the House bill the Administrator may simply issue an order classifying occupations as hazaraous. It is a fair question how far that provision will get in the courts.

Another difference worth noting is that under the House bill the Administrator may exclude from the protection of the law children between the ages of 14 and 16, just issue an order excluding any children between the ages of 14 and 16 under the House bill, if in the opinion of the Administrator it will not interfere with their health, well-being, or education. There is no exemption in the Senate bill. Child labor under 16 years of age is absolutely barred.

Another consideration is that the Senate bill places administration of child labor in the Secretary of Labor, where the House bill now places administration of wages imd hours, but the House bill vests administration of child labor in a bureau chief. There is no sound basis for this division of jurisdiction; and, since apparently the Labor Committee has quit slapping Miss Perkins in the face and she is being reinstated in the good graces of the House Committee on Labor and given the administration of the more important subjects of wages and hours, there is no reason why she should not be given jurisdiction of child labor, as she is in the Senate Wheeler-Johnson amendment.

There is another important difference, and that is the administrator of child labor under the Senate bill is given power to investigate plants and records to determine whether the law is being violated, and there is no power of inspection in the House bill.

I said in the debate on this bill before, and I repeat it now, that this House legislation on child labor is nothing more than a gesture. It is open to a thousand legal evasions and objections. Child labor is only the stepchild of this bill. It has never been considered, but it will reach the point where it will be considered, and when it is I want to say that your little meager five-line skeleton will be put under the magnifying glass, and it will be found that there is no meat on it.

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Yes.

Mr. REED of New York. Is there anything in the gentleman's amendment that deals with the large volume of goods coming into this country from foreign lands made by children who are sitting on benches where their feet will not even touch the floor?

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. There is a prohibition of the sale, handling, or transportation of child-labor goods in the United States. In its territorial scope it is identical with the House bill. If one does not girdle the globe, neither does the other.

Mr. REED of New York. I say the whole thing is simply hypocrisy raised to the nth degree, and I am in a position to say so, because I voted for the submission of the constitutional amendment to stop this child labor.

[PAGE 7399]

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

[PAGE 7400]

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. l believe that in the language of the Wheeler-Johnson amendment they have gone as far as humanly possible in bringing within the purview of this legislation every class of people who will be engaged in handling, manufacturing, or disposing of child-labor goods in any way. Manufacturers, processors, and dealers are only a fraction of the agencies who may handle manufactured products. Under the House bill they could manufacture a whole warehouse full of child-labor goods and sell them to the man next door, or set up dummy agencies to sell and transport them without violation of the law. [Applause.]

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

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN] provides for striking out the child-labor sections in this bill. His amendment will destroy completely the best feature of the bill. It is recognized by everybody who has studied the matter of child labor that it is the best legislation that has yet been conceived for the purpose of abolishing child labor so far as interstate commerce is concerned.

Sustantially this provision has been adopted by the Senate committee, it has been adopted by the House committee on two or three different occasions, and has been adopted by this House. It has not the opposition of any organization in the country that has come to my notice. The National Child Labor Association, which has been in existence since prior to the 1916 act enacted by the Congress, has advocated this provision, and has supported it. They are in favor of it. Every public organization in America interested in child labor is in favor of this provision. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTIN] admits that he is the only Member on this floor to defend the provision that he adduces for the purpose of destroying this provision.

The provision in this bill, Mr. Chairman. is identical in principle with the provision of the Child Labor Act of 1916. It provides not primarily tor the prosecution of people but primarily for the prevention of the employment of children. That is the salient feature of this provision. It does not require the labeling of goods wherever child labor is employed as does the amendment pending. The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. MARTINJ puts the products of children employed in industry in the same class with the products of prisoners; that is, it must be labeled in order to be shipped to hold up to the public that it is an article that is made by child labor. No manufacturer who is willing to exploit children without a work permit will hesitate to ship the products of their labor without putting a label on them. This was clearly brought out in testimony on the Wheeler-Johnson bill before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce. Such a requirement for labeling is not only highly complicated but would be ineffective.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. I cannot yield.

Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the fact that the provision of this amendment requires the labeling of the products of child labor the same as that in the law that requires the labeling of prison-made goods; they must bear a label before they can be shipped from one State to the other, stating that they are prison-made goods; yet the consruner does not know he is purchasing prison-made goods because the goods are taken out of the cartons and placed upon the shelves, and then they cannot be identified. [Applause.]

Mr. Chairman, we of Wisconsin are gratified to see in this bill that the Nation is ready to adopt standards which will eliminate sweatshop child labor. I consider this bill the best we can enact for the announced purpose of abolishing child labor in interstate commerce. States which have already adopted laws to correct these evils within their borders will welcome the help of similar high standards for the country at large. Wisconsin and other States with a 16-year standard for child employment too long have been faced with the competition of goods manufactured in low-standard States. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the full meaning of this step has been impressed upon my colleagues. The moral effect of these provisions by itself is sufficient reason for our favorable action upon them.

We have seen that while the 1916 Federal child-labor law was in effect and it contained similar provisions—the States with lower standards of child-labor control hastened to improve their laws so that they would be on an equal footing with the Federal standards. We can expect a similar effect from the passage of this bill. What will be the result? A tendency toward uniformly high State standards, even in the provisions of laws covering occupations within the States which cannot be said to affect interstate commerce.

To clarify just what the bill covers, I wish to call attention to its protection of children under 16 years now engaged in tasks too heavy for them, also its protection of those from 16 to 18 years employed in jobs dangerous even for adults, and for too hazardous for those youths in their middle teens.

The House is agreed that the bill shall not interfere with the work of children for their parents in and around the home. We have also exempted from its provisions children working in agriculture and allied employment. For light out-of-school jobs not detrimental to the child's health and welfare we have provided that the Children's Bureau may make specific exemption for those between 14 and 16 years, but not in mining or manufacturing occupations. In these ways, Mr. Chairman. we hold that we are trying to be fair—fair to the children and at the same time protecting their best interests.

The House bill is sound in administrative method. We have used two key principles. First, we recognize existing adequate State machinery now carrying out State laws. We permit the Children's Bureau, in charge of administration, to cooperate with and use the services of State and local enforcing agents already in office. These agents of the States have an obligation to protect their own State's children and this bill aids them tn carrying it out. In the second place, we provide for properly executed work certificates to be issued to and held by the employers for their own protection. The employer who wishes to protect himself from any possible prosecution has simply to keep on file for all youths employed such authorized certificates issued by local officials—as is now done in some 43 States—attesting to the age and legality of employment of these youths. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose and effect of these certificates will be to prevent illegal employment of children, to avoid annoyance to employers who want to live up to the law, and to reduce prosecution to a minimum.

As I pointed out, with 43 States and the District of Columbia now issuing work permits, it would surprise me very much if all the rest of the States did not take steps to conform to the standards of the Federal administering agency. The indirect result of such action wm be further to reduce the cost of administration. Even under existing conditions in the States the methods we have proposed, based on sound experience and approved by every responsible administering agency, are as ecenomica1 as any that could be devised. Certainly the methods we propose are far more eeonomieal and effective than any depending primarily upon Federal investigation and Federal prosecution.

Mr. Chairman, arguments concerning the constitutionality of this bill have been raised. May I point out to the Committee that this method of child-labor control is not likely to meet with any objection of the Supreme Court? Recent decisions of the Court sustaining the Wagner Labor Relations Act and other measures have made it clear that the Congress is acting within the Constitution in preventing the products of child labor from being shipped in interstate commerce. It is necessary only for the Court now to hold to its present sustained reasoning in order to uphold the power of Congress in enacting this bill. If we are to make headway in wiping out what has been a fierce and often vicious competition of manufacturers who make a practice of employing

[PAGE 7400]

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

[PAGE 7401]

young children, it is necessary for the Congress to use this power. States have found themselves frequently powerless to enact adequate laws in the face of pressure from these competing forces. It remains for the Congress to assist in producing a universal standard to aid the States in their good intentions.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we should remind ourselves that this bill can only deal with child labor in interstate commerce. That represents perhaps one-fourth of the total employed children in the country today. While we are pushing this phase of the problem to a happy conclusion, we must recognize that further steps are necessary to protect other children, often heavily oppressed, through higher standards. The one best method of achieving this is the child-labor amendment which 28 States, including my own State of Wisconsin, have ratified. It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court, in deciding the cases now pending before it, in its wisdom will find that this cbild-labor amendment is still alive, and that we may see next year the ratification by the needed eight States.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BIERMANN. ·Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BIERMANN: Page 50, beginning in line 18, strike out subsection (g) and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(g) 'Employees engaged in agriculture' includes individuals employed within the area of production, engaged in the handling, packing, storing, ginning, compressing, pasteurizing, drying, or canning of farm products and in making cheese and butter."

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the committee has an amendment to take care of this; and the amendment will be offered at a later stage of the proceedings.

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment about which I think every Member has been circularized by the farm organizations.

It has been pointed out that the various labor organizations back the general provisions of this bill. If this is a good reason for supporting the bill in general, then I submit that the fact that every national farm organization in this coUiltry supports this amendment in principle is a convincing argument why every Member interested in the welfare of agriculture should vote for this amendment.

This bill is aimed at substandard labor conditions, and I submit that any Member of this House who is familiar with the kind of institution that this amendment I have offered is aimed at will agree with me when I say that substandard labor conditions do not exist in these institutions. In an amendment I inserted in the RECORD yesterday I included the word "processing." I call attention to the fact that in the pending amendment this word is stricken out. I struck it out for the reason that some Members thought that processing would include the making of cotton and wool into textiles, and rubber into finished products, and a long list of things of that kind. The amendment I have offered includes only the first processing of things that come off the farm. The important point is that the farmer pays the bill for this processing. Those of us who come from dairy sections know that the cost of making butterfat into butter or milk into cheese is borne by the farmer. There is no contention about that, no argument. The Members from the South will agree that the man who raises the cottcm pays for ginning the cotton. When the cost of making butter, when the cost of making cheese, when the cost of ginning cotton increases the farmer gets just so much less; and our contention and the contention of the farm organizations is that this bill designed to help labor should not be so worded that it puts another burden on the agriculture of this country.

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

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield briefly.

Mr. CURLEY. Will the gentleman read the exemption on page 58 where it says that no one employed in agriculture shall fall within the provisions of the bill? I call the gentleman's attention also to page 50 and ask him to read the different sections there and see if they do not accomplish the purpose of his amendment.

Mr. BIERMANN. I may say to the gentleman from New York that the agricultural organizations of this country who stand in relation to agriculture, the farmers, the same as the American Federation of Labor and the C. I. O. stands to labor, think the exemptions carried by the bill as drafted are not sufficient. It is just a question whether this House wants to follow the advice of the big farm organizations of the United States or whether they want to mulct the farmers of the United States to this further extent.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. This amendment would not take care of those employed in the handling of these seasonal crops outside of the area of production, would it?

Mr. BIERMANN. No.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. In other words, the Grange amendment and the gentleman's amendment are not in conflict?

Mr. BIERMANN. No; they do not conflict.

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield to the gentleman from ILlinois.

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. May I ask the gentleman from Iowa whether his amendment would apply to a packing house located in Iowa and Illinois in the area of production, which employs two or three hundred men?

Mr. BIERMANN. Speaking frankly, I think that is something that would have to be worked out. There are some packing houses in the State of Iowa that this amendment would apply to perhaps; but may I say that all over this country it has been recognized that there should be a labor differential between the large city and the little town.

[Here the gavel fell.]

· Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. WIDTTINGTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. WHITIINGTON. With respect to the question propounded by the gentleman from Illinois, may I remind the gentleman from Iowa that the word "packers" occurs in the present bill, so there is no difference between the amendment proposed and the provisions of the bill under consideration? As I understand the gentleman's amendment, it is merely a clarification of the definition of the word "employee" under the terms of the act?

Mr. BIERMANN. And it is the kind of clarification the farm organizations want. The question to be decided in voting on this amendment is whether or not the farmers of the United States are going to have their definition of "employee" as applied to agriculture or whether it is going to be written by people who have a city viewpoint. I do not find fault with the Committee on Labor, but I think whereas they are the experts who have knowledge regarding the big factories in Jersey City, New York City, and some of the other large cities, by the same token we who come from the farm areas are best qualified to say what terms should apply to labor in those areas. I may say that not a single employee in any one of these factories has made an objection to this, so far as I know.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is simply to permit the farmer to get his material prepared for market.

Mr. CURLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. CURLEY. The gentleman spoke about various farm organizations.

Mr. BIERMANN. Yes.

Mr. CURLEY. The gentleman referred to the National Grange Association.

Mr. BIERMANN. Yes

[PAGE 7401]

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

[PAGE 7402]

Mr. CURLEY. Does not the gentleman know that the National Grange Association is against this wage and hour bill?

Mr. BIERMANN. Let us not mix this up. I have a telegram here from the National Grange, the National Coopelfative Association, National Cooperative Milk Producers Association, and others. The Farmers' Union endorses this amendment.

Mr. CURLEY. They are all against the whole bill.

Mr. BIERMANN. The American Farm Bureau?

Mr. CURLEY. Each one of those is opposed to every feature of the wage and hour bill.

Mr-. BIERMANN. No; they are not.

Mr. CURLEY. I have the same communications the gentleman has.

Mr. BIERMANN. Has the gentleman a communication from the Farm Bureau?

Mr. CURLEY. Yes. I have the same communications that the gentleman has.

Mr. BIERMANN. I may say to the gentleman from New York that there are a great number of farm members in this House who would like to vote for this bill, but they do not want to vote for a bill that is going to bear down on their farm constituents.

Mr. CULKIN. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. CULKIN. The gentleman knows that the representatives of the various farm districts who wish to vote for this bill cannot vote for it unless they consider the due processes of nature?

Mr. BIERMANN. Yes.

Mr. CULKIN. For instance, a cow is milked at 9 o'clock in the morning and at 5 in the evening, 9 hours apart. Then the milk has to be brought to market or to the creamery 6, 10, 15, or 20 miles away. This bill does not apply and should not apply to that situation. It applies to the substandard conditions to which the gentleman already referred?

Mr. BIERMANN. I want to read a couple of sentences from a letter I received this morning from Edward A. O'Neal, president of the Farm Bureau Federation, in which he sets out the desirability of writing into this bill definitions such as proposed in my amendment. He states:

We believe the blll should be clarified so as to assure the exemption of employees in such agriculture and horticulture industries in rural areas.

That is all my amendment takes in.

He states further, as follows:

Failure to exempt these operations when performed in rural areas where conditions are so greatly different from the situation in large industrial and urban centers, will result in increased costs of processing and handling these products which will be reflected back in lower prices paid to farmers.

MI:. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. CRAWFORD. Does the gentleman's amendment exempt manufacturers of sugar beets in the rural areas?

Mr. BIERMANN. That is something that the Secretary will have to determine.

Mr. REILLY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. REilLY. Does the gentleman's amendment cover a pea-canning set-up that is situated away from the farm on which the peas are grown?

Mr. BIERMANN. In a little town?

Mr. REILLY. In a little town; yes.

Mr. BIERMANN. But in the farm area?

Mr. REILLY. Yes.

Mr. BIERMANN. Yes; it does.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment close in 15 minutes.

Mr. HOPE. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment close in 20 minutes.

Mr. WADSWORTH; Mr. CULKIN, and Mr. HOPE objected.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment close in 20 minutes.

The motion was rejected.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment close in 30 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

The question was taken, and on a division (demanded by Mr. GILCHRIST) there were—ayes _97, noes 69.

So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a new question by any means. This is merely another of a series of attempts to sabotage this wage and hour bill. This is not the first time it has been attempted. A somewhat similar amendment was introduced in another body by a Member of that body, and that amendment was stricken out when it came to the House. I was the sponsor of the amendment to strike it out. In some mysterious manner it got back into the bill again, but when the bill came on the floor and certain questions were asked about that amendment and nobody knew anything about how it got back into the bill. I offered another amendment to strike it out, and my amendment was agreed to.

Those who are here today can see what has been going on, the lobbying and the going around soliciting and seeking support of every Member of the House to the Biermann amendment. I wonder what it is behind this bill that is so important. After all we have before us for consideration a wage and hour bill which it is contemplated will help the poor underdog who is being paid substandard wages.

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

Mr. CURLEY. I will yield in just a moment.

I represent a great dairy State, the largest in the country. I cannot understand why anybody should hold any brief for the cooperatives, which this amendment does. Let me show you exactly what the Standard Statistics Co. reports about certain cooperative organizations in the State of New York, where we have one of the greatest milksheds in the country. The gentleman from New York [Mr. CULKIN] knows more about that than I do, because he comes from up-State. The Standard Statistics Co. reports show "that the Borden Co. and its subsidiaries earned a net income of $7,921,490 for 1936, as compared with a net income of $4,842,349 for 1935. The National Dairy Products Corporation, which controls the Sheffield Co., reported a net income of $13,282,028 for 1936, as compared with $9,338,205 for 1935. This bill will not interfere with such cooperatives whose employees are organized and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ScHNEIDER] can bear me out on that. They are already organized. This bill will not affect them at all, but the unorganized underpaid type.

Mr. CULKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me? The gentleman has referred to me.

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

Mr. CULKIN. The gentleman has just read the profits of the National Dairy Products Corporation and the Borden Co.

Mr. CURLEY. Yes.

Mr. CULKIN. Does the gentleman know that the dairymen of northern New York have their backs to the wall and are not getting a living price for their products?

Mr. CURLEY. Who is the cause of that?

Mr. CULKIN. Their land is being sold for taxes and they are being wiped out.

Mr. CURLEY. No; I am talking about the cooperatives that own that land, the Borden and the Sheffield cooperative organizations.

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

Mr. CURLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. FULLER. Is it not a fact there has not been a calf born in the gentleman's district in the last 15 years?

[PAGE 7402]

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

[PAGE 7403]

Mr. CURLEY. In reply to my friend's inquiry, I may say we have plenty of "bull" there.

I do not want to see anybody vote against this wage and hour bill. I want to see this Biermann amendment defeated. I do not know what there is to the amendment of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE] and I am not going to say anything against his amendment, but I am against the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. BIERMANN], for whom I have the highest respect and regard.

Mr. BIERMANN. Does the gentleman mean the people of New York City are better qualified to pass on what are proper wage and hour standards than are the people of Iowa?

Mr. CURLEY. They have a $2,000,000,000 milkshed there and they have something to say about it.

[Here the gavel fell.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prompted to impose upon the good nature of the committee for the next 5 minutes as a result of the remarks just delivered by the distinguished dairyman from New York City.

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

Mr. WADSWORTH. I cannot yield. I have not yet got started. I know full well it is like bringing coals to Newcastle, or at least in a large degree bringing coals to Newcastle, for me to say much about farming before a group which contains many men who have had experience in it, but for the benefit of some of those who represent purely urban communities let me say a word or two about the effects of this bill in the farming regions if it should pass in its present form. I may not be able to cover the subject in 5 minutes, but if I am not, perhaps some other countryman will take up the story.

Let us look for a moment at the business of canning in a country canning factory. There are many of them in my district. I live within a mile of one and within 4 miles of another, and not to expose unduly any secret or make a remark of any particular importance, I sell sweet corn and peas to both of them.

The canning season starts in western New York, for example, first with early green peas around the first week or 10 days of June. The canning of peas goes on until the middle of July or toward the end of July with the later varieties winding up the season. Then there is an off season of 10 days or 2 weeks before sweet corn comes in. The sweet-corn canning season lasts clear through August and nearly all of September. It is followed in turn by tomatoes, carrots, and beets and spinach.

Now, all during that period that factory has to work very irregular hours. Just like the farmer, it is the slave of the sun and the weather. If we have about 2 days of unduly hot weather the heat suddenly ripens the crop more rapidly than the canning factory or the farmers have calculated. The result is it has to be rushed into the factory with all possible speed in order that it may be canned in proper condition. While that is being done, which generally is not over once or twice in 10 days, the people in the factory work overtime. They probably do not work overtime more than once in a week or 10 days and seldom more than 2 or 3 hours of overtime.

This is a recognized custom in the trade. No one ever complains against it. The labor conditions are excellent, the whole thing is seasonal and it is largely extra money to the operative who get several weeks' work through the summer.

If that country canning factory is not exempt from the provisions of this bill, then all of its wage and hour limitations will be placed upon it, as well as the overtime provision, and when you increase the cost of processing fresh vegetables, you must expect one of two results. First, the factory must raise its price to the consumer—and I happen to know that they run on an exceedingly narrow margin—or else reduce the price paid to the farmer, and that is always what is done. Whenever you increase arbitrarily the cost of processing these fresh vegetables the farmer gets less per ton for them. I have been through it myself.

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

Mr. WADSWORTH. I cannot yield.

The same thing is true in the dairy industry. We have scattered through the farming country country milk stations. The gentleman from New York has stated that the cow is milked at 6 o'clock in the morning. That is rather late on the average. The milk has to leave the farm at 7 o'clock iced to a temperature of 38° to 40°. It may have to go 20 miles to a country milk station. The milk station bottles it and the bottled milk is sold in the city. If the cost of running the milk station is increased by an act of Congress, then only one of two things can happen. The consumer must pay another cent or 2 cents for his milk—and you ask any milk dealer whether it is possible to raise the price of milk in the city. You would instantly have a housewives' strike on your hands. I know a milk dealer with whom I do business who raised the price 1 cent a quart in accordance with a suggestion made to him by the authorities, and he instantly had 400 cancelations of his orders. Consequently, the farmer must take a reduction.

These things should be exempt from arbitrary Federal statutes. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to exempt cotton gins and other plants engaged in processing farm products from the drastic provisions of this legislation.

We need not deceive ourselves, Mr. Chairman, this so-called wage and hour bill in its present form, together with the spirit behind it, as expressed on this floor and in the cloak room, constitutes the most vicious assault of its kind that has been made against the South in 60 years. Nothing I have witnessed during all the years I have served in this body compares with it.

Mr. PATRICK. Do not forget the anti-lynching bill.

Mr. RANKIN. Let me say to the gentleman from Alabama that I shall never forget that pernicious measure, nor shall I ever forget some of the mean and vicious slanders that were directed against the white people of the South during the debate on it.

I do not have time to point out all the dangers in this legislation. It is being shoved through on the pretense that its advocates in the House are trying to help the laboring man, when as a matter of fact it is calculated to have the most baneful effect upon the laboring people of the South. I am talking about the people who work for a living, in the mills, in the lumber yards, in the factories and on the farm. I know something about it. I have been a day laborer, and I have worked on a farm. I rode a carriage at a saw mill for two years to get money to go to school one year. Many of the men with whom I worked will be thrown out of employment if this bill becomes a law. It will not raise their wages; it will just close the mill. That is what some of you want; you want to destroy southern industry and force all manufacturing establislunents back into the large cities of the North and East.

You kid-glove Members from the cities need not attempt to tell me about the problems of the laboring man. I have had experience, and I know more about the problems of the man who toils for his daily bread than you will ever know.

It makes me a little tired to hear you window-sill farmers from New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia attempt to tell us about the conditions of the farm laborers. You are not even interested in them. You know this bill will pile upon the farmers' backs untold burdens of expenses, without giving them the slightest benefit. You propose in this bill to prevent any man working in any kind of industry unless he can get 40 cents an hour. That means that if he cannot get 40 cents an hour, then he

[PAGE 7403]

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

[PAGE 7404]

cannot work at all. He must either beg or seek the relief rolls. That destroys the very fundamental principle of human liberty. The greatest liberty a man can have on this earth is the liberty of working for his daily bread.

If you are honest and sincere in your pleas for the laboring man, why do you attempt to make this wide distinction between people working in industry and people working on the farm? A cotton farmer makes 1 cent an hour for his work for every cent a pound he receives for his cotton. Today cotton is about 8 cents a pound. That means that every cotton farmer makes about 8 cents an hour, and wheat, corn, and other farmers about in proportion. If you are going to do justice among the people who toil, why not write into this bill a provision to raise the farmers' pay to 40 cents an hour, which would mean 40 cents a pound for cotton and $4 a bushel for wheat? Instead of that, you are raising the prices of everything the farmer has to buy and leaving him with the bag to hold. You dodge that issue by saying that this does not apply to farmers. Now, if you think the farmers of this country are so stupid that they cannot see that this will pile additional burdens upon them in increased prices for the things they have to buy, without increasing the prices of the products of their farms, then you men from the South and West, who are supporting this monstrosity are in for a rude awakening.

If this bill would raise the wages of all the laborers in the country who are underpaid, God knows I would be glad to support it. But it will not do that, and you know it will not do that. It will simply close industrial establishments in the Southern States and in the Western States, throw thousands of people out of employment, concentrate industry back into the large cities and into large establishments where fewer people will be employed for the amount of goods produced—since machinery will take the place of malipower—and unload upon the unprotected masses, including farmers of the Nation, additional burdens that they will be unable to bear.

This will raise the prices of manufactured articles, with the result that goods will flow in from foreign countries. Then you will be clamoring to build the high-tariff wall higher in order to protect American manufacturers. That will add additional burdens to the farmers of the Nation, and destroy the efforts now being made by our distinguished Secretary of State, Hon. Cordell Hull, to rebuild our international trade. In my humble judgment, the laboring people of this country will curse the day this bill ever became a law, and will curse you for placing this vicious legislation upon the statute books of this Republic. [Applause.]

You say that we can manufacture goods more cheaply in the South and in the small towns throughout the agricultural belt than you can in the large cities of the East. That is true; what you manufacturers pay your laborers in wages over and above what they get in smaller towns of the south and West, is taken a way from them in exorbitant rents, excessive prices for the necessities of life, exorbitant utility charges, and other similar expenses.

You do not want to give us any differentials or make any difference between the wages to be paid in the South and West and the wages to be paid in the large cities of the East. Yet, when the relief bill was before the House the other day an attempt was made to wipe out those differences and you voted it down—although it was shown that in the average Southern State a relief laborer only gets about $19 a month. while in New York he gets about $55 a month. But when it comes to placing this measure upon the statute books, to outlaw and destroy southern industry, you refuse any differentials whatsoever.

If this bill becomes a law without the Biermann amendment it will probably close thousands of cotton gins throughout the South. It will close the small canning plants and other processing establishments upon which the farmers depend for a market for their crops.

Some of you are consoling yourselves with the thought that the American people, and particularly the farmers, do not understand this legislation. You let this measure become a law in its present form and you will find out whether or not the people know what is in it before you, or your successors, come back to the Seventy-sixth Congress. [Applause.]

Some of you northern Democrats are saying that you can get along without the South, that you can have a northern Democratic Party. I have heard that argument quite often in recent months. Let me remind you that the Democratic Party originated in the South, and if it had not been for the South holding up the banner of Democracy in recent years there would be no Democratic Party today. If you should succeed in driving the South out of the party, it would not only mean the end of the party itself, but it would sound the death knell of democracy in America.

If I might be permitted to borrow from the lips of a great statesman of a century past and gone, an apostrophe to liberty, revise and appropriate it to democracy, which, to use his own language, are "one and inseparable," I would say that in the South, Sir, where the Democratic Party raised its first voice, where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. If discord and dissension shall wound it, if religious strife and blind ambition shall hawk at it and tear it, if communism, if fascism, if folly, if madness, if uneasiness under salutary or imaginary restraints shall succeed to separate it from those principles by which alone its existence is made sure, it will stand in the end by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory and on the very spot of its origin. [Applause.]

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I agree with a great deal that has been said about this amendment. I agree to the general proposition that some amendment ought to be offered to this bill to permit the farmers to process their perishable commodities; but as a friend of the general proposition of controlling wages and hours in industry, I am unwilling to make any unnecessary exceptions. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON], the chairman of the Committee on Labor, has agreed to accept an amendment which will be offered on page 53 of the bill, which, in my judgment, will meet the real substantial objections that have thus far been presented in the discussion of this amendment. That amendment will be offered as a substitute for the so-called Coffee or Grange amendment. That amendment will go far enough. The amendment that will be offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey will exempt from the hour provisions of the bill, not wages, the first processors of milk and cream into dairy products, and the canners of fresh fruits and vegetables and fish and other canning processors. It will exempt the canning companies from the hour provisions of the bill for a period of 10 weeks in any one year, which, in my judgment, will give them ample time to do that which they have been demanding. In other words, canners have been demanding the right to can their perishable commodities when the supply is there and when there is need for promptly canning it to prevent waste.

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

Mr. BOILEAU. No; I wish I had the time. That amendment will permit canners to operate for 10 weeks in the year without restriction on hours. They will have to pay the minimum 25 cents an hour, but they can work as many hours as needed to preserve the crop. If, perchance, 10 weeks are not enough, then they will have to pay time and a half for the extra time, but I do not think that they will have to do that. A canner from my own district was in my office the other day, and he said that, although now they pay only 22^1/2 cents an hour, he did not object if they would put it up to 25 cents; and along with him was a canner from the great State of Arkansas who agreed to that proposition. He said if they had to agree to pay that same price all over it would not be bad on the industry. I submit if they have these 10 weeks' time in which they can work overtime without extra pay that is enough for the canner.

[PAGE 7404]

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

[PAGE 7405]

Getting back to the dairy industry, the amendment the gentlewoman will offer will permit all the year around processing of milk, skim milk, and whey and cream into dairy products without regard to the hour provisions, although the wage provision will be in effect. I submit that is necessary. The Committee on Labor has seen the necessity for it. They have gone a long way, and if we now vote in this bill the amendment, there is great danger of destroying the bill, because if you vote that, and along with it the Coffee amendment, the whole bill will be doomed, and if it is not voted down on the floor today it will have lost its effectiveness, because the provisions are too broad. I submit that all that is needed for the preservation and protection of perishable commodities is contained in the amendment that the gentlewoman will offer. We have no right to ask for more than that; we have no right to come here and say that we want wage and hour legislation to prevail in the cities and in the South, and we do not want others to come under the provisions of the bill. The committee has made sufficient concession, and we can go along with them, and we can have real protection. [Applause.]

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I represent an urban district, entirely within the city of San Francisco. Regardless of this fact, during the 13 years I have been a Member of this body I have voted for every farm bill that has been presented to Congress. I will compare my record on farm legislation with that of any Member who has been here an equal length of time. I will be the last at this time to vote against an amendment that would be beneficial to the farming interests of this country. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is premature. The distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Committee on Labor, with the assistance of her committee, has worked out an amendment which will be offered as a committee amendment which I feel absolutely certain will take care of everything required by those who represent the farm interests in Congress; and I do ask at this time that no serious consideration be given to the pending amendment, but that we wait until the chairman of the committee has had an opportunity to present the committee amendment, which I believe will cover everything referred to by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. WELCH. I yield.

Mr. HEALEY. I would like to ask, through the gentleman from California, a question of the gentleman from New York. The gentleman described the canning industry in northern New York. Does he believe an exemption of 10 weeks in any 1 year would be sufficient time for the seasonal activities of that particular industry?

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield for that purpose.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I am familiar with the provisions contained in the amendment that I understand is to be offered by the chairman of the committee. Ten weeks is a little less than half the normal canning season.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to enter into a discussion with the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. WADSWORTH]. While I represent an urban district, I was born and raised on a farm, and I am somewhat familiar with farming conditions in the gentleman's district as I happen to have been born there. I know about the length of time required to process peas, corn, and other products raised in western New York. While as a rule I have great appreciation for the gentleman's judgment on farm problems, yet very few Members who have read the amendment that will be offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey have voiced objection to it. On the other hand, with few exceptions all have agreed with it.

I hope, as I said a moment ago, the pending amendment will be voted down.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELCH. I yield.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Is the National Cooperative Milk Producers' Association in favor of the amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey?

Mr. WELCH. There are some cooperatives and some organizations, Mr. Chairman, that would amend it as far as they possibly could, and then destroy it. On the other hand, I do not think there is a producer in the United States who is in sympathy with the humanitarian purposes of this legislation who will not accept the amendment to be offered by the distinguished chairman of the committee.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. GILCHRIST moves that the Committee do now rise and report the blli back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman, I take this means to get recognition and address the House for 5 minutes.

I am greatly interested in this amendment. The reason it should be passed was well stated by the gentleman from New York, because when any processing tax or extra cost that is put upon a farm product is paid by the farmer, he bears the cost, he always pays. Take, for example, the A. A. A. processing tax. Do you know what happened in connection with that tax? The Brookings Institution itself made a report in which it showed conclusively that the processing tax was borne by the farmer. That was verified afterward by the Department of Agriculture in a report to the Treasury Department in checking the spread on hogs after the processing tax was paid. This also showed conclusively that the farmer paid the tax. This processing tax was found to be unconstitutional and illegal, and we have refunded such illegal taxes to other people. Only this last week we refunded an illegal tax to the railways. I am not opposing it. Perhaps they were entitled to it. There is, however, a duty we owe to the farmers, and that is to repay them the tax illegally collected from them. There is a bill in here now for this purpose, but we cannot get it out of the committee for a vote on the fioor. I have tried diligently to get such a vote, but all to no purpose. Now, unless you support the present amendment, you are going to put another burden upon the farmer.

The amendment provides that out in the open country, where the handling, packing, or storing of agricultural commodities is done, there shall be certain exemptions from the provisions of the bill. We should have such exemptions so as to apply them to our creameries and milk producers and cheese makers. Do not destroy these farm activities. There is no question of health involved in what is done out in the open country, because the conditions there are healthful. The tempo of work out there is slower than in cities.

The freight rates are very much against us out there. I live in a little village of 1,200 people. We do not have any reservoir of labor upon which we can draw in times of peak loads or seasonal activities. We have to go along during the year, and there is no place to which we can go to get extra labor, even by paying time and a half or two times what the common wages are.

There is no question involved as to the necessity for this amendment in the cities, and I would like to be for the bill if I can be. I deny the insinuation the gentleman from the city of Brooklyn made that we are trying to sabotage this bill. That gentleman has no interest in farms or farming. As was said by another, "There has not been a calf born in his district for 50 years." It is not the purpose to sabotage the bill, but if we do support the bill, it will be because it does not destroy our industries. The old bill provided for the things contained in this amendment. Why the change? The present bill takes care of the packing of apples, peaches,

[PAGE 7405]

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

[PAGE 7406]

and pears, but it does not provide for such things as the canning of corn, the canning of tomatoes, or any of the other industries that the little villages depend upon and must depend upon. You folks are going to deny them that right if you vote down this amendment. I know what is in the substitute amendment which has been talked about here. It is merely a red herring drawn across the trail. The 10 weeks spoken of in the committee substitute will not do. It will not rescue us from the situation that you are putting on us. It does not provide for the things that my colleague from Iowa has provided in his amendment.

Mr. BIERMANN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILCHRIST. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. BIERMANN. Did the gentleman in all his experience in Iowa ever hear of any labor man or any labor organization complaining of substandard labor conditions at one of these factories which would be affected by my amendment?

Mr. GILCHRIST. No; not at all. I presented an amendment which is much like but not exactly identical to this one. A gentleman from the American Federation of Labor came to my office and said that they were not opposed to it. Labor is not against it. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. BIERMANN] should be adopted. Having discussed the amendment, I now ask leave to withdraw my own preferential amendment.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GILCHRIST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my preferential motion.

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

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the preferential motion.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, as well as section (g) of the committee amendment, is, in my opinion, entirely too far-reaching. I have no objection to exempting some of the small processors who do home curing and home canning from the provisions of this measure; but may I call the Committee's attention to the fact that in a large number of the smaller cities of our country, especially in the Middle West, there are many so-called small packing houses and canning plants. They are not so small after all. They employ, two, three, or four hundred men and women and process various agricultural products. They kill pork, beef, lamb, and send it to market, as well as can soups, vegetables, and fruits.

The canning plants in these small country towns do not do such canning for home consumption. They do it under contract for some of the large distributors of the country. The distributors from the large cities send out labels, and the commodities are then labeled and sent into interstate commerce to be consumed in the larger cities, and centers of population.

I think all will agree with me that these small canning plants and so-called small packing houses very frequently pay notoriously low wages and work their employees long hours during the season. If we are going to have constructive wage and hour legislation, we should protect the people in the small communities, the people in these one-industry towns and villages, who are obliged to work in these factories, there being no other employment available. I hope therefore the Committee will reject the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, in this connection, and assuming that the committee will reject the Biermann amendment, I ask the chairman of the Committee on Labor, the gentlewoman from New Jersey, what is meant by the committee language in section (g), but not commercial processing? That is not clear in my mind, and I would like to have a better idea of the committee's interpretation of that language which is in parentheses.

Mrs. NORTON. I may say to the gentleman it does not include making fertilizer or any of those commercially processed articles.

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. May I ask the gentlewoman this question: Where there is a small packing house or small canning plant engaged in packing or in canning, what do they do with the commodity? What do they do with the pork and beef that they kill? What do they do with the vegetables they can? It must be for commercial consumption. They cannot eat it all themselves and, generally speaking, these plants are not cooperatives.

Mrs. NORTON. I may say that at the proper time I intend to offer an amendment which I think will take care of the small packing industries.

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. My understanding is that the amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey would affect only the question of overtime, the question of hours.

Mrs. NORTON. Hours; yes.

Mr. HEALEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON of illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HEALEY. The gentleman does not want to pay these people less than 25 cents an hour, does he?

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. Absolutely not. That is the reason I am opposing the amendment offered by the gentleman from· Iowa [Mr. BIERMANN].

Mr. REILLY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. REILLY. How much of the year do the small packing plants run?

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. Some operate 12 months a year, others during the canning season only.

Mr. REILLY. They would not come under this act at all.

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. But that is not clear in my mind. I do not so understand.

Mr. FULLER. The gentleman does not mean to tell us that up in his district and around that territory they pay as low as 25 cents an hour for labor in packing plants, does he?

Mr. THOMPSON of Illinois. Yes; in some cases.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. May I ask if the Chairman has included the 5 minutes consumed by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GILCHRIST] which was on a preferential motion?

The CHAIRMAN. There still remains 5 minutes of the 30 minutes that the Committee agreed to by unanimous consent. Debate has closed on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GILCHRIST].

The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Iowa.

The motion was rejected.

Mr. BEITER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Biermann amendment.

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman. how has the time been divided so far?

The CHAIRMAN. This is an inquiry which the Chair anticipated might be made, and the Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from Iowa to the fact that of the 25 minutes which have been consumed so far, 15 have been consumed by those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa and 10 minutes by those in opposition. Fifteen minutes have been consumed by Members on the Republican side and 10 minutes by Members on the Democratic side. The recognition of the gentleman from New York by the Chair evens the time all around.

Mr. BEITER. Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from New York [Mr. WADSWORTH], I represent a district in which are located small canning factories. First of all, before I take up the gentleman's argument, may I read the substitute proposed by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] for the amendment offered by the

[PAGE 7406]

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

[PAGE 7407]

gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE]. The gentlewoman's amendment reads as follows:

(b) In the case of an employer engaged in the first processing of milk, whey, skimmed milk, or cream into dairy products, or in the ginning and compressing of cotton, or in the processing of cottonseed, the provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to his employees in any place of employment where he is so engaged, and in the case of an employer engaged in the first processing of, or in canning, fresh fish or fresh sea food, or perishable fresh fruits or perishable fresh vegetables, or in handling, slaughtering, or dressing poultry or livestock, the provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply for 10 workweeks in any calendar year to his employees in any place of employment where he is so engaged.

The gentleman from New York: stated that early in June or possibly in the middle of June they would start the canning of peas and keep up this work for about 4 weeks, or until the middle of July. Then there would be a lull in the industry for about 4 weeks, or until the middle of August. From then on they would can corn, carrots, and pssibly tomatoes.

The amendment which is offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey. does not state that tbe exemption shall be for 10 consecutive weeks and by the admission of the gentleman from New York, they work the men 2 hours overtime, or possibly, at the outside, 3 hours overtime only about once a week so you can see that a period of 10 weeks is ample. If the amendment is approved it will give the small canning industries ample time to take up that slack. If it is not 10 consecutive weeks, well and good.

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

Mr. BEITER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. MOTT. I may say to the gentleman that provision would not do the fish canneries on the Pacific coast very much good because they operate almost continually. There are only two or three months in the year when they do not operate, and many of the fish canneries also can vegetabes and fruits.

Mr. BEITER. I am not as familiar with the fish canneries as I am with the fruit and vegetable canneries that the gentleman from New York has cited. What I have tried to point out is that by the gentleman's own figures the 10 weeks' exemption is ample time in which to take care of their commodities.

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

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

Mr. CULKIN. Does the gentleman believe the first processing of dairy products would include casein and dried milk?

Mr. BEITER. Yes; I believe it would.

Mr. CULKIN. I am very fearful of that, I may say to the gentleman.

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

Mr. BEITER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DORSEY. The provisions of this amendment do not require that it be 10 consecutive weeks, but a total of 10 weeks.

Mr. BEITER. I have stated that it would not be 10 consecutive weeks but a total of 10 weeks.

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

Mr. BEITER. I yield to tbe gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BOILEAU. When I took the floor awhile ago I explained the Norton amendment and I did not refer to the cotton ginning. I am pleased to note that the gentlewoman from New Jersey has changed her amendment to exclude cotton ginning along with dairying. I am sure this helps her amendment considerably.

Mr. BEITER. I am sure that will help the proposal of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. RANKIN].

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEITER. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. I hope the gentleman will explain to the House that the Grange amendment is not now before the House, and that this substitute is gradually being enlarged, taking in anything that anybody wants, in order to torpedo the Grange amendment.

Mr. BEITER. I do not believe that is the case.

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

Mr. BELTER. I yield to, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DEMUTH. I wish to remind the gentleman that in my congressional district we have the largest canning and preserving factory in the world, the H. J. Heinz Co. This is an employees' bill, not an employers' bill. I am for the bill. [Applause,]

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

Mr. BEITER. I yield to te gentleman from New York.

Mr. MEAD. Everyone in the House realizes the sincerity of the leaqership of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BOILEAU], who took the floor a moment ago and expressed his attitude in favor of the amendment exempting agriculture which will be offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON]. I really believe those who are in favor of the workers of the country will support that proposal rather than the pending amendment, which has been referred to as an employers' proposition.

Mr. BEITER American industry has demanded and won the right to the discussion on this bill to put a floor under wages and a ceiling over hours for the workers of our country. Compulsory legislation on the part of the Government is most necessary to correct the evils that exist, in the field of labor today. The bill is a liberation for those who spend their days in back-breaking toil at starvation wages. These conditions have been tolerated for years by those who believe the profit system can operate no other way. An aroused public opinion has forced the issue.

The proposal not only sets up a uniform standard of minimum wages and maximum working hours but it also does something definite to eliminate child labor. Recent events have proven that while everybody talks about the horrors of child labor nothing has yet been done to correct it. The proposed amendment to the Constitution which would permit the Congress to legislate definitely against child labor has not been approved by a sufficient number of States to ratify it. The New York State Assembly some few months ago adopted a resolution petitioning Congress to regulate or forbid interstate commerce in merchandise manufactured by child labor. But this same body has not ratified the amendment to the Constitution which would give Congress specific power in this matter. Unless we take action such resolutions are just more "talk" and brings us right back to where we started—with no definite action being taken to stop this heartbreaking exploitation of childhood.

The present bill presents anotber approach to the solution of this vexing problem.

Our problem here is definite. The only possible solution is a uniform national law improving the social and economic conditions of our workers with decent wages and humane working hours and definitely eliminating conditions which permit children to toil.

Employers have advanced many reasons why this bill should not be enacted into law but none of them, so far as I can see, are sound or convincing. There are some employers, I am glad to relate, who do not take this stand and want to stop the cheap-labor racket which is attracting many industries to the South. These employers know and appreciate that unfair competition in the wages of employees leads to other evils besides underpaid and undernourished workers.

A majority of the House membership bas shown that they want the bill brought here for debate—let us not waste time in trying to amend it too much. The last time we tried to pass a wage-hour bill it was amended to its death. Let us not make the same mistake again. We have a good bill and other perfecting amendments, if needed, can be undertaken as experience and exl)ediency dictate.

Those who are genuinely interested in the welfare of our workers and who are sincere in their desire to outlaw child labor will vote for this bill. Humanity demands it.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BIERMANN) there were—ayes 130, noes 109.

[PAGE 7407]

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

[PAGE 7408]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mrs. NORTON and Mr. BIERMANN.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 159, noes 134.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MAAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MAAs: On page 49, line 23, after the word "thereof", insert "and shall include the Federal Government in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, except the Army, Navy, and the Coast Guard."

Mr. MAAS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that when the Government urges or imposes upon the people any progressive, forward step it should itself set the example and lead such a movement. The effect of this amendment merely applies the same protection to Government workers as will be accorded to those in industries.

There are numerous cases where Federal employees work in excess of 40 hours, and there are too many cases where they work for less than 40 cents an hour. The amendment, by including the legislative employees, applies the principle to the Government itself, and I believe if we want industry to follow these progressive movements we should take the first step and set the example. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. SHORT) there were—ayes 33, noes 141.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: Page 50, insert after line 24, the following new paragraph:

"'Fishery industry' includes all fishery operations in preparing to catch or take, or in catching, taking, harvesting, cultivating, or farming, any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, and other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life, including going to and returning from such work; and loading, unloading, or packing such products for shipment, and the propagating, processing, marketing, freezing, curing, canning, storing, and distribution of the above products and byproducts thereof."

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is adopted there will be offered in section 11 an amendment containing the necessary exemptions with reference to this industry.

It will be noted that in this particular section agriculture is defined. I was interested in the remarks of the prime mover of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts, in which he said that obviously agriculture should be exempted. By all the rules that apply to agriculture, and then some, the fishery industry ought to be exempted. If there is any industry under heaven that cannot measure its operations by the rules that are applicable under this bill, it is the fishery industry. It is as varied in the different sections of the country, almost, as the different fishing sections themselves, some by reason of participation in the fish caught, some by reason of wages, as well as various other operations. The industry is confronted not alone by the vicissitudes that apply to agriculture, but also wind, wave, action of the tide, fog. and various other conditions that must, necessarily, determine operations in the fishery industry. You may legislate all you please as to number of hours, but the fish that are running will not obey your legislation. [Laughter.] You may legislate all you please with respect to any provision in this bill, but when it comes to fogs and waves and wind and tide you are dealing with a situation that is far beyond this bill or the operation of any bill. You are dealing, when you deal with the fishery industry, with a condition that needs assistance, that needs help, and has received just about as little as any industry in the country.

When the tariff law was written, fish were not being imported in the large quantities that they are now and fish were largely on the free list. The result is that we today are confronted not alone with various vicissitudes in this country, but we are confronted with Japanese fish coming into this country, and some taken practically from our own borders.

I ask you, in defense of this great interest, that it be given the same benefits that are given to agriculture. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I shall take just a moment or two to say that the purpose of the gentleman's amendment is already taken care of in section 11, where there is exemption of employees in the taking of fish, seafood, and sponges; also, in the amendment that the committee will offer on page 53, there will be a further exemption.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. BLAND. The exemption as to taking of fish, seafood, and sponges is a minor operation in fisheries, and only part of it, and shows that the committee evidently did not have a full contemplation of the fishery industry,

Mrs. NORTON. We feel that we have taken care of all that is necessary in that particular business. I ask for a vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.

The question was taken; and there were on a division (demanded by Mr. BLAND)—ayes 101, noes 128.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment proposed by Mr. CRAWFORD: Page 52, after line 14, insert a new subsection, as follows:

"(n) 'Wage' paid to an employee includes the reasonable cost as determined by the Secretary, to the employer of such employee of furnishing such employee board, lodging, housing, or other facilities, if such board, lodging, housing, or other facilities are customarily furnished by such employer to his employee free of charge."

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, we face a practical fact that where board, lodging, or housing is furnished, unless it is taken into consideration, charges for that service will be increased in proportion to the amount of the wage increase. This amendment leaves the matter entirely up to the Secretary of Labor, and in behalf of the employee this type of relationship should be brought into the definition part of the act and made a part of the act. Everyone understands it; there is no need of taking a lot of time to discuss it or explain it. In the coal industry, and in many other industries, there is this realistic thing to deal with, and I think it must have been an oversight on the part of the committee in leaving that out of the definition portion of the bill.

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

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes.

Mr. O'MALLEY. I think the gentleman has in mind the lumber industry, where the workers in the forest are charged for board and lodging and it is placed against their wages.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes; a number of industries have that same problem.

Mr. O'MALLEY. And does the gentleman's amendment leave it to the Secretary to determine what a fair charge shall be?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes; it leaves it entirely in the hands of the Secretary. There is no way in which it will operate against the employee.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman. I offer the following amendment which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CooLEY: Page 50, line 20, after the word "farmer", insert "all persons employed in connection with the sale of leaf tobacco in auction warehouses."

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman. when the last wage and hour bill was before the House at the extraordinary session last fall, an amendment similar to the amendment that I have just offered was accepted by the chairman of the Committee on Labor. I hope that the amendment may be accepted by the Labor Committee at the present time. and if

[PAGE 7408]

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

[PAGE 7409]

not, that it may be adopted by the House. It is applicable only to those persons employed in auction warehouses in which leaf tobacco is sold. I cannot in the brief space of time at my disposal attempt to discuss in detail the operations of an auction warehouse but I call the attention of Members to the fact that auction warehouses are operated for the benefit of the farmers and in auction warehouses the farmer sells his tobacco. In the State of Georgia the entire leaf-tobacco crop is marketed in the brief space of 3 weeks. In North Carolina, Virginia, and in other sections of the country it takes longer, perhaps 3 or 4 months, but the point I wish to impress upon the House is that it is necessary for warehouses to remain open 24 hours each day. The farmers bring their tobacco in at every hour of the night, and these employees are permitted to sleep and loaf on the job until a farmer arrives with his tobacco. The tobacco is then taken from the truck or wagon and placed on the auction warehouse fioor. There is not sufficient labor available at all times to operate on regular shifts of 8 hours each.

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

Mr. COOLEY. I yield.

Mr. SIROVICH. Who pays the wages of the man at the warehouse, the owner of the warehouse or the farmer who brings the tobacco?

Mr. COOLEY. The man who owns the warehouse pays the wages of the person assisting the farmer in unloading his tobacco.

r. SIROVICH. And the owner of the warehouse gets a commission on the sale of the tobacco.

Mr. COOLEY. The farmer pays the warehouseman a commission for services, which includes the services of the auctioneer.

Mr. SIROVICH. Why should the warehousemen be exempted?

Mr. COOLEY. The fact is that if these people are not made available by the warehouseman the farmer must unload his own tobacco and perform his own labor. The warehousemen heretofore have rendered that service for the farmer, and I am afraid that if they are put under this bill they will cease furnishing the service. Many of the farmers come in as early as 2, 3, or 4 o'clock in the morning, tired and exhausted; and if they do not have these laborers to help them unload their trucks or wagons, they will have to do it themselves. I hope the Members of the House will see the wisdom of putting this exemption in this bill.

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

Mr. COOLEY. I yield.

Mr. CREAL. Technically, does the gentleman think that that is an operation that becomes a part of interstate commerce? Does that tobacco partake of the nature of interstate commerce until it has reached the floor and been sold? Is not the warehouseman before that time the agent of the seller?

Mr. COOLEY. I am inclined to think the gentleman is correct; but to remove all question of doubt, I think this exemption should be included in the bill.

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. COOLEY. I yield.

Mr. CREAL. The warehouseman charges 75 cents a hundred for handling this tobacco, and part of the service he renders is to help the farmer unload. If through the operation of this bill that charge were increased, would not the discrimination be against the farmer just the same as it is in the case of freight rates?

Mr. COOLEY. He would have to pay the bill or perform the labor himself. In all sincerity, I impress upon the House the desirability of this amendment. I certainly hope it will be adopted as it was before. It is applicable only to a very few people. It will work a great hardship upon the farmers 1f they are forced to place their own tobacco on the :floors of these auction warehouses.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this legislation is not only to provide a minimum wage and maximum hours, but also to put more people to work; put more people to work is as important as wages and hours.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. No; I refuse to yield at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to keep additional people from going to work. Here is a concrete example where if this legislation is put into effect, those who operate the tobacco warehouses will not be able to keep people on the job 24 hours a day, as the gentleman who offered the amendment admitted they do. He says they sleep there and that when the farmer comes he wakes them up and they help the farmer unload his trucks. What we want to do by this legislation is to require that when they work 24 hours a day they have three sets of employees, split their work up into three shifts of 8 hours each.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield, because I referred to the gentleman's speech.

Mr. COOLEY. I think the gentleman misunderstood me. I made the statement that the warehouses of necessity remained open 24 hours of the day and in many instances the warehousemen kept their employees there. They were not actually working through the 24 hours. If a farmer came in at 2 o'clock in the morning, he would have to call on the warehouseman to help him unload.

Mr. COCHRAN. I understood the gentleman perfectly. They keep their warehouses open 24 hours a day and only want to employ one set of men. The retailer keeps his place open, the manufacturer keeps his place open, and they will be required to meet the provisions of the bill. Why not your tobacco men? I repeat, what we want to do is to put more people to work in this country, just as much as we desire to have a minimum wage and maximum hours; that is what we are trying to do and propose to do.

To do this we provide a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour for the first year, increasing at the rate of 5 cents an hour yearly until the wage scale will be 40 cents an hour. Further provisions are made for a 44-hour week at the outset, reduced to 42 hours the second year, and then to 40 hours a week thereafter. The minimum wage for a 44-hour week is $11 a week while 4 years after the passage of the act it will be $16 a week for 40 hours. All I ask is for those who oppose this bill to read its provisions that relate to minimum wages and maximum hours, stop and think for a moment, and then publicly let the people in their community know their opposition. Let them put themselves in the place of the workers we seek to help and see how soon they would change their views. We are not only doing something for the employee but we are also assisting the employer, because the increase in wages means an increase in buying power which brings better business. Who will contend that anyone receiving such a wage will be able to save any portion thereof for a rainy day? In setting this standard we also better the condition of the housewife and the children. Deprived of proper necessities of life today they are undernourished, not properly clad, and millions live in homes which not one person who opposes the measure would even care to enter.

We strike at those who for years have exploited their labor; at those who furnish unfair competition by selling their products at a price far below the producer who pays his employees a fair wage.

Say what you like about the National Recovery Act but the fact remains that act was beneficial to employees and to business, large and small. It was the chiseler, the sweatshop owner, and the like, that sought its destruction. This bill seeks to restore in part the N. R. A. Those who care nothing about a reasonable standard of living for others so long as they can reap a harvest in dollars, those who deny a reasonable share of the profits of their industry to the men and women who are responsible

[PAGE 7409]

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

[PAGE 7410]

for those profits and those who would pay themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages and bonuses annually, at the same time paying starvation wages to their employees, for selfish reasons oppose this legislation.

With millions of our citizens out of employment because of labor-saving and labor-displacing devices, are we to remain silent and not try and do something to put them back to work? Faced with another emergency—you and I know it is an emergency—I am not in favor of following the do-nothing policy of the Hoover administration. Either industry can open its doors to those who must have employment, or the Federal Government must continue to feed those unfortunate citizens and their families.

What did Chief Justice Hughes say in his opinion on the State minimum-wage law last year? Let me quote from his opinion, in part:

The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well-being but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met.

In plain words, Chief Justice Hughes points out it is the community that cares for its citizens when exploiters of labor refuse to do so. Is it not the taxpayers that pay the expenses of the community? Therefore, if in the end it is necessary to secure money for the upkeep of Government from those best able to pay, be it National, State, or local, is it not far better for the businessmen to take care of the worker in a way that will bring him labor for his money, rather than by taking care of the worker through the imposition of taxes?

We are not living in a world such as you and I knew as boys, nor in a world such as the forefathers knew. No business could exist today as it existed then. The standard of living of that day is not the standard of living today. We must meet the changed conditions. This is a step in the right direction. The principle of minimum wages and maximum hours is sound. No individual or corporation will suffer in the end by this legislation but, on the contrary, the millions of underpaid and overworked will benefit by a better standard of living, and as their purchasing power is increased the money will eventually be returned to the distributor and the producer.

I predict if this law is properly administered as Congress intends that it should be administered those who condemn it now will be highest in its praise.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the friends of this legislation that if they have kept their eyes open today and watched who voted for amendments they have found that it is the enemies of the legislation that attempt to adopt amendments. Those who voted for amendments, who refused to vote for consideration of the bill, will not on final roll call be found voting in favor of this measure, no matter what amendments are adopted. Let no one tell you that they will. Those who yesterday voted against considering this bill today voted against this committee on practically every vote that we have taken.

I say to the friends of this legislation: "Stay here; stand by your committee. Let us pass this legislation and not emasculate it as the enemies of the bill are trying to do."

This amendment should be voted down. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment do now close.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY].

The amendment was rejected.

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

Mr. Chairman, the President, on January 3, 1938, in his message to Congress stated that "no reasonable persons seeks a complete uniformity in wages in every part of the United States." This statement should be true. Unfortunately, there are those in the House under the President's statement who will be placed in the category of the unreasonable, because they insist that wages be uniform and without distinction between the efficient or inefficient, male or female, old or young, skilled, semiskilled, or unskilled, and regardless of whether industries or factories are small or great, rich or poor, highly mechanized, or not.

The avowed purpose of this bill is the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce among several States. It really classifies all laborers as unskilled because no provision is made for skilled or semiskilled labor. No minimum wage is set for semiskilled labor or for skilled labor, and no protection is given to such labor under this law. On the contrary, they are left as the prey of chiselers and exploiters of labor, because the great majority of them are unorganized and without protection. Necessarily, the unskilled laborer under this bill will profit at the expense of the semiskilled and skilled laborer, and such a law is unfair and unjust. Instead of protecting the efficient and those who have diligently applied themselves to learning their trades, they will be required to bear the extra cost burdens of the inefficient, untrained, and unskilled.

This bill involves the principles of price fixing. If we can fix the minimum price of labor in industry, then we can fix the minimum price for all farm products in interstate or foreign commerce. It necessarily follows, then, that Congress can fix the wages of money and salaries of all people engaged in any business in interstate commerce, and can fix the wages of owners of industry by limiting their profits.

No hearings have been held on this bill. Those behind the bill object to any amendments, and refuse to consider or support a comprehensive bill that will do justice to all laborers, farmers, consumers, and owners of industry. We are entering a wide field of Federal legislation, revolutionary in character, never before attempted, under a granted power only of regulation of interstate commerce as set forth in section 1, article I, of the Constitution. This bill, if constitutional, extends the interstate commerce clause to such an extent that Congress will have the absolute power, directly or indirectly, to control all labor, industry, and commerce in the United States. Whether such an extension of Federal legislation, in its attempt to regulate interstate commerce. will result in good or evil remains to be seen.

Certainly, this bill, as now proposed, will centralize and result in centralizing all labor and industry in an official or agency of the Federal Government. The ostensible object of the bill, that is, to regulate and eliminate substandard conditions of labor in interstate commerce, will meet wholehearted approval of all. It is only when laborers, farmers, and owners of industry receive a fair wage and fair price for their products that the country can prosper.

I admit that in the great industrial centers of the Nation there exists today a most desperate state of affairs. The present plight of the unemployed in such industrial centers is due to a lack of jobs, which is the same trouble as in my district. It is not due necessarily to the wage paid. I am not one of those who believes a laborer should receive all of nothing rather than part of something. I am not one of those who believes it better for a laborer and his family to starve if he cannot get the same wage that is paid in New York City, Chicago, or Philadelphia. I am not one of those who believes that if the small factories cannot pay the same wage and at same time pay higher freight rate than large $5,000,000, $10,000,000, or $100,000,000 plants, that such small factories should be put out of business, and their labor permitted to starve. I am not one of those who believes it is better to have a few large industrial plants, monopolies, rather than to have a large number of small factories scattered here, there, and yonder throughout the country. I shall not be misled by those who seek to build up industry in their sections at expense of labor and others in my section. I do not believe in cheap labor. I believe the laborer is worthy of his hire and entitled to a fair wage for his

[PAGE 7410]

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

[PAGE 7411]

work, and will support any bill to that end, but I cannot obtain my consent to support a bill which will make fish of one and fowl of another.

What consideration in this bill are you giving to the man who is unable to obtain a job? He is honest and deserving and has, probably, a wife and children who need to live. You are casting him aside for the benefit of more fortunate ones. You are saying to him, "You and your family cannot live on $40 per month, and therefore it is better that you should die of starvation than that you should receive less than $44 per week." You are saying to the skilled and semiskilled, unorganized laborers, "We will leave you to bear, at your expense, the extra burden and discriminatory freight rate of the industry in which you work."

A great deal has been said about southern labor. Unnatural tears have been shed in behalf of southern labor. Yet I do not forget that during the year 1937 $214,000,000 were contributed by the Government to relief of people in the State of Pennsylvania, while only $211,000,000 were contributed to all the Southern States. I listened yesterday to one of the gentlemen from Massachusetts, who, in a complaining tone, mentioned that on his trip through the South he asked the manager of one plant whether he had any aliens working in the plant. The manager replied, "Yes; we have two, but they are going to leave today." I praise that manager and take the liberty of saying that no aliens, who have not filed declaration of intention to become citizens of this country, will be welcome in my State to take the place of our labor. The alien problem is causing a great deal of the trouble in the East and the North; and so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to vote to return every one who does not file application to become a citizen to their homelands and that without delay.

It is freely admitted by some distinguished and disturbed Congressmen from the North and East that the real object of this bill is to prevent industry from being further decentralized and seeking better and more peaceful climes in the South. The truth is, industry cannot be blamed for seeking a section of the country where labor, power, and raw material are plentiful. We welcome industry, but shall expect industry to pay a fair and reasonable wage.

One of the reasons why the bill is unfair, unjust, and discriminatory against about four-fifths of the United States and its citizens is failure to take into consideration the unequal freight rates in various sections of the country. Eastern and northern industry has advantages over southern, western, and midwestern industry due to higher freight rates in the latter sections. If this advantage can be held, and the same wage imposed, then no industry can exist, much less compete with northern and eastern industry. The effect of this bill will be to destroy present industry in great sections of the country, and prevent the obtaining of any new industry.

Only recently, at Birmingham, Ala., representatives from various Southern States met and appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission at a hearing there in order to bring about more nearly a parity of freight rates for the South.

The New England States and Governors of those States bad a great number of lawyers at Birmingham vigorously opposing fair or parity freight rates for the South. So one needs to watch reformers as they loll on their tongues, parrotlike, the expressions "slave labor," "sweatshops," and so forth. When I hear the voice of Jacob and see the hand of Esau, I know enough to beware.

The New England States have been getting the benefit of tariff for many years at the cost of the South and West. We have been paying that tariff on the fabricated products of the East in order to help eastern labor and industry. The result is most industry, as well as capital, is centralized in that section. I might mention also in this connection that the industry in the Northeast imported for many years alien labor, exploited that labor for many years at the expense of southern and western labor, and now is willing and anxious to further sacrifice southern industry, southern labor, and consumers for their benefit.

I wish to call your attention to the Fifteenth United States Census of Manufacturers. This census shows there are something over 200,000 small factories in the United States, and about 20,000 large factories. That census shows a laborer in a factory which produces products annually of the value of $1,000,000 or more, by use of machinery, greater capital, larger purchases, and greater coordination of effort, produces from two to four times as much as a man doing the same kind of work in a small factory with an output amounting to $50,000 or less per year. I ask, then, how a small plant can pay the same wages as a million-dollar plant, and then, in addition, pay higher freight rates? It occurs to me the only plants that can survive will be the large plants.

The President recently sent a message to Congress on monopolies and requested legislation to prevent monopolies. This bill, in my opinion, will create, centralize, and sectionalize industry in the New England States, and further protect and foster monopolies. I hear Members on the floor of the House and in the cloak rooms say that all small businesses, if unable to pay what they call a living wage, should be destroyed. But they lose sight of the fact that what is a living wage in one section is not in another. If a living wage is to be your guide, then what is a living wage? This bill purports to define it, but I disagree with the definition. It falls far too short. They prefer that he receive no wage at all unless he receives the same wages as paid by a large million-dollar factory. By their votes and their efforts, they are against all southern, western, and midwestern labor and industry, and favor monopolies and million-dollar corporations. They are against the farmers and the consumers likewise, because any aid to the large industrial corporations, or advantage to them given, and to their labor, will be at the expense of farmers and other laborers and consumers.

It is well known that the large industrial corporations and monopolies exist mostly in the New England States. No telegram comes to any Member of Congress from them opposing this bill; no, not one. All monopolists, by their silence, favor it and are not openly advocating it because of fear of arousing some to a sense of its selfishness and injustice. They agree with certain Members of Congress who say, "Let the small industrial plants perish." I do not blame monopolists and large mechanized factories for not opposing this bill. There is method in their inaction and silence, and we see no telegrams or propaganda flooding Congressmen's offices.

On May 4 Congressman FISH, of New York, on the floor of the House, stated:

I am not blaming any friends from Tennessee and Kentucky; I am not blaming Democrats of the South who may have different issues in those States confronting them. I admit that every northern Democrat from an industrial city will vote for this bill.

Mr. FisH then added:

I have heard no demand from capital or industry against it; I do not know a single big industrial corporation in America that is opposing this bill.

Mr. FISH then begged all Republican Congressmen to support the bill.

This bill will destroy jobs, because large industrial corporations with millions of capital will use more and more machinery. This cannot happen in small factories. High-speed machines in large factories will be further mechanized for replacement of men. To be sure, no new jobs will be created by this bill. The only real effect of same will be to destroy jobs in great sections of our country and increase jobs in new and large monopolistic industries and centers in New England. After all, I know that one section of our great country cannot and should not prosper on the ruins of labor and industry in other sections. The large pulp mills, oil companies, and railroads are not affected by this bill. The bill also excludes from its protection farmers, retail clerks, horticulturists, livestock raisers, poultry people, packers of agricultural products of different kinds, outside salesmen, seamen on merchants' ships, those

[PAGE 7411]

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

[PAGE 7412]

engaged in taking fish and sea foods. In fact, the bill excludes every worker in intrastate business of all kinds, such as work in laundries and other local factories and business not doing an interstate business. Why burden all these people with excess cost of their needs by fixing a set wage and lesser hours accruing to benefit of large industrial establishments and their labor in New England States? This bill singles out interstate laborers as a class to give them higher wages and shorter hours. All intrastate laborers are given nothing whatever. They are left with the same wage, same hours, and are forced to help bear the burdens of increased wages, and so forth, of laborers in interstate commerce. We pay no million-dollar bonuses to capitalists and industrialists in the South. Our industry is all of small capital.

We pay no $100,000, $250,000, $500,000, and $1,000,000 salaries in the South. We know that such salaries and bonuses are paid in hundreds and hundreds of these large concerns in the North and East. This bill will enable such concerns to maintain and increase such salaries at the expense of southern and western industry and labor.

Pay rolls are met with money from bank deposits. They cannot be met without money. These pay rolls are met from demand deposits in our banks. The State of New York has around $750 demand deposits for each man, woman, and child in that State. In our State, and many other Southern, Western, and Midwestern States, we have around $50 in demand deposits per capita. In other words, in New York State there is available for labor 15 times as much money per capita as there is in Arkansas. In the State of New Jersey there is seven times as much money available for labor in demand deposits as in Arkansas. In Connecticut, where the population is 250,000 less than in Arkansas, the demand deposits are two and a half times that of Arkansas.

No Southern State has attained anywhere near as high per capita demand deposits as these New England industrial States. American wages must, of necessity, vary widely from State to State becaus.e of this great difference in available money for pay rolls. Wages are governed by the amount of money available and by the conditions existing at the particular plant. These discriminations and inequalities cannot be put upon the same basis, and a uniform wage, if attempted, will be impractical.

The shoes and socks on your feet, hat on your head, clothing you wear, belt around your body, buckle, watch, chain, tie, knife in your pocket, fountain pen you use, pencil with which you write, glasses, if any, you wear, are almost all made in the East and North. Go into your home, look at the glass windows, carpets, or rugs on the floors; sewing machine, radio, electric-light fixtures, lamps, clock on the mantel, trunks in the corner, bed springs, bedsteads, chairs, telephone, stove, gas heaters, electrical equipment, tables, kitchen utensils, knives, forks, plates, linens of all kinds, gun in the rack, shells therefor, fishing rods, cabinets, books in the library, auto in garage and see if any of them are made in Arkansas or in your State. The same would apply to the tools, harness, equipment, and machinery of the farmer. In truth, the same applies to all the machinery and equipment of the few factories we have.

In Arkansas we have coal, gas, oil, waterpower, manpower, and electrical power in great abundance. We have great forests with fine timbers. We have finest clays in America, bauxite, other minerals, and raw materials. We produce a million and a half bales of cotton per year and manufacture less than five thousand of it. We have some of the finest labor, eager and anxious for a job. Many other States are similarly equipped.

I am just wondering why one should vote to raise the price of what farmers, laborers, and other southern and western consumers have to buy in order to further help New England capital, monopolies, and large industrial corporations and their labor in the New England States. Why should one vote to further handicap, if not destroy, labor and industry of his own section to build up and further centralize and monopolize industry in the North and East? Why vote to further cripple his schools in obtaining revenues? Why vote to foreclose all chance to obtain new industries for our southern and western labor and revenue for our schools?

The children in New England and certain Northern States receive on an average $75 each per year for school purposes; while in the South, due to lack of taxes on industry, our children have an average of about $25. Why should one vote against giving his own people a fair opportunity to get an education and obtain jobs in factories and increase school facilities of children of the people he represents? Why should one vote to impose further burdens and excess cost of manufactured products upon the fathers and mothers of these children in order to aid the capitalists, monopolists, and large industrial corporations in the New England States?

After all, why deceive labor? Why put him in, restrict, and accustom him to this low wage and hour scale? If he has a family, a laborer cannot live in a large city on 25 cents per hour. Certainly, he cannot have any of the conveniences and luxuries of modern inventions anywhere on such a wage. Why not show some courage and work for a wage that will enable him to have not only the necessities but some of the luxuries? Furthermore, in some cities and sections rents and living expenses are higher than in other sections. In some cities educational and other advantages are more and better than in others. In some cities workers are compelled to pay transportation to reach their work. Under this bill, instead of decentralizing industry and scattering it over the country so that all may have a chance, it will centralize industry. Electricity is the motive power of industry today and can be transmitted to where the raw materials, resources, and laborers are instead of transporting the raw material. Under this bill laborers will be forced to migrate in large numbers to the large industrial cities, where frightful labor conditions already exist. Then, I hesitate to contemplate the result.

Again, this fixing of labor's minimum wage cannot but please great capitalists and financiers of America. They control these large industrial plants, railroads, and monopolies. They control the banking facilities. I can assure you that at one meeting and one stroke of the pen these financiers can make 25 cents an hour equal in purchasing power to 15 cents. They can make 40 cents per hour equal 25 cents. This can result by changing the purchasing power of the dollar. The slightest lowering of the discount rate by the bankers can lower and destroy this fixed wage. The lowering of bank-reserve requirements will have the same tendency and effect. The slightest expansion of the currency or credit will lower this fixed wage. Nothing will please the great financiers of America more than to place the American laborer in a strait jacket of a fixed wage, variable at their will.

There is no stability in the value of a dollar, nor of its purchasing power, in America today. Until such purchasing power of the dollar be more nearly stabilized there can be no fixed wage and we shall continue to have depressions. In truth, this bill turns over to the great northern capitalists, financiers, and industrialists the fixing of labor's wage through their control of credit and money. This bill and the principle involved surrender to the financiers and large industrialists labor's rights to contract and bargain. Why not remedy first the fundamental cause of our economic troubles? Our whole trouble is caused by undue expansion or contraction of money and credit, instability of purchasing and debt-paying power of the dollar.

I submit, if we are going to fix a minimum wage for some laborers, then fix minimum wage or price for the farmer and his products. Why not help him and his family, because his sweatshop requires as much hard work, perspiration, and longer hours than any other sweatshop in this country? If the farmer be given a fair price, the industrial laborer will prosper. If Congress, under this law, can fix minimum wage, it can fix maximum wage and price on all things in interstate commerce or having to do with interstate commerce. If Congress can fix minimum or maximum wage under this bill, then it can fix minimum or maximum salaries for all business in the United States. I submit that when all this great business is turned over to some bureau or secretary in Washington to manage, to

[PAGE 7412]

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

[PAGE 7413]

define what is and is not interstate commerce, then we have destroyed individual rights, collective rights, State rights, constitutional rights, and substituted the dictates of man for law and the Constitution.

In some sections of this country we have droughts, floods, calamities, and other sectional crop failures and disasters. Yet under this bill, as to wages, no relief can be given. The same wage must be paid as in the great, rich industrial sections of North and East. When it comes to W. P. A. or P. W. A. jobs or relief in the South, what is the attitude of these humanitarians who shed glycerin tears so copiously for southern labor? Well, they give him just about one-half. Various advocates of this bill argue, in effect, that the southern laborer out of a job and hungry is less hungry than a New York or Pennsylvania laborer, and that the one should receive $21 per month, while the other $40 to $55 per month. They argue that it is a kind of dole or charity out of Federal Treasury anyway, and we will penalize him because of his helplessness. This bill now before us contemplates a worse discrimination even than that.

It is my opinion that the title of this bill should read, "A bill for an act in the interest of and to help create more monopolies, aid the financiers and controllers of large industry, place labor and its fixed wage under their control through control of money and credit, regiment labor and industry, take away from labor the right to contract individually or collectively, cripple, if not destroy, present southern labor and industry, prevent further industry locating in South, West, or Midwest, deprive citizens in four-fifths of the country of jobs and opportunities for jobs, further deprive the children of southern, western, and midwestern parents of educational advantages, fair share of industrial taxes and wealth, occupational OPportunities, and for other discriminatory purposes."

Arkansas already has one of the best child-labor laws in the Union, as well as protective laws for women in industry.

The real remedy for our labor situation, for industry, for farmers, and all the people is to bring down the value of the gold dollar to the purchasing value of the dollar of 1926, and to maintain and stabilize that parity or basis, and then legislate wages. The currencies of other nations are disorganized, disarranged, out of kelter, and we suffer because still tied to gold on an unfair ratio or basis as to dollar value.

I submit it is impossible to pass a fair, honest, and non-discriminatory labor bill in this Congress now or to amend the one before us. Such a bill I would support.

We have some bad labor conditions in the South, and you have worse conditions in the North and the Northeast; but it is not wise to kill a patient in order to cure him.

I do not believe that the President can approve this bill because he says that, "No reasonable person seeks a complete uniformity in wages in every part of the United States." I believe in the President's great humanitarian objects. I do not believe he would knowingly commit an injustice or perpetrate a wrong upon any section of this country for the benefit of another section of the country. I do not believe he will agree to a bill that will foster monopolies by giving them an advantage at the expense of small industrial plants of this Nation. Some of the rest of you may defy him; but at all times, on all votes that I may cast in this House, I shall be reasonable and make every e1Iort to be just and fair to all, and within the Constitution, which I swore to uphold, protect, and defend.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to answer very briefly the remarks made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. COCHRAN], who said that the Members voting for these amendments would be the ones who would vote against the bill on the final call. May I say to the gentleman that his eyesight is either bad or he is very careless in observation or reckless in statement. He made the statement that he saw the Members file by here and vote for these amendments. May I say to him if he stands here long enough he will see me vote for this bill as I voted for the last bill. There are other Members here who will do the same thing, and I can name them. He wants to make it appear that the gentleman who offered this last amendment did so at the suggestion of the enemies of this legislation. You are undertaking to legislate here, but you refuse to take out something that you have no jurisdiction to assume control over.

When the tobacco goes on to the floor of the auction house, it is under the control of the agent of the seller at all times until it finally passes over the auction block. When the seller accepts the bid, the tobacco then passes out of the control of the seller or his agent and not until that moment does it become a part of interstate commerce. The grower may reject the price and during all this time the labor that has been performed on this tobacco by the warehouse is charged up to the farmer. I do not care what the legislation provides or what the Secretary of Agriculture may say, you cannot control that part of the labor which takes the tobacco from the wagon and unloads it onto the warehouse floor, or that labor which is used in putting it into baskets. All of this labor has been performed before the man buys the tobacco and places it in interstate commerce.

The theory may be that the employer is keeping more than his share of profits, that he ought to give more to the man who does the work. That man is paid by the tobacco grower just the same as if the farmer paid it out of his own pocket. It affects the price charged for selling the tobacco.

You expect eventually to move that man who unloads up to 40 cents an hour, but he will be paid by whom? He will be paid just the same as if the farmer reached down into his pocket and handed him that money. Of course, the farmer raises his tobacco some years for 10 cents an hour. Now, who ever heard of a man growing his own crop at 10 cents an hour and giving another man 40 cents an hour to unload it under the shelter of a roof, while the farmer in growing the tobacco worked under the blazing sun all day? This man on the inside will get 40 cents an hour out of the pocket of the tobacco grower.

Mr. Chairman, I think the committee made a serious mistake in refusing to agree to the amendment. I think the gentleman from MissoUri made an unwise, unjust, and inaccurate accusation when he said that the gentlemen who offered amendments are opposed to the bill. There is not a rule on God's green earth that is not subject to an exception, except the Golden Rule. The law of gravitation is affected by the winds and other conditions. I do not believe the Labor Committee considers itself to be 100 percent perfect in everything, and there may be some things overlooked by them for the good of this bill after passage.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. LORD: Page 50, line 3, after the word "employee", strike out the balance of line 3 and all of lines 4, 5, and 6.

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I have offered would compel the Government, the States, and labor organizations to come under the same rules that the farmers and manufacturers come under. This section of the bill exempts the Federal Government, labor organizations, and certain others. The Federal Government is now employing in its hospitals people who work as long as 66 hours a week. I think I can safely say that every o:ffice in the Government here in Washington works their employees over hours and does not pay overtime for the work. One person told me he had worked 1,000 hours overtime and did not get one cent of pay for it. I think it would be hard to find an industry in which anyone is working 66 hours a week.

[PAGE 7413]

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

[PAGE 7414]

If we want to be consistent as a government, if we want to propose legislation providing for 40 hours a week, the Government itself should be included. We should not insist on Government employees wt>rking 66 hours a week for 25 cents an hour.

It is said that labor is back of this legislation. If labor wants this legislation, there is no reason why they should not come under the same regulations as industry.

I believe this should prevail, and we should not make fish of one and flesh of another.

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

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

Mr. SffiOVICH. Will the gentleman be kind enough to tell the House in what department of Government men and women work 66 hours a week?

Mr. LORD. In the veterans' hospitals. I could tell you of many places where they work that long.

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

Mr. LORD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Does the gentleman know of any labor organization that is employing anybody for less than 25 cents an hotir and working them for more than 44 hours a week?

Mr. LORD. If they are, why should they ask to be exempted?

Mr. O'MALLEY. I do not know that they ask to be exempted.

Mr. LORD. If the gentleman will read the section which I am seeking to amend he will find they do.

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

Mr. LORD. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GIFFORD. Would the gentleman's amendment cover goods produced by convicts in prisons, which, of course, are under the control of the State? If the gentleman will permit, may I ask the chairman of the Committee on Labor if the committee has not an amendment to offer covering prison-made labor?

Mrs. NORTON. No; we have no such amendment. This is a wage and hour bill.

Mr. GIFFORD. I wish the House would consider whether or not the gentleman's amendment would take care of prison labor. When the old bill was before us prison labor was taken care of by a committee amendment. I am greatly surprised that the committee or someone else does not offer that amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. The committee considered that question and decided not to offer any amendment on that feature.

Mr. LORD. This amendment applies to States and subdivisions, and they will take care of the prisons, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has suggested. I do contend and want to repeat that the Government should set the good example of wages and hours. It is unreasonable to ask attendants and nurses in hospitals to work 66 hours a week for 25 cents an hour and no overtime or increased pay for overtime. It is unfair and unjust to ask employees in nearly if not all departments to work overtime day after day with no pay for the work.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. LORD].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, that just shows the inconsistency of the Congress. That is all I want to say.

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer another amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair feels that in the 15 minutes remaining other Members who have amendments to offer should be recognized by the Chair. If there is any time remaining the Chair will be pleased to recognize the gentleman from New York.

The gentleman from North Carolina offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. LORD. I objected to the request to close debate in 15 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may state that the Chair heard no objection.

Mr. LORD. It was noisy in the Chamber, of course. However, I have a very important amendment the House will adopt before we adjourn, and I hope the Chair will bear with me and hear me on that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. If the time is not exhausted before then the Chair will endeavor to recognize the gentleman from New York, but the Chair feels that since a limitation of 15 minutes has been placed on debate the Chair should not recognize one Member to offer two amendments consecutively.

The gentleman from North Carolina offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. KERR: On page 50, after subsection (g), insert a new subsection, as follows:

"(h) The processing of tobacco includes persons employed within the area of production in handling, redrying, and packing such tobacco prior to its storage."

Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply extends the definition of who is an employee in agriculture. It is needless for me to say that the tobacco farmer certainly deserves recognition whenever a matter involving his interest is before the House. I speak on behalf of the tobacco farmer, whose product contributes annually $400,000,000 in revenue to maintain our Government, and who grows that commodity which is exported in a sufficient quantity of tobacco to swing the balance of trade in behalf of this Government for the last 8 or 10 years. This amendment simply states that after the tobacco is sold, the laborer who engages in the process of saving it, redrying it and putting it in a package to ship it, this being purely a seasonal operation, shall be considered an agricultural laborer and excepted under this section. That is all the amendment proposes.

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

Mr. KERR. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BOILEAU. Does not the so-called Biermann amendment cover what the gentleman has in mind?

Mr. KERR. I do not believe it does, because this amendment goes further and provides that those who redry and pack prior to storage shall be classed as employees employed in agriculture. Tobacco must be stored to protect it and keep it from damaging, in order that it may be commercially processed and put into cigarettes and manufactured tobacco.

Mr. BOILEAU. The Biermann amendment is as follows:

"Employees engaged in agriculture" includes individuals employed within the area of production engaged in the handling, packing, storing, ginning, compressing, pasteurizing, drying, or canning.

And so forth.

Mr. KERR. Tobacco has to go through a particular process of redrying. It has to be stemmed, redried, and put into hogsheads. Then it is safely kept for several years, is processed thoroughly, and then goes into cigarettes and smoking tobacco.

Mr. BOILEAU. Would not that amendment include redrying?

Mr. KERR. No, I do not believe so. I think that refers to redrying of vegetables, which are sometimes dried. For instance, we have dried peaches, dried apples, dried prunes, and other dried fruits. The amendment does not cover tobacco, in my opinion.

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

Mr. KERR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Does the gentleman's amendment seek to exempt from not only the hour but the wage provisions those persons engaged in processing tobacco?

[PAGE 7414]

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

[PAGE 7415]

Mr. KERR. The amendment simply seeks to include as agricultural employees those who are engaged in taking care of this great commodity of our country.

Mr. O'MALLEY. In spite of the millions made by the tobacco companies, the gentleman seeks to exempt the people who prepare tobacco?

Mr. KERR. I seek to protect the farmers. The agencies which make millions out of tobacco are the Government of the United States, the manufacturers, and those who advertise and distribute the tobacco products. I am seeking not to protect those agencies but to protect the farmers. If the farmer has to pay for these increased wages, necessarily it will reduce the price of his tobacco, and this is none too high now considering what others get out of this commodity.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Does the farmer pay for this processing that the gentleman's amendment would exempt?

Mr. KERR. Of course, he pays all the expense incident to it, because it reduces the warehouse price of his product; you may be sure that the purchaser and the manufacturer will take this cost into consideration.

I would like to have the attention of the chairman of the committee. I have tried to make this statement succinctly so the amendment would be understood, and I hope the chairman will accept the amendment. It simply extends the provision to those employees who redry and repack the farmers' tobacco so that it may be preserved for an indefinite time and handled by the manufacturer.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. KERR) there were—ayes 35, noes 102.

So the amendment was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

MINIMUM WAGES

SEc. 4. Every employer engaged in commerce 1n any industry affecting commerce shall, during the first 365 days from the effective date of the original order issued under section 6 with respect to such industry, pay each employee employed by him a wage at a rate not less than 25 cents per hour, and during each succeeding 365-day period pay each employee employed by him a wage at a rate not less than the rate applicable under this section during the immediately preceding period increased by 6 cents per hour; except that no provision of this act shall require any such employer to pay a wage at a rate in excess of 40 cents per hour.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CONNERY: On page 52 strike out section 4 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEc. 4. Every employer engaged in commerce in any industry affecting commerce, shall from the effective date of the original order issued under section 6 wlth respect to such industry, pay each employee employed by him a wage at a rate not less than 40 cents per hour."

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be great eagerness on the part of the Members of the House to finish the consideration of this bill tonight, and I feel this particular amendment needs no lengthy dissertation on my part.

The amendment simply eliminates the so-called escalator clause, wipes out the 25-cent an hour wage provision and inserts in lieu thereof a minimum wage of 40 cents. In other words, it makes the 40-cent minimum wage per hour provision go into effect immediately, upon the bill becoming law.

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

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts has a keen interest in legislation such as we are trying to pass here today, and will not the gentleman admit that it is better for the friends of this type of legislation to allow a period for industry to adjust itself rather than have the charge made against us that we have dislocated business by establishing the 40-hour provision and the 40-cent rate?

Mr. CONNERY. In answer to the gentleman I may say that it seems to be the consensus of a great majority here that this wage and hour legislation is very badly needed, and my idea is, why wait for 3 years to get the full benefit of the provisions of this wage and hour bill?

The Department of Labor records show that the average wage per wage earner per month for 59 selected industries ranged from 49.9 cents per hour to 66.5 cents per hour. The imposition of a 40-cent minimum wage has long been expected by industry and I believe there are but few, if any, industries which will be at all disturbed by it.

The Department of Labor, in a report issued February 15, 1938, page 67, states:

If the cotton-goods industry is considered as a whole, it is among those with the lowest paid factory employees in the United States. In April 1937, the period largely covered by the present survey, all but 4 of the 89 principal manufacturing industries reported higher average hourly earnings than were found in the cotton-goods industry.

On page 68 of this Department of Labor report I note that in April 1937 unskilled male cotton operators averaged 40.3 cents per hour. Therefore, only 3.5 percent of the male common labor in the Northern States received less than 40 cents an hour. The July average entrance rate for common labor in all industries in New England was 49.5 cents an hour, almost equal to the average of workers, skilled and unskilled, in the cotton mills of that area.

Report No. 747 of the Department of Labor, printed in the April 1938 issue of the Monthly Labor Review on page 5, notes that the average hourly pay of unskilled female workers of southern cotton mills was 30.4 cents per hour. Page 6 shows that less than some 8 percent of the cotton mill workers of our country receive less than 27.5 cents an hour.

Page 10 of this same report lists the average hourly earnings in the cotton-goods industry of the various States, and the lowest wage recorded is 26.7 cents per hour in Mississippi.

This report indicates that the average low wage for female workers in the southern textile mills will exceed 35 cents an hour.

The average hourly earnings of female cotton-mill workers in 1937 is shown to be:

In view of this, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the 25-cent provision we have in the bill at the present time is not going to benefit to any great extent the great mass of underpaid people in this country, and in view of that fact I believe we ought to put this 40-cent-per-hour minimum wage provision into effect immediately, and I therefore hope the Committee will support me in this amendment. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[PAGE 7415]

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

[PAGE 7416]

While many of us would like very much to have a higher floor in this bill, we recognize that to do so would probably cripple some of the industries of this country. So we are opposed to the amendment on that ground, and I ask that the amendment be defeated.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CONNERY) there were—ayes 7, noes 33.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment proposed by Mr. HARRINGTON to S. 2475: Page 53, after line 2, insert:

"MINIMUM COMPENSATION FOR FARMERS

"SEC. 4A. No person shall purchase for shipment in commerce, except for export abroad, any agricultural commodity from a farmer at a price which is less than the parity price for such commodity as proclaimed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture shall proclaim and cause to be published parity prices on all agricultural commodities on the first day of the month succeeding the enactment of this law and on the first day of every third month thereafter. Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both."

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from New Jersey withhold her point of order?

Mrs. NORTON. I reserve the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because unquestionably it is the last chance we will have at this session of Congress to save the American farmer from the economic consequences of another year of bumper crops and to safeguard the investment Government already has in agriculture.

One of the aims of the wage-hour bill is to get rid of the sweatshops, We have sweatshops on the farm, too. Our farmers do plenty of sweating, not only in the fields, but sitting up nights in the front room sweating over mortgages, grasshoppers, droughts, dust storms, boll weevils, heat waves, and cold waves, not to mention seed and feed troubles, and the price his crop will bring provided he is lucky enough to get a crop. Believe me, that is real sweatshopping. So, let us get rid of all the sweatshops while we are at it.

As stated, the amendment proposes to fix a minimum compensation for farmers on the same principle that the bill fixes a minimum wage for workers in industry. If we can fix a minimum wage for factory workers we can just as surely fix a minimum income for our farmers by pegging the minimum prices at which their products may move in interstate commerce.

Our good President has wisely said that if the neediest of our people are to benefit from the new recovery program, then we must establish a floor as the bottom of the industrial wage structure. Otherwise, the money we have appropriated will trickle right back into the hands of the rich.

Well, this argument applies to agriculture, too. We have appropriated billions of dollars to stabilize farm prices, but we still have the jitters in the farm belt because of the lack of a price bottom and because the food speculators still reap a large share of the benefits. Give the farmer a guaranteed minimum price for his products and we will not have to appropriate a half billion dollars a year for agriculture. Guarantee the farmer a parity price and our farm problem will pretty well solve itself.

There is nothing radical or revolutionary about this proposal. The parity principle is already incorporated in the farm act. The farm act adopts parity as the basis for crop loans, only Congress did not appropriate any money for the loans. The parity plan means a minimum of about 83 cents a bushel for corn, $1.25 a bushel for wheat, 13 cents for cotton, and a corresponding price for our other principal commodities. Parity simply puts the price of farm products on equality with the cost of the industrial products the farmer has to buy. Nobody can question the fairness of that.

Let me just breathe a word of reassurance to my friends from the cities and industrial centers. This parity-price plan is not going to hurt the consumer. It makes practically no difference to the housewife whether the price of wheat on the farm is 75 cents a bushel or $1.25 a bushel. Your loaf of bread costs just about the same. The speculators see to that. These food gamblers on the Chicago Board of Trade are the fellows who fix farm prices now. They buy, hoard, and corner the market so that the farmer is gouged at one end and the housewife at the other. By the time the food gamblers take their cut and each of a half dozen middlemen take a crack at it, you will find that the farmer's end of a loaf of bread is not enough to buy a postage stamp. No, my friends, the consumers will not suffer from this plan, but between you and me and the gate post, it is liable to put the speculators completely out of business.

And so, I urge you to join with us in putting over this amendment, cut the farmers in on the benefits of the wage-hour bill, give the farmers the buying power to absorb the surplus products of industry, and we will really be on our way out of the recession and back to prosperity for everybody. [Applause.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon the point of order that the amendment is not germane.

The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is not germane, and, therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PHILLIPS: Page 52, line 17, after the word "shall", strike out the balance of section 4 and insert "not pay any employee less than at the rate of 53^1/3 cents per hour."

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes along with another one that I have to offer on page 53, which in effect calls for a 30-hour, 6-hour day, workweek. The minimum wage is based as stated in the amendment, the wage per week being in effect $16. I know a great many Members of this House who feel that this would be too radical a change, and many thus object to it. On the other hand, I venture the prediction that many Members of the House who today may oppose such an amendment will a short time hence be in favor of it and for this reason: We heard not so long ago about technocracy, and all that went with it about the machine taking the place of manpower to a very great degree. Millions of people are unemployed today. There are millions of young high-school and college students going out into the world without a chance to get a job unless in some way our industrial system be changed, so that work is more spread out. I am glad the committee has reported the bill it has today, but while we are at it, why not go the whole way? It is an experiment any way, and I think we should try the 30-hour workweek.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. PHILLIPS) there were—ayes 2, noes 21.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. I have made this pro forma amendment to describe briefly an amendment that I shall offer at the conclusion of the next section. That amendment will provide for limited flexibility, to be administered in the beginning by the labor commissioner or other State agency designated by law. Under the amendment the employer can file a written application with the State labor agency, or in the event there is no such agency, then with the Secretary of Labor, in the first instance. A public hearing is held, at which the testimony is taken down by an official reporter. The State labor commissioner takes into consideration various factors that were in the original bill. Then if he finds it is justifiable to reduce the wages below 40 cents and make the hours longer than 44, he may do so, but he cannot in any

[PAGE 7416]

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

[PAGE 7417]

event fix the wages. at less than 25 cents an hour, or the hours longer than 44. Then the record of the proceedings is transmitted to the Secretary of Labor of the United States, who may reverse or modify the ruling of the State agency, if the Secretary of Labor finds that the order of the State agency is contrary to the evidence. It seems to me that an amendment of this kind would give necessary flexibility to the bill and at the same time would provide a definite floor for wages and a definite ceiling for hours. It would guard against any favoritism or abuse or any wide differential in rulings by the State agency, by providing for ultimate action by the Secretary of Labor. It does not require the creation of any new bureau, because practically all of the States have either a State labor commissioner or a board for minimum wages, and I think there are 20 which have such a board. Let me say this seriously and sincerely to those of you who are anxious to pass wage-hour legislation.

You are not going to enact any bill that does not give the employer his day in court. It is unwise to pass this b111 as written and run into parliamentary difficulties in the Senate and long delay. If the Members of this House who are sincerely desirous of enacting this legislation would be willing to meet the opposition half way and concede that the State should have some voice in the set-up as we promised in our Democratic platform pledge, real progress will be made. I do not think anyone can deny that the Democratic Party, when it made the statement "any transactions and activities that inevitably overflow State boundaries call for both State and Federal action" promised the country that the States woUld have some voice in the determination of this wage and hour business. Many of the States have never been concerned over the question. Only some 20 have given any effort to dealing With the vast number of employees who are primarily engaged in intrastate commerce. If you give the States some voice in the determination of this question, if you provide for reasonable flexibility, making it possible for an employer to go to his own State agency where information is easily accessible to him, an agency that understands his needs and his problems, and enable it to take care of the peculiar social conditions that may prevail in that State, at the same time providing for ultimate action on the part of the Secretary of Labor so as to safeguard against what many of you fear, the interposition of favoritism, progress would be made. It does seem to me that such a proposition merits the serious attention and respect of the members of this Committee who are desirous not merely of passing legislation in the House but of obtaining before adjournment some practical, feasible, workable, and constitutional measure. When I offer this amendment therefor, I sincerely trust that the members of the Committee will give it their careful consideration, because I think you know as well as I that yqu are not going to finally pass this bill as written.

[Here the gavel fell.]

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

Mr. Chairman, there is some question in the minds of a number of Members as to whether the Biermann amendment took care of the processing of livestock and as to whether it was a substitute for the Coffee amendment. The Biermann amendment applied only to a definition of those engaged in agriculture and limited its application to the area of production. As you know, livestock is the greatest single asset of our farmers. Livestock consumes about 80 percent of the farm products. Livestock is marketed principally in the big centers, such as Kansas City, Chicago, and St. Louis.

I have here a chart that I prepared showing receipts on the 12 markets and the variation of the receipts on these markets. Each square represents a week and 5,000 head. You will see that the weekly receipts in 1936 varied from 138,000 cattle to 288,000. You notice how the chart goes up and down.

There is absolutely no way to control the marketing of livestock. If a farmer is out of feed, or in case of drought, he has to go in; they are on the market. This chart represents cattle alone. You see they reach a peak for 4 months which might be taken care of by the 10 weeks' provision in the proposed committee amendment; but the same is true of hogs. Hogs come in and form another peak. Sheep come in at another season and form another peak.

The packer pays one of the highest rates of wage in industry in this country. If the packer is going to be forced to pay time and a half for overtime he will just not buy any more cattle than he can process in the 44-hour week and the farmers' cattle and hogs and sheep will stand there in the pens and suffer serious deterioration. If livestock are not sold the day they arrive the producer must continue to pay the cost of feeding the livestock untx they are sold.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I cannot yield; I am sorry.

It is not a question of wages. The common-labor scale in the packing industry is 62 cents an hour and skilled labor draws well over $1 an hour minimum. So while the packer could increase his force of men, it must be remembered that the yearly average in the packing industry is less than 40 hours per week. Skilled extra help would be hard to get.

Just as surely as you put the processing of livestock in the bill and bring the packer under this 40-hour limitation it is going to reflect in the price paid the farmer, because the only way the packer will pay that price is to take it off of the product. He does it already. The Lord knows I am not here defending packers as a bunch of saints, but they are operating on a narrow margin. Statistics will show that they make less than one-fourth to one-half cent per pound on their meat products. An additional cost in the processing of this meat will mean that it has to be taken off the livestock producer.

You who think the packers make all the money, all the profit, are mistaken. I have here the monthly sale of carcasses in New York and the monthly average price of dressed beef.

Regardless of what price the distributor in New York pays for his beef—and it varies from 13 cents to 25 cents a pound—he adds from 15 cents to 25 cents a pound for distribution.

For the 6 years covered in this chart furnished by the Department of Agriculture a majority of the time the average price of retail beef was 100 percent or more greater than the cost of the dressed beef purchased from the packer. The packer operates on a narrow margin of profit. I hope the House will adopt the Coffee amendment and save the producers of livestock from being punished by this bill—unless the packer is exempt from the hour provisions of this bill to take care of peak runs of livestock.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CRAWFORD: Page 52, line 20, after the word "him", insert "an effective wage equal to"; and on page 52, line 21, after the word "hour", insert the words "proportionate to the Department of Labor Price Index as of June 1, 1938"; and on page 52, line 25, strike out the words "by 5 cents" and insert the word "proportionately", and then strike out down to line 3, page 53.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, Matthew Wall, vice president of the American Federation of Labor, said the other day:

To find the answer to this question two guiding principles which have always been at the foundation of the American labor movement must be thoroughly understood. The first is a firm belief in our present system—the system of individual initiative and private enterprise with its profit motive.

The second is that the American worker does not want to be supported by governmental relief payments any more than he desires to be supported by his neighbors, organized charity, or by standing in a bread line.

Quoting the executive council of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Woll said:

The real remedy for unemployment is the creation and maintenance of work opportunities for working men and women in private industry.

[PAGE 7417]

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

[PAGE 7418]

Mr. Wall proceeded to say this also:

Finally, labor as well as industry must ever be on the alert to detect and guard against the fettering of freedom even when a kindly bondage is offered by friendly hands and under the illusion of immediate relief. It is this freedom which distinguishes the characteristic of the individualism of America. It ranks in importance with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom of conscience. It has to do with food, clothing, and shelter for all of us—those prime economic necessities without which no refinement, no culture, no civilization, however conceived or highly wrought, can exist.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Labor made the observation just recently that an arbitrary minimum hourly wage will relieve the burdens of public charity. I deny that statement, because unemployment and not wages creates the relief problem. If you think this problem through, you must come to the conclusion an arbitrary wage level can only add to unemployment and increase the relief burden.

Why does the bill ignore the cost of living? Prices are now falling, but this bill proposes a progressive rise in wage to be enforced by criminal law.

May I ask the committee chairman this question: If a legal wage level is defensible and if a 25-cent or 40-cent minimum is proper today, then I submit such a statement could not be defended if prices continue to fall. And if prices should again swing into a continued rise and go up 10, 50, or 100 percent, what provision is there in the bill to move above the 40-cent rate?

If the bill, as its advocates claim, will check present drastic deflation and will inflate purchasing power and prices, then what provisions have you in the bill that will maintain the parity of wage and price levels? That is the real protection that labor should have. This would protect the worker against inflation, thus maintaining a real wage level at a livable standard.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered is designed to give this real protection in the event prices advance as against the fixed wage set forth in this bill.

Collective bargaining is a grand thing. Collective bludgeoning, whether it be by picketing or criminal law, will never solve the problem of fair wages. There is such a thing as competition. Do you think continued unemployment of ten or fifteen million workers will ever permit fair wages?

Can we not comprehend that the problem of the business cycle and of economic stability and security is wrapped within the folds of money and banking and the answer does not lie in collective bargaining? Ignore money and credit control and you will find crowded relief rolls and labor exploitation.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAWFORD] and ask for a vote thereon.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAWFORD].

The amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox].

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the statement of our esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. RANKIN], in which he denounced the pending bill as a raid upon the South and the West prompts me to remark that the phrase, "Our country one and indivisible forever," is but the expression of a hope and is not the statement of a fact.

This country, Mr. Chairman, is divided into three distinct economic and social sections, the North, South, and West, with three distinct cultures and three distinct ways of life. The South had its cultural beginning in Jamestown in 1607, the North its beginning in Massachusetts 13 years later, the one cavalier and the other puritan. There was cooperation between the two to the extent that a general government was established upon a basis of compromise. Following the setting up of that general government the two sections entered upon their effort toward expansion and were, of course, attracted to the West. The rivalry between the two sections, the North and the South, each in its effort to spread its influence into the West, led to the War between the States.

After the war was over the South turned to the task of rebuilding herself with naked hands and worn-out tools. The Federal Government came down upon that stricken area of our country and wrested local-governments from the control of the people. It set up a carpetbag rule which it supported by the bayonet. It took the franchise from the people who had developed southern civilization and gave it to their former slaves. It denied the people of that section, who had fought in defense of their homes and their civilization, the right to a seat in this body. It established a pension system which the South stricken and impoverished though it was, was compelled in part to support, and which resulted in the accumulation of wealth in the North that was used for the industrialization of that area to the further disadvantage of the South.

[Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I shall be obliged to object.

The CHAIRMAN. The time has been limited, and there are 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in the RECORD so I may tell just a little more of this story.

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

There was no objection.

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

· Mr. Chairman, the only party in ancient history who has not been brought into this debate is "Eliza crossing the ice," and I have expected she will be brought into this debate by the opponents of the bill any minute now.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is designed to enact a principle. That principle is the one of minimum wages and maximum hours for all industry. If the principle is worth the paper it is written on, it admits of no exceptions. I have a letter on my desk from a gentleman who states, "I am heartily in favor of a wage and hour bill provided my industry can be exempted." He wants a law for the other fellow and not for him—a peculiar but common American psychology of legislation: The real facts in the case indicate that a few exploiters of labor force decent business to follow their practices to survive. Thus a uniform law is needed. The attitude of a good many Members who are opposed to the principle of this legislation is to shoot it so full of holes that there is slight chance of it being effective. Their idea is to get so many exemptions into this bill that it will be impossible for the principle ever to be given a fair test after enactment. The friends of the workers in this House ought to get their backs up by this time and stop there being placed in this bill amendments which will make it impossible for the principle of minimum wages and maximum hours ever to be given a reasonable trial, to see whether or not decent wages and hours will increase employment and purchasing power. [Applause.]

I heard a gentleman whose parliamentary skill I admire say just a little while ago, "If we can get enough exceptions and exemptions in this bill we do not care whether it passes or not. It will not affect us, it never will work, and it will be repealed." This is what has been going on all afternoon. And we who favor a fair trial for a great principle have to get together and stop this guerrilla warfare on a bill to help the workers of the Nation.

An amendment will be offered to the next section by the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE]. I have here a list of the people and the industries it would 'exempt. It goes all the way down the line to exempt under the guise of agriculture every industry from the automobile

[PAGE 7418]

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

[PAGE 7419]

industry, which uses soybeans that are processed, down to the rubber industry. Amendments were offered here that would exempt the tobacco producer, and I suppose there will be an amendment that will exempt the tobacco smoker.

If we intend that this measure will ever get a chance to be proven effective, if the friends of the workers in this House—and I hope they will stay here until the bill is passed—expect the principle ever to be effective, we must give that principle a chance and not exempt 90 percent of the industries, and especially those notorious for the sweatshop wages that add little or nothing to needed purchasing power. I hope when further amendments to exempt industries of any character are offered, the friends of wage-hour legislation, who want to see this measure have a fair and decent chance to prove its worth, will stay here and vote down these amendments that propose to exempt employers who are paying less than 25 cents an hour or working their employees over 44 hours a week. I have advocated the principle of this bill throughout my public career, and I want it given a fair trial, not crippled and devitiated before it is ever put into effect by the exceptions its secret enemies are trying to write into it behind the disguise of helping the farmer. Wipe away the crocodile tears some of these "friends of the farmer" are shedding and you will find food speculators and employers of underpaid labor are the real benefactors from most of these exception amendments. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

The Clerk read as follows:

MAXIMUM HOURS

SEC. 5. No employer engaged 1n commerce in any industry affecting commerce shall employ any of his employees for a workday longer than 8 hours, or shall, during the first 365 days from the effective date of the original order issued under section 6 with respect to such industry, employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than 44 hours, or during any succeeding 365-day period employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than that applicable under this section during the immediately preceding period reduced by 2 hours; except that no provision of this act shall require the maintenance by any such employer of a workweek shorter than 40 hours. No employee shall be deemed to be employed in violation of this section if he receives additional compensation for his overtime employment at the rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly rate at which he is employed, or times the rate applicable under or pursuant to this act, whichever is higher.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk-read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. NORTON: On page. 53, line 4, after section 5, insert "(a)", and after line 21 insert the following:

"(b) In the case of an employer engaged in the first processing of milk, whey, skimmed milk, or cream into dairy products, or in the ginning and compressing of cotton, or in the processing of cottonseed, the provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to his employees in any place of employment where he is so engaged, and in the case of an employer engaged in the first processing of, or in canning, fresh fish or fresh sea food, or perishable fresh fruits or perishable fresh vegetables, or in handling, slaughtering, or dressing poultry or livestock, the provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply for 12 workweeks in any calendar year to his employees in any place of employment where he is so engaged."

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this is the only amendment that the Committee on Labor intends to offer and it does so to give an additional time for the necessary work on certain agricultural commodities and seasonable products.

We found in our discussion of the bill in the Labor Committee, and since the bill was reported to the House, that there are certain seasonal commodities that should at least be exempted from the hours provision of the bill during what we call the peak season. So in order to be perfectly fair to these agriculturalists, Mr. Chairman, we decided to exempt them for 12 weeks of the year, from the hours provision of the bill and, of course, this period of 12 weeks applies to any part of the year and will, I understand, take care of all the seasonal products that have been suggested to us.

So, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope the committee will support this amendment and vote down the amendment that I understand is to be offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE]. Our amendment takes care of everything that is necessary and everything that is seasonal, and we feel that to go any further than this amendment goes would be to take. out the entire heart of the bill, and that, Mr. Chairman, we must resist.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield for a question?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. If a cannery, for instance, is attempting to can asparagus, it will have an exemption of 12 weeks?

Mrs. NORTON. Exactly.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. If that same cannery turns around and cans peas, will it be exempted for 12 weeks in that operation?

Mrs. NORTON. No; the same cannery would have only 12 weeks.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Twelve weeks out of the entire year for whatever products its processes?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

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

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. BATES. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee to express to the House whether or not in the case of fish being handled and the vessel coming into port and discharging its cargo, which would require, for instance, 2 hours of work tonight, and with no other vessels coming in for, say, 2 weeks, depending upon their catch at sea, would that period of 2 hours constitute just 2 hours in the total hours allowed under the provision for 12 weeks?

Mrs. NORTON. It would constitute 2 hours of a workweek.

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

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. BIERMANN. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee whether this 12-workweek provision applies to the entire section or does it simply apply to the canning of fresh fish or fresh sea food or perishable fresh fruits or perishable fresh vegetables, or in handling, slaughtering, or dressing poultry or livestock?

Mrs. NORTON. It simply applies to the things enumerated in the first part of the amendment.

Mr. BIERMANN. And it does not apply to dairying or to a cheese factory?

Mrs. NORTON. No; they are entirely exempt.

Mr. BIERMANN. From the hours provision of the bill?

Mrs. NORTON. Yes; from the hours provision of the bill.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from New Jersey yield?

Mrs. NORTON. I yield.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Does the gentlewoman's amendment include the packing of fruit as well as the products of the cannery; the packing for instance, of oranges, grapefruit, and that sort of thing?

Mrs. NORTON. It does.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, continuing my remarks, interrupted a few moments ago—

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman speaking on this amendment, but I do not care to sit bere and hear him talk about things that happened 60 years ago.

Mr. COX. The speaker is wholly indifferent to what the gentleman thinks.

I submit, Mr. Chairman—

The CHAIRMAN. The question before the committee is the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey. The Chair is unable to state that the gentleman

[PAGE 7419]

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

[PAGE 7420]

from Georgia was not addressing himself to the amendment, and the Chair trusts the gentleman will address himself to the amendment and proceed in order.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, a system of freight rates was put into effect that has, through all the years, discriminated against the South and West. A discriminatory tariff was set up which, with other advantages, has operated to establish complete and absolute economic bondage of these two great areas of this country. The tariff has poured billions—

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order. The gentleman is not talking about the pending amendment.

Mr. COX. I submit, Mr. Chairman, I am discussing the bill and therefore—

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The gentleman is not discussing the amendment that is before this body. He is delivering a very fine address, but this is not the proper place for it.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will proceed in order.

Mr. COX. All right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as I was about to remark, the tariff has poured billions of dollars into the lap of the North—the greatest gift that any modern government ever bestowed on one group of people at the expense of other groups. The Government has showered thousands of other blessings on the North at the expense of the South and West. The North has conquered and is ruling the South and West. It is in complete command of the mighty forces of the industrial, political, and social revolution in America.

With one-fifth of the area and with less than three-fifths of the population of the country, the North owns above 90 percent of the wealth of the Nation. The South, with little more than one-fourth of the area and a little more than one-fourth of the population, owns less than 5 percent of the total wealth. The North owns the greater number of the banks, the insurance companies, the railroads, telegraph and telephone companies, aviation and radio, the utilities, all branches of manufacturing, stocks and bonds, mining and oil. Through the corporate device it has swallowed America.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me discuss the bill.

Invoking its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the several States, Congress in this wage-hour proposal is endeavoring to set up Federal control over production, which means control over all the activities of the people.

Calling the measure a "great humanitarian act" and saying that it will relieve the conditions of substandard workers, is the mere spreading of honey to catch flies, for it is neither the one nor will it accomplish the other.

Disguised as a labor act, providing a "floor for wages and a ceiling for hours," which is a rhetorical phrase that means nothing, it is actually a social-security measure, under which industry and labor are to be made the instruments of social-security experiments. Industrial questions are to be lifted out of the economic field and treated as social problems.

The bills puts into the hands of the Secretary of Labor the power of control over the production activities of operators who either buy or sell in interstate commerce or who compete in a purely local market with interstate operators. No regard is to be taken of the right of a free person to sell his labor at his own price or of another to buy it, and none is to be taken of the inability of an employer to pay the required wages.

No greater powers were ever given any one person than those put into the hands of the Secretary of Labor under this bill. To exercise wisely and without damage or injustice, these despotic powers would call for superhuman judgment and understanding, which it is doubted the Secretary possesses.

The administration of the act would call for an army of snoopers, inspectors, counselors, and other agents, particuly susceptible to partisan abuses and political manipulations, and would throw all business and industry into the political field.

Both employers and employees would do well to remember that Federal control is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. The powers so vested in Federal authority could as easily be used by a government hostile to free industry to crush it, as it could be used by a government hostile to labor to enslave it. Remembering also the Secretary's attitude toward the sit-down strike, for months unable to determine that the seizing, the holding, and the confiscation of other peoples' property constituted a violation of law, and remembering the Secretary's close tie-up with the radical labor element of the country, and the support given the National Labor Relations Board, the partners of the C. I. O. in its partisan and prejudicial administration of the one-sided National Labor Relations Act, it is not unreasonable to wonder how this law would be administered.

This wage-hour bill is political and not economic; it will increase unemployment and not decrease it; it is bad and not good; it will destroy and not save.

The enactment of this measure, supplementing the National Labor Relations Act, would result in a wave of organization by the C. I. 0. throughout the country and particularly in the South. The well-known and undenied communistic leadership of the C. I. O. in its field operations would be given an open field to spread communistic doctrines throughout the South and other parts of the country, and the labor and social unrest that would necessarily and inevitably result would change for the worse the whole industrial and social atmosphere of these regions.

The measure is monopolistic and so intended. It will destroy small industry, a purpose for which it is designed. It will freeze industrial development to those areas where now existing and foreclose the possibility of spread into outlying areas.

Under the sorry pretense of regulating commerce, the real purpose of the bill is to set up Federal dominion over the , activities of the people. It is an attempt to regulate all industry and to destroy the reserved powers of the States over their local concerns. It is a proposal to push an alleged Federal power to the point of wiping out the distinction between commerce among the several States and the internal commerce of a State. It is not an honest effort to regulate commerce, but to use the commerce powers of the Constitution to regulate employer-employee relations, which, standing alone, are of purely State concern.

The courts have uniformly held that production is a local activity concerning which it is not within the competency of the Congress to legislate. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the Labor Board cases, decided in April 1937, do not support the claims of advocates of control.

The adoption of the measure would constitute the greatest single step toward centralized bureaucracy yet taken in the history of the Nation. It would lead to Federal control of wages generally, governmental regulation of hours and working conditions, and price fixing by governmental decree. And when this door is opened to the invasion of Federal interference with free competition, free labor, competitive price adjustment, and collective bargaining, we will have abandoned the capitalistic system as it has always operated and we will have undergone regimentation of industry and labor, just as surely as it exists anywhere in the world today.

The act is unconstitutional, in that it attempts to establish Federal control over all production under the pretense of regulating interstate commerce. If this principle is ever established, then those meager powers kept by the States will be gone, and liberty, as understood and practiced by the people, will be a thing of the past.

The attempt to create the impression throughout the country that all those who love their fellow man favor this act, while those who oppose it are motivated by greed and a desire to see that the poor stay poor, is simply a demagogic appeal to prejudice.

[PAGE 7420]

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

[PAGE 7421]

That this whole idea is alien to our American ideals and customs, that it is incompatible with our democratic system of government, that it seeks to take away from the people the right to live their own lives in their own way and to interpret their own needs in their own native voice; that it is, in part, the product of those whose thinking is rooted in an alien philosophy and who are bent upon the destruction of our whole constitutional system and the setting up of a red-labor communistic despotism upon the ruins of our Christian civilization, is apparent to all who read understandingly.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order and insist that the gentleman obey the rules of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The gentleman from Georgia is not talking to the amendment offered by the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD. What I have to say seems to disturb the gentleman from Colorado.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment as a substitute for the Norton amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Substitute amendment offered by Mr. CoFFEE of Nebraska: In line 4, page 53, add, after section 5, the following: "(a)"; add new subsection (b) after line 21, as follows:

"(b) 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, ginning, and compressing, distributing or handling other agricultural products which are seasonal or penshable, there may be employment beyond the established maximum workweek (or workday) without penalty by way of overtime payments or otherwise."

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, the amendment just read is what is known as the Grange amendment, with the exception of two words added, "ginning" and "compressing." Those words are added in order to clarify the word "processing." Some of the cotton people thought "processing" might not cpver ginning and compressing. When the wage-hour bill was before us last December, I offered this same amendment which was sponsored by the National Grange. It was adopted by a vote of 158 to 67. It was later incorporated in the Norton substitute bill by a vote of 130 to 35.

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

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. No, I cannot. I have only 5 minutes and was unable to get any time during the general debate. This amendment has been approved and endorsed by most of the livestock associations throughout the country, by the dairy organizations, the National Grange, and other farm organizations. The amendment has been carefully worked out and has been before the House for the last 5 or 6 months.

I appreciate, and I am sure the other Members from the agricultural sections of the country likewise appreciate, the attitude of the chairman of the Committee on Labor in making the concessions that she has in the amendment she has offered. This Grange amendment has caused these concessions to be made. I appreciate what has been done. However, I call attention to the fact that in the amendment presented by the chairman of the Committee on Labor "first processing" is exempted. That is a phrase that may be hard to interpret. What is first processing? Take, for instance, milk that comes into the dairy or the creamery. They bottle milk, buttermilk, and chocolate milk, and manufacture butter and ice cream for shipment in interstate commerce. These operations all take place under one roof and employees interchangeably handle all products. Are all these products, particularly ice cream and chocolate milk, the result of first processing?

Which of the employees would be exempt from overtime provisions and which would not? The principle has been recognized that we must exempt from overtime penalty the processors, producers, and handlers of these perishable and seasonal agricultural products. That principle is recognized, but only to the extent of 12 weeks per year, in the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey. Are these weeks to be consecutive? Will 1 hour's overtime by some of the employees for 12 weeks close the exemption in spite of a seasonal run of perishable commodities? I know that some people object to the packing houses being exempted. I am talking from the standpoint of the livestock producer. Livestock and livestock products account for the major portion of the national farm income.

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

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. No. If I get some more time I shall be glad to yield. I am in the cattle business myself and ship cattle to Omaha, Sioux City, and Chicago. On weeks of heavy runs the employees in the packing houses will work more than 40 hours per week and be glad to have the work. When receipts are light they may work only 32 hours and get the minimum weekly guaranty. If the processor has to pay time and a half for overtime you gentlemen know who is going to pay for the overtime. It will be the producer. The packer can take care of himself. The extra cost will be either passed on to the consumer or taken from the producer. In this case you know and I know that it will be taken off the price of the cattle. I am also informed that the hiring wage in the packing centers is 62^1/2 cents per hour for common labor, and runs to as high as $1.17 an hour for skilled labor.

This amendment does not interfere with the basic wage scale. It has to do only with the overtime provision, and exempts industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or handling dairy products, poultry or poultry products, livestock or livestock products, or those industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or handling other agricultural products which are seasonal or perishable.

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

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes, to yield for questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

Mr. WOOD. I object.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment.

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

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield.

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

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment close in 20 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey that all debate on the pending amendment close in 20 minutes.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. KLEBERG) there were—ayes 136, noes 68.

So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska has offered an amendment which, if adopted, would absolutely destroy the effectiveness of wage and hour legislation, especially so far as hours are concerned. If you analyze this amendment, you will conclude that it exempts practically everything. I make this statement advisedly.

The pending amendment provides, so far as hours are concerned, that the industries engaged in processing, and so forth, livestock products are exempt from the hours provision; in other words, the processors of livestock products are exempt. This would exempt shoe factories, because the making of a pair of shoes is the processing of a livestock product, leather. Likewise it would exempt the woolen mills because wool is a livestock product.

[PAGE 7421]

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

[PAGE 7422]

In the gentleman's anxiety to gather a few southern votes among Members from cotton districts he has included ginning and the processing of other seasonal or perishable products. The only commodity I know that is ginned is cotton, and because they have the word "ginning" in there it must be assumed that cotton is a seasonable commodity. So the ginning of cotton is exempt. But, more than that, that means, according to the interpretation placed upon it by the author of this amendment, that it is a seasonal commodity and therefore the processing of cotton—in other words, the textile industry—is exempt. There is no question about that.

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

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield.

Mr. HEALEY. Do not forget the gentleman's amendment also includes the handlers and distributors.

Mr. BOILEAU. Yes; the wholesalers. Here would be a wholesaler that sells a little cutter, or cotton goods; they are handlers or distributors of cotton goods, and are exempt. They might also sell hardware, stoves, tractors, automobiles, and everything else; but just because they, according to the gentleman's own definition here, are an industry engaged in the processing of these commodities they are exempt and their entire operation is exempt. All they have to do is to sell a few pounds of butter or a few cotton shirts and all of their other activities would be exempt. You may say that that is an exaggerated interpretation, but that is the language of the amendment; and I submit that the amendment exempts, so far as hours are coneemed, practically everyone.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield briefiy.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Does the gentleman think any department of this Government would so construe that amendment?

Mr. BOILEAU. If this Congress is silly enough to adopt this amendment, we can expect our agents in the Department to follow our nonsense; yes. [Applause.] I submit that if this amendment carries, we can expect them to have no higher degree of intelligence than we have here. If we say this bill shall carry these exemptions, we can expect they will comply with our direction.

I do not want to scuttle this legislation. I want the wage and hour legislation, as proposed by the pending measure, adopted and I want it made effective. I submit that the friends of wage and hour legislation cannot support this amendment and I sincerely hope they will follow the leadership of the Committee on Labor.

The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON], has offered an amendment which will take care of the valid objections that might otherWise exist to this bill. It will permit reasonable treatment of perishable commodities only on the hours proposition. It is a reasonable, fair concession to agriculture, and I do not believe any agricultural leader should support the Coffee amendment. Those agricultural leaders are my friends. I have worked hard with them, but I do not believe those who are advocating this amendment understand its implications or else they are against wage and hour legislation.

Let us support the gentlewoman from New Jersey and vote down the Coffee amendment and accept the committee amendment which she has presented.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. MOTT. I offer an amendment to the substitute amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MOTT to the amendment offered by Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska: After the words "other agricultural" insert "fishery or sea food."

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that adoption of the Coffee amendment would exclude from the provisions of this bill the many articles he has named. According to the list he read, the Coffee amendment would exempt practically everything from textiles to automobiles. I do not believe that is a correct interpretation of the amendmeht. However, if it is, and if the amendment is to be adopted, then I think we certainly ought to include among the exemptions in this bill the processing of a product as perishable as fish.

Mr. Chairman, fish must be processed and canned on the day they are caught. The canneries must operate every day and usually they must operate every night when the fish are being taken. In this respect there is no difference between a salmon cannery and a fruit cannery. There is every reason why the processing' of fish should be exempted from the provisions of the pending bill if the processing of fresh fruits and vegetables is to be exempted. That is all my amendment undertakes to do. It simply adds the words "fisheries or sea-food products" to the provisions of the €offee amendment.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mv. MAGNUSON. May I ask the gentleman if there are any canneries in his district that pay less than the miserable wage provided in this bill? If they do they should pay overtime.

Mr. MOTT. The Coffee amendment has nothing to do with wages, and neither has my amendment.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Or hours.

Mr. MOTT. The amendinent has to do with hours only. No one in the gentleman's State or in my State, of course, works for so small a wage as 25 cents an hour and nobody works as long a week as 44 hours in, any industry which would be affected by this bill.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is right.

Mr. MOTT. In fact, no provision of this very modest wage and heur bill would affect anybody or any industry in the States of Oregon or Washington.

Mr. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. GREEN. I am very much in sympathy with the gentleman's amendment. I have the fishing industry in my State and in all probability we will lose our business to the Japanese fishermen unless we can get the protection offered by the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MOTT. The amendment I have offered will affect every coast State in the Nation. and every lake State.

Mr. GREEN. We will be put out of business if we do not agree to it.

Mr. MOTT. I can see no real objection to the amendment and I think it ought to be adopted.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Wood], for 2 minutes.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will not adopt the Coffee amendment to the committee amendment or the amendment to the Coffee amendment as submitted by the gentleman from Oregon. The gentleman offered the identical amendment to the bill in the last session and after we adopted his amendment he voted to recommit the bill.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment emanates from the Grange, the organization for which the gentleman from Nebraska speaks. The Grange in a letter advocating this amendment expressed the hope in the very same letter that this bill would be amended and then defeated. I am tired of the enemies of this bill coming in here and asking us to adopt amendments which will entirely emasculate the purposes and intent of the bill.

Ml': McKEOUGH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr: WOQD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. McKEOUGH. I may say to the gentleman from Missouri that I hold in my hand a letter written on the stationery of the National Grange dated May 20th. In the last paragraph, after recommending the enactment of the Coffee amendment, the following is stated:

While urging the adoption of this amentlment, we sincerely hope that in the interest of the country as a whole the bill may oe decisivefy rejected.

This sustains the gentleman's contribution.

[PAGE 7422]

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

[PAGE 7423]

Mr. WOOD. I think that should be enough for every Member of the House to vote against the amendment.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. GREEN] is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Committee will agree to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska and also the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon.

We have a peculiar situation in my district in the menhaden fish industry. The fishers catch the fish and bring them in, and out of these fish are made fish meal and fish oil, which are sold at a very cheap price. It cost nothing to produce the fish, only to catch them. Those engaged in the menhaden fish industry of my district have wired me that if the processing of fish meal and fish oil is put under the provisions of this bill they will have to close up. The business they are now engaged in will go to the Japanese. Some of you have observed the Japanese fishers. It is a question of whether or not you want us to retain the fish-oil and fish-meal business, which is now enjoyed by the people in Florida, Virginia, and Oregon and other States, or give that business to the Japanese people. If you want us to retain it, accept the amendments offered by the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEEJ. You well know the low standard of Japanese wages. They will undersell American menhaden industry if this bill is enacted without amendment.

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

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

Mr. SffiOVICH. I call to the attention of the gentleman and of my colleagues that if we adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE], together with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida, this bill, even if passed, will be wholly ineffective.

Mr. GREEN. I do not yield to the gentleman to take my time to make a speech in opposition to the menhaden fishing industry in my district. I plead with my colleagues to exempt fish processing from the provisions of this bill. I also urge consideration of amendments for fishing-industry exemption which will later be offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BLANDJ.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that all those who are opposed to this measure are desirous of adopting amendments to emasculate and kill the bill. If you desire to kill the bill, do it, but if we are in favor of the bill let us eliminate the ridiculous amendments and get down to voting for the bill. The only way this can be done is to sustain the committee, which has given 3 months of hard study to this proposition.

I have observed that nearly all the gentlemen on the other side, as well as the gentleman from Nebraska, have voted for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa for the purpose of killing the bill, but notwithstanding that fact they will again make the people at home believe they are with labor and for humane treatment of the wage earners of America.

Let us be honest and let us go on record. I am going to demand a record vote on all the amendments that may be adopted. Let us know who is who and what we are doing, and if we are for or against the bill.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, the Coffee amendment is all-embracing and all-inclusive. It affects virtually every important industry in the United States. If it is adopted, it will exempt practically all of these industries from the provisions of this measure which we have been considering for the last 2 days.

Let me enumerate a few of the industries that will be exempted if this amendment is adopted: Textile industry; garment industry; automobile industry; sugar industry; rubber industry; button industry; fertilizer industry; shoe industry; leather goods industry; bakers' industry; distilling industry; hemp industry; hosiery industry; seed industry; tobacco industry; canning industry; processing cotton; processing wool; processing soybeans; handling clothes, etc.; processing sugar; processing rubber; processing milk and livestock products; processing livestock products; processing hides; processing grains and dairy products; processing silk and cotton; linseed and cottonseed oil; and many other products which could be enumerated.

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

Mr. HEALEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. KELLER. What has been left out, if anything?

Mr. HEALEY. I do not believe anything has been left out.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. MOTT] to the substitute amendment.

The amendment to the substitute amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. COFFEE] to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska) there were—ayes 113, noes 145.

Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mrs. NORTON and Mr. COFFEE of Nebraska.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 122, noes 152.

So the substitute amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Norton amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MOTT to the amendment offered by Mrs. NORTON: Strike out "for 12 workweeks In any calendar year."

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute in order to explain the amendment.

Mrs. NORTON. I object, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. MOTT] to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NoRTON].

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Norton amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PHILLIPS to the amendment offered by Mrs. NoRTON: Page 53, line 4, strike out .section 5 and insert:

"SEC. 5. (a) No employer engaged in commerce in any industry affecting commerce shall employ any of his employees for a workday in excess of 6 hours or a workweek in excess of 30 hours except that in cases of stated emergencies employees may be permitted to work 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, whereupon the attaching compensation for this overtime period shall be not less than one and one-half times the regular existing and established rate."

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCORMACK) . The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. PHILLIPS] is not in order as an amendment to the Norton amendment, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

The question now recurs on the Norton amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CASE of South Dakota: On page 58, line 10, after the words "longer than", strike out the balance of the sentence and insert "48 hours."

[PAGE 7423]

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

[PAGE 7424]

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, as a whole, the bill that we have before us is a better bill, I believe, than the one we sent back to the Labor Committee last December. It is definite and understandable, for the most part. It does not place objectionable powers of inquisition in the hands of irresponsible committees as the old bill did.

I voted yesterday for the consideration of the bill because I believe that when sufficient Members sign a petition to discharge a committee that such a bill is entitled to fair consideration by the House. The natural inclination of every Member of the House, I believe, is to vote for a bill that carries a labor label. Every Member of this House wants to help labor and provide more jobs at better pay. We are somewhere in the stage of a severe depression. More men are walking the streets today than were a year ago. More people who have jobs are finding it harder to make ends meet than they did a year ago. More businesses that provide jobs are finding it harder to meet their pay rolls and pay their taxes than were a year ago. In such a situation it is all the more important that we consider this bill carefully to see 1f it will help labor.

Will this bili provide more jobs? Will it increase purchasing power? Will it improve conditions?

The people in my district apparently do not think so. Not one of them has written me or sent me a telegram asking me to vote for this bill. On the other hand, I have had several messages—all of them opposed to this legislation at this time. I have had a few communications from outside the district urging a vote for the bill but none from within the district.

A stockman writes me:

We stockmen are opposed to this measure, as we know livestock marketings are seasonal and peak loads came at different times. If the handler of livestock has to pay full time for idle time and overtime for peak times, the producer will take the jolt in lower prices for his livestock. You, of course, are fully advised of the provisions in this bill, but I wanted you to know we are against it.

A businessman writes me:

We feel that our industry will not be able to stand the burden that this will put on us.

I recognize that it is not popular here or considered politic to quote businessmen; but, after all, the peopie for whom we want to provide more jobs and take up the slack in the depression may be able to give us some valuable ideas on the state of their businesses and their ability to provide more jobs.

A man who is struggling to get a small mine into production reminds me that his ore has to cross state lines to get to market, and he asks me how any young mine can get on its feet if it has to operate on a 40-hour week. He points out that the lowest-paid man on bis force gets more than 40 cents an hour now, and to reduce him from 48 hours to 44 or 40 hours a week means cutting the man's weekly pay—and several mi1es from town there is nothing for the workmen to do but sit around and wait for the next week.

A farmer sends me an editorial from the Minneapolis Tribune, which reads as follows:

The fact tbat the National Grange, the National Cooperative Council, and the National Cooperative Milk Producers Association are all opposed to the Black-Cannery measure is deeply significant. These organizations, like Mr. Moscrip, perceive a serious threat to the farmer's welfare in this bill, and they are accordingly waging a militant fight against lt.

The friends of agriculture are not misled by the eloquent claims on its behalf; the fact that it is well intentioned does not blind them to the fact that it bodes no good for the farmer. The Black-Connery bill does not even provide differentials in wages and hours between urban and rural communities. It does not even exempt from its provisions persons engaged in the processing of seasonal or perishable agricultural commodities. What it does is to create a system of bureaucratic control over industry, and through that control and the disparities it will create threaten to impose new burdens on the farmer.

The wage-hour bill is a snare and a delusion. Agriculture has nothing to gain by its enactment, and it has a tremendous stake in its defeat. If the House passes it on Monday it will be voting against every interest of the farmer, and agriculture will do well to hold to strict account whoever sanctions its betrayal.

Among the small businesses and shops there is a definite opinion that this bill will foster monopolies—in other words, it will be to the benefit of the big fellow in a competitive way. The larger businesses will be able to meet its conditions. They have the bookkeepers. They have the reserves to meet any demand for an increase in hour wages—or the strength to resist labor's natural demand for the same weekly wage for fewer hours. The larger industries are located where a reserve labor supply exists and can more readily accommodate themselves to a new schedule of hours.

In the face of this situation it is difficult for me to convince myself that the bill will help to provide jobs or to increase purchasing power, unless we change the provision on hours.

The little businesses, the young industries, the small shops, the small lumber mills, away from a supplementary labor supply, the small factories, the small mines, back in the mountains have been going nip and tuck to make ends meet under present conditions. They have been hanging on, striving desperately from pride or patriotism to keep going. These small enterprises that I know anything about are not paying starvation wages nor are they working their laborers 84 hours a week, or 72 or 60 hours a week. They are not paying 10 cents an hour or 15 cents an hour and very few of them are paying as low as 25 cents an hour.

I readily agree that the products of sweatshop labor and child labor should be outlawed from interstate commerce. Last December I said, "Bring a simple child-labor act before this body and it will pass with hardly a dissenting vote. Bring a simple bill to outlaw the products of sweatshop labor from interstate commerce and they wm be outlawed as the products of labor were outlawed." But I do not think it is necessary to cripple and punish small business that is providing jobs for many people and giving them a wage on which they can comfortably live in order to outlaw child labor. And I am certainly opposed to the destruction of jobs and throwing people onto relief while they can get regular jobs at wages better than relief.

An amendment to set 48 hours as the ceiling for hours will save many jobs and it will support many wages at their present level instead of cutting them to what they will be if only 44 hours are permitted. Of course, 44 hours and 40 hours are desirable where the industry can adapt itself to that. But I would leave reduction below 48 hours at this time to be a matter of negotiation between employers and employee, and not make it a matter of legislative fiat.

A 48-hour week with the wage standards embodied in this bill will increase the purchasing power of labor in this country instead of reducing it as the proposed hour restrictions will do. The bill makes exemptions for the organized, articulate groups. You have exempted processors of farm products. But miscellaneous small businesses and mines and mills and industries that have been struggling to pay living wages and provide steady jobs get only another headache.

In the mood of the House at this late hour, no amendment is getting real consideration and I realize that argument for a change in the hours section is more or less futile.

A flat ceiling of 48 hours for the workweek, however, would meet most of the objections I have heard to the bill. Although I have not had a communication of any character from my district asking me to vote for this bill as it is, and I have had many in opposition; yet, because I believe that sweatshop conditions and child-labor conditions should be wiped out, I would be inclined to vote for the bill, as it is, if it were the only way to accomplish this result. But it is not the on1y way to do that and this bill goes far beyond attacking those conditions.

The fact is that the bill does create, and has created, fear among the small industries in lumber camps and in the mines and on the ranches and farms. If these people could be assured that they would be able to maintain a normal week of 48 hours with a full week's pay, they would feel differently about this legislation. I believe that this change

[PAGE 7424]

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

[PAGE 7425]

in the bill would be a general benefit to the country. [Applause.]

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, the title of this bill, as it is commonly referred to, "wages and hours," has within itself an enticing and an alluring appeal; so much so that the title within itself tempts favorable consideration and acceptance of the merits of the proposal without an analysis and examination of the provisions of the bill. Especially is this true with those of us whose background in life has made us acquainted by personal experience with the trials and struggles of those who labor in both agriculture and industry. We who have toiled both in industry for low wages and worked on the farm where the products of our labor brought scant earnings, know what it is to earn our bread by the sweat of the brow. Having had these experiences, my information is first-hand, and I yield to no man in my desire to bring relief to the third of this Nation whom our President has pointed out as being ill-clad, ill-housed, and ill-fed.

If this bill, when in full operation, would contribute toward relieving this distress in a general way throughout the Nation, it would have my enthusiastic support. I would be most happy to stand here and plead for its enactment. In fact, I have striven, as I have studied this proposal, to find some way to justify voting for it. I want to help the laboring man, and especially the laborer of the South. I believe my voting record since I have been a Member of Congress will disclose that in every instance I have cast my vote in the interests of labor. I make this statement because many will say of those of us who vote against this bill that we are unfriendly to labor. That charge is positively untrue. We vote against it because in weighing what its effect and consequences will be we find that instead of being a general benefit to the people we represent, it will be seriously harmful and detrimental. In my judgment, taking the laborers as a whole, in my State, where this bill may benefit one, it will hurt others. Therefore, we must regard its effect as a whole and not accept what it may do in one local instance, as the final test of its merits. It is pretty much like the old maxim, "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." We can fix minimum wages, but we will be unable to compel industries to continue operating where they find they cannot exist and pay wages that would force them to operate at a loss, where the goods they produce must be sold in a competitive market.

Therefore, when this law goes into effect, if passed in its present form and so that within 3 years' time the lowest wages will be 40 cents an hour, that simply means that many of the smaller enterprises in the South will be compelled to cease operations. In the South we still use considerable manpower in industry, in the processing of goods, and in our manufacturing establishments. Our plants in the South are not as highly mechanized as are those of the North and East. Our industries and manufacturing plants in the South employ far more persons per volume produced than do the industries in the North and East where their plants are equipped with the most modern machinery. That means, Mr. Chairman, to pay wages in excess of what they can operate at a profit and at the same time compete with the highly mechanized establishments and equipment in the northern and eastern plants, they will have to shut down and cease operations. There is one thing sure—they will not operate without some reasonable hope of a profit, and the Congress is powerless to pass legislation that will force them to continue operating. The effect of this law will be bankruptcy for literally hundreds of southern industries. Every time one of these plants ceases to operate in the South it means the small operator is being driven out of business by Federal law. It is giving a special advantage to the manufacturing industries of one section of the country as against that of another. And so the result will be that as these plants close, the ranks of the unemployed will be increased, and for every laborer who benefits by this legislation in the South, two others will suffer because of it. And so, Mr. Chairman, paraphrasing, if I may, the admonition in the Bible, "What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and lose his own soul?" I should ask, "What profiteth the laborer of the South if he gain the enactment of a wage and hour law—40 cents per hour and 40 hours per week—if he then lose the opportunity to work?" The laborer who is now working in the South and receiving wages of less than 40 cents per hour, but which wages are much higher than those paid by the Government for relief work, and who loses his job by reason of the plant in which he is at work being closed and driven out of business on account of this legislation, will find himself relegated to the ranks of the unemployed, and that means ultimately that he will be on relief.

At present his wages are not up to the amount this legislation proposes to fix for him, but of you drive out of business the plant where he is now employed and he thus becomes unemployed, where, in the name of high heaven, have you benefited this man when you take him out of regular employment and industry and drive him to the relief rolls, where the same Government says to him that in Arkansas he shall be paid only $26 per month for his wages? He was earning $50 a month before he was discharged from private industry, and this legislation in many instances will mean that he is driven from that job to the relief rolls and will earn a salary of only $26 per month. If this legislation meant that he would continue to work at 40 cents an hour and the industry in which he is employed could continue to operate and pay such wages, I would be most happy to support it, but, Mr. Chairman, if it means the relief rolls for many who are now employed in industry, then we do more harm than good by enacting this law. When the relief bill was up for consideration a few days ago, I pointed out the difference in W. P. A. wages paid by this Government to those relief workers in the South and to those paid by it in the Northern and Eastern States. Arkansas laborers receive an average of $26 per month. In the State of New York the same worker on relief is paid by the same Government $60 per month; in Connecticut he is paid $64; in Pennsylvania and a number of other States, $59 per month. These are the differentials that the Federal Government has imposed on the South. They are very unjust, and yet those insisting that the South be compelled by law to pay wages in industry comparable with those paid in the North and East were unwilling to eliminate these differences in the W. P. A. Many are taking an inconsistent position when they insist on a wage and hour law to close down southern industries and at the same time support differentials in relief that make the southern worker a victim of a discrimination and the rankest kind of injustice.

Mr. Chairman, we are doing something else when we pass this law. We are entering into the business of regulating and fixing the price of one of the greatest commodities—labor. This is the beginning. If legislation of this character Will serve well with respect to one commodity, then we must of necessity and fairness and justice fix by law a minimum price for all other commodities. Pursuing this policy, we will next be compelled to fix the price of farm products, and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, if we pass this legislation with respect to minimum wages, then I shall advocate the enactment of a law to take care of the cotton farmer of the South and fix a minimum price for the product of his toil that will give to him, too, a living wage and a higher standard of living. [Applause.]

Someone will answer and say we have already taken care of agriculture. All right, let us make comparison. Under the present agriculture program, we have attempted to hold the price of cotton up to around 11 cents per pound, including parity payments. Now that price represents the extent to which the Federal Government is now willing to go with respect to aiding agriculture in the South, since cotton is our principal crop. Let us examine into this agricultural situation and see what the Federal Government is willing that the farmer of the South shall earn for his toil and labor in the production of his crop. I believe it is agreed that on an average, 250 man-hours are necessary in the production of a bale of cotton. Half of the cost of the production of cotton is assigned to labor. The other half is assigned to the

[PAGE 7425]

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

[PAGE 7426]

investment in the farm, livestock, and farm implements necessary to produce the crop. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with cotton selling at 11 cents per pound, including the Government subsidy, if it takes 250 hours of labor for one man to produce a bale of cotton, then we have fixed wages of the cotton farmer in the South at 11 cents per hour. Working 10 hours a day, there is earned on the cotton farms of the South by those who toil in the cotton fields, from $1.10 to $1.30 per day, because they work from 10 to 12 hours, and often longer. This is the wages upon which the farmer must live, whereas we propose by this bill to guarantee to the man of industry 40 cents an hour, or nearly four times the wages of the farmer. It is out of balance; and one thing more, when we add the additional cost of labor this bill involves onto the production of the manufacturer, it is passed on to the consumer, and the 35,000,000 on the farms of America will have this added burden piled onto the heavy load they are already carrying. I am for the laboring man and I want to see him prosper, but, Mr. Chairman, the best way to make the laborer prosper is to bring prosperity to the farmer. When farm prices are good, laborers are in demand. When agriculture operates at a profit, all industries thrive and business is good. Instead of being a shortage of labor, there is need for workers. [Applause.]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, this measure has a tempting and an alluring title, and constitutes a snare that will deceive many into believing it offers them much higher wages and a higher standard of living. Some laborers today who vision a job at 40 cents an hour under this bill will find themselves earning relief wages instead.

If we want to be fair, we want to raise the price of agricultural products and place a floor under them so as guarantee to the farmers who produce the food we eat and the clothing we wear a fair wage for their toil and give them the security of a higher standard of living. Can the Federal Government do all of these things? If it can do it for one group that labors, it should do it for another.

There are some other things we should take into account in weighing this legislation. The passage of this bill will mean that southern industry, in order to survive, will cut the cost of production so as to compete with the northern and eastern competitors, and will, to the very limit of its financial resources, install labor-saving machinery in an effort to keep down the cost of production, and thus more people will be thrown out of employment. They will also seek to employ the younger men who are able to produce more by their labor within the same hours of work, and thus the age limit for workers generally in industry will be further lowered, and there will be thrown out of employment many who are 45 and 50 years of age and above that are now employed.

Instead of destroying these southern industries, this Government will do well to keep them and to encourage them to continue to give a pay roll for a number of employees rather than to destroy them and drive them out of business. Every man that is driven from his employment in industry today becomes a further burden on the Treasury of this Government. Can we stand it? We have made no substantial progress toward solving the unemployment problem that is so vexing and distressing, and so vital to the welfare of this Nation. We want to see wages as high as it is possible to make them and permit industry to operate. But our problem today is not so much higher wages as it is no wages. We all know there are many instances in which the laborer is underpaid and works longer hours than he should, and I would like to see these evils corrected, but to pass a law like this, that refuses to recognize any conditions and factors that do enter into the reasonableness of wages and what can and should be paid under given circumstances, will prove to be a boon to unemployment rather than the great benefits to the laborer that its proponents claim for it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall never turn my back upon those who labor and toil. I shall continue to vote for their interests in the light of my intelligence and judgment so long as I remain in Congress, but there are such things as proposals designed to benefit a special grohp of our people that, when correctly analyzed, it is revealed that while helping a few, it will harm many. That is exactly what we have in this proposed legislation, and, honestly believing that with all the sincerity I possess, I shall be compelled to vote against this bill. [Applause.]

Mr. SABATH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCLELLAN. Gladly.

Mr. SABATH. I am satisfied that the gentleman from Arkansas is interested in his people—both the farmers and the laborers—and wants to improve their condition and I believe he is unduly alarmed, because I believe this bill will eventually help the people in whom he is so interested.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I sincerely hope it does. There are none who need it so much as the farmers of the South.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota.

The amendment was rejected.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, we intend to remain in session until this bill is voted on tonight. I want to give every member of the committee an opportunity to present any amendment that he desires to present; and in order to get a vote within a reasonable time, I ask unanimous consent that debate upon this section and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, the time to be equally divided between those who have amendments on the Clerk's desk. Is there objection?

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, to ask the chairman of the Committee on Labor if she will accept an amendment to eliminate the graveyard shift in industries which are not continuous, the shift that is so difficult for workers, because vitality is below normal between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 6 a. m.

Mrs. NORTON. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I feel that I cannot do that.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dms: Page 53, after line 21. insert new section to be known as section 5 (a) , as follows:

"SEc. 5. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 4 and 5, upon application to the State labor commissioner, or other State official designated by State law (or to the United States Secretary of Labor in case there is no State labor commissioner or other State official designated by law) of the State in which the industry is situated, by any employer subject to this act, and after public hearing and proper showing, the State labor com- missioner or other State otficial designated by State law (or the United States Secretary of Labor in case there is no State labor commissioner or other State official designated by State law) · shall establish a minimum-wage rate less than that provided in section 4 but not less than 25 cents an hour, or a maximum workweek more than that provided in section 5, but not more than 44 hours in any one week With respect to such industry if such action is justified by the following circumstances: ( 1) The cost . of living, (2) the wages paid by employers who voluntarily maintain reasonable wage standards in similar occupations, (3) the wages established in s1mllar occupations through collective labor · agreements negotiated between employers and employees by rep- resentatives of their own choosing, (4) local economic conditions, (5) the relative cost of transporting goods from points of pro- duction to consuming markets, (6) the reasonable value of the services rendered, (7) differences in unit costs of manufacturing occasioned by varying local natural resources, operating condi· tions, or other factors entering into the cost of production, (8) the hours of employment observed by employers who voluntarily maintain reasonable maximum. workweeks in similar occupations, (9) the hours of employment established in similar occupations through collective labor agreements negotiated by the employers and employees by representatives of their own choosing, and (10) the number of persons seeking employment in the occupation to be subject to the maximum workweek.

" (a) Such hearing shall be reported by an official reporter and the entire record of such hearing, together with the order of the State labor commiSsioner, or other State official designated by State law, shall then be forwarded to the Secretary of Labor of the United States. Upon receipt of this record the Secretary of Labor of the . United States is hereby authorized to reverse or modify the order of the State labor commissioner, or other State

[PAGE 7426]

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

[PAGE 7427]

official, if the Secretary of Labor of the United States finds that such order is contrary to the facts as adduced at the hearing.

"(b) In the case of any State that does not have a State labor commissioner, or other State official designated by law, then until such t1me as such State designates a proper official the Secretary of Labor of the United States shall receive all applications provided for herein and conduct the hearings herein provided for either in person or through some deputy labor commissioner designated by the Secretary of Labor of the United States.

"(c) As soon as practicable after the receipt of the record of any hearing before the State labor commissioner or ot her State official designated by law, the Secretary of Labor of the United States shall issue an order either affirming, reversing, or modifying the order of the State labor commissioner, or other State official, and such order, when issued by the Secretary of Labor of the United States, shall supersede the order of the State labor commissioner, or other State official, who shall immediately change his order to comply with the order issued by the Secretary of Labor of the United States. Provided, however, that the order issued by the State labor commissioner, or other State official shall be effective until such time as same is reversed or modified by the Secretary of Labor of the United States.

"(d) Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the Secretary of Labor of the United States under sections 4 and 5, may at any time obtain a review of such order by filing in the circuit court of appeals for the circuit in which is situated his principal place of business, or in the Court of Appeals of the United States for the District of Columbia, a written petition praying that such order be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served on the Secretary, and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, or if it is not in accordance with law to modify or set aside, such order in whole or in part. The judgment or decree of the court shall be final subject to review as provided in sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 28, secs. 346 and 347) . The commencement of proceedings under this subsection shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Secretary's order."

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order on the amendment. It is an amendment which seeks to confer authority upon the State.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, the present bill authorizes the Secretary of Labor to utilize the services of local agencies in the enforcement of this act. All my amendment proposes to do is to afford a decentralized agency where the employer can go and present his case in the event he cannot pay 40 cents an hour or operate on a 44-hour basis. In no event can the State agency or the Secretary of Labor fix the wage scale below 25 cents an hour or permit more than 44 hours in a week. A public hearing is provided for, and the record will be taken down by an official reporter. In case there is no local agency, then the amendment provides that the employer may appeal direct to the Secretary of Labor. After the local agency hears the evidence at a public hearing he can then make his order fixing the wage scale and the number of hours; but, as I say, in no event below 25 cents an hour or more than 44 hours a week. The record then goes to the Secretary of Labor, who has the right to reverse or modify the order. This will provide a limited flexibility, and it is in line with the Democratic platform pledge. Republicans who are insisting on turning relief back to the States, and Democrats who still give lip service to State sovereignty, and those who believe the President's message that there must be some flexibility as well as those who want some legislation at this session that is valid and workable, should seriously consider this amendment.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Has the gentleman made any calculation of the cost of this provision and the amount of personnel necessary to enforce it?

Mr. DIES. Most of the States already have labor commissioners, and already 20 of the States have minimumwage and maximum-hour boards. It is a question of whether we believe in a decentralized agency. When this bill comes back from the Senate I think gentlemen will not recognize it and I predict that it will be the Senate bill with a Federal board. It seems to me that here is recognition of State sovereignty, permitting the States to have some voice in the determination of the matter so that the employer can go to his own local agency in the beginning, which agency understands the problems and is in a position better to adjust these local questions. Tbis is what we did in the Social Security Act, and I propose practically the same thing with reference to this.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Does the gentleman from Illinois make the point of order?

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the bill. The pending bill contemplates the exercise of Federal power for the purpose of establishing minimum wages and maximum hours. The amendment contemplates a very affirmative exercise of power by the State labor commissioner. While there is related subject matter I think it is a very distinct departure from the sovereignty which is contemplated in this bill and, therefore, is not germane.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. DIES. Only to call the Chair's attention to the fact that the present bill proposes to authorize the Secretary of Labor to utilize the services of local agencies in the State to carry out this act. All this amendment proposes is to authorize the State labor commission or State agency to approve exceptions upon given facts where the employer cannot operate upon the maximum provided in this bill.

Mr. DIRKSEN. With reference to the point just raised by the gentleman from Texas let me say that it may utilize the services of the State agencies only by consent and cooperation. It does not confer any authority or affirmative power upon State agencies. That power has been reserved unto the Federal sovereignty itself.

Mr. DIES. In reply to that, under the provisions of my amendment they cannot use any State agency without the consent of the State agency. In the event the State does not cooperate, the Secretary of Labor of the United States acts in the first instance.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCORMACK). The Chair is prepared to rule.

The Chair, fortunately, has had the benefit of the extension of remarks made by the gentleman from Texas in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of May 16, and the Chair has taken advantage of the gentleman's notice in that extension of his intention to offer the amendment he has offered. The Chair, therefore, has been able to anticipate the amendment's being offered and a probable point of order being raised against it.

The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas imposes a limitation upon what might be termed the "escalator" provisions of the pending bill from 25 cents to 40 cents an hour over a 3-year period and from 44 hours a week to 40 hours a week over a like 3-year period. As will be found in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas this limitation applies if a State official finds that certain conditions exist. If so the Secretary of Labor has the power to approve or disapprove, but in no event can any recommendation be made of a salary less than 25 cents per hour nor a workweek in excess of 44 hours.

In the opinion of the Chair the pending amendment is a limitation or an exemption which does not clearly vest in the State officials power to pass State minimum-wage and maximum-hour legislation. Having in mind the broad objectives of the pending bill the Chair feels that the amendment is germane to the bill and is in order.

For the reasons briefiy stated the Chair overrules the point of order.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CONNERY: On page 53 strike out all of section 5 and in lieu thereof insert the following:

"SEC. 5. No employer engaged in commerce in any industry affecting commerce shall employ any of his employees for a workday longer than 8 hours, or shall, from the effective date of the

[PAGE 7427]

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

[PAGE 7428]

original order issued under section 6 with respect to such industry, employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours.

"No employee shall be deemed to be employed in violation of this section if he receives additional compensation for his overtime employment at the rate of one and one-half times the regularly hourly rate at which he is employed, or times the rate applicable under or pursuant to this act, whichever is higher."

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, as will be observed, this is a companion amendment to the one I introduced under section 4. You can readily see I have been striving to have inserted in this bill a straight 40-cent minimum hourly wage and a 40-hour maximum workweek proposition rather than a 25-cent minimum hourly wage with a 44-hour workweek. The amendment I am now presenting simply strikes out the escalator provision, cuts out the 44-hour provision, and makes it a straight 40-hour workweek with time and a half for overtime, effective as soon as the bill becomes a law.

Whatever objection you had to raising the 25 cents an hour to 40 cents, as provided in my earlier amendment, surely you must agree that industry will suffer no great hardship if we cut out the escalator clause on the hours provision and insert a straight 40-hour week.

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

Mr. CONNERY. I yield.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. What becomes of contracts that may have been entered into to perform certain things based on present cost? The gentleman's amendment would raise the cost abruptly as soon as the bill becomes a law. What will happen to those contracts?

Mr. CONNERY. The situation would not be materially different than with the 44-hour provision, for it is a change of only 4 hours and goes into effect immediately instead of becoming effective at the end of the period of 2 years.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONNERY. I yield.

Mr. BRADLEY. Will not the effect of the gentleman's amendment be simply to reduce the worker's wages $1 a week?

Mr. CONNERY. Not necessarily.

Mr. BRADLEY. The hours are reduced to 40. At 25 cents an hour this would make a reduction of $1 a week.

Mr. CONNERY. This reduction in hours will not curtail any worker's income, as the Department of Labor records show that even the southern cotton mills are not now and have not worked 40 hours per week for some years back. Again, this reduction of hours will provide millions of workers with jobs as soon as conditions become normal. In those small industries which must operate more than 40 hours per week, the workers would not suffer any loss because they would collect time and a half for such overtime over 40 hours.

Mr. BRADLEY. But it would reduce their income.

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

Mr. CONNERY. I yield.

Mr. DUNN. I believe in the gentleman's philosophy, but at this time in order to put this bill through, a bill which has the endorsement of the American Federation of Labor, the c. I. O., and the brotherhoods, I believe the gentleman better withdraw his amendment and come along with us.

. Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost love and respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He is a pal of mine. However, I have not seen any message come into this House in which the American Federation of Labor, the C. I. O., or any other labor organization has stated they were against the principle of putting in the straight 40-cent minimum hourly wage or the 40-hour maximum workweek provision at this time. It is true the labor organizations have backed this bill, but they have not gone so far as to say that they are against the amendment I am now offering to better this bill. Labor unanimously seeks a shorter workweek in order to relieve unemployment.

Mr. DUNN. May I say that in the Labor Committee I tried to put in the 5-day, 30 hours a week amendment. I was informed by a man representing the Federation of Labor that they were opposed to it.

Mr. CONNERY. I am with the gentleman on the 30-hourweek proposition, and this amendment I am asking for is a step in that direction.

I am for this wage and hour bill. As I stated yesterday on the floor of this House this bill is a genuine improvement over the monstrosity which was called a wage and hour bill last December. This bill definitely defines a minimum wage and shorter workweek. I seek to improve the bill by having this minimum, which I consider too low and of not enough assistance to our people, made 40 cents per hour and the workweek made 40 hours right now with time and one-half for overtime.

I sincerely hope we can improve this bill, but, if the majority votes to go slower I still intend to support the bill, as it is so much better than the bill we rejected last December. I felt at that time that the Labor Committee would, as they have done, report a better bill before the session closed.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAffiMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CoNNERY].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CONNERY) there were—ayes 6, noes 35.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. COOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. COOLEY: Page 53, line 21, at the end of section 5, insert "Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall apply to persons employed in connection with the marketing of tobacco in auction warehouses."

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, this is another effort on my part to exempt the employees in auction warehouses from the hour provisions of this bill. The other amendment I o:tfered a moment ago would have had the effect of exempting these employees from both the wage and hour provisions, but as I pointed out when I was addressing 'the House at that time, auction warehouses remain open 24 hours a day. This does not mean that these employees actually work 24 hours a day, but the warehouses remain open that long.

May I again impress on the House the fact that in Georgia the entire tobacco crop is marketed in 3 weeks. It is necessary to use a large number of employees to unload the tobacco for the farmers when it is brought into the tobacco warehouse. I cannot understand why this amendment should be objectionable to the Labor Committee.

Frankly, I believe the Biermann amendment is sufficiently broad to include these employees. I do not believe they are engaged in interstate commerce. I likewise believe they are handlers of agricultural commodities and would come under the provisions of that amendment. But by introducing this amendment I seek to clarify the situation so that we may very definitely know that these laborers who assist the farmers in unloading their tobacco shall be exempted from the hour provisions of this act. I fear unless they are exempted definitely from the provisions that the warehousemen will cease to render this very valuable service to the tobacco farmers of our State.

Mr. CREAL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. CREAL. Is it not true that these men to which the gentleman refers are in most cases the sons of farmers, the tobacco raisers themselves, who live in the immediate community, and these men work there unloading that tobacco for their neighbor farmers?

Mr. COOLEY. In many instances, I may say to the gentleman, the warehousemen employ farm boys to work in the warehouse and assist the farmers in placing their tobacco.

Mr. PATRICK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. PATRICK. The gentleman will agree with me that the purpose of this law is to distribute labor and work more evenly over the Nation?

[PAGE 7428]

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

[PAGE 7429]

Mr. COOLEY. That is true.

Mr. PATRICK. If the gentleman's amendment is accepted, will it not tend to defeat the very purposes of this bill?

Mr. COOLEY. Absolutely not.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. COOLEY].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PHILLIPS: Page 53, line 4, after section 5, strike out the whole section and insert a new section, as follows:

"No employer engaged in commerce in any industry affecting commerce shall employ any employees for a workday longer than 6 hours, or shall hereafter employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than 30 hours. No employee shall be deemed to be employed in violation of this section if he receives additional compensation for his overtime employment at the rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly rate at which he is employed, or times the rate applicable under or pursuant to this act, whichever is higher."

Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, as the Members of the House will observe, this is a corollary to the amendment I offered a few minutes ago. The argument has been presented and I will not take the time of the House further.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. PHILLIPS].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. PHILLIPs) there were—ayes 13, noes 33.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BOREN: Page 53, line 21, at the end of the section add "No person, firm, or corporation engaged in the drilling for, production of, or transportation of crude petroleum in interstate commerce shall employ or cause to be employed any worker for more than 40 hours in 1 week, nor more than 72 hours in any 2 consecutive weeks, nor more than 16 hours 1n any 2 consecutive days."

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD and include therein the testimony presented before the Committee on Labor on this subject.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may state that consent to include extraneous matter will have to be obtained in the House.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I modify the request and ask to extend my own remarks in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply provides for maintaining the status quo in the oil industry. For the last 4 years the hours in the oil industry have been regulated on exactly this basis. I believe it is a proper method to approach the problem by industries, and I hope the Committee will see fit to place its stamp of approval upon what the oil industry has been doing for the last 4 years.

Under permission to extend my remarks, I include the following extract from the hearings on the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937:

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 1937

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1937

UNITED STATES SENATE,

JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR AND HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The joint committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m. in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Hugo L. Black (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Hugo L. Black, James E. Murray, Rush D. Holt, Allen J. Ellender, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., and James J. Davis.

Representatives William P. Connery, Jr., Robert Ramspeck, Matthew A. Dunn, Reuben T. Wood, Jennings Randolph, Richard J. Welch, Fred A. Hartley, Jr., William P. Lambertson, Albert Thomas, Joseph A. Dixon, William F. Allen, and Santiago Iglesias.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Congressman BOREN.

STATEMENT OF HON. LYLE H. BOREN, REPRESENTATIVE FROM OKLAHOMA

Representative BOREN. I come before this committee to offer a proposed amendment or suggestion on pending legislation as affecting the oil industry. It will make a provision for the 36-hour workweek.

Recently, when the Connally oil bill and other legislation was before my own committee, I offered there an amendment that--

"No person, firm, or corporation engaged in the drilling for, production of, or transportation of, crude petroleum in interstate commerce shall employ or cause to be employed any worker for more than 40 hours in 1 week nor more than 72 hours in any 2 consecutive weeks, nor more than 16 hours in any 2 consecutive days."

Now, as you will readily see from that amendment, the intention was to establish a 36-hour week, but making a provision for 40 hours in any 1 single week, in order to make it possible to meet emergencies that would require overtime. Also the 16 hours in any 2 consecutive days is an attempt to establish the 6-hour working day but to make reasonable provision for emergencies that might arise because of necessities for overtime.

I present this amendment, gentlemen of the committee, because we have already established in the oil business, since code days, the 36-hour week. I do not mean to indicate that all oil companies abide by that program, but I think it is safe to say that 60 or 70 percent of the companies do abide by a program calling for the 36-hour workweek.

The oil industry is a special problem, and I am very anxious that we be allowed to maintain the standards in the industry that have already been tried and found to be what we want.

I represent one of the greatest oil-producing districts in America and am acquainted first-hand with the situation that has existed in that industry during the last 10 years, as affects the labor, marketing, oil consumption, and production control. I have been a laborer in the oil field and have engaged, to some extent, in the other end of the business, that of drilling for oil, and I know that the 36-hour week has been the answer to the labor problem in my district, and I feel certain, should there be a general provision for a 40-hour week without excepting this great industry, that this industry, which is the third largest industry from the standpoint of the amount of money invested and people concerned in its production, the third in the Nation. This industry needs the 36-hour workweek.

I want to point out again that there are certain companies—and I believe that would include some 60 or 70 percent of them—that are on a 36-hour workweek at the present time, and that they have a reasonable minimum rate of pay.

In offering the above amendment I added thereto before my committee, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, that—

"No person, firm, or corporation engaged in the drilling for, production of, or transportation of crude petroleum in interstate commerce shall pay less than $5 per 6 hours for daily employment."

This amendment for a 36-hour workweek, or $5 a day, would not change the situation in the oil industry, except to bring the chiseler or scalper, or whatever you wish to call him, into line. It is important because competitive features will force the companies now operating on a 36-hour workweek to go to a 40-hour week, or a week of greater hours, if there is no provision made for a 36-hour workweek.

A large percentage of operators who have already gone back to long hours since the code days have been drawing their closer competitors into line with them, so the long-hour workweek is gradually coming back in the oil industry. I have seen it when there was a 12-hour workday, I have seen it when there was a 6-hour workday, and it is very important, in my industry—I mean I represent a district which is largely an oil industry—this great industry that we have in America, that we have some provision to maintain what might be termed the "status quo" in the oil industry, and if I may have permission, I would like to just take from the record in the hearings before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on the so-called Connally hot-oil bill, the statement that I made to that committee supporting the amendment that I offered, and also the statement of Mr. Harvey C. Fremming, president of the International Association of Oilfield, Gas Well, and Refinery Workers of America, who spoke subsequent to me introducting this amendment and utilizing most of his time in discussing the amendment that I proposed there.

I do not care, Senator, to make a lengthy statement. I think I have made it clear. What I want is a provision in this bill that will permit us in the oil industry to maintain what might be called the status quo that we have found to be the solution of our labor problem. I say that in realization that there are a few instances such as the man who is employed as a pumper taking care of one well, perhaps that is his sole job, that could be said that he works 24 hours a day because if the pump quits working at midnight, he probably lives close by and is accustomed to hearing that pump going, and if it fails to work—any of you who live in the oil fields know that when the pump stops working in the middle of the night it is sufficient to awaken you—and the man would go out and look after the well. As a matter of fact, there are few of the individual instances where a man might look after

[PAGE 7429]

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

[PAGE 7430]

one or two wells as a pumper or roustabout maintaining a lease that they could be said to be working on a 24-hour schedule, but who actually perhaps are not working more than 3 or 4 hours a day.

I offer this amendment realizing that there must be some exception made, and I presume that this committee will, in this legislation, make some special provision, or at least some provision for the type of exception which wlll occur in all industries. I know my own correspondence on this amendment brought from the hospitals letters saying that if a similar provision were instituted in the hospitals that the smaller bospitals that had nurses on call would not be able to function properly because of the emergencies that might arise there.

I feel that the adoption of this amendment will be the real answer to the labor problem in the oil industry, and if I am permitted to put in the record the two statements that I indicated you will see that tne president of the International Oil Field Workers Union expresses the same opinion as the sentiment of all workers in the entire oil industry.

They had a convention just the other day in Kansas City of all the oil workers in America, and the record of that convention will show that the oil labor realizes that they need to maintain what I call the status quo, the 36-hour workweek.

That concludes my statement.

The CHAIRMAN, Thank you very much, Congressman.

Representative BOREN. If there are any questions I will be glad to answer them. May I be allowed to enter into the record. these two statements?

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection? All right.

The statements referred to are as follows:

"STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. LYLE H. BOREN, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

"Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to offer for the record later a prepared statement, substantiating my proposal here, but I would like to propose to this committee that it add to H. R. 5366, at the conclusion thereof, after the word 'repealed', these words: 'And following section 2 of said act add:

"'No person, firm, or corporation engaged in the drilling for, production of, or transportation of crude petroleum in interstate commerce shall employ or cause to be employed any worker for more than 40 hours in 1 week nor more than 72 hours in any 2 consecutive weeks nor more than 16 hours in any 2 consecutive days: Provided further, That no person, firm, or corporation engaged in the drilling for, production of, or transportation of crude petroleum in interstate commerce shall pay less than $5 per 6 hours for daily employment.'"

"In substantiating this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer later for the record a prepared statement, and due to the fact that the committee has other witnesses here who desire to be heard this morning, I will not take up more of your time.

"Mr. COLE. Might I suggest that in order to have the hearing printed, and I assume you would want your statement to follow' what you have said here this morning—

"Mr. BOREN. Yes.

"Mr. COLE. That you submit it to us as early as possible.

"Mr. BOREN. I wlll do that. That 1s all I have this morning, Mr. Chairman."

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HON. LYLE H. BOREN, M. C.

"Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer for the consideration of this committee, an amendment to H. R. 5366.:

"'No person, firm, or corporation engaged in the dr1lling for, production of, or transportation of crude petroleum in interstate commerce shall employ or cause to be employed any worker for more than 40 hours in 1 week, nor more than 72 hours in any 2 consecutive weeks, nor more than 16 hours in any 2 consecutive days: Provided further, That no person, firm, or corporation engaged in the drilling for, production of, or transportation of crude petroleum in interstate commerce shall pay less than $5 per 6 hours for daily employment.'

In offering this amendment to H. R. 5366, I am doing so in the belief that stability in the oil industry should provide stability in labor conditions in that industry, and that legislation aimed to aid the producers of oil should take into account the workmen engaged in that production.

"I represent one of the greatest oil-producing districts in America. I am acquainted first-hand with the situation that has existed in that industry during the last 10 years as affecting labor, oil production, oil marketing, and to some degree oil consumption and productton control.

"I have seen crude oil sell as low as 10 cents per barrel in my home country. I think I have some first-hand knowledge of the chaotic conditions that have existed in the marketing fields, both in the crude marketing and retail marketing of the finished products. But, also, I am keenly aware of the labor conditions that have existed in the oil fields for the past 10 years. I have seen the 12-hour day as a common practice; then, under the N. R. A. code, as low as 6-hour day. I have witnessed the effect of unemployment and observed the general condition of the country where oil is produced, both unuer the long-hour and the short-hour day system. I want to point out to this committee that permanent legislation for the oil industry should take into account the laborer in that industry.

"The necessity for this amendment is clearly pointed out by the fact that oil has gone up from 10 cents to $1.27 a barrel in my district. That is to say, that the price of oil has increased more than 1,000 percent but the pay of the workmen has increased far less than 10 percent on an average.

"The evidence in my home county would indicate that employment has not increased at all with the increase in the market price of oil. Of course, I cannot point out specific figures, but I could give you numerous examples from my general acquaintance with the personnel engaged in the production of oil in my district. Labor Department figures indicate that there has been an 8-percent reduction in employment concurrent with a 900,000-barrel daily increase in crude production.

"I want to point out that there are certain integrated companies maintaining operation on a 36-hour workweek and at reasonable minimum rate of pay. I think it is safe to say there is a fair percentage of the companies engaged in oil production that are opterating now on the basis that would be set up under the terms of my proposed amendment. Their experience under the N. R. A. brought them to the conclusion that this operation was the wisest policy.

"However, there is a large percentage of the operators who have already gone back to long hours, which in turn means less men on the pay roll and workmen engaged for longer hours without proportional increase in compensation.

"This means that the 12~hour day in crude production is finding its way back into the producing fields, This condition, while not common, is of sufficient strength to act as an example frequently pointed to by those in the inqustry who are attempting to be reasonably fair.

"It is evident that operators working under the code provisions, while facing the competitive factors relating to hours and rate$ of pay, must see stability and uniformity in hours of labor and rates of pay or natural economic laws will cause them to lengthen hours and bring their rates of pay down to a figure comparable to this type of competitive operations.

"My understanding of H. R. 5366 or S. 790, making permanent the Connally hot oil bill, is that in the name of conservation it seeks to establish, among other things, a uniform price. The bill has as its purpose, economic value to the operators involved with, of course, an element consistent with the general welfare involved in the economy affecting this great natural resource. Since this legislation is in fact an economic stabil1z1ng measure, it is important that we should establish economie stabilization !or the workers involved. It is upon this principle that I have submitted for your consideration the proposed amendment.

"Mr. COLE. Thank you.

"Colonel Thompson was to go on next, but if you are wtlling to give way to Mr. Fremming, who has to leave this afternoon for Chicago, Mr. Thompson, we wlll hear him.

"Mr. THOMPSON. I will be glad to give way.

"Mr. CQLL, He bas a statement which he does not think will take more than about 5 minutes.

"Mr. THOMPSON. I will give way with pleasure.

"Mr. COLE. Before we hear him, the committee has considered whether it will meet this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Mr. Mapes is on another committee which requires his appearance this afternoon.

"Mr. THOMPSON. That will suit me much better.

"Mr. COLE. And after Mr. Fremmtng's statement we will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

"Mr. THOMPSON. Ten o'clock tomorrow morning?

"Mr. COLE. Yes; we may go on tomorrow afternoon and Thursday afternoon if we find it suits the convenience of the committee,

"Mr. Fremming, we will hear you now."

STATEMENT OF HARVEY C. FREMMING, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL FIELD, GAS WELL, AND REFINERY WORKERS OF AMERICA

Mr. COLE. Give your full name for the record.

Mr. FREMMING. My name is Harvey C. Fremming. I am president of the International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well, and Refinery Workers of America, and I appear here on behalf of that association. The theory of the association has from the inception of the recovery in the industry attempted to contribute to certain defined economic standards in the petroleum industry through tts organization and its relationship to the industry and through its association with the industry.

My appearance, Mr. Chairman, has no immediate bearing on the bill, although I am not unmindful of the tremendous value of conservation, but may I be pardoned for saying that I do not look upon this as solely a conservation measure. I cannot bring myself to think of this as a conservation measure. It is purely an economic measure, and the use of the term "conservation" here to my mind is in fact a misnomer. We are not unmindful of the purpose of the bill and the desire to have it continued for the economic reasons involved, but at the same time we appreciate the efforts being made to maintain the price structure through this instrumentality, and we offer the suggestion that there is another factor involved and that is the human factor in the industry itself. And that is the reason the only purpose of appearing here, not to oppose the purpose of this bill itself but to call attention to the fact that there are some 85,000 workers in the petroleum industry, some of whom, by reason of unfair practices, are not going to benefit in the price-structure value of this bill, because some have failed to maintain reasonable competitive conditions in the production of oil so that we have here the cost problem; we have the uneconomic situation of crude production, and it is our purpose, gentlemen, to ask for an amendment to

[PAGE 7430]

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

[PAGE 7431]

the bill which will provide for maximum hours, regulation of maximum hours, and minimum rates of pay as just previously introduced by Congressman BOREN, of Oklahoma. We support this amendment, and we support it for many reasons. I am not going into a lengthy discussion because of the courtesy of this committee in extending time to permit me to be heard this morning. There are many reasons why this can be appreciated not only in this one branch of the industry but because of the human factor as well; this, Mr. Chairman, is not merely a question of regulating the shipment of contraband oil—that is, oil produced in excess of State allowables. It goes much beyond that, as very aptly appeared from the inquiries here this morning by members of the committee.

The right to regulate maximum hours of employment and minimum rates of pay is no longer a fancy or a theory advanced by theorists tpat appear before committees of Congress, but the fixing of minimum rates of pay and maximum hours of employment are now regarded within the rights of Congress in regulating interstate commerce. And certainly commerce is affected materially where human conditions obtained within the industry itself, and that leads us to the labor factor, the human factor in the industry. It is upon that principle and that principle alone that we appear here this morning and urge that this committee amend the present bill to establish maximum hours and minimum rates of pay as provided in the amendment introduced by Congressman BOREN this morning, and I am going to limit my statement this morning to the suggestion contained in that amendment, although I think some day this committee could give consideration to the study of whether or not the subterranean movement of oil from day to day, although it may not reach the top of the crown, has some value in a consideration of what interstate commerce is, although our understanding of it today is largely due to the fact that the movement in interstate commerce, for the purpose of regulation, must be of articles on top of the ground. It is our theory that some day we may develop the proposition that subterranean movement of certain commodities up to the point of the law of capture affects interstate commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are plenty of reasons, plenty of reasons and certainly economic reasons, for this committee to consider favorably the amendment presented by Mr. BOREN to this measure, to this bill, if it is to be a stabilizing factor in the field of economics. We are, of course, interested in that, but we are equally interested in the human equation of reducing that competitive factor in the production of petroleum. That is the principle underlying our support, and that is the main principle upon which I wanted to discuss this with you this morning. That is all I have to say. We could enter into a lengthy discussion of this principle, but the facts are known to you, and I think we all understand that the purpose today is one of stabilization in the industry, with all due respect to the statement made by the distinguished Secretary this morning; but the human equation is there, and we must give consideration to that in maintaining the proper economic relation today.

I am somewhat discouraged by the conduct of the industry itself. When we met here in Washington in the bleak, stormy days in July 1933, the industry itself lay prostrate; in fact, the industry was so concerned with price and was concerned with consumer requirements because of the competitive picture within the industry that at that time it agreed upon a code of fair competition which had for its purpose regulation of labor relations within the industry as applied to maximum hours and minimum rates of pay. Most of the substantial organizations in the industry have maintained that interest, but we still have our chiselers, if I may use the common expression, Mr. Chairman, among them-men or corporations who benefit not only from the economic factor but from all other stabilizing factors that have come as a result of that original code.

The Morgans and the Du Pants—if I may be permitted to refer to them—the Morgans, the Du Pants, and the Mellons are outstanding in that particular situation as regards long hours and low rates of pay, and who in fact, within the internal operation of the industry itself, are imposing hazards and hardships against maintaining stabilized conditions of employment and rates of pay which in turn reflect themselves in consumer purchasing power that maintain our national economy.

That is all I have to say this morning, Mr. Chairman. We hope you will see fit to accept the amendment presented by Mr. BOREN.

Mr. CoLE. Thank you. May I ask if this amendment you approve, as suggested by Mr. BOREN, is in any legislation now pending before the Labor Committee?

Mr. FREMMING. No; and it is not contemplated. Incidentally, there is in the general legislation provision for 40 hours a week, and we have a different situation in this industry which has given every evidence of its willingness—

Mr. COLE (interposing). I mean generally.

Mr. FREMMING. The general legislation is for 40 hours.

Mr. COLE. Is that included here?

Mr. FREMMING. That is not included in this. I understand your point. But the general bill will provide for 40 hours, and that bill is to come from the executive branch, as I understand it. But it does not provide for 36 hours, which this amendment would.

Mr. COLE. The general bill, you understand, will come from the executive branch?

Mr. FREMMING. Yes.

Mr. COLE. Would that be satisfactory to you?

Mr. FREMMING. No; it just means 4 hours more per day, which in turn means a reduction in employee load in the industry.

Mr. COLE. All right.

Mr. PETTENGILL. As I understand you, you said that a great many of the companies had maintained the labor standards of the N.R.A.

Mr. FREMMING. Yes, Mr. PETTENGILL; in the petroleum code.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Yes; the petroleum code. What were the hours provided in that code?

Mr. FREMMING. 36 hours per week.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Thirty-six?

Mr. FREMMING. Yes. I should repeat there, Mr. PETRENGILL, the manner in which Congressman BOREN presented his amendment to the committee. The 40 hours he gave means not more than 40 hours in any 1 week, and not more than 72 hours in any 2 weeks, and not more than 16 hours in 2 consecutive days.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Was that taken from the N. R. A. code?

Mr. FREMMING. That is verbatim, almost verbatim from the code itself, and for 2 years we operated splendidly under that code.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Had the rates of increase in pay to labor been in proportion to the benefit of this increase of about 27 percent on crude oil at the well head?

Mr. FREMMING. I would not say that they would equal 27 percent. The wages were increased, for the most part, in the industry, and for the most part we still have the benefit of some increase by reason of this legislation. But they all did not go along. We still have, in some sections, 12 hours a day. That was eliminated in 1933 by the code. When you speak of benefits, you mean in dollars and cents?

Mr. PETI'ENGILL. Total dollars per person.

Mr. FREMMING. Yes, sir; they have benefited. I do not say to the extent of 27 percent, but I do not think 27 percent is the whole story, Mr. PETTENGILL, if it be remembered how they were up here asking for relief from this 10-cent oil, and 20-cent oil throughout the industry. I think it must be remembered that the 27 percent does not represent the benefit received by this industry; it merely means that on the average, but that does not represent the whole truth, and we should not be confused by it at all.

Mr. PETTENGILL. The 85,000 workers you represent, the greatest bulk of them, have had wage increases, have they?

Mr. FREMMING. Yes.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Commensurate with the increase in price of crude?

Mr. FREMMING. Not necessarily commensurate with that, but they have had increases, substantial increases.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Some of them have not been increased as much as 27 percent, but they have had increases?

Mr. FREMMING. Yes; I would say most of them, except in the chiseler group.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Out of the 85,000 total number represented by you, how many thousands do you think, to use your expression are at the mercy of the chiseler?

Mr. FREMMING. Oh, I would say not to exceed 25 percent, not in excess of that. It is just about the same percentage that runs throughout the whole industry.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Yes.

Mr. FREMMING. About the same group that runs the hot oil the chiselers who will not pay their workers.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Thank you.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Wolverton.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Does the proposed amendment of Mr. BOREN relate only to the production, or does it include refining and marketing employees?

Mr. FREMMING. Only the producing end. We have no special difficulty in refining and never have had; it is only in the producing and transportation end, but so far as the refining branch of the industry is concerned, we have never had any quarrel on that question; 36 hours is maintained in that industry, and there is no charge of chiseling with respect to the refining end. As to the marketing end today, it is the most chaotic that we have ever had. For your information, we are now working on that branch of the industry and are very earnestly trying to be helpful insofar as the worker problem is concerned. The regulation of hours of employment, fixed at 40 hours a week, obtained in the code.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I was unfortunately engaged otherwise and did not hear the amendment.

Mr. FREMMING. Yes.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Is it different from the one which was presented to the Senate?

Mr. FREMMING. It is the same; it is the same.

Mr. WOLVERTON. If I remember correctly, in your amendment you ask for the base of 36 hours a week and the rate of pay to be fixed at $5 as a minimum rate.

Mr. FREMMING: That is right; yes; that is correct.

Mr. WOLVERTON. And that relates only to those engaged in the production end?

Mr. FREMMING. Yes; drilling, production, and transportation.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Is that limited only to States that have the benefit of the Connally Act?

Mr. FREMMING. No.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Has employment increased over the period of 3 years?

[PAGE 7431]

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

[PAGE 7432]

Mr. FREMMING. To the contrary, it has decreased.

Mr. WoLVERTON. The figures presented to us would indicate that 900,000 more barrels per day are being produced, and yet I understand you to say that at this time it is a fact that the number of employees has actually decreased?

Mr. FREMMING. That is correct, in the last 3 years.

Mr. WOLVERTON. How do you account for that fact?

Mr. FREMMING. One of the special factors is the improved method of petroleum recovery today, through technical development making it possible to bring a well to production at a much shorter period of time than it took in the past. For example, for the east Texas field, to which reference has been made on several occasions, the sum total of drilling time to 3,500 feet, usually 3,500 feet being the average, runs around 15 days. Seven or eight years ago that was an unheard-of thing.

Mr. PETTENGILL. How many days?

Mr. FREMM!NG. Fifteen days, full time, full drilling, including cementing time and everything, the construction of the derrick, spudding, and bringing the well to production, in 15 days.

Mr. PETTENGILL. That means drilling more than 200 feet a day?

Mr. FREMMING. Oh, yes. It is proper to say in that connection there are certain drilling hazards elsewhere that do not obtain in east Texas. For instance, in the Kettleman Hills field, for example, to bring in a well to production would take approximately 6 months; they may be able to drlll in less time than 6 months, but if they can bring in a well in 90 days it is a happy condition.

Mr. WOLVERTON. What has been the percentage of decrease tn employment?

Mr. FREMMING. It will be—the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the reduction has been running about 8 percent since the code became effective. Of course, there was a tremendous increase in the employee roll when the code became efiective in September 1933, but since that time there has been about an 8-percent reduction in the crude production—in the drilling end, not the refining end of the industry.

Mr. WoLVERTON. I understand. What accounts for this decrease in the production end?

Mr. FREMMING. That is chiefly based upon improved methods of production, based principally upon the technical development in drilling equipment, primarily.

Mr. PETTENGILL. What about the refining branch?

Mr. FREMMING. They have increased employment in that end, due to the requirements to take care of this 900,000 barrels of crude, and the consumer demand has increased proportionately, as we understand it. There was about a 22-percent increase in consumer demand last year.

Mr. COLE. Is that all?

Mr. PETTENGILL. I have nothing further.

Mr. FREMMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman LUCE.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. BOREN].

The amendment was rejected.

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

Mr. Chairman, I realize it comes in rather poor grace to seek to obtain votes when you know a bill is going to pass. This bill is of vital importance to us who come from the South. You can ridicule us now, but we will be back here or Representatives from our districts of our political faith will be back here when many of those who ridicule us will not be here. You may seek to impose upon us and our section humiliation and disgrace and you may seek to heap sectionalism upon us, but there will come a day when you will repent politically in sackcloth and ashes. I do not blame any of the gentlemen who are at heart for this bill for supporting it. I believe that down deep in the hearts of at least 60 percent of the Members of this House they are not for this bill and are supporting it purely, solely, and entirely for political purposes. [Applause.]

We are not afraid of denunciation. We are not afraid of C. I. O.'s. We stand upon our merits and stand for the people who send us here. When you needed relief we have stood by you from the North who now seek to humiliate us. We have voted to give you relief that we south of the Mason and Dixon's line do not need, and we voted for it because you said the people of your districts and of your States were starving and in distress. We needed nothing in the way of slum-clearance houses which we have given you. We who hail from south of the Mason and Dixon's line can get along without the relief that is being given today. We were so generous that we voted for the recent relief bill when we knew that the 11 Southern States, with 29,000,000 people, received less money for relief than the one State of Pennsylvania with 9,000,000 people. That is how we stood on this proposition. [Applause.] We wanted to grant relief for those in distress, though you do not return the sentiment. We have great regards for the wonderful Representatives from the State of Pennsylvania.

You are going to pass this bill, and we well know it. Those who are for this bill come here, like the gentleman from St. Louis. telling us this bill will give employment to the people.

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I am a gentleman from St. Louis.

Mr. FULLER. I refer to the gentleman from St. Louis [Mr. COCHRAN]. We who hail from the South know he hates the Democrats who represent the entire South. The gentleman does not apply the principles of this bill to the House restaurant he helps to operate here in Washington. where the Negroes serve for practically nothing.

This bill will not give employment to more people. The South will have its factories closed and its industries forced into bankruptcy, and many people will be thrown out of employment who are now making an honest and a legitimate living. But we are not going to come back to you to beg and pray for relief. We have been trying to do things for the people of the North. We have gone along with many Federal administration propositions which we were not for at heart and we have done so because of loyalty to the party and the administration. I say to you who come from the North and who in these closing hours cast this stain and reflection upon the men who represent the South that if it were not for the South, the cradle of democracy, the South which has kept the home fires burning for the last 80 years, there would not be one of you here today, and there would not be a National Democratic Party. [Applause.]

We offer no apology for our attitude. When you state by words or by innuendo that we are engaged in slavery, that we have no respect for our laboring people, and that we are paying starvation wages to our people, you are either seekmg to mislead or you are making statements concerning something about which you know absolutely nothing. [Applause.]

This bill is not the kind our President wanted when he said in his message no reasonable person would demand a uniform measure for the entire country. None of the advocates for this measure care that we have a long haul and from 50-to 100-percent increase over the North and East in freight rates. The wealthy industries of the Northeast and their representatives demand this bill to bankrupt the industries of the South. While they talk 25 cents per hour, it means 40 cents per hour. No living man is more for labor than I. I came from that class, and that class has made me what I am. I have worked as a union laborer, as a section hand and upon the public works of the county, even for $1 per day with a pick and shovel for 10 long hours.

My relatives belong to this class. But I resist the efforts to ruin the canners, lumbermen, stave mills, poultrymen, dairymen, nurserymen, and other industries of my district. Were there a differential, the load would not be so severe. After all, the farmers will bear the burdens with the consuming public.

In the last few years we of the South have taken under protest much punishment. Our two-thirds Democratic convention rule has been abrogated. We have not received our proportionate share of relief, as is exemplified by the fact our W. P. A. laborers receive $21 per month while those of New York receive $55. If wages should be uniform in the entire Nation, why not pay the southern laborer the same as in the Northeast? We have witnessed a determined effort to humiliate the glorious South for political purposes by forcing upon us the unconstitutional so-called antilynching bill. And while our State rights have been ignored and we have heen punished, which we became accustomed to years ago when a tribute was levied upon our people, we are for our country and will remain Democratic. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman; I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I shall offer is to help the wood-distillation business in New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee, and in many other states.

[PAGE 7432]

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

[PAGE 7433]

We distill wood to make charcoal, wood alcohol, acetate of lime, and other products. This industry requires work 7 days a week. It is impossible to shut one of these factories down at the end of the week. The profit in this industry is very small at the present time. The Government nearly ruined the industry when it changed the formula for denatured alcohol. There was a time when wood alcohol was used as a denaturant of grain alcohol. The Government has discontinued that and since then the business has just been hanging by its eyebrows, as it were. They tell me that if this bill goes through so that they could only work 40 hours a week and would have to pay 40 cents an hour, their business would be ruined.

The farmers during the winter months cut 4-foot wood and haul it in to the factory to get a little money to tide them over through the winter and spring. Others make this a yearly work, cutting and hauling wood for the factories. While the industry does not pay big wages and works long hours, it saves many from going on relief.

Should this bill become effective without exempting them from the provisions, the results may add many more to the relief rolls. I hope the amendment will be passed. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dies: Page 53, line 21, after the word "higher," insert the following: "Provided, however, That overtime employment shall only be permitted in the case of emergency work which shall mean 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."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was rejected

The Clerk read as follows:

INDUSTRIES AFFECTING COMMERCE

SEc. 6. The Secretary, as soon as practicable after the effective date of this section, shall, after due notice to interested persons and giving them an opportunity to be heard, determine the relation of the various industries to commerce. If, in the case of any industry, the Secretary finds (a) that the activities of such industry are Nation-wide in their scope, or (b) that such industry is dependent for its existence upon substantial purchases or sales of goods in commerce and upon transportation in commerce, or (c) that the relation of such industry to commerce is in other respects close and substantial, the Secretary shall issue an order declaring such industry to be an industry affecting commerce. Such order shall take effect at such time not more than 120 days after it is issued as the Secretary may designate in the order. An order issued under this section shall be modified or revoked whenever the Secretary finds, after due notice to interested persons and giving them an opportunity to be heard, that the facts so require. The testimony upon any hearing provided for in this section shall be reduced to writing and filed with the Secretary.

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

Mr. DIES. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important sections of the bill, and I wonder if the gentlewoman from New Jersey would not let us have 20 minutes.

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

Mrs. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. MAPES. I think this is a fair illustration of the state of mind we get into when we convene at 11 o'clock and try to pass an important bill of this kind in one day's sitting. Of course, the membership of the House is in no state of mind to consider any legislation now on its merits. This is a very important section, and personally I would like to have at least 5 minutes on a motion to eliminate the section from the bill. Tomorrow we will probably do nothing.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to obJect—

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the motion is not in order. There has been no debate on the section, and I submit an amendment, which I send to to the Clerk's desk.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is sustained.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion.

Mr. MAPES. The motion has been withdrawn by a point of order and the ruling of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MAPEs: On page 53, line 22, strike out all of section 6.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to have the attention of the Chairman and the other members of the Committee in the consideration of the amendment which I have offered. Personally I cannot see how this section will do any good and I can see how it may cause constant annoyance to industry and embarass the courts in determining whether an industry is engaged in interstate commerce or not, when a question of a violation of this law comes before the court. It makes possible the creation of an army of snoopers to pry into the conduct of every business engaged in interstate commerce. Certainly a violation of this law as to wages and hours will be the easiest thing in the world to establish. It will not take an army of snoopers to find out whether an employer of labor is paying less than 25 or 40 cents an hour or whether he is working his employees more than 40 or 44 hours per week. His books will show that, and every person who works for him will know it. Any district attorney in the United States can find that out without any trouble. The section is not necessary for that purpose.

The section provides that the Secretary of Labor may pass regulations determining in effect what is interstate commerce, but there is no provision in the bill that a violation of the orders of the Secretary is unlawful. No penalty is provided for a violation of the orders of the Secretary. At best the findings of the Secretary in that respect can only be used as evidence upon the trial of a case in court. It may be argued that the Secretary of Labor finds this or that is interstate commerce, and therefore the court ought to so find. A court would be embarrassed if he felt that he must reach a different conclusion than the Secretary. The section can serve no good purpose and ought to be stricken from the bill.

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

Mr. MAPES. Yes.

Mr. HALLECK. Has the gentleman from Michigan any idea how long it might take for the Secretary of Labor to determine just what industries are within the provisions of this act and what are not?

Mr. MAPES. No. Of course, it is a perfectly impossible task for anyone to perform, and as I read the bill it does not make an iota of difference whether she finds an industry is within interstate commerce or not. That is a question for the court eventually, and the court would only be embarrassed by any finding which the Secretary might make.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan would have the Members of this Committee believe that the Secretary of Labor is given power arbitrarily to exempt one industry from the provisions of this bill while subjecting another industry to them. That is not so.

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

Mr. RANDOLPH. I cannot yield just now.

Mr. MAPES. I think the gentleman misunderstood my statement.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am sorry. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MAPES. One of the proponents of the bill made that statement before the Committee on Rules. My contention is that it does not matter at all what the Secretary of Labor

[PAGE 7433]

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

[PAGE 7434]

holds in regard to the matter. The court must determine whether an industry comes within the scope of the bill, regardless of the finding or regulation of the Secretary of Labor.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The bill directs, not authorizes, the Secretary to find, with respect to each industry, facts bearing on how extensive are its interstate operations. If those operations are in fact extensive, the Secretary is directed, not authorized, to issue an order declaring the industry to be one affecting interstate commerce. My sense of fairness tells me, and the gentleman knows, that no court in the land would convict anyone of violating a law as indefinite as this would be should his amendment be adopted. Would the gentleman from Michigan like to determine at his peril—peril of going to jail, mind you—whether the relation of the whole industry to interstate commerce is close and substantial when he is only one member of it? The gentleman knows that a criminal statute must clearly define not only those who are to be subject to it but also what constitutes a violation of it. If the gentleman will take the trouble to read the committee report on the bill he will find that this is the very reason section 6 of the committee amendment directs the Secretary of Labor to determine these facts in the first instance. He knows that if the bill were otherwise we might as well throw it in the wastebasket right now, and that is why he asks you to vote for his amendment.

Prior to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the National Labor Relations Act cases that Court had uniformly held, as a matter of law, that production did not affect interstate commerce so as to bring activities connected with production within the regulatory power of Congress. In the National Labor Relations Act cases, however, the Court held that the question whether or not production affected interstate commerce in the case of any particular industry or enterprise depended on facts.

Under the National Labor Relations Act those facts are determined in the first instance by the Labor Board. Under the bill those facts are to be determined in the first instance by the Secretary of Labor.

It is absolutely necessary, if the bill is not to be void for indefiniteness that an administrative officer determine in 'the first instance these facts with respect to the industry involved. Congress cannot, and as a matter of fairness should not, require an individual employer to determine at his peril whether or not the facts with respect to the scope of the interstate operations of this industry are sufficient as a matter of law to make him subject to regulation by the Federal Government. He is only one member of the industry, and, although he knows the facts with respect to his own individual enterprise, he does not know, and has no way of finding out, those facts with respect to the whole industry. Hence the Secretary of Labor is directed to determine these facts.

Those who seek to write an artificial definition of what constitutes a close and substantial relation of an industry to interstate commerce should read the case of Santa Cruz Packing Co. against National Labor Relations Board, decided by the Supreme Court on March 28, 1938. The Chief Justice, in the course of his opinion, stated:

There is thus no point in the instant case in a demand for the drawing of a mathematical line. And what is reasonably clear in a particular application is not to be overborne by the simple and familiar dialectic of suggesting doubtful and extreme cases. The critical words of the provision of the National Labor Relations Act in dealing with the described labor practices are "affecting commerce," as defined (sec. 2 (6)). It is plain that the provision cannot be applied by a mere reference to percentages, and the fact that petitioner's sales in interstate and foreign commerce amounted to 37 percent and not to more than 50 percent of its production cannot be deemed controlling. The question that must be faced under the act upon particular facts is whether the unfair labor practices involved have such a close and substantial relation to the freedom of interstate commerce from injurious restraint that these practices may constitutionally be made the subject of Federal cognizance through provisions looking to the peaceable adjustment of labor disputes.

The question of degree is constantly met in other relations. It is met whenever the Interstate Commerce COmmission is required to find whether an intrastate rate or practice of an interstate carrier causes an undue and unreasonable discrimination against interstate or foreign commerce. • • • It is met under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, where the question is whether the employee's occupation at the time of his injury is "in interstate transportation or work so closely related to such transportation as to be practically a part of it." * * * It is met in the enforcement of the Clayton Act in determining whether the effect of the described provisions in contracts for the sale of commodities is "to substantially lessen competition." * * *

Such questions cannot be escaped by the adoption of any artificial rule.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. I have some street-railway and bus companies up in my State that are intrastate in character. Assuming that 2 percent of their business might involve passengers and baggage coming from outside the State, could the Secretary of Labor rule that the business of these companies was interstate in character under the provisions of this bill?

Mr. RANDOLPH. No; I feel she would not so hold in such an instance.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word for the purpose of eliciting information from the Committee. I believe the Members of the House would like to know if, when a case under this bill goes to the court of appeals, it goes solely on the record made in the hearing before the Secretary of Labor? That is the first question. Secondly, when the appeal is taken, does a supersedeas go along with the appeal? What happens to a person adversely affected by the Secretary's order between the rendition of that order and the determination of the circuit court of appeals? I think all the Members here would like this information of anyone who can supply it.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman refer to the penal section of the bill?

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Yes; that is what I am talking about.

Mr. WOOD. It does not go up on the record. That is the answer to the gentleman's first question.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. It does not go upon the record?

Mr. WOOD. No.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Then upon what does the circuit court of appeals base its determination if it has no record before it?

Mr. WOOD. The record of the Secretary and additional testimony adduced before the court.

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. That is what I asked. Additional testimony is taken before the court?

Mr. WOOD. Certainly.

Mr. COX. The gentleman is entirely in error about that,

Mr. Chairman. There is no provision in the bill for the taking of testimony before the court to which the case is appealed.

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

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Yes; for information.

Mr. CELLER. I think the procedure is outlined on page 55, section 8:

A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served on the Secretary, and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered.

The testimony the court of appeals would have would be the testimony taken before the Secretary of Labor.

Mr. COX. The question now arises as to whether a supersedeas on the findings of the Secretary of Labor is granted; and if granted, by whom?

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. What I want to know is what happens to the business of the person affected between the time he appeals and the time the circuit court of appeals renders judgment.

Mr. DIES. His business is already gone.

Mr. CELLER. If the gentleman will read lines 18, 19, and 20 on page 55 he will find the following:

The commencement of proceedings under this subsection shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Secretary's order.

[PAGE 7434]

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

[PAGE 7435]

Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. In other words, I assume he would have to seek from the circuit court of appeals a stay on the determination of the Secretary of Labor.

Mr. WOOD. The court is authorized to allow supersedeas in all cases.

Mr. COX. Under the language of the bill, if the Secretary should initiate an investigation and should make a finding adverse to an individual, the individual would have to suffer the imposition of the penalty, whatever the penalty might be, until the record of the proceeding might be perfected and the matter handled by the circuit court of appeals upon application for a grant of supersedeas of the order of the Secretary; in other words, under the language of the bill as drawn, a perfectly innocent party is at least for the time being deprived of his right of appeal, denied due process.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not deem it necessary or appropriate at this time to impose upon the membership of this House an explanation of the reasons which actuated me, which were, of course, entirely satisfactory to me, at the time I voted to recommit to the Committee on Labor the wage and hour bill which came before us for consideration at the extraordinary session of the Seventy-fifth Congress last fall; nor shall I attempt to reconcile my position upon that bill with the position I have taken upon the measure now under consideration, further than to say that, although the two bills deal with the same subject matter and seek a solution of the same great problems, they are fundamentally, basically, and drastically different. The two bills contain very different methods of approach to the solution of the very vital, yet perplexing, problem—a problem which is national in its scope and upon the proper solution of which depends the welfare and progress of a large group of our people.

It is not possible in the limited time at my disposal to discuss with any degree of detail either the problem or the solution sought to be accomplished by either of the two measures. I believe that Congress is justified in employing every reasonable and constitutional method which is necessary to prevent the maintenance of intolerable substandard labor conditions by a selfish minority of employers—employers who insist upon their right to exploit the men, women, and children of this Nation, and to cheat and to chisel to the end that they may engage in destructive, cutthroat competition at the great hazard of subjecting the American people to the paralyzing and devastating consequence of industrial warfare. All of us know that when a disreputable and vicious and selfish minority is permitted to maintain intolerable and unbearable labor conditions and to survive and thrive at the expense of the laboring man in any particular industry that the inevitable effect, the ultimate, yea, the immediate result is the lowering of the labor standards in the whole of the industry.

A great majority of our employers are humane, fair, just, and reputable, and are willing to approve, adopt, and embrace a program and a law which contemplates a reasonable regulation of hours and a fair, just, and reasonable regulation of wages. The American employers will welcome a reasonable and simple bill which may be easily and effectively enforced, but they insist upon being freed from the clutches of a bureaucratic government, boards, and administrators. This is a simple bill; the penalties provided, the fine and the imprisonment, will be imposed and inflicted upon all who in reckless disregard of its provisions trample upon the sacred rights of the laboring man to live. The malefactors will answer at the public bar of justice, before judge and jury in open court, which is the proper forum for the enforcement of our public laws.

The only power or function delegated to the Secretary of Labor is the duty to determine the relation of the various industries to interstate and foreign commerce, which, after all, is nothing more than a preliminary finding not binding upon the courts in which controversies may be determined, together with the duty to investigate and to collect and transmit to the Department of Justice information and data regarding wages and hours, conditions and practices of employment in the industries affected by this act, and to make and issue regulations and orders with reference to the employment of learners and those whose efficiency is impaired by age or other infirmities or disabilities. The Secretary of Labor is not given any power of enforcement.

The Chief of the Children's Bureau is authorized to make investigations and, if necessary, to institute proceedings for the purpose of restraining violations of the child-labor provisions of the act, and to administer the provisions relating to the oppression of children in industry,

Out of the meager minimums of $11 a week to begin with and $16 a week in the fourth year's operation of this bill I hope that we may all remember that the laboring man who in most instances is the father of a family and the head of a household, will have to pay his house rent and for food and fuel, and for clothing and for medical and dental care and services for himself, his wife, and children, and for the education of his children, his taxes, together with a multiplicity of incidentals too numerous to mention.

We have heard a lot in recent years about developing and expanding our foreign markets for the products of our fields and factories. Our best market is the American market. If we would expand our great American market we must increase the purchasing power of the masses. I have always thought, maintained, and believed that the American farmer is not only entitled to the cost of production but to an adequate profit for the products of his fields and his labor and that the American workingman is entitled to a fair, a just, and an adequate living wage. I do not think, and I never have thought, that the 1938 farm bill would have the effect of guaranteeing security and prosperity to the American farmer; neither do I believe that this bill will guarantee to the American workingman a fair and an adequate degree of security or prosperity, but I do believe that the farm bill and the bill now under consideration are both honest and sincere efforts to solve problems which must and will ultimately be solved by the people of this great Nation. I indulge the hope that this bill will accomplish even a part of that which its ardent advocates claim it will accomplish.

The working people of the Southland are as good as those in other sections of the world. A divine Providence has endowed the South and its people with differentials which no legislative body will or can ever take from us. We have fertile fields and forests and all the natural resources which make a people great, together with a climate unsurpassed in all the world. I am sure that no one will contend that this bill is perfect. Neither is the farm bill. Both of them will have to be amended from time to time in the light of experience. I hope that we will soon find a happy solution of both the farm and the labor problems and that all sections of the country and all groups of our people may once again march together upon the highway of prosperity. [Applause.]

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

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

Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the gentlewoman from New Jersey will bear in mind that some of us have been here since 11 o'clock this morning waiting for an opportunity to express our views on this bill as a whole and on the principles therein involved. Are we to be cut off now without being heard?

Mrs. NORTON. We feel that we have been very liberal in connection with the debate on this bill. Many of the Members are very anxious to get home and we feel that we should be permitted to limit the debate.

Mr. McLEAN. May I ask what the great hurry is to finish the bill today?

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

[PAGE 7435]

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

[PAGE 7436]

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chainnan, reserving the right to object, may I ask the Chairman how many Members have amendments pending?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may say that there are four amendments pending.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the time be equally divided among those Members who have amendments pending at the desk.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. I move that the Committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have the motion in writing?

Mr. MAPES. It is very unusual for the Chair to ask that that motion be put in writing.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NORTON] that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. MAPES moves that the Committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Michigan.

The question was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. MAPES) there were—ayes 69, noes 154.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mrs. NORTON and Mr. MAPES.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 50, noes 128.

So the motion was rejected.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Now that this motion has been rejected, what becomes of the 8-hour day for Congressmen?

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MASSINGALE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MASSINGALE: On page 54, line 5, after the word "purchases", strike out the word "or" and insert the word "and."

Mr. MASSINGALE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is for the purpose of protecting what you would call the corner grocery store man or the filling-station man. If you will turn to subsection (b) on page 54 you will find that the Secretary is directed to determine whether or not a particular industry is dependent for its existence upon substantial purchases or sales of goods in commerce. I want you to get the significance of that language. It means that if the Secretary should find that a country storekeeper is purchasing his groceries from a wholesaler in another State, then he could rule and probably would rule; or she would, in this case, that that man's business consists of substantial purchases of goods in commerce. This being true, there would not be a single little grocery store or filling station in America that would not have to pay the wages and observe the hours specified in this bill, and that would ruin those businesses. If you add "and" and eliminate "or" you cure the whole situation.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken this matter up with members of the Committee on Labor but have not been able to get any consideration from them. A matter of such importance as this should not demand of a Member of Congress that he come in here and beg and importune the members of the committee to recognize a little amendment of this sort which might save a great deal of embarrassment to the little merchants of this country.

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

Mr. MASSINGALE. In just a moment.

rs. NORTON. I just wanted to observe that local retailing is exempted in the bill.

Mr. MASSINGALE. The further provision in this bill which states that a man is protected in such things as clerkships would not be worth anything at all if the Secretary of Labor first determined that a substantial part of that country merchant's business was in purchase of goods from other States. If you put the word "and" in there it will make the provision understandable and will prevent the Secretary from finding that simply because the little country merchant orders his groceries from another State he comes under this bill.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the amendment. I should like to have the amendment restated.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment.

There was no objection.

The Clerk again read the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. MASSINGALE].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. MASSINGALE) there were—ayes 40, noes 101.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McLEAN: Page 54, line 18, insert a new section, as follows:

"SEC. 6 (a). On his own motion, or if any labor organization, or any trade or industrial organization, association, or group, which has complied with the provisions of this act, shall make complaint to the President that any article or articles are being imported into the United States in substantial quantities or increasing ratio to domestic production of any competitive article or articles and on such terms or under such conditions as to render ineffective or seriously to endanger the maintenance of the provisions of this act, the President may cause an immediate investigation to be made by the United States Tariff Commission, which shall give precedence to investigation under this subsection, and if, after such investigation and such public notice and hearing as he shall specify, the President shall find the existence of such facts, he shall, in order to effectuate the policy of this act, direct that the article or articles concerned shall be permitted entry into the United States only upon such terms and conditions and subject to the payment of such fees and to such limitations in the total quantity which may be imported (in the course of any special period or periods) as he shall find it necessary to prescribe in order that the entry thereof shall not render or tend to render ineffective any provision of this act."

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Clerk has read far enough in the amendment to indicate that the amendment is subject to a point of order. I make the point of order that this amendment deals with tariff matters, which are wholly without the scope of the subject under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes the Clerk had better conclude the reading of the amendment. The Clerk will report the remainder of the amendment.

The Clerk resumed and concluded the reading of the amendment, as follows:

In order to enforce any limitations imposed on the total quantity of imports, in any specified period or periods, of any article or articles under this subsection, the President may forbid the importation of such article or articles unless the importer shall have first obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury a license pursuant to such regulations as the President may prescribe. Upon information of any action by the President under this subsection the Secretary of the Treasury shall, through the proper officers, permit entry of the article or articles specified only upon such terms and conditions and subject to such fees, to such limitations in the quantity which may be imported, and to such requirements of license as the President shall have directed. The decision of the President as to facts shall be conclusive. Any condition or limitation of entry under this subsection shall continue in effect until the President shall find and inform the secretary of the Treasury that the conditions which led to the imposition of such conditions or limitations upon entry no longer exists.

The CHAIMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HEALEY] makes a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. McLEAN. May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman.

[PAGE 7436]

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

[PAGE 7437]

Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Chairman, the ·amendment I propose was enacted as section 3 (e) of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which was the first attempt to enact a wage and hour statute. The scheme of the National Recovery Act contemplated that an increase in the cost of production, which would necessarily follow the proposed limitation of wages and hours, would require some compensating price fixing and protection to cover the difference. It also anticipated that such increased cost of production would open the door to importation from countries where wage and hour statutes do not exist. Therefore, this provision was made a part of the act.

In brief, it authorizes the President, when he shall find that any article or articles are being imported into the United States in substantial quantities or increasing ratio to domestic production so as to render ineffectual or seriously endanger the maintenance of the labor standards established, to direct that such article or articles shall only be permitted entry subject to such limitations in total quantity as he shall find it necessary to prescribe.

The amendment is pertinent and germane to the pending bill because it protects those who may be compelled to increase the cost of production against importations from countries where such costs are lower, where wage and hour statutes do not exist, and where living standards do not approach our own.

Prosperity affects employer and employee alike. If an employer has work to do, he will employ men to do it, and the more work he has to do the more men he employs, and the more men employed the greater the demand and the fewer men available, and the price of labor goes up. This will not come about so long as we consume goods manufactured under conditions inferior to our own.

The American workingman now enjoys the privilege of negotiating with his employer as to the value of his services and the conditions under which he will work. He is the master of his own destiny. Under the scheme provided in this bill that privilege will be delegated to a bureau in Washington, and with it he will surrender so much of his independence. If experience is to be taken as a guide, there is more to be gained by his negotiation with his employer directly or through his organization. This method also affords the employer the opportunity to set forth his own needs measured by the competition he must meet, in which his employees have a material interest.

If the bill has any value whatever, it must be as a part of an economic scheme which takes into consideration all the elements which order our lives. The law of supply and demand still exists.

Valuable lessons were learned by experiences under the N. R. A. Its research board found as facts that, so far as the regulation of wages and hours was concerned, it resulted in curtailment of production, decrease in the average standard of living, lower consumption of raw materials, including farm products, and lower prices for them, geographical realinement of industry, and higher production costs for farmers. It also showed that under the attempt to fix a minimum wage, while some were raised, a substantial percentage was lowered to the minimum.

The enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase production costs and thereby reduce tariff rates. It will invite the world to dump on our market merchandise produced by sweatshop methods and child labor conditions we are endeavoring to eliminate.

The amendment I propose will prevent such inconsistency.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey clearly is not germane to the bill. The Chair passed upon a similar amendment when the wage and hour bill was up for consideration last December. For the reasons stated then, which it is not necessary to repeat at this time, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PEARSON: On page 64, line 6, strike out the words "substantial purchases or."

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. Chairman, someone has said that Congress is the greatest deliberative body on earth, and I think the scene that has been enaded here today in the consideration of this bill is one of the most outstanding arguments I have ever seen against any such statement. I think legislation as important to the Nation as this bill is should be considered with some degree of sanity and order and consideration, instead of being debated in a state of utter confusion.

My amendment is a very simple amendment, and I hope I. may have the attention of this Committee long enough to consider an amendment which is important and deserves the consideration of the membership of this House. We just disposed of an amendment almost the same in substance as mine offered a few moments ago by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. MASSINGALE], and the Committee very promptly, in all of the confusion and disorder which prevailed, voted it down. My amendment is just enough different to justify me in presenting it to you again, and I want to ask you to consider it seriously and as an amendment offered in good faith to help this bill and not to destroy it.

If you will turn to page 58 of the bill you will find an express exemption going to local retailers and exempting them from the provisions of this bill, and the Lord knows they should be exempt because there is no one who would stand on the floor of this House and say that Congress has any jurisdiction over a man engaged in local intrastate business. So we have actually exempted at least this one group whom we all recognize as being entitled to such exemption. Now, if we leave the language in this bill as it is written on page 54, with the words "substantial purchases or sales of goods" remaining in the bill, you will absolutely go in the very teeth of this exemption to local retailers and say to them that if your business is substantially that of purchasing goods, which moved to him through interstate commerce, and even though you sell it locally and do not sell it in interstate commerce, you are subject to the provisions of this bill. This might be extended and applied to farmers and every group which buys rather than sells merchandise.

If I understand interstate commerce, it means the sale of merchandise which moves across State borders, and I can live in Tennessee and purchase a carload of merchandise to be shipped to me from Texas every day in the week, and if I do not sell that merchandise to someone in another State then I am not engaged in interstate commerce. If retail dealers buy merchandise which moves to them in interstate commerce, and this language is left in this bill, every local retailer in this Nation is subject to the provisions of the bill.

I want to ask this committee to reconsider the vote which. they have just given on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. MASSINGALE] and sustain this amendment to strike this language out of the bill. [Applause.[

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It has been stated time and time again that local retailing is exempted from the bill. I do not think there is any necessity for the amendment, and I hope the Committee will vote it down.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. PEARSON) there were—ayes 58, noes 92.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CELLER: Page 54; line 9, after the word "commerce", strike out the period, insert a semicolon and the words "but no such order shall be applicable to any retail industry, the greater part of whose sales is in intrastate commerce."

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. MASSINGALE] and the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PEARSON] have failed. They would have solved the problem of whether or not what the gentlewoman from New Jersey

[PAGE 7437]

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

[PAGE 7438]

[Mrs. NORTON] said, namely, that retailing is exempted, is actually the fact. I have great respect for the gentlewoman from New Jersey, when she says that retailing is exempted, but when you read section 6 and section 11, you find that those words belie what may be the best of intentions on the part of every member of the Labor Committee with reference to retailing. I maintain with all of the energy in me, as a lawyer of 25 years' standing and experience in interpreting statutes, who has appeared in the highest courts of the land, that you cannot read section 6 and section 11 together and have the interpretation consistent with what the gentlewoman from New Jersey says, namely, that retailing is exempted from the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the responsibility is here with all of. us. I say to the Members of the House that you are responsible, and that this is your last chance. On two other occasions you have voted down amendments which would have made clear beyond peradventure of a doubt that retailing is exempted. The courts will look to the debates in this House for what is meant by these words. That is the settled practice. If we vote it down a third time, there will be no chance for any court anywhere, no administrative official anywhere, to say that retailing is exempted. The decision rests with you Members of the House. If you want to eliminate retailing, you should say so in clear-cut language, and this amendment which I offer indicates in the clearest way that reta1lmg 1s exempted.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, it will clarify this grave doubt and expressly exempt retailing.

Mr. CELLER. Yes. My amendment says that any industry whose sales are substantially in intrastate commerce shall be exempted from the operation of the act. My amendment changes section 6, and when read in connection with section 11 there can now be no doubt whatsoever. Without my amendment, there is doubt. Dissolve all doubt, dispel all chance of misinterpretation by accepting my amendment. Accept it and then retail dry goods, retail butchering, grocers, retail clothing stores, department stores will all be exempt.

Your duty is to clarify this situation. The chairlady,Mrs. NORTON, agrees that it is not the intention to include retailing. That being the case, why not say so? My amendment actually says that.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chainnan, in view of the great misunderstanding there must be about this retailing feature of the bill, the committee will accept the amendment. There has been a great deal of doubt as to the understanding of that partrticular section, and I think this amendment will not weaken our bill, but will in fact strengthen it. Therefore, I ask the Committee to stand with us in accepting this amendment.

Mr. DUNN. If these retailers are paying sweatshop wages, why should they be exempted?

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CELLER) there were—ayes 145, noes 56.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Oklahoma [Mr. JOHNSON] to offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. JOHNsoN of Oklahoma: Page 54, line 5, after the word "substantial", strike out the words "purchases or".

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar in effect to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLERJ and which has just been adopted. I sent my amendment to the desk early in the afternoon. It, like the amendment of my colleague from Oklahoma [Mr. MASSINGALE] and the one offered by the gentleman from New York, which amendment has been approved by this body, is to protect the little comer store, filling station, and other retailers who purchase a substantial part of their goods across the State line. Inasmuch as the amendment of the gentleman from New York has been adopted, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma asks unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PETTENGILL: At the end of section 6, add the following:

"All orders issued by the Secretary under this section and section 12 shall be filed with the Secretary of State and published in the Federal Register, and when so filed and published all persons and courts shall take notice thereof."

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 4 minutes.

Mr. PETTENGILL. I call the attention of the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey to my amendment which requires all orders to be filed with the Secretary of State and published in the Federal Register.

Under N. R. A. we had a tremendous amount of confusion with reference to orders, where they were, when they became effective. There was no provision in the statute for notice. In the "hot oil" case that came up from Texas the whole administration of N. R. A. was put in disrepute by the fact that nobody could find the orders. They were misplaced, misfiled, and if you found them in the hip pockets of a United States marshal you were lucky.

For the purpose of improving the administration of the bill I offer this amendment. I understand that a tremedous number of orders will be issued under sections 6 and 12; it seems to me it is only fair to those who are charged with the administration of the bill and those affected by orders that the public have definite notice of the orders and that they should be filed with the Secretary of State and published in the Federal Register.

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

Mr. PETTENGILL. I yield.

Mr. COCHRAN. The gentleman's amendment is absolutely unnecessary, because the law that created the Federal Register absolutely requires any Government agency that issues a regulation to submit it to The Archives, and it is not effective until it is published in the Federal Register.

Mr. PETTENGILL. I have not read the act lately.

Mr. COCHRAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr CELLER] is the author of the Federal RegiSter Act. I am sure he will confirm what I say.

Mr. PETTENGILL. I do not see the gentleman from New York present at the moment.

Mr. COCHRAN. I may say to the gentleman from Indiana that I am positive the statement I make is correct, because I attempted to repeal the act. I know what the act contains and I know that no regulation of any governmental agency can become effective until it is published in the Federal Register.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETTENGILL. I yield.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. The statement of the gentleman from Missouri is correct that they have to be filed in the Federal Register, and if they are of general applicability they must be published. If not of general applicability, they are filed and do not have to be published.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Would orders under section 12 with reference to apprentices, learners, and handicaped workers be subject to publication in the Federal Register?

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. I believe they would have to be published.

Mr. PETTENGILL. The gentleman considers them of general applicability?

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Yes.

[PAGE 7438]

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

[PAGE 7439]

Mrs. NORTON. That is my understanding.

Mr. PETTENGILL. I think it will do no harm to adopt my amendment. I am not convinced that the Federal Register Act requires the publication of these orders and regulations.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DIES: On pages 53 and 54, strike out all of section 6.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the fact that if the Secretary of Labor in her discretion holds that some Industry does not come within this vague and indefinite definition that was conceived by some third-story attic philosopher, there is nothing in the law or in the bill that will enable a competitor to compel that industry to come within the act. There is a provision in the bill by which an industry may be held to come within the bill, but if the Secretary of Labor holds that an industry does not come within it, there is not anything that can bring that industry under this bill.

This is the most ridiculous section I ever saw in my life. I hold here a letter from Miss Perkins recognizing the administrative difficulty in this and suggesting that it can be cured by a simple amendment. In view of the great haste to put the endorsement of the Members of this House upon what the powers that be have decreed I know it will be of no avail.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

The amendment was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES

SEC. 7. For the purpose of any hearing provided for in section 6 of this act, the provisions of sections 9 and 10 (relating to the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents) of the Federal Trade Commission Act of September 16, 1914, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 15, secs. 49 and 50), are hereby made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Secretary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I realize the hour is late, but while I was called to the telephone the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. FULLER] delivered what I consider to be a vicious attack upon me. When I came from the telephone, four gentlemen from the South advised me of the speech of the gentleman from Arkansas. I waited until I had the opportunity to read the stenographic report of the gentleman's speech.

During that speech the gentleman said, "We from the South know that he," referring to me, "hates every Democrat who represents the South."

Mr. Chairman, I resent that statement and I deny the statement. I can prove by the RECORD that it was not justified. If the late Speakers, the Honorable Joseph Byrns and the Honorable Henry Rainey, were alive today, they, too, would confirm the statement I am making. When Mr. Rainey was a candidate for the Speaker of this House, although he came from the North and was my neighbor, I had pledged my support to Joe Byrns for the speakership, and I never withdrew that pledge until he personally asked me to do so. When WILLIAM BANKHEAD, the present Speaker of the House, was a candidate for majority leader, there was a candidate from the North opposed to him. I pledged my vote to WILLIAM BANKHEAD and I kept my word. I voted for him not only for majority leader but later I voted for him as Speaker of the House.

When SAMUEL RAYBURN, our present majority leader, was a candidate for majority leader of this House, I pledged my vote to SAM RAYBURN, although there was a Democrat from the North opposed to him. I kept my pledge and I voted for SAM RAYBURN.

Mr. Chairman, that in itself is evidence that the statement of the gentleman from Arkansas was not justified. I ask you to consult the RECORD. Refer to any bill that has been beneficial to the cotton farmers of the South, to the tobacco farmers of the South, and others; see whether or not I am not recorded as having been in favor of that legislation. There are only two bills that ever came before this House that I can recall that affected the South that I have not supported, and I have no apologies to offer for those votes. If I am not in error many Members from the South voted as I did. One involved the Gilbertsville Dam, which was considered the other day, and the other was the Florida ship canal.

I am Willing to defend my vote on both, now or at any other time.

Mr. Chairman, nothing surprised me more than to read the remarks of the gentleman from Arkansas. I was here long before he ever came. I thought he was my personal friend, and I his personal friend.

Mr. Chairman, if any Member or Members from the South hates me, may I say to one and all of you, no matter how much you might hate me, I love you. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to increase wages and to shorten the hours of labor to relieve the unemployment situation. While I am in favor of this bill, and I might say that I supported the other wage and hour bill that was recommitted to the Labor Committee on December 17, 1937, I feel that this bill alone will not accomplish its purpose.

I have always believed that the proper way to relieve unemployment is to check labor-saving devices during a depression. On June 1, 1934, in the Seventy-third Congress, and again on January 11, 1935, I introduced a resolution directing the Secretary of Labor to make a survey of the labor-saving devices in order to ascertain the number of persons in the United States unemployed by reason of the use of each kind or type of such devices.

House Resolution 49 was reported out by the Labor Committee and passed in the Seventy-fourth Congress. The Secretary of Labor, in compliance with the said resolution, is now compiling a list of labor-saving devices.

I do not believe that the wage and hour bill alone will relieve the unemployment situation unless we check laborsaving devices. To give you an illustration, today a laboring man works about 44 holirs per week. This bill provides 40 hours per week, which would be an increase of employment of 1 man for every 10 persons employed. This, in itself, to my way of thinking, is not sufficient. On the other hand, a labor-saving device is produced which will be operated by one person; the output of said device will be equivalent to 10 or 20 men's work. You will note that without checking labor-saving devices the wage and hour bill creating 1 job out of every 10 will not be sufficient.

Senate amendment 239 to H. R. 9682, known as the Revenue Act for 1938, inserted a provision authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to make an investigation of labor-saving and labor-displacing machinery. I am sorry that the conferees on the part of the House saw fit to eliminate this amendment.

I am of the opinion that there are two things necessary for the proper distribution of wealth of this country and the employment of the unemployed. One is to retain the present income tax in the higher brackets and the other is to tax labor-saving devices during a depression.

I have been in touch with Mr. Isador Lubin, Chief, Bureau of Statistics, Department of Labor, whose office is compiling this list of labor-saving devices and Mr. Lubin informed me that he would file his report within the next 10 days. When this report is filed I trust that the Members of the House will examine this report so that we can prepare some

[PAGE 7439]

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

[PAGE 7440]

measure to tax labor-saving devices in the Seventy-sixth Congress. [Applause.]

The Clerk read as follows:

COURT REVIEW OF ORDERS

SEC. 8. Any person aggrieved by an order issued under section 6 may at any time obtain a review of such order by filing in the circuit court of appeals for the circuit in which is situated his principal place of business, or in the Court of Appeals of the United States for the District of Columbia, a written petition praying that such order be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served on the Secretary, and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, or if it is not in accordance with law to modify or set aside, such order in whole or in part. The judgment or decree of the court shall be final, subject to review as provided in sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 28, secs. 346 and 347). The commencement of proceedings under this subsection shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Secretary's order.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto, and all the following sections and all amendments thereto, close in 30 minutes.

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

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

THE HOBBS AMENDMENTS

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HOBBs: Page 55, lines 2 to 20, strike out section 8 and insert:

"SEC. 8. Any person who may feel aggrieved by any order issued under section 6 may at any time obtain a review of such order by filing in the district court of the district in which is situated his principal place of business; a written petition praying that such order be modified or set aside in whole or in part. On any such review the issue shall be tried de novo, and by jury if a jury trial be demanded in writing by either party within 30 days after the filing of the petition for review.

"A copy of the petition in every case shall be forthwith served upon the Secretary, by ma1ling it in the registered mail, return receipt demanded. Such return receipt shall be prima facie evidence of proper service.

"The judgment rendered upon any trial hereunder may be appealed from in regular order, as in case of any other appealable judgment: the same rules of practice and procedure which govern sin11ilar cases shall be applicable to cases hereunder."

Mrs. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mrs. NORTON. 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 gentlewoman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I desire most respectfully and earnestly to call your attention to lines 12, 13, and 14, page 55, wherein is stated the "joker" which damns the declared purpose of this bill to provide judicial review as false.

The caption of section 8, in bold type, reads:

Court review of orders.

There is no such thing in this bill.

The words to which I wish to call your attention are as follows:

Upon the filing of such transcript such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, or if it is not in accordance with law.

The court may modify or cancel the order. In other words, the only criterion laid down in this bill by which to judge whether or not to modify or cancel a decision of the Secretary of Labor is that the decision holding that a firm is engaged in interstate commerce is not in accordance with law. What is the law that is referred to? It is that she must make an investigation—to suit herself—and make a determination of fact whether or not any given business is engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, when she has made the investigation—to suit herself—and made the determination that this firm is engaged in interstate commerce, the only thing in God Almighty's world that can be done by the court, when the proprietor goes to court, is to determine whether or not she made the investigation and determination, and if she did, she complied with all the law that is in this bill; and the court would be under the necessity of "affirming" the determination reached by the Secretary, and her order, no matter how utterly erroneous her finding of fact might be!

I am not joking. This is not facetious. I expect the distinguished gentlewoman and the members of her committee, who believe m fairness, to give us a square deal on this thing and not "kid" us. You did it last time. The House adopted this same sort of amendment of mine during the wage and hour bill fight in December, and you ought to do it now.

You, who are the children of the Barons of Runnymede, who wrung from the unwilling hand of King John Magna Charta, which guaranteed trial by jury; you, who are descendants of the men who did away with star-chamber proceedings once and for all, by virtue of that same immortal document; you are not such as would deny to the humblest American citizen his "day in court"! You have said so repeatedly in this very debate. Therefore, I submit that when the Secretary of Labor makes an investigation and a determination affecting the rights of any man, or any business, deciding whether or not he or it comes under the terms of this act, that man or that business is entitled to the time-honored right of a "day in court"! Not for the childish pretext of seeing merely whether or not the Secretary has complied with the only two duties required of her by this act, but to determine whether or not, essentially and fairly, the Secretary is right or wrong.

In other words, you and every other citizen ought to have the right to challenge the justice, the equity, and the righteousness of the determination of the Secretary of Labor. She may know a great deal about the shoe market, but she is not infallible! I appeal in all fairness to you of this House, no matter what your convictions may be with regard to the merits of this bill, for this is not a partisan appeal I am making, to see that the rights of American citizens are respected! One of those rights of American citizens which should be respected is the right to "a day in court" and a jury trial. We grant that much—and usually more—to a confessed murderer or rapist! If we mean our oaths which bind us to uphold the Constitution, if we revere the proud traditions of our race, we should declare that the right of trial by jury should ever remain inviolate! [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOBBS].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. HOBBS) there were—ayes 109, noes 94.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mrs. NORTON and Mr. HOBBS.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 127, noes 136.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HOBBS: Page 55, line 13, after the word "to", insert "try and determine the issue of the correctness, vel non, of the Secretary's determination of facts and order, and to," and also strike out of lines 13 and 14 the words "if it is not in accordance with law."

The amendment was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

INVESTIGATIONS, INSPECTIONS, AND RECORDS

SEc. 9. (a) The Secretary or his designated representatives may investigate and gather data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment in any industry subject to this act, and may enter and inspect such places and such records (and make such transcriptions thereof), question such employees, and investigate such facts, conditions, practices, or matters as he may deem necessary or appropriate to determine whether any person has violated any provision of this act, or I which may aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this act.

[PAGE 7440]

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

[PAGE 7441]

Except as provided in section 10 the Secretary shall utilize the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor for all the investigations and inspections necessary under this section.

(b) With the consent and cooperation of State agencies charged with the administration of State labor laws, the Secretary may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act, utilize the services of State and local agencies and their employees and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, may reimburse such State and local agencies and their employees for services rendered for such purposes.

(c) Every employer subject to any provision of this act or of any order shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him, and shall preserve such records for such periods of time, and shall make such reports therefrom to the Secretary as he shall prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this act or the regulations or orders thereunder.

CHILD-LABOR PROVISIONS

SEC. 10. (a) No producer, manufacturer, or dealer shall ship or deliver for shipment in 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 opprssive child labor has been employed: Provided, That a prosecution and conviction of a defendant for the shipment or delivery for shipment of any goods under the conditions herein prohibited shall be a bar to any further prosecution against the same defendant for shipments or deliveries for shipment of any such goods before the beginning of said prosecution.

(b) No employer engaged in commerce in any industry affecting commerce shaU employ any employee under any oppressive child-labor condition.

(c) The Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor, or any of his authorized representatives, shall make all investigations and inspections under section 9 (a) with respect to the employment of minors and bring all actions under section 15 to enjoin any act or practice which is unlawful by reason of the existence of oppressive child labor, and shall administer all other provisions of this act relating to oppressive child labor.

EXEMPTIONS

S~c. 11. (a) The provisions of sections 4 and 5 shall not apply to (1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive. administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary); or (2) any employee employed as a seaman; or (3) any employee of an employer subject to the provisions of Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act; or (4) any air transport employee subject to the pravisions of title II of the Railway Labor Act; or (5) any employee employed in the taking of fish, sea foods, or sponges; or (6) any employee employed 1n agriculture; or (7) any employee to the extent that such employee is exempted by regulations or orders of the Secretary issued under section 12.

(b) The provisions of section 5 shall not apply to any employee with respeet 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.

(c) The provisions of section 10 shall not apply to any employee employed in agriculture.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment otfered by Mr. KRAMER: On page 58, line 20, after the "10" insert "in respect of child labor."

In line 21, strike out the period and add the following: "or to any child employed as an actor in motion pictures or theatrical productions."

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment, exempting certain gifted children and granting 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 exceptional child. Not only the motion picture industry but the movie-going public would be denied much pleasure and enjoyment if children were barred from the screen. The old and young are delighted with the unassuming appeal of America's little sweetheart, Shirley Temple; and the natural charm of the very talented Deanna Durbin; the wholesome fun of Spanky McFarlane, colored lad Buckwheat, Alfalfa, and the other children who compose Our Gang. Their pranks take us back to our own childhood. No one wants to forget those carefree days which we claim as the happiest of our lives. Without child actors we would not have had Tommy Kelly in Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, the Mauch twins in Prince and the Pauper, Virginia Weidler, Jane Withers, Jackie Moran, Sammy McKim, and the other delightful youngsters in amusing and entertaining films.

The stories of Charles Dickens have been brought back to us on the screen. Without child motion-picture players this would have been an impossibility. Those who saw the motion picture _David Copperfield were deeply touched by the portrayal of the tragic little figure David by Freddie Bartholomew. There was more recently produced Captains Courageous, an excellent production, and the childish appeal of the young actor was truly dramatic. Many historical pictures have been brought to us also with child actors in the cast of characters.

The children who are employed as actors possess a distinct talent—a gift of God—and their employment is not labor in the sense of the word as applied to unfortunate youngsters, who, lacking in no distinct talent, are obliged to seek employment in some workshop, or elsewhere, for the few paltry dollars they can earn. Economic conditions have compelled them to assist in the breadwinning for the family and they are indeed pathetic little figures.

Dead End, a motion picture portrayal of life in the New York slums, had as actors in the principal roles several adolescent youngsters who had been born and reared in that very environment. They had little opportunity for becoming successful citizens in the business or professional world for they were very poor and only by the most courageous and persistent struggle could they ever hope to establish themselves. These young men were cast for the stage production of Dead End and were so successful that they were cast for the motion picture of the same name. They were thus removed from the atmosphere of slums and degradation and their contracts call for more motion-picture work. They are well on the way to becoming successful young men.

The motion-picture industry is very strict in the number of hours a child shall work; they must never lose their fresh charm of youth. Each child of school age must attend classes, and schools are provided by the motion-picture firms, being approved by the State board of education.

EMPLOYMENT OF THESE CHILDREN IS NOT LABOR

They are displaying a natural talent and they enjoy it. They are cared for far better than children in other walks of life. The theatrical profession is in a world by itself. The rules, code, and discipline is much stricter than that of the ordinary life of a child in the nonprofessional environment. Rest and relaxation comes first to the child stars—education next. They have every possible opportunity for education, and it is unfortunate that every child does not have the same opportunity. Through their work they acquire charm, grace, and poise.

Mary Pickford, who has now retired from the screen, was the first child actress of note. Her earlier childhood was a sad one, for there were many periods of poverty. However, the beautiful child attracted a great deal of attention and was selected to play the leading role in a film which necessitated a small girl to play the role of one of the characters. The public received her with a great deal of enthusiasm. More pictures followed in which she starred, and she soon became recognized as "America's Sweetheart." Mary Pickford is now an adult—most gracious—and most charitable, for she has never forgotten her own less fortunate days.

It is interesting to point out the various professions, talents, crafts, and vocations utilized in the production of motion pictures. There are in excess of 85 different professions and building-trades mechanics, exCcusive of actors who are employed in the production of motion pictures.

The revenue obtained by the United States Government from the motion-picture industry is one worthy of our most serious consideration. Not only the income tax paid by the juvenile stars themselves but the income taxes paid by the adult stars and the thousands of persons employed in connection with the making of these pictures, including skilled and unskilled labor, also the revenue derived by the Government in taxes collected on the box-office receipts is worthy of consideration.

[PAGE 7441]

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

[PAGE 7442]

The number of child actors in the industry are not many, and they must not be cruelly cut off from the production of beauty, purity, love, and appeal of children. I sincerely ask your support on this constructive and meritorious amendment. [Applause.]

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 exempt children engaged only in the making of moving pictures?

Mr. KRAMER. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. There are very few young people employed in that occupation?

Mr. KRAMER. Very few. There are hardly more than 10 employed at one time.

Mr. RAYBURN. If the gentleman will yield, I may say I understand that the amendment of the gentleman from California is acceptable to the committee.

Mr. KRAMER. I know you are all for Shirley Temple and the other child actors.

I was for the bill last December and am for this bill and have supported it.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I may say that when the bill was before us for consideration the previous time the committee accepted the amendment.

Mr. KRAMER. I may say to the gentleman and the Members of the House that I am unqualifiedly for this bill. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BARTON: Page 58, line 21, insert a new paragraph, as follows:

"(d) The provisions of section 5 shall not apply to any employee who is employed at a fixed annual wage not in conflict with section 4 of this act, whether that wage be payable weekly, biweekly, or monthly, providing that, in addition to such fixed annual wage, the employee shall receive additional compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his wage computed on an hourly basis for any work done in excess of 12 hours in any one day, or 60 hours in any one week, or 2,080 hours in any one year."

Mr. BARON. Mr. Chairman, as the Members of the House know, there are in different parts of the country certain industries which are experimenting with what has come to be known as the annual wage. One of these industries is in Austin, Minn., the Hormel Packing Co., and it may be recalled that Mr. Jay Hormel, the president of that company, appeared before the Senate Committee on Unemployment and gave testimony as to the value of the plan and the success which it had attained, which testimony was reported and commented on all over the United states. The industry which he represents—and there are a number that are attempting the same experiment—has reached the point where the guaranteed annual wage is about $1,500, and the average number of hours worked in that industry is 35^1/2. However, to achieve this guaranteed wage in an industry whose products are perishable, they work certain weeks a higher number of hours, and these are compensated for by other weeks when the hours are lower. So the average turns out to be 35^1/2.

The amendment which I offer would not weaken the bill. It would apply at present only to a comparatively small number of employees, but the important thing is that it recognizes in this labor act the principle of the annual guaranteed wage. This principle, I believe, points the way along which future progress for labor in this country must be made.

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

Mr. BARTON. I yield.

Mr. PETTENGILL. The gentleman's amendment would encourage the adoption of the annual wage by industry, a recommendation which has been made by President Roosevelt?

Mr. BARTON. That is the purpose of the amendment.

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

Mr. BARTON. I yield.

Mr. BOILEAU. Does not the gentleman believe that the 12-hour week exemption with respect to hours would take care of the situation of the companies the gentleman has referred to?

Mr. BARTON. In answer to the gentleman I may say that I would like to see this first wage and hour bill recognize by name the principle of the annual wage and leave the door open for further experiments such as those Mr. Hormel has carried on successfully.

Mr. BOILEAU. Of course, the gentleman would not want the annual wage to be too low?

Mr. BARTON. In his case I have the actual figures, about $1,500 a year.

Mr. BOILEAU. In his case he is exempted now for 12 weeks in the canning of perishable commodities; in other words, he has 12 weeks when he can work longer than the hours provided in the bill.

Mr. BARTON. Of course, I have not had a chance to check that with him.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON. I yield.

Mr. SCHNEIDER of Wisconsin. Does the concern in question ask to be exempt from the provisions of this bill?

Mr. BARTON. It asks to be exempt from the 40-hour provision, because, operating as it does, there are some weeks when they work more than 40 hours, and, of course, some weeks when they work less, but because of the economies effected they are able to pay the annual wage.

Mr. ANDRESEN of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. ANDRESEN of Minnesota. I will say to the gentleman that the average workweek is 35 hours and the average pay is $1,500 a year, and that is spread over the year.

Mr. BARTON. And the average pay, I may say, is subject to no deductions on the part of the company.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment will not be adopted. While it is very true there are a few employers in this country who are experimenting with the annual wage, yet if you exempt the employers who have the annual wage, then all the chiseling employers of this country will immediately go upon an annual wage instead of a weekly wage, and this will give them an opportunity to get out from under the operation of the law.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. FORAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. FORAND: On page 58, line 11, after the figure "5", strike out all of line 11 and the word "sponges" in line 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Any employee employed in the cultivation, growing, raising, harvesting, or taking of fish, shellfish, sea foods, or sponges and any practices performed by fishermen or water farmers as an incident to such fishing or fish-farming operations including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market."

Mr. FORAND. Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this time fully realizing we have been here almost 10 hours, but I do so because I want to clarify one part of the amendment. I have been assured by the chairman of the committee that this amendment is completely covered now in the bill.

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

[PAGE 7442]

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

[PAGE 7443]

Mr. FORAND. Yes; I yield to the gehtleman from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is our understanding that the employees in which the gentleman is interested are covered by the broad exemption, and therefore that they are exempted.

Mr. FORAND. Thank you, Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, that is clear enough in the RECORD so that these people who are interested can refer to it at any time. The intent of the House is that all the employees mentioned in my amendment are exempt. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BLAND: Page 58, line 11, strike out the words "any employee employed in the taking of fish, sea foods, or sponges" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Any employee employed in the catching, taking, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life, including the going to and returning from work, and including employment in the loading, unloading, or packing of such. products for shipment, or in propagating, processing, marketing, freezing, canning, curing, storing, or distributing the above products or byproducts thereof.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that that amendment has already been considered and voted down by the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman from Illinois to the fact that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is offered now to a different section from that to which it was offered before. The Chair calls attention to the fact that the effect of the amendment might be entirely different.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. BLAND.- Mr. Chairman, I realize the apparent concession which was made just a moment ago, but I am not satisfied that the statement on the floor of the House is a sufficient concession for the Department to interpret that to be law, which by the express language is not law. This amendment is not the same. In the last amendment I was trying to define the fishery industry. I am now dealing with those persons who are exempt, and I call the attention of the Committee to the language with respect to the employment of persons in agriculture. It is said that persons employed in agriculture are exempt, and yet when we deal with the fishery industry we exempt only those who are employed in taking fish, sea foods, and sponges.

In other words, if you were to apply the same amendment to agriculture, you would exempt only the persons that are gathering the potatoes from the field, only the persons who are gathering the corn that has been raised, only the persons who are picking the cotton. You would nat exempt the essential industry, the essential work, and essential employment that goes into the taking of the fish. In ather words, when you are dealing with the nets in the sea you are not exempting the persons who have the labor of putting down those nets, you are not exempting the persons who again and again must go out to put out the nets, but you are exempting only the person who goes out and actually takes the fish out of the net after they are collected. By no process of interpretation of the English language can we make this amendment do that which I believe the committee intended it to do.

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

Mr. BLAND. Yes.

Mr. HEALEY. The gentleman has taken into consideration the amendment already adopted?

Mr. BLAND. That dealt With processing, it did not deal with these fishermen who have a yearly operation in one kind of fish or another. I believe the intent of the committee was fairly good, and I cannot believe that the gentleman from Massachusetts intended to do the harm and detrient to his own fishermen along the Massachusetts coast that this language in this bill will do.

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

Mr. BLAND. Yes.

Mr. BATES. Do I understand that there is no provision in this bill to take care of fishermen who go out in the water and get the fish?

Mr. BLAND. Only the men who take the fish, not the men who do the work incidental to it.

Mr. BATES. And the gentleman's amendment will clear up that situation?

Mr. BLAND. Yes. Applied to agriculture this kind of an amendment would apply only to the people taking the potatoes from the ground or who harvest the crop. All others employed in agriculture would be subject to the provisions of the bill. It would apply only to the people picking the cotton from the stalks and the people engaged in all of the other operations would be subject to the bill. I am only asking for the seafood and fishery industry that which has been done for agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired. The question is on the amendment o1fered by the gentleman from Virginia.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BLAND) there were—ayes, 151, noes 86.

Mr. LANZETTA. Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. BLAND and Mrs. NORTON.

The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 153, noes 100.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. CUMMINGS moves that the Committee do now rise.

The CHAIRMAN. This motion is not debatable. The question is on the motion.

The question was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. CUMMINGS and Mr. O'MALLEY) there were—ayes 49, noes 152.

So the motion was rejected.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CROSSER: Page 58, strike out all after the semicolon in line 7, all of line 8 and line 9 down to and including the semicolon.

In lines 9, 11, and 12, respectively, strike out "(4)", "(5)';, "(6)", and "(7) ", and insert "(3) ", "(4) ", "(5) ", and "(6) ", respectively.

Line 15, insert "(1)" before "any" and, in line 19, after "1935", insert "; or (2) to any employee of an employer subject to the provisions of part I of the Interstate Commerce Act."

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the members of the committee are ready to accept this amendment. It is a very simple one which merely brings the railroad workers within the provisions of the wage section of the bill. I do not want to take the committee's time on something that is agreeable to them.

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

Mr. CROSSER. I yield.

Mr. RAYBURN. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that what the gentleman states is true, that the members of the committee are agreeable to the amendment he has offered.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio. The amendment was agreed to.

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

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

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that there are four amendments pending. If there is no objection, the Chair will recognize for 2^1/2 minutes each Member who has offered an amendment.

There was no objection.

[PAGE 7443]

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

[PAGE 7444]

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PACE: On page 58, at the end of section 11, add the following subsection:

"(d) The provisions of section 4 shall not apply to any employer during the time he is subject to a greater charge for the transportation of property moving from one rate-making or geographical section (as now or hereafter designated by the Interstate Commerce Commission for rate-making purposes) into another rate-making or geographical section than the charge for the transportation of the same or like classes of traffic moving wholly within the destination rate-making or geographical section, distance considered."

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman reserve his point of order?

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman; I reserve the point of order against the amendment to permit the gentleman to make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 2 ^1/2 minutes.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any Member of the House more anxious than I to have a part in improving the working conditions and the standards of living of the wage earners of this Nation. It is, therefore, very difficult and somewhat embarrassing to be faced with a bill that you know will be harmful to your district.

My amendment proposes that the wage provisions of this bill shall be suspended until the discriminatory and differentrial freight rates that now exist between different sections have been corrected. This bill provides that it will not become effective for 4 months after its passage. You have shown a disposition here today to eliminate all differentials. It is my hope that you will in good faith go further and eliminate the very unfair, the very discriminatory freight rates that now exist between different sections of the country. We need your help. We have been trying for years to get these differentials corrected.

I feel that if you will adopt this amendment that by united effort we can within the 4 months before this bill becomes effective get the Interstate Commerce Commission to consider this Nation as one great . nation, to consider the people in every section of this Nation on an equalit¥, so that if there _is not to be any differential in wages then there will not be any differential in freight rates and no section will have a prefer- ence over another.

What are we confronted with today? In the official territory, in the Northern States, the freight rate is 100. In southern territory it is 139. In southwestern territory it is 175, and in the western territory, the Pacific coast, it is 171.

There is no dispute as to this injustice. Here is the official report to this Congress, House Document No. 264, and here is what it has to say as to the effect of these discriminatory freight rates on my section:

One of the basic principles of rate making for transportation purposes should be the prevention of rate barriers against regional or territorial development. Discriminatory or preferential rates unduly favoring some regions or territories as against others will surely operate to lower the future living standards of tbe American people by interfering with economic readjustments which are necessary for the national welfare.

When manufactured or processed articles, therefore, are moved from these outlying territories to markets in eastern or official territory competition must be met, as a general rule, from manufacturers or producers of similar products located in eastern or official territory who can reach the same consuming points on intraterritorial freight rates that are materially lower, mile for mile, than the interterritorial rates which these outside shippers are compelled to pay. An attempt to meet such competition generally entails a deduction from the prices received by the disadvantaged producers, since the extra freight costs cannot be passed on to the consumers. Thus, manufacturing in the outlying territories is hampered, discouraged, and retarded despite the fact that certain areas in these regions possess, with the single exception of proximity to markets, all the economic factors necessary for a considerable industrial growth.

The consumer, too, has a definite interest in this problem since transportation charges influence the prices of the products sold to him and the competitive situation of his market. The price of goods sold to the consumer in favorably situated rate regions tends to approach a figure slightly less than a price which would include freight charges on competitive goods from other regions less favorably located in regard to transportation costs. The consumer in regions in which comparatively high rates prevail may su1fer also by having to pay prices that include more than transportation costs.

I hope you will approve this amendment, and give my section and the wage earners of my district the same opportunities and the same prospect of regular and profitable employment as you claim for your own people.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PACE] is not germane to this legislation which has to do with wages and hours. The amendment has to do with freight rates, which are not being considered in the present bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PACE] desire to be heard?

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, we are now considering section 11, which exempts certain persons from the effect of the provisions of this bill. I respectfully submit that the proposed amendment would suspend for a time from the effectiveness of the provisions of this act the employees who are subject to this discriminatory freight-rate situation. For these reasons I believe it is germane.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.

It is very evident to the Chair that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PACE] is not germane to the pending bill or to any section of the bill, particularly section 11 of the bill.

The Chair sustains the point of order.

. Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BELL: Page 58, line 14, after the end of section 11 (a) substitute a semicolon for the period and add thereto the following: "or, (8) any employee of a street, suburban, or interurban electric railway, or any other firm, company, or individual engaged in the business of carrying pasaengers for hire, not included in the exemptions contained in this section."

· Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is at the desk, is the same as the gentleman's amendment, and I therefore withdraw it and ask that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BELL] may be given the additional time.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts withdraw his amendment?

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. I withdraw it.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, then I am entitled to 5 minutes?

The CHAffiMAN. The Chair may say to the gentleman from Missouri that there are three Members beside the gentleman who have amendments pending. There are still 7^1/2 minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BELL] for 2 minutes.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, the bill as presently drawn will be a great benefit to certain groups of employees, as we all know. There are two or three great groups of employees who will be injured by the bill if they are not exempted from the effect thereof.

The committee in its wisdom saw fit to exempt the American railway employees; they also saw fit to exempt those employees engaged in air transportation. The employees engaged in streetcar transportation are asking in this amendment that you do the same thing for them that you did at the request of the Brotherhood of American Trainmen and that you did at the request of the employees of those engaged in air transportation.

In my home town of Kansas City, Mo., the streetcars go across a State line. On one side we have Kansas City, Mo., and on the other side Kansas City, Kans. Those men receive more money per hour than is provided in this bill, just as the railway trainmen receive more and just as the people engaged in air transportation receive more. That is one of the reasons why they are asking for the amendment. In

[PAGE 7444]

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

[PAGE 7445]

the morning there is a crowded peak period in transportation, then a lull, and another crowded peak in the evening. The men engaged in this line of business know it will be injurious to them if they are not exempted from the provisions of this bill.

The question was raised in the committee, and it was stated that they were exempt anyway because the streetcar companies operate within a city and do not cross State lines. That is true of most streetcar companies, but scattered throughout the United States here and there are a few of these companies that do cross State lines, just as in my community. It is only fair and right, and I believe it is just, that these employees be taken care of just the same as those in the inland cities where they do not cross State lines.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Is it not true that in some States where the street railways and bus lines operate between two cities within a given State they sometimes carry passengers and goods from outside the State, and although it is a small part of the business they might be held under the terms of this bill to be dealing in interstate commerce.

Mr. BELL. That is true.

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. Unless they are specifically exempted.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CASEY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. O'MALLEY. If they are receiving more money than the minimum provided in this bill, how would they come under the provisions of the bill, anyway?

Mr. BELL. The reason they come under it is on account of the hours. Here is a man that gets his streetcar to the end of the line, and he is prohibiteq from taking it back to the barn. It is going to hurt those men more than anybody else.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Does the gentleman think those employees would not like to work 4 hours less a week?

Mr. BELL. I know the employees have appealed to me for this amendment, and I know they want it. Their representatives have gotten in contact with me.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BELL].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BELL) there were—ayes 62, noes 119.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CREAL: On page 58, at the end of line 14, strike out the period and insert a comma and the following: "or to weekly or semiweekly newspapers with a circulation of less than 3,000, the major part of which circulation is within the county where printed and published."

Mr. CREAL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a brief word to those who are supporting labor legislation and those who want this bill to pass. It is very easy for a man who has a lot of labor votes in his district to go along with this bill, but what about a man going along with you who has a 100-percent record for voting for labor when there is not a single mine or labor union in his entire district and he has not received a single letter from his district asking him to vote for the bill? That is my position. [Applause.] I believe I deserve more credit than some of you rampant Members who are voting for this bill and have large labor groups in your districts. I am voting for the bill because I am voting for the laboring man.

In your wisdom you have overlooked some things which should be in this bill. You very carefully exempted the retailers in the crossroads towns. The department stores and other such businesses are exempted. But here is a sleepy town of 800 or 1,000 people where every businessman in the town is exempted but the little country publisher, the one who publishes the news about the births, the deaths, and the marriages, and prints the church notices of the community. In 90 percent of the cases this man is in poorer financial circumstances than any of his neighbors up and down the street who are specifically exempted. There are 3,000 or 4,000 of these publishers and their average circulation is 1,200. They are an uncontaminated, free, and independent press. They have never been subsidized. Be the publisher Democratic or Republican, his opinions, good or bad are his own. These men are not unfriendly to this legislation.

This amendment was offered by me when the wage and hour legislation was considered previously, and it was adopted with practically no opposition. However, under this bill, because 1 or 2 percent of a paper's circulation goes outside to people who want to get the home-town paper to see whether or not Lucy got married, or whether Sally's baby has been born yet, because that infinitesimal bit of their business is with people outside the county, these publishers fall under the provisions of this bill, when on each side of this little printshop are the butcher and the baker, who are exempt and who are financially better fixed than he is. Is not that a great injustice? I am sure nobody meant to include such an injustice in this bill. All of you who have country newspapers in your district, vote for this amendment. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CREAL].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee and Mr. McKEOUGH) there were—ayes 140, noes 93.

Mr. O'TOOLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

Tellers were refused.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAffiMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LORD], offers an amendment which the Clerk will report.

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I spoke on my amendment sometime ago. The amendment was to exempt the wood-alcohol industry. The vote was not taken then, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to have the vote taken now.

The CHAffiMAN. Does the gentleman offer his amendment?

Mr. LORD. I spoke on the amendment same time ago. I should like to have the amendment read now.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. LORD: On page 58, line 12. after the word "agriculture", insert "or (7) any employee employed in the distillation of wood;" and in line 12, strike out ''(7)" and insert "(8) ".

Mr. LORD. Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the time of the Committee by speaking on the amendment, and ask for a vote.

The CHAffiMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. LORD) there were—ayes 37, noes 121.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BIERMANN. At this point could I offer an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CREAL.] which has just been agreed to?

The CHAffiMAN. An amendment already agreed to cannot be amended.

Mr. BIERMANN. I was on my feet before the gentleman from New York, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may state to the gentleman that the amendment has already been agreed to, and an amendment to that amendment is not now in order.

The Clerk read as follows:

LEARNERS, APPRENTICES, AND HANDICAPPED WORKERS

SEC. 12. The Secretary, to the extent necessary in order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulations or by orders provide for (a) the employment of learners, and of

[PAGE 7445]

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

[PAGE 7446]

apprentices under special certificates as issued pursuant to regulations of the Secretary, at such wages lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 4 and subject to such limitations as to time, number, proportion, and length of service as the Secretary shall prescribe, and (b) the employment of individuals whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury, under special certificates to be issued by the Secretary, at such wages lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 4 and for such period as shall be fixed in such certificates.

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MURDOCK of Utah: On page 59, line 11, after the word "certificates", strike out the period and insert a comma and the following:

" (c) The employment of individuals in mining operations in isolated sections under special certificate to be issued by the Secretary of Labor, for a longer workweek than the maximum fixed in section 5."

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. Mr. Chairman, before offering this amendment I conferred with the chairman of the steering committee on this bill, with the chairwoman of the Labor Committee, and then conferred with the ranking Member on the minority side, and I was given to understand there was no opposition as far as they knew to my amendment.

All this amendment seeks to do is to take care of a situation prevalent in the Rocky Mountain mining districts, which is as follows: There are many mining operations out there where the operation is at least 30, 40, or 50 miles from any town. There is no picture show there and no recreation of any kind. The men go out there in the fall of the year and in all probability will be snowed in for a period of 3 or 4 months. If those men were unable or precluded from working every day they are out there it would be impossible to get anyone to go.

The very purpose of section 12 is to allow the Secretary of Labor to take care of conditions which would curtail employment, and that is exactly what would happen if this amendment were not adopted.

The amendment does not exempt anybody; all it does is to allow the Secretary of Labor to provide by regulations and rules promulgated by the Secretary to take care of this kind of a situation.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. The gentleman has found, has he not, from his correspondence that there are thousands of these small-mine operators throughout the Rocky Mountain region who do not object so much to the wage provision of this bill but do object to the hours provision, and it is for those men that we are appealing through this amendment? Let us vary this set rule to meet an unusual labor situation and help these pioneers.

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. The gentleman is correct. The wages paid in all instances are much higher. I believe I could safely say they are 100 percent higher than the minimum provided here, but this is a condition that does not exist anyWhere else in the United States; and if I thought there was any opposition from any member of the committee or any of the friends of this legislation, I would not have offered it, because I have gone down the line with you in signing the petition and in voting down amendments this afternoon.

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

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. WOOD. The amendment states "in isolated mining districts." It does not say "metal mining," and there are many large coal mines in isolated districts.

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I cannot imagine a coal mine being operated in such a locality, but I would personally be very happy to limit it to metal mining.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. But if the amendment said "metal mining" you would eliminate miners engaged in mining feldspar and other minerals of that sort which are in a very similar situation.

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. That is true and I cannot conceive of a coal mine anywhere in the United States that is in an isolated section or in a section where there is no recreation, no picture shows, and no entertainment, and where all the men can do is either to go down into the mine and work their 8 hours, or sit around and look at a lot of blank walls, or something of that sort.

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

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. KELLER. I take great pleasure in calling attention to the fact that I lived in that country and know that this condition does exist and it is one that ought to be met and the amendment will not hurt this measure in any way whatever, and I think everybody knows that I am as good a friend of this legislation as any man in this House.

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KELLER. Will the gentleman accept the amendment with respect to metal mining?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. If somebody else would offer it I would have no objection to it.

Mr. MURDOCK of AriZona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Will the gentleman ask unanimous consent to amend his amendment by having it apply only to metal mining?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. The only trouble about that, as the gentleman from South Dakota has pointed out, is that there may be some mining that is not metallic which would be injured by doing that, but so far as I am concerned I am willing to accept that amendment.

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

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I yield.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Why not exclude nonferrous and noncoal mining and include all other kinds of mining?

Mr. MURDOCK of Utah. I am just as sure as I am standing here that the Secretary of Labor can be trusted on this matter and would exclude any mining that was not isolated, as I have described here. I hope the Committee will adopt the amendment.

[Here the gavel fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. KELLER) there were—ayes 83, noes 139.

So the amendment was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

PROHIBTED ACTS

SEC. 13. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) to violate any of the provisions of section 4 or section 5, or any of the provisions of any regulation or order of the Secretary issued under section 12;

(2) to transport, offer for transportation, ship, deliver, or sell in commerce, or to ship, deliver, or sell with knowledge that shipment or delivery or sale thereof in comrrerce is intended, any goods in the production of which any employee was employed in violation of section 4 or section 5, or in violation of any regulation or order of the Secretary issued under section 12; except that no provision of this act shall impose any liability upon any common carrier for the transportation in commerce in the regular course of its business of any goods not produced by such common carrier, and no provision of this act shall excuse any common carrier from its obligation to accept any goods for transportation;

(3) to willfully discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding;

(4) to violate any of the provisions of section 10;

(5) to violate any of the provisions of section 9 (c), or to make any statement, report, or record filed or kept pursuant to the provisions of such section or of any regulation or order thereunder, knowing such statement, report, or record to be false in a material respect.

(b) For the purposes of subsection (a) (2) proof that any employee was employed in violation of section 4 or 5, or in violation of any regulation or order ot the Secretary issued under

[PAGE 7446]

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

[PAGE 7447]

Section 12, tn any place of employment where goods were produced, within 90 days prior to the removal of the goods therefrom, shall be prima facie evidence that the goods were produced by such employee.

PENALTIES

SEC. 14. Any person who violates any of the provisions of section 13 shall upon conviction thereof be subject to a fine of not more than $500, or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

Mr. PETTENGILL. Mr. Chairman, a little while back I offered an amendment that orders and regulations issued by the SecretarY shall be published in the Federal Register. A point was made that under the law that created the Federal Register that would follow anyway. I have looked that up and find that is not correct and that I was correct in offering the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETTENGILL. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut. The gentleman is correct. The Register Act provides that these orders must be published only in case a Presidential order has placed them in the classification which must be published under the act. Unless we include them in this act, as they are included in the Senate bill, it will not be necessary in all cases for those to be published in the Register. I think they should be, and we have the assurance of the chairman that it will be taken up in conference and that it will be provided for if possible.

Mr. PETTENGILL. I thank the gentleman and upon the assurance of the chairman of the committee that the matter will be taken up in conference I have nothing further to say.

Mrs. NORTON. I am very glad to give that assurance.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.

The Clerk read as follows;

Amendment by Mr. DIES: Page 61, after line 5, insert new section, which shall be known as section 14 (a), as follows:

"SEC. 14. (a) Any person in any State subject to this act who shall evade or attempt to evade the provisions of this act by increasing charges for housing, fuel, and lights furnished to his employees, or who shall decrease the wages of any of his employees now receiving in excess of the minimum wage provided in this act in order to offset the increase in the wages of those who receive less than the minimum provided in this blll shall be deemed guilty of the violation of this act and upon conviction shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of section 14."

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The amendment proposes to fix the sale of commodities, and there is nothing in the bill to that effect.

Mr. DIES. It does not provide that.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard?

Mr. DIES. I see no reason why it is not germane. This simply says that any employer who increases charges for housing, fuel, or light, or who decreases the pay of those who now receive more in order to offset the increase in the pay of those who receive less shall be deemed guilty of a violation of the act. The purpose of the amendment is to protect those employees who are still left under the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Without regard to the language of the amimdment relating to housing, fuel, and light, the amendment of the gentleman trom Texas relates to a group of employees who are not covered by the pending bill. This amendment relates to a group of employees whose wages are in excess of the minimum wage.

Mr. DIES. The Chair is entirely mistaken, if I may be permitted to say so. Throughout this country, especially in the Southland, a great many of the companies furnish housing, fuel, and lights at a nominal cost. The point involved here is that under this bill all they have to do is to increase those charges and thus evade the law.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls attention to the fact that the language here is "or shall decrease the wages of any of his employees now receiving in excess of the minimum wage provided in this act."

Clearly that language applies to a group of employees not covered by this particular act. The Chair sustains the point of order.

The Clerk read as follows:

INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS

SEC. 15. The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of the Territories shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, and subject to the provisions of section 17 (relating to notice to opposite party) of the act entitled "An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolles, and for other purposes", approved October 15, 1914, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 28, sec. 381), to restrain violations of section 13.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment by Mr. DIEs:· Page 61, after line 14, insert a new section which shall be known as section 15 (a):

"SEc. 15 (a) Any employer under collective bargaining contract with the union of his employees providing for higher minimum wage and shorter maximum hours shall be exempted from the provisions of this act as to the employees covered by such agreement and insofar as the agreement covers hours and wages. Any employer who voluntarily maintains higher minimum wages and shorter maximum hours shall be exempted from the provisions of this act as to employees who receive higher minimum wages and work shorter maximum hours."

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, a; point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill, not germane to the committee substitute, and particularly is not germane to this part of the bill. The amendment relates to exemptions. We have already passed the point where exemptions could be made. If the amendment is germane to any part of the bill, it is to that part dealing with exemptions. I maintain, therefore, that it is subject to a point of order when offered at this place.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. DIES. No.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.

Without passing upon all of the grounds advanced by the gentleman from Wisconsin in support of his point of order, the Chair will confine itself to the point that the amendinent is not germane to the section of the bill to which it is offered.

It is clear to the Chair that the amendment relates to exemptions. If at all germane, it should have been offered to another section of the bill. For this reason, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the end of section 11, an amendment was adopted which was offered by the gentleman from Kentucky. I think it is a first-class amendment. It exempted the country weeklies and semiweeklies but is limited to those having a 3,000 circulation. Any country newspaperman will tell you we have got to go back and change that or we will be discriminating between weeklies and semiweeklies below that point and those above it.

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

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield.

Mr: CREAL. The average circulation of 3,600 papers is 1,200.

Mr. BIERMANN. I agree that the gentleman's statement is correct; but in certain districts, in scores of districts over this country, there are weekly papers that have over 3,000 circulation. I am going to ask unanimous consent to return to that point, not now but sometime, to return to that section; and the Member who offers objections will in substance be saying that we should have one rule for country weeklies and semiweeklies with less than 3,000 circulation and another rule for those with 3,100 circulation; and there are plenty of newspapers in the country districts that have over 3,000 circulation. I was in the newspaper business myself for 23 years. When I started I had something like

[PAGE 7447]

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

[PAGE 7448]

1,500 circulation; when I finished I had 3,500 circulation. Many other editors have had the same experience. If you do not change that figure some of you are going to have to go back and tell the editors who supported you that you voted to keep them under the rule, but voted to take somebody else out from under it.

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

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield.

Mr. COX. What is the gentleman's understanding of the meaning of all these exemptions? Is it that the groups affected cannot live under the provisions of the bill?

Mr. BIERMANN. That is a philosophical question the answer to which I will leave to somebody else.

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

Mr. BIERMANN. I yield.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Why should country newspapers under 3,000 be exempted? Is it not a fact that when you start exemptions there is no place where the line can be drawn?

Mr. BIERMANN. If there is a butcher on one side of the editor and a groceryman on the other and they are exempted I do not know of any reason why the editor should have to obey these hours. They do not object to the wages but they do object to the hours.

When they get out the paper or have a big bill to get out they have certain hours. You have exempted those with a circulation under 3,000. You should exempt them up to 5,000 circulation. If you refuse to make this exemption 5,000 you will have to go back arid do the explaining to the editors of your papers.

Mr. FLETCHER. Are there many weekly newspapers with a circulation over 3,000?

Mr. BIERMANN. There are plenty of them.

Mr. FLETCHER. In what way will this benefit the weekly newspaper?

[Here the gavel fell.]

The Clerk read as follows:

RELATION TO OTHER LAWS

SEC. 16. No provision of this act or of any order thereunder shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this act or a maximum workday or workweek lower than the maximum workday or workweek established under this act, and no provision of this act relating to the employment of child labor shall justify noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a higher standard than the standard established un.der this act.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa has put his finger on a point that may well be recognized. It is something that many Members of this House will have to explain. I refer to the exemption recently adopted for weekly newspapers under 3,000 circulation. Some of the Members of the House know of small daily newspapers in their districts that have a circulation under 3,000. How will you justify exempting the weeklies and not the small dailies?

The problem of hours does not bother the weekly newspaper so much as it does the daily newspaper up to 3,000 circulation. Anyone who has had experience with or has attempted to publish a small daily paper with a circulation under 3,000 knows that the problem of hours is much more serious there than it is in the case of a small weekly newspaper. You have to publish six times a week. You have six times the chance for press trouble or other machinery trouble and that means overtime. If you exempt the weeklies, as you have, how can you justify failure to exempt the small dailies? I want to call to your attention the fact you have another problem of explanation on that point.

And, as already pointed out, the increasing number of exemptions developed in this bill points to an essential weakness in the bill. Each exemption is based on some unworkable feature as it relates to a particular problem that you know of in your district or that someone else knows of in his district.

I was much interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. MURDOCK] but I doubt if Members got the significance of what he was saying about the problem that will be created in the back mining districts where you have a small company trying to provide jobs for men and keep them off of relief.

It is a real problem to limit them to work on a 40-hour-a-week basis where the men are away from towns and where reserves or substitute employees cannot be had for a continuous operation. You will have there a problem of unworkability that will throw men on relief. You have the same thing in connection with small lumber operations.

These problems make me honestly believe it would be a wise thing for the Committee to now rise and take time to give some little thought to these phases of the bill before final vote. It is now about 10 o'clock, and the House has been in continuous session for 11 hours.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.

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

There was no objection.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS

SEC. 17. If any provision of this act or the applleation of such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 18. No. order under section 6 shall take effect prior to 120 days after the enactment of this act.

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HOBBS: Page 62, lines 10 to 12, strike out section 18 and insert:

"SEc. 18. No order under section 6 shall take effect prior to 120 days after the enactment of this act, nor until the Secretary of Agriculture shall have certified that the average income of those engaged in work in agriculture in the United States of America is equal to, or greater than, the average income of those engaged in industrial work in the United States of America; and in making the calculations upon which such finding and certificate is based, the market value of those products of the farms consumed or used by those engaged in work in agriculture shall be taken into account and added to the amount of cash income."

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the section to which it is offered and is not germane to the bill itself.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule.

It is clear and evident that the amendment is subject to a point of order, in that it covers a new subject in no way related to the bill, is not germane to the bill, and the Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the country newspapers, I ask unanimous consent to return to section 11, and in the Creal amendment substitute the figure "5,000", in place of "2,000."

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

Mrs. NORTON and Mr. SABATH objected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the committee substitute for the Senate bill.

The Committee substitute was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. McCORMACK, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill S. 2475, to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 478, he reported the same back to the House with sundry amendments agreed to in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

[PAGE 7448]

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

[PAGE 7449]

The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.

Mr. LAMBERTSON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. LAMBERTSON. I am, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. LAMBERTSON moves to recommit the bill S. 2475 to the Committee on Labor.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to recommit.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Kansas to recommit the bill to the Committee on Labor.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were—yeas 96, nays 315, not voting 16, as follows:

[ROLL No. 85]

YEAS—96

NAYS—315

NOT VOTING—16

So the motion to reommit was rejected.

The Clerk announde dthe following pairs:,

On the vote:

Mr. Snell (for) with Mr. Griswold (against).

Mr. McMillan (for) with Mrs. O'Day (against).

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

General pairs until further notice:

Mr. Doughton with Mr. Binderup.

Mr. Weaver with Mr. Cannon of Wisconsin.

Mr. Smith of Oklahoma with Mr. Chmpion.

Mr. Rogers of Oklahoma with Mr. Barden.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mrs. Norton. Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and neas.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were—yeas 314, nays 97, not voting 17, as follows:

Roll No. 86

YEAS—314

[PAGE 7449]

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

[PAGE 7450]

NAYS—97

NOT VOTING—16

So the bill was passed.

The Clerk announced the following additional pairs:

On the vote:

Mr. Griswold (for) with Mr. Snell (against)

Mrs. O'Day (for) with Mr. McMillan (against).

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

General pairs;

Mr. Doughton with Mr. Binderup.

Mr. Weaver with Mr. Cannon of Wisconsin.

Mr. Smith of Oklahoma with Mr. Steagall.

Mr. Rogers of Oklahoma with Mr. Barden.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. O'DAY, and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. GRISWOLD, had been here, they would have voted "yea" on the passage of this bill.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mr. REED of New York, Mr. MAVERICK, Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma, and Mr. MOSER of Pennsylvania asked and were given permission to revise and extend their own remarks in the RECORD.

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD and include therein an editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD in five different particulars, one on Mooney, one on radio, one on Nazi poison propaganda, the President and spending, and the State Department.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL

Mr. DISNEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. SMITH, asked me to announce that had he been Dresent he would have voted "nay" on the motion to recommit and "yea" on the passage of the bill.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD by including some testimony before the Joint Labor Committee.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

Mr. WHITE of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD and to include therein a newspaper article on the farm bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. SHAFER of Michigan. I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks on the wage and hour bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman already has that privilege.

Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks and to insert a resolution by a farm group in my State.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. PHllLIPS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD and insert therein correspondence I have had with the President and various members of the Cabinet on the subject of helium and its export.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

LEAVE TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 15 minutes after any special orders heretofore made and the conclusion of the legislative program on Thursday next.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for half a minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection.

There was no objection.

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I do this to express my very grateful appreciation to the members of the Committee on Labor and the Members of the House for the splendid support I have had throughout this entire bill.

Also, I have had a message from the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. O'DAY, who has been quite ill, asking me to say that if she were present she would have voted for the bill.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. GRISWOLD, regrets very much that he was unable to be present

[PAGE 7450]

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

[PAGE 7451]

today and wants me to say that if he had been present he would have voted for the bill.

[PAGE 7451]

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

  Top of page

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

  Page 7637              CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE              May 27, 1938             (83 Cong. Rec. 7637, 1938)

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

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate, by Mr. Frazier, its legislative clerk, announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2475) entitled "An act to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes," requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. THOMAS of Utah, Mr. WALSH, Mr. MURRAY, Mr. PEPPER, Mr. ELLENDER, MT. BORAH, and Mr. LA FOLLETTE to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

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

  Top of page

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

  Page 7770              CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE              May 31, 1938             (83 Cong. Rec. 7770, 1938)

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

THE WAGE AND HOUR BILL

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Speaker, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 2475) to provide for the establishment of fair labor standards and employments in and effecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes, with a House amendment, and move that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate bill and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia moves that the House insist upon its amendment to the Senate bill and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. The question is on the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

The Chair appointed the following conferees: Mrs. NORTON, Mr. RAMSPECK, Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. KELLER, Mr. DUNN, Mr. WELCH, and Mr. HARTLEY.