[82] The President cautioned about the adverse effects of a new minimum wage law on the "*** flood of teenagers now entering our labor force." It was estimated that 1,074,000 teenagers were unemployed as of May 1965. In May of 1965, 605,000 unemployed were looking for only part-time jobs, and 818,000 in April 1965 counted in the total unemployment figures were married women living with their husbands, all of whom presumably have less need for employment than people with more responsibility. Consequently, it is self-evident that total unemployment figures without an analysis as to what they represent mean little. It is also evident that this legislation does not strike at the root of the problem but will simply compound it.

Will this type of legislation cure the large unemployment which exists among teenagers? Will it offer more jobs for those seeking work on a part-time basis, or for married women whose husbands are currently employed? Not a single witness made the point or proved the point that an increase in the minimum wage would create one single additional job in the entire country. In fact, witness after witness testified that it would decrease total jobs available because it would force employers to automate in self-defense and would increase

costs.

Further, the witnesses on this legislation testified that without a doubt there was a great shortage in the United States of skilled workers who are already receiving wages far above the requirements of this bill. This legislation will not do one thing toward making an unskilled worker a skilled worker and alleviating the great shortage which exist in this area. The net result of this bill will be undue hardship and serious consequences for those businesses currently covered as well as those that will be newly covered. The increase of the minimum wage rate to $1.75 per hour is completely unrealistic, impractical, and will deal a devastating blow to the small businessman in this country. I propose to offer an amendment on the floor to increase the minimum wage in two steps: first to $1.35 and then to $1.50.

II. AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

1. Agricultural workers under the terms of this bill would be included under the minimum wage law for the first time. This is a completely new concept as they are not engaged in interstate commerce. Coverage of a retail business is based on volume of salescurrently $1 million or more a year. Under H.R. 10518, this will be reduced to $500,000 and in 2 years to $250,000. In other words, the enterprise which does less than $250,000 in sales per year will not be subject to the act, nor will an establishment of an enterprise if it does less than $150,000.

Yet we have a formula for farmers and those engaged in agriculture based on total work of 300 man-days per quarter. If a man works 25 days a month on a farm, this is 75 days per quarter and four men would equal the 300 man-days. His total volume in sales might be only $20,000 to $25,000 per year but, yet, as the bill is written, he would come under its provisions. This is not fair nor is it equitable. The wage rates for agricultural employees in this bill provide for a minimum of $1.15 per hour beginning July 1, 1966, and $1.25 beginning July 1, 1968, if 300 man-days of work are performed per quarter.

[83] According to statistics published by the Labor Department in the booklet "Hired Farm Workers" dated January 1964, farms using 300 or more man-days in a peak quarter at a $1.15 per hour wage rate would result in a 32-percent increase in wages. If the wage rate is $1.25 per hour, the increase in wages would be 39 percent.

2. Enforcement: Due to the fact that there are a few million farms and ranches throughout the entire country in out-of-the-way places, enforcement will be most difficult. It will require a large army of investigators to cover all of those who would be affected by the provisions of this act.

3. The agricultural economy is currently in dire economic straits. This coverage will add to the dilemma and by increasing costs and decreasing net profit will further accelerate the movement off of the farm.

4. It is entirely unfair and unrealistic to set one standard of coverage for those in the retail field and in service industries, and a different standard for those in agriculture.

5. The practical effects of this legislation on agriculture will be chaotic, as the bill is completely unclear as to whether a tenant farmer or a sharecropper is covered. Both of these people normally work on a percentage of the crop, and it will be practically impossible to correlate their earnings against the total number of hours worked and the minimum wage. Inclusion of agricultural workers under the minimum wage law is not based on the practical conditions which exist in farming. This section of the bill should be removed.

The Congress does not create more jobs through legislative action. Additional jobs are created only by private enterprise working through our free enterprise system. The net result of this legislation could be fewer jobs and it would accelerate the demise of our small businessman and our small towns throughout the country.

AUGUST 24, 1965.

DAVE MARTIN,
Member of Congress.

[84] INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN
GLENN ANDREWS OF ALABAMA

Although I concur with both minority reports, I further oppose this bill on the basis of discrimination against low-income States. The special treatment given Puerto Rico and the dispensation given agricultural labor both acknowledge that this legislation presages unemployment. Variations in income make a uniform wage law throughout the Nation unfair to low-income States.

That the Department of Labor has been unable in the past to find appreciable unemployment as a result of minimum wages is a specious argument. First of all, minimum wages have been applied in the past primarily to large industries which (with national distribution) were able to pass the increased labor cost on to the public or the consumer all over America. This argument is not strengthened when such findings have been made by a Department of Labor committed to the minimum wage principle. The conclusion that little unemployment has resulted from minimum wages ignores what should be obvious to all: namely, that minimum wages could very well preclude the creation of additional jobs. There would be no way of measuring this factor. This speculation offers no real challenge, however, to

commonsense.

I find the proposed minimum wage law in contravention to the expressed intent (which I have commended) of the war on poverty, manpower redevelopment, vocational rehabilitation, and a host of other measures professed to be designed to eliminate unemployment. I find it impossible to reconcile these important directions being taken by the National Government with statements made by the proponents of minimum wages. I quote George Meany testifying before a Senate committee on minimum wages in 1961: "If his (employer) profit depended on paying less than a minimum wage then I say he shouldn't be in business." And Sydney Zagri of the Teamsters Union, testifying recently before my subcommittee, said: "Of course there are certain marginal operations that should not be permitted simply to continue to exist."

I reject unequivocally the proposition that closing all marginal businesses will add to the economic health of the Nation. Many members of my committee have admitted, in fact argued, that a decent wage in one section of the country may not be a decent wage in another.

I cannot escape the real thrust of this proposed legislation. It iterates the argument repeated so often in the Taft-Hartley debate: "Do not let them pirate our industries." If this be the real intent of this bill, let it come down, but not in the name of helping the lowincome States or the poor.

The test of any minimum wage should be whether or not the increased labor cost can be passed along to the public or consumer.

Agriculture is unable to pass along any increased costs; the price of its produce is already pegged above a normal market by Government. [85] Restaurants perennially "marginal" in most communities are unable to pass along meals at New York prices to low-income customers. If these costs become New York costs the only alternative is closing.

I despair of a war on poverty which must groom the unskilled, the uneducated and unproductive to be accepted into employment in my area at $1.75 an hour. Until recently this has been a handsome salary in many areas of America-handsome for the skilled, the educated. and the productive. Progress in communication has virtually eliminated so-called pockets of exploitation already. Prevailing local wage rates get around quickly and prospective workers decline jobs which do not pay properly, or they go places where they can get better

pay.

Leon Keyserling stated recently that jobs are the only route for the poor to escape poverty. Let us not wipe out all of these "marginal businesses" in the low-income States at one time with, of course, the jobs which go along with them.

GLENN ANDREWS.

[86] SEPARATE VIEWS OF MR. BELL, MR. GOODELL, AND MR. REID

Unquestionably the basic objectives of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1965 are valid. We support an increase in the minimum wage and an extension of the protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act to include a number of presently exempted industries and employees. We recognize the critical relationship of the act's guarantees with our efforts to insure each worker an opportunity to earn a decent living. It is with these premises in mind that we express concern about the implications inherent in certain of the provisions of H.R. 10518 as reported by the committee.

The committee approved amendments would provide an increase in the minimum wage of $0.50 per hour over the next 4 years reaching $1.75 per hour in 1968. Cognizant of the unpredictable nature of future economic trends and the far-reaching impact of such an increase, we think the committee has not exercised sound judgment in some of its minimum wage recommendation particularly as it relates to small business. There is a question that such a rapid increase can be justified based on presently known facts. We would call attention to the more realistic approach exercised in 1961 when provision was made for an increase of $0.25 per hour over a 3-year period. It should be kept in mind that the ultimate effect of these changes can be assessed by Congress at any time and further alterations made based on reliable data as it becomes available.

In addition, we feel the impact of increased minimum wages on our economy and on the costs of individual employers is underestimated by the administration. Very few employers can increase wages paid at the lowest level without comparable increases at various grade levels above. This means that an employer increasing his lowest paid employees from $1.25 to $1.35 per hour, for example, must increase employees he is now paying $1.35 to $1.45 per hour and so on up the pay scale. It is impossible to assess the inflationary impact on an employer's costs from increased minimum wages without taking account of this escalation.

We are equally concerned about the impact the elimination of particular exemptions would have on certain industries. Notably, exemptions for small logging enterprises and certain service establishments in which customer tips constitute a substantial portion of an employee's earnings.

H.R. 10518 presently provides for the complete removal of the exemption for logging operations employing 12 or fewer workers. The recordkeeping requirements for small five- and six-man crews working irregular hours and the weather controlled working conditions makes such coverage impractical.

It is agreed that larger, more organized operations employing 10 or more workers can and should be totally covered by the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions of the act. However, testimony