urge the adoption of the bill as reported by the Education and Labor Committee. I urge your support of the committee bill. Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell). (Mr. Mitchell of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me some time. It is not often that I speak on the floor of this House. Generally I take the opportunity to speak when I feel that the weak and the powerless in this country are being intimidated by the big and the powerful. That is exactly what we are confronting today, a situation in which a whole lot of little people, not organized, with no money, with no major spokesman for them, those who are essentially powerless people in our society, are being threatened and intimidated by the powerful interests such as the National Association of Manufacturers and its surrogates. It is disturbing to me that this would happen, I am especially disturbed because the thrust of this is coming from that side of the aisle, the Republican side. There are groups of black men and women traveling around the country, who are all Republicans, and they are traveling around the country attempting to woo and win black people to participate in the Republican Party. That group was in North Carolina just last week. Wherever that group has gone it has run into resistance, the resistance of blacks who hold the Republican Party to be insensitive and callous to the needs of those I am speaking about. Of course, I am delighted at the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Erlenborn's new-found sympathetic interest in blacks and young people. I am delighted that such interest has been initiated, but I would respectfully suggest to the Members on the other side of the aisle this thought. I am a Democrat, but I believe in a strong two-party system. I think blacks and other minorities ought to be in both parties-but I say that the Republican Party will never, never, never get them in for as long as the Republican Party continues to demonstrate this kind of callous, cruel, cynical, insensitive action to those who are powerless. Mr. Chairman, let me talk for just a moment about one section of the bill, the protection to be afforded to those who serve as domestic workers. Of course, I would like to see all workers getting a minimum wage. Of course, I would like to see all workers enjoying the good life that this country has promised everyone, but I am especially con- 1 cerned about the domestics in this situation. I am a black man. I have a special interest in black people. We know that somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of all domestics are black women. I know what their fate has been as domestics. I think it is absolutely nonsensical to attempt to exclude them from minimum wage coverage, because of some phoney suggestion that it would work a hardship on the employer. That is nonsense, that is utter arrant nonsense. The real issue is whether or not we will continue to exploit our black women and other women who serve as domestics. Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Maryland on the statement that he is making, and the point that he has just raised. Every person who employs a domestic today must keep records for social security when the facts of life are that a Sears Roebuck revolving account is 10 times the work of keeping those records for a domestic worker. Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his remarks. Let me continue, if I may. Mr. Chairman, for as long as I serve in this Congress I am going to take the burden upon myself of fighting for those people who suffer because a system turned against them in the past, and who continue to suffer simply because we still have not caught up with the rest of America, despite the fact that some gains have been made. May I say exactly what the system did in the past. The system in the past prevented black women from obtaining the kinds of education and employment that other women received. The system denied the black males the same kind of opportunity for full and equal employment. Therefore the burden fell on the black women to support their families. They supported their families by working as domestic workers. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for this additional time. Mr. Chairman, that inequity perpetuates itself today because it set the stage for the exploitation of these women, and now it wants to continue that exploitation by excluding them from the minimum wage coverage. Mr. Chairman, I think this House has some integrity about it. I think there are Members on the Republican side of the aisle who recognize that what they are doing in this attempt to this bill borders upon being immoral. I also think that there are some Members on this side from our Southern States who recognize they will be compounding the felony if they do not support the committee bill. It is no great secret, there is going to be a close vote. We all know that, but I think that this committee bill is going to pass. I think it is going to pass because, somehow or another, despite the pressures from the corporate giants, the big businessman and the Association of Manufacturers, despite the pressures from the White House, men and women in this body are going to reach down and find within themselves the decency, the integrity, and the courage to just once speak out for those who are essentially powerless people in our society. I thank the gentleman for giving me some time, and whatever few moments I have left, I now yield back. Mr. PODELL. Mr. Chairman, in considering the fair labor standards amendments before us. I hope that my colleagues will take into consideration the economic realities of the times we live in. We are faced with continually rising prices for food, rent, durable goods, clothing-everything we need to maintain a respectable stand ard of living. And yet, there are currently over 16 million workers uncovered by any sort of minimum wage law, and there are millions of covered workers who are living below or at the poverty level. The economic facts of life dictate an increase in the minimum wage. True, unless serious steps are taken to control inflation, we will be like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland-running and running just to stay in the same place. But we should not be duped into thinking that increasing the minimum wage will add to the inflationary spiral. If anything, the proposed increase will improve economic conditions. By paying workers a decent wage for their day's labor, we will be increasing their purchasing power. This, in turn, will serve to stimulate production to keep up with increased demand. In a situation in which we are faced with the twin problems of high inflation high unemployment-truly an economist's nightmare-we ought not to look askance at any reasonable plan to remedy things. In 1966, a full-time worker earning the minimum wage received $3,200 before taxes. This was just enough to keep him living at the socalled poverty level. We all know that this was an unrealistically low estimation of the amount of money needed to survive, especially for a family living in one of this Nation's large cities. The poverty level is now officially set at $4,200 for an urban family of four; but for that same family to maintain a minimally adequate standard of living, they must have an income of $6,900. However, the minimum wage is $1.60 an hour. That $1.60 buys less now than ever before. If we truly believe, as we say we do, that someone who works long and hard to make ends meet and provide for his family is entitled to a decent return for his labor, then we can do no less than raise the minimum wage as provided in this legislation. There is one provision in particular that I want to see passed. That is the one which extends FLSA coverage to household domestics. Almost all the workers in this category are women. A sizable majority of them are the heads of their households. We have all read and listened to countless authorities on the need for greater numbers of domestic workers as more and more women stay in the work force rather than devote themselves exclusively to the duties of a housewife. And yet, it is becoming harder and harder to find persons willing to do this work. Perhaps it is because housework is demeaning. More than likely, it is because housework has been made demeaning by our attitudes toward it. We should admit once and for all that those persons who perform the tasks of domestic employment are providing a valuable economic product. Not only are they contributing to the economy, they are also making it possible for many others to make use of their talents outside the confines of the home. We should recognize the great contributions made by domestic workers by extending to them the coverage of a decent minimum wage, as provided for in the bill before us. To be sure, an adequate minimum wage will not be the sure-fire answer to this country's economic problems. For that, we will need to return to a system of strong, workable economic controls. However, we do have an obligation to the millions of men and women who are working at low-paying jobs, who feel that work, any work at all, is better than no work. We can and should fulfill this obligation by making sure that they receive at least a respectable minimum wage. Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 7935 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO ACT SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the "Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1973”. (b) Whenever in titles I, II, and III of this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the section or other provision amended or repealed is a section or other provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201-219). PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the first section of the bill has been read. Is my substitute in order to be offered at this time? The CHAIRMAN. The proper substitute could be offered now. The understanding is that if the gentleman will hold off that substitute, the Chair will protect the gentleman in his right to offer a substitute tomorrow. Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the Chairman. Mr. DENT. We will agree to that. 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. Bolling, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 7935) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage rates under that act, to expand the coverage of that act, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon. [From the Congressional Record-House, June 6, 1973] FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1973 Mr. DENT. 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 (H.R. 7935) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage rates under that act, to expand the coverage of that act and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 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 H.R.7935, with Mr. Bolling in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee rose yesterday the Clerk had read through section 1, ending on page 2, line 2 of the bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn). AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. ERLENBORN Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1973". TITLE I-INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE RATES INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE RATE FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BEFORE 1936 SEO. 101. Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 (a) (1)) is amended to read as follows: "(1) not less than $1.90 an hour during the first year from the effective date of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1973, not less than $2.10 an hour during the second year from such date, and not less than $2.20 an hour thereafter, excerpts as otherwise provided in this section;". INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE RATE FOR NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES COVERED IN 1966 SEC. 102. Section 6(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(b)) is amended by striking out paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(1) not less than $1.80 an hour during the first year from the effective date of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1973, |