(b) Seafood processing;

(c) Oil pipeline;

(d) Cotton ginning and sugarcane and sugar beet processing; and

(e) Partmen and mechanics in auto, truck and trailer dealerships and all employees in aircraft dealerships.

12. Fails to modify the following overtime exemptions:

(a) Local transit employees;

(b) Hotel, motel and restaurant employees;

(c) Nursing home employees;

(d) Catering and food service employees; and

(e) Bowling employees.

13. Fails to repeal the following minimum wage and overtime exemptions: (a) Motion picture theater employees;

(b) Shade grown tobacco employees engaged in processing such;

(c) Certain telegraph agency employees; and

(d) Certain employees of retail-manufacturing establishments.

14. Fails to repeal minimum wage exemptions for logging and sawmill employees.

Mr. JAVITS. This is a bill whose time has come because of inflation and because of the basic requirements of our society.

I hope very much for these reasons and for other reasons which we will advance as the debate continues, that the pending substitute will be rejected.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I am delighted to be a sponsor of the amendment with the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Maryland.

The considerations and the circumstances regarding consideration of minimum wage legislation are different this year.

In the first place, the House has acted differently. Last year the House passed a bill that was similar in certain aspects to the proposed Dominick-Beall-Taft substitute. The House-passed bill never went to conference, but at least was a constructive starting place. Unfortunately, this is not the case this year.

I think there should be a change in the minimum wage rate. I think there should be a reasonable increase in the minimum wage.

The question before the Senate, however, is whether we will get a minimum wage bill very quickly, or wait until December.

Mr. President, I think realistically that those who want to see an immediate enactment of a minimum wage bill should support the substitute.

It has been said earlier that the Tower substitute was just as subject to a veto as the committee bill because the figures in the Tower proposal were below those in the administrative proposal. I did not vote for the Tower proposal because the wage rate figures involved were too low. I do not think this argument however, is a good one to oppose the Dominick-Beall-Taft substitute.

I think that realistically the Senate must recognize that there is great doubt that any compromise bill will be accepted by the conference committee due to the attitudes that presently exist on the part of the House and on the part of the principles in the Senate involved in the consideration of this legislation.


Mr. President, I hope for a change in that attitude. I think that if we can bring about a change in that attitude, perhaps we will eventually get a workable bill in December even after a veto occurs.

The Senator from New York said that we cannot always be sure of a veto. It is true that we cannot always be sure of a veto on any piece of legislation. However, I can assure the Senate that I think the pending legislation in its present form, as it presently exists before the Senate in the committee bill, is about as certain to be vetoed as any measure that I think has come through the Senate since I have served here, and perhaps even during my service in the House of Representatives as well.

Mr. President, I would like to talk for a moment about the deficiencies that have just been mentioned by the distinguished Senator from New York on the matter of coverage of domestics.

Again, here there is a question of disemployment. As the committee report points out, we are dealing with an area in which, for many families, there is no flexibility whatever to increase the wage level for domestics without cutting back on the hours worked or cutting back entirely on their employment. The Senator from Maryland made an excellent suggestion in committee that might have gone some distance toward solving this particular problem, but he was unable to obtain approval of his proposal due to the position of the proponents of the committee bill.

The other area I would like to stress is the matter of youth unemployment. Last year the youth differential issue was considered, and if there was any single issue on which the committee bill is deficient, it is the youth differential issue.

Youth unemployment figures have not improved since last year, as the committee report points out. Youth unemployment has continued to go up, particularly with regard to black youth. The 1972 figures showed 16.4 percent unemployment among 16-year-old white youth, and 35.1 percent among male 16- to 17-year-old black youth. This is a major problem.

Because this is an issue on which many Senators may tomorrow decide how to cast their vote, I would like to talk about it in some depth.

Mr. President, the lack of a youth training wage or a youth differential in the committee bill demands the attention of every Member of the Senate.

Unemployment among teenagers has been a perplexing problem and we must not add to it by the action we take on minimum wage legislation. In his testimony before the House General Subcommittee on Labor, the Secretary of Labor testified:

In March of this year there were 627,000 sixteen and seventeen year olds who were unemployed. This was 17.2 percent, seasonally adjusted, of the total of this age group in the labor force as compared with a 4 percent unemployment figure among adult workers age 20 or over in March.

Thus, it appears that even under the existing minimum wage rate of $1.60 many employers have found they could not afford to employ inexperienced untrained help at the minimum rate.

In view of the fact that the committee proposal would increase the minimum wage rate for nonagricultural and agriculture workers so

[ocr errors]

dramatically with its consequential disemployment affect for young people, it is incumbent upon us to take action to halt the reduction of employment opportunities.

To provide job opportunities for young people, employers must be given an inducement to hire them.

The proposed substitute would accomplish this by establishing payment of a special youth minimum rate of 85 percent of the prevailing minimum wage, or $1.60, whichever is higher, for nonstudent youth and 85 percent of the prevailing minimum of $1.30, whichever is higher, for youths seeking farm jobs.

To assure that the special youth rates do not reduce the number of jobs available to older workers, the substitute authorizes the Secretary of Labor to prescribe standards and requirements to guard against loss of employment opportunities for adults.

I know that the Department of Labor is engaged in doing much to reduce the incidence of unemployment among the Nation's youth. However, more must be done. All these efforts will be diminished, if private employers refuse to meet the surplus of youths seeking jobs because of the inequitable increase in the minimum wage proposed by S. 1861 which prices unskilled disadvantaged young people out of the job market.

Another obstacle to youth unemployment is the existing requirement authorizing prior certification by the Department of Labor before an employer can hire a youth at a lower wage. The substitute would eliminate this cumbersome certification procedure while the committee bill seeks to perpetuate it.

Most youngsters want to work, either out of necessity or to help advance their education and future job potential. These youths must be given a chance to work-to become a part of society. I believe the youth differential proposal will help provide them with the entry they seek into the work force. I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I also call to the Senate's attention the table on page 127 of the committee report, outlining the unemployment rates for 16- and 17-year-olds from 1963 to 1972.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired. Mr. DOMINICK. I yield the Senator 5 more minutes.

Mr. TAFT. For male white 16- and 17-year-olds the figures started in 1963 at 17.8 percent. It drifted along, went down somewhat in 1964, 1965, and 1968. Then the unemployment figures started up slightly, and now are at 16.4 percent.

In the case of black youth, however, we see little improvement except in the year 1968 or 1969, when the 27 percent figure, which started in 1963, went down to about 25 percent.

Unfortunately, in 1972, however, we find it back up to 35 percent. I certainly think the Senate should consider this fact.

Further, I call to the attention of the Senate the table on page 130 of the committee report, where Senators Dominick, Beall and I have included a table from Dr. Thomas Moore showing the added youth unemployment effect that S. 1861 is projected to have. Let us take a look at those figures for a moment.

The effect of S. 1861 on teenage unemployment rates in added percentage points of unemployment is predicted to occur at a particularly alarming rate.

It is estimated that the total increased percentage that would be involved in September 1974, would be 11.6 percent. By 1975 these figures climb to 18.8 percent, in 1976 to 21.9 percent, and ultimately, by September 1979, to almost 23 percent increased unemployment among nonwhite teenagers. These figures are over and above the already too high figures and are only nonwhite figures.

It is little wonder, then, that Mr. Andrew Brimmer of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and one of our more prominent black citizens in this country, wrote to me in alarm. I have included his letter on this subject in the minority views of the committee report at pages 130 to 132. Mr. Brimmer points out that he felt it would be extremely disadvantageous insofar as black youth is concerned not to include some type of youth differential in the minimum wage increases to be enacted.

These figures are shocking and it is very difficult to understand why proponents of the bill continue to ignore this most pressing problem.

The real basis of the majority report of the committee is that the minimum wage must be increased quickly to end poverty in this country.

I do not agree with this proposition as it is inflationary, and not in the best interests of the individuals involved who are as they will be most hurt by inflation, especially those at the very low income level. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Haskell). The 5 minutes of the Senator have expired.

Mr. DOMINICK. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, Congress must try to alleviate poverty and unemployment. There are many other programs to meet these problems, which should be acted upon. But poverty is not going to be solved by the minimum wage law. Unfortunately, the higher we raise the minimum wage, the more the disemployment effect. The committee bill really goes too far and will increase poverty rather than help to correct poverty problems.

Opponents to the youth differential argue that: First, a lower teenage minimum would discriminate against older adult workers and simply shift unemployment from teenagers to adult workers; Second, a lower minimum wage would reduce the wages of teenagers who otherwise would be working at the standard minimum wage; and Third, teenagers will not take jobs at a subminimum wage. None of these arguments is based on factual analysis.

The argument that a lower teenage minimum would discriminate against older workers and thus displace adults is the most often cited reason for opposition to a youth differential. It is important to remember, however, that the youth differential is only applicable to youths under 18 and to full time students. Thus, the category of prospective employees is largely limited to students, as the average age of a high school graduate in this country is 18.1 years. Thus, the type of job opportunities sought will be part time and vacation oriented. Seasonal, recreational positions, training and intern positions, and marginal service employment are the employment opportunities most sought after by youths. These are the types of jobs adults do not actively seek, and in fact, very often adults refuse to consider these types of positions.

If there would be any adult employment displacement, as a result of youth differential-a notion which has never been statistically


I so limited as to have no discernable 'he adults involved, if any, would be s or experience to obtain better emd with manpower training. minutes of the Senator have expired.

not care to elaborate further on the ight. I believe the principal points e and I hope they will be helpful to vill elaborate further tomorrow when Dominick-Beall-Taft substitute. will the Senator from Ohio yield ? me.

es. You keep the floor for some ques

that purpose. dment No. 330 which is the so-called 1. This amendment is a replay of last

views. This amendment was defeated t was recognized that it was an insufrepresented by the committee bill. uld have the effect of undercutting the -hich considered each of the provisions well as the deliberations of the Senate f this amendment would preclude Sennportance to the working poor of this o will receive the benefit of an amendll are owed at least an open and free ised in the committee reported bill S.

mendment is deficient in two principal wage rate and the expansion of cover

orporates a differential submission rate

which, as we have explained in some has the potential for undermining this of a floor on wages. ase in the cost of living since 1966, when

ase in the minimum wage, the increases holly inadequate. rcent increase at this time in the minirther slippage in the battle against the king poor. committee, at least provides a wage innum wage worker in approximately the 66 with regard to the cost of living. te and its wage rate actually goes to a fth year. I would be frank to say that tion to be addressing itself to the needs hat time and not be bound to a wage pelessly outdated.

body ought not be fooled by the endtitute bill. Yes, it looks good or reason

« ForrigeFortsett »