drop out. The risk is that the jobs will go to them and that they will replace jobs that might be there for the main breadwinner of the family, the adults.

Mr. TaFt. As I have indicated, there is no evidence that this has occurred in the past, and I do not think there will be any evidence that it would occur in the future. If it should occur, any effect would be maintained by the 6-month limitaticn which the substitute places on the application of the youth differential and by the power given to the Secretary of Labor to see that a particular employment pattern does not result in job displacement for adult workers.

Mr. WILLIAMS. If there is a better way to deal with it than patterns or practices after the fact, it is to precertify the youth to insure that the youth job does not take a job from an adult.

Mr. Taft. As the Senator is aware, the reason why the substitute does away with certificate system is that it has not proven to be practical or workable.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 1 hour allocated on the Dominick-Taft amendment for this evening has expired. The time will now have to be on the bill.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the remainder of the day not be charged to either side.

The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the time during the 2 hours of debate on the substitute tomorrow, preceding the vote at 12:30, be equally divided between both sides.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.

Mr. DOMINICK. I just want to add to what the Senator from Ohio has said.

The Senator from New Jersey will recall that Secretary Brennan's testimony was strongly against the increased coverage of domestics in the bill which the Senator offers; that he was in favor of a youth differential; and that he felt the committee bill would add to the inflationary cycle. This would seem to mean that this bill, as reported by the committee, is not favorably received even by the Secretary of Labor.

I also invite the attention of the Senator from New Jersey to a chart on page 240 of the record which was put in by the Labor Standards of the Department of Labor concerning what an increase in the minimum wage does to employment, I believe this was inserted in the record by the Senator.

The Senator will note that on the effective date of the 1969 increase, there was 11.9 percent unemployment among youth aged 16 to 19. One year later, that unemployment had gone up to 13.3 percent in 1970, when the minimum wage rate went up to $1.45, the same figures are from 13.3 unemployment to 16.6—1 year later. In 1971, when it became $1.60, it went from 16.6 to 18.5.

So it seems to me that if we look at least at those 3 years, following the increase in the minimum wage, there was an increase in teenage unemployment, which is exactly what we have been trying to say.

It does not do any good to tell a kid he can get $2.20 an hour if he does not have a job. We are saying he should be given a chance to have a job, to get into the workstream all the way through. So, I am delighted the Senator has inserted this chart furnished by the Labor Department into the record. It helps demonstrate what we have been trying to get across—that wage increases, without a meaningful youth differential provision, have adverse effects on teenage employment.

As far as domestics are concerned, for the life of me, as I said earlier today, I simply cannot understand how the Interstate Commerce Clause can be spread sufficiently wide to get that in. For the Record, I wish to read the definition of a domestic worker or private household worker within the Department of Labor, which is backed up so far as domestic workers being household workers in Webster's Dictionary.

They includeAs maids, housekeepers, practical nurses, domestic workers, day workers, house cleaners, grass cutters, handymen, window washers, chauffeurs, yard workers, cooks, companions, gardeners, laundresses, caretakers, charwomen, butlers, waiters, kitchen workers and babysitters.

Granted the Senator has eliminated babysitters from the domestics, they include everything else. If any housewife, when a young man comes around to mow the lawn, has to pay him the minimum wage, withhold, and all the rest, I think that is going to make liars out of a lot of people. It will be almost as bad as prohibition with respect to disregard for the law.

Mr. WILLIAMS. With regard to unemployment, this chart is further evidence that economic conditions have a great deal to do with unemployment figures, too.

The period the Senator cited was the period during the last administration of economic recession and the unemployment figures generally follow the same trends as the youth unemployment during the period.

Mr. DOMINICK. But did not the Senator put that chart in the Record as indicating there is no increase in unemployment?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly. And following that I will place in the Record a description of the point I am making, that economic conditions have a great deal to do with these levels of employment in all groups, including youth.

The chart shows that before 1969, every time the minimum wage was increased, the teenage unemployment rate, 1-year later was lower than on the date of the increase. Additionally with the exception of 1962 and 1964—where the difference was statistically insignificant-onetenth of 1 percent—the rate 6 months after the date of the increase was also lower than on the date of the increase.

In 1969–71, the years cited by Senator Dominick, the only workers subject to minimum wage increases were those newly covered by FLSA in 1966. This amounted to 10 million workers, out of 45 million then covered by the act. Indeed, the 1969 4(d) report suggests that only 2 million workers were subject to wage increases due to the minimum wage increases that went into effect in 1969. By contrast, in 1968, when 7 million workers were affected, the unemployment rate for teenagers dropped almost 1 percent in the 6 months following the effective date of those increases.

We are all aware of the recession which occurred during 1969-71. As the chart shows, unemployment for both adults and teenagers increased during that period, as one would expect. There is no justification whatsoever for attributing this increase to the increases in minimum wages which went into effect for a very limited number of workers during this period. On the contrary, the record in the years prior to 1969 demonstrates that the minimum wage, by itself, has had no demonstrable adverse effect on either adult or youth employment.

Mr. DOMINICK. All I can say is that we do have the chart in the Record and the chart speaks for itself.

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I wish to observe in connection with the colloquy between the chairman of the committee and the Senator from Ohio in discussing certification, that I believe certification is indeed a discouragement for those seeking employment. Certification generally tends to discourage people from engaging in certain activities. We have an example in connection with the guaranteed loan program in higher education where last year we required certification from the college to the bank that people are qualified for loans. It is reported by the banks that it caused a 40-percent reduction in the number of applications. So certification tends to discourage people rather than to encourage them to a particular activity. Certification in youth employment is an important factor that should be considered when we discuss this matter.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. Cannon (for himself and Mr. Bible) submitted the following amendment intended to be proposed by them jointly to the bill (S. 1861):

Calendar No. 282 S. 1861




JULY 17, 1973
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed


Intended to be proposed by Mr. CANNON (for himself and Mr.

BIBLE) to S. 1861, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, to extend its protection to additional employees, to raise the minimum wage to $2.20 an hour, and for other purposes, viz:


On page 22, line 14, insert“ (a)” after "SEC. 7.".

2 On page 22, line 15, beginning with “(1)”, strike 3 out through “(2)” on line 19 and insert in lieu thereof

4 "(1)”.
5 On page 22, line 22, strike out“ (e)” and insert in lieu
6 thereof " (2) ".


On page 22, after line 24, insert the following new suli

8 section:

Amdt. No. 359



" (b) Section 14 of such Act, as amended, is amended 2 by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:


“(e) (1) Notwithstanding the minimum wage rates

4 required by section 6 (a) (1) or (b), any educational insti5 tution may, in compliance with the applicable child labor 6 laws, employ any employee who is a student and who is 7 employed by the educational institution at which he has 8 been accepted for enrollment or which he is attending at a

9 wage rate which is not less than 85 per centum of the other

10 wise applicable minimum wage rate prescribed by section

11 6 (a); except that such special minimum wage rate for em12 ployees in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American 13 Samoa shall not be less than 85 per centum of the industry 14 wage order rate otherwise applicable to such employees, but 15 in no case shall such special minimum wage rate be less 16 than that provided for under the most recent wage order is17 sued prior to the effective date of the Fair Labor Standards

18 Act of 1973.

19 (2) No educational institution may employ any em20 ployee who is a student at the special minimum wage rate 21 authorized by this subsection for longer than twenty hours

22 per week, except that the limitation contained in this para

23 graph shall not apply in any workweek that is a vacation

24 period as determined pursuant to regulations established by

25 the Secretary.

« ForrigeFortsett »