made of this complaint and was told that the matter had been referred by the Department of Justice to the district attorney in Cincinnati for action. Practically all work in the painting line on these particular Government jobs provide for four coats of paint, the last coat to be stippled. On many of these jobs these specifications are deliberately violated and there is no one to check up on the contractor because of the fact that there is not a sufficient number of inspectors in the Procurement Division to look after this work. This they very frankly say themselves. Inspectors in this department jump from one job to another, sometimes not visiting a job for 2 or 3 weeks. In the meantime, the contractor for the painting has already applied paint, but when the inspector arrives it is impossible for him, no matter how practical he may be, to determine how many coats of paint have been applied to the surface. Some few years ago the Internal Revenue Building here in Washington was painted-I refer to the walls and ceilings. The contractor on this job violated the 8-hour law, the specifications were not carried out, and material was not up to the standard of specifications, aliens were employed on the job and all of these violations were referred to the department. We did succeed in having the aliens removed, but otherwise nothing was done to correct the complaints. Yet this same firm has been permitted to figure Government jobs repeatedly since that time and has been awarded several to my knowledge. During the exposure of the conditions mentioned in the above job, I received a call from the Department of Justice requesting that I sit in at a meeting, and readily accepted the invitation. When I arrived at the meeting, I found one painter who had worked on the job and who had not been paid the prevailing rate of wages and was requesting some action whereby he could get what money was due him. I found present also five or six attorneys, representing various departments of the Government. After a full and complete explanation of the entire matter, the chairman-an attorney in the employ of the United States Government-turned to the young man and advised that he get a lawyer to prosecute his case. It seemed to me a most ridiculous suggestion on the part of these attorneys to request this man to get a lawyer to prosecute, when they themselves were employed for that purpose. We all understand the decision of the Comptroller General wherein he has repeatedly ruled that the lowest responsible bidder must be awarded the contract. We also know that the word "responsible" means nothing more than the placing of a bond, known as a performance bond, to complete the work as outlined in the specifications. There should be something done regarding this wording "lowest responsible bidder" because it has developed that it is the lowest bidder, with little or no responsibility, who is awarded the contract for these particular jobs. A suggestion was made the other day, by one of the speakers, that $2,000 was entirely too low a figure to have in this bill. My contention is that there should not be any amount specified, but that any money spent by the Government should contain the provision that the prevailing rate of wages should be paid. Under the amended Davis-Bacon Act, $2,000 is the limit prescribed. I can furnish this committee with hundreds of jobs below $2,000 that have been awarded by the Procurement Division, which permit the contractor to pay any kind of a wage and nothing can be done to stop him. I could furnish this committee, as I did the Walsh investigating committee, much information concerning "kick-backs", another thing that has been discussed during these hearings, but I know that the committee is tired out with all of this sort of information and I do not wish to add further to its work, but do urge that this legislation be enacted during this session of Congress, as it certainly is badly needed for the protection of labor. Mr. HEALY. I understand that your organization is in favor of the act under consideration? Mr. GALLAGHER. Absolutely 100 percent in favor of it. STATEMENT OF LOUIS ROTHSCHILD, REPRESENTING THE Mr. ROTHSCHILD. My name is Louis Rothschild and I represent the Retailers National Council, an organization made up of 12 national retail organizations. The retailers want to call your attention to the fact that if this bill is passed in its present form, it will make it impracticable for a retailer to bid on a Government contract, because of the difficulty of determining the labor conditions going behind the retailer, the wholesaler, and down the line, and because of the fear of subsequent litigation under section 4, the penalty provision, which the retailer would be obliged to comply with. Apart from that, of course, purely selfish angle, my organization fears that this is not the proper approach to a social problem, that the question of Government purchasing, which is a purely business one, should not be confused with the social problem of proper hours and wages. It is, of course, admitted that there is some unfair competition in Government purchasing, and it is hoped by the retailers that in letting Government contracts the Comptroller General could go further than merely requiring financial responsibility and could require moral responsibility; but to turn that over to a department of the Government primarily interested in the social aspects, we feel, is improper and the wrong approach. There is one feature in connection with the bill that I would like to call your attention to, as it presents a question, and that is, What is the application, if the bill is passed, to goods in being? Let us say that the bill passes and there is Mr. HEALY. Do you mean floor stock? Mr. HEALEY. Goods already fabricated, which may be already in stock? Mr. ROTHSCHILD. Yes. The hypothetical case that I have in mind is this: Suppose that a retailer here in Washington wanted to bid on pianos, and he had the pianos in stock; it would be impossible for him to know the felt manufacturer, the string manufacturer, and the manufacturer of the various other commodities. Mr. HEALEY. The committee appreciates that and has that particular angle in mind. Mr. ROTHSCHILD. In the present bill that feature apparently is not covered strongly enough. Mr. HEALEY. Perhaps it needs clarification. Mr. ROTHSCHILD. That would, of course, help the retailer, because in most instances when the retailer bids he has the goods in being, although in some of the instances that is not the case. That is about all that I have to say. Mr. HEALEY. Thank you very much. Now, Mr. Syme. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL A. SYME, REPRESENTING THE DRIED FRUIT ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA Mr. SYME. Mr. Chairman, my name is Samuel A. Syme, and I am counsel for the Dried Fruit Association of California. The Dried Fruit Association of California is composed of organizations which handle something over 95 percent of the dried fruit produced in California, and California in turn represents 95 percent of the dried fruits produced in this country. As far as the State of California is concerned, it is a basic industry. There are some 125,000 farm families in the State of California which look to this industry primarily as their source of revenue. The association itself, which, of course, is a trade association, has been in existence for something over 45 years. In that length of time, among the members of the association, there has been only one instance of labor trouble of any kind, and I might say that that single instance did not have the sanction, the consent nor the cooperation of the American Federation of Labor. The association was one of the first to sign the President's Reemployment Agreement, and they have sought to cooperate with the Government in every way in meeting the emergency which has faced the country in the past few years. The committee heard Mr. Gall's statement on Saturday, and I may say that I am glad, and I know that the committee is glad, that Mr. Gall relieved me of quite a bit of a burden which otherwise I would have carried. On behalf of my association, I would like simply to endorse very heartily the remarks that Mr. Gall made about the constitutionality of the bill, the power of the Government to use its contracting power to enforce a regulation such as this, and our agreement with Mr. Gall's interpretation of the decisions of the Supreme Court as they have been handed down. I do not want to take the time of the committee to go over that. I know that you gentlemen have had to listen to too much of this already. Mr. HEALEY. The committee will appreciate it very much if you will not go into a matter that is repetition. Mr. SYME. If I may simply endorse that, and let it go into the record to that extent, I will be glad to do so. I notice that on the subcommittee, and on the committee itself, there are no members from California, and if I might take the time of the committee for just a moment, I would like to give you a very brief picture of this industry in California, in order that you may understand that our objections are practical and are not facetious or are not simply for the purpose of making objections. The dried-fruit industry, which, as I say, is a basic industry in California, is purely a seasonal industry. It has a peak season running approximately 16 or 17 weeks, and that peak, in turn, is divided into two peaks, the harvest peak and the packing peak. During all of that time there are not sufficient workers available in California to take care of the work of picking, drying, and packing dried fruit. After all, the fruit, when it is first picked, is in a perishable condition, and it must be processed by being picked off of the ground, put in trays, or put in the sun to dry, or in the dehydrators, on those ranches which have dehydrators, and taken to the warehouses, and then it has to be cleaned and packed. The peak season runs from approximately the middle of August until the last of September, as far as the picking is concerned, and from then until about the 1st of November, or possibly the middle of November, as far as the packing is concerned. I was fortunate enough to go to California last summer, for the purpose of making a survey of this industry, and I drove for hundreds of miles through the San Joaquin, the Santa Clara, and the Sacramento Valleys, and on practically every ranch, and I do not care whether it was prunes, pears, apples, or what it might be, there were signs "Pickers wanted", and also through the hop fields-not that I am representing the hop industry, but through the hop fields there were signs "Pickers wanted." Naturally those families who own those ranches put everybody to work that they can, including their own children. Those children go out there, and it is open-air work, in the summer, when there is no school. Someone has said that it is not a vacation, exactly, but what farm child does get a vacation? At any rate, the children go out there and pick along with the rest of them. Most of the labor that is used for those picking operations is migratory or transient labor. A great many are Mexicans who come up through the valley of California during that time because of the fact that they know that there is this picking work to be done. Mr. HEALEY. Those persons engaged in agriculture are eliminated by section 13 of this bill. Mr. SYME. Yes, sir; that is, as far as the picking is concerned; but I was going to take it from the picking on to the next step, into the drying yards. These are commercial drying yards, and I have in mind the one at Modesto, Calif., that I happened to visit last year, the largest drying yard in the world. Along the conveyor belts, where this fruit is cut and peeled and I have in mind peaches there there are many children who are less than 16 years of age, but that is during the peak season, when school is not in session. The sheds in which they work are open-air sheds and, frankly, they are used not because they are cheaper than any other labor, because the labor is paid for by the trays that you fill. It may happen that a child 13 years old cannot fill as many as someone 23 years of age, but, on the other hand, a child 15 years old may be able to fill more than a person 55 or 60, and it is paid by piece and not by the hour, and the child labor is no cheaper than anything else. If we get into a situation such as is contemplated by the bill, it is going to mean that organizations such as Libby, McNeill & Libby, and the California Pack, with such fruits as Del Monte and Rosenberg Bros., are going to be put in the position, during their peak season, where they cannot possibly handle the product, and it is going to go right back to the farmer because they cannot handle it, and because it may possibly be bought on a Government contract at some time in the future, it is going to put them in a position where they can do nothing. Mr. HEALEY. You say that they cannot handle it without the employment of children? Mr. SYME. They have never been able to do it so far. they do not employ the children because they are cheaper. got the fruit on the ground, and that has to be picked up essed, or it is lost. After it is brought into the shed, it sorted and further processed and put into bins. As I say, You have and proc has to be Mr. HEALEY. How long do the children work on that? Mr. SYME. Frankly, during that time when I was out there, Mr. Chairman, in the orchards, which would come under section 13, as you remember, the children as far as I could see worked about from sunrise to sunset. While I was there, there was a slight rain; we would in fact not have called it a shower, and Mr. HEALEY. How long do they work on this processing operation? Mr. SYME. I would say-I frankly do not know the exact hours, but I would say that they probably work from around 7 o'clock in the morning until about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. When I was in the drying yard at Modesto last summer, it was shortly before. 4. o'clock and they were getting ready to clean up for the afternoon. That would be my guess. Mr. HEALEY. Nine hours a day? Mr. SYME. Around in that neighborhood. Mr. RAMSAY. What time of the year does the drying season occur? Mr. SYME. In the late summer. The harvesting season is between approximately the middle of August and the last of September. Mr. RAMSAY. The schools start before the last of September. Mr. SYME. They start in the latter part of September, and that is the tail end of the harvesting season. Mr. RAMSAY. Do not the schools start before that? Mr. SYME. When they start in California I do not know. I am not a Californian. Mr. HEALEY. How young are these children? Mr. SYME. In the orchards? Mr. HEALEY. In the other end? Mr. SYME. In the drying yards I did not see any under what I would say would be 14, I do not think: that would be my guess. You go along these conveyor belts, and there would be hundreds of them there. I did not pay any great amount of attention to them, but my guess would be that they would be about 14, because I do not believe that a child under that would be able to peel peaches and pit them and so on with the intelligence that would be necessary. There is one matter in the bill, carrying forward Mr. Rothschild's suggestion, that I would like to call your attention to and which I think might help to clarify what we mean. I am referring to page |