Tenth. It would provide an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime for executive, administrative, and professional employees, as defined by the Board. Also, it would exempt individuals who gratuitously render services to educational charitable, religious, or nonprofit organizations, as well as newspaper delivery boys who deliver to homes. In addition, the bill would exempt seamen and railroad employees from the overtime provisions, as they are covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In addition, the bill would permit the Board by regulation to lower minimum wages for individuals whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury. Lower minimum wages could likewise be provided by the Board for learner and apprentices, to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment.

Eleventh. For any claim for collection of back wages the statute of limitations would be 3 years.

The effective date of the act would be 180 days after enactment.

Mr. President, the philosophy of the bill I am introducing, is so far as I am concerned, based upon the thesis that if we are to protect economic freedom in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, upon which political freedom is completely dependent, we have to protect the labor force from exploitation of selfish interests, which will always exploit if the Government does not step in and impose the minimum prohibitions and the restrictions necessary to protect employees.

In my judgment, people ought to be protected by minimum wage and hour laws from exploitation of selfish economic interests. I also happen to believe that the Congress puts itself in an intolerable position when it says that is all right if business exploits men and certain women in the District of Columbia, but that it is going to protect certain women and minors.

If it is sound from a moral standpoint to protect some employees from having to accept a wage below a wage of health and decency from business, there certainly does not seem to me to be any justification for having Congress fail to apply such protection uniformly to employees of both sexes in all occupations within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, in permitting a depressed class of employees to continue to exist, we are condemning it to a way of life that falls further behind the standards enjoyed by more fortunate workers in the community, and this is not in the best interest of the city or the Nation. There happens to be some cause-to-effect relationship between the wages that employers in a given area pay and such social problems as adult crime, spread of slums, disease, juvenile delinquency, desperation, and many other social problems that go along with hopeless poverty. I do not offer that as an excuse for crime, but it is an explanation for a part of crime. It must be kept in mind that the very low-income class of workers I am speaking about are performing useful functions in a wide range of business, industrial, and commercial enterprises in the city. They are employed; but no matter how long and how hard they work, they cannot earn enough to meet basic minimum standards of shelter, food, clothing, and medical care.

In many cities, including the District of Columbia, the employed head of a family who earns $1 an hour or less is better off if he quits his job and goes on public assistance. I need not point out that this is done. He is often better off, because public-assistance benefits which are designed to prevent starvation, frequently are more than his job would pay. As a member of the Senate District Committee, I have had this situation called to my attention on several occasions. As I mentioned earlier, the moral and economic position of the District of Columbia is seriously weakened when Congress and the District of Columbia government allow hopeless poverty to continue to exist. In my judgment, we had better start carrying out our moral obligations to this class of people.

As a firm supporter of the private enterprise system, I say to the businessman of the District that this country's system of enlightened capitalism can afford a decent minimum wage for every person, no matter what his occupation may be.

The very low-income employees survive and exist, and that is about the size of it. I do not believe that anyone should continue in business, and should continue to make a profit and to serve the public, while paying his employees substandard

14

wages.

AMENDMENTS TO D.C. MINIMUM WAGE LAW

It is not right to exploit human beings, just to keep a business going. I have a hunch that if the unskilled; low-income employees of whom I am speaking were in a better bargaining position, the employers would be paying them more adequate wages and they would have more favorable hours of work.

Our free enterprise system, with whatever assistance it may need from the Government in certain emergency situations from time to time, has proven that it is strong enough and vital enough to pay decent minimum wages to employees who help keep the private enterprise system going.

In my judgment, our free enterprise system itself is completely dependent for its strength upon a broad and deep base of purchasing power on the part of the consumers, which means that the consumers have to get wages high enough to be able to maintain that purchasing power.

One of the arguments which will be set forth at the hearings on my minimum wage bill will be that if decent wages are paid, many businesses will be forced out of eixstence. In my judgment, it is better to have some go out of business, rather than to remain in business on the basis of subsidy, whereby human beings have to work for substandard wages in order to subsidize others, who supposedly will not use the services of such businesses unless they are asocial in their wage structures. I do not accept and never have accepted this thesis.

There may be some dislocations here and there; but we have to make up our minds as to what a fair wage is, and then we must say to industry that it must adjust to that wage, because exploiting human beings, in order to keep a business going, can never be justified. Unless we do this, our free enterprise system is weakened.

Another equally specious argument which undoubtedly will be raised at hearings on the bill is that minimum wage legislation is inflationary.

Another argument which will be presented by the diehard, low-wage industries' opposition to minimum wage legislation in the District is that if they must raise wages, they will have to lay off employees. These low-wage industries have raised this tattered banner many times.

I sincerely hope the Senate District of Columbia Committee will not be deterred by such baseless arguments from reporting to the Senate a fair and equitable minimum wage bill.

Mr. President, there are a great many unknown facts and figures concerning the extent of low wage and poor working conditions in the District of Columbia. In the District government there is not a single agency which can even venture a reasonably informed guess as to wages being paid uncovered workers and the long hours they work. For this reason, I am requesting the U.S. Department of Labor to make a very careful and exhaustive study and survey of wages being paid, hours worked per week, and work practices in the District of Columbia. I am requesting the Department of Labor to complete its study by the end of this year, so that early next year the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia can proceed with very thorough hearings, with the study as a partial basis for careful consideration.

Although we do not know the extent of the low-wage problem in the District. we do know that it is a serious and urgent one, and that it must be met promptly and firmly if we are to maintain a good conscience and a sound economy.

[From the Congressional Record, Feb. 19, 1963]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINIMUM WAGE AND HOURS SURVEY AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, on May 1, 1962, I introduced in the Senate a minimum wage and hours bill that would remedy some of the unconscionable wage and hours conditions existing in the District of Columbia. The bill (S. 3233) was referred to the Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia of which I have the privilege of being chairman.

As chairman of the subcommittee, I did not hold any hearings on the measure because there were a great many unknown facts and figures concerning the extent of low wage and poor working conditions in the Nation's Capital which needed to be secured before meaningful hearings could be held. There was not a single agency in the Federal or District government which could even offer a reasonably informed guess as to wages being paid uncovered employees and the hours they work.

At an executive meeting of the full District of Columbia Committee I made a motion which was unanimously adopted, to have the chairman of the Senate District Committee, my very dear and able friend from Nevada [Mr. Bible], write to the Secretary of Labor requesting a careful and exhaustive study and survey of wages being paid, hours worked per week, and work practices in the District of Columbia.

The Secretary of Labor agreed to have the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertake such a study which has now been completed. I wish to compliment the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the good work it has done in such a brief period of time.

Since the study has been completed, I have had an opportunity to make a cursory study of the report and am not at all surprised by some of the factual information it reveals.

The U.S. Department of Labor survey of employee earnings in selected industries in the District of Columbia covered nearly 87,000 workers, of whom 45 percent were employed in retail trade, 18 percent in eating and drinking establishments, 12 percent in real estate, from 5 to 10 percent in hotels, hospitals, and laundries, and fewer than 3 percent in automobile repair, parking, and services, building services, and motion picture theaters. These industries were selected because they are generally not covered by Federal minimum wage legislation— except for large retail enterprises-employ men not covered by the present District minimum wage in unskilled occupations, and would be affected by any changes in the District's minimum wage law.

In the summer of 1962, average hourly earnings-exclusive of premium pay for overtime work or tips and other perquisites-ranged from $1.02 in automobile services primarily establishments engaged in washing_automobiles-to $1.82 in automobile repair shops. Substantial proportions of workers were found at the lower pay levels as shown in table 1 of the report, which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record at this point.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

TABLE 1.—Cumulative percent distribution of nonsupervisory employees by average straight-time hourly earnings, selected industries, District of Columbia, summer 1962

2 Less than 0.5 percent.

1 Includes industries in addition to those shown separately.

3 More than half of the employees earning less than $1.25 an hour were reported as generally receiving tips. 4 Excludes 330 employees for whom hours of work could not be estimated.

NOTE. Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, more than half of the workers earned less than $1.25 an hour in each of the industries except automobile repair shops, retail stores, and hospitals, and at least a third earned less than $1.15 in most of the industries included in the survey. Earnings of less than $1 an hour were paid to more than two-fifths of the workers in automobile services and eating and drinking establishments, and to a fifth or more of those in motion picture theaters, real estate operations, and hotels.

In fairness, it should be noted that the wages of some of the workers in several of the industries studied, particularly eating and drinking places and hotels, generally are supplemented by tips and other perquisites. For example, more than half of the workers earning less than $1.25 in eating and drinking places were reported as generally receiving tips.

The employment of women in the industries studied accounted for 46 percent of the workers within the scope of the survey. In eating and drinking places, launderies, and hospitals, women constituted the majority of the workers. Except for the automobile industry group, earnings of women are presented in the report separately, along with those of men, in table 2. I ask unanimous consent to have table 2 printed at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: