could consider the possibility of raising that minimum wage from 75 cents to $1 an hour. All of this is subject to judicial review. Alld this in cases of abuses of power is subject to revocation or modification. Mr. BARDEN. Yes; but if he stays within his power, then it is cer tainly not going to be upset.

Mr. TEPER. That is right.

Mr. BARDEN. All right. Now, you say here that the real hourly compensation in virtually the whole country should be $1.72 an hour. Mr. TEPER. Where do you find that, sir?

Mr. BARDEN. On page 3. You say

When this investigation was made, the average worker in the United States required an hourly compensation of $1.72.

Mr. TEPER. That is right, but I did not say

Mr. BARDEN. Then you say under that, of the cities studied, the lowest hourly wage requirement is $1.62. Now, why don't you make the minimum wage $1.62?

Mr. TEPER. Because I do not think that industry could stand it. Mr. BARDEN. That is the cheapest in the country, is it not? Mr. TEPER. No.

Mr. BARDEN. Why couldn't they stand it?

Mr. TEPER. Because they are not paying such wages at the present time; because, as I have indicated-and this, by the way, is not my findings this is the findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in connection with a study of a city worker's family budget. Mr. BARDEN. You do not doubt it?

Mr. TEPER. Pardon me?

Mr. BARDEN. You do not doubt the accuracy of it?

Mr. TEPER. NO; I think they are honest and reliable. These partic ular studies are indicative of what a family of four requires in order to live, on the basis of certain predetermined and prescribed standards of living. The original study specifies that he will buy so many pork chops in the course of a year, so many quarts of milk; they will buy so many articles of clothing. It supposes the composition of a family of four-man, wife, girl, and boy, of specific ages.

Now, the full value of such studies is twofold: In the first place, it permits us to determine how the cost of living in one area of the coun try compares with other areas of the country. Secondly, it does give us some goal or framework of reference by means of which we can judge the adequacy of our current standards. Now, the mere fact that the minimum suggested does not satisfy these criteria of adequacy does not mean that, (a) it is bad, because it certainly is better than what we have at the present time; or (b) that we should get something which at the present time is not feasible. I do not think that our economy could stand a minimum wage of $1.62 an hour, but I do think that the economy could stand a minimum wage of 75 cents an hour with no dislocation, and that it will benefit a lot of people.

Therefore, being a realist, being a student of practical economics, I come to you with a concrete proposal. I would not come and waste your time by projecting chimerical plans.

Mr. BARDEN. What kind of plans?

Mr. TEPER. Plans drawn in a vacuum, in complete abstraction. Mr. BARDEN. Does the chairman understand him?

Mr. LESINSKI. I am not an economist.

Mr. BARDEN. Now, that, in other words, is based on your best judgent-75 cents-is it not?

Mr. TEPER. It is not my guess. It is my conclusion on the basis f the study of data which show that an introduction of 75 cents 1 industry will mean a wage adjustment of less than 1 percent of ur total wage bill.

Mr. BARDEN. It is your opinion, then?

Mr. TEPER. It is my opinion, based on study; yes.

Mr. BARDEN. You realize that that is less than half of what the owest city is paying?

Mr. TEPER. No; not what the lowest city is paying.

Mr. BARDEN. Well, New Orleans is at the bottom.

Mr. TEPER. The statement simply says that if you take the annual udget as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics-let us get oncrete figures.

In the city of New Orleans, the estimated cost of the city worker's amily budget as of June 1947, for a family of four, was $3,004. It is quoted from the Handbook of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on page 124.

Mr. BARDEN. Now, that was written by one of these fellows that sat down there in the Labor Department and decided what a fellow ought to eat and how he ought to live and how many picture shows ne ought to go to and what kind of garments he ought to wear, and so forth; was it not?

Mr. TEPER. Not exactly, sir.

Mr. BARDEN. Well, what about your 30,000,000 agricultural people in this country? Do you think the family-sized farm we were talking about a while ago could stand a $3,004 budget?

Mr. TEPER. No more than the industry in New Orleans could.
Mr. BARDEN. What are we going to do with them?

Mr. TEPER. I think we ought to try and raise their standard of living. We have done that in part by price support programs. We have done that through the work of the Department of Agriculture in trying to improve the efficiency of the farm.

Mr. BARDEN. Now, we are going to put them, if they employ labor, under the 75-cent minimum, and time and a half for overtime; is that right?

Mr. MASON. No.

Mr. TEPER. No overtime for farm was suggested, sir.

Mr. BARDEN. If they come under the wage-hour provisions, they will have the same overtime as anybody else.

Mr. TEPER. The American Federation of Labor did not recommend overtime payment for such workers.

Mr. BARDEN. What is the matter? They sweat just like anybody

else.

Mr. TEPER. But you seem to be objecting, sir, even to paying them

75 cents.

Mr. BARDEN. No; I am not objecting to anything. As a matter of fact, I hope I can vote for a very definite increase in the minimum wage. But I have some responsibility, and you do not. That is the difference between us. I have to be safe, as safe as I can be, and you can recommend anything, and if we have not any better sense than to accept it, that is all right: you have done your job.

Mr. TEPER. I hope I am not as irresponsible as you charge me with being.

Mr. BARDEN. What I am talking about is that your name will not go on the Congressional Record list over here when the vote is cast. Mr. TEPER. NO; but it will probably be among those who vote for Congress.

Mr. BARDEN. All right. Now, the thing I am very definitely concerned with is to see how far this "affecting commerce' 'is going.

Suppose you have a small restaurant, and I was just recently in one, which serves the railroad workers. It is approximately a mile from any other restaurant. It opens at 4 o'clock in the morning, to get the early shift. It works two shifts of waitresses, and it closes at 9 or 9:30 at night.

Now, they affect commerce, if I know what that means, and that is a retail study.

Mr. MASON. Congressman, I am sorry that you did not attend the hearings that we had yesterday.

Mr. BARDEN. Don't worry about me. I will get what information I want.

Mr. MASON. We had a representative here from our National Farm Labor Union who is better qualified to discuss the agriculture industry than any of us here today.

Mr. BARDEN. What I do not like about this right here——

Mr. MASON. We also had a representative from our retail stores. Mr. BARDEN. Now, you just yield the floor to me for a second. Mr. MASON. Yes.

Mr. BARDEN. Here is what I do not like about this type of testimony: Certainly you gentlemen are excellently qualified in a particular field, and I think this gentleman is excellently qualified in the garment industry. There is not any doubt about it. You are not content, though, with coming in and giving us information that we know we can rely upon, but you come in here and cover the whole pasture and take in the whole world. One man just does not know that much.

Mr. MASON. That is what I am trying to tell you, Congressman. Yesterday we had 11 witnesses here who covered practically every industry that is covered under this act, and they were here to discuss those particular industries and the conditions in those industries in support of our position. If you were here yesterday, I am sure that you would have found somebody here that was just as qualified as

Mr. BARDEN. Whether I was here yesterday or not is none of your business. Get that straight in your head.

Mr. MASON. I just

Mr. BARDEN. Wait a minute. I am not going to be ugly to you; but you are not going to be ugly to me, either.

Mr. MASON. I am not trying to be ugly, Congressman.

Mr. BARDEN. I was discussing this matter with this gentleman, and you horn in. This gentleman has covered all of these points. Now, if you and I get into colloquy, it will be time enough for you to give some advice.

Mr. MASON. I am sorry. You looked at me, Congressman. thought you were directing your question to me.

I

Mr. BARDEN. If you don't want me to look at you, get out. You are sitting right in front of me, and I cannot help but look at you.

Mr. MASON. I am sorry I interrupted. Now, you can continue as you were before.

Mr. BARDEN. I thank you for the privilege. That is so unnecessary. Now, Mr. Teper, in meting out this authority-and I think we covered the whole thing here from schoolwork to agriculture and industry, and everything, I understood from listening to your statement here that you were talking about the same coverage that is covered in the clause that says "affecting commerce."

Mr. TEPER. Yes; with the kind of exemptions which have been suggested by the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. BARDEN. Now, here is the thing that disturbs me about this: I want a good law. I am tired of these fellows having the run of the pasture. We wrote a little wage-hour law about that thick [indicating]; the Wage and Hour Administrator has written a book that thick [indicating]. Now, if Congress is going to abandon its responsibility and authority, then we might just as well write one paragraph and turn that thing over to him and let him go. Mr. TEPER. I hope not, sir.

Mr. BARDEN. Certainly you hope not. But at the same time, I think it is awfully dangerous for either you or me to proceed on the theory that you will always have a friendly Administrator. I wonder if you would be willing to give this same authority to Senator Robert Taft?

Mr. TEPER. Senator Robert Taft, even though I disagree with him, is a fair-minded gentleman. And I have in the past had some discussion with him. We may have disagreed, but at least I believe that he is honest in terms of what he stands for. If he were the Administrator, I am sure he would perform the duties as honestly as he could.

Mr. BARDEN. Are you in favor of turning this much authority over to him?

Mr. TEPER. I think the authority contained here, if he wanted the job, and if you had a Republican administration

Mr. BARDEN. You are putting a lot of if's in there, now.

Mr. TEPER. You were saying if Senator Robert Taft had the job. I do not know whether he aspires to that particular job.

Mr. BARDEN. I have seen the time, my friend, when the A. F. of L. was over the barrel, and really taking it, and I expect this gentleman has too. I was one of the first that came to help rescue the A. F. of L. when the CIO was really laying it on them.

Mr. MASON. That is right.

Mr. BARDEN. That is right. Now, let us not set up another situation here where some particular group can be favored or where some individual will have too much authority. I think in this interpretative power that he seeks in this bill-I asked the Secretary of Labor if he knew of anything that he did not cover. He was reluctant to answer and would not answer. He referred it to the solicitor, his chief counsel, who sat in that chair. I asked him if he could name anything that it did not cover, and after considerable delay and discussion he said. "Well, a barber."

I said. "Probably."

He said, "Yes; probably."

Now, if those gentlemen who are to administer this are that indefinite in their minds after they have written this act and come in to discuss it, should we not be a little apprehensive about just what kind of interpretation we should get?

Mr. TEPER. I certainly would want you to be apprehensive at all stages of this inquiry, just as I can assure you that I try to think a problem through before I come here and speak. I do not speak lightly, I hope. I speak after thinking the problem through. It is true that no man, as you yourself pointed out, can know all the details about everything else, but I do read, and I read the recommendations and discussions of the Administrator in connection with employees of commercial farms. Some of our people who are in policy-making positions read that, and they found that to be a reasonable statement, and they came and supported it.

Now, when it comes to issues affecting interstate commerce, I grant you that the courts who interpret our laws have not been too specific on all the issues, and the courts will determine what the legislative intent is. Now, specifically, since I know a little more about the garment industry, I can give you an example and suggest that for your consideration as the best way of solving it.

If an employer, or firm, in the State of New York manufactures garments which it intends to sell in the State of New York in competition with another manufacturer in the State of New York who sells his garments both within the State and outside the State, it is our belief that they should both be subject to the same minimum wage. I think that the first one I mention affects commerce. His activity affects interstate commerce.

Mr. BARDEN. But, of course, we both operate under the Constitution. and the gentleman knows as well as I that I would agree with you as to the morals involved. I would agree absolutely with you as to the fact that it was right. But the only way we could bring him in would definitely be that either because some of the cloth or the materials or the machines or those things that go into the making of the goods are involved in interstate commerce, because when we attempt to warp the Constitution for our convenience without a sound basis, then I wonder how long the Constitution will be useful.

Mr. TEPER. I certainly would fully agree with you that I do not want to warp the Constitution.

Mr. BARDEN. Now, isn't that about right? The only way we can arrive at it is around another way and not by saying that, because we agree it is wrong, we are going to take jurisdiction?

Mr. TEPER. That is perfectly correct.

Mr. BARDEN. That is right.

Mr. TEPER. And I would like, as I say, in this particular situation for you to recognize that the Supreme Court, which passes on constitutionality of our laws, has held the Wagner Act constitutional. It deals with industries affecting commerce, and the same construction as you had in the Wagner Act, which was retained in the Taft-Hartley Act in terms of coverage, we would like to have retained and incorporated here.

Mr. BARDEN. Let me say this: We are dealing with two acts, and I am fairly familiar with the Wagner Act, as far as that is concerned. But it still is incumbent upon this Congress not to leave it up to the