SEC. 7. (a) This Act shall become effective thirty days after the date of its enactment, and it shall not apply to commodities or articles produced or manufactured prior to its effective date.

(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to agricultural or farm products processed for first sale by the original producer.

(c) This Act shall remain in force for two years after the date it becomes effective.

SEC. 8. If any provision, clause, or paragraph of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision, clause, or paragraph to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Senator NEELY. The subcommittee has convened to hear those who wish to speak for or against the bill. We shall be glad to hear from Senator Black, the author of the measure.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUGO L. BLACK, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator MCCARREN. Senator Black, I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations and may have to leave for a short time to attend a brief meeting of that committee. I hope you will not feel it a discourtesy, but it is a necessity. I will get back as soon as I

can.

Senator BLACK. That is quite all right.

Senator NEELY (presiding). You may proceed, Senator Black. Senator BLACK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I assume the first thing to do with reference to this bill is to refer to the mechanics of the measure, and I do that so that it might be thoroughly understood by the committee as to just what the objects and purposes of the bill are, as I conceive them.

This is a different measure from the one which was originally offered; it is different in that it has a broader scope. Also, it will have a broader field in which to operate. The original idea introduced in the 30-hour work bill, which was taken up and passed by the Senate at the last session, still remains in this measure. The objective is the same, the difference being that, in addition to the field covered by the original measure, this one is broader and includes more industries and activities.

The beginning of this bill is a series of "whereases" intended to explain the objects and purposes of the bill and its extent, and also intended to show its relationship to interstate commerce.

The first paragraph of the bill, found on pages 2 and 3, is essentially the same as the paragraph in the original 30-hour week bill which was passed by the Senate. This one relates to goods and commodities shipped, transported, or delivered in interstate commerce. fore, it is intended to come under that clause of the Constitution authorizing the Congress to enact legislation to regulate interstate

commerce.

There

I believe probably most of the Senators were here when we had that measure up originally, and are familiar with the arguments that were presented in connection with that particular phase of the bill. In other words, this paragraph simply and briefly provides that no article or commodity shall be shipped, transported, or delivered in interstate commerce which is produced or manufactured in certain names business enterprises, in which any person, with certain limited exceptions, is employed more than 5 days in any 1 week or more than 6 hours in any day.

Senator AUSTIN. May I ask a question at this point?

Senator BLACK. Certainly.

Senator AUSTIN. I notice in your statement the word "foreign was omitted. I was interested in that. Was it intentional?

Senator BLACK. Yes. It was omitted from the original bill. It was never included in the original bill.

There is contained in this paragraph, as in the other bill which was passed by the Senate, a provision that upon the submission of satisfactory proof of the existence of special conditions in any industry included in it, making it necessary for certain persons to be employed more than the prescribed hours, the Secretary of Labor or duly selected representative may issue exemption permits with reference to such person. It will be noted that this exemption does not apply to industries. It was originally placed in the measure and was originally discussed in the Senate on the basis that there would be certain people engaged in activities of such kinds and at such times that it would be necessary for them to work more than 6 hours per day. For instance, in case there was a break-down in any plant, such necessity might well arise. I mention that as one example of the possibility of an emergency. It is not contemplated by this exemption, nor was it in the original exemption, to give any general broad powers with reference to exemptions, it being the fundamental idea underlying this bill that, in order that a shorter week and work day could be effective, it must be broad and general in its scope; and its effectiveness can be absolutely destroyed by the granting of exemptions to industries. And it was thought in addition to that that it would be more fair to the entire industrial set-up to have a uniform number of hours per day and per week, but it was realized that in spite of that fact there would be special circumstances and conditions which might require that certain persons be exempted.

That, in brief, Mr. Chairman, is the mechanical part of the first paragraph, which is based, as I stated, on the constitutional clause giving the Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.

The second paragraph, or section 2, is a new paragraph, which is not based on the interstate commerce clause. The argument of those who originally believed that the Congress did not have the power to pass the first paragraph would not apply to the power to pass the second paragraph. The second paragraph simply provides that no article or commodity shall be purchased by the United States or any department or organization of the United States from any enterprise operating contrary to any of the provisions of this act, or if such article or commodity was produced or manufactured in any mine, quarry, mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing establishment in which the employees were required to work more than 6 hours per day or 30 hours per week. This paragraph, therefore, is based upon the right of the United States Government to buy its goods or commodities from such persons or corporations as it sees fit and upon such terms and conditions as it may require.

If the committee should desire at any time before it completes its hearings, I will be glad to give you opinions which, in my judgment, make the power of Congress to pass this particular feature beyond any doubt.

Now, in paragraph (b) of the same section, an additional provision is made that any contract made with any contractor for any

public works shall contain a provision that the contractor will buy no article or commodity to use or in any public work from any business enterprise violating any of the terms or provisions of this act; that is, any contract made by the Government with any contractor shall contain such a provision. It contains the further provision in substance that such contractor will buy no article or commodity to use on any public work which was produced contrary to the terms of this act requiring a 30-hour week and a 6-hour day. This subdivision of the paragraph, therefore, is based upon the same power of Congress, and was intended to be based upon the same power of Congress, which gives it the right to determine the provisions of contracts to be made by the Government for the purchase of goods or commodities. Section 3 is based upon an entirely different idea, except as to the objective to be attained. The Government, through various agencies like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, has embarked upon the business of making loans to various kinds of business activities. I assume that there will be but little question that the Government, as any private banking institution or private individual, would have a right to make those loans on such terms and conditions as it saw fit. this section 3, therefore, provides that no governmental agency shall make or renew any loan to any employer in any of the various kinds of business outlined, or whose employees are required to work more than 5 days in any 1 week or 6 hours in any 1 day. That is contained in paragraph (a) of section 3. In other words, this paragraph (a) of section 3 is based upon the right of the Government to require a 30-hour week and a 6-hour day as a condition to making loans.

Subdivision (b) of the same section 3, which is similar to subdivision (a), provides that after this act has been passed any employer of labor who applies for a loan shall agree at the time of making the application for the loan that he will abide by these provisions and will not work his employees over 30 hours a week or 6 hours a day.

Section 4 covers another field, which has the same objective-a 30-hour week. It provides that on and after the effective date of this act, every code made under the National Recovery Act shall contain a provision that the employees covered by the code shall abide by the terms and provisions of this act with reference to the 30-hour week and the 6-hour day. That is contained in subdivision (a) of section 4.

Subdivision (b) goes a step further and provides that codes which have been heretofore made shall be deemed to be amended so as to include these provisions for a 30-hour week and 6-hour day.

Those are the paragraphs and sections which relate to the coverage of this act or to the field within which it will operate.

Section 5 is intended to protect the employee in his wages. Assuming that the committee shall report favorably and the Senate shall pass the bill, and it shall become a law, containing these provisions for a 30-hour week and 6-hour day, the next question is, What will occur to the workers? They will want to know whether or not their wages are to be increased or decreased. It is my objective to increase the aggregate wages received by those who work. In other words, I do not offer this, and have never offered it, as simply a share-the-work piece of legislation. I have offered it, for reasons which I shall hereafter state, with the idea that it shall increase the aggregate purchasing

power of those who must buy the goods and commodities produced by our vast productive machinery. Therefore, I desire to protect the wages of those who work the 30 hours.

To that end I have included, this time, section 5, which provides that on and after the date the act takes effect it shall be unlawful for any employer, subject to the provisions of either one of the paragraphs of this act, to reduce, directly or indirectly, the daily wage rate or the weekly or monthly wage rate in effect on such date, with respect to any of his employees, until a reasonable opportunity has been afforded to his employee, through representatives of their own choosing by a majority vote, to meet with the employer or his representatives and discuss and consider fully and freely all questions which may arise in connection with the reduction of such wage rate.

I assume that, so far as all the paragraphs are concerned, except the first, which relates to the interstate-commerce feature, unless it would be the section with reference to codes, there will be little question raised as to the power or the right of Congress, so far as its contracts or loans or public works are concerned, to protect the wages of those who work: As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has upheld that right in several cases with reference to making contracts. It has held that the Government has the right to have such stipulations in contracts with private industries.

That being the case, the question arises as to how these wages can be protected, if that is the object and that is the object and not reduce the aggregate amount going to the wage earner, but increase it. Practically the only method that has operated with great success in this country-and I might say in a good many other countries-with reference to the protection of wage rates has been through collective bargaining.

Whether any man favors it in all its features or not, he cannot help but recognize the fact that it has greatly sustained the wage rates and greatly improved the standards of living for the workers, both those who come directly within its scope and those who are indirectly benefited by it.

That being the case, the question arises as to who shall represent the workers. I have thought it wise to provide in this measure a stipulation that they shall be represented by representatives of their own choosing by a majority vote.

After that has been done, if this bill should be passed and become law, what will be the steps to be taken? With this paragraph in effect, the employer would not have the right to reduce the daily, hourly, or weekly wage rate until a reasonable time had elapsed within which the employees would have the right collectively to meet and discuss the problem with the employer. It is my belief that with that right given to the wage earners, and with the public sentiment backing it, to bring about adequate wage rates to those who work, it will not result in a decreased hourly, weekly, or monthly wage rate. Therefore, if the bill should be enacted into law, it will increase the aggregate earnings of the employees.

The other provisions of the act include a penalty provision in section 6, which will provide a fine of not less than $200 or imprisonment for not more than 3 months, or both, for violation of this act, and it only provides such penalty for violation of the terms of the act itself.

It also provides in section 7, subdivision (a), that the act shall become effective within 30 days after the date of its enactment and shall not apply to any commodities or articles produced or manufactured prior to its effective date. It does not apply to agricultural or farm products. When the bill was originally offered it provided it should not apply to agricultural products. When it was before the Senate a provision was added that it should not apply to farm products processed for first sale by the original producer. That clause has been included in the bill as now offered. As I stated, that was added to it by the Senate.

Senator HATCH. At this point may I ask a question?

Senator BLACK. Yes.

Senator HATCH. Would that be sufficient to exempt the governmental agencies that make loans, like the Farm Credit Administration?

Senator BLACK. Lending to farmers?

Senator HATCH. Yes. I was just wondering if you had thought

about that.

Senator BLACK. I would say that it would, because it cannot apply to agricultural or farm products processed for first sale by the original producer. I would not be absolutely sure, but it is my recollection that that particular phrase came up on the Senate floor, and someone suggested the amendment "processed for first sale by the original producer."

That is the mechanics of the bill. I can state briefly the philosophy of the bill, as I understand it, and the objectives of the measure, according to the plan I have in my own mind.

At the time this bill was originally introduced, as I recall, according to the best figures then obtainable, there were 15 million people unemployed in this country. At the present time there are no authenticated statistics upon which we can definitely and positively rely. According to the figures I have seen, the estimates range from 7 million to 111⁄2 or 12 million. The last figure that was given me authentically with reference to those who were being fed by public charity shows that there are 18 million people in that situation. As I recall the estimates of those in control and who have studied the situation, they indicate that that might rise to 21 million before many months have elapsed.

There are only two ways for people to be employed in this country. One is in private business and one is in public business. I prefer to have them employed in private business. I am wholly and completely out of sympathy with the idea expressed by the gathering at White Sulphur Springs that the way to take care of the unemployed is simply to feed them and give them small and meager relief from time to time. It seems to me that that is contrary to every principle of our institutions, and it would clearly prolong depression in this country indefinitely, with more continuing to be supported by the Government; or, if the plan advanced at White Sulphur Springs is carried out, they would continue to be supported by local communities.

From my observation of the situation as it exists in this country in local communities, the idea of sending them back to the local communities for support seems to me to amount to no more than simply asking the poor to feed the poor, and asking the starving to keep the others who are starving alive. I do not believe that it is possible in