From appendix I, table 1: A $150,000 sales figure would afford adequate coverage only in the case of department stores in these 10 cities. At least 56 percent of the variety stores in these cities would be excluded; at least 76 percent of the gasoline stations would be excluded; 83 percent of the eating places; and 93 percent of the drinking places. If the figure were reduced to $100,000 annual sales volume, it would still be true in these cities that at least 49 percent of the variety stores would be excluded; 69 percent of the gasoline stations; 79 percent of the eating places; and 91 percent of the drinking places.

At $50,000, 22 percent of the variety stores would still be excluded; 34 percent of the gasoline stations; 64 percent of the eating places; and 65 percent of the drinking places.

Finally, using a $30,000 annual sales volume as a definition of coverage would mean that a minimum of 12 percent of the variety stores would be excluded; 14 percent of the gasoline stations; 34 percent of the drinking places; and 46 percent of the eating places. In other words, a $30,000 cutoff would only cover about half of the eating places in these 10 cities.

Bear in mind that these are figures for major cities, with the population shown in appendix I, table 2. In the Southern States, more than half the population lives in rural areas as is shown in appendix I, table 3. And the figures cited are for those cities where coverage is greatest. In many cities the coverage is sharply less than in those referred to above.

Another measure of coverage limitations is that shown in appendix I, table 4, furnished by the American Restaurant Association. It shows that, on a countrywide basis, only 8 percent of the restaurants gross over $100,000 annually, and only 2212 percent gross over $50,000 annually. In other words, three-quarters of the restaurant establishments in the country would not be covered if a $50,000 standard were applicable to restaurants.

In summary, the use of a specified sales volume may have some disadvantages. It may result in unevenness of coverage as between types of businesses and as between urban and rural areas. It might also lead to inequities among competitors, and to attempts to capitalize upon established exemptions by advertising their existence.

In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I dread the thought of replacing the odious signs marking white and colored restrooms, for example, and replacing them with "exempt" signs, indicating that this restaurant is exempt from the statute and others are not exempt.

This is a highly technical area as the above figures show. We have compiled them for the committee's general guidance in considering this legislation and we will of course be glad to assist further if the committee so desires.

In short, Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We strongly urge that you report favorably on S. 1732 and I will of course try to answer any questions that the committee members may have.

(Appendixes to Mr. Roosevelt's statement follows:)

TABLE 2.—Population of selected Department of Commerce field office cities, 1960

Source: 1960 Census of Population, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.