Mr. ELLIOTT. I have no questions, except that I would like to say to Judge Davidson that I wish he would leave for the record the figures of the various cities, the cost of living and the various cities that you have, the ones you did not discuss.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I have them all here.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gwinn.

Mr. McCONNELL. I just yielded for a question.

Mr. GWINN. I have just one question, Congressman. If you put this on the basis of the need for a decent standard of living, at $4,000, of whatever it is, then you would apply that same rule to Congress requiring it to fix other prices if the labor is sold in terms of a commodity so that prices would also be regulated on a minimum basis?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, we are going a little bit afield in some of our definitions, Mr. Gwinn. I would prefer instead of saying that I based my argument on a welfare proposition, if I can just qualify that to say economic welfare. I feel that the answer to your question must be this: Where the economic welfare of the country requires legislation, and I cannot quite go along with my distinguished and very able colleague, Mr. McConnell, when he talks of permanent legislation. In my lexicon, there is no such thing as permanent legislation. We would be in a very bad way if there were. But we have had to lift the floor in many cases, as we have in the case of farm prices, and also to put a ceiling on occasionally when things get out of hand as they did with the rent laws. We legislate here for the general good and economic welfare of our country. This is basic, the return that the labor of an individual brings and what it will buy.

Mr. GWINN. But you would accept the principle that Congress should try to be wise enough to fix wages and fix minimum wages and minimum prices? For example, should we have a minimum rent if the rental property workers go out of business?

Mr. DAVIDSON. You know we have that in my State, and I do not know how many States have that. We do have a minimum-rent law as well as a maximum-rent law.

Mr. GWINN. Do you think Government should go into that business, of fixing such prices and determining what the fair standard of living is for the person whose living comes from various kinds of commodities?

Mr. DAVIDSON. We had to do it in my State, or there would have been riots. The landlords were gouging the people to such an extent that that was an absolute necessity.

Mr. GWINN. Was that a minimum or maximum?

Mr. DAVIDSON. The landlord is guaranteed a minimum return of 6.2 percent on the assessed valuation of the property, and he has a minimum guarantee, as well as a maximum fixation.

Mr. GWINN. And you are committed to the general philosophy of Government, fixing wages and prices in order to maintain what you call a minimum standard of living?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is too broad, and I could not go along with that, not to the general proposition.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair wishes to thank the distinguished Member from the State of New York for his frank and open discussion of the

matter before the committee. I think that I can speak for the entire committee that we have all enjoyed your testimony and it has been quite helpful.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you very much.

(The tabulated information previously referred to is as follows:)

Cost per year of family budget of a city worker in 84 cities of the United States together with the required minimum hourly wage to meet this budget, based upon a work year of 2,000 hours (8-hour day×5-day week=40-hour week, 2,000÷40-50 weeks)

And there has been a great deal of talk about runaway industry. Manufacturing firms leaving the North and going South. Well, let us look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for nine of the great southern cities: These figures show that in these 9 cities the cost of supporting a family of 4 is higher than in my own New York, and this is bare cost-no extras allowed:

Housing (rent, gas and electric, house furnishings)
Apparel

Transportation..

Medical care_.

Personal care (barber, toilet articles) -

Reading, recreation (radio, TV, magazines)

Other goods and services (tobacco, legal, funeral).

Percent

30.1

32

9.7

11

4.7

2. 1

5.4

5

NOTE.-The United States Government has not published data on cost of family budget since October 1951. The difference in costs of living given above is based on the 1.87 percent rise in the BLS Consumer's Price Index between October 1951 and April 1955.

Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Cost per year of family budget of city worker in 34 cities in the United States (4-person family)

NOTE.-The U. S. Government has not published data on cost-of-family budget since October 1951. The difference in costs of living given above is based on the 1.87 percent rise in the BLS Consumer's Price Index between October 1951 and April 1955.

Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Flood, who will be the concluding witness at this session. STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. FLOOD. It is 20 minutes after 12, and I see a lean and hungry look around me, and I do not know how far I want to go. I have listened to this with considerable interest. Coming here from the mundane Committee on Appropriations, the rarefied atmosphere of these legislative halls is very invigorating.

I, of course, am a special pleader, and I would not want this committee for one moment to labor under the impression that I was not. I do not presume to approach this kind of problem with the aura of statesmanship or the mantle of economy, not for a moment.

Now, to enlarge upon the whole theater of this subject with this committee would be carrying coals to Newcastle with a vengeance. Even anthracite coal, and that would be very bad form. I am not going to try that.

I introduced a bill for $1.25. I first appeared and testified before this committee in 1945, and I have been appearing regularly and testifying on these matters ever since. Then we had a 40-cent minimum. That was from 1938 to 1939. 5 years ago we established the present minimum. That was in January of 1950 and I testified on that. It was a 75-cent minimum.

Now, I have heard nothing said here today on one side or the other, nor have the senior members of this committee heard anything that is equally good or equally bad. I am not unaware of how the membership on this committee got here. I think that is very sound. I am not unaware of how the powers that be in their wisdom looked to the membership of this very important and very distinguished committee.

Now, I would like to be a very practical guy on this problem. I have the impression in the halls of Congress that we look with some favor upon the increase of the minimum wage. I feel in my bones a sort of lethargy about delving into this subject any great length in the Congress this year.

The administration says, and the President says to Congress, "We should have 90 cents," I think.

You can be satisfied that that was not a mere gesture. I believe the President brought that message to Congress with great deliberation, and great thought, and considerable feeling, and I believe a great library of information and advice. That is the conclusion of one field of thought.

Now, should that not remove the academics as to whether or not this should be done? I am not going to waste the time of this committee with polemics as to the philosophy of a floor or a ceiling upon a statutory act. That is any more than I did before Ways and Means upon the philosophy or the statutory right for a tariff act. I voted against the reciprocal trade bill for the first time in my life this year, not because I believe in the rigidity of tariff but because I thought I had been double-crossed in my district on conversations having to do with a small percentage of control and quotas on Venezuelan oil imports. That is a very frank statement, Mr. Chairman. There are no lace curtains on that one. That is as plain as the nose on my face, and I have a lot of nose. I see no difference with this subject. I believe that most of you are thinking in your minds that you would like to settle this thing, and call this thing off for $1 and let us go home. "Will you take a dollar, Mr. Flood, and let us have lunch?" I get that. impression.

No, I will buy you the lunch for the $1, no more, but I certainly would not settle or deal on a subject like this. If for one moment, Mr. Chairman, you think that under all of the circumstances, whatever they are, and whatever you are thinking about as circumstances. will give birth to $1, then that 20 cents or 25 cents is certainly an

answer.

That state of mind you have is an answer to all of the argumentation and all of the debate and all of the speeches that will be made against whether or not this should or should not be done. Now, you cannot have it both ways. Give us nothing, and you will be right. If you feel this is going to be inflationary, let us not raise this a penny. If you do, you are wrong. Do you want to be a little bit pregnant on this, and are you willing to gamble? You will say, "Now here,

63489-55

Flood, 75 cents is not enough." What is? Is $1.25 enough? That is a bad minimum wage, and not a good one. It is a bad one, make no mistake about that.

What is good? I have not the faintest idea, and neither do you. This is nothing to sit around over cocktails and draw lots as to whether it should be 75 cents, 90 cents, $1, or $1.10. The rule of reason should apply here. Many of you are lawyers. What do you mean by the rule of reason? The rule of reason should apply. $1.26? Do I suggest there is something sacred or magical about $1.25? No. Will I take $1.2412? Yes, I will. Why? I am not sure why except that I know $1.25 in itself is not a proper minimum in the United States of America in this year of Our Lord 1955. It is not.

Unions, organized labor, pressure groups, and so on-you come from a labor district, Flood, they are twisting your arm. They are not twisting my arm. They are all here to listen to it, and they can listen to it, period. They know me long enough and well enough to know that. Ask them.

I am not a mouthpiece in that sense here. If you know me, you will know better. Have I opposed them? Yes, many times. Have I voted for them more than I have been against them? Yes, 10 to 7. But not for the reason that would produce this kind of statement. That is not true for a minute.

Thirty-six dollars a week? That is a 40-hour week, and this is 36 lousy dollars a week. That is it. That is for 40 hours. I think that is the most eloquent sentence I have said in Congress this year.

It would be impertinent and presumptuous, and not consistent with the dignity of this room for me to say to you "What could you do on $36 a week?" That is not quite an analogy. But you know what I mean. You know exactly what I mean, and more about it than I do.

This legislation is your job, and technically more than mine. You know what I mean, and you know that is not right. There is not a man on this bench who for one moment in his heart of hearts, any man born and raised in the United States of America, with the advantages that he has had in this country up until this morning at 12 o'clock knows in his heart regardless of who or what he is, that $36 a week cannot successfully operate in this country.

That is 25 cents for a quart of milk. Why, you feel self-conscious if you give a bellhop a quarter for carrying up your bag, because you are not sure whether it is enough or not. You have two kids, and you pay 25 cents a quart for a bottle of milk, and that is about $14 or $15 a month. Do you not think your kid should have a quart of milk a day? Well, you go to all of the PTA conventions that I have ever heard, and you all say so. That is certainly minimum, a quart of milk. You cannot do it, gentlemen, it cannot be done.

Now, if you think because of a philosophy of government or a philosophy of economics that there should be a certain regimented peasantry, that there should for the good of all be a large fluid number of people who will do all right or may not do all right, well then, I am boring you to death. That I cannot get through. But I am so certain that on this committee and in the House of Representatives that is a fractional minority, that I do not think it is important what they think. Not for a minute.