Miss HALL. Some of the mills, I understand, sold the houses to the help. In North Carolina that is true in several places, I believe. Senator JOHNSTON. In my State they did the same thing. I don't know whether it has proved out successful or not. Miss HALL. I figure we have bought our house about six or seven times. After all, we have lived there about 14 years, and it is not a very good house. Senator JOHNSTON. I believe that is all. Senator TUNNELL. I remember there was something about there being a tendency to increase the number of looms that a person attended to. Has that been noticeable in your mill? Miss HALL. There have not been any stretch-outs yet, but they have gone around asking the people how many looms they thought they could run. Senator TUNNELL. I remember one witness in particular testifying that the number of looms was increased until the defects were more noticeable and more cloth would be condemned. Miss HALL. Yes, sir. Senator TUNNELL. They could get more for the condemned cloth than they could for the ceiling priced cloth. Miss HALL. There has not been too much stretch-out among the weavers, because they would not stand for it. We had a lot of absenteeism, and I imagine everybody has. They would come up to the battery floors and say: "Could you fill your job and half of another job?" Some of the good battery people said, "Look how much money am going to make," and they agreed to do it. Senator JOHNSTON. Do you think it would be a good thing to have some law whereby, before they could increase the load, that is, the stretch-out, in the cotton mills more than they have on a certain datepick out a date in the past, 1939, 1940 or 1942-they would say "You cannot increase it above that load in the future unless you get the permission of your State labor commission?" Do you think that would be any good or not? Miss HALL. I don't know. We have work-load clauses in our contracts. I should think that is good if we can get it to work. I should think offhand that would be a good law. Senator JOHNSTON. I have no further questions. Senator TUNNELL. I want to commend you for one thing, that is the saving of your two brothers' money in the bank. That is all for today. We will meet again tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m., Friday, September 28, 1945.) AMENDMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1945 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator James M. Tunnell presiding. Present: Senators Tunnell, Ellender, Guffey, and Aiken. Also present: Charles Kramer, consultant to the committee. Senator TUNNELL. The hearing will please come to order. We have a statement here from the Secretary of Agriculture, Clinton P. Anderson, which I will ask to have put in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CLINTON P. ANDERSON ON S-1349, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, SEPTEMBER 28, 1945. Although this proposed legislation does not directly affect farmers or agricultural laborers, I am happy to make a statement about it before this committee. I believe it will have important indirect effects on agriculture if it becomes law. Farmers are interested in all types of legislation which may lead to increased purchasing power among their customers. This proposed amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 will no doubt have an influence in expanding the demand for food and fiber. It is, therefore, of concern to all of us who are wrestling with the problems of agriculture. American agriculture came out of this war geared to produce 30 to 35 percent more than it was producing in the years immediately preceding Pearl Harbor. This increased production came about at a time when the farm population, and hence the farm labor supply, was decreasing. In addition, the available supplies of farm machinery were far below the amounts that farmers wanted to buy. Of course, we have been blessed with generally favorable weather during the last few years. But the real credit goes to the American farmer for furnishing our ! civilian consumers with a better diet than they had before the war and, at the | same time, supplying our allies large and urgently needed quantities of food. The American farmer's share in winning this war through expanding food production is striking testimony to his managerial and productive ability. He worked long hours, planned his operations carefully, managed well, and gave to us and to our allies-in short, to the cause of freedom-a phenomenal supply of food, which is one of the most important munitions of war. This outstanding production on the part of American farmers indicates in no uncertain terms that we have had a veritable production revolution in agriculture. This wartime production revolution is not reversible. We cannot go back to prewar days. Postwar production on the prewar pattern is as outmoded as the model T Ford. Wartime production levels in agriculture will tend to persist regardless of economic conditions. Total farm production is responsive to increased prices or income on the upward side, but, once expanded, it is quite unresponsive to low prices or depressed conditions on the downward side. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that improved farm technology will increase at a rapid rate in the years ahead. More and better fertilizers will be used; improved varieties of plants and livestock will be grown on more and more farms; better feeding and breeding practices will result in greater production of livestock, dairy and poultry products, per pound of feed consumed. All of these things, and many others like them, will tend to increase the production per acre. At the same time that this type of technology is advancing, we may expect that more and more farmers will turn to the use of tractors and other power machinery; that more milking machines, self-feeders, and automatic watering devices will be installed; that more four-row cultivators will be in use; and that many types of machines will be used to cut down the heavy labor requirements at harvesttime in the cotton, hay, and vegetable fields, as well as in the fruit orchards. These developments will tend to reduce the man-hours of labor required in farming. With one type of technological advance reducing acreage requirements and another reducing labor requirements, it is easy to understand that the total output of all farm products will be extremely difficult to hold down in future years. Moreover, production control in agriculture is not compatible with a needed framework of policies in both industry and agriculture which encourages expanding employment and production throughout the economy. I am convinced, therefore, that a large part of the solution to the farm problem ahead must be sought in the direction of expanding the total market for agricultural products. We may also need special programs to help workers who no longer can find adequate opportunity in agriculture to find nonfarm employment. This proposed legislation appears to be one step forward in the task of expanding the market for farm products. That is the primary reason why, as Secretary of Agriculture, I am interested in it. That explains why I support its general purposes. One of the greatest contributions which we can make in this country to expanding the market for agricultural products is to maintain full employment, and, at the same time, develop our international relations in such a way as to encourage foreign trade. Under a full employment situation, the problems of agriculture will not all be solved. They will, however, be manageable. Even with full employment and an active foreign trade, many steps will be necessary in the fields of agricultural, labor, and business policies, if we are to have a sound and prosperous agriculture. President Truman was certainly correct when he said in his recent message to Congress: "The existence of substandard wage. levels sharply curtails the national purchasing power and narrows the market for the products of our farms and factories." We know from our wartime experience that the demand for farm products rises rapidly with an increase in the incomes of city people. The families of the wage earners in this country are the biggest single group of customers that the farmer has. Better incomes for them will mean better markets for farm products. Along that line I want to call your attention to a chart which I have here. The top part of this chart shows the way in which the pounds of food consumed per person increases as income increases. The bottom part of the chart indicates how annual expenditures for food rises with increasing family income. It is perfectly obvious that raising the income of a family increases the actual pounds of food which it consumes. Moreover, the expenditures which it makes for food rise considerably more rapidly than do the quantities consumed. The increase in pounds consumed, as well as in expenditures, arises from the fact that higher-income families purchase the more expensive and nutritious foods, which are also the more bulky foods. Families with annual incomes below $500 ordinarily consume in a year only a little more than 1,000 pounds of food per person. The type of food which they buy is relatively cheap. However, families with incomes of $5,000 and more per year buy about a ton of food per person. Moreover, the type of food which they purchase is fully twice as expensive per pound as that purchased by the lowest-income groups. High-income families eat much more fruits, meats, dairy products, and vegetables than do low-income families. The latter depend heavily on bread, potatoes, beans, and similar relatively inexpensive foods. If, therefore, we can have a general rise in family incomes, we can be assured of expanding markets for food products-particularly for the foods that supply the minerals and vitamins essential to good diet. This chart does nothing more than to illustrate graphically what we have all seen with our own eyes during the past 2 or 3 years. When people are at |