The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called public accommodations and in the area of employment—to be more specific, titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government; namely, that of a constitutional republic in which 50 sovereign States have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the Central or Federal Government.
Members of the Council of State Chambers of Commerce do not argue with the principal of equal pay for equal work. However, they have consistently advocated and endorsed a policy of home rule. State legislation on such subjects is preferred to Federal legislation whenever practical. Twenty-two States have enacted equal pay bills. This in itself…indicates that States can adequately cover this subject, and no need exists for additional Federal legislation.
Proponents of Federal equal pay at times say that variations in State laws indicate a need for a Federal law which will promote uniformity. Such a contention is unsound. A certain amount of experimentation is desirable to find the type of law that works best. The efforts in the 22 States [with equal pay laws already on the books] amount, in effect, to laboratories of experiment….This opportunity for the 50 States to learn from one another is highly desirable. It would be forever lost once Federal legislation takes effect.
The people of each state, and they alone, are best qualified to judge whether conditions in their own jurisdiction are such that there is social need for an equal pay law….Any view that only the Federal Government can handle this problem shows a distrust of the States and indicates an unfortunate trend toward creating an over-centralized, top-heavy government by bringing all problems to Washington.
Indeed, it is not unreasonable to question the need or advisability of State laws or their continuance in view of the substantial progress made at an accelerated pace through voluntary action and collective bargaining, but since all of the most heavily industrialized States have already legislated in the field, surely there is no need for duplication through Federal law.
…the passage of Federal legislation will add an unnecessary additional Federal bureaucracy and the inherent added enforcement expense will only increase the already large deficit in the Federal budget. State action and voluntary employer activity have done an excellent job in the area of equal pay to date, and we are optimistic that such activity will proceed at an even faster pace in the future.
Then, too, State legislation is now effective in 21 States…In 1945 and since then each year, Federal legislation has been introduced to provide by governmental fiat equal or comparable pay, more often comparable. The Federal bills have all failed of passage [sic]. NAM took its position against them for reasons hereinafter stated. It now opposes the current bills to which this statement is directed although standing behind the principle they support otherwise better achievable through other sources.
Unwise because it is an unnecessary extension of Federal power and would seem to be a step toward the deprecation of State sovereignty. I am one who still believes in the American system of Government the States have important functions and that State sovereignty is a fundamental and inherent principal of the American democracy.
Unfortunately, the measure is in some respects ill-considered. It’s constitutionality is by no means certain: if the Federal Government may compel the states to adopt unemployment insurance under the guise of a tax, why may it not similarly compel them to adopt any other sort of legislation
[A federal income tax would be an invitation to D.C.] to invade its territory, to oust its jurisdiction and to establish a Federal dominion [in Virginia]. A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business. The eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man’s counting house.
