Although in the course of consideration of the legislation in
Congress before passage in 1938, provisions to exempt employment in
fisheries and aquatic products activities took various forms, section
13(a)(5), as drafted by the conference committee and finally approved,
followed the language of an amendment adopted during consideration of
the bill by the House of Representatives on May 24, 1938, which was
proposed by Congressman Bland of Virginia. He had earlier on the same
day, offered an amendment which had as its objective the exemption of
the ``fishery industry,'' broadly defined. The amendment had been
defeated (83 Cong. Rec. 7408), as had an amendment subsequently offered
by Congressman Mott of Oregon (to a pending amendment proposed by
Congressman Coffee of Nebraska) which would have provided an exemption
for ``industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or
handling * * * fishery or seafood products which are seasonal or
perishable'' (83 Cong. Rec. 7421-7423). Against this background, when
Congressman Bland offered his amendment which ultimately became section
13(a)(5) of the Act he took pains to explain: ``This amendment is not
the same. In the last amendment I was trying to define the fishery
industry. I am now dealing with those persons who are exempt, and I call
the attention of the Committee to the language with respect to the
employment of persons in agriculture * * * I am only asking for the
seafood and fishery industry that which has been done for agriculture.''
It was after this explanation that the amendment was adopted (83 Cong.
Rec. 7443). When the conference committee included in the final
legislation this provision from the House bill, it omitted from the bill
another House provision granting an hours exemption for employees ``in
any place of employment'' where the employer was ``engaged in the
processing of or in canning fresh fish or fresh seafood'' and the
provision of the Senate bill providing an hours exemption for employees
``employed in connection with'' the canning or other packing of fish,
etc. (see Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; McComb v. Consolidated
Fisheries, 75 F. Supp. 798). The indication in this legislative history
that the exemption in its final form was intended to depend upon the
employment of the particular employee in the specified activities is in
accord with the position of the Department of Labor and the weight of
judicial authority.
