(Letter filed by Senator Dennis Chavez, from Senator Herbert H. Lehman, dated March 15, 1951) Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MARCH 15, 1951. MY DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: I understand that there is now pending before the Agriculture Committee several bills, including S. 949, introduced by you, dealing with the question of farm labor, and specifically providing various formulas for the utilization of farm labor manpower and the importation of foreign farm laborers to meet existing needs when no domestic sources of such labor are available. This is a subject in which I am extremely interested, not only in a general way because of my work and membership on the Labor Committee, but also in a specific way because of the frequently critical need for farm laborers in my own State. I have not had an opportunity to study or digest the several bills on this subject on which hearings are now being held before the Agriculture Committee. I have had an opportunity to go briefly over your bill, and I certainly am in full sympathy with its objectives and many of its legislative provisions. I hope that the substance of your bill will have the careful study and sympathetic consideration of the Senate in due course. One particular aspect of this legislation in which I am particularly interested is the aspect dealing with the movement of farm labor from Puerto Rico to the mainland. There are, as you know, many Puerto Ricans in New York. New York farmers have had a long and satisfactory experience with Puerto Rican labor, and seasonally face the problem of obtaining sufficient of these workers to meet the need. I think that legislative provision to facilitate the transportation of these workers to the mainland, and protecting them in their working standards and accommodations would be all to the good. There are 100,000 of these workers available in Puerto Rico. Thdy are American citizens and form a part of the United States labor force. Anything which can be done to make this portion of our farm labor force more easily available to the places where this labor is needed, on the mainland, while at the same time protecting the general standards of resident farm labor, is a move in the right direction. It would help the economy of Puerto Rico, and at the same time help agriculture on the mainland. There are other aspects of your bill and of the other pending bills in which I take a keen interest, but I have not studied them sufficiently to pass judgment upon them. I hope I have an opportunity to do so. It is a vitally important subject. I am writing you this letter so that you may know of my interest in this matter. You may feel free to read this letter into the record of the committee proceedings if that would, in your judgment, serve any purpose. Yours very sincerely, HERBERT H. LEHMAN, United States Senate. STATEMENT FILED BY HON. SAMUEL W. YORTY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in order to keep the record straight, I am submitting herewith a copy of a letter addressed to me by the distinguished chairman of this commitee, dated March 9, and my reply of March 12. As stated in the correspondence, the notice to me was entirely too short to permit me to bring witnesses from California for the purpose of presenting an analysis of the farm-labor problem as we see it. Although the Governor of California was desirous of cooperating and was willing to send a representative, this could not be arranged on such short notice, and I would need at least 10 days' notice to insure attendance of California wirnesses whom I think the committee should hear. I wish to reiterate the fact that Public Law No. 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, rule XI (I) (g), seems to clearly require that H. R. 2955 be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. Said committee has jurisdiction over wages and hours of labor, regulation or prevention of importation of foreign laborers under contract, child labor, labor statistics, labor standards, and welfare of minors. It seems to me the plain wording of the act leaves no room for doubt concerning the jurisdiction of the Labor Committee over the subject matter of H. R. 2955. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, as set forth in that rule, does not include the subject matter of H. R. 2955. I therefore respectfully request that the committee have the bill rereferred to the Committee on Education, and Labor, where it clearly belongs. The plight of the migratory farm worker, as I have seen it in my own State, is a disgrace to the Nation. These people are treated with far less consideration than farm animals, and it is particularly distressing to see the condition of children who are not receiving proper education, medical attention, or even proper nutrition, although working in the midst of the rich agricultural areas. The whole system of handling migratory labor has created nothing but misery, hostility, and social tensions. It seems unbelievable that we have delayed this long in attempting a real solution of this problem in spite of the fact that the conditions that exist today have been prepalent for many years. To say that we have been un-Christian and calloused in permitting the situation to exist is to put the matter mildly indeed. If we should deliberately set out to drive a group of people into the arms of the subversive forces who exploit class antagonisms, we could not do a more effective job than we are doing in glossing over or ignoring the human equations involved in the migratory farm labor problem. In California last year, the Governor appointed a committee to survey the agricultural labor resources of the San Joaquin Valley. The executive director of this committee was Dr. Paul Prasow, whom I had hoped to bring here to testify relative to H. R. 2955. Dr. Prasow was very anxious to come but could not arrange to do so because of the shortness of the notice that I was able to give him. The committee, which was representative of all phases of California life, held a number of hearings in the San Joaquin Valley, and if anything was evident, it was the fact that the migratory farm labor problem must be handled on a national level because of the interstate movement of the workers. No single State can control the enticing advertisements placed in the papers of other States, such as those which appeared in some Southern States describing the "gold row" in the San Joaquin Valley of California. These advertisements do not tell the whole story. They omit the fact that the work is highly seasonal. One cannot help feel that some of the advertisements stem from a desire to have an oversupply of farm labor on hand at the farms to suit the selfish purposes of some of the employers. Obviously, this condition requires control at the national level. The lack of protection for migratory farm workers and their children is too well known to everyone to require detailed reiteration. Farm workers are not protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Most of them are not covered by social security or State unemployment insurance systems. They are buffeted about on the economic tides without any anchor or semblance of security. California suffers from a lack of enforcement of the immigration laws, both in the matter of the exclusion of illegal aliens and in the enforcement against employers who violate the law by knowingly harboring aliens illegally in this country. Among the so-called wetbacks are many who shuttle back and forth across the border as they are repeatedly apprehended and returned to Mexico, only to turn around and reenter the United States. The tax enforcement along this border permits the entry of subversive agents and is a real danger to the security of this Nation. A long persons who have studied the igratory far 1 labor proble 1 objectively, there is a growing feeling that the far i laborers desiring to settle in a locality are actually discriminated against and discouraged by employers who prefer migratory laborers not apt to become a political force in a community or to obtain the benefits of collective bargaining and union protection. Labor contractors who recruit migratory workers must be placed under Federal control in order to correct their activities which are, in many cases, interstate in scope, and therefore partly or wholly beyond the jurisdiction of any one State. It is my feeling that if farm labor conditions were sufficiently improved along the lines proposed in H. R. 2955, a much greater supply of farm labor could be obtained within the United States. As long as American farm workers are treated as outcasts, it is obvious that they will abandon farm labor as fast as they can possibly do do. As pointed out by Clarence J. McCormick, Under Secretary of Agriculture, in his statement to this committee, "the average cash farm wage in 1950 was about 56 cents per hour. While this was more than 3 times the average wage for the 1935-39 period, it was still only 38 percent of the average factory wage of $1.46 an hour prevailing last year." The report of our own Joint Committee on the Economic Report filed last month contains the following significant statement on page 19: Farm people who go into the migratory labor force do so from lack of better opportunity and then merely change to another and less secure type of underem ployment. According to the survey previously mentioned, the average number of days of employment for migratory workers over the country in 1949 was 101, 70 days in farm work, 31 more in nonfarm employment. Three factors enter into this underemployment. First, a period of several slack months when there is little seasonal employment to be found. Second, irregular and intermittent employment during the harvest season. Some harvests are oversupplied with workers, others last for such a brief period that the amount of work obtained by a worker is small. The third factor is too large a supply of workers for the amount of work available. Migratory workers compete with local season and year-round workers for employment. The latter, too, then suffer from underemployment; during 1949 they had a total of 120 days employment of which 91 days were in farm work and 29 days in nonfarm jobs.1 The earnings from the 101 days of farm work which the migratory workers obtained in 1949 amounted to an average of $514.1 The value of housing, transportation, and other perquisites amounts to $36 more.2 At an average of two workers per family, total family incomes averaged $1,028 cash or $1,000 with perquisites. This amount had to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate a family of four. "Underemployment and low earnings are not the only problems among migratory farm workers. Poor housing, lack of sanitation and medical care, child labor, and educational retardation of the children, all tend to make them a disadvantaged group. They have little voice either in community, State, or National affairs and are unable to make effective demands to relieve their situation. "Although they are most essential to meet peak-season demands for gathering in the national food supply, they are explicitly excluded from national legislation which protects and advances the rights of workers. Their position is the most precarious of any in our economy. They have no definable job rights and are so far removed from the employer group that they are unable to obtain redress for grievances. "Rather than hire seasonal and migratory workers directly and individually, it is a widespread practice among farm employers to hire in crews through labor contractors, crew chiefs, or labor recruiters. In many areas it is virtually impossible for a worker to obtain a job directly from the farm employer. As a consequence of these practices, a farm worker has to pay heavily from his alreadytoo-low earnings for the privilege of getting work to do. "Under Executive Order No. 10129 of June 3, 1950, the President's Commission on Migratory Labor was created and directed to inquire into problems of migratory labor and to make recommendations for action, both legislative and administrative. The report of this Commission is scheduled to appear at an early date. The report of the President's Commission referred to above has not yet been made public. I myself was a witness before this committee at its hearing in Los Angeles. The committee showed great patience and diligence in striving to understand the migratory farm-labor problem. I am sure the Congress would be well advised to withhold final action on any migratory farm-labor bills until the Members have had the opportunity to study the findings and recommendations of the President's Commission. It is the contention of those interested in an efficient, sound national farm-labor program that we have the available means and manpower to produce the food and fabric necessary to our defense effort. It is maintained that if there is a need for foreign farm workers, then this need should be fairly determined at public hearings. None of the most significant differences between the present situation and that at the beginning of World War II is found in the greater inventory of farm equipment and machinery at present, and the greater potentialities that exist for substitution of machinery for labor. The prospective increase between now and this time next year in the number of the mechanical cotton harvesters may reduce the number of cotton harvesters needed during the season by about 50,000. It is during the harvesting of the greatly expanded cotton acreage that the pinch in available manpower is likely to be felt more sharply in 1951. mechanization will not be confined to cotton harvests or areas. important factor in the farm manpower situation next year. The increase in It will be a most (NOTE.-See Statement by Lewis J. Ducoff, Labor Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, at the twenty-eighth 1 Migratory Farm Workers in 1949, Louis Ducoff, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1949. Perquisites Furnished Hired Farm Workers, Barbara B. Reagan, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1945. annual Agricultural Economics Conference, Washington, D. C., November 2, 1950.) The Sparkman committee report, referred to above, is an important document.. In the words of Senator Sparkman, this report "points the way toward increasing our national labor force by 2,500,000 man-years. It concretely shows how a practical application can be made of point 4 know-how and show-how right here at home in many rural areas where output, productivity, and living standards are now distressingly low. In view of the critical manpower shortages likely to limit our output for defense in this emergency, I feel that practical suggestions for increasing the productivity of our rural underemployed ought to be given immediate consideration." I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the following additional paragraphs from the said report: "There are approximately 1,200,000 male hired wage workers whose main activity is farm work. These hired wage workers were employed an average of 218 days at farm work and 14 days at nonfarm work in 1949 and earned an average of $980. Approximately half are married. (These families are in part included in the nonfarm families and are not included as a separate group in the statistical summary.) "Underemployment among farm wage workers is a special problem. Partly because of days not worked and partly because of inefficient employment, these workers appear to be only about half as productive as workers on medium-sized commercial family farms." I should also like to call the committee's attention to the fact that Puerto Rico has established a Territorial employment service affiliated with the United States Employment Service. This move is intended to make available seventy-five to one hundred thousand surplus workers. I feel that if it is at all possible these American citizens should be utilized before noncitizens are brought into the country for farm work. The Puerto Ricans are loyal Americans, good workers, and because of the seasonal nature of the economy of their island, they are badly in need of additional employment opportunities. The committee is no doubt familiar with the articles of Agnes Myers, of the Washington Post, printed October 6 to 12, 1947, which articles pointed out that the cost of the foreign farm-labor program to the taxpayers of the United States during the years 1943-1947 was $84,000,000. According to the Farm Placement Service, foreign workers usually constitute less than 2 percent of each seasonal agricultural poll. One cannot help but feel that the same amount of money spent improving the conditions of American farm workers would constitute a better investment of taxpayers' money. I hope the committee will see fit to act favorably on H. R. 2955, but I wish to repeat in closing that it appears from Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, that the bill should be considered by the Committee on Education and Labor. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D. C., March 9, 1951. Hon. SAMUEL W. YORTY, DEAR COLLEAGUE: While your name did not appear on the list of witnesses handed me by the committee staff, and apparently we have not received a request from you to be heard on your bill, H. R. 2955, which you introduced on February 27, the Committee on Agriculture has held hearings yesterday and all day today on proposed legislation dealing with that subject. Assuming that you would want to appear in behalf of your bill, I announced at the beginning of the hearings that the committee would take up for consideration not only the bill introduced by Congressman Poage, H. R. 3048, but would also take up and consider your bill and other proposals. We had hoped to conclude the hearings on Monday, March 12, and that it might be possible for you to be heard on Monday. I understand, however, from Mrs. Clark that it will not be possible for you to appear at that time. Hearings will not be concluded, therefore, and I am scheduling a meeting on Wednesday, March 14, at 10 a. m., at which time the committee will be very glad to hear you and such witnesses as you may desire to present. With best wishes, I am Sincerely yours, HAROLD D. COOLEY. Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MARCH 12, 1951. DEAR COLLEAGUE: Thank you very much for your letter of March 9 and your courtesy in scheduling a 1-day hearing on H. R. 2955 for Wednesday, March 14, at 10 a. m. There evidently was some misunderstanding in connection with the hearings on this bill. It was my understanding that your committee had scheduled hearings only on the Poage bill, H. R. 3048, and my secretary was so informed by both Mr. Poage and Mr. Parker when he appeared at your hearings on Thursday, March 8, having received a telephone call from your committee the previous day informing us that your committee would take up H. R. 2955 along with H. R. 3048. I understand, however, that when you opened the hearing you did include H. R. 2955, although I was unable to be present due to the shortness of the notice and the necessity of my attendance at hearings by my own committee on a bill of vital concern to California. The day following the opening of your hearings I asked my secretary to place a statement in the Record to clarify the situation and make it clear that we did not understand that we were expected to have people from California appear in Washington on only 1 day's notice. My secretary reported back that you informed him that we had notice from the Record. We have checked the Record and found the only reference to be to H. R. 3048. The I, of course, would need a more adequate notice in order to present effective testimony in support of H. R. 2955. Över the week end I tried to arrange to have at least one representative of California here before Wednesday. Governor was anxious to cooperate by sending a representative who could discuss the farm-labor problem in California in a manner that I feel would be most helpful to the committee, but the Governor could not arrange to have his representative here before Monday of next week. Although the Governor may not agree with all of the provisions of H. R. 2955, I believe he is in agreement with the need for interstate control of farm labor migration, and I think his representative would, in a general way, support the basic plan of H. R. 2955. At any rate, I am sure the committee would benefit from the testimony of the Governor's representative. Pursuant to Public Law 601, rule XI (1) (g), 3, 5, 6, 8, and 13, it appears that H. R. 2955 should have been referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and I shall appreciate the courtesy if you will ask that the bill be rereferred to said committee. If, however, you feel that you wish me to present evidence before your committee, I shall do the best I can to obtain statements for filing with the committee, although I cannot on such short notice arrange for the presence of the witnesses I had hoped to make available. The importance of the subject would seem to merit full hearings and more sufficient notice to these interested. I fully realize the heavy amount of work your committee is called upon to do, and shall try to reciprocate your kindness in scheduling the Wednesday hearing by making the statements as brief as possible. The President's Commission is due to report soon, and it seems quite likely that the Commission may make some suggestions that will help all of us who are concerned with the farm labor problem. I had hoped that your committee would not take final action before reviewing the recommendation of the President's Commission. With kindest regards, SAM YORTY, Member of Congress. STATEMENT FILED BY HON. ZALES N. ECTON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my opinion that certain categories of farm labor might in the crop season of 1951 be in such short supply that unless producers soon know whether the Government through a farm labor program is to help them in securing labor, the production of food will be greatly, if not alarmingly, reduced. This will, I fear, apply in my State to sugar beets in a major way, and possibly to a lesser extent to fruit and potatoes. With wheat and other small grain farmers |