a copy of the record so we could read these things without having to borrow something some place and getting it back in due time.

The CHAIRMAN. It is my purpose to hurry along with this bill as soon as I can because of its importance. We must provide legislation on the subject before June, and I am going to try to make arrangements, if I can, to hurry this along and have the record printed as soon as possible so that each Senator will have a copy of it before we consider the bills before us.

These documents that I have introduced, Senator Hickenlooper, simply provide for amendments. For instance, let's take the American Sugar Cane League letter, which also represents the views of the folks from Florida, I believe. They have a fine relationship now between Florida, let's say, and the islands just off Florida-the Bahama Islands, Jamaica-where they get quite a lot of labor, and they take the position that because of those fine relationships they do not need legislation on the subject. They are suggesting that, with respect to the language in S. 984, it be made to apply to the continent instead and exclude the islands. The way they suggested that this be done is by simple amendment which would make it apply to the mainland of the continent.

All of those suggestions are incorporated in some of these letters that I have introduced and the reports so far received from the various departments, especially the Department of Agriculture, deal with the extent to which our Government should pay for transportation and care of these laborers in transit.

Senator HOLLAND. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Senator HOLLAND. So far as the agricultural interests of Florida are concerned, they much prefer not to have any subsidy from the Government in this connection, not to have the Department of Labor serve as an official agency for recruiting offshore laborers. They much prefer to continue their present course of dealings, under which they pay the transportation costs themselves, and deposit bonds guaranteeing the return of the laborers who are in for a season and who are then sent back to the Bahamas or to Jamaica, as the case may be. They are quite willing to have continued the present set-up which they have found eminently satisfactory. And above all things they do not want any subsidy in connection with this thing.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to hear the Senator from Florida so express himself, and that was the line that I pursued in drafting S. 984, which is up for consideration today.

The only cost that the Government will be called upon to pay, in the event that S. 984 is adopted, will be those costs incident to getting all of these laborers in central points in the foreign countries and a part of the cost of taking them from the central point to the border. After the laborers are brought within the United States, the costs are then to be borne by the employers.

I wish to say that the difference between S. 984 and the other bills heretofore mentioned by me is primarily on the difference of pay and subsistence in transit. That is really and truly, as I see it, the only difference between the two.

Now in addition, the bill that I introduced goes a step further and and excludes foreign labor from the Social Security Act. I have talked to the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate,

and as I understand him, Senator George, he had no objection to the exclusion from the Social Security Act of laborers, foreign laborers, that are brought in for agricultural purposes.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to Senator Holland, with all due respect, and with no intent to offend, but I wonder if the position is not a little outmoded according to modern philosophy, when you announce they are for a self-help program and wish to depend on themselves. Do you not think that is a little outmoded?

Senator HOLLAND. I do not think so. I remind the Senator from Iowa that the same group came up and asked for the potato support program to be knocked out.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Our potato farmers up in Iowa do not want Government help, and they are forced into this regulation by some kind of a vote, and they are now prosecuting some of these individuals who refused to take Government aid.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, we do not want to interfere with the plans of continental users of labor from Mexico, and perhaps other places, if they prefer some other way to deal with the situation, but we do much prefer to have this legislation not apply to the Bahamas, Jamaica, and the independent countries lying off shore but near our State. We will at the proper time ask for an amendment which we hope the introducer of the bill will be agreeable to have written into this bill, making it apply only to continental foreign countries and Hawaii and Puerto Rico, if you wish to have it apply to them.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill that I have introduced does apply to Puerto Rico and Hawaii.

In further answer to your question, Senator Hickenlooper, the various reports and letters that I have introduced for the record, most of them, will be discussed in committee.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Fine. The only purpose of my raising the question was I thought maybe there might be some very pertinent suggestions raised in those letters or statements which might be the basis for questions to explore, you see.

The CHAIRMAN. I must state to the Senator that the only differences with respect to those items that I have just mentioned that is, how the cost of transportation shall be borne, and the expenses of housing in transit- are the real crux of the difference between the three bills that we now have before us.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Fine.

Senator AIKEN. None of the bills, Mr. Chairman, designate the Federal Government as the sole recruiting agency for farm labor; do they?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Senator AIKEN. I was thinking of the suggestion of the Senator from Florida, Senator Holland, apparently in wanting the islands excluded. Does that mean that you do not want the Federal Government recruiting in competition with the individual importer of farm labor?

Senator HOLLAND. That was not it.

Senator AIKEN. Maybe the discussion is a little premature. I was just wondering.

Senator HOLLAND. We had not thought of the matter of competition at all. As far as we know, we are the only group who utilizes these

workers from the Bahamas and Jamaica. They are very satisfactory workers. And we have found it possible under existing law to arrange ourselves for their coming in. We have put up the bond to make sure that they will be returned. We pay their transportation costs. We see no point at all in creating a set-up under which the National Government would pay those transportation costs, would pay subsistence costs, would pay the burial and the sickness costs and the like, when that has not been found necessary. To the contrary, we have had a most acceptable and satisfactory relationship not only to our employers but also to the government of the Bahamas and of Jamaica.

Senator AIKEN. However, I believe that Long Island and New Jersey that area has in the past imported labor extensively from the Bahamas.

Senator HOLLAND. They did during World War II. They came over to Florida and followed the crops up. Whether they are still doing that or not, I am unable to say.

Senator AIKEN. I expect the situation will develop as the testimony goes on, and that is probably the best way to get at it.

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to say that, and I am sure it will become apparent to the Senators the reason for dealing with, let's say, the Bahamas as Senator Holland suggests, and why we should probably accept a different method when it comes to employing labor from Mexico.

Mexico has a problem on its hands. It is developing right along. It is right on our borders, you know, and the "wetback" problem there that is, those who cross the Rio Grande without any authority whatever has drained quite a bit of Mexican labor that is needed in Mexico at the moment.

All of this, as I have just indicated, will be brought to the surface as we call witnesses to discuss these various bills, particularly the one that I introduced and which in effect deals primarily with the Mexican labor situation.

Senator AIKEN. The reason I was inquisitive was because I was thinking of the Canadian situation, where a large number of Canadians come over the border for seasonal work. We do not want that complicated by any Federal laws or requirement that the Federal Government recruit them. They are mostly relatives that come over in that part of the country, and I suppose they drive their cars over, or walk over, or any way to get over, and we do not want those satisfactory relationships interfered with, either.

any

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe it is the intention of the introducers of any of these bills to change that relationship. Speaking for myself, as the introducer of one of the bills, I certainly do not want to change of the methods now in force that have proven satisfactory. I am satisfied that if anything in my bill, as well as the other bills that have been introduced, will in any manner change the present methods, we can all get together and arrange it so that the present method of recruiting foreign labor shall not be disturbed.

All right; the first witness is Mr. Robert T. Creasey, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor.

Mr. Creasey, will you kindly identify yourself for the record, please?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CREASEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR; DON LARIN, CHIEF, FARM PLACEMENT SERVICE, UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE; AND ALBERT D. MISLER, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. CREASEY. My name is Robert T. Creasey. I am Assistant Secretary of Labor.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a prepared statement?

Mr. CREASEY. I do have a prepared statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to read it through without interruption, or do you mind interruption as we go along?

Mr. CREASEY. Whatever is the pleasure of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, sir.

Mr. CREASEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have this opportunity to present to this committee the views of the Department of Labor on legislation to assist in obtaining foreign agricultural labor when our domestic labor force is insufficient to meet defense agricultural production goals.

Mr. Robert C. Goodwin, Director of the Bureau of Employment Security of the Department of Labor, also is here and is available to the committee to present the general labor market outlook as it relates to farm-labor supply and other matters.

I might say at this point that whenever, in my statement, I refer to "domestic" farm labor or "American" farm labor I intend those terms to include not only our workers on the continent but those of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

I believe that we have unanimity of opinion on the fact that we can reasonably expect a tightening of the labor market as defense. production starts rolling more rapidly. I do not believe that it is necessary for us at this time to forecast with any degree of certainty the extent to which it may be necessary to supplement the domestic farm-labor supply. The farm-labor requirements as of a given time. are affected by too many imponderables.

But whatever those requirements may ultimately be, we must not risk failure in attaining agricultural production goals. The production of food and fiber is as essential to our defense efforts as is the production of tanks, guns, planes, and ships. It is imperative, therefore, that we have sufficient workers to man our farms. To this end there should be legislative authority necessary to furnish manpower from outside sources when adequate farm-labor requirements cannot be met from the domestic labor force.

But, consistent with American concepts, we must exert every reasonable effort to assure the full utilization of American workers before we look to other sources. While we must not jeopardize farm production, we should first direct our efforts to obtaining American workers for this purpose.

We must exhaust all domestic sources of farm labor before we begin to give jobs to foreign workers. We should not take actions, for the sake of expediency, which will result in employment for foreign workers in this country while available American workers remain unemployed. The only really effective method of determining the availability of

American workers is through the national clearance system maintained by the Department of Labor.

In connection with the admission of foreign labor, presently the responsibility for certifying that American labor cannot be obtained is with the Secretary. If certification is to be at all meaningful, this responsibility should remain with the Secretary. No official, State or Federal, having jurisdiction over a limited area can give a certification in this respect that has any validity. This is particularly true with respect to agricultural labor because a significant segment of it is obtained from migratory labor groups which move from area to area, from State to State. Before we can certify the need to import foreign workers we must consider the Nation as a whole in determining whether or not American workers are available. This can be done only through the national office of the Department of Labor and cannot be done by the employment service director of the State in which the labor demand exists, as is provided in S. 984.

I do not know why S. 984 makes this proposal. I am certain that it could not have been done because of any valid complaints that the present certification process has jeopardized any farmer's opportunity to obtain the workers which he has needed. I know of no case where any crops were lost because a job order was put through the national clearance system.

Aside from this fact, it appears to me to be very questionable from the viewpoint of sound administration to vest the responsibility for administering a program in the head of a cabinet department and, at the same time, diffuse the authority to control one of its most important aspects among 48 State officials. Nor should this authority be vested in any subordinate Federal officials as is contemplated by the House version of this legislation. Certainly this latter action would be inconsistent with the principles in the recommendations of the Hoover Commission that

the heads of departments must hold full responsibility for the conduct of departments. There must be a clear line of authority reaching down through every step in the organization and no subordinate should have authority independent from that of his superior. (Recommendation No. 14, Hoover Commission Report on General Management of the Executive Branch.)

Our proposal that we offer employment opportunities to unemployed American workers first does not contemplate creating shortages in some areas to satisfy needs in other areas. Nor do we contemplate any wholesale shifting of workers over extreme distances. But wherever unemployed workers are willing to accept employment, they should be afforded the opportunity first.

Foreign workers should not be offered working conditions that are more favorable than those offered to American workers. Nor should they be employed where their employment will adversely affect the wages, working conditions, and employment opportunities of American workers.

I am sure that no reasonable man will quarrel with these concepts. While we are not advocating the full program which was carried out during World War II, the Congress then gave full recognition to the basic principle that American agricultural workers should not be discriminated against by providing in Public Law 45 and Public Law 229, Seventy-eighth Congress, authority to afford American workers the same benefits that were provided for foreign workers. Payment of