Mr. BAILEY. No, not unless he got his labor through the Federal labor program that brought the men in from Mexico. If he can locally

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about locally; I am talking about foreign labor.

Mr. BAILEY. If they were brought down from Monterrey, or wherever the Government brought them from, into Laredo, if you want to take that as an example, that being a border point

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BAILEY. Then, under the present bill proposed, this employer would pay the transportation costs from Monterrey to Laredo and back from Laredo to Monterrey, not to exceed $20 per head.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that be the extent of his cost?

Mr. BAILEY. Under the present bill it would.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean under your proposal.

Mr. BAILEY. No, it would not. It might be $30 a head.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. In other words, what would happen would be you would not give advantage to location?

Mr. BAILEY. That is right; I would wipe out the location advantage so that each of them who went to a labor center and got a man out of there would pay $30, whether Seattle or Laredo.

The CHAIRMAN. At first blush, when you talk about equity and wanting to do equity, I think you do great disservice in your plan to the people who are located right across the border.

Mr. BAILEY. I might say, Senator, if the provisions of the bill are followed and you force an employer in Washington State, who normally goes 50 miles to Seattle to obtain workers, to go 3,000 miles down to Laredo to get his workers, through no fault of his own, because of the defense labor program, you are doing him a disservice. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the bill provides, as you know, for labor from the Hawaiian Islands and also from Canada. It might be possible to establish a reception center, let's say, in Oregon or Washington so that they can get the bulk of that labor.

Mr. BAILEY. That may be quite possible, and it would reduce the cost and would still follow the provision we have suggested. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

If not, thank you very much, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Matt Triggs. Will you give us your name in full and identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF MATT TRIGGS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WASHINGINGTON OFFICE, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. TRIGGS. My name is Matt Triggs. I am assistant director of the Washington office of the American Farm Bureau Federation. The extent of the reduction in farm employment since Korea is not generally appreciated. I think it would be by this committee.

For a number of months now, total employment in agriculture, which includes farm operators, family labor, and hired labor, has been running substantially below the lowest figures of World War II. This trend is disclosed by the following data from the Farm Labor Situation monthly reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics:

You will note from looking at the table a very rapid decline in farm employment, particularly since Korea, to the extent that it is now substantially below the lowest comparable months in World War II. There is every reason to believe that the quickened tempo of industry has continued to drain farm labor from rural areas, that the downward trend in farm employment will continue during the balance of 1951, and that total farm employment will be even substantially less during the peak labor-need period this summer and fall than during last year.

If so, it is obvious that we are facing a critical emergency, that the manpower situation places a very real and significant limitation upon farm production, and that aggressive action is necessary to at least partially offset this reduction in agricutural manpower by a program to increase the availability of farm labor from off-shore and foreign

areas.

Not only has the supply of farm labor been seriously curtailed, but increased production of many high labor commodities has been recommended by the Department of Agriculture.

The basic policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation in this connection is that the problem is one that should be handled to the maximum feasible extent, by farmers themselves. We believe that Government's place in the picture should be primarily one of "opening doors" so that farmers and their organizations can do the job for themselves. We are opposed to any significant degree of subsidization of farm labor recruitment and transportation by the Federal Government. We are opposed to the establishment and operation of farm labor camps by the Federal Government beyond that minimum amount necessary in connection with the reception of workers in the United States. We are opposed to the payment by the Federal Government of any portion of the transportation of either foreign or domestic workers within the United States. We believe the farmer should be relieved of responsibility for imported workers who "go over the hill."

An examination of S. 984 indicates that its provisions are generally consistent with the above summarized policies. We, therefore, recommend its approval.

We do, however, want to recommend your consideration of several revisions, as follows:

Subsection 1 of section 502 of the bill would indicate that the decision of the Department of Labor would be final as to whether or not there had been a violation of a contract by an employer, and the amount of money the employer should pay in connection with the violation. We can envisage circumstances where this would be most unfair to the employer. If any procedure can be devised which will provide the employer with the right to a decision by or an appeal to an impartial settlement committee or tribunal, it is believed to be desirable that it be incorporated in the bill.

Subsection 2 of section 502 of the bill provides that the maximum amount the employer would be called upon to pay for transportation outside the continental United States would be $20 per worker. The question has been brought to our attention that this is unreasonably high in certain cases and may not be high enough in others.

I might comment, or interject there, that we are just wondering what the purpose of that provision is. Is there an employed subsidy of transportation to those areas where the cost would be above $20 a worker?

The CHAIRMAN. Really the purpose of that provision is more or less to cut out a lot of administrative costs by placing a straight fee of so much. Then all you would have to do would be to count the number of people to be sent to a particular farmer and assess him just a certain amount, which would be the average cost of bringing labor from the interior of Mexico to the border.

Mr. TRIGGS. Is it a partial pooling such as Mr. Bailey suggested? The CHAIRMAN. Somewhat along that line. We were forced into that, more or less, by the fact that the Mexican Government has requested that instead of obtaining all of the labor from near the border we go south of Mexico City and take the men, don't you see? Of course, the idea was primarily to get away from a lot of administrative expenses and to more or less comply with the suggestion made by the Mexican Government in obtaining labor from places farther from the border.

Mr. TRIGGS. We have no specific recommendation on that point. We have just raised the question as to the intention.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understand.

Mr. TRIGGS. Subsection 3 of section 502 of the bill imposes on employers an obligation which, under some circumstances, would be most onerous and unfair. For example, a group of farmers in Yakima Valley provide for the employment of a group of Mexican nationals, and pays for their transportation to Yakima. Shortly after arriving, a number of the employees disappear. The employer would be responsible under the bill to pay the equivalent of the transportation cost to the border, for such workers, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. This would represent a relatively large expense to an employer who has already paid transportation of the worker to the point of employment and who has had little benefit from the services of the employee. Since a large percentage of those who will come in under the bill will know their way around the United States, this is something that is likely to happen again and again. Perhaps this kind of case could best be handled with equity to all concerned by giving a settlement committee authority to determine what charges should be made in such instances.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection who would you want to have pay these expenses in case of a runaway worker?

Mr. TRIGGS. Well, you ask me a difficult question there.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a difficult question that confronts us. We do not want any subsidy either if we can help it, but somebody must pay for it. Now who shall it be?

Mr. TRIGGS. I think by and large all the costs of this program must be borne by the program itself. You raise a very pertinent issue, and yet I can see there is an element of unfairness here. Now there is a conflict of two principles, and I am not in the position to make any specific recommendation, only it is a problem for consideration of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. So you pass the buck to us?
Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct, sir.

The bill specifically provides for the guarantee by the Federal Government of the contract between the employee and the employer. We are very much opposed to this policy. We recognize the reasons for inclusion of the provision and its significance in terms of obtaining the maximum supply of farm labor. In view of the critical character of the farm labor situation and because of our confidence in the judgment of the authors of the bill as to the effect the provision will have upon the availability of farm labor, we have refrained from raising any objection to the inclusion of the provision.

Without making any specific recommendations on the matter, we feel we should bring to your attention some of the reactions of the west coast farm people to the proposals incorporated in the bill. They feel that the bill does not adequately provide for their needs. They would recommend that a northwestern port, such as Portland, be designated as a point of entry to facilitate movement of available farm workers into the Northwest area. They also suggest that consideration be given to inclusion in the bill of at least an authorization to work out a farm labor program in other areas, so that if an economic and feasible program of importing Japanese, Korean, or Filipino farm workers, who may be willing and qualified to undertake farm work in the United States, can be worked out the program would be permissible under the bill. A program that involved a sharing of the cost of ocean transportation between the employee and the employer might be of significant assistance in the event of a very tight labor situation.

We appreciate the efforts of this committee in trying to work out a satisfactory solution to this problem of off-shore labor. In your deliberations we recommend consideration of the points raised above not covered in this bill. We believe the legislation will be strengthened by the inclusion of these recommendations.

We are grateful for this opportunity to set forth the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation, and urge prompt action in order that farmers may have available an adequate supply of labor to meet the food and fiber production goals to insure American consumers an abundant supply of agricultural products.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator THYE. No.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Triggs, have you given any thought, or have the drafters of this bill given any thought to the idea of

perhaps withholding a moderate amount of the first week's wages of these individuals by the employer pending performance of the contract, so that if a situation such as you mentioned came up there could be some reasonable method worked out of reimbursement?

Mr. TRIGGS. That question has been discussed. We do not have any policy on it so my comments are purely personal then. A lot of the folks think there is merit to it. It probably could be worked out administratively and incorporated in the contracts.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Authorizing the employer to withholdI do not know what he paid by way of transportation, but authorize him to withhold a portion of that for a reasonable length of time, that is, not to exceed in any event the amount of transportation he has paid, and maybe a fraction of that.

Mr. TRIGGS. I think we would be in favor of that in principle if a method can be worked out. Whether or not it would require specific authorization in the bill to have the Department of Labor include such provision in the contracts, I do not know.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Just as an illustration of this kind, suppose an employer had to pay $35 to transport this employee from the reception center to the place of employment. He might be authorized to withhold out of the first week's wages so much money. Of course, if the employee left the next day after he got there, he would not have any wages coming. There are those difficulties. Then you would gradually feed that back to the man over the course of his contract so he would pay him all of that. Eventually there ought to be a breaking point where he would have to take a chance that the employee would stay there for the rest of the contract.

Mr. TRIGGS. I know there is a general sympathy for a broader thought, that the laborer should pay a portion of this cost.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hickenlooper, I wish to say the suggestion made by you there, that a portion of the employee's wages be withheld, was strenuously objected to by the Mexican Government; and they went so far as to take the position should any plan of that character be involved, it may result in no agreement being entered into between us and Mexico. It seems that this method was tried several years ago, and we were told by the Mexican Government that much of the money that was withheld is still in the hands of the Mexican Treasury. They have been unable to find those entitled to it. It was either that we had to agree to a plan of getting the Federal Government to more or less insure to the worker that he would be paid whatever his wages were and agreements, were, or else the giving of a bond by the employer. Of course, that was strenuously objected to by the employers for the reason that they had no control over the worker after he was with them.

Mr. TRIGGS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. So it is up to us to decide whether we want to continue the bond application or work with it as is contemplated under this bill, and that is one thing we will probably have to finally decide when we have executive session to go over the bill.

We

Mr. TRIGGS. Since I have raised some questions about the language of the bill, I want to make it clear that we are for this bill as is. would like to see some modifications in certain respects, but we are for the bill as is.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?