not. We tried to get the Mexican Government to agree to make it a contract government to government, but they wanted us to assume all the responsibility. They did not want to assume anything.

For instance, in a government to government contract I suggested, "Well, now gentlemen, if you want to enter into a government to government contract, would you be responsible for a man who contracts to work and then, within a day or so after he goes to the farm, runs away? Will you agree to reimburse us for all this expense?" "Oh, no, we do not want to do that."

So we finally agreed, in order to do away with the bond that the farmers were obligated to give last year, and are obligated to give until June the 30th, that instead we have it worked out whereby these agreements would be made between the employer and these employees with the Government of the United States guaranteeing the contract. And that is as far as I think we ought to go.

Mr. BAIRD. We are very much in accord with you on that, because I can see the dangers of the government to government contract, and we think your bill has avoided the pitfalls of that type of an operation. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BAIRD. We approve retention of section 504 without change as we do not feel that the parenthetical insertions on lines 10 to 12 authorize the legalizing of "wetbacks."

The CHAIRMAN. At that point, Mr. Baird, if there is any doubt about it, you would not object to clarification of it?

Mr. BAIRD. No, sir; we are commending the position here, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we do not want to legalize any illegal entries into this country, no matter from what country they

come.

Mr. BAIRD. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the purpose of this bill.

Mr. BAIRD. We recognize that your section 504 here does give authority and recognizes the principle of re-contracting those already in this country and not allowing them to be arbitrarily returned to Mexico, with the red tape and expense.

Senator THYE. Providing they came in legally.

Mr. BAIRD. Yes.

Senator THYE. And that they had been employed over a period from last year, we will say, that they had been continuously employed from last year by someone, and that they came in legally last year. You would then just simply enter into a new contract for this

crop season. Mr. BAIRD. Yes, sir. We are countering the testimony of the State Department for deletion of those parenthetical expressions.

Senator THYE. I think there are those that charge they came in under this program, they remain here, and when the harvest season is over they go on to the relief rolls of some municipality or some city, and that seems to be some of the objection.

But if they have been in here legally, employed all the while, and there is a new contract for them to agree upon, they would be perfectly within their rights to enter in under this act for a new season's hire or contract.

Mr. BAIRD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thye, as I understand the attitude of the Mexican Government, if we were to put into this act any provision that would legalize these entries that are questionable, why, they would not contract with us.

Senator THYE. Oh, indeed not.

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir. In other words, we have to make it plain and certain that it is not our intention to legalize illegal entries into this country.

Mr. BAIRD. We do not feel this bill does that.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. But if it needs clarification, you have no objection to that. It is our intention, as Senator Thye has put it clearly, it is all right to contract with anyone again who came here legally.

Mr. BAIRD. That is clearly in the bill, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, but if there is any doubt, we want to make it certain.

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you do not object to that?

Mr. BAIRD. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed, sir.

Mr. BAIRD. We feel that, in combination with subsection (1), section 501, it only removes a present prohibition by officials of this country of allowing their recruitment here rather than forcing their return to Mexico and re-return to this country. We fail to see how it is any infringement of Mexican sovereignty.

The State Department indicated they thought it was an infringement. They did in the House committee. I did not hear the Senate hearings. They recommended the deletion of those insertions.

Let us remember that we are trying to meet an emergency and let's cut out as many useless and wasteful steps as possible.

If this critical condition does not exist, need for this legislation is hard to justify. If it does exist let's provide for the needed labor with a minimum of red tape.

We urge retention of section 505 because it is unfair to collect a social-security tax from alien agricultural workers or employers as they are not citizens of this country and will never share the Benefits of social-security benefits.

We urge the retention of section 508 in toto especially as to the definition of "agricultural employment." It will do us no good to produce this vast supply of food and fiber on the farms if it cannot be suitably processed for movement into the channels of trade, because of a shortage of workers at the time needed.

In conclusion may I point out that while we are discussing legislation authorizing recruitment of Mexican nationals for importation as farm workers into this country we still do not have the interpretative worker agreement setting out the actual commitments that the American farmer must carry on.

We refer to the individual work contract that will be signed by the worker and employer.

It has been represented to us that if legislation was passed authorizing Government recruitment of workers, which is what this bill will do in the interior, that a much more favorable worker agreement could and would be consummated with Mexico. We are extremely hopeful that if this legislation is passed such an end result will follow. May we also urge speedy passage of Senator Ellender's bill so that farmers can plant their crops with confidence that the needed labor will be forthcoming.

Thank you.

If I may, I would like to discuss one or two points that came up in the testimony yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. The group from our area generally has opposed the theory of the payment of any transportation costs by the Government, either for foreign workers for foreign workers, because we are limiting this to a foreign labor bill. At our meeting in January with the National Farm Labor Advisory Committee, there was quite a discussion on the payment by the Government of all transportation costs over 500 miles. Up to 500 would be paid by the employer. We scaled off here on the United States map that even Dallas would qualify for a certain payment of Government expense.

Now the States who were particularly opposed to any type of subsidization are Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana. We feel that if we once weaken-it is to our advantage. We would get a real benefit out of the subsidy by Government of transportation in our area, but we feel that once we weaken on our principle of standing on our own feet, particularly when farm prices are good, that we are undermining ourselves not only now but for later stands we may have to take and want to take.

We are sympathetic with the people in the Northwest. They have a real problem there. But I fail to see how we can legislate and allow any type of transportation costs to be paid by them without opening up a general controversy and discussion all over the country.

If they are going to have a port of entry or recruitment center in that area, we want one in Mississippi. We will want one in Tennessee. We will want one in Florida. We are going to want them all over the belt.

The CHAIRMAN. That is to transport foreign labor from one point in the United States to another point in the United States. That is what you have in mind?

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, that is what I have in mind.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you would not have any objection if it were possible to establish a port of entry, let's say, in Oregon for labor that may come from Mexico, from Hawaii, or from Canada, if that is feasible?

Mr. BAIRD. None whatsoever. I think it would be fine.

The CHAIRMAN. Your objection would be to establishing such points within the United States?

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, sir.

Another thing we are somewhat opposed to is here is a list of the users of foreign labor for 1949 and 1950. Now the only State in that area that has used any labor, and it was in 1949, was Montana. They used 627 workers. In Oregon and Washington they have not used any.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a list of how these foreign workers were distributed over the past few years?

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, sir; these are Department of Labor statistics.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you put that in the record?

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, sir.

Senator THYE. Those were just Mexican workers?

The CHAIRMAN. Foreign labor.

Mr. BAIRD. They have got some here for BWI, too, in Florida. No, these are just Mexicans, I think..

Senator THYE. Yes. They are laborers that came in from Mexico, they are not from the islands?

Mr. BAIRD. No, sir; I do not think they are on that sheet.

The CHAIRMAN. When it says, "requests for foreign labor processed by USES"

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, it includes them all, Senator. And it is indicated. on the side which are Mexican and which are not. That is 1949 and this is 1950.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection those tables will be incorporated at this point in the record.

(The tables referred to are as follows:)

FOREIGN LABOR IN AGRICULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 1 TO
DECEMBER 31, 1950

INTRODUCTION

The composition of the foreign labor pattern in agriculture in 1950 followed almost identically the experience of the previous year. The foreign workers brought into the United States for seasonal agricultural employment included Mexicans, British West Indians, Canadians, Basques, and an occasional few miscellaneous individuals from European countries and Cuba. The three major groups were, as usual, Mexicans, British West Indians, and Canadians.

The Mexican nationals were employed in the cotton crops, sugar beets, general vegetable and truck farming, in citrus, ranch work, and as irrigation labor. The State of Texas was by far the largest user of Mexican nationals, with California, and New Mexico also employing substantial numbers of these workers.

The Canadian importees were used principally in the lumber industry in the New England States, and the potato harvest in Maine. Other employment for this group extended to single occupations mostly as farm and dairy hands.

The British West Indies laborers were employed in the cultivation and harvest of general vegetable crops, picking fruits, sugarcane, and in general processing and warehouse work. Most of these workers were employed in Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and a few other Eastern and Midwestern States.

2 The certifications issued for the lumber industry in New England and the potato harvest in Maine are ceilings or quotas for maximum recruitment. For record purposes only the entire allocation for lumber is charged against the State of Maine.

The following tabulation represents the use of foreign labor in agriculture in the United States from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1950:

1 "Workers contracted" represent the actual number of new entrants placed under contract at the regularly established contract centers. (Harlingen, El Paso, Eagle Pass, and Calexico.)

2 "Workers contract extensions" represent a renewal of a contract for an extended period of employment for the same employers. Distinguish from "workers recontracted" in which case workers are transferred to a new or different employer. The term "recontract" is often used to connote either or both of these operations without identifying which action took place.