The individual farmer should do everything he possibly can to solve the laborrequirement problems of his farm. Through exchange of labor and machinery and the use locally of available labor, each neighborhood and community should make every effort to meet agricultural manpower needs of the area. When the local labor force is inadequate, then effort should be made to obtain domestic agricultural labor from the nearest practicable source. Movements of farm workers are not restricted by State lines. It logically follows, therefore, that determination of availability of domestic workers be made on a regional or Nation-wide basis. The lack in any State does not necessarily indicate that domestic farm workers cannot be made available in time to meet the needs. Before foreign agricultural workers are imported into an area, the Secretary of Labor should determine that domestic farm workers are in fact not available for employment in the area of need. Except for a brief period during World War II, the expense of obtaining and transporting farm workers customarily has been on the employers and the workers. This is as it should be during normal periods, and especially when workers are available from customary sources. During emergency periods in which workers from customary sources are not available, enabling legislation to aid farm employers in obtaining workers from new or unusual sources, domestic or foreign, appears to be appropriate and necessary. These periods usually result from circumstances beyond the control of the individual farmers. The Nation stands to lose the results of the farmers' work through the lack of qualified workers in season. The Nation cannot afford to take chances on loss of much-needed farm products. In order that crop losses may be prevented, such legislation should include authority to provide transportation in emergencies to the extent necessary to obtain workers. Such a Government program should assure reasonable equality for the several areas of the country. Transportation of foreign workers only to border points, for example, provides no real aid in preventing crop losses at distant points. The emergency needs of these distant points may require the payment of transportation within the continental United States of either foreign or out-of-area domestic workers, depending upon cost and practicability. Payment of transportation costs by the Government should, however, be kept at a minimum. Therefore, in the employment of the labor which is available without transportation cost to the Government, employers and workers should continue to enter into the usual agreements of their own choice regardless of employment service referral or encouragement to migrate into the area. We believe that certain Government controls as a condition of hiring arrangements should be applicable only to workers moved at Government expense in order to keep demand from employers for workers to be moved at Government expense at a minimum required to meet essential needs. This position on the part of the Department of Agriculture does not argue that certain minimum standards for work in agriculture are not needed, but such standards would appear to be more appropriately the substance of direct State or Federal legislation than a condition to obtaining workers through the normal recruitment or referral activities of the employment services, as appears to be provided in S. 949. In summary, this Department is vitally concerned with assuring that the necessary labor is available to get essential food and fiber crops produced and harvested. This Department stands for such legislative action as is necessary to get this job done. In considering the bills in the light of these concepts, this Department is of the opinion that bill S. 984, revised to include provisions for transportation within the United States to the extent necessary, provides facilities for aiding employers in meeting farm labor problems anticipated as a result of the current defense program. Accordingly, this Department concurs in the enactment of S. 984 if amended as herein suggested. In view of the subsequent request, we have not obtained advice from the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of this proposed legislation to the program of the President. Sincerely, C. J. MCCORMICK, Under Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. At this point I also wish to introduce as part of the record a letter addressed to me, dated March 8, 1951, from Senators Edwin C. Johnson and Eugene D. Millikin of Colorado. They both favor S. 984 and suggest a few changes. (The document referred to is as follows:) UNITED STATES SENATE, Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Sr. Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: For the information of the Committee in consideration of S. 984 on which we understand hearings commence next week, we desire to bring to your attention excerpts from a letter which we have received from interested parties in Colorado regarding certain provisions of the proposed legislation: "It is our studied conclusion that the bill is satisfactory with the exception of one section-namely section 502. This section has to do with the liability of the employer with regards to workers being made available. The subparagraph (1) which the employer agrees indemnify the United States against loss by reasons of its guaranty of such employers' contracts is satisfactory, however the other two, namely (2) and (3) under section 502 which have to do with payment to the United States for expenses incurred in recruitment and transportation and to reimburse the Government in case the worker is not returned to the reception center, is unsatisfactory. We feel that as long as this is an emergency legislation and the country is in a declared emergency that the Government should not request reimbursement under the conditions required in the above section. "The Government has requested increases in the production of crops in this area and to bring about this increase in the face of inroads being made by the draft, necessitates the importation of foreign nationals. It is our studied opinion that this type of an obligation on the employer is unnecessary and will work a. double hardship on the producer for the previous reasons named and will without doubt curtail production on vitally needed crops. It will be appreciated if these views may receive the usual careful attention of your committee. With very best regards, we are The CHAIRMAN. I also wish to place in the record at this point a letter from the National Cotton Compress and Cotton Warehouse Association with respect to S. 984. They suggest that section 508 of 984 be amended so as to include the storing of cotton. (The document referred to is as follows:) NATIONAL COTTON COMPRESS AND Re S. 984, Agricultural Workers. Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: In section 508 of your above-numbered bill the term "agricultural employment" is defined as including "cotton ginning and compressing." It is respectfully suggested that this wording should be amended to read "cotton ginning, storing, and compressing." In the over-all economy an adequate labor supply for cotton storing is of equal importance with an adequate labor supply for cotton compressing. In the Mississippi Valley and Southwestern and Western States the bulk of the cotton crop is stored in facilities equipped also to perform compression. In the Southeastern States, however, the reverse is true, and most of the crop is stored in facilities which are not equipped to perform compression. Cordially yours, JOHN H. TODD. The CHAIRMAN. I also wish to place in the record at this point a letter from Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, enclosing certain suggestions as to the importation 81261-51-2 of agricultural workers. Soon after I introduced S. 984, I sent the bill to his committee and asked him for a report thereon because it dealt with certain immigration phases of our law which are usually handled by his committee. This letter from him is dated March 9, 1951, which I will ask be incorporated in the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, UNITED STATES SENATE, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. March 9, 1951. MY DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: I have your letter of March 1, 1951, enclosing a copy of the bill, S. 984, relating to the importation of agricultural workers. Attached is a memorandum containing several observations on the bill to which you may wish to give consideration when any action is taken. My kindest regards and best wishes to you. Sincerely, PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman. COMMENTS RE S. 984 1. Section 501 (1) of the bill reads: "to recruit such workers (including any such workers temporarily in the United States);". In my opinion such a provision could very well result in an increase of illegal entries. The laborers could bypass the reception centers provided for in subsection (2) of section 501 and enter the United States illegally if they know that they can be recruited in the United States. 2. Section 501 (3) of the bill authorizes the Secretary of Labor to provide transportation for such workers from recruitment centers outside the continental United States to such reception centers and transportation from such reception centers to such recruitment centers after termination of employment. It is my understanding that, under the present agreement and under procedures established for similar measures during World War II, transportation costs were provided by the prospective employers from the place of contracting to the place of employment. Likewise the cost of returning the workers to Mexico at the termination of the contract is and was borne by the employer. 3. Section 502 of the bill provides for an agreement to be entered into between employers and the United States to indemnify the United States against certain losses. Such a provision is likely to result in the United States being required to file suit in every single case where such losses occur. In my opinion, it would appear to be more appropriate if the employers were required to post a bond as is required in other cases where contract labor is imported or as was required under previous programs of this type. 4. Section 504 of the bill reads: "Workers recruited under this title who are not citizens of the United States shall be admitted to the United States subject to the immigration laws (or if already in, and otherwise eligible for admission to, the United States shall be permitted to remain therein) * "" (See comment on point 1.) * * 5. Section 504 specifically provides that no penalty bond shall be required which imposes liability upon any person for the failure of any such worker to depart from the United States upon termination of employment. In my opinion a maintenance of status and departure bond should be required as provided for in the present procedure. Otherwise the cost of any deportation proceedings against violators would have to be borne by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The CHAIRMAN. I also wish to incorporate in the record at this point a letter from American Sugar Cane League, dated March 7, 1951, from C. J. Bourg, its representative here, making two suggestions with respect to S. 984. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, AMERICAN SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: In connection with your bill, S. 984, on foreign agricultural labor, we, of the Louisiana sugar industry have been trying the idea of taking laborers after they have been used by canners in Wisconsin and Illinois or by beet growers in Michigan, or even by Florida growers, who would use them after they have served us. By reason of these arrangements, which are made largely on a friendly basis, we have been able to secure ample supplies of laborers for use in Louisiana at a minimum of cost because they are sent to us from other States, but the transportation paid by us, and after we have finished with them sometime in December or January, we are able to assign and transfer them to other farm employers who willingly pay their transportation. If it should happen that foreign laborers have to be sent back home, we naturally have to pay their transportation to the islands. This happens now and then, especially on the basis of one or two laborers. Under these circumstances, we would like to continue this arrangement without disturbance from the Labor Department, which definitely is not a friendly governmental agency, in the same manner; it involves us unnecessarily with the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization. Therefore, we believe that two slight amendments to your bill might do the trick for us. At page 1, under section 501, on line 9, strike out the word "within" and insert "on the mainland of." Then, on page 3, under section 503, we would amend your bill by striking out the words on line 25 (and including line 1 on page 4) "director of State Employment Security" and insert_in_lieu thereof "regional director of the Bureau of Employment Security, U. S. Department of Labor." These amendments do not change in any manner the obligations of the Federal Government as the payment of transportation is arranged for between the BWI and the employers. Congressman Poage of Texas has also introduced a bill, H. R. 3048, and as we understand it, his bill will provide for these amendments satisfactorily, without change. If you would accept these amendments from the standpoint of "committee amendments" I am sure it would be very helpful all around and not involve us unduly with the affairs of the Labor Department. The State of Florida is very much interested in these amendments and I am told that they have requested Senator Holland to so recommend. It he does, you can readily see and understand that we likewise would be benefited. The principal question is for us to establish a favorable working agreement with these States and to arrange to pass on our laborers to other States within the United States after we have completed the harvesting in Louisiana. With all good wishes, I am Very truly yours, C. J. BOURG. The CHAIRMAN. Does any Senator wish to make any statement before we proceed with the witnesses? Senator Hickenlooper. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I Wonder, you have inserted a number of documents in the record The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Some of which, at least, I am sure I would like to read. Will we have a print of that before The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I mean before we make up our minds on any of these matters? The CHAIRMAN. Surely. Senator HICKENLOOPER. So we can base questions perhaps upon the things that are raised in these documents that you put in the record? The CHAIRMAN. Well, the record, Senator, is printed every day. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I know, but it does not come to my office. The only thing I wondered if we would have available reasonably soon 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, |