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,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

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.

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. The 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,
Sincerely,

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

in general, it will largely be a matter of being able to get farm machinery and repair parts, as well as twine and baling wire for hay balers. If ample farm machinery and repair parts are made available and with favorable weather, 1951 production of grain will remain in my State at a high level, adequate to meet its share of the Nation's food requirements and grain feeds for livestock. But if our share of beet sugar is to be produced and that share of livestock production, dependent upon proper crop rotation and sugar-beet byproducts, is to be maintained, I feel certain that seasonal beet workers in considerable numbers may have to be provided through Government assistance. Particularly is this true with respect to smaller sugar-beet producers.

Great progress and expansion in sugar beet machinery, particularly harvesters, loaders, and trucks, has occurred in my State during and since World War II, but the small producer, not being able to stand the overhead cost of this machinery, must still depend largely on hand labor, and even the larger growers still require some hand labor.

Very few of our beet laborers come from local or resident sources. Most of them come from areas many hundreds of miles away. In abnormal times, such as the present, our normal sources of such labor, consisting largely of SpanishAmericans from Texas and New Mexico, are no longer available.

S. 984, in general, would seem to meet the needs of most areas at a minimum cost to both the employer and the Government. Certainly both should share in such cost; but, unless some provision were made for the Government to stand a higher share of the cost than this bill contemplates, the cost to the beet grower in my State is still prohibitive.

We must not forget some of the very real problems with which our growers are faced. Even if there were no cost to the grower for recruitment, guaranty of employment, medical care, etc., the cost would still be very high. Our experience during the war showed that even when the Government stood the expense of bringing in a trainload of Mexican nationals, they arrived oftentimes in a snowstorm with no shoes, no underwear, gloves or warm clothes. Often the grower had to fully equip these men with new shoes, cap, gloves, underwear, coats, etc., before he could even take them to his farm.

A few of these men were experienced and excellent workers; many more were willing to learn and developed into fair workers. But, in many cases, the majority were office workers, chauffeurs, professional workers, or even just pleasure seekers that had never seen a beet field. At best, the grower has only a very few weeks in which to thin or harvest this expensive crop. If it is not thinned when it should be, the crop is, of course, a failure. If it is not harvested before winter

sets in, it is an entire loss. Some morning the grower would find that it had snowed during the night, and as much as one-half of his workers had "gone over the hill." Under the provisions of this bill, for the privilege of thus losing his crop, he would be required to pay transportation for the return of a worker whom he had fitted out in warm clothing and would have probably paid $50 to $75 transportation cost to get him, but whom he no longer had.

I could mention many other details showing why, at best labor secured through an emergency farm labor program is most expensive to the producer. Suffice it to say that my growers will ask for no labor if it is humanly possible for them to operate without it, because, as I have said, it would be extremely expensive for them to do so.

I respectfully suggest that S. 984 be so amended that the grower not be required to pay transportation for more than 500 miles, or more than 1,000 miles round trip, the latter only if the worker is willing and does stay until the job is done. Only if this or some similar provision is contained in this legislation, can producers from States far removed from the source of this transported labor avail themselves of any such workers. Without it, the cost to the employer per effective worker could conceivably be as high as $4 to $5 per working day, plus wages. No crop can be produced under such a handicap.

In conclusion, I might add that certain groups of workers, such as Jamaicans, proved to be totally unsuited for work in the sugar beet fields, where the climate is as cold and precipitation as great as it normally is during the thinning and beet harvesting seasons in my State. Spanish-American workers provide the normal and best source of labor for such work. Puerto Ricans and Filipinos over the years have proven to be good workers, when available. Perhaps a few boatloads of Filipinos and displaced South Koreans could be provided through an arrangement whereby a few naval vessels returning from the Korean War area could be used for their transport.

Thank you.

STATEMENT FILED BY FELIX S. COHEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D. C.

As general counsel for the Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc., a national organization headed by Oliver La Farge of Santa Fe, N. Mex., and as attorney for the All-Pueblo Council of New Mexico, the San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona, the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, comprising approximately 37,000 American Indians, I should like to urge upon this committee favorable consideration of the Chavez-Yorty bill (S. 949; H. R. 2955).

We particularly commend section 3 (c) of this bill which guarantees to American Indians who are farm workers the same protection and benefits that may be extended under the proposed legislation to other farm workers. Too often in the past, American Indians have been excluded from general programs designed to benefit our rural population. Until very recently, the vast majority of American Indians were excluded, by administrative decisions, from participation in the benefits of the Farm Housing Act. To this day, Indian crippled children in Arizona are denied the right to participate in the crippled children's aid program, as a result of State decisions which are inconsistent with our national ideals of equality before the law. In every welfare program, the Indian must battle for equality of treatment, and Indians throughout the country will be grateful to Senator Chavez and Congressman Yorty for including in this farm labor bill a specific guaranty that they will participate equally with their non-Indian neighbors in the benefits of a farm labor program.

Of the 37,000 or so Indians whom I represent, more than 30,000 are accustomed to farm work. The chief sources of income of all these tribes are their crops and their livestock. Reservation resources are inadequate to provide a decent American standard of living. Poor housing and poor health blight Indian reservation life. Access to off-reservation agricultural employment, such as would be facilitated by the pending bill, S. 949, can effect a substantial increase in Indian income and a general raising of Indian living standards. To the extent that these things

can be accomplished, the burden which now falls upon the United States of maintaining a Bureau of Indian Affairs at a cost of approximately $80,000,000 a year can be substantially reduced.

Basically, the Indian does not seek special treatment or segregation. He would like to participate fully in the benefits of the American economic system from which he has been so long excluded. It is very hard for some Indians that I know in the Southwest, in Montana, and in the Dakotas, to understand why the Federal Government takes so much more interest in bringing foreign workers to the cotton fields and the beet fields than it takes in bringing Indians across the reservation lines that separate their own poor lands from the productive farms of their neighbors.

There is no animus or resentment in the Indian's attitude toward workers who have been transported great distances to perform farm labor in areas not far from Indian reservations. Yet there is a very strong feeling that the Federal Government ought not to neglect those minority groups in our own land who seek a full share of the benefits that should be available to all Americans without discrimination.

We

We

We hope that this committee will give favorable consideration to S. 949. particularly commend the positive concern which this bill embodies for improved health and working conditions in situations where Indians, because of language difficulties or lack of education, have often been victimized in the past. commend also the provision in section 7 that representatives of agricultural workers shall have a voice in working out the administration of the program that S. 949 would launch.

STATEMENT FIled by Jacob S. Poтofsky, PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND CHAIRMAN, CIO COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The policies adopted by the United States Government in regard to agricultural labor have profound effects not only on the immediate welfare of our own people but also on our standing with other nations whose friendship we value. The CIO is concerned with both types of effect.

We appreciate the need for an adequate supply of workers to produce and harvest essential crops. We believe that decent wages and living conditions will help assure such a supply and can be afforded by our Nation.

American workers, including Puerto Ricans, should have the first opportunity to accept agricultural jobs. If foreigners need to be brought into this country to perform the work, they should be given decent treatment, and their wages and other conditions should not be permitted to undermine American standards. We trust that the immediate desire of growers for help will not be permitted to override proper consideration of these basic objectives.

We urge you to support, as we do, the general line of approach incorporated in the Chavez bill, S. 949. We urge you not to endorse the Ellender bill, S. 984, which ignores the problems of American workers, and without proper safeguards, would flood the Nation with foreign workers, many of them illegal entrants.

The Chavez bill provides a reasonable program for supplying agricultural workers The measure authorizes the Secretary of Labor, among other things, to provide for the recruitment, training, and placement of farm workers, with preference to our own citizens, including Puerto Ricans. He may furnish them transportation, health and medical care, and housing, including labor supply centers, labor camps and homes, and child care centers. The placement of workers under this bill shall be made only if the employers agree to meet certain standards. These standards include payment of wages not less than prevailing wage rates determined for the crop and area by a National Farm Labor Board; payment of the workers in cash at specified intervals; and guaranteed employment or wages for not less than 75 percent of the work period with the employer. Living and working conditions shall also conform to standards established by the Secretary of Labor with the assistance of the Farm Labor Board. Employers must comply with applicable labor laws, and obtain workmen's compensation or other insurance to protect the workers in case of occupational accidents or diseases and to pay all expenses for hospital, medicines and medical attention necessitated by such accidents and diseases.

The right of agricultural labor to organize and bargain collectively is recognized and protected by removing the exclusion of agricultural labor from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

These sections of the Chavez bill, by making farm jobs more attractive, would in themselves increase the number of workers in the continental United States willing to fill the jobs. The Department of Labor would actively assist such persons to find the jobs. The Department would also be empowered to develop a constructive program for bringing in persons from Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands. We believe that such workers should have preference over those from foreign countries since our obligation to the former is greater.

If, in spite of this program, the supply of agricultural labor is still too limited, the Chavez bill would authorize the Secretary of Labor to develop and apply a constructive program for their importation. This is the point at which the Ellender bill would start to operate. However, the Chavez bill provides much more effective safeguards. It has sounder machinery, with labor participation, for determining whether workers are needed in a given area. The Ellender bill leaves this responsibility to the various State employment office directors, who are not in a position to make these determinations effectively. The Chavez bill provides that a tripartite National Farm Labor Board shall determine need after public hearings in particular areas in respect to particular crops.

In exercising his authority to provide transportation we believe the Secretary of Labor may well distinguish between temporary and permanent migration. For workers within the United States, the expense of the latter more often will properly be met from Government funds. Wherever practical, the Secretary should attempt to have the growers themselves meet the cost of transportation, especially for temporary migrants.

If foreign workers are required, they are entitled under the Chavez bill, to receive the same conditions offered to American workers. This provision gives reasonable protection to both groups, and is likewise fair to the growers. Like other segments of the American economy, agriculture should seek to become prosperous through decent wages, not substandard conditions. I do not mean to imply by this that the Chavez bill sets as high standards for agricultural labor as we would like to see. The minimum provisions in regard to insurance are taken from an agreement with Mexico and in our opinion are too low.

We specifically oppose two other provisions of the Ellender bill, namely one to legalize the employment of "wetbacks", who have entered the country illegally from Mexico, and another to exempt foreign workers from the payroll tax and protection of the Social Security Act. This exemption would be another blow at the maintenance of decent standards for agricultural workers. American growers should not be permitted to hire foreign workers more cheaply than Americans.