I came to commend to you this morning three witnesses who, I understand, are here to give very general approval to your bill S. 984: Mr. Baird, of Indianola, Miss., who is chairman of the Agricultural Labor Users of the United States, who will speak of the entire problem. Mr. Keith Mets, of Holtville, Calif., who, by the way, is a native of Arizona, and I have known his family for a long time, will also address the committee; and possibly Mr. George Pickering, of Yuma. I commend them to you as men who know what they are talking about and who I know can give you valuable information with respect to the merits of the bill and how it will operate. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Did you wish to make a statement, Senator Stennis? Senator STENNIS. I have no prepared statement but I should like to make a short oral statement. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. STENNIS, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator STENNIS. I am very much interested in this matter of vital concern to our cotton industry, and I am very much in favor of the Ellender bill. I think it is fair to the laborers and it is fair to the farmers, and I believe its operation is very practical. Mr. Baird is here from Indianola, Miss., and I can also commend him to the chairman of this committee. You already know him, a gentleman of high integrity, who is well versed in his subject, and he has the confidence of the entire area of cotton producers. I commend his statement and him to you most heartily. The CHAIRMAN. I wish to say, Senator, I have had a few conferences with him, and I find him most intelligent, and he knows his subject very well. The committee, of course, will be very pleased to hear him. Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may add this word: I want to especially thank the chairman for his very painstaking and fine efforts on this subject that is of vital concern to all of us, and especially so to my State, and I think you are rendering a very fine service. I am just so glad you did take hold of it personally and give it your personal attention because I know of the competition of many things to get your time. The CHAIRMAN. You see how Senators are kind to each other. Senator STENNIS. I feel that very strongly, Senator, because I know what you are doing with this subject. The CHAIRMAN. Now that you opened the subject, I tried to get some other member of the committee to go to Mexico City, but somehow I failed, and I did not want to let it go by without some member of the committee being present. I decided to go, and I want to say I was delighted to go because it taught me a lot of things I did not otherwise know, and it sold me on the idea of the problems that face Mexico. Senator STENNIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You know a lot of people just think we ought to let things go as they used to in the past, but the country of Mexico itself has problems that we have to recognize. Senator STENNIS. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And I believe that a law that we can pass that will deal with foreign labor only, and one that will in somewhat respect the views of the great country to the south of us, is going to inure to our benefit as time goes on.. Senator STENNIS. We are certainly glad you went, and I think you rendered both nations a fine service by going down there. Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baird, will you kindly step forward, sir? Mr. Baird, will you kindly give us your name in full and tell us something about yourself for the record. STATEMENT OF J. C. BAIRD, JR., REPRESENTING THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR USERS OF THE UNITED STATES, INDIANOLA, MISS. Mr. BAIRD. My name is J. C. Baird, Jr., from Indianola, Miss. I am a cotton farmer. I own and operate my own land. I have no manager or anything. I am mostly a day-crop farmer, mechanized, and the full responsibility for dealing with all labor and all machinery is mine personally. My family has been in Mississippi-my father was born in Mississippi and we have been farming all of our lives practically, his life and my life too. So we were intimately associated with farming. Of course, it is our livelihood, and not only that, we feel that we know the problems of the farm laborers who do our work. The CHAIRMAN. I am sure you are well acquainted with our distinguished Senator from Mississippi. Mr. BAIRD. Yes, sir; I helped elect him, thank goodness. I guessed right that time. The CHAIRMAN. You did a good job, and I hope it happens again when he comes up. Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. BAIRD. For the record, I would like to introduce this list of farm operators and managers who are represented by me in making this statement. I have four or five copies of the list of names. All of these gentlemen are not here today, but most of them are. Some of them had to leave. They could not stay over. Senator THYE (presiding). They will be printed in the record and be a part of your regular statement. (The list referred to is as follows:) Agricultural labor users represented at hearing before Senate Committee on Mr. BAIRD. We would like to preface our testimony by commending Mr. Tobin, the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Goodwin, Director of the Bureau of Employment Security; Mr. Motley, Director of the United States Employment Service; and Mr. Larin, Chief of Farm Placement, for their understanding of the unique position and problems of farmers and farm labor in the over-all labor picture and for their untiring efforts to get the farm labor needed to the employer or farmer at the time needed with a minimum of red tape and restrictions. Farmers generally join with us in expressing appreciation to them for continually taking us into their councils and planning. Theirs has been a shining example to the rest of Government of the type of fruitful relationship between government and governed that should be accepted practice throughout this land. We are going out of our way to extend to these gentlemen the praise and gratitude from us farmers that they so richly merit to let you understand that when we disagree with their position as to the context of the agricultural labor legislation now being considered by you it will not be construed as a personal reflection upon them but solely as a difference in policy approach. They have in the past taken us into their confidence. They have established a National Farm Labor Advisory Committee of Employers, and they bring us in once or twice a year. Most of times they take our advice, sometimes they do not, but they are not compelled to. Senator THYE. These public hearings are for the purpose of allowing everyone to state their case, and then we take the facts as we obtain them through the hearings and develop the legislation necessary. Mr. BAIRD. Yes, sir. Senator THYE. And embody the best and the most that we can of all the suggestions. Mr. BAIRD. What I was mentioning is that the Labor Department has established these advisory contacts with us farmers, and we are commending them for it. Senator THYE. Yes. Mr. BAIRD. We oppose the granting of broad, discretionary powers to the Department of Labor for the formulation of these foreign agricultural labor policies for two reasons. 1. We are confronted on all sides by the evils and abuses of the delegation of legislative authority by the Congress to the deparments, bureaus and agencies of Government. This is not such a difficult request being asked by farmers that it cannot be handled by a minimum of red tape and regulation. To go further, I do not see how it will be handled competently in any other way. 2. We have no assurance, nor would we necessarily want any, that the personnel which has so ably and understandingly secured farm labor for us in the past will continue to direct the program. The broad powers confidently granted to these men today may be turned against the best interests of the farmer tomorrow. There may be those to come "Who knew not Ceasar." Our country was founded on and dedicated to the principle of government by law and not by people. Many of our domestic problems today are directly traceable to a departure from this rule. To further buttress the above reasons we feel that we should tell you that there are those who have no knowledge of or sympathy with our farmers or farm labor problems that are now beginning to interest themselves and in all probability will attempt to use the emergency before us to place social and political aims ahead of the very real need of this country for maximum food-and-fiber production. It has alasked for are granted, even before the broad powers that are being asked for are granted, that it should be made a condition precedent that farmers grant the same guaranties and advantages to their domestic workers that will be granted to Mexican workers before they will be allowed to contract for these alien workers. This in spite of the fact that for several years we farmers have bitterly complained of certain inequities in the Mexian national agreement for the importation of these foreign workers. Our State Department and other officials assured us that they could not get the needed labor on any other terms so we went along out of compulsion hoping each year to remove or ameliorate them by negotiation. Does it seem fair now that because it is our patriotic duty to enormously increase our production-as much as 60 percent over 1950 in the case of cotton- we are now to be saddled with these inequities when we have not even wanted to accept them in a restricted capacity in the first place? There also appears to be an administrative plan cooking as to stricter housing standards for these alien workers. Certainly we all accept the fact that our programs of improvement of living and working conditions of agricultural workers keep moving forward. We do not forget that we are dealing with people and it is not only good business but our Christian duty to recognize their needs and living conditions as human beings. May we ask, Who wants all this social uplifting at expense to the farmer he can ill afford at this time of scarce materials and evermounting costs of production? Certainly not the Mexican national. We have used them too often in the past. All they want is a chance to enter this country to work under the same working conditions as domestics and most of them only go back under protest. So, without dwelling further on this point, we farmers feel constrained to ask, Just what are we trying to achieve? Do we want allout production and do we truly need such production to the extent that all of us, including the Department of State, Department of Labor, the Bureau of Immigration, and the Naturalization Service, will keep this objective paramount in the thinking, planning and execution of our farm labor problem and the legislation before you, regardless of the pressures being applied? Or do we intend to let the issue be confused by well-meaning but ill-timed crusades into the field of social improvement and national and international horse trading at the expense of the farmer? The farmer has declared and stands ready to take the very evident risks of such all-out production of food and fiber but is it too much to ask at this time for help in getting the needed labor to do the job with, on an honorable, fair, and above-the-board basis. And how, may I ask, can the governmental agency whose responsibility it will be to recruit and make available these workers for us, do the enormous task of finding and processing all the workers that will be needed and set up a police force at the same time? No, gentlemen, not only is it grossly unfair to the farmer, worker, and agency but it is unworkable. Nor will the farmer allow himself to be maneuvered into such a situation. We are all aware that only by the achievement of these production goals of food and fiber can our ultimate victory over communism from abroad and inflation from within be assured. We wonder if that is not more important to our Nation than putting the farmer into a bureaucratic strait-jacket at enormous expense to the taxpayer. We ask you to weight carefully what will be more important, all-out production which can be achieved only by a free and trustful farm economy or moderate production because of the threat to the farmer of his inherent freedom of contract by onerous bureaucratic regulation. So ley us keep the legislation as simple and clear as possible and let it be solely a foreign labor bill. The details of the legislation should be spelled out so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the scope of the authority and powers granted. I have not wanted to burden you gentlemen but we all strongly feel that a detailed recommendation of specific legislation should not be presented until you had the real feelings of the farmer in approaching this kind of legislation. We are inherently a free and independent people and we intend to do our dead level best to keep that way. We want no special privilege or advantages given us but we do want our position in this country recognized and respected. We only want equality of treatment and as little Government interference in our business as possible. Now, as to the legislation itself. We are opposed to the Department of labor bill, S. 1106, for the reasons stated above. This bill was also rejected by the National Farm Labor Advisory Committee in January and rewtitten in its important parts. Copies of our suggested bill were made available to some members of our committee at that time. I might introduce for the record at this time the full record of this special Farm Labor Committee hearing that was held in January, with the discussions and the vote by States. The CHAIRMAN. It will be filed for the use of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. (The document referred to will be found in the files of the committee.) Mr. BAIRD. We are opposed to Senator Chavez' bill No. S. 949 for it is obvious that it makes no recognition of the inherent problems of farming, the magnitude of the production job confronting the farmer or the sound and rugged spirit of the American farmer and farm workers. I wish a greater majority of our people throughout the country were as earthy, patriotic and ideologically sound as those born and raised on the farm. Were the implications to our future economy not so serious, this position we farmers are taking to the proposed legislation by Senate bill S. 949 and the Department of Labor bill, S. 1106, would be hard to understand. Here we farmers are being offered a free ride at Government expense, even when we are not asking for it, with a promise that we will then be more certainly assured of the farm labor that all admit will be badly needed. It's pretty tempting bait, isn't it? We are in favor of Senator Ellender's bill No. S. 984 because it recognizes that we are in a period of crisis and national peril and that the farmer cannot produce the food and fiber that the Government |