7. A substantial percentage of the hired farm work force is made up of interstate migrants. "The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968," USDA, estimates there were 279,000 migrant workers in 1968, but it does not report interstate and intrastate migrants separately.

Interstate migrant workers work for a series of employers in two or more States.

Obviously, such multistate, multiemployer situations would involve major problems of determining, in each such case (1) the number of days of employment from each employer, (2) the gross earnings from each employer, (3) eligibility for benefits, (4) amount and duration of benefits, (5) the State to handle payment of benefits, (6) State program and standards which are to be considered applicable, and (7) division of administration costs and benefit payments among States. Although reciprocal interstate agreements provide for exchanging data and sharing benefit costs with respect to multistate employment, the extension of coverage to the many multistate workers in agriculture employed by a series of employers (some covered, some not)— would be an extremely complex and difficult administrative problem. That concludes our testimony, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. The balance of our statement is the statistical supporting data.

Mr. ULLMAN (presiding). Mr. Triggs, we appreciate your statement and also the supporting material.

Without

objection, both the statement and material will be included in full in the record.

(The material referred to follows:)

SUPPORTING DATA

(1) Number of farmworkers is declining

Average annual employment of hired farmworkers is declining, as illustrated below:

Note. All data are from "Farm Labor." reports of the U S. Department of Agriculture, except the projected estimate for 1969, which is calculated on the basis of employment during the first 8 months of 1969.

(2) Average period of farm employment is declining

Data for recent years indicate that the average number of days of employment of the farm labor force is declining. This is illustrated below:

Thus, the employment of farm labor is currently for a fewer number of days each year than has been the case in the past.

(3) Farm labor employment is highly seasonal

The major reasons for the temporary employment of such a large percentage of the farm work force is, of course, the seasonal nature of farming.

The scope of the variation in employment (on a national basis) is indicated below for 1968 from USDA "Farm Labor" reports:

Thus the number of farm workers employed in the peak month of July is nearly three times the number employed in January.

The variations in most States will be sharper than for the United States as a whole.

The ratio between peak employment and through employment on individual farms may typically be 1 to 20 (or more).

(4) Most farmworkers are employed on a temporary, casual, short-term basis The seasonal pattern reviewed in the preceding section results in farm employment being uniquely temporary, casual, short term.

This is indicated from the annual report of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968," in which duration of employment is estimated as follows:

(5) Most Farmworkers are not a regular part of the Nation's work force

Of the total, of 2,919,000 persons who did some farmwork during 1968 about 1,897,000 or 65 percent are very loosely attached to the Nation's hired work force, if at all. "The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968" (USDA), estimates that the chief activity of such persons was as follows:

opportunity to present testimony concerning employment security measures and their importance to the 5 million small businesses throughout the United States.

The federation now represents almost 275,000 small and independent business and professional people in the country, or approximately 1 out of every 20 businesses.

Few people today would question the importance of small business in our economic mainstream, or the wisdom of helping to maintain and strengthen its renewing influence in the economy.

Our testimony today will necessarily be limited to that portion of this unemployment compensation bill which would replace the present four employees in 20 weeks in any calendar year test for coverage by a test of $300 or more in payroll quarterly. It is so limited because this is the only area in which we have a clear mandate from our members.

Although the federation has not polled its members on the particular provisions contained in H.R. 12625, we have polled them repeatedly over the years on very similar proposals. A few years ago we submitted S. 1542 for a nationwide poll:

"S. 1542. Expand the Federal-State unemployment compensation system (Senator McCarthy, Minnesota): Under this, States would have to pay compensation for 26 weeks. Government could continue same for another 26. Benefits would rise to 50 percent of former wages. The tax would increase three-tenths percent and the taxable wage base to $5,200. Firms with one or more workers would be brought into the system."

We offered our members the following discussions on either side of the issue: "Argument for S. 1542: This bill is badly needed to bring the unemployment compensation system up to date. Joblessness is an increasing problem, with more people out of work for longer periods. Steps taken by Congress to promote prosperity and increase jobs haven't solved the problem. Twice within the past years Congress has had to take emergency steps to keep the system intact. This bill would help tide workers over while retraining for new jobs and getting placed. It would insure the financial soundness of the system at minimum additional costs."

"Argument against S. 1542: There is no need for this bill. Even without Federal prompting, the States have been improving their unemployment compensation systems. Weekly benefits have increased (relative to 1939) faster than the rise in the cost of living. In most States, benefits today are double those of the 1939 era, and in some even more. Two other factors must be kept in mind. While the rate of joblessness remains relatively high, many jobs are still going begging. Second, the bill would increase business overhead, and weaken ability to expand." Some 88 percent of our members voted against the bill.

Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, on behalf of our members we would like to ask a simple question, and this is it: "Is there a doctor in the house?"-specifically a physician to treat the schizophrenia that seems to have broken out in governmental attitudes toward small business?

For instance, as we understand it, and as our members understand it, the attitude of succeeding administrations and Congresses, including the current administration and Congress, toward small business

is spelled out clearly in section 202 of the Small Business Act of 1965, which reads, in part, as follows:

The essence of the American economic system of private enterprise is free competition. Only through full and free competition can free markets, free entry into business, and opportunities for the expression and growth of personal initiative and individual judgment be assured. The preservation and expansion of such competition is basic not only to the economic well-being but to the security of this Nation. Such security and well-being cannot be realized unless the actual and potential capacity of small business is encouraged and developed. Yet, gentlemen, within the past year we have seen done or proposed many things which absolutely contradict this fine expression of policy. Among these have been the gradual choking off of the ability of the Small Business Administration to assist in all phases of existing programs that would provide financial assistance to small businesses, proposals,-now nearly actuality-for repeal of the 7-percent investment credit which has been so useful in assisting the financing of small business modernizations made absolutely essential in order that by increasing productivity these units might compensate for increased cost and thus remain competitive and now this proposal contained in H.R. 12625.

What would this phase of H.R. 12625 do? By substituting for the current coverage test of four employees in 20 weeks a new test of $300 or more in payroll in any quarter, it would blanket into the unemployment system an additional estimated 1,600,000 employees of small business.

Now, fully recognizing the security needs and desires of these employees all quite understandable and legitimate-we think it only just to ask a question about the additional cost burdens which are possible. After all, it is acknowledged by experts in economics, and indicated in our continuing economic surveys, that small business is already undergoing a severe financial squeeze. We must all assent to the statement that a weakened goose cannot produce high quality golden eggs-employment, wage, or security wise.

In computing these cost burdens let us assume that newly covered employees will be averaging $4,800 yearly in earnings, and that newly covered employees will, in 1972, be required to pay into the unemployment compensation system an average 3.1 percent of payrolls subject to the unemployment compensation tax. This is an assumption because rates vary among the States and because experience-rating does change the tax burden, and further because there is no certainty that these employees will be averaging $4,800 yearly.

On this basis, however, the newly covered small business employers would have added to their costs, that year, for 1,600,000 employees, an additional burden totaling some $236,800,000 yearly, or an average $148 additional per employee. Carrying forward these assumptions to 1974 and later, this additional burden could rise to $297,000,000, or an average $186 per employee.

In the meantime, what is involved in the current effort for repeal of the 7-percent investment credit, with no exception for small business? The results of our economic survey during 1967 furnish some indications.

In that survey we asked our members if they had purchased equipment during the past year, and whether in so doing they had taken

opportunity to present testimony concerning employment security measures and their importance to the 5 million small businesses throughout the United States.

The federation now represents almost 275,000 small and independent business and professional people in the country, or approximately 1 out of every 20 businesses.

Few people today would question the importance of small business in our economic mainstream, or the wisdom of helping to maintain and strengthen its renewing influence in the economy.

Our testimony today will necessarily be limited to that portion of this unemployment compensation bill which would replace the present four employees in 20 weeks in any calendar year test for coverage by a test of $300 or more in payroll quarterly. It is so limited because this is the only area in which we have a clear mandate from our members.

Although the federation has not polled its members on the particular provisions contained in H.R. 12625, we have polled them repeatedly over the years on very similar proposals. A few years ago we submitted S. 1542 for a nationwide poll:

"S. 1542. Expand the Federal-State unemployment compensation system (Senator McCarthy, Minnesota): Under this, States would have to pay compensation for 26 weeks. Government could continue same for another 26. Benefits would rise to 50 percent of former wages. The tax would increase three-tenths percent and the taxable wage base to $5,200. Firms with one or more workers would be brought into the system."

We offered our members the following discussions on either side of the issue: "Argument for S. 1542: This bill is badly needed to bring the unemployment compensation system up to date. Joblessness is an increasing problem, with more people out of work for longer periods. Steps taken by Congress to promote prosperity and increase jobs haven't solved the problem. Twice within the past years Congress has had to take emergency steps to keep the system intact. This bill would help tide workers over while retraining for new jobs and getting placed. It would insure the financial soundness of the system at minimum additional costs."

"Argument against S. 1542: There is no need for this bill. Even without Federal prompting, the States have been improving their unemployment compensation systems. Weekly benefits have increased (relative to 1939) faster than the rise in the cost of living. In most States, benefits today are double those of the 1939 era, and in some even more. Two other factors must be kept in mind. While the rate of joblessness remains relatively high, many jobs are still going begging. Second, the bill would increase business overhead, and weaken ability to expand.” Some 88 percent of our members voted against the bill.

Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, on behalf of our members we would like to ask a simple question, and this is it: "Is there a doctor in the house?"-specifically a physician to treat the schizophrenia that seems to have broken out in governmental attitudes toward small business?

For instance, as we understand it, and as our members understand it, the attitude of succeeding administrations and Congresses, including the current administration and Congress, toward small business