thought, to December 31, possibly to January 31. If this bill does not pass and no other act is passed, then that housing will be disposed of on open sale. It will be bought by contractors who wish to dispose of it for their own profit, and it will be lost to the very urgent need of agricultural housing in the West.

Whatever the committee decides to do, it seems to me that there are three elemental points in the bill:

First, that there should be some sort of Federal supervision over the exchange of peak labor under the proper conditions. Without a bill you would have the exchange of labor just the same, because labor would go from place to place seeking work in agriculture, but it would go without direction, it would go without supervision and without the help that it has now.

Second, the possibility of continuing under Immigration Bureau inspection at the expense of the farmers, the importation of the necessary extra labor which we have had for 40 years, if local labor is not available.

Third, the disposition of the housing, so that instead of being sold and thus lost to labor's use, it may be retained for agriculture labor.

I am sorry to say, and I say this from experience, that if we had 100,000 people on relief in the West and we had a need for agricultural labor, that does not mean that we would necessarily get the agricultural labor from the people who were on compensation insurance or on relief. There are certain types of agricultural labor that are difficult to do for the untrained person. One type is called stoop labor. It is a hard and tedious type of field labor-weeding, picking, and thinning.

Another kind of work has to do with the picking of certain commodities. There are workers who can pick certain agricultural commodities better than other groups can and those things all enter into a picture, which I say again requires the cooperation of all of us. I think the bill is necessary.

Thank you, Mrs. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Phillips, that is an interesting and a very helpful statement. We certainly appreciate your coming over here. The fact that you give this measure your approval and support means a good deal to the committee that is considering the bill. Representative PHILLIPS. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Rev. William J. Gibbons?

Reverend Gibbons is on the board of directors of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and speaks on behalf of the National Conference of Catholic Charities.

We are glad to have you here, Reverend Gibbons.

STATEMENT OF REV. WILLIAM J. GIBBONS, S. J., BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE CONFERENCE, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES

Reverend GIBBONS. Thank you, Senator.

I am speaking on behalf of the National Conference of Catholic Charities, whose executive director is unable to be present because he is still out of the country in connection with refugees.

64582- -47- --10

The National Conference of Catholic Charities, on whose behalf I speak, is a Nation-wide organization of Catholic welfare departments and social welfare workers. In various parts of the country its member diocesan units have direct contacts with numerous cases involving migrant agricultural workers.

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference, in matters affecting the land, expresses the interests of some 80' dioceses, practically all of them predominantly rural in character.

We look for a constructive, long-range program, of national scope, calculated to reduce to a minimum the economic, social, and moral hazards associated with the transit and employment of large numbers of migratory workers. We favor the constructive approach taken by the Federal Interagency Committee on Migrant Labor, whose report and suggestions were recently submitted.

At this point I would like to indicate both of these conferences recognize the fact that some sort of a program on a national scale is needed for several reason: First, it is impossible to coordinate the information about labor's needs, crop conditions, and employment conditions unless you have some agencies to exchange the information between the various States.

The second reason is that we believe that in no other way, except by having national supervision, can we hope to protect the migrant workers and their working conditions, housing, health and medical needs, child care and education, and general social welfare.

Seasonal work of a migratory kind, especially when families are involved in the moving, has harmful effects upon family life, and upon the health and education of the children. We would like to see this kind of work kept to a minimum. In any case everything reasonable should be done to safeguard families and children from the dangers accompanying such seasonal work.

We recognize that a certain amount of mobility in agricultural labor is inseparable from contemporary farm practices. Without additional seasonal workers the planting and harvesting of crops, and consequently the feeding of our cities, could not continue on the present scale.

In farming areas of high commercialization the ratio of seasonal workers to farm operators and their families is greater than in areas doing other types of farming. In the prewar year of 1939, for example, some 11 percent-650,000-of our farms produced over half the agricultural products marketed. These farms of high production employed between 50 and 60 percent of the farm labor force, depending on the season. I mean there the seasonal farm labor force.

The use of seasonal labor in agriculture is, therefore, largely a commercial proposition. Before adoption of any permanent farm labor plan and appropriation of funds for its maintenance, these questions may be asked: Are the generally unorganized and underprivileged workers adequately protected? Do the benefits of the program accrue solely or primarily to large commercial growers so that they receive what amounts to an indirect subsidy of their operational procedures?

At this point I would like to insert that we realize the need for a certain amount of large operational procedures in agriculture, espe cially in specialized crops. However, when we hear the view pre

sented that the need is for the farmers and we do not hear insistence placed upon the rights of the workers and upon the welfare of other workers who may be unemployed in other parts of the country, we are surprised because one cannot consider the agricultural economy in isolation from the rest of the economy. One cannot talk about agriculture as if it were separated from the employment of workers in industrial areas.

Family-type farmers, of course, would be in a type apart but large commercial operations employing workers by the hour or by the week, or whatever the arrangement may be, are in many respects comparable to industries in the cities or in other areas and therefore we feel that in general employment arrangements should be such that transfer of such workers can be efficiently effected.

This is not to say the country has no need of a national farm labor program. On the contrary, without such a program, abuses in the recruitment, care, and housing of workers will continue. We cannot restrict recruitment of seasonal labor to intrastate limits without running the risk of impeding migration of labor from areas of oversupply to those of undersupply. The localities lacking workers would suffer economic losses, while workers in well-supplied areas would see their wages and working conditions deteriorate, especially in the offseason months.

Something can be accomplished in the direction of better utilization of intrastate labor forces through integration of agricultural work with seasonal industry. At the present time, however, such a development is a long way off, since many of the states with an oversupply of rural workers are as yet insufficiently industrialized. Meanwhile, we cannot afford to expose the agricultural workers, or for that matter the farmers either, to the dangers consequent to a complete lack of a national farm labor program.

In view of the realities of the situation it seems the task of the Federal Government to see that at least interstate migration of agricultural labor is carried on in an orderly way and that both workers and growers live up to their obligations so far as these are not enforced or not enforceable by the State and local communities.

By advocating Government supervision of interstate migratory labor I am not recommending subsidization of the large commercial growers. These should be obligated to pay proper wages and provide decent working conditions which would attract workers when needed. If such wages were paid and such working conditions enforced, the problem of agricultural labor would in large measure be solved.

I might add there that in many instances there would be no need of importation of foreign laborers because domestic labor will not take the jobs.

Understandably, many American industrial workers, even when employed, hesitate to undertake certain farm labor jobs, especially of the "stoop" variety. But the failure of agricultural seasonal working conditions to advance at an equal rate with general conditions in industry has done more than anything else to drain away potential workers from certain areas. Part of the picture, is, of course, the unorganized condition of most farm labor. Obstacles have repeatedly been put in the way of proper organization and equitable collective bargaining. Subsequently, when farm labor runs short,

demands are made by large growers for importation of foreign workers from Mexico and elsewhere.

While the bill before the committee, S. 1334, takes into consideration the need for an integrated national farm labor program, in our opinion, it proves inadequate in other respects. To be specific:

1. A systematic farm labor program is permanently set up on the national and State level-section 2-requiring considerable expenditure of Federal funds, yet under section 5 it is provided no fundsshall be expended directly or indirectly to fix, regulate, impose, or enforce collective-bargaining requirements, wage rates, housing standards, hours of work, or union membership with respect to agricultural workers.

In short, the large growers, chief beneficiaries of such a labor service, would escape any effective Federal supervision of their labor policies, in the forwarding of which the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to "cooperate."

2. Wide powers are granted the Secretary of Agriculture to certify the need for continued importation of foreign farm labor on a temporary basis. We recognize, of course, that this need has to be certificated. Nevertheless, restrictions are not laid down. Such an arrangement is calculated to keep down the wages and working standards of our domestic farm labor, by making possible the temporary importation of cheap foreign labor whenever commercial farm enterprises fail to attract American workers. If more agricultural workers are needed in some rural areas surely a more logical solution would be to permit entry of genuine European refugees with rural background who are willing to settle down and take on our way of

life.

3. In the arrangement under the bill for recruiting farm labor precedence is given to the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture and to the State extension services. While these are directed to "cooperate" with other agencies, including public employment agencies, apparently the primary job lies with extension. If a genuine integration of seasonal agricultural labor and industrial labor is desired, then the employment services would seem to be the logical agencies for recruitment. In any case extension's task is primarily adult education of farmers and their families. It is difficult to see why extension should take over labor and other functions unless we wish to progressively isolate agriculture from the rest of the economy. I would like to insert at this point that we recognize the excellent work done by extension and we would not wish to cast any aspersions upon its work, especially in the war emergency. However, we do feel that its function should be primarily the collection of crop data and the designating of needs in various areas for seasonal workers. Once that is done then it seems to be more properly the function of the publicly established employment agencies to do the actual recruiting and placement.

4. The present bill (sec. 7) wants labor camps and centers disposed of or sold to farmers and farmers' organizations exclusively, although the Federal Government is apparently to continue paying part of their upkeep. Logically, disposal should be made in favor of workers themselves, or the States or civic organizations and communities. For the time being at least the continuance and even expansion of federally

operated camps, both as demonstration projects and to care for situations otherwise unprovided for, seems to us desirable.

I would like to add that we are not in favor of the hasty liquidation of these camps and therefore feel that some legislation in that regard is necessary in order that the business of labor centers may be adjusted satisfactorily, which cannot be done if this position is to be carried out, should no legislation be passed.

5. The bill fails to incorporate strong recommendations of the Interagency Committee (on migratory labor) report as to:

(a) Regulation of transportation of workers, either between or within the States, although serious overcrowding of vehicles, neglect of safety precautions, and other abuses are known to exist; (b) Regulation of labor contractors, even of those recruiting across State boundaries or importing foreign labor;

(c) Encouragement of collective bargaining; rather the bill discourages it.

I do not mean that the Government's function is actually to do the collective bargaining or arrange for it, but at least we should not discourage it.

(d) Insuring that child labor and education laws will be observed;

(e) Adequate health services for imported laborers or others not provided for, in our opinion.

There is arrangement under the bill for health services to be set up by the growers and associations of farmers with the Secretary of Agriculture through the Extension Services cooperating. However, we are afraid that abuses may readily creep in under certain voluntary prepayment plans which are suggested in the bill unless adequate supervision is given.

In conclusion, we wish to see established an adequate farm labor program, designed to meet the needs and protect the rights of all concerned. The present bill, S. 1334, recognizes the need for a permanent program on the national level. In that we concur, in principle.

It fails, however, to take into consideration certain abuses which exist and from which workers, for the most part unorganized, must be protected. It provides for considerable expenditure of Federal funds in favor of large commercial growers, in what amounts to a subsidization of their labor operations, without at the same time exacting from them observance of minimum standards of housing, wages, and hours, continuity of employment, transportation safety, and like measures. The bill makes no provision for curtailment of child labor abuses, scattered it is true, which are known to exist. It gives no assurance of better educational standards and school attendance for the children of migrants, especially of non-English speaking parents who may not know their rights or may be discriminated against for racial reasons. As drafted, the bill will most likely have the result of encouraging the continuance of present seasonal labor practices, without cutting down either the number of migrants or the abuses to which they are exposed.

That is our position, Senator Capper. We are for a national program in principle, but we think that it should incorporate much more exacting measures for the supervision of migrant labor, both between