4. The voluntary health and medical-care arrangements approved in the bill cannot but prove inadequate, since some irresponsible growers will abuse the permission to make deductions and demand prepayments, inasmuch as most of the workers are unorganized and a great number are not in a position to suitably vindicate their rights.

5. In view of existing migratory-worker problems arising from poor housing, wages-and-hours disputes, contracts, and so forththe provision of H. R. 3367-section 5-forbidding use of funds to regulate such matters gives no promise of a satisfactory labor program. On the contrary, it puts a Federal agency, or a State extension agency, in the position of having to cooperate on a basis of equality with private groups perhaps guilty of labor abuses.

6. The existing federally sponsored camps should not be disposed of or liquidated except where proper legal safeguards are present to insure their maintenance on satisfactory levels. For the time being, at least, such federally sponsored camps should be extended and developed to insure proper housing of migrants. In no case should their disposal be such, as to prevent purchase by State or local communities for operation as community camps.

CONCLUSION

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference would like to see the number of migratory workers in agriculture cut to the minimum. It believes that this can be done by an intelligent agricultural policy favorable to the family farm and more specifically by an integrated labor recruitment program which gives priority to the recruitment and employment of local or intrastate labor. With the minimization of very large agricultural operations, this decrease in the number of national migratory workers could be effected. In any case, the conference does not wish to see the large growers positively favored or put in a position where they can dominate agricultural labor policies and programs. This would be a reversal of traditional American farm policy.

The conference draws attention to the definitely bad effects which migratory labor has upon family life, child welfare and education, and upon the future educational, health, economic, and moral standards of our country. It must be kept to a minimum and every effort expended to prevent the abuses which are known to accompany it when not properly supervised and regulated by a legally established

agency.

I would like to add a few points. The first point is that we realize that some sort of national program is necessary, and we are not opposed to it in principle. In fact, not only is it necessary but it is desirable, because in no way could an orderly removal of seasonal labor be assured. Without this orderly removal of seasonal labor between States you would have a maldistribution of your labor force and a consequent reduction of living standards.

The second point is that only by coordination of activities on a national level through some State or governmental agency-that is, national agency-could migrant labor be supervised properly and abuses he prevented. But because we favor such national program we do not feel that the primary purpose of the program should be

purely educational but rather merely supervisory. We feel that the farmers themselves should bear the costs of the recruitment of labor and of its placement. For the most part, except in emergencies, we think they should be forced to provide decent housing standards and minimum standards of wages, that they should be compelled to live up to health regulations and the other needs of the farm community and the farm workers, and if this is done the funds would be much better expended than they would be by merely pouring them into recruitment and an educational program which amounts to nothing else than the extension of the Extension Service to an even greater width.

With this I would like to conclude my testimony. I want to make it clear that we do not stand against a national program, but we do stand against this bill and some of its specific provisions, or, rather, its omissions.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your statement. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cooley.

Mr. COOLEY. On page 4, Reverend Gibbons, under the heading of "Collective bargaining," you say this:

An agricultural labor program, supported in whole or in part by Federal funds, should have within its scope the supervision of such agreements, at least to the extent that they are not supervised by State agencies.

What is your objection to permitting the State agencies to supervise such collective-bargaining agreements, if such agreements were made?

Reverend GIBBONS. I have no objection to them supervising the agreements if the agreements are made. I fact, I do not think the Federal Government should interfere unless there is a question that the State agency is not doing its duty. But I do think, because the movement of agricultural labor is frequently interstate, and since they recruit at one place and frequently work at a far-distant place, someone must see to it, because of their transient status, that their status as workers is not below that of resident industrial workers, agricultural workers, or any other workers.

Mr. COOLEY. The migratory-labor problem is not national in scope; it is restricted to practically few States in this Union. Why should the Federal Government set up an agency to supervise migratory labor except in certain sections of the West? For instance, in California they have a migratory-labor problem and maybe a little bit in Arizona and some in Florida, but in the majority of States of this Union labor is not moving about like a bunch of gypsies.

Reverend GIBBONS. Fortunately not. We realize the number of migratory workers-our estimates vary-at no time is over several million and usually considerably less than that.

Mr. COOLEY. Why is it that everybody should assume the Congress of the United States should recognize and accept migratory labor as an American institution and encourage it by making it easy to transport them and their families and drag them from one end of this country to the other just because they have got some fellow at the head of them who is unwilling to sit down and stay in one place?

Reverend GIBBONS. First of all, I do not think we should encourage it. We do not want it, but we have to recognize the existence of the

institution and also recognize that certain of our practices are encouraging, or at least tolerating, the growth of tremendous agricultural enterprises which are nothing but factories in the field, and they are definitely creating a need for such labor. I would also like to say it is frequently not a question of people not wanting to settle down, it is not the pull of a better economic condition elsewhere, but it is frequently the push of poor conditions where they live.

Mr. COOLEY. Most of those people ultimately go back home to those bad conditions you mentioned. They get in the old jallopy and ride all over the country and finally wind up in the place they originally started from, San Antonio, Tex., or some place like that. We have got a lot of institutions in America, and we do not have to encourage this as one of them. During the war I was perfectly willing to sit here as a Member of Congress and support labor camps, or anything else to encourage the production of agricultural commodities, but now that the war is over I would like to vote for a bill that would stop this migration of labor.

Reverend GIBBONS. We are willing to do that, but if we do so we have to vote also for other things, and that is to stop encouragement or toleration of very large agricultural enterprises.

Mr. COOLEY. You know, we cannot overemphasize the family sized farm. I think the more labor camps we have, the more health facilities we provide, the more we are encouraging this migration of labor, which I am opposed to.

Reverend GIBBONS. I would like to modify that in this way and say if you put the burden of the cost on the farmers themselves then I think you have another story. They have to cut down their operations, because you are making them provide things that some of them are not providing now.

Mr. COOLEY. Any activity on the part of the Federal Government should be merely supervisory, not to the extent of providing the facilities of transportation and all the rest of it. It costs more to transport some of the migrants from 800 miles south, from Mexico City to Portland, Oreg., and back than the ordinary income of the farmer in the South amounts to.

. Mr. MURRAY. I want to compliment Reverend Gibbons on his splendid testimony and I subscribe to it 100 percent. I think the story you are giving us is as follows: If we had the right agricultural objective and promoted family sized farms, this migratory farm labor would never have reached the proportions it does at the present time. If we spent more time trying to give people a chance to live on land of their own we wouldn't have so much migratory farm labor. Until that time arrives it is necessary to give these people the protection that you recommend.

Reverend GIBBONS. That is right, especially if you are going to import them.

Mr. MURRAY. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Reverend Gibbons, for. your constructive statement.

Mr. John J. Riggle, representing the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, was here earlier in the morning. He was called over to the Senate committee and he left word if he did not get back before the committee adjourned he would like to file a statement for the

record, and he has left his statement with us. Without objection, it will go in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. RIGGLE ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES ON H. R. 3367, A BILL TO PROVIDE AN INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE EFFECTIVE USE OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR

My name is John J. Riggle, secretary of the labor-management committee of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

Our interest in this bill lies in the fact that farmer cooperative marketing associations are engaged in marketing farm products for their members. The returns to farmers are predicated on the prompt planting, cultivating, and harvesting of these products, most of which are highly perishable. Delay and inefficiency in cultural and harvesting operations because of lack of skilled labor at the proper time is a prime cause of economic losses to producers and to the marketing agencies which depend on quality and steady volume for their successful operations.

This bill provides an informational and educational program for farm producers and agricultural workers. It sets up a means of their working out for themselves effective labor recruiting, routing, training, and utilization programs. The program will be on a par educationally and administratively with other programs of extension education and service in the field of farm production. Research in farm-labor utilization is provided for in Public Law No. 733, and this bill would provide for adopting research results and on-the-ground information to immediate production needs, and carrying workable practices to the farmers and agricultural workers.

The farmers individually or through their associations would carry the costs of recruitment, transportation, and housing. The Department of Agriculture and land-grant colleges and universities, would provide the information and educational services. Such a service would be one more factor in rapidly increasing development of more economic farm production.

With a high rate of employment in industrial, commercial, and service occupations in sight several years ahead, allowing for some fluctuations, farm labor is not going to be in surplus. Its distribution over the areas of need, both as to timing and location, is a problem needing over-all coordination in behalf of both employers and workers.

Under this proposal, provisions for complete and timely information on job location and job training in unfamiliar jobs, particularly for newly mechanized operations, will be a valuable service to workers.

Migratory labor has become a permanent feature of our farm production operations. Labor relation problems and working conditions are important factors in present and future farm employment practices. Urban competition for rural labor has brought this about-first adjacent to large cities, now 'to more distant areas.

Adjustment of the manual labor force to electrification and mechanization involves new management problems, and new employee problems. Housing problems require organized producer approach, much technical information and special services.

Under the terms of previous acts, the group housing and labor camps, which were constructed to house farm laborers, are to be liquidated by January 31, 1948. This bill provides that instead of being sold for tourist camps and other nonfarm enterprises, such camps shall be disposed of to farm labor associations. In order that the farmers may be able to finance the camp cost, the bill authorizes the land banks and the banks for cooperatives of the Farm Credit Administration to make loans on proper terms to individual farmers and associations of farmers, for the amortized purchase and construction of such camps. It is well to point out that such labor association camps constitute a convenient method of housing workers in which small producers can participate. Most larger growers provide their own housing centers for their workers.

The bill provides for cooperation with the State employment offices in routing suitable nonfarm applicants for jobs to farm employers. It also provides that when domestic workers are not available for certain special jobs, permits may be obtained from the immigration authorties and State Department, for farmer employers, at their own expense, to recruit and transport foreign workers to

their operations on temporary entrance permits, and return such workers at the expiration of their agreement, to their native land.

The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives endorses the principles, objectives and type of program organization proposed in this bill as a necessary contribution of our extension services to economic farm production.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we have with us also this morning Mr. Elmer J. Hewitt, vice president of the Meat Cannery and Farm Workers Union.

STATEMENT OF ELMER J. HEWITT, VICE PRESIDENT, MEAT

CANNERY AND FARM WORKERS UNION

Mr. HEWITT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Elmer J. Hewitt, vice president of the Meat Cannery and Farm Workers Union, Local No. 56 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, affiliated with the A. F. of L. My office is located in the Stanley Building, Bridgeton, N. J. My union is vigorously opposed to this bill.

In order to save the committee time may I say that we endorse the statement and recommendations made previously by H. L. Mitchell, president of the National Farm Labor Union, A. F. of L.

I shall confine my testimony to a short summary of the work which our union has done in the field of migrant labor. My objective will be to show that constructive work can be done to lift migrant labor from the downtrodden state to which selfish exploiters have periodically reduced it. Unions should and can do their share in

this work.

The Meat and Cannery Workers Union, Local No. 56, is particularly interested in the welfare of the migratory workers of the State of New Jersey.

First, the farm migratory workers are completely excluded from the benefits of the Social Security Act, all wage-and-hour laws, and the benefits of workmen's compensation. Furthermore, the childlabor law is not strictly enforced in agriculture.

Second, the influx of migratory workers was endangering the wage structure of the resident workers of the State of New Jersey. The migrant often found hours, pay, and housing far different than the promises made to him.

Third, if the migrant remained after the season, he became a drain on the relief rolls of the community.

Here is the answer we evolved to meet this problem: In the summer of 1943 we set up an organized migration plan by arrangement between the Meat and Cannery Workers Union, Local No. 56, A. F. of L., and the National Farm Labor Union, A. F. of L. Contracts were made with the employers providing for the specific number of persons needed, for fixed wages, and for a minimum guaranty of hours, working conditions, and housing. Constant contact was had between the two unions so that the number of workers could be increased or decreased as needs and the season progressed. Furthermore, definite plans were made for their orderly return to their homes when the season was over in New Jersey. Regular deductions were made from wages to pay for the workers' transportation back to the South. This plan is to date going into its fourth year of suc