The CHAIRMAN. It depends, of course, upon the labor supply now and during the war; there has, of course, been full employment. I will use that term in the general sense, but there has been full employment in industry, and there has been competition on that account between industry and agriculture for this type of labor. Where there is that competition, people do not voluntarily do this back-breaking labor on the farm. I do not believe that there are many people in a rural community who would agree with you that are any laborers who prefer that type of labor.

Now, some of them may do it, and no doubt if conditions were made more attractive, they would object to it less; but I do not believe there are very many people in this country who enjoy that type of labor.

Mr. MASON. Well, I mean, I do not think that farm labor is any worse than a coal miner, having to work down in the mines. I do not know of anything that is more undesirable than that type of work; and I say that in any other occupation that people would have to work for substandard wages and their income would not be enough to provide for their families, you would have the same critical manpower shortage. What would we do? Would we import foreign labor to take care of a shortage of industrial workers that would not work in certain types of industries where low standards are set up?

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it is a matter of labor supply; there is not any reason why we should import foreign labor when we have a surplus of labor in this country. I agree with you thoroughly on that score; but we do have a situation in this country where there are these jobs on the farms going begging, and people are drawing unemployment insurance and compensation. That has been testified to in these hearings and in previous hearings before the committee.

Mr. MASON. I know we have farm labor today that is on unemployment compensation; that if conditions were a little better than what they are, they could be induced to go back to the farm, the same as they did prior to the war; they worked in industrial plants during certain seasons and then go back to the farms.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that people who are qualified, physically qualified to do the work on the farms, and who refuse to take those jobs, should be entitled to unemployment compensation?

Mr. MASON. Well, each State has their rules and regulations governing as to how these payments are to be made. I know the State of Ohio, they are required, if they work in a particular occupation, and there was work available in that particular occupation, to take that work, otherwise they would not receive any unemployment insurance. But I do not know how that applies in all States.

The CHAIRMAN. I was asking for your opinion. I know the laws of different States vary, but I was asking for your opinion on the

matter.

Mr. MASON. I think that where employment is desirable, surely they should be required to take it if that is their occupation, absolutely. I certainly do not want to force a worker to accept employment in agricultural labor today with conditions that are prevailing.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you would leave it up to the individual himself who is seeking employment to determine whether the employment was desirable.

Mr. MASON. I think so. It would all depend on what type of work he was registered for with the employment office.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose he is registered for agricultural employment; suppose he was capable of doing it. But he decides that he does not want to accept this particular job that is offered to him because he does not consider that it is satisfactory or suitable. Would you contend that he should be put on the unemployment compensation rolls under those conditions?

Mr. MASON. Well, agricultural labor is not covered on that anyway. It is only when they have put in so much time in industrial work and then become unemployed that they can collect unemployment insurance; then, if they worked at agricultural work previously, they were induced to go back on the farms.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, there are plenty of people who are drawing unemployment compensation now, or so the committee has been told, at least, who have refused to take employment on the farms. Mr. MASON. Well, I am saying that the conditions on the farms today are deplorable. I am not saying all farms; I think the small growers, the conditions are fair, and maybe in some cases very good; but it is the corporation farms that we are mostly concerned about; and from the source of information that we receive they do have very poor low standards of living conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you know that while farmers are better off now as to living conditions, that has not been true over the period of years; and that traditionally the conditions under which the farmers themselves, I mean the employers, live, are not comparable in many cases to the conditions under which rather low-paid workers live in the city. I am speaking now of the amenities of life, and the conveniences that we have in the cities, which are not available on the farm. You recognize that to be a fact, do you not?

Mr. MASON. That is what I say. I think that is what we should consider; that this Congress should be considering legislation to provide the same benefits for farm labor as are furnished industrial labor.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you do that you will have to consider legislation to provide those facilities for the farmers on the land who provide this labor with employment, because in most cases they did not possess these facilities at the present time, and you do not think that the employees should live under better conditions than the employers, do you?

Mr. MASON. I think they do. These corporation employers, they do not generally live on the farm; they live in New York maybe, or in Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am talking now about the farmers living on the farm. If you have had any experience in an agricultural area, you know that living conditions on farms among farm people, that is, the people who operate the land, are not comparable to the conditions enjoyed by many workers in the cities.

Mr. MASON. I say the farmers that you are speaking about now, the small farmers do treat their workers, I guess, as good as they treat themselves; but they are not the employers that we are concerned about.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the need for farm labor is not limited to large operators. The labor we are considering under this bill is labor that is to be employed by the small farmers. I think they would

be the ones who would be the main beneficiaries of a program of this kind, because the large farmers are in much better shape to take care of their own labor needs than the small individual farmers.

Mr. MASON. I think the small individual farmers can get adequate labor supplies when it is needed through our State employment offices throughout the country, because I was on the War Manpower Commission during the war, and we had a migratory labor program from one State to another. It is not only in the agricultural industry; we have it in the building construction industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but where there is competition between the large farmer and the small farmer as to what labor there may be available, it has been my experience that the large farmer gets the labor, and the small farmer does not.

Mr. MASON. Well, here is the effect that we see that it has on agricultural labor in forming a status quo: That they can never improve their conditions because if they do not want to accept what the farmer has to offer now, he can go and report to the Secretary of Agriculture, who will certify that there is a need for farm labor, and import them into this country. So far as the farm labor problem is concerned, if the Secretary of Agriculture has a blank check to import farm labor anytime he sees fit, farm labor in this country is not going to advance very far in the future.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not arguing with you about that because I am not one of those who is particularly anxious to see the foreign labor come into this country. I will say to you that it is justified only under extreme conditions.

Mr. MASON. That is not the only effect that it has; it is holding a status quo on the advancement of domestic farm labor in this country. It is held over their heads. "Now, you either accept this or we will bring somebody else in from Mexico or Jamaica."

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'm sorry you have not heard the testimony. I think practically everybody who discussed the matter said that foreign labor is very inferior labor and they would accept it in most cases only when no other labor was available.

Mr. MASON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That has been the testimony before this committee. Mr. MASON. That is right; it is being used for the purpose of holding a status quo on the wages in the agricultural industry.

How could you negotiate a wage agreement in any other industry if you went up to an employer and he had a blank check, if you did not want to accept what he had to offer, to go over to Mexico or some other foreign country and recruit somebody to take your place and your job? I mean that will be the condition. If that prevailed in this country over the past 50 or 60 years, the standards of this country would be just the same as they are in Europe today.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not arguing with you about that. You understand that I am not urging that you make it easy to import foreign labor; I do not think we should, by any means.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. ANDRESEN. I agree with you at the fact that we ought to do away with the importation of foreig bor, Mr. Mason. I am glad that you have taken that position; and n that connection, I would like to ask you what the position of the American Federation of Labor

is when it comes to importing foreign products, and manufacturing goods from foreign countries where they use cheap labor and produce them, importing those goods into the United States.

Mr. MASON. I am firmly opposed to that, also.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You are opposed to that.

Mr. MASON. I do not know what type of treaties our Government has in that regard, but we have to have reciprocal trade agreements between countries, but we do not feel too good about importing products into this country that are manufactured by cheap labor in foreign countries.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Of course, I am sure that you recognize when that is done that we have no control whatsoever over the labor or their standard of living or their pay.

Mr. MASON. It is unfair to the manufacturers and industries in this country.

Mr. ANDRESEN. So, then, I can take that as a definite position from the American Federation of Labor that you are opposed to the importation of competitive farm and manufacturing products made by cheap labor in other countries, when we have labor in the United States that can do that work?

Mr. MASON. That is the way I feel personally.
Mr. ANDRESEN. That is all,

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pace.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Mason, may I say first that I share your hope that some way can be found to bring the benefits of the social-security laws to those who work in the fields in this country.

It is very distressing to me that less consideration is given to the people who produce food than is given to the people who eat that food.

We have an illustration, I think, right here in Washington, where there are nearly 1,000,000 people, many of them Government workers, who have the protection of a good job, a very handsome contribution by the Government to matching their retirement contributions. They have the complete security of knowing when they reach an age they will be able to retire on a reasonable pension.

They produce nothing to eat. They eat the food of those who work out in the sun and heat. It seems to me that it is very unfair to give a greater degree of security to those who eat the food than those who produce the food to keep the others alive.

I know the difficulty in trying to find some system of contribution by a farmer or farm laborer, but I share your hope it can be found. I want to say this, further, before I ask you a question:

I know I not only share your hope that we can eliminate the need and the program for the importation of farm workers, foreign agricultural workers, but I go much further; that is, I think that as long as there is any unemployment in this country we should stop the importation of all people from foreign countries.

I think the American worker is entitled to the first chance to a job, and as long as there is any unemployment in this country we should restrict immigration.

Do you go that far?

Mr. MASON. We have taken a position on the displaced persons. We feel that these oppressed displaced persons of Europe today that are fleeing communism

Mr. PACE. Let us make this test on that, Mr. Mason. I think it is a reasonable test. How mny members of your organization are willing to give up their jobs and give it to one of these what you call "displaced persons"?

Mr. MASON. I do not think that is it. I think the bill that is being considered covers a very small percentage of our population. You can say that we have a population of 140,000,000, and I think the bill calls for each year 100,000, and 50 percent of them are women and children, which would be only 50,000 who would be the head of families that would be in a position to be competitors for a job. Maybe onefourth of 1 percent of our population.

Mr. PACE. It does not make any substantial difference, it does not seem to me, Mr. Mason, what the percentage is. You now have unemployment in this country.

If you bring in 100,000 a year, one of two things is going to happen: They are going to take somebody else's job or else they are going to be public charges.

Mr. MASON. I think there is a principle in these DP's, especially those that are fleeing from communism. They believe in democracy. They believe in the same ideals we have here. They know if they go back to their country of origin they will be persecuted because they believed in our ideals.

I think that if we have people over there that fought for the same principles we believe in, and that are desirable, I think we should give them some help.

I think other democratic countries should give them the same type of help.

Mr. PACE. Regardless of employment conditions in this country? Mr. MASON. I am still hoping and I still believe that we can handle that problem.

Mr. PACE. Well, I did not mean to get off on that.

Now, Mr. Mason, you touch on a subject that interests me very greatly, and that is the standard of wages and living conditions among the farmers and farm workers in this country. I represent many of them and I am deeply interested in their welfare.

But I am sure you understand as clearly as I do that you cannot pay a worker, whether he is on the farm or in a factory, unless you can receive for the products of his labor a price that would permit you to pay that wage.

Then, when we raise the standard of wages to the farm worker, does it not necessarily follow that under normal conditions this raise must be reflected in the price of the farm product in order for the relation to continue?

Mr. MASON. It all depends on what margin of profit the producer thinks he is entitled to.

Mr. PACE. Well, you and I are not going to have any argument about the margin of profit in ordinary times on the farm, are we?

Mr. MASON. I hope not.

Mr. PACE. You know it is sometimes none whatsoever, and in many cases it is less than the actual cost of the production.