MEXICAN FARM LABOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1954 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:08 a. m., in room 1310, House Office Building, Representative Clifford R. Hope (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Hope (presiding), Andresen, Hill, Hoeven, Dague, Belcher, McIntire, King, Cooley, Grant, Gathings, Polk, Wheeler, Thompson, Herlong, and Jones. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The first witness this morning will be our distinguished colleague from Texas, Mr. Fisher, whom we will be happy to hear at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. O. C. FISHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, probably not over 5 minutes, in the statement that I desire to make. I appreciate this privilege. For 2 days I have listened to the CIO and AFL oppose the use of Mexican nationals in alleviating the acute labor shortage which exists in the Southwest and elsewhere. As I recall, the CIO opposed the Poage bill in the 82d Congress which resulted in Public Law 78 which this resolution would amend, which permits Mexican farm workers to come in under an international agreement. It certainly was not the charity soup line of the transient indigents in Phoenix, Ariz., who refused to work, which prompted the CIO to send R. J. Thomas to Washington in an attempt to defeat this proposed resolution, nor was it the border incident involving the Mexican nationals who sought to come into this country to seek employment which caused them to condemn this resolution. Just as Mr. Thomas very frankly admitted, the CIO is opposed to any Mexican laborers being permitted to come across at this time, legally or illegally, contract or no contract, agreement or no agreement. I think we all understand the CIO's position. It has been presented frankly and clearly. From listening to the CIO I think it is fair to conclude that the CIO contends there is no shortage of farm labor anywhere in the United States. They contend there is available farm labor to meet any requirement. If the CIO is correct and there is no shortage problem, then certainly we should not bother with this resolution and there is no occasion for another agreement with Mexico. The CIO contends in one Mr. COOLEY. I didn't follow your statement very closely with reference to the outlandish demands that were being made. I am sorry that I didn't. Could you repeat those for us? Mr. FISHER. I shall be very glad to. I think you were talking to the Chairman at the time I referred to some of those. Here is an Associated Press story that I referred to, to information which was publicized considerably about the time there was a breakdown. This Associated Press story from Mexico City, dated January 17, begins by saying Mexico pinched off the legal flow of migrant farmworkers to the United States following collapse of negotiations for the renewal of the 12-year-old agreement— and so forth. Then it continues: Negotiations broke down over the question of wages for the Mexicans, largely employed for stoop labor on farms and ranches in southwestern United States. Mexico wanted a fixed pay rate in the new agreement. The United States officials insisted on sticking by the agreement under which the United States Labor Department decided on a prevailing wage, saying that since there is no legal basis for fixed wages of this type in the United States, they could not be specified in an international agreement. Then another press report states Among the "exceptions" named by Mexico is included (1) minimum wage at the existing level, (2) right of Mexico to designate specific insurance agencieswhich the employers in the United States would be required to do business with and pay the premiums to— (3) the right of Mexico to blacklist individuals, counties or areas— and that would be unilateral, you understand. Mr. COOLEY. What do you mean it would be unilateral? Mr. FISHER. That Mexico would make the decision without consulting with the United States and without consulting with the counties. Mr. COOLEY. Who else has the right to make that decision about Mexican nationals? Nobody but the Mexican Government. We certainly have no right to put any restrictions on the nationals of Mexico Mr. FISHER. How is that? Mr. COOLEY. What restrictions have you a right to impose on the nationals of Mexico as to where they shall go and under what circumstances? Mr. FISHER. I don't know of any. Mr. COOLEY. We haven't. You have referred to it as a unilateral blacklisting. Certainly Mexico has a right to say that we will not let our citizens go into certain counties or certain communities without giving any reason at all as to why they will not. I see in the paper that they object because of discrimination, or something of that kind. You live in Texas where you have thousands and hundreds of thousands of high-class American citizens of Mexican descent. That is true, isn't it? Mr. FISHER. Certainly. Mr. COOLEY. You say that these are outlandish demands. I think the evidence indicates to me that perhaps Mexico doesn't understand that our Government negotiators are without any authority to fix the minimum wage, but I think they have intelligence enough to understand it if somebody will explain it to them. If they have asked us for, and have insisted upon, a minimum wage, we say that cannot be done. If they want to break up negotiations on that, that is up to them to do it. One other item was about the wage itself, whether it is going to be so much an hour. Certainly reasonable men can negotiate with reference to a wage. If there is anything wrong with the way the prevailing wage is determined, they can talk that over. But I have been led to believe that our negotiations were carried on almost entirely by Mr. White, the Ambassador, who perhaps was not the right man to carry on the negotiations. I do not even know him, but it seems to me that we know now that the negotiations have broken down and have collapsed, according to the story that you read a moment ago, and we ought not to abandon the idea of further negotiations. From what you said-I hope I am not under the wrong impression or have misunderstood you—you do not want any law at all; do you? Mr. FISHER. Oh, yes, surely. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina wants a law, too. Mr. COOLEY. You said for a hundred years we operated all right without a law. Mr. FISHER. I will say to the gentleman that if I didn't want a law, I wouldn't be in here trying to keep this one in existence. The gentleman, I understand, is opposed to any legislation. Mr. COOLEY. I am opposed to this law? I voted for the last bill when it was before Congress. Mr. FISHER. There is no use arguing with the gentleman about that. Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina asked a long-winded question involving several different phases. I would like for the gentleman to at least be given an opportunity to answer it. Mr. COOLEY. I don't want to be lectured by the gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. GATHINGS. I don't want to lecture you. Mr. COOLEY. My question is, Are you in favor of a continuation of the law as it existed prior to January 1, 1954? Mr. FISHER. That is quite agreeable to me, and that is the reason why I am supporting this resolution. If I were opposed to that law, I would be opposed to this resolution. Mr. COOLEY. You understand this resolution changes that law very drastically. Mr. FISHER. There is nothing drastic about it. It permits the unilateral application of it. Mr. COOLEY. Congress authorized the negotiation of an agreement. That law becomes ineffective, because we have no agreement. Now this is going to authorize us to proceed without regard to any agreement. It is a drastic change. You read one other newspaper article. Did you see the morning New York Times with the headline "Reds Slip Into United States, Congress Warned. Immigration Service Says 100 Percent Ex-Members Sneak in Daily From Mexico." They are quoting from testimony which was submitted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service which indicates that 100 Communists a day are coming into your State. I want to ask one question. Don't you think it is up to the Federal Government to protect the Mexican border on the boundaries of California and Texas and wherever it is necessary to protect it to keep out 100 Communists a day from coming in here? Mr. BELCHER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. Yes. Mr. BELCHER. It looks to me as if we are getting off the subject. Wherein does negotiation about the price of wages have anything to do with keeping Reds out of Texas? Mr. COOLEY. I have not said any such thing. Mr. BELCHER. You are reading an article about a hundred Reds coming into the State of Texas. I do not happen to be from the State of Texas, but I do not think there are any more Reds in Texas than there are in New York. I don't see where the failure to negotiate with the Mexican Government over the difference between prevailing wage and a set wage has anything whatever to do with 100 Reds coming across the border. Mr. COOLEY. I agree with the gentleman's observation. The point is, I am coming now to what I think is the most important thing, and the one that probably caused the negotiations to break down, and that is the border recruiting. Under the agreements we had interior recruiting. Mr. BELCHER. Maybe I jumped the gun. Go ahead. Mr. COOLEY. When you have border recruiting, Mr. Fisher, isn't it only natural that the people who want jobs in America are going to flock to the point where the recruiting is being done, and that is at the border? It brings about a deplorable social situation on the border, and the Mexican Government does not want that intolerable situation to exist. If I read this right and understood it, it was primarily the border recruiting that our negotiators wanted. They wanted border recruiting instead of interior recruiting, and complained about the recruiting stations in Monterey being closed. Certainly reasonable men ought to be able to reason that out. We can't go down there and say we are going to have border recruiting and have thousands of people come in and have riots on the border of Mexico. It seems to me it is unreasonable for us to insist on border recruiting because we have not had border recruiting in the past. I assume that this law has operated very successfully. As I said yesterday, it means absolutely nothing to me except as an American citizen. I have gone along with these laws year after year because I thought it was a reasonable authorization to have these negotiations at a high level. Mr. GATHINGS. I would like to ask the gentleman from North Carolina if he is conducting a filibuster? He has been testifying all morning. We have a colleague from Texas trying to testify, if he had an opportunity. Mr. COOLEY. I thought he concluded? Mr. GATHINGS. Concluded? He hasn't started to answer your question. Mr. COOLEY. My question is, Do you think we should insist on border recruiting? Mr. FISHER. I certainly do. |