September 8, 1961
Page 18779
McCARTHY AMENDMENT ON MEXICAN FARM LABORERS
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question at this point?
Mr. McCARTHY. I wish to make an observation before yielding to the Senator from California.
I may say to the Senator from Michigan that I did not intend to single out Michigan for any special attention. It so happens that the witnesses were from Michigan; and on the record, Michigan employers have done relatively well in this field. They have been paying Mexican nationals about 87 cents an hour, which is what they would be required to pay them if my amendment were adopted.
I now yield to the Senator from California.
Mr. KUCHEL. Is it not true that under the law the State government must first determine that there is insufficient domestic labor available to harvest the crops before any Mexican nationals may be made available for temporary assistance to the farmers of such a State?
Mr. McCARTHY. So far as I know, the determination is made by the Secretary of Labor, not by the State.
Mr. JORDAN. That is correct.
Mr. KUCHEL. Does not the Secretary of Labor consult with the State government before making such a determination?
Mr. McCARTHY. I do not know that he is required to do so. I assume he probably does, because one of the determinations which must be made is the existence of a shortage of domestic labor which can perform this work and which is willing, able, and available. So I assume he would have to consult with State employment officials.
Mr. KUCHEL. Is it not a fact that that is precisely what the Secretaries of Labor under Democratic administrations and under Republican administrations have done?
Mr. McCARTHY. I assume they have.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question with respect to the statement of the Senator from California.
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. HART. I think the key point is the realization that if the obligation with respect to wages is such that the offer to domestic laborers is too low to attract responsible domestic labor, the gate is open for the Mexican. The purpose of the McCarthy amendment is to insure an offering sufficiently high to attract domestic labor which is responsible, if it seeks this opportunity; and then, and only then, will the Secretary permit the machinery of the Immigration Service to bring in Mexican labor.
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator from Michigan is quite correct. The changes which I am proposing, as well as some of those which we are not offering, were recommended by Mr. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor in the previous administration, and are again recommended by Mr. Goldberg, the Secretary of Labor in this administration, the argument being that some standard such as this is necessary to administer the program effectively.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. JORDAN. In answer to the question just propounded by the junior Senator from Michigan, the very thing which he says would permit the Secretary of Labor to fix the wages of a domestic worker would be the same as if he carried out the very policy which the Senator has discussed.
Mr. HART. I would have no qualm or resistance if that were the effect; but I think it is not the effect. It does not fix the domestic wage. It takes the domestic wage and provides that if the farmer wishes to use the immigration route to bring in labor in competition with American labor, he shall offer 90 percent of whatever the domestic wage is.
Mr. MCCARTHY. That is the effect of my amendment.
Mr. JORDAN. If the Senator will read the report, he will find that before Mexican labor can be brought into this country at all, it is necessary to offer comparable wages. The bill provides that now.
Mr. HART. I think the Senator from Minnesota, in developing his opening argument in support of his amendment, has made the response which I shall adopt to the Senator's statement. In the judgment of those who signed the minority views, this is a delightful recital in the bill but does not seek an objective of the kind we seek.
Mr. JORDAN. The Secretary of Labor cannot certify Mexican labor until it has been determined that domestic labor cannot be obtained. That provision is in the law, and it has been in the law all the time. The bill spells it out again.
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator is correct.
That is the point at issue. It is necessary to get domestic workers who are willing to work at the prevailing wages. Those wages are frequently so low that even when domestic labor is available, or when American workers are unemployed, they will not accept such wages. We are attempting by the amendment to obtain a standard which can be used by the Secretary of Labor in deciding whether to permit Mexicans to come into this country, and as a guide for an employer to decide whether he wishes to bring in Mexican workers.
Mr. JORDAN. The bill also provides that the employment of such workers shall not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of domestic agricultural workers employed in similar work. If bringing in Mexican workers would affect domestic migrant labor, the farmer may not bring in Mexicans.
Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. The key words are "similar work." In Arkansas, where American workers are paid 30 cents an hour for similar work, bringing in Mexican workers could not possibly have an adverse effect upon the workers in Arkansas; it might have a good effect. It could not possibly adversely affect them, because they are getting 20 cents an hour less than would have to be paid Mexican nationals.
Using that standard would not have a depressing effect on their wages.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. The Senator from Minnesota has shown real concern for workers in the United States, both American and Mexican, and I congratulate him.
Mr. President, in dealing with the Mexican farm labor program, the question is, How temporary is "temporary"?
Often a temporary building carries a "temporary" designation even though it may be 40 or more years old. I think specifically of some of the governmental office buildings in Washington, D.C.
And sometimes a temporary piece of legislation, written during a time of crisis, is extended and reextended for many years. I hope we can stop this practice in one area. I refer to the Mexican farm labor program.
When this bill, H.R. 2010, was reported from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry with some minor amendments, five of us on the committee signed supplemental views. My able colleague from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY] has worked hard to point up the deficiencies in the existing law.
In our supplemental views we noted:
Public Law 78 was enacted in 1951 at a time of labor shortage during the Korean conflict. It began as a temporary program, but it has been extended by Congress four times. During this period the farm labor force has declined, technological change in agriculture has continued at a rapid rate, and unemployment and underemployment have increased as rural problems. Yet at the same time the Mexican farm labor program has expanded greatly.
On page 8 of the report on the bill, table I shows that the total number of Mexican nationals contracted by year from 1951, when there were 192,000 to 1960, when there were 315,846, has increased by 123,846.
During this 10-year period the number of farm operators and unpaid family workers has decreased more than 2 million. At the same time the number of hired workers employed has decreased from 2,236,000 to 1,869,000. The loss is 367,000.
There is no labor shortage in our Nation, either in the vast cities of the East and Midwest or in towns or on arms. The purpose for enacting Public Law 78 has passed.
Out in my home State of Oregon there are fewer than 350 Mexican farm laborers. They help harvest our pear crop. They are paid $1.44 per hour.
The Department of Labor believes this hourly wage of $1.44 in Oregon is the highest received by Mexican farm laborers in this country. And I am thankful that in my State the wage scale is that high.
But this is not the case elsewhere. The Department of Labor estimates the national average wage is around 70 cents per hour. It can be less.
In our minority report on the bill we said:
We do not believe that anyone can accurately establish the extent of the need for this program under the existing practices.
We do know that low wages paid Mexican nationals in turn depress the salary level for domestic workers. The Department of Labor may authorize the hiring of Mexican nationals when local workers cannot be obtained at the prevailing wage in the area for the type of work.
The Department of Labor has found that in some counties this year the hourly wage is 30 to 50 cents per hour.
If we apply the provisions of Public Law 78 there is no incentive for an employer to pay higher wages.
In my July newsletter to Oregonians, I asked:
Is it an insult to our Mexican neighbors that they will do work which Americans won't do, or is it an insult to American farm workers that Mexicans are given working conditions and emoluments that they do not receive?
Under the treaty negotiated with Mexico, nationals from that country are assured adequate housing, transportation costs and health care and insurance. Farmworkers who are U.S. citizens do not receive equal treatment.
If we should vote to continue this program -- as Senator McCARTHY has asked -- we should amend H.R. 2010 so that it contains a provision limiting the use of Mexican nationals to employers who have made reasonable efforts to attract domestic workers at terms and conditions of employment reasonably comparable to those offered Mexican nationals. We should insist that the minimum wage paid imported and domestic migratory workers be 50 cents per hour or more.
And we should seriously consider amending legislation which will assist the Secretary of Labor in determining whether Mexican nationals should be certified. It is a responsibility of Congress that it should provide the Secretary of Labor with guidelines within which he can work.
The Washington Post editorial, "Peonage," which appeared in that newspaper August 24, 1961, had pertinent observations on Public Law 78. It says, in part:
In its present form, the law is a depressant to the whole agricultural economy. The peonage it imposes ought not to be perpetuated.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be reprinted in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
PEONAGE
We hope that the Senate, under pressure for adjournment, will not join the House in extending Public Law 78 for another 2 years without amendments. This law, due to expire at the end of 1961, fixes the conditions under which several hundred thousand itinerant farmworkers from Mexico -- braceros they are called -- are allowed to cross the border and harvest crops in the western and southwestern States of this country.
Public Law 78 was a most useful statute when it was first adopted. It put a floor under the starvation wages which were then being paid to the desperate Mexican peons who were willing to work at any price. But that floor -- 50 cents an hour -- has now become a ceiling for wages paid to American farmworkers in the same area. It is a wage ceiling which has the effect of condemning thousands of American farmworkers to peonage -- to a condition of hopeless destitution for themselves and homeless ignorance for their children.
Public Law 78 needs to be brought up to date by lifting that long outdated 50-cent minimum to a level, as Senator EUGENE McCARTHY has proposed, no less than the average farm wage in the State or in the Nation, whichever is the lesser. In its present form, the law is a depressant to the whole agricultural economy. The peonage it imposes ought not to be perpetuated.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, Public Law 78, of the 82d Congress, was enacted in 1951 as a temporary emergency measure, to ease the labor shortage which existed at the time of the
Korean conflict. But this law has been renewed four times since then; and now we are in the year 1961, 10 years later. Almost every time the question of renewal of the law has been under consideration, it has been argued that it would be well to extend it for only a few years more, and by the end of those few years the emergency would be over. However, 10 years have elapsed, during which time there has been no significant change -- certainly no significant legislative change. The only change has been that the Mexican Government has suggested that unless certain concessions were made, it would cut off the flow of Mexican nationals into the United States; so, in a sense, the improvements have been dictated from Mexico, rather than on our part, and thus have taken into account chiefly the welfare of Mexican farmworkers, but not the welfare of American nationals who engage in this form of labor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. It has been argued that the Senator's amendment in effect undertakes to establish a minimum wage for agricultural workers; that that has never been done in this country; and that if it is to be done, it should be done by means of an amendment to the minimum wage law, which should be referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and considered there as such.
Until I read House bill 2010, it seemed to me that that argument had some merit. But I ask the Senator from Minnesota whether, on the basis of the argument which has been made, he can distinguish between his amendment and the language of the bill we are considering, which itself, it seems to me, undertakes to establish a minimum wage.
Mr. McCARTHY. The difference is really one of procedure. The substance of my amendment is essentially the same as the substance of the language of the bill, except that it would be limited to employment in similar work, which would be used as a basis for establishing a standard. I propose that 90 percent of the average hourly wage paid for all agricultural workers in the State or the Nation be the standard used. But in terms of the question of principle which has been raised, the bill as reported by the committee is as much in violation of what has been described here a principle as is my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. In other words, Senators who oppose this amendment on the basis that it undertakes to establish a minimum wage for agricultural workers ought also to oppose the pending bill?
Mr. McCARTHY. Or at least section 505 of the Committee bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. McCARTHY. The question is one of the method or procedure for determining what the wage shall be, rather than a difference in principle.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Senator from Maine for making that point. Those who wish to act on the basis of principle in connection with matters of this kind should be able to act somewhat
more freely, now that the Senator from Maine has clarified the point.