workers those who worked 250 or more days per year-the remainder worked an average of only 47 days per year in agriculture.

The enactment of H.R. 7130 would reduce the average number of days of farm employment of those now averaging 47 days per year, and in many instances eliminate such employment entirely. The reason this is so is that employment in agriculture is elastic; that is, an increase of 1 percent in the average wage level will reduce employment more than 1 percent.

Employment in agriculture is elastic because of the availability of a reservoir of new labor saving equipment, machinery and practices that are only partially used. It is difficult for farmers to find the capital to adopt new technology, but a sharp increase in costs creates a strong incentive for them to do so and would escalate the disemployment of hired farmworkers.

Since the people so disemployed would be people with a minimum of marketable skills, the net effect on employment in agriculture of an increase in the minimum wage to $2 an hour, with its accompanying upward push on all farm wages, would be to increase substantially the number of people with incomes below the poverty level.

This is the impact in one industry. We would anticipate an increase in the level of minimum wages would have a comparable impact in many other industries.

THE ENACTMENT OF H.R. 7130 WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS IN UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN MARKETS

The principal reason the increased cost and price level in the United States has not had catastrophic impact on the competitive position of U.S. industries, is that other countries have not in general been more successful than the United States in holding costs' in line.

But this is not universally true. An example of the declining competitive position of the United States is in the comparative costs of producing fruits and vegetables. U.S. imports of fruits and vegetables from Mexico have increased more than 10 times since 1956 and are continuing to increase. In fact, the increase is escalating. In 1970 imports from Mexico increased $43 million.

The enactment of H.R. 7130 would accelerate this trend—an indirect effect of which is to reduce employment in agriculture of both farm families and employed workers.

THE PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF OVERTIME PROVISIONS FOR PROCESSING EMPLOYEES IN SEASONAL INDUSTRIES WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT FARMERS, WORKERS, PROCESSORS, AND CONSUMERS

The processing and handling of perishable farm products cannot be carried out in all instances on a 40-hour week basis. Emergencies and unforeseen heavy receipts are inevitable. Labor shortages are to be expected at peak periods. If such perishable farm products are to be handled, overtime operations will be required from time to time. Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Mr.

Triggs' prepared statement be inserted in the record. He can touch on any highlights he chooses and give the committee an opportunity to ask him any questions that we may.

Chairman DENT. Usually we let the witnesses proceed as they wish, but today we have seven witnesses and I ask the witnesses, where they have long and detailed statements, sometimes containing schedules in their testimony, that they present it for complete insertion into the record and give us the benefit of the highlights of the statements so that we will have sufficient time to question and cross-question.

Mr. TRIGGS. Would this be acceptable? Suppose I skip a couple of pages relating to our views on the overtime provision and on the need to provide an incentive for the price rate system in employment.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I appreciate this and I am willing to have the gentleman use this framework so we can have questions and answers. However, along with these seven other witnesses, we also had the Secretary of Labor, Mr. Hodgson, scheduled. I am sure had he been here, he would have consumed the entire forenoon; and I don't know what the gentlemen would have been doing in that case except listening to the testimony.

Chairman DENT. Let us understand each other. We want to have more time to get at the particular points that each of the industries and the witnesses are going to stress.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may? I don't mean to interfere with the witness' testimony but since we last acted this is the third time I have heard it. I am willing to listen through it, but the ideas in the proposed bill are no different than those we have been discussing 4 or 5 years now. I have heard the same testimony twice already and I read it again this morning. If the gentleman feels the third time will make his point better than the others

Mr. Triggs, you are in a hurry. We appreciate your taking all the time you need so that proportionately some of the other witnessesChairman DENT. The witness will proceed in any fashion he feels desirable.

Mr. Mazzoli. May I comment? I appreciate Mr. Burton's position but I am a new member of Congress and I have not heard this for the third time and it might be interesting to hear it.

Chairman DENT. Proceed.

Mr. TRIGGS. We are down to the middle of page 5. The added costs of overtime operations resulting from the elimination of the existing partial exemptions from overtime, would in the short run be paid by processors and farmers (engaged in a high-risk, lowreturn industry), and in the long run by increases in food prices. The costs of the inefficiencies involved in trying to live with a 40-hour overtime provision in an industry where such a provision. does not fit would be shared by processors, farmers, and consumers. Workers in seasonal processing plants normally encounter long periods of unemployment. It is to their advantage to work more than 40 hours a week when work is available. It is harmful to their interests to create an incentive to reduce the number of hours worked. We urge deletion of this provision from the bill.

THE ACT SHOULD BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE TO MAINTAIN THE PIECE RATE METHOD OF EMPLOYMENT

As indicated in exhibit 1 attached, the average per hour earnings of workers employed by farmers on a piece rate basis exceed the earnings of those employed on an hourly basis by about 25 percent.

Both workers and farmers prefer a piece-rate basis wherever practical; the worker because he can earn more on a piece-rate basis; the farmer because the savings from the elimination of close supervision reduce the average cost per unit.

The piece-rate system is jeopardized by the minimum rate provisions of law. To insure compliance, and indeed because he is required to do so, an employer of farm workers on a piece-rate basis must not only record the number of units produced, but also must record the time each worker stopped and started during the day, provide close supervision of workers, pay supplemental payments to the slowest group of workers, and give consideration to discharging slow workers.

If the piece-rate method of employing workers (which is to the advantage of both workers and employers) is to survive the impacts of minimum wage legislation a revision of the minimum wage law is needed.

We recommend a provision that, if the average hourly earnings of 80 percent of the piece-rate workers in a crew exceeds the applicable minimum wage requirement, the farmer shall be considered to be in compliance.

This provision would preserve the opportunity for slow and handicapped workers to obtain and retain employment in agriculture. We now come to a part of our statement that we have never testified to this committee about before and I would like to ask Dale Sherwin to present this.

Mr. SHERWIN. Title 3 represents a major, and in our view, an undesirable inclusion of trade policy in a bill otherwise devoted to modifications of the minimum wage and hour (and related) provisions of law applicable to domestic industries.

Section 310(c) would require the Secretary of Labor at the request of virtually anybody to make promptly an investigation and report of the effect of imports of any produce upon the health, efficiency, and general well-being of any group of workers or the community in which such workers are employed. This assignment would appear to exceed the capacity of any agency of Government to accomplish.

The present statute provides that the Secretary of Labor in any report relating to the impact of imports or unemployment "*** may also include in such report information on the increased employment resulting from additional exports in any industry * * *”

This provision would be deleted by the bill. In our opinion this would delete an extremely important factor that should be considered in determining the net effect of trade policy action on employment in U.S. industries.

The bill would authorize the President upon receiving a report from the Labor Department indicating an adverse effect of imports

on domestic producers thereof, to "take such action as he deems appropriate to remove such impairment or threat of impairment, in addition to any other customs treatment provided by law."

In our opinion this involves an undesirable and unprecedented grant of power to the executive branch, contrary to the general principle that the Congress should establish specific criteria, guidelines, and limitations on the authority of the executive branch to implement trade policy.

A proposed new statutory provision would appear to prohibit the purchase of any imported product with funds derived from the Federal Government unless the contractor is in compliance with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This appears to us to involve a far-reaching and undesirable extension of domestic law to foreign manufacturers and suppliers.

The implications of these provisions in terms of foreign policy are far reaching and necessitate careful consideration by the committees of Congress responsible for foreign trade policy. It is our recommendation that title 3 of the bill be referred to the House Ways and Means Committee for its consideration.

Mr. TRIGGS. That concludes our statements. There are some exhibits attached that set forth basic statistical information that I think is important to the issue and which we request be included in the hearing record.

Chairman DENT. Without objection, so ordered. They will be considered very seriously by the committee. (Documents referred to follow :)

EXHIBITS

1. Average Wage Earnings Per Hour of All Hired Farmworkers:

Data from following issues of "Farm Labor", U.S.D.A.: April 13, 1970; June 10, 1970; November 10, 1970; January 13, 1971: and March 10, 1971. Data does not include any allowance for housing, utilities, meals, food, transportation and other perquisites provided farm workers by farmers without charges.

2. Farm Workers are Young: The median age is 23; 33 percent are 14-17 years old; 22 percent are 18-24 years old.

3. The Chief Activity of Most Hired Farm Workers is nonagricultural. The following data is from Table 4, "The Hired Farm Working Force of 1970", U.S.D.A.

4. Migratory Workers represented only 8 percent of farm workers in 1970 and their number is declining sharply.

The "Hired Farm Working Force of 1970" U.S.D.A., estimates that of the 2,488,000 persons who were hired by farmers in 1970, 196,000 were migratory workers who worked in a county other than their county of residence. This includes large numbers of workers who commuted to work. In 1969 the number of migratory workers was 257,000.

5. Value of U.S. Imports of Fruits and Vegetables from Mexico.

Source: "Fruits and Vegetables. United States Imports from Mexico". Foreign Agricultural Service U.S.D.A., March 1971.

Chairman DENT. Referring to the last thing first, I note on pages 6 and 7 you refer to a section within this proposal to make applicable to all products crossing State lines the same restrictions we now have on American-made products crossing State lines. It particularly was put into this proposal act for the benefit of the agricultural community of our country. Their great threat comes from acorss a river which is not as wide as the Mississippi River.

It is suggested that we leave this matter to the House Ways and Means Committee. The House Ways and Means Committee has had before it the plight of the tomato growers and the strawberry industry and the plight of the melon and citrus fruit industry but it has not given consideration to discussing it in committee.

Now you come before us with the plea that you have to be protected against the impact of imports on agricultural products for the rise of $43 million in 1 year. We had full testimony from the State of Florida in which they show that 48 percent of all of the citrus fruit has now been going to foreign producers and it is right across the border. I don't believe we can set the standard for American workers working under a Federal law with a minimum standard of living as its criteria, based upon the wages paid in a foreign country.

Now, if that is what you want us to do, then we would have to start at the top and destroy the free labor market in America, and dictate the wages all along the line so we could compete with 15 cent workers in Mexico.

If the industry has any methods by which we can do something