The effective rereal of a law which experience shows is still very much needed will be an unconscionable act that can only bring continued hardships for the poorest of the working poor. First. since the 1974 amendments were passed. it has been argued that Congress never intended to cover stationary employers as farm labor contractors under the act. In fact. the 1963 act clearly provides that farmers. canners. ginners. orocessors. packing shed oneration. and nurserymen were covered if they did not meet the criteria in the section 3(b) (2) exemption for employers who recruit migrant workers solelv for themselves. In 1974. when we enacted certain limitations to the exemption sections for these em. ployers and their fulltime or regular em. ployees. we also expanded the definitior of "agricultural employment" to includf virtually every migrant and seasona worker engaged in the farm industrie! involved. It was precisely our intent ir 1974 to regulate most employers who en. gaged in the same activities as the classic transient crewleader. Employers. of course. would prefer tc turn back the clock to pre1963 days when no Federal regulation of their employment activities concerning migrant and seasonal workers was on the books. Thus. they propose. among other things. to delete the limitations we added in 1974. They accomplish this in several indirect ways.