Complaints were received that the Department was citing farmers. growers. producers. and processors for failure to register as crew leaders where they were not acting as middlemen. The Department was also requiring employees of exempt employers to register as crew leaders. The act then became a bone of contention between growers and migrant legal action clients as to the extent of coverage. Because of the Departments overenforcement. certain groups have been exempted from coverage without hearings by amendments offered in the other body to housepassed labor bills. that is. sheepshearers. custom combine crews. custom poultry harvesting. and persons supplying students and others to detassel and rogue hybrid seed corn or sorghum. with certain provisos. During the last Congress. criticisms of enforcement of the act resulted in two different type bills being introduced. attempts to amend the act through nongermane amendments to other bills. various correspondence. particularly from the Senate. to the Department concerning coverage and enforcement with unsatisfactory replies. and promises of hearings in both the Senate and the House. without result. During the years of problems with enforcement and the bringing of numerous private suits. it appeared that the agricultural employer community felt all stationary agricultural employers should be exempt. while the migrant workers community feels all agricultural employers should be covered. There is a middle ground to those arguments. and the bill I am cosponsoring today reaches that middle ground consensus approach. As the Department of Labor testified. the consensus bill encompasses five basic principles: First. it distinguishes between the traditional crew leader and the fixed situs agricultural employer.