As you know, the supply of farm labor now is the lowest on record; and farmers have been able to meet their food-production goals only by working long hours and by utilizing large numbers of elderly people, women, and children. There are a great many cases where the person deferred under the Tydings amendment is the only able-bodied person, and is the key man upon whom the whole farming operations depend his work being supplemented by an elderly person and, in some cases, by children, who could not carry on the farming operations at their present level without this key person.

It is my understanding that these resources of deferred registrants have been pretty thoroughly combed over already. I am convinced that, if any large numbers of these key essential workers are taken off the farms, it will result in a substantial reduction in production of food.

We understand that it was your intention that the provisions of the Tydings amendment be strictly observed. The reports coming to us indicate that the recent instructions are being interpreted in such a manner that may result in largely nullifying the Tydings amendment.

I wish to respectfully urge that you immediately review this whole situation in the light of the possible effects on food production, and take such additional steps as may be necessary to reassure farmers by clarifying the intent and purpose of your recent order with respect to farm deferments, and assuring farmers of an adequate supply of dependable labor necessary to meet their food production goals.

Another phase of the farm manpower problem which we believe needs immediate attention is the holding on the farm of men who are rejected for military duties because of physical disabilities. Under the present interpretation of the regulations, many of these men may be lost to agriculture unless some further instructions are given to draft boards.

I wish to strongly urge that appropriate steps be taken immediately, instructing local draft boards to prevent all deferred registrants in agriculture who are rejected for military service because of physical disabilities, from leaving essential activities in agriculture, unless the draft board determines they have good cause. It is our understanding that orders were issued recently requiring this to be done. in the case of industrial workers. We feel that the same protection should certainly be given agriculture. Sincerely yours,

Mr. E. A. O'NEAL,

EDW. A. O'NEAL, President.

OFFICE OF WAR MOBILIZATION AND RECONVERSION,
Washington, D. C., January 19, 1945.

President, American Farm Bureau Federation,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR ED: I have your letter of January 17, 1945, relating to the induction of men 18 through 25 now deferred for farm work.

In the next day or so I will talk over with General Hershey the problems discussed in your letter and will then communicate with you further.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES F. BYRNES, Director. Senator MAYBANK. What is the substance of General Hershey's reply?

Mr. OGG. He reviewed again the directive of Justice Byrnes, and repeated again the statement of the finding of the President. He stated that of course the local boards did have the authority and responsibility to determine whether these men were essential, but there is this insistence that in making that determination they must take into consideration the finding of the President that most of these men are more needed at this time for the armed services than they are on the farm. Now it is our opinion that that was not the intent of the Tydings amendment.

Chairman Flannagan of the House Committee on Agriculture stated to General Hershey recently at their hearing that that was not his interpretation, and he was joined by numerous members of the

Committee on Agriculture in stating that they agreed with Mr. Flannagan that that was not a correct interpretation.

I have also discussed this with Senator Tydings. It is not, as I understand it, his interpretation, either. He feels that this is placing an erroneous interpretation on the act, as we do also.

Senator MAYBANK. You mean Hershey's directive?

Mr. OGG. Yes; and to correct that Senator Tydings has introduced an amendment which we believe would be very helpful in correcting this interpretation, which we believe is erroneous and contrary to the intent of Congress. I would like, if it is agreeable, to put that into the record.

The substance of his amendment is that in carrying out their responsibilities under the act, the local selective-service boards shall base their findings solely and exclusively on whether the registrant is necessary to, and regularly engaged in, an agricultural occupation or endeavor essential to the war effort, and whether a satisfactory replacement can be obtained, without reference to the relative essentiality of the registrant to an agricultural occupation or endeavor or service as compared with any other occupation or endeavor.

Now I would like to make this statement. I have here, which I will not read, a folder of correspondence we have had-letters and telegrams and we have had many long distance calls, showing that farmers in many areas of the country are greatly upset about the effects that this situation is going to have on production unless it is corrected.

I just had a long-distance call from President Aldridge, of the Mississippi Farm Bureau this morning. He tells me that in his State the State selective service director has issued instructions to all draft boards in Mississippi that they must submit to him the files of all boys that they do not put in class I-A, that if they don't put them in class I-A they must submit the file of every one of those boys to the State director for submittal to the appeals board.

Senator MAYBANK. But he has no legal right to do that, Mr. Ogg. Mr. OGG. We certainly think that is a violation of the spirit, to say the least, of the Tydings amendment.

Senator MAYBANK. Does the law give a State director any such authority as that, for him to be the sole judge? You have a regular legal procedure to get to your appeals board from the local board.

Mr. OGG. That is correct. You can see what pressure it puts on a local board when

Senator MAYBANK (interposing). I don't know that it would be, because after all the local boards are serving for nothing. I shouldn't imagine that the local boards in South Carolina, who know the people locally, would be willing to send all the information about those people up to the director and decide that he knows more about the local fellow than anybody else.

Mr. OGG. I don't think they should. I think the local board has a responsibility under the law to perform, and we have always understood and have been told by General Hershey and his associates numerous times, that the local board does have the responsibility of determining the essentiality of that worker.

Senator MAYBANK. Is there anyone else besides the director of the State of Mississippi who has said that?

Mr. OGG. We have had similar complaints from other States that hey are doing the same thing. I have an excerpt from a letter which understand went out to the local boards in Indiana, in which the State director instructed the local boards that on the average they should not defer more than 15 percent of these boys 18 to 25, that are not in class II-C, and that is all that would be justified for deferment, and furthermore that they should not consider for deferment anybody but an owner-operator. I might say we transmitted this to General Hershey and asked that it be corrected.

In another State, I believe it was Florida, we have a copy of the instructions which we are informed that the director sent out to the local boards there, which gave four criteria which they must find to exist, and not only one, but all four of these criteria had to exist before they could defer one of these boys. Now three of those criteria, in our opinion, go beyond the law, the Tydings amendment, and the instructions of General Hershey.

For example, one of them required that they find that the operations of that farm would totally cease if that boy were taken. Another criterion was that he be solely responsible for the production of that farm. I don't think there is anything in the Tydings amendment or in General Hershey's instructions like that.

Now I don't want to prolong the record but I have here excerpts from letters of farmers that we have received, of their experiences before local boards under the instructions that they have received, either from national or State headquarters.

Let me just read one excerpt, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. The only thing about this, Mr. Ogg, is that you are attempting to correct an action of Selective Service and I am wondering whether this information, which of course we have all gotten through our mail, is really and truly information that we need here. We know that there is a shortage of manpower or this manpower bill would not be here, and we know that the farmers are being bothered.

Now the correction of a directive will have to come, I imagine-if it is going to be done by law --as Senator Tydings said yesterday, through his amendment. They spent 2%1⁄2 hours discussing that very thing on the floor of the Senate. I don't think we need to add that to our record.

Mr. OGG. Well, the point is that we feel it is very vital in a bill of this sort, where you are talking about drafting labor, that the Tydings amendment, which is an integral part of the whole selective-service law, be properly clarified as a part of this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is already an amendment suggested by Marvin Jones which we have before us. I don't think that you need to put up the farmers' arguments to us; I think we understand those. I don't mean that in any belittling way. This is, as you know, a hearing which is closed in order that we may get your off-therecord opinion about this thing, and get the real information from you, and not the type of material which you have tucked away there in your folder.

Mr. OGG. I want to say here that as far as the American Farm Bureau is concerned we feel this is one of the most important things in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be, but I will ask you to go to the amendment. What I am trying to do is to prevent all these farmers' letters from going into the record.

Mr. OGG. All right. I hope that you will incorporate such an amendment. I am sure, as you say, that you have plenty of evidence in your own files so far as the difficulties are concerned, and I certainly don't want to take your time unnecessarily on that point.

Now the other amendment that we would like to suggest and urge in connection with this proposed "work or fight" legislation, is that appropriate language be inserted which would insure that the actual placement of the workers in agriculture, who are going to be placed under this legislation, be handled by the Agricultural Extension Service under the direction of the War Food A ministrator, as now provided by law.

As you know, Congress has passed, several times, legislation for the recruiting and placement of farm labor, and we would like to see any placements in agriculture handled in that way.

So far as nonagricultural labor is concerned, we believe that the placement of those workers should be handled by the War Manpower Commission.

In addition I believe that the provision which is in the House bill and which, as I understand it, permits a worker who has been ordered to obtain essential employment, to go out and find his own job if he can, is very desirable. That privilege should be retained, which, as I understand it, is in the language of the House bill.

But to the extent that governmental assistance is needed in the placement of these workers, we believe that it should be done by the War Manpower Commission, and the Extension Service so far as the farm labor is concerned, under the direction of the War Food Administrator.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you would favor the amendment which has been sent up here giving the administration to the Mobilization and Reconversion Board?

Mr. OGG. I haven't seen that amendment, I don't believe, but we are for the principle that we have outlined.

The CHAIRMAN. You wouldn't like to leave H. R. 1752 as it is, then? Mr. OGG. No; we want these two amendments that I have suggested, and we feel they are very necessary, particularly the new Tydings amendment which he has offered as an amendment to this bill to further clarify the original Tydings amendment which is now

the law.

Now I would like to add this. In connection with conferring powers on the Office of War Mobilization, or the War Manpower Commission, I would not want anything I have said to be construed as favoring turning over this whole program in its entirety to either of those agencies. We do feel that, if we are going to have "work or fight" legislation and if you are going to draft people for work, as well as draft them for the Army, the local board out there that is close to the people, composed of local citizens, is a safeguard against bureaucracy and should be utilized in the selection of workers where it is necessary to use this form of compulsion. We would prefer to see that authority rest on the local selective-service board, and also the authority to determine when a man should be cited for violation of the provisions.

of law under this proposed legislation. We think that should rest with the local draft board composed of local citizens, rather than with some official off somewhere who wouldn't know the conditions because such officials are not as well acquainted with conditions, no matter how capable they may be, as the people who are close to these men, and who are up against the similar problems.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is assumed, I think, that the local draft. board will take care of the calling of men the same as it does for the service.

Mr. OGG. There is one other point that Senator Maybank mentioned earlier, that we feel is very important, which is embodied in the amendment Senator Tydings has proposed, to clarify further the original Tydings amendment. His new amendment would also provide that any registrant who is deferred because of essentiality in agricultural occupation, and who has been rejected for military duty because of physical disqualifications, would be required to remain in agricultural occupation unless he secured the consent of his draft board to leave, and anyone who violated such a provision would be subject to the same penalty as any other violator of the Selective Service Act. Unless you have that penalty, or some additional penalty beyond what is now in the law, under the present situation when a man is rejected for military duty there is no real penalty for leaving essential work in agriculture because the Army doesn't want him and the only penalty now is induction into military service.

Now Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity of expressing our views.

The CHAIRMAN. We want to thank you, Mr. Ogg. May I ask you this further question. The Farm Bureau did support H. R. 1752; did it not?

Mr. OGG. We did not endorse any specific bill when this matter was pending before the House. We did appear before the committee and endorse the principle of "work or fight" legislation, and asked for some amendments to safeguard it, and some were inserted in the bill later, to which I have referred. Some others which we asked for were not inserted and we are now renewing our request.

The CHAIRMAN. As you stand today, you favor H. R. 1752 with amendments?

Mr. OGG. We favor the objective of the bill provided that these amendments which I have referred to are included.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions, gentlemen?

It is now 12:20 and I think we will adjourn until 2 o'clock; instead of proceeding now with these other gentlemen, and we will continue with them at 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Present: Senators Thomas of Utah (presiding), Hill, O'Mahoney, Maybank, Austin, Revercomb, and Burton.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Patton; just give your name, position, and so on, to the reporter.