effort to work out a permanent farm labor program. This bill, S. 1334, is the result of those conferences and studies. We feel that there is a vital need for the type of program as proposed in this bill.

I know that you have had ample evidence as to the need of this program from previous witnesses, therefore I am not going to discuss that now. I only want to emphasize that the type of program that this bill proposes is, to a large extent, different than the type of program conducted during the war years, requiring only a small amount of Government funds.

We feel that the problem of recruitment and placement of farm workers is the primary responsibility of the farmers themselves, with very little dependence upon the Federal Government to do these operations that were conducted during the war years.

I would just like to confine my remarks primarily to the agency to conduct these operations. I, of course, can speak only for the American Farm Bureau Federation, but I believe I am safe in saying that for the most part the farmers of America are united in their insistence that this program remain in the Department of Agriculture and not be turned over to any other Federal agency, the United States Employment Service, or the State employment offices.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you hear very much along that line?

Mr. TOBLER. Yes, indeed. I just came back from the State of Minnesota. I was on a little tour up there and I met a large number of farmers. They came to me and indicated that they want this program in the Department of Agriculture, and administered through the Extension Service.

We of the American Farm Bureau Federation maintain that the agency that should operate the program within the Department of Agriculture is the Extension Service and that in the States the land-grant colleges should administer the program. In other words, we place this program on a completely decentralized basis with very little administration at the Federal level. The Federal operation will primarily be one of coordination, but the details of the program, the farm-labor program, will be in the States themselves.

I do not think I have to go into explanation of why we think the Extension Service is the proper agency to conduct this program. We know the wonderful record that they made during the war. They are familiar with agricultural problems and I think one of the most important things that we must remember is that the Extension Service has the confidence of the farm people, not only the farm operators but farm workers, migratory workers, and the year-round workers. I just want to refer to a report of the Department of Agriculture with reference to the record of economical administration of funds by the Extension Service.

In the years 1943 and 1944 there were unexpended balances of appropriations that had been made for the farm-labor program in the sum exceeding $4,000,000 per year and in the years 1945 and 1946 unexpended balances over $1,000,000 per year. That indicates the economical operation of the Extension Service, how they only use the amount of money that is actually necessary to do a satisfactory job.

That same report indicates that the net cost for making more than 7,500,000 placements in 1945 and 4,500,000 in 1946, did not exceed $1

per placement. I challenge any other agency to match that figure and at the same time do the excellent job done by the Extension Service.

I want to make just one comment with reference to foreign workers. The American Farm Bureau Federation is very much opposed to the importation of one foreign worker if sufficient domestic workers are willing and able to perform the necessary agricultural work.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent has that been going on?

Mr. TOBLER. During the war years, of course, we had to depend on imported foreign agricultural workers to a large extent due to the drafting of the farm boys, going into the armed services and also leaving the farms and going into industry. So we had to depend upon foreign agricultural workers and prisoners of war.

Now, of course, the situation is changed a great deal, but there is still a shortage of domestic agricultural workers. As long as that shortage exists we have to depend upon a certain amount of foreign workers to be imported. But we do not want one foreign worker to be imported as long as there are sufficient domestic workers willing and able to work on our farms.

If we want food and fiber the farmers must have the labor, and if the domestic source of supply is not sufficient to meet our needs then we will have to have some foreign labor imported.

The provisions of the bill, S. 1334, and the authority contained in section 9 does not cost the Federal Government any money for the importation of foreign workers. It merely gives authority for the importation of foreign workers if the Secretary of Agriculture finds that the suuply of domestic workers is not sufficient to meet our needs, then farmers themselves at their own expense or an association of farmers at their expense will be permitted to make arrangements for the importation of foreign workers.

The CHAIRMAN. Who has been doing that heretofore?

Mr. TOBLER. The Office of Labor in the Department of Agriculture, working with the State Department, in entering into contracts with foreign governments. The one source where most of the foreign workers came from was Mexico.

We support this bill, Mr. Chairman. However, there are two or three minor changes that we would like to offer to the committee for their consideration.

We do not think that the section 7 (a) with respect to Federal land banks making loans for the purposes provided for in this bill is necessary. We think that the present law is sufficient to take care of those needs.

With respect to the housing problem we feel that the liquidation period or date of December 31, 1948, is a little long. For years we have urged the expeditious liquidation of those farm labor supply camps and resettlement camps of the old Farm Security days. We feel that instead of prolonging this liquidation that it ought to be taken care of more quickly. We suggest that liquidation should be completed by June 30, 1948.

However, in making the disposition of these camps we feel that some provision ought to be made to include leases in addition to sales, because if you set a liquidation date and have the disposition only on the basis of sales, interested parties are going to encounter some diffi

culties in making the necessary financial arrangements, so it would seem to us desirable that some leases might be also negotiated between farmers and association of farmers with reference to these camps.

With reference to labor camps I would like to just take a moment or two and call on Mr. Charles Rummel, assistant counsel of the California Farm Bureau Federation, who is with me. His name is not on your list, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have him take a minute or 2 to discuss their views on this labor camp situation as it affects them.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. RUMMEL, ASSISTANT COUNSEL OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. RUMMEL. My name is Charles A. Rummel. I am assistant counsel for the California Farm Bureau Federation, which is part of the American Farm Bureau Federation, San Francisco, Calif.

There is one provision in the bill which has not been touched upon and that is that the housing which is now available for people in California comes largely from the excess housing or unoccupied housing of the Federal Public Housing Authority.

We have been told that we cannot purchase any of those houses unless they are torn down, board by board, and then reerected on the farm, or if we do move them out to the farm intact it will be necessary. 2 years after the emergency is over to then tear them down board by board. This comes about by an interpretation of the word "remove" or "removal" in the Lanham Act and the Federal Public Housing Authority has taken upon themselves to interpret that as being depanelized, or removed, board by board.

It does not seem to us to make sense to take a house to a farm and then demolish it and then set it up again. So we are asking that we be permitted to take those houses only to a farm in a rural area, so that they will not conflict with the city regulations and that is the purport of section 7 (b) on page 6 of the Act.

The CHAIRMAN. You are in accord with that suggestion?

Mr. TOBLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RUMMEL. That is all I have.

Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. TOBLER. Mr. Chairman, the American Farm Bureau Federation recommends the enactment of legislation which will establish a longrange farm labor supply program in the United States Department of Agriculture and which is to be administered on a decentralized basis through the Land Grant colleges and the several States on a grant-in-aid arrangement.

That concludes my oral statement, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much.

Mr. TOBLER. Thank you, Senator.

(The following material was submitted by Mr. Charles A. Rummel, assistant counsel of the California Farm Bureau Federation :)

FINAL REPORT OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL LABOR, ASSEMBLY AND SENATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAY 4, 1945

CONCLUSIONS

Experience gained in the war years would indicate that the most effective farm placement program can be obtained from a separate and distinct farm placement service administered by State authority but financed from Federal funds. This plan, if adopted, could mean a continuation of the present satisfactory farm labor program into the postwar era under the direction of the Agricultural Extension Service.

However, it is probable that the university authorities may not wish to retain direction of the farm labor program and in that event other arrangements for its continuance would have to be made. The work of the Extension Service is primarily educational,

The administration of a farm labor program in California supported by Federal funds would continue to be dependent on the restrictions contained within the Federal legislation. While the legislation might des gnate the Agricultural Extension Service to administer the farm labor program, there would still be required the concurrence of the board of regents of the University of California in accepting the responsibility.

If Federal funds were not to be provided for the continuation of a farm placement program, the alternative would be a State appropriation for a program administered by some designated State agency.

It is a certainty that if the Federal Government should return to the unsatisfactory prewar system of recruiting industrial and farm labor simultaneously through the same offices and same personnel, the State of California might find it wise and proper to set up and finance an entirely independent farm placement service, free from all Federal policies. Experience has taught that lesson. The study of this problem should be immediately undertaken so that the State may be prepared through well planned action to meet any emergency that might be faced in the difficult postwar period and to avoid the mistakes of the past. If the farm placement service should be administered by the State of California, it might be directed by:

(1) Agricultural Extension Service, (2) State Department of Employment, (3) Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission, (4) State Department of Agriculture, or (5) an entirely new agency separately financed by special legislation.

Exhibit material is contained within the appendix.
Respectfully submitted.

Senator GEORGE HATFIELD,

Done in Sacramento, Calif., this 4th day of May 1945.

VIEWS OF COMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE, JUNE 1947

Assembly Bill 2079 introduced by Assemblymen Thompson and Clarke on February 3, 1947, is entitled "An act to provide for the recruitment and placement of an adequate supply of farm labor; to provide for an agricultural study in connection with farm labor and the availability thereof and to carry on a farm labor informational service; to generally assure an adequate supply of farm labor in connection with the planting, growing and harvesting of farm commodities and products; creating a California farm labor placement service;

providing for a director, an advisory board and for necessary officers and employees; defining the powers and duties of the director and the advisory board and such other officers or employees; making an appropriation therefor, and to amend section 92 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, relating to farm labor placement.' (See exhibit 10.)

Senate Bill 291 introduced by Senators Hatfield, Weybret, Burns, Crittenden, Hulse, Sutton, and Donnelly, on January 21, 1947, is entitled: “An act to provide for and facilitate the recruitment and placement of farm labor, creating the Farm Labor Commission and other officers to administer the provisions of this act, and making an appropriation." (See exhibit 11.)

SUMMARY OF THE COMMITTEE'S VIEWS

While it is not the wish of the committee to make recommendations, the committee would like to emphasize:

1. There should be a continuation of the national farm labor program as a part of and directed by the United States Department of Agriculture. The over-all operations of this program on the Federal level should be directed by the Agricultural Extension Service. The Labor Branch of the PMA should be retained to handle the foreign labor program in cooperation with the Agricultural Extension Service as long as there is a demonstrated need for foreign workers.

2. There should be a continuation of a program of recruitment, placement, and related farm labor activity as now conducted by the Extension Service.

The committee understands that the present farm labor program has been extended by Congress for a period of 6 months on the following basis:

(a) Continuation of the present program, including the foreign labor program until December 31, 1947.

(b) An additional 30 days liquidation period following December 31.

(c) A postponement of the liquidation until December 31, of the present migrant camps operated by the Labor Branch.

(d) Provides that "this act shall not be construed to limit or interfere with any of the functions of the United States Employment Service or State public employment services with respect to maintaining a farm placement service as authorized in the act of June 6, 1933." It provides for cooperation between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Labor to assure cooperation between the Extension Service and the State public employment agencies in the recruitment and placement of domestic farm labor and in keeping of records and information necessary for the efficient administration of unemployment compensation laws.

Prospect for permanent program

The committee is informed that a permanent farm labor program is now being considered in Congress which tentatively would provide:

(1) The Secretary of Agriculture, through the Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, is authorized to enter into agreements with the land grant colleges and universities to effectuate the act. If any State extension service of a land grant college declines to enter into such agreement then the Secretary may enter into an agreement with an agency designated by the State legislature, and if such agency is not designated by the legislature, then the Secretary may select an agency within the State to carry out the program. (2) The State agency is authorized to (a) collect and disseminate information on supply and demand for agricultural workers; (b) assist farmers and workers by appropriate studies and demonstrations or other educational methods in their performance of farm labor operation; (c) facilitate the orderly movement of agricultural workers; (d) assist in making arrangements for health, medical and burial services for agricultural workers by prepaid plans wherever necessary; and (e) to cooperate with the State Employment Services in the maintenance of records and information.

(3) The Secretary is authorized to appropriate among the several States on the basis of need, necessary funds, and these funds may be paid to other public or private agencies for carrying out any portion of the program.

(4) The Secretary is authorized to assist the States in their authority for (a) the collection, publication and dissemination of information on agricultural needs within the United States; (b) the facilitation on a national basis of the movement of agricultural workers between the States; and (c) the coordination of activities between the State agencies.