cessful operation to the mutual satisfaction of employer, community, and thousands of migrant workers.

Having the organized or planned migration under way, our union set out to try to help the migrants who were not protected by the organized migration, and with the aid of other organizations and Governor Edge, the State legislature in 1945 enacted into law the Migrant Labor Act. This law sets up minimum standards of health and decency which must be met in all of the migrant labor camps in the State of New Jersey. It coordinates the efforts of all groups in the State who are vitally interested in the welfare of migratory workers and sets up the means of enforcing these standards.

Such cooperative planning as organized migration is absolutely essential to protect the migratory workers from professional racketeer recruiters who make a business of exploiting the seasonally unemployed workers in the South. Further, organized migration accomplishes the "unfreezing" of the workers who are otherwise bound to the plantations by "planter's law." And perhaps most important of all, through such planning the workers receive the continuing protection of the two unions between whom the agreement is made. The organized migration plan as worked out by the Meat and Cannery Workers Union of New Jersey and the National Farm Labor Union, A. F. of L., is only the beginning of what might be done in the future with the use of a little imagination and the more extensive cooperation of the employers who need the workers and the unions through whose planning they can be made available and through whose collective bargaining agreements their rights will be protected.

The passage of this bill as written would tear down what has already been done to improve the lot of the migrant. We urge your committee to reject this bill or rewrite it in line with the suggestions made by the National Farm Labor Union.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hewitt, this bill doesn't do any more than extend the program that has been in existence during the war, you understand that.

Mr. HEWITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if I understand it, you have been operating in New Jersey independently of this legislation, is that correct?

Mr. HEWITT. That is the way we have it set up now; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, at the same time, I presume, there was a migrant labor program conducted under the Federal law or through the Extension Service in New Jersey.

Mr. HEWITT. Yes; there was. We work in conjunction with the USES and Extension Service.

The CHAIRMAN. You work with the other organizations which are dealing with the labor problems?

Mr. HEWITT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You indicated you have a law in New Jersey, a State law, which you think is satisfactory.

Mr. HEWITT. I think that it has done a fine job, sir, in the State of New Jersey.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the problem could be solved by leaving it to the States which have these difficult migrant problems? In other words, do you think it is necessary to have Federal legislation on the subject?

Mr. HEWITT. I think, sir, the only way that the States will take any initiative is if they are pushed on by the Federal Government. It is proven that the initiative so far has only been taken by a very few States. They must have someone to urge them into legislation such as this, as the Labor Department recommended that all States enact legislation such as this.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the motive power behind the start that you made in New Jersey? Did you folks initiate it or someone else? Mr. HEWITT. We helped to initiate it plus, as I stated in my statement, many other liberal groups in the State who felt the need of the migrant was such that this legislation was necessary, and worked in conjunction with us, along with the aid of the Governor, and it finally came into being in 1945.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, any other State which had similar conditions would have the same incentive you had in New Jersey, would it not? Mr. HEWITT. It should, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. To deal with the situation in the same way.
Mr. HEWITT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? If not, we thank you very much.

Mr. HEWITT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we have also with us Mr. Hake, of Tennessee. We will be glad to hear you briefly.

STATEMENT OF W. 0. HAKE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, TENNESSEE

Mr. HAKE. My name is W. O. Hake and I am the commissioner of the department of employment security in Tennessee, which has under its administrative control and charge the employment service as well as the unemployment compensation for the State of Tennessee. I can speak officially for the Governor of the State as well as myself, and I can also speak for about 47 other administrators in the United States on the question of placing farm workers.

I want to say this: We are opposed to the bill, the farm placement part of it being under the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture. We are set up over the country, as the Congress knows by the returns of the Employment Service last fall to the States. We have what we think is an efficient organization, with 1,800 offices in the United States. We have 72 in Tennessee, staffed by people who are trained in the placement business, and they are ready and available to do the job of placing farm workers, but we have not been able to do that because that responsibility rests now with the Extension Service.

In our State, for instance, we have county agents. The county agents are trained and highly skilled men, graduates of universities. and colleges, with the idea of helping the farmer to preserve his soil, whether it is through artificial insemination or fertilizer, and educating the farmers to move forward in the field of better agriculture, and we do not think that that type of person should prostitute his position to where he is going to try to put a hay pitcher or cotton picker to some farmer in another part of the country when he needs

him there. We have all the unemployed people recorded in our files. They come to our offices and file for unemployment compensation or for $25 a week that the GI's are getting.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be necessary for you to enlarge your force in order to take care of agricultural placements?

Mr. HAKE. I doubt that seriously. Our load shifts from one to the other, from industry to agriculture. We are ready with our force to train placement people. I doubt that the cost would be any more. We are physically set up for housekeeping; we have offices and equipment and are ready to move into it tomorrow. We cannot see the necessity of setting up another superstructure that somebody else set up to do something else. We want to place the boys on the farm just as rapidly as in the factory, because it is our business. I have been connected with this administration 9 years and I feel I have some knowledge of the business.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you set up with established offices in the agricultural sections of the State where there is a demand for migrant labor?

Mr. HAKE. We have itinerant points in every office in Tennessee. I think that is true of every State in the Union. We have 72 offices in Tennessee and we have 91 counties. The other counties are small counties where we would send someone once or twice a week to check the claims or have them register for work.

I think it is utter folly to superimpose another structure. The extension service in Tennessee would have to duplicate 500,000 files somewhere in their set-up in order to know who are the workers in the State of Tennessee. We are the only source for that, and they come to our office seeking a job or seeking compensation.

All the administrators agree we want the job as we had it before the war. We did it before; we can do it again. We just think this is pernicious legislation and it should not have been brought in here. I am very emphatic about it, and I hope I won't be misunderstood about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. GILLIE. Is Governor McCord in favor of this set-up that you have described?

Mr. HAKE. He certainly is. We could not place farm workers in the last year or two. We are ready to do it. If by telephone someone notified them to cut them off the rolls of compensation then I think we would have a pretty sorry system. We want to refer these people to employment and get them off compensation so they can do something for the economy of our State and industry.

Mr. GILLIE. Governor McCord was one of our valuable members on the committee.

Mr. HAKE. I assure you, sir, he is doing a splendid job.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I believe that concludes the list of witnesses. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. of the following day.)

PERMANENT FARM LABOR PROGRAM

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Clifford R. Hope (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, before you call the witness I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert a letter in the record from Mr. Robert M. McKinley, a member of the Texas Employment Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that may be done. The Chair also has a number of matters that have been requested to be placed in the record. One of them is a letter from our colleague, Hal Holmes of the Fourth District of Washington, to which are attached a number of communications received by him relative to the bill now before

us.

Next is a letter signed by all the members of the Oregon delegation in the House, which they would like to have incorporated in the record.

Next is a letter from the agricultural committee, Fresno County Chamber of Commerce, to which is attached a resolution by that organization.

Next is a letter from Mr. Marion B. Folsom, of the Eastman Kodak Co., to which is attached a statement supplied by the director of the employment service in the State of New York.

Next is a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture with his report on the bill and suggesting a number of amendments.

Without objection, all of these letters, statements, and resolutions will be incorporated in the record.

Mr. BRAMBLETT. May I ask unanimous consent to have a letter signed by the California delegation incorporated in the record? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that may be done.

Mr. BRAMBLETT. I will supply it later.

(The letters, telegrams, statements, and resolution referred to are as follows:)

INTERSTATE CONFERENCE OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES,

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

House Agriculture Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

June 18, 1947.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Finding it urgent for me not to remain longer in Washington, I would appreciate it if you would submit this letter for record in opposition to H. R. 3367.

I have listened with considerable interest to the proponents of H. R. 3367, and was impressed with the interest shown by the members of the committee and their effort to secure factual information upon which to base a decision which would result in the greatest good to agriculture and the public as a whole. I was very much interested in Mr. Gardner's presentation of the labor problems of the tobacco interests in Connecticut, where the county agent relayed orders for some 1,200 workers to the Employment Service and was only able to secure a small number of workers; yet there were several hundred workers drawing unemployment benefits. Apparently no evidence was introduced which would indicate that a continuation of the Extension Service as the referral agency for farm labor would eliminate the abuses complained of; yet Congressman Poage urged Mr. Gardner to offer a constructive suggestion for a remedy to correct the evils complained of.

Those of us who have had experience in employment service are in a position to submit a plan to the growers' associations and interests concerned with H. R. 3367, which will come closer to eliminating abuses complained of than any fantastic arrangement yet offered, and the plan is simple. Social security and unemployment benefits to worthy unemployed men and women is a fixture in our American economy. Public employment offices can and will function efficiently if employers would make use of the facilities offered. I know of no State agency which would condone or pay a premium on loafing and who draw benefits and refuse to accept jobs when employment is offered. May I offer this simple explanation?

To draw unemployment compensation the claimant must register for work and sign a statement announcing he is unemployed, able and available for work, giving the name of his last employer and the reason by which he was separated from his employment. One week later he must return and inquire if an opening for work is available. If we have an opening which we, not he, think he is qualified to fill, we offer it to him; if he refuses the job he is disqualified to receive benefits. If we do not have a job to offer, he then files his initial claim which is then sent to the central office. The employer for whom he worked last is sent a copy of this claim. If there is any question about the validity of this claim the employer may file a protest. Before the claimant's benefit series begins all conflicting questions must be cleared up. The State Employment Security agency is the deciding authority as to suitability of work offered claimants. Charges that claimants make the decisions as to whether or not work is suitable is not correct.

Congress has already decided that the Farm Placement Service belongs with the State agency operating an employment exchange. Congress undoubtedly knew what it was doing before H. R. 3367 was offered, and now speaking for the Texas Employment Commission and knowing I voice the sentiment of practically all State agencies, we respectfully request the privileges of going ahead with our program and we invite the cooperation of all agricultural employers that we may aid them in solving their labor problems and we have facilities to do the job and there could be no selfish motive on our part in making this request of Congress.

Yours very truly,

The Honorable CLIFFORD HOPE,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

ROBERT M. MCKINLEY, Texas Employment Commissioner.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., June 16, 1947.

The House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CLIFF: In connection with my statement before your committee this morning on H. R. 3367, I should like to have included in the record for consideration of the committee the enclosed communications received by me from the board of directors, Sunnyside Valley irrigation district, Sunnyside, Wash.; Hon. N. K. Buck, mayor, city of Yakima, Wash.; Yakima County Commissioners, Andy B. Wallace, chairman, courthouse, Yakima, Wash. ; and a number of farmers residing and farming in the lower Yakima Valley.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures (5).

HAL HOLMES, M. C.

P. S. Since dictating the above I have also received a telegram from Mr. John Slavenburg, director, Veterans Council, State of Washington, Olympia, which is attached for your information.