3. Page 3, line 4, insert the word, “housing", before the word, "health". Housing is a bottleneck to obtaining satisfactory labor in many farming communities. The provision of adequate housing is quite as important as health and medical services in protecting the health of workers and in attracting qualified workers to a community. Section 2 (d) is not interpreted as authorizing the establishment of a system of health and medical services operated by a public agency. On the contrary, it would appear to recognize the need for educational work on such problems faced by migratory workers and the farmers who employ them. By cooperative action involving informational assistance, employers and workers can be stimulated to themselves solve many of their housing, medical, and health problems. We interpret the intent of this section to limit the furnishing of such services directly to workers and members of their families by the Extension Service to emergencies which, if not promptly met, might result in death or serious impairment of the health of the individual involved.

4. Page 3, beginning line 10, substitute the following for section 2 (e), "and (e) cooperating with State public employment agencies in a manner which will facilitate (1) the proper administration of State unemployment compensation laws and of Federal laws relating to veterans' benefits, (2) the customary flow of nonagricultural labor into short-period harvest jobs, and (3) the employment in industry of agricultural workers who are under employed parts of the year." The suggested language covers the cooperation outlined in the present section 2 (e). It enlarges upon section 2 (e) by covering (1) present and future laws relating to the employment of veterans in addition to title V of Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, and (2) the cooperation needed to facilitate the customary movement of workers between agricultural and nonagricultural employment. The suggested new wording would seem to be a slightly more accurate statement of the obvious intention of this subsection, and, in addition, does not limit cooperation to matters of unemployment compensation and veterans' readjustment claims.

5. Page 3, beginning on line 15 and ending on line 18, same page, section 2 (f) should be omitted since it is no longer pertinent following the recommended change in section 1, above.

6. Section 3, beginning page 3, line 22, delete, "designated agencies in the several." Page 3, line 24, delete, "to such designated agencies". Beginning page 4, line 3, delete, "such designated agencies", and in lieu thereof substitute, "the States". These deletions and this substitution are pertinent to the recommended change in section 1, above.

7. Section 4 (c), page 4, line 20, delete, "designated State agencies", and substitute in lieu thereof the word, "States". Beginning page 4, line 21, delete, "by such agencies", This substitution and deletion are pertinent to the recommended change in section 1, above.

8. Section 5, page 5, line 1, beginning with the word, "such", delete to line 5, ending with the word, "expenses". Substitute in lieu thereof, the following, "not to exceed $6,000,000 for any one fiscal year of which not less than 85 per centum of the funds so appropriated shall be allocated to the States as provided in section 3 of this Act. Such remaining funds as are not allocated to the States shall be available to the Secretary for expenditure by him for administrative and other necessary expenses, including personal services in the District of Columbia and including allotments to the agencies of the Department of Agriculture designated to assist in carrying out the provisions of section 4 of this Act." This revision is suggested to give those administering the program a guide in regard to the scope of the activities that should be carried out under the provisions of the act. This is particularly important because of the cooperative nature of the program. It will be a guide to the States in the development of appropriate plans and organization.

9. Section 6, page 5, line 20, beginning with the word, "the", delete the remainder of this section through page 6, line 2. Substitute in lieu thereof, "facilitating (1) the proper administration of State employment compensation laws and of Federal laws relating to veterans' benefits, (2) the customary flow of nonagricultural labor into short-period harvest jobs, and (3) the employment in industry of agricultural workers who are underemployed parts of the year." This revision is suggested for the same reasons as given for the revision of section 2 (e) above.

10. Section 7 (a), page 6, beginning with line 3 and continuing through line 9, delete entire paragraph. This deletion is suggested since authority for making such loans is contained in legislation authorizing the establishment of Federal land banks and banks for cooperatives.

11. Section 7 (b), page 6, delete the letter “(b)”.

12. Section 7 (c), page 6, beginning with line 17, through page 7, line 11, delete entire paragraph. Since it is not contemplated in this act that the Government shall continue to own and/or operate farm labor supply centers this activity should be discontinued at the expiration of Public Law 229 (78th Cong.), as amended and supplemented.

13. Section 8, page 7, line 14, delete, “designated agencies in the". Page 7, line 18, delete, "agencies designated under this Act," and in lieu thereof add, “extension service".

14. Section 9, page 7, beginning with line 19 and continuing through page 9, line 2, delete entire section. The reason for suggesting the deletion of this section is that under the ninth proviso of the third section of the Immigration Act of 1917, the Attorney General now has authority to permit the entry of foreign workers for agricultural employment. Foreign workers are now working in the country under regulations issued by, and applications approved by, him. would appear that existing legislation is entirely adequate to care for the kind of emergency situation contemplated in this section.

It

15. Add as a new section 9, page 7, the following. “Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be available as employer contributions in the manner authorized by the Act of March 4, 1940 (7 U. S. C. 331) with respect to any person whose salary is paid in whole or in part from funds apportioned to the several States." This addition is suggested so that farm labor funds allocated to State extension services may be used by them to pay the employer contribution required for personnel to participate in State retirement systems. Other grantin-aid Federal funds allocated to the States are used for this purpose under the authorization in the act of March 4, 1940.

16. Section 10 (c), page 9, line 9, delete, "national of the United States and aliens", and substitute, "lawful residents of the United States who perform agricultural labor whether hired or self-employed." The reasons for suggesting this change are that three-fourths of the persons performing agricultural labor are self-employed. They as well as hired workers should receive the benefits of the act. The definition of agricultural labor contained in the Internal Revenue Code refers primarily to hired workers. The term, "lawful residents of the United States" includes aliens who enter the country under the ninth proviso of section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 as well as other aliens who have legally entered the country.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask Mr. Bramblett if he will present Mr. Bunje to this committee at this time.

Mr. BRAMBLETT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bunje comes from the central valleys area of California, particularly from the San Joaquin Valley, from Fresno, where I was born and raised. He is a constituent of Congressman Gearhart, and also represents the area in Congressman Elliott's district. I know some of his associations. He has been manager of the agricultural labor bureau there for a long time and is very conversant with the problems of migratory labor. It gives me great pleasure to introduce him to you at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear from you, Mr. Bunje.

STATEMENT OF RALPH BUNJE, MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL LABOR BUREAU, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIF.

Mr. BUNJE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ralph Bunje. I am the manager of the agricultural labor bureau of the San Joaquin Valley in California, a nonprofit cooperative farm association formed in 1926 with 1,000 farmer members and some 88 allied members made up of farmer cooperatives and other commodity groups.

For 21 years my organization has been engaged in the business of recruiting, placing, and referring agricultural labor in central California. At one time we did all of the work and carried out most of

the functions now being conducted by the Agricultural Extension Service and that prior to the war was carried on by the State employment services and the USES. We therefore feel that we are well qualified to give our views on this important legislation. I think it is also well to point out that this organization was created by the chambers of commerce of the counties in which it operated and the various Farm Bureau centers in those counties. This organization endorses wholeheartedly the principles contained in H. R. 3367 now before the committee. It is our belief that agriculture at this time must determine whether it wishes to have agricultural labor directed and referred by the State employment services or by the agricultural extension services. It seems clear to us that this is a matter of choice between the two agencies. We understand that the costs of administering such a program will be about the same regardless of the administering agency.

Based on our past experience, it is our firm conviction that farm labor should be referred and directed, recruited and placed by the agricultural extension services and not by the employment services. We are firm in our conviction that the extension services will do a better job than the employment services in the interest of both the farmer and the worker. The employment services are engaged to a major degree in administering the payment of unemployment and disability insurance. Anyone familiar with agriculture knows that agricultural labor referral, recruitment, and placement services require an action program designed and geared to agricultural affairs. We believe that a satisfactory program dealing with agricultural labor should give due consideration to the following points:

1. Information on supply and demand.-Since the agricultural extension services are intimately familiar with agricultural production and with rural affairs, we feel that they are in the best position to collect and disseminate accurate, timely and complete information with regard to the supply and demand of agricultural workers within the States and between the States.

2. Demonstration.-The matter of education of the agricultural worker through booklets on harvest techniques and agricultural practices will enable workers to do a better job as well. This and the regular demonstration work of the extension service are vital assets in the employment of agricultural labor. Such educational work does not need to go beyond the already well-received extension programs of the organization.

3. Recruitment and placement.-We believe that it is important in the interests of farmers that the Extension Service continue its excellent work of directing farmers and farmer associations to areas in which there is a surplus of farm workers and to cooperate with them in connection with their recruitment activities. We also feel that this agency is in a position to reassure workers as to the authenticity of job opportunities in other areas and as to the working conditions to be found in the contemplated areas of employment. In the field of placement, the Extension Service has formulated excellent techniques for field placement and referral work; acting to bring worker and farmer together.

4. Health, medical, and burial services.-We are not familiar with the State and local laws affecting other States in the Nation with reference to the health, medical, and burial services affecting its citizens.

In California, we believe there are adequate laws relating to this problem which would therefore not require additional funds in our State.

5. Cooperating with State employment agencies.-There has been and we hope will continue to be proper cooperation between the State employment services and the Extension Service in connection with the administration of this program. We feel that the program authorized in this legislation will go a long way in making more efficient the administration of the State employment agencies. It might very well provide them with a proper agency to which persons applying for unemployment insurance and capable of doing farm work may be referred. This would then enable the farm labor office to offer employment to such people referred to them and would naturally lead to reducing the payment of unemployment insurance to agricultural workers and others seeking unemployment checks rather than employment and a job.

6. State administration.-We believe that it is important that the administration of this program should be, as far as possible, at the State level and the Federal direction of such a program should be devoted to the matter of compiling information with regard to the interstate need of agricultural workers and working conditions, and coordinating interstate movements. It is our conviction that this agency should not be assigned the responsibility of attempting to fix, regulate, impose or enforce collective bargaining requirements, wage rates, housing standards, or union membership with respect to agricultural workers, for the reason that their activities should be devoted entirely to the matter of giving information and directing workers from one job to another. Any attempt to place responsibilities dealing with working conditions on such an agency other than a statement of known facts relating to job opportunities would only serve to complicate and reduce its effectiveness in recruitment and placement activities.

7. The disposition of farm-labor supply centers. We feel that existing farm-labor supply centers should be liquidated at the earliest possible time, consistent with the housing requirements of the areas which they serve. We feel that the Federal Government should no longer continue to operate these camps, but that provision should be made that would enable their continued use for farm-labor housing until such time as the critical housing shortage now existing in many parts of the country is overcome, and such housing centers may be replaced with on-farm housing. In the interest of accomplishing this, we feel that the disposition of the housing should be limited to those persons or organizations willing to continue their use for farmlabor housing. We would urge that liquidation be on either a grant, lease, or sale basis with preference given to counties, States, and nonprofit organizations of farmers for their acquisition.

8. Depanelization.-Temporary housing that may have been acquired or which may be declared surplus in accordance with the provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, and which is used or contemplated to be used for housing agricultural workers, should not carry the requirement of demolition or depanelization as set forth in the Surplus Property Act.

9. Foreign labor.-We believe that in the interest of assuring agricultural producers of an adequate supply of labor and in case there exists a shortage of domestic workers willing and able to perform agricultural work, some machinery should be provided that will enable the

employer, at his own expense, to procure foreign workers. It is important in providing for such use of foreign workers that adequate and proper certification be made by the Secretary of Agriculture on the basis of the known facts. We would refer the committee to the experiences in the West in the twenties, when there was a general shortage of labor, of the pirating and abuses that occurred as a result of an inadequate labor force and the lack of an agency charged with directing workers into areas of employment and accurately knowing the supply and need for labor in various areas.

I should like the privilege of submitting for the record the statement of the California Legislature's interim committee which has studied the matter of agricultural labor. These conclusions are the result of hearings held throughout the length and breadth of the State of California and I feel not only reflect the views of the legislature but the general tenure of the people of California.

(The pertinent excerpt from the report referred to is as follows:)

CONCLUSION

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 administraiton of a farm labor program in California supported by Federal funds would continue to be dependent on the restriction contained within the Federal legislation. While the legislation might designate 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.

5. Or an entirely new agency separately financed by special legislation. Mr. BUNJE. I also wish to reaffirm and reemphasize the point made by one of the prior witnesses-that any effort to enable the employment services to provide farmers and agricutural workers with a farm placement service either at the national or the State level would be a distinct disservice. The efforts of the employment services to provide a farm placement service before the war failed to produce the results which were enjoyed by farmers and farm workers during the last few years under the leadership and direction of the Extension Service. To