and taking out labor when we ourselves were in short supply, which I agree, and I am sure you agree, is an improper thing to do. Mr. TOLBERT. Yes, sir.

Mr. PACE. That is in the law now, where, under the present program, the Federal agency or anybody else is prohibited from coming in when I also need two or three thousand extra workers, and moving them out and leaving me without labor. Don't you think it might be well to put some language in here limiting the use of this information, where it will not be used in depleting short labor supply areas? Mr. TOLBERT. I don't think any of us will argue with you on that, Mr. Pace; no, sir.

Mr. PACE. That is fine. I am glad to have you tell us that.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. GROSS. I have another question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gross.

Mr. GROSS. What is your official capacity with this organization that you are representing here?

Mr. TOLBERT. The Oregon State Farmers' Association, sir, or the National Farm Labor Conference?

Mr. GROSS. The National Farm Labor Conference.

Mr. TOLBERT. I am cochairman, sir. There is a man from Floridawho was unable to be here with us today--and myself who have served as cochairmen of this organization since last June.

Mr. GROSS. Are you a full-time paid employee?

Mr. TOLBERT. Yes, sir; but not of this organization.

Mr. GROSS. You are a full-time paid employee of what organization? Mr. TOLBERT. Of the Oregon State Farmers' Association.

Mr. GROSS. You are a full-time paid employee of the Oregon State Farmers' Association?

Mr. TOLBERT. Yes, sir.

Mr. GROSS. On page 3, line 3, 4, and 5, it says:

Cooperating with farmers and migratory agricultural workers in making arangements for health, medical, and burial services to such agricultural workers and their families

and so on. That of course, means maternity assistance for these workers' wives and the Government will have to take care of that particular proposition, doesn't it?

Mr. TOLBERT. No, sir.

Mr. GROSS. You mention there medical services for the agricultural workers and their families, and you would provide for the burial. Doesn't that provide for medical assistance from one end to the other?

Mr. TOLBERT. It provides only for medical service where it will be self-supporting, not at Federal expense. We do not visualize that to be at Federal expense at all, sir.

Mr. GROSS. You are not a Federal employee at the moment, are you? Mr. TOLBERT. No, sir.

Mr. GROSS. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Tolbert.

Mr. TOLBERT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to thank all the members of the committee for their kindness.

The CHAIRMAN. We have with us our colleague, Hal Holmes, from the State of Washington, who has another committee meeting. For that reason we will proceed out of the regular order and hear from Mr. Holmes at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAL HOLMES, UNITED STATES
REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I shall not take much of the committee's time, because I do not want to duplicate the information that has been presented to your committee.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do want to emphasize a very important point concerning the handling of these farm labor camps. I am from an area where we use probably as much seasonal labor as any area in the United States and we have some of these camps that house up to 800 farm laborers. I would like to see, for this specific part of the bill, the language amended as follows:

Amend section 7 (c), being line 3, page 7, by striking the figure "1948" and inserting in lieu thereof the figure "1949."

The subject matter has been discussed with the previous witness, but I would like to add some additional points. First of all, I would like to see the bill not altered so as to bar leasing of these farm camp facilities to farmers' associations and farm groups.

I also support the idea of permitting these facilities to be transferred to subgovernmental units, either State, county, or municipal. The reason for asking for this additional year, even in the face of witnessing what members of the committee have said, is due to the fact that some 40 legislatures in this country have met and adjourned and for that division of Government they are not in a position to act as of December 31, 1947, in taking over these facilities. I am sure that they will act in many States if they wish to take over the facilities.

If you submit the labor camps, under the War Assets Administration, to the highest bidder, they probably will be removed, torn down, and taken away. That, in turn, will do away with two very important things that are happening out in our section of the country. It will remove the facilities, first of all, for housing the tremendous labor demand; secondly, it will increase the problem of housing, generally speaking, and, thirdly, and this is extremely important, it is important to keep in mind that there are areas of the country where, under the impact of the war, a tremendous amount of new acreage was brought into cultivation. Because of the scarcity of housing facilities those pieces of land are being tilled by the farmer and the farm laborer, with the farm laborer living in the camp. But the new acreage coming under cultivation keeps up an increased demand for that seasonal labor. Without housing facilities on that specific piece of land under cultivation it adds to the difficulty of the problem. The second thing that I would like to mention, gentlemen, is that the desire to maintain these farm labor camps in certain areas of the country under the control of farm associations, nonprofit associations, and subdivisions of Government, is due to the tremendous change in the amount of diversified crops that has been introduced during the war, types of production that did not exist to such an extent previous to the war. I live in an area where, if you go 100 miles northwest and southeast, with an approximate width 35 to 40 miles, you will witness the use of some 30,000 to 35,000 seasonal workers a year. We necessarily want to retain these labor camps intact somewhere in that area for the use of the farmers and for the housing of farm labor.

I do not wish to duplicate, other than to reemphasize and summarize the fact that our legislation is out of session. It cannot even receive a donation without some legal action of a legislative nature. If you give us some extra time, we can arrange to take over these camps and keep them intact for the housing of this seasonal labor. Our fear is that the War Assets Administration will dispose of them to the highest bidder and they will be destroyed and removed.

The next point is we would like to see kept in the bill the right of these organizations to lease these facilities. In other words, I am here testifying to keep these camp facilities intact for the use of farm labor in these areas, and I do want to emphasize the diversification and increased use of farm labor due to war production. I cannot emphasize that too much.

I can give you a few facts on it. In one area in the last 3 or 4 years, the Rosa project in the Yakima Valley has put under irrigation an additional 33,026 acres of land. This land is devoted to row crops, potatoes, onions, hops, alfalfa, sugar beets, and so forth. The production is terrific. It is one of the highest row-crop-producing areas in the United States. To give you some idea of its producing ability, one onion crop came through with 68.32 tons of onions to the acre. The result of this is we have got a tremendous row crop stoop-labor

area.

Mr. GRANGER. How many tons?

Mr. HOLMES. 68.32 tons. That was out of 10 sample acres.

Mr. POAGE. You mean 130,000 pounds per acre?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes. We have areas that double-crop potatoes at 27 tons per acre yield for the season.

I do want to emphasize the necessity of maintaining the program of holding the camps intact.

I do not wish to take any further time of the committee, after summarizing the points that I have given to you.

Mr. PACE. One question, Hal. In that production, how much of it is corporate production as distinguished from the family-size farm? Mr. HOLMES. One hundred and sixty acres is the maximum number of acres you can have on the project. The size of the farm is controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation and they are family-size units. Mr. PACE. Do I understand that the corporation cannot operate over 160 acres in that area?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes. The irrigated area is all planned for familysize units all the way through. They do that to cut down land speculation.

Mr. PACE. I understand that efforts have been made to remove that limitation now.

Mr. HOLMES. In some areas of the country; yes, sir.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the gentleman about his legislature. Your legislature, I presume was in session, just as ours was in Texas, in the early part of this year, and has adjourned. Mr. HOLMES. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. They knew at the time they were in session that there was a time limit on the disposal of these camps, did they not?

Mr. HOLMES. I am not sure that they did, Mr. Poage. I am not sure that they knew it.

Mr. POAGE. I recognize the fact that the public doesn't always know what the law is, but of course the public is charged with knowledge of the law, and even a member of the legislature is charged with knowledge of what the Federal law is. The legislature had the facility to know. Did not they do what all of us are prone to do, figure there were several months left and that there was no need to hurry? Do you think if we put this off 2 years, or 22 years, and your legislature meets this next spring, that you would ever get any action about something that would not run for some time to come?

Mr. HOLMES. I will guarantee we will get action. It doesn't necessarily have to come from the legislative level, but it will give the legislative level and the State time to act.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Tolbert guaranteed if they would get it extended to 1948 they would not come back and ask for another year. It wasn't 5 minutes ago. Then you, representing a State in the same area, ask for an extension of another year.

Mr. HOLMES. Your bill reads, Mr. Poage, that you have got until December 31, 1948, for the disposal of these camps by the War Assets Administration.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Tolbert said if we would give them that extra year they would not come back and ask for another extension. I specifically pointed out how the agencies always came back to us for another year. Mr. Tolbert said, "I will guarantee if you give us another year there will not be any further extension of time." It wasn't 5 minutes ago that he said that. Now you come and ask for still another year.

Mr. HOLMES. Excuse me. I understand the bill sets now December 31, 1947, as the date.

Mr. POAGE. That is the present law.

Mr. HOLMES. The new bill goes to December 31, 1948.

Mr. POAGE. Yes; and you want to extend that to December 31, 1949. Mr. HOLMES. That is right.

Mr. POAGE. The bill would give you a year more than the present law does.

Mr. HOLMES. What would it cost the Government to do that?
Mr. POAGE. What would it cost the Government to do that?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. It will continue a governmental policy that this Congress is on record as having found was unsound, and that I still believe is unsound, that is the policy of having the Government maintain these camps. The committee as a group has condemned this policy of the Federal Government maintaining these camps, and I, for one, join in that condemnation. I meant it when I voted that the Government should liquidate these things, and I still mean it. I do not see how we will ever liquidate them by just continually postponing it.

I don't know when your legislature adjourns, but if it adjourns in April we will have to put the dead line on the 15th day of April, because neither your legislature, nor mine, nor any other legislature is going to act unless it is faced with a dead line right there before it.

Mr. HOLMES. Put it on as a dead line. Give the legislature a chance to act on it. They will not reconvene again until 1949 and that is why I asked for the extension of the date.

Mr. POAGE. What about the power of calling a special session of the legislature?

Mr. HOLMES. I do not think the Governor would call a special session to take over the labor camps, although he might. It merely facilitates the matter of giving us a chance to move into the acquisition of labor-camp property. It can be the municipality or county, or it can be an association of farmers. We do not want the labor camps destroyed, torn down, disintegrated, and hauled away. We do not want that for two reasons: We need them to help out in just the straight housing shortage, and we winterized the labor camps this last winter to do that. Look at the introduction of the pea industry in eastern Oregon and in eastern Washington, bringing about diversification of labor in those areas. We start with the asparagus crop on about the 15th of April and we wind up with hard fruits in December. Mr. POAGE. Nobody will quarrel with you on that.

Mr. HOLMES. Let us have the camps.

Mr. POAGE. You can have the camps, but will your people buy them? Mr. HOLMES. We will buy them.

Mr. POAGE. You can buy them right today.

Mr. HOLMES. If we can get action from responsible groups and agencies. Give us a little time to do it.

Mr. GRANGER. What would you say if Congress would give these camps to the farmers and forget about it?

Mr. HOLMES. I think that would be all right, if you get responsible groups to handle them. A gift sometimes is a liability, but you would want to see responsible groups handle them. It takes legal action, and our legislature could not accept a gift without legal action.

Mr. GRANGER. I think we would rather give them away than maintain them.

Mr. HOLMES. If it was done on an orderly plan I do not see any reason why it cannot be done. I do not want it thrown out to irresponsible organizations or irresponsible groups.

Mr. GRANGER. It would be a simple thing to do, to get those interested to make an application for these camps.

Mr. HOLMES. If it facilitates your philosophy, and if it facilitates the philosophy of the committee, I think the idea is worthy of careful investigation and thought.

Mr. GRANGER. The Government would be likely to be money ahead if it did it, rather than maintain it.

Mr. HOLMES. Probably.

Mr. HILL. Did you know they did that in the CCC camps? They were given to the county commissioners to give to the city outright. They were outright gifts.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. GROSS. One clarifying question. You made some statement about 160 acres. Was that land under cultivation previous to that conservation project?

Mr. HOLMES. No, no. It is additional land that has been brought under irrigation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Is Mr. Seabrook here? STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. SEABROOK, PRESIDENT, SEABROOK FARMS CO., BRIDGETON, N. J.

Mr. Seabrook.

Mr. SEABROOK. My name is Charles F. Seabrook. I am president of Seabrook Farms Co., Bridgeton, N. J. I am here in the interest of