Adoption of the provision in the Committee on Finance was a close thing because we had grave doubts that the provision could be administered. We were sympathetic to the problems of farm employees and farm employers but we thought we would not be doing either of them any favor if we provided them with an unworkable system of uiemployment insurance. Accordingly. there was a great deal of sentiment in favor of instructing the Department of Labor to make an in depth study of the problems -and the costs involved and to report their recommendations to us. as the conference report requires. :My reservations about this provision were strengthened when the Senate adopted an amendment *which would have extended farm coverage to migrant workers. When the problem was cbnsidered. In committee. migrant farmworkers were thought to present a special problem for which there was no clear solution. The majority of the members of the committee who were in favor of some s6rt of farm coverage recognized this problem and agreed to exclude migrant workers from coverage. We did not know how the coverage of migrant workers could be administered and the administration could not tell us how it would be administered. Therefore. in committee we thought that experience with a limited provision might provide clues for broader farm coverage at a later time: When the migrant farm workers amendment was before the Senate I did not argue against it on its meritsI thought a good argument could be made as to its merits. I had to oppose it because it Was a problem to which we had no solution. We had no solution in the conference and we have none now.