Senator KILGORE. They were as badly fooled as the rest of us. Senator MAYBANK. And I didn't mean to criticize either. They had a meeting in December to assist the War Production Board, through any control they had over the production necessary for the war, to get these looms going. Mr. GARDNER. Yes; and that deficiency of duck has been supplied, and Colonel Stevens has done a grand job. He deserves the highest commendation for his constructive leadership. Senator MAYBANK. Absolutely. Mr. GARDNER. Are there any further questions? Senator KILGORE. I want to ask you a question, not exactly on this matter, and we can strike it out later if necessary-it pertains to something I was discussing with you the other night. You have been Chairman of that Board since its formation and have observed its work. Do you or don't you think that the Board could function better if it had a staff of its own, at least a small staff, and could participate in the advance studies of planning? Mr. GARDNER. Senator, since I met you on a social occasion recently, and we were talking about the general work of the committee, there has been this development that has been very gratifying to me. We have been able to find a very efficient man to serve as secretary of the Board and we have appointed a steering committee to take the report of the Director to the Congress as the framework of our study, on the matters discussed in that report. When the Director returns I intend to have a conference with him and, instead of our trying to work out agenda blindly within that framework, we are going to ask him if he will indicate to us what are the immediate matters that he has in mind to recommend to the Congress, in order that we may take our facilities and our judgment, and the cross section of the country that we probably should represent, and bring to bear on our recommendations to him the judgment and experience that we have developed among ourselves, and that our secretary is now working on. We are working on a complete digest of the law and the recommendations of the Director in order to facilitate our aid, if possible, to the Director. (Discussion off the record.) I believe the Board can perform a real service and I think the Director wants to use us, but I do recognize that if there were a man of arbitrary or capricious mind as a Director, he could easily make the Board a bunch of mere wallflowers, and of no value, and the Board wouldn't function. Senator KILGORE. In other words, you think that the Board must advise in the planning, if it is to be a success, rather than advise that a mistake has been made after it has occurred? Mr. GARDNER. That is the way the Board feels. (Discussion off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Governor, for coming. Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Ogg. Mr. Ogg, will you give your name to the reporter, and what you want said about yourself in the record? STATEMENT OF W. R. OGG, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. OGG. My name is W. R. Ogg; I am director of the Washington office of the American Farm Bureau Federation. President O'Neal asked me to say to you that he appreciated the opportunity of appearing, but he was unable to be here this morning and he requested me to appear in his stead and present the views of our organization, if that is your desire. We favor the principle of work-or-fight legislation that is embodied in H. R. 1752, approved by the House, but we favor some amendments to clarify and safeguard such legislation. I will discuss these amendments a little later. Full information has been supplied to our leaders and members with respect to proposed work-or-fight legislation. The executive committee of the federation has endorsed the principle of work or fight with certain safeguards. Farmers have been straining every effort to produce essential food supplies that are needed to feed our armed forces, to help our allies, and to supply civilian requirements. They have certainly done a magnificent job-an almost unbelievable record. Despite shortage of machinery, increasingly acute shortage of farm labor, and many hampering restrictions, they have produced record-breaking supplies of food for 4 successive years. As a result of this all-out effort by farmers, our armed forces and our civilian population have been better fed than in any other war in our history. I might add that in a statement made by Judge Jones, War Food Administrator, in the Banking and Currency Committee meeting the other day, he presented a chart which showed that the total supply of food throughout this war, available to civilians, has exceeded the total consumption of food in the 1935-39 period. So certainly, while there have been shortages of some items, the aggregate to our civilian population has been more, despite these enormous war demands, than they had before the war started. There have been no strikes on the farm front, and no slow-downs of production. Despite harassing restrictions and impractical regulations, farmers have gone about their production job, trying to do their utmost to meet their food-production goals. They have been able to accomplish these phenomenal results only by working much longer hours and by utilizing large numbers of elderly people, women, and children. Farmers do not have a 40-hour week, with time and a half for overtime, and double pay for Sundays and holidays. The farmers' workweek is much longer than the national 48-hour week in war industries. Farmers, in general, have worked 60, 70, and as high as 80 hours a week to produce the food and fiber needed for the winning of the war. As a matter of fact, the average workweek in the manufacturing industry today is about 45 or 46 hours per week. Senator MAYBANK. How long do you think the farmers work, Ogg? Mr. Mr. OGG. I have a table here, which is published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, showing the average hours per day worked by farm operators and by hired help for various periods-1939, 1943, and 1944. On September 1, 1944, farm operators worked an average of 12.1 hours per day throughout the United States. Senator MAYBANK. For 6 days a week. Mr. OGG. Assuming 6 days a week, that is, 72 hours a week, plus, and of course everybody knows that there is work to be done on a farm on Sunday, also. With a dairy farm, for example, it is practically a 7-day operation. Senator MAYBANK. I mean in the over-all picture, though, perhaps the necessity of going to town on Saturday might offset. the working on Sunday, and it would be about 72 hours. Mr. OGG. The hired farm worker on that same date had an average workday of 10 hours, or 60 hours a week without counting any work on Sunday. Again there is Sunday work on livestock farms and dairy farms. In other words, to summarize, the farmer has been working 60, 70, and as high as 80 hours a week, and if you go out on the farm and see the average age of the farmer today, it may surprise you. In New York State, for instance, I understand that they made a survey and I believe it showed that the average age was in the 50's and pretty close to 60. Mr. OGG. When farmers see the millions of people who are not engaged in essential occupations and are not contributing to the war effort, the continued outbreaks of large numbers of strikes, the slowdowns and absenteeism in many industrial plants-at a time when there is such a critical and urgent need for more guns, munitions, airplanes, and other military supplies required by our boys who are fighting our battles, and when farmers are also desperately short of labor to produce essential goods-they feel that the time has come when men who are deferred from military service and who are not contributing their part toward the winning of this war by working in an essential war job, either in industry or agriculture, should be given the alternative of getting such an essential war job in industry or agriculture, or being inducted for military service or subjected to the same penalties for refusal as any other violator of the Selective Service Act. In that connection may I insert this table covering the workday of the farmers? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that may be inserted in the record if there is no objection. (The table referred to is as follows:) Farm employment: Annual averages of number of persons employed, and index numbers, United States, 1909-441 1 Annual averages are straight averages of first of month employment estimates. * Revised. At this point I would like to insert, if it meets with your approval, an article which appeared in the Washington Sunday Star of February 11, 1945, by Mr. Leo Wolman, entitled "United States Can't Take Pride in 1944 Strike Record No Matter How Stated." This article shows that there were over 5,000 strikes in 1944, involving 2,000,000 strikers, and 8,230,000 man-days lost. It shows that this is the largest number of strikes that has occurred in any year, at least since 1936. (The article referred to is as follows:) [From the Washington Sunday Star, February 11, 1945] FEWER HOURS LOST, BUT-UNITED STATES CAN'T TAKE PRIDE IN 1944 STRIKE RECORD NO MATTER HOW STATED (By Leo Wolman) The strike record of 1944 is not one of which this country can be proud, no matter how the facts are presented. Considering that 1944 was a war year, that the no-strike pledge was not waived and that wages and working conditions were steadily improving, as they had in every year since 1933, it is hard to see what excuse there was for this kind of behavior. The number of strikes, 5,000, was apparently the largest on record, certainly in recent decades. The number of strikers 2,000,000, was exceeded, since 1936, only in 1941. Man-days lost, over 8,000,000, were less than in several previous years, largely because there were, in 1944 no single continuing strikes, like the coal |