The project operated 91 permanent offices and 29 seasonal offices in the 45 principal argircultural counties of the State during 1946 at a cost of approximately $860,000. This was a reduction from a total of 125 offices in 1945 to a total of 120 offices in 1946. A total personnel of 275 people were required to conduct the program in 1946, as compared to 398 in 1945.

County farm production committees appointed by county boards of supervisors under the authority of the California Food and Fiber Act served in an advisory capacity to county farm advisers and county farm labor staffs. These committees were responsible for the certification of need for imported workers, for the allocation of housing units and materials secured through the California Farm Production Council, and were generally helpful in the solution of county problems. Many county employees have been with the project since its inception and as a result have an experience and understanding which has contributed materially to the success of the program. An in-service training program for placement clerks during 1946 proved successful in improving the techniques of interviewing and placement.

With the closing of war industries and the release of men from the military services, domestic labor supplies increased materially. This increase was evident early in the year and continued progressively throughout the year. Wartime experiences had made farmers apprehensive and early in the year warped their vision pertaining to the growing numbers of available domestic workers. As operation after operation was supplied with sufficient workers to meet the : demands, their confidence grew and apprehension disappeared. Aš workers made their postwar personal adjustments, the quality and the output of their work improved.

In common with the other States of the Pacific coast, California was the beneficiary of the greatest migration to the west coast in history. Nearly 5,000,000 people entered California in automobiles in 1946 as compared to less than 3,000,000 in 1945, according to the border station counts of the bureau of entomology and plant quarantine of the California State Department of Agriculture. This immigration is significant in numbers and in timing. It followed the prewar pattern which was considered an agricultural pattern and reached its crest just at the peak of the harvest demand. Migrant interviews conducted during the fall revealed a great many workers from out of the State in the California harvests for the first time.

The numbers of foreign workers in California showed a marked decline. In 1944, the peak of foreign workers and prisoners of war reached a total of 44,000; in 1945, a total of 38,000; in 1946, the peak of 21,100 Mexican nationals was reached on August 1, previous to the high harvest need. Two thousand eight hundred prisoners of war used in spring operations were completely withdrawn in June. On December 31 the State was charged with approximately 16,200 Mexican nationals, 3,000 of whom were on furlough.

The growth of mechanization has been marked and is promising. With better than 150 sugar-beet combine harvesters in the beet fields during the harvest, mechanization kept pace with the 52-percent acreage increase over 1945. Twentyfive or more pneumatic pruners appeared in both deciduous and citrus orchards. Approximately 30 cotton harvesters were utilized. Increased numbers of hop viners relieved a tense situation. Increased mechanization in harvesting fruits and nuts, in haying operations, in potato harvesting, all contributed in the solution of labor needs.

The use of farm labor offices as clearing houses in the exchange of labor and equipment contributed to the development of a more flexible labor force and a more effective utilization of available labor supplies.

Total placements for 1946 showed a drop of 8.5 percent as compared with 1945. The drop in placements of foreign contract labor amounted to 41.2 percent; of prisoners of war, 90.4 percent; and of volunteers and other special groups, 94.4 percent. During 1946, however, an increase of 15.7 percent in the placement of usual domestic workers occurred. This is an indication that the services of the placement offices are moving in the direction of regular agricultural workers as domestic supplies grow. These figures call attention to a shift in emphasis from numbers and emergency services toward an efficient labor supply with stabilized employment conditions. They emphasize the degree of adjustment accomplished. One of the major problems in the placement of domestic workers was that of housing. According to the 1946 annual reports of the counties, local placement offices were unable to place over 53,000 single workers and more than 75,000 families because of a lack of housing. While these figures contain duplications and other discrepancies, they indicate that although much progress has been made in

housing, housing developments have not kept pace with the labor requirements of California agriculture. Of an estimated 20,000 on-farm units constructed since the inception of this program, it is estimated that 12,000 were constructed in 1946. Of an estimated 5,000 group housing units constructed by farmers or farmer associations it is estimated that 3,000 were constructed in 1946.

The California Farm Production Council was charged with the major responsibility for farm housing. The council did an outstanding piece of work in securing and reselling to farmers surplus war housing and equipment. County farm labor staffs cooperated with the Production Council in dissemination of information concerning the work of the council and the availability of housing in the development of contacts between farmers and representatives of the council and in assisting farmers in the necessary work of securing housing and equipment. County farm production committees allocated the housing within the county and worked closely with county farm labor staffs in carrying on the program.

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reconvened at 2: 35 p. m., at the termination of the recess.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Bailey is the first witness, representing the National Grange.. You may proceed, Mr. Bailey.

STATEMENT OF FRED BAILEY, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL GRANGE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have supplied the committee previously with a prepared statement which, unless you desire, Mr. Chairman, I will not read, but will just simply go right into the bill and comment on that.

This bill extending the farm-labor program as a part of the Department of Agriculture, is the result of the work of a number of people.

We first began consideration of continuing some sort of a program a year, about a year, ago. The Grange worked with the other groups in attempting to prepare a program. This is the result of the best compromise or understanding that we could possibly arrive at, I think, at that time.

The Grange does not, and did not, support this type of bill at that time. We believe that it is a mistake in a number of essential parts. We would urge the committee to rewrite the bill in very essential particulars, for the main reason that it places in the Extension Service a function which we believe the Extension Service should not perform as an essential part of its program.

We see the Extension Service as an educational agency; we agreed at the time that this program was originated as a war measure that as an emergency it should be carried on by the Extension Service at that time.

We believe now that that phase of the program has passed; that we should not continue it as a part of the Extension Service. We do not believe that any large Federal agency should be built up to manage the program on a national level. This program in the bill is another example of the difficulty there is of weaning a Federal agency away from the Federal Treasury once it ever gets started.

We would suggest that in the first part of the bill that it read, "To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with the appropri

ate State, county, and other public agencies in carrying out a program for the collection and dissemination of information with respect to the supply of, the need for, and the effective use of agricultural workers, and for other purposes."

That eliminates "through the Federal Extension Service," and it eliminates "the land-grant colleges and universities," in that it becomes mandatory to operate through those.

Under our suggestion, it becomes permissible for the Secretary of Agriculture to do so. We would completely revise section 1 of the bill, H. R. 3367, to read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter called the "Secretary") is authorized and directed, to enter into agreements with the appropriate agencies in the several States for effectuating the purposes of this Aet in their respective States. He shall enter into such agreement with such State agencies as may have been created or designated for such purpose by the State legislature (hereinafter called "other designated State agencies") or in the event the State legislature has not taken such action, then the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with other State agency, public or private, in such State as he determines is competent to carry out the purpose of this Act therein (herein also referred to as "other designated State agency").

The reason for that is this: We believe that the program should be returned to a State responsibility at the earliest possible time at the State level; that the only part of the program that should continue as a national program is that of gathering and disseminating information on a national level as to agricultural needs, agricultural workers, and in facilitating the movement of those workers from the point where they are available to the point of need; and by that I mean, I do not mean by that the financing of it either.

We do not want to tie the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture to the Federal Extension Service or to the land-grant colleges or the Extension Services in the States. We want to see those agencies free to carry on this educational work, a job which they are capable and competent of doing.

I read into this personally the possibility that some would like to load onto the Extension Service a lot of other programs, action programs, and there is presented here an action program, and away from the extension program, which we want to see implemented and strengthened.

I would suggest that in section 2 on page 3, we eliminate subsection (b) entirely; that starts on line 19 and ends on line 22.

I suggest on page 3, line 3, that reads this way, "cooperating through State, county, or other public agencies.'

وو

Now, that is the medical and health feature of it. I do not believe that the Federal Government should enter into, as a permanent part of its program, the furnishing of health and medical services or be responsible for it. This "cooperating with farmers," in doing so, I do not know that it means by "cooperating with farmers," but I think the cooperation and the program itself should be carried on at the State or county level and not at the Federal level.

I believe as a matter not only of humanity, but of economics, that a health program in those camps is essential, not only for the workers' benefit but for the benefit of the person who employs them because an ill worker is not a good worker, and maintaining high health standards

65448-47-12

in those camps is very necessary, and I would like to see some sort of program continued in that.

On line 8, section 2, page 3, I would end the sentence after "adequate." I would eliminate "and, in cases of emergency, furnishing by loan or otherwise such services to such agricultural workers and their families." Leave that completely a State matter and not the Federal Government furnishing them.

In section 3 on page 3, this provides solely for financing this program from the Federal Treasury. I would urge that if this program continues in the States, that the States assume a just burden of financing those programs in the State.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean by matching?

Mr. BAILEY. By some matching arrangement, yes. Possibly, I would not be prepared to say a 50-50 matching; but at least the State should finance a considerable portion of the program in the State, if not all of it. But certainly, a considerable portion of that cost in the State.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Bailey, is there any reason why the employers of labor should not stand that expense?

Mr. BAILEY. Which expense? I do not understand what expense you mean, Mr. Andresen.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You are referring here, I suppose, to the administrative expense.

Mr. BAILEY. Administrative expense; yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Now, is there any reason why the employers of labor should not stand the administrative expense?

Mr. BAILEY. In the case of employers of large numbers of labor they do stand that expense for the most part, because they have their own labor. In the case of most of these workers for which they are supplied out of the camps, they go to a farmer for 1 or 2 or 3 days, just helping out for a very short time. If some practical way can be found of the farmer's sharing in that expense, I see no reason why not. But it is a service to the entire Nation or the entire State, and it supplies workers to harvest food and to prevent the waste of food, and I see no reason why the State or the county should not share the cost of that administration in that area and not necessarily the farm employer.

The difficulty there would be, in my opinion, rather large. But I certainly think that it should not be saddled as a permanent feature on the Federal Government.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Well, it would be another year before most of the legislatures meet again, or a year and a half.

Mr. BAILEY. That is right.

Mr. ANDRESEN. What would you do in the meantime?

Mr. BAILEY. In the meantime we may have to continue some sort of a skeleton program to provide the going-the best service we can, but I am speaking now of a permanent program. It may be an emergency program of some sort necessary in that interval. If the problem is critical enough in any State, then there is nothing to prevent a special session of the legislature being called to enact the necessary legislation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Well, that would be rather expensive, Mr. Bailey, a rather expensive proposition for just this one purpose.

Mr. BAILEY. I realize that.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you not feel that most of the county agents know about the available labor supply in their own counties?

Mr. BAILEY. Most of them know about it in their own counties; yes, sir; but to bring those laborers from some county where there is a surplus to some county where there is a deficit is the problem, and there has to be some coordinating agency in there to function.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Well, assuming the county agent in his own county knows whether there is a surplus of labor. Is there any reason why he could not write a letter to the Department saying that there are 50 or 100 surplus laboring men here, and that the Secretary could make that information public, and the employers of labor could go to that county?

Mr. BAILEY. You have got to have an organization to perform such function, I believe, Mr. Andresen, and that is what I am proposing here, that we have in the Department of Agriculture an agency to gather this information, disseminate it, and to facilitate the movement of those workers from one point to another; not a haphazard method of doing it, but a coordinating method of supplying the information to the Federal level. I do not believe the Federal Government's responsibilities, financially or otherwise, should extend beyond that.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Well, I could go out in my own county and in a few hours, or relatively few minutes, I can go to the employment office under the jurisdiction of the State, and I can go to the county agent's office and I can get the information as to the available labor supply, and I do not see that it should require very much personnel to get that information in to the Department.

Mr. BAILEY. Well, our experience before this was, Mr. Andresen, the experience of the farmers was that the State employment office merely kept a record if anybody came in and said, "I want some workers," or if a worker came in and said, "I want a job," then the names were exchanged, and that was all. Whereas, if a worker came in and said, "I need a job," they might send him over to Bill Smith, and he might not be competent to handle the job; he might not know what the job was; there might be five men going out there, when they only needed one; we might need five men and only one went out there. There was no management to it.

The State labor office was not handling labor, farm labor; it was merely acting as a clearinghouse for anyone who came in and asked about a farm job, or anyone who wanted a farm worker would come in and say, "I want a worker." They were not making placements; they were not managing it; it was a haphazard hit-or-miss proposition, and we found mostly it was miss.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Well, they seem to get the work done.

Mr. BAILEY. I am not certain how efficient it was done, and I am not certain whether that system in a time of severe shortage of agricultural labor would function or not.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You do not favor this program where the Federal Government is going to assume the responsibility of training these

workers.

Mr. BAILEY. I am not.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I did not think so.