(5) No funds appropriated under this act shall be expended for the fixing of wages or enforcement of collective bargaining requirements, wage rates, housing standards, hours of work, or union membership.

(6) The Wagner-Pizer Act (which establishes the United States Employment Service) is amended to remove the authority of the Employment Service to maintain a farm placement service and to insert a provision requiring cooperation between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Labor in carrying out this act.

(7) (a) Federal land bank and banks for cooperatives are authorized to make loans for the construction, repair, and purchase of farm labor supply centers. (b) The Surplus Property Act is amended to remove the provision calling for the demolition or depanelization of surplus housing which is used for agricultural workers. (c) The liquidation period for the operation of the permanent farm labor supply centers is extended until December 31, 1948, and it provides that their liquidation and sale shall be made only to farmers and associations for the purpose of housing agricultural workers; also, authorizes the State agency to operate these camps.

(8) In the event of a shortage of domestic agricultural workers, the Secretary may certify to such shortage to the Department of State and the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization; thus permitting employers to recruit and transport foreign workers at employer-expense to areas so certified. Also certain immigration restrictions are waived; thus expediting movement of such workers into this country.

The board of regents of the University of California have indicated the desire to relieve the California Agricultural Extension Service of the responsibility for the farm labor project not later than December 31, 1947. The successful plan and system of a farm labor agency in California, as exemplified by the extension service, might well be retained. This State agency should hold, as far as possible, the experienced personnel of the extension service farm labor staff.

Several bills have been introduced into the legislature to bring about the creation and financing of such an independent farm labor agency. These bills are printed in full in the appendix. (See exhibits 9, 10, 11.)

The recommendations of various leading farm organizations of the State along the same line are also printed. (See resolutions and recommendations.)

3. The committee believes that there might well be a continuation and sound development of a broader, more intensive educational program by the extension service.

To effectively aid in a program of better human relations between farmer and worker, the extension service might employ specialists to assist farmers in attracting and holding satisfactory work forces. It appears to be indicated that specialists, who are able to assist in information, in labor association management, in labor utilization, in training, in camp management and feeding, and in other fields of education, are needed. A research program could be provided to develop information which would contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of the program and of the farm labor forces. The educational features of the present farm labor program could be retained and enlarged by the extension service. The expanded personnel and facilities to carry on an adequate program could be provided.

4. The committee feels that when and as the farm labor centers presently operated by the Labor Branch of the Production and Marketing Administration are liquidated that such liquidations should be accomplished in a manner which would retain this farm labor housing capacity within the community as farm labor housing. It should not be dissipated and lost to the needs of farm labor. These centers could properly be owned and operated by farm labor associations.

The operation of farm labor camps by any agency of the Federal Government constitutes a form of agricultural subsidy. It imposes regulations upon a problem of private management. It tends to curtail independent action and to relieve employers and local communities of a responsibility rightly theirs. Services of Extension Service specialists would be valuable to farm-labor association purchasers of camp property. Farm labor associations would benefit materially through such services in working out the problems of housing management, feeding, and other responsibilities which would thus shift from Government to employers.

5. The committee believes that the university and the Agricultural Extension Service might well design a program of research and information to reveal a greater knowledge of agricultural labor migration in the State and to more effectively influence the flow of that labor.

Migrant agricultural labor forms an important part of the agricultural labor force of the State. There is a need for more information concerning migrants and their movement. An organized effort could be made to better integrate this labor force into the agricultural economy of the State.

6. The function of furnishing housing for farm labor should be continued after June 30 by the establishment of a bureau in the State department of agriculture to purchase and resell surplus buildings to farmers and continue other agricultural services now carried by the California Farm Production Council. (Legislation to this effect has already been introduced and is receiving a favorable reception.)

The California Farm Production Council, operating under the Food and Fiber Act, will terminate its activities on June 30. There remains a tremendous need in rural areas for housing. This need can be met materially by surplus buildings as yet unsold by federal agencies. It is conservatively estimated that at least 10,000 surplus buildings remain unsold in California. The need for farm housing is only partially satisfied, and need for farm utility buildings is virtually untouched. California farmers are entitled to a share of these surplus buildings and will need this property in order to compete with decentralized industry now encroaching on rural areas. These buildings cannot be successfully purchased by individuals since they lack the purchase priorities which are available to the State. This function should be self-supporting.

There is also a need for the continuation of those services rendered by the council to growers who desire information regarding compliance with Federal regulations and unifying the stand of agriculture on agricultural problems at the Washington level.

7. The committee believes that there should be a review of California legislation pertaining to the regulation of labor contractors. Contractors should supply labor at reasonable rates and not take advantage of highly seasonal activities. The committee might investigate labor contracting during 1947 and prepare a factual report on which specific legislation could be based.

Perhaps all labor contractors should be licensed and bonded by the State.

8. The committee believes it would be worthwhile to study compensation insurance for farmers and farm workers, health insurance, and various phases of social security and unemployment insurance. Several of these subjects are highly controversial.

EXHIBIT 1. A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EXTENSION FARM LABOR PROGRAM
AS CONDUCTED IN 1946

The year 1946 was a year of adjustment from a wartime to a postwar peacetime economy. This was as true with respect to farm labor as it was in other fields of human endeavor, and the situation was characterized by conditions and trends which will carry over into 1947 and beyond.

During 1946, the Agricultural Extension Service completed its fourth successful year of supervising the farm project. Mr. B. H. Crocheron, director of the Agricultural Extension Service, continued to guide the project. His leadership was of inestimable value. The major change within the State administration of the project was the appointment as of January 16, 1946, of Mr. John J. McElroy as State supervisor. Mr. Warren Schoonover, who so ably directed the program during the war years, returned to his regular duties on the Agricultural Extension staff. The California Farm Production Council continued to serve as a State advisory committee to the project.

The project operated 91 permanent offices and 29 seasonal offices in the 45 principal agricultural 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 Fibre 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. As 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. Twenty-five 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, 99.4 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 officers 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 country and worked closely with country farm labor staffs in carrying on the program.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodwin, Director of the United States Employment Service, Department of Labor.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. GOODWIN, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to appear before your committee and present my views regarding S. 1334 which you are now considering.

You will find in section 2 of this bill that provision is made for facilitating the intrastate and interstate movement of agricultural workers (1) by making available information with respect to the supply and demand for agricultural workers, and (2) by cooperating with farmers and associations of farmers in the recruitment and placement of agricultural workers. In section 6 of this bill provision is made for amending the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 by striking out the clause "to maintain a farm placement service." It provides only for certain cooperative arrangements between the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Agriculture instead, but only insofar as unemployed workers claiming unemployment benefits or unemployed veterans claiming servicemen's readjustment allowances are concerned. These cooperative arrangements relate to the proper and efficient administration of the State unemployment compensation laws and title V of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.

It is significant that the bill is silent on title IV of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act. I should like to point out that the responsibilities to veterans originally placed upon the United States Employment Service by the Wagner-Peyser Act were greatly increased by title IV of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. The latter act states that:

Congress declares as its intent and purpose that there shall be an effective job counseling and employment placement service for veterans and that to this end policies shall be promulgated and administered so as to provide for them the maximum of job opportunities in the field of gainful employment.

I think it is perfectly clear that Congress did not intend that legislation to discriminate against veterans whose employment interests are found primarily in the field of agriculture. This point is ignored in S. 1334 and would require amendment of title IV of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act to distinguish between veterans concerned with agricultural employment and those veterans concerned with nonagricultural employment. Such a distinction does not seem practical and is distinctly to the disadvantage of veteran employment interests. Scarcely 3 months ago this committee gave very careful consideration to the question of the emergency farm labor supply program as it had been operated by the Department of Agriculture. A bill embodying the recommendations of this committee was passed by the House and the Senate and was approved on April 28, 1947. This act, Public Law 40, provides for the liquidation of the emergency farm labor supply program in the Department of Agriculture at the end

of this calendar year. It states in section 2a that this act or any previous legislation

shall not be construed to limit or interfere with any of the functions of the United States Employment Service or State public employment services with respect to maintaining farm placement service as is authorized under the Act of June 6, 1933 (48 Stat. 113).

It. seems to me that the enactment of S. 1334 would represent a reversal of the position taken by the Congress in Public Law 40.

So far as the United States Employment Service is concerned, the most important provisions of the bill relate to the permanent transfer of the functions and responsibilities for the recruitment and placement of domestic farm labor from the United States Employment Service of the Department of Labor to the Department of Agriculture.

Our public employment service system was established in 1933 as a Federal-State system, and except for the interruption of the war years, it has operated as a Federal-State system throughout its history. The legislation controlling the operation of this public employment service system is the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 and the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. Under this legislation the 50 State employment services, affiliated with the United States Employment Service operate 1,800 full-time employment offices and an additional 2,700 part-time or itinerant offices in less populous areas. The CHAIRMAN. Is that found all over the country?

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Not any particular section?

Mr. GOODWIN. It covers the country at the points where we have the need for the service. There are 1,800 full-time offices and we maintain about 2,700 part-time offices or itinerant offices.

Among the specific responsibilities placed upon the public employment service by the Wagner-Peyser Act is that it shall maintain a farm placement service and a system for the transfer of workers among the States.

The local employment office is the keystone of our public employment service system. It is the only facility for mobilizing the total local labor resources to meet labor requirements for all activities. This is especially important in meeting the peak seasonal labor requirements. Even during the period when the Department of Agriculture operated the emergency farm-labor supply program, the local public employment offices have had to assist in the recruitment of necessary agricultural labor supply for the emergency harvesting of farm crops. In many States contract arrangements existed between the Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the public employment offices whereby the Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture transferred to the Employment Service full responsibility for recruitment and placement of all domestic agricultural workers.

The CHAIRMAN. That has been going on right up to date?

Mr. GOODWIN. There are at the present time, Mr. Chairman, only a few of those contracts in existence. Up until January of this year we never had less than 10 of them-I mean covering 10 States. Among those 10 States were some extremely important ones from the standpoint of the Department of Agriculture.

64582-47-9