NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1941 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., July 19, 1941, in room 1015 of the New House Office Building, Washington, D. C., Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) presiding. Present were: Representatives John H. Tolan, of California (chairman), and Laurence F. Arnold, of Illinois. Also present were: Robert K. Lamb, staff director; Mary Dublin, Coordinator of hearings; Creekmore Fath, acting counsel; F. Palmer Weber, economist; and John W. Abbott, chief field investigator. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. The first witness, Mr. Reporter, is Mr. C. B. Baldwin, Administrator, Farm Security Administration. TESTIMONY OF C. B. BALDWIN, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baldwin, we want to say to you we appreciate your coming here this morning. We have been holding hearings all this week here in Washington. We have heard the heads of the various departments and I think you are very familiar with the work of this committee and we will not repeat it. We followed up our hearings of last year by going to San Diego, Calif.; Hartford, Conn.: Trenton, N. J.; and Baltimore, Md., and then back to Washington, focusing the investigation on the subject of migration resulting from the national-defense program. That is the reason that the Congress continued our committee. At this point we shall introduce your statement into the record and then Congressman Arnold has some questions that are based upon your statement, which, incidentally, I think is very fine. STATEMENT BY C. B. BALDWIN, ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C. This brief statement is intended to summarize the more complete statement which I have submitted to the committee. The longer statement consists of four separate papers, prepared at the committee's request, which outline the effects of the present emergency on the work of the Farm Security Administration and on the supply of farm labor. I want to make it plain that the conclusions drawn in these papers are based on necessarily hurried and incomplete studies by our field staff, and therefore should be regarded as tentative. We are hopeful that the work of this committee eventually will give us a much better-rounded picture of the impact of the defense program on the problems with which Farm Security is dealing. RURAL POVERTY THE ROOT OF MIGRATION The last decade has seen migrations of great numbers of people within our country. A multitude of causes are responsible for this movement. More than any other single factor, however, rural poverty has been at the root of recent migrations. No part of the Nation's economy was so stricken by depression as agriculture; and no one has known poverty any worse than that suffered by the poor farmer. Several million poor farmers were caught in the vise of collapsing foreign and domestic markets on the one hand and foreclosures, mechanization, and drought on the other. Thousands of these families were pushed off their land because they could not make it pay, because tractors took their place, or because they were ruined by drought and erosion. Most of these displaced farm families became migrants. They joined the army of workers who follow the crops from State to State, looking for seasonal jobs on big commercial farms. The Farm Security Administration has tried to do something to relieve the worst aspects of migration, and to halt unnecessary migration at its source, by striking at the basic causes of rural poverty. I believe the committee already is familiar with this work as a result of earlier hearings. EFFECTS OF THE DEFENSE PROGRAM More and more of our entire economy is being thrown into the effort of national defense. The effects of that effort go far beyond the production of planes and tanks and guns. Under the impact of the defense program, great changes in patterns of production are taking place. To determine the impact of defense on interstate migration, we must look first at such underlying factors as rural poverty to see how they have been affected by the defense program. We in Farm Security can best gage what is happening to the neediest group of farmers through the operations of our rural rehabilitation loan program. Borrowers served by this program are typical of great numbers of farm people. What defense does to them and for them is important, since we can infer that it affects from two to three million other low-income farmers in about the same way. So far, only one inference has been possible: The defense boom has not yet made any substantial inroads into rural poverty. There has been no let-up in the demand for Farm Security Administration assistance. Standard rural rehabilitation loans made by the Farm Security Administration total about the same this year as last. DEFENSE HAS NOT ELIMINATED RURAL POVERTY There are several reasons why defense activity has not cured the economic and social problems which made necessary the Farm Security Administration program. It is natural that the most direct stimulus of defense has been felt in industry. Agriculture as a whole has felt the effects more slowly and indirectly, through expansion of the domestic market. To speak of effects on agriculture as a whole, however, is misleading. Our agriculture consists of many sections, and all of them have not been affected equally. Greatest effects of defense activity have been seen in areas where the most defense work is concentrated. Unfortunately, there has been least defense activity in those very regions where there has been most need for Farm Security Administration assistance. About 44 percent of all Farm Security borrowers are concentrated in the South, but only 10 percent of all defense contracts have been placed there. On the other hand, less than 3 percent of Farm Security Administration borrowers are in the northeastern section of the country, which has received 45 percent of all defense contracts. Secondly, even when they live near defense projects, Farm Security Administration borrowers are at a disadvantage in the competition for new jobs. They are, in general, older than the average industrial worker. More than half of all clients served by Farm Security Administration this April were at least 45 years old. Most of them are inadequately trained. Few of them have the mechanical skills for which defense industry is calling. Thirdly, it must be recognized that rural poverty in recent years was not simply a result of the depression. There are major, long-time trends working against the small farmer. For example, increased mechanization and commercialization in agriculture have been responsible for much of the distress of the poorer farm families. Both mechanization and commercialization continue unabated. In fact, recent rumors about the danger of farm-labor shortages have led to greatly increased purchases of farm machinery in some places. Some of the farm population will doubtless be drawn into defense industry. But that movement will be offset at least in part by the constant decrease in the number needed to carry on agricultural operations. In summary, we may conclude that while agriculture is undoubtedly sharing in some of the benefits of increased industrial production, there remain wide areas in which the effects have been slight, and in which the basic trends continue to make great hardships for the more handicapped part of the farm population. PROBLEMS OF FARM-LAEOR SHORTAGES It may seem contradictory to speak of farm-labor shortages, and at the same time say that there is still a substantial number of impoverished farmers. However, this very contradiction points to one of the keys to the problem. It is entirely possible to have the greatest poverty in one farm area and a shortage of farm labor in another. Dislocation of agriculture has produced maldistributions of labor supply. In fact, much of recent agricultural migration was simply a peculiarly painful method of overcoming that maldistribution. It has been predicted that labor shortages will be one of the major problems to be faced by agriculture in the coming months. The Farm Security Administration has not attempted to make forecasts of the farm-labor situation. However, reports submitted by our field people do give a partial picture of the farmlabor situation as it is developing this year. These reports cover 36 States. In almost every one of these States some farm labor shortages have been rumored. Nevertheless, the actual shortages so far have been local in character, and confined to a relatively few areas. It seems probable that in many places fears of labor shortages have been exaggerated. There can be little doubt that the total supply of farm labor is being reduced; but the general surplus still is so great that in most areas the problem seems to be less one of actual shortage, than of proper use of the existing supply of labor. In some places, it appears that enough workers are available, but that higher wages will be required to bring them into the labor market. Farm wages have risen during the past year, but they remain far below industrial wages. With rising industrial activity throughout the country, low wages in agriculture are less attractive than ever. Here is a brief summary of the reports on farm labor we have received from our field people: In 5 of the 36 States, it was reported that farm labor shortages of some magnitude were developing this year. These States are New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Virginia, and North Carolina. In all 5 cases, wage levels were mentioned as a main factor producing shortages. In 14 of the 36 States it was reported that slight or highly localized shortages existed, while in the remaining 17 States reports of shortages were inconclusive. Further details of the Farm Security Administration reports on farm labor shortages are contained in our more complete report. EXTENSION OF THE FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION CAMP PROGRAM A special type of Farm Security Administration activity, which is of importance in any discussion of migration, is our program of farm family labor camps. Defense activity so far has not eliminated the need for any of the already established camps. It has, however, created a different type of need for camps in new areas. The first camps were built by the Farm Security Administration in California in 1936. They were designed to meet needs felt most sharply in California, but occurring also in other parts of the country. On the one hand, large numbers of low-income farmers, driven from their farms by drought, mechanization, and the generally depressed condition of agriculture, were forced to look for work as farm laborers. On the other hand, in many places there was a demand for plentiful supplies of wage labor during the harvest seasons. As a result, hundreds of thousands of landless farmers moved to areas where they hoped to find seasonal work, no matter how low the wages. Housing facilities for these families usually were inadequate. They slept in tents and makeshift shelters on the roadsides and ditchbanks. Constantly undernourished, they were subject to all sorts of sickness. Since they continually moved from spot to spot, they constituted a general public-health menace. Housing and sanitation were the two primary needs which the Farm Security Administration camps were designed to meet. However, as the program grew, other uses for the camps developed. Occupants of camps were given every possible assistance in finding work. Also, local farm operators found that the camp residents constituted convenient pools of available labor to draw upon for peak needs. Recent requests for establishment of new Farm Security Administration camps have come from areas where farm labor shortages are feared. The Farm Security Administration is willing to do all in its power to assist in such situations. Clearly it is essential to national defense and to the general welfare of the people of this country that agricultural production shall not be hampered; and there undoubtedly are situations in which the Farm Security Administration camps can be most useful in relieving labor shortages. For example, one factor causing farm labor shortages in some areas is the inefficient use of available labor supplies. Farm Security Administration camps in such places are already beginning to be used as central points from which to recruit farm labor for jobs on nearby farms. Furthermore, lack of adequate housing often keeps farm workers from entering some areas where they are needed. In such cases, Farm Security Administration camps might be of great service to local growers. However, there are certain limitations under which the Farm Security Administration camp program must operate. In the first place, the camps cannot be built overnight, particularly since defense demands have made it difficult to get equipment and material for camp construction. If we plan an extension of the Farm Security Administration camp program into new areas, we cannot expect the new camps to assist in relieving farm labor shortages before the crop season of 1942. Secondly, a Farm Security Administration camp can only help to relieve a shortage where poor housing is largely responsible. Naturally, this is not always the case. Third, with a very genuine need for more Farm Security Administration camps in many areas, it would be wasteful to build camps in places where the need for them is essentially temporary. Within these limitations, the Farm Security Administration program can contribute much to better organization of the farm labor market, and to help relieve those farm labor shortages which are primarily the result of inadequate housing. FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION RELOCATION ACTIVITIES One new type of Farm Security Administration activity may be of interest to the committee. Millions of acres of land have been taken over by the Army for construction of factory sites, munitions dumps, cantonments, and maneuver fields. As a result of the purchase of these great tracts, thousands of farm families had already been displaced by July 1 of this year. The Farm Security Administration has assisted in the relocation of nearly 9,000 of these families. As the defense effort grows, more lands will be needed,. more families will be displaced, and in the process of relocation, assistance from the Farm Security Administration will continue to be necessary. Details of this major job of relocation are contained in the attached statement. A few examples may be cited here. Of 413 families displaced at Milan, Tenn., 125 required Farm Security Administration assistance. At the Fort Jackson project in Columbia, S. C., 205 families were displaced. More than half received help from the Farm Security Administration in moving and finding new homes. In the area around Fort McClellan, Ala., 329 families had to move. Of these, 242 needed assistance. It should also be noted that the problem of relocation spreads far beyond the area actually evacuated. Farm families relocated in new areas have sometimes created problems there. The Farm Security Administration is having to give assistance in cases of secondary displacement--that is, to farmers, especially tenants, displaced by the influx of families who had to leave the defense areas. In conclusion, I want to emphasize the fact that poverty in farm areas has not been wiped out by defense activity. It still exists, and it requires continued assistance of the kind provided by the Farm Security program. Migration resulting from rural poverty has been augmented by new types of migration resulting from the defense program. We are attempting to modify and develop the Farm Security Administration program to meet these new needs. In this attempt, I am hopeful that we will receive considerable assistance from the findings of this committee. (The four-part statement to which reference is made at the beginning of Mr. Baldwin's paper, with a section marked "Appendix A," is as follows:) EFFECTS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ON THE FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM PART I. DEFENSE IN THE FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION STANDARD LOAN PROGRAM Despite the general impact of the defense program upon the Nation, there nas been no appreciable slackening of the demand for assistance from the Farm Security Administration. In May of this year new standard rural rehabilitation loans totaled 10,449; a year ago the figure was 10,882. A comparable demand for loans has been evident month by month (see table I). TABLE I.-Number of new loan agreements to individuals for operating goods approved each month, July 1937 to May 1941 This does not mean that Farm Security Administration borrowers have not felt the effect of defense activity. At a later date we shall be able to furnish the committee statistical data that will indicate the extent of the movement of low-income farmers from rural areas. At the present time, we are able to offer only a qualitative analysis since presenting the data we have started to gather in its present incomplete form would be misleading. In general, it can be said that the influence of direct defense activities is confined to the immediate areas in which they take place. In California, for example, it has been found that borrowers located near defense industries or defense-construction activities are managing to supplement the family income through part-time or full-time employment of family members. Beyond a radius of approximately 50 miles this influence is negligible. In our seventh region, which includes the States of Kansas, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota, defense activity is fairly heavy in Kansas and virtually nonexistent in the other States. A report on 200 borrowers in the entire region who left their farms this spring, showed that in Kansas 50 percent took direct defense employment, in Nebraska only 20 percent, whereas in North and South Dakota the movement that did occur was unrelated to defense. All reports from the field produce this same general impression. For those borrowers who have been affected by defense activities the chief benefit has been, as noted above, the securing of supplemental employment by the borrower or by members of his family. In terms of the operation of our 60396-41-pt. 17-11 |