Mr. COFFMAN. May I say it another way? The CHAIRMAN. May I say at this point that the production of rice in Louisiana averaged 10,248,000 hundredweight for the period 194150. It was 11,934,000 hundredweight in 1951; 14,996,000 hundredweight in 1954, and 12,528,000 hundredweight in 1955, with marketing quotas in effect. Production of rice in the United States was 32,850,000 hundredweight average 1941 through 1950; 45,797,0000 in 1951; 58,853,000 in 1954; and 50,230,000 in 1955. Now, before you answer that question, I do not want to get into an argument with my good friend, Senator Anderson here, but rice is one of the few products that has been selling way above 90 percent of parity. The support program on rice did not affect the price of rice until 1954. Rice sold for as much as 110 and 120 percent of parity, and the reason for that was that our Government said to the grower, "Grow all you can, because we will need it," and we did need it, and that is why it was produced in large quantities. Today we could dispose of our surpluses in Asia, if only we did not have interference by the State Department that stopped us. In other words, during a long time we created markets there for the rice that was produced at the instance of our Government, and for that reason there was such a demand for it that the rice sold way above parity, 110, 108, and it is only in the last couple of years that it has been under 90. Mr. COFFMAN. I saw pinto beans sell for as high as 150 percent and even as high as 200 percent. The CHAIRMAN. Let us not argue that; we want a solution to this problem, if you can give it to us. Mr. COFFMAN. As I come back here to the family-type farm again, I still feel in this very fact we bring it down to the family type, and you asked a while ago the way to regulate that. I had some experience, as I said a while ago, on some of this tenantpurchase work; therefore, I feel that the community can serve that purpose of telling you what the needs are in that particular unit, more so than you can in Washington. Therefore, turn a little over to these fellows here in their community, put a little responsibility there to where they can solve that for you, they can tell what is a family unit there, because it is local, it is farm to farm, as far as the type is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we do that in every State? We might do it in Colorado very easily; we can do it in New Mexico very easily, but when you have to write into law a pattern that is applied to everybody, you might not strike everybody, you see. Mr. COFFMAN. Oh, yes. The CHAIRMAN. Yet you could not legislate in New Mexico, and next Arizona, and then next Colorado, and then next Louisiana, because all of the States are different, your farming is different, and what may be a family-sized unit and the amount necessary to occupy that family-sized unit is as far different in Colorado than it is in New Mexico and different in New Mexico from what it is in Louisiana; Louisiana from what it is in Vermont. Mr. COFFMAN. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. You see, that is the problem that confronts us. Mr. COFFMAN. It worked in one program. The CHAIRMAN. What? Mr. COFFMAN. It worked in one program, the tenant-purchase program years ago in the old Rehabilitation Act. It worked then and it worked successfully. Senator ANDERSON. Yes, because farms were at destitute prices. When you can walk in and pick up a good farm that used to be worth $400 an acre and sell it to a man under the tenant-purchase program for $50, and it goes back up to $500, sure, it has done well. But you find that land today. Mr. COFFMAN. I am not talking about that; I was talking about what it was as a family-type unit, and they stuck to that portion of it, if it was dry land or irrigated. The CHAIRMAN. Let us talk about your own community. Take your own community and describe to me what you would term a familysized unit. You have got the facts now; put it in the record. Mr. COFFMAN. Ever since I went there I have talked to different people in this locality. Take in the bean and the wheat area, we concluded there that 500 to 600 acres, if you want to bring it down to acreage, I still think this idea of type is a little bit more appropriate; in other words, based on yield rather than acreage. Suppose you went down to acreage, I have talked to several fellows who own more than that, and who own less than, and we concluded that five or six hundred acres on all types of conditions will solve that problem as far as family type is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. How much would that produce per year or how much would you want it to produce per year? Mr. COFFMAN. Let's see, around $12,000. Mr. COFFMAN. That is full production. The CHAIRMAN. I know it will vary in my section. Mr. COFFMAN. It will run around $15,000. I am quoting this year's prices, at $4.98 a hundred for our pinto beans, but 90 percent of parity which would, I feel-we should get more for our beans; in other words, bringing this-when I went there in 1943 we got $4.95 a hundred for our beans in 1943. We are getting $4.98 support on them this year. Back in 1943 I paid $1,315 for a tractor. This year I paid $4,200 for the same type tractor. Now, therefore, this brings it down to possibly that size farm would run you from $12,000 to $16,000 a year, and it would—you know, the expenses on that farm of your pinto beans and your wheat. The CHAIRMAN. So that in your area you think each farmer should have between 500 and 600 acres of ground, and the things he produces on that, you think should sell for between $12,000 and $16,000? Mr. COFFMAN. Ninety percent of parity, would rather put it that way. The CHAIRMAN. I know, but sometimes 90 percent may not bring that. Mr. COFFMAN. All right. He takes his chance on that. The CHAIRMAN. Then you would get away from the family-type farm. Mr. COFFMAN. No, I said during variable times that this 500 to 600 acres would take care of it. Maybe this year it would take 400 acres, but, as I say, in a variable time, why, next year maybe it would take 700 or 800 acres. Just taking it, for instance, this year, I increased my operations, as far as farming was concerned, because, as you know, you have got to have so much machinery to operate a certain sized farm. To increase my income to where I feel I can break even on land payments and such as that, I increased it with smaller additional acreage. You say, well, that is not sound, maybe, that you are not going to boost your income. But whenever you go to figuring it down to the bare facts of it, at the end of the year, is what the tale is and therefore I found out by putting in a little more, that is where we get our extras. I go in here and put out a little more because I have got to supplement my income. Senator ANDERSON. In other words, to pay for land that you are buying in excess of a family-sized farm? Mr. COFFMAN. That is right, on my expenses. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the same thing has occurred in the dairy industry in the last 50 years under this flexible price support, as I put in the record, 2 or 3 times, the production has increased considerably over the years before when it was 90 percent. Now, what caused that? Do you ask me? Mr. COFFMAN. I have my own ideas because I follow those, too. The CHAIRMAN. Well, many times as prices go down, the farmers seek more acreage in order to make things grow. If that is true, there is a lot of evidence in this record to show that. Whether that is general I do not know, but there seems to be a lot of evidence and so it will be up to us to sift it and see who is right and who is wrong. Mr. COFFMAN. You take, for instance, the wheat program. What was our allotment in Colorado and what was the allotment in Nebraska? They were cut 18 to 20 percent; and what were we cut? 35 to 37 percent. Why? Because it took the report rather than took our actual acreage. Senator ANDERSON. Oh, no-history on a 10-year average. Mr. COFFMAN. No. I got those facts and figures up, Mr. Anderson; I worked on that one program and the committee, themselves, told us we took the Senator ANDERSON. What committee? Mr. COFFMAN. The State committee, Colorado State committee. Senator ANDERSON. What did they tell you? Mr. COFFMAN. Out of PMA that they had to take the reporters— what is it? Senator ANDERSON. The crop reported. Mr. COFFMAN. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. What did they tell you? Mr. COFFMAN. When we sent in our acreage in that country it did not amount to nothing. We had fifty-some-odd-thousand acres, and theirs corresponded to some twenty-six to twenty-two thousand acres. That is what they based it in our county. That is beside the point. But I am saying that is where we get some of our mixed up things between what is in the economy and what is in our locality and how we can work it out. The CHAIRMAN. Anything else you wish to add? Mr. COFFMAN. No; I think I have covered this on the family tract farm, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. Mr. Oppenheimer? Will you give your name in full and your occupation, please? STATEMENT OF FRANK OPPENHEIMER, PAGASO SPRINGS, COLO. Mr. OPPENHEIMER. My name is Frank Oppenheimer; I am a rancher. I have about 1,500 acres, about 125 acres irrigated hay land and my ranch corresponds to about 125 cows unit. When I learned that I might have the opportunity to talk to your committee, Senator Ellender, I suggested that the cattlemen's association in our county have a meeting and discuss what they wanted, and they asked me to come and represent them, although it turned out that their ideas were essentially mine, or in large measure mine. I feel, and they felt, that the cattleman in that mountainous region of Colorado, anyway, cannot go on without direct help; that is we cannot help ourselves in contradistinction to the opinion of some of the cattlemen. It costs-I have this ranch I described-it costs, without any interest payments a little over about $9,250 a year to run it, counting depreciation and maintenance and labor and taxes and insurance, and I can itemize that. If I keep my yearlings over, calves over, and sell them as yearlings, which is the more profitable way to do it, I can gross about $7,800, that is without interest payments of any sort. I lost about $1,500 a year. The CHAIRMAN. When did you buy your farm? The CHAIRMAN. Six years ago? High prices? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. How about your cows? You paid pretty high for them? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Many of them. Most of them I bought at the bottom of the market, calves. The CHAIRMAN. What were you doing before you got into the farming business? Mr. ÖPPENHEIMER. I was a professor. The CHAIRMAN. Why did you go into the farming business, because you thought you could make more? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. No, not because I thought I could make more; I was forced by circumstances to do that. The CHAIRMAN. I see, I am sorry. You may proceed. Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Well, a unit such as mine also represents an investment with the cattle, machinery, about $100,000 at the current land prices. So that on this $100,000 without counting the interest, I and other people in the whole community are losing on a similar unit and are $1,000 to $1,500 a year at current prices and we see no way without some support, some sort of support, coming out of that. The CHAIRMAN. What would you suggest? Have you a plan? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. It seems to most of us that the same kind of support which is given to other agricultural products will, while that is going on, have to be given us, that is, direct price supports in comparison with parity. The CHAIRMAN. How would you curtail production? You see those that grow crops, whose acreage can be curtailed Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). And whose commodity can be stored, it is fairly easy. How could you handle it with cattle? How would you control the production of cattle? I asked that question this morning, but I could not get any good answer to it. Mr. OPPENHEIMER. I do not have a very good answer. It has seemed to me that in selling one's yearlings, one has to sell both steers and heifers, that as long as the two are sold together, that is, as long as cows are not allowed to increase, one might be able to control production. That is by insisting that any price support be given for equal numbers of male and females, one might be able to control the production. It might work better than any heifer buying program. In these mountain countries, there are ways in which, under some circumstances, ranching is more profitable. It is expensive to raise winter feed; one has to feed a cow about 50 tons of hay for the winter and, therefore, many people would simply prefer to buy steers in the spring and sell them in the fall, which is a speculative kind of operation in which I do not take part in and which, at the present, is completely unprofitable because, for example, this spring yearlings delivered into the country cost about 242 cents and sold at about 1712 cents, which meant a loss for most people, except when they had exceptional gains, they broke even. It might be that by a kind of a price support, which would simply stabilize the spring-fall price of cattle, a subsidy price support that would not allow the fall price to drop more than 10 percent below the spring price, that part of the gain would be profitable enough, that prices would come up; in fact, one might have to put a price support-I mean a price limit, a fixed price, so that calves will not come up too high. But I do think that if people could pasture yearlings at a profit, that it would help the whole industry. Senator ANDERSON. You mean a ceiling on calves? You mean a limit on prices? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. It might, if one made any part of the cattle industry profitable; I think it might take a limit on calves to keep it from Senator ANDERSON. Do you know of any segment of our agricultural population that resists price ceilings and price limitations more than the cattle industry? Mr. OPPENHEIMER. I think, and it is the impression of the ranchers in our county, that the cattle industry is never adequately represented; that is, that the people who are raising cow herds, a 100 to 500 head, or from 50 to 500 head, are not adequately represented in the public press and in Congress. They are very hard hit. They are all quite |