provision regarding dispersal in case Government construction is authorized. If the committee is not to get into this other field, then I hardly see how we could do more than leave that to private industry, to make its own determinations, but the general objectives might be clarified. But if they are to be financed at Government expense, then these criteria should be required. Mr. MULTER. Have you formulated a proposed amendment? Mr. HAYS. I had anticipated that the Joint Committee on the Economic Report would do that. Mr. BROWN. That might be very difficult to do. You might reach the problem by incorporating your suggestion in the committee report. Mr. HAYS. You might consider the same language in the 1947 act, Mr. Brown, with reference to Defense Department construction. It is a reassertion of that same policy. Mr. BROWN. I feel that most of the members are in accord with your idea, but it is a question as to whether or not we can incorporate it in the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The purpose is meritorious and I am sure the committee will consider it. Mr. BOLLING. I think it is appropriate to bring out the fact that in a report recently put out by the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, in connection with Government plant expansion loans, a certain amount of evidence was brought out to the effect that, although required by law, the certificate of necessity aspect of it of course comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and implemented by the regulations of the National Security Resources Board, no weight has been given in the granting of certificates of necessity, with particular reference to the percentage amount, to dispersal, although that is required, or certainly heavily implied, by law, and extant in NSRB regulations. We have a specific case, and I only cite it by reference, on page 14 of House Report 504. It is brought out that more could be done, under the certificate of necessity program, and it is implied that perhaps more could be done for dispersal under the guaranteed loan programs coming under the Defense Production Act. Mr. HAYS. I am glad to have that comment inserted, because any failures to secure dispersal can hardly be said to be due to a lack of someting in the law. Is that correct? Mr. BOLLING. That is my understanding. And also, they cannot be said to be due to a lack of something in the regulations of NSRB. which for some time had the responsibility for the administration of the certificate of necessity and guaranty loan program. It was a failure, let us say, at the administrative level. Mr. HAYS. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if I might make this suggestion, it seems to me that reference should be made in the report to the situation Mr. Bolling mentions, and if the committee thinks well of the idea of a directive on Government plants, then, of course, you could have a specific provision in the bill itself. Mr. Chairman, you have been very kind to let me speak at this length. May I say in closing, that I have wanted to approach this from the broad national viewpoint, and mention the Interior, of the Babson Circle, has come in incidentally, of course, to point out the low areas, and the necessity for taking note of the neglected_regions of the Nation. It is altogether in the national interest that I would direct attention to it, and not to project a governmental or political factor into population movement. I want to make that very clear, and I appreciate your hearing me on it. Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Congressman, for your excellent statement. We will now hear from Congressman Toby Morris. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I shall read my statement, with your permission, so as to be as brief as possible, and to be as clear as possible, and then I shall attempt to answer any questions that any of you might wish to ask. Mr. PATMAN. I assume, Mr. Morris, that you are against the roll-back on beef prices? Mr. MORRIS. Your assumption is correct. Mr. PATMAN. It is just like trying to unscramble eggs to me. We tried it in World War II, and I am going to have to be convinced of it before I go along with it. STATEMENT OF HON. TOBY MORRIS, A REPESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I wish to express my appreciation to the committee for extending to me this opportunity to file this statement for its record in considering the recent beef price orders of the Office of Price Stabilization. The district which I represent is an agricultural district in which beef cattle production is an important source of agricultural income. Not only are there ranchers who run hundreds of cattle over many acres, but there are also numerous farmers who raise or feed a few head of cattle on smaller pastures. Moreover, there are hundreds of boys and girls who are engaged in this enterprise through their farm clubs, such as 4-H and Future Farmers of America. I am proud of the boys and girls in my district who have brought back national and international prize ribbons with the beef cattle they have raised and exhibited. I give you this information to show that a great many more than a few so-called cattle barons are affected by the beef price orders. In the case of railroads and other public service corporations, it has been a long-established principle that a rate order which does not take fair return on the investment amounts to an unlawful confiscation of property in violation of the United States Constitution. It occurs to me that the same considerations of cost and fair return should be applied to other commodities upon which the Government undertakes to fix prices, since the Government, in my opinion, has no more right to confiscate the property of the cattle producer than it has to confiscate the property of the railroad or the public utility. Accordingly, I have asked the many who have written and telegraphed me to give me the specific figures on cost and investment, so that the committee would have definite evidence on which to base a decision. I shall not burden the committee with a mass of detail, but shall attach a few examples which are not extreme, but reasonable, pointing out the problems of different types of beef operations. And I shall not read all of these examples. These are exhibits that I have attached to the statement. The statement itself will be very brief. The CHAIRMAN. Your exhibits may be inserted in the record. (The information referred to is as follows:) 83473-51-pt. 3—45 EXHIBIT I Hon. TOBY MORRIS, Congressman of the Sixth District, Washington, D. C. BLEDSOE & NICKLAS, Lawton, Okla., May 24, 1951. DEAR JUDGE: It is my understanding that you have requested information relative to the cost of producing beef in this locality. I have in my office at this time no less authorities than James H. Tracy of Carnegie, and Wayne Rowe of Meers, just beyond the Easter Pageant sight, who have presented for my information, and I trust for yours, some very interesting and informative information in reference to this problem. I need not dwell upon the reputations of these two gentlemen for truth and veracity, and shall merely state that we have represented both of them for the last several years and know of some of the transactions herein set forth; and in giving you this information, we should like to start with the concrete example that they have presented to us. First, in January 1950, Mr. Tracy purchased SW4 sec. 21, T.5 N., R. 13 W., at a cost of $12,000, which is the going price for good pasture land in this country; and that is the type of land that he purchased. In other words, an original outlay of $12,000. He and Wayne estimate that the average quarter-section of land in this country will pasture successfully from 10 to 20 head of cattle with their calves. They, therefore, have used the average of 16 head, or 1 cow and calf per 10 acres in their problem, and their effort is to arrive at the cost of producing a 450-pound calf for market by taking the costs of buying and maintaining the mothers of these calves. Therefore, in addition to the cost of land, they estimate a $775 cost for fencing the land, and the cost of the 16 calves at $325 per head, the market value would be $5,200. In addition to the pasturage they estimate that in order to carry the cattle through the winter months of 133 days, it will take 3 pounds of cake per day, or 400 pounds per cow, at the going cost of $5 per hundred, or $320 for the 16 cows; and in addition to that 1,080 pounds of hay at $32 per ton, $17.54 per cow, or $280.64 for the 16 cows. That breeding fees would average $5 per cow, or $80, or it would be necessary to spend a minimum of $500 for a bull, whose service would be good for about 3 years. That the veterinary expenses would average $2 per cow, or $32 for the 16 head. That the death loss would average 11⁄2 percent or $72 per year. That the taxes would average $3 a head, or $48 a year, and that the taxes on the land were actually $55.08 this past year. Now if we take the expenses as indicated herein of $320 for cake, $280.64 for hay, $80 for breeding fees, $32 for veterinary expenses, $72 for death loss, $55 ad valorem taxes, and $48 on the cattle, and add to that 5 percent of their land and fencing investment of $638.75, and 10 percent of the original investment of cattle of $520 per year, you will find that the total cost of producing the 16 calves ready for market would be $2,046.47, or $127.90 per calf; and this amount divided by 450 pounds would give you a cost of producing of $0.284 per pound. We believe after carefully going over these figures and comparing them with prices within our knowledge as a result of our probate work throughout the county that the figures are fairly arrived at and accurate. We direct your attention to the fact, however, that the costs herein stated do not include any labor costs or supervisory expense, or selling expense; and I can assure you that this item, judging from my experience in handling tax matters, is an item that cannot be overlooked and long remain in business. Also I question very seriously the low figure indicated for veterinary expenses, becuase this usually entails a veterinary making a trip to the farm, and one or two trips would far exceed the amount allowed, to say nothing of the cost of disinfectants and serums, etc.; and this is also based upon the proposition that every calf would be saved, which I think is probably a very optimistic assumption. As a matter of comparison Mr. Tracy in 1935, or 15 years ago, bought ESW1⁄4WSE sec. 18, T. 5 N., R. 13 W., for $2,500, or roughly one-fifth of the purchase price of the quarter hereinabove set forth. You are as familiar with other costs in 1935 as we are, but just discussing it here and comparing prices for hay and cake and other items of 1935 against those of today, it would appear that the ratio of the other items would be about the same as the ratio of the costs of land, but since you are as familiar with that as we, we leave that to your good judgment and discretion. Trusting that this is the information that you desire, and that it will be helpful to you, we are glad to submit it, as well as any additional information which we may have, or be able to obtain for you in connection with this. Enclosed also for your information is a release of the United States Department of Agriculture, as reprinted by the American Cattle Producer, volume 32, No. 12, May 1951, showing the relative purchasing power of the dollar as between 1929 and 1951 of various commodities, including beef. I think you will find, as I found, this is a very interesting, if now surprising article. I presume that you will be back in the neighborhood before too much longer, and we shall have an opportunity of seeing you, and discussing these and other problems at that time. In the meantime, if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely yours, BLEDSOE & NICKLAS, EXHIBIT II SOUTHWEST OKLAHOMA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., TOBY MORRIS, M. C., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR TOBY: Replying to your letter, I am giving you what information I can. I do not handle any cows or cows and calves. Steers are bought in the open market at Fort Worth, Tex., in November or December, try to get the best Hereford steers on the market, and runing even in weight and confermation. They are all well wintered and fed some cake meal, cottonseed, and alfalfa hay in bad weather. Try to have choice feeders-I do not full-feed, sell to finishers in the Corn Belt. I count on a gain of not less than 200 pounds; if they do extra well, it is possible to get 300—that is an exceptional gain. I do not have a labor bill on the cattle, that is charged against the land. I am a small dealer, no farming, just grass. The pasture will handle 45 to 50 yearlings or coming 2-year-old steers. No charge is made for myself or gas. Harvey Byrd Route 3, Lawton, a 16-year-old FFA boy, he looks after the fence. I furnish material, feed sprays for flees, etc. Farm repairs are not charged against the cattle. If the steers make money, Harvey gets 25 percent of the net cash gain, if a loss I take it. In all the years I have handled cattle, I never had but one bunch of steers to lose money; 1951 may lose money. I do have two or three plain steers that can't make any money the way the market looks, the top steers I think will hold the money together. One item of expense not in the statement is 6 percent interest on $7,200; the pasture will sell for around $10,000. So our investment runs over $18,000. The following is the local market: Cost of cattle, 43 head, average weight, 570 pounds, at 29% cents per pound... Feed, hay, salt, etc. Expense to Fort Worth to buy. Drugs. Dehorning. Truck hire.. Total. 1 Add 2 percent tax. 294. 65 7, 194. 75 723. 89 16. 60 8.90 3.00 24. 50 8, 266. 29 Grass leases are from $2 to $3 per acre. There is 16624100 acres in this pasture. The cost of selling including trucks, commissions, yarding, hay, etc., will be not less than $4 per head. The above If I can give you additional information I will be glad to do so. statement hereto attached are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, so help me God. C. D. CAMPBell. Subscribed and sworn to before me a notary public, this 23d day of May 1951. LONNIE L. LATHAM, P. S. If I sold the steers on today's market, I would lose a nice sum. the gain in weight on grass will save me. I hope C. D. C. EXHIBIT III KINGFISHER, OKLA., May 24, 1951. Hon. TOBY MORRIS, Congress of the United States: I am writing you in regard to the roll-back on cattle. One year ago I was buying cottonseed hulls for $8 per ton and now they are $27 per ton. I also was buying blackstrap molasses for $40 per ton. Now they are $80 per ton. I was buying cottonseed meal at $69 per ton and now it's $96 per ton. This is certainly killing the cattelman in the Wheat Belt. I am sending you a sheet with proof of what I am saying and if you would like I can sure furnish proof of what it is now. Sincerely yours, P. S. Farm labor is higher too than a year ago. B. E. YOUNG. Mr. MORRIS. An example of the cattlemen who breeds his own cattle is given in the letter attached as exhibit 1, written by Mr. Thurston D. Nickles, of Lawton, Okla., on behalf of Mr. Wayne Rowe, |