TABLE 1.-Wholesale prices for domestic and imported Danish blue-mold cheese in New York by months, January 1948-March 1952

[Based on published prices obtained from trade sources, New York, N. Y.]

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Thorpe correctly states that we have exported approximately $121 million worth of dairy products in 1951, but he neglects to inform the committee that a large percentage of these exports have gone to countries in the Western Hemisphere, including the Philippines and other areas under control of the United States. Some exports of cheese have gone to Great Britain and other countries under negotiated contracts and as gifts.

While I favor a healthy foreign trade, it is very difficult for me to understand the policy of the State Department which now proposes a program permitting unlimited imports of dairy products and the other commodities in section 104 to the injury of both producers and consumers and at a tremendous cost to American taxpayers. I am also concerned about many of our diplomats who appear to become

representatives of the country to which they have been sent, rather than looking out for the interests of the American people.

Also let me state that there are too many American citizens who are urging this liquidation of the dairy industry on the theory that they will not be hurt by such a policy, and some of them seem to think that they will make money out of it at the expense of their fellow producers in the United States.

Strange things are happening in connection with the attack of the administration, importers and others in the effort to definitely kill section 104 on midnight of June 30, 1952. Permit me to illustrate. Under date of May 12, 1952, the Department of Agriculture issued a notice to all importers of the commodities covered in section 104 to begin dumping their products at all United States ports beginning at midnight June 30, 1952. This is an invitation from the administration to importers of butter, cheese, other dairy products, peanuts, fats and oils and rice to flood our markets with their products.

It reminds me of the opening of the Cherokee Strip in Oklahoma some years ago, when those who wanted to get free land assembled on a certain line, by the thousands, and when the minute hand of the watch reached the proper time and the opening gun was fired, these thousands rushed pell-mell to pick out their land. That is the way it will be on midnight June 30, 1952, with imports unless section 104 is promptly enacted.

The Senate Banking and Currency Committee has approved a reenactment of Public Law 590, with the inclusion of cheese and peanuts, as a proposed remedy to stop unlimited imports. In my opinion, this is no remedy whatsoever, as Public Law 590 contemplates world shortages of food and the acquisition by our Government of large supplies of domestically produced foods covered in the law, before embargoes or quotas can be established for any of the imports. The damage to American producers would be done before the law could be put into operation. Section 104, when properly administered, is the only sound method to prevent serious injury to a large and vital section of our domestic economy.

I am here today representing what I believe to be the best interests of American producers, consumers and taxpayers, and I therefore strongly urge the reenactment of section 104 in its present form.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Hull, do you desire to interrogate the witness. Mr. HULL. I have no questions. I am glad to have your statement. Mr. BROWN. Does any other member desire to interrogate the witness?

Mr COLE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Cole.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Andresen, is blue cheese a competitor of Roquefort cheese?

Mr. ANDRESEN. No; I do not regard blue cheese as a competitor of Roquefort, and I so stated. The reason is this: Blue cheese is made of cow's milk. Roquefort cheese is made out of sheep's milk. The Assistant Secretary of State did not know that, even though he milked goats and probably had some sheep.

But the blue cheese has been our main problem. There are several varieties of foreign cheese that do not compete with our domestic

cheese. Those types of foreign cheese are sold at a substantially higher price than the domestic product. In the case of Roquefort cheese, the difference is almost 20 or 50 cents a pound.

Mr. COLE. More or less classed as a luxury item?

Mr. ANDRESEN. That is correct. Now the Secretary of Agriculture could have used section 104, and picked out just one or two types of cheese. He picked out casein. I do not know who asked him to pick out casein, and put an import quota on casein, using the year 1950 as the base period.

He also established a base period for all other types of cheese, basing it on the average imports from 1948 to 1950. He could have selected just one type of cheese, or two types, or the types that were causing the most difficulty in our domestic economy.

Now, why he did not do that, I do not know, but in the statement that he filed with the Tariff Commission, he has dealt with blue cheese, and blue cheese alone, which has caused the headache in this country, because they have taken over 49 percent of our market.

Mr. BROWN. Congressman Andresen, we are very glad to have your statement.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. NICHOLSON. What is casein?

Mr. ANDRESEN. Casein is a form of dried milk-the buttons on your suit are made out of casein, a good many products are made out of casein.

I might say this: Casein from the Argentine is laid down here and sold wholesale at 18 cents a pound, whereas it costs 40 cents a pound to produce casein domestically.

Mr. BROWN. Do you have any other questions, Mr. Nicholson? Mr. NICHOLSON. That is all.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Andresen.

Mr. ANDRESEN. May I have permission to revise my remarks, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BROWN. You may do so. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Congressman Javits.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to the committee for permitting me to testify. The committee has always been very gracious to me. There have been a number of interests testifying before the committee on various products. I would like to have my testimony construed as being in the interests of city consumers.

As the chairman knows, I feel that what happens in the field of agriculture is of vital importance to city consumers. I do not think we have taken enough interest and I am trying hard to stimulate more interest.

I shall make my statement very brief.

The agricultural provisions of the Defense Production Act, contained in section 402 (d) (3) represent built-in inflation, due to the special preferences given to agriculture, and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that right now we have seen this section materially aggravate the consumer situation respecting the lowly potato.

It has to be noted that price controls could not be established on potatoes at a time when they could have done the most good through conserving supplies and preventing hoarding and inequitable distribution.

But the imposition of price control had to wait until such time as potatoes had reached more than a hundred percent of parity.

The price rise was so rapid, the price jumping from $1.39 a bushel to $2.75 in the period between October 15, 1951, and January 15, 1952, but price controls could not be imposed until the price had reached over 120 percent of parity.

Food represents the biggest item in every consumer's budgetsomething in the area of 25 percent or more-and with built-in inflation under the Defense Production Act in this item, real control over inflationary forces is made more difficult.

Mr. Chairman, I shall again offer, as I have before, the amendment to change the agricultural price section, to make it conform to the price support sections of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, rather than this built-in inflationary 100 percent of parity standard as contained in this act and which I have consistently opposed.

The people who come here and plead against imports are not afraid that the people of New York will be very poor if they have to pay whatever prices that the domestic industry demands. So I don't think the people of New York ought to be worried too much about being hungry as long as these folks are not particularly worried about how broke we are.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Javits, you do recognize the differentiation between the two principles, do you not? The support price is for one purpose, and the amendment providing for price control is for another purpose, completely and absolutely diametrically opposed and different, and for different reasons. Do you agree with that?

Mr. JAVITS. I recognize the difference and I disagree with it. I believe that price control should be price control for everything including agricultural products, under the same standard, and that the only thing that the law should do is to protect the United States. against losing too much money on the support price, under another law; therefore my amendment is completely consistent with my philosophy as I see it in the interest of consumers.

Mr. COLE. My point is, I agree with you that they should be under the same standard. Definitely, I agree with you that agricultural products should be under the same price-control standards as every other product, very definitely. But I am saying to you that if you use the standard of price support, you are not using the same standard.

Mr. JAVITS. Would the gentleman then agree with me that the whole of section 402 (d) (3) should be excised. If so I will agree with you all the way.

Mr. COLE. I agree with you that it should if the OPS would administratively carry out their duties and responsibilities in connection with price control. In other words, price stabilization. I believe in price stabilization, under this present condition.

Mr. JAVITS. I think the gentleman and I will be tied rightly in a common bond this next November to get that done.

Mr. BROWN. Does the gentleman agree with me that full production is our best weapon against inflation?

Mr. JAVITS. It is our best weapon against inflation, yes, sir, provided that we have some machinery to take care of the inequalities and the rushing ahead of one price and lagging behind of another, or production, which I think we need in the way of price control machinery, and which is the reason I favor the extension of this act. Mr. DOLLINGER. And provided the consumer can take advantage of the full production.

Mr. JAVITS. Well, if I may, Mr. Dollinger-I welcome very much your comment because I think you live with the same problems that I do.

Mr. DOLLINGER. That is right.

Mr. JAVITS. It seems to me when I say that I do, that is the rushing ahead of production in one field, and the lagging behind of production in another, so that the consumer cannot take advantage of it.

Mr. DOLLINGER. I agree with you. The consumer always gets struck in the long run. There is nobody here to look after his interests. Mr. JAVITS. Well, I think the whole purpose of my testimony is to take something of a position of balancing the scale. I think this committee has heard so much testimony from producers of one thing or another who feel that the whole world concentrates on their particular item, and unless their particular item, no matter how small, even if it is clothespins, is adequately taken care of, the whole economy will collapse. Therefore I think it is important for some of us to come in here and speak from the point of view of a wage and salary earner.

Mr. Chairman, I will just take a few more minutes. I believe that the Defense Production Act should be extended for at least a year, that it should be tightened up by a change of the agricultural price provisions to remove this built-in inflation, by making the support price for agricultural commodities the price at which price controls may be established, and on the general issue, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed-and I believe very much in the consumers' interest-to the so-called Herlong and Capehart amendments, as well as to the cheese, fats, and oils amendment which my colleague from Minnesota so eloquently testified to a minute ago, and I believe rent control should be tightened for the country, though in New York State I think we do modestly well. We certainly do, I think, much better than we could under Federal rent control.

But other areas of the country are just as important to those of us who live in a city and State which sells so much. It is estimated that New York City alone sells $20 billion of products a year to the rest of the country. And when money goes out in exorbitant rents, people just do not have that money to buy the products of the city and State of New York.

Mr. Chairman, we have not yet reached the peak of defense mobilization and our top economists predict that with some breathing spells, inflation is still ahead. We must, therefore, keep intact our antiinflation machinery contained in the Defense Production Act.

Would it be prudent to disband the Army and Navy in times of peace or to dismiss the local firemen and sell the fire-fighting equipment? And so it would not be prudent to do away with this act.

I have two other comments. One is on this so-called Ramsey amendment with respect to imports containing materials under allocation or control.