ship rests, by raising fundamental doubts in the minds of the other countries of the free world as to our sense of responsibility and the nature of our goals.

The damage which these restrictions have done is aggravated by the fact that the provisions involved embody principles on which the United States has always put great store. These principles are aimed at developing the kind of trading system among the friendly countries of the world in which businessmen could buy and sell their goods with a minimum of governmental interference in their activities. This attitude toward quotas and other governmental restrictions on trade is essential if private enterprise is to maintain its place in the conduct of international trade.

Of course, in any balanced appraisal of the desirability of section 104, one has to take into account not only its effects upon our foreign policy objectives, but also upon our domestic agriculture. On this score, representatives of the Department of Agriculture have repeatedly stated their considered judgment that the measure hurts rather than helps American agriculture. They have also stated it as their conclusion that section 104 is unnecessary for the protection of domestic agriculture, and, in the end, is bound to do it real injury. This Department is in agreement with these conclusions.

Willard L. Thorp, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, testified before you in detail with regard to the position of the State Department against section 104.

The Secretary of Commerce is opposed to section 104 and has stated that the severe restriction of cheese imports harms our foreign com

merce.

The Senate Banking and Currency Committee is opposed to section 104. In their report upon S. 1204 to repeal section 104, the committee report set forth eight cogent reasons for repeal:

1. Alternative statutes to accomplish the necessary protection of domestic industry are in full force and effect; particularly section 101 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, and section 7 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951.

2. Representative farm groups oppose section 104 as harmful to agriculture. 3. The President, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of State, and the Economic Cooperation Administration oppose section 104 as harmful to the interests of the United States.

4. No hearings were held on section 104 nor did it receive committee consideration before it became part of the Defense Production Act.

5. United States agricultural exports exceed United States agricultural imports, expecially in the field of dairy products. Our agricultural exports are likely to suffer from action under section 104.

6. Depriving other countries of a source for dollars through trade will result in a reduction of their imports from the United States, or in the alternative will increase the need for grants and loans by the United States to such countries. 7. Section 104 is inconsistent with United States world leadership in attempting to reduce trade barriers.

8. Ten nations have already protested enactment of section 104, some claiming it violates the law and spirit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Farm organizations oppose section 104. That representative farm groups realize the implications of section 104 is shown by the testimony before the Senate committee of such organizations as American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union that it is detrimental to agriculture as a whole, in the United States, and to the Nation itself.

Trade and industry organizations are opposed to section 104. Such organizations as American Cotton Shippers Association, American Cotton Council, Tobacco Associated, chambers of commerce for Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and other cities, Millers National Federation, Commerce and Industry Association of New York, Inc.,

and numerous other domestic trade and industry organizations have voiced opposition to section 104.

Consumers are opposed to section 104. Such consumer groups as the League of Women Voters, General Federation of Women's Clubs, Congress of Industrial Organizations, International Association of Machinists, and many others, are opposed to section 104 for the reasons set forth in a statement submitted to this committee by the League of Women Voters on April 3, 1952.

The press is opposed to section 104. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and a multitude of newspapers throughout the country have pronounced their opposition to this damaging legislation. The New York Times, on April 18, commented editorially:

If this country wishes to have a healthy foreign trade we must buy foreign goods so that our customers will have the means to make purchases hore; a continued policy of giving away goods in the only alternative way of conducting foreign trade.

Again, on April 20, the New York Times stated editorially:

One need not be alarmist to understand that a continuation of these trends bodes ill for the unity and strength of the free world. Every United States policy that puts the interests of a small domestic group above those of foreign producers provides welcome ammurition for Moscow and for anti-American forces in nonCommunist lands. It provides helpful evidence for these groups' claims that this country preaches free trade for others, not for ourselves, that we are cconomic imbeciles who think we can export without ever importing, that we are interested only in flooding foreign markets with our gccds and are callous toward our friends' needs for markets here.

In conclusion, it is obvious that the continuation of section 104 of the act violates every principle of good government. It has made the United States the target of serious international criticism, and for good reason, and is detrimental to our own industry and people. Ten nations have already protested the enactment of section 104. Those countries are now considering retaliatory measures against the United States, and, the President has said, "as they have a right to do." We have made our excuses concerning the circumstances under which the measure was originally adopted, without hearings. Those excuses will not be valid with regard to any reenactment of this section. What we do now is cold and deliberate. We are spending billions of dollars on foreign aid. We had better throw this money down the sewer, or save our taxpayers their money, if we are going to make enemies-not friends. We have been extending foreign aid to the countries which are the sources of our main cheese imports for our own good and protection as well as theirs. These countries include France, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway, among others. We have been trying to build strength which will eliminate the need for their assistance from the United States. We have encouraged them to produce and now we are erecting trade barriers against their products. Such action confounds our friends and pleases our enemies. The President's message concerning foreign aid points out that:

Arms and defense support together do not provide a full answer to the Soviet threat * * * if we ignore the necessity for building moral and political and economic strength, we would expose ourselves to the danger of Communist gains.

The provisions contained in section 104 of the Defense Production Act do not belong in a "defense" measure. They are not matters of defense, but of offense-and are particularly offensive to the countries with which we are trying to build up a common defense. The press

has repeatedly pointed out, in connection with this section of the act, that we have a positive genius for bewildering and antagonizing our foreign friends. As one writer put it, "The civilized world often must suspect that we think with our feet and walk on our heads."

We submit that the facts prove that the imposition upon American business, industry and agriculture, and American consumers of the restrictions contained in section 104 of the Defense Production Act, and the renewal of section 104 of the Defense Production Act, is harmful to our own economic, moral and political well-being.

I urge that section 104 of the Defense Production Act be not renewed.

Now, I would like to address myself to answering some of the questions addressed to previous witnesses, so I may answer questions which I believe may be in your mind.

Mr. BROWN. Does any member desire to interrogate the witness at this point?

Mr. FROMER. I would like to answer this, Mr. Congressman, because we have not had an opportunity ever before to be heard on this issue, and we are, as I say, the only cheese importers association in the country. That is a Nation-wide association and we would like to have an opportunity to set forth some of the argument that we have prepared.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brown. Let the gentleman proceed in his own way.

Mr. PATMAN. He wants to answer, as I understand it, some of these statements that have been made which he feels he should

answer now.

Mr. FROMER. That is right. I am directing my statement at this time to interrogatories of previous witnesses.

Mr. BROWN. Go ahead.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. It is understood, however, that you are not a cheese producer. You do not produce anything. You are just an importer.

Mr. FROMER. That is correct.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. You do not make any cheese.

Mr. FROMER. Our association comprises mainly importers of cheese. However, many of our members also produce cheese, and there is an overlapping; as Mr. Gaumnitz stated, in his organization there are producers of cheese and importers of cheese. In our association, we have firms who import cheese, but are also producers of cheese in this country.

Mr. HULL. Would you give the names of the producers of cheese? Mr. FROMER. I will submit

Mr. HULL. I want to find out what is back of this organization. Mr. FROMER. We have in our organization companies like Otto Roth & Co., Hoffman Co., Borden Cheese Co., and many others. I will submit a roster of our membership from which you can recognize many of the names of producers of cheese, such as Frank Reiser & Co.-these are just names that come to mind. But they are also importers of cheese and are members of our organization.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. And they are opposed to section 104?

Mr. FROMER. When you say "they are opposed"-when we say an organization is opposed, it means the majority is opposed. It might be that some members within the organization are personally in favor

of a particular measure. I do not doubt, for example, that some members in the National Cheese Institute, or the Milk Producers Federation, or the Butter Institute, may be against section 104, but the organization as a whole is opposed. The same as when Congress adopts a particular measure, the fact that it is adopted does not mean that the whole of Congress is for the particular measure.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Well, are we to understand that the majority of your constituents, that you are representing, and whose views you are expressing today, agree with what you are telling the committee and are opposed to section 104?

Mr. FROMER. Definitely so.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. What would you say that majority is? How many do you have and how many feel that way?

Mr. FROMER. I would say we would be a majority of about 90 percent in a membership exceeding a hundred.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Ninety percent of a membership exceeding a hundred?

Mr. FROMER. That is correct.

Mr. BROWN. Dr. Talle.

Mr. TALLE. Mr. Chairman, just one word about the membership. Are any of your members producers of cheese abroad?

Mr. FROMER. No.

Mr. TALLE. They are all producers of cheese in the United States? Mr. FROMER. As I stated, they are importers of cheese, primarily, but some of them are also producers of cheese here. And some of them represent foreign producers of cheese in the sense that they sell the product that they import from abroad.

Mr. TALLE. But those of your members who do produce cheese are producers in this country; is that right?

Mr. FROMER. That is right.

Now, first I would like to direct the attention of this committee to some of the questions and answers that preceded me. For example, with regard to blue cheese. A great deal has been said about blue cheese. Normally we import about 3 to 5 million pounds of blue cheese and that represents about 6 percent of total imports, which you can observe from this chart in 1952 were 52 million pounds.

Mr. Swain and Mr. Gaumnitz have a petition pending before the Tariff Commission, on which there was a hearing last month, and on which a report bas or will be made to the President within the month. Their petition is based upon all of the facts presented here, and requests an import quota limited to 20 percent of domestic production.

The particular issue is being handled in the proper manner, by hearings, before a Tariff Commission that can delve into the matter on its merits. That is where it belongs, because it is a particular cheese, and there is no reason why all cheese imports should be penalized by reason of any alleged argument that may or may not. pertain to blue cheese.

If there is any difficulty with regard to the domestic industry on blue cheese, there is adequate provision in the law-and this demonstrates it to either increase the duty from the existing 15 percent ad valorem to 37%1⁄2 percent ad valorem, or by imposing these quotas. The Defense Production Act is not the way to do it.

Now, in answer to the question, do we export cheese to Denmark: Our trade with Denmark, in agriculture, is $25 million consisting of tobacco, cotton, oil seeds, vegetable oils, grain preparations, and other agricultural products, as compared to imports of $6,900,000, or less than 25 percent of the exports.

Our total trade with Denmark amounts to exports of $54 million, compared to imports of $12,277,000.

With regard to the price of blue cheese, you heard the statement that the imported blue cheese is inferior to the domestic blue cheese. I would like to introduce into the record with regard to price, the Journal of Commerce of New York City, May 9, which reports prices of all types of cheese on the wholesale market in New York, and I indicate to you that blue cheese is quoted at 53 to 56 cents per pound domestic, and imported at 58 to 59 cents per pound.

So that pricewise, and qualitywise, by their own statement, they have nothing to fear as regards imported blue cheese.

I would like to submit this for the record.

Mr. BROWN. That may be included in the record at this point. (The Journal of Commerce clipping is as follows:)

CHEESE.-Receipts (May 8), 18,951 pounds. Fresh American cheese markets firmer under a broadening demand and more confident holding. Cured goods held firmly. Domestic Swiss lately easier. Most imported varieties in short remaining supply in wholesale channels.

Mr. FROMER. I would also like to point out, in this connection, that whereas the price of Cheddar cheese has remained more or less the same, since import controls were imposed, the price of blue cheese and other foreign types of cheese has gone up enormously. The inflation on these things is terrific.

For example, in August, when import controls were imposed, the price quoted, in this same source, for Swiss cheese was from 45 to 49 cents per pound. The price quoted today is 61 to 65 cents a pound,