present time, and has not exported any cheese at all to the United States during this current year.

(The tabulation referred to is as follows:)

United States cheese imports by country of origin, 1951

Mr. FROMER. Now the question was asked with reference to why the National Cheese Institute was not here last year. Whether it was a slip or not, personally I would think they would never have dreamed that Congress would impose restrictions against the importation of cheese. But having a good thing that is good from the point of view of special interests, regardless of the entire agricultural picture, naturally, I do not blame them. They want to hold onto it. I guess if we had the same advantage, we would no doubt act in the

same way.

A question was asked by Congressman Gamble as to where this propaganda is coming from, where is all this noise coming from, why do we get so much mail against section 104.

I think it is quite simple. The President of the United States is against section 104. The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Senate Banking and Currency Committee which has rendered a report in support of repeal and set forth eight very cogent reasons why it should be repealed. The farm organizations, such as the Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union; trade and industry organizations such as the American Cotton Shippers Association, American Cotton Council; tobacco; Chambers of Commerce of Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and other cities. The National Millers Federation, commerce and industry, and numerous domestic trade and industry organizations are against it. Consumers are against it, and that is, Congressman, whom you said you were particularly interested in: The League of Women Voters,

the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the CIO, International Association of Machinists, and a multitude of other consumer organizations are against it. And the press has recognized the situation and is very strongly against it: The Times, The Herald Tribune, The Washington Post, and numerous other newspapers.

Why, only this morning in the Herald Tribune a very enlightening editorial appeared, and I would just like to read a small portion of it: Congress has the power to impose a quota on cheese, but it does not have the power to set one on its responsibility to the Nation. It would be a default of that responsibility to renew the import quotas. If friendly nations are prevented from earning dollars by fair competition, over a tariff barrier, in commodities which Americans are pleased to buy, then those countries simply will not be able to maintain the defense efforts they have committed themselves to. They will be unable to maintain the living standards which provide the surest internal defense against subversion. They will be forced by American policy to reorient their trade from the west to the east. If consumer goods were flooding the American market, there would be reason to strengthen American producers. Yet, even then, not by relieving them of all the need to strive for efficiency, but this is not the situation.

Mr. BROWN. How much more time will you need? We have four other witnesses who are from out of town.

Mr. FROMER. I just want to finish this and then that will be my conclusion.

Mr. BROWN. You might file it in order to save time.

Mr. FROMER. I have directed my statement to answering questions that have been raised.

Mr. BROWN. Well, how much more time do you want?

Mr. FROMER. I will finish this and then you can ask whatever questions you want.

Mr. BROWN. All right, go ahead.

Mr. FROMER. I will just read the last:

"Now our world leadership and the free world's economic defense are at stake. It is up to Congress to reaffirm that leadership by strengthening the international economy.'

I submit, gentlemen, that I have tried to answer things that were in your minds. I strongly urge that this section of the act should not, for all of these reasons and for many others which I mentioned in my statement, be reenacted. I will be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. GAMBLE. Do you know, by chance, whether the Senate did anything about section 104 yesterday when they were considering reporting out the bill? I have not seen anything in the papers.

Mr. FROMER. No, because the Senate voted on section 104 several weeks ago.

Mr. GAMBLE. That is right.

Mr. FROMER. Against renewing section 104. And my information is they had voted to reinstate section 590 of the Second War Powers Act, which contained certain restrictions on the importations of fats and oils and butter. And incidentally, butter was there specifically by name. But not the term "cheese" and other dairy products. Cheese and other dairy products was slipped in there, so to speak. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Hull.

Mr. HULL. We have a lot of complaints about the farmers leaving the farms and going to the cities. Why do not the city people leave the cities and go to the farm and take in some of this easy money?

Mr. FROMER. We are not complaining about the farmers making money, Congressman. But you have got to let other people make money, too. There are some American importers who are being destroyed by this legislation. Don't put the other fellow out of business by having Congress put through special legislation.

Mr. HULL. What about the Kraft Cheese organization? Mr. FROMER. That is the largest importer in the country. Mr. HULL. Yes, and you are in favor of the Kraft Cheese Co. and, at the same time, you are opposed to special interests.

Mr. FROMER. I did not say I was in favor of the Kraft Cheese Co. Kraft Cheese Co., is a member of the National Cheese Institute-not of my organization-and I might also say that the Kraft packaged cheese can be purchased throughout the world-at least that was the case before the war.

Mr. HULL. Do you insist, then, that section 104 be stricken? Are you in favor of abolishing all controls?

Mr. FROMER. Frankly, I would like to say this, that if you should find that controls should be continued on butter, as was contained in the Second War Powers Act, for the past several years, that is no reason for including cheese and other dairy products within such controls.

It was the addition of cheese to this control measure which was the subject of the various protests of our foreign allies, and the object of other severe criticism. So much so that the amendment is commonly referred to as the "Cheese amendment." Perhaps a more apt word would be "cheesey" amendment.

Mr. HULL. Well perhaps so.

Mr. BROWN. We are very glad to have your testimony, sir. You may be excused.

Mr. FROMER. May I submit a statement I have been asked to submit by the Roquefort Cheese Association?

Mr. TALLE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. BROWN. Dr. Talle.

Mr. TALLE. Are you satisfied that you answered the question with reference to the export of cheese from this country to Denmark? Are you satisfied that your answer proved that cheese is exported from this country to Denmark?

Mr. FROMER. Oh, no, Congressman. It proves that it is not exported. But we export other agricultural commodities to Denmark. Mr. TALLE. Very well, that is quite a different matter.

Mr. FROMER. Yes; but I think we should have all of the facts in the record. That is why I wanted to present them.

Mr. TALLE. Are you sure that your 2 percent figure is correct? Mr. FROMER. I take it from the record as I indicated, submitted by Mr. Kline, of the American Farm Bureau Federation, and read it exactly as it appeared.

Mr. TALLE. Are you sure it is not 32 percent instead?

Mr. FROMER. The record said 2 percent and the figures indicate that that would be correct. Because 47 million pounds exported, of which 800,000 pounds, I believe they said, was by reason of aidthat would make 2 percent and not 32 percent.

Mr. TALLE. That is a figure that needs checking.

Mr. FROMER. Well, I did not place it in the Senate record, sir.

Mr. BROWN. You may be excused and the Roquefort Association statement may be filed for the record.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT AS TO PROPOSED REPEAL AND/OR AMENDMENT OF SECTION 104 of THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1951 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF ROQUEFORT ASSOCIATION, INC.

At the time this legislation was first enacted, it was the thought of the French producers of Roquefort cheese that the law was not intended to, and could not apply to, the importation and sale of Roquefort cheese in the United States. This conviction was based upon the announced purposes of the proponent and supporters of the law as stated by them, and as these purposes were apparently embodied in the law itself. These purposes, as to stated (and as repeated to Senator Johnson by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in annexed letter dated October 12, 1951 (exhibit 1)) were

* * * no imports of these commodities shall be admitted to the United States which the Secretary of Agriculture determines would impair domestic production or interfere with the orderly domestic storing and marketing of any such commodity, or result in any unnecessary burden or expenditures under any Government price support program."

Despite these announced purposes (as further indicated in the said letter) the Secretary of Agriculture took the position that—

"under the terms of this legislation, the Department of Agriculture had no alternative but to place cheese under import control."

In other words, the Agriculture Department took the position that "cheese is cheese" and must be denied importation into the United States unless it came under an arbitrary formula for importation based on the 3-year period between 1948 through 1950. This interpretation, under a supposed "mandate," implied in section 104, ignored the provisions and purposes stated as the reasons for the act. In so stating, we call attention to the following facts:

I. Roquefort cheese is made exclusively of sheep's milk and is cured in the unique caves at Roquefort, France.

No sheep's milk cheese is produced in the United States; nor are the sheep in this country of the same kind as those in the region near Roquefort, France where such sheep have been raised for centuries for the sole purpose of cheese production. (Exhibit 2: Booklet explaining the history and manufacture of Roquefort cheese; exhibit 3: Article by Prof. Ira D. Garrard et al., professor at Rutgers University, published in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, vol. 29, p. 1167, October 1937; exhibit 4: Decision of Judge Barnes in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 13473, Société Anonyme Civile de Producteurs de Fromage de Roquefort, a corporation, et al., v. Hillman's, a corporation, et al., decided by Judge Barnes June 5, 1935; exhibit 5: Encyclopedia Britannica 1941 Supplement, p. 150 by Samuel O. Rice, editor of Capper's Digest; exhibit 6: Standards for CheeseFederal Register August 24, 1950. In these regulations Roquefort cheese and Blue cheese were separately defined and standardized essentially as follows: Sec. 19570 "Roquefort cheese, sheep's milk, blue mold cheese; blue mold cheese from sheep's milk is the food prepared from sheep's milk and other ingredients." Sec. 19575-"Blue cheese is the food prepared from milk and other ingredients, specified in this section." For the purpose of this section, the word "milk" means "cows' milk.")

II. The noncompetitive nature of Roquefort cheese with any American product is recognized by the American cheese industry.

We submit a photostat of a letter written by the executive secretary of the National Cheese Institute (exhibit 7) in which he points out that the application of that association "should not be interpreted as referring to Roquefort."

In addition, the latest notice for hearing ordered by the United States Tariff Commission expressly stated that the investigation with respect to blue mold cheese did not include Roquefort cheese (exhibit 8). This assertion was repeated in the Journal of Commerce Reports as to the purpose of the hearing, indicating that the American industry was not affected by the sale of Roquefort cheese here (exhibit 9).

III. The sale of Roquefort cheese has not, and cannot, affect the sale of any American product.

Roquefort cheese is a luxury article. It has always sold at almost double the price of any cheese made of cows' milk, whether produced in the United States

or elsewhere, i. e., the so-called blue cheese. (Exhibit 10: Price list of Kraft for July 1937; exhibit 11: Quotations of prices from New York Journal of Commerce dated April 18, 1952. It is significant to note that the price list as of May 9, 1952, gives no quotations of prices for Roquefort cheese at all, as the legislation complained of has effectively excluded it from the American market.)

IV. Section 104, instead of assisting the American public and the American producers, has an injurious effect upon both. (Exhibit 12: Article from St. Louis Post-Dispatch of February 15, 1952; exhibit 13: Article from St. Petersburg Times, April 25, 1952.) That the American market will not be adversely affected if section 104 is repealed, as far as cheese is concerned, is shown by the fact that there is a shortage of dairy products in this country, and that a dairy price rise is imminent. (Exhibit 14: New York Journal of Commerce; exhibit 15: New York Times April 10, 1952.)

We believe that the foregoing considerations, so far as Roquefort cheese is concerned, indicate that there is no reason why legislation, such as section 104, should be applied to the importation thereof, and that the section now in effect, as construed by the Department of Agriculture, is both unnecessary and unfair, and unjust to American consumers and to the producers of Roquefort cheese in France.

ROQUEFORT ASSOCIATION, INC., By JOHN J. MCANDREW, Secretary.

Exhibits mentioned in this statement are on file in the committee office.

Mr. BROWN. The clerk will call the next witness.

The CLERK. Mr. Kitchen of the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.

STATEMENT OF C. W. KITCHEN, UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION

Mr. KITCHEN. Mr. Chairman, my name is C. W. Kitchen and I appear here as the executive vice president of the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association with beadquarters in Washington, D. C. The membership of this association (about 3,000 in number), represents the marketing functions necessary to prepare, distribute, and merchandise fresh fruits and vegetables from producer to the retail store, or its equivalent. We ask for the committee's attention today only with respect to fresh fruits and vegetables.

We are aware of the baffling complexities of the problem you are considering as to whether, to what extent, and for what period of time the Congress should grant broad authority to the executive branch to fix maximum prices. The granting of such regulatory power results in government virtually by decree, and is incompatible with our system of private enterprise and free play of the competitive forces of supply and demand inherent in that system. We believe-and we assume this committee believes that such authority should be granted only during periods of grave national emergency and within definite time limits.

The committee's information is more comprehensive than ours but we know of no evidence which even remotely indicates that a grave national emergency exists at this time so far as the production, distribution, and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables are concerned. There is no scarcity of such food.

Even during the period of greatest strain upon our food supply during World War II no attempt was made to ration fresh fruits and vegetables. During World War II huge quantities of processed fruits and vegetables were withdrawn from the civilian food supply to meet our military requirements overseas. Fresh fruits and vegetables could

97026-52-pt. 2-7