I might say on that one particularly, that it would give producers and shippers of annual crops notice, in advance of planting, of the maximum prices they could expect to receive; it would prevent price roll-backs during the marketing season, such as were experienced in the potato order this year, and that particular requirement was included in the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 as amended, June 30, 1944.

Then the third amendment is that in establishing maximum prices for fresh fruits and vegetables, appropriate allowances shall be made for price variations arising from differences in grade, quality, condition, size, variety, and similar factors affecting prices, and normal price variations within season.

The purpose of that is to permit producers to average not less than the minimum price specified in the law. Prices of these perishable commodities are subject to wide variations as I have pointed out, and not all of a crop under conditions of tight supply can be sold at parity or at the minimum established by the law.

Now in closing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the observation that despite all the arguments that you may receive and that may be advanced on general grounds that no part of the economy should go free, the realistic conclusion is that price control on these perishable commodities is impractical and unnecessary under present conditions. Practically, the gain is simply not worth the candle. Mr. BROWN. Are you through?

Mr. KITCHEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. We are glad to have your testimony. The Clerk will call the next witness.

The CLERK. Mr. W. D. Davis, representing the New York Board of Trade.

STATEMENT OF W. D. DAVIS, THE NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is William D. Davis. I am vice president of D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc., of New York, and elsewhere throughout the country.

I am representing here, as their authorized representative, and as a member of the international section of the New York Board of Trade. It is true that we have,.all of us, a pocketbook interest in foreign trade, but apart from that, we have a greater interest, as members of the New York Board of Trade, in the prosperity of our country and of our State and of our city.

The reason why I am here before you today, is not only to express our views as being opposed to any bill or amendment that provides for any form of quotas, but because by an experience of over 30 years, and by my fellow members' experience, we are able to judge how feeling is abroad about these matters, and upon that basis only do I venture to appear before you and express opinions which the nature of our business enables us properly to obtain.

We are, as I said, opposed to any bill with quotas. More specifically, we are against those sections of the so-called Ramsay bill, H. R. 6843, and the so-called Hunter bill, H. R. 7432, and we are in favor of the Spence bill, H. R. 6546, as regarding quotas.

I have no prepared statement. If there are any questions, I hope I will be interrupted and asked them.

What I have to say will take considerably less than 10 minutes of direct speaking.

I have cut down what I wish to say deliberately as I know time is running out.

We have looked at this question as to what will happen if quotas are imposed. How will they affect the citizens of this country, and how will they affect the citizens of foreign countries?

I am going to deal with those points, shortly.

However, at this time I want to say that we are unable to see any advantage to our country in further restricting goods that may be in short supply here.

It is most unfortunate, and we have every sympathy with manufacturers, who, due to the war effort, are unable to provide the same quantity or quality of goods that they did beforehand. To prevent such goods being imported, and their fellow citizens using those goods, it seems to us, perhaps without proper knowledge of the facts, a dog-in-the-manger attitude.

We do not believe that this question of limitation, by quota, of imports from abroad, is a question that is germane to defense. We are opposed, in the international section of the New York Board of Trade, to any quotas.

Among the reasons we have for our opposition are three which I am now going to mention.

We believe that a lot of false arguments have been brought up on the question of tariffs and quotas.

We next believe that the business life of this country is going to be more hurt than helped by quotas as a whole.

And above all, and lastly, we think that, if this law goes into effect, we will all be hurt here because our friends abroad will consider that this is a rank discrimination. We will be hurt in our fight against communism. It will be a black mark on the name of capitalism.

Going briefly but quickly into the three reasons that I have, tariffs, of course, as we all know, prevent unfair competition. We believe in tariffs to prevent unfair competition. We do not believe in quotas. The quotas are there to restrict and prevent the importation, in part or whole, of foreign goods.

The exporters of this country have to export abroad, sell in a foreign country, where they have every possible difficulty put in their way. They have restrictions, they have quotas, they have tariffs. They are yet able to export in a commercial fashion.

Are these export brethren more capable than the manufacturers here, who have to come and ask for quotas? Has the spirit of initiative, and our own native genius, deserted our producers and manufacturers here, that they require those Government aids that none of their export brothers have abroad?

I mentioned that I felt we should be more hurt than helped by quotas. There are a lot of small industries, small men, who are not hurt-except perhaps at election time. For some of these men, I try to think that I am talking. They are the lightermen, the truckmen, the stevedores, the forwarders, the customs brokers, the export agents, the import agents-all these people are going to be hurt by reduction of imports. They are going to be hurt, as they will be hurt, by the reduction of exports, when there is retaliation abroad.

I classify myself as among this group. We are not less patriotic than anyone else. We are willing to give up, if necessary, butter for guns, but we are not willing to give up cheese for the benefit of the favored few who may wish to ride in Cadillacs. Not that we object to them riding in Cadillacs. We are glad they do. But we do not want them to do so at our expense, unnecessarily.

The third point that I have is on the question of the effect abroad, and this I mention that we in the international section, including myself, that we in dealing with people in foreign countries, can have some real conception of it.

The people abroad feel that our tariffs have been high. With that I do not agree. But when it comes down to a question of prohibiting, in toto, or in part, their exports from abroad into this country, then a different feeling is coming into existence.

I give one example and that is the question of Italian cheese made from sheep's milk. I am not a cheese expert. I have never tasted Italian cheese made from sheep's milk, and I hope to God I never will, but I still do not see any reason why those people who want to buy Italian cheese here should not do so.

Gentlemen, I am an immigrant, although my father was in business here in 1870. I know what it is to come from a foreign country. It is true I have lived here for over 30 years. There is no reason why these men who came from foreign countries, in the pursuit of happiness, as guaranteed by our Constitution, should have that right taken from them. If they have the money and the means and the desire to buy foreign cheese, I ask you, is it right that they should not be permitted to do so?

I am advised on best authority that as regards Italian cheese made of lamb's milk, the comparative price is 75 cents for a pound of domestic cheese in a retail store, and $1-I am giving round figures-a pound per price of imported cheese.

The man who is hurt by this quota on Italian cheese is not the big man who can turn to something else. He is the little shepherd who has been nurturing his flocks in the hope that he can sell his cheese with advantage. That is the man who is going to feel bitterly against it. That is the man, I feel, who is going to have, if his cheese is restricted, distrust of us, dislike, lack of friendship, hate, and eventually war. These are the kinds of things which to the average small man, in my opinion, cannot be explained and will cause trouble.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. BROWN. We are very glad to have your statement. You may be excused.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question?

The New York Board of Trade consists of American citizensexporters, importers, manufacturers, producers, wholesalers, and distributors, who have their places of business not only in New York, but all over the country; is that not right?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MULTER. Thank you very much.

Mr. GAMBLE. May I ask a question?

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Gamble.

Mr. GAMBLE. This type of Italian cheese that you spoke of, is it a low quota or a high tariff?

Mr. DAVIS. It has nothing to do with the question of the tariff. The tariff is the same as always. But the trouble is that that has been put down at a certain level. No more cheese can be imported than during certain years. There is a greater demand for that type of cheese. I am told, on good grounds, that that particular type of Italian cheese that is made here is not made from sheep's milk but is made from cow's milk, and that there is a great difference in the taste, and that as this cheese has been developed, in the postwar years, more has been coming in.

Mr. BROWN. You may be excused. Thank you for your testimony. Call the next witness, Mr. Clerk.

The CLERK. The next witness is Mr. Harry Radcliffe, representing the National Council of American Importers, Inc.

STATEMENT OF HARRY S. RADCLIFFE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN IMPORTERS, INC.

Mr. RADCLIFFE. My name is Harry S. Radcliffe, executive vice president of the National Council of American Importers, 45 East Seventeenth Street, New York.

The National Council of American Importers was established over 31 years ago and is generally recognized as the central organization devoted to the over-all aspects of United States import trade.

Since World War II, our Government, as well as businesmen and farmers, have been much concerned with the persistent dollar gap problem because the United States as a great creditor nation should, by all sound rules of economics, not have a steady excess of exports over imports.

In recent years, vast sums of the American taxpayer's money has been appropriated by the Congress for economic assistance to European countries and other friendly nations in an effort to help them strengthen their economies. In trade alone, we have financed a dollar gap of $8 billion in 1947, $5 billion in 1948 and again in 1949, $12 billion in 1950 and another $4 billion in 1951 with a possible $4 to $4 billion in 1952, or some $28 billion.

We have extended technical assistance through ECA and the point 4 program in an effort to help producers in these countries to make the most of their productive facilities and natural resources. We have urged them to study the special requirements of our immense market, and have encouraged them to create new products that can be sold. here. We have certainly created a general impression abroad that we want to help them earn the United States dollars they need to buy the American exports they actually require.

At the same time, the United States took the lead in persuading other friendly countries to join hands with us in a concerted effort to reduce unnecessary barriers to a mutually advantageous expansion of international trade. This program carried forward by our country under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has resulted in the lowering of excessive tariff rates here and abroad, and the reduction of trade restrictions, including quota restrictions, which hampered our own exports of many industrial and agricultural products. Much of the progress made in this direction came about through the negotiation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade to which some 37 friendly foreign countries are now contracting parties.

When against this background of international cooperation on world trade, the Congress suddenly added section 104 to the Defense Production Act last July, friendly European nations were amazed at our inconsistent action. Under this section of the act, restrictive quotas were imposed upon all types of cheese imported after August 9, 1951. Within a month, however, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency introduced a bill, S. 2104, to repeal section 104. This bill was originally reported favorably on September 20, 1951, and among the reasons contained in the committee report No. 790 were:

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 from the United States to such countries. Section 104 is inconsistent with United States world leadership in attempting to reduce trade barriers.

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.

This Senate bill to repeal section 104 was recommitted to the committee last January, but was again favorably reported (S. Rept. No. 1225) on March 3, 1952, as the committee found after further hearings that the reasons for repeal contained in its original report No. 790 "still remain valid and persuasive." S. 2104 is still awaiting action by the Senate, and our organization is on record favoring prompt repeal of section 104 for the very reasons given in the Senate committee report, as well as for other equally compelling reasons related to general trade policy.

At the present time, three proposals to authorize restrictions of future imports are before your committee in the form of suggested amendments to the Defense Production Act. These are the Hunter bill, H. R. 7432, which would retain the present section 104 relating to quota restrictions on certain agricultural products such as fats and oils, peanuts, rice and rice products, cheese and dairy products. This bill would also add a new subsection to section 104 to permit similar restrictions on any other agricultural or nonagricultural imported products upon investigation (without any requirement for advance notice or public hearings) and recommendations by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Commerce. The third proposal in the Ramsay bill, H. R. 6843, which would restrict imports of any product produced abroad with the use of a material which is subject to allocations or priorities in the United States, to an annual quantity not in excess of one-half of the 1947-49 import volume of that particular product.

We feel that although H. R. 6843 and H. R. 7432 are bills to amend the Defense Production Act, they are in fact proposals to regulate imports by quota restrictions and, in our opinion, are not germane to the extension act under consideration. These bills are clearly in the nature of riders. Had either of these bills been introduced on its own merits without reference to the Defense Production Act, they surely would have been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means rather than to your committee. As a matter of fact, when the now notorious Anderson amendment was first proposed during consideration of the Defense Production Amendments Act of 1951 by the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, Chairman Robert L. Doughton of the Committee on Ways and