A158 The Place of Agriculture in American Economy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALLEN J. ELLENDER OF LOUISIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 15 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address I delivered at New Orleans, La., January 11, 1951, before the members’ council of the New Orleans Association of Com- merce and the Southern Farm Forum. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Ladies and gentlemen, events are now move ing rapidly in the Capital, and Washington is a awirl of activity. Things have taken on a sumber note since our recent reverses in Korea. Members of Congress and officials of the executive department alike are se- rious; they realize that these are indeed perilous times, and that we must proceed to full mobilization without delay. A great portion of my own time has been taken up with matters relating to our Na- tion’s agricultural program. For several months I have been acting chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and now in the role of chairman I shall be devoting the major part of my time in helping guide our Governinent’s agricultural policies. In par- ticular my committee will be studying and planning the role of agriculture in a mobiliz- ing economy. Farming is just one item in the great jigsaw puzzle of our national economy, but it is one of the key pieces to be fitted into the com- plete whole. And that is what I want to talk to you about this afternoon—agriculture at the crossroads of mobilization. As we go into what might well be world war IlI our bins and cribs and warehouses are full. Before the 1950 harvest, we had over 400,000,000 bushels of wheat in the carry-over and 850,000,000 bushels of corn. We have surpluses of other commodities, too. Those same surpluses that last summer were the object of bitter critictam are now proving to be a comfortable backlog to be put to vital ‘use in this emergency. But in spite of this huge reservoir of food, American agriculture will have to expand and buckle down to work as never before. Already the flow of manpower to the armed services is beginning to pinch a little. It will get worse, far worse. President Conant of Harvard recently advocated the conscrip- tion of every male citizen for the war effort, and I believe it may well come to that. The American farmer will have to redouble his efforts and till his land and harvest his crops with less help, fewer tools, and less fertilizer, Our full cribs will melt away in the light of added demands, and tt is only by a further increase in our output that we will be able to produce sufficient food and fiber for our needs. The answer is efficiency. The efficiency of American farming must rise to meet the challeng? of tho coming period. As produc- tion goals are raised, 80 must yields per man- hour and per acre ascend. Something has to give if we are to remain productive but have less with which to produce. That is tLe test for the American farmer. Todey there is much talk of rattoning, price controls, priorities, and allocations. I feel that part of my job is to secure for the a American farmer the best deal possible at the conference table when matertals and manpower are allocated. During World War TI, the American farmer faced shortages of help and tractors and fertilizers and insecti- cides and all of the other things that are apportioned throughout our war-making pro- ductivity. He will face them again, and perhaps in greater severity, but so will we all, unless things take a turn for the better, As Chuirman of the Senate Agriculture Com- mittee, I shall endeavor to secure for Amer- ical agriculture a fair share of the scarce items, so far as I am able. You have my solemn assurance that I shall battle to the utmost. For 13 years I have worked with the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and I have seen first-hand the vital necessity that the farmer bears to our economy, in peace and in war. Farming is basic, it is funda- mental. I need not tell most of you this, but there aro many people who would wholly cubordinate the interest of the farmer to those of the manufacturer or the distributor, little realizing that the needs of ench are coexistent and interdependent, one with the other. What can the American farmer do to as- sist the mobilization effort? The economic and mobilization planners in our Govern- ment have not yet imposed controls to any substantial degree, but as I have said, they are in the offing. What is the farmer's role in this new era? First, the American farmer must cooperate with his Government to the fullest extent. Second, the farmer should make plans to step up his production all along the line. I may say parenthetically here that I believe that if the Government requests that farmers materially increase production, then the Government in turn has a moral obligation to the farmer to pre- vent ruinous piices that usually result from increased productivity. We need a big cot- ton crop next year. It was wise, I believe, of the Secretary of Agriculture to waive any production controls that might jeopardize a bumper crop. In clearing the decks for increased cotton producfion, the Secretary is recognizing the future need for more fiber. With the present wool shortage, cotton will be even more valuable to our economy. While on the subject of cotton, which I know Js a subject dear to the hearts of most of you, I will say that if and when it should be necessary to reimpose acreage controls, 1 shall fight for recognition of the older cot- ton-growing areas, and for complete pro- tection to our historical cotton-farming sections. This emergency must not be used as a vehicle to deprive the older cotton- growing areas of their fair share of allotted acreage. Production at the highest possible levels will do much to inspire us for the future. It will serve to hold down prices all along the line, and it will serve to postpone the imposition of rationing and price controls, It 1s when there is not enough to go around that rigid curbs on buying and selling must be enforced. The agricultural planners have not been unmindful of the impending needs of the farmers. The Production and Marketing Administration of the Department of Agri- culture has been given the job of looking after the interests of the farmer in the na- tional-defense effort. I think this is to the advantage of the farmer. The Production and Merketing Administration is an estab- lished and operating agency, and its assump- tion of mobilization planning will avoid the experimentation and hesitation of a new agency. A number of other Government agencies have found it necessary to entrust their wer and mobilization functions to new departments with untried personnel, but un- der the Defense Production Act it was a nat- ural and desirable step to designate the PMA to handle the farmer's problems. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Since the same commodity and financial branches which handle the normal farm pro- gram services are taking on the additional defense activities, the farmers can continue to work with the same units and insofar as personnel workloads will permit, with the game people with whom they have been deal- ing right along. ‘The same ficld offices and the same committees will be the ones to deal with on defense problems. PMA has set up a few coordinating offices and staffs to direct the over-all operations, and to maintain working relations with other agencies and groupe. These include an Of- fice of Materials and Facilities, an Office of Requirements and Allocations, a price staff, and a group to watch the manpower situa- tion. They are already working actively on the many spectal problems agriculture must face as our national mobilization goes for- ward. The special job of those in charge of mate- rials and facilities will be to act as a claim- ant agency tor agriculture when any pri- orities are being established for the use of strategic matcrials and services. They are there to keep reminding everyone that farm production is defense production. If farm- ers are to hold production at the high levels needed, they must be assured—insofar as it is poasible to do so—against crippling short- ages of materials and facilities, They must also be given protection against the danger that the very production we are asking will not someday break farm prices to ruinous levels. This, of course, involves the question of sound price supports. I have mentioned a few moments ago that I thought that careful planning was the key- note to efficient mobilization of agriculture. In my humble opinion, without it we are lost, foundering about in a sea of indecision, over- production of some crops, underproduction of others, and general confusion. I would like to impress upon you here today that I feel that in war or peace, we should con- centrate on reappralsing and redrafting our farm plans and policies. We have a good, a basically sound, farm policy in effect now. Of that Iam convinced. But as I have often said, it is not perfect. Far from it. We must not only revamp it to suit the changing tempo of the times, we must also iron out of it the flaws that are so readily seized upon by eritics. I repeat: It is a good program; it is @ sound one, but it needs refinements here and there, and we are working to smooth out the defects. In particular I am concerned with the price-support program for perishable commodities, In handling price supports on what are termed the six basic commodities: Cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, peanuts, and rice, the Commodity Credit Corporation has over the period 1033 to date shown no loss, but in- stead has made a profit, when we consider the basic group as a unit. We should all re- member this when we hear irresponsible criticism of the whole farm program. Price supports on storable commodities have formed the backbone of our farm program. Critics of the farm program should remem- ber not only that over the past 17 years the Government has lost nothing on the pro- gram for basic commodities, but also should keep in mind that our national economy has benefited immeasurably by the stability and security that American farmers have achieved under it. The farm program has afforded us a relatively balanced and abun- dant production, and has put agriculture in ite strongest position over the past 40 years. Price supports have proved themselves; I am convinced that they are not only sound and effective, but are absolutely necessary if we would avold the boom-and-bust cycle of the past years. Tt is with respect to the price-support pro- gram on the perishables that we must re- examine our plans and policies. This has
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD been the vulnerable spot of the program—~ the Achilles’ heel of farm price supports. It 4s on butter, eggs, dried milk, potatoes, and other programs that we have taken the shellacking, financially, as our farm critics are so wont to point out. The situation regarding surplus com- modities is today not so critical as it was 6 months ago. The vast surpluses of dried eggs and cheese and butter that the Government has stored in warehouses and caves through- out the Middle West are now looked upon much more favorably by even our severest critics than they were before the Korean crisis, Many proposals have heen advanced as to how we can in normal times handle perish- ables and semiperishables. One plan, much publicized, was suggested by Secretary Bran- nan. Without question, Secretary Brannan was on the right track, in that his ultimate goal was the elimination of burdensome sur- pluses of perishable commodities. But, I do not believe he was even close to the solution, The cost of the Brannan plan would be ex- orbitant, and in addition it would depress the market for the commodities involved. The difference in price between the market and the support or parity price would have to be met through taxes and yet more taxes, which would eventually fall of course upon the consumers themselves. The Brannan plan would, too, take from the farmers the incentive to find the best markets for their crops, since they would know that regardless of what they received the Government would reimburse them up to the support price. If the Congress should fail to provide the neces- sary appropriations, the farmer would be left holding the bag, for once prices in the mare ket place are depressed, it is extremely diffi- cult to get them back up to where the growers can realize a fair profit. But it is not enough to disagree with or challenge or criticize the present program or the Brannan plan. I will say this about the Brannan plan: It is at least an attempt at a solution, As Secretary Brannan has said, we should all try to develop a better mouse- trap; in this case, a sounder, more practical method of handling perishables. I venture to say that if I or you--or some- one—does not come out with a practical idea, the Congress may go back to the idea of supports only on basic storable farm products. I certainly do not presume to have the answer today. I do think that there are certain avenues that we might well explore more fully. For example, the school lunch program is a splendid outlet for perishable stocks. We might consider broadening it. And there comes to mind tho thousands of people receiving direct Federal assistance un- der the social security laws. Could we not substitute for some of the cash payments we are now making, food that could and would be used? I, along with other Members of the Con- gress, took the Jead in granting Government agencies the authority to barter with foreign countries for the strategic materials that we now so sorely need, This could be developed far beyond its present infant state. This matter of price supports for perish- ables and the more serious emergency occa~- sioned by war in the Far East find agriculture prepared to meet them, although as I need not warn you, many problems lie ahead for American farmers. The situation in which we find ourselves today, so far as agriculture is concerned, is a testimonial to the wisdom of the farm legis- lation which has been enacted over the past 17 years. I am sorry to say that the objectives of this legislation are misunderstood in some quarters. Some critics do not understand that the present preparedness of American agriculture is directly related to the farm programs written by the Congress during those yeara. No better example of this need be shown than the complaints that price ceilings on many foods are impossible because the De- fense Production Act prohibits price ceilings on agricultural commodities at less than parity. The Defense Production Act did prohibit price ceilings on agricultural commodities— and rightly so—at less than parity. How- ever, in my opinion, this would not prevent workable cellings on foods made from agri- cultural commodities unless, of course, the ceilings on those foods would necessarily re- sult in less than parity prices on ‘the com- modities. In other words, tf the ceiling price established for a processed food—or anything else, for that matter—made from an agricul- tural commodity, 1s not so low as to prevent the agricultural commodity from rising to parity, or would not serve to drive the price of the commodity below parity, such a ceil- ing on farm products can be put into effect now. The reason for the provision which pre- vents price ceilings on agricultural commodi- ties at a figure below parity is simple. After all, what is parity? It is, simply speaking, a fair price for an agricultural commodity. It ts arrived at by taking into account the costs of the things farmers buy in relation to the price for the commodities they sell. Parity price for an agricultural commodity fluctuates as the price of the things farmers buy fluctuates. I feel that everyone will agree that farmers should receive parity prices for the things they produce. No nation can expect farmers to produce needed foods and fibers unless they get fair prices. This is particularly true in this time of emergency. We do not expect labor to work for low wages, nor industry to produce without reasonable incentives. Con- sequently, we should see to it that price ceil- ings do not interfere with the productive effort of the farmer. Let me emphasize— parity prices are fair prices—not high prices, Today only a few agricultural commodities are above parity. Among these are cotton, wool, cottonseed, beef cattle, veal calves, and lamb. All of us will agree that the production of & sufficient amount of food and fiber ts Just as important in this crisis as the production of munitions. Both the military und the civilian population must eat and must have clothing to wear. I am sure that when the reasons for the prohibition against less-than-parity prices are understood there will be an end to the criticigzm we have been hearing. As a matter of fact, American agriculture would not be ready to do its part today if it were not for the fact that we have striven through our agricultural programs to get the farmers a fair price for thelr products. Agricultural production in 1950, the third largest of record, just didn’t happen. One of the big reasons was the incentives and pro- tection given farmers under the Agricultural Act of 1049 and previous agricultural legisla- tion, Under this legislation the Government fixed support prices on most agricultural commodities at 90 percent of parity. Keep in mind that farmers were assured of price protection before hostilities began in Korea and before the international situation reached the crisis stage. If farmers had not had this protection, today we would not have the agricultural reserves we now recognize as priceless, nor would we have an agricul- tural economy in a sound and healthy condi- tion, ready to do its part in the tasks which lie before us. All of us realize that the emergency we face will necessitate many unpleasant things. Our boys are going inte the armed services, Taxes are high and will go higher. Controls are in effect and still others are to come, All of us will have to make sacrifices, Al59 The people, in my opinion, will make the sacrifices and be glad to do eo if we can thereby prevent all-out war, or win victory if total war comes. But we must never lose sight of one very tmportant fact. We are rearming to protect the American way of life. We are rearming to protect democracy. We are rearming to combat communism and to retain our freedom. It must be remembered that we are not going to apply controls for the sake of con- trols. Price ceilings, wage ceilings, alloca- tions, and rationing are hateful. We do not like them. We are accepting regimentation now in the hope that it will be for a tem- porary period and that thereby we will avoid permanent regimentation by a stifling tyranny of collectivism. Consequently, we should reject vigorously every control that is not absolutely neces- sary. We want to retain as much of our freedom as we can. If the end recult of our rearmament is communism, we will have made all our sacrifices in vain. For example, I have opposed proposals for further regulation of the commodity ex- changes by the Government. Charges were made that speculation on the exchanges was & major factor in causing price increases. There is no basis for these charges. The exchanges simply reflect the conditions which cause price fluctuations. They per- form a valuable service for farmers and the handlers and processors of farm products. They are a part of our free-enterprise system. 8o long as the exchanges conduct their own affairs in an orderly and sensible fashion T will continue to oppose the extension of Government control over their operations. There is another thing that I should like to tell you about this afternoon. It ties in with what I rave said about shifting our farm production into high gear, and it ties in with our planning for a return to normal times if and when the present emergency condition subsides. It is conservation. Conservation used to be a luxury with us here in America. It used to be a civic duty to conserve our national resources. It has now come to be an eco- nomic necessity. The other day, Louis Bromfield, of Malabar Farm, in reviewing a book on conservation, said: “From the very beginning of the Nation the explottation and waste of our natural resources has set a record unequaled by that of any people at any time in history.” I long ago realized that on a long-term basis the only salvetion for the American farmer was to conserve his resources in every manner in which he was able. And, faced with the production demands of the next few years, this “must” becomes increasingly ap- parent. Every dollar and every hour spent in conservation practices comes back with interest. It has been recently estimated that, at current prices, for every dollar in- vested in, for example, Chilean nitrates, a farmer may reasonably expect a return of from $3 to $10. Farmers here in Louisiana are taking to heart the lessons to be learned by conserva- tion practices. Let me give you a few sta- tistics. Last year Louisiana farmers used nearly 30,000 tons of superphosphate, over 7,000 tons of rock phosphate, 10,000 tons of basic slag, and almost 70,000 tons of Iime- stone, They terraced over 8,000,000 Hnear feet of farmland, dug 2,000 stock ponds, and sowed 4,000,000 trees for reforestation. I am proud of the foresight that is being shown by our Loulsiana farmers, for I know that they have come to realize that conservation practices not only make sense but will eventually make money. Now let me get to some of the broader aspects of conservation. I refer to conserva- tion practices exercised by our Government in conjunction with its agricultural func- tions. The farmers cannot conserve the
A160 great waterways and foresta of the public domain, but the Government can, and, if I have anything to say about it, the Governe ment will. Every year somewhere about the country great floods come raging down and destroy crops and homes and even cities, Damage is untold, The Mississippi flood of 1927 cost over $2,000,000,000 alone. Almost within shouting distance of us here this afternoon, the Mississippi flows placidly past this great city, awaiting quietly the flood- waters of next Apri] and May, which can and well may devastate again thousands of acres of incalculable value. Our natural resources must be conserved on a@ national level. The Federal Govern- ment is the only power capable or empowered to harness our great waterways and conserve the fertile farmland and the crops along the banks. With the crisis facing agriculture today, we cannot allow waste of crops that may feed our fighting men here or abroad. We must harness and distribute the waters of our rivers and streams, Back on the watersheds our farmers can do much to alleviate flood loss by carrying out conserva. tion practices that help to keep the soi] from going down the river. And by making water available to the arid lands of the West, the Government can make the deserts bloom. A short time ago I traveled through some of the countries of the Middle East. I went by air, so that I was able to view directly the ravages of exploitation of the soil. I flew over Mesopotamia, the ancient region on the Persian Gulf, and saw first hand the land that was once the cultural and popula- tion center of the world. The Tigris and the Euphrates, great rivers of antiquity, are now only ailt-chocked canals. Desolation reigns today over this land once ruled by Alexander the Great. At one time the valley known ag Mesopotamia supported great cities, fertile fields and 25,000,000 to 36,000,000 people. Now # scant 3,000,000 eke out an existence from the parched and impoverished soll. I learned that at one time the Euphrates car- ried down its upper topsoil so fast that its delta silted up at the rate of 150 feet a year. I flew over Persia, too, and I later talked with some of the Persiun farme*s. According to historians, Persia once supported 105,000,000 people; now a bare 15,000,000 exist on the bare and eroded land. It ts a question of time until a like fate catches up with our country, unless we con- tinue to accelerate conservation measures, The longer we wait, the harder it becomes to retrieve the wasted and worn-out soils, and the more stringent our efforts must become, And for another thing, we must not lose sight of the fact that conservation ts good businese. For, every dollar we spend on conservation comes home to roost, and with interest. I mean hard dollars and cents in« terest, not just the benefits that accrue to a State or a region containing a specific project. Let me give you a few examples. There are seven western projects, the Salt River in Arizona, the Yuma project area in Arl- wona and California, the Boise project in Idaho, the Yakima project in the State of Washington, the Shoshone project in Wyo- ming, the Sun River project in Montana, and the Lower Yellowstone developments in Mon- tana and North Dakota. The total cost of these was in the neighborhood of $134,000,- 000, yet during 1946 alone, these seven proj- ects produced to the Treasury tax revenues in excess of $80,000,000, Since 1916, these seven projecta have contributed more than $400,000,000 to Uncle Sam. Would any of you like to get in om the ground floor of ine vestments like that? Before closing my remarks, I want to eme phasize that the farmer himself is not only @ beneficiary of the conservation, price sup- port, and other agricultural programa fos- tered by our Government, but also he ts a debtor to them. He has a direct reaponsi- pility In making conservation work and in making price supports 8 success, This means that he must cooperate when neces< sary, or the entire structure will fall, and he will find himself again at the mercy of an era of ruthless economic warfare, I mean that the farmer must adjust himself and his crops to the needs of our agricultural econ. omy; he must make adjustments in produc- tion and acreage from time to time; and he must employ the best and the surest meth- ods to conserve the natural resources under his control, Farmers must realize that they might well adopt a little policing of their own activities, and there is no doubt in my mind that they have to hang together or they will hang separately. Indeed, these are serious times. I well realize that Fourth of July orators have been saying this since 1776, but I challenge any- one to now disprove it. These are serious times for agriculture. The American farmer is one of those upon whom we pin our hopes for the future. I can think of no one more important. I can think of no one I believe less likely to let America down. Acheson’s Fatal Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 15 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, an ar- ticle entitled “Acheson's Fatal Policy,” published in the Portland (Maine) Eve- hing Express of January 12, 1951, There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ACHESON'sS Fata, Pouicy The Dutch used to be powerful in the Orient. American diplomats helped to pry them out of Indonesia. We cannot expect the people of the Netherlands to be too ful- some in their praise of American far east- ern policy, therefore (by this we mean the Acheson-Lattimore policy which has pre- vailed since the defeat of Japan in 1945—not the traditional American policy of the Treaty of Portsmouth and of the open door which was the rule until Roosevelt and Stalin sat down to cocktails at Yalta). On the subject of this Acheson-brand American approach to far eastern problems, an article by Dr. C. Gerretson in the Amater- dam conservative newspaper De Telegraaf re- cently had this to say: “Nobody who has learned to know China between both world wars can have any doubts as to the unique moral position which Amer- ica, in contrast to the European powers, had acquired there for itself. This result of one century has been squandered in a few years by postwar Washington, jally by Ache- son’s fatal policy. Now China vociferoualy requests the undoing of America’s ‘colonial aggression.’ Is it completely without foun- dation that China now 1s talking about Amer- joan aggression? American policy has tried to conjure Astatic nationaliam by eliminate ing every ‘colonial’ authority and every re- aistance to the unlimited expansion of Asiatic nationalism. That is why the Neth- erlands had to evacuate Indonesia. The Americans have achieved nothing else but playing a far eastern Asia into the hands of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD communism, which is incapable of effective autonomy, and nothing else but conjuring & new nationalist imperialism. Now America and the United Nations with America are being defeated by the spirits which America iteelf has stirred up.” One may dislike Mr. Acheson. One must nevertheless concede that he put over this new American policy so very adroitly that the great mass of the American people—the peo- ple who have been content to elect and re- elect Democratic administrations ever since 1982—appear never to have opened their eyes to what was being done to their country's prestige in the Far East until the war, which Westbrook Pegler calls the Roosevelt Me- morial War, burst upon them in Kores last June 25, Now, some eyes are opening. But we sttll have Mr. Acheson directing American for~ eign policy. And it is now rumored (see today’s Merry-Go-Round column by Drew Pearson) that if Mr. Acheson ever does re- linquish his post, we may see him replaced by New York’s Gov. Thomas E. Dewey— whose “adviser on foreign affairs” is John Foster Dulles who, like Mr. Acheson, has been on very good terms, in the past, with Alger Hiss. The difference between Acheson and Dewey, in handling the foreign affairs of this Nation, would be not unlike the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It might fool some Americans, for a while. It would not fool the watching world. Capitalism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 3, 1951 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend, heretofore grant- ed, I am enclosing an article which ap- peared in the New York Herald Tribune of December 22, 1950: CAPITALISM: NOTHING Is SUPERIOR EXCEPT BY COMPARISON When we compare the conditions of na- tions and people in anticapitalistic countries with the security, prosperity, happiness, and well being of our people under United States capitalism, we appreciate our privilege of living in a capitalistic, democratic country. The basic principle of the free, capitalistic system which we have developed in our coun- try affords opportunity to the individual who is willing to use his talents to the extent of his ability and desire to produce—to accu- mulate something for investment in a home, ® farm, in savings accounts, bonds and other securities, life insurance, the education of his children, and comforts of life—and become & capitalist. The following facts give us a deep appre- ciation of what capitalism has done and is doing for our country and its people. Private capital in the form of taxes and purchases of United States Government bonds made it possible for us to spend $380,000,000,000 in carrying out our part of the program in winning World War 11. This, of course, is untmportant when we consider the loss of life and permanent and partial Gisability which our youth sustained and which cannot be measured in dollars. Our participation in World War IT has left us today with a national debt of $257,- 000,000,000, but on the credit side we find that our annual national income, at the current rate, 1s equal to 80 percent of our
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD total national debt. Of this total national debt, $30,000,000,000 are in Treasury obll- gations owned by Government agencies, so our net debt is slightly over 6218,000,000,000. The United States free-enterprise business system is operating at its highest levei, fur- nishing employment to 62,000,000 people at the highest hourly and weekly earnings ever recorded. Stockholders and corporations, after paying the highest peacetime taxes in the postwar years, have had the highest net average earnings in history from their in- vestment, Our farmers hed cash tncome from mar- keting last year amounting to 627,500,000,- 000, the highest on record. Total farm assets of our country amount to slightly more than 6127,000,000,000, against which there is an indebtedness of only €12,400,000,000. Thus our farmers have ownership equity of over 90 percent in their farme. In nonfarm homes, counting apartment buildings with four or less families, and all valued at a total of $200,000,000,000, our home owners have an equity of $158,000,- 000,000—a substantial ownership of 79 per- cent, Therefore, as a result of the opportunity provided by our free-enterprise capitalistic system, the people of our Nation have a free and clear ownership in their homes and farms of 83.4 percent. Our people have savings of more than €136,000,000,000 in Government bonds and savings accounts. An additional $97,000,000,000 are on de- posit in commercial bank accounts. Our men and women have a cash invest- ment of $60,000,000,000 in life insurance pol- ictes, A high percentage of our working people gre provided with unemployment insurance, sickness, accident, and retirement benefits, financed by employers, employees, and Gov- ernment. Others who are not covered by these plans and who find themselves in need are provided for by governmental and social institutions. We are increasing our efforts to tmprove the standard of living of the people in the lower income brackets. The United States, with only 6 percent of the world population and 7 percent of its land areca, under its democratic, capitalistic system, before World War II, produced 47 percent of the world’s manufactured goods, but what is more important, 90 percent of that production was consumed within our own borders. Today we are producing over 60 percent of the world's manufactured goods, of which a substantial percentage is for other countries. Capitalism is backing freedom of worship and providing increasing educational oppor- tunities by constantly giving more and more support to the two things upon which our democratic, cultural civilization depends— spiritual and educational values. We have ea permanent investment in churches and schools of $18,500,000,000 and are spending annually $8,000.000,000 for rell- gious and educational purposes. Membership in the churches ts increasing at a much faster rate than the increase in the population, and in our Sunday schools at an even greater rate. In the past 30 years elementary school enrollment has increased 18.6 percent; high- achool enrollment, 146.1 percent; and college and university enrollment, 351.6 percent. Our public-achool expenditures per pupil enrolled have gone up from 848,02 in 1920 to 132.06 in 1947, or 175 percent. Since 1920 the population of our country has increased 43 percent and the investment im echool and college equipment has in- creased 671 percent. Bince the beginning of our industrial and scientific development in the early 1800's, the capitaliatic system, due to Individuat XCVMI—App.——11 freedom, initiative, and ingenuity, has given the world more of the comforts and conven- jences of life than mankind had received in the previous 5,000 years of civilization. Under this system our people as a whole are happy and united, are increasing their capital, and enjoying a fuller spiritual, cul- tural, and material Hfe. Today our scientific and industrial knowl- edge and experience in the various fields of peaceful activity are open to the rest of the world, and in this respect we have joined with other like-minded nations in contribut- ing to the technical-assistance program of the United Nations. No nation, no individual, no venture, no private or public institution, no program for the welfare of the people can progress with- out capital. It 1s each individual's duty to contribute to the preservation, protection, and improve- ment of our democratic civilization on a basis which is sound and falr to all our people. THos. J. WATSON, Chairman of the Board, International Business Machines Corp. The Late Emil Frey EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLIFF CLEVENGER OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, again there is told in this obituary an- other chapter in the American story—an accomplishment of a Swiss emigrant boy to the land of opportunity—America, His factory as white and clean as a lab- oratory, which in fact it was, the largest cheese-making plant in the world, it made not only a delectable table delicacy for the millions who now enjoy it, but it made a new dairy outlet for hundreds of farms, new employment for many men and women in my district, it is part and parcel of the private enterprise system that is America and American oppor- tunity. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to ex- tend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the above-mentioned obituary from the Van Wert (Ohio) Times-Bulletin of January 11, 1951: OniGrnaror oF LYEpERKRANZ CHEESE IN 1893— MEMORIAL SERVICES WiLL Be Heid SUNDAY at 4 P.M. Emil Frey, 88, inventor of Liederkranz cheese, died at 9:45 a. m. today at the Van Wert County Hospital following a year's ill- ness. He had been a patient in the hospital since last October. There will be an immediate cremation service. A memorial service, open to every- one, will be held Sunday at ¢ p. m. at the First Presbyterian Church. Frey had been a resident of Van Wert since 1926 when he and his associates moved their cheese plant here from Monroe, N. Y. He was & member of the First Presbyterian Church, the Masonic Lodge, and the Rotary Club. In 1930 he received a citation from the Pasteur Institute of Paris for his con- tributions to the art of cheese making. He was invited to become a member of the Inventor's Club of Washington, D. C. With the death of Emil Frey, the world lor3a not only the man who invented an internationally known cheese, but also a Al6é1 central figure in the development of the world’s largest cheese factory, Borden's Van Wert plant, for Frey was superintendent of the local plant from its beginning in 1926 until 1938, years during which it became noted as the only Liederkransz-producing company. The story of Emil Frey and Liederkranz has been told and retold throughout Ohio, and especially Van Wert, as visitors come to the city and residents point with pride to this claim to fame. A native of Switzerland and the son of a cheesemaker, Frey came to the United Siates in 1882, when he was 15 years old. For 6 years he worked in New York as a mechanic in a printing-press factory, then he went to Monroe, N. ¥., to take up hie father's occupation. There he began work in a cheese factory, and because of his diligence was commis- sioned by a New York delicatessen operator, Adolph Todi, to try to develop a domestic Bismark cheese, because much of this deli- cate cheese spoiled in transit when it was imported. Frey worked for 2 years with all types of curing processes, but before he got what he wanted, he turned out a gold-crusted, soft-ripening, spready cheese that proved to be more popular among the delicatessen customers than Bismark. Mr. Todi served the cheese to the members of the Liederkranz, a famous New York sing- ing society of which he was a member, The response was so enthusiastic that Frey de- cided to name his new discovery after the society, hence the cheese was christened Liederkranz, which is translated as a wreath of songs. The foreign-sounding name is misleading, and until people know the history of the cheese, it is often classed with the famous imported cheeses. Frey manufactured his new cheese Jn Mon- roe for a number of years, but since that city is 50 miles from New York, and an in- creasing amount of milk supply was needed for that densely populated area, his com- pany began a search for another location. In 1925 Frey made his first visit to Van Wert. He was at first discouraged because of the lack of dairying here, but he found no better location in Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin, and came back to Van Wert 8 second and third time. With the coopera- tion of the newly organized clearinghouse, and the assurance from farmers that they would raise more dairy cattle if a good and convenient market were avaliable, Frey and his associates decided Van Wert would be the new location of the Monroe Cheese Co. Frey had his troubles here. For instance, the closely guarded formula turned into nothing but @ sorry mess in the new plant until the fixtures of the old plant con- taining the proper bacteria were installed. Trouble was overcome and after 3 years of operation in Van Wert, the Monroe Cheese Co. was merged with the Borden Cheese Co., and Frey continued as plant manager. He personally supervised the making of his cheese until 1938 when he retired, and was succeeded by Sylvester Young. Even since his retirement, Frey continued to visit the plant and exercise some super- vision over the manufacture of his invention. And throughout his life, Liederkranz has re- mained a part of his regular diet. In 1948, the fiftieth anniversary of the invention of Liederkranz, Van Wert and the Borden Co. paid tribute to Prey with a special annt- versary celebration. Again in 1949, as the Borden Cheese Co. celebrated its twentieth year in Van Wert, Prey was recognized for his part in the company’s success. But throughout all the fame and praise, one of Frey’s principal characteristica has been his humility. The soft-spoken man has pushed aside praise for his accomplish~ ments, being too busy doing things to talk