We had a gentleman testifying here a moment ago who has represented the dairy industry for a number of years. I do not know whether it occurred to him or not, but the United States, in addition to being the arsenal of democracy, and in addition to being the agency which produces the things upon which those nations who are striving to regain liberty, and others to save their liberty and respect, have to depend-the United States has become an international milk cow, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KNUTSON. Has become what?

Mr. KLEBERG. An international milk cow. She is being milked by too many milkers. I do not want the United States to be looked at by people who have every right to be our friends, and who want to be our firends-I do not want her to be looked at as a bovine.

I want the people of Argentina, I want the people of Mexico, to continue to look at the United States of America for what the United States of America is: A strong, a dependable ally and friend, but one that demands and is entitled to respect.

The outcome of the operation of a properly worked out set of reciprocal trade agreements between those countries is not in doubt, if you go at it on a business basis. That is, if you go at it with an objective, and a set of limitations which you able gentlemen can write into the proposed extension, that with reference to those operations, for instance, in the temperate zone every effort be made to complement our economy, through cooperation, by aiding them in doing their part, as Christians and as humanitarian people, in rehabilitating through their great productive enterprise the nations that are in need on the other side in Europe. And when they fall short, if there is anything we can add to it, we shall; but only until they have done their part will we go into that field.

And we should tell them the reasons, the true reasons, and not sidetrack the question, as to why, for instance, we feel that it would be inimical to the best interests of both Argentina and of the United States to permit Argentina to come in, for instance, with her cattle, her livestock, her abundance of corn and feed and stuff of that sort. I do not want to take too much time, but I think it is important for you gentlemen to have a slant on the diversity that exists between the status occupied by the cows in Argentina and that of the cows in the United States, and of certain pertinent facts that will be here until certain things happen, which I will describe briefly in just a

moment.

In the United States of America, the cow is probably the greatest agent and adjunct to a continuity of freeman's government that we

have.

The cow is the greatest friend to the capitalistic system; which, by the way, gentlemen, is the only system under the sun where men can retain their freedom and can function to the fullest extent of their God-given reason, in its application to free enterprise and the building of a great country.

That is why this country occupies the position that it does occupy. Now, why is the cow of the United States different from the cow of the Argentine?

In the first place, if you will take the average acreage necessary in the United States of America to produce a cow, and then take that same acreage to the Argentine, you will find that they can produce

four cows on it.

Add to that that they can produce four cows on it simply because of a different status between Mrs. Argentine cow and Mrs. United States cow.

You can start in the woods in Maine; in the Pacific Northwest, on a crisp, cold morning, when the loggers are out in the field to cut trees, and in your own minds visualize the manpower hours that are expended in felling the trees; the manpower hours in moving those trees down streams or on slides or whichever you will, to great sawmills; the manpower-hours employed in those sawmills in converting those great trees into usable lumber that goes into the building of farm houses and barns that attend Mrs. United States Cow. Then take the manpower and labor that is necessary to throw those barns and those houses together; the fences, the rails, the corrals, the great stockyards, the stock cars that cover this country; the raw material and the manpower required to convert it into a usable and finally finished article that only the cow of the United States has to have because of the status that she occupies.

Let us look at the other side of the picture. Take the manpower hours of the miners that produce the product to provide the system of rails and spikes and clamps and hinges

Mr. KNUTSON. And stanchions

Mr. KLEBERG. And stanchions and chassis, and things that go into automobiles-trucks and freight cars, over this country, that haul only cows and the products of the cow; the great refrigerator cars that are used to transport the products of the American dairy industry.

Take the amount of man-hours that go into the development of the original materials that go into the great creameries of this country; their separators and their great churns; in their bottling plants. And take your butcher knives and forks and other articles of that kind. Well, I am not going to go through the whole list. But let us look at the cornfields and the manpower hours used in raising corn; the manpower hours used to raise wheat; the manpower hours used to raise cottonseed and to convert that cottonseed into cake and meal.

When you really go into it, you see that Mrs. United States cow, because of the difference in the situation in this country, is not only the agent of capitalism, and one of the things that keeps us free, but at the same time, without her as a foster mother in this country, we would not be in very hot shape, would we?

Let us look at the facts, and let us look at them in the face rather than beat around the bush.

In the Argentine they do not have big barns. In the Argentine, the industrialization of the beef and dairy cattle industry is in its infancy. The byproducts down there are a bagatelle compared with what we produce.

Out there they broadcast maize, on a field, during a dormant period; on a pasture after a regular growth of alfalfa. And you see cattle walking on those ranges without barns, feeding on hard grain feed, and there is not a finer balanced feed on this earth.

They do not require any troughs. They do not require any labor to feed them. God, and what He gave them, feeds them.

You bring in these immense herds and they look like they stepped out of a show barn. The cow down there does not work for the people; the people work for the cow.

Mr. KNUTSON. Are they white faces, most of them?

Mr. KLEBERG. They have the finest Herefords, the finest Shorthorns, the finest Angus cattle, taken in bulk, in my opinion, that can be found in big countries anywhere in the world.

Mr. DINGELL. Why do we not have them here?

Mr. KLEBERG. We do have them here.

Mr. DINGELL. I mean, to approach what they have?

Mr. KLEBERG. We do not have the climate and we do not have the soil.

Mr. DINGELL. We started with scrubs whereas they started with thoroughbreds, when they did start.

Mr. KLEBERG. Of course, all of their economy, I repeat, was based on the influx of people from the old country. That is one of the major reasons. So far as the cattle industry is concerned, beef cattle all came from England and Scotland, and the types made during the years when that great industry was being built, still exist.

Mr. REED. They had nothing but scrub cattle for about four centuries.

Mr. KLEBERG. That is right, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go on at too great length. But I do feel, Mr. Chairman, when you look at the two cows, Mrs. Argentine Cow and Mrs. United States Cow, I think I have made out a case to show you a definite and distinct difference between the two.

Let us say something else about it. Mrs. Cow, in addition to being what I have described her to be, is something else in this country. She forms one of the most important stones in sustaining the credit structure upon which this country of ours depends.

Of the 1,900,000,000-odd acres in continental United States, 74 percent of that real property is used by Mrs. Cow. And whenever the earning power of real property, as you gentlemen know so well, gets below its valuation for taxable purposes and as collateral for debt, you have not got very good credit. Let us not forget that.

About 57 percent of the cash return from all the products of what we term the fields is converted into cash through Mrs. Cow, leaving the rest of the livestock out. I am giving you statistics that will bear inspection.

When you indulge in debate or discussion of a proposition of endangering such an agency to the point of destruction by, for instance, the abrogation of the sanitary regulations that are being discussed over here in the Senate-that would not help Argentina and it would not help mutual understanding.

Take the hoof-and-mouth disease in the Argentine. The average death rate from that disease, due to the combined conditions of climate and soil, runs from 6 to 11 percent; that is, 6 percent at the low and 11 percent at the top.

In the four outbreaks that we have had here, it has run between 98 and 100 percent, in the infected herds. Now, some will ask, Why? It is the same germ. I guess it is. I guess it is. Nobody has discovered that germ. Nobody has isolated it. Consequently, there is no immunizing agent, no serum, and no cure for it.

But here is why. Eleven months out of the year, in Argentina, on the cattle ranges, there is available succulent green feed, soft feed which a cow with a sore mouth can eat. And in the Argentine, Mrs. Cow does not walk, at the outside, quite three-quarters of a mile to water, over the whole country.

In the United States of America, Mrs. Cow walks over 2 miles, and she walks on hard ground, and for only 2 months of the year does she have available—that is, in the average year, in this country-green food to eat.

Now, a cow with a sore mouth cannot eat hard, dry food. And, a cow with sore feet cannot walk 2 miles.

I am reducing this down to the practical facts.

Now, to permit a repetition of what has happened before and what we know will happen again is something that is silly. This matter that I am talking to you about has been presented to prominent men in the Argentine beef-cattle industry. They understand it, and accept it.

We would have no more trouble down there about their insistent demand on shipping us either live or chilled beef; not one bit. That is, if we did so both in understanding and a willingness to aid them in their problem as they are willing to aid us.

They are not going to bother us if we treat them right; I can tell you that now. But the only way you can treat them right is to fix it so, in the limitations granted under which reciprocal trade agreements can be drawn, so that they will not be mistreated by a lot of folks who do not know anything about their background, their customs, their habits, or any other darn thing, and whose acts and activities and dealings breed disrespect for the United States, and unfriendliness rather than friendliness.

I wish I had more time, Mr. Chairman. But there is a little pamphlet that was drafted, as a result of the combined conferences that we had, during a trip that the writer of this report made through the South and Central American countries, and I think it would be well for you to include those in your hearings. I am going to leave a copy of it here.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Bulletin of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, Fourth Series, Vol. 13, March 1, 1942, No. 3 THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY OF CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA

By E. J. KYLE, Dean, School of Agriculture, the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, College Station, Tex.

This tour was sponsored by Nelson Rockefeller, Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; with the Standard Oil Co. and Anderson, Clayton & Co., cooperating. The primary purposes of the tour were:

I. To study the agricultural economy of the countries visited.

II. To study their agricultural educational systems.

III. To promote better relations.

Mileage traveled: The tour required the traveling of 19,812 miles in regular flight by plane which, together with detours made on account of unfavorable weather, totaled over 20,000 miles; over 2,000 miles were traveled by automobile and about 1,000 miles by train.

The principal countries visited: Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Trinidad, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Panama.

Reports prepared as a result of this tour include: To Nelson Rockefeller, Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs: The Agricultural Economy of Central and South America, Agricultural Education in Central and South America, Personnel, Press and Public Announcements Relating to the Tour.

To the Standard Oil Co.: A Study of the Agricultural Economy of Venezuela. To Anderson, Clayton & Co.: Analysis of the Cotton Industry in Brazil.

86405-43-54

The Influence of Climate and Soil.

PART I

The two factors that have exerted the most profound influence throughout the centuries upon man, upon animals, and upon plants in all parts of the world have been climate and soil. These factors are fundamental; that is to say, they cannot be changed by man, especially over wide areas. The effects of these factors are demonstrated abundantly, in a study of the agricultural economy of Central and South America.

There are two other factors that have had a strong influence over man in Central and South America. These are the Catholic religion and the topography of the country. These two factors are not so fundamental as climate and soil, especially in other sections of the world, but in the Central and South American countries they have exerted, and are destined to continue to exert, a powerful influence for many years to come.

The People of Central and South America and Our Relations with Them.

In order to secure a broad and comprehensive understanding of the agricultural economy of Central and South America and then be able to analyze it and properly coordinate it with our own economy, it is necessary to know first the peoples and their customs.

I found the people of Central and South America to be kind, friendly, and exceedingly gracious. They are generally of two classes, the wealthy and the lowincome groups. The wealthy group is Spanish and Portuguese, especially in Brazil. The low-income group is made up principally of Spaniards, Indians, and negroes, and a mixture of the three. A large percentage of the people living in most of the Central and South American countries belong to the low income group. In the southern countries, especially in southern Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile, there are large numbers of comparatively recent immigrants. These have come primarily from Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Germany. It is highly important for us to understand and evaluate properly the ability of these people to coordinate themselves with the people of their adopted country as compared to the way our own countrymen fit into the situation.

A few of our countrymen in Latin America are not there with the thought of making permanent homes. This means that they are not subject to the same restraint in their conduct that they would be if they were among people whom they expected to have as neighbors for the rest of their lives. It also means that in many cases they are not interested primarily in building up a position or business for an indefinite future, but rather in making, as soon as possible, a stake with which to return to this country. As a result, they are likely to be less considerate of the nationals than would be expected of an average North America. They are there to take rather than to contribute. Some of our citizens, however, are exerting a fine influence in both their business and social contacts.

I had an opportunity to study carefully the operations of the Standard Oil Company; Anderson, Clayton and Company; and the General Electric Company in most of the countries where they operate. They are doing many constructive things for the governments and for the people in the countries in which they are located. Their influence is wholesome.

The failure of some of our people to fit into the situation seems to be the case in equal or slightly less degree with the British, a shade less with the Germans, and much less in the case of the south Europeans. These are logical differences when we consider that there is no overcrowding in this country, that the Englishman typically dislikes separation from this own island, that Germany is a little more overcrowded than England, and that the southern European countries are all overcrowded and poor. The south Europeans, of course, find less change of customs and culture, since the Catholic church has been the principal artificial influence from the Colonial days until this time.

These obstacles and handicaps, as compared to those of the Europeans, cannot be entirely overcome, since they spring from real causes-our wealth and ample space here versus overcrowding and poverty in Europe and the community of Catholic and Latin culture which we do not share. This difficulty, however, can be mitigated and partly overcome by national policies which will promote more generous contributions from our people to the development of Latin American resources and human advancement. It is certain that much good can be done by the increase of proper contacts and understanding and sympathy through educational exchanges, awarding of scholarships, and promotion of the right kind of tourism.

I seen no reason to expect that the source of immigration to Latin America will change materially. Certainly there will be no flood of immigration to Latin