mean? There is no outlet during the spring months to utilize the additional fat that is available to take up the surplus, which calls for the slaughtering of approximately 2,000,000 calves. That means less manure, less product from the soil, less dairy product. It means less beef, less veal, and higher prices. It means less of all the various dairy products that go to make this up. I thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Senator BUTLER. No; I believe not, but I could suggest to Mr. Brightman that a long statement could be made on the subject of grass. I remember some years ago I read an article which appeared in some farm journal on the subject of grass, and the essence of it was: Where grass grows, civilization prospers, and where grass withers, civilization withers. I think that speaks a whole sermon. Mr. BRIGHTMAN. I just received a figure in regard to that question. The 1939 census, which is the last available, shows that there were 179,000 employees in oleo plants. Of course, that will be revised somewhat when the new census comes out. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Brightman. Is there any other witness who is scheduled to be heard today? If there are no other witnesses to appear today, the committee will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 4 p. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m. Tuesday, April 12, 1949.) OLEO TAX REPEAL TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1949 UNITED STATES SENATE, The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 312 Senate Office Building, Senator Walter F. George, chairman, presiding. Present: Senator George (chairman), Lucas, Hoey, Millikin, Butler, and Williams. Also present: Senator Fulbright, and Mrs. Elizabeth B. Springer, acting chief clerk. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. I have here a one-page brief that the National Education Association asked me to put into the record. It is not very specific on any particular bill, but I was asked to place it in the record. (The brief referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF MARY TITUS, LEGISLATIVE-FEDERAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION I represent the National Education Association, which has a present membership of over 400,000 teachers and school administrators. Its business is transacted through a representative assembly, boards, committees, and commissions. Since the beginning of World War II living costs in the United States have increased more rapidly then teacher income. In some States today the real buying power of teachers is below the 1940 level. A larger proportion of the teachers in our public schools today are forced to subsist on a near-poverty level. The present tax program imposed upon oelomargarine is unsound. This tax should be adjusted downward, if not entirely removed. The National Education Association believes that the tax should be eliminated and recommends that the committee take action to that end. The CHAIRMAN. I also have here a telegram that is accompanied by the request that it go into the record in lieu of a personal appearance. It is a telegram from E. J. Martin, executive secretary, National Food Distributors Association, 110 North Franklin Street, Chicago, Ill. He is in favor of the bill as it passed the House. That may be entered in the record. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) Senator WALTER F. GEORGE, Chairman of Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. APRIL 11, 1949. Our association represents 2,755 independent wagon distributors throughout the United States employing approximately 30,000 people. Our members are wholesalers contacting retail dealers by store-door delivery through truck salesmen. Are practically all small business operators. Margarine is a very important product handled by our members and they have been hampered in the distribution of this product by the discriminatory and burdensome license fees and regulations imposed by the Federal Government. 159 d A a. However, they are now greatly disturbed by reports that an attempt will Executive Secretary, National Food Distributors Association The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wingate, will you have a seat, please, si Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comm tions in my office. If agreeable, I will hand them to Mrs. Sp for entry in the record. (The matter referred to will be found on p. 295.) The CHAIRMAN. Very well. There are some others that sh also. Mr. Wingate, you may proceed in your own way. I see you a written statement. This witness is Mr. H. L. Wingate, president of the Georgia Bureau Federation, a citizen of Pelham, Ga. We are glad to have you, Mr. Wingate. I must leave, perhaps b you finish your statement. Senator Hoey will take over, here run through the witnesses. STATEMENT OF H. L. WINGATE, PRESIDENT, GEORGIA F Mr. WINGATE. My statement is very short, though, you notice, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Mr. WINGATE. Thank you Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of committee. My name is H. L. Wingate. I am president of the Ged Farm Bureau Federation, which numbers more than 75,000 Ged farmers in its membership. I live in Pelham, Ga., and make living farming there. I appreciate very much the privilege of testifying before this c mittee today, and digressing for a moment, I wish to say that I proud to be a constituent of the chairman of this committee, Sens Walter F. George. In Georgia, we regard him as a statesman an man worthy to be ranked with the great men of the Senate, past present. Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, I think that that tribute g beyond Georgia and covers the United States. Mr. WINGATE. We think so too, Senator. We are with you hundred percent on that. I am appearing here to urge committee approval of H. R. 20 which contains the language of the Poage substitute and which wo repeal the Federal taxes and license fees on all margarine. I a request the committee not to approve a proposed substitute for H. 2023, which I shall call the Wiley bill for purposes of identificati and which would confine the manufacture and sale of yellow margarine to intrastate commerce. So extensive have been the hearings and discussions on margarine during the past few years that I do not intend to try to argue the matter in detail here today. It is my position that margarine is a perfectly good and nutritious food and that all discriminatory legislation against it should be removed. This includes discrimination because of color, or for any other reason. As I see it, margarine has just as much right to use artificial yellow coloring to make the product more appealing to consumer tastes as butter, or any other food product. Butter freely uses coloring to make the product more appetizing, but it would deny that privilege to a competitive product. Butter's claim that yellow is its trade-mark cannot be defended from the standpoint of law or of logic. Cotton is naturally white, but white as such does not belong to cotton. All fibers can be purchased white, and this is as it should be. The facts of the situation as I see it, are that the butter people in 1886 were successful in securing enactment of a law which discriminated against margarine. Although the law has been maintained and strengthened, the realization has grown among the people of the country that legislation against margarine is unfair, serves no useful purpose, and should be repealed. Cotton has serious competition from every side, particularly from rayon, but we are fighting for our markets on a competitive basis, striving at all times to improve our product and to increase the volume of sales pressure behind it. It has never occurred to us to ask for a prohibition against rayon. This is not a sectional fight, as some have maintained. Yet, it is obvious that the antimargarine laws have adversely affected the South's cotton farmers and are adversely affecting them today. Despite punitive legislation, the use of cottonseed oil in margarine has increased until today it is the single largest outlet for the product, amounting in 1948 to approximately 453,000,000 pounds of cottonseed oil. The quantity of soybean oil going into margarine also is very great and these producers also are hard hit by the discriminatory margarine laws. The antimargarine laws also injure the producers of peanuts, for peanut oil is used in margarine as well as in many other products. We are faced with alarming surpluses of fats and oils and consequent low prices unless some way is found to expand the uses for them. The removal of the antimargarine laws would, as we see it, expand these uses. It is the American way for products to sell on their merits, without restricting one to benefit another. We ask, therefore, for committee approval of H. R. 2023, as it passed the House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Wingate. I am glad you appeared. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoey, will you take over? Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Wingate, I would like to ask one question. |