Senator FULBRIGHT. I think they could be put into other States. They don't involve tremendous investments.

Senator MILLIKIN. Would somebody be qualified to answer that? The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps Mr. Truitt would.

Mr. TRUITT. That is a little out of my line. I had not informed myself. I can say this about it: Naturally, as an economic matter, they will tend to location in such a State as produces the raw material. Several of them are in Illinois, I think, and Indiana, using to a great extent the soybean oils of those States in that section.

I would rather defer to a later witness who is thoroughly familiar with that particular aspect. I didn't inform myself about that side of the question.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

All right, Senator, thank you.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I thank the committee very much for this. opportunity.

The Chairman. We were glad to have you.
Senator Maybank?

STATEMENT OF HON. BURNET R. MAYBANK, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator MAYBANK. Senator, I appreciate being here. I had to go over to the Appropriations Committee where we are considering the civil functions bill, and I came back here to be with you, with your permission, for just a few moments. I have only a short statement, concurring entirely with your suggestion and the thoughts of Senator Fulbright. This has been an issue for so long and there has been so much said about it, not only in this committee but in the Senate and in the House as well, there is little left to be added.

I only want to refer the committee to my lengthy statement of last year (Congressional Record, June 17, 1948, p. 8852), when the bill was before the Senate. I refer you also to the hearings that were held here in 1943 when I introduced an amendment to the revenue bill in the Senate. It was defeated in this committee and we were again defeated on the floor by about 2 to 1.

Of course, we did far better last year. We were able to bring up the bill itself. The amendment to the tax bill in 1943 was defeated on the theory that the bill had been defeated in the House and this legislation should start in the House.

So I shall not expound any new theories for the necessity of the repeal of these taxes. My sole purpose and desire is to have the tax taken off. I believe it to be unjust and unfair in the interest of those who produce soybean, cottonseed, and other oils, and also in the principal interest of those who consume oleo; they should not be discriminated against to the tune of a 10 cents per pound tax just because they prefer colored margarine.

I have appeared before this committee so many times in order to voice my opposition to the existing taxes and license fees on colored margarine that I feel right at home in coming back here today

I hardly think it necessary to again go through the long 63-year history of this injustice. That has been done before this committee many times in the past and is a matter of record in the printed proceedings which are available to all. Extensive hearings were held in

the House of Representatives, and the arguments were thoroughly and ably presented prior to the passage of this bill H. R. 2023 by that body. It does not even seem necessary to go into the many, many reasons for the repeal of these taxes and license fees again at this time. As far as the manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and housewives are concerned, they are positively aware of the unjustness of these regulations. Their testimony is clear and true evidence of their feelings. The farmers, the men who produce the high-grade vegetable oils used in the manufacture of margarine, are certainly well acquainted with the facts and, Mr. Chairman, all of these people have felt the burden of these ridiculous penalties far too long.

This is a question that transcends the lines of any party or any group, even so powerful a group as the one which has been able to maintain this legislative stranglehold on an otherwise competitive industry.

Mr. Chairman, the American people are no longer willing to tolerate the existence of such a restraining hand on the manufacture of one product, a product which has every right to take its deserved place and stand on its own merits along with other products in its field.

The properties of margarine and the benefits to be gained from its use on the family tables of this country have been expounded over and over again by competent authorities. I think last year you had the representatives of 2,500 hospitals before this committee who testified in the interest of this bill. Its nutritional value is an established fact, controlled and regulated by our Pure Food and Drug Administration Standard of Identity.

The argument always resolves itself to one of color. While butter, the admitted opponent in this particular battle, may be colored any tint of yellow without even being so labeled, even though it may have been white originally. The ingredients of margarine must be bleached to keep from giving the finished product a natural yellow tint. Butter, cheese, and ice cream each enjoy special and unique exemption from labeling artificial coloring under the act of 1923. Margarine is denied the use of yellow simply because the dairy industry has used its enormous political influences to drive a competitive product off the counter. This is discrimination and a flagrant violation of the American principle of open competitive business.

Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere belief that these regulations are pointedly designed to restrain the free marketing privileges of one group of manufacturers. They go beyond that. They place undue hardships and restrictions on our housewives in their daily marketing. I have no doubt but that the majority of our people prefer butter for table use. That may be habit and education, and it may not.

The main point is this. The low income families of this Nation have no choice. The purchase of margarine for their daily table use is an economic necessity. But whether they buy margarine by choice or by necessity, it is their inalienable right to be free to buy yellow margarine if they so desire. Butter is colored a particular tint of yellow to meet the consumer preference of a particular market. Why not margarine?

Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to add at this time except to thank you again for allowing me the privilege of being here. I have referred to all the lengthy statements I have made during the past years and will not ask that they be reprinted here. When the

bill comes to the floor, and I hope it will be soon, I will have more to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. If there are no questions for Senator Maybank, we thank him very much for his appearance here.

Senator Lodge advised that he would like to appear if he is able to return from the State Department in time. Are there any other Members of the House or Senate who wish to be heard on this matter at this time?

Are there any witnesses who wish to be heard at this time this morning? We have a short while remaining.

Senator MILLIKIN. Is there anyone here, Senator Fulbright, who could tell us about the facility with which these plants could be put into the various States?

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to make that inquiry, Senator Millikin. Mr. Truitt, are you prepared to give to the committee an answer to that at this point in the record?

Mr. TRUITT. No, Senator, I am not; but I would be glad to file the information or to bring a witness here from an engineering company that specializes in margarine plant construction who can give you complete and detailed information. If you will indicate your pleasure, I will file a statement or bring the witness and have him here on Tuesday, whichever you prefer.

(The information requested appears on pp. 122 and 164.)

The CHAIRMAN. Is it convenient for the witness to come?

Mr. TRUITT. I would think so; yes, sir. He will have to come from Louisville, Ky.

The CHAIRMAN. Some questions might arise. Can you give us generally the relative cost of providing the equipment and facilities for the production of margarine?

Mr. TRUITT. Generally a completely integrated margarine plant, exclusive of oil-refining facilities costs about a quarter of a million dollars. That includes the manufacturing equipment, the laboratory equipment, the storage and power equipment and all the necessary appurtenances to manufacture the product. It does not include oilrefining facilities.

Senator CONNALLY. What is the size

Mr. TRUITT. That would be a minimum-sized plant which would produce about 3,000 pounds per hour.

Senator CONNALLY. There is not the same rule for all plants. It is according to the size and output and so on.

Mr. TRUITT. That is the minimum I am speaking of, Senator.

Senator CONNALLY. I heard you. I was getting ready to ask you that question and you answered it before I got my question out, which is all right. I want to ask the witness one other question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator CONNALLY. Do or do not the manufacturers of oleomargarine mix other fats in the production of oleomargarine?

Mr. TRUITT. Senator, all the fats used in the manufacture of margarine are enumerated in the Federal Standard and Definition. of Identity.

Senator CONNALLY. I say, they do use them?
Mr. TRUITT. They do use them.

Senator CONNALLY. I know that some years ago the packers were interested in oleomargarine and I think a good many of them had their own plants in which they utilized animal fats along with vegetable fats to make the oleomargarine products, is that right?

Mr. TRUITT. That is correct. Today, however, animal fat is used in the manufacture of margarine sold largely in two States only, Minnesota and Wyoming, and those States require that all margarine sold therein contain a stipulated percentage of animal fat. Animal fats are permitted under the Federal food and drug regulations for the manufacture of margarine.

Senator CONNALLY. You have already stated, I think, if they are used the purchaser is advised and knows what the margarine contains in the way of other fats, is that true?

Mr. TRUITT. That is correct. The product is fully and accurately labeled.

Senator CONNALLY. That is all, thank you.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this is offhand just at the moment, but of the two plants I referred to, one is in Mississippi County, Ark., in which the total investment, I was told last fall, was 1 million and a half. That included a refinery for the oil and the shortening. They make both shortening and margarine in that plant. They told me that there was an investment of $1,500,000 in that plant. That is an example of one recently built. It is quite a large plant.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no other witness here who wishes to be heard this morning

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement by Senator Styles Bridges that he asked me to insert in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You may read it or insert it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is only a page. I might read it.

The CHAIRMAN. Read it, then.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Very well [reading]:

STATEMENT OF HON. STYLES BRIDGES, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

I feel that H. R 2023, passed by the House by a better than 3 to 1 margin, is a workable solution to the oleomargarine problem.

This bill removes all Federal taxes and license fees on oleomargarine. The removal of these taxes and fees is supported generally by the dairy farmers of the country.

The bill also places all oleomargarine, yellow and white, under the jurisidction of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This would mean that oleomargarine would move freely in interstate commerce but only to those States which permit the sale of oleomargarine by their own laws. H. R. 2023, therefore, affords full protection to the States.

H. R. 2023 requires complete identification when served in public eating places. As a matter of fact, I think the provisions for complete identification had their origin in this committee last session when the problem was under study.

I am prompted to support this bill because it does give rightful protection to the dairy farmers of the country. I think we all recognize the importance of the dairy industry to the economy of our country. In my own State, the dairy farmers constitute one of our most important industries and I would not speak in support of this bill if it were a source of injury to the dairy farms. But here we have a legislative proposal which not only removes taxes and fees recognized as discriminatory, but also protests the dairy farmer, the respective States, and the consumer, whether he is a consumer of oleomargarine or butter. I might add that so far as New Hampshire is concerned it is up to our own State legislature whether action is taken by our State to implement this proposed Federal law.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that H. R. 2023 should be favorably reported to the Senate.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that dairying is really an important industry in that State.

Mr. Chairman, I want it to be clear in the record that Senator Lodge desired to testify. He had an appointment down at the State Department and he hoped to get back. I just want the record to show that he intended to be a witness and wished to support the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Springer, has any witness indicated a desire to appear tomorrow?

Mrs. SPRINGER. We have three Senators tentatively scheduled and three other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow, Saturday?

Mrs. SPRINGER (Acting Chief Clerk). Yes. Senator Thye and Senator Mundt. Senator Aiken is not sure. Then there are three other individuals.

The CHAIRMAN. Who would like to appear tomorrow?

Mrs. SPRINGER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no other witness, we will recess the hearing until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock to hear such witnesses as are then available.

(Whereupon, at 11 a. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m., Saturday, April 9, 1949.)