facturers, wholesalers, and retailers of oleomargarine, and to packaging, reporting, and other regulations of oleomargarine) are hereby repealed: Sections 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2305, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2313, 3200, 3201 (26 U. S. C., secs. 2300, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2305, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2313, 3200, 3201).

Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the consideration shown me in permitting me to testify. I at the same time am asking for another bit of consideration.

I remember how last year an attempt was made to bring up the bill that we were considering then, bring it up in the Senate, without any notice.

I am asking that if and when the Finance Committee decides to report some version of the pending bill or the substitute or whatever their product shall be, advance notice be given to all of the 27 cosponsors of our amendment of the time scheduled for floor action.

Mr. Chairman, I say that because just this morning, in speaking to you, I was repeating a statement that was made to me on pretty good source just a few moments ago. And I know how eminently fair you have been through the years, and how fairly you have played the game with the Senators, and I do not want to have any thought that there is a possibility that there is going to be some action that is not what I consider "senatorial" in its approach to any large problem like this.

So I am asking that instead of someone getting up and trying to get the thing before the Senate, we at least be given an opportunity to know if and when the joint product of the brains here is to be produced, so that we can be ready. I say that because, as the Senator knows, we are pretty tired already, and everyone has his own personal problems. If, when this thing is set down, we have ample notice of the time for argument, that is all I am asking in this connection.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Wiley, I see no ground to apprehend that you will not be given ample notice. I do not know when this bill, if reported, could be brought up in the Senate, but it certainly would not be until after two or three other lengthy matters have been disposed of. There will not be an executive session of the committee until one day next week to act on the bill, even. In the meantime, those Senators who wish to be heard, and especially those who appear as proponents of the substitute, might be heard in executive session, if they are not heard today.

Senator WILEY. That is very fine.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no disposition to cut off any of the Senators or any of the witnesses who have material information to give

to us.

Senator WILEY. Of course, the record that is made here will not be printed by Monday next; and, as evidenced here today, there is just one other Senator besides yourself present. My thought is that in view of the fact that there is a division in the Senate as to what should be done, you ought to have a hearing, at least before the matter is disposed of, in executive session. But that, of course, is up to the committee.

My thought in relation to the time that we should take the matter up on the Senate floor is the same as that of the chairman; that the docket is jammed with crucial legislation, and that there is no need for

rushing this matter in at this time, or until adequate time elapses to take up what is considered to be more important legislation.

If and when, however, it is scheduled, we do want to hear about it. We do not want to hear about it as we did last year, 2 minutes before a motion was made to take it up.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, this bill is a House bill that we are considering. But there are Senate bills, companion bills. They have been introduced by others than members of this committee. Of course, they might bring motions to bring them up. But from my own talk with the leaders, it is clear that this bill could not be brought up in the Senate for some 3 weeks.

Senator WILEY. I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I will not presume to repeat the testimony that has been presented here by experts on the legal implications of this problem I do, however, ask consent of this committee to insert, following my statement in the record of these hearings, three vital documents which I believe merit your close consideration.

Item 1 is an analysis of H. R. 2023 as it passed the House of Representatives on April 1. Item 2 is an analysis of the proposed Gillette-Wiley amendment to H. R. 2023. Item 3 is a legal brief on the constitutionality of the amendment, which was cosponsored by 27 Senators, including Senator Gillette and myself.

I ask that these be printed following my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Following your statement they will be entered in the record.

Senator WILEY. These three analyses were prepared by the attorneys for the Cooperative Milk Producers Federation. I personally did not have the time to go into it, and they were very cooperative in that respect.

I believe that these analyses, however, represent sound legal judgment. They come admittedly from an interested source; but for that matter, we are all interested, one way or another, in this issue, and that should not prejudice, I believe, a fair evaluation of them. I earnestly hope, Mr. Chairman, that these three items will actually have your careful study. I know that the members of this committee are overworked and overburdened by a tremendous mass of material which is presented to them to read and study, as is every other member of the Senate; but I believe that if the few minutes you have could be given to these materials, it would prove exceptionally rewarding.

Mr. Chairman, I shall make my remarks brief as to the general implications of the subject before us. First, however, I would like to say that the 27 Senators who cosponsored this amendment were not thinking only of the dairy segment of our economy. To be sure, the smear artists will attack them and have attacked them as "narrowminded, provincial, selfish, interested only in the butter lobby," and with other smear names. I know that such arguments have no bearing, and will not influence this committee. Well, if it is narrowminded to think in terms of the welfare of 2,500,000 dairy farmers and of that entire sixth of our population which is involved in agriculture, then I think we can plead guilty.

But we are firmly convinced that our amendment is not only in the interests of this tremendous group of our population, but rather, Mr. Chairman, it is in the interests of 148,000,000 Americans of this

generation and of all future generations. It we act wrongly on this issue, if we destroy the American butter industry, then, gentlemen, future generations will rise up and will rue the day that we acted with such lack of vision, of foresight, and of elementary judgment.

Why do I say that? For this reason. If we impair American agriculture, we will impair our entire economy. That means economic impairment; it means social impairment; it means, too, impairment of the soil upon which agriculture depends. The best dairy economists in the Nation have predicted that if oleo is permitted to fraudulently take the place of butter, and to drive butter from the market, there will be a slaughter of an estimated 2,000,000 head of dairy cattle. The effect of that slaughter upon the entire agricultural economy is incalculable. No man here can foresee the tremendous implications of the further decline in the total number of dairy cows at the same time as our population continues to increase.

If

Let me say parenthetically, here, Mr. Chairman, that in the opening days of the nineteenth century, Wisconsin, my State, the southern part of it, was a great wheat-producing State; and up to the forties we produced 15 to 20 million bushels of wheat. But we robbed our soil. it had not been for the Germans and the Swiss and the Scandinavians who came in afterwards, and went into the dairy business and built up that soil, we would not be in the position we are now. The Wheat Belt moved north, and finally Wisconsin went practically out of producing wheat. Why? Because there was no return to the soil in that kind of farming.

Now, I would like to introduce at this point some new material which I secured not so long ago from the Department of Agriculture on the phase of soil conservation. Acting Secretary A. J. Loveland, of the Department of Agriculture, informed me that, for example:

The total plant nutrients in all livestock manure in 1943 was about five times the quantity applied by farmers in the United States that year in the form of commercially-produced fertilizer. Dairy cattle furnished a little more than half of the total nutrients contained in all livestock manure that year.

Mr. Loveland went on to indicate that a considerable amount of the fertilizer value of this nature is not utilized effectively but that should not cause us to underestimate the incalculable contribution to soil fertility of the dairy cow-the greatest fertilizer agent that we have, and, in fact, the greatest fertilizing agent known to mankind.

Jokers may scoff when we raise this issue of fertility, but no man who has ever worked on a farm; no man who has ever seen the wasted gullies, the blown-away topsoil which has spread across this continent; no man who has seen what a wasted soil has meant to Europe, would underestimate the subject of which I am talking today. I am not talking simply for these dairy people. I am talking for our children and our children's children. For years and years the farmer has faced a critical shortage of fertilizer, and even when he could get fertilizer, it has been at such a terrifically high price that oftentimes he simply could not stand to pay for it at all.

I ask you, gentlemen, then, before you take this step, before you sign the death warrant for 2,000,000 dairy cattle, before you further encourage the mass migration from farms to cities, before you acceded. to the high pressure lobby which has been misrepresenting this issue for so long, that you contemplate the facts that I have mentioned. When I say, "this high-pressure lobby," I am recalling what happened

last year. All through this country, and from my own State, came thousands of postal cards: "Take the tax off oleo." "The tax is costing us more and more." Well, gentlemen, we have proposed to take the tax off in the amendment. But now that is not the issue. Now the issue is: "Give us the color." "Supplant the cow with oleo."

We have compromised on this point of tax, Mr. Chairman. have given everything you asked last year.

We

We recognize that the psychological warfare that was carried on that went through this country in the pages of magazines and newspapers-with literally a kept press for months, because they were paid so much that it worked. The average housewife thought that the poor farmer was soaking her. But the idea then was "the" tax They thought they had us. They almost did have us. The result is that if we had not stopped it in the Senate, you would have had it; and the consequences would have been as dire as I said.

Now I say: We have given you this tax reduction. We have taken off the tax. We have indicated our willingness to see the present Federal taxes repealed. We have taken other compromise steps. But we will not compromise to permit what amounts to usurpation of the common-law trade-mark of a natural product by an artificial product in interstate movement. Ours is a States' rights bill, and you, Mr. Chairman, who have fought for States' rights through the years, who have recognized the vital principles of States' rights, who have sensed that the liberties of the common man are involved in States' rights and some of us have stood by you will remember our record. We have sensed that power, centralized in the Federal Government, can become autocratic to the point that it disturbs our most basic liberties. Now it is going to destroy, if you go ahead with this, the economy of those great States.

You can just see how little we have ever gotten from the Federal Government. Look at the bill we are voting on today. Do you see anything in there for the Middle West? No.

All we are asking you, Mr. Chairman, is to remember that we are fighting your battle. We are saying let the States decide this issue of whether they want colored oleo shipped in. Let each State decide it.

We are not attempting to dictate to an individual State what practice it shall follow in permitting or not permitting an artificial product to infringe upon the common-law trade-mark of a natural product. Standing on firm constitutional ground, however, we assert the Federal interest in preventing interstate transportation of yellowcolored oleo. I have briefed that subject, and I have shown you what the Supreme Court has said. We know that if interstate shipments are permitted, it will be a short step before there is interstate shipment of artificial synthetic products-filled milk, filled cheese, and other synthetic items which will bankrupt completely the American dairy industry, and, what is far worse, will doom a considerable section of American agriculture. And that means it will rob some of the finest, most fertile land in America of its future productivity.

I am not just talking on that subject. I am not just representing the butter industry. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that my State only uses around 3 percent of its milk in butter, only 3 percent of it. That is how little we use. But we know what will happen, because it is that 3 percent during the flow period of milk that goes into butter

in the summer months. Take that off, and you will get your level of dairy production far lower.

And let me parenthetically say here, because tempus fugit, as we say, that just yesterday I was speaking to a chap at luncheon, in fact it was over at Les Biffle's office, and I asked what they were getting for their milk. They are getting $5.80 around this area. You can figure that out. There are only 48 quarts and a fraction to a hundred pounds. Out in my State, where we are producing the biggest volume of milk, we are getting from $2.40 to $2.70. And now you want to cut into that. I doubt whether we can produce milk, which is between 5 and 6 cents a quart. That is all we are getting.

Now this comes on. Here is another impact. Here is another threat to the great fertility of that soil down in Illinois. And I am glad to see that the Senator from Illinois is here. I want him to read this statement, which has been very brief, and I hope he will find time. Please remember that in our two bills there is a similarity. We cut out the tax. We say that if there is any State that wants to manufacture and sell colored oleomargarine, let that State do it. But do not let the State do it to the detriment of the other State that does not want it.

So I say States' rights are involved. And I say that if you do what is expected in this Poage bill, interstate shipments will soon cut into the milk industry by giving us filled milk, filled cheese, and other synthetic items.

No doubt the master planners who want to see our country lose its farm population, who want to see more and more people driven into the cities where they become homeless, rootless, the so-called proletariat, that the Communists love-no doubt these planners will rejoice if you take the step to doom this industry, to doom American dairy.

Let me say again, Mr. Chairman: My State is 50 percent industrial and 50 percent agricultural. It is a well-balanced State. If you throw it out of balance, if you throw out of balance the other States of the Middle West, as a result of this, the responsibility is one that I would not want to take.

It is my faith, however, that you gentlemen do not want to see these master planners, the schemers who want to destroy American farming, succeed in their vicious plans. And I say they are vicious. Senator LUCAS. Who are these master schemers, Senator?

Senator WILEY. Let me carry on with my statement, and I will be very happy to discuss that point.

We, speaking for American agriculture, and not just the dairy segment, are deeply alarmed at the feverish haste which some Members of the Congress seem to evidence in trying to steamroller this oleomargarine legislation through. We ask why. I was glad to get the assurance this morning from the chairman that that is not the case. Of all the 6,000 bills pending before the Senate and the House why should there be such feverish haste, if there is any? Why should this particular committee, with all of the hundreds of bills pending before it, single out this one subject and say that this bill must be passed? Other legislation is pending to repeal nuisance taxes, taxes on cosmetics, on baby lotions, medicinal drugs, admission fees, telegrams, and telephone calls. Congressman Martin, of Massachusetts, introduced one bill of this type over in the House, and I in