For the tax

1. Hassil E. Schenck, Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc. (p. 504).

2. Hugo H. Sommer, professor of dairy industry, University of Wisconsin (p. 409).

3. Harley J. Credicott, president, Freeport Dairy Products Co. (p. 383).

4. Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 327).

Without internal revenue regulation the sale of colored oleomargarine as real butter would most likely increase almost overnight.

1. Colored Oleo Sold as Butter, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federations, submitted by Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 292).

Against the tax

In 1933 there were 102 retail dealers handling colored oleomargarine and in 1947 there were 5,102. In 1933, there were 103,501 who handled uncolored oleomargarine and in 1947 there were 265,984. I would be forced to conclude from this remarkable growth of hanIdlers in that period that not only is it profitable for these dealers to handle the product or otherwise they would not pay the taxes, but that approximately one retail handler of food out of every two in the United States makes oleomargarine available in some form or another to the customers, so there cannot be a scarcity of retail dealers when over one-half of them in the United States are handling the product.

1. Charles W. Holman, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 326).

"At present oleomargarine is readily available, as witness results of a study recently announced that more than 80 percent of the Nation's families are using oleomargarine."

Dealers in oleomargarine must pay burdensome license fees. There is also a mass of highly technical regulations and requirements which grocers must follow.

1. Tyre Taylor, National Association of Retail Grocers (pp. 162–163).

2. Edgar C. Corry, Jr., American Veterans of World War II (p. 154).

3. L. T. Newman, United States Wholesale Grocers' Association (p. 166). License fees on handling of oleomargarine favor larger firms over smaller ones.

1. Edgar C. Corry, Jr., American Veterans of World War II (p. 154).

2. Donald Montgomery, Congress of Industrial Organizations (p. 182).

License fees on handling of oleomargarine are discriminatory because small grocers cannot afford them and so do not carry the product.

1. Mrs. Florence Geiger, National Council of Jewish Women (p. 189). 2. Margaret F. Stone, National Women's Trade-Union League of America

3. Mrs. E. G. Chamberlain, National Federation of Settlements (p. 191).

4. Ella H. McNaughton, American Home Economics Association (p. 205). 5. Clifford Patton, National Association of Consumers (p. 212).

6. Lewis G. Hines, American Federation of Labor (p. 171).

7. Representative John L. McMillan, South Carolina (p. 382).

8. Benjamin C. Marsh, People's Lobby (p. 487).

76269-40 -2

For the tax Removal of oleomargarine taxes would weaken butter prices and jeopardize the dairy industry.

1. Representative Reid F. Murray, Wisconsin (pp. 13, 34).

2. Charles W .Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (pp. 293-5, 301).

"We say, 'Let the public eat all the oleomargarine it wants.' That is fair competition. But we think, the removal of the color laws would establish unfair competition for the dairy farmer."

1. Charles W. Holman (p. 343).

Ninety percent of the milk leaves the farms in fluid form but what it goes into depends upon the markets.

Against the tax

Oleomargarine taxes are discriminatory and tend to distort the competitive position of two domestic industries. 1. A. Lee M. Wiggins, Under Secretary of the Treasury (p. 8). ·

2. Representative W. R. Poage, Texas (pp. 27, 28, 31, 35).

3. Representative Stephen Pace, Georgia (p. 14).

4. Representative L. Mendel Rivers, South Carolina (p. 38).

5. Mr. Clark W. Patton, American Association of Small Business (p. 124). 6. Representative Omar Burleson, Texas (p. 104).

7. Representative Emanuel Celler, New York (p. 104).

8. Representative Ellsworth B. Foote, Connecticut (p. 105).

9. Mr. William Rhea Blake, National Cotton Council of America (p. 150).

10. Representative Brooks Hays, Arkansas (p. 107).

11. Mr. Tyre Taylor, National Association of Retail Grocers (p. 164).

12. Mrs. Rena Cohen, National League of Women Shoppers (p. 187).

13. Mrs. Florence Geiger, National Council of Jewish Women (p. 188).

14. Margaret F. Stone, National Women's Trade-Union League of America (p. 190).

15. Mrs. Dennis E. Jackson, Consumers Conference of Greater Cincinnati, Ohio (p. 193).

16. Representative Robert Nodar, Jr., New York (p. 200).

17. Sylvia B. Gottlieb, Communications Workers of America (p. 209).

18. Mr. J. Roy Jones, Commissioner of Agriculture, South Carolina (p. 208). 19. Mr. Joseph A. Clorety, Jr., American Veterans Committee (p. 215).

20. American Association of University Women, Washington, D. C. (p. 486). 21. Mrs. J. Fichtmueller, Jr., League of Women Voters, city of New York (p. 487).

22. Woman's Club of Chevy Chase, Md. (p. 488).

23. American Association of University Women, Wisconsin division (p. 490).

The dairy farmer receives more for his product when its ultimate use is as fluid milk rather than as butter.

result in a greater percentage of milk produced being used ultimately in fluid rather than in butter form.

1. Representative W. R. Poage, Texas (p. 29).

For the tax

If a bill is passed to repeal the Federal tax on colored oleomargarine, and supplemented by additional legislation repealing color prohibitions which exist in approximately 23 States it is quite certain that the number of dairy cows in the United States will be greatly reduced. There will most likely be a reduction in the price of butter and that will be reflected in a price reduction in cheese, evaporated milk, and fluid milk and cream for the table. The first reaction would be a decrease followed by relative scarcity.

1. Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Association (p. 328).

The repeal of the Federal tax on colored oleomargarine would result in the reduction of the dairy farmers' income and curtail the total quantity of dairy products, thereby bringing additional ills upon the consumer both as to quantity and costs.

1. Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 294).

2. Statement by Representative John Byrnes, Wisconsin, submitted by Representative Reid F. Murray, Wisconsin (p. 347).

Butter has long been the balance wheel of the dairy industry; it is not possible in a well-organized industry to produce fluid milk, evaporated milk, cheese, and other skim-milk products to provide an adequate diet without the stabilizing influence of butter.

1. Charles W. Holman, Secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 294).

There has been no important change in the production and sale of oleo nor in the relationship of oleomargarine and other competitive products, particularly butter, to warrant any change whatsoever in the Federal statutes.

1. Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 293).

Replacing butter with vegetable oils is not to the American farmers' interest because the farmer gets a larger share of the consumer's dollar spent for butter than from the consumer's dollar spent for oleomargarine.

1. Charles W. Holman (pp. 298-299). 2. H. W. Curtis, Illinois Agricultural Association (p. 421).

3. "Oleo and Soybeans," from Hoard's Dairyman, March 10, 1948, submitted by Charles W. Holman (p. 344)..

4. Mrs. Stella Barker, Des Moines, Iowa (p. 357).

5. Harley J. Credicott, president, Freeport Dairy Products Co. (p. 383).

Against the tax

The effects of the Federal tax on colored oleomargarine are similar to the effects of the State excise taxes. "Margarine manufacturers, vegetable-oil extractors and refiners, soybean and cotton farmers are injured, but dairy farmers and butter manufacturers are not materially benefited. And more important is the fact that low-income consumers are forced to pay an unwarranted premium in order to have margarine in its most attractive form (colored), although manufacture of the colored product is no more costly than manufacture of the uncolored product.”

1. Publication by the Department of Commerce of Oleomargarine Studies Initiated by Paul T. Truitt, submitted by Charles W. Holman, secretary, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (p. 332).

For the tax

Federal taxes on oleomargarine are not levied for the primary purpose of raising revenue, but for the purpose of providing funds for the administration and enforcement of the oleomargarine laws and to prevent deception in the manufacture and sale of the product. 1. Kenzie S. Bagshaw, chairman, executive committee, the National Grange (p. 375).

Against the tax Federal revenue from oleomargarine taxes is negligible.

1. A. Lee M. Wiggins, Under Secretary of the Treasury (p. 7).

2. Representative Ellsworth B. Buck, New York (p. 117).

3. Miss Anna Lord Strauss, League of Women Voters (p. 155).

4. Mr. Lewis G. Hines, American Federation of Labor (p. 170).

"The price received by farmers for their butterfat affects the amount of money which dairy farmers have to spend for soybean meal. When butterfat prices are good, they are in a better position to compete for the available supply of soybean meal and thus the soybean market is strengthened."

1. H. W. Curtiss, Illinois Agricultural Association (pp. 420-421).

No one can foresee at this time what the ultimate effect upon the soybean producers may be if the market in soybean meal is substantially reduced as a result of the repeal of the oleomargarine laws. Certainly, with fewer cows to consume the meal, there would have to be some readjustments downward of soybean acreages. Without an outlet for the soybean meal, it may prove difficult for the soybean producers to compete against imported oils.

1. Charles W. Holman, National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (pp. 293-294).

The dairy farmer was a better customer of the soybean grower in 1947 than was the butter-substitute manufacturer.

1. R. C. Beezley, Kansas State Board of Agriculture (p. 483).

Financial harm could very easily develop to the soybean grower in partial loss of soybean meal used in dairy feeding, by the curtailment of many dairy herds by loss of part of the butter market.

Cottonseed and soybean meal are in great demand as feed for cattle and poultry. Producers cannot afford to produce these meals unless there is a market for cottonseed and soybean oil too.

1. Representative W. R. Poage, Texas (p. 36).

"Continued production of large quantities of efficient low-cost vegetable protein meal is essential to the adequate supply of meat, milk, and eggs necessary to the proper feeding of our increased population."

1. Ersel Walley, American Soybean Association (p. 127).

"The soybean meal in the bean must necessarily be sold at a price high enough to make up the balance of the cost of the beans including the cost of processing. We need cheap protein supplements, not only for our dairy cows, but also for all classes of farm livestock. It is easy enough to see that in order to have cheap dairy feed, it is necessary to keep the soybean oil at a reasonably good price."

1. David G. Wing, American Soybean Association (pp. 128-129).

"In order to supply the protein needed for our livestock economy we must grow soybeans."

1. Howard Roach, American Soybean Association (p. 133).

"Take away the favorable high-value oil market and you also take away the protein feed."

primarily upon the price of oil; and * ** the price of oil depends very heavily upon the market for margarine-so heavily that the margarine market can make it or break it."

uses.

1. William Rhea Blake, National Cotton Council of America (p. 149).