The CHAIRMAN. These were margarine eaters?

Mr. BENSON. These were all people.

Senator FULBRIGHT. What does that prove?

Mr. BENSON. I would prefer that you draw that conclusion. Senator FULBRIGHT. I got in a little late. I was wondering just what this means, after you have given us this.

After all, I am looking for information, and you are the chart man. I thought perhaps you had an explanation.

Mr. BENSON. Well, as I interpret the question, it says that if margarine were sold to them, and it were some other color than yellow or white, it wouldn't make any difference to 52 percent of the people in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. I will put on the dunce cap and ask you to read that question again.

Mr. BENSON (reading):

Would it make any difference to you if your margarine, instead of being yellow or white, were some different color?

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me to be a strange question, where a considerable percentage of your people do not use margarine.

Mr. BENSON. I am sorry. I should perhaps explain that that question was asked only of margarine users.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what threw me off. I asked you that a while ago.

Mr. BENSON. It is based on the total population. Because we could not ask that one of people who used only butter. That is quite right. Senator FULBRIGHT. What do you mean by "total population"? Mr. BENSON. The total sample that we feel is representative. Senator FULBRIGHT. How many samples did you take? Mr. BENSON. 608 cases in this test survey.

You missed the first part of my testimony, where I explained about that. I will be glad to go over it again if you would like.

Senator FULBRIGHT. No.

Mr. BENSON. Then we asked still another question about the color of oleo, and it was worded in this way:

How much difference does it make to you whether or not you can buy margarine colored yellow? A great deal of difference? A fair amount? Only a little? Or no difference?

And in answer to that question we found that 62 percent of the people said color is unimportant. Now, what that 62 percent includes is 51 percent who said it made no difference to them whatsoever, and 11 percent who said it made only a little difference.

The CHAIRMAN. These are margarine users?

Mr. BENSON. They are all people, in this instance. This question was asked of everyone.

Twenty-three percent, on the other hand, said that color was very important to them, and the balance, 15 percent, said that color was fairly important to them.

That covers all the questions, and my testimony.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Mr. BENSON. I have a paper here covering the high lights of the survey, the test survey, we conducted, which may be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. That may be placed into the record. Mr. BENSON. Yes, sir. Thank you.

(The paper referred to is as follows:)

HIGH LIGHTS

OPINION SURVEY ON BUTTER AND OLEOMARGARINE CONDUCTED MAY 1948 BY BENSON & BENSON, INC., PRINCETON, N. J.

Use: 32 percent of people use only butter; 21 percent use only oleo; 47 percent use both, with oleo use somewhat greater.

Taxes: 45 percent do not know that there is any tax on oleo; 30 percent know there is a difference in the tax on yellow and white oleo; 25 percent do not know that the taxes on white and yellow oleo differ.

Only 3 percent of the people know the tax on white oleo is one-fourth cent per pound; 11 percent guess wrong, naming amounts ranging from one-tenth to 15 cents per pound; 86 percent do not know what the tax is on white oleo.

Only 12 percent know the tax on yellow oleo is 10 cents per pound; 6 percent guess wrong-from 1 cent to 35 cents per pound; 82 percent do not know what the tax is on yellow oleo.

Sixty-eight percent say the 10-cent tax on yellow oleo should be repealed.

Twenty-nine percent say if the 10-cent tax is repealed yellow will cost more than white oleo.

Color: 62 percent say that it is unimportant to them whether or not they can buy yellow oleo; 52 percent would not object to oleo colored some tint besides yellow or white.

Fraud: 67 percent say people would know whether they were being sold oleo or butter in a store; 23 percent say they would not know; 10 percent are not sure; 55 percent believe that if yellow oleo is sold, some restaurants would serve their customers oleo and claim it was butter; 66 percent say restaurants should inform people whether oleo or butter is served.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holman?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. HOLMAN, SECRETARY, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.-Resumed

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman, without destroying the continuity of my written paper, I would like to condense this part, now, for only about two or three paragraphs, and comment on Mr. Benson's findings.

First may I say that Mr. Benson's firm was jointly employed to make this independent survey by the National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, the American Butter Institute, and the National Association of Creameries. And they proceeded in their own way to obtain their findings.

We found these are our comments now-that the public's reaction to the Gallup question on oleo tax repeal was similar to organized labor's first reaction to the Taft-Hartley Act.

As you will recall, initial questioning showed that organized labor was almost unanimously opposed to that law, because union leaders had told their members that the act would create slave-labor conditions. Therefore, when the Opinion Research Corp. asked union members whether or not Congress should have passed the law, 64 percent said "no."

But when opinions were sought on the 10 major provisions of the law, at least 70 percent of union members approved of seven of these, with the other three receiving the approval of 61 percent, 50 percent, and 48 percent.

Thus, the additional polling became a source of real gratification to those Congressmen who had supported the Taft-Hartley Act by proving that most of the people were behind the principles which the act sought to establish.

Mr. Benson has presented figures that clearly cast a new light on the public's feeling about oleo. It is obvious that the Gallup-poll results were both qualified and limited in scope, and that many were polled who, like the rest of us, would be inclined to vote instinctively against taxes.

However, when further questioning was made of these persons interviewed and an attempt was made by this psychological process to find out what they were really thinking about, you will notice that there were very definite modifications, proceeding down through that list of charts, just as there were modifications in connection with the additional questions asked as to the Taft-Hartley Act.

Dairy farmers could not believe that such basic considerations as have been suggested here in this poll would be overlooked on the floor of the House. They do not now believe that a Senate committee will ignore them. The dairy industry has had only the short space of 5 weeks to make the latest surveys and gather the facts.

It was only by the the cooperation of such professional groups as Benson & Benson, Fact Finders Associates, Inc., the Armour Foundation, and other authorities that we were able to assemble the information available today.

We believe that their surveys should be carried on to completion, so that the Congress may act not on emotional propaganda but on the basis of what is best for the country as a whole.

Let me remind you that, although repeal measures have been before the Congress for some time, no congressional or governmental authority or agency has analyzed them with the Nation's welfare in mind beyond the usual hearings conducted by the congressional committees. No governmental agency has investigated the consequences of oleotax repeal to the dairy industry, to our supplies of dairy fluid milk, and other products, and to the nutritional standards of the Nation; nor have official studies been made to indicate how a fundamental change in our agricultural economy would affect our natural national

resources.

No congressional probes have been conducted to determine the extent to which butter imitations are now being fraudulently passed off as butter. No studies have been made to develop means of curbing the certain and sharp increase in such frauds if Federal regulations are to be lifted. No scientific evidence, other than ours, has yet been presented to the Congress to show clearly what the people's real feelings are in this controversy.

What is needed are authoritative congressional surveys as well as studies made by private groups. Most phases of the oleo question involve national policy, and have a direct bearing on the well-being of virtually our entire population. Every nation in the world that values its dairy industry has found it necessary to regulate, or even to forbid, the manufacture and sale of butter imitations.

In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of supplementary tables directly bearing upon the case, including a list of the foreign countries, not all of them, but a number of the foreign countries,

showing the character of regulatory controls that they have. And I would like to file these 13 tables as an appendix to my material. The CHAIRMAN. They will be included.

(The tables will be found beginning on p. 258.)_

Mr. HOLMAN. And in connection with that, I would like to point out that according to the New York Times of Wednesday, May 12, the French Academy of Medicine, in response to a query from the French Ministry of Health, which had asked the academy to rule on the advisability of adding vitamins and coloring matter to margarine, replied that although the matters were threshed out in a secret session, it was learned that the doctors had decided that vitamins could be added to the product, but only with prudence, while artificial coloring matter, no matter what its nature was, was categorically condemned.

And may I call your attention also to the fact that just a few weeks ago, the Canadian Senate, by a very substantial vote, refused again to permit the manufacture and sale of any kind of oleomargarine for domestic consumption within the Dominion.

In view of this, dairy farmers cannot understand how the Congress could consider legislation of such fundamental importance without a thorough and painstaking study.

On this basis, can we afford to risk the hasty repeal of a law that has been deemed vital to our economy since 1902? If there is some thought in your minds that conditions may have changed since that time, which we assure you they have not, let us investigate before taking action which may impair that economy.

Only the Congress has the authority and the facilities to examine all sides of the question, and to come up with soundly based answers. We submit that further investigation is necessary before any action whatever is taken, and we hope that this committee, rather than reporting a bill of this character, will recommend that a special subcommittee of this committee be appointed to investigate and that an adequate appropriation be made for such investigation.

Senator LUCAS. How long do you think that would take?

Mr. HOLMAN. I think 6 months would be adequate for the subcommittee to make the investigation. It could be ready by January 1. Now, for the second part of my testimony, which has to do with proposed amendments which we are offering at this time:

The Rivers bill, H. R. 2245, as it passed the House, would take out of the Federal statutes the taxes and license fees which the Federal regulation of oleomargarine is designed to implement and enforce. Elimination of the taxes and license fees will leave on the statute books the regulations, but they would no longer be necessary in connection with the power to lay and collect taxes.

And it is the taxation power, as the committee well knows, that is the whole basis of the enforcement of the Federal legislation.

Our attorneys have, therefore, raised the question as to whether these regulations, standing alone, can be enforced. We think it is quite likely that the ultimate effect of this bill would be virtually to wipe out the Federal regulation of oleomargarine.

We are proposing three amendments to the bill:

The first would retain the 10-cent-per-pound tax on colored oleomargarine, but would repeal the 14-cent-per-pound tax on uncolored oleomargarine, and reduce the occupational taxes on retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers to $1 each per year.

The second amendment would repeal the 15-cent-per-pound internalrevenue tax levied on imported oleomargarine.

The third would repeal the internal-revenue tax of 3 cents per pound levied on the first domestic processing of coconut, palm, and palmkernel oils.

1. We are proposing retention of the 10-cent tax on butter-colored oleomargarine while repealing the other oleomargarine taxes, because the public interest, as well as that of the dairy industry is most vitally endangered by unregulated production and sale of the yellow-colored oleomargarine.

The retention of the color tax sanctions controls over the production and distribution of this product which wuld not be available under other powers of the Government.

The size of the tax alone is a deterrent to fraudulent practices. On the other hand, the taxes upon uncolored oleomargarine and the higher license fees may be a burden disproportionate to their importance as regulatory devices.

2. The 62-year-old, 15-cent internal-excise tax on imported oleomargarine should certainly be removed if, as proponents of this bill argue, the object is to lower the cost of food to consumers.

The oleomargarine manufacturers have screamed abuse at the dairy industry for what they claim was discrimination and special privilege. Yet in the 15-cent special tax on oleomargarine imports they have a special protection absolutely without equal in the tariffs or other taxes on other fats and oils, or on dairy products. The 15-cent tax, plus the regular duty of 7 cents on imports builds up a 22-cent wall against imports. We can see no fairness in granting the oleomargarine industry broad opportunities to masquerade its products as butter under the plea of cheaper food while at the same time that industry is protected from competition of others located outside our borders but equally desirous of providing American consumers with oleomargarine at a low price.

The possible sale of uncolored oleomargarine at slightly lower prices as a result of this amendment would benefit consumers measurably while having little effect on the basic factors underlying the competition of oleomargarine with butter.

3. Our final proposal is an amendment to repeal internal revenue taxes levied on the first domestic processing of certain imported fats and oils. As I said above, these are coconut oil, palm, and palm kernel oils.

These taxes first became effective May 10, 1934. They were intended to correct the ruinous level to which incomes of domestic vegetableoil producers had been brought by the competition of imported oils, principally coconut oil. During 1933 the last full year before the tax went into effect, cottonseed oil averaged 4.5 cents per pound in tank cars at New York. In 1935 the first full year of the tax, cottonseed oil rose to 10.4 cents per pound. Refined coconut oil rose from 4.8 cents in 1933 to 10 cents-including the tax-in 1935.

Today the price situation is different. Cottonseed oil has been selling recently for 38 cents a pound-more than 700 percent above the depression low. There is no longer a depression. The domestic oils and fats industry is thriving. Moreover, prosperity would be piled upon prosperity if some of the arguments of the proponents of