see any manufacturers here in the United States that are manufacturing margarine be in a position where they will even be tempted go ahead and try to pass margarine off as butter. I do not think that should be done.

to

Mr. ANDRESEN. Of course you recognize, as I do, that margarine manufacturers will go to the cheapest oil they can get, and if coconut oil is cheaper they will disregard cottonseed oil and soybean oil. Mr. ROACH. I recognize that fact, and we, as a group of farmers and people who are interested in our soybean processing activity, have made a big investment here during this war period in the production of soybeans and in the processing of soybeans. We do not want to be in a position where a Hottentot can shine up a tree over in the Orient and do the job cheaper than we can do it here because we cannot go down to the standard of living that some place else can go to. Mr. ANDRESEN. If we did not have a bill like the Corbett bill, you would be here opposing all of them?

Mr. ROACH. I probably would not be here at all.
Mr. PACE. Will the gentleman yield?

Let me say that for my part I am in complete accord with you in protecting the American farmer. I think he has the first claim on the American market. That is reflected in the fact that today the only tax that my State imposes on the whole margarine picture is on that margarine which is manufactured from foregin produced commodities. I want you to know that I think for the most part the cotton producers and the peanut producers are in complete accord and join you in an effort to protect the vegetable oils produced in the United States.

Mr. ROACH. We are sure of that.

Mr. MURRAY. This year we imported 823,000,000 pounds, under a conversion of 63 percent, of the copra that was imported, of the cottonseed oil and the cocoanut oil. That is a pretty good indication that we are getting pretty well up to the saturation point very rapidly after the war, and the temptation of the oleo people, naturally, would be to get this cheaper oil. Is that not correct?

Mr. ROACH. I think any manufacturer will try to buy his raw products at the cheapest price he can buy them. We farmers try to buy our things at the cheapest place.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roach, were you in the room this morning when I read the provisions of the charter of the International Trade Organization which seemed to be in conflict with Mr. Corbett's bill? Mr. ROACH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if you have given consideration to that matter in connection with your support?

Mr. ROACH. I did not know there was such a thing. I am not an attorney, and I get to Washington very rarely. I did not know there was such a thing until I heard you read it this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is something that will have to be given consideration because the administration policy, is to support the International Trade Organization, and while this country has not yet formally adhered to the organization, yet it is an organization which has been developed and sponsored by this country, and I would rather imagine that any bill that was in conflict with it would probably face

a veto.

Mr. PACE. Will the chairman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PACE. Will the gentleman join me in the hope that no such provision will ever be approved by the Congress of the United States? Mr. ROACH. I would want to know more about that than just one or two paragraphs before I could answer that. I think the president of our association, Mr. Ersel Walley, has made some study of that and possibly could give you the opinion of our organization on that, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. Roach.

The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the committee adjourned to 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, 1948.)

OLEOMARGARINE TAX REPEAL

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1948

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairmar, due to the lateness of the hour yesterday and to expedite matters, I did not ask one question that I wanted to of those representing the American Soybean Association. If the president of that organization is here, I would like to ask him` one question.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, we have some other witnesses who have not been on. We need every minute we have.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair make this suggestion: I am wondering, if we can leave Mr. Andresen's question out of consideration for a moment, if it would not be possible for the committee to agree that there will not be any questions asked of the witnesses who are called this morning. If we take time to question them, it will not be possible to hear more than one or two witnesses. There are, on the Chair's list, 10 organizations who have asked to be heard and they are all organizations which represent a great many people. I think they should be heard. By giving them 5 or 10 minutes each, I think we can hear from all of them, but, of course, we cannot do it if it is desired to interrogate them at length. Most of these witnesses have come some distance for the sole purpose of testifying at these hearings. If there is no objection, the Chair would like to proceed in that way, with the understanding that before we begin Mr. Andresen may ask a question of the president of the American Soybean Association.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I want to submit this request, that each of the witnesses on the list be granted 5 minutes without questions. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we can do that because there are enough witnesses on the list altogether to take up a couple of hours with 5 minutes each. The Chair had in mind recognizing the ones who represent the larger organizations.

Mr. PACE. I confine my request to the nine organizations which represent the greatest number of people.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair suggest that among themselves they have agreed on a little different arrangement of time than 5 minutes each.

Mr. FLANNAGAN. It is understood that the other representatives who are not given the opportunity to testify will have the right to file a statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; all parties who are here and who have asked to be heard will be given the opportunity to file a statement if they are not heard.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the ruling of the Chair was with respect to the proponents' time on this matter? I have in mind the Government witness, Mr. Wiggins, who testified Monday. It is my understanding that the Chair ruled that would not be taken out of the proponents' time because he was a Government witness. The CHAIRMAN. The committee has not passed on that question at all. I think it is something that can be excluded from the proponents' time, but the committee will have to pass on that. I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the proponents had an hour yesterday after 12 o'clock. The day before they had over 30 minutes after 12 o'clock. I believe that that will make up for any possible time that you may contend you lost by reason of the time being taken by a Government witness who was, perhaps, one of the best witnesses for the proponents of the legislation.

Mr. RIVERS. I would not reflect on the Chair's fairness because the Chair has been eminently fair to all of us and I am sure he has demonstrated that throughout. May I ask one other question, sir?

Mr. GoFF. Mr. Chairman, may I say just one thing? I believe under the rules that a witness is supposed to submit a written statement, if possible, and than make a brief oral summary of his testimony. Could we not handle it that way here? All these witness who desire to can put in a written statement.

The CHAIRMAN. They can all put in a written statement and what the Chair proposes to do is to permit some of the witnesses, as far down the list as we can go, to appear briefly with the understanding that they will not be questioned because if we are going to question them with long interrogations, we cannot hear very many of them.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, I might say that we had an agreement that each side was to have 5 hours. The proponents of the legislation have now used 5 hours and 45 minutes, and I certainly have no disposition to want to preclude any of the testimony from the ones who are favoring these bills. To say that we will agree not to question any statement made by any witness, it seems to me, is precluding the membership of the committee on either side from finding out the background or the reason for some of the statements made.

Mr. PACE. That applies only for the next 48 minutes, as I understand it. We expect to question your witnesses just the same as you.

questioned ours.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I will say to the gentleman, I will put up my time against the time that the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Texas will use and count that in. If they are willing to confine their questions to the time that I use, I certainly will welcome that proposition.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The gentleman used 26 minutes yesterday crossexamining one witness.

Mr. ANDRESEN. But the gentleman started that. I did not start it. I was here at 10 o'clock ready to go.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request that the Chair has made with reference to the procedure this morning?

Mr. ANDRESEN. I object for the time being and I think the Chair can proceed in the manner he has indicated, but I certainly do not want to be precluded from having the opportunity to cross-examine some of the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. The first witness will be Mr. William Rhea Blake, executive vice president, National Cotton Council of America. We will be glad to hear from you for 5 minutes, Mr. Blake.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RHEA BLAKE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is William Rhea Blake and I am executive vice president of the Cotton Council of America. Our organization embraces the six branches of the raw cotton industry, extending from Virginia to California throughout the 18 cotton-producing States. Like most of the other organizations that have appeared here and want to appear here this morning, we, of course, have prepared our statement.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this statement contains the answer to, I think, practically every question that has been raised by the committee during these hearings up until now with respect to the very vital interest which the cotton industry has in this question. For that reason, I would like to urge the members of the committee who have asked these questions to read this statement.

There is a second point that I would like to comment on briefly. We have before the committee quite a few bills on this subject. Generally, however, they fall into three categories:

One, you have your outright repeal bill that would remove the taxes, license fees, regulations and what-have-you, on all margarine, regardless of whether it is made from domestic fats and oils or from imported fats and oils. Of course, most of the bills fall in that category.

Then you have another type of bill that would remove these taxes, regulations, and so forth, completely, but remove them only on the margarine that was made from domestically produced fats and oils. Then you have Mr. Corbett's bill, which would simply reduce the taxes and license fees on yellow margarine to the same level as those that apply on white margarine and that would apply only on the domestic fat margarines.

Now, the position of our organization, which is not fully elaborated in this statement with respect to these particular things because they have come up since these hearings started, is that we are not opposed to any bill that is before this committee. As a matter of fact, we are strongly for any and all of these bills that are before this committee.. We feel that this whole conglomeration of margarine taxes is a rotten mess that ought to be cleaned up and we do not think there are any other considerations that ought to enter into the matter when it comes to the complete repeal of all of these laws.

In saying that, I do not mean to imply in any way that we are in disagreement with the soybean people in their interest in a domestic fats bill. As a matter of fact, we heartily subscribe to their position and that is our preference, that the taxes be removed on margarines made from domestically produced fats and oils. I think our reasons for that are obvious. Mr. Pace mentioned it yesterday. Of course, the cotton farmer is no more interested than is the soybean farmer in having imported fats and oils come in and shove him out of his markets in this country.