HAMPTON P. FULMER, APPLETON, Wis., November 6, 1943. Chairman, House Agricultural Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to assure you of our support for your bill, H. R. 2400, which would repeal discriminatory Federal taxes and license fees on oleomargarine. The question is especially important to us in Wisconsin, where high State taxes contribute further in depriving not only low-income groups, but a majority of housewives of what has become a food necessity during the war. DEAR SIR: The Marion branch, American Association of University Women wishes to express its support for House bill 2400, to repeal Federal taxes on oleomargarine, now before the House Agriculture Committee. Very truly yours, LURINNE PALMORE, Secretary, Marion Branch, American Association of University Women. INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING, Congressman HAMPTON P. FULMER, Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Thirty thousand members and their families of the above organization urge the passage of the bill to abolish the present Federal taxes on the production and sale of margarine. These taxes have greatly limited the production of this important butter substitute. These taxes have been supported by commercial dairy groups who feared margarine would cut down butter sales. The truth is, these taxes have not increased per capita butter sales. They have deprived many people, who cannot afford butter, of a good butter substitute. Abolishment of these taxes would also help increase production of margarine during the war period, when the shipment of butter to armed forces and our allies is causing a shortage of butter at home. We feel that this tax is unfair to the American people as a whole. HARRY DEITH, Secretary, Local No. 1 Legislative Committee. Congressman HAMPTON P. FULMER, AUGUSTA, GA., November 14, 1943. Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Augusta Branch of the American Association of University Women request your support for the passage of H. R. 2400, a bill to repeal Federal taxes on oleomargarine. The repeal of this bill is necessary, as Federal taxes and license fees are a barrier to the distribution of this much-needed food. The consumers would be protected against a substandard product or misrepre sentation in the labeling by the Food and Drug Administration standards and labeling requirements. Thanking you, I am, MISS MYRTIS MCKENZIE, Chairman, Education and Legislation Committee, American Association of University Women, Augusta Branch. HAMPTON P. FULMER, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF ROCHESTER, N. Y. Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Fourteen employees of above society wish to commend you for bill to repeal oleomargarine taxes and license fees, we, who are employed by charitable organizations, are the real goats and victims of inflationary prices, as you must readily know. Sincerely, WILLIAM J. BOYINK, Superintendent. Hon. HAMPTON P. FULMER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, Yakima, Wash., November 12, 1943. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FULMER: We have noted from press dispatches that you have introduced a bill in Congress and are leading the fight to remove Federal tax from oleomargarine, and highly approve of your action. We believe if this tax is removed it will have some effect on keeping the price of butter somewhere within reason. It is also understood from competent authority that oleomargarine is as nutritious as is butter, and in substantiation of the latter statement will refer you to the January issue of Hygeia, the official publication of the American Medical Association. If you do not have a copy of the issue referred to it is suggested that you procure a copy from the publisher at 535 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Ill. Respectfully yours, F. B. WILKINS, Postmaster. NEW YORK CITY, N. Y., November 10, 1943. CHAIRMAN, HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: While I am addressing this letter to you as chairman, all those who served on your committee and voted in favor of retaining present oleomargarine tax are equally at fault. All of you should receive severe criticism for this fifth column act against the overtaxed taxpayers of this country. You had before you an opportunity to do a great service act; instead you simply heaped that much additional tax on the consumer of your country. As a Republican, I condemn this act by a Republican majority. Oleomargarine has been frequently used on our table and would be much more were it more easily obtainable. You simply are working in favor of a special class-we call it class legislation-and as such you are unworthy to represent your several States. I hope each one of you who voted against this measure will have the pleasure (?) of seeing your wife work into the oleo the essential coloring and note what a hard task it is. Very truly yours, CLINTON I. GANSE. BREVARD HOTEL, Mr. HAMPTON P. FULMER, Room 1324, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Cocoa, Fla., November 10, 1943. DEAR MR. FULMER: I would like to urge your favorable consideration of the proposal to eliminate punitive taxes on margarine. I feel that the excessively high licensing fee should be eliminated, especially in view of butter shortage at the present time. Very truly yours, G. W. LAYCOCK, Manager. HAMPTON P. FULMER, HOUSTON, TEX., November 10, 1943. Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. FULMER: We heartily support your bill (H. R. 2400) repealing discriminatory Federal taxes and license fees on oleomargarine. The repeal of these taxes and license fees is a wartime necessity to provide this point-cheap poor man's butter at a time when the butter supply is inadequate to meet civilian needs. DEAR SIR: Acting as a citizen who opposes extra work being imposed on his wife by law, I enclose an editorial from today's Tribune pertaining to the hearings you are conducting. A tax on the poor man's butter is indefensible. Very truly yours, JOHN E. HUGHES. THE DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, HAMTRAMCK BRANCH, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, Hamtramack, Mich., November 18, 1943. Hon. HAMPTON P. FULMER, Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HAMPTON: Local 231 of the American Federation of Teachers, Hamtramck Branch, wishes to commend you for your bill (H. R. 2400) to repeal discriminatory Federal taxes and license fees on oleomargarine. Very truly yours, Congressman HAMPTON P. FULMER, ELIZABETH COLLINS, Corresponding Secretary. PASADENA, CALIF., November 19, 1943. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I wish to express my appreciation of your efforts to have discriminatory Federal taxes and license fees on oleomargarine repealed. Why can't we got a step further and have the law against coloring it also repealed? It would save the busy homemaker quite a little time and labor. Yours sincerely, ACTEA R. ALEXANDER. ROLLINS COLLEGE, Winter Park, Fla., November 10, 1943. Hon. HAMPTON P. FULMER, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. FULMER: Congratulations on your H. R. 2400! Special taxation and license fees on margarine have always been a racket, an attack upon the use of a good food for the sake of a minority interest. in working to end the abuse! More power to you Sincerely, EDWIN L. CLARKE. STATEMENTS OF ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS OPPOSED TO H. R. 2400 STATEMENT OF HON. ELBERT S. BRIGHAM, MONTPELIER, VT., FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM VERMONT, AND MEMBER HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE I am appearing here today in opposition to H. R. 2400 as a dairy farmer interested in protecting the dairy industry in its legitimate market, and as the introducer of H. R. 15934-Seventy-first Congress, third session-which was the basis for what is known as the color-test amendment. First of all, I wish to state what I understand to be the position of the dairy industry with reference to the oleomargarine problem. The dairy industry has no quarrel with the right of the oleomargarine industry to occupy its legitimate field. The dairy industry concedes that oleomargarine made under supervision is a wholesome product which consumers have a right to buy if they want it and know what they are buying. The dairy industry takes the position that its product, butter, has a food value superior to that of oleomargarine even though the oleomargarine is reinforced by the addition of synthetic vitamins. The dairy industry makes the claim that yellow is the natural color and has become the trade-mark of butter. This color is obtained by the cow from the green forage which she eats. The artificial color added to butter is simply to provide a uniformity in the color of the product and not to deceive. The natural color of oleomargarine is white. The dairy industry believes it should be sold in its natural color, but has no objection to its being colored any other color except yellow. The dairy industry contends that the experience of 70 years shows that when oleomargarine is colored yellow, the profit is so great in its sale as butter that the law is evaded and fraud is perpetrated upon the consumer. The dairy industry contends that the present law is fair to all parties concerned-the dairy industry, the oleomargarine industry, and the consumer. If oleomargarine is sold in its natural color or in any other color except yellow in imitation of butter, the tax is nominal-one-fourth cent per pound. This does not exceed the cost of necessary regulation and will not cost the average consuming family more than 5 cents a year. If oleomargarine is colored yellow to imitate butter, the tax is 10 cents per pound. We contend that this tax is necessary to prevent fraud. It is my purpose to review the history of the oleomargarine problem, the legislation enacted to deal with it, and to comment on the results. The efforts of chemists to produce a substance compounded of lowpriced fats and oils and having the color, flavor, melting point, and other characteristics of butter made from cow's milk came to partial fruition in France about 1870. The French chemist Mége-Mouriez who invented the process obtained an English patent in 1869, in the description of which he tells how the materials are prepared and "treated" as usual "to obtain butter." Note the objective "to obtain butter." The financial rewards possible to corporations that can successfully manufacture a butter imitation and sell it without restriction in the butter market, or with limited restrictions, as his bill provides, are apparent. Butter made from cow's milk involves a long and laborious process. A dairy cow must be raised from calfhood to 2 years of age until she produces milk. Then she must be housed, fed expensive feeds, her health carefully watched over, and she must be milked at least twice daily. Twenty-six million cows are maintained on the farms of this country to supply dairy products, and about 35 percent of their milk is marketed as butter, either by direct sales from the farm, through cooperative creameries, or large creamery companies. This dairy industry makes it possible to get away from a one-crop system with its destruction of soil fertility to a system of crop rotation with soilimproving crops which the cows consume and turn into a valuable food product. This industry is also a large customer for cottonseed, linseed, and soybean meals. I submit that it is the duty of this committee, charged with the responsibility of legislating for American agriculture, to take no action which will injure the dairy industry which supplies one-sixth of the income of the farmers of this country. Now the oleomargarine industry presents an entirely different picture. The last report of the Commissioner of internal Revenue shows that there were 41 manufacturers of uncolored oleomargarine and 29 manufacturers of colored oleomargarine engaged in business. The manufacture of oleomargarine is a business of large corporations. These corporations assemble such oils and fats as are produced in this country, but normally the ingredients of margarine used in largest quantities are vegetable oils produced in tropical countries. The materials entering into the manufacture of oleomargarine are in their unmanufactured state relatively cheap. Uncolored oleomargarine is retailing in my section for 25 cents per pound, while creamery butter is retailing for 52 cents. If there are no restrictions or if restrictions are not rigidly enforced, this margin of 27 cents affords an opportunity for profit unequalled by any since the bootlegging days of the eighteenth amendment. The statements I shall make regarding the conditions which brought about Federal legislation, the different enactments of the Congress and the effect of them, are based upon a study of the hearings and the debates and upon information contained in a book published by the Research Institute of Leland Stanford University, which gives a very fair and unprejudiced statement of the problem. Oleomargarine was introduced into the United States in 1874. It was so compounded and its ingredients so processed and the resulting product so colored as to imitate butter made from cow's milk. Its fraudulent sale of butter became so common that by 1880 the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland had passed |