Mr. CowAN. In the English language, it is a free word, not trademarked, copyrighted.

Senator NEUBERGER. What about jumbo? How do you feel about

that?

Mr. COWAN. I think it is a splendid word. I see nothing wrong with it.

Senator NEUBERGER. How do you set any standard?

Mr. COWAN. We ought to be able to have a little whimsy left in life. Here is a little peanut package made in the shape of a peanut [indicating]. Would the law ban that, I wonder? How would you compare this to a square box even if the contents were identical?

Senator NEUBERGER. Do you think this is giving us a little fun in life? [Indicating.] Must we have to shake all the peanut jars?

Mr. COWAN. I do not. I do not defend that at all. I think that was very stupid on someone's part. Either the box had too big tolerance, and there are boxes that are off sizes-they do not come exactly dimensionally as they are ordered. We have that problem because we have to overwrap boxes. And the tolerance in boxmaking is pretty big.

Here is another one, rather whimsical, for spinach. When you get it home, it says here, you can cut along the dotted line for a hand puppet. And if you do not like that, you can make a stuffed puppet out of it.

Well, these are odd shapes. They indicate invention.

Senator NEUBERGER. But are you deceiving anybody with the contents when you can see in it?

Mr. CowAN. I do not think so, but somebody under this law could think so.

Senator NEUBERGER. You can see what it is.

Mr. CowAN. It is a pretty elongated package here for not too many peanuts. Actually, this holds 12 ounces. That is all. That is not very many peanuts, I am afraid.

Senator NEUBERGER. The line in the law says that the regulations may not proscribe the use of package shapes which have been designed to exploit the unique advantages.

Mr. COWAN. What does that mean? I would like to know. I have read that, too.

Senator NEUBERGER. I think it is rather clear. is rather clear. Evidently you do not understand the bill. It is to try to prevent deception, not merchandising or competition.

Mr. CowAN. Well, one basic thing which I pointed out I fully agree was quantity declarations. And the Conference on Weights and Measures have developed a proposed model bill which could be put in effect by a Presidential resolution overnight. And I think this is the thing to do without legislation. It is not required.

You are familiar with this, I assume.

Senator NEUBERGER. One of the things you say is that the only constant in the packaging industry is change.

Mr. CowAN. Right.

Senator NEUBERGER. I do not know whether you were here this morning and heard one of the witnesses scared to death we are going to change the shape of bottles. He wants us never to change.

Mr. COWAN. Well, his product has a 10- or 12-year life. Ours does not. It is consumable, and we are happy for change. We delight in it.

Senator NEUBERGER. But, you see, each of you interprets the law differently. And he was not willing to admit that one of the real changes, I think, in the bottling industry is the can and the disposable bottle.

Now, I for one think I am a prudent shopper. But I will prefer to buy a soft drink in a container that does not have to be returned. It is just a great convenience. And if it costs a cent or so more, I do not care.

I have to investigate that. I was not satisfied with his answer on the difference in cost on that.

Mr. COWAN. I have trouble enough defending myself. I cannot help the other witnesses, too. [Laughter.]

Senator NEUBERGER. But then you can see why it is that everybody interprets this bill to his own interest. And I am afraid I do not interpret it to find some of the fears and worries in it that obviously you do.

Mr. COWAN. Well, there is a delegation of authority here which I consider extremely dangerous. Actually, it is a legislative authority given to an executive entity. And that is, I think, completely unAmerican and very dangerous.

Senator NEUBERGER. Yet you think the present law is all right? Is it un-American?

Mr. COWAN. Well, there are some parts of it I would rather have seen eliminated. I am not endorsing it completely, no.

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Monroney.
Senator MONRONEY. I have no questions.

Senator NEUBERGER. All right, next witness.

Mr. COWAN. Thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Gosselin of Oklahoma City, Okla. And you will have to explain what the T.G. & Y. stands for.

Senator MONRONEY. I have known Mr. Gosselin since he first started his first store, which was T.G. & Y., and I see it all over Oklahoma City and most places Southwest. It has grown to give Woolworth, Kress, and some of the older variety stores very stiff competition wherever they are located. Yet, this one little store because of its personal merchandising and all has spread to have one of the strongest merchandise positions in the whole Middle West.

And so I am happy to be present here and hear Mr. Gosselin's testimony as he represents the great American story that if you start out with a better mousetrap and sell it, anything can happen. Senator NEUBERGER. Very good. With that good introduction we are eager to hear you.

STATEMENT OF E. L. GOSSELIN, T.G. & Y. STORES CO., OF OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.; ACCOMPANIED BY PHILIP W. SCHINDEL, VARIETY STORES ASSOCIATION, INC.

Mr. GOSSELIN. Madam Chairman, the T.G. & Y. are names of the first three founders of the company-Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Gosselin, and Mr. Young. That is where it came from. Of course, the

kiddies have a different definition. They call it, "Toys, Guns, and Yo-yos," "Turtles, Girdles, and Yo-yos," and it does not hurt a bit. Senator NEUBERGER. That does not hurt your business.

Mr. GOSSELIN. They seem to like it.

By the way, this is my associate, Mr. Schindel.

Senator NEUBERGER. Glad to have you here.

Mr. GOSSELIN. In this statement here, we have eliminated a few paragraphs in order to shorten it and to conserve a little of your time, as much time as possible, in fact. So I will get through with it as fast as possible and not keep you any longer. It seems as though I am about the last one around here, and I hope with not too little to say. I hope it helps a little.

I am E. L. Gosselin, of Oklahoma City, Okla.

This statement is submitted on behalf of the Variety Stores Association whose 750-member companies operate over 8,000 retail stores. These stores are located everywhere.

I guess I am what you would call a natural born variety store man. I am the G in my firm's name. And I have been in this business now for actually more than 44 years. In 1936, I had three stores in small Oklahoma towns, and my partners had about the same situations. So we got together and combined our assets and formed a 13-store company. We grew to the extent that we are now a division of a large organization. And it is as an old dime store man who knows about running small- and medium-sized stores in the heart of America that I would like to talk about several of the provisions of S. 985, the proposed Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

First, let me say that we have long favored fair, accurate, informative labeling and nondeceptive, protective packaging. As an example of constructive action, I submit for the record copies of two checklists which were prepared by our industry's packaging committee. These checklists are widely used by buyers of member companies. These help us give better service to the buying public.

Second, I want to point out that the retail exemption section 2(b) of Senator Hart's bill does not exempt all retailers. Today, more and more stores are featuring so-called house brands, private label merchandise, and this is growing rapidly. It has grown for years, and I guess will continue.

Third, before I get to my major objection, let me wonder about the coverage of items called other consumer commodities which are defined as

any other article or commodity of any kind or class which is customarily produced or distributed for sale *** for consumption by individuals or use by individuals for purposes of personal care or in the performance of services ordinarily rendered within the household and which usually is consumed or expended in the course of such consumption.

I have read in last year's committee report a list of some of the things this definition is not intended to include. But this committee report says:

This list is submitted as a partial guide concerning the intention of the drafters of the bill in regard to commodities that are not covered.

Can you imagine how 5 years from now this definition will be interpreted? This is the kind of vagueness that gives fits to those of us who are trying to run a company.

I submit that we are entitled to a better, clearer, and more precise definition than that. What is it beside food, drugs, and cosmetics that causes such problems? This definition just is not fair, and Heaven only knows how it will be construed or stretched bit by bit over the years.

We are wondering is it too much to ask that before you enact new legislation, you spell out much more clearly in the language of the law the exact area of coverage? We urge you to do so.

Fourth, our major objection to S. 985 is the grant of regulatory power in section 3 (c) (1). We in the field of general merchandise retailing submit that no Government agency needs or should be given the power to "establish reasonable weights or quantities*** in which the commodity shall be distributed for retail sale." Today variety stores evolved from the 5 and 10. The biggest single price line in our stores today is still 10 cents.

Ten-cent sales represent 12 percent of all transactions in large national companies and an even higher percent in smaller stores operated by smaller companies or by the owner-manager.

In the second place as the most popular price line is 25-cent merchandise which is more than 8 percent of the total transactions. Next comes 29 cents and then 15 cents with more than 5 percent.

In 10th place is the lowly nickel. Five-cent sales account for almost 3 percent of variety store transactions today.

From 1879 when the first 5 and 10 was established in Lancaster, Pa., retailers in our segment of distribution have been seeking out packages of merchandise to sell at a price. Of course, we have long since gotten away from just two price lines, the 5 and 10, but we have never forgotten the sound fundamental of featuring key price points and buying packages of merchandise to sell at those popular retail prices. Much of our success can be attributed to the fact that we give a wide and exciting assortment of inexpensive merchandise to sell at most wanted and attractive prices. To us, it is unthinkable that any agency of Government would ever under any circumstance, regardless of socalled safeguards, have the authority to decide that American consumers were not entitled to buy a package of anything, paper napkins, for example, for 10 cents.

And what about the 5-cent candy bar? Every kid in America for generations has been able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel.

As the cost goes up or down, quantities in some packages are changed so that the retail price can be maintained. Quality is not lowered or adulterated. It is the quantity in the package that is increased or decreased as the case may be. Quantities in each package are clearly marked. There is no deception.

This program is so fundamental to our method of merchandising that we must protest this subsection of the pending bill.

Now, I am compelled to add a personal observation at this point. Retail distribution of consumer goods is and must be dynamic and imaginative. It is not a passive or mechanical step in the economy. Retailing's contribution does a great deal, not only for consumers, but also to move the production of farms and factories so that they can keep employment high.

We get the idea that some of those who would protect the consumer do not really see or understand the distinction between merchandis

ing and technical packaging problems on the one hand and what they consider may be confusing to shoppers or outright deceptive on the other. I am impressed by the sincerity with which some of our suppliers are alarmed about some of the discretionary provisions of the packaging legislation now being considered by this committee. We retailers and our customers must be concerned about what could happen to store counters if those who do not understand or who are unsympathetic to the above distinction are given rather broad powers. Along with this situation, what we are really pleading for is this: If you must have a bill, let us define it and put it to work today where people can still do business.

This, I am throwing in here, ad libbing a little.

For some 25 years, I was a buyer of merchandise. I visited markets of New York and everywhere else. We always look for better value for the customer. And we try not to get involved in packages that are not properly packed or properly filled and all these things. We try to make them practical, both for the consumer and for handling in the store. And no one is more able to designate or indicate better than our customer because the customer is always the boss. It does not make any difference what we do, if we do not do it right, we do not do it again very often.

Like Senator Bass said yesterday-I kind of believe in that "They cheat me once, shame on you. They cheat me twice, shame on me. And believe me, our customers do not allow you to cheat them twice very often.

We started out with three stores. Today we are operating 400, most of the capital generated through the organization. And we did not get those stores by cheating the public. We have not. We have made mistakes, I am sure, plenty of them, because the customer tells us about it. Whenever we do, they let the stuff stay on the shelf. So when the package is wrong, the customer tells us about it rather fast.

If the quality is wrong, they find that out, too. And you cannot be wrong many times without being out of business.

And I do not think we need any new laws. I think the ones that we have on record are ample to serve the public in the manner in which you wish to serve him. And I think if you were a little closer to these things, maybe you would agree with us a little more so than maybe you do.

Well, I will just summarize in just a moment and quit.

We believe in and try to give our customers full and proper quantity information on the merchandise we sell. If Congress is convinced that Federal regulation is needed to prevent deception, so be it. And though State regulation is usually preferred, there are advantages to uniformity in the regulation of products moving between the States. We request a narrower, clearer, and more precise definition of specifically what items of general merchandise, if any, are to be covered. As perhaps the foremost popular price point retailers, we in Variety must sincerely yet vigorously protest the granting to an administrative agency of the power to determine or establish quantity standards for merchandise sold at retail. I cannot be too emphatic when I say