Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATE PARTICIPATION IN MEAT INSPECTION

PROGRAM

FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 1960

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND FEED GRAINS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present Representatives Poage, Matthews, Coad, Breeding, Hogan, Dague, Quie, and Short.

Also present: Representatives Hagen, Levering, and Teague of California.

Christine S. Gallagher, clerk; Hyde H. Murray, assistant clerk; and John J. Heimburger, counsel.

Mr. POAGE (presiding). The subcommittee will please come to order. Will you please call the roll, Mr. Heimburger?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Yes.

(Thereupon, the roll was called and the following was present: Representative Poage.)

(Members present subsequent to the rollcall: Representatives Poage, Matthews, Coad, Breeding, Dague, Quie, Short, Hagen, Levering, and Teague of California.)

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, the committee will proceed.

We are meeting this morning to hear testimony on H.R. 8951, H.R. 8954, and H.R. 9187.

H.R. 8951, together with the report from the Department on it, will be made a part of the record at this point.

(H.R. 8951, with report dated February 18, 1960; H.R. 8954, and H.R. 9187, with report dated February 18, 1960, follow :)

[H.R. 8951, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To permit the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with the meat inspection services of the various States

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding the Act approved June 5, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 98), the Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate subject to the conditions stated below and such further conditions as he deems necessary with agencies of States or subdivisions thereof and may conduct examinations, investigations, and inspections as he determines practicable through any officer or employee of such agency who, upon recommendation of the responsible State official, is designated or appointed by the Secretary for such purpose and who is compensated by the State or subdivision thereof for such service. Under any such cooperative arrangement, the Secretary of Agriculture as a minimum shall have final authority: (1) to determine the individual plants under the State

1

system to which, upon recommendation of the responsible State official, the service will be extended and to withdraw such service from any plant which fails to conform with Federal requirements and orders; (2) to determine the individual inspectors who will be designated or appointed and to withdraw such designations or appointments in his discretion; and (3) to cancel the arrangement completely upon withdrawal of adequate financial support by the State. Any person designated or appointed by the Secretary hereunder shall be deemed an "inspector" for the purposes of the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act relating to bribery of, or gifts to, inspectors or other officers and acceptance of gifts (21 U.S.C. 90).

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives.

FEBRUARY 18, 1960.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: This is in reply to your request of September 1, 1959, for a report on H.R. 8951, a bill to permit the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with the meat inspection services of the various States.

This Department does not recommend enactment of H.R. 8951. The bill would tend to move the Federal Government into the administration of intrastate trade. Also, it would have the potential of increasing Federal expenditures for meat inspection services. For example, meatpacking plants now doing business in intrastate trade which availed themselves of the provisions of this bill would most likely expand their operation into interstate trade. Thereafter, the entire responsibility and cost of inspection would devolve upon the Department unless the State or local jurisdiction should choose to continue to pay the costs. However, should such legislation be passed despite these difficulties, the Department would interpose no objection and would, of course, administer its provisions to the benefit of the public.

H.R. 8951 would enable the Secretary of Agriculture to use State-paid and State-employed meat inspectors as USDA inspectors in the Department's meat inspection program. The bill would provide for this notwithstanding the act approved July 5, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 98), which requires that the cost of administering the Federal Meat Inspection Act with the exception of overtime costs be paid from appropriated funds. In connection with using the State-paid meat inspectors, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to deal directly with the individual meatpacking plant in connection with the granting of Federal meat inspection service to the plant, the maintenance of Federal standards of inspection in the plant, and the withdrawal of the grant of inspection where the plant fails to conform with the Federal requirements. The bill enables the Secretary to be selective in his appointing of a State-employed and State-paid inspector to perform Federal meat inspection duties. The bill authorizes the Secretary to cancel the cooperative arrangement upon the withdrawal of adequate financial support by the State. The bill also applies the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act relating to bribery to situations arising out of arrangements made by the Secretary in accordance with the terms of the bill.

The Federal Meat Inspection Act covers all meat moving in interstate or foreign commerce, including sales of meat to Federal agencies. Any meatpacking plant that meets the sanitary standards and whose products are to move interstate can obtain a grant of Federal meat inspection without any further enabling legislation. Under existing arrangements, there is no duplication of inspection. H.R. 8951 would permit the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with State agencies or subdivisions thereof to extend Federal meat inspection to plants engaged in intrastate commerce. This would provide for Federal administration in what has been regarded as intrastate trade.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary.

[H.R. 8954, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To permit the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with the meat inspection services of the various States

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding the Act approved June 5, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 98), the Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate subject to the conditions stated below and such further conditions as he deems necessary with agencies of States or subdivisions thereof and may conduct examinations, investigations, and inspections as he determines practicable through any officer or employee of such agency who, upon recommendation of the responsible State official, is designated or appointed by the Secretary for such purpose and who is compensated by the State or subdivision thereof for such service. Under any such cooperative arrangement, the Secretary of Agriculture as a minimum shall have final authority: (1) to determine the individual plants under the State system to which, upon recommendation of the responsible State official, the service will be extended and to withdraw such service from any plant which fails to conform with Federal requirements and orders; (2) to determine the individual inspectors who will be designated or appointed and to withdraw such designations or appointments in his discretion; and (3) to cancel the arrangement completely upon withdrawal of adequate financial support by the State. Any person designated or appointed by the Secretary hereunder shall be deemed an "inspector" for the purposes of the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act relating to bribery of, or gifts to, inspectors or other officers and acceptance of gifts (21 U.S.C. 90).

[H.R. 9187, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To permit the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with the meat inspection services of the various States

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding the Act approved June 5, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 98), the Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate subject to the conditions stated below and such further conditions as he deems necessary with agencies of States or subdivisions thereof in performing services for meat and meat food products and conduct examinations, investigations, and inspections as he determines practicable through any officer or employee of such agency who, upon recommendation of the responsible State official, is designated or appointed by the Secretary for such purpose and who is compensated by the State or subdivision thereof for such service. Under any such cooperative arrangement, the Secretary of Agriculture as a minimum shall have final authority: (1) to determine the individual plants under the State system to which, upon recommendation of the responsible State official, the service will be extended and to withdraw such service from any plant which fails to conform with Federal requirements and orders; (2) to determine the individual inspectors who will be designated or appointed and to withdraw such designations or appointments in his discretion; and (3) to cancel the arrangement completely upon withdrawal of adequate financial support by the State. Any person designated or appointed by the Secretary hereunder shall be deemed an "inspector" for the purposes of the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act relating to bribery of, or gifts to, inspectors or other officers and acceptance of gifts (21 U.S.C. 90).

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

FEBRUARY 18, 1960.

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: This is in reply to your request of October 21, 1959, for a report on H.R. 9187, a bill to permit the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with the meat inspection services of the various States.

This Department does not recommend enactment of H.R. 9187. The bill would tend to move the Federal Government into the administration of intrastate trade. Also, it would have the potential of increasing Federal expenditures for meat-inspection services. For example, meatpacking plants now doing

business in intrastate trade which availed themselves of the provisions of this bill would most likely expand their operation into interstate trade. Thereafter, the entire responsibility and cost of inspection would devolve upon the Department unless the State or local jurisdiction should choose to continue to pay the costs. However, should such legislation be passed despite these difficulties, the Department would interpose no objection and would, of course, administer its provisions to the benefit of the public.

H.R. 9187 would enable the Secretary of Agriculture to use State-paid and State-employed meat inspectors as USDA inspectors in the Department's meatinspection program. The bill would provide for this notwithstanding the act approved July 5, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 98) which requires that the cost of administering the Federal Meat Inspection Act with the exception of overtime costs be paid from appropriated funds. In connection with using the State-paid meat inspectors, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to deal directly with the individual meatpacking plant in connection with the granting of Federal meat-inspection service to the plant, the maintenance of Federal standards of inspection in the plant, and the withdrawal of the grant of inspection where the plant fails to conform with the Federal requirements. The bill enables the Secretary to be selective in his appointing of a State-employed and State-paid inspector to perform Federal meat-inspection duties. The bill authorizes the Secretary to cancel the cooperative arrangement upon the withdrawal of adequate financial support by the State. The bill also applies the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act relating to bribery to situations arising out of arrangements made by the Secretary in accordance with the terms of the bill.

The Federal Meat Inspection Act covers all meat moving in interstate or foreign commerce, including sales of meat to Federal agencies. Any meatpacking plant that meets the sanitary standards and whose products are to move interstate can obtain a grant of Federal meat inspection without any further enabling legislation. Under existing arrangements, there is no duplication of inspection. H.R. 9187 would permit the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with State agencies or subdivisions thereof to extend Federal meat inspection to plants engaged in intrastate commerce. This would provide for Federal administration in what has been regarded as intrastate trade.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Hagen, the author of one of the bills, is present, and we will hear from him now.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARLAN HAGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 14TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would first ask leave to appear subsequently, or to submit a subsequent

statement.

I merely want to outline the problem as I see it. I want to thank you for holding this hearing.

I would also like to ask that this hearing be continued after today on request, because there are witnesses who are interested in this problem who have not had time to prepare their position for presentation today.

I want to state at the outset that it is not my desire in introducing my bill to downgrade 1 pound of meat or anyone's job.

I might say that I have been on both sides of this question, mentally, although I have presented one of the bills, and I want to refer to the Department's report on my bill which I would describe as praising my bill with faint damns which is about the best way that I can characterize it.

My main desire is to effectually explore a very difficult question to the end of helping small business improve the quality of and lowering the price of all U.S. purchases of red meat.

As I see it, the issues presented here are factually in this narrow

area.

Federal meat inspection to be an effective instrument had two courses to follow: One, establishing the value of the label such as occurs in grading, and two, the more radical and restrictive course of prohibition of interstate and export commerce and sales to the Government.

The methods of implementing this very old law which I understand has changed only three times in its history since 1906 are the following:

(1) Plant standards enforced by licensing and inspection;

(2) Product standards enforced by post mortem carcass inspection and product inspection including standards for the addition of nonmeat additives.

These are the anomalies that currently exist, as I understand them. These same restrictive rules are not applied to similar sales of drugs and other foods, including milk products, which have acquired State inspection approval, and which move in interstate commerce freely, in spite of the fact that they could equally be more deleterious to the health and welfare of the public than meats.

Of the second anomaly, of all of the tests, only the post mortem carcass inspection is applied to imported meat or to make it eligible for Federal approval. This is, in effect, a recognition of foreign plants and inspection greater and more lenient than that which is afforded to domestic State approved plants and products.

It is asserted that many State-approved plants which cannot get a Federal license today exist side by side with inferior federally licensed plants. In part, this is attributed to Federal licensing during the war, when the demand for meat was overwhelming, or to a failure to supervise properly the modernization and/or upkeep of Federal plants.

The further charges we made that Federal plant standards are either archaic in terms of modern technology or that such standards are unevenly or unfairly applied to plants of admitted value seeking Federal status.

It is not charged, but could be implied, that such restrictive application of standards was designed to aid in the perpetuation of a monopoly situation in some areas.

Now, a further allegation which could be explored is that the history of appropriations for Federal meat inspection has been such that it has exercised as a brake on approval of plants which would admittedly qualify for Federal inspection. In other words, there just has not been enough money provided to supply the personnel which would be necessary to an expansion of the Federal inspection program. And this is one of the reasons, if it is factual, that these proponents feel that the Federal approval of approved State inspection of plants and products would alleviate fairly a very difficult situation.

I would hope that the witnesses would cast factual light on some or all of these charges and implications.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »