Page images

it does not want to lower inspection standards. This has been stated on the floor of both the Senate and the House by leaders of committees that are responsible for the operation and maintenance of this service.

Furthermore, Congress by its appropriations determinations indicates the level of service it desires of this Federal agency. We feel certain that Congress would extend the service as the need for expansion is indicated.

Therefore, we do not support these bills because they do not appear to fulfill a need which is not now taken care of by agency of the Federal Government to which meat inspection is entrusted. We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, for making it possible for us to comment on these bills.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. McCart.

Are there any questions?

Mr. HAGEN. Has there been a history in the past of adequate appropriations having not been made for the Federal service?

Mr. MCCART. I think that it is a relatively easy matter for us, as a representative of the group of Federal employees, to maintain that there are insufficient employees to do a given job.

On the other hand, we have found that, in general, the Meat Inspection Service is adequate to take care of the needs of the growing consumption of meat in this country.

I think improvement always can be made in that type of inspection, but I do not think that this bill would answer the question of providing adequate meat inspection service. It seems to me that if that is the real problem involved, of providing sufficient inspectors to do a job, then this can be accomplished much more feasibly and more practically by Congress amending the law, or Congress providing additional appropriations where they are justified.

Mr. HAGEN. Let us say that the Secretary of Agriculture is allotted insufficient money to the point that there is a stretchout of inspection in Federal plants, then if that situation occurred it would be an advantage, not only to the public but to the people in the meat business to recognize proper State inspection, to get the job done, at least in the short run thereby preventing a watering down of the Federal service.

Mr. MCCART. Mr. Hagen, I must revert to the comment that was made by Dr. Clarkson, because we do not work for the agency. We, in our national organization, do not. It is to the effect that no plant has been denied inspection solely on the basis of inadequate funds. There may have been other reasons, but lack of money has not been


Mr. HAGEN. You cannot document that?

Mr. MCCART. I cannot-I cannot document it; no.

Mr. HAGEN. I know you have had complaints from some of your people who are in the meat inspection business about the hours that they have to work, and the lack of availability of sufficient money for new inspectors.

Mr. MCCART. From time to time, Mr. Hagen, we have had to make very vigorous representations to Congress when moves were underway to reduce the Meat Inspection appropriations. We have done that for

two reasons:

First, because we represent the men who do this job; and, secondly, because we want to protect the consumers.

I do not mean to have you feel that we just move along from year to year and say that whatever funds are available are sufficient to do the job.

Certain meat inspectors are now required to work more hours than we would like to see them work. We find in many instances this is a matter of the peak workload rather than a continuing burden.

Mr. SHORT. I can see a lot of practicality in the intent, as I understand it, of this bill, and that it would apply to the small processer, the smaller plant in the State. I can see that it might conceivably apply very specifically to the State of North Dakota, where we have a couple of large airbases, where some of our small processing plants in the State might want to furnish some of the supply that moves to those airbases.

Would the public interest be protected just as well by the Federal Inspection Service putting their stamp of approval on the State inspection service that is being provided at the small plants within our State, or do you think that it would have to be a Federal employee who would put his stamp of approval on the meat? You do not want the State employee to have the responsibility of doing that job; is that your contention here?

Mr. MCCART. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHORT. You think that he would not be as qualified as the individual working for the Federal Government?

Mr. MCCART. No; that is not my reason for giving you that answer. My reason for giving you that answer is the farther you get away from the source of the basic inspection itself and the Federal Inspection Act, it seems to me the more likelihood there is that you will not get as adequate inspection as you would otherwise.

Mr. SHORT. You think that the inspection service as carried on in some States and, for that matter, the inference that the inspection service carried on in all States, would not be as adequate as the inspection service carried on by the Federal Government?

Mr. MCCART. I think that the inspection service that is carried on in some States would not be as adequate as the Federal inspection service, for this reason, Mr. Short: As we know, the criterion and the standards of the various State meat inspection acts vary very greatly. Mr. SHORT. Do you think that some of them are inadequate?

Mr. MCCART. Well, I can only say this, Mr. Short: If there is a great variance, as I am sure we can agree, some may be less desirable than others.

Mr. POAGE. Will you yield?

Mr. SHORT. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. It seems to me that it is quite clear that these people would not be State employees after this bill got into effect; because immediately the packinghouse qualifies for Federal inspection. It is immediately in interstate commerce from the standpoint of the inspection service when it sells to the Army camp or to the armed services, and therefore is entitled to Federal inspection which costs it nothing.

If a packer has a plant which meets the qualifications under this bill, he then qualifies. He has not been selling in interstate commerce

in the past, but the minute that he qualifies to sell to the Army camp he is in interstate commerce so far as the Department is concerned, and then he is qualified for the Federal inspection.

Why in the world should he confine himself to the State inspection when the Federal Government will pay the bill?

The witness here is suggesting that the Federal Government always pays the bill.

I do not know why it is improper for the State to pay it, but then I think he expressed it. It is a truism, as you say, that it always costs the Federal Government rather than the State.

Is this not simply another means whereby the Federal Government can pick up the tab-is that not about all that will happen? Will not the only practical result from this bill be that you will change the State inspectors to the Federal payroll?

Mr. MCCART. I would like to answer the last question directly, and then, if I may, I would like to give you my observation of what I think the basic problem is in this entire piece of legislation.

The direct answer to your question, I think, is that these employees would not become Federal employees, as such.

Mr. POAGE. Why not?

Mr. MCCART. They would still remain as State employees on the State payroll, under the State merit system, or whatever kind of civil service system they have.

Mr. POAGE. Why would they after the packing plant becomes eligible for Federal inspection? All the packer then has to do is to ask the Federal Government to give him inspection. It does not cost him anything.

Why would not every packing plant that qualifies meet the demand of the Federal statutes? He does not then have to pay any more. can get it.


The minute that he qualifies as a Federal plant, does he not get the prestige that he is federally inspected? And it costs him nothing. I just ask you why would he not ask for Federal inspection, and get it?

Mr. MCCART. Certainly, it is not my construction of the bill that the employees who the Federal Meat Inspection Service would recognize would be Federal employees.

Mr. POAGE. I understand that very well, but right after you recognize the right of Federal inspection of that plant that sells to the Army camp and that is a purpose to enable him to sell to the Army company-the minute he sells to them he is then in Federal business; he is in interstate business; he is eligible for Federal inspection. So why does it not get Federal inspection?

What incentive is there to deny himself the advantage of Federal inspection which costs him nothing?

Mr. MCCART. Mr. Chairman, the problem, as I see it, is this: For some reason or other, the packers and the processers at the present time feel they are unable to secure Federal inspection because of whatever reasons they have.

Mr. POAGE. That is the reason, is it not, because of the cost?

Mr. MCCART. I do not know what the reason is.

Mr. POAGE. It has been testified to, anyhow.


Mr. MCCART. It seems to me that if you are going to permit the Department of Agriculture to deputize State employees to carry on where it is essentially meat inspection, you are not going to change the principles or the standards that the Department of Agriculture has set up for providing inspection of meat and meat food products.

If this is true, it is difficult for me to understand why the folks who are experiencing a problem now cannot meet the requirements that are in existence rather than having to pass a law which would accomplish the same purpose by simply setting up a State-Federal organization. Mr. POAGE. I want to hear somebody testify here that they have not been able to get Federal inspection when they wanted it. It has been intimated a dozen times here but there has been no testimony directly on the point.

I understand that you cannot give us any information, one way or the other.

Mr. MCCART. No, sir; I cannot testify to that point.

Mr. HAGEN. You might assume that the rules stated here have not been applied uniformly because budgetary or other considerations resulting either in a total denial of Federal inspections or provision of a very poor service in terms of ready availability of inspectors at all times. The State with a greater stake in local industry might be more willing and able to fill a gap caused by failure of Federal appropriations.

Mr. POAGE. You mean that the State service would keep them in business when the Federal agency would not?

Mr. HAGEN. With the inspector on the spot, avoiding overtime operations, and things like that.

Mr. MCCART. I know you are anxious to move to other witnesses, but could I make this final comment?

It is my appraisal of the problem we have here today-I think that this involves a problem of small business, and I must confess a great amount of sympathy for a problem of that kind.

It seems to me that with the interest that has been displayed by the Department of Agriculture, and the interest that has been displayed by members of the committee, it should be possible to work out this problem and provide the people concerned with the inspection they feel they need, without having to pass a law which sets up an entirely new administrative framework of inspection.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCCART. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. We will now head Dr. A. G. Boyd, assistant director of the California State Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, Calif. We will be glad to hear from you now.


Dr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Arthur G. Boyd; I am a veterinarian, and assistant director of the California State Department of Agriculture.

My purpose here today is twofold: First, to assure you that the State inspection of meats as represented by the inspection system of the State of California is equal to and, in some respects, better than

the meat inspection service of the Federal Government; second, to tell you that many small plant operators in the State of California are being deprived of an opportunity to compete on an even basis with operators having better meat inspection.

The meat inspection conducted by the State of California, if I may refer to it as a sample of meat inspection, has been operating over 40 years. It was brought about by conditions that existed in California prior to 1917.

At that time, about 20 percent of the meat consumed was inspected by the Federal Government and about 80 percent of California meat was uninspected.

The California Legislature, recognizing the need for better assurance of the wholesomeness of the State meat supply, enacted a law which, in effect, requires a meat inspection program equivalent, in health value and protection to the public to that of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The meat inspection law of California provides that the rules and regulations adopted by the director of agriculture shall conform, as far as possible, to the rules and standards of the U.S. Department of Agriculture governing meat inspection, preparation, and the processing of meats and meat food products.

Subsequent amendments to the original act have strengthened the law and in some respects the California meat inspection law_goes above and beyond the Federal meat inspection requirements. To illustrate, the California meat inspection law provides that it is unlawful to sell any meat or products thereof, sausage casings or other casings that contain a dye or artificial coloring. In other words, in the State of California one does not observe dyes oozing out of the displays of sausage and prepared meats in the retail butcher shop. And I might add that this applies to Federal plants in California, too, under the State law.

Not only are the California meat inspection law and regulations strict, but I want to assure you that they are fully enforced. The qualifications and standards for meat inspectors employed by the State of California are, in my opinion, at least equal to those of the Federal Government.

All of the California meat inspection personnel are under civil service. About one-third of them have had Federal experience in meat inspection. And during the war over 50 of our employees were taken over by the Federal Government. And our plants also were taken over under Federal inspection.

The majority of the meat establishments under California inspection are operating at such a volume that the inspectors have adequate time to perform inspections and to assure a wholesome meat supply. On two occasions, at the request of California officials, the California meat inspection system was surveyed by representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In both instances they were most complimentary in their reports.

The meat inspection of the State of California is financed from the general funds of the State. The only exception being that plants requiring overtime service of inspectors are required to pay the State for such services.

« PreviousContinue »