Page images

I personally am not wedded to this bill if another solution presenting relief is found. It may be that it requires only a removal of the restriction on export sales and/or sales to Government agencies which might be deemed desirable.

The first, on the theory that foreign trade should be conducted by different standards; the second on the theory that Federal purchases are large ones handled by skilled agents who can almost personally certify as to the quality of the products acquired.

I might add finally that real thought should be given to this matter of the import of foreign carcasses which constitute a definite threat to our livestock economy and certainly should not have any easier treatment, inspectionwise, than domestically produced meats.

I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I say, I would like the opportunity to file a subsequent statement or perhaps to appear again. I would ask that you give very serious thought to continuing these hearings to a later date and perhaps if we cannot take any action on this bill, to conduct a personal inspection of some of these problems in California and other areas, after the Congress adjourns. Thank you again.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you.

Do you care to call the other witnesses, or do you want the Chair to do it?

Mr. HAGEN. No; I think you should.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Before the witnesses are called, may I say to my colleague how much I have enjoyed his testimony? He is a wonderful person and has contributed wonderfully, and I want to assure him that I will give him my sympathetic consideration.

Mr. POAGE. Very well.

The first witness I have on the list is Dr. Clarkson, Associate Administrator, ARS, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. May I ask permission to be heard briefly? Mr. POAGE. Very well.


Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in the interest of saving time, I would like to request and I do request that I be permitted to associate myself with the remarks made by Mr. Hagen and also I ask unanimous consent to have my written statement incorporated into the record.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, that will be done.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Also I have received a telegram this morning, and unless it is a duplicate of others, I would request that this be inserted now into the record. It is a telegram from Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc.

Mr. POAGE. We have that.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. If it is already in, there is no necessity of having it duplicated.

I do endorse this principle involved in the legislation. I am sure, as you always do with your interest in these problems and the care and

study with which you always address yourself to them, that you will carefully consider the presentation which will follow.

And if there are amendments or changes or improvements needed in these proposed bills, I, as one of the sponsors, certainly would be very happy to agree, if I may put it that way, to any changes which the subcommittee finds advisable.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Thank you.

Mr. HAGEN. I might say that I have received several reports of support from various States, including California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Texas, and Alabama.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Teague's statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)


Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles M. Teague. I have the honor to represent the 13th District of California. I will keep my remarks brief as succeeding witnesses will undoubtedly go into detail for the benefit of this committee.

The approval of this committee of the legislation now before it is important not only to the people of my district but to all of California. Indeed it will as well provide valuable to the economies of other States who are able to gain its advantages.

The meat packing and producing industry is substantial in California. I will not belabor the point but I believe it fair to state, that in terms of the taxes any "going" industry pays to the State wherein it resides, the meatpacking industry is most important to the economic welfare of the State and its residents. The purpose of this legislation is to enable that industry to grow and in so growing its prosperity will be reflected in the State's welfare.

The legislation at hand provides that the Department of Agriculture approve the meat inspection systems of only those States whose systems meet the rigid standards of the Federal Government. California is proud to number herself among those whose standards are high. The California meat inspection law which has served the State very well since 1917 is almost identical with the Federal law. It sets the same high standards in its regulations and requirements, in fact in at least one regard California's standards outdo those of the Federal Government. All of California's inspections are under State civil service and are subject to stringent criminal statutes for breach of performance. And the grading service of the U.S. Department of Agricultures' Agricultural Marketing Service has approved all California's inspected establishments.

The legislation is necessary for many good reasons, a few of which I will cite. Presently Federal laws discrminate against State-inspected meat. As of now the State-inspected slaughterhouses cannot sell their meat to Federally inspected processing plants despite the protection of the California State inspection system. The State-inspected establishments cannot sell their products to any branch of the armed services, nor to Federal prisons, hospitals, or other Federal agencies, nor may their products go into interstate commerce. Stateinspected meat cannot be purchased by the Federal farm relief agencies for use in school lunch programs thus depriving the corporate taxpayer of doing business having to do with the schools his tax money supports. We need to correct this situation.

Passage of this legislation will have a salient effect on my State's meat packing and processing industry. The State-inspected packers will no longer be burdened by the aforementioned restraints. Further, other States will be encouraged to foster and adopt meat inspection laws of such high standards as to meet the Federal criteria and obtain Federal recognition. This legislation would place the State-inspected packers on a level with the federally inspected plants.

In closing one minor suggestion. Congressman Hagen's Bill (H.R. 8951), Congressman Horan's (H.R. 8954) and my own bill (H.R. 9187) are today before this committee. They are very similar, in fact, almost identical. In order to clarify the legislation and to reassure the Department of Agriculture

that this bill, if it becomes statute, will support rather than preempt their authority I suggest the following changes in the language of Congressman Hagen's bill:

In line 7 of page 1 strike the word "may" and after the word "thereof" insert "in performing services for meat and meat food products." At line 8 after the word "practicable” insert "pursuant to the provisions, limitations, of the Meat Inspection Act.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee's courtesy in hearing my testimony and for the reasons stated here I urge that you favorably report this legislation.

Mr. POAGE. Dr. Clarkson, we will hear you now.

Dr. CLARKSON. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Dr. Miller, who is Director of the Meat Inspection Division, as well as Mr. Lejko, who is assistant to the Administrator.

Mr. POAGE. We are very glad to have you gentlemen with us. hope that you will take part in the testimony.



Dr. CLARKSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are pleased to appear before you to discuss H.R. 8951 and two similar bills which would authorize the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with the meat inspection services of the various States.

The Department's views concerning H.R. 8951 and H.R. 9187 were transmitted to the committee on February 18, 1960. Those views would also apply to H.R. 8954.

The Department's report indicated that it did not favor enactment of the bills since such legislation would tend to move the Federal Government into the administration of intrastate trade. Also, such legislation would have the potential of increasing Federal expenditures for meat inspection services. For example, meatpacking plants now doing business in intrastate trade which would avail themselves of the provisions of such legislation would most likely expand their operations 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 the difficulties mentioned above, the Department would interpose no objection and would, of course, administer its provisions to the benefit of the public. The bills would provide discretionary authority to the Secretary of Agriculture for the performance of meat inspection operations by utilizing State-paid and State-employed meat inspectors. This would be a modification of the act of June 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 Federal appropriations.

The Secretary of Agriculture would have the final authority to deal directly with the individual meatpacking plant in connection with the granting of Federal meat inspection service to the plant, the main

tenance of Federal standards of inspection in the plant, and the withdrawal of the grant of inspection if the plant fails to conform with the Federal requirements.

In connection with the performance of such meat inspection duties, the selection, appointment, and withdrawal of appointments of Stateemployed and State-paid inspectors would be at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary could cancel any cooperative arrangement upon the withdrawal of adequate financial support by the State. The provisions of the Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 90) relating to bribery or acceptance of gifts would be made applicable to persons involved in operations authorized by these bills.

All meat moving in interstate or foreign commerce, including meat sold to Federal agencies, is subject to the provisions of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The Department's meat inspection service is responsible for carrying out the provisions of this act by utilizing Federal inspectors. Funds for such Federal inspection services are derived entirely from federally appropriated funds with the exception of overtime services for which reimbursements are received from packing establishments.

Before any meatpacking plant is eligible to do business in interstate commerce, it must meet the requirements of Federal standards and conforms to the accepted practices in accordance with the Department's regulations with respect to the wholesomeness of the meat and meat food products. When a meatpacking plant meets such requirements, it can obtain the services of Federal meat inspection without any further enabling legislation. The plants which would come within the jurisdiction of this proposed legislation would be subject to the same Federal standards applicable to plants engaged in interstate commerce. This is an essential part of the requirement in order to insure the wholesomeness of the product and to avoid carrying out meat inspection activities under two standards.

Under existing arrangements, there is no duplication of inspection services. The proposed legislation 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, therefore, move the Federal Government into the administration of intrastate trade. We do not believe that this is necessary since any concern which desires to do business in interstate commerce can readily avail itself of Federal meat inspection services if its plant meets Federal requirements.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. If it is agreeable to the committee, we would be pleased to have the letter of February 18, 1960, from the Acting Secretary of Agriculture concerning H.R. 8951 inserted in the record at this point. The Department's report on H.R. 9187 is identical to the report on H.R. 9851.

Mr. POAGE. It said substantially the same thing you have said. We have already incorporated that into the record.

Dr. CLARKSON. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any questions?

Mr. HAGEN. I would like to first point out, Mr. Chairman, that in the report of the Acting Secretary, dated February 18, 1960, the statement is made:

However, should such legislation be passed despite these difficulties, the Department would interpose no objection and would, of course, administer its provisions for the benefit of the public.

I assume that that means that you are not likely to oppose this legislation if it passed the Congress?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. And probably would not recommend that it be vetoed? Dr. CLARKSON. That is correct.

Mr. HAGEN. I want to explore with you some of these problems that I have discovered in the course of considering this legislation. I want to say first that I am not an expert on this subject.

First, on the matter of appropriations, I have received some indication that there has been somewhat of a roadblock thrown in the way of four or five plants qualifying for Federal inspection by reason of the fact of budgetary appropriations for the service not having been adequate. Is that a fair statement?

Dr. CLARKSON. I would like to amend it somewhat, if mit me to.

Mr. HAGEN. Yes.

will peryou

Dr. CLARKSON. The adequacy of appropriations has been a real problem to us, because the numbers of plants requiring the service has increased rather rapidly since the war. However, we have not refused inspection to any plant because of budgetary considerations. But what we have had to do across the board, at times when we have been short of men, has been to spread our men as best we could. That has resulted in some slowdown of operations, in plants operating under Federal inspection. But we have not refused inspection to any plant because of a shortage of men.

Mr. HAGEN. Let us take a hypothetical case. In the State of California, say, in a small town 300 miles from San Francisco, where there is a jobber-it would be unlikely that there would be a jobber there, but let us assume that, that he has a good plant, he is the only one operating in the area. Heretofore, he has obviously not sold to the Federal Government in interstate commerce or into export, and he comes to you and wants Federal inspection. Is he likely to get it? Dr. CLARKSON. If he is just jobbing, that is, if he is just buying and selling, he would have no need for Federal inspection, because the parts that he wishes to move interstate would be secured from plants operating under Federal inspection. The products can then move, even though they pass through his jobbing establishment, if he has not changed them or if they have not deteriorated during that time.

If he is in the processing business, and his plant is a good one—and there are many such good plants in California that I know would qualify-and he intends that a portion of his business will be in interstate commerce, and in the form of direct shipments to customers, or it might go into a federally inspected plant for processing with other meats, or it might be on sale to the Armed Forces, that would be sufficient notice of intention to comply with the requirements of the law. We give inspection only to those who have intention of doing business in interstate commerce. You cannot get into interstate commerce until you have Federal inspection.

« PreviousContinue »