be difficult to deal from the standpoints of logic and reason. It may be forced to talk aspects of its business from which understandably, it has shielded the public."

That editorial echoed the troubled conscience of a great industry. In conclu sion, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the meatpacking industry has been remiss in the development and adoption of humane methods of slaughtering the Nation's livestock. The meat inspection laws promulgated by the Depart ment of Agriculture under laws passed by the Congress of the United States specify the necessary height of the rail in which animal carcasses move through slaughtering plants. We have also passed laws to prohibit the inhumane cruelty to animals on their way to market. I can see no reason why the Congress should not specify humane standards of killing livestock and poultry, in order to comply with the moral standards of decency and humaneness which are so much a part of the great heritage of the United States.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, allow me to offer two observations. First, over the past several years research study on this subject has provided demonstrable results on which legislation may be logically and soundly based. Second, the experience of the progressive and energetic minority among the packers who have introduced to the production line the new techniques required for humane methods of slaughter demonstrates its applicability in plants of any and all sizes. Adoption of humane methods should not be delayed by any requirement of a large capital outlay. I understand a captive-bolt pistol costs only $120, the new Remington stunning instrument costs only $200 and even the smallest packing plant can now put in a carbon dioxide tunnel that will process 60 hogs per hour for $3,500.

Mr. Chairman, one would think that on the grounds of enlightened, humanitarian performance or on the more practical grounds of economy and efficiency of operation only support and affirmation would be heard in the plea for adoption of humane slaughter legislation.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Dawson, of Utah, has been present on several occasions to testify, and we have simply asked him to stand aside while we listen to those from more distant parts. I don't think there is anybody here from more distant parts than Utah this morning. Mr. Dawson, we will be delighted to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. DAWSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. DAWSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the committee for the courtesy and consideration that they have given-not only the Members of Congress, but also the advisers from outside on this matter, and particularly for the attitude which the chairman and other members of the committee have expressed. To me this is one of the biggest problems that is facing the country. To many people it doesn't seem big, but I believe to many millions of people in this country it is a real and a pressing problem and one that deserves the attention of this great committee.

When I was first approached on the subject of humane slaughter a year ago, I was reluctant to sponsor legislation compelling an industry to change its traditional method of operation. I felt then-as I feel now that voluntary compliance to the laws of humane decency was preferable to compulsion. As a result, I determined I would not ask legislative action until I was thoroughly convinced there was no alter

native.

Since that time, Mr. Chairman, I have made a personal investigation of present slaughtering techniques. I have also reviewed and studied hearings on similar legislation held by the Senate during the 84th Congress. This independent investigation has convinced me that legslation is the only solution. I am convinced that the packing in

dustry-with the exception of all too few progressive companies-is gripped by the inertia of tradition. That without legislation, I am convinced, cruel, wantonly cruel, practices against millions of animals will continue to be standard procedure.

I do not intend to go into lengthy descriptions of present methods of slaughter in general use in this Nation. But I think it is safe to say that not a Member of this committee or of Congress would condone these methods if they witnessed them being practiced on one dumb animal. I submit that corporate cruelty-if a ready alternative is available is a fit subject for legislative action.

In requiring packinghouses to adopt humane slaughter methods, we are not forcing an industry into unexplored territory. Humane slaughter has been compulsory in Switzerland since 1874. England adopted a similar law in 1933. Other nations requiring humane slaughter are Norway, Netherlands, Scotland, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, and Denmark. In each of these countries, humane slaughter has proved itself to be economically feasible. But we need not go to Europe to find examples of how humane slaughtering techniques contribute not only to the moral well-being of packinghouse workers, but to the industry's economic well-being also.

Companies in the United States have found that the immobilization of hogs by carbon dioxide has saved more money in the reduction of damaged meat than was spent for the installation of the new equipment. Individual packers have adopted new captive-bolt pistols to replace the uncertain sledge as a means of stunning cattle before slaughter. All of these devices are available today at price that even the most modest of packers engaged in interstate commerce can easily afford.

For example, the captive-bolt pistol, already proved practical in about 20 American plants, costs only $120. Cartridges cost less than 212 cents per animal, and I believe a witness who testified here a few days ago testified that it was even less than 212 cents per animal, if I remember his figures correctly, for the stunning devices.

Last year, the president of Seitze Packing Co., which uses the pistol instead of the hammer, testified that its use saved the company money. In England, the captive bolt-pistol has been proved effective in slaughtering hogs and smaller livestock.

In reviewing the hearings held on similar legislation by the Senate last year, I was struck by the fact that the witnesses for packinghouse industry agreed that present slaughtering techniques leave much to be desired. I was impressed and heartened by testimony to the effect that thousands of dollars had been spent by the industry in attempts to find improved slaughtering methods that were economically feasible. I am delighted to learn thatthe industry now recognizes that it cannot drag its feet; that the public is demanding a change.

All of this is encouraging. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is no need for further study. The research necessary has already been done. The mechanical means for humane slaughter have already been developed. Let me add at this point that I am not impressed with the fact that the Department of Agriculture needs additional funds to permit it to make a further study. As a matter of fact, the Department has already been making studies of this prob

lem, and it seems to me that the bills which have been presented to this committee and to the other body authorizing a study are totally unnecessary and simply being brought forth as a means of sidetracking the main investigation of this problem.

Last year, sponsors of this legislation presented figures on the cost of adopting humane slaughter methods. When asked to comment on these costs, which were modest indeed-the spokesman for the meatpacking industry said:

Accurate estimates of the cost of installation require a reasonable period of planning and study. To date, the industry generally has not prepared such careful estimates, and hence we do not have comprehensive figures indicating costs of installation. With what information we do have, however, the cost of installation can be appreciably more than the cost of equipment.

That was a statement of the packing industry.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is a mighty weak answer from an industry that maintains that it has been spending considerable sums on recearch into this very subject for nearly 30 years.

Whether or not this legislation is approved this year-and I hope that it is the packinghouse industry has now been put on notice. Let members of the industry recall their fight against the Federal Meat Inspection Act in the early part of this century. Let them reread the arguments they made to Congress against that law which grew out of public revulsion against the shoddy, unsanitary conditions that prevailed in a portion of their industry. It is to be fervently hoped that by reviewing their attitude then toward minimum sanitary laws and comparing it with their attitude now against minimum humane slaughter proposals that they will profit by experi

ence.

An industry that contributes as much as theirs to our fine standard of living should be in the forefront of this fight to end cruelty.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pay tribute to the many individual citizens whom I have had the pleasure of working with on this legislation. Opponents of this legislation have come to me and characterized these fine people as "sentimentalists and impractical dreamers." To my mind, they belong with the other so-called sentimentalists and dreamers the ones in the past who were so misguided as to believe that child labor could be abolished, or that madness was a subject for medicine not mockery. It is a distinct pleasure to work with them sponsoring this legislation to outlaw mass cruelty to dumb animals-a cruelty that is indefensible because it need not continue.

I urge the committee to vote approval of legislation that will silence forever the tortured screams and bellows in the slaughterhouses of this Nation.

Mr. POAGE. We are very much obliged to you for what I think is a very fine statement. We appreciate it.

Mr. DAWSON. I don't profess to be an expert on all these problems, but if the committee does have any questions that I might answer, I will be happy to oblige.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any question?

Mr. Dawson has just made a very fine statement with regard to this bill. Thank you, Mr. Dawson, we are very much obliged to you. Now, we have Congressman Miller, of California, I believe.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I served on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with our distinguished colleague when I first came to Congress. I am happy to see him with us this morning.

Mr. MILLER. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I might have been senior to the distinguished Democratic whip on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, but I have paid for that seniority since he has reached his present position.

Mr. POAGE. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE EIGHTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. I am Congressman George P. Miller, of the Eighth District of California.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't a prepared statement. I regret that I haven't one. I want to subscribe fully to what my colleague from Utah just told you, and anything that I think I could say or prepare would be duplication of what he has so well said because the arguments are very few, but they are very potent in this case.

We are living in the 20th century. It is time that we change some of the methods that have been in existence since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary and bring them into harmony with the conditions in the 20th century.

I am conscious of the fact that the desire for this legislation goes far beyond that of some of the people who have been most active in pressing it. A member of one of the unions in the stockyards in San Francisco called me up while I was home and told me of their problems, and how hard it was to keep men, to get men to perform certain of the tasks that they had to perform; that it was time that changes be made.

Let me remind you that the gentleman from Utah spoke of sentimentalists and dreamers. Well, 180 years ago it was the sentimentalists and dreamers that established the form of government under which we live and of which we are so proud, and maybe we need the sentimentalists and dreamers at an age when we become rather material.

So I have nothing that I can contribute beyond that which you know, other than to say that I am sincerely for this type of legislation. I think that it is long overdue. I think that the savings that will come out of the improved methods of slaughter will more than justify the minimum expense that will be necessary to put it into effect, and that we are entering an age where all of our foodstuffs must be saved and preserved, and that the economies behind the bill are just as sound as the sentiment that is behind it.

Mr. POAGE. I wonder if you could give us a little information about the situation on the west coast because it happens to be the one section of the country where this committee, as far as I know, has never observed any of the slaughtering of meats?

Mr. MILLER. I am not too familiar with them. All that I know is that I have had people in the industry around San Franciscothat it, people who work in the industry-voluntarily come to me and complain.

91249-57- -9

For instance, there is one technique—and, frankly, I have never seen it. I have never cared to go look at it. I am not a sadist typewhere they have to shackle the legs of hogs, put a chain on them, before they are hoisted up, right before they are slaughtered.

Mr. POAGE. That is a common practice throughout the United States. That is what is known as the wheel.

Mr. MILLER. It is a very common practice.

Mr. POAGE. I think that is the cruelest of all of the slaughtering practices.

Mr. MILLER. The man who had done this told me that among the workmen themselves it is the one job that they all dreaded, that they all did not like, that they all tried to get out of, and the people who do that and who are engaged in this are a good deal like the old Irish woman, you know, the fisherwife who used to skin the eels, and somebody said, "Aren't you ashamed? Look at the pain you cause these poor fish when you skin them." She said, "Don't worry about that. They get used to it by and by."

The people who work in those kinds of jobs get used to it after awhile, but even after awhile it gets a little bit too much for them.

Mr. POAGE. We have had the presentations by the packinghouse workers in favor of the improvement of these slaughtering conditions, and I am sure that feeling is shared in many parts of the country. I don't know whether you have any unique practices on the west coast. Mr. MILLER. I don't imagine there are any unique practices. I tell you I have never been around the industry too much because I remember as a young man, I was a civil engineer, and one of our jobs one time we had to run some lines very near to a packinghouse in the neighborhing town to where I lived then. My fellow rodman and I— we were both juniors-saw some of the practices that were taking place, and he swore that thereafter he was going to be a vegetarian. Î don't know whether he ever lived up to it or not, but he was so disgusted with what he saw that he said from there on out he would take an oath he would never eat any more meat and he would become a vegetarian. Maybe that is the way with me. I am afraid to go near them too much.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Hill.

Mr. HILL. Congressman Miller, I am glad to see you at this meeting, and I know we all appreciate the fine work you are doing in the House and the way you represent your constituents on the west coast.

I would like to ask this question for my own information. If you have studied this bill, what effect will this bill have on the small packinghouse operator that just operates in a community and kills both poultry and livestock and cattle and hogs, chiefly in our area, especially for local people for their iceboxes.

Now, he should be controlled, too. Some of those little yards at home sometimes are not inspected and they are not kept in the kind of shape that you and I would like to have them. What do you do about that in your own area?

Mr. MILLER. In my own area I don't know that there are any, but in the adjacent districts there are some slaughterers. In my own area I am not conscious of any. There may be 1 or 2 small slaughterers, but if there are they are so small I am not conscious of them, but I would like to say this: I base my statement on this premise that