both the agent and the principal would be held responsible for such acts constituting violations.

This same provision is incorporated in numerous other regulatory statutes. It would seem desirable to have a similar provision for enforcement against violating principals under this act who otherwise may shift the blame to subordinate employees.

With respect to section 13: On page 11, line 21, delete the word "and" and insert the word "or." The proposed bill presently requires that before referring a matter for prosecution the person affected be given an opportunity for both oral and written presentation of views. This proposed amendment would leave the discretion with the Secretary as to the means of submission of views. We know of no comparable legislation which makes it mandatory for oral submissions. With respect to section 14: On page 12, line 6, delete the comma after the word "Act," insert a period, and delete the remainder of the section. This proposed amendment eliminates language which merely restates the general law that an act must be administered consistently with the provisions thereof.

As presently written, it is the same as the language in the Meat Inspection Act; however, the language suggested to be deleted does not add any legal effect to the remaining language.

With respect to section 15: On page 12, line 11, delete section 15, and insert the following new section:

SECTION 15. (a) The Secretary is authorized, by regulation and under such conditions as to sanitary standards, practices, and procedures as he may prescribe, to exempt from specific provisions of this Act

(1) Poultry producers with respect to poultry of their own raising on their own farms which they sell directly to household consumers only, provided that such poultry producers do not engage in buying or selling poultry products other than these produced from poultry raised on their own farms.

This is a new proposal.

(2) Retail dealers with respect to poultry products sold directly to consumers in individual retail stores provided that the only processing operation performed by such retail dealers is the cutting up of poultry products on the premises in which such sales to consumers are made.

That is added to make it possible to exempt retail dealers who are just cutting up with respect to poultry and not force the Department to provide an inspection service in an individual retail store doing that operation.

Senator WILLIAMS. This would exempt a farmer who is marketing his own product?

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. That is right.

(3) At any time prior to July 1, 1960, poultry and poultry products where the Secretary determines that it would be impracticable to provide inspection and the exemption will aid in the effective administration of this Act, but no exemption under this paragraph shall continue in effect on and after July 1, 1960. That clears up a misunderstanding.

(b) The Secretary may by order suspend or terminate any exemption under this section with respect to any person whenever he finds that such action will aid in effectuating the purposes of this Act.

This amendment would allow the Secretary to provide exemptions by regulation rather than requiring individual certificates where large numbers of persons are affected. It would also provide for authority to exempt retail dealers in designated areas from the require

ments of the act with respect to processing connected with direct sales to consumers in the store where done.

This amendment also makes clear that no exemption granted on the grounds of impracticability during the first 2 years can extend beyond that period and provides for the termination or suspension of exemptions.

With respect to section 16: On page 13, lines 8 and 9, delete the words "under an exemption certificate issued," and insert the words "which are exempt." This amendment would conform section 16 to

the amended section 15.

With respect to section 17: On page 13, line 17, to page 14, line 15, strike section 17 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEC. 17. (a) No slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, of any kind shall be imported into the United States unless they are healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient which renders them unhealthy, unwholesome, or unfit for human food and unless they also comply with the rules and regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture.

All imported slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, shall after entry into the United States in compliance with such rules and regulations be deemed and treated as domestic slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, within the meaning and subject to the provisions of this Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and acts amendatory of, supplemental to, or in substitution for such acts.

(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this section and in such rules and regulations the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe the terms and conditions for the destruction of all slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, offered for entry and refused admission into the United States unless such slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, be exported by the consignee within the time fixed therefor in such rules and regulations.

(c) All charges for storage, cartage, and labor with respect to any product which is refused admission pursuant to this section shall be paid by the owner or consignee, and in default of such payment shall constitute a lien against any other products imported thereafter by or for such owner or consignee.

This proposed amended language would make provision for import controls on poultry similar to that which now exists on other classes of meats under the Meat Inspection Act. We propose to retain the applicable provisions of the "proviso" which is a part of subsection (b) of S. 3588 to establish the financial responsibility of owners of products which is in violation of this section.

With respect to section 18: On page 14, line 19, delete the words "in the fields."

On page 14, line 21, delete the word "also."

On page 14, line 23, delete the words "That they are covered by" and insert in lieu thereof the words "of the application or the extension thereto of."

Section 18 of the proposed bill delineates the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary under the bill and deals with the matter of supercedure of local law as well as the extent of supercedure relating to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The suggested amendments would delineate the extent of supercedure in both fields to that presently in effect under the Meat Inspection Act with regard to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

With respect to sections 19 through 22: Beginning on page 15, line 8, renumber sections 19 through 22 as sections 20 through 23, respectively. This change is to provide a new section for the amendment

which follows immediately. On page 15, after line 6, insert the following new section:

COST OF INSPECTION

SEC. 19. The cost of inspection rendered under the requirements of this Act shall be borne by the United States except the cost of overtime. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized in his discretion to pay employees employed in establishments subject to the provisions of this Act for all overtime work performed at such establishment at such rates as he may determine and to accept from such establishments wherein such overtime work is performed reimbursement for any sums paid out by him for such overtime work.

This amendment is to provide for the cost of inspection and provides authority for revolving funds collected from processors for overtime. Senator CLEMENTS. With what services does it then compare?

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. Meat inspection: That makes it exactly comparable. The latter part gives the Secretary the authority by Congress which he needs, I am told, to use these funds that would be collected for overtime. That is the reason for that.

With respect to section 22: On page 17, line 6, reletter subsections (h) through (m) as subsections (i) through (n), respectively (We are inserting a new definition) and insert the following new subsections:

(h) The term "adulterated" shall apply to poultry and poultry products under one or more of the following circumstances:

(1) If they bear or contain any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render them injurious to health; but in case the substance is not an added substance, such poultry and poultry products shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the quantity of such substance in such poultry and poultry products does not ordinarily render them injurious to health. (2) If they bear or contain any added poisonous or added deleterious substance, unless such substance is permitted in their production or unavoidable under good manufacturing practices as may be determined by rules and regulations hereunder prescribed by the Secretary or other provisions of Federal law limiting or tolerating the quantity of such added substance on or in such poultry and poultry products:

Provided, That any quantity of such added substance exceeding the limits so fixed shall also be deemed to constitute adulteration.

Now, these two parts could have been covered, perhaps, or the consideration with respect to them, could have been covered by some of the words under the definition for "unwholesome," but this more clearly defines it.

(3) If any substance has been substituted, wholly or in part, therefor. (4) If damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner.

This would incorporate in the proposed bill a definition of the term "adulterated." This definition includes several of the parts of the definition of the term "adulterated" in S. 3983, section 2, subsection (d) (1), (2), (7), and (8). The remaining provision under the definition of adulterated in S. 3983 are included in the definition of "unwholesome" in S. 3588, except that the provision of subsection (d) (5) of S. 3983 is modified in S. 3588 by the elimination of the "product of diseased poultry or." The result intended by this amendment is to more clearly define the conditions which would render poultry unlawful in interstate commerce. We feel there is particular need for clearly defining the conditions described under items (3) and (4) of our proposed definition for "adulterated.”

On page 18, line 4, delete section 22 and insert the following new section:

SEC. 23. This Act shall take effect upon enactment:

Provided, That no person shall be subject to the provisions of this Act prior to July 1, 1958, unless such person applies for and receives inspection for poultry or poultry products in accordance with the provisions of this Act and pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary hereunder, in any establishment processing poultry or poultry products in commerce or in a designated city or area. Any person who voluntarily applies for and receives such inspection prior to July 1, 1958, shall be subject, on and after the date he commences to receive such inspection, to all of the provisions and penalties provided for in this Act with respect to all poultry or poultry products handled in the establishment for which said application for inspection is made.

That is the new section.

This amendment is to clarify the bill's effective date clause so as to make it clear that all the authority vested in the Secretary exists as of the time of enactment but that the restrictive provisions of the bill are not applicable to the public for the period specified unless a person voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the act.

As Mr. Butz said, that in our opinion is a very good section. Senator CLEMENTS. You mean by that provision that you can have much of the industry under compulsory inspection by the time that you begin to enforce it against those who would be a little slow to show any desire for it? It would appear that you have taken viewpoints out of both bills, you have nearly rewritten it.

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. It isn't completely rewritten, but we have tried to bring in as good a bill as we could.

Senator CLEMENTS. Of course, it is important that we get your best judgment on it.

I would like to ask you wherein you have not brought it in conformity with the Meat Inspection Act?

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. Well, Mr. Bucy is probably more familiar with the details of that act than I am.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. BUCY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Bucy. As a matter of fact, the practice that has prevailed over the years in connection with the Meat Inspection Act was taken into consideration. But this would be in compliance with the Meat Inspection Act, and it is tighter in the sense that you bring in designated cities and areas in this bill that are not included in the Meat Inspection Act.

Senator CLEMENTS. The Meat Inspection Act has been a very fine guide for you with its 50 years of experience in developing the viewpoints expressed here this morning.

Mr. Bucy. And we analyzed that act in preparing these amendments so as to be sure that we got all of those desirable provisions that have been in the Meat Inspection Act, and in that form, so that there would be no question later that the same authority prevailed and that the same type of program could be administered by the Department under the legislation if enacted.

Senator CLEMENTS. Now, will you give to the chairman of this committee your reasons why, if we are conforming to the Meat Inspection

Act, and there may be even some refinements and some improvements recommended here this morning over the present Meat Inspection Act, why it should not be administered under the meat inspection program. Mr. Bucy. The question of which agency the program is to be administered under, I think the Senator will realize, is not a legal question, and I think probably the Secretary can answer that better than I could.

Senator CLEMENTS. I direct the question to anybody present here that desires to answer it.

Mr. BUTZ. May I comment on that very briefly?

In the first place, there is very little if any duplication of slaughter facilities in the red meat and poultry slaughter plants; they are almost entirely separate establishments.

In the second place, the Poultry Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service has a backlog of some experience in the voluntary poultry inspection program. They have a staff of some 425 personnel properly trained and qualified to build up and administer that service with a substantial backlog of know-how and experience in the whole program.

In the third place, we feel that it is not wise to bind the Secretary of Agriculture by law as to the particular place within the Department of Agriculture that any particular program will be administered. Senator CLEMENTS. Will you give me the reason for that?

Mr. BUTZ. Programs change from time to time, and marketing is a dynamic industry. Marketing institutions are dynamic. We feel that the Secretary needs some administrative flexibility in deciding where particular programs are administered within the Department. Senator CLEMENTS. Would you say that the hog program lately has not been dynamic as compared to poultry?

Mr. BUTZ. I certainly would not say that. But by the same token, the Secretary is not bound by law as to where the red-meat inspection will be administered in the Department either.

Senator CLEMENTS. That is what I want to get in the record.

Mr. BUTZ. That is a matter of administrative discretion with the Secretary, as we feel this should also be.

Senator CLEMENTS. Questions, Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. No, I have no questions.

I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman-as to the advisability of having a new committee print for our own study embracing all these proposed amendments for consideration. It might be a little clearer. Senator CLEMENTS. That will be done.

Mr. BUTZ. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller has

Senator CLEMENTS. While you are on the subject of the Meat Inspection Service—whether poultry is in any other division of the Department of Agriculture, the 425 trained and qualified employees, as I understood Mr. Miller to say, or the 475, that you have in this voluntary program, they would continue to be used wherever this program was placed in the Department of Agriculture, would they not, whether it be in the Meat Inspection Service, or whether

Mr. BUTZ. Yes, sir; they would have to be used, because they have a backlog of know-how on this program. They would be used where necessary.