The concept of legislation has changed greatly since the Meat Inspection Act was passed by Congress in 1906. In that year, the test of interstate commerce involved only sales crossing state lines. Today, legislation approved by Congress and upheld by the courts provides additional and wider tests of interstate

commerce.

Under the concept of the Meat Inspection Act, a plant may be determined to be in intrastate commerce and, therefore, exempt from the Act-and many of them are. But the same plant may be considered in interstate commerce as far as labor and other legislation is concerned.

We believe that Congress should bring the Act into line with the modern day concept of interstate commerce. Therefore, we support the basic coverage approach of H.R. 1314, which would leave only the very small plants without federal inspection.

As a significant segment of the consumer public, CWA members and their families believe they have a right to protection against the marketing of inferior quality and adulterated meat, even though it may be produced and sold within a state. Expecience has proved that the variations in state inspections, or lack of inspection, do not afford the consumer the protection he needs and is entitled to receive.

We, therefore, urge that favorable consideration be given by your committee to the interstate commerce concept called for in H.R. 1314.

Finally, we respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the official record of the committee proceedings.

Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH A. BEIRNE, President.

Mr. PURCELL. The subcommittee will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, and we will then again continue our public hearings. We will recess now until 10 o'clock in the morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 1967.)

AMEND MEAT INSPECTION ACT

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND GRAINS OF THE

COMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Graham Purcell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Purcell, Foley, Montgomery, Mrs. May, Dole, Mayne, Zwach, Kleppe, and Price.

Also present: Representative Smith of Iowa.

Martha Hannah, subcommittee clerk.

Mr. PURCELL. The subcommittee will come to order.

As to the remaining witnesses, we will first call Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, and then Mr. Harry L. Graham, and then Mrs. Dorothy Wheeler, in that order.

We will be glad to hear from you now, Mr. Biemiller.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS; ACCOMPANIED BY ARNOLD MAYER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN, AFL-CIO

Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Andrew J. Biemiller, and I am director of the Department of Legislation of the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations, a federation of 129 national and international labor unions representing some 13,500,000 workers and their families. I am accompanied by Mr. Arnold Mayer, the legislative representative of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen, AFLCIO, one of our valuable affiliates.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on the compelling need to increase the coverage of and otherwise improve federal meat inspection legislation. Because of the importance of meat in the diet of all Americans, we consider this legislation of the greatest importance to the health and welfare of our members as it is to all

consumers.

As recently as last February, the AFL-CIO Executive Council called for the "inspection for wholesomeness and cleanliness of all meat and poultry, whether or not the meat crosses interstate lines." We regret that some of the legislation before you, especially including

203

the bill proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, would not accomplish this objective.

The fact is that virtually all Americans firmly believe that all the meat and meat products they buy have been inspected by the Federal Government. They believe that they are being fully protected. Of course, they the not fully protected and they are being deluded into a feeling of false security.

Actually, some 15 percent of all meat slaughtered in the Nation and some 25 percent of all meat products processed are not federally inspected. Some of this production undergoes State inspection, but even the best of the State programs, when they exist, leave something to be desired.

Also distressing is the fact that the Meat Inspection Act does not permit adequate regulation in many areas where the interests of the consumer are deeply involved. You have heard testimony from the Agriculture Department on these points. The need for modernization of this 60-year-old law is totally apparent.

This, Mr. Chairman, is not an academic issue. Serious illness can be caused by unwholesome and unclean meat. The consumer is being bilked into paying normal prices for some meat which came from sick animals and even from animals which died from causes other than slaughter.

Scandals, especially concerning meat which has been processed into meat products, have occurred in recent years. Potentially dangerous situations concerning insecticide residues in meat have developed. New means of handling meat animals and processing meat, unforeseen 61 years ago, are creating problems which the 1906 Meat Inspection Act simply does not cover.

The AFL-CIO firmly believes that the consumer has a right to realize his expectation. He has the right actually to get the full protection which he believes he now has. He has the right to expect his Government to assure the health and safety of his family concerning this important food item-especially when so much publicity has been issued by the Government and the industry concerning the safeguards available.

We therefore urge that Federal meat inspection cover all plants which are in or affect interstate commerce. We are not impressed by arguments that such a proposal invades State rights. That issue was decided long ago by the Congress and the courts in other legislation and raising it now is unrealistic at best.

Certainly, Congress will not tell a mother that her children can become ill because meat inspection legislation places a plant in intrastate commerce when that very factory is considered in interstate commerce under a host of other existing legislation. Certainly, too, a 1906 decision of what is and what is not in interstate commerce can not be considered sacred when the health of thousands of consumers is involved.

We, therefore, urge that the subcommittee approve the coverage provisions of H.R. 1314, the bill sponsored by Representative Neal Smith. This measure establishes no new determination of interstate commerce. On the contrary, every single meat plant already uses these specific provisions as the test of whether or not it is covered by the Federal labor laws.

We regret that H.R. 6168 does not provide an extension of coverage for slaughtering and processing inspection. It would continue the dependence on State governments, which we consider inadequate dependence.

We also regret other weaknesses in the bill, such as the provision that State inspection programs will be subsidized up to 50 percent of their costs if they merely meet the undefined standard that they be "consistent with" the Federal program.

Even more regrettable is the position taken by the meat packing industry's trade associations and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. They have proposed amendments which would weaken an already weak bill to the point of meaninglessness.

For example, these amendments would require only that State programs be "comparable to" the Federal program to get subsidies. One might consider the amendments to be a bargain basement proposal for inspection like the $2.49 price tag for a $4 "comparable value."

But there must be no bargain basement gimmicks when the health of Americans is concerned.

We frankly believe that many of the amendments of the meat packing industry and the NASDA would be a hoax on the consumer. They would compound in the consumers' minds the present illusions about protections.

These hearings and the ensuing congressional activity concerning meat inspection legislation will inform many consumers on the missing links in meat inspection. The meat packing and NASDA amendments would give the impression that new protection has been provided when in actual fact very little new would have been added.

The AFL-CIO will not be a party to such a hoax. We, therefore, urge this committee, its parent body and the House, itself, to approve strong, effective meat inspection legislation, including the coverage provisions of H.R. 1314. We and our affiliates shall do all we can to support and win such legislation.

Consumer protection is one of the major goals of the labor movement. And the assurance of a virtually totally safe and healthful meat supply is a vital factor in that goal.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Biemiller.

Are there any questions of this witness?

Mr. FOLEY. I want to say that I believe every word that the gentleman said. It is a very fine statement. I would hope that every organization in the United States would take the public-spirited stand on this problem which has been taken by this witness.

Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Foley.

Mr. FOLEY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PURCELL. Are there any further questions? Mr. Mayne?

Mr. MAYNE. No questions.

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Zwach?

Mr. ZWACH. I note from your testimony, on page 3, you are speaking about a State program coupled to the Federal program. Now, we import a great supply of meat into our country each year. I understand that we except all of this from this kind of comparable provisions. What would be your reaction in this area? Should imported meat have the same strict requirements that you refer to across the board here?

82-270-67-14