It was from you that I first heard of the urgency of this problem, speaking in the wells of the House. And I know how sincere you are in trying to do something in this particular field.

It appears that we are close to reality with the legislation that is i now being considered by us here in the Senate.

Will you, if you feel there is no inhibition on your part, tell us what difficulty you encountered on the floor of the House when you offered the so-called Smith-Foley bill as a substitute?

Mr. SMITH. The difficulty, to be completely fair, the difficulty that I ran into mainly under the House rules is that you cannot get a rollcall vote. I think that was the whole difference between passing and not passing the Smith-Foley amendments. As you know, Senator, because you were over there, we cannot get a rollcall on an amendment unless it first passed on a voice, standing, or teller vote and on those, Members who vote from the phone booths don't count.

Senator MONTOYA. You lost on the teller vote?

Mr. SMITH. We lost on the teller vote.

Senator MONTOYA. What was it?

Mr. SMITH. 140 to 98. Ten minutes later, 200 more voted on final passage.

Senator MONTOYA. That is my concern in offering my particular legislation.

Mr. SMITH. I would hate to be proven wrong but I think that if this committee could get together and develop a good bill, as I believe you are about to do, I do not think that there would be any trouble in passing it in the House because at that time we can get a rollcall vote. There is a way, you know, to rescind the House position and concur with the Senate and to get a rollcall vote on that. I really believe what you can work out over here will pass in the House.

Senator MONTOYA. That is all. Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH. I want to say, Senator, that I really appreciate your working on this, too. I know that you members of this subcommittee are practical and effective legislators and believe you will work out something.

Senator BYRD. Senator Mondale.

Senator MONDALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Of course I want to join with Senator Montoya in expressing my admiration and respect to you. You really are the one, perhaps the pioneer in this field, in the Congress. You have been persistent. You have been able and effective. And you have personal knowledge of the problem.

I can recall reading your testimony in the House on the SmithFoley amendment where you described your personal experience and the buying practices and how you would go to the livestock sales and you would wonder why diseased animals were always separated out and sent to certain plants. You might describe that. I think it would help to understand the factors by which diseased animals are handled by certain people and taken to unscrupulous plants who slaughter and process it for human consumption.

Mr. SMITH. The law requires that a veterinarian be at these public livestock sales in Iowa and in most of the livestock-producing Statesand that no livestock be permitted to be taken to farms from the sale

1

barn which is diseased. So, if a farmer brings in 40 head of cattle that have been what we call warmed up-they are not as fat as they could be they could either go out to slaughter or to the farm for further feeding. The livestock veterinarian will look them over and perhaps he finds one that has a lump law or a cancer on the skin or something. He sorts it out. He says that it must go to market only. And that means that if it goes to an inspected plant, it may be entirely destroyed and not used for human consumption. Or there may be some parts of it that can be used for human consumption. But that calf goes into the ring by itself and the light goes on, "Sale for market only." It cannot go back to a farm.

I noticed that buyers for the inspected plants never buy those animals. There are usually two or three buyers there for the uninspected plants and they buy those animals. Sometimes an animal that otherwise would have brought $200 may sell for a total of $5, or $6 or $10. They take those animals, and if they have a cancer eye, they may cut the eye out and use the rest of the carcass and no one knows the difference.

Senator MONDALE. This is the standard practice from your experience?

Mr. SMITH. The standard practice in livestock sales.

Senator MONDALE. You testified, I think, in terms of adding new information to the fact that many secretaries of agriculture at the State level are elected. Could you tell us what the position of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has been on the various efforts that have been made to strengthen meat inspection so as to assure wholesome meat?

Mr. SMITH. Well, in the House the Association of State Secretaries of Agriculture testified that they wanted the Federal grants provided in the bill but they did not want to do anything else. They did not want to be required to come up to Federal standards. They were opposed to the bill. That is, in substance, what it was. They wanted the contribution without doing anything. They were opposed to the bill that was finally adopted by the House. And then when the meat industry decided to support the bill, they came in and supported the bill,

too.

So I do not know if they changed their position since that time or not but they have been followers rather than leaders in this area. Senator MONDALE. Was the national association active in opposition to the Smith-Foley bill?

Mr. SMITH. Very much so. Very much so. Making telephone calls to Members; that is, some State secretaries of agriculture lobbied very heavily with their Representatives in Congress to get them at least to stay in the cloakrooms.

Senator MONDALE. One other question that I would like to ask. Some years ago we adopted what was known as the Smith-Talmadge amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator MONDALE. To provide training to the States. Could you go into that a little bit, how that might be changed or altered to improve the training of personnel?

Mr. SMITH. It provides methods for exchanging State employees with Federal employees. And it has been done to a limited extent.

Actually, the provision in the House-passed meat inspection bill, which is word for word out of the bill I introduced, H.R. 6168, providing for State-Federal cooperation, is an expanded application, you might say, of the Smith-Talmadge bill to the meat industry. But there is in the Smith-Talmadge bill a way where they can exchange employees without getting into all of the problems of retirement and medical benefits and disability and so forth. Actually, there is no place for the State to get as good training for their inspectors as under the Federal system.

Senator MONDALE. Whether it would be the Montoya amendment or my proposal, in either of them, presumably, all plants are going to be inspected at some time up to Federal standards?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator MONTOYA. And this will require an uncertain number of new inspectors of 2,000 to 5.000, depending on whose figures you use. As I understand it, this kind of personnel is in short supply. The standards of the Federal meat inspector are high. It takes skill and training.

Can the Smith-Talmadge provisions be improved so that the Federal Government can play a better role in assisting the States in meeting this professional skill need?

Mr. SMITH. I think it could. I think that there could be improvement there. I think the provision that is in the House-passed bill for State-Federal cooperation includes some of the improvements that are needed, but I think that it might be a good thing to enlarge on that because the States are almost helpless to acquire good inspectors unless there is someplace that they can go for intensive training from people who have been in the business for some years. Most of these States, as you know, do not have but a few people who have ever been in inspection work.

Senator MONDALE. In the light of your background and experience if you have an suggestions along that line, I would be interested in receiving them.

Mr. SMITH. I will be glad to furnish that.

(The information referred to follows:)

The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to enter into cooperative arrangements with state agencies or departments charged with the Administration and enforcement of state laws and regulations relating to the slaughtering. processing and inspection of meats and meat products covered by this Act, for the purpose of providing the same training for such employees that the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides for the training of employees of the Federal meat inspection service. Such agreements shall provide for a reimbursement to the Federal Government for the cost thereof which shall be an amount to be determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to be the average cost of training such personnel.

Nothing herein shall restrict the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with state agencies or other agencies or persons under the existing provisions of any other Federal law.

Senator MONTOYA. May I ask one more question?

Senator BYRD. Yes.

Senator MONTOYA. Congressman Smith, when the House Committee on Agriculture was considering this legislation it is my understanding that your bill, or the same version of your bill, was proposed in the committee as a substitute and it was rejected, according to the House committee report, by a 29-to-5 vote.

Mr. SMITH. That represents the division between the consumers and the processor-oriented Representatives on the committee. [Laughter.] Senator MONTOYA. This is the point that I want to make, Congressman Smith, the realities of what can we pass this session.

It stands to reason that the conferees on this legislation will come from this House committee. This vote probably indicates unless they have changed their minds considerably that they would oppose all-out Federal controls at this point and thus, as I have stated before, jeopardize the legislation that might emerge from the Senate. And so that brings up something of paramount consideration; namely, passing legislation that will meet the approval of both Houses.

Senator SMITH. I want the law passed. I certainly want a law passed. The bill the House passed was my bill also except that it did not include some provisions. I think, though, to be realistic it is no secret that the House Committee on Agriculture does not reflect the cross-section of either the Senate or the House of Representatives. And if you pass a bill that is reasonable and right I just cannot help but feel that it would be accepted in the House. On conference reports, we have a way to get a rollcall vote over there--and I cannot help but feel that the Senate version would be upheld. I really believe that. Senator MONTOYA. That is all. Thank you.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Congressman Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Senator BYRD. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Representative from the State of Washington, Congressman Foley.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS S. FOLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, with the permission of the subcommittee I would like to submit a statement for the record tomorrow.

Senator BYRD. Your statement will be received for the record. (The prepared statement of Representative Foley is as follows:)

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee in support of Senator Mondale's proposal (S. 2218) to protect the American consumer and the American traveler from unwholesome meat.

Senator Mondale's proposal has two inestimable advantages over any of the other meat-inspection proposals before your subcommittee. It provides complete protection for the American consumer now. And it is not based on what serious students of the problem must regard as wholly wishful thinking about what the states are even remotely likely to do in the way of meat-inspection services. Mr. Chairman, allow me to give a few numbers which may be helpful to your Subcommittee in its consideration of this problem :

Federally inspected meat facilities (May 1967).
Nonfederally inspected facilities (October 1967).

Nonfederally inspected but State-inspected facilities (October 1967).
Nonfederally inspected having gross annual business in excess of $250,000
(September 1967)---.

1,969 14, 832

5, 555

5.856

I am advised that the cost of the Federal Meat Inspection program (as of Fiscal Year 1967) is $42.8 million. It would cost another $31.2 million to extend Federal inspection to all meat facilities having a gross annual volume of business in excess of $250,000. But, Mr. Chairman, it would cost only $13.7 million more to extend inspection of Federal quality to all meat facilities having a gross annual business of $250,000 or less.

Mr. Chairman, the states have had about sixty years to bring their meatinspection programs up to a standard that would protect the American consumer and the American traveler. Even a cursory reading of the USDA surveys of 1962 and 1967 of nonfederally inspected meat facilities can inspire little confidence in state meat-inspection programs.

Pennsylvania has 1,530 nonfederally inspected meat facilities of which it only bothers to inspect 46. California's meat-inspection program is reputed to be among the nation's best, yet a July 31, 1967, report from a USDA official indicates that even this relatively well conceived program leaves much to be desired.

Mr. Chairman, I ask permission that this report appear in the Committee Record of Hearing.

I had often heard that my own State of Washington had an outstanding program, but I was also disturbed by the specific criticisms made of the program in the 1962 USDA survey and the paucity of information in the July 1967 survey. Therefore, I asked the USDA to provide me with a comprehensive and current survey of the Washington meat-inspection program. I received the report on October 31, 1967, and immediately called it to the attention of our Governor and our State Director of Agriculture for their study, evaluation and appropriate corrective action. The charges made by the USDA about my state's program were shocking. Let me cite only two lines from the report:

"Too often, sanitation is placed secondary to production. * *Rodent control appears to be minimal."

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that every member of your subcommittee may wish to request a similar current and comprehensive survey of his own state's meatinspection program in order to gain a clearer perspective into what I must term the almost criminal negligence of the states in regard to meat inspection.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be helpful to your subcommittee and to the Congress if the USDA could provide us all with a simple chart showing (1) the appropriations over the next three years that would be necessary in each state to bring that state's meat-inspection program up to Federal standards and (2) the amount each state is currently spending for its meat-inspection program. Only with such information can we come to a realistic judgment as to whether the states are actually likely to give budgetary priority to buying an expensive meat-inspection system of Federal quality. And if the states do not have concrete plans for purchasing such a system, they would not be eligible for matching Federal financial assistance according to the terms of the several proposals before the Congress authorizing such assistance.

Finally, Senator Montoya's amendment would allow the states up to three years to develop meat-inspection programs of Federal quality. Since it appears that about one year would be needed to fully train significant numbers of the additional personnel required to inspect all meats and meat products on a basis at least equivalent to Federal standards, the delay allowed by the Montoya amendment would complicate the manpower situation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should also like to request permission to include in the Record of Hearing letters of September 25, 1967, and October 27, 1967, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in response to my requests for quantitative information on the national meat-inspection problem.

MEMORANDUM

To: B. H. Rorem, Deputy Director, C. & E.S., Washington, D.C.
From: D. D. Hill, officer in charge, western area.
Subject: California State meat inspection.

JULY 31, 1967.

Limited progress has been made in improvement of California State Meat Inspection since 1963. Some of the points important to subject are as follows:

1. Legislation to extend mandatory inspection to counties with population of less than 28,000 has been enacted. However, to this date, additional funds are not available to provide for the extra inspectional coverage.

2. Numerous plants located around the state regularly slaughter 4-D animals not for human consumption. These plants operate with little or no supervision and are an ever present possible source of unwholesome meat for human food in that there are no requirements which provide for the decharacterization of the product produced.