of that State. During this period I have worked closely with, and served as secretary and on the board of directors of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and to my knowledge during this period of public service every effort has been made to cooperate with the Consumer and Marketing Service. Gentlemen, I have come to the reluctant decision that the differences in philosophy between Consumer and Marketing Service and the State departments of agriculture in regard to Federal-State cooperation cannot be reconciled under present leadership of this agency. I need not tell you, gentlemen, I am sure, that it is with the greatest reluctance that I, as a commissioner of agriculture and a spokesman for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, would prefer to see the meat inspection programs administered by the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA or the Food and Drug Administration of HEW under workable Federal-State cooperative agreements than by Consumer and Marketing Service. According to the treatment which we have received from them throughout the last 15 to 20 years. In conclusion, I would like to reemphasize: 1. This testimony is not intended to reflect in any way upon Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman or those USDA agencies that have cooperated so well in the development of cooperative Federal-State programs; 2. The State departments of agriculture are just as keenly interested in protecting the consuming public as is this committee and other Members of the Congress; 3. If the proposed amendments or substitutes to the Purcell bill are adopted and the pattern followed, and other food areas which are just as important as meat-meat just happens to be the subject today— approximately $200 million in additional Federal funds will be required to replace State and local funds now being expended for consumer protection services; 4. The attitude of the Consumer and Marketing Service in obstructing Federal-State cooperative agreements makes it necessary for me to recommend that the meat inspection program be administered by an agency which has demonstrated greater support for the intent of Congress in establishing Federal-State cooperative programs, such as ARS or FDA; 5. The Purcell bill or its Senate counterpart, properly administered by understanding Federal leadership, will encourage individual State and local governments to strengthen and participate in meaningful cooperative programs for the benefit of the consuming public. Mr. Chairman, I wish to add slightly to this printed testimony which I have presented. The House passed a bill but there have been some errors in statements this morning. The House passed the meat inspection bill, known as the Purcell bill which was introduced as an administration bill. I do not think that anybody would dispute this. It was introduced as an administration bill, after many long conferences with the committee representing the State departments of agriculture. There were many long sessions. They were to bring about a bill to provide for the Federal-State cooperation. There was a precipitate cessation of conferences on the part of Consumer and Marketing Service of the USDA and an introduction without the knowledge of the States of this administration bill to the State committee of which I was not a member, expecting additional conferences before the introduction of this bill. This aroused suspicion and opposition as it would were any of you gentlemen on this committee, if you were sitting down in good faith around a table, dealing with people and then they precipitately took action without concluding the conferences which they said they would continue to have. This aroused suspicion immediately among the States and it caused some State commissioners of agriculture to be in opposition to the Purcell bill. However, after we had additional conferences with the USDA personnel and with Members of the House, the State departments of agriculture wholeheartedly endorsed the Purcell bill which was the administration bill as entered in the House. And we have since been confounded watching the gymnastics in the campaigning of the administration's efforts to junk its own meat inspection bill introduced in the House. I got the feeling that a very distinguished member of this committee thought that he had the backing of the administration on his bill, and found out this morning that he does not have it. I may be in error. Not only were we run out, but I have a feeling that a member of this committee likewise was; that the administration did not stand pat. I may be in error and if so I apologize but I got that feeling in listening to the testimony in question. I submit to you that the State departments of agriculture, in some instances the health departments, and the county and city health departments, also have made great strides in the last 5 or 6 years. They have in passing laws, rules, and regulations and ordinances financed by local and State funds to inspect meat plants for the consuming public. With the present action of the Consumer and Marketing Service and the USDA and the administration, I can only come to the conclusion that it is their wish to head off the local effort by the States and by the counties and by the cities where we have made so much progress in the last 5 or 6 years, in their desire to build up a Federal employee staff as compared to the USDA staff, or, rather, the Food and Drug Administration staff of less than 200. And now they have to have more than 5,000 for this at the Federal level and I can only come to the conclusion that they are absolutely opposed to any type of Federal-State cooperation and that they want to build up a Federal staff in their own house; that is, in this branch of the USDA. There are two or three other things that I must mention. I know that there will be questions. I will do my best to answer them, to the best of my ability. Water has been mentioned. I can remember when the USDA changed the regulations over the complete opposition of the State departments of agriculture to let the plants pump water into hams. And this is on record and can be proved. And this committee ought to know it. Do not blame the State departments of agriculture for water in hams when the USDA passed the regulation over our opposition to permit the pumping of water into hams, because we opposed it. Later the USDA had to retract and rescind its action and it was at our insistence and the publicity which was given which caused it to be done. Do not say that the State departments of agriculture are responsible for watering meat. This is history. This is on the record. This is in the books. It can be checked. I would like to point out also that the State departments of agriculture have been concerned that the meat industry of the United States has had to maintain financially capital investments in buildings and equipment in competition to imported meats into this country which is not checked adequately by the USDA. Unfortunately, the State Department makes this decision and not the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Five percent of the meats consumed in this country come in from uninspected plants that do not meet even the State plant regulations which have come in for such criticism this morning. There are several other things, Mr. Chairman, that I could mention about what has been said, but I think it best in the interest of time not to make any more statements. Questions may bring out some of these. I do know that your time is short and limited. Perhaps Mr. Bull may have something to add. Senator BYRD. The attachment will be made a part of the record at this point. (The attachment referred to follows:) PUBLIC LAW 87-718 AN ACT To provide further for cooperation with States in administration and enforcement of certain Federal laws Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in order to avoid duplication of functions, facilities, and personnel, and to attain closer coordination and greater effectiveness and economy in administration of Federal and State laws and regulations relating to the marketing of agricultural products and to the control or eradication of plant and animal diseases and pests, the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized, in the administration and enforcement of such Federal laws within his area of responsibility, whenever he deems it feasible and in the public interest, to enter into cooperative arrangements with State departments of agriculture and other State agencies charged with the administration and enforcement of such State laws and regulations and to provide that any such State agency which has adequate facilities, personnel, and procedures, as determined by the Secretary, may assist the Secretary in the administration and enforcement of such Federal laws and regulations to the extent and in the manner he deems appropriate in the public interest. Further, the Secretary is authorized to coordinate the administration of such Federal laws and regulations with such State laws and regulations wherever feasible. However, nothing herein shall affect the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture under any Federal law, or any authority to cooperate with State agencies or other agencies or persons under existing provisions of law, or affect any restrictions of law upon such cooperation. Approved September 28, 1962. Mr. PHIL CAMPBELL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Commissioner, State Department of Agriculture, DEAR MR. CAMPBELL: Section 702 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides authority for commissioning health, food, drug officers, or employees of any State to conduct examinations and investigations for the purpose of the Act. Authority to commission State and local officials was first established by the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Subsequently, a number of State and local officials, engaged in regulatory programs relating to food, feed, drugs, or other products similar to those at the Federal level, were commissioned. Since enactment, many new amendments have been added to the basic 1938 law, causing previous commission methods to become obsolete. Therefore, all former commissions were revoked by a July 9, 1966, Federal Register announcement (copy enclosed). This constituted our first step toward inaugurating new commissioning procedures. We will now offer commissions to qualified State officials in specifically designated product areas. We have selected animal feeds to be the first of these product areas because of the current State-Federal coordinated programs. There are to be two types of commissions, one to be offered to the senior executive who directs the department in which the control program is located, to be followed by commissions to operating program directors and/or their inspectors. We are enclosing a pamphlet which will provide further information relating to the commissioning of State officials. By virtue of the position you hold, we wish to confer upon you such a commission. In the event you can accept this commission, please sign and return to us the enclosed "Acceptance of Commission" form and the "Identification Card." Following receipt of these forms and three 11⁄2" x 11⁄2" photographs of yourself, we will present you with credentials and an attractive 8" x 10%" certificate suitable for framing. We will initiate at a later date the followup commissioning program for your operating program directors and inspectors. These commissions will be issued contingent upon the qualifications of program officials to do the work specified under the commissioning authority. Such criteria as education, experience, abilities, special training, etc., will be considered before commissions are conferred. We will, of course, contact you when subordinates under your direction are considered eligible for commissions. At that time, appropriate forms will be supplied and you will be asked for a recommendation before such commissions are issued. Following FDA's evaluation of each individual's application, the qualified candidates will receive their credentials through your Office. We believe you will agree with us that this new procedure will materially enhance the Federal-State partnership program. As you know, the control of medicated feeds entails complex problems requiring our joint efforts. We hope you will be able to give early consideration to accepting a commission Sincerely yours, JAMES L. GODDARD, M.D.. Commissioner of Food and Drugs. [Published in Federal Register of July 9, 1966] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION REVOCATION OF COMMISSIONS TO STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS For many years, pursuant to section 702 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Food and Drug Administration has commissioned State and local officials as officers of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to conduct examinations and investigations for the purposes of the act. Amendments to the act and concurrent administrative commitments now require a new commissioning policy; therefore : 1. All such commissions to State and local officials, including officials of the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, are hereby revoked, and 2. Notice is given that revised commissioning procedures are being considered. This action is taken pursuant to section 702(a) of the act (52 Stat. 1056, as amended; 21 U.S.C. 372 (a)) and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (21 CFR 2.120; 31 F.R. 3008). Dated: July 6, 1966. Hon. PHIL CAMPBELL, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, JAMES L. GODDARD, Commissioner of Food and Drugs WASHINGTON, D.C., April 21, 1963. REURTEL April 19. We are canceling poultry hearings for five cities in Georgia as you request. Federal Register notice and press release will be issued shortly. S. R. SMITH, Agricultural Marketing Service. APRIL 19, 1963. Hon. ORVILLE FREEMAN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, REYRTEL. As the USDA interpretation of the Poultry Products Inspection Act does not authorize the designation of the entire State of Georgia as a major consuming area thereby qualifying the entire State for Federal inspection of poultry, I withdraw my request for the designation of any portion of the State of Georgia as a major consuming area to qualify for Federal inspection of poultry and poultry products. PHIL CAMPBELL. WASHINGTON, D.C. Hon. PHIL CAMPBELL, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, REURTEL. Poultry Products Inspection Act does not authorize designation of entire State of Georgia as a major consuming area for purpose of requiring mandatory inspection for wholesomeness of all poultry handled or consumed in Georgia. Designation of the requested 12 cities with the specified radius around each of them would depend on evidence indicating that each city itself constitutes a major consuming area and that uninspected poultry is being consumed in such volume in each city so as to burden, obstruct, or affect the interstate movement of inspected poultry. It would not appear that the smaller cities could qualify as major consuming areas. JOHN P. DUNCAN, Jr., Acting Secretary. APRIL 10, 1963. Secretary ORVILLE FREEMAN, Since announcement of the May 6-9 USDA. Poultry hearings in Atlanta and Savannah, Ga., to determine the designation of certain areas in Georgia as major consuming areas it has been forecfully brought to my attention that designation as noted in the press clippings of the hearings of only the cities of Atlanta, Columbus, Macon, Augusta, and Savannah would severely penalize economically federally inspected poultry plants in Georgia having to sell in |