in the scope of the bill. The term "appropriate State agency" is also defined and may include a municipality or other subordinate governmental unit when so designated by State law or policy.

Since "commerce", as defined in S. 2218, includes intrastate commerce, section 15 of S. 2218 is completely different from section 15 of H.R. 12144. Section 15 of S. 2218 adds a new title III authorizing the Secretary to waive enforcement of titles I and II of the Meat Inspection Act with respect to commerce solely within a State which has adequate meat inspection laws and regulations.

Section 16. Enforcement

This section adds a new "Title IV-Auxiliary Provisions" consisting of 10 sections, as follows:

Section 401 would authorize refusal of meat inspection service under title I for any establishment if the applicant for, or recipient of, the service is determined, in a formal administrative proceeding, to be unfit to engage in a business requiring inspection under title I because he, or anyone responsibly connected with him, has been convicted in any Federal or State court of any felony, or of more than one violation of any law, other than a felony, based upon acquiring, handling, or distributing unwholesome, mislabeled, or deceptively packaged food or upon fraud in connection with transactions in food. Provision would be made for judicial review of orders in such proceedings.

Section 402 would authorize administrative detention of meat and other articles and 4-D animals if found on any premises where held for purposes of, or during or after, distribution in commerce or otherwise subject to title I or II of the Act and there is reason to believe that they are adulterated or misbranded and capable of use as human food, or that they have not been inspected, in violation of Federal or other laws or have been or are intended to be distributed in violation of such laws. Such detention would be limited to 20 days, pending action under section 403 or notification of other governmental authorities having jurisdiction.

Section 403 would authorize judicial proceedings for seizure and condemnation of meat and other articles and 4-D animals being transported in commerce or otherwise subject to title I or II of the Act, or held for sale after such transportation, if they are or have been prepared or distributed or offered or received for distribution in violation of the Act, or are capable of use as human food and are adulterated or misbranded, or are otherwise in violation of the Act. Section 404 would give specified courts jurisdiction of actions to enjoin violations of the Act, and all other cases under the Act, except those labeling cases which section 7(e) prescribes shall be filed in the Courts of Appeal.

Section 405 would prohibit forcible assaults upon or other offenses against any person engaged in, or because of, the performance of his duties under the Act. This provision parallels the provisions in 18 U.S.C. 1111 and 1114 which formerly applied to meat inspectors as employees of the Bureau of Animal Industry, but ceased to be applicable when the Bureau was abolished.

Section 406 would change the penalty for most violations of the Act to a misdemeanor from a felony to facilitate prosecution; and it would authorize disposal of minor violations by warning letter.

Section 407 incorporates, by reference, provisions (including penalties) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, authorizing requirement of reports, authorizing administrative subpenas, and conferring other investigative and hearing powers.

Section 408 would exclude States, Territories, and the District of Columbia from regulating operations at plants inspected under title I or from imposing marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to or different than those under the Federal Meat Inspection Act for articles prepared under inspection in accordance with title I of the Act, but would permit them to impose recordkeeping and related requirements with respect to such plants if consistent with the Federal requirements and to impose requirements consistent with the Federal provisions as to other matters regulated under the Act. Section 409 would coordinate the Federal Meat Inspection Act with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by providing that the provisions of the former shall not derogate from any authority conferred by the Federal Food. Drug and Cosmetic Act prior to enactment of the bill. The bill also would extend the detention authority of section 402 to representatives of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for purposes of enforcement of the latter Act

with respect to carcasses, parts thereof, meat, or meat food products. The relationship of the Meat Inspection Act to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is further discussed in section 12 of this analysis.

Section 410 would authorize appropriations to carry out the provisions of the Act.

Section 401, as added by H. R. 12144, differs from section 401 as added by S. 2147 and S. 2218 in that it (1) extends to persons responsibly connected with the applicant and persons convicted of repeated nonfelonious offenses; and (2) makes the Secretary's order final, unless appealed within 30 days.

Section 17. Annual reports to Congress

This section would require annual reports to the Congress by the Secretary on the operations and effectiveness of this Act.

S. 2147 and S. 2218 do not contain this section.

Section 18. Repeal of Horsemeat and Imported Meat Acts

This section of the bill would repeal the Horse Meat Act and the import meat provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, since equine and imported meat would be covered by the Meat Inspection Act, as amended by the bill.

Section 19. Savings Clause

This section of the bill contains the usual "savings" provision in case of partial constitutional invalidity of the bill.

Section 20. Effective Date

Section 20 of the bill contains effective date provisions making the bill effective upon enactment, except that the provisions relating to adulteration and misbranding in section 7 of the bill, and the import provisions in section 10 and related repeal provisions in section 18 of the bill, would become effective upon the expiration of 60 days after enactment; and the provisions of title I relating to equines other than horses and thetitle II restriction on distribution of 4-D animals (added by section 14 of the bill) would also become effective upon the expiration of 60 days after enactment. The amendment, made by section 11 of the bill, of the present provisions for exemptions for farm-slaughtered meat and meat food products and retail butchers and dealers would likewise become effective after such 60-day period.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO H.R. 12144

1. On page 2, line 15, "delegatee" should be "delegate".

2. On page 11, line 7, "term" should be "terms".

3. Since the term "official device" is used on page 18, line 5, but is not defined, it might be well to insert on page 11, between lines 22 and 23, the following:

"(v) The term 'official device' means any device prescribed or authorized by the Secretary for use in applying any official mark.”

4. On page 17, line 10, strike out the punctuation mark at the end of the line. 5. On page 17, line 23, "and act" should be “any act".

6. On page 18, line 11, after "thereof", strike the period and insert a comma. 7. On page 19, line 22, "establishment" should be "establishments".

8. Consideration should be given to clarifying section 10 on pages 19 and 20. Compliance with all provisions of the Act would indicate that imports must have had Federal ante- and post-mortem inspection, which we understand is not intended. The proviso should be clarified as to whether the 50 pound limit is an annual, lifetime, or single entry limit, and whether all "meat products" are to be included or only "meat food products" which is a defined term. The House Committee report suggests that the 50 pounds would have to be "wholesome", which does not appear to accord with the provision.

9. On page 24, line 10, chemical should be "chemicals".

10. Since sales in the District of Columbia and unorganized Territories, are by definition in "commerce", the District and such Territories should be stricken out of that part of section 24 which permits an exception for establishments that only "purchase" in commerce. This could be done as follows:

On page 25, line 23, after "establishment" insert "in any State or organized Territory".

On page 26, line 3, strike "or the District of Columbia".

11. Since transactions in the District of Columbia and unorganized Territories are in "commerce" and new sections 202, 203, and 204, as they would be added

by section 14 of the bill, would be automatically applicable to those transactions, it would be incorrect and confusing to provide in new section 205 for the extension of such sections to those transactions in certain circumstances. Reference in section 205 to unorganized Territories and the District should be deleted as follows:

On page 29, line 22, strike out "Territory or the District of Columbia" and insert "organized Territory".

On page 30, line 2, strike out "State, Territory, or District" and insert "State or Territory".

12. For the same reason the District and organized Territories should be excluded from new Title III as follows:

On page 33, strike lines 5 and 6, and insert "organized Territory".

13. The last two sentences of new section 401 (which begin on page 34 in line 8) apply to the entire section, rather than only to the paragraph in which they appear, and perhaps should constitute a separate paragraph.

14. On page 36, line 13, "animals" should be "animal".

15. On page 39, in each of lines 13 and 14, "409(1)" should be "409 (1)".

16. On page 41, line 9, "hereof" should be "of the Wholesome Meat Act" to make it clear that it does not refer to enactment "of the Meat Inspection Act of 1907". 17. On page 43, line 11, "upon the expiration of" might be inserted before "sixty days after enactment hereof" to conform to similar language in subsections (a), (b), and (d) of that section and avoid any suggestion that differing effective dates are intended.

Senator BYRD. I will now recognize the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator Montoya.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Senator MONTOYA. Thank you, Senator Byrd, for your generosity in giving us your time this morning and opening up this hearing on a subject which is of great importance.

A situation exists that affects every buyer and consumer of meat in this country, as well as all producers and marketers of meat animals. I have introduced a bill, S. 2147, to guarantee to every consumer the quality of meat inspection that is desired and deserved.

Our standard of living, the prosperity of our food industry, the present and future markets for products of American farmers, all greatly depend on the integrity of our meat supply.

Sixty years ago, Congress recognized this dependence and passed the Meat Inspection Act. It vested in the Department of Agriculture a vast responsibility basic to the health and welfare of the Nationthat of assuring wholesomeness of all meat and meat products moving in the flow of interstate and foreign commerce.

Under this act, a Federal system of meat inspection was created to regulate only those plants which sell any of their products across State lines. It is a good system. It has served this Nation well since its inception. It is even a model that other nations copy. Refinements to it are constantly being made within legal boundaries established by Congress.

But the Nation's ability to produce meat products in enormous volume has been revolutionized. Advancing technology, rapid transportation and communication, intensified marketing, and new food preservation methods have all done their share in the structure and technology of our meatpacking industry.

Major slaughtering plants have moved from urban, centralized locations to widely decentralized spots in livestock feeding areas. Plants

which process and manufacture meat products have become highly specialized. They are tending away from production areas and nearer to major consumer markets.

Products ready for home use without further preparation have proliferated. They are more highly processed, with greater opportunity for adulteration and deception that a purchaser would not notice. All these advancements complicate inspection procedures. Inspection of meat for wholesomeness, without use of chemical analysis, is most effective when meat is fresh. Frozen meat must be defrosted prior to inspection. If there is suspicion of adulteration or unwholesomeness, it must be examined and tested closely, often requiring laboratory analysis.

Adequate inspection of a fast processing line is far more difficult than is visual examination of carcasses and fresh meat. Also, in modern processing there is often less opportunity for inspectors to check each stage of operation.

But occupying the center of our equation is the reasonable demand and expectation on the part of the consumer for wholesome meat. And there can be no exceptions made.

A significant disparity exists between Federal, State, and local statutes regarding meat inspection. This disparity creates a form of economic separation that confers a very real competitive advantage upon the unregulated.

Most packers of meat would support the concept of adequate inspection if they knew all their competitors would have to conform to uniform rules. Their economic opportunities depend upon the consumer's confidence in her meat supply. Yet, competitive survival often induces some to lower standards in the absence of uniform, adequate inspection.

These products are intermingled in retail outlets with wholesome, unadulterated products for sale to an unsuspecting public. Further, their volume is significant.

Fifteen percent of commercial slaughtered animals-over 19 million head-are not slaughtered under Federal inspection. Some of these are subject to State or local laws of varying stringency. Others are sold without any form of Government inspection.

About one-fourth of commercially processed meat products-an estimated 9 billion pounds-are processed without Federal inspection. This includes a wide assortment of products such as sausage, ham, bacon, and canned and frozen meat specialty items. These products, usually made from two or more ingredients, and often containing spices, flavoring, extenders, or other additives, are particularly vulnerable to adulteration.

Many of these meats and meat products receive little or no inspection to assure their wholesomeness and freedom from adulteration. It is easy to see that they represent the potential for significant amounts of unwholesome and adulterated meat to reach the consumer. We must meet these major challenges swiftly. What is required is additional, specific authority which can only be granted by Congress.

To meet these problems, I have introduced S. 2147, to bring meat inspection all over the Nation up to a level where the consumer is guaranteed the protection she deserves.

My bill would—

(1) Broaden the present meat inspection program by establishing a Federal-State cooperative arrangement under which the Federal Government would provide scientific, technical, and financial assistance to State agencies in order to improve the quality of State meat inspection services. This financial aid could amount to as much as one-half the cost of a State program. (2) Modernize and combine present statutes relating to meat inspection.

(3) Give the Secretary of Agriculture needed authority over wholesalers, truckers, warehousemen, brokers, renderers, and animal food manufacturers in order to control the traffic in unfit meat and meat products. This would provide additional insurance against the possibility of these products being sold to unsuspecting consumers for use as human food.

The measure, H.R. 12144, as passed by the House, is identical to my bill. The House has, however, adopted a number of technical amendments which I would recommend to this subcommittee. Among these amendments was one that would insure that all meat imports meet the same standards as are required of our domestic meat products. It is my hope that all of the States will see to it that proper enabling legislation is enacted, so that proper meat inspection can be guaranteed all their citizens. If a given State, for its own reasons, does not see to it that this is done, then there is a Federal responsibility to the consumer of that jurisdiction. It is fitting and necessary that we anticipate this probability, and make provision for protecting the consumer interest in any area where this may be necessary.

If, after a reasonable time, a State fails or refuses to take action to protect its consumers, Federal action will be taken.

If, after a period of 2 years, the jurisdiction in question fails to require mandatory ante mortem and post mortem meat inspection that meets requirements as envisioned by the Montoya-Purcell bill, the Secretary of Agriculture would be authorized to coordinate and consult with State officials, and act if necessary. He would be authorized to inspect or supervise inspection of all commercial meat or meat. products slaughtered or processed within that State. The Secretary of Agriculture would retain this jurisdiction until such time as the State in question would enact legislation, appropriate the funds, and make provision for enforcement of an adequate meat inspection program. How would the American consumer benefit from this amendment? How would it strengthen the Montoya-Purcell bill?

Since this amendment covers State meat inspection programs, this part of my remarks will be limited to the Federal-State cooperative aspects of the Montoya bill.

In brief summary, the Montoya bill, as introduced, allows the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with States having acceptable meat inspection laws and to pay 50 percent of the cost of such State programs when their standards are comparable to those of the Federal meat inspection program.

The sugar-coated approach set forth in the Montoya bill is a firm step forward in effecting better consumer protection for the meateating public-but it does not guarantee that the States will take