We could go back and check those subcommittee records last year to see whether that is correct as to the historical background and the committee itself could make the distinction as to whether it was a modifying argument, and whether or not we should include it. I don't recall that the word "knowingly" was put in upon the suggestion of anyone connected with the industry necessarily.

Senator HUMPHREY. I know my amendment to strike out "knowingly" was objected to by some representatives of industry and that is why I want the record quite clear. I offered two amendments last year at the time we were considering this bill to strike out the word "knowingly" and make it comply with other statutes with which I ain very familiar, such as the food and drug statutes and other statutes relating to inspection of commodities or medicinals or foods for internal consumption, and removal of the word "knowingly" was objected to. I mean it was insisted upon rather than the general language which has been used.

Senator WILLIAMS. If I recall correctly, there were other instances and other laws that included such a provision.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had an adequate explanation for the record now. While there might have been some segment of the industry that desired the word "knowingly" in there, it did not represent the position of the industry as a whole. That is as I recall it.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the witness some questions in reference to the differences in these three bills that are before us. According to the staff analyses made of these bills, we find that the areas designated for regulation as affecting interstate commerce are practically the same in all three bills as follows the scope of the coverage. S. 1128 has a factor in it for States rights and local rights which the other bills do not have. Consent of the governing body of the city or area is required in S. 1128 before any Federal initiation can take place.

In S. 645 initiation must be by application of appropriate State or local officials or any appropriate poultry industry group.

The S. 1128 bill is by affirmative action of an official body. You agree that is desirable, I am sure.

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Senator HUMPHREY. On limitations on applicability of the act in designated areas, the Secretary in all three bills shall prescribe the applicable provisions of the act and he may make such exemptions as he deems practicable. In all three bills that same authority is permissible. Is that your understanding?

Mr. WHITE. That is my understanding, yes.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I notice that-this is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator HUMPHREY. Now, the extent of ante mortem inspectionthe reason I bring this up is because I have had a blood bath of telegrams that I sharply resent, and I want the record to so indicate, because I think industry spokesmen have tried to misinterpret S. 1128 and I intend to grill every one of you while you are here so we get the record clear.

On the extent to which ante mortem inspections are required, how much do you think S. 1128 requires as to ante mortem inspection? Mr. WHITE. How much do I think

Senator HUMPHREY. How strict do you think the ante mortem inspection is in S. 1128?

Mr. WHITE. It is my interpretation that it is required.

Senator HUMPHREY. Is it not the language of the bill that the Secretary shall cause it to be made in such manner that he deems necessary? Mr. WHITE. That may be the wording.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is the wording. Let's take a look and see. Would you interpret that language, that the Secretary requires that every bird be subject to ante mortem

Mr. WHITE. If that is the way it is worded. At his discretion, would be my understanding.

Senator HOLLAND. The question is whether or not you think the act as written requires it.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the Senator yield for a suggestion?

Senator HUMPHREY. I will yield for an inquiry.

Senator WILLIAMS. Does not S. 1128 say the Secretary shall cause to be, whereas the other bill says he may?

Senator HUMPHREY. That is right. He shall cause but on his

own

Senator WILLIAMS. But the "shall" is mandatory.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is right. It is required.

The CHAIRMAN. It is required in S. 645 as well as S. 1128 according to this.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is right. What I am trying to get at is that there has been an intentional misinterpretation, Mr. Chairman, which is obvious by the exact wording of about 500 telegrams which I have received. I might believe in mental telepathy but I don't believe everybody is a sender and a receiver. The telegrams I received had such a pointed similarity that it is almost as if everybody had learned the ABC's simultaneously. The indication in those telegrams is that there is compulsory ante mortem inspection for each and every bird. And I want to have any industry spokesman point out to me where they get that intent, because in the statement at the time of the introduction of the bill by the author of the bill it was so indicated that that was not the intent, although expressing my view that ante morten inspection of some form was necessary because of the very compelling evidence introduced by public-health authorities as to the importance of ante mortem inspection.

You may have only to check 1 out of every shipment, 1 out of every flock, 1 out of every 500 birds, 1 out of every thousand, to provide some ante mortem inspection-that is up to the Secretary. I want the industry spokesmen to know here that I wasn't born yesterday and I don't intend to have misinterpretation of proposed legislation be broadcast all over the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Humphrey, since the word "shall" is used, wouldn't it be possible for the Secretary to have inspection of every one of them if he desires?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, and under the word "may" it would be possible, too. I mean if you have a Secretary who wants to be obvi

ously inconsiderate, stubborn, doctrinaire, dictatorial, "may" is every bit as effective as "shall."

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you have objection to the word "may"? Senator HUMPHREY. No particular objection, Senator. I just didn't care for the kind of summary treatment which was accorded certain provisions, and since I am a member of this committee I intend to find out how it all happened.

Now, the next question is in reference to a time and place of ante mortem inspection. In S. 313, according to the staff analysis, it is left to the Secretary; is that your understanding?

Mr. WHITE. It is left to the Secretary? That is my understanding; yes, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. And in S. 645, wherever processing operations are being conducted in an official establishment, that is when the ante mortem inspection takes place.

Mr. WHITE. In 645?

Senator HUMPHREY. That is right. And in S. 1128 it is the same. Is that correct?

Mr. WHITE. Correct.

Senator HUMPHREY. Now, post mortem inspection of each carcass in S. 313-is that your understanding?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. And S. 645, it is at the Secretary's discretion. Mr. WHITE. That is right.

Senator THYE. Would the Senator yield for a question of the chairman?

Mr. Chairman, do we have from the Department of Agriculture the Department's recommendation on these bills and their analysis of these bills?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I have put that in the record.

Senator THYE. Yes; but you see, unfortunately where it was put in the record we have no knowledge of it and it would seem to me that we may find it necessary to call the Department of Agriculture before us as a committee and have the solicitors make an interpretation. I am not a lawyer and I could question any one of these witnesses on the basis of my own interpretation, but I would not be in a position to interrogate them on a legal status as an attorney would have to do it if he were to be charged with the responsibility of making an interpretation of the intent of the law.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, may I state to the Senator from Minnesota that the Department has sent us the preliminary draft of their interpretation of the three bills and it will be available tomorrow at our next sitting, to answer your questions.

Senator THYE. Then you will have the solicitor's interpretation so that we will not have to determine. If I were interrogated by my colleague, I could not tell him with any certainty what the intent of this law as it might apply to the producer or the shipper or as to how the solicitors of the Department might construe the language. So I would want the Department to give me the legal digest.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I suggested to our own counsel that he make an analysis of the three bills and that is the analysis that the Senator, your colleague, is now reading from.

Senator HUMPHREY. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. And, as I said, the analysis would be completed by the Department tomorrow and it will be here to answer questions as we deem necessary.

Senator THYE. Because, if I may further trespass upon my colleague's time, I could foresee that if each of the industry's witnesses were to be interrogated as to what their interpretation of the act was, we would require more than what we anticipate the hearing schedule now to be; see?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, unfortunately the distinguished Senator from Minnesota himself wasn't here when we first started these hearings. I made the statement, Senator, that we have had exhaustive hearings on bills last year and that was the reason why we decided to curtail them to 2 days.

Senator HUMPHREY. I am all for that, Mr. Chairman, but I want the record to be perfectly clear. There has been gross misinterpretation, intentional misinterpretation, of a bill introduced by myself, and I intend to find out who is responsible. And I will stand upon that as my privilege as a United States Senator, because I introduced a bill responsibly for responsible purposes. I am not entirely adverse, may I say, to Senator Aiken's bill. I think some qualities of the bill are excellent. I introduced a bill in which there are 2 or 3 modifications of existing proposals before us, and all at once it becomes as if it is a major crime to do so, and I intend to find out from industry who is responsible for this. So, the witnesses better be prepared to answer the questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we may be here for a couple of weeks. Go on. Senator HUMPHREY. They will save time if they will just come on up and say who started this misinterpretation. I am interested in poultry producers, very much so, but I don't intend to have processors come on in and distort the record and line up producers behind them who are unaware of what the details of the bills are.

I know what these bills are, and when the counselor comes in from the Department of Agriculture, I intend to interrogate him as to his interpretation of the law. I have a lawyer, too, and he will be here with me.

I want to ask this witness one general question.

What do you find objectionable to S. 1128?

Mr. WHITE. Senator, I think I stated earlier when the question was asked, our impression of the differences in the three bills.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. And in reference to S. 1128 I specified that the thinking in our area objected to S. 1128 for these following reasons: That it specifically designates ARS

Senator HUMPHREY. Agricultural Research Service.

Mr. WHITE. As the inspecting agency, which I

Senator HUMPHREY. May I ask a question there?

Isn't the Agricultural Research Service the inspecting agency for

red meats?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. And isn't the Agricultural Marketing Service the grading agency for red meats?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. So it is nothing unusual, is it, if you would have the inspection in the Agricultural Research Service and grading in Agricultural Marketing Service? I am not saying it is necessary. Don't misunderstand me. I have talked privately to some of the gentlemen here as witnesses. I don't think this is a matter of utmost importance but under the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture, they divided the inspection services into one bureau and the marketing service into another bureau, including grading. It works upon beef cattle and pork.

Mr. WHITE. So far as I know. It is our thinking that the designation of the specific agency within the Department of Agriculture should be at the discretion of the Secretary rather than written into legislation.

Senator HUMPHREY. I am not adverse to that. It is all right. That is number one you disagree with.

Mr. WHITE. These are the statements I made. We have already discussed one, the mandatory ante mortem and post mortem inspection. Senator HUMPHREY. You would agree that the language where the Secretary may impose ante mortem, gives him the right to impose it? Mr. WHITE. I agree that there can be a difference in interpretation. Senator HUMPHREY. The degree of imposition would be up to the Secretary. It does not say in the bill ante mortem on each bird, does it? The S. 1128 does not say ante mortem on each bird, does it? Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. It did not say on each flock.

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. It says, he shall impose an ante mortem inspection system at the discretion of the Secretary as to its degree. Senator HOLLAND. No. As to its manner.

Senator HUMPHREY. As to its manner, yes.

Senator AIKEN. I would think that that wording would possibly be subject to interpretation by the Solicitor's Office as to what constitutes competent ante mortem inspection.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, may I just use an example?

Senator AIKEN. I can conceive of some instances where there might be isolated flocks for which it would be rather difficult to provide ante mortem inspection, and I think there might be some interpretation needed on that.

Senator HUMPHREY. Fine. I agree, Senator.

Senator AIKEN. If the word "shall" is used as to what constitutes adequate ante mortem inspection, and I am not prepared to say right now what it would be-in one case it might be just a general survey of the flock or a couple of thousand birds, or something like that. In another case it might require a more detailed inspection, and on that I think the Secretary should have full discretion.

Senator HUMPHREY. Ünder other types of preuse inspection, such as in serums, viruses, each bottle is not necessarily inspected. You may inspect a number of batches. Even in the instance of Salk polio vaccine, one of the arguments that was held was whether or not each batch should be inspected, or whether you would have a certain amount of inspection out of so many, let us say, out of 500,000 C. C.'s or 200,000 C. C.'s.