that such disease no longer exists in such country: provided, however, that wild ruminants and swine may be imported under specified conditions; (9) to seize and dispose of any wild ruminants of swine imported from a rinderpest or foot-and-mouth diseased country which are not handled in accordance with prescribed conditions; (10) to quarantine any State, territory, or the District of Columbia when he determines that livestock or poultry are affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease and to give notice thereof; (11) to issue regulations permitting and governing the interstate transportation of livestock or poultry therefrom and to issue certain other regulations and take measures to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any such disease; (12) to provide for the inspection of animals intended for exportation and the disinfection of vessels, attendants and their clothing, and appliances involved in such exportation; and (13) to prevent the exportation of diseased livestock and poultry generally. The act of March 3, 1891, as amended-To assure humane treatment and safe transportation of certain animals exported from the United States-authorizes the Secretary (a) To examine vessels on which such animals are to be exported; (b) To prescribe by rule, regulation, or order the accommodations which the vessels shall provide for such animals; (c) To direct that if the owner or master of any such vessel wilfully violates any rule, regulation, or order issued under the Act, the vessel shall be prohibited from carrying such animals from any port of the United States for a period not exceeding one year. The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, section 201, paragraph 1606— (a) Permits the importation of any animal, except certain foxes, duty free, by a U.S. citizen specially for breeding purposes, if such animal is purebred of a recognized breed and registered in a book of record recognized by the Secretary; (b) Authorizes the Secretary to make rules and regulations for the purpose of recognizing breeds and books of record, and determining the purity of breeding and the identity of such animals. 36. Poultry and turkey improvement authority (7 U.S.C. 429)-Authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with authorities of the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in the administration of regulations for the improvement of poultry, poultry products, and hatcheries. The national poultry improvement plan and the national turkey improvement plan, prescribing requirements that must be met by breeders and hatcherymen desiring to participate in the programs, have been established under this authority; and participation by such persons entitles them to use certain official trademarks and terminology showing compliance with the requirements of the plans. 37. Plant Quarantine Act and related legislation (7 U.S.C. 145-167)—To prevent the introduction into, or the dissemination within, the United States of plants, plant products. or other articles carrying insect pests and plant diseases. Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. 151 et seq.)-Imposes certain permit and other requirements upon the importation of nursery stock into the United States, and authorizes the Secretary (a) To impose the same requirements on importations of other plants and plant products; (b) To prohibit importations of nursery stock, other plants and plant products; (c) To quarantine any State, territory, or district of the United States and prescribe conditions for the movement therefrom to any other State, territory, or district of plants, plant products, and other articles capable of carrying insect pests or plant diseases, upon the making of determinations after public hearings; (d) To regulate movements of plants and plant products into and from the District of Columbia and require eradication of insect infestations and plant infections in the District. Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.)-Authorizes the Secretary to issue permits for the movement of plant pests into or through the United States or interstate and to apply emergency measures and issue regulations to prevent dissemination of plant pests. 31-270-64—pt. 4- -13 Mexican Pink Bollworm Act (7 U.S.C. 145)-To prevent the entry into the United States of insect pests from Mexico, authorizes the Secretary (a) To make surveys to determine the distribution of pink bollworm in Mexico; (b) To establish zones free from cotton culture near the Mexican border in cooperation with the States concerned; and (c) To cooperate with Mexican authorities in extermination of local infestations near the border of the United States. Joint resolution of February 8, 1930 (46 Stat. 67 (omitted from U.S.C.))— Authorizes Secretary to make payments in cooperation with States, to compensate farmers for losses from enforced nonproduction of cotton in noncotton zones established by the States to eradicate pink bollworm. Act of February 9, 1927, and the act of May 24, 1928 (7 U.S.C. 146, 147)— Authorize the Secretary to cooperate with States, organizations, and individuals in eradication or control of the European corn borer. Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, section 102 (7 U.S.C. 147a) — Authorizes the Secretary (a) To carry out measures to eradicate, control, or prevent the spread of certain insects and plant diseases, independently or in cooperation with the States, territories, and possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia and Mexican authorities; and (b) To provide for inspection of domestic plants and plant products for export and their certification as free from insect pests and plant diseases. Insect Control Act of April 6, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 148)—Authorizes the Secretary, in cooperation with the States, to apply such methods for the control of incipient or emergency outbreaks of insect pests or plant diseases as may be necessary. Mexican Border Act (7 U.S.C. 149)-Authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations restricting entry from Mexico into the United States of railway cars and other vehicles and freight and other materials which may carry insect pests and plant diseases and providing for the inspection, cleaning and disinfection of such vehicles and materials. Golden Nematode Act (7 U.S.C. 150-150g)-Authorizes the Secretary independently or in cooperation with State and local governmental agencies and other organizations and individuals to eradicate and prevent the spread of the golden nematode, including cooperation with States and other agencies in making inspections, applying suppressive measures, enforcing quarantines, destroying potatoes and tomatoes in infested or exposed areas, and compensating growers in such areas. Terminal Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 166)-To prevent entry into any State of pests injurious to agriculture-provides (a) That when any State establishes terminal inspection of plants and plant products shipped into its territory, the State may submit to the Secretary a list of plants and plant products and the plant pests transmitted thereby which should be subject to terminal inspection; and (b) That after approval of such list by the Secretary and its transmission to the Postmaster General, all packages containing any plants or plant products named in the list are required to be forwarded by the postmaster at the destination of such packages to the proper State inspection office for proper disposal. Act of July 14, 1952 (7 U.S.C. 1651)-To protect livestock industry from losses caused by the poisonous weed Halogeton glomeratus-authorizes the Secretary with respect to public lands, other than those under jurisdiction of Interior Department, and private lands, to conduct research and control operations. 38. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346a) — Authorizes the Secretary to certify to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to the usefulness of pesticide chemicals for which a tolerance or exemption is sought under that act and to furnish his opinion whether the proposed tolerance or exemption reasonably reflects the amount of residue likely to result when the chemical is used as proposed. 39. Sugar Act of 1948, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1100 et seq.) (which expires March 31, 1961), establishes quotas for domestic and foreign areas supplying the sugar consumption requirements of the United States and provides for conditional payments to domestic producers of sugarbeets and sugarcane, as follows: (a) Quotas.-The Secretary makes an annual estimate of the sugar consumption requirements of the United States. Under statutory criteria these require ments are prorated as quotas to domestic areas and foreign areas. The domestic quota is further apportioned among the domestic beet area, the mainland cane area, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The foreign quota is apportioned to certain foreign countries. No sugar may be brought into the continental United States in excess of the applicable quota and no sugar produced from beets or cane in the continental United States may be marketed in interstate commerce in excess of the domestic beet or cane quota. Specific allocations of the domestic cane or beet quotas may be imposed on processors of domestic beets or cane by the Secretary after hearing. (b) Conditional payments.-Direct payments are authorized to domestic producers of sugarbeets and sugarcane who comply wth determinations of the Secretary with respect to proportionate shares for farms, wages and labor, and prices of sugarbeets and sugarcane when the producer is also a processor. Proportionate shares may be in terms of sugar or acreage. 40. Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1301-1393).-Provides for: (a) Acreage allotments and marketing quotas.-Authorizes acreage allotments and marketing quotas on tobacco, wheat, cotton, rice, and peanuts. Marketing quotas proclaimed by Secretary when required under formulas in actbasically when supplies substantially exceed demand. Quotas to be effective must be approved by two-thirds of producers voting in referendum. The quota for a farm is the actual or normal production of the farm acreage allotment. National acreage allotments are determined by Secretary and are apportioned to States, counties, and farms under statutory criteria. Penalties are imposed on actual marketings of tobacco and peanuts in excess of farm quota and on producers of cotton, wheat, and rice who have acreage in excess of the farm allotment when quotas are in effect. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MICHEL. I wonder how long that speech is? Mr. BAGWELL. It is about 20 pages, letter size. It might be as long as 30. Mr. NATCHER. At this point in the record we would also like to have inserted the speech made recently by Under Secretary Murphy at Vanderbilt University concerning the regulatory work of the Department of Agriculture. (The speech referred to follows:) FOOD POLICY AND FOOD LAW1 1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak to you about the food policy of the United States and about the place of law in helping to achieve that policy. I would say that our food policy has three principal aspects: first, to provide an abundant supply of pure and wholesome food for the American people at reasonable and stable prices; second, to use food as a means for achieving a peaceful and prosperous world through international trade and foreign aid; and third, to see that the farmers who produce the food receive a fair level of income. There are many, many Federal statutes designed to help implement this policy. Some of these laws are old; some are new. They have developed gradually to deal with the changing circumstances under which our Nation has met its food needs since its beginning. Many years ago, possibly on this very spot, an Indian family worked, enjoyed life, and passed on to their happy hunting ground. Their life was simple because they spent almost all their time working just to have enough to eat. Men hunted, women grew corn and beans, children picked berries. Probably 90 percent or more of their time was occupied in getting food. Today, in the 20th century, the sun still shines on families who spend most of their waking hours struggling to keep their stomachs filled, or just partly filled. 1 Address by Under Secretary of Agriculture Charles S. Murphy, at profession of law lecture series, Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, Tenn., 7:30 p.m., c.s.t., Dec. 12, 1963. But we in the United States now take our food and full stomachs for granted. If we are hungry, we go to the corner grocery or supermarket or restaurant and buy what we want. I don't think anyone in the room ever heard a storekeeper say, "There's no food today, come back tomorrow." When disaster strikes or when the breadwinner's job disappears, we have an abundance to share with the needy. We accept low-cost food and interesting menus as part of daily life. Here are two examples: Some of you in the room who grew up in the depression or before may remember when a Christmas orange in your stocking was a real treat. Today, we calmly accept not only oranges, but avocados, year-round strawberries, and other fruit, chicken available 7 days a week-not just on Sunday, lettuce from California, and we think nothing of eating these once-precious foods without regard to season. But, you say, we have all these things because we are paying more for our food. This just isn't true. Our agriculture has become so efficient that we actually spend a smaller share of our income for food than any people in the history of the world-19 percent of our take-home pay compared with 26 percent 15 years ago-compared with 30 percent for West Europeans, 50 percent or more for Russians, and up to 90 percent for many less developed nations. One reason we have so many cars, television sets, suburban homes-and law schools-is that we don't have to spend so much on food. It's because American farmers, and the entire food marketing industry-from field to checkout counter-are so efficient. It wasn't always this way. One hundred years ago, we had about the same number of farmworkers as today-7 million. Those 7 million, working with handtools, horses, and crude implements, grew enough food for a population of 30 million. Today's 7 million farmworkers grow enough to feed 190 million of us, to sell billions of dollars of agricultural commodities abroad, and to aid the developing nations through Food for Peace as well as care for our own needy. So today's farmers-7 percent of us-produce five times more than their greatgrandfathers did, enabling the other 93 percent of us to live better and enjoy modern life. If we farmed today the way we did 100 years ago, we would need 40 million farmworkers-half our work force and we still wouldn't be as well fed as we are. Whether this dramatic improvement of the past century came about because of the Department of Agriculture, or in spite of it, may be a matter for dispute. But the weight of evidence is that the Department, in partnership with the farmer, played no small part in helping to bring about the space age. In any event, the Congress seems to think the Department does a good job, because for the past 100 years they have been loading one job after another on USDA, until today we have more varied activities than any other Federal agency. This growth in USDA responsibility and the remarkable increase in the efficiency of American farms has been accompanied by another phenomenon, the development of our food marketing system. A hundred years ago, most people who ate green beans went out in the garden and picked them. Marketing was a quick trip from the backyard to the kitchen. Today it's different. The beans are grown where they grow best, often hundreds of miles from your home, and you pick them up at the frozen food counter in the corner supermarket. A lot of things have happened in between. That's the marketing system. The marketing system is taking more and more of our food dollar. Fifteen years ago it was 49 cents. This year we expect it to be 63 cents. That leaves 37 cents for the farmer, from each dollar we spend for food. So you see that the man who produces the food you eat gets only about one-third of the 19 percent of your income you spend on food. In other words, he-the farmer-feeds the rest of us for about 7 percent of our income. You might remember that the next time you hear anyone complain about the farm problem. Not only does the marketing system take most of your dollar spent for food, but it also provides more jobs than there are in agricultural production. I do not mean to say or imply that it is bad for this much money and this many people to be involved in the food marketing system. The only point I want to make is that it's important, and that if we are going to provide abundant food for the American people at reasonable prices, we must pay major attention to the marketing system as well as the production system. USDA does exactly that, although relatively few people realize it. USDA's work in marketing, as well as in agricultural production, conservation, research, and in a host of other fields, is founded in Federal law. Our formal cooperation with the States and their local subdivisions such as soil conservation districts, municipalities, school districts, and so on, in many activities is, in addition, based on State law. Fortunately for you and for me-and for the legal profession generally-the Department of Agriculture, like most major enterprises, needs legal services. Our General Counsel, a native South Carolinian who received his legal education at the University of Kentucky and the University of Michigan, heads an office of some 200 lawyers, 125 of whom are in Washington and 75 in regional and branch offices throughout the country. We also have many lawyers in the Department in administrative positions, including the Secretary of Agriculture himself. The 200 lawyers in the General Counsel's Office come from about 40 States and 75 different law schools. We do not have a lawyer on our staff who graduated from your law school, but our General Counsel tells me that this is not our fault. He was here early this year talking with Dean Wade about graduates who might be interested in our work. Unfortunately, despite our efforts, we were unable to employ anyone from the graduating class last June. When we examine some of the legal responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture, we can see why we need these lawyers. You hear a lot of talk, mostly loose talk, about how we control or "regiment" farmers. You don't hear nearly so much about how we control the food marketing industry, but that is where most of the regulating takes place. I might add also that the food industries which we regulate do not have an opportunity to vote in a referendum on whether or not they want to be regulated, a choice which the farmers have, as I shall explain later. All in all, I believe the Department of Agriculture administers the most comprehensive group of regulatory laws of any department or agency of the Federal Government. When you think of Federal regulatory activities, you are likely to have in mind such independent agencies as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, probably because these agencies have no function except in the regulatory field. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture is an executive department administering a wide variety of programs in addition to the regulatory programs, which are administered through separate organizational units within the Department. The first Hoover Commission, set up to study Government reorganization, in one of its reports in 1949 stated: "The Department of Agriculture is one of the largest regulatory agencies in the Federal Government. It administers the greatest number of regulatory acts of any Federal agency-acts which vary widely in subject matter and in administrative and enforcement procedures-and has had long experience in the regulatory field." Some of the regulatory acts administered by the USDA are as follows: 1. The Packers and Stockyards Act. 2. Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. 3. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. 4. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. 5. The Federal Seed Act. 6. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 7. The Meat Inspection Act. 8. The Poultry Products Inspection Act. 9. The United States Grain Standards Act. 10. The Sugar Act. 11. The Commodity Exchange Act. 12. The United States Warehouse Act. 13. The Virus-Serum-Toxin Act. 14. The Anti-Hog-Cholera Serum and Hog-Cholera Virus Marketing Agreement Act. When the Hoover Commission says these acts vary widely in subject matter, it means we regulate a large number of different industries. When the Commission says these acts vary widely in administrative and enforcement proce dures, that is a considerable understatement. Each of these laws differs from the others, and all of them differ from regulatory laws administered by other agencies. They have many variations and innovations otherwise unknown in the field of administrative law. In the |