Mr. MOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MOTT. This morning, on what I supposed to be sufficient authority, I filed minority views to the conference report upon the bill H. R. 10140, the Federal-aid-to-roads bill. I have been informed since entering the Chamber that there is no authority for filing minority views to a conference report. My inquiry is whether that information is correct. The SPEAKER. The Chair so ruled.

Mr. MOTT. Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may extend my remarks at this point upon the bill H. R. 10140 and include therein the minority views I desired to file as a part of the conference report.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oregon?

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. May not the minority views be printed in the RECORD following the conference report itself? I ask the gentleman to so revise the request that his minority views be inserted at a point in the RECORD following the printing of the conference report.

Mr. MOTT. Mr. Speaker, I so revise my request to conform with the suggestion. I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD by including therein my minority views on the conference report upon the bill H. R. 10140, to be printed immediately following the conference report in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
There was no objection.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.

SUSPENSION OF RULES

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

House Resolution 509

Resolved, That during the remainder of the third session of the Seventy-fifth Congress it shall be in order for the Speaker at any time to entertain motions to suspend the rules, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, rule XXVII; it shall also be in order at any time during the third session of the Seventy-fifth Congress for the majority leader or the chairman of the Committee on Rules to move that the House take a recess, and said motion is hereby made of the highest privilege; and it shall also be in order at any time during the third session of the Seventy-fifth Congress to consider reports from the Committee on Rules as provided in clause 45, rule XI, except that the provision requiring a two-thirds vote to consider said reports is hereby suspended during the remainder of this session of Congress.

PURE FOODS AND DRUGS

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

House Resolution 512

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of 8. 5, an act to prevent the adulteration, misbranding, and false advertisement of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics in interstate, foreign, and other commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for the purposes of safeguarding the public health, preventing deceit upon the purchasing public, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said act are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the act and continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the act shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original act. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the act to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall

1938

Mr. GEARHART. Mr. Speaker, I introduced a resolution amending the rules of the House. I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD in explanation of the change.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.

Mr. GEARHART. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1937, a bill was introduced in this House which, because of the importance of the legislative subject with which it assumed to deal, attracted widespread attention throughout the Nation. The bill was assigned the number of H. R. 4199, and, in accordance with its own provisions, the short title of "The General Welfare Act of 1937" was bestowed upon it.

The bill, now famous under both its short title and by its number, immediately attracted the support of millions of our people, American citizens residing in every section of this vast country. I believe it can be said without fear of successful contradiction that never in the history of the Congress has any other bill ever been accorded such widespread, enthusiastic, and sustained support by such great numbers of our people as has been given to the bill to which I am now referring.

SUPPORTED BY THOUSANDS

Letters numbering well into the hundreds of thousands have poured in upon us. Petitions containing the names of millions of our constituents have been presented to the Congress. Thousands upon thousands of loyal, patriotic American citizens, sincere and honest believers in the legislative principles contained in this ill-fated measure, have from time to time, and in many instances at great personal sacrifice, journeyed from the distant corners of our country to plead with their Representatives for a fair consideration of this

7767

bill, which, in their opinion, offers so much for the amelloration of the economic ills from which our country suffers.

In accordance with the rules of procedure of the House of Representatives-rules the flagrant abuse of which I intend to discuss today-the bill H. R. 4199 was, immediately following its introduction, referred by the Speaker to the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, a standing committee composed of 18 Democrats and 7 Republicans, for its careful study and consideration. Notwithstanding the pleas and, I might say, Mr. Speaker, the tears of millions of our fellow citizens, many of them in dire financial distress, this so-called all-powerful legislative committee has refused to give even the slightest consideration to it, to even acknowledge its receipt. Today it gathers dust in one of the pigeonholes in the office of the clerk of that legislative agency. In fairness to the Republican members of that powerful committee, I should, and I do, make acknowledgment of the fact that all seven of them, by voice and vote in the committee room and upon the floor of the House, have time and time again unanimously indicated their desire to proceed to conduct hearings on the General Welfare Act. Responsibility must be placed where responsibility belongs. If but six of the majority members of that committee would join with their Republican colleagues, hearings would be commenced immediately. But all 18 of them remain to this day deaf to the entreaties of those who ask no more than a right to be heard.

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY CONGRESSMEN DEMAND HEARINGS

Have these pleas for hearings come only from the country, from distant points in our land? No, no, Mr. Speaker; voices have been raised closer at hand. Over 150 Members of this House, the duly elected Representatives of 42,101,250 people, all living under the protection of the Stars and Stripes, have by joint petition and individual appeal literally begged the membership of this obdurate committee to proceed to the performance of the duty which the rules undoubtedly contemplate.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a strange situation. Over onethird of the membership of this body, representing over 40,000,000 of our people, ask a committee of their colleagues for a hearing upon a bill which has excited a most widespread support-and their request is ignored.

And it is only for a right to be heard that they have petitioned.

MILLIONS IN DIRE NEED

Tragic shadows, Mr. Speaker, are falling across the pages of human history; shadows of men and women in dire poverty, in misery, despair, and woe; of old people bearing upon bent shoulders the all but overwhelming burdens of a world that has turned its back upon them; of underprivileged children, babes whose parents must daily taste the bitterness that is born of the realization that they can no longer provide that which their little ones need and, if strong bodies are to be builded, must have.

As these threatening clouds of disaster lower, men and women whose energies have not yet been impaired, humanitarians who have not yet lost the faith nor despaired of the hope that this ever-increasing army of the condemned might yet be rescued from death's embrace, feverishly search for the path over which they may trudge a weary way through the shadows of despair into the comforting rays of God's beneficient sun.

A REMEDY IS PROPOSED

It is sincere, honest, intelligent, God-fearing people such as these that have come forward with a plan. It is they that have set the example of service to their fellow man, they who have made the study, inspired the writing, and caused the introduction of the measure which has since become known as the General Welfare Act of 1937. They have arisen amongst us to point a way. They come not empty-handed but laden with facts and figures, statistics and charts the proofs, they say.

BUT THEY WILL NOT LISTEN

All they ask is a chance to be heard. But the majority members of the Ways and Means Committee have slammed

1938

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection.

THE FOOD AND DRUG BILL

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 512.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

House Resolution 512

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of S. 5. "An act to prevent the adulteration, misbranding, and false advertisement of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics in interstate, foreign, and other commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for the purposes of safeguarding the public health, preventing deceit upon the purchasing public, and for other purposes," and all points of order against said act are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the act and continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the act shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original act. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and report the act to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the act and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MAPES).

Mr. Speaker, this is a rule for the consideration of the Food and Drugs Act, a matter which has been before us for many years. It is an open rule permitting amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. LUCE).

Mr. LUCE. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from New York presented his previous motion, which is customary, he gave the gentleman from Massachusetts 30 minutes, and then, I am sure, through inadvertence, proceeded to allow the matter to go to a vote without opportunity to say some things upon that subject which are in my mind. I am sure he did not intend so to do.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LUCE. I yield.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I assumed, by looking at the gentleman from Massachusetts, that he had finished. He had originally told me that he only wanted a few minutes. I looked toward the gentleman and then I moved the previous question.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LUCE. I yield.

Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I will say that what the gentleman from New York states is correct.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I did not intend to foreclose the gentleman at all.

Mr. LUCE. The incident I speak of may justify a few minutes somewhat out of order, in relation to the subject then in question, for I wish to call the attention of the gentleman from New York and of the House and, if possible, of the country, that there are at present on the calendars 182 measures on the Union Calendar, 18 on the House Calendar, and 58 on the Private Calendar, a total of 258 measures.

These have all been considered by committees of the House. The committees have reached the opinion that they were important enough to be laid before the House. The committees have recommended the passage of these measures. These committees have spent many hours, and in some cases many days, in the consideration of these measures. Mind you, every one of the 258 has been recommended for the consideration of the House.

LXXXIII-90

7771

It is evident that if adjournment is reached at the time which the motion evidently had in mind, the great majority of these measures will fall. Perhaps some of them should fall, but, at any rate, I hold that any measure reported to this House ought to have its consideration.

These measures affect thousands, in some cases millions of our people. Some of them affect the whole country, others affect only individual interests, but they are all believed by the committees to deserve consideration.

I am saying this that it may be spread on the RECORD that in spite of all this, the House contemplates going home without completing action upon a not inconsiderable part of the measures that have been put before it. The country should know that from personal reasons, perhaps, or political reasons the great majority controlling this Congress will have turned its back upon these measures and the wishes of the interested persons.

Sir, I do not know how to compare this with previous Congresses. It is possible that my own party may have committed the same faults when it was in power, but if so, that is no reason why we should now go back to our homes and have to admit we left dozens and scores of bills without action.

In my own State, Massachusetts, the general court, as we call our legislature, has not yet abandoned the time-honored belief that every petitioner should have an answer. The rules require that committees shall report on all matters referred to them. Every report is put on the calendar and must be acted upon. The legislature does not adjourn until the calendars are clear. In other words, bills may not be pigeonholed. With the multitude of measures deluged upon Congress, that would not be practicable here in full, but there is no reason why we should not require that every committee report have consideration.

In the end it would save more time than it would take, for nearly every bill not now acted upon will be introduced again, may appear for session after session, requiring repetition of committee hearings over and over till at last conclusion is reached. The waste of time and effort in failing to finish work that has once reached the floor of either House is lamentable. Sometimes the delays of justice are scandalous. Assuming that at least some of the legislation approved by ccmmittees would be wise, the country suffers.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the statement of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts is the most severe indictment that he can lay against the Democratic Party, they would not even be compelled to plead to a misdemeanor.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LUCE] says that some 250 bills remain on the calendars. Of course, there is some duplication between the Consent Calendar and the Union Calendar and the House Calendar. Why, Mr. Speaker, I thought at first there were 3,000 until I checked it. Of course, we usually dispose of all Private Calendar bills and all bills on the Consent Calendar before we adjourn, and I anticipate that will be done again in this session. Let us look at the exact figures up to last Friday, May 28.

Eight hundred and nine bills were placed on the Consent Calendar. We have considered 722, leaving only 87 now

pending. Eleven hundred and three bills were placed on the Private Calendar. We have considered 945, leaving only 158 to be yet considered.

Two hundred and sixty-six bills and resolutions were placed on the House Calendar. We have considered 247, leaving only 19 to be taken care of.

Nine hundred and forty bills were placed on the Union Calendar. We have considered 761, leaving only 179 not yet acted upon.

Sometime ago I put in the RECORD the statistics on the legislative business of the Seventy-fourth Congress. As I recall those figures, there were about 15,000 bills introduced in the Seventy-fourth Congress. There were about 4,000 bills reported by committees. Of the 4,000 bills so reported

7772

So we have made a remarkable record, probably unequaled, if we adjourned today, leaving only about 300 bills on the calendars undisposed of.

If the distinguished gentlemen desires to "go to the country" with that indictment of us, the facts will not support his pleadings.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Yes.

Mr. FLETCHER. Does the gentleman mean to say that we will leave only 300 out of 15,000?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Yes; out of 16,774. We are talking about this entire Seventy-fifth Congress of three sessions.

Mr. FLETCHER. Three hundred out of 4,000.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. But of over 4,000 reported.
Mr. LUCE Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Yes.

Mr. LUCE. Did the gentleman sufficiently emphasize the fact that his figures represent largely bills introduced, and refer only incidentally to the bills reported, while the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. FLETCHER] did not observe that fact?

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I have stated that in the Seventy-fifth Congress there were 4,439 reported and that with 346 left on the calendar there will be less than 8 percent of the bills left which have been reported by our committees. That is a record of which Congress may well be proud.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 minutes. I am opposed to the committee substitute as reported and am opposed to the rule. Unless the bill is materially modified I shall vote against it. The particular provision in the bill to which I am opposed is the so-called court-review section, paragraph (f) of section 701. That does not mean that I am opposed to any court review. Not at all. Everyone concedes the right of an aggrieved person to a court review, or his day in court, but not such a court review as the one provided for in the committee substitute. I particularly emphasize that fact. A discussion of the merits of the legislation will more properly come up under the general debate on the bill, but in this debate on the rule I want to call the attention of the House to some of the opposition to the legislation as reported by the committee.

MAY 31

In the first place, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Agriculture are opposed to it, as shown by the letter of the Secretary of Agriculture printed in the minority report. I shall not read the letter in full at this time, I shall read only a few sentences of it. It was written March 29, 1938. The letter printed in the minority report is addressed to me. Let me explain how that happened. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CHAPMAN] and I joined in a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture asking his views on the court-review section, as it then appeared in a confidential committee print of the bill. The Secretary answered by sending one letter addressed to the gentleman from Kentucky and another one to me. The letters were identical, except that one was addressed to Mr. CHAPMAN and the other to me.

In that letter the Secretary, among other things, said: I am of the opinion that if section 701 (1) remains in the bill its effect will be to hamstring its administration so as to amount to a practical nullification of the substantial provisions of the bill. After reviewing the section somewhat at length he makes these further statements:

Even though a number of district courts might uphold an order, demanded alike by the public and by the overwhelming majority of the industry regulated, to terminate abusive practices, a single district court could enjoin permanently the enforcement of the regulation.

Frankly, I regard this provision as unfair to the Department, to the public, and to the industries regulated, the majority of which unquestionably would support regulations based on substantial evidence which the Secretary of Agriculture would promulgate. Again the Secretary says:

It is the Department's considered judgment that it would be better to continue the old law in effect than to enact S. 5 with this provision. If there is to be exploration into fields of adminis trative law, may I urge that it not be in the field of vitally important public-health legislation.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAPES. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Will my colleague advise the House whether or not he supported, when the bill came over from the Senate, the court-review section that the Senate had written into this bill, or did he oppose any provision for a court review?

Mr. MAPES. I do not remember that that was a controversial issue until this came up. If the gentleman from Virginia has any information about that, I would be pleased to have him disclose it. Personally, I do not recall that the question came up in any controversial way.

Mr. ROBERTSON. The best lawyers the International Apple Association and the other producers of fruits and vegetables can get render it as their deliberate opinion that it is highly essential for the protection of those who must use spray in the production of fruit and vegetables to have the privilege of going into court to test the reasonableness of the departmental regulations.

I understand that my colleague admits that they should have the right to go into court to test the question of reasonableness. Let us take the case of a Pacific coast producer in the State of Washington. His apples have been taken up under a regulation that permits and allows tolerance, say, of 0.01, unsupported by any medical testimony, any scientific fact or data to establish the fact that to exceed such a tolerance would be injurious to human health. My friend tells the House, as I understand, that that apple producer shall not have the right to test that regulation in his own State but must come to the District of Columbia in order to litigate that question although this bill reserves the right to the Department of Agriculture to seize the apples and litigate them wherever it sees fit throughout the United States. Why should we provide just one court for the citizen of the United States to bring his suit and yet allow the Government to bring its case anywhere it pleases?

Mr. MAPES. The gentleman from Virginia, frankly, has put his finger upon the real issue involved in this courtreview section. It is a question for the House to decide whether it is going to follow the recommendation of the

1938

apple-growers' association in writing the section or the recommendation of the Food and Drug Administration. The gentleman from Virginia very accurately has put his finger upon the point in controversy.

The gentleman from Virginia, of course, would not claim that any administrative authority would pass regulations or issue orders without any evidence, as he has indicated might be done. If any administrative officer did that, the court would protect those affected, as it did recently in the stockyards case.

I had not intended to go into the merits of the section in this debate on the rule, but as long as the gentleman from Virginia has raised the question, the House may as well understand just what is involved.

Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAPES. I yield.

Mr. SIPOVICH. I think the gentleman is perfectly right in the contention he is bringing before the House, because many years ago when we considered the food and drug bill we learned that in the States of Oregon and Washington the apples had been sprayed with a lead-arsenic preparation that was more than the tolerance allowed. The authorities in Massachusetts arrested six or eight trainloads of apples that had more lead arsenic than the law permitted. These apples were thrown into the harbor at Boston. England and France have not permitted many of our apples to go into these countries because the apples contained more lead and arsenic than the tolerance law allowed. Something should be done to protect the consuming public against having their gastro-intestinal tracts disturbed by these lead-arsenic preparations.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from New York for getting the issue so squarely before the House, much better than I could have done without their assistance.

Mr. MAPES. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. ROBERTSON. Has the gentleman ever heard of a single case in the history of the United States, either in medical science or any other science, where anybody has been poisoned through eating an apple with undue spray residue on it? The gentleman cannot cite one case.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Speaker, the letter of the Secretary of Agriculture, which is printed in the minority report, was written a few days before the committee report was filed, and applied to a draft of this section which appeared in a confidential committee draft at that time. It varies a little from the one actually reported. The committee amended the draft of the section as submitted to the Secretary by striking out, page 82, line 19, after the word "shall", the words "if in his judgment sufficient reason appears for so doing," and by inserting, page 84, line 8, after the word "shall", certain other words. Those who signed the minority report believe that the first amendment weakens the enforcement provision of the section and the second one requires nothing more than a court would ordinarily require without it.

Mr. Speaker, for all practical purposes the section remains substantially the same as the one submitted to the Secretary.

In the second place the committee substitute is opposed by practically all the women's organizations in the country that I know of. The substitute was reported to the House on April 14. A few days afterward the Members of the House received a letter signed by the representatives of 15 organizations of women representing the consuming public opposing the committee substitute. That letter dated April 22, 1938, reads as follows:

APRIL 22, 1938.

To the Members of the House of Representatives: Re: Food and drug bill S. 5, as reported to the House April 14. The undersigned organizations have worked consistently for the past 5 years for an adequate revision of the present Food and Drug Act to insure protection of the public from dangerous and fraudulent products. No bill which has been before the Congress in the past 2 years has entirely met the standards for such legislation which we as consumers consider reasonable; but as long as

7773

proposed legislation offered measurable improvement over the present act, the undersigned organizations have accepted modifications.

8. 5 as now reported to the House contains a provision, section 701 (1), which is not only a radical departure from existing administrative law, but would prevent quick and effective action against dangerous and fraudulent products.

We are convinced that this proposal for judicial review of regulations more than offsets the improvements over the present law contained in the bill. Unless this section providing for Judicial review is struck out, the undersigned organizations must oppose the enactment of the measure.

Caroline Ware, American Association of University Women: Marie Mount, American Dietetic Association; Katharine M. Ansley, American Home Economics Associa tion; Janet Fish, American Nurses Association; Margaret C. Maule, Girls Friendly Society of the United States of America; Sina H. Stanton, Council of Women for Home Missions; Louise Taylor Jones, Medical Women's National Association; Esther Cady Danley, National Board of the Y. W. C. A. of the U. 8. A.; Mary T. Bannerman, National Congress of Parents and Teachers; Mrs. Arthur G. Broade, National Council of Jewish Women: Louise G. Baldwin, National League of Women Voters; Mary N. Winslow, National Women's Trade Union League; Julia M. Green, Women's Homeopathic Medical Fraternity; Mathilde C. Hader, National Consumers League.

And, Mr. Speaker, I just received this morning from the department of economics, Michigan State College, at Lansing, a letter signed by the agricultural economist, containing these two sentences:

The bill as reported by the committee is a farce, and enforcement of it would be impossible. Many of these groups of women who are studying consumers' problems in Michigan have been deeply concerned about this bill.

In general debate I expect to go further into the merits of this particular section, but I wanted to call attention in the debate on the rule to this opposition to the legislation. [Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the adoption of the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

The resolution was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill S. 5, with Mr. DRIVER in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The first reading of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is what might be termed an evolution of the Wiley Act of 1906, which bears the name of Dr. Wiley because of his great service in behalf of public health in the United States. That was 32 years ago. Since then there have been very few amendments to the Food and Drug Act. There has been a revolution in the United States so far as the preparation of food is concerned. In 1900 the home was the laboratory and the place of preparation of food for the American people. That was true almost entirely. Today a large proportion of all the foods consumed by our people is prepared in the factories of the United States.

In this same period of 32 years we have witnessed the development of the germ thecry of disease. While it was known in 1906, the full ramifications and importance of the germ theory as a source of disease has largely developed since that time.

In addition to that, we have had 32 years' experience in the enforcement of the present food and drug law. Based upon this experience and these changed conditions, the country has need for this legislation.

The object of the pending bill is to extend the scope of food and drug legislation and to give more effective control to the law as we have it today as well as the new law. Food and drug legislation has revolved around two primary considerations. The first is adulteration and the other is misbranding. The object of food and drug legislation has these things in view: prevent adulteration of foods in order to protect health, and prevent the deception of the public; misbranding in particular, to avoid deception in the purchase of foods, drugs, and articles that come within this bill