people when they are not having the benefit of such inspection in a given State.

Mr. DAVIES. I would say that the chances of my traveling or your traveling across this country and being subject to any unfit meat due to a lack of inspection is very remote.

Mr. FOLEY. Would you not say that it depends a great deal on where it is? Would where it is sold change the situation at all?

Mr. DAVIES. I am not talking about violations of law now, because some of the violations have been in States where they have strong laws.

Mr. FOLEY. You would not want to hazard a guess that it would be any greater in a State like California than it would be in a State that did not have a meat inspection law?

Mr. DAVIES. I think that you are as healthy in Aslaska as in California. We have supported it.

Mr. FOLEY. You have supported the national bill?

Mr. DAVIES. And we are supporting the State bills.

Mr. FOLEY. But you are not supporting this legislation. You are objecting, basically, because you do not want to see Federal inspection or Federal extension of inspection to intrastate meat?

Mr. DAVIES. I think that is a fair statement; yes.

Mr. FOLEY. And your objections have to do not with any concern that you have over the safety or the wholesomeness of the meat, but because of your attitude toward the Government relationship involved. Mr. DAVIES. No; not necessarily at all. I want to know, will it do as much as we think it will do. I remember a time, Mr. Congressman, and you may, too, when the Federal Government was all-powerful in the area of price and distribution and the amount of meat that people could have, not only whether it was wholesome or not, and the whole system broke down, and we had complete Federal control in the OPA and the OPS, and the black market before it, and it was completely federalized in every village of this country. It did not work very

well.

Mr. FOLEY. You have no objection to the way the Federal meat inspection system operates for interstate commerce?

Mr. DAVIES. No; I may disagree with them at times. Of course, it has been improved. I think that the authority is ample. They have exercised it.

Mr. FOLEY. For interstate meat?

Mr. DAVIES. Yes.

Mr. FOLEY. Can you tell me a good way that I could determine what is interstate and what is intrastate in a hamburger?

Mr. DAVIES. Ask to see the packages from where it came.
Mr. FOLEY. Do you think that every traveler should do that?
Mr. DAVIES. If he is that nervous, I think he should, I think.
Mr. FOLEY. You are not really concerned about this?

Mr. DAVIES. I travel, probably, just as much as you do. I have taken my kids around this country as much as you do your kids. I think I have less trouble on eating meat than I have any other food in this country.

Mr. FOLEY. But you are a great deal more skilled in knowing what you are doing than most citizens.

Mr. DAVIES. I can smell.

Mr. FOLEY. And you know what the regulations are. You know what the probabilities are as to whether the meat is interstate or not. And you know how to ask for it.

Mr. DAVIES. I eat both.

Mr. FOLEY. My point is that your association is not expressing any great concern about this matter, except some relatively direct statements you have testified to.

Mr. DAVIES. Well now, Congressman, I do not think that you can construe honest differences of opinion as a lack of concern on a bill about the health and well-being of the American people, because I think that our record is pretty good on it.

Mr. FOLEY. I am not going to go on and be argumentative. I just want to make this statement, briefly. I am personally one who has always had a very high regard for the American Meat Institute. I am disappointed, sir, that your testimony here before this committee on this question seems to me to be negative and relatively short-sighted— even picayune.

I do not agree with you that the Secretary of Agriculture should not have the authority to be concerned about whether felons are being engaged in the meatpacking industry. I think this is the kind of testimony that gives a negative impression of the largest U.S. trade association in the meat industry. I, for one, sir, am not going to be quite as persuaded by your statements and your organization's statements about the consuming public and their health and welfare.

I am sorry about that.

Mr. DAVIES. I am sorry that you have that impression.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PURCELL. Are there any other questions? Do you have any questions, Mr. Kleppe?

Mr. KLEPPE. No questions.

Mr. PURCELL. Let us go off the record a moment.

(Whereupon, there was a short discussion off the record.)

Mr. PURCELL. Back on the record.

I do not know that I have any specific questions. I would just say this, and I am not trying to get into an argument with my colleague on this: as I indicated a moment ago, I am not sure that we are going to take all of these statements, although we may.

I do want to say this about the meat industry of America, whatever the source of the meat is; I am disappointed that some of the States have not done more than they have. I think it would only be fair to say that the system which has developed, in my judgment, has been a very good one. This does not mean that we should not try to improve it. I hope that we can.

I think that the food producers of America, including the meat producers, have done overall a very commendable job. This does not mean—and I hope that no one will get that impression-that those who are not conscientious about adhering to the spirit of the law as it now exists should not have it made harder not to comply with the law.

I think that we find an effort being made now to bring this act up to date, or to be made more specific, although the general compliance has been tremendous. That there are those who are not willing to comply with the spirit of the present law means that we then have to become more specific about it.

I am not sure that their attitude will be changed, but it may be necessary to change the law so that they cannot circumvent the way that they process and handle that which is sold to the American public.

I do want to emphasize that I am disappointed with the activities of some of the States. I know of no reason that the American public should not be secure in its confidence that they have in eating the meats that are available. I think that it is a very unique and very commendable reputation that the meat industry has.

I would hope, Mr. Davies, that you could be available for a later opportunity if we feel it necessary to call upon you.

Mr. DAVIES. I will be happy to be available.

Mr. PURCELL. So far as you know now, you will be in the area?
Mr. DAVIES. Yes.

Mr. PURCELL. All right. Again, off the record.

(Whereupon, there was a short discussion off the record.)

Mr. PURCELL. On the record.

We have been talking here off the record of the time we lost in the previous recess. Although ordinarily it is not all right for us to proceed after 12:00 o'clock, we will do so today, because of conditions. Do you have something further, Mr. Davies?

Mr. DAVIES. Just one thing that might clarify this whole question of why States have not moved. Many of the States that have been prominent in the production of livestock, the argument has been made, and it may be fallacious, but it has been made, that there is no need for a State inspection service, because most of the animals go to federally inspected houses, and in some of these Midwestern States and in some of the Western States, where there has been a big concentration of slaughter plants, they have been federally inspected, the vast majority of them.

Mr. FOLEY. And part of that is just recently in some of these States. I agree with the chairman that the vast amount of American meat moving in interstate commerce is absolutely wholesome, but it has been only 90 percent effective. That does not deter me from wanting to make it 99.99 percent.

Mr. DAVIES. I do not blame you a bit for that.

Mr. FOLEY. I do not believe that there is anything in the economics of the meat industry that should keep it from being aggressive in insuring that there is adequate inspection to protect the wholesomeness of all American meat. On the other hand, frankly, I cannot understand why your association and State associations feel, with no specific pressure, as indicated in the testimony of Mr. McDowell, that you have to give special consideration to the backslider, that you have to give special consideration to the inadequate and the unwilling, and in some cases, unfortunately the neglectful.

What I am sorry is that to some extent this minority interest becomes so influential. The great majority of the American meatpackers are doing a marvelous job and are keeping high standards. Yet their representative comes before this committee and testifies that the industry is concerned about this and that, but expresses no concern, in my own judgment, in terms of the quality and in terms of the wholesomeness of meat purchased by the American consumer.

I am not trying to filibuster. I would have been happier if the institute's stand had only been based on insisting on a thorough in

spection system in every State, instead of making excuses for these minority interests.

I think that the American Meat Institute is in the forefront. You are the leading exponent of the industry.

Mrs. MAY. Will you yield?

Mr. FOLEY. Yes.

Mrs. MAY. I think that we should make it very clear that Mr. Davies represents the American Meat Institute and that organization is in complete agreement with you and all of us in supporting high standards of meat inspection. It is just that the difference is at what level of the government should intrastate meat inspection regulation take place. He prefers that the State do it. I think he has a right to state that.

Mr. FOLEY. I agree with that. What I am talking about is the cost; that it is going to cost somebody, the taxpayers of the State and of the United States, to have meat inspection.

Mr. DAVIES. I agree.

Mr. FOLEY. The fact that the Federal cost has gone up is not really a very surprising fact. What we spend for meat inspection in interstate or intrastate inspection is such a fraction of the cost that the American consumer pays for that meat, that if it were expressed to him in those terms, he would have no question about it, I am satisfied. People are willing to pay whatever is necessary to insure that the products that they get are absolutely safe.

Mr. DAVIES. If I may say this, Mr. Chairman, the Congressman has made the speech that I have made before Jamie Whitten each year.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Davies.

Our next witness is Mr. John A. Killick, executive secretary of The National Independent Meat Packers Association. We will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. KILLICK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWIN PEWETT, GLASSIE & MALLOY, WASHINGTON, D. C., AND DANIEL O'CALLIGHAN, NIMPA

Mr. KILLICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am accompanied here today by Mr. Edwin Pewett, of the firm of Glassie & Malloy, who are the general counsel of our association, and by Mr. Daniel O'Callighan, who is the staff liaison officer. I have asked them to accompany me here in case there were any technical questions which I might not be in a position to answer.

My name is John A. Killick. I am executive secretary of the National Independent Meat Packers Association, the offices of which are located at 1820 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. I should like to thank the subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to express the views of our association regarding the bill to amend the Meat Inspection Act, H.R. 6168.

As I believe you know, Mr. Chairman, the membership of our association is comprised of several hundred meatpacking plants located throughout the United States, which are engaged in virtually every aspect of meat packing industry operations.

The word "independent" in the name of our association in general means-although there are some exceptions-that our members operate a single plant serving a community or region, in contrast to meatpackers whose products have national or near national distribution. Essentially, our members are important factors in the economic and civic life of their local communities, with very little "absentee" ownership or management represented amongst them.

As such locally owned and locally operated meatpacking establishments, our member companies naturally have always had a very close relationship, geographically and otherwise, to their customers and the consumers of their meats and meat products.

Not only as responsible citizens of their communities, but as businessmen whose very survival would otherwise be placed in jeopardy, they have striven to produce and supply, year in and year out, wholesome and high quality products of which they, justly, could be proud. Most of the programs of our association have been and are conducted for the purpose of assisting our members in their constant efforts to improve their products and to render greater service to the consumer. With the encouragement and assistance of our association, its members have actively participated in the creation and operation of State associations of meatpackers.

These associations, in turn, have been very active in bringing about the enactment, by their State legislatures, of stronger State meat inspection laws and in obtaining the necessary appropriations to carry out these State inspection programs. The results have been very encouraging. The progress made in recent years, particularly, is impressive.

Although a majority of our members operate plants which are subject to inspection laws other than the Federal Meat Inspection Act, our association has always recognized the excellent and valuable service which the Federal inspection organization renders to the consuming public.

This year our association submitted to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees as it has for the past 13 years—a statement urging these committees to support the budget request of the Department of Agriculture for Federal meat inspection.

As I believe the Federal meat inspection officials themselves will tell you, we have endeavored, as an association, to grasp every reasonable opportunity to cooperate with them in the furtherance of the common objective of that organization and our own-the assurance of a good supply of wholesome meats and meat products to the American public.

It was in this spirit that we accepted the kind invitation of the Department, some weeks before the proposed legislation under discussion was recommended to the Congress by the Secretary, to discuss the initial drafts of what ultimately was introduced as H.R. 6168.

Representatives of our association, and officials of several other organizations which will be heard by your committee, including particularly the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, participated in discussions with, and endeavored to be of assistance to, the Department.

Following those initial discussions, the board of directors of our association held a special all-day meeting, at which its members con