in the Kremlin have hitherto failed. The Voice can muffle their snarl.

Second. To cite two examples of Red fraud: In Korea the Reds promised land to South Korean tenants and sharecroppers. If they would come into the Red network, all they would have to pay was 25 percent of their crop as taxes, they could keep the balance. Twentyfive percent quality crop, that was.

When the Reds took over, here is the story: A man came around just before sowing time. You all know this technician but I want to get it in the RECORD. The man came around and said: "What is your estimated yield this year?" The estimated yield was cited. This checked, the agent said, "Yes, on your acreage, being a good farmer you should have that yield. We will take 25 percent in quality crops, when you harvest."

When the harvest was brought in, they took only that crop, premium crop, rejecting the inferior, this meant 25 percent quality, but over 65 percent of everything the man had grown, that was marketable—no profit for him. That is one type fraud of the Reds the Voice of America could bring out. No allowance was made for drought, blight, etc.

Second, the Reds shipped out daily to Manchuria and to Vladivostok, 500 tons of nitrates, the whole output, of the nitrate plant in Hamhung, North Korea. None went for agricultural purposes, for fertilizer for the farms of Korea. Honey buckets, human waste, was good enough for Koreans, not nitrates. Again, Reds pocket the profit, not the not the people. Theft—the old motto, "after me, you come first."

Another, we found in Communist headquarters when we took over in North Korea, in Hamhung, a big poster. It showed a big ship. Stalin was on it with youth and other Red officials; it resembled one of those holidays for youth Hitler talked about; and coming sidewise, ready to crash into that big ship, was a little leaking skiff showing Uncle Sam with a punctured stovepipe hat, sitting in the bow, on which was shown the dollar sign, symbolic of profit, which the Russians do not have, bailing water out of the boat. His companions in the skiff were free-world leaders. On the mast was a big skeleton flag and the title of the poster was "The A-Bomb Ship of Death." Presumably Stalin would run us into the ground, grind us down. Mao Tse-tung was in the picture, on deck with Stalin.

There is considerable speculation in industry whether the Russians actually have produced an atomic bomb for explosion and whether they have the technical facilities that are so necessary in its development. The above poster inclines to ridicule, not only the free world, but the dollar sign and the atom bomb. Profit, symbolic of the dollar sign, the Reds do not have. They have planes, tanks, guns, so have we. These they do not ridicule. Do they have the A-bomb? Why do they seem to ridicule it? The poster was found in North Korea in November 1950.

The idea we face is this. Can they be tamed? Surely we must realize that, because we are a democracy, which means a fair distribution of goods to all our

people and to all people of the free world, the cost of supervising and administering and preserving and defending and promoting even greater equities under our Constitution is not cheap, by any means. Neither is freedom. Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the chairman of the committe, because on page 30 of the report there are some committee recommendations for appropriations for Air Force bases in Continental United States. I note there is a $746,000 appropriation for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Wold-Chamberlain Airbase. My inquiry is, Has this appropriation been approved by the Committee on Armed Services?

Mr. TABER. It has. That is a Reserve training facility.

Mr. WIER. I am concerned, because with the growth of that Air Force base at Wold-Chamberlain Field, there are

other institutions such as the large veterans' hospital, the heavily used commercial airport as well as the national cemetery connected with the Fort Snelling Base. They are rapidly being crowded out of space because of the continuing expansion of the Air Force needs.

In addition to those two institutions we

have a national cemetery up there, and I think the time is coming when the Wold-Chamberlain Airport is going to be very limited as far as the Air Force moving in and taking over the whole property.

Mr. TABER. This Air Force addition does not, according to what they told the committee, require any additional space. Mr. DAVIS, on page 265 of the hearings,

said:

Here again, Reserve facilities are being constructed on land made available through other than purchase, is that correct?

Major PADUANO. That is correct, it is not Government-owned land.

They do not have to enlarge the field at all.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, just to follow that, I know that in other parts of the United States where we have had large commercial bases for other facilities, that the Armed Forces has moved in with either radar operation or some other operation, and because of the tremendous runways they have to have for their new jet planes they are taking over a great deal of the facilities of the commercial airfields, and there is in the city of Minneapolis-St. Paul a fear of this intrusion, being taken over by the Air Force for military purposes solely.

The Clerk read as follows:

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in carrying out the provisions of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended (50 U. S. C., App. 2251-2297), including services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U. S. C., 55a); reimbursement of the Civil Service Commission for full field investigations of employees occupying positions of critical importance from the standpoint of national security; expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with civil defense functions; reimbursement of the General Services Administration for security guard services; not to exceed $9,000 for the purchase of newspapers, periodicals, and teletype news services; and not to exceed $6,000 for emergency and ex

traordinary expenses to be expended under the direction of the Administrator for such purposes as he deems proper, and his deter

mination thereon shall be final and conclusive, $7,900,000.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to remind the House of the action of the American Medical Association. I understand no effort will be made in the House to increase the appropriation for civil defense. I am told such an effort will be made in the Senate, and I think it will succeed.

I am informed that the board of trustees of the American Medical Association, in April 1953, formally stated its belief that

It is inconsistent to support a large military establishment for national defense and not simultaneously support an adequate medical program for the protection of civilians.

The board of trustees urged the Congress "to support adequate appropriations for the medical and health aspects of civil defense, including planning, stockpile of essential medical materials, training and research.”

I understand that the amount recom

mended by the House Appropriations Committee for medical stockpiling will allow only for an increase in blood plasma and related substances. No further increase in other medical supplies or in equipment for improvised emerWe gency hospitals will be possible. therefore would not be prepared, June 30, 1954, to take care of more than a

fraction of the civilian casualties which might result from enemy attack on this country. This certainly is not consistent with the American Medical Association's recommendation to support "adequate appropriations" for stockpiling of essential medical materials.

An even more damaging consequence to the Federal Civil Defense Administration's medical program is threatened in the House Committee's recommendation that the Health and Welfare program be allowed $280,000 for operations. This is a reduction of $180,000 from 1953. The health and medical program alone, without the welfare program, needs a minimum of about $310,000 just to maintain its current staff of professional people, their clerical support, and the existing professional program. Therefore, if the health service shared with Emergency Welfare the $280,000 appropriated for both health and welfare activities, the Health and Special Weapons Defense Office would have to dismiss all of its part-time consultants, many of whom have unselfishly devoted considerable amounts of time to developing specialized parts of the medical program and would have to dismiss approximately one-third of the professional staff which it has been so extremely difficult to recruit over the period of the last 21⁄2 years. The consequences of such dismissals from the staff would be disastrous to the civil defense medical program. Health and welfare are distinctly separate activities of the Federal Civil Defense Administration. The Health and Special Weapons Defense Office

alone, exclusive of Welfare, needs a minimum of about $310,000 just to maintain its current level of operations. Even these figures do not take into consideration the need for an additional $170,000 for essential developmental projects in biological warfare defense, chemical warfare defense, radiological defense and other specialized aspects of the Health and Special Weapons Defense field.

tions generally than is realized by the public or even by many responsible Government officials. Project East River believes, however, that the situation is far from hopeless. Effective and specific corrective measures can be taken.

I do not think anyone can dispute the conclusion that the result of an attack of modern weapons upon this country is not generally realized by the public or even by many responsible Government officials both in the executive department and here in Congress.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak briefly as to the activities and accomplishments of the Federal Civil Defense Administration.

I regret very much that the Appropriations Committee has seen fit to take such very drastic action in its reduction of the amount recommended by Mr. Dodge, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, on March 25. Unfortunately, it seems to be an all too frequent occurrence that recommendations reaching us have little if any relation to the careful recommendations presented by the present administration through the Bureau of the Budget.

Surely, we can all recall the major emphasis the President placed upon the importance of civil defense to the security of the people of this country in his State of the Union message, but I want to quote for emphasis a portion of the President's very sound statement:

There is but one sure way to avoid total war-and that is to win the cold war.

While retaliatory power is one strong deterrent to a would-be aggressor, another powerful deterrent is defensive power. No enemy is likely to attempt an attack foredoomed to failure.

Because the building of a completely impenetrable defense against attack is not possible, total defensive strength must include civil defense preparedness. Because we have incontrovertible evidence that Soviet Russia possesses atomic weapons, this kind of protection becomes sheer necessity.

There may have been errors made in the initiation of the Federal Civil Defense Administration program or there may have been matters which are the subject of honest differences of opinion among responsible people. Nevertheless, it seems to me it is the part of complete folly for us to wholly disregard the exhaustive studies which were made in the whole area of nonmilitary measures for the defense of the United States by Associated Universities, Inc. This required 18 months for completion and contains many significant concepts and principles. It is sufficient here to quote a brief excerpt from the report:

The report says further an attack with modern weapons would be much more damaging to our population, our property, our way of life, and to our democratic institu

In any event, I would not want the consideration of this bill in its present form to pass without indicating my own appreciation of the vitally important work that is being done by the Federal Civil Defense Administration and to compliment Governor Peterson, the Administrator, and my good friend, Mrs. Katherine Howard, the Deputy Administrator, as well as all of the personnel of that Administration. Undoubtedly, their difficulties arise from the very fact that they have been handicapped in the that they have been handicapped in the development of the administration's program through a comparative lack of adequate funds. I hope they will not consider the recommendation of the committee in this bill a source of discouragement. Rather, I would urge that they would redouble their already excellent efforts to inform the American people, and particularly the Members people, and particularly the Members of Congress, of their work and of their objectives. Yesterday objectives. Yesterday my colleagues from Massachusetts [Mrs. ROGERS and Mr. CURTIS commented upon the program and particularly on an important phase of it which is all too often not appreciated. I refer to the outstanding work of the civil defense organization in connection with national disasters. I have good reason to know of the fine contribution made in the central Massachusetts area following the tornado there earlier this year and I understand that there have been similar instances in other parts of the country.

I do want to add that I have some knowledge of the difficulties of the problems facing this agency and of the extreme importance of its work through my association during most of the last war with the civil defense organization in Massachusetts as a director in one of its districts. I was very proud of the fine response which came from men and women in civilian life in Massachusetts. I know there were many intangible and extremely valuable results of the program as it was worked out at that time. I know that an equally fine contribution can and will be made by men and women all over this country if we here in Congress inform ourselves of the activities of this agency and see to it that the Federal Government measures up to its own clear responsibility in this field. I doubt if there are many in Congress who would care to frankly disagree with the

President's statement that "total defensive strength must include civildefense preparedness." Certainly his background, his experience in the European theater in the last World War, and his judgment can well be relied upon by any of us who may be assailed by doubts simply because we do not have any real

understanding of what this agency is attempting to do.

Through the courtesy of Mrs. Howard, with other members of the Massachusetts delegation, I had the privilege of witnessing the outstanding work of the agency at its school in Olney, Md. talking with the training staff and with those who had come from all over this

country to attend the particular session of the school taking place when I was at the demonstration, I obtained the most convincing kind of evidence, not only of the quality of the training, but of the enthusiastic acceptance of the program upon the part of those who were there for training purposes. I might add that many of them were professional firemen and persons in other public-safety activities. Certainly they were not being duped or deceived as to the common everyday productivity of that training. It certainly would be a worthwhile experience for any Member of Congress to arrange to attend one of those sessions and to witness exactly what is going on. I know that the officials of the agency would be more than glad to make arrangements so that every Member of this Congress would have that privilege.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, while I recognize the futility in taking the time to voice opposition to the reduction in appropriations for the Federal Civil Defense Administration, I thought that the record should show that someone in this House did raise his voice in behalf of civil defense.

Evidently, it will take an atomic bomb, dropped on the dome of the Capitol, before this Congress will recognize its responsibility to provide adequate appropriations for civil defense. It is no wonder that it is difficult to make citizens in local communities understand the necessity of an adequate civil defense program when our legislators themselves apparently show such little interest in this all-important problem.

I was amazed at the statement made by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SIEMINSKI), who just a few minutes ago expressed his opinion that the Russians do not have atomic bombs. I can say to the gentleman that they do have, and I can give to him and to all other doubting Thomases absolute assurance that they not only have the bomb, but that they have them in numbers sufficient to conduct an atomic raid on our country. There is not a single area of population in our Nation safe from a sneak attack by planes carrying atomic weapons. It is about time we face up to the dangers threatening us and the world today.

But as I say, I know it will do no good to voice these warnings this afternoon because I am confident that the House has already made up its mind to go along

with the Appropriations Committee in

cutting the budget for the FCDA more than 70 percent below the budget estimates of the Eisenhower administration. Obviously the committee has shown little regard for the recommendations of the administration.

In this connection, I might point out that among the first visitors to the then President-elect Eisenhower in his tempo

rary headquarters at the Commodore Hotel in New York were the Nation's leaders in the civil defense movement. They left the President-elect feeling that they had assurance that the new administration would give encouragement to an adequate civil-defense program. I know, as these men look upon this action of the House this afternoon, they will be dismayed and discouraged and feel that the administration has failed to keep what they believed to be commitments to an adequate civil defense program.

The Eisenhower budget estimate for civil defense was $150,000,000. The Committee recommends here this afternoon total appropriations for civil defense amounting to $37,770,000, a reduction of $112,230,000 in the budget estimates. The reductions are directed all across the line in the problems affecting civil defense. Every phase of the program will be seriously hampered and severely crippled.

It is about time that this Congress makes up its mind whether it feels that the Nation should have an adequate civil defense program. Certainly it cannot have, if the Congress continues to deny to the administration adequate funds to provide for it.

The Clerk completed the reading of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Deane Committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 6200) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 330, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them in gross.

The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. ROONEY. I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. ROONEY moves to recommit the bill, H. R. 6200, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the same back forthwith with the following amendment: Page 5, line 17, strike out $60 million" and insert "$80 million"; and on page 7, line 8, after the word "films" and the colon, strike out the remainder of line 8 and the lines down to and including line 13. The previous question was ordered.

Delaney Dollinger Dorn, S. C.

Eberharter
Edmondson
Elliott
Evins

Feighan
Fine
Forand
Frazier

Kersten, Wis.

Klein

Lane

Long

McCormack

McMillan

Rains

Reams

Riley

Roberts

Rodino

Rogers, Colo.
Rogers, Mass.

Rooney
Scott

Knox Krueger Laird Landrum Latham LeCompte

McGregor
McIntire

Mack, Wash.
Mahon

Mailliard

St. George Saylor

Van Pelt Van Zandt Velde

Vinson

Vorys Vursell Wampler Warburton

Williams, Miss.

Williams, N. Y.

Willis

Wilson, Ind.

Wilson, Tex.

Withrow

Wolcott
Wolverton

Young Younger

NOT VOTING-34

Hébert

Holifield

Hunter

Hyde

Javits

Schenck

Scrivner

Scudder

Smith, Miss.

Kearney
Kilday

Kluczynski

McVey

Miller, N. Y.

O'Hara, Minn.

Powell

Reed, Ill.

Rhodes, Ariz.
Rivers

Roosevelt
Scherer
Shafer

Short Wheeler

Wigglesworth

Winstead

So the motion to recommit was rejected.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On this vote:

Mr. Buckley for, with Mr. Hébert against. Mr. Fogarty for, with Mr. Wigglesworth against.

Mr. Powell for, with Mr. Shafer against. Mr. Javits for, with Mr. Miller of New York against.

Mr. Roosevelt for, with Mr. Hand against. Mr. Dingell for, with Mr. Scherer against. Mr. Bowler for, with Mr. Hunter against. Mr. Celler for, with Mr. Hyde against. Mr. Kluczynski for, with Mr. Wheeler against.

Mr. Holifield for, with Mr. Dolliver against.

Until further notice:

Mr. Kearney with Mr. Kilday.
Mr. Short with Mr. Fernandez.
Mr. Reed of Illinois with Mr. Durham.
Mr. Cole of New York with Mr. Rivers.
Mr. Rhodes of Arizona with Mr. Winstead.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

The bill was passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may

have until midnight tonight to file a report on H. R. 5256, providing a retirement system for the Tax Court judges, and on H. R. 6287, a bill to extend the Renegotiation Act of 1951 for 1 year.

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

There was no objection.

to file a report on H. R. 6117, House Resolutions 261 and 262.

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

There was no objection.

AMENDING FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

THE WEEK

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have inquired of me when the bill dealing with excise taxes on moving-picture-theater admissions would be called up. There seems to be a great deal of interest in this bill. I thought it advisable to fix a definite date rather than to carry on as we would otherwise, because we have a number of bills that have been reported for some time and which will be brought on for action as we go on through the week. So after discussion with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the minority leader, I announce that this bill will definitely come up for consideration on Monday next. I think the calling of the Consent Calendar is in order on Monday so we will call the Consent Calendar and then take up the consideration of that bill.

Action has been taken in the Committee on Government Operations in connection with two reorganization plans that were before that committee. I understand there is no desire to have extended debate on them, so in view of that I am hopeful that we can dispose of those two matters either tomorrow or Friday.

The other measures that are on the whip notice will be reached as quickly as we can in the progress of the matters before the House.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. Carrell, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a joint resolution of the House of the following title:

H. J. Res. 294. Joint resolution continuing the availability of appropriations for the Small Defense Plants Administration for the month of July 1953, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed a bill of the following title, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 2394. An act to amend the District Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1953.

call up the resolution (H. Res. 329) providing for the consideration of H. R. 5740, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to protect the public health and welfare by providing certain authority for factory inspection, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

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 the bill (H. R. 5740) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to protect the public health and welfare by providing certain authority for factory inspection, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall 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 bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half hour to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. COLMER], and I now yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the adoption of House Resolution 329, making in order the consideration of H. R. 5740, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, so as to protect the public health and welfare by providing certain authority for factory inspection, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 329 provides for an open rule with 2 hours of general debate on the bill itself.

H. R. 5740 has for its primary purpose the removal from interstate commerce adulterated and erroneously branded food, drugs, therapeutic devices, and cosmetics. It should be emphasized, however, that this does not prohibit the manufacture of adulterated and erroneously branded goods before they have entered the field of interstate commerce. This proposed bill is important because it specifically grants authority for the Food and Drug Administration to inspect factories in which these goods are manufactured, processed, packed, and held. The necessity for specifying that the Food and Drug Administration has this power arises out of the decision of the Supreme Court on the Cardif case in 1952, at which time the Court held that the present provisions of the act do not clearly provide that the refusal to admit

a food and drug inspector constitutes a violation of that act.

This loophole in the present law makes it possible for manufacturers who do not maintain quality standards to compete unfairly with those firms who do maintain high standards of quality. President Eisenhower has asked that the power to inspect factories be restored to the Food and Drug Administration in order to safeguard the health of our Nation. A number of safeguards for the manufacturer have also been included in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the membership of the House will have the opportunity to consider the merits of this bill and adopt House Resolution 329.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it has already been explained that this is an open rule for 2 hours of general debate.

This bill, as the hearings before the Committee on Rules indicated, was introduced by virtue of the fact that the old law permitting these factory and other inspections under the Pure Food and Drug Act was held void so far as the imposition of any penalty was concerned, if the proprietor of the factory, the drugstore, or whatever the establishment was, refused permission to the Federal inspector to come on the premises and make what he regarded as the necessary inspection. This bill, therefore, was drawn to cure that apparent defect in the statute.

I think we may all agree that it is a wholesome and necessary thing to have laws dealing with the inspection of various factories, food-processing plants, et cetera, that deal with the products mentioned in this bill.

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I understood the gentleman to mention drugstore inspection. Does this bill go so far as to name drugstores?

Mr. COLMER. My understanding is, and the testimony before the committee was to the effect that it is broad enough to include drugstores. I might say to the gentleman from Minnesota that so far as I am concerned that is purely hearsay. I do not know that to be a fact.

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Permit me to ask the gentleman further, would this bill provide for an examination of the books and records of any processing plant?

Mr. COLMER. The testimony before the Committee on Rules was to that effect; yes, sir.

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. In addition to factory inspections?

Mr. COLMER. The testimony was that the inspectors could inspect the personnel files, the records, or anything that they deemed necessary in order to make the inspection.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield.

Mr. HINSHAW. I think the gentleman is mistaken in his statement, if he will pardon me for saying so, because one of the things we attempted to do

in this amendment and report was to make clear that they should not go to the extent they have in the past of examining all these things to which the gentleman from Minnesota referred. We have particularly placed the word "reasonable" in the amendment in three different places to be sure that these inspections shall be entirely plausible.

Mr. COLMER. I appreciate the learned gentleman's contribution. From his own statement, however, I would say that was a matter of interpretation and one that would be interpreted in the proper forum.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield.

Mr. NICHOLSON. This bill also gives them the right to search vehicles, whether it is your own vehicle or not.

Mr. COLMER. I take the gentleman's word for it; I frankly do not know; I have not had an opportunity to give that much study to it.

Mr. HARRIS of Arkansas. The gentleman from Massachusetts is right.

Mr. COLMER. The question here, as I was saying a moment ago-I think we all agree that an inspection law is desirable and that these inspections should be made. I might add that it is not only to the interest of the general public but it is also to the interest of the processor of foods, etc., because when he has the benefit of the inspection service while the food or whatever it is is being processed, then he runs less risk of having that food condemned on the market thereby sustaining a considerable loss. I know in the sea-food industry in which I am particularly interested we requested and secured from this Congress a law some 15 or more years ago for the inspection of sea food at the source, in order to prevent these enormous losses. Much of the sea food was inspected after it got into the market and was declared contraband and unfit for human consumption prior to the Federal inspection. So it is very desirable.

The question that is going to arise in the debate here is the question of the violation and of the penalty if the factory inspector goes in over the objection of the proprietor of the factory or establishment. It raises a very serious question, and one, frankly, upon which I want to hear further debate. I am somewhat torn here between a desire to see these inspections made on the one hand by competent officers, and on the other hand an apprehension about further invasion of personal and business rights by agents of the Federal Government. Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. VURSELL. Will this create many more jobs that will have to be filled? Will it add great additional expense?

Mr. COLMER. That question should be more appropriately addressed to my friend the chairman of the committee. I would say, however, that I very definitely got the impression that it would not from the hearings before the Committee on Rules.

Mr. PRIEST. If the gentleman will yield, there is no testimony before the

committee indicating that it would require any increase in personnel. The whole question was the use of personnel now being employed by the Administration.

Mr. COLMER. I think the gentleman from Tennessee will also agree that that is the one question involved here: Whether it should be made compulsory or not; in other words, whether some teeth should be placed in the bill.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN].

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to announce that

colleague from Minnesota [Mr. O'HARA] is ill and has been taken to the hospital. The reason I make that announcement is because he has taken a very active part in his committee with reference to this legislation. He is one of the members of the committee who wrote the minority report. He has very strong convictions in opposition to the advisability of passing this type of legislation. I have received unanimous consent for my colleague [Mr. O'HARA] to have the minority report included in the RECORD, but I shall modify that request and ask unanimous consent that the minority report immediately follow my remarks.

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

There was no objection.

A

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, but I am not sure that this is desirable legislation. It may be. A good many of our food industries are subject to inspection, like the packing industry, where the Department goes so far as to provide the specifications for the type of packing plant that is to be constructed. There are Government inspectors in every department. The Government stands the cost of meat inspection and it is done for the purpose of protecting the public health. Whether their bill is designed for the same purpose or not, I am not sure, however, I shall listen to the debate.

May I ask the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce if this legislation would authorize a general fishing expedition where an inspector going into a factory under the guise of inspecting sanitary conditions might also inspect all the books and records of any organization?

Mr. WOLVERTON. It does not have that effect.

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. This in no way would authorize such an inspection of books and records and would be strictly confined to the facilities that are used and the products that are used in the manufacture of articles covered in the bill?

Mr. WOLVERTON. The language of the bill is very plain and if the gentleman will read the bill he will find that it will answer his own question.

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. But I like to have it straight from the horse's mouth, from one of the best Members of Congress, an individual who has greater knowledge than I, a man I con

sider to be a leader on most of the vital matters considered by his committee. The minority report to which I previously referred follows:

MINORITY REPORT

In the opinion of the undersigned there is a substantial question whether Congress may grant to the Food and Drug Administration the inspection authority provided by the amended bill. To express this opinion is not, as the majority report says (p. 12) "to contend that Congress is largely powerless to prevent or control interstate commerce in adulterated or misbranded merchandise, and that the majority of the statutes listed in appendix A are unconstitutional.”

For more than 32 years-from 1906 to 1938-the Federal Food and Drug Act contained no provision whatever for factory inspection, and for 15 additional years-1938 to 1953-the law has provided for factory inspection upon the consent of the owner, operator, or custodian thereof. During all of these 47 years there has been, under acts of Congress, effective control of interstate commerce in adulterated or misbranded merchandise. As for the statutes listed in the report's appendix A, their constitutionality depends upon the circumstances and provisions pertaining to them respectively, and it is sufficient for this point to pass them with the comment that each and every one

is readily distinguished, even upon the abbreviated excerpts set forth in the appendix, from the provisions for inspection contained in the proposed bill.

The length of the majority report belies the statement on page 9 that "there is no doubt that Congress may grant to the Food and Drug Administration the inspection powers which are provided for by the amended bill." It "protesteth too much.” Pages liberally filled with assertions of congressional power, with conclusions designedly drawn and premises favorably assumed, laudable purposes claimed and urgencies strained, all betray uneasiness about the constitutionality of the proposed grant.

Such uneasiness is neither surprising nor new. It was present in the formulation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was passed in June 1938, and which had been before the several Congresses during a period of 5 years preceding enactment. The inclusion of a provision for inspection was a question which gave much concern to its author, Mr. Tugwell, and other proponents of that legislation. Manufacture was, and is, a local operation. Factories were, and are, located within States. The Federal Constitution contains no grant of power for inspection of factories or for regulation of

manufacture.

This concern led to the provision in section 704 for first obtaining permission of the owner, operator, or custodian of the factory, warehouse, establishment, or vehicle to be inspected. It also accounts for the phrase "For purposes of enforcement of this act," which opens section 704. That phrase was devised in the 1938 act for the purpose and in the hope, of justifying inspection and constitutionally supporting it as an incident to the regulation of interstate commerce.

So now with the proposed revision of section 704, the constitutional question leads the authors of the majority report to set up other and more numerous props. The justification for the bill is declared to be the protection of public health and welfare, whereas the only authority for the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is the constitutional grant to regulate interstate commerce.

It is asserted that the power to make inspections is needed to encourage compliance with the act by bringing to light conditions which may cause products to be adulterated or misbranded. Thereby, says the report (p. 2), manufacturers are enabled to correct the conditions and to withhold adulterated