favorable conditions which might perhaps not occur again soon, there would be no cause for alarm. However, other information clearly points up the fact that the Japanese intend ruthlessly to exploit all of the known tuna fisheries of the entire Pacific, possibly even to the shores of our own country and to the shores of our Latin American neighbors and then dump all this fish in our market here in the United States.

My colleagues in this body may ask, Mr. Speaker, how I know the Japanese are going to dump all this fish in this market? The answer is a simple one-there is no other market in the world, not even in the home islands of Japan, capable of absorbing the quantity of tuna that the Japanese industry is intending to catch. And even the United States market probably cannot absorb the potential production. Certainly this market cannot absorb the production of our own industry, plus the actual productive capacity of the Japanese industry, plus the additional planned tonnage to be harvested if present Japanese plans go through.

Now what are those plans?

The Japanese recently purchased in the United States the 3,500 ton Saipan, a refrigerated carrier type vessel which they have already announced will be used as a mother ship in tuna fishing. They have recently purchased also, the refrigerated 3,400 ton vessel, the Oceanic V, which we believe they plan to use as a mother ship; and they are right now exerting tremendous pressure on the Maritime Administration of the Department of Commerce to force that agency to consent to the sale and transfer to Japanese registry of the Pacific Explorer, a 7,200 ton, completely equipped mothership. The Maritime Administration thus far has refused to approve such a sale, and will, I sincerely trust, continue to resist the tremendous pressure being applied.

These purchases of such tremendously large mother ships are not the only manifestation of the Japanese intentions to destroy our domestic tuna industry. Recent official dispatches and news items from Japan advise that the Japanese Government is lending every encouragement and financial assistance to a program of construction of 15 large tunafishing vessels ranging in size from 200 to 350 tons during 1953. Other applications have been made to appropriate Japanese authorities for permission to construct 18 more 300-450-ton tuna vessels. Already this year two such 400-ton vessels have been completed, and will be in operation shortly.

It is interesting to recall, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the foregoing that only 3 short months ago a majority-3 to 1of the Tariff Commission, in reporting to the Senate Committee on Finance, made the following statement:

A sharp curtailment of imports of tuna and tuna-like products, whether through tariffs or quotas, would probably benefit in the immediate future the domestic tuna fishery but might also, by encouraging the expansion of the domestic fleet, contribute to a later recurrence of essentially the same combination of circumstances that brought such distress to the domestic tuna fishery in 1951.

I wonder how the majority members of the Tariff Commission feel about the expansion of the Japanese fleet brought about by the failure of this Government to take any action to protect our own industry.

Now, how do we know that all of this potential tuna production will be put in cans and come to the United States? That, of course, is obvious. As I have already stated, this is the only market for tuna. The Japanese are clever. They know that with their lower wages and vast supply of manpower they not only can out-produce us, but they can do so at a cost, including very satisfactory profits to their operators, with which we can never hope to compete. Just as soon as they are sure that they have nothing to fear in the way of increased tariffs or quotas, just as soon as the Congress adjourns and goes home for the summer, the lid will be off and our canning industry and our cannery workers will be at their mercy.

In addition to the figures I have already cited on canned tuna in brine and canned tuna in oil, there are two new product forms of tuna being exported to First, the Japanese are this country. shipping over frozen, cleaned tuna loins. These do not come in duty free-there is a duty of 12 cents per pound. But what does that mean on an item that sells for six to seven hundred dollars per ton? Second, the Japanese are shipping over, on an experimental basis, tuna already packed in cans without lids, then frozen. On arrival in the United States, salt and oil is added, the lids are affixed and the cans are processed. This form of product also comes in at a low rate of duty, 122 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it is completely impossible for me to understand how we can permit such loopholes to exist in our tariff laws. In order that all imported tuna products may receive equitable treatment, I am today introducing a bill to equalize the rates of duty on all imported processed tuna. I am hopeful that the Ways and Means Committee at some time during the next few months will have the time and take the opportunity to study this subject fully, especially in the light of the developments just cited.

trying to correct the language so that the firemen will not be penalized and the payweek will go on the same as it was previously.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

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

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That subsection (c) of section 405 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1953 (67 Stat. 77) is amended by adding after the word "workweeks" the following: "except that with respect to employees of the Fire Department the first pay period shall be for the period July 1 to July 11, 1953, inclusive." SEC. 2. Section 405 of such Act is amended by adding thereto the following:

"(d) (1) For the purpose of computing pay of officers and members of the Fire Department of the District of Columbia for the pay period July 1 to July 11, 1953, inclusive, any day off taken by any such officer or member during the period July 1 to July 4, 1953, inclusive, shall be considered as a workday if such officer or member worked or was otherwise in a pay status for an equivalent day in the period June 28 to June 30, 1953, inclusive: Provided, That any such day off falling on July 4, 1953, shall not entitle any such officer or member to additional holiday compensation for that day.

"(2) For the purpose of this subsection the term 'day off' means any of the days off duty in each 7-day period to which each officer and member of such Fire Department is entitled pursuant to section 2 of the act approved June 19, 1948 (62 Stat. 498) but such term does not include any 'platoon change day off,' as such term is used in such Fire Department."

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

AMENDING FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 5740) amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act so as to protect the public health and welfare by providing certain authority for factory inspection.

the motion of the gentleman from New The SPEAKER. The question is on Jersey.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 5740, with Mr. MILLER of Maryland in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS).

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this bill was reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. There are some 31 members on that committee, and only 3 members dissented from the. favorable recommendation of this bill. Let us see what the purpose of this legislation is. The primary purpose of the bill is to provide

clear and forcible statutory authority for the Food and Drug Administrator to inspect factories and other establishments in which food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics are manufactured, processed, packed, or held for the purpose of going into interstate commerce.

That is the purpose of it. It is a very important piece of legislation to the health and safety of the American people. It was so important that President Eisenhower in his annual message on the state of the Union took note of it. I quote what our President Eisenhower said with reference to this particular legislation. I quote:

Public interest similarly demands one prompt specific action in protection of the general consumer. The Food and Drug Administration should be authorized to continue its established and necessary program of factory inspections. The invalidation of these inspections by the Supreme Court of December 8, 1952, was based solely on the fact that the present law contains inconsistent and unclear provisions. These should be promptly corrected.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to my good friend from Texas.

Mr. DIES. I have a very high regard for the gentleman's judgment. There is one point that I am in doubt of on this bill. It authorizes these inspectors to enter these establishments without a search warrant, and permits them to use the evidence they find against the owner or operator of the establishment. Would the gentleman oppose some provision that would safeguard the rights of the people against such sumptuary proceedings?

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. This act does not prohibit the manufacture of adulterated and misbranded food, drugs, devices or cosmetics, nor does it authorize the bringing of any court action for the seizure of any such adulterated and misbranded goods before they have entered the channels of interstate commerce.

In the original Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act, the right of inspection was provided. However, on account of a conflict in section 704 and section 301 (f), the Supreme Court held in the case of the United States against Cardiff that the existing law is factually inconsistent, because Congress in one provision-section 704-authorized inspection "after first making request and obtaining permission of the owner, operator, or custodian" of the factory, but in another provision-section 301 (f)-prohibited the "refusal to permit entry or inspection."

This bill provides for compulsory inspection and contains other provisions which are fair and just to the manufacturer or the producer. It is no crime if a manufacturer or a wholesaler or warehouseman has putrid food, or food unfit for human consumption in his - plant or warehouse, so long as he does not ship it in interstate commerce. This bill authorizes the Administrator, or the duly appointed agent or representative, to make an inspection for the purpose of seeing that if the food or foodstuff or drug is misbranded or unfit for human

consumption, and if it is found to be such, a report is immediately made to the manufacturer or to the wholesaler.

However, there is no crime under this act, and no action can be taken against the manufacturer or the warehouseman, until the foodstuff is in the channels of interstate commerce.

Certainly there can be no constitutional inhibition against the provisions of this bill. We should provide for the public health and welfare of our people by preventing the shipping in interstate commerce of foods, drugs, and devices either adulterated or misbranddevices either adulterated or misbranded, and this bill does exactly that.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS).

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to bring to the attention of the House what I think to be some pertinent facts in consideration of this legislation. Although it is technical in that it amends the Pure Food and Drug Act, the objective sought here is very simple. I respect the fact that there are some reservations on the part of some, and I recognize and respect concern. It is my opinion that when the problem is understood there is not so much to be concerned about; that it is the object of this legislation to provide a procedure whereby the public may be protected. It is just as simple to say that then the pure food and drug law was enacted by this Congress provision for factory inspection was made. For a period of 15 years factory inspections were made. Then, as a result of action by a factory owner out in the Northwest, the matter was brought to the attention of the court, and it was held that due to some ambiguity in the permissive portion of the act, section 704, and the enforcement section of 701 (b), that an inspector could go into a factory that an inspector could go into a factory for inspection only if given permission by the owner and operator thereof.

The problem we have here today comes about because of that decision. That is just a simple proposition.

Some raise a question as to the constitutionality, and I respect that viewpoint. tutionality, and I respect that viewpoint. We have had the problem thrashed out in committee. We held extensive hearings on it, and, in my humble opinion, although I would not set myself up as a great constitutional authority-I have given a great deal of study to the subject-in my humble judgment, there is no constitutional question involved here as the problem has been brought to us. Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARRIS. I yield.

Mr. HALE. If the gentleman does not want to set himself up as a great constitutional authority, I will do that for him, because I think he is a good one.

Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman is very kind. I appreciate the compliment, of course. That is about all I care to say as to the constitutionality of the question.

What I do want to do now, Mr. Chairman, is to direct the attention of this man, is to direct the attention of this committee to what I think is very important in connection with this bill, and that is the actual intent.

The hearings are very clear that most of the organizations affected, associations, the manufacturers themselves, the processors, are for this legislation; in other words, most of those who are affected most by this legislation feel that it is necessary. They did ask, and the hearings are clear on it, they did ask that we do one thing: That we make it clear as to what the intent was.

I think it may be interesting for you to have information as to the history of this proposal. The original bill introduced merely provided for compulsory inspection by the inspector presenting a notice in writing; that was all there was to it. Witnesses came before our committee and they approved that proposal, generally speaking, providing we would make it clear in the report that this was not to give the Food and Drug Administration greater authority than they had under the law; that is what they thought the law provided up until that time. But we did not rest upon that. We amended the bill and provided for inspection only within a reasonable manner, within a reasonable time, and within reasonable limits. In other words, we provided safeguards for the industry in this bill that they did not come and ask for themselves. The intent is clear that this is a factory inspection bill; that even though the factory owner or operator may not grant permission, the inspector may inspect the facilities of that factory, warehouse, or establishment where food, drugs, or cosmetics are being processed or held for interstate shipment.

Mr. GWINN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GWINN. Can the factory owner at that time refuse to permit the inspection by saying that he is not shipping or will not ship in interstate commerce?

Mr. HARRIS. On that basis he can refuse, yes. If he does not ship in interstate commerce, if he does not hold the product for interstate shipment, then he can refuse admission of the inspector.

Mr. GWINN. Then, in effect, the penalty would be the same as it is now in connection with meat or butter, namely, that he cannot ship the drugs or the food or the meat or the butter in interstate commerce and that is the only penalty he is subject to?

Mr. HARRIS. If the gentleman wants to place that interpretation on it as being a penalty, of course that is his prerogative. I do not place any such interpretation on it. He is only subject to the inspectors of the State under the State law.

Mr. GWINN. He is not subject at that time to fine and imprisonment if he refuses to permit an inspection?

Mr. HARRIS. That is right. There was some question raised yesterday as to the authority and the intention of this bill with reference to prescription files.

We discussed that thoroughly in our committee. We discussed the language and the intent of this language. It is my opinion, it is my feeling as one member of the committee, that this does not give inspectors the authority and there is no intention of giving inspectors any au

739-740 (C. A. 8), certiorari denied, 303 U. S. 639); United States v. Cudahy Packing Co. (243 Fed. 441 (D. Conn.)).

There were three members of the committee who had some doubt as to the constitutionality of this bill unless it followed a search and seizure procedure, but there was no doubt in the mind of anyone else on the committee as to the constitutionality of the bill. I hope that anyone who seriously thinks along that line will look at the report of the committee. That report was prepared carefully, with extreme care, with the thought in mind that it should be convincing. We have presented a report to you that we believe honestly and ably sustains and answers the question absolutely and maintains the constitutionality of the bill.

In addition to that, on yesterday I made some reference to the question of constitutionality in my remarks on this bill; and last evening, as I thought still further on the subject, I presented some extended views on the question of constitutionality which are in the Appendix at page A4393, issue of July 15, 1953. I hope everyone who is interested in the subject will examine these remarks, because I believe they will answer the question of constitutionality to the satisfaction of anyone with an open mind, and who is willing to be convinced on the basis of reason and the Supreme Court cases contained in my remarks.

It is my intention to include in the remarks I am now making this brief which I hold in my hand dealing with the question of constitutionality. It also shows that the fourth amendment dealing with search and seizure has absolutely no application whatsoever to this bill. I realize that time does not permit my presenting to you at this time all that I would like to say on the subject, but I do want you to know that this brief was prepared with great care, and it is presented to the House in the hope that it will so satisfactorily answer the question that has been raised as to constitutionality that the question will not be raised again. Every statement that is made in this brief as to the constitutionality of this proposed law before us this morning is documented by Supreme Court decisions that leave no doubt whatsoever as to the constitutionality of the bill. Furthermore, even the minority report that raises the question says that they who signed it have been unable to find any case that would at

tack the constitutionality of this act, and that is true. It was a frank statement and a true statement. They have searched the books; they have expended hours of time; they burned the midnight oil. And I have challenged them to present one single case that upholds their

And now, Mr. Chairman, it is my desire to answer in some detail the claim that has been made that the Congress does not have the constitutional right to enact a bill such as before us (H. R. 5740) to confer the power of inspection on the Food and Drug Administration is absolutely without merit.

The proposed inspection clearly violates neither the fourth amendment nor any other constitutional right.

The bill relates to "any factor, warehouse, or establishment in which food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics are manufactured, processed, packed, or held, for introduction into interstate commerce or are held after such introduction or to enter any vehicle being used to transport or held such food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics in interstate commerce."

The fourth amendment secures "persons, houses, papers, and effects" of our people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The inspection provided for in the bill before us seeks to do none of these things. Furthermore, it relates to "factories, warehouses, or establishments."

Comparable powers of entry and inspection have been repeatedly conferred and exercised. Thus, title 26, United States Code, section 3601-formerly Revised Statutes, page vised Statutes, page 3177-authorizes revenue officials to enter and inspect any building or place where articles or objects subject to taxation are made, produced, or kept, so far as it may be necessary for the purpose of examining such articles, and imposes sanctions for refusal to permit entry and examination, and for forcible obstruction or hindrance to the officer. The Supreme Court has assumed the validity of those provisions-United States v. Mann (95 U. S. 580); United States v. Barnes (222 U. S. 513)—and lower courts have held that entry and seizure of taxable articles, pursuant to these provisions, did not violate the fourth amendment-Carvalho v. United States (54 F. 2d. 232 (C. A. V. 1))-distillery; Hilsinger

United

States (2 F. 2d 241 (C. A. 6), certiorari denied, 266 U. S. 622)-brewery. See also United States v. Frisch (140 F. 2d 660, 662 (C. A. 5)); In re Sana Laboratories (115 F. 2d 717 (C. A. 3), certiorari denied, 312 U. S. 688).

Even more directly analogous are the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act (1906, 34 Stat. 674, 1260, 21 U. S. C. 7195). That act authorizes Federal inspectors to enter, at any time of day or night, establishments processing meat products in order to examine the meat products and the sanitary condition of the plant-title 21, United States Code, sections 74, 76-and prohibits the transportation in interstate commerce of products not inspected and approvedtitle 21, United States Code, sections 78, 87. The Supreme Court has held that the enactment of such provisions "was

within the power of Congress in order to prevent interstate and foreign shipment of impure or adulterated meat-food products"-Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Totten (248 U. S. 1, 8). See also United States v. Lewis (235 U. S. 282); Cudahy Packing Co. v. McBride (92 F. 2d 737,

Analogous provisions are contained in a number of other Federal statutes. Like inspection provisions abound in State laws and municipal ordinances. See for example, the Chicago, Ill., ordinance empowering health inspectors to enter any premises other than a private dwelling where food is stored or kept and seize and destroy any putrid, decayed, poisoned and infected food which they may find in such premises, considered in North American Storage Co. v. Chicago (211 U. S. 306); the provisions for inspection of cattle and places for their care, referred to in Adams v. Milwaukee (228 U. S. 572, 580-581); the provisions for sampling and analysis of commercial feeds sustained in Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright (225 U. S. 540); the quarantine act authorizing, inter alia, inspectors to "enter upon any grounds or premises to carry out the provisions of this act," sustained in Smith v. St. Louis & Southwestern Ry. Co. (181 U. S. 248); the provisions for inspection of livestock-section 6-of the ordinance sustained in Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wall. 36); and the provisions authorizing forcible entry into private premises by State officers to test cattle for tuberculin, sustained in Dederick v. Smith (88 N. H. 63, 184 A. 595), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial Federal question, 299 U. S. 506. For State cases involving the power to inspect places of business dealing with drugs or foods, see volume volume 22, American Jurisprudence, pages 822, 858-864; volume 47, American Jurisprudence, pages 508-510.

Indeed the power to enact inspection laws has long been regarded as one of the most fundamental powers of government. See for example, Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat. 1, 202); SlaughterHouse Cases (16 Wall. 36, 63).

Such provisions, at least as applied to business enterprises, are a valid exercise of the visitatorial powers of government. The Supreme Court has long recognized that corporations engaged in interstate commerce "can claim no equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy"-compare United States against White, supra. "They are endowed with public attributes. They have a collective impact upon society, from which they derive the privilege of acting as artificial entities. The Federal Government allows them the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce. Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation"-United States v. Morton Salt Co. (338 U. S. 632, 652).

Thus a corporation cannot refuse to produce books and papers bearing on subjects of legitimate governmental concern-Hale v. Henkel (201 U. S. 43, 74– 75); Wilson v. United States (221 U. S. 361, 382-384); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling (327 U. S. 186, 196, 210). Nor can an unincorporated business organization-United States v. White (322 Ụ. S. 694, 699-701). Where such action is reasonably necessary to the effectuation of legitimate governmental interests, corporations, and even individuals engaged in business may be required to