Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky, although I do not wish to forget that the Senator from Kansas desires to speak.

Mr. COOPER. Is there available any information, in terms of dollars, pounds or bushels, as to how much of that fish flour is in surplus?

Mr. DOUGLAS. There is already a plant in New Bedford, Mass., which could produce fish concentrate in appreciable quantity, but at present it is prevented from doing so because of the disqualification attached to domestic sales of the product.

Mr. COOPER. Does the Senator have any idea what value would be involved?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not know in terms of tons, but it would probably be an appreciable quantity.

Mr. COOPER. Is there any demand Is there any demand for the product abroad?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, there is. Experiments have been made in Mexico, and, I believe, in Peru. In both cases the product has proved its worth. The sponsor has given it away, and the public health authorities have tried it out in the diets of children, and its nutritional value has been proved.

Mr. COOPER. Being an inlander, I have no idea what fish flour looks like. Mr. DOUGLAS. Does not the Senator

have any idea what it looks like?

On the other hand, rats fed on the McCay-Cornell formula thrived, as did their offspring, going from greater strength to greater strength through the fourth generation. That was a test between the bread which had been wheat germ, soybean-high proportional milk solids as well as flour-unbleached flour, I might add-and commercial flour. What happened? The entrenched bread interests screamed to high heaven. They protested about the improved bread that was coming onto the market. At that time I believe Mr. Larrick was Assistant Commissioner. Later he became Deputy Commissioner and then moved up to Commissioner. But at that time he was Assistant Commissioner. I believe that experiment brought the Food and Drug Administration on the run to protect the producers, and Dr. McCay's bread could not be sold in interstate commerce as bread.

Why? They said it was too good to be called bread. The FDA wanted to call it cake. They evidently had read Marie Antoinette's alleged comment when the workingmen of Paris were demonstrating. Marie Antoinette is alleged to have said, "What are they demonstrating about?"

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am delighted to bring to the Senator from Kentucky some of the high protein fish concentrate that I have with me in the Chamber. I invite him to taste and see for himself. I shall even give some to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CARLSON. No; I do not want

any.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Fishmeal factories could be transformed into fish flour factories. I once went by a factory at Lewes, Del., and at a distance of 1 mile, I could tell that it was a fish meal factory. [Laughter.] But fish concentrate has no odor and can be made without taste if that is desired.

There is a great potential market for the product if it can be developed. One way to start production is under Public Law 480. A demand for the product could be built up and expanded. It It would be a great thing for North Carolina and for all areas in which fishmeal factories and processing plants are located.

THE BIAS OF THE FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION

I should like to return to what I believe is the built-in bias of the Food and Drug Administration against improved bread.

In the latter part of the late war Professor McCay of Cornell developed an unbleached flour which was enriched with wheat germ, soybean, and a high proportion of milk solids. Tests under the McCay-Cornell formula, were performed on rats. The rats were also tested on commercial white bread. Interestingly Interestingly enough, the rats fed on commercial wheat bread became sickly, starved looking, and produced stupid offspring. All

eat cake."

Here we have Marie Antoinette in the Food and Drug Administration, saying that this bread was too good to be called bread, and therefore it should be called cake.

We can imagine how attractive it would be to people who want bread, who said, "We want the Cornell bread," if they were told, "Oh, you cannot get Cornell bread; you must take Cornell cake." Cake is valuable, but it is not the staff of life as bread is the staff of life.

So there was a terrific battle with the Food and Drug Administration. I had recently come to the Senate, and tried to apply not pressure but discreet education. Finally we got a partial modification of the ruling of the Food and Drug Administration.

In other words, the bread manufacturers and the millers were so powerful that they were able to get the Food and Drug Administration to completely twist the meaning of the original food and drug law. The original purpose of the law was to put a floor of quality under products, so that they would not fall below a given standard of quality. Now the Food and Drug Administration was trying to impose a ceiling on products, by providing they cannot be too good.

I have had further difficulty, not so much with the Food and Drug Administration as with the Department of Agriculture, in trying to get them to adequately test a flour which retains the wheat germ. I say to the Senator from Kansas, that would be a great boon to the wheat industry, because bread is now so tasteless that people do not eat much of it. If we could make bread more attractive to people, there would

be an enormous increase in its consumption. We have been trying to do this, but the millers are opposed to it because they have their machinery set up to take out the wheat germ prior to grinding. The technical difficulty is that if they grind the wheat germ with solid metal rollers, it will be crushed, and oil will mix with the flour, which will then rancify and spoil.

The new process would not crush the germ but would retain it in the flour. This would require new milling machinery, at a capital investment the millers do not wish to make. The millers have been holding up this development in the field of dietetics, just as they are now trying to hinder the sale of high protein fish concentrate.

The Senator from Kansas is one of the nicest fellows in this body. He is kindly and generous, and I have never known him to utter an unkind word.

The Wheat Belt need not worry about this. I emphasize again that there has been a semantic error in calling this "fish flour." The word "flour" has stirred up the ire and the resentment of the whole Wheat Belt, of the millers, and the breadmakers. They have sprung

to arms to prevent any new product coming in.

I repeat that this will not make bread. It is a protein, not a starch. It will be used, instead, on products such as potatoes, in soups, on rice and oatmeal, and on many others. It could be of incalculable benefit to people in the tropics. If we could get this developed and appreciated, there would be a large commercial market which would be opened up as well.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I am much impressed with the case the Senator from Illinois has developed this afternoon. I believe the basic argument in support of what he is trying to do, in addition to the economic interest expressed by the Senator from Rhode Island, is that a protein shortage is the really critical food problem in the world today. When one travels in an area such as in most of Africa, one finds that practically every child is suffering from a damaging shortage of protein food. This disease is called kwashiokar. We have all seen its effects, in the distended bellies and skinny arms and legs of children. We see it all over the underdeveloped areas of the world. The disease stems not so much from a shortage of food as from a shortage of protein. Many of those people have enough calories but not the kind of high-protein concentrate the Senator from Illinois is talking about.

I believe, if we wish to strengthen our food-for-peace program-a program which enjoys the support, so far as I know, of every Senator-we could make a great contribution to the program, with little cost to the taxpayers, by including fish and fish products under the terms of the program.

I know that some people in the wheat country are disturbed about this. I come from a wheat State and I understand

the anxiety expressed this afternoon; but I believe it is not well founded. I believe there is no real foundation for it at all. It does not make any more sense to oppose adding a little protein to our cereal diet than it would to oppose vitaminenriched bread. We do not oppose vitamins even though we are interested in the welfare of the milling industry.

As the Senator from Illinois has said, we might find a broader market for our wheat products and our bread if we could include with it some of the other foods which the world is so desperately anxious to get. We can do this, as I say, at small cost.

I endorse what the Senator from Illinois is trying to accomplish.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I deeply appreciate what the Senator from South Dakota has said. For almost 2 years he was the Director of the Food-for-Peace program and played a great part in helping to bring better nutrition to these other areas of the world. When he speaks on this subject-coming from a wheat State as he does he has a proper concern for the industries of his State.

I

I

This is very significant testimony. should like to ask the Senator from South Dakota: Is it not true that all the tests which the Senator had made, when he was Director of the Food-for-Peace program, indicated this product was wholesome, safe, highly nutritious, and met the great vitamin shortage which is characteristic of the underfed areas of the world?

Mr. McGOVERN. There is no question about that. That has been the experience in the tests which have been conducted in Mexico City. That has been the experience in Peru. Wherever this matter has been put to a valid test, the results have indicated the wisdom of what the Senator from Illinois is now trying to accomplish.

Mr. CARLSON rose.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I be

lieve I should now yield to the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], because I believe I shut him off a little prematurely before. However, I did wish to make my substantive case before I yielded to him.

I am not certain of the program of my opponents. I would make the motion to reconsider now, were I not to be immediaetly faced with a motion to table.

Mr. CARLSON. I assure the Senator

from Illinois that I expect to make a motion to table, but I certainly will not shut off debate for the Senator from Illinois, or for any other Senator.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If the motion to table is made, I shall ask for a live

quorum.

I think this is, in the main, the substantive case which I wish to make.

I do not like to pin medals on myself. I could have made this motion last night, but the Senator from Kansas was not present on the floor. I therefore withheld the motion until today, when he could be present. I therefore extended a very proper courtesy to him, which through lack of communication, and for one reason or another, was not extended to me. But this is only what one should do.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield.

Mr. PASTORE. I think the RECORD ought to be clear with regard to what took place yesterday when the Senator took place yesterday when the Senator from Kansas suggested his amendment. Realizing that the Senator in charge of the bill was ready to accept the amendment, I suggested a modification, which the Senator from Kansas, in his usual, gracious way, agreed to accept. As the matter stands now, fish flour, or high protein concentrate, is included if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an edible product. That qualification is made.

The RECORD ought to show what took place yesterday.

Mr. PASTORE. I know the Senator from Illinois feels that that qualification ought not to be required. I realize that I realize that is the way he feels. But I think the RECORD ought to show what was accomplished in his absence.

Mr. DOUGLAS. What the Senator from Rhode Island has stated is correct. The point is that as long as George P. Larrick is head of the Food and Drug Administration, high protein concentrate-alias fish flour-will probably never be ruled as being acceptable for human consumption, regardless of the fact that the National Academy of Sciences has approved it.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. When this question arose last night, it came up very suddenly, because the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] had asked for a rollcall and was about to make an extended speech. Then he agreed to modify his amendment. That left the committee amendment open to further

amendment.

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] offered his amendment, which the chairman of the committee accepted, and the whole matter took less than 5 minutes.

I personally looked for the Senator from Illinois. There was not time to bring him to the floor. I knew he was not entirely in agreement with the amendment. In my opinion, it was the most satisfactory way to do it under the circumstances.

I make this statement in fairness to Senators like the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Alaska, and other Senators who are in the Chamber. Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to make it clear that I am not blaming anyone. I am only explaining how it happened that I did not make a protest at the time. I was not on the floor because I was not notified as to what was coming up. I am trying to play fair with my opponents. I tried to play fair by not making a motion to reconsider last night. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. BARTLETT. It should be said, in fairness to the Senator from Kansas, who realized the great interest of the Senator from Illinois in the subject, that he did not at the time, immediately after

follow the usual parliamentary procedure, which, as I understand, would have foreclosed the Senator from Illinois from doing that which he is now doing. doing. That, I am sure, was in deference to the knowledge of the Senator from Kansas that the Senator from Illinois would want to be heard on this issue.

Mr. DOUGLAS. We try to treat each other as gentlemen. Perhaps I should not have mentioned the fact that I was not notified. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for the further amendment he offered, which prevented it from being an outright disqualification. I am grateful to him for that. I am grateful that the matter was not finally settled by making a motion to reconsider, which would have been immediately defeated.

With the passage of time, we have had an opportunity to consider it. I hope, when I make the motion to reconsider, it will be adopted.

I hope my friend will not make a motion to table, but that the Senate will be able to vote on a motion to reconsider, because a motion to table would require three steps rather than two, and I do not wish to hold up consideration of the foreign aid bill unduly.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the statement of the

Senator from Illinois. Two or three comments should be made. Some have been mentioned already.

In the first place, it was stated on the floor that those of us from farm States should have sympathy with those from to fish and the amendment under disother areas, particularly when it comes

cussion.

Last night I did not know this amendment was to be called up. I did not call it up. I did not have a written amendment, but when the amendment was called up, it occurred to me that it was then or never. That is the reason why I offered the language stating that the sale of products under Public Law 480 should not contain fish flour without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration. It is that simple. When the Senator from Rhode Island made his suggestion, I had no objection. I would not

Mr. CARLSON. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator place greater trust in the Food and Drug Administration than he does in the National Academy of Sciences?

Mr. CARLSON. I am not familiar with the National Academy of Sciences, but our Nation has had the benefit of the Food and Drug Administration for many years. The Administration has rendered great service to the country. I could mention many products from which the Administration has protected our people.

There has been some talk about what a great product it is. What is this prod

uct? Let me read what it is.

This product would be made by grinding whole fish of any variety, including scavenger fish and other fish not commonly considered edible, taken from oceans, inland waterways, swamps, and other sources, and would include everything in and on the fish-head, eyes, scales, fins, intestines, contents of in

testines, worms, and parasites. Thus, the product would consist in part of "filthy, putrid, or decomposed" substances within the meaning of the act.

Still, we would want to grind up that product, call it fish flour, and force it on hungry people in other lands. I will

not be a party to it.

The Senator from Illinois made a

statement about the Food and Drug Administration. Over a long period of years the Food and Drug Administration has consistently taken the position, which the courts have consistently upheld, that an article of food containing such substances is adulterated. For example, the courts have held that fish containing parasitic worms, butter containing rodent hair, flies, feather parts, or insect filth, flour or sugar or bread containing rodent hairs, rodent excreta, or insect fragments, and tomato paste containing corn ear worms and their excreta, were adulterated within the meaning of the act.

This is not something new. I do not want to stand here today and permit an amendment to the language that would permit exportation of items that are considered not to be fit for human consumption in this country. I have no objection to selling them all kinds of fish.

If the Senator from Illinois will read the report of the committee on this particular subject, I think he will agree that there is no question as to what the committee had in mind. I read:

There have been occasions when foreign governments have asked for canned fish products under the food-for-peace program to supply protein deficiencies.

I continue to read from the report:

This amendment will make it possible to meet these requests to the extent that fishery products may be in surplus. The amendment will put fish on the same basis as frozen beef, canned pork, canned hams, variety meats, and fruit.

I believe the distinguished Senator said that this product was not in surplus, but it could be made a surplus product. That is not the purpose of Public Law 480. The purpose of that law is to take commodities which are already in surplus and dispose of them, and not try to produce others.

As I have read from the report:

The amendment will put fish on the same basis as frozen beef, canned pork, canned hams, variety meats, and fruit.

ple can ask for any more than that. I do not understand how the fish peoThey are on the same basis. Yet they come to us and seek the adoption of an Law 480 a product that has not been apamendment to place on sale under Public proved by the Food and Drug Administration. Whenever the Food and Drug amendment is adopted, of course it will Administration approves it, and if the be sold. I am on sound ground. amendment is adopted, of course it will

Illinois, as the Senator from Alaska has I was generous with the Senator from mentioned. I could have prevented this debate, and it would have been a simple to do would be to make a motion to rething for me to do. All I would have had consider, and I am sure it would have been adopted. Then the Senator would

have been finished. I did not want to do that. I wanted him to have an opportunity to do what he is doing now. I am not going to try to shut him off now. He

amendment. Finally I will make my can use all afternoon to discuss this motion to lay his motion on the table.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have not yet made my motion. I appreciate guished friend from Kansas. He is one the generous comments of my distinof the most even-tempered men in the Senate. He is a delight to all of us. He mentioned the opinion of the Food and Drug Administration. I hold in my hand a report of the National Academy of Sciences, signed by Mr. Frederick Seitz, the President, under date of November 6, 1962, transmitting a report of the committee of the

Sciences which considered this product. mittee of the National Academy of They were asked this question: "Can a wholesome, safe, nutritious product be made from whole fish?”

The report states:

The committee concluded that a wholesome, safe, and nutritious product can be made from the whole fish. The committee

accepted the definition of "a wholesome product" to be a product which is healthful and promotes physical well-being. Products are currently available, produced in the laboratory or in pilot plants, which have been shown to be safe and nutritious in animal feeding studies. In these studies, the nu

tritional value of fish protein concentrates

has been shown to be equivalent to or better than casein. Information is also available that such concentrates have been utilized in human population studies and found to be acceptable.

Properly processed, all portions of the fish can contribute to the nutritional value of a product.

I fear that the Food and Drug Administration is under the influence of many forces. One of them is the group of big millers and the wheat interests, as indicated by their record in the late 1940's. At the same time that they turn up their noses at this wholesome, safe and nutritious product, they have passed these articles, which I exhibited on the floor of the Senate some weeks ago, and some of which I have in my hand.

THE ABSURD APPROVALS OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Here is a chocolate covered menagerie of ants, baby bees, caterpillars, and grasshoppers. If the Senator from Kansas has such faith in the Food and Drug Administration, I will give him some chocolate covered grasshoppers. If he does not like that, I have here a chocolate covered ant. These are products that the Food and Drug Administration has approved. They say they are all right, but they will not let a wholesome, sanitary, nutritious, high protein fish concentrate be sold.

Will the Senator from Kansas take some of these, or will any other residents in the Wheat Belt turn up their noses at a high protein fish concentrate? I have some fried grasshoppers, if he would prefer those.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. Does the Senator have any chocolate-covered elephants?

Mr. DOUGLAS. No; they are too large. The Senator from Kansas mentioned the fact that he did not want to have roaches in food. I have here some dried fish which contain several roaches, clearly visible. They are used as an attraction. If the Senator from Kansas would like to consume these roaches, which have been passed by the Food and Drug Administration, I will place them

on his desk.

Mr. CARLSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate receipt of all these splendid articles which have been approved, as the Senator says, by the National Academy of Sciences, which I understand consists of the upper intelligentsia of the country, not of the com

mon people. It has never reached down that far.

Academy has not approved those articles; Mr. DOUGLAS. No, the National

it has been the Food and Drug Administration which has done that. The National Academy of Sciences has approved the high protein fish concentrates.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from North Dakota comes from a great wheat State. Let me offer him some chocolatecovered ants. If he does not like them,

I can offer him some fried grasshoppers.

I

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. wish the wheat industry and the milling industry had such great influence with the Food and Drug Administration, as the Senator from Illinois thinks. The Food and Drug Administration has clamped down on the wheat people, to the extent of making it necessary to

remodel most of its granaries and warehouses.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator mean that that was done in an effort to try to diminish the amount of droppings of rats?

They

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. have had to remodel most of the warehouses and granaries, and regulations have been tightened to the point that if a mouse runs across a bin of wheat, the wheat is likely to be disqualified.

Mr. DOUGLAS. It must leave something substantial behind.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Just occasionally. The Senator, on the other hand, in effect is proposing that we take the whole mouse and make flour out of it.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is a fighter. The Senator from Illinois is a great crusader. The Senator from Illinois is a worker in good causes. I suppose there is no need for me to say it since the Senate knows it and the whole country knows it. The Senator knows that I am on his side in this controversy regarding the Food and Drug Administration decision. We had a conversation on the same subject the other day, and the Senator from Illinois had a much more imposing array of exhibits than he has at the present time.

I see that the exhibits are all here again, produced by the Senator from Illinois. They did not appear very tasty at that time. The Senator also had some fish flour, or fish protein concentrate, and he offered me some. I expressed a willingness to eat the flour, but resolutely refused to be enticed by his repeated offer of chocolate-covered bees or chocolate-covered ants, or even fried silkworms. Dried fish, liberally adorned with cockroaches which had perished in the package, was not at all appealing.

I stand ready to work with him and for him and under him in doing everything possible to persuade, by whatever means possible, the Food and Drug Administration to permit fish protein concentrate to be sold domestically. There is nothing offensive about this product. I agree with the Senator that it would furnish a wonderful protein source for people. Not all Americans have enough protein, but that is especially true of people in the underdeveloped countries.

The senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] told us yesterday afternoon that court action or congressional action must be taken to bring about and effectuate this change. If congressional action will do it, I assure the Senator from Illinois that I am with him. I will join him in any way possible to bring this change about, because it seems to me it makes commonsense to do

So.

However, another consideration is involved by way of the basic amendment. I was its architect. Now efforts are being made to add another room to the architectural design. I am obliged to say, in a pragmatic way, that not for worlds would I have the whole house collapse in this effort. I say that with all deference and respect for the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS]. The fact is that this amendment was offered CIX-1376

originally to and accepted by the Committee on Foreign Relations, because it was thought that it was an appropriate and justifiable means of disposing of surplus stocks of fish. We have heretofore submitted for the benefit of the committee and have submitted for the benefit of the Senate examples of how these surpluses haxe existed, not always, but from time to time, in different sections of the country.

I observe in the Chamber the two Senators from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE and Mr. PELL]. These surpluses have been found off the New England coast. They include sardines, as the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] knows so well, and other kinds of fish. Surpluses have likewise occurred on the gulf coast and the Pacific coast.

Since the basic_amendment provides that, under title I of Public Law 480, none of the appropriations heretofore made available, or to be made available during calendar year 1965, shall be used to carry out the intent of this amendment that is to say those provisions relating to title I under the basic amendment, the one that was adopted yesterday I think we could well devote our collective efforts including those on the other side of the aisle to working during the next year aggressively, vigorously, and I hope successfully, so that with out any debate, without any argument, without any controversy, the fish protein concentrate then could be used for this program.

As has already been stated, there is no surplus of fish flour. I should not have used that expression; I should have said "fish protein concentrate." I have no doubt there could be built up shortly a supply of such concentrate. My understanding is that some amounts have been sent overseas for testing purposes, and that there is some sale for use as highquality animal feed. This does not mean that the same products would not be desirable for human beings.

This is a testing stage, more or less. The fish from which this product is made are edible fish-edible in every sense of the word. What is wrong with eating this product, when the Food and Drug Administration allows us to eat sardines?

But I believe that even if the language that is now before the Senate based upon the amendment of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON], as modified by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], prevails just as it is, that does not mean, cannot mean, and should not mean that at an early date an addition to that program, in the form of fish protein concentrate will be barred.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I wish to direct a question to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, because I think the RECORD Ought to be corrected in one respect, or at least clarified.

The position taken by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] is that he is opposed to the inclusion of fish protein concentrate until such time as this product is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and made eligible Drug Administration and made eligible for American consumption. He is not disposed to allow to be sold abroad, even if foreigners want to buy it, a product if foreigners want to buy it, a product

that the American public cannot eat. What is the Senator's contra argument? Mr. DOUGLAS. Whose argument? Mr. PASTORE. That is the argument of the Senator from Kansas. I want to know what the rebuttal is to that argument.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I thought I made my rebuttal. In the first place, Mr. Larrick is completely wrong. The National Academy of Sciences, as I have read, has declared high-protein fish concentrate to be wholesome, safe, and nutritious. This is clearly a case in which Mr. Larrick is wrong. But out of his stubbornness, he has made an administrative ruling that high-protein fish concentrate is unfit for human consumption. Even though he has not barred it from foreign use, he has declared it unfit for domestic consumption.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that

he has declared it unfit for domestic consumption strictly on esthetic grounds, and not on the grounds of nutrition, safety, and economic benefit?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is correct. Mr. Larrick said it raises in the minds of people unesthetic thoughts because the whole fish is used, including the intestines and the head, although there has been compression, washing in many solutions of water and many solutions of alcohol, baking, complete sterlization, and removal of bacteria that

might have been in the intestinal tract. gentleman permits the sale of oysters Nevertheless, at the same time, this with their intestinal tracts, and of clams, of snails, and many other creatures that have intestinal tracts. He raises no esthetic objection to them.

First, if the amendment of the Senator from Kansas were eliminated, and to the basic Bartlett provision, as inwe returned to the basic amendment or terpreted on the floor of the Senate, we would put pressure on the Food and Drug Administration to include the product in the foreign assistance program. Also, once the product was used abroad, there would be increasing pressure on Mr. Larrick to change his ruling at home. Many people at home, as well, need this food. Not only is it the most available source of cheap protein, as the former Director of the food-for-peace program, the distinguished junior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGovERN], has testified, but it affords the next big market for the American fishing industry. This is a new product, one which can spell the difference between depression and prosperity for the fishing industry, because it gets away from the difficulties of refrigeration in preserving fish. The fish can be processed quickly and made into fish flour, and the fish flour will keep forever.

Mr. BARTLETT. It is protein concentrate.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Excuse me; I sometimes fall into that error.

Mr. PASTORE. Do I correctly understand the Senator from Illinois to resolve his argument to this: That even though the product cannot be used for human consumption in the the United