imported dates are substantially different, physically as well as commercially, from the local product.

I am not arguing for or against the date provision of the bill, but simply suggest that I hope the committee will be able to afford an opportunity to the Iraq Date Trading Co. to get its position on the record. But we are in a position to give the committee some information about figs.

This bill would enumerate figs and fig paste in section 8(e) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended. The effect of enactment would be that the Secretary of Agriculture would impose the same quality inspection standards on imports as are imposed on California figs by order No. 64, which has been issued by the Secretary under the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

The bill, speaking of H. R. 7760, should be opposed for two principal reasons: First, it would require the Department of Agriculture to duplicate the work which has for many years been done efficiently by the Food and Drug Administration.

Secondly, because it is a veiled attempt to restrict imports, although Congress has already provided ample authority for import regulations under other provisions of law.

With respect to duplication of inspection:

The standards prescribed by order No. 64 for California figs and fig paste to be shipped in interstate commerce are the same as those in force by the Food and Drug Administration on both California figs and fig paste, and on fig paste and figs imported into the United States from foreign countries.

At the hearing in Fresno, Calif., on June 17, 1954, preparatory to the issuance of order No. 64, the respresentative of the Secretary of Agriculture raised the question of whether the order should provide for the possible modification of the prescribed standards of quality in the future.

Mr. Dwight Grady, representing the California Fig Institute, replied:

Well, may I say, Mr. Eastman, that of course I cannot-nor can anyone else, I suppose predict what will happen in the foreseeable future. I can only say that an experience of 27 years with this standard as a regulatory standard of the United States Food and Drug Administration has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the proponents that such a change is presently unlikely; that is, a change that would justify the erection of discriminatory standards as between varieties.

This testimony appears in the docket of the transcript of the Fresno hearing, Docket No. AO 258, page 451.

Note that the proponents of the order then testified that the quality standards in the order were the same as the standards with which at that time they had 27 years of experience under the Food and Drug Administration.

And I think it may be noted that no changes in the quality standard provisions of order No. 64 have been made since the order was originally adopted. In 1955, I think, it took effect.

Since the standards proposed to be enforced on imports by the Secretary of Agriculture under this bill are already being enforced on imports by the Food and Drug Arministration, enactment of the bill would require a straight duplication in government so far as figs and fig paste are concerned.

I would like to state at this time, Mr. Chairman, that when Mr. Sisk testified that the people represented by Mr. Anfuso would be on weak ground if they wanted to import low-quality figs, I think he was absolutely right.

The point is they do not want to import low-quality figs. The point is that they do not want to set the family hamburger under the guard of the family dog.

Now as to the proposition that this bill represents an attempt to restrict imports, I want to make plain, of course, this makes no reflection on Mr. Sisk or the sponsors of similar bills. We are speaking of the intent of the industry that asked the Congressmen to introduce

the bills.

Dried figs are at the present time subject to import duty at the rate of 42 cents a pound. And fig paste is subject to import duty at the rate of 5 cents a pound. These rates are equivelent, respectively, to 36.8 percent ad valorem and to 54.4 percent ad valorem. That is, fig paste which is the principal import is subject to a duty equivalent to 54.4 percent ad valorem.

This information is in the latest report of the Tariff Commission on dried figs and fig paste which I would be happy to leave with the committee for its information.

I do not want to ask that it be put in the record. It is rather voluminous.

Mr. HAGEN. We will keep it in the committee files.

(The report referred to will be found in the files of the committee.) Mr. MARTIN. Within the past 2 years the California fig industry has made 2 separate efforts to obtain additional import restrictions on imports under section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. In both cases the Tariff Commission ruled that the imports were not interfering with the Marketing Agreement and Order No. 64 above referred to.

In both instances the California fig industry appealed to the President to restrict imports, notwithstanding the decision of the Tariff Commission. And in both instances the President declined to do so. Having failed to obtain additional import restrictions on top of the already high tariff duties the California fig industry is now endeavoring to obtain its ends by indirection, namely, by giving the Secretary of Agriculture power to reject imports on the grounds of quality.

The real nature of the move behind the pending bill is a matter of public knowledge. The Fresno Bee, published in Fresno, the center of the California fig industry, on November 22, 1957, carried an account of the efforts of the industry to prevail upon the President to overrule the report of the Tariff Commission which had been issued on September 17, and which found that no additional import restrictions should be imposed. After referring to this matter pending before the President, Dr. MacLeod, chairman of the agricultural committee of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce, referred to the matter of quality regulation of imports. The Bee reported:

In urging approval of the second and special appeal to the President, Dr. MacLeod declared the Federal Department of Agriculture also is urging development of restrictions on fig imports subject to controls similar to those under which California fig producers operate.

I have an excerpt from that issue of the Bee, Mr. Chairman, and if the committee would find it useful I would be happy to put it in the record. It is a matter of which I think the committee would take judicial notice.

Mr. HAGEN. I do not think it is necessary to put it in the record. Mr. MARTIN. Now there can be no question but that this pending bill is another shot from the same import restriction bow of the California fig industry.

The Congress has provided in section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act ample authority for the restriction of imports when they threaten the marketing agreement program such as that in effect on California figs. The export United States Tariff Commission has twice found that the imports do not interfere with the program. Having failed in a direct assault on imports the California fig industry is now trying to restrict them through the device of H. R. 7760, and there efforts should be rejected.

There is a rather important subsidiary point that should receive careful attention. Inspections under section Se, involved in this bill, the cost of them, is charged to the importer.

Now the Department of Agriculture is on record as favoring restrictions of imports of figs. If the Congress passes this bill, the Department will be in a position to oppress importers, if they so wish. The Department will be in a position to examine every container of figs that is brought into the United States. It will cost the Department nothing. It does not come out of their appropriation. The cost must be borne by the importer. Of course, as you know, all ultimately must be borne by the consumers of products.

I think it is a pretty serious matter where a department is permitted to restrict, to give the power of inspection over that trade, which power of inspection could be used to stop the trade or reduce it very substantially.

And, Mr. Chairman, I obviously am not expert on these food and drug laws. I have referred to testimony of Mr. Grady, who has been in this business for many years, and who is very well posted on them. He has testified under oath, I may say, that the standards of order No. 64 are the same as the food and drug standards.

The committee, probably, knows that the Food and Drug Administration does not have enough apropriation to inspect every food item that is made in the country. But the information we receive from our technicians is that Food and Drug Administration does a very good job on inspecting imported figs and fig paste. We have our consultant technician, Dr. Filetson here, a former expert of the Food and Drug Administration and, also, here is Mr. Van Allsburg, who is consulting chemist of the Modern Biscuit Co. in Brooklyn, both of whom are intimately familiar with the food and drug procedures and the quality of the product which we import from Turkey, Greece, and Portugal.

I think it would be most useful to the committee to hear their testimony on this subject.

Mr. HAGEN. I have them listed here as witnesses, Mr. Martin.

Mr. MARTIN. Well, sir, those are the few words that we thought we ought to get to the committee this morning.

If there is any additional information about the price of imports and figs and fig paste we will be very happy to supply them to the committee.

Mr. HAGEN. I have no desire to argue with the witness, but if as you say the standards applied by the Food and Drug Administration are the same as those which are applied under this fig marketing order, your argument that this proposal is a concealed method of restricting imports, would fall of its own weight, would it not, assuming food and drug is completely efficient?

Mr. MARTIN. No, sir. It is a matter of applying those standards. If the agency applying the standards does not care about the economic consequences of the business, I think one would presume that he would apply them objectively across the board, regardless of whose toes got trodden on and whose did not get trodden on. If the agency applying the standards wants to suppress one segment of the business, I think it is not at all unreasonable to expect that his inclination would be to apply the standards a little differently.

Mr. HAGEN. The standards speak for themselves. All he can do is carry out the law, whatever it might be.

Mr. MARTIN. In accordance with his predilections, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAGEN. I might infer from your statement that, perhaps, the Food and Drug Administration is not inspecting all of the shipments and not in all cases applying the standards. Otherwise, the results you predict would not follow.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, the Food and Drug is inspecting the imports as I stated, but it is not possible for them to inspect every container.

Mr. HAGEN. Do you have any further comments?

Mr. MARTIN. No, sir.

Mr. HAGEN. Do you have any statement that you wish to submit for the record? If so, you may do so.

Mr. MARTIN. How long will the record be open for that purpose?
Mr. HAGEN. A week possibly. Is that long enough?

Mr. MARTIN. On the subject of dates, Mr. Chairman, I would suppose that the Iraq Date Trading Co., which has views on the subject, would deem it a great privilege of presenting them to the committee in person. There is no substitute for the spoken word. A brief won't show it as well as the witness will.

Mr. HAGEN. We will consider the possibility of holding further hearings after today.

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, sir.

(Without objection by the chairman the following letter and attachments are inserted at this point in the record:)

Hon. GEORGE M. GRANT,

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 6, 1958.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing,

Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. GRANT: At the hearing on H. R. 7760, February 25, 1958, presided over by Representative Hagen, witnesses were given an opportunity to supplement their oral testimony.

Mr. S. R. Smith, representing the Department of Agriculture, took particular exception to my statement that we feared that if H. R. 7760 was enacted the Department of Agriculture might show partiality against imports in the administration of the inspection law. As you understand, my remarks were not intended to reflect on any individual or on the Department but merely were in the context of the Department's previously declared wish that imports of figs be restricted. My testimony was not in the nature of a charge or an accusation but merely reflected the concern of my client over the treatment he might expect from the Department if the Department is given authority to

exclude his goods from entry on quality grounds. This concern was not dreamed up or picked out of the air but grew gradually as a result of the Department of Agriculture's prior treatment with respect to imports of figs. Typical of this treatment is the attached correspondence. The Department has given my client evasive, misleading and deceptive responses with regard to inquiries for information on the then current status of the efforts of the California fig industry to restrict imports of figs and fig paste.

The Department's response to my letter of June 8, 1956, is typical of its responses to other requests for information. A copy of my letter of June 8 and of the Department's reply of August 17, 1956, are attached. You will note that in my letter I requested the Secretary to supply me "with any pending complaint, application or request for action under section 22 to restrict imports of figs and fig paste, including any pending supplements or amendments thereof" and also “information as to the present status of the matter within the Department." Note that the Department delayed over 2 months in responding (from June 8 to August 17), and in its response, in addition to ignoring my request for a copy of the pending application, the Department promised to advise me "should the Secretary decide that the situation does not warrant a recommendation for section 22 action at this time."

Subsequently it became known that on August 14-3 days before the Department wrote me the Secretary of Agriculture had actually written to the President recommending an investigation under section 22 with respect to figs and fig paste. Not only did the Department deny S. M. Wolff Co. information about which there was no reason for secrecy but its letter was also calculated to deceive S. M. Wolff Co. as to the status of the matter.

It is on the basis of such treatment by the Department of Agriculture that S. M. Wolff Co. is unable to believe that it would receive equal justice should the Department of Agriculture be granted authority to embargo its imports. It is requested that this letter and its attachments be made a part of the hearing transcript concerning H. R. 7760 and printed in the record following my oral testi

mony.

Very truly yours,

Hon. EZRA T. BENSON,

EDWIN G. MARTIN, Counsel for 8. M. Wolff Co.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 8, 1956.

Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Reliable trade reports are that the California fig industry has filed and is now pushing a request for action under section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to restrict imports of dried figs and fig paste. These products are already subject to high import duties and are imported chiefly from our Mediterranean allies, Turkey, Greece, and Portugal.

Your attention is respectfully requested to the procedural situation that will result if you decide that section 22 should be invoked. Upon your affirmative decision, the Department of Agriculture ceases to be impartial in the dispute between different groups of citizens over foreign trade and becomes an advocate for the group that wants to restrict that trade. Your representatives appear at the Tariff Commission hearing to argue the restrictionist cause, as they also do in the inner councils of the administration.

It is submitted that fair play requires an equal opportunity to importing and consuming interests to present their side of the controversy before you decide to throw the power of the Department of Agriculture on the trade-restriction side. We are fully aware of the policy statements of your subordinates that they are always glad to receive the views of opposing interests. But, in the present situation, this only begs the question.

The real point is that the opposing interests cannot reasonably defend themselves without knowing the details of the complaint that has been filed with you. Such complaints seem to be held in secret by your Department. Such secrecy in turn encourages the making of extravagant representations about the situation, and the persons against whom such representations are made are not even apprised of the charges. They are completely denied due process. And on the basis of such ex parte representations your Department becomes a partisan on the side of trade restriction.

It is unbelievable that you would approve of such one-sided consideration of problems facing the Government, especially when the end result of the proceed