27 



Mr. Taylor of Mississippi. Sir, it would seem to you, but I can 

 tell you I have observed in the State legislature, and I keep up 

 with what they do and what is happening. In Mississippi, Alabama 

 and Louisiana, it is not unique to those three States. 



So my question to you is, is part of your proposal are you willing 

 to have the Federal Government pick up the cost of inspecting here 

 and pick up the cost of inspecting in those countries that you ap- 

 prove? 



Mr. Billy. We do cover our costs of inspecting both the States, 

 auditing the State programs and auditing the foreign programs to 

 assure that those that are either under cooperative agreements or 

 under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program are following the 

 requirements that are described therein. 



Mr. Taylor of Mississippi. You picked up the cost of auditing 

 but not the day-to-day cost of the program. 



Mr. Billy. No. That is left to the given State or the foreign gov- 

 ernment that is associated with the product that is being produced. 



Mr. Taylor of Mississippi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Manton. The gentleman's time has expired. We will go to a 

 second round. 



I will recognize the gentlewoman from Washington. 



Mrs. Unsoeld. Mr. Billy, as I think where we left off, we were 

 having the once a year inspection that you might make overseas 

 and in the meantime the responsibility for any monitoring that 

 took place would lie with either the person importing it into the 

 United States or the producer to monitor themselves. 



Now, what I think is the merit of my program, my legislation, in 

 trying to equalize what my colleague has been talking about, the 

 double standard and the unjustification, is that I would require 

 that each foreign country exporting to the U.S. enter into an MOU, 

 but that MOU would require, one, that they manage their pro- 

 gram, that the country manage the program under the standards 

 and procedures at least equivalent to what would be required here; 

 and, two, certified of the secretary those shippers located in the 

 country that comply with the program; and, three, maintain and 

 make a list of the available — of the harvest areas that were accept- 

 able. 



I feel that you would — without that kind of requirement, would 

 not have the authority. Further, in this country, we monitor on 

 almost a daily, sometimes hourly basis for some of these toxins. 



A once a year inspection, Mr. Billy, how do you feel that you can 

 do by regulation what would be adequate to give an equal playing 

 field for our domestic producers compared to the foreign and still 

 protect the public's confidence in shellfish? 



Mr. Billy. We believe that the 23 producing States that are part 

 of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, as well as the coun- 

 tries, the governments of the countries with which we have agree- 

 ments, take a great deal of responsibility — their responsibility very 

 seriously to follow the rules and the requirements of the National 

 Shellfish Sanitation Program. 



I think that is verified by the fact that, you know, shellfish can 

 be consumed raw. With all the inherent risks that are associated 

 with the consumption of any raw animal protein, I think we have a 

 remarkable record over the last 75 years. 



