In this case the corporate and individual plaintiffs have not been singled out for punitive legislative action. As of December 15, 1977, all grain inspection and weighing facilities in 13 port locations had been federalized and facilities in Pennsylvania and Baltimore were scheduled for federalization by February of this year. The scandals which prompted federal prosecutions and Congressional investigations occurred at export locations. The General Accounting Office determined that interests of foreign commerce required that inspection reform begin at points of export. The Grain Standards Act contemplates further federalization at inland locations while directing the government to proceed with dispatch regarding the centers of controversy. The focus of this enactment can be fairly and rationally understood and the first test for exempting a legislative act from Bill of Attainder status is satisfied.
The Nixon case's second test is "whether the law under challenge, viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes." Id. at 475, 97 S. Ct. at 2807, 53 L. Ed. 2d at 911.
In light of the prosecutorial work of the Department of Justice the investigatory findings of the General Accounting Office, and the information gathered in Congressional hearings, the decision of the legislation's drafters to concentrate the bill's more immediate effects on export locations appears well considered. Our country's increasing dependence on food exports as a means of rectifying balance of payments problems arising from energy imports is a matter of general knowledge.
The third test "is strictly a motivational one: inquiring whether the legislative record evinces a congressional intent to punish." Id. at 475, 97 S. Ct. at 2808, 53 L. Ed. 2d at 913. As in the case of the legislation considered in the Nixon decision, here the "legislative history leads to only one conclusion, namely, that the Act before us is regulatory and not punitive in character." Id. Additional indications exist that the bill is not intended to punish individual employees of South Louisiana Grain Services. Mr. Leland E. Bartelt, Administrator of the newly created Federal Grain Inspection Service, indicated in an affidavit to the Court that as of December 19, 1977, the Service had offered employment to 68 former employees of South Louisiana, and approximately 46 had accepted. In addition, the Service has purchased approximately $ 19,451 worth of equipment from South Louisiana. Mr. Bartelt indicated that the Service had offered to purchase all of the equipment South Louisiana was willing to sell, but was outbid by operators of private grain elevators on a number of items.
Mr. Williamson, the individual plaintiff, has similarly failed to demonstrate a punitive motivation. He himself indicated that employment with the Service has not been ruled out by the federal administrators involved. In an affidavit to the Court dated November 30, 1977, he stated:
Personally speaking, I will be foreclosed from practicing my profession in the private sector. I find the prospect of working for the FGIS singularly unappealing. The highest GS rating I have heard being offered by the FGIS is a GS-11, a rank I held some fourteen years ago when I left the Department of Agriculture.