Page images

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Just before you leave the stand, let me ask Dr. Miller the same question I asked Dr. Clarkson. But I want to put it a little bit differently.

As Dr. Boyd has said or testified, as far as physical requirements are concerned virtually all of the packinghouses which receive California inspection, but are not federally inspected in California at this time, would qualify physically for Federal inspection.

Let us assume that virtually all of them would. If all of these 366 packinghouses were to apply tomorrow for Federal inspection, would you in fact be able to provide the inspection for them within budgetary limitations of the next few years?

Dr. MILLER. I feel like I should comment on that requirement aspect because of the factual matter that enters into all reviews of applications.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I know it does.

Dr. MILLER. But I would like to sort of refer back to a comment that Dr. Boyd made in connection with an application that his organization received from a plant that has given up Federal inspection. It is a recognized routine that whenever an inspection organization has an opportunity to make a fresh start with a company, they endeavor to bring the facility requirements up to date.

It is conceivable that there are plants in California that might be considered to be comparable to this example that Dr. Boyd mentioned of plants that came out of the Federal system. It is conceivable that there are plants, if they came up for consideration today, that have maintenance plans that are in the picture for bringing the facilities up to date. These would be put into effect in connection with the review of the application, so invariably that means that there is a stringing out of grants in connection with the large number of applications, which gives the organization an opportunity to adjust its manpower assignment.

As Dr. Clarkson said, every effort would be made. And I am sure that 300-and-some additional plants would present quite a problem in manpower requirement, but every effort would be made to use the available manpower to cover every plant who gets to receive this inspection.

It is conceivable that during this stringing out that it is inevitable in the processing of all of these applications, where plants are in varying degrees of compliance, that the financial needs could be reflected in a request for additional money.

In other words, a supplemental request would be possible in connection with such a development.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Do you feel that you would have, or be able to get, qualified inspectors when you get the additional money?

Dr. MILLER. It is not easy, especially when you need veterinarians. As a practical matter, however, what has happened in connection with the shift over from California inspection to Federal inspection that occurred during the war, that the inspectors who are already there are available for employment-I mean, the inspectors who are already in those plants are available for employment.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. In other words, they would drop the State inspectors, and you would pick them up?

Dr. MILLER. That is it.

Mr. FULLER. In answer to Mr. Heimburger's question, I must remind the committee that this is a bill not applicable only to California but to the 50 States. So when you see the tremendous job involved, Mr. Heimburger, in your question, if they all should, then you can imagine what would happen if all 50 States wanted to do the same thing.

Here is a type of cooperation that we have found very, very workable in other departments, such as the Food and Drug, including milk and what have you.

This piece of legislation on meat is the only one which has been left out of that category. Meat inspection is the only one that is not included in a cooperative approach throughout the States, generally speaking. There may be other exceptions, but this is the only one that I know of.

So this is not a departure in any manner or form from the normal procedure. It is that the States shall assume and continue the burden for the inspection of meats. Supervision above that level shall have supervision by supervisors qualified for this.

Mr. BREEDING. We thank you, Mr. Fuller, and the witnesses from California and other areas who have testified here this morning.

I have here a letter addressed to Mr. Poage, from the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen, which I will ask, unless there is objection, to be placed in the record at this point, as well as a telegram addressed to Mr. Poage by Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc.

(The letter dated March 31, 1960, and the telegram dated March 31, 1960, follow :)

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Chicago, Ill., March 31, 1960.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Feed Grains,
House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN POAGE: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Subcommittee on Livestock and Feed Grains on Friday, April 1, to testify on H.R. 8951, H.R. 8954, and H.R. 9187. Unfortunately, notice of the hearings did not reach me until about 3 p.m. on Wednesday, March 30. As a result, I will not be able to prepare adequately for these hearings I therefore will be unable to testify.

The legislation which you are considering is, in the opinion of our union, extremely dangerous. We feel it would greatly weaken meat inspection and would sow tremendous suspicion and distrust in the meat industry. Instead of having a Federal program which is now highly respected by all parts of the industry, we would have several programs with each inspected firm believing the other one was getting away with something.

The State programs which would assume some of the powers of the Federal inspection agencies would be a lot more open to pressure. As a result, the present independent objective and consumer protective meat inspection program would be seriously harmed.

Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

ARNOLD MAYER, Legislative Representative.

FORT WAYNE, IND., March 31, 1960.

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

House of Representative, Washington, D.C.:

We understand that bills permitting meat products of approved State inspection to be shipped in interstate commerce are being considered by the Livestock Committee. We heartily approve such a move.

The Fort Wayne plant of Peter Eckrich & Sons is Indiana State inspected with a resident inspector. We produce a quality line of luncheon meat, frankfurts, and smoked sausages. Our plant is of brick exterior with ceramic tiled walls, brick tiled floors, stainless steel supporting column. All equipment throughout the plant is stainless steel. We are justifiably proud of our modern plant which is matched in cleanliness and sanitation with but few in the country. Seven thousand five hundred square feet is devoted to a research and development division with the most modern apparatus. We believe that the effect of the proposed legislation would give the livestock producers and the meat industry greater flexibility and opportunity.


Mr. BREEDING. There being no further witnesses, the subcommittee will stand adjourned until further call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to further call of the Chair.)


« PreviousContinue »