we accomplishing anything particular except to impose upon the Secretary an imposition or a requirement which he can only effectively administer by virtue of deciding just how to carry it out? By the same token, if the language were to be that the Secretary should carry out antemortem inspection as he felt necessary, what is the basic difference between the two?

Mr. PARKER. Well, if I were the Secretary of Agriculture and you gave me a bill to administer, I'd ask you what you wanted me to do if you made it mandatory.

Mr. McINTIRE. I think so. I am very much confused as to just what is intended there.

Mr. DIXON. Don't you think he has brought up a very significant point that we haven't heard before-I haven't heard before in testimony-on the fact that they haven't defined what antemortem inspection should include? That is the way it occurs to me. He made a contribution to our thinking.

Mr. McINTIRE. Well I think that Mr. Livney made a point which has not been mentioned before and which I should have mentioned myself because I am aware of it, and that is that the poultry industry has reached the point out at the farm level where you don't walk into poultry pens and I think that most every poultry producer is very careful in disease control and is very much concerned about farm inspection, and I think to carry it to that point opens up an area that we need to give pretty careful thought to, because I have visited a number of poultry farms where, frankly, I thought the manager was perfectly right-I didn't get any farther than his barnyard-and I think he was smart that that was as far as I got because he has got this problem of disease inspection and he can't have everybody-not that an inspector is everybody-nevertheless the problem of the pens being open until such time as he is ready to go to the market. Mr. WATTS. Thank you very much.

Is there anybody that the committee has unintentionally overlooked that wants to testify?

(No response.)

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the hearings a telegram from the Norbest Turkey Growers' Association.

(The telegram referred to is as follows:)

Representative ALDOUS DIXON,

House of Representatives,

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, March 7, 1957.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

Reference to hearings which are now going on in connection with poultry, I talked with you from Iowa about this and suggested that you support House of Representative bills 514 and 767. This is similar to Senate bill 313. A great deal of time has been spent on these bills to make them workable and to protect public health by the poultry industry nationally. We would like very much to see the Secretary of Agriculture have jurisdiction over this inspection service and put it in the department he sees fit. Also, we believe that post mortem inspection is a must and antemortem inspection should be optional by the inspection service.

Thanking you for your interest and cooperation.

HERBERT BEYERS,

General Manager, Norbest Turkey Growers' Association.

Mr. WATTS. It will be admitted.

Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, before our record is closed for the day, Congressman Coffin, my colleague in the Maine delegation, asked me if I would file a statement at a later date which I would request be incorporated in the record along with the statements of other Members of Congress. But in view of his not being certain just when he might be available again, he did not want it to be made a part of the record.

Mr. WATTS. That will be filed.

Mr. McINTIRE. I ask unanimous consent that it be handled in that

manner.

(Whereupon, at 5:45 p. m., the committee took a recess until Friday, March 15, 1957.)

COMPULSORY INSPECTION OF POULTRY AND

POULTRY PRODUCTS

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1957

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMODITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON POULTRY AND EGGS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 o'clock in Room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. John C. Watts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. WATTS. The subcommittee will come to order.

We have with us this morning Congressman Hoeven, who has a short statement he would like to submit to the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. HOEVEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Among other bills you are presently considering, H. R. 3052 introduced by me on January 16, 1957, in substance this bill provides for the compulsory inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture of poultry and poultry products. I have no pride of authorship in H. R. 3052 in that it is one of several similar bills now being considered by the subcommittee.

You are familiar with the provisions of the legislation, so I will not take the time to elaborate upon the several provisions of H. R. 3052. Suffice it to say I feel that the inspection features of the bill should be by the Department of Agriculture and not by the Department of Commerce as is being urged in some quarters.

It is my understanding that the industry dealing in poultry and poultry products is very much interested in the type of legislation now being considered by the subcommittee. The public also is vitally interested.

I sincerely trust that a workable bill may be presented to the Congress at this session incorporating the general provisions of H. R. 3052 or similar bills.

My chief objective is to present legislation which not only will be fair to the industry but which also will protect the health and welfare of the American people.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WATTS. Questions, gentlemen!

Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say to Mr. Hoeven that there are 2 or 3 places in these bills which seem to be areas

265

in which there are substantial differences of opinion. One is in re.. lation to wherein the Department of Agriculture should administer this, and the other is a provision relative to whether the word "knowingly" shall remain in the bill as far as there having to be knowing infractions. Those are some points where you can give further thought on this, and we would appreciate it.

Mr. HOEVEN. I have great confidence in the ability of this subcommittee to work out a bill which will be fair to both the industry and the American people, and whatever can be worked out certainly will have my approval.

Mr. JOHNSON. One other point is on the type of inspection, how the inspection should be done. Many think we should leave it up to the Department to determine that.

Mr. HOEVEN. I would think that that is likely a matter of administration which should be worked out by the Department.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. WATTS. Any other Members of Congress present this morning? (Discusion held off the record.)

Mr. WATTS. We would be delighted to hear from you at this point, Mr. Schwengel.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRED SCHWENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like unanimous consent to extend my remarks. I will not read my statement but I simply want to say I come here in support of House Resolution 5398, 5403 and 5498 which deal principally with one important point of this legislation which proposes to have inspection before poultry is accepted into the plant for processing. I think it is a good point. That is the principal point of my testimony.

At this point I would like to insert this statement in the record. (The statement refered to is as follows:)

Government inspection of food products is an old, and good, story to Iowans. We have had meat inspection for 50 years and we are very happy about it.

The excellent consumer protection, which the effective standards of the meat inspection program provides, has helped Iowa's economy tremendously. It has steadily expanded the market of our farmers and meatpacking industry. It has helped our economy to prosper, while at the same time assuring the American consumer that the beef she buys is wholesome.

We, in Iowa, also have a sizable poultry industry and we expect the same benefits for it, as meat inspection brought to the meat industry. We look forward to an acceleration of the increase in poultry_consumption. We are certain that the increasing consumer confidence in poultry will bring this about.

But, Mr. Chairman, we must make certain that that consumer confidence is forthcoming. We must have inspection legislation which contains the necessary safeguards and is without loopholes.

I understand that some of the legislation before this committee contains language in its "Penalties" and "Prohibited acts" sections which would make the measures very difficult to enforce. Such legislation,