I believe they are the two largest producing areas and they are also in the district which is represented by Congressman Trimble.

So I can assure you we have a very deep interest in this, and it is my understanding of the problem here, I am completely in accord with the testimony that will be offered by Mr. Hawks.

I think it is an extremely important question and I hope the committee will not make any radical changes in the procedures heretofore followed.

If any changes are seriously contemplated, we want plenty of time to develop the validity of the situation.

I don't wish to take the time of the chairman because these gentlemen are here representing the industry, and they will know what they are talking about, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to come here.

Senator CLEMENTS. Thank you, Senator Fulbright. We are glad to have had those remarks from you, and we are glad to have you approve of Mr. Hawks' testimony in advance.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I would like to stay and listen but I have a committee meeting of my own at 10:30, so I will have to walk out. Senator CLEMENTS. This committee can well understand your problems.

Congressman Trimble, is there any statement you desire to make at this time?

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. TRIMBLE, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I just want to reiterate what Senator Fulbright has said.

I am authorized to speak for our colleague, Congressman Mills of Arkansas, who is tied up in committee meeting and couldn't be here. He agrees with our feeling in this matter.

Now, two of these especially one of these witnesses is a constituent of mine, and my constituents are always right.

Senator CLEMENTS. The customer is always right.

Mr. TRIMBLE. The constituent is always right.

We have a problem. The industry is a proud industry, and what Senator Fulbright has said on his part, I want to reiterate on my part. I have read Charlie Hawks' testimony. I am for it. I agree with it completely.

We don't want to do anything that will destroy or impede this great industry that has been slowly built up through the 12 years that I

have been here.

And I have a committee meeting that begins at 10:30, and the blue smoke is probably thick over there, so I will have to be getting over there.

But I am in back of these men in their program and I am sure with you gentlemen here that they will have a fair and impartial hearing. Senator CLEMENTS. I am glad to have had those remarks from you, my friend.

The confidence you express in the committee is appreciated.

The first witness we will have this morning is Mr. Charles D. Hawks, who was previously presented to the committee by Senator Fulbright.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. HAWKS, GENERAL MANAGER, ARKANSAS POULTRY FEDERATION, LITTLE ROCK, ARK.

Mr. HAWKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Arkansas Poultry Federation respectfully submit the following points believed to be the most desirable in proposed legislation dealing with the inspection for wholesomeness of poultry and poultry products under consideration at this time.

The Arkansas Poultry Federation represents approximately 3,000 members of the Arkansas poultry industry including major processing facilities capable of handling 111⁄2 million pounds of poultry weekly. The poultry industry of Arkansas is proud of its record of processing poultry under voluntary standards. During the period of January 1, 1955, through December 31, 1955, just past, Arkansas graded a total of 45,230,438 pounds of poultry, excluding turkeys, to rank third nationally in this respect.

Arkansas graded 6,420,074 pounds of turkeys to rank 12th nationally in this respect.

Arkansas processors handled 97,420,454 pounds of poultry under supervised sanitation to rank seventh nationally.

Arkansas produces 7 percent of the commercial broilers produced in the United States with a total of nearly 80 million broilers.

Arkansas processors began using the services of the Inspection and Grading Division, Poultry Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service of United States Department of Agriculture, at its beginning nearly 25 years ago.

We believe in a program of sanitation in poultry processing. However, in substituting a program of compulsory inspection for wholesomeness for the present voluntary program, certain points must be considered.

We believe that the poultry industry problems, which are peculiar unto themselves, are best understood by those in the Inspection and Grading Division of the Poultry Branch in the United States Department of Agriculture, now administering the current inspection program.

It was obvious many years ago that standards of inspection applicable to beef, pork, lamb, and veal were wholly different in comparison to the poultry industry.

This situation has not changed despite advances in genetics, health control, feeding, and management.

We believe it would be a serious administrative mistake to attempt to develop a set of standards applicable to a combination of both the poultry and the red meat industry.

It is believed that there will be efficiency of handling and a greater benefit to consumers if the administration and regulation of each commodity group is handled separately.

May we respectfully reiterate that a compulsory program of inspection for wholesomeness should be specifically charged to the

present Inspection and Grading Division of the Poultry Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

The Secretary of Agriculture is best fitted with discretionary authority for the application of new techniques and methods as they are developed in the rapidly changing poultry industry.

Such a compulsory program should in fairness to the consumer who will benefit from such regulations, be financed from appropriated funds.

During the past 28 years, the costs of the present voluntary programs have been paid by the poultry industry.

It is obvious that such a program places the poultry industry at a distinct economical disadvantage to the red-meat industry. In fairness to the poultry producers compulsory programs should therefore be financed from public funds.

Under a voluntary program of inspection for wholesomeness, it is understandable and apparent that only a portion of the poultry industry voluntarily accepts the standards.

We must all recognize that a high degree of sanitation may be maintained by other than specifically recommended construction, materials for construction of plants and equipment.

Many of our plants have been operating for years under generally most satisfactory conditions.

Buildings and equipment may or may not be acceptable to proposed standards. In some cases, compliance will require major revision. We therefore suggest that serious consideration be given the selection of the effective date of proposed compulsory programs, not to precede July 1, 1958.

In converting from a voluntary to a compulsory program, it is evident that competent and trained personnel will be needed in far greater numbers. It is also questionable that a date earlier than July 1, 1958, would permit the time to train and organize the necessary staff.

Our federation earnestly pleads that the recommendations of the poultry industry be given serious consideration in the revision of laws proposing compulsory inspection for wholesomeness.

We ask that the Secretary of Agriculture be designated to administer such programs and the present staff of trained and competent personnel in the Poultry Branch of Agricultural Marketing Service be utilized for carrying out administrative directives and inspection program.

It would be unwise not to use the long experience and knowledge of the present personnel of the Inspection and Grading Division of the Poultry Branch. The dismissal of the agency or the transfer of its personnel to a subservient position under the red meat inspection program would be damaging.

Therefore, we urge that the present staff and the present agency be retained in order to obtain the maximum high degree of administrative efficiency.

The poultry industry has demonstrated its willingness to accept a mandatory program of inspection for poultry products.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our recommendations to this committee.

Senator CLEMENTS. I would like to state to you and Mr. Kumpe and Mr. Southerland that Senator McClellan has expressed his interest in your testimony here today, as well as his regret at not being able to be present.

Are there any questions, Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Hawks, I understand that the segment of the industry that you represent would be willing to accept the mandatory inspection if it would be provided and carried out under the existing facilities of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. HAWKS. Yes, sir.

Senator CLEMENTS. Any questions, Senator Hickenlooper?
Senator HICKENLOOPER. No, I have no questions.

Senator CLEMENTS. Let me say to the witnesses here today, 37 of you, you may recognize that if there are any long statements to be made here today, that by necessity they are going to have to be summarized and presented for the record.

Mr. Southerland, do you have any further statement other than joining in this one?

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. That's right, sir.

Mr. KUMPE. Yes, I have one for the Southwestern Association. Senator CLEMENTS. All right, sir; you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF J. O. KUMPE, PRESIDENT, SOUTHWESTERN ASSOCIATION, AND GENERAL MANAGER, ARKANSAS POULTRY COOPERATIVE, INC., BENTONVILLE, ARK.

Mr. KUMPE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Southwestern Association is composed of poultry industry men in production, hatching, feeding, financing, processing, and marketing broilers, fowl, turkeys, and eggs, in 6 States, namely, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas.

Our membership covers approximately 80 percent of the volume of broilers, fowl, and turkeys processed in these 6 States.

One of the original objectives of the Southwestern Association was increasing the quality of poultry and poultry products, and the efficient marketing of same.

The second and third ranking broiler producing States are found in our membership, namely Texas and Arkansas.

These 2 States alone make up 14 percent of the national production of broilers.

According to our volume of 160 million broilers you will find more plants under the voluntary inspection program for wholesomeness which demonstrates our belief in inspection of poultry products by the Poultry Branch, Agricultural Marketing Services, United States Department of Agriculture.

The following resolution was adopted unanimously by our association in February 1956:

We favor compulsory inspection for wholesomeness of all poultry products moving into interstate commerce, under the present Inspection and Grading Division of the Poultry Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and that such inspection be paid for from public appropriated funds.

80695-56—— 9

Two bills, S. 3588 and S. 3983, are now before the committee, both of which provide for a system of compulsory inspection. Of these two measures, we approve S. 3588 and oppose S. 3983.

We disagree with many of the provisions of S. 3983.
The principal objections in brief are as follows:

First, S. 3983 would stop all movement of poultry in interstate commerce after January 1, 1957, unless inspected as required by the provisions of the bill. Six months is not enough time for training additional inspectors needed for compulsory inspection in all plants processing poultry.

Second, S. 3983 would mandatorily put into effect inspection procedures developed 50 years ago for red-meat animals, and could limit the use of improved, more effective and less costly techniques that have been recently developed or may be developed in the future, Third, S. 3983 proposes to put compulsory poultry inspection in a mere division under Red Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture.

In carrying out this provision we will lose the good improved and efficient methods developed in the Poultry Inspection Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture the past 28 years.

Poultry today accounts for about 11 percent of the gross income in agriculture.

It is the third most important produced farm income, totaling some $312 to $4 billion.

We oppose this provision of S. 3983 which would make poultry inspection for wholesomeness a subordinate division under Red Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture, on the ground that the poultry business is large and growing larger and more important each year, and will best be served in the Poultry Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service of United States Department of Agriculture,

This provision which would put administration of poultry inspection program in the Meat Branch completely overlooks and ignores the fact that there are substantial differences between poultry and red-meat animals; that their production, distribution, and marketing are different, and that they are in direct competition with each other in the market place.

The Southwestern Association believes that S. 3588 is the best of the two measures and that it will serve the poultry industry best by the following:

First, it will utilize the personnel now experienced in doing voluntary inspection for wholesomeness.

Second, take advantage of the experience gained the past 28 years in the Poultry Branch Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture on inspection of poultry.

Third, the measure gives full assurance to the consuming public that only poultry food products which have been inspected for wholesomeness can be marketed in interstate commerce.

Fourth, S. 3588 has a definite purpose and objectives as stated in its legislative finding and declaration of policy. It is made up of terms which are constructive and meaningful, without being derogatory to, and destructive to public confidence in, one of our fine agricultural food products, namely, poultry.

Fifth, S. 3588 gives the Secretary of Agriculture full authority to conduct an effective inspection program to determine wholesomeness