Although the bill is designed primarily to provide for inspection of poultry in interstate commerce, section 4 permits the determination of major city areas within which all poultry received, including poultry received from areas within the State, must be inspected.

Section 5 of the bill contains the authorization for the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake a poultry inspection program. I think it is particularly important that this authority be granted to the Department of Agriculture rather than to some other agency.

The Department has had long experience in regulatory activity. It has the skilled and experienced personnel in this field. It has done an outstanding job, acceptable to both farmers and consumers, in a similar activity, the inspection of red meat moving in interstate commerce.

At this point I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is advisable to set up by law a separate section for the inspection of poultry meat within the Department of Agriculture. If we do this, it results in some duplication of efforts. It would necessitate more employment and would be a standing invitation to transfer that section to some other agency of the Government at the first opportunity

or moment.

Senator CLEMENTS. Let me ask you, Is there any inspection service of this nature in any other agency of the Federal Government than the Department of Agriculture?

Senator AIKEN. Of meat inspection? Not that I know of. I have said, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is undoubtedly far from perfect, that there may be some provisions that should be in there, that are not in. Some may be left out that should be put in. I do not like the idea, however, of setting up a separate section by law other than in the Department of Agriculture.

Senator CLEMENTS. The only reason I asked the question, I thought maybe from your statement that you might have thought there was some danger of this one being transferred to some other agency of the Government. And I did not think that there was any other inspection service for meat products in any other agency except the Department of Agriculture.

Senator AIKEN. I simply said that because of the advocacy of certain organizations in the country that poultry inspections be put under another agency of Government rather than the Department of Agriculture. I am sorry they saw fit to make that recommendation. It just gives the impression they do not like farmers too well. I do not think it is good business to do that.

Senator CLEMENTS. We have heard there were those that wanted to put it under the Pure Food and Drug Operations.

Senator AIKEN. That is right.

Senator WILLIAMS. Traditionally, the Department of Agriculture has always had the inspection of farm products, hasn't it? Senator AIKEN. That is correct.

Senator WILLIAMS. Both meat and poultry?

Senator AIKEN. Insofar as I know, there is no criticism of the meat inspection as it is now handled by the Department of Agriculture. Senator WILLIAMS. And the bulk of the criticism against the poultry products or other products which may be going to market and which are not in suitable condition, is criticism against those products which were not inspected and not against the Department of Agriculture as a result of not having mandatory inspection.

Senator AIKEN. That is right.

Senator CLEMENTS. I think it is a fair statement to make that both of these bills which are before the committee recommend that poultry inspection be in the Department of Agriculture.

Senator AIKEN. That is correct. As I understand it, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the Senate Labor Committee, have felt

Senator WILLIAMS. That it should be.

Senator AIKEN. That this inspection should be under the Department of Agriculture rather than setting up duplicating machinery in some other agency of the Government.

Section 6 of the bill is, to my mind, just as important as the inspection itself. This section provides for the establishment of sanitary standards, both as to plants and as to operations.

Section 7 of the bill provides for honest labeling and for the use of an official inspection mark.

Section 8 is perhaps the key paragraph of the bill in that it sets forth those marketing practices which are to be prohibited. The major provisions of this section are that delivery of poultry into commerce without inspection, or in unwholesome condition, or without adequate labeling is prohibited.

Section 9 provides simply that if a plant is to be federally inspected all poultry processed by such plant must be federally inspected. Otherwise a processor could merely divert into local markets any poultry that would not meet Federal inspections.

Sections 11, 12 and 13 are the enforcement provisions. Both injunctions and criminal penalties are provided. I want to particularly support the provision of section 13 providing for informal hearings, and the authority of the Secretary to avoid court action, if the same result may be accomplished without such action.

It seems to me that experience has indicated that enforcement of Federal regulatory authority is most effectively accomplished by education and persuasion, leaving more forceful action to the occasional recalcitrant case.

The provisions of section 15 relating to exemptions are, I believe, essential to practical administration and to avoid unnecessary hardship. I would not be surprised if the investigation of the committee should disclose that some modification and perhaps additional provisions should be provided in this section.

Section 17 merely provides that imported poultry meat must have been produced under a system of inspection and under such sanitary conditions as are comparable to those required of domestic producers under the bill.

So much for the bill.

This is a very important issue to poultrymen. The subcommittee's investigation may disclose some problems that are inadequately handled under the bill or some situation which will need your careful consideration to avoid disruption of the marketing of poultry prod

ucts.

I certainly do not consider the bill as necessarily perfect legislation (it probably is not), or even a matter that need necessarily be completed in these closing days of the 84th Congress.

But I do believe it is an important and forward-looking measure and that legislation to accomplish its objectives is needed and should be enacted by the Congress without too much delay.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLEMENTS. I do not want to get from your statement, and I hope I did not get it, but do you think it is wise for the Congress to act on this legislation, if they can reach agreement on the essential language

Senator AIKEN. Oh, yes.

Senator CLEMENTS. That will put it into effect?

Senator AIKEN. I hope it can be done. What I mean, Mr. Chairman, is that rather than to try to hurry to get under the wire before this Congress recesses for the summer, and taking a chance on getting improper or inadequate provisions in the bill, take a little longer time. I would like to see it get through at this session if it is possible to do so.

Senator CLEMENTS. I thought I understood the Senator from Vermont's view on the legislation, but I wanted to be sure that the record did not leave any doubt about it, because I know of his great interest in the enactment of compulsory poultry inspection legislation.

Senator AIKEN. Yes. That is true. And I would hope that we could complete the legislation this year but rather than get through the wrong legislation with mistakes that would have to be rewritten and changed another year, I would rather take a little more time. But I do hope we can get it completed before the end of this session of the Congress.

Senator CLEMENTS. Are there any questions you want to ask? Senator WILLIAMS. I have no questions, except that I do want to join the Senator from Vermont in expressing the hope that we can get action on this legislation. I hope we can get it out this year, because the overwhelming majority of the poultry industry itself recognizes the need of compulsory inspection. But as the Senator has pointed out, while you have a very few in the industry who will take advantage of the fact that there is no compulsion and put on the market something which is not in good condition, the housewife must be assured that all poultry is fit to eat. A small shipment of bad poultry disrupts the market of those trying to do a good job.

I think that we do need some type of compulsory inspection, and I think that the Department of Agriculture is the agency which can most efficiently handle it.

Senator AIKEN. My initial interest in this matter, Mr. Chairman, stems from the fact that in my own State there is a poultry processor, who buys large numbers of birds which are grown within a radius of 100 miles of this plant. He does not have all the necessary equipment for eviscerating as yet. He has to send his product-a lot of it goes to New York, some goes to Montreal, some to other places, I suppose, but twice he has made shipments which have laid around after they have reached destination until they have become badly infected with something or other.

And he has had to go into Federal court twice and get fined for something for which he was not responsible. The judge has sympathy for him because in all probability the product was in good shape when he shipped it. The last time he told him that he would have to look

to Congress for any relief from that situation, and to provide the inspection at the source; otherwise, he is likely to go to jail the next time he comes into court.

Senator CLEMENTS. Adding to what Senator Williams and Senator Aiken have said about the desirability of completing this legislation at this session of Congress, it would appear to me from what preliminary information has been made available to all of us, that there are fewer areas of disagreement in connection with it.

And unless there are new areas opened up that justifiably should be examined carefully and it would be more time consuming than I should think, I see no reason why we should not have legislation enacted.

Certainly, there is no disposition upon the part of the subcommittee chairman to take any other position than to give it the most rapid consideration that it can be given and at the same time be thorough, Senator WILLIAMS. We could always modify it in a later Congress if we found there was some point that was overlooked.

Senator CLEMENTS. I know of no legislation of this nature that has not been modified through the years after it was first enacted.

Senator AIKEN. I think with the reference of Senator Murray's bill to this committee that the greatest area of disagreement has been eliminated. We ought to be able to get together on the details of the legislation necessary.

Senator CLEMENTS. As I said, based upon the preliminary information available to the subcommittee, I see no reason why we should not get together and get a good bill out of this subcommittee. And if we do and the hearings are adequate, I believe Congress would act on it quickly.

Do you have any more questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. No more questions.

Senator AIKEN. I thank you for hearing me first because I have to go to the Foreign Relations Committee where we hope to conclude marking up the mutual aid bill.

Senator CLEMENTS. The committee understands the problems that you have this morning. The committee also understands the problems of Senator Murray.

Senator WILLIAMS. My colleague, Senator Frear, has a statement which he would like to have incorporated in the record in support of this bill. And I ask that it be incorporated.

Senator CLEMENTS. It will be placed in the record at this point.

STATEMENT FILED BY THE HONORABLE J. ALLEN FREAR, JR., A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

I appear here to day in behalf of S. 3588, a bill cosponsored by my colleague Senator John J. Williams and myself, which would provide mandatory Government inspection of poultry offered for sale to the public. I speak in favor of this legislation and most respectively urge its enactment during this session of the Congress.

As many of you may already know, the State of Delaware was for some time the largest producer of poultry, especially broilers. Other States have vied with our producers not only in quantity but in quality; however, I have yet to believe that they have exceeded the first State in the caliber of its broiler products.

Poultry is one meat product that does not carry a United States Government inspection label when offered for sale. This has often been brought to our

26

COMPULSORY INSPECTION OF POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS

under the Department of Agriculture. I think we are in unanimous agreement that it belongs there. I agree with you that the enact ment of some type of legislation such as this would be in the best interests of all concerned, not only the consumer but also the poultrymen themselves, because there is nothing in the world that would help them better than guaranteeing to the consumer that it is a good product when they buy it.

Senator MURRAY. You have expressed my views completely. I thoroughly agree with you.

Senator WILLIAMS. I am sure we can get the appropriate language in the bill.

Senator MURRAY. I think you will have no difficulty in doing that.
Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator CLEMENTS. The next witness is our distinguished friend from Utah, Senator Bennett. We will be glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLACE F. BENNETT, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Senator BENNETT. I have a very brief statement.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief statement on S. 3588 which I am cosponsoring.

I became interested in it fundamentally because we have in Utah a substantial poultry industry, the products of which are shipped all the way to the east coast. And I am anxious to protect the standards, the high standards, that our Utah industry holds up.

Two or three weeks ago I was privileged to go with a group of my colleagues to the little village of Gainesville, Ga., where our Senator colleague, Senator George, was honored on the occasion of his retirement. And I was surprised to be told in that little village they now have a poultry industry approximately $200 million a year.

The birds that are processed in Gainesville are shipped all the way to the west coast, as well as to the northern markets.

And the poultry industry which once was based on local distribution has certainly become based on a pattern of national distribution. And with meat as perishable as this, it becomes increasingly more important that high standards be set and inspection be carefully controlled.

The main question which Congress is being asked to resolve with regard to the inspection of poultry and poultry products is the question of how the Federal Government shall administer the program of inspection.

I think the legislative findings as to the necessity for inspection and regulation are not in serious dispute. The poultry industry is asking for compulsory inspection. They realize the nature of the problem and the genuine public interest which is involved. They realize also that their markets will not expand unless customers feel a sense of security with regard to the condition of the meat at the time of purchase.

The problem, therefore, when reduced to its essentials is like so many problems which Congress must resolve; we must protect the public interest and yet at the same time not abuse the industry which is the object of control.