We believe that this section could be further improved, however, if a new subsection (b) were added which would provide that—

Upon request of a State government, the Secretary may make available the provisions of this Act to any establishment processing poultry or poultry products, which may be engaged solely in intrastate commerce if such establishment meets the requirements of, and is operated in accordance with, the provisions of this Act and the regulations thereunder.

This provision is believed desirable because no one can be entirely certain of the impact of a compulsory inspection program upon poultry distribution. In areas which are not designated, but in which there may be markets in which intrastate poultry competes with interstate poultry, the intrastate poultry might be at a disadvantage if it could not obtain Federal inspection. This provision along with the provisions provided elsewhere for cooperation between Federal and State Governments would tend to minimize the difficulties attendant upon the establishment of a compulsory program and also give broader protection to the public.

(3) S. 3588 gives the Secretary of Agriculture full authority to conduct an effective inspection program to determine wholesomeness but it does not tie him to a bird-by-bird ante mortem and to a bird-bybird post mortem type of examination such as were developed 50 years ago for red-meat anmials. ›

>

And this is the point that I referred to earlier, Senator, in my testimony, which I think at some future date this committee might well want to give some consideration to the inspection methods and techniques in order to improve the techniques, and perhaps reduce the cost. I believe that the Hoover Commission made some recommendation to the effect that there be some experimentation into a more effective method of inspection.

Senator CLEMENTS. To what extent are those provisions written into the law, and how many of them are discretionary with the Secretary of Agriculture?

Mr. PARKER. The animal-by-animal method of inspection is written into the law with respect to the post mortem type of examination. Senator CLEMENTS. Is that the only matter to which you were referring?

Mr. PARKER. That is the principal matter, and the ante mortem procedures. Under this poultry bill, 3983, the language is ambiguous with respect to ante mortem inspection. But Senator Murray when he introduced the bill placed an interpretation in the record in which he stated that the language of the bill would require a bird-by-bird ante mortem inspection, which we don't think is desirable to mandatorily require by law.

We believe that the authority should be in the law so that it could be imposed wherever it might be necessary.

It would appear to be highly desirable to leave to the discretion of the Secretary the circumstances under which ante mortem inspection should be made in view of the greatly increased costs which would be entailed by such inspection and the lack of definite knowledge as to its benefits. Furthermore, with atomic energy available for peaceful uses in the near future, we may be on the threshold of completely new, revolutionary, and more efficient methods of food inspection.

S. 3588 would permit the Secretary at any time in the future to make full use of any advancement in the arts and sciences.

(4) S. 3588 would vest the authority contained therein in the Secretary of Agriculture in the same manner in which the other powers of the Department are now vested in the Secretary. This, we believe, will enable the present Secretary or any future Secretary of Agriculture to do the best job of administration of which he is capable and that it will put the Congress in a stronger position to hold him responsible for his stewardship. For the reasons heretofore stated and although we strongly believe that an augmented poultry inspection program should be placed in the division of the department which is doing a good job of administering the voluntary program and which has accumulated long experience in the field, we nevertheless feel that the determination should be left to the Secretary and not be fixed by legislative mandate.

(5) S. 3588 would also prevent overlapping and dual functions between agencies, in the same manner in which overlapping functions are prevented by the Federal Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.

Under S. 3588, the Secretary would have certain jurisdiction relating to inspection at the processing level, and the Food and Drug Administration would have jurisdiction and responsibility for the product after the processing operations have been completed; whereas under S. 3983 there would be an intolerable duplication of functions and endless and costly confusion.

(6) S. 3588 provides for cooperation between Federal and State governments in inspection programs. No such authority is contained in S. 3983.

(7) S. 3588 recognizes that it will not be feasible to embark on a program of compulsory inspection without providing reasonable time to organize and train the enlarged staff which will be required, promulgate the necessary regulations and afford plants an opportunity to qualify.

Under S. 3588 plants can come into the program as soon as they qualify. Thus there will be an orderly shift to a compulsory program with the program in full effect on a mandatory basis by July 1, 1958. Again I wish to express my appreciation to the committee for affording the National Grange this oportunity to present its views on these bills.

Senator CLEMENTS. Do you have any questions, Senator Williams? Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Parker, you were here this morning and heard the representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture make recommendations in connection with the series of amendments?

Mr. PARKER. Yes; I did.

Senator WILLIAMS. Would you care to supply the committee later with your opinion as to how those amendments would affect this? Mr. PARKER. I would very much appreciate that opportunity, cause they were too detailed for me to attempt to follow.

be

Senator WILLIAMS. We would like to have the benefit of your opinion on the proposed recommendations.

Senator CLEMENTS. Let me say for Mr. Parker's benefit, and the benefit of any others who have previously testified or who will later testify before the committee, there will be a committee print which - will incorporate those suggested amendments which will in no wise endeavor to indicate the viewpoint of any member of the committee.

But the committee print will be available, and any who have testified or who may testify on the bill, the committee will be very glad to have memorandums from them commenting on any of the suggested changes that were made.

It will be supplementary to the testimony that has been given today.

Are there any further questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. I gather from your testimony that the Grange is in full agreement that the enactment of S. 3588 or some such bill providing for mandatory inspection of poultry not only would be a benefit to protect the consumer but also would be a benefit to the farmers, the producers, processors, and all segments of the industry? Mr. PARKER. Yes; if an adequate bill is provided that will not unnecessarily burden the producer or unnecessarily widen the spread between the producer and the consumers.

Senator WILLIAMS. And you think that can best be achieved under the principle outlined in S. 3588?

Mr. PARKER. It appears that way to us; yes.

Senator CLEMENTS. Thank you.

The next witness will be Mr. Matt Triggs, assistant legislative director of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

STATEMENT OF MATT TRIGGS, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AND HERBERT H. ALP, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DEPARTMENT, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Senator CLEMENTS. Proceed, Mr. Triggs.

Mr. TRIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied by Herb Alp, director of our poultry department. For a number of years the American Farm Bureau Federation has had a poultry advisory committee consisting of representative poultrymen from all areas of the United States and responsible officials of the State farm bureaus. Last fall this committee, after extended consideration of the issue at numerous meetings of poultrymen in various States, recommended to the board of directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation that the board support legislation to provide for mandatory poultry inspection by the Department of Agriculture. The board of directors indicated their general approval of the recommendations, but took action to refer the question to the resolutions committee at the annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation in December.

At the annual meeting of the AFBF the official voting delegates of the member State farm bureaus approved the following policy state

ment:

Mandatory inspection of red meat at livestock slaughtering establishments as presently financed and administered by the USDA has helped to assure the wholesomeness of meat sold in interstate commerce.

We urge extension of this service to include poultry meat sold in interstate commerce, with provision, where necessary, for the use of lay inspectors under the supervision of veterinarians.

In view of the fact that hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, on S. 3176by Senator Murray-providing for a mandatory poultry inspection

program by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, we would like to set forth briefly why we believe it is essential that authority for a poultry inspection program be lodged in the Department of Agriculture, rather than the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Senator CLEMENTS. I am sure that you would want the record to be clear that the same group who held the hearings later introduced a bill which recommended that it be under the Department of Agriculture. rather than the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Senator CLEMENTS. I am sure that you would want the record to be clear that the same group who held the hearings later introduced a bill which recommended that it be under the Department of Agricul

ture.

Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct; that is covered later on, Senator.

1. The Department of Agriculture has done an outstanding job, in the interest of both producer and consumer, in the inspection of red meat and in the present voluntary inspection of poultry meat.

2. The Department of Agriculture has the organization and the trained personnel which will enable them to take on this additional responsibility with a minimum of administrative difficulty-thus avoiding the creation of a duplicating inspection service in the Department of Health, Educaton, and Welfare.

3. The Department has a long history and tradition of effective enforcement of regulatory programs with a minimum of disruption to commerce, and with reliance on education and persuasion as supplementary to direct enforcement action.

The revised Murray bill, S. 3983 has also been referred to this committee. Although much of the language of the two bills is similar, we believe S. 3588 is preferable to S. 3983 for a number of reasons, including the following:

1. S. 3588 contains an adequate "legislative finding" and "declaration of policy" which describes the general purpose and objective of the legislation which we believe is desirable. No such sections are contained in S. 3983.

2. The language of S. 3588 is much more appropriate to a poultry inspection program in many respects than S. 3983. For example, S. 3588 provides that poultry must be determined to be "wholesome," whereas S. 3983 provides that poultry must not be "adulterated." The endeavor to use food and drug law terminology in a poultry inspection law necessarily involves establishing meanings for terms that are unrealistic in terms of the normal usage of such terms.

Now, the Department of Agriculture has recommended that the concept of adulteration has a place in this bill. I have no doubt that it does as supplementary to the concept of wholesomeness, but not as a substitute for the idea of wholesomeness.

3. The effective date of S. 3983 is January 1, 1957, whereas the effective date of S. 3588 is July 1, 1958. We do not believe it is administratively feasible to issue regulations, recruit personel, and expand the organization within the period contemplated by S. 3983 to an extent insuring that the Department of Agriculture will be able to serve all plants without disrupting operations.

4. S. 3983 provides that poultry inspections shall be by the Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture rather than the

Poultry Branch which now handles the voluntary inspection program. We doubt the advisability of establishing by statute the agency within the Department which should perform the functions. We believe it is desirable to permit the Secretary to determine the allocation of responsibility in such a manner as is determined to be most efficient.

5. S. 3983 provides that the Secretary "shall" perform both antemortem and post-mortem inspection. While both inspections may be necessary and desirable, we believe some degree of discretion should be permitted so as to permit most effective use of personnel and minimum interference with plant operations.

For example, most poultry slaughtering establishments are just as concerned, and more so, as any inspector would be, to avoid receipt of unhealthy lots of birds. Where an inspector has determined that this is the attitude of the concern and its receiving personnel, it becomes uneconomic for him to inspect each incoming lot. A spot inspection from time to time as he deems necessary should, together with the post-mortem inspection, be entirely adequate to insure the wholesomeness of the plant's output. The discretionary provisions of S. 3588 are, we believe, preferable.

6. S. 3983 applies to all commerce "over which the United States has jurisdiction," which leaves in considerable doubt the exact scope of the bill.

7. The enforcement provisions of S. 3588 are, we believe, preferable to those in S. 3983. S. 3588 provides for an informal hearing prior to court action, and gives the Secretary discretion to determine that court action will not be necessary if the public interest will be served and the objectives of the act can be accomplished without such an action. It is our belief that, in dealing with actions not malum in se that this enforcement procedure is desirable.

S 3588 provides that dressed poultry in interstate commerce must be inspection and must meet standards of wholesomeness. The bill also provides that the Secretary, after investigation and public hearing, may determine that in a designated city or area that intrastate shipments into the city or area must also be inspected.

It will be noted that this provision relating to intrastate shipments goes beyond the provisions of our policy stataement as quoted above. We would not believe it advisable for the Secretary to institute Federal inspection of intrastate shipments except as it is carefully determined after investigation and consideration and hearings that this is actually essential to accomplish the purposes of the act, and only after a sufficient period of time has elapsed to permit State legislatures to give adequate consideration to the institution of State inspection of intrastate shipments. If the committee reports the bill we urge that the report set forth this policy for the guidance of the Secretary.

We believe that section 15 (a) providing for the issuance of exemption certificates to any poultry producer selling directly to household consumers represents a practical recognition that inspection in such instances is impractical and that poultrymen marketing poultry in this manner should be permitted to continue to do so.

Section 15 (b) provides that for 2 years following the effective date of the act the Secretary may issue exemption certificates at any time he is unable to provide service.