my understanding you were in agreement with the fact that the Congress is now proposing to underwrite this inspection service at the cost of the Government rather than at the cost of the processor. That will eliminate, to a great extent, the possibility of repetition of those unfortunate instances which have happened in the past. I agree with you that it should be paid at the expense of the Government. Now, whether that will eliminate it entirely or whether one agency can do the job better is a matter of opinion, but I do think that the underwriting of the cost of the inspection service by the Government will be a major step in the right direction.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Definitely, I agree with you on that, and I would just like to close my remarks on this point by saying that the same problem of budget, and no funds availability, existed in dog food, which humans do not consume, and yet there was never any provision made in the Meat Inspection Branch which handled the dog food thing, to allow any packer to suggest, at other than the sole discretion of that agency, that they would pay for the movement.

They paid for it out of a general fund that all dog food processors paid. We just cannot see, when you read that contract

Senator WILLIAMS. I am not defending the transfers, don't misunderstand me on that.

Dr. SUSSMAN. I realize that.

Senator WILLIAMS. I just point out that we hope that the bill will prevent that possibility from recurring.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator CLEMENTS. Let me tell you that as one member of this subcommittee, I would be greatly disappointed if we have any legislation for compulsory inspection service which does not take into consideration the need for eliminating the type of situation you mention here with reference to removals when there is a contract existing between the Government and the processor.

If we have a compulsory system which permits that, our legislation will have some flaws in it which certainly would be eliminated quickly, in my judgment.

Senator WILLIAMS. That was the point I was trying to emphasizethat it is the intent of the committee to correct the situation which you have under either of the bills which are proposed. There may be a difference of opinion as to which division can handle the inspection more appropriately, but nevertheless this practice would be corrected by putting the cost of inspection on the Government. Otherwise, you would provide for its possible recurrence under any agency, even the Food and Drug Administration.

Senator CLEMENTS. I think it is important you brought it out, and brought it out in the detail that you have. Senator WILLIAMS. That is right.

Senator CLEMENTS. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. SUSSMAN. This next paragraph may be superfluous, but just to keep the record straight.

Referring back to the contract previously called to your attention, it is explicit that movements of inspectors may be made other than at the sole discretion of the employing agency, the Poultry Branch. There can be no doubt that the integrity of the inspection staff and the administrative group should not be any less for the protection of

poultry than for dog food in the United States. This is not presently

true.

This association believes that Senate 3983, as introduced by Senator Murray, is an acceptable compromise bill. We feel that the provisions of S. 3983 overcome the legitimate objections of those individuals actually interested in obtaining a satisfactory, workable, and acceptable compulsory poultry inspection bill.

This bill will not be acceptable to those groups who are intent on deceiving the public and obtaining for themselves a "cover" to which they may point and indicate, "See, we now have a compulsory poultry inspection bill."

Our association feels that the work done by Senator Murray and his group in the recent report entitled "Compulsory Inspection of Poultry," Document No. 129 of the 84th Congress, 2d session, has served to crystallize the feelings of public-health authorities and to point out the essential differences of the officials who are looked to by the public as those protecting their welfare, as opposed to other groups whose main interest is in the selling of a product.

Our association offers as one correction to S. 3983 the followingthis is the corrected definition we offer:

(1) The term "inspector" means an employee of the Meat Inspection Branch who is duly authorized to inspect live poultry or poultry products and perform other official duties relating to the carrying out of the provisions of this chapter.

As the definition reads in the bill at present, it would allow for the Secretary to appoint State, local, or even company-paid employees: (1) The term "inspector" means any person authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect poultry and poultry products under the authority of this act.

Our group feels only employees that meet the standards as defined by Gen. Wayne O. Kester, president-elect of the American Veterinary Medical Association, should apply. I quote:

An inspection agency, to be acceptable, must comply with four cardinal prerequisites for an adequate inspection system.

First, the inspectors must be competent and qualified.

I would like to qualify this statement, if I may, at this point. This morning I heard someone, I believe it was a Congressman, read a letter in which he indicated that we didn't need veterinarians, and that, of course, in line with Senator Williams' statement, there are always differences of opinion.

But I do not believe that perhaps we could extend that to the fact that maybe we don't need physicians and maybe we don't need Congressmen or anyone, because actually anyone can do anything as well as the other. I don't believe that any Member of Congress believes that type of statement, and I don't really think that the poultrymen who have said it really believe it. Because he has undoubtedly used vaccines and has used biologicals and has had help from veterinarians, so that he probably realizes that he does have to have a veterinarian to tell him what a disease is, and what should be done about it.

By the same token, an inspector to be properly qualified would have to know what he is looking at. You just cannot have one trained in 5 minutes or 3 minutes, or even in a year, and have him do the job of pathological determination.

One question was raised by this witness, and he said when a bird is going by per second, a bird per second; and that really is not the rate at which they go by. And our group feels that one of the things which the Agricultural Marketing Service has been doing has been attempting to speed up the line in order to allow for better production and more money for the processor. They have actually been having the birds go past slightly faster.

They have got them up to 24 a minute, and we honestly believe that some inspectors can do that, but we don't believe most of them can, and we feel that there shouldn't be that pressure of a man standing behind a veterinarian, a doctor, and determining whether he is going fast enough or not.

These are some of the things, when you are talking about a human stomach and human health, we don't feel the speedup should apply. We feel it is in the wrong agency. They are in the agency to get production, and not in the agency to keep health.

These are just a group of things we have been thinking about.

Senator CLEMENTS. Of course, this committee is interested in both of them.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Yes.

Senator CLEMENTS. They are interested in production———

Dr. SUSSMAN. Definitely.

Senator CLEMENTS (continuing). And they are also interested in the protection of the consumer.

Did I understand you to mean, Doctor, that nobody should be connected with the Poultry Inspection Service who is not a veterinarian? Dr. SUSSMAN. No, sir. [Reading:]

Second, they must have tenure of office, so that no one may put pressure on them in connection with their duties.

Third, the inspectors' agency or supervisors must be responsible and accountable to the consumer.

Fourth, the inspector must have no financial interest or connection with anyone in the organization being inspected.

In that connection again, one of the other reasons we feel the agency is the wrong agency, they have in the past, without adequate investigation, licensed owners of concerns, partners, there have been convictions of men who carry cards which are making them the sanitarians in a plant which is licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture, and we think on that type of an agency, it is the wrong group. They just have the wrong concept.

And in one particular case, in New Jersey, this matter was called to the attention of one of the local inspectors for the Department of Agriculture; and 2 years later this firm was pulled into Federal court and the partner was fined for having allowed diseased poultry to go through his plant, with this same card still in his possession.

And when he was fined, they did a very nice thing. They then appointed the foreman of the plant as the sanitarian. And we just don't have any feeling about that type of thing. You just can't make sanitarians overnight.

Senator CLEMENTS. Doctor, is that not the reason why the committee has before it now a compulsory inspection bill?

Dr. SUSSMAN. I think so.

Senator CLEMENTS. A bill providing for compulsory inspection.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Right.

With respect to S. 3588, this bill supposedly provides for compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products. The bill places inspection in the Department of Agriculture.

It does not, however, specify that it is to be administered by the Red Meat Inspection Branch in order to avoid duplication and to make use of the know-how of this inspection service presently in the Depart

ment.

I would like to comment that previously there were a number of people that suggested one reason why the inspection should not be in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was to avoid dupli

cation.

Yet everyone seems to shy away from the fact that in order to actually avoid duplication, you would have to, in fact, combine it with the Red Meat Inspection Branch, which they shy away from.

This bill throughout its entire text refers constantly to commerce, to aid in the sale of poultry products, and with so little reference to actual inspection for wholesomeness that the only logical place for its administration appears to be within the Poultry Branch.

We should like to call to your attention section 4 on page 3, wherein the Secretary of Agriculture may determine when poultry produced within a State, shipped to a city within a State, may be forced into the Federal system of inspection simply because the Secretary of Agriculture determines that such products are consumed in a volume so as to affect, burden, or obstruct the movement of inspected poultry products in commerce.

This means that once such city has been designated, no poultry may enter that city or area unless it meets the Federal system.

We certainly, from the New Jersey health officer's standpoint, disagree with the fact that within, as for example, in the State of New Jersey, poultry produced in Vineland by a New Jersey resident and shipped up to Newark to be eaten by a New Jersey resident, should in any way be handled or contacted by the Federal Government.

We think in that case, then the Federal Government would just have to come in and take over the local health autority's jurisdiction, because certainly the only thing that is needed from the Federal Government is to protect the borders of the States, and there is no need for them delving into and getting personal in our own local situation.

Senator WILLIAMS. You described an incident a few minutes ago, though, Doctor, about a plant in New Jersey which was putting out an inferior product. Did I understand you would continue to allow that plant to operate?

Dr. SUSSMAN. No.

Senator WILLIAMS. And you do not want that plant to be put under compulsory inspection?

Dr. SUSSMAN. That plant was under inspection. I mean, you realize that it was under inspection.

Senator WILLIAMS. Then why the complaint? You do not want us to do anything about that type of a plant; is that what I am to understand?

Dr. SUSSMAN. I think later on in the statement you will understand this, if I have made it clear, and I may not. That is, if the Federal Government would stop inferior and diseased poultry from coming

across a State line-and when I, as a local State official, go to the meat packers in New Jersey and say, "Let's have a system of red meat inspection," and they tell me, O. K., we will have a system of red meat inspection," if you put the poultry people under a system of inspection and I go to the poultry people in New Jersey, then they say, "That's fine, we are willing to have the system of inspection here in New Jersey, if you will make sure that no poultry comes into New Jersey that has not been inspected."

Now, I cannot get anything done within a State unless actually the shipments that are coming into the State in interstate commerce are handled properly by the Federal Government, and that is all that the local health authorities are asking for, and that is not what S. 3588 does. It does the same thing as has been done in the milk field, and I think that is a horrible example.

Senator WILLIAMS. I was just trying to clear up the point.

Dr. SUSSMAN. This bill provides, not for compulsory inspection, but in line with section 5, lines 7 and 8, is permissive when and if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that there is a need for antemortem or postmortem inspection.

In this connection, Senator, yesterday there were some recommendations made by the Department of Agriculture.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator CLEMENTS. Go right ahead with your statement.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Well, I heard you ask the other people about what they thought about it. I think there is one statement that was made by the Department of Agriculture with respect to an amendment which actually does not amend it. It still leaves the decision as to whether there shall be inspection or not

Senator CLEMENTS. Doctor, we are going to give you the same opportunity as all the other witnesses to comment by written statement on any of the suggested amendments.

Dr. SUSSMAN. Right.

The bill further provides, under section 10, that if and when the records of a company are examined and information is received from such records, that such information may not be used in the prosecution of the firm in question.

This, in our estimaton, is a very poor procedure. It would completely frustrate any adequate investigations and prosecutions. Section 13 gives too wide latitude of administrative power to the Secretary of Agriculture in written, statutory form.

Section 15 (a) is a good section and does allow for the same type of exemption as exists in the Red Meat Inspection Act. It is our impression that this should be an amendment to Senate 3176 and has been included in S. 3983.

Section 15 (b) permits the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a certificate of exemption from this supposedly compulsory poultry inspection act any time within 2 years. It does not provide that he must terminate such exemption certificates at the end of 2 years. In fact, in a distinctly separate paragraph, namely, section 15 (c), it states: The Secretary may terminate exemption certificates at any time.

While this may infer that he may do so at any time prior to the 2-year period, it is our belief that he may fail to cause such exemption to expire and could in fact have the exemption continue indefinitely.