State and municipal jurisdiction and places the entire milk industry under Federal control.

We oppose the Surgeon General, the U.S. Public Health Service and the Federal Government and Federal courts taking upon themselves a duty and responsibility which now rests solely with State and municipal governments.

In conclusion we wish to state that the broad Federal powers conferred on the Surgeon General and the attempt to consolidate under his Office certain standards and procedures for handling milk are unnecessary and premature. First, there is no movement of unsanitary milk in interstate or intrastate commerce which needs national legislation.

Second, national legislation would not correct deficiencies in quality if these deficiencies did exist. The consuming public can best be served if milk-producing areas have strong controls, deligently administered at the milk production and processing level and regulatory officials must be just as alert and free to exercise control at receiving areas.

Third, the proposal is premature because there is no uniformity in standards of milk from one section of the country to another and there is no unanimity among professional sanitarians as to quality control measures and tests to be made to determine quality.

Fourth, Tennessee, State and municipal, do not reject milk from another State unless the milk fails to meet minimum standards in effect today.

For the reasons above stated, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture very respectfully requests this bill not be recommended for passage, and that we be permitted to continue to have only dairy products of the highest standards offered to our consuming public without the interference of any branch of the Federal Government.

Mr. SUMMERS. Now for my own statement, Mr. Chairman.

Since I have only been present this morning, there are some points in my statement that have not been touched on, I would like to ask the indulgence of going through my statement, which is not very long.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes, I hope you will not have to read it. If you will just point out your main points, we will make your statement a part of the record, without objection.

Mr. SUMMERS. All right.

Our association is composed of about 1,300 grade A dairy farmers living in 29 middle Tennessee and 8 southern Kentucky counties.

We have been operating under the U.S. Public Health code and ordinance since 1938, and we have had Federal inspection of our markets from time to time.

The last five such inspections-they are made every 2 years, and I will not go through all the figures, but I do want to give them so that the committee may know a little about our market-in 1951 this Federal survey showed that the producers had an average score under the USPH ordinance of 95.51 percent.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes, we see your chart here.

Mr. SUMMERS. And the shed rating was 89.38. Just to summarize, producers have not been under 95 percent in the last five ratings, and the whole market has not been under 9414. We object to the proposed legislation from the standpoint of a health measure when a big section of it is economic.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. You feel, from your statement, and actually your position is, that this legislation is more of an economic approach than it is one of health?

Mr. SUMMERS. That is right.

Now, our market, as I said, operates under the U.S. Public Health ordinance. We do not have barriers.

Our own association bought milk out of Chicago last December when we were temporarily short. That milk was bought under this

plan. We knew the plants needed it. We were trying to locate it and we asked the health department would they let us bring in milk certified as having received a score of 90 or more under the U.S. Public Health code from any market. We found it at Chicago and did bring it in.

Now, as one of the economic points in this, it is that at that particular time our price for class 1 was $5.35 per hundred, 4-percent basis.

This milk, one load, cost us $5.47 delivered, 3.5 percent butterfat basis, and the other cost $5.52.

There are some economics involved in this, that no market anywhere can have a price substantially higher than the cost at point of origin plus transportation plus handling.

We also have found no barriers in our operation.

We have shipped milk, did ship milk, ourselves, last fall to some three four or five States. We feel that to put the Surgeon General in complete control of the thing would take away the local incentive to get a better quality milk. We think our scores back us up in that. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. It shows you have good milk and the present system is working.

Mr. SUMMERS. And the present system, may I point out, got the good milk. Being a States righter, we don't like control from Washington. I have another statement, if I may.

Reference was made here from the consumer standpoint, and I think that is an important standpoint. With apologies to one of the members of the committee, I am using official figures for the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin and, in the last published fluid milk and cream report from the Department of Agriculture, the wholesale price for a quart of milk in Minnesota was 1912 cents per quart.

The farmer got, and these are approximate-let me give them exact because they are not in my statement, if I may-approximately $4. Our price last month was $5 and the wholesale price was 1912 cents a quart, exactly the same.

In the State of Wisconsin their price was approximately $4, maybe a little above, and the wholesale price for a single quart was 2112 cents, and our price, being a dollar higher, the wholesaler paid 2 cents less than he did in the State of Wisconsin.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Summers, for your very helpful testimony this morning.

Mr. NELSEN. I have nothing to say except to say that I think I will have to move to Tennessee.

(Mr. Summers' prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF GLENN G. SUMMERS

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Glenn G. Summers, secretary-manager of Nashville Milk Producers, Inc., Nashville, Tenn. Our association is composed of approximately 1,300 grade A milk producers supplying the Nashville fluid market and who reside in 29 middle Tennessee and 8 southern Kentucky counties.

At the direction of the board of directors of Nashville Milk Producers, Inc., I am appearing in opposition to the Johnson-Humphrey national milk sanitation bill. Our opposition consists of four main headings. First, a national sanitation bill will largely replace the local municipal and State milk inspection work. We respectfully suggest that the present high standard of milk in this country has been due to the local milk sanitarians. To enact legislation that would supersede

this local inspection would, in my opinion, be a backward step. The Nashville, Tenn., market has operated under the U.S. public health ordinance and code since 1938.

The fluid-milk plants and raw-milk producers in our market have been federally inspected for several years. The results of our last five Federal inspections are as follows:

We do not feel that this proposed legislation could improve the quality of milk in our market, and we respectfully submit that there is a distinct possibility that it would be lowered.

A second objection is that we do not like for the Surgeon General to take over the supervision of our local inspection. Actually, this bill infringes on States rights and we see no need for Federal encroachment in this area.

Another reason for our opposition is that the proposed legislation is more economic than it is health legislation. Section 908 of H.R. 3840 appears to be a definite effort to force the movement of milk from the Midwest into distant markets. This, we submit, has little or no health connection whatsoever, As a matter of fact, under present laws and regulations, milk does move from the Midwest to southern markets. Our own association, during the month of December just past, imported milk from the Chicago market because our local supply was inadequate at that time. This milk cost us $5.48 per hundred pounds, delivered on a 3.5-percent butterfat basis. At that particular time, our class I price was $5.35, 4.0-percent basis. There seems to be a general opinion in certain sections to the effect that southern milk markets are unreasonably high. It may be of interest to the committee to know that at the present time our association is selling grade A milk at $3.43 (March price; April price not determined) per hundredweight, 4-percent butterfat basis.

Present milk laws or regulations seem to be adequate. We have found no serious barriers to selling milk across State lines. We recognize that dairy farmers everywhere would like to get the highest price for their milk. However, we must be realistic and realize that while we have a $5 class I, or fluid price, we will sell during April approximately 30 percent of our market volume at around $3.40 per hundredweight. May I remind you that this is 4-percent butterfat, grade A milk.

Another point of our opposition is that the proposed legislation, even if needed, which we deny, is definitely premature. We find that there is a glaring lack of agreement among milk sanitarians in various sections of the country, as to just what is compliance under the U.S. public health ordinance and code. Until such time as agreement is reached by milk sanitarians in interpreting the U.S. public health ordinance, we can expect situations to exist where milk in one location is considered and labeled as grade A and yet that same milk will not be considered grade A by other sanitarians also operating under the U.S. public health code. We have experienced this difficulty recently in counties operating under the code in our Nashville, Tenn., milkshed. Furthermore, it is general knowledge that many grade A milk barns in one sections of a country would not be considered as meeting grade A standards in other sections.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge that there is no need for the proposed legislation, which is disguised as a health measure when, in reality, it is for the specific purpose of selling midwestern milk for fluid uses in distance markets. Also, I am convinced that the cost of midwestern grade A milk, plus cost of transportation and handling, will exceed the cost of local grade A milk in many southern markets.

(The following clarification statement was later received from Mr. Summers:)

CLARIFICATION STATEMENT OF GLENN G. SUMMERS

I wish to call the committee's attention to the following information taken from the fluid milk and cream report of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.C., under date of April 18, 1960. This report gives producer milk prices and consumer prices in various markets in this country. I called the committee's attention to the information contained in this report for the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

For the State of Wisconsin, producer prices are listed for the four Wisconsin markets of Beloit, Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Superior. A simple average of the producer milk price for these four markets is $4.033.

For the State of Minnesota, the five reported markets are Bemidji, Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Winona; a simple average of the producer price, as reported, is $3.697. The report further shows that in Beloit, Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Superior, the wholesale per quart price, in paper, is 21.1 cents. The wholesale per quart price for three markets in Minnesota, namely Bemidji, Duluth, and Winona, averages 191⁄2 cents.

I would like to point out to the committee that in Nashville, Tenn., for the same month, the producer price was $4.65, while the wholesale per quart price, in paper, in the Nashville market was exactly the same as the average for the three Minnesota markets and 12 cents under the average for the Wisconsin markets. In other words, producers in the Nashville, Tenn., market were getting 782 cents per hundred more than producers in the markets reported in Wisconsin and Minnesota, while the consumer wholesale price in the Wisconsin markets was 12 cents per quart higher, and the Minnesota markets were exactly at the same level.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. We will hear from Mrs. Ernest W. Howard, legislative chairman of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs.

Mrs. Howard, it is a pleasure to see you here this morning. We appreciate your appearance.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ERNEST W. HOWARD, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. HOWARD. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you will be glad to know I have no statement.

I might say that since for over 22 years we have studied this sort of thing, we thought there was no more chance to ever have statements, but it has cropped up again.

I am Mrs. Ernest Howard, legislative chairman of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, which is affiliated with the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

We have 4,000 members here, many of whom come from other States and who have lived here for several years and still have their homes in the States. Many of them are living in Maryland and Virginia which is called the metropolitan area.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, I could talk here for 2 weeks, but I will try to be very brief.

First, when our Milk Act of 1925 was first enacted into law, Washington had a very high bacterial count, infant mortality.

Let me inject here that we are concerned with this from a practical and humanitarian standpoint and as it actually affects the health and food and home.

Of course, we know economics enter into it and we are interested in that, but we do know that a great deal of this, of course, is economic and political.

Now, we had millions of bacteria count in Washington when the great Senator from New York, whose name escapes me right nowI knew it a few minutes ago-enacted into law through our great Congress the 1925 Milk Act.

Since then we have come along with our health department and we have now about the lowest bacteria count in this country.

We do know, and we challenge anybody to challenge the statement, that we have about the highest grade of milk in this country.

Now, I want to challenge the Governor of Minnesota's statement when he referred to phony regulations. Now, I am speaking for the interest of the people here in the District of Columbia. We do know that our regulations here are not phony because we have had very reliable health department officials and they have gone into this thing over many years, 22 years, when this same thing started.

It is in a new dress today, but it started here 22 years ago with what is called the Shulte milk bill. It has been called everything else

since then.

Now, I see it is now a national code. Now, we know that the U.S. Health Department regulations are basic law, and 36 or 32 States have them and maybe 2,000 cities, but each one of those cities or States that have them as basic laws has added to them, you see, in order to protect its own localities.

They are purely basic. They are too general to be enforced.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Now, it is your position, then, that you and the group you represent do not favor this legislation?

Mrs. HOWARD. We do not favor it. We can tell you why.

I am trying to tell you why. We feel here that no group should come in and take away the economic basis that we have formed in our minds here because we have our own farmers in the metropolitan area who make their living.

Furthermore, milk, itself, is the most perishable food there is. We know and believe, because we have studied this thing, with doctors, professional men, and what have you, and we know that if these different States want to dump their milk into the District of Columbia, that by the time it got here it would not be milk; it would be what we call bacterial soup.

You know even in your own refrigerator a quart of milk begins to sicken almost at the end of the week. We do not believe that should be the case.

I am a Missourian, myself, not born in a log cabin, but in a parsonage. I know what a cow is and what the conditions of the barn are and I have seen conditions of milk where we would not use it if we saw it under the conditions that it was produced.

We feel that each State and locality should guard its own health regulations and unless we could have inspectors, thousands of them, going out all over the country to inspect how this milk would be produced, even then there would be distances which would preclude it from coming into certain sections.

So we would definitely oppose this bill because after all, to tell the truth, it is the same old thing, with a new dress.

So we are very much opposed to anything that would interfere with the quality of milk that we have, and we hope that you will not pass this legislation.