clear that it covers all birds, domesticated birds, commercially produced game birds.

Mr. MILLER. Then on page 20 we have rewritten or propose to rewrite the definition of "label" and, also, a definition for "shipping container" and "immediate container," which I mentioned when I was discussing the section on labeling.

The last section is 23, on effective date. This bill would make the act effective upon enactment and would make it all-inclusive on July 1, 1958. The Department feels that the July 1, 1958, date is a little tight and close and would like to have you consider the possibility of making it July 1, 1959.

Mr. WATTS. What is the Department's views on making the bill effective upon its enactment?

Mr. MILLER. We would like to have that done, Mr. Watts.

Mr. WATTS. You have enough people who are in inspection, the voluntary inspection?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. WATTS. They would be ready to move into this?

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. WATTS. Do you have enough people to satisfactorily inspect? You have a number of people now employed in the voluntary program. Has the Department today any authority to train and recruit personnel or do you feel you should be given a little more?

Mr. MILLER. Well, we are fully aware that there is that problem and we are aware of some of the views of some of the people.

As far as we are concerned, we would like to have the authority to train and recruit personnel all clearly provided for upon enactment of the act.

Now, as to the date that the processors may avail themselves of the service under the act is something that they can speak for themselves. I think a year's time, July 1, 1959, as the final date, or July 1958 may be the date that they could come under the provisions, or January 1, 1958, or whatever seems to be an agreeable basis, but the Department needs to have an appreciable time to recruit and train and to survey the field and see how many plants will need the service, survey the plants and see what they need, and all of that will take time and that is the reason why we are asking for an extension to July 1, 1959.

Mr. WATTS. If the effective date of the act was delayed for 4 or 5 or 6 months, that would not interfere with your putting that into operation, would it?

Mr. MILLER. Well, it would be my interpretation that if the act provides for appropriations and if the effective date was January 1, 1958, let us say, we would not have money to recruit and train and do these things called for on the part of the Department. Now, I may be wrong on that.

Mr. WATTS. But if you were to have the money and authority to go ahead and do the planning and training and all of the background, any of these dates would be satisfactory?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, we are asking that the bill be made effective upon enactment as far as those various problems are concerned that face the Department

Mr. WATTS. In other words, you are only interested in the effective date insofar as your going ahead with your program?

Mr. MILLER. That is right. And some plants also will need to make some changes and that will be some problem, too.

Mr. WATTS..Any questions, Mr. McIntire?

Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you and the members of the committee for being late this morning, and also I apologize to the witnesses. I have just one question which I would like to direct to the Department.

I have some indication that there is some interest, if it is at all possible, in incorporating within one framework. There will be some problems as related to compulsory legislation, and presently there is legislation with the Federal-State agreements approach-I am quite sure that you have analyzed that situation and probably it has been presented to us as part of your analysis. If that is so, just say so.

But in view of the interest that has been expressed, or at least the interest that has been expressed to me, I think that it would be helpful. I say, however, if you have already got that into the record, just say so and I will look over the record, if it has been covered specifically.

Mr. BUTZ. That has not been discussed, Mr. Chairman. We do have Federal-State cooperation in some places. I am informed that in your State they are working quite satisfactorily, and it is provided for in the bill as I understand-isn't that right, Mr. Bucy? Mr. Bucy. That is right.

Mr. BUTZ. Section 18, subsection (b).

Mr. McINTIRE. Well, insofar as your interpretation of the words, "may cooperate to the extent of established Federal-State," what is your interpretation?

Mr. Bucy. Well, it also goes a step further, if you will read further you will see that it says, "may cooperate with the branches of Government and State agencies and may conduct such examinations and investigations and inspections through any official employee of a State commissioned by the Secretary for such purpose."

So, I think that is where you get into the possibility of a cooperative arrangement with the State. It is the same as under your grain standards act, where you license the State man, the inspector, who is a State employee, as an inspector under the act and he performs the inspection under that act or where it is a Federal act.

Mr. McINTIRE. And would you interpret those words as encompassing the Federal and States under which the program is going to be administered at the State level and the Federal level?

Mr. Bucy. Yes, and I would say that he would then be commissioning under that agreement, if he entered into such an arrangement, the officers, the State employees to do the inspection job for him under the act.

I think it is broad enough to be so applied particularly where you define "inspector" to mean any person authorized by the Secretary to conduct inspections.

Mr. McINTIRE. Would you say then that it is your interpretation of this language that in case of a State that already has a FederalState agreement, inspection could continue to work within the framework of that same agreement with slight modifications, I mean; that in principle they could operate and meet the requirements of this act administratively on the part of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. BUTZ. As I understand it, that would be true.

Mr. Bucy. Now, there are other acts under which it would not be true because inspectors under some bills are Federal employees designated by the Secretary of Agriculture to perform the inspection.

Mr. McINTIRE. But the amendment recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture, under that would you continue to have the arrangement by which the inspection service could be conducted within the State under a Federal-State agreement, if that was to be agreeable with the State and the Department of Agriculture? Mr. Bucy. Yes, H. R. 377, the bill that the Department reported onthey did not recommend any changes in that provision, it would make it permissive. In other words, the authority and discretion are vested in the Secretary under such arrangements, the same as all other cooperative arrangements or permissive authorities in the Secretary to

act.

Mr. McINTIRE. And of course I am only referring to the effect that this would have upon an agreement that is already entered into. I am speaking of its effect as to that type of agreement, and I wish to direct an inquiry as to those States. I understand that there is that situation in Maine and also in North Dakota-am I correct?

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. McINTIRE. And those States that have already agreements in effect, would it be your thought, assuming that this legislation is passed without modification of this provision, that in North Dakota— and Maine if it were designated-they could possibly negotiate to continue the effective service within the general framework of the existing Federal-State agreements for inspection which are already in effect? I appreciate there would be some modification in relation to. the details because it is more applicable within that State and it is voluntary now-but it would be compulsory then under this legislation. Still the compulsory aspect of this does not alter the existing arrangement, if I understand this.

Mr. Bucy. Well, the arrangement you have within that State is under a grant of authority under another piece of legislation so, therefore, any action with respect to this inspection, which is a mandatory inspection, the inspection is a different type of inspection and it would be a new grant of authority and the arrangement would have to be worked out within the framework of this compulsory inspection program which this legislation would set forth.

What I am saying, Congressman, that there is provision in here that the Secretary may cooperate with the States and may conduct such examinations, investigations and inspections as he determines practicable, through any officer or employee of the State commissioned for such purpose.

And under the definition in this particular proposed bill, inspectors are defined to be any person authorized by him to perform the inspection, so that it would be possible for an arrangement to be worked out under this broad grant of authority.

Mr. McINTIRE. I would not want to presume to say that either North Dakota or Maine might elect to do it that way, I am only interested in knowing whether or not this legislation is in violation of present arrangements or if the same general principle could be entered into under this legislation.

Mr. Bucy. Well, I think we are dealing with two different things, Congressman, a permissive program-this is not an extension of it, this is in substitution for the permissive program and would set down, possibly, different standards because it is a mandatory piece of legislation; but the authority for cooperation is there and the authority to use State officials is present in this proposed legislation. It is a permissive arrangement presently, voluntary, that is paid for by the person requesting it.

Mr. McINTIRE. Well, if they continue under such an arrangement would the inspectors be employed mandatorily by the United States Department of Agriculture or could he be employed by a State agency; and, if he is employed by a State agency, what would be his reimbursement and what would be the status of his requirements under civil service?

Mr. Bucy. Candidly, I would not express a specific view on that at this time. That would be a matter of how-the Federal Government is going to pay for this inspection under this bill and as to how that is handled I would not want to say, Congressman, that it would be handled one way or another, without examining pretty closely into the appropriations and the language and the grants and the manner in which they were made.

Mr. McINTIRE. Well, the reason for raising the question was, I believe, that the party to whom the inspector is responsible, that is inherent in the arrangement which is made.

Mr. Bucy. I think basically he has got to be responsible. There is a basic responsibility in the Secretary of Agriculture under this legislation, it being a mandatory law of the Federal Government with the responsibility for administration being set in him.

I think that your difference there between the cooperative arrangements between the States and the Federal Government in a permissive program-that there is a different responsibility there and, therefore, I would not want to pass on the question as to the answerability of the particular inspectors under arrangements made with a State because you would have to take into consideration the basic responsibilities of the Secretary in a mandatory, regulatory program under which people could be prosecuted by the Federal Government.

Mr. McÎNTIRE. Well, you have touched on the very thing that I am concerned about, in relation to the Federal-State agreements, as to whether or not this legislation would grant the authority and the responsibility to the Secretary of Agriculture and whether that grant of authority and responsibility would run contrary-wise to the idea of administering that.

Mr. Bucy. I think if such agreements should be had under this that they would probably not take quite as broad an arrangement as some of them made or might take under the permissive program where we were not laying down any rules and taking action which might result in people being prosecuted under Federal law.

Mr. McINTIRE. That is all, thank you.

Mr. WATTS. Any questions, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. Only one thing I am concerned about, if you had this arrangement you would have the problem of Federal regulationsMr. Bucy. You are correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. And according to Federal regulations.
Mr. Bucy. You are correct.

Mr. WATTS. Any questions, Mr. Teague?

Mr. TEAGUE. Just a general question, Mr. Chairman, thank you. How many, if any, of the States have compulsory inspection legislation?

Mr. MILLER. California.

Mr. TEAGUE. That is the only one?

Mr. MILLER. There are others-just so that you do not misunderstand me, Mr. Chairman and Congressman, there are others that have authority for making inspections of poultry that is ready to cook, from the retail store level. But the thing that you are talking about here, the only mandatory law there is, and I believe I know all of them, is in California.

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WATTS. Any questions from any other members of the committee?

(No response.)

Mr. WATTS. Well, if there are no more questions of these witnesses, we have Dr. Willie with us.

Dr. Willie, we will be glad to hear you. Will you identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROY E. WILLIE, CHIEF, INSPECTION BRANCH, POULTRY DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Dr. WILLIE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very happy to be here today.

My name is Roy E. Willie, and I am Chief, presently, of the Inspection Branch of the Poultry Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

I am a graduate veterinarian. I started in poultry inspection back in 1929 and I have been in this work ever since.

Previous to that time I spent 5 years with the Meat Inspection Branch of the old Bureau of Animal Industry.

The following is a statement prepared by technical personnel of the Poultry Inspection Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, with respect to the extent and nature of ante mortem inspection, which would be justified under a mandatory poultry inspection program.

The United States Department of Agriculture is on record favoring the establishment of clear authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to require both ante mortem and post mortem inspection. It is the opinion of the Poultry Inspection Service that an adequate poultry food inspection program necessitates knowledge on the part of inspection personnel as to the health condition of the poultry prior to slaughter. Ante mortem inspection procedures must give consideration to plant operating procedures, and should not entail a requirement that each bird be observed prior to slaughter except in those cases where, in the opinion of the inspector, such inspection is necessary. I think that is a very important point and I would like to underline that once more, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and make it very clear that:

Ante mortem inspection procedures must give consideration to plant operating procedures, and should not entail a requirement that each bird be observed prior