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 saine 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 legis lation (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

attention and recommended as being necessary for the safety and well-being of

consumers.

Another bill, S. 3176, under consideration by the Senate Committee on Labor and Welfare, also provides mandatory inspection. Perhaps the most important difference between the two bills is the assignment of responsibility for the inspection. S. 3176 would assign that duty to Department of Health, whereas, S. 3588 places the responsibility upon the Department of Agriculture.

This, in my considered opinion, is where the responsibility for mandatory inspection should vest. Having had many years of experience in the inspection of meats and fish, the Department of Agriculture has already set up facilities and field representatives which could easily assume the inspection of poultry without an additional outlay of large sums of money.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare does not have existing facilities for this type of inspection, dealing largely instead with drugs and similar type commodities.

I respectfully urge, therefore, the committee to consider the necessity for having mandatory inspection of poultry, as well as of meats and fish, and that the responsibility of inspection be given to the Department of Agriculture. This can he accomplished with the enactment of S. 3588.

Senator CLEMENTS. The next witness we will hear is Senator Murray, of Montana, who is the author of S. 3983.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. MURRAY, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in pretty full agreement.

Your invitation to appear before your committee in regard to compulsory poultry inspection is appreciated by all the members of the Subcommittee on Legislation Affecting Pure Food and Drug Administration of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

Inspection of foods, and licensing and inspection of the production of drugs and cosmestics has been conducted by the Government for a half century to protect the public health and welfare and to eliminate unwholesomefi, unfit, adulterated and fraudulent products from the markets.

For many years after the enactment of the Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the work was all in the Department of Agriculture and under the jurisdiction of your committee.

Following establishment of the Federal Security Administration, now the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Food and Drug Administration was transferred to that agency and has come into the legislative field of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee.

As you know, our subcommittee has held hearings on and considered S. 3176 to establish compulsory poultry inspection in the Food and Drug Administration. We became convinced, because the Food and Drug Administration preferred it, and because the Meat Inspection Branch in the Department of Agriculture has done an excellent job of consumer protection, that the inspection job should go to the Meat Inspection Branch.

In accordance with that decision, all members of our subcommittee joined in introducing S. 3983 which modifies S. 3176 by naming the Meat Inspection Branch instead of the Food and Drug Administration to handle the compulsory poultry inspection work.

Our subcommittee concluded that inspection work should in no case be placed in an agency of Government primarily concerned with assisting in the marketing of products.