under Federal law. We should like to point out that such a Federal law would primarily control poultry moving in interstate commerce. The elimination of unwholesome poultry produced for sales in intrastate commerce could only be brought about by an active program on the part of local health authorities. We in the Department would, of course, want to assist these local authorities in every way possible as we are now doing.

Now I would like to comment on some sections of S. 3588.

First, section 4: This section authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to designate cities or areas where all poultry handled and sold would be subject to the provisions of the act.

Under this provision, all slaughtered poultry and poultry products handled or sold in such a designated city or area would be subject to the inspection requirements even though they did not move in interstate commerce. We favor this provision because (a) it would make it possible for the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with local public health groups, to establish such a program in a designated city or area, thereby coordinating all poultry inspection activities and contributing to orderly marketing since section 18 (b) provides authority for the Secretary to license employees of other governmental agencies to carry out the purposes of this act, and (b) this provision would make it possible for the Secretary to take such action to insure to the extent possible the wholesomeness of poultry and poultry products sold in major metropolitan areas and which would aid in the enforcement of this act.

It is contemplated that this authority would be used only to designate large consuming centers, rather than production areas or areas where intrastate poultry products are handled in relatively minor quantities.

Next is section 5: This section embodies the requirement that the Secretary of Agriculture inspect poultry and poultry products. We are suggesting some change in the language. We feel that there should be established clear authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to require both post mortem and ante mortem inspections.

The details governing both post mortem and ante mortem inspections, however, can best be developed in regulations to be issued by the Secretary so that changes which may be desirable as time passes may be made without amendments to the organic act.

In section 10 we are suggesting rather substantial changes in order to include the requirement that handlers of poultry and poultry products keep records, as well as make them available.

I should like to comment on section 18. Under subsection (a) of this section, the provision of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act would not apply to poultry and poultry products to the extent of the application of this Poultry Inspection Act under the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture.

The purpose of this is to avoid overlapping jurisdiction of the two acts and therefore prevent needless duplication of effort. At the same time it would provide that the provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act would apply to any circumstances beyond the application of this Poultry Inspection Act and also prevent any gaps in the application of the two laws. The Department believes that this subsection (a) is appropriate in that it insures complete coverage without duplication.

We are also suggesting some minor clarifying changes in section 22. We fully support the intent of this section which is to permit carrying out the purposes of this act as orderly and efficiently as possible.

The 2-year interim period before this act would become fully applicable will provide ample time to recruit and train personnel which will be necessary for the administering agency to carry on the workload and will also provide ample time for processors who will need to equip themselves in order to comply with the requirements of regulations governing the mandatory inspection program.

Senator CLEMENTS. You have discussed the time that is needed to recruit and train personnel that will be necessary to administer this program. Would you give to the committee any idea of the extent of the personnel that would be needed over and beyond the personnel that is now involved in the voluntary plan?

Mr. BUTZ. Mr. Miller will answer that.

STATEMENT OF HERMON I. MILLER, DIRECTOR, POULTRY DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. HERMON MILLER. We haven't any real measure of the size of this program available at present.

Senator CLEMENTS. You have more information in the Department than anyone in this country, and your ideas would probably be more

accurate.

Give us your best judgment.

Mr. HERMON MILLER. The best information available would indicate there are between 650 and 700 plants running of a size around 30,000 pounds of poultry a week, when they operate. That would be better than double our present activity.

We have 425 professional people in the service now, and we would probably have 900 to 1,000-that is just a guess-900 to 1,000 in the service to carry out the purposes of this act.

Senator CLEMENTS. It would be an increase of something like 500 to 600 ?

Mr. HERMON MILLER. Yes.

Senator CLEMENTS. How many plants in the country operate under the Meat Inspection Service?

Mr. HERMON MILLER. I haven't got that information. Dr. A. R. Miller is here. Maybe he can answer that.

STATEMENT OF DR. A. R. MILLER, CHIEF MEAT INSPECTION BRANCH, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Dr. A. R. MILLER. 1,200 plants.

Senator CLEMENTS. How many Government personnel are involved in the 1,200 plants?

Dr. A. R. MILLER. 3,000.

Senator CLEMENTS. About 3,000. You say there would be about 600 plants in areas

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. Six hundred and fifty to seven hundred— large chain-type operations, based on the survey made by the Depart

ment-that is about the number. There are some, of course, in areas such as Jersey City that would be involved in interstate commerce that might not be of that size. I think the best figure on the numbers would be between 900 and 1,000.

Senator CLEMENTS. Very well. You may proceed.

Mr. BUTZ. The provision enabling persons who apply for the inspection service to receive it prior to July 1, 1958, is good because it permits the inspection program to be put into effect gradually and in a more orderly manner than if all plants had to meet the program requirements on one specific day.

Now I would like to have Mr. Hermon I. Miller, Director, Poultry Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, present and discuss the various amendments which the Department is proposing.

Before doing so, I want to emphasize that the legislation now under consideration is extremely important from the standpoint of consumers, producers, and the poultry industry in general.

We in the Department want to do all we can to assist in the development of a good bill. We shall be glad to answer any questions you may have and also assist the committee staff in any way that may be desired. Senator CLEMENTS. Would you prefer to hear Mr. Miller on this subject?

Senator WILLIAMS. I think we might just as well.

Senator CLEMENTS. Before asking any questions?

Senator WILLIAMS. Unless Mr. Butz has to leave early.
Mr. BUTZ. No: I will remain.

Senator CLEMENTS. You may proceed, Mr. Miller.

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. I would like to suggest, if the committee would find it useful, we have marked up a copy of the bill in this notebook and I will be glad to leave it with the committee so you can see our suggestions alongside the bill.

Senator CLEMENTS. We appreciate your thoughtfulness and will be very happy to receive it.

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. My name is Hermon I. Miller. I am Director of the Poultry Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. I am here to present and discuss various amendments to S. 3588 which the Department of Agriculture recommends to this committee and that the bill be revised accordingly.

With respect to section 5: On page 4, at the end of line 4, delete the comma and insert "or adulterated." The word "adulterated" is defined in a subsequent amendment, the reason for which will be explained later. The addition of the word here is to make section 5 consistent with the definition.

On page 4, line 6, delete "inspection (ante mortem,". We are suggesting that the language now which reads "inspects," etc., be changed to read "examination, ante mortem and post mortem inspection, and reinspection, as he determines necessary." The Department feels that this change clarifies the intent that both ante mortem and post mortem inspections be authorized under the act.

On page 4, line 7, delete "post mortem, or both" and insert "ante mortem and post mortem inspection". This amendment is also intended to clarify the Department's intent that both ante mortem and post

mortem inspections be required, as the Secretary determines neces

sary.

On page 4, line 11, after the word "All" insert the ford "poultry." This amendment is necessary to identify the carcasses.

On page 4, line 12, after the word "unwholesome," insert "or adulterated." This is to make it consistent with the previous language. This is necessary to conform with amendments to be suggested for section 21.

With respect to section 6: On page 5, line 12, delete the period at the end of that sentence and insert a comma and add "or adulterated." With respect to section 7: On page 6, line 17, insert after the period following "prohibited" the following new sentence:

No poultry products inspected or required to be inspected pursuant to the provision of this Act shall be sold or offered for sale by any person, firm, or corporation under any false or deceptive name; but established trade name or names which are usual to such products and which are not false and deceptive and which shall be approved by the Secretary are permitted.

This amendment incorporates language presently in the Meat Inspection Act to make clear that the Secretary's authority with respect to labeling under S. 3588 is comparable to that exercised under the Meat Inspection Act for which there is long precedent.

Senator CLEMENTS. You say "long precedent." Not that the chairman is endeavoring to indicate his views so far as this bill is concerned, but for which there is a great confidence in this country?

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. Yes; as well as a long period of operation. With respect to section 8: On page 7, lines 13 and 14, delete after the word "sale" in commerce, or the introduction, delivery for introduction." On page 7, line 15, insert after the word "or" the words "delivery or" and delete the comma after "in commerce" and insert “or in a designated city or area,". We think this addition in subsection "a" will make it possible to eliminate subsection "b." It will make the same provisions for the product produced with requirements for the product in designated areas as for interstate commerce.

On page 7, delete lines 20 to 23, and reletter the subsequent subsections in alphabetical order starting with (b) respectively. The reason for the above three suggested amendments is to provide for uniform provision applicable to interstate commerce transactions and transactions in designated areas.

On page 8, line 2, insert after the word "unwholesome" the words "or adulterated." I think the reason for that has been explained. This is a conforming amendment required by reason of the forthcoming proposed definition of the word "adulterated."

On page 8, line 3, subsection (d) we recommend be amended to read as follows:

This would be a complete rewriting of that.

(c) Knowingly and falsely making or issuing, altering, forging, simulating, or counterfeiting any official inspection certificate, memorandum, mark, or other identification, or device for making such mark or identification, used in connection with the inspection of poultry or poultry products under this act, or knowingly causing, procuring, aiding, assisting in, or being a party to, such false making, issuing, altering, forging, simulating, or counterfeiting, or knowingly possessing, without promptly notifying the Secretary of Agriculture or his representative, uttering, publishing, or using as true, or causing to be uttered, published, or used as true, any such falsely made or issued, altered, forged, simulated, or counterfeited official inspection certificate, memorandum, mark, or

other identification, or device for making such mark or identification, or knowingly representing that any poultry or poultry product has been officially inspected under the authority of this act when such poultry or poultry product has in fact not been so inspected.

This proposed amendment is for the purpose of making the same prohibitions applicable to inspection marks, devices, certificates, and so forth, under S. 3588 as are applicable to all permissive programs by reason of Public Law 272 of the 84th Congress.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Miller, you identify that new section as paragraph "c," but I understand it to take the place of paragraph "b" of the bill.

Mr. HERMON I. MILLER. That is correct. We eliminated paragraph b.

On page 9, at the end of line 10, delete the comma after the word "courts." The punctuation of the provision as presently written may be construed as limiting the availability of information to Government officials to that relevant in judicial proceedings under the act.

With respect to section 10: On page 10, line 5, after the word "Act," strike the remainder of the section and insert in lieu thereof the following:

persons engaged in the business of processing, transporting, shipping, or receiving poultry slaughtered for human consumption or poultry products in commerce or in a designated city or area, or holding such products so received shall maintain records showing, to the extent that they are concerned therewith, the receipt, delivery, sale, movement, or disposition of poultry and poultry products and shall, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the Secretary, permit him at reasonable times to have access to and to copy all such records.

This amendment is for the purpose of requiring the keeping of records by persons subject to the proposed bill and the making of such records available and also the elimination of immunity and exemption of carriers from the provisions of the act.

The requirement of availability without a requirement for the keeping of records could, in the opinion of the Department, well be meaningless.

On page 11, line 9, delete the words "six months" and insert in lieu thereof "one year." On page 11, line 10, delete the figure "$1,000" and insert "$5,000."

On page 11, line 13, delete the word "one" and insert the word "two."

The 3 above amendments would change the penalties for a first offense from 6 months and $1,000 fine to 1 year and a $5,000 fine.

The Meat Inspection Act presently provides penalties of 2 years or $10,000 fine for all offenses. The amendment would change the penalty for a repeated violation of 2 years, which is comparable to the Meat Inspection Act. This will bring the penalties for similar offenses under both acts closer.

On page 11, insert at the end of line 15, the following:

When construing or enforcing the provision of said sections, the act, omission, or failure of any person acting for or employed by any individual, partnership, corporation, or association within the scope of his employment or office shall in every case be deemed the act, omission, or failure of such individual, partnership, corporation, or association as well as of such person.

This amendment would make the principal responsible for the acts of his agent committed within the scope of his employment so that