spection law. Many of your members are perfectly competent to run their own business and to produce wholesome meat. This is all true. The point is that I have never quite understood from your testimony is why, on the one hand, you cling to supporting Federal meat inspection, and on the other hand, you come before this committee with very negative testimony about this bill. The only possible thing that I can assume is that you have an interest in the relation between Federal and State Governments, and you feel that this would imbalance the current Federal-State relation. Otherwise if you were truly interested in adequate, wholesome standards for meat inspection, I would think that you would have been before us urging us to do what we are attempting to do here. Mr. KILLICK. If I may answer that, we do support very strongly the Federal Meat Inspection System, because it serves an extremely useful purpose in the area to which it is assigned. We do have members-and I mention it in the early part of my testimony, that the majority of our members are not under Federal inspection. I can name you names of one plant, for example, right in the center of the Midwestern States which has a plant that could qualify, to pass any Federal inspection that anybody wanted to throw at it. But he has no interest in going interstate. He serves a community. He serves it well, with wholesome, sanitary products. Mr. FOLEY. You do not have to answer this question. Do you have plants owned by members of your organization, who cannot pass Federal inspection laws? Mr. KILLICK. We have, I believe. Mr. FOLEY. Do you have those that you think cannot? Mr. KILLICK. Certainly, we do. The fact that they could not qualify with the facilities requirements of the Federal inspection does not, frankly, as I say we have had many of our plants that have been operating that could not qualify for the facilities of the Federal law provision. And here, again, that was touched upon by Mr. McDowell this morning. They do not have the requirements as to certain heights of railings, certain widths of doors, which would be extremely prohibitive. Mr. FOLEY. Thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. I would make a wager here that if we put Federal inspection teams into these plants there would be some that would not pass, and it would not be because of minor deficiencies in facilities. You can deny that on the record if you want. Mr. KILLICK. There is no point in denying it. It is just supposition. I do not know, and I do not think that anyone knows. Mr. FOLEY. That is exactly the reason I think many of us are concerned about this legislation. Nobody, in fact, knows. Mr. PURCELL. Is there anything further? Mr. FOLEY. No. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Price. Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, to clarify here; something on page 7 of your statement, Mr. Killick, where it says, "Under the existing statute, the Secretary of Agriculture consistently has withheld approval of any labels not deemed by him to be sufficiently legible." What are the requirements along this line, and why would they withhold approval of these labels, because of the standards they have set up as to the size? Mr. KILLICK. Mostly, the approval has been withheld, and the Secretary has the authority to do this, which we do not question. For example, on the ingredient requirements. If he feels that those ingredient requirements are not sufficiently legible, he has the authority to deprive the use of that label. Mr. PRICE. At the present time does not he have the authority to control the size and the shape of the containers? He does not have that authority now, but under this bill he would be given that authority? Mr. KILLICK. That is right. That is correct. Mr. PRICE. Why do you think they want the authority to control the size and shape of the containers? Mr. KILLICK. I do not know, sir. Mr. PRICE. Would it be for any reason of sanitation? Mr. KILLICK. I cannot say. I truthfully cannot answer it because I am not sure of their reason on this. Mr. PRICE. I have a further question as to your statement, the bottom paragraph on the same page: In Section 11 of the bill, which would amend Section 23 of the Act, the Secretary would be authorized to exempt from the requirements of Federal inspection, meat packing establishments in any territory or the District of Columbia. I am wondering why, if they want to inspect all other packing plants over the Nation, why would they want the authority to exempt inspection in the territory and the District of Columbia from proper inspections. Would you have any idea on that? Mr. O'CALLAGHAN. Are you referring to section 11 of the bill? Mr. PRICE. Yes; section 11. That is at the bottom of page 7 of your statement, the last paragraph. Mr. KILLICK. Well, apparently, this is placed in the bill which would enable him to exempt them from the requirements of the meat inspection. We feel that if any firm wants to qualify for Federal inspection that he should not be given the authority to exempt them. In other words, for any reason. Let us say that they are shorthanded, short of inspectors. Mr. PRICE. I am wondering why he wants this authority to exempt them, those in the territory or the District of Columbia. Mr. PEWETT. May I speak to that? Mr. PRICE. Yes. Mr. PEWETT. I do not know what the Department had in mind. there. I can only surmise that they might think that there was insufficient number of plants that were using this. It might be shorthanded. We do not know what the reasons are. We go to the principle involved. We think the law should apply to everyone uniformly. Mr. PRICE. I do, too. My question is as to why they were asking for this authority. Mr. PEWETT. I can only surmise it. Mr. PRICE. Do you think that the Federal inspection of meat that is coming into this country from importations is the equivalent of what they require of our plants? Mr. KILLICK. The Department insists that it is-I can only refer to what the Department refers to. Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PURCELL. I have no questions. Thank you very much, sir. (Whereupon, there was a short discussion off the record.) Mr. PURCELL. Back on the record. Let us set a meeting now for 11 o'clock in the morning. We may have to call it off. I want you to understand that we will just have your testimony. And then we can do what we are scheduled to do on Wednesday. We have eight witnesses on Wednesday, and if we add one more witness to that list, it will just increase the difficulty. I would appreciate it if you could be here tomorrow, say, at 11 o'clock. I have some letters that, without objection, I want to put into the record at this point. There are several telegrams. One of them is from the executive director of the American School of Food Service Association; another is from the director of agriculture of the State of Washington; then, a letter from the Illinois Independent Meat Packers and Processors Association; a letter from the Pennsylvania Meat Packers Association; a letter from the Oklahoma Independent Meat Packers Association; a letter from the Independent Meat Packers Association of Utah; a letter from the Illinois Independent Meat Packers & Processors Association; and a letter from the Amercian Farm Bureau Federation. And, without objection, these telegrams and letters I have just referred to will be inserted into the record at this point. (The letters and telegrams above-referred to, follow:). Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, Chairman, Livestock and Grains Commodity Subcommittee, OLYMPIA, WASH. Strongly urge incorporation in the proposed amendments to the Meat Inspection Act of changes recommended by National Association of State Directors of Agriculture and on that basis support passage of the legislation. DONALD W. Moos, Director of Agriculture. DENVER, COLO. Representative GRAHAM PURCELL, The American School Food Service Association is a Denver based professional organization with 48,000 members in the fifty States engaged in service of school lunches (and other meals) to school children in public and secondary schools as well as in the private and parochial schools operated by religious and charitable, non-profit organizations. Research conducted in 1963 showed the estimated wholesale value to meat purchased and/or donated to the public schools feeding fifteen million children was 135 million dollars, 15% was purchased intra-state. In 1965 the feeding program reached 19 million children with a corresponding increase in meat consumption. The Association urges the adoption of HR 6168 so as to assure the wholesomeness of the meat purchased intrastate for the Nation's school children. Dr. JOHN PERRYMAN, Executive Director, American School Food Service Assn. ILLINOIS INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS & PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PURCELL: As an elected officer of the Illinois Independent Meat Packers and Processors Association, we urge you to delete those provisions from HR 6168 which extend Federal Government jurisdiction and authority into intrastate commerce. We support the views of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Please make this letter a part of the official record of the hearings. J. T. ENGLISH, Secretary. PENNSYLVANIA MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION, Re meat Inspection Bill, H.R. 6168. Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, Washington, D.C. SIR: It is the purpose of this communication to register our support of the views of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, as presented by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. It is respectfully requested that our support and comments be included in the official record of the hearings on the subject. This is important legislation and, because of its impact on Industry and Consumer, it deserves a high degree of collaboration for the ultimate fulfillment of objectives that can be beneficial to all involved. Additionally, we present pertinent comments for consideration: 1. Pennsylvania, as a forerunner, and other individual States, have recognized the need for control over the wholesomeness of meat, sanitation, and the ingredients permitted in meat products. 2. In some respects, Pennsylvania requirements exceed those that are specified under Federal Regulations, particularly with respect to additives allowed in the manufacture of meat products. 3. The Meat Packing Industry is aware of the Consumer Acceptance that rewards good quality and high standards. 4. Any proposed legislation should recognize existing circumstances, the local nature of many meat packing operations, and the right of such operations to continue to exist without the imposition of requirements impossible of compliance. Legislative intent, followed by the reliability of control and the integrity of Industry, will determine the effectiveness and the success of any legislation that follows the efforts of your Committee. Respectfully submitted, EMERSON W. GRAVER. THE OKLAHOMA INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, DEAR MR. PURCELL: Concerning H.R. 6168 which has to do with the revision of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, we as the association of a great industry in Oklahoma would like to go on record that we oppose this bill and that our opposition will be made an official record of the hearings. The American Meat Institute, Western States Meat Packers Association and National Independent Meat Packers Association are all opposed to this bill along with the state association. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has also ex-pressed its intense opposition to this bill. The Packers of Oklahoma started the inspection in this state in 1952 and has worked through the various legislatures and in close conjunction with the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture. This year we helped get another one hundred thousand dollars apropriated to the inspection program of our state. We are making great strides in bringing this program to an inspection system that all Oklahomans will be proud. We would like to continue working at a State level rather than with the Federal Government. These intrastate plants have no desire to go outside the state and we consider this a program of our state and not one of the U.S.D.A. The United States Department of Agriculture seems to have more problems than it can adequately handle now. Sincerely yours, LEE HARRIS, Secretary-Treas., O.I.M.P.A. INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PURCELL: This letter is in regard to the revisions now proposed to the Federal Meat Inspection Act on H.R. 6168, sponsored by Rep. Neal Smith. We would respectfully ask that this letter be made part of the official record of the hearings. The officers, Executive Committee, and members of the Independent Meat Packers Association of Utah firmly believe the present law is adequate, and there is no apparent need for additional authority over the meat packing industry. We concur that the Federal meat inspection is now the finest meat inspection service in the world and provides complete assurance that meat supplies on interstate commerce are sanitary, and are supplied from diesase-free animals. We favor the continuation and strengthening of state meat inspection services by qualified inspectors such as we have in Utah, who are now supersiving the sanitary handling of meat and meat products. The Independent Meat Packers Association of Utah does not favor any amendment to the Meat Inspection Act that would increase Federal control over state inspection. DEAR SIR: The Illinois Independent Meat Packers and Processors Association wishes to express their opposition to H.R. 6168. Our objections reflect those which have been set forth by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the National Independent Meat Packers Association. Illinois enjoys an excellent state meat inspection program and we feel that there is no need for the changes contemplated by H.R. 6168. We request that this letter be made part of the official record of the hearings. Thank you, Respectfully, R. E. SHANKS, President. |