commerce power as employed by H.R. 15146 and similar bills which require the States to legislate programs equal to the Federal program or otherwise submit to the Federal program.

The theory of H.R. 15146, and similar bills would require inspection of the remaining 13 percent of the poultry by compelling the States to enact legislation equal to the Federal standards or to operate under inspection by the Federal Government. Under either H.R. 15146 or H.R. 14741, the Federal standard would be employed. The principal difference is one of procedure for assuring uniformity of application of inspection. Under H.R. 14741, our experience has demonstrated the feasibility of such a program; a remedy is directly available to obtain proper and uniform application of inspection at any plant at any given time. On the other hand, under H.R. 15146, and similar bills, it will not be easy to determine whether the Federal criteria are being employed at all times and on a uniform basis, and if it is determined by the Secretary of Agriculture that the criteria are not being followed, his remedy cannot be directed at the offending inspector or inspectors but he must resort to requesting corrective action by the State, and, failing that, he must withdraw the program. Withdrawal of the entire system for any one State would admittedly be a most difficult decision for any Secretary of Agriculture.

The reason why we have felt it desirable to point up the need for uniformity is that we believe it is necessary if we are to assure consumers of the benefits intended by the legislation. Of equal importance is the severe competitive advantage or disadvantage which results if the inspection program is not applied uniformly and equally. Experience has demonstrated that it is extremely difficult to achieve a reasonable degree of uniformity even when inspectors are operating under the same provisions of law and under the same regulation and answerable to the same boss. This is so because of the judgment and discretion which must necessarily be invested in the inspector and which cannot be precisely detailed in regulation or instructions. Close and constant supervision, under a single program, we believe, is necessary to achieve uniformity. Under H.R. 15146 and similar bills there is not administrative line of authority to achieve this result.

In addition to the establishment of multi-inspection programs at State and local levels to function alongside the Federal inspection program, section 5 (c) (5) of H.R. 15146 and similar bills would authorize poultry products processed under these multi-inspection programs to be eligible for movement in interstate commerce upon the same basis as federally inspected product by carrying a State-Federal inspection mark. As we have indicated, we do not believe the procedure proposed by the bill would provide for the necessary control of inspection to assure such uniformity and effectiveness to give consumers the assurance which they may demand or to give to industry the assurance of uniformity and equality of inspection necessary to prevent competitive inequities.

Nevertheless, if the committee desires to adopt a program which would provide for multi-inspection programs as provided by H.R. 15146 and similar bills, including the provisions of section 5 (c) 5 which permits interstate shipment, we believe it necessary for the bill to make it clear that a plant presently under Federal inspection, but located in a State which establishes a State system as provided in this bill, will

have the election of operating under the State system if it so desires. Our discussion up to this point has not dealt with sections in H.R. 15146 and similar bills.

The provisions of section 11 of H.R. 15146 and similar bills would authorize the Department of Agriculture to require registration, in addition to others listed therein, of wholesalers of any carcasses or parts of carcasses of any poultry which would include processors and other persons wholesaling product down to the retail level. This section is substantially the same as in the red meat inspection bill. It is a sweeping requirement and is of doubtful necessity for application to the processor since no product can be processed or marketed without inspection and the registration provision would merely require the submission of information by the processor that is already available to the Secretary.

Section 11(b) would impose new recordkeeping requirements. The recordkeeping provisions of existing law seem adequate and it is clear under such provisions that books and the records referred to relate to the receipt, processing, movement, or disposition of poultry and poultry products. Financial records, profit and loss, income tax records, et cetera, have nothing to do with the inspection process or the movement of poultry and should not be made subject to departmental control or scrutiny. We do not believe that the provisions of existing law should be broadened as proposed in H.R. 15146, in the absence of a clear showing that the existing provisions of law are inadequate.

Section 16 of H.R. 15146 would amend the provisions of existing law with respect to imports by substituting the provision of the red meat inspection law. This section we believe should be deleted. Presumably, it was included because of the provisions in the red meat inspection law. Because of the heavy imports there may have been a valid basis for the inclusion of such a provision in that act. The same situation does not exist with respect to poultry. Only limited amounts of poultry products are imported, or are even likely to be imported, into the United States in view of the great efficiency of the poultry industry. The present provisions of law applicable to poultry imports are generally the same as those applicable to all other food products and have proven entirely adequate for the protection of the public. The poultry industry has great potential for exporting poultry products and is actively engaged in conducting market development programs in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and expand export markets for U.S. poultry. This section, if added to the Poultry Products Inspection Act, might be seized upon by foreign countries which may wish to create even further barriers to trade in the guise of health measures. This would adversely affect our poultry producers and our balance-of-payments position. We strongly urge, therefore, that this section be deleted.

I would like to digress for one moment. The amount of dollar sales of poultry in export was in excess of $45 million, and for many years, in many countries and I have been in a good many of them, they have looked to look upon the Federal wholesome seal as being worthwhile and to their advantage, and if they were faced with a Federal and then a State-Federal seal I think it would create confusion. They have been educated the other way. I think it would be quite wrong to do

that, to where it would hamper or even hurt more than we now have in our export trade.

Section 17 of H.R. 15146 would grant to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to deny inspection to any applicant because he deems such applicant unfit by virtue of conviction of certain violations of law which may or may not have involved any intentional violation or which may have been the result of activities unrelated to the production processing or marketing of poultry products. While we do not condone any of the activities specified therein, we believe that the punishment to be provided for such activities should be decided by the courts under appropriate provisions of law and not made subject to additional punishment in the form of denial of the right to engage in business through the denial of inspection. This section singles out the poultry industry and subjects it to a type of regulation not generally applicable to the remainder of the food industry. We do not believe that any showing has been made which would warrant this section being applied to the poultry industry. We think that this provision establishes a dangerous precedent by empowering an administrative agency to determine fitness to engage in commercial business. We hope the committee will carefully examine the need for this section.

Section 18 has the effect of redesignating section 19 of existing law as section 25. This section is the provision of law which directs that the cost of inspection be paid from appropriated funds since this is a consumer protection measure. By renumbering this section it is not included within the scope of section 5(c) 1 of H.R. 15146 under which the Secretary is required to see that the States have requirements at least equal to the Federal law and regulations. It is important, we believe, that States be required to supply their share of the cost from appropriated funds as a condition to participation in the program, if the committee decides to follow the approach of H.R. 15146.

The provisions of section 24 (a) appear to contain an inconsistency in that poultry and poultry products are exempted from the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the exception provides that the provisions of the act shall not derogate from any current authority conferred by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The result of this will be to create duplication of authority and undoubtedly additional cost.

In view of the inclusion of many provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in H.R. 15146 and similar bills, should the committee adopt such provisions, we would recommend that the procedures provided by section 701 (e), (f) and (g) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act also be adopted so that the rulemaking procedures established under that act would be applicable to this bill. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we again affirm our industry's desire to assure the consumer that all poultry products are wholesome. We know that the present Poultry Products Inspection Act is a sound law. In extending inspection to the small amount of poultry not now covered we urge you to continue the strong assurance the consumer now gets under the present Federal act.

We thank the committee for this opportunity to present the views of the Institute of American Poultry Industries.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Pringle.

Mr. FOLEY. I should like to congratulate Mr. Pringle on his statement. I think that it indicates, again, that the real leaders in the poultry industry in the United States support the concept of uniformly high standards of wholesomeness and sanitation in their products and in the distribution of their poultry products.

I was particularly happy to hear this testimony because we are all concerned about the situation. This makes a splendid contribution to the general picture which has been painted, particularly by the poultry industry where you are a leader.

I should like to underline for the members of the subcommittee your statement that it would be a mistake to develop a State-Federal inspection mark and that you oppose allowing the shipment of poultry products across State lines when these products have only been subject to State or local inspection.

Mr. PRINGLE. Exactly.

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

Mr. PURCELL. Are there any other comments, statements, or questions?

If not, thank you very much, Mr. Pringle. We appreciate your contribution.

Mr. PRINGLE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PURCELL. We will now hear as our next witness Mr. Herbert Ferster, counsel at law, New York, representing certain processors of poultry in New York State.

Mr. Dow. I would like to introduce Mr. Ferster, because, while he is not, actually, a voter in my district, I believe he spends a good deal of time there. He has a summer home up there. I think that his testimony will be based on his knowing a number of citizens in my district who are in this business and in this county, which is the largest county, Sullivan County, in the State of New York associated with poultry production.

I commend Mr. Ferster to your special attention.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Dow.

We will be glad to hear from you at this time, Mr. Ferster.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT FERSTER, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. FERSTER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is Herbert Ferster. I represent a group of processors of poultry whose establishments are located in Sullivan County in the State of New York. Most of the poultry processed by them is kosher, and is shipped to retailers in the city of New York for consumption. These plants are not now under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

I have been authorized by these processors to recommend to this. committee the passage of the Purcell bill which will insure to the consuming public wholesome poultry processed under sanitary conditions without unnecessarily and unduly burdening Federal agencies.

The poultry processing plants for which I speak are subject to and comply with the requirements of the agriculture and markets law of

the State of New York. This law provides for physical plant standards and poultry inspection equal to those required by the Poultry Products Inspection Act. In addition, all eviscerated poultry shipped into the city of New York is inspected by a veterinarian doctor who is not an appointee of the processor and the standards of the Health Department of New York City are at least equal to, if not higher than, those called for in the Federal Inspection Act. Therefore, the standards now provided for by New York law will not be improved upon by transferring the jurisdiction of these establishments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

If I may go off my prepared statement just for a moment.

I inadvertently phrased those sentences in the fashion which might be subject to misinterpretation. The inspection provisions of New York State law are not equal by themselves to the requirements of the Federal act. It is the combination of the requirements of the State law and our city of New York law which are equal to or greater than those of the Federal act. I did not want to be criticized for making that statement without explanation. I would like to make that clarification of my statement.

Further, as stated before, the products of the processing plants I represent are, in the main, kosher processed for consumption by the Jewish consumer.

The penal law of the State of New York vests jurisdiction in the New York State commissioner of agriculture and markets to supervise compliance with the laws of Kasruth. This supervision by the New York department will in no event be superseded by any Federal law and therefore supervision by Federal authority, in these instances, will be an unnecessary duplication of that already provided by the State.

For the reasons outlined above, we believe that the Purcell bill is the best of the bills submitted and should receive favorable consideration by your committee.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferster.

Are there questions of Mr. Ferster?

You have been very convincing, though your statement has been very brief, and we are very glad to have had you here.

Mr. FERSTER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PURCELL. At this time we will call on our next witness, Mr.
Joseph M. Katz, Kosher Empire Poultry, Mifflintown, Pa., who is
accompanied by Rabbi Meyer Greenberg, Paterson, N.J.
We will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF LEE KATZ, KOSHER EMPIRE POULTRY,
MIFFLINTOWN, PA.

Mr. KATZ. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would like first to say one thing. I am Lee Katz.

Joseph M. Katz, unfortunately, was forced to go back yesterday afternoon. He has some pressing duties at his plant. I have prepared a statement on my own, and I am acting in behalf of Joseph M. Katz. I want to thank you very much for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee. I will try to be as brief as I possibly can.