chicken, to do this, we do not want to exclude anybody, but this has been misinterpreted to some extent, and we are not out to take away the religious freedom of our own people.

Rabbi GREENBERG. May I add this one comment more?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes.

Rabbi GREENBERG. I am not a real expert, but I believe that in the bill, H.R. 15146, on page 18, there is already an exemption-if I am correct-to that person who desires to examine her own poultry and to eviscerate her own poultry. That person would only have to buy this at a plant which sells retail to a consumer directly. I think it is on page 18, subparagraph 2, that it is possible for any individual consumer to go into a live poultry market and there buy the poultry and eviscerate it herself. So, no one is being discriminated against, even if he or she wants to use a certain prerogative. The exemption, I think, is included in this paragraph.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. I am not going to prolong this discussion. I merely pointed that out, as to the recommendation that you had that there be included in the proposed legislation a provision which would specifically prohibit the sale of uneviscerated poultry.

Rabbi GREENBERG. That would be in general commerce, because this exemption on page 18 does not refer to general commerce, and that woman who is interested would always be able to have that right. Mr. PURCELL. Is there anything further?

Mr. Foley?

Mr. FOLEY. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I deeply appreciated the testimony of Mr. Katz and Rabbi Greenberg. I think we realize that the subcommittee, naturally, is not expert in these areas, and we need the advice of recognized Jewish leaders in an area where we fully recognize that religious customs are necessarily practices to be seriously considered. I believe we can profit very much from the testimony that has been given to us here today.

Mr. KATZ. Thank you.

Mr. PURCELL. That will be done.

(Mr. Greenberg subsequently submitted the following additional information :)

Hon. GRAHAM PURCELL,

PATERSON, N.J.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

To supplement previous testimony to your committee, may I add the following: 1. The prohibition against all (including kosher) uneviscerated poultry requested in my recommendation, does not infringe upon any religious requirements since the consumer's rights to examine his own poultry is not violated by this provision. Bill HR 15146 section 5 (C) sub paragraph "2", page 18, already provides protection to the consumer who chooses to buy at a retail store, where the poultry is slaughtered, and he is personally able to examine the viscera and

carcass.

2. At present, the vast majority of non eviscerated kosher poultry shipped in intra state commerce, is sold by wholesalers to the retail butchers, who do the evisceration themselves, and sell the product to the consumer in eviscerated form. This product does not receive any competent rabbinical or Federal inspection. Inasmuch as the poultry is already eviscerated when it reaches the consumer, he is evidently not examining the viscera himself, but is relying on the retail butcher for inspection.

Hence the religious prerogative of self examination of the viscera does not apply. Rabbi MEYER GREENBERG.

Mr. PURCELL. At this time, I will recognize another colleague of ours, Mr. Dave Henderson of North Carolina, who will present to us Mr. Marvin Johnson.

And while they are coming forward, it might be observed that we have great partiality here prevailing between Members and constituents. It just seemed to me that we might recognize the fact that we are partisan at this time of this year in all parts of the country.

We welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID N. HENDERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much. I did not know whether I would be able to get here today. I am delighted that my schedule made it possible for me to come over.

It is indeed a privilege to present Mr. Johnson, who is president of the National Turkey Federation and who will testify before you this morning. I have known Mr. Johnson all of his life. I can say that because I am older than he is.

I might point out to the committee that Duplin County in the last few years has led the State of North Carolina in agricultural production.

This has become true because of the growing poultry industry there, in addition to its other leading crop-tobacco. We have become a diversified agricultural county.

Mr. Johnson and his father have been leaders in the turkey and broiler production field in Duplin County and the surrounding counties of the district that I have the honor to represent.

Mr. Johnson, of course, this year as president of the National Turkey Federation, has been honored by the turkey producers of this country. I introduce him to you today as a distinguished leader in agriculture in my home county and my district and in the State of North Carolina.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Johnson, I welcome you and I hope you hold up to all of that.

STATEMENT OF MARVIN JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TURKEY FEDERATION; ACCOMPANIED BY LEW WALTS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, NATIONAL TURKEY FEDERATION; AND JOSEPH O. PARKER, COUNSEL

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the gentleman on my right here is Joseph O. Parker, legal counsel, and the gentleman on my left is Mr. Lew Walts, director of public relations of the National Turkey Federation.

My name is Marvin Johnson, president of the National Turkey Federation. Membership in this organization is nationwide and covers producers who are responsible for the production of the major portion of the Nation's turkey crop. We have about 4,000 members. A large segment of other interests of the industry-the breeders, hatcherymen,

feed manufacturers and distributors, processors and marketers-also take a very active part in the Federation's affairs.

I am a turkey producer from North Carolina. I was born in the rural community around Rose Hill and have spent practically all my life there. When I was a boy my father, Nash Johnson, was a farmer and hatcherman. After graduating from Rose Hill High School and serving in the merchant marine, I started farming about like other farmers in the area, raising tobacco, strawberries and other crops that grow well in the area. I also had a few turkeys. In 1955 we began to expand our turkey operations. In 1967 we produced 1.5 million head of turkeys and about 15 million broilers. The turkeys were marketed through an officially inspected plant at Raeford, N.C., and the chickens at Rose Hill. Both processing plants are jointly owned by ourselves and others. The National Turkey Federation's board of directors at their annual convention in early January resolved to support legislation to expand poultry inspection to full coverage. The resolution is as follows:

Whereas, the National Turkey Federation strongly supported the enactment of the Poultry Products Inspection Act under which consumers are assured of the wholesomeness and proper labeling of all poultry products which bear the federal inspection legend, and

Whereas, 87 per cent of all live poultry sold off farms is now subject to mandatory federal inspection, and

Whereas, the National Turkey Federation recognizes the desirability of extending federal inspection to all poultry and poultry products to further protect consumers,

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Poultry Products Inspection Act be amended to bring the remaining 13 per cent of poultry sold off farms under the federal inspection system.

The turkey industry and the National Turkey Federation have strongly supported the present poultry inspection system. Along with other poultry groups, it was instrumental in getting legislation for mandatory poultry inspection about 10 years ago. According to the Department of Agriculture figures, about 94 percent of the turkeys sold off farms are inspected under the Federal inspection program. A good portion of the remaining 6 percent is represented by producers who process and sell turkeys of their own raising direct to consumers. Many of them were not involved in interstate commerce and may be subjected to local inspection systems. However, those who were, were exempted under the Poultry Products Inspection Act for selling in a rather restricted outlet for a service. The provision for this type of exemption would be terminated under the bill supported by the administration.

Although our association supports full coverage, we do recommend that the committee consider carefully the elimination of this producer exemption of the producer law. If these producer-operators are to stay in business, the inspection agency will be obliged to supply inspection under conditions which they must operate without weakening any protection to the consumer. Unless inspection can be provided under section 15 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act or similar provisions, these "small" turkey producers could be forced out of business. We emphasize that the present poultry inspection system as administered is widely recognized as being unexcelled anywhere in the world.

The confidence it has helped to establish in poultry products has, we believe, contributed greatly to the increased use of poultry products both in domestic markets and for export. We believe that the worldwide recognition of this inspection system has been one of the strongest factors making it possible to secure and hold expanded export outlets in spite of attempts to curtail them through the use of economic tariffs or artificial health barriers.

With this observation and experience, we strongly recommend this committee extend coverage of the present law to the remaining 6 percent not now subject to it. This could best be accomplished, in our judgment, by amending the Poultry Products Inspection Act to cover this area. Any of the provisions of bills similar to H.R. 15146 relating to extension of coverage beyond the plant, which the committee believes desirable, could also be added as amendments to the present law.

In other words, we believe we should not run the risk of impairing a highly efficient program to encompass the remaining 6 percent by adopting an entirely new program with all the attendant uncertainties. Instead, we believe we should extend the program now applicable to the 94 percent to the remaining 6 percent.

The extension of the present law to the remaining 6 percent, as suggested, would in no way prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from developing and carrying out a cooperative program with the States under which an appropriate State agency would be empowered, with its own personnel, to carry out the requirements of the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Section 18(b) of the present law clearly authorizes such programs and procedures, including the authority to pay the entire cost of the program by the Federal Government, if the Secretary so desires.

There would be no question under this suggestion that the law and regulations which would be carried out at the State level, with respect to intrastate product, would be identical with the Federal inspection program. It also would not be necessary for all the States to attempt to enact 50 separate laws and regulations or for the Secretary of Agriculture to have to attempt to harmonize these different laws with the Federal regulations.

Perhaps of even greater significance is the fact that uniformity and equality of application of the laws at the State level, as well as in the Federal program, could best be achieved since there would be a single program under a single set of laws and regulations being carried out with the same administrative supervision and control as that accorded Federal plants.

We cannot stress too strongly the need for uniformity, both for the protection of the consumer and for the industry. The consumer is entitled to know that the product she buys, wherever she makes her purchase, and whether the product has moved in interstate commerce or not, has been inspected for wholesomeness in accordance with the same high single standard as provided under the Poultry Products Inspection Act.

It is essential, we feel, that the industry have a uniform system applied equally to all plants to eliminate competitive inequities which would otherwise exist.

We also concur in the position taken by Mr. Pringle, in which he pointed out that under H.R. 15146, product inspected under a State

program, as authorized under that bill, does not in our judgment, provide adequate administrative control to achieve uniformity. Consequently, it would be necessary to make it clear that the poultry processor have the election of operating under either the State or Federal program.

We also concur and support the position taken by Mr. Pringle that in the event a program like that proposed in H.R. 15146 is adopted by the committee, a provision should be developed to require that the State's share of the cost be met with appropriated funds of the State, so it will be equal to the requirement of the Federal law.

We believe that the committee, in deciding whether to extend the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture to include condemnation and seizure authority outside the official plant, should consider whether such authority is necessary to accord the protection desired and to warrant the additional cost which may be involved. We mention this because the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and those of the Food and Drug Commissioner could duplicate one another, but both having administrative responsibility undoubtedly would find it necessary to maintain staff to carry out that responsibility.

We appreciate this opportunity of presenting our views and hope the committee will favorably consider amending and extending the present Federal law.

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

Are there any questions?

Mr. Foley?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I should like very briefly to congratulate Mr. Johnson on his statement, and say that I am glad to know that the National Turkey Federation has announced its support of this legislation to upgrade the quality of all poultry products. I also want to say again that it is a pleasure to see this very important national organization come forward and take such a forthright stand.

Thank you.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much.

We will now call on Mr. Carl Ñall, executive secretary, Pacific Dairy & Poultry Association, 5420 West Jefferson Boulevard, Los Angeles, Calif.

We will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF CARL NALL, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PACIFIC DAIRY & POULTRY ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. NALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Carl Nall; I am executive secretary of the Pacific Dairy & Poultry Association, 5420 West Jefferson Boulevard, Los Angeles, Calif.

The Pacific Dairy & Poultry Association is a nonprofit trade association serving the poultry and egg industries of the 11 Western States. It was organized in 1924.

I consider it an honor that I have the privilege of appearing before the committee today and to testify in support of amendments to the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957.

The association is in support of legislation to improve and further assure every consumer of our products, a wholesome and nutritious product in every respect.