Page images
PDF
EPUB

Federal inspectors in this particular bill. There is a provision for assistance to the States-technical assistance to the States. And I think that $450,000 is allotted for that, and

Mr. PRICE. Would that be grants of money or what?

Dr. SOMERS. Grants of money is $4.4 million. Then there is $450,000 for technical assistance, laboratory assistance, things of that kind. This could involve as many as 40 Federal employees, and then there is also a provision

Mr. PRICE. You are sending men into the laboratories to instruct others?

Dr. SOMERS. Right. And another $150,000 to train employees. This could involve 10 or 12 Federal employees to be used as instructors to operate a training program for them. So, there are no actual Federal inspectors contemplated by this, that is, at this time.

Mr. PRICE. It is difficult for me to understand that you are going to have the States pay one-half of it and the Federal will pay one-half of it. Who is going to pay for the training of these men?

Dr. SOMERS. They will be paid by some of the grants, 50 percent of the grants to the States will be used to pay them and the other 50 percent is provided by State funds. And these will be State inspectors. It is their purpose to build a strong, viable State program.

Mrs. MAY. You do not contemplate any new Federal inspectors under the bill you have sent up until 2 years from now?

Dr. SOMERS. That is correct.

Mrs. MAY. Then, you may be required to have more Federal inspectors, depending on how it goes?

Dr. SOMERS. That is correct.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Mehren.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. The next witness will be Congressman Charles E. Bennett of Florida.

We will be happy to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I know that there are more knowledgeable people here on this subject than myself, and for the purpose of expedition, I am handing in my full statement and will just read the conclusion and ask that the full statement be put into the record.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Without objection, that may be done.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Bennett reads in full as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your Committee, hearing testimony on legislation which will strengthen the Poultry Products Inspection Act.

On the first day of the second session of the 90th Congress, I introduced H.R. 14594, entitled the Wholesome Poultry and Fish Act. This bill is pending before the House Agriculture Committee, and the Chairman has requested a report on the bill from the Secretary of Agriculture. I am very happy that the Committee has acted speedily on the problem of adequate inspection of all poultry bought and sold in the United States.

The purpose of the legislation I have introduced is to assure the general public that the poultry and fish products which they buy are wholesome, safe and edible. There are many processors and producers of poultry and fish in Florida, and the contacts I have had with them reveal they are anxious for full inspection measures to insure a healthy product for the consumer at all times.

The bill I have introduced is patterned after the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967, which was reported from the Livestock and Grains Subcommittee. I want to congratulate members of the Subcommittee for putting this legislation on the books, and I was delighted to support it.

I am in basic agreement with and support the objectives of all of the bills pending in the Agriculture Committee on poultry inspection. As a consumer and as a Representative of constituents who produce poultry products I am anxious for full inspection of 100 percent of all poultry products produced.

When I began my research into this field of poultry inspection, the most important problem I found was the lack of federal-state cooperation, not only in inspection, but in information. In November, 1963, the House Committee on Government Operations in its "Consumer Protection Activities" report on poultry said: "... there is a lack of effective communication between USDA and the State departments of agriculture." My staff telephone calls and contacts discovered this fact in late 1967 and early this year. My bill would assure up-to-date and factual material on poultry inspection in the states, and I am hopeful legislation reported from the Committee will include this provision.

My bill, H.R. 14594, requires cooperation between the Federal government and state agencies in developing and administering a state poultry inspeciton law "that imposes mandatory ante mortem and post mortem inspection, reinspection, and sanitation requirements that are at least equal to those of the Federal government." It calls for Federal regulation and enforcement in the field of poultry if they are not enforced by local government.

I understand that 87 percent of slaughtered poultry and poultry products already is subject to Federal inspection. It is my purpose in proposing this legislation that we have 100 percent of poultry inspection brought up to proper standards to protect the American housewife and her family. The state is encouraged to take the initiative, but if it fails, the Federal government can step in.

In my own state of Florida, the Legislature passed in 1965, legislation setting up state inspection for the wholesomeness and sanitation of poultry offered for sale and the law was to become effective and operative when funds were available. It was in December, 1967, that poultry industry leaders called upon the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and requested that a program be established to provide a proper continuous on-the-line inspection for wholesomeness. Agriculture Commissioner Doyle Conner said he began this program in January, 1968 and that the inspection for wholesomeness and sanitation is now comparable to U.S. inspection.

I talked to Commissioner Conner about this new program and he is optimistic that Florida will develop a model inspection program for the United States. Florida has some very excellent modern poultry processing plants, and I am happy to say three of them are located in Jacksonville-in the Third District of Florida, which I represent.

Poultry producers and processors realize the importance of adequate inspection. The American Poultry and Hatchery Federation has written me: "You'll find the industry most eager to cooperate in seeing that all poultry offered for sale is slaughtered under sanitary conditions and is in a wholesome condition when offered to the consuming public. We realize, perhaps as much or more so than the average person outside the industry, the importance of maintaining the industry record for integrity."

Legislation such as I have introduced, covering both poultry and fish, already has the support of the American consumer and many organizations. The General Federation of Women's Clubs has written me about my proposal: "You may be assured of our support of this legislation."

Poultry producers in Florida are concerned that any Poultry Inspection law passed by Congress might prohibit the so-called commingling of federally inspected poultry products and state inspected poultry products. I understand the Department of Agriculture has issued such a regulation in respect to the Wholesome Meat Act passed last year. It would seem to me that if products are state inspected, under standards at least as high as federal standards, that the com

mingling of federal and state inspected products should be allowed in a common warehouse. I would hope a provision along these lines could be written into any inspection legislation reported out of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee. I congratulate you again on the work you are doing for the American consumer. Mr. BENNETT. Poultry producers in Florida are concerned that any poultry inspection law passed by Congress might prohibit the so-called commingling of federally inspected poultry products and State inspected poultry products. I understand that the Department of Agriculture has issued such a regulation in respect to the Wholesome Meat Act pased last year. It would seem to me that if products are State inspected, under standards at least as high as Federal standards, that the commingling of Federal and State inspected products should be allowed in a common warehouse. I would hope a provision along these lines could be written into any inspection legislation reported out of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I congratulate you again on the work you are doing for the American consumer.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is our Chairman, Mr. Poage.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. R. POAGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. POAGE. Honorable colleagues, I am sure it came as no surprise to any of you when I introduced a wholesome poultry bill patterned after our original wholesome meat bill.

I think most of the arguments we will hear, not only here but on the House floor, and those to be voiced in the Senate, will be a repeat of those we heard during consideration of the red meat bill.

The issues fundamentally are the same. The question still centers on the best means of attaining an objective we all have in common: assurance that the American consumer gets the cleanest, the finest, and the most wholesome meat and poultry possible.

This, in my opinion, can best be achieved if you have the wholehearted cooperation of the State and local authorities.

As I said in debate on the meat inspection bill, I think it is better to hold out a carrot as an inducement for the willing, if not the enthusiastic, collaboration of the States. The alternative, which is a threat to the States of a Federal takeover if they do not comply, violates what I consider a basic tenet of our form of government-the right of the States to handle these matters resting wholly within their respective boundaries.

I repeat what I said on the House floor during consideration of the conference report on the meat bill-the only justification for following the course of action embodied in the meat bill as passed by the Senate and accepted by the House is a belief that, where the objective is good, the end justifies the means. This never has been my philosophy. It is not my philosophy today. I believe in the division of powers between the State and the Federal Governments envisioned in our Constitution, and I don't believe that any claim of desirability can add or detract from the constitutional division of powers.

Aside from this constitutional objection, I think the coercive approach will not get effective results, that it will not result in as effective enforcement of regulations as the voluntary concept incorporated in the bill I have introduced.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, made up of the officials who are closest to this problem, feels that the voluntary plan is better.

Some State officials, I understand, have expressed resentment of tactics used by some proponents of the Federal approach in getting information used to pressure passage of the Wholesome Meat Act in the version which finally became law.

The Federal authorities will find they need the cooperation of these State officials.

Here in this bill that I have introduced, as in the meat bill which this subcommittee originally approved after deliberate consideration, we again are presenting the States an attractive cooperative program.

It is one which few of them could afford to reject. It provides an incentive for them to improve their own State inspection systems. It provides a practical solution to the problem, one which we could be sure will work. As I remarked on introducing the bill, you are not likely to get cooperation by hitting local authorities in the face with a dirty towel.

I find no fault with those who reach different conclusions than those of my own so long as they consider the facts, and sort them out from the kind of propaganda that was heaped on Capitol Hill in connection with the meat bill. This is an observation that hardly needs voicing here, but I do hope that when a poultry bill gets to the floor of the House, the Members as a whole will be more discerning in weighing the issues involved than they were during consideration of the red meat legislation.

I want realistic results-not simply credit for introducing a bill, any bill. I believe the cooperative approach is a good deal more likely to get results than such a bill as the one we have before us which would require antemortem Federal inspection of fish. Maybe the idea of a Federal inspector swimming around the oceans, tagging those fish which can be caught or killed, will attract attention, but it can hardly evidence very much to this committee except that some of the authors of this legislation have been quite out of touch with realities.

I submit that the so-called 'administration bill, and all of its variations, have better headline than enforcement possibilities. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foley?

Mr. FOLEY. I would like to say, to you as chairman of the full committee, that we thank you very much for your statement.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mrs. May?

Mrs. MAY. No questions.
Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Dole?
Mr. DOLE. No questions.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Zwach?

Mr. ZWACH. I want to commend the chairman of this committee for the forthright statement he has made of his position.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Kleppe?

Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Chairman, I supported you before, and I intend to support it again. I think you have made a very fine statement. I think your position is well founded. I believe we passed a good bill out of this committee in the meat bill, and I believe that this is very comparable, this poultry bill. I again compliment you for your

statement.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Pike?

Mr. PIKE. I want to say to you, Mr. Poage, that I certainly agree with your statement. You have put in words a lot of the expressions of the members, and what I would like to say.

I think it is a very good statement.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our next witness is Congressman Rogers C. B. Morton, of Maryland. We will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGERS C. B. MORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to testify on behalf of my bill, H.R. 14741, to amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act so as to provide for the Federal inspection of all poultry and poultry products intended for human consumption.

Rather than read the entire statement, I would like to make a comment or two. Of course, the statement is before you, and it is available for the record, and I should like to have the complete statement made a part of the record.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. It is so ordered.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Morton reads in full as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGERS C. B. MORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to testify on behalf of my bill, H.R. 14741, to amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act so as to provide for the Federal inspection of all poultry and poultry products intended for human consumption.

The poultry industry is the backbone of our economy on the Delmarva Peninsula. Last year more than 280 million broilers were produced on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. Over 50 percent of our agricultural income stems from the poultry industry.

Our poultrymen want to see the inspection program broadened to include all poultry which is intended for use as human food. Nearly 100 percent of the poultry produced in Maryland is Federally inspected. In other areas, where poultry is produced and sold in intrastate commerce, industry has an unfair advantage in a competitive market. Poultry which would fail to meet Federal inspection standards may be sold to the public as long as the product does not cross a state line. Mr. Chairman, we feel this is derogatory to the poultry industry, but more importantly, we believe it is unfair to the American public. Certainly the consumer has the right to be assured the poultry he purchases is wholesome and clean.

For these reasons, the poultrymen in my District seek uniformity of inspection throughout the country, of both interstate and intrastate commerce in poultry and poultry products. Under H.R. 14741 and the companion bills sponsored by my colleague from Delaware and Senator John Williams, the Federal inspection program would be extended to include all poultry intended for human consumption. Actual inspection could be gotten underway in a relatively short period of time since the program is already established and only an extension is required.

« PreviousContinue »