Statement of— Sullivan, Hon. Leonor K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri_ Page 4 Trenhaile, Stanley I., president, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture... 163 Turnbull, Don M., executive secretary, American Poultry and Hatchery Federation.. 141 63 Vigorito, Hon. Joseph P., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania__ Correspondence submitted to the subcommittee: Biemiller, Andrew J., director, department of legislation, American Clarkson, M. R., D.V.M., executive secretary, American Veterinary Ellington, Charles P., director, Maryland State Board of Agriculture, Freeman, Hon. Orville L., Secretary of Agriculture, letter of December 168 168 60 163 6 Greenberg, Rabbi Meyer, Paterson, N.J., letter. 133 Haugen, Borghild, consumer consultant, California Farmer Consumer 169 Hogue, Robert L., executive secretary, Indiana State Poultry Association, Inc., letter of February 20, 1968. 164 Johnson, Reuben L., director of legislative services, National Farmers 162 128 Rischer, Raymond L., president, Massachusetts Turkey Growers As- man 165 124 Wheeler, Mrs. Dorothy, secretary, board of directors, Greenbelt Consumers Services, letter of February 20, 1968- 164 Other material submitted to the subcommittee: "A Federal ghost doctor report on meat plants," article from the National Observer, February 12, 1968. 42 New Jersey turkey growers did thriving 1967 business.. 106 6 28 Summary of noninspected poultry carcass examination-Summary of a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 27 "U.S. inspectors fudged facts to pass meat law", article from the National Observer, January 29, 1968- 39 AMEND THE POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND GRAINS OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1301, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. Stubblefield presiding. Present: Representatives Stubblefield, Poage, Foley, Mrs. May, Dole, Zwach, Kleppe, and Price. Also present: Christine S. Gallagher, clerk; William C. Black, general counsel; Hyde H. Murray, assistant counsel; L. T. Easley, staff consultant, and Fowler C. West, assistant staff consultant. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. The subcommittee will please come to order. We are met this morning to hear witnesses on the subject of amending the poultry inspection law by bills introduced by various Members. (The texts of the various bills, H.R. 14594 by Mr. Bennett; similar bills, H.R. 14741 by Mr. Morton and H.R. 14782 by Mr. Roth; similar bills, H.R. 15146 by Mr. Purcell, Mr. Dow, Mr. Smith of Iowa, and Mr. Foley; H.R. 15149 by Mrs. Sullivan; H.R 15361 by Mr Vigorito; H.R. 15484 by Mr. Corman; and H.R. 15504 by Mr Kupferman; and H.R. 15154 by Mr. Poage, may be found in the appendix.) The first witness this morning will be on the administration bill introduced by Congressman Neal Smith of Iowa and Leonor K. Sullivan of Missouri and Congressman Vigorito of Pennsylvania. We will be glad to hear from you now Congressman Smith. STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to testify on behalf of legislation to improve the Federal poultry inspection program. Last year Congress passed legislation to strengthen the Federal meat inspection program and I am pleased that hearings have been scheduled promptly on bills introduced this year dealing with poultry inspection. While the volume of poultry products slaughtered, processed, and consumed in the United States is much less than for red meat, in many respects I believe the situation relative to inspection is similar. About the same percentage of both is adequately inspected, and in both industries there are competitive advantages for the uninspected processor. In the poultry industry, these advantages tempt the uninspected processor to market sick birds and process under unwholesome conditions. In 1966, about 87 percent of the poultry sold in the United States, or 10.9 billion pounds, was handled by federally inspected establishments but a large share of the remaining 13 percent, which amounts. to 1.6 billion pounds, was slaughtered or processed in States which have no mandatory antemortem and postmortem laws covering poultry. The members of the committee heard all the arguments for and against extending red meat inspection and protection and the Congress has spoken on that particular subject. I hope that even those who opposed the Red Meat Act recognize that the vast majority want the inspection service extended to cover those poultry products which now escape such inspection and proper labeling and also think we have waited long enough. Under that assumption, it is not necessary to repeat all the arguments made last year which the committee recognizes would apply to poultry as well. While the 1967 act relative to red meat may not be precisely what every Member of Congress would have preferred, it represents the way in which the vast majority of this Congress fully decided to meet a similar problem and I therefore believe that a bill for poultry that is parallel to the 1967 act would be a practical objective. While I believe H.R. 15146, as drafted by the Department, changes a few important provisions contained in the 1967 act, it could easily be amended to meet that objective. When I joined in introducing the bill, I stated and I still believe that a few amendments which I will outline are the least that is needed before passing the bill. The amendments are as follows: 1. On page 19 in line 18, insert after "thereafter," the words "but at least annually,"; and at the end of line 22 on the same page strike the period and add "and annually report thereon to the Congress.' In explanation: These provisions were in the 1967 act but omitted from the proposed bill before sending it to the Congress. I understand the Budget Bureau was responsible. Unless there is a review at least annually and a report as to the operation of State programs that have been approved as at least equal to the Federal program and eligible for Federal funds, there would be no way to know when or if a State program no longer met the requirements of the law. This would encourage legislatures and States to reduce enforcement and would surely result in Federal money being paid for protection which in some cases would not be furnished. This is an extremely important provision. 2. Delete lines 23 and 24 on page 19 and lines 1 through 8 on page 20; and on page 11 in lines 6 through 8, strike the comma after the word "Act" on line 6, insert in lieu thereof a period and strike the remainder of the sentence. In explanation: If left in the bill, this provision would permit nonfederally inspected poultry from plants in States which had qualified for Federal funds to be sold in interstate commerce. This provision is not in the Red Meat Act and I understand it was added to the poultry bill, as recommended by the Department, at the request of some State secretaries of agriculture. When a State meets Federal standards and has an enforcement program at least equal to the Federal program they are removed from the list of States where intrastate plants will be federally inspected; however, they could become lax for several months before they can be placed back on the list. This is because section 5 (C) (3) provides that instating Federal inspection shall only be after a 30-day notice and publication in the Federal Register. By the time Federal inspection could be instated, millions of pounds of contaminated poultry products could have moved all over the United States or the world. The constant possibility that this would be occurring could hurt both our domestic and foreign market for poultry. If poultry from these plants were to move in interstate commerce, the very least that should be provided is a continuing review by Federal inspectors of the whole operations within the State and authority to instate Federal inspection instantly if the State fell below the Federal inspection instantly if the State fell below the Federal standards. That kind of provision, I think, would create such great friction when applied, and be so costly and disrupting, that it seems to me the added language should simply be eliminated. 3. On page 14 in line 8, after the word "imposes" insert the word "mandatory". In explanation: This word was in the Red Meat Act to make sure that a State program would not qualify for Federal funds and that establishments in that State would not be exempt from Federal inspection unless the State had a mandatory law. I understand the Department believes the word to be superfluous, but it was in the 1967 act and leaving it out of this one could raise the argument that it was left out for a purpose and the only purpose could be to permit States with voluntary laws to comply. I don't think there should be any doubt about this requirement and urge that the word be inserted. 4. On page 6, after line 24, insert the following paragraph: “(9) If it is margarine containing poultry fat and any of the raw material used therein consisted in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance." In explanation: This provision was in the Red Meat Act under the section defining adulterated products but was not included in the draft of H.R. 15146 prepared by the Department. Poultry fats are being saved and sold and it is just as objectionable to use contaminated poultry fats. I am still in favor of moving faster toward greater protection than was provided in the 1967 Red Meat Act and have prepared an amendment to this bill that could accomplish that; but I recognize the fact that the vast majority in Congress spoke in favor of the 2-year delay with certain interim protections. If H.R. 15146 were amended as I have outlined, we could have a poultry bill that would be as comprehensive as the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967. Some people would prefer to extend the existing law to cover all poultry and poultry products with no State cooperation and, therefore, no need for the lead time provided in H.R. 15146. At first glance, this might appear to offer more protection; but the existing law is not nearly as comprehensive as H.R. 15146. H.R. 15146 contains provi sions patterned after the 1967 Red Meat Act which provides extensive and badly needed additional protection against misbranding, deceitful packaging, colored and labeling, and the use of inferior 4-D and other materials. New trends in the industry, such as promotion of prepackaged foods and new chemicals and ways of handling inferior products, name these provisions very important. While a mere extension of existing law would provide great protection in some cases during the next 2 years, the provisions of H.R. 15146, amended as I have suggested, would provide a broader and clearer protection after the 2-year implementation period has expired. I strongly urge that H.R. 15146 be strengthened as outlined and passed. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, Congressman Smith. Are there any questions? Mr. FOLEY. I should like to reserve my questions for the moment, but I wish to compliment the gentleman from Iowa on his fine testimony. I will say that I agree with you in your recommendations for amendments as being sound. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Dole? Mr. DOLE. No questions. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Zwach? Mr. ZWACH. No questions. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Kleppe? Mr. KLEPPE. No questions. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, again, Congressman Smith. We will be glad to hear your statement now. STATEMENT OF HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mrs. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, and in order to save the time of the subcommittee, I would like to have made a part of the record a copy of a letter I wrote to Secretary Freeman last December and his reply to me, showing the origin of the administration bill which I have introduced and which several other members have introduced. In addition, I would like to have included a document which establishes the danger to humans from diseased poultry. This was part of the voluminous documentation I submitted to the House on June 18, 1956, which led to the enactment of the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957. For those members interested in the full background, I refer them to the Congressional Record of June 18, 1956, which contains 18 pages of material and background data spelling out the need for Federal inspection of poultry. I am not offering that vast amount of detail here but, as I said, I would like to insert one part of it onlya report from the Public Health Service which discussed the diseases transmissible to humans from poultry. It is certainly relevant to this bill today. I am not including the three solid pages of references and tables which appeared in the Congressional Record as part of this |