with the proposed act. Section 12 of S. 1128 sets forth the penalties for engaging in such prohibited acts. In the normal situation involving carload shipments of slaughtered poultry or poultry products via a railroad, the transportation will be in refrigerator cars that the railroad will have spotted on the shipper's siding and will have received back from the shipper only after the cars have been loaded, closed and sealed. The railroad company, of course, will have had no first-hand knowledge of whether the poultry or poultry products contained in the cars delivered to it for movement have or have not been inspected and marked in accordance with the proposed statute. The only way in which a railroad company can have such knowledge first-hand would be to assign one or more of its employees to check what goes into each car as it is loaded. Such a requirement would be wholly impractical, wasteful and unfair. The basic offenders under the proposed law would appear to be those operating the poultry processing establishments where the inspection should take place. The sellers of such products would be in a position similar to that of the processors because they should know whether the poultry that they were selling had been inspected and marked. The transportation carrier would probably normally not have such a relationship with the transaction and certainly that would be so in the case of the common carrier railroad comapny. In view of this situation, it seems to us that it is entirely appropriate that S. 1128 amended so as to include a provision exemption carriers from the penalties of the proposed act, other than those penalties provided for failure to maintain the records set forth in section 10 of the bill. There is precedent for the provision of such an exemption. In the 2d session of the 84th Congress this committee favorably reported S. 4243, a bill to provide for the compulsory inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture of poultry and poultry products and one similar to the three bills here pending, Section 9 of that bill referred to the same prohibited acts which I mentioned as set forth in section 8 of S. 1128. Section 13 of S. 4243 provided the penalties for the violation of a number of sections of that bill, among them section 9. However, section 13 of the reported bill contained the following proviso: Provided, That no carrier shall be subject to the penalties of this act, other than the penalties for violation of section 11 and I will interject there to say that that was the keeping of records section by reason of his receipt, carriage, holding, or delivery, in the usual course of business as a carrier, of slaughtered poultry or poultry products, owned by another person unless the carrier has knowledge, or is in possession of facts which would cause a reasonable person to believe that such slaughtered poultry or poultry products were not inspected or marked in accordance with the provisions of this act or were not otherwise eligible for transportation under this act. In addition both of the other two bills here under consideration, S. 313 and S. 645, contain the exemption in which the railroads are interested. That exemption is found in the proviso section 13 of S. 313 and in subparagraph (b) of section 13 of S. 645. In conclusion, we respectfully submit that because of the unliklihood that a railroad would have any knowledge that the poultry or poultry products it was transporting were being shipped in violation of the law, such transaction should be exempt from the operation of the law. This could be done by inserting the proviso to which I have referred at the end of the first sentence in section 13 of S. 1128. Of course, in view of the fact that it is section 10 of S. 1128 that relates to the keeping of records, reference in the proviso should be made to "section 10" rather than to "section 11." Inclusion of the proviso would not alter the bill's requirement that the railroads maintain certain records and grant access to such records to representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Finney, for bringing this to our attention. Mr. FINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator HUMPHREY. And I want to thank you very much, too. The CHAIRMAN. Next is Dr. Max Hibbard. Will you come forward, please? STATEMENT OF DR. MAX HIBBARD, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH VETERINARIANS, RICHMOND, VA. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement? Dr. HIBBARD. I have a prepared statement. In the interest of saving time, I will hit the highlights. The CHAIRMAN. All right, if your highlights will not take longer than reading it, proceed. Dr. HIBBARD. I hope not. I am Dr. Max Hibbard, State public health veterinarian with the Virginia State Department of Health, representing the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians as a member of that organization's legislative committee. The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians is an organization of Federal, State, and local health and agricultural agency veterinarians, in company with the veterinary disciplines of the military services, national and international health organizations, educational institutions and livestock disease-control agencies. It was founded to provide leadership in promoting the quality and effectiveness of veterinary public health activities conducted by official and nonofficial agencies and organizations. Just very briefly, the organization does support Senator Humphrey's bill, S. 1128. We are also very much in favor of an ante mortem inspection. We believe, too, that the so-called New York dressed or the delayed evisceration of poultry should be prohibited. We are all very much opposed to the Federal agency administering this bill, being able to come into the interstate commerce without the consent of the local governing body. We believe it would be detrimental to the smaller poultry producer in the intrastate business. Outside of that, I think that these items that we have set out in this statement more or less has come up before, and with that I will conclude, and I thank you very much. do The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Any questions. Senator HUMPHREY. I do have a question. How many members you have in that Conference of Public Health Veterinarians? Dr. HIBBARD. I cannot say offhand. Senator HUMPHREY. You do represent all jurisdictions of the Government? Dr. HIBBARD. Yes, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. Well, how many would you imagine or guess? Dr. HIBBARD. I would imagine possibly two or three hundred; something like that. The CHAIRMAN. Somebody back there says a little over 300. Dr. HIBBARD. They are, of course, in the general public health veterinarian work. They work with the military and they work with the various agricultural agencies and educational institutions, and in all kinds and aspects of the veterinarian public health, I understand. Senator HUMPHREY. You feel very strongly about this area of administration of the "designated area" provision? Dr. HIBBARD. Yes, I do. Senator HUMPHREY. Is it not rather peculiar that the National Turkey Federation would not look into that, with the number of small producers they are concerned about? Dr. HIBBARD. I think so. Senator HUMPHREY. I think so, too. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other questions, we thank you, Dr. Hibbard. Your entire statement will be placed in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH VETERINARIANS The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians is an organization of Federal, State, and local health and agricultural agency veterinarians, in company with the veterinary disciplines of the military services, national and international health organizations, educational institutions, and livestock disease-control agencies. It was founded to provide leadership in promoting the quality and effectiveness of veterinary public-health activities conducted by official and nonofficial agencies and organizations. I have been directed by the Conference of Public Health Veterinarians to make the following statement in support of Senate bill No. 1128 having to do with compulsory poultry inspection. A sound poultry inspection program must provide effective means for dealing with the following items if it is to accomplish its purpose. Competent people must be employed to conduct the program. These persons should be employees of the official agency and responsible to that agency for their acts. Job protection should be extended to these employees under the existing merit system. The Agricultural Research Service, through its meat-inspection branch, has done an outstanding job in protecting the public against diseased and unwholesome red meat correlated with its animal disease eradication program. Fifty years of service has proved its responsibility to the consuming public as well as to industry. It would do an equally good job on poultry inspection. Indeed, the integrity of the program revolves about competent administration and personnel. Specific provisions for accurate recordkeeeping must be spelled out. Antemortem or preslaughter inspection is an integral part of any program to detect disease. Many diseases are best recognized in the live individual. It is also essential in protecting slaughterhouse employees against poultry diseases communicable to man. Carcass-by-carcass post mortem inspection must be provided in an effective program. The detailed examination of the vital organs of each bird is necessary in detecting diseased and unwholesome conditions. All birds sholud be eviscerated immediately after slaughter in order to correlate ante mortem, post mortem findings, and prevent the invasion of surrounding edible tissues with objectionable odors and bacteria from the gastrointestinal tract. The shipment of so-called New York dressed poultry should be prohibited as an undesirable and unsanitary practice which may also lead to the transfer of diseases from one area to another. Sanitary standards must be provided throughout the processing procedure. Means should be incorporated to insure the fair and unencumbered enforcement of all provisions in the act. Finally, the Federal agency administrating the act should not be empowered to interfere with intrastate poultry commerce except by consent of the local governing body. The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians feels that of the three bills currently under consideration only Senate bill No. 1128 adequately provides for these items. The Conference of Public Health Veterinarians strongly urges the committee to report favorably on this bill or one containing these essential provisions. If we can be of further service to this committee, call on us at any time. The CHAIRMAN. Next is Dr. Kingman. Will you come forward please? STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY E. KINGMAN, JR., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL. The CHAIRMAN. Identify yourself for the record. Dr. KINGMAN. I am Harry E. Kingman, Jr., a doctor of veterinary medicine. I am appearing on behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMW, representing the profession of veterinary medicine in the United States, appreciates being afforded the opportunity to have a representative appear before this committee concerning S. 313, S. 645, and S. 1128, 85th Congress. My statement, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, will be very brief. The CHAIRMAN. Your whole prepared statement will be put in the record. Dr. KINGMAN. The conclusions are on page 5 of the statement I have submitted. It is our conclusion that: The three bills (S. 313, S. 645, and S. 1128) in their present form provide most of the basic features necessary for an adequately safeguarded inspection system. Certain changes in the language of each, or a combination of the three, should result in legislation that would merit the full support of the American Veterinary Medical Association. We recognize the tremendous problems faced by those who are charged with the responsibility of framing legislation so as to insure insofar as possible that the administration of the law will be consistent with the full intent. Our association has had intimate contact with food-inspection programs for many, many years. We are confident that the deliberations of this committee will result in legislation having far-reaching beneficial effects to the Nation. At the same time, we wish to express our confidence in the integrity and purposefulness of our administrative branches of government which is so essential if we are to preserve our present form of government. I wish to thank you in behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association for having had this opportunity to be heard. Unless the committee desires me to, I will not go into any of the changes we suggest, since they are in the statement. The CHAIRMAN. We will consider your statement. It will be made a part of the record. We have much testimony covering all of the bills so that I think we will be adequately provided with the facts to base our judgment on. Thank you very much, Dr. Kingman. (The statement submitted is as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION The American Veterninary Medical Association favors and endorses legislation which would prohibit the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of unsound, unhealthful, diseased, unwholesome or adulterated poultry or poultry products. As background material, permit me to review the policy determinations of the American Veterinary Medical Association insofar as poultry inspection for wholesomeness is concerned. First of all, the AVMA favors the enactment of proper legislation to provide for the compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products. In 1951, the association adopted the report of the committee on food hygiene which contained this statement of policy: "If poultry is to bear a State grade designation, it should have the background of adequate inspection by State or Federal employees, and if poultry is to bear a USDA seal of any kind, the program should have Federal veterinary supervision at every level." The association has continued to support its view that grading, which is essentially a marketing requirement, and inspection for wholesomeness, which is a consumer protection procedure, should be separately administered. In 1954, the association adopted a resolution urging that the Poultry Inspection Service be combined with Federal Meat Inspection Service. Separating grading and inspection would either require the establishment of a new agency to perform the inspection services, or would require the transferring of the existing inspection program to an agency presently performing inspection work. It is the view of our association that for reasons of economy, efficiency, and administrative experience, the poultry-inspection program could be best served by having it located in a division of the Government whose immediate responsibility is nspecton for wholesomeness. The assoication supported this at its annual meeting last October by endorsing legislation that would amend the Meat Inspection Act to include poultry and poultry products. This is the basis of testimony give before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 84th Congress, last May, at which it was stated: "The establishment of a separate inspection service is not consistent with the recommendation of the AVMA committee on food and milk hygiene urging the organization of a coordinated food-control program under veterinary planning and direction. We feel this is of primary importance, and would again urge that legilation to provide for the establishment of poultry-inspection facilities within Federal Meat Inspection Service be favorably reported by your committee." Senate bills 313, 645, and 1128 provide for the creation of a Poultry Products Inspection Service rather than amending the Meat Inspection Act. As an association, we would not oppose this method of establishing a poultry inspection service provided the same objectives can be achieved and if, in the wisdom of Congress, it is decided that this is the best procedure to follow. Therefore, we will confine our remaining comments to the differences between the bills under consideration. 1. The definition of the term "inspector" in S. 1128 (Huhphrey bill) provides that the inspector shall be an employee of the Federal Government. We would urge the inclusion of suitable language in the bill reported out of this committee, to provide that inspectors be employees of Federal or State governments. 2. The definition of the term "inspection service" in S. 1128 (Humphrey bill) places the inspection responsibility within the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture. Should it be considered impractical to designate, as a part of this legislation, the specific agency within the Department of Agriculture to be charged with the responsibility of administering this act, we would urge that the committee call attention in their report to the economic, administrative, and public confidence advantages inherent in a co 89520-57--13 |