am sure, Senator Humphrey has stated that the legislation must protect the farmer as well as others.

And there are many farmers today, and I hope always will be in the future, who have in long years of faithful service to their consumers build up, what we in New Jersey call a route, where the farmer through special efforts expanded by him is compensated by the consumer in a more equitable compensation for his efforts, then he would receive when he sells his products through other, namely, wholesale channels. It is this part in particular which makes a farmer the small businessman he is, proud to be an entrepreneur, and working for the extra incentive, which helped to raise our standards of living as high as they are today. To omit the individual farmer, who up to now has always been covered by locally adopted ordinances, to maintain sanitary conditions in his slaughterhouse as well as his packaging, would be a great injustice to the farmer, as I am sure the Senator Humphrey bill did not intend to do.

Likewise the penalties as set up in both bills, in 313 as well as 1128, which are in section 13-the S. 313 which are there in section 13 in essence, are set up not to discourage a giant corporation which may easily make up a fine of $5 or even $10,000 in a few days of operation, and the guilty employee may not be indispensable to the cooperate business. However, if under the same section, if it would be 1 or 2 or maybe 3 farmers, who, due to the sudden increase in overhead would have to put up a joint processing plant, and then through some misfortune some large or small mistake was committed by them, both the fine and the imprisonment could wipe them our completely and irrevocably. I do not think that Senator Aiken had in mind to make such a fine equal for the small as well as the very large enterprises. He did not mean to make such a fine the end of all small enterprising farmers who want so much to be compensated for their extra effort by the proper incentive.

And I think the proper solution might be found by stating that a processing plant where such and such a capacity should be fined so much, should be fined according to the financial resources, to the point where it hurts, and I expect that is where the fine ought to be either it hurts them or if it does not it is no good-and it should not be the same amount of fines when applied to a farmer or 2 or 3 farmers who have gotten together and who now have a slaughtering house and who want to process their chickens the best way they can-that is, with the inspection bill fully enforced. I do not think that they should be put out of business while someone who is much more capable of paying the fine can stay in and it does not hurt them at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Livney, that matter, of course, is left up to the judge. The fines that are to be imposed is entirely up to them, and it does not necessarily mean that they will impose the maximum fine and I further presume that whoever would act as a judge would consider the size of the plant, probably and the people engaged and things of that nature.

Mr. LIVNEY. Sir, I was just thinking of the judge who does not like the particular farmer and can set the maximum on him. I think it should be stated in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think you are stretching a point. You don't trust anyone, you don't even trust the legislators.

Mr. LIVNEY. I do trust them. They will do the good thing-that is why I am here.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Mr. LIVNEY. It is therefore that I would propose a rewriting of those 2 bills into 1 unified bill-which would bring out the best points of each, and fully appreciate the good suggestions made by both distinguished Senators, taking more fully into consideration, that the small, the humble farmer, who is still in the vast majority in numbers receives the fullest protection of this law to be, as much as the consumer would be assured to receive at all times the very best and nourishing product, while fully protecting the health of all those who may be in the middle, the processor and the like-while assuring the producer of the product a fair return on his investment, labor and initiative. I know for sure-that this basic thought was the main consideration of both Senators, who wrote the proposals as they are and as they are fully appreciated by the farmer, who put their faith and trust in their elected trustees of the law-the before-named Senators.

Now, I would like to go slightly into a digest. Is it all right to give just a few words about the things we like as farmers, and don't like as farmers?

In other words, the first thing is-that has been mentioned. The second matter is the local, under the topic of local initiation or approval of such designation required in bill S. 1128-we agree that the consent of the governing body of the city or area ought to be required.

In the limitations on the applicability of the act, in the designated area, we agree with S. 1128 that there should be no limits.

Senator WILLIAMS. When you say "we," whom do you mean?

Mr. LIVNEY. The American Poultry Association.

Senator WILLIAMS. What is the size of the organization?

Mr. LIVNEY. The American Poultry Farmers Association is very small but very dynamic.

Senator WILLIAMS. What is it in numbers?

Mr. LIVNEY. It is a few hundred right now, primarily centered in the State of New Jersey, but we are going apparently into a lot of other sections. By the way, I was yesterday called by processors in Vineland and they asked me to put in a few words, which I will do; to the extent of the ante mortem, we agree on the bill S. 313, and not-pardon me, on S. 1128 and not with bill S. 313, in the fact that Senator Humphrey's bill says that the Secretary “shall”—

The CHAIRMAN. You want it compulsory?

Mr. LIVNEY. Compulsory. The Secretary "shall" cause to be made in such manner as necessary, not "may cause.

And the same thing is true in the condemnation. In the condemnation, you very definitely do not want to have included in bill S. 313 live poultry as being necessary. We are poultry farmers and we know how to take care of our sick birds, and I have never raised a pullet yet that would never get sick during that time that I raised it-they all get vaccinated, they all get shots, and so, when the sick birds are there, we know how to take care of them-but for you to put in the law where the Secretary of Agriculture may put an inspector there to condemn my poultry, if I was raising it for meatwell, if they have got something, they do get over the disease, that is

what the veterinarians are for, and I do not think that live poultry should be included but, if it is included then certainly not on the farmer but on what the processor holds in the backyard or in cagesbut it should not be stated ambiguously, it should not mean an inspector can come today to the farm, my farm, and condemn my birds, because when my birds are sick I know when to sell them-when they are well-otherwise, I do not get enough money for them.

The same thing holds true with live poultry on the farm; that should not be condemned, only once they are moved to the processors. Also, under the definition of wholesome and unwholesome we like better the definition in S. 1128; it is more definite and more to the point.

And then the other paragraph I skip; we agree.

In the definition of inspector-well, I think S. 313 saying any person authorized by the Secretary, because-this is where I am going to bring in the small processors.

Our processors asked me that I ask compulsory inspection be instituted because they cannot afford the voluntary inspection. I am talking for two processing firms; I am talking for both of them; they are saying that they cannot afford it. It costs them $1,000 a month and it kills them, and they are being, by that $1,000, squeezed by a monopoly and that monopoly is only allowing them so many cents per pound and they suffer very much from that because that $1,000 which the veterinarian or whoever it is who is inspecting right now, under the voluntary plan, it means that the processor must take that out of our skin, and he does not like to do so; he likes that the inspector should be brought there as either Federal or State, being paid by the State, perhaps, for his 8 hours-naturally, if he is working overtime, he will be taken care of-but not placed directly on the farmer as now. And the labeling, I think, is wrong in S. 1128. It should be as it is in S. 313. It says here:

The name and address of the distributor may be used in lieu of the name and address of the processor if the approved plant number is used to identify the official establishment in which the poultry product was prepared and packed. The Secretary may permit reasonable variations and grant exemptions from the foregoing labeling requirements.

Which, I mean, is what I said before about Senator Humphrey's bill; his bill says that, but all of the bills require approved plants and if I want to process in an approved plant I don't think that the State should stop me, and that is why I am saying S. 313 is correct, from the producer's point of view.

Now, the prohibited acts, I think that is a drawback, a big loophole in S. 313.

And it states "knowingly"; in S. 1128 it says "knowledge not required" and I believe that driving on the left side even in Washington, D. C., would get me in jail, because even though I don't know about Washington, that I should drive on the right side, because I come from Vineland, yet I think that the laws should be enforced, knowing or unknowing.

Now, the transporting of New York-dressed poultry which is permitted in S. 313 and not permitted under S. 1128, I say 313 is right because many, many times we produced chickens in Vineland that are taken into New York; it is a custom and I think it should say that way. Now, the records on interstate shipments, of the bills I would say

that Senator Humphrey's is the better one because we cannot afford to have a filing system over 2 years. We are not the Department of Agriculture with space unlimited for filing systems. Two years is long enough for anybody to check that.

And that the carriers should be exempted from penalties other than violation of section 11. I don't quite agree with this. I think that S. 1128 is correct; there should be no exemptions, because we produce the best poultry and if some skinner of consumers tries to throw them into a truck and he drivers on a hot day going to New York, are we to be blamed for this? We produce the best quality. I think they should not be exempted.

Utilization of State employees was covered before. S. 313 says it can be utilized and I am in favor of that because you can put a Federal man in a packing plant of my size, maybe and that is the only things I have to say and I appreciate very much having been given the opportunity to say so, and I hope that the two Senators don't mind what I said.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had you.

Mr. LIVNEY. I said what I think, but we have got to get together. The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your statement very much.

Is anybody else present who desires to be heard?

On request of Senator Williams, the Department is requested to send, for the files of the committee, the information it has available on the psittacosis cases in Oregon.

Mr. KOENIG. The Department will be glad to comply with the committee's request.

(The information requested from the Department of Agriculture, concerning ornithosis (psittacosis) outbreaks, is as follows:)

In late November 1955, United States Department of Agriculture veterinary inspectors employed in the poultry inspection for wholesomeness program of the Agricultural Marketing Service, observed disease manifestations in turkey carcasses which they were inspecting in certain turkey processing plants in Portland and Salem, Oreg. These manifestations appeared to be lesions of the disease called ornithosis (psittacosis). The inspectors immediately notified their area supervisor who in turn immediately notified Oregon State public health officials, Oregon State livestock disease control agencies, appropriate Federal agencies and appropriate research organizations. They also immediately advised plant management as to the possibility of a health hazard to their employees.

It subsequently developed that also in November 1955, State of Oregon officials had, in the course of their activities, observed what appeared to be the onset of ornithosis in two flocks, passing their judgment on disease histories. As a result of these early findings of the State officials and the Agricultural Marketing Service inspectors, the Chief of the Inspection Branch in the Poultry Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service through previously published procedures, instructed inspectors in Oregon to cooperate completely with State officials in their efforts to control the disease.

The procedures worked out in cooperation with the State of Oregon were as follows: Local responsible personnel, after being alerted by the Agricultural Marketing Service area supervisor of inspectors of the post mortem findings in combination with the disease histories in the two turkey flocks, set up quarantine control measures. Suspect birds and birds from known infected treated flocks coming to slaughter under these procedures were released only under certification by State-authorized veterinarians. The Agricultural Marketing Service inspector in charge stationed at the official Portland plant, in cooperative participation with appropriate local officials, made ante mortem inspection on approximately 90 percent of all turkey flocks and on all suspect flocks brought to that plant for slaughter. The inspector-in-charge of one official plant at Salem personally made ante mortem inspection on numerous lots of 100 birds or less. Still another inspector at an additional official plant in Salem

reported that all flocks processed in that particular plant were accompanied by ante mortem certificates in keeping with a requirement promulgated by the State.

It should be emphasized that the diagnosis of ornithosis on the basis of flock history and post mortem and ante mortem findings alone is at best a presumptive diagnosis. The positive diagnosis must await isolation of the virus by means of animal inoculation procedures in a specialized laboratory. It is often necessary to carry the inoculations through 3 or 4 mouse series passages before conclusive evidence is obtained. The time lapse for this procedure can be 30 days

or more.

When the lesions which indicated possible ornithosis infection were first discovered in the Oregon turkeys in November 1955, specimens of tissues were immediately sent to laboratories for diagnoses. It was not until March 8, 1956, that the first positive diagnosis of the existence of ornithosis in these turkeys was made. This was done when the Oregon State College was able to isolate the ornithosis virus. This particular diagnosis was made from tissues of turkeys which had died at the farm level. Subsequently laboratories from other institutions reported similar findings.

The Oregon outbreak of ornithosis in late 1955, which carried over into 1956, is not an isolated instance in which the Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service, Poultry Division cooperated effectively in connection with this disease. The records indicate that ornithosis in domestic turkeys as a disease hazard in official plants, first came to the attention of this Branch in 1952 as a result of an outbreak in Giddings, Tex. The 1952 outbreak in Texas was followed by another in the same State in April 1954. There have been other outbreaks in California, Iowa, Oregon, and other States. The Department's records indicate that in every one of these outbreaks the Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service, Poultry Division has cooperated to the fullest extent with public health, animal disease eradication, and other appropriate officials at the National, State, and local levels. In connection with the ornithosis outbreaks in Texas 1954, one of the first actions of the Chief of the Inspection Branch, even though it was after business hours, was to notify a responsible official of the United States Public Health Service in Washington, D. C. The Poultry Inspection Branch has, through every means, sought to cooperate with and assist other interested governmental and private agencies in connection with disease-control eradication and research on ornithosis occurring in domestic poultry.

The Inspection Branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service, Poultry Division, is responsible for the inspection for wholesomeness of poultry and has no formal responsibility whatever in matters of investigation, diagnosis, treatment, and control of poultry and livestock or human diseases. The personnel of the Inspection Branch, in the course of assuring consumers a supply of wholesome poultry through their inspection activity, continually keep abreast of the latest research findings in poultry diseases of all kinds. They are always ready to cooperate to the fullest possible extent with any groups or individuals constructively engaged in attempting to control or eradicate any infectious disease of poultry.

There is still much to learn about the disease ornithosis, particularly along the following lines: (1) Sources of infection through natural vectors; (2) mode of transmission from bird to bird; (3) an accurate diagnostic method other than animal inoculation to enable early positive and reliable diagnosis; (4) the development of an effective and dependable immunizing agent.

Until this additional knowledge is obtained, real effective control measures can hardly be inaugurated. In the meantime, both the Agricultural Marketing Service and the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture, the United States Public Health Service, State livestock disease control agencies, and local health agencies are doing everything possible within the limits of their resources and authority to combat ornithosis and prevent its spread to man. No practical approach that is known has been overlooked in the effort made to get at the bottom of the problem of preventing this troublesome disease spreading from flock to flock and from poultry to man. It would be difficult to cite any case wherein any more prompt and exhaustive effort was made within the means at hand to cope with a disease in animals tranmissible to man. Natural characteristics of viruses and their way of life make them more difficult to study in certain respects than is the case with most forms of bacteria and other microorganisms.