The CHAIRMAN. Now, we have this morning, as I stated, quite few witnesses, and our time is limited. I understand our majority leader, Senator Johnson, as well as Senator Knowland, has given notice that there may be objection this afternoon to holding hearings. You know, under the rules, a committee can't sit and hold hearings while the Senate is in session. In the past, it has been easy to get unanimous consent, to get permission for a committee to sit in the afternoon while the Senate is in session, but this time it may be difficult for us to obtain that permission. So, bearing that in mind, I hope you gentlemen will make your testimony as short as possible, and let us try to get through with the presentations as early as possible. Now, the first witness this morning is Mr. Sterling A. White. Is he present? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. White, will you step forward and have a seat here, sir. STATEMENT OF STERLING A. WHITE, PRESIDENT, DELMARVA The CHAIRMAN. Did you testify here last year? Mr. WHITE. Yes, I did, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Does your statement include anything new or different from what you testified last year? Mr. WHITE. It is related to our testimony last year. It supports compulsory inspection, and it supports bill S. 313. The CHAIRMAN. Your entire statement will be placed in the record Mr. White, and I wonder if you would be good enough to highlight it, if you desire to do it that way. Mr. WHITE. Well, if it will save the time of the committee, rather than reading it I will The CHAIRMAN. Proceed the way you desire, but you heard my statement a while ago. We are very anxious to get the matter before the Senate as soon as possible and, since we had hearings just last year, those hearings will also be considered. Mr. WHITE. Can't we just insert the statement in the record then, Senator, as it is? The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is what I am suggesting. Mr. WHITE. That would be entirely satisfactory with our group. (The statement submitted by Mr. White is as follows:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY STERLING A. WHITE, GEORGETOWN, DEL. I am Sterling A. White, president of the Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc., Georgetown, Del. The organization which I represent is joined by the follow ing other organizations in the preparation of this statement: They are the Eastern Shore Poultry Growers Exchange, the Delaware State Poultry Commission, the Maryland State Poultry Council, the Delaware Poultry Improvement Association, the Eastern Shore Grain & Feed Dealers Association, and the Tri-County Poultry Association. Each of these organizations is represented here today and the representatives will state their views in person if the committee requests. May I emphasize, this statement represents the broiler production and marketing area popularly known as the Delmarva Peninsula, consisting of the State of Delaware, 9 counties in Maryland and 2 counties in Virginia, located on the Eastern Shore. The combined membership of these organizations represents more than 75 percent of the poultry producers on the Delmarva Peninsula; also these organizations represent the various feed dealers and manufacturers, poultry processors, hatcheries, allied poultry industries, and business organizations whose very existence is dependent upon the welfare of the poultry industry. On a national basis, poultry is the third most important farm commodity accounting for roughly 11 percent of the total farm income. May I say a few words about the Delmarva poultry industry. Delmarva is usually recognized as being the birthplace of the commercial broiler industry. In a short period of some twenty years, broilers have become the life blood of the agricultural economy and the bellwether of the entire Delmarva area. Broilers account for 50 percent of the agricultural income of Delaware and almost 70 percent of the farm income of Sussex County, Del. In Maryland broilers account for slightly over 20 percent of the total farm income in the State, but in the Eastern Shore counties about half of the farm income is from broiler production. In 1956 total broiler production for the Delmarva Peninsula was approximately 550 million pounds, returning growers approximately $110 million in terms of gross income. To us on Delmarva, poultry is important and we are always interested in those conditions which will assure the public a wholesome product at a reasonable cost and at the same time serve the interests of this important industry. The phenomenal growth of the broiler industry in Delmarva and in other production areas is a result of several factors: 1. The production and marketing of a product which enjoys remarkable consumer acceptance. 2. The tremendous advancement in efficiencies of all phases of the broiler industry. The public has been the benefactor of this efficiency by receiving an improved quality poultry product at reasonable prices. 3. The determination on the part of the industry to solve its own problems without the aid of government programs involving such things as quotas, production controls, and subsidies. We are in agreement with the objective of the Senate bills under consideration, which provides for compulsory Federal inspection of poultry and poultry products. Such legislation, we believe, would be desirable and beneficial to all.. Consumers would have the added assurance of a wholesome product. Poultry producers and those engaged in processing and marketing would benefit from increased consumer confidence and acceptance of the inspected product. Also, such a program would put poultry on equal terms with red meats, which have enjoyed the benefits of compulsory Federal inspection for many years. We believe bill S. 313 very definitely provides the best framework for developing a compulsory Federal inspection program for poultry and poultry products.. We recommend and urge its enactment. During the past two decades the voluntary inspection program, operated under the supervision of the United States Department of Agriculture, has. received wide acceptance on Delmarva. We feel this program has been largely responsible for raising to high levels the processing and marketing standards now practiced on Delmarva. It seems logical the experience and know-how already acquired by the United States Department of Agriculture under this voluntary program will implement the administration of a compulsory program.. Some means of regulating intrastate movement of poultry is needed. Senate bill S. 313 provides for this by giving the Secretary of Agriculture in cooperation with local health authorities the authority to establish such a program in designated areas thereby coordinating all poultry inspection. It seems only fair to point out that no other phase of poultry and livestock industries has made greater increases in efficiency during the last 25 years than has the broiler-fryer business. During 1930 only 20 pounds of chicken meat: could be realized from each 100 pounds of feed. Today an equal amount of feed will produce 40 pounds of chicken meat, an increase of 100 percent. Such progress in the poultry industry has resulted in reasonable consumer prices giving the housewife a decided advantage as she selects broilers and fryers for her family menu. She is selecting chicken often. During the past quarter of a century, broiler growing has increased from less than a million birds a year to more than a billion. During the same period all chicken meat consumption increased from about 10 pounds per person to about 29 pounds. Such a record as that just reviewed has been no accident. This progress could have been made only through fair dealing with consumers, giving them a wholesome economic meat buy as they have continued to purchase poultry at a rapidly increasing rate. In closing let me say again, we favor compulsory inspection of poultry and poultry products. We believe the inspection program should be one that provides safeguards to the consuming public without adding unnecessarily to the cost of marketing and distribution. In our opinion Senate bill S. 313 provides the framework for establishing a workable compulsory Federal inspection program. We hope this committee will give it favorable consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Agricultural Committee, for the opportunity to present this statement. Senator HOLLAND. Off the record, may I make a suggestion? (Discussion off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. What organizations do you represent? Mr. WHITE. The organization which I represent is joined by the following other organizations in the preparation of this statement. They are the Eastern Shore Poultry Growers Exchange, the Delaware State Poultry Commission, the Maryland State Poultry Council, the Delaware Poultry Improvement Association, the Tri-County Poultry Association. I am inserting one here that was omitted from the text when this was cut, the Eastern Shore Grain and Feed Dealers Association. Each of these associations is represented here today, and the representatives will state their views in person, if the committee so requests. Thank you. Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be helpful if this witness, or one of the others, would state the differences between the three bills and why they support the one? The other witnesses could say they support his position or disagree in certain points. The CHAIRMAN. Are you in a position to tell the committee what the difference is between the three bills we are now considering? Mr. WHITE. In our understanding of S. 313, Senator, as compared to S. 645, there seems to be very little difference in the two bills. It is our understanding that S. 645 gives the Secretary of Agriculture certain latitudes and discretion with regard to the enforcement of inspection, which is not objectionable to our group, as we understand it. Neither do we object to the differences in the timetable or the effective date of the legislation, as we understand it, compared to S. 645. In relation to S. 1128, our objections specifically fall under four categories. S. 1128, as we understand it, specifies that the ARS will be the agency to control or supervise the inspection. It is our understanding, too, that S. 1128 requires mandatory ante mortem and post mortem inspection. It is our understanding, too, that S. 1128 does not permit the movement of New York dressed poultry between official plants. And it is our understanding, too, that S. 1128 limits the use of Federal employees only. It does not provide for any lower Government employees in handling the inspections. Those are our principal objections to S. 1128, and why we favored the other bill. Senator YOUNG. That last difference you cited-the so-called Aiken bill-does permit lower echelon Government officials to do the inspections under certain conditions? Mr. WHITE. I did not mean to imply that. I said, or tried to say, that S. 1128 does not permit lower Government employees. Senator YOUNG. That is what I meant. I think that would have considerable effect in our State where we have some smaller operators. At times you do have to have other than Federal inspectors who are approved by the Federal department handling Mr. WHITE. It is our thinking that should be left to the discretion of the Secretary. Senator YOUNG. Yes. I think that is a very desirable feature of this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? If not Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question. Mr. White, you have recited the names of the various groups which support the position which you have taken here. Have they taken action, each of them or any of them, in membership meetings, or in what way have they acted? Mr. WHITE. Our understanding is, Senator, that each of these organizations through their officers or upon authority from the membership of the organization authorized them to concur in this statement which they help to prepare. Senator HOLLAND. Is there substantial unanimity in the Delmarva area among the members of the organizations whom you have mentioned? Mr. WHITE. So far as we know, there is; yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. You have not had strong minority opposition to the proposal that you support? Mr. WHITE. I personally have heard none and none have been set forth. Senator HOLLAND. Just one more question. Are you prepared to place in the record the number of members of each of these organizations so that it will show the size of the endorsement which you bespeak? Mr. WHITE. I do not have that figure handy. I can tell you for our organization, Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc., it is represented in membership of about 150 individuals. It represents all of the various segments of the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore-the hatcheries, processing plants, seed dealers and manufacturers, the growers themselves, and the entire industry including allied organizations. Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I will be satisfied on this point if this witness will see that there is inserted in the record before it is closed the information which I have requested. The CHAIRMAN. Will you give that information as to the other associations that you speak for? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. I will be glad to. (The total membership of the organizations referred to above is 4618.) The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, supplementing what Senator Holland said there, I have had contact with every one of these organizations and have been advised that they are in complete agreement in support of this 313 as he has stated. The industry is completely united, and it has not been called to my attention that there is any objection whatsoever to it. They all want a mandatory inspection bill. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? If not Senator AIKEN. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. The other day I had a call from a representative of the slaughterers' union-I forget the exact name of it-in which he said that they are opposed to the wording of section 13 of 313 where it says: Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of 9, 10, 11, or 18, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor", etc. He objected to the use of the word "knowingly" and said that it not in the meat inspection act. Have you taken any position on that or do you have some idea as to why the word "knowingly" should be put in here? He claimed that it would be very difficult to enforce. Mr. WHITE. I have no knowledge why that word was inserted in that bill or what the effect of it would be. Senator AIKEN. I see. That is one of the principal objections, I recall, that he raised to this particular bill. Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, can the witness give me any other commodity that is to be used for human consumption, either for food purposes or medical purposes or any other human internal consumption, where the violation of health regulations must be done knowingly before it is subject to penalty? Mr. WHITE. No, sir; I cannot. Senator HUMPHREY. I don't think anybody else can. Why should the word "knowingly" be there, then? Senator AIKEN. I expect that the witness for the union will probably give a reason tomorrow, but I simply wondered if you had given the matter any consideration. Mr. WHITE. No, sir. Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I might shed a little light in this connection. If I am not badly mistaken, the original bill which was introduced by Senator Aiken and some of the rest of us last year did not carry the word "knowingly." Senator HUMPHREY. Correct. Senator WILLIAMS. And when the subcommittee wrote the bill, when Senator Clements was chairman, somewhere down the line the suggestion of the word "knowingly" was made, and it was adopted in the subcommittee. It was not a part of the original bill as endorsed by these gentlemen, and the reason it is in this bill is that S. 313 is an exact reproduction of the bill as reported by the committee. If I recall correctly it was suggested that perhaps a man in the office could be prosecuted criminally without knowing of something that had happened in the plant. Maybe it could be established that he knew nothing about the fact that the poultry was not being properly inspected, and it was a safeguard of the rights of an individual who was trying to do the right thing. 89520-57-3 |