am trying to get at is if you feel as strongly as you do, and you are a producer, and you represent a lot of people, I think maybe we ought to spell it out in this act where it belongs.

Mr. KLAHOLD. To answer your first question, the Secretary, of course if the bill was to be passed giving him the power, he would be in the driver's seat, so to speak, and we would have to live with it. Senator HUMPHREY. Under S. 313 or 645.

Mr. KLAHOLD. Yes, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. S. 1128 requires it under the Agricultural Research Service.

Mr. KLAHOLD. That is the reason we object to it.

Senator HUMPHREY. Even if you had a separate section, separate division?

Mr. KLAHOLD. I do not see how we could gain the independence that the industry needs by putting it under that service.

Senator HUMPHREY. You think if it got over under Marketing, under the same situation, that you would get much more independence; is that right?

Mr. KLAHOLD. I feel that is right.

Senator AIKEN. Individuality might be a word to use here.

Senator HUMPHREY. One other thing. How do you feel about ante mortem inspection?

Mr.KLAHOLD. We might just as well be frank.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is what I want you to be, my friend
The CHAIRMAN. That is what we expect, Mr. Klahold.

Mr. KLAHOLD. We would prefer, irregardless of the feelings expressed here earlier concerning the interpretations of "may" and "shall," we still feel that 313 is more lenient than the other two bills in regard to ante mortem inspection.

Senator HUMPHREY. It is. Do you prefer that?

Mr. KLAHOLD. We prefer the wording of 313. Now it is just a matter of words. It is no serious point.

The

Senator HUMPHREY. I want to indicate to you my reason for the interest in some form of compulstory ante mortem inspection. best thing that can happen to the poultry industry is to have a product that is like Caesar's wife, above suspicion.

The main articles that appeared in magazines, such as some of us received, complained about no ante mortem inspection. Here is the Club Woman, a copy of a magazine here. The article in that magazine that I refer to surely did not help the industry very much.

Mr. KLAHOLD. This points up the necessity for getting this inspection bill as quickly as possible and getting this service in operation. Senator HUMPHREY. Correct. I agree, and I think everybody agrees on a post mortem inspection. I don't think there is any doubt about that.

Mr. KLAHOLD. Correct.

Senator HUMPHREY. The issue is over ante mortem inspection. Public Health officers have testified and have written letters and will continue to write letters and articles that will get into journals and public print about these problems. Maybe it is exaggerated but people read about it. It hurts the industry. Don't you think that some form of ante mortem inspection, some manner of ante mortem inspection or some degree of it, however these words may be interpreted, would be helpful?

Mr. KLAHOLD. Very definitely. I think the 313 bill here satisfies that requirement.

Senator HUMPHREY. Where it says "may."

Mr. KLAHOLD. That is correct, sir. We don't feel that the “may” is quite as strong as "shall."

Senator HUMPHREY. That is correct.

Mr. KLAHOLD. And the "shall," of course, appears in S. 645 and S. 1128. The language there is-it might be just a matter of degree. We don't feel that ante mortem at this particular paragraph in any one of these three bills—we are not going to drag our feet on any one of them.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is good enough for me.

Senator AIKEN. I was going to ask, do you feel there might be instances where compulsory ante mortem inspection could work a hardship on an innocent producer or handler? That is what I want to be sure of. I don't think we should let that word interfere with getting a bill out promptly.

Senator HUMPHREY. We won't. I just think there has been an attempt to exaggerate what is meant by ante mortem inspection. I do feel that ante mortem inspection is very important, as you say. Let's be frank. The public relations of the industry are involved. Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, at this point

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. The witness wants to say something.

Mr. KLAHOLD. The matter was brought up. That is the reason I want to elaborate on it. This matter of working a hardship on the small producer. I want to emphasize, in the northeast we have very many dressing plants. A lot of them are farm operated and any bill which Congress should write should certainly maintain safeguards that would not force these small people out of business. Now, I don't think that we want to do that.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, my bill would not even apply to the homeoperator type of dressing plants.

Mr. KLAHOLD. Well, our smaller dressing plants are interstate commerce. There is a lot of difference, you know, between a plant that dresses, say, 4,000 chickens a day and one that is turning out 50,000 a day.

Senator AIKEN. I happen to come from an area that produces a lot of hatching eggs, Vermont and New Hampshire. It is quite a good-sized business up there, and, of course, the flocks have to be clean or they couldn't sell hatching eggs. I can conceive of some area of a considerable number of small producers, say, running from 500 to 5,000 laying birds, where they might be selling them and it would not be so necessary to make a thorough ante mortem inspection as it would be in some area where there had been an outbreak or suspected outbreak of some disease. That is the only reason for giving more leeway.

Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, first we must define what is contemplated as an ante mortem inspection. That, I think, is necessary for both the trade, the producer group, and those of us that are sitting on this committee.

What is contemplated in the ante mortem inspection? Is it going to be handling of the individual bird or is it just going to be an observa

tion of a thousand birds? I think we had better get it into the record what the trade expects if the ante mortem provision is to stand and we knew it to be a part of the regulation of the inspection.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it in all bills, Senator, the only difference is the word "shall" and the other "may."

Senator THYE. That is right, and I think we had better

The CHAIRMAN. They are all at the discretion of the Secretary. Senator THYE. I think we had better get the thought established here as to what is meant by ante mortem inspection.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you expect under that provision, Mr. Klahold?

Mr. KLAHOLD. Ante mortem inspection-we have discussed this at great length. If the Secretary should receive a bill passed by Congress which would actually give him a directive to inspect each and every bird as it came down the line before it was killed, in the live state, I don't know what it is going to do to a dressing plant, but I have a sneaking suspicion it is going to slow that line down terrifically. Senator HUMPHREY. Of course.

Mr. KLAHOLD. Then you come to the next natural step which is a group inspection of batteries of birds before we are going into the plant, for instance, which might be satisfactory. But just how much good is an ante mortem?

Senator THYE. That is the point I wanted to get into the record. A bird, a flock can show a symptom of disease and you may take out one or two that already show the symptom and you may dispose of the entire flock. Only until such time as that bird is drawn are you going to commence to determine what is physically wrong with that thousand or that two thousand or five thousand birds.

Now, I am not a veterinarian, but I am quite certain that that must be considered before we start writing a regulation that imposes an ante mortem inspection to any degree.

Mr. KLAHOLD. To point up that same thing, in our flocks if we are suspicious, if we are losing a few birds that we have a disease there, before we can properly treat those birds, it is necessary to cut those birds open and perform an autopsy.

Senator HUMPHREY. Correct.

Mr. KLAHOLD. Essentially isn't that what you are talking about here, that in order to get proper inspection of poultry we are going to have to look at those birds after they have been killed?

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, if you run into certain symptoms in an ante mortem inspection, obviously you pull a certain number of birds to expose them or, as you say, to perform an autopsy on them.

The only purpose Senator Aiken's bill provides for, and I know my bill does in this sense, the Secretary in some instances may need to impose a very careful ante mortem inspection because he may run into a trade area or producing area where there is a disease beginning to develop and, therefore, you may want to have a much more careful ante mortem inspection. Otherwise you may want to do it by group, co-op, or large numbers that go by, and then you just pull a certain number of birds for routine inspection.

I think that the need of leaving it in the hands of the Secretary to determine through the advance and counsel of those who are experienced in this field is very important.

Now, whether the word "may" or "shall" shall be there we can argue, but to give the Secretary the right to do it ought to be provided, I think, as protection of the producer. Once these diseases start going through a flock, it is pretty important to know about it. If you make a little ante mortem inspection you can find out what is developing.

Mr. KLAHOLD. We will buy that.

Senator HUMPHREY. I don't think there is too much argument about it when you get right down it.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Thank you very much,

sir.

Mr. KLAHOLD. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Next, Mr. Wollney. Will you step forward please?

STATEMENT OF FRANK G. WOLLNEY, FIELD SERVICE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN POULTRY INDUSTRIES, CHICAGO, ILL.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us your name in full and identify yourself for the record?

Mr. WOLLNEY. Yes, sir. May I have Mr. Pringle appear with me, please?

The CHAIRMAN. Surely. Both of you identify yourselves for the record.

Mr. WOLLNEY. Yes, sir. I am Frank G. Wollney, field service director of the Institute of American Poultry Industries. Mr. Victor Pringle is assistant general manager of the Rockingham Poultry Marketing Co-op, Inc., Broadway, Va.

Mr. Pringle's organization operates 6 poultry processing plants, serving over 8,000 farmer members and marketing 65 to 70 million pounds of the product.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, did you testify here last year?

Mr. WOLLNEY. Yes, sir.

However, I

I would like to submit our testimony for the record. think in conserving time that I would like to read just a portion of it and I think it might answer some of the questions.

The CHAIRMAN. The entire statement will be put in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to is as follows :)

STATEMENT OF INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN POULTRY INDUSTRIES, CHICAGO, ILL.

I am Frank G. Wollney, field service director of the Institute of American Poultry Industries, Chicago, Ill. The Institute of American Poultry Industries is a nonprofit organization which was chartered by the State of Illinois nearly 32 years ago. Its membership includes processors and distributors of poultry products. In addition, producers, breeders, hatcherymen, and other allied interests hold membership in the institute. More than 90 percent of our processor members are small-business men. Many of them are family operations which have developed through the years and grown up with the industry.

Several years ago, the institute established a study committee on mandatory inspection for wholesomeness. This study committee unanimously recommended to the institute's board of directors that we take a position in favor of mandatory inspection for wholesomeness. The directors adopted this recommendation unanimously, it was then referred to the entire membership, and at that time more

than 95 percent of the votes from members supported the directors' recommendation. That resolution read as follows:

"The Institute of American Poultry Industries continues to encourage and support one of its chief, original objectives; namely, the utilization of every sound means to give the consumer a better produce and the producer a better market. In furtherance of this longstanding objective of the institute, its board of directors and its membership favor the development and adoption of sound mandatory inspection for wholesomeness programs for all poultry and poultry products, provided such programs are paid for from Federal and State funds." This action in itself demonstrates the poultry industry's keen interest in assuring that only wholesome poultry reach the market in the interest of both the consumer and the producer. Compulsory poultry inspection is in the public interest. This committee is performing a great public service in conducting these hearings and framing this important legislation for the benefit of the entire public-the consumer, the worker, and the entire poultry industry. The institute commends the fine work of this committee and expresses the hope that a sound poultry inspection bill will be enacted into law during this present session of Congress.

The work programs of the institute and its members in support of wholesome, high-quality products go back many, many years. In the early days the institute played a prominent part in helping the industry convert from the shipping of live poultry across the country to distant markets to the New York dressing type of operation. This advance brought to the consumer higher quality poultry. At that time, we still had a long way to go. Later, through still greater technological advances, the poultry industry moved from the New York dressed era to the fully eviscerated, ready-to-cook, modern type of operation, until today about 90 percent of our total output is fully eviscerated before it reaches the retail store, restaurant, or other institutional user. Much of this progress was made under the difficult conditions existing during the 4 years of World War II, with its serious shortages in manpower and equipment.

During the 10 postwar years, the poultry processors of this Nation, on a voluntary basis, have invested an estimated half-billion dollars in modernizing and improving their plant facilities and operations.

The past year the poultry industry spent more than $22 million for a voluntary Federal poultry inspection program, a program administered by the Poultry Division of AMS under the direction and control of the Secretary of Agriculture. In fact, this industry has probably spent more than any other food industry in giving the consumer a wholesome product and one in which she can have complete confidence.

The Instiute is fortunate to have seen the inception of the USDA voluntary inspection program some 28 years ago. We consider this voluntary program a major reason for the present high consumer acceptance of processed poultry products. The voluntary program is now used by some 315 plants. We feel that this voluntary program is a normal precursor to the compulsory inspection which this committee is now considering.

As our industry changed from New York dressed operations to ready-to-cook procedures, poultry processors of necessity have assumed a major responsibility and task that formerly was undertaken in the consumer's kitchen. The Institute has vigorously promoted sound sanitation in the processing plant and today's modern operation is kitchen clean, with modern equipment-tile walls, cement floors, adequate drainage, ventilation, lighting, and cleaning and other sanitizing procedures to maintain kitchen-clean facilities.

These improvement in processing techniques, along with tremendous strides made by growers, feed manufacturers, breeders, and the refrigeration industry, have been instrumental virtually doubling the per capita consumption of poultry during the past 18 years. The high consumer acceptance of this increased output of poultry products certainly indicates that the public has been getting a fine product—and not, as some claim, one of questionable wholesomeness.

From an era of a "farmyard or sideline operation" the poultry industry has moved into perhaps the fastest growing major food enterprise in the Nation. Poultry products now reflect the third largest agricultural income in the country. Three of the 10 fastest growing food items in the American market basket today come from the poultry industry; in fact, frozen and canned poultry products have become the second fastest growing food items in the United States. Sales of poultry products at the retail counter are valued at more than $6 billion a year. Out of every consumer's food dollar, 10 to 11 cents are spent for poultry products.