word "knowingly" where it appears. The word "knowingly" would make proof of violation almost impossible and render the section practically unenforceable. Section 9, page 14, line 20: Delete the words "between official establishments and the" and substitute the word "to". This change will prohibit the interstate shipment of New York dressed fowl.

Section 13, page 15, line 25: Delete the word "knowingly". The word "knowingly" would make proof of violation almost impossible and render the section practically unenforceable.

Section 13, page 16, lines 10 through 19: Delete all of lines 10 through 19 and substitute "(b)" for "(c)" in line 20. There is no sound basis for giving special consideration to a carrier which participates in a violation of the statute. Keeping such a proviso materially weakens the effectiveness of the law from an enforcement viewpoint. This is particularly the case in view of the "warning" provisions of section 14.

Section 19, page 20, lines 13 through 16: In line 13, after the word "agencies" insert a period and delete the remainder of lines 13 through 16. To secure a uniformly administered, objective inspection service there should be no authority to conduct inspection services through State or local agencies. This is a substantial objection to S. 645 if this language is to remain.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Senator THYE. Do you represent any poultry producer groups? Mr. TROMBOLD. I am representing a processor group, my own company.

Senator THYE. You are in the business of taking the birds which are produced and canning them

Mr. TROMBOL. Processing them.

Senator THYE. Marketing them in the form of a canned product, of course. We know the Campbell Soup Co. You are not in the business of growing the birds?

Mr. TROMBOLD. We do not grow poultry.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Senator HOLLAND. Yes. I want to ask this question.

This voluntary program which you are operating under and under which all of your poultry plants do operate, is that any less effective or less competent than the compulsory program would be that you suggest if there was compliance for the entire industry?

Mr. TROMBOLD. I say no-I don't believe so.

Senator HOLLAND. Then the purpose of your support of the bill is to have such compliance by the industry, by the industry as a whole, so that any processor is complying with substantially the same requirements as will be set up under this bill-and will have the benefit of public confidence and good will as applicable to the entire industry?

Mr. TROMBOLD. Well, only about 40 percent or less of poultry eviscerated is inspected under the voluntary program, some figure like that, and it works a hardship, I might say, on the people who are conscientious enough to support a voluntary inspection.

Senator HUMPHREY. Why do you recommend only Federal employees for the inspection service?

Mr. TROMBOLD. I think that it is a matter of uniformity and possible allegiance.

Senator HUMPHREY. Allegiance to the standards of inspection? Mr. TROMBOLD. Allegiance to the standards and to their superior or their organizational work group.

We operate under meat inspection and they are all Federal employees, and I do not see why the poultry inspection should not be, the people that do the inspecting, why they should not be Federal employees, also.

Senator HOLLAND. However you do, as I understand, support under your point (e)—you say:

"We believe that the law should provide for control of intrastate shipments in those designated areas where interstate commerce may be affected." Intrastate business, that is involved.

Mr. TROMBOLD. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. And that is a very substantial volume?

Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes, and we need cooperation.

Senator HUMPHREY. Is it your view that consumer acceptance of your poultry products is the key to merchandising and to the prosperity of this industry?

Mr. TROMBOLD. It is the primary requisite, I would say.

Senator HUMPHREY. You would say it the primary requisite consumer confidence?

Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes-safety, wholesomeness.

Senator HUMPHREY. The wholesomeness of the product, and of course, obviously, the quality, good food, those are factors and sanitary methods of handling, and freedom from disease, disease-free products, all of those are important.

Mr. TROMBOLD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Trombold.

The next witness is Mr. Harvey Green. Is he present?

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, since we are running against time, I wonder if we could find out how many of the witnesses would be willing to submit their statements for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to make an announcement after Mr. Green testifies. I understand that quite a few will present themselves in groups, and that one will be selected to speak for the group.

All right, Mr. Green, will you proceed? Identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF 0. H. GREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN POULTRY AND HATCHERY FEDERATION, SPARTANBURG, S. C.

Mr. GREEN. My name is O. H. Green and I reside in Spartanburg, S. C., where my father and I have operated the Seven Oaks Poultry Farm and Hatchery since 1925. I am here today to present a statement in behalf of the American Poultry and Hatchery Federation, of which I am executive director and immediate past president.

The American Poultry and Hatchery Federation was organized in 1916 and incorporated as a nonprofit organization.

Senator JOHNSTON. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Green lives out in the country just a little over a mile from where I live. We are close, and whatever he says, I know that he will say what he thinks, and believes is right.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Senator Johnston.

It has a paid up membership of 4,000 poultry hatcherymen and breeders, or about two-thirds of all the hatcheries and poultry breeding farms in the country. These members produce between 80 and 85 percent of all the chicks and poults hatched in this country. Our organization is in favor of S. 313.

89520-57-—5

We believe this bill provides the framework for a compulsory inspections program in poultry which would be of great service to the Nation and a credit to the poultry industry.

Our board of directors took first official cognizance of the need for compulsory poultry inspections when it held its annual convention in Cleveland, Ohio, in July 1954. It instructed our officers, of which I am one, to confer with the industry's trade association for processors to determine whether a feasible compulsory inspections program could be launched.

Compulsory inspections of poultry has been a matter of deep concern to all responsible segments of the poultry industry for some time-not because we believe that an excessive volume of unwholesome poultry is offered for sale, but because we believe we should check the sale of all unfit poultry if that is possible.

Insofar as the poultry industry is concerned, there is no disagreement on whether compulsory inspections is desirable.

Further, there is no difference of opinion on the type of program that should be adopted. S. 313 provides for a program offering the consumer complete assurance of wholesomeness whenever she purchases poultry carrying the purple stamp, "U. S. Inspected and Passed." At the same time, the switchover from the present voluntary program can be accomplished at the least possible expense to the taxpayers.

This changeover embodies administrative problems which we believe can best be solved by the Secretary of Agriculture. Problems can be expected to arise which may not or perhaps cannot be fully anticipated in the enabling legislation.

S. 1128, as contrasted with S. 313, does not grant the Secretary the same flexibility. Neither does it provide for any greater assurance to the consumer of a better inspections program.

S. 1128 provides that the inspections program shall be carried on under the Agricultural Research Service. Presumably this means it will be under the red-meat inspections program.

The poultry industry has worked for years to get itself classified as something other than a stepchild of the Department of Agriculture. We fear that if the inspections program is placed under the Red Meat Branch of ARS we will find our industry at a serious disadvantage. It may become secondary to red-meat inspections. After all, red meat is our strongest competitor.

Between 10 and 11 percent of the consumer's food dollars go for poultry and poultry products. This is an important food industry. There was in 1956 a crop of 76 million turkeys marketed, along with one and a quarter billion broilers and millions of hens and farm fryers. This tremendous outpouring of foodstuffs is too great to be submerged under a program that handles a mere 100 million redmeat animals.

It is unlikely that inspection rules for red meats and poultry can be identical in every respect. The inspections problem from the standpoint of units handled is far greater in the case of poultry.

S. 313 provides for ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections and/ or both at the direction of the Secretary to the extent he deems necessary for the protection of workers and consumers. This is the entire purpose of the enabling legislation.

We believe that the Secretary of Agriculture should be empowered to make fullest use of the current facilities for inspecting poultry. The success of the program is not a matter of speculation. The voluntary program has built a record of 28 years of service. Permitting the compulsory program under the poultry division of AMS will assure maximum utilization of this record of experience.

Our position is that the administrator should be given the power to establish procedures in keeping with the latest scientific knowledge. Some of the answers to proper and adequate ante-mortem inspection lie locked in future research. They cannot be determined by any of us here.

Legislation establishing a program for compulsory inspection of poultry for wholesomeness should be confined to the announced goals and provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the flexibility to adjust the program (a) to the extent required to assure the protection of workers and consumers and (b) in keeping with scientific progress. We believe this can be accomplished within the framework of S. 313. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, I merely want to ask why this gentleman feels that S. 1128 does not provide the same flexibility as the other bill.

Mr. GREEN. Senator, your explanation this morning was very gratefully received and accepted as being very satisfactory. However, in reading the bill, that interpretation could not be made because of the use of the word "shall" which does not denote the same amount of flexibility.

Senator HUMPHREY. But you do say in your statement that it does not provide for the same flexibility. Now, what is the difference? What makes you say that S. 1128 does not provide for that flexibility? Mr. GREEN. It does, to a certain extent.

Senator HUMPHREY. It provides for even more cooperation with local and State government officials?

Mr. GREEN. Our main contention with regard to S. 1128 is in the branch of the government that shall administer it.

Senator HUMPHREY. Oh, now, so what you are saying is that the Agricultural Research Service should not have the control? Mr. GREEN. Exactly, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. Even though Agricultural Marketing Service has no poultry inspection division?

Mr. GREEN. That is true.

Senator HUMPHREY. It has a marketing division.

Mr. GREEN. That is true.

Senator HUMPHREY. So they do not even have a history there of compulsory inspection, in Agricultural Marketing.

Mr. GREEN. That is true.

Senator HUMPHREY. But in Agricultural Research, what you are worrying about is the red-meat inspection, aren't you?

Mr. GREEN. Exactly right.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, why don't you have enough confidence to believe that the poultry industry is entitled to a separate branch? Mr. GREEN. We would like to believe that, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. And that is exactly what you have in mind. Mr. GREEN. That is what we would like, and attempt to get it

Senator HUMPHREY. And I think you are entitled to it.

Mr. GREEN. That is right.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you, Mr. Green.

Now, I am going to call the following witnesses:

Clem Thurnbeck, of the National Turkey Federation; will you step forward, please?

Next, Mr. Henry J. Pankratz-I understand these gentlemen are willing to file their statements and one will speak for all. Is Jack Tallman present? And Mr. W. D. Bolton, and Mr. Lawrence Erickson, and Mr. Earl Olsen, and Mr. T. H. Christgau?

I was informed by the clerk of the committee that you gentlemen will present your statements for the record and one of your group will present your case.

Mr. THURNBECK. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have made your selection?

Mr. THURNBECK. Yes.

Senator THYE. Take a good look at those gentlemen there, Mr. Chairman, they are all Minnesota representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. I know that.

Senator HUMPHREY. And they raise the best turkeys and chickens in the world.

Senator AIKEN. They do raise a lot of turkeys.

Senator HOLLAND. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman, to say that I had the pleasure of being on a hearing committee of this committee where we ment to Worthington, Minn., and there I noticed a modest sign proclaiming that it was "The Turkey Capital of the World." Is anybody here representing the turkey capital of the world? Senator HUMPHREY. Well, all of them are.

The CHAIRMAN. And I remember that very well.

(Statement of the witnesses referred to above are as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY J. W. TALLMAN, JR., GENERAL MANAGER, FARIBAULT TURKEYS, INC., FARIBAULT, MINN., AND VICE PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA TURKEY GROWERS ASSOCIATION

My name is J. W. Tallman, Jr., of Faribault, Minn. I am vice president of the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, and general manager of Faribault Turkeys, Inc. The Minnesota Turkey Growers Association is a nonprofit organization representing 1,800 turkey growers. Faribault Turkeys, Inc., is a cooperative processing and marketing organization of 250 patrons, all turkey growers.

I am authorized by the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association and Faribault Turkeys, Inc., to voice their approval of S. 313 and S. 645, and opposed to S. 1128. The first named bills are similar and either would obtain the desired results.

There are two major parts of S. 1128 which, we believe, are unreasonable and impractical.

On inspection techniques, it is important that inspection be made as effective as possible without undue restriction hampering the use of new research findings in this field.

The second objection is that S. 1128 would specifically place mandatory inspection under the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), United States Department of Agriculture, which is the Department now handling red meat inspection. We presently have a voluntary inspection of poultry for wholesomeness under the United States Department of Agriculture. Also, with this Department,