there, where he has all of his technicians then what are you going to say about it? Mr. THURNBECK. That possibility is very likely, sir, and if that should happen the industry, I am sure, would resign itself to it. Senator HUMPHREY. Now, is there anything at all in S. 1128 that says that they are going to subordinate the poultry inspection, particularly when you read the statement of the sponsors of the bill, who said that there should be a separate poultry branch, separate from the meat inspection, and that is what I said when the bill was introduced? Now, I did not want to spell it out because I too wanted to leave to the Secretary some discretion, and so I did not spell it out in the bill that the inspection should be in a separately poultry branch. However, in the introduction of the bill I made it quite clear, and I want to know where you got the idea that meat inspection is going to dominate. Look at the sponsors of the bill. You have myself. Then you have Senator Murray, you have Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, you have Senator Jackson, Senator Langer, Senator Douglas, Senator Green, Senator McNamara, Senator Magnuson, Senator Mansfield, Senator Morse, Senator Neuberger-do you think that they want to subordinate this industry? Mr. THURNBECK. I am sure they would not. Senator HUMPHREY. Well, they are all sponsors of the bill. And it is interesting to note that they have not been receiving any deluge of protest messages. I have been the recipient of all of those, and I don't know how it happened—it must be they just like me better, cause I got all of the telegrams. Mr. THURNBECK. I am sure there was not anything personal. be The CHAIRMAN. You may be the only one that appeared in the papers. Senator HUMPHREY. No; there was not much publicity. It must have got into the trade journals. Now, you do know my views? Mr. THURNBECK. Yes, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. And I do not think that there is any chance of mistreatment of the industry, or that it will not get equal stature with the meat inspection-that is what you want? Mr. THURNBECK. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. And that is what you want to see by this committee, at least in its report if not in the bill. Mr. THURNBECK. Yes, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. Now, Mr. Thurnbeck, I would like to ask you why you said this: The National Turkey Federation objects to several provisions of S. 1128 on the grounds that they would work a great hardship on all turkey processors, would put out of business many small farm processors, and ultimately would increase the cost of turkeys to the consumers. First of all, my bill exempts small farm processors. How would you put them out of business if you do not even touch them? Mr. THURNBECK. Except-I think it is pretty hard to say that it does exempt small processors. Senator HUMPHREY. Well now, wait a minute before you say that. Would you like to turn to page 12 of the bill where the exemptions are noted under section 15? Mr. THURNBECK. Well, is it not true, Senator, that these regulations govern all turkeys, poultry that moves across State lines? Senator HUMPHREY. Interstate commerce? Mr. THURNBECK. Yes. Senator HUMPHREY. Sure, and every other bill on poultry inspection, all of these. Mr. THURNBECK. Well, we are in complete accord with that—but a lot of the small farmers find it necessary to move across State lines. Senator HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. THURNBECK. And I think it is going to be more generally true than it is today, so that I do not think that you are exemepting them from ultimately coming under the provisions of this program. Senator HUMPHREY. Well, the bill's exemption provision says: (1) poultry producers with respect to poultry of their own raising on their own farms which they sell directly to household consumers only: Provided, That such poultry producers do not engage in buying or selling poultry products other than those produced from poultry raised on their own farms. Those are exempted, they are exempt. Mr. THURNBECK. Senator, perhaps I failed to make my point. These small processors that have these operations process their own turkeys and I am speaking of turkeys now, I represent only the turkey interests—but a lot of these turkeys, especially the heavier sizes have to go occasionally across State lines, because they go into the institutional trade and not for housewife consumption, and it is not practical for the small processor to be penalized, he cannot continue to operate if he cannot move turkeys across the State line. And we recognize that sanitary requirements ultimately are going to become more stringent than necessary in the case of these small plants, and you do not necessarily disagree with that, and you asked me why I indicated some of these small plants-why it would work a hardship on them, and I think again that we have got to get back to the feature requiring mandatory ante mortem inspection. Senator HUMPHREY. But I want to point out that S. 313 and S. 1128 have as areas designated for regulation those affecting interstate commerce, that is, for the effective aspects of this act, they are identical, they are the same, according to our own staff study. Now, local initiative or approval of such designation is required. My bill provides that before you can even have control you must have consent of the local governing body. That is even more local protection than the other bills. I do not say that necessarily makes it better, but at least that is the fact. And so this rhetoric which makes it appear as if the sponsors of this bill, about ten Members of the United States Senate were out to put little business out of business, that seems a little bit peculiar, particularly when the majority of these sponsors are on the Small Business Committee, and yet you say: We oppose S. 1128 on the grounds it would work undue hardship * * * even to the extent of putting them completely out of business. This is not the American way of life. And I would have the record note that the very bill that you support, S. 313, which is a good bill and which has many commendable features, that the same area for regulation is under both bills, the same thing. Mr. THURNBECK. Except for one thing. Mr. THURNBECK. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. And in S. 313 it says that the Secretary may impose ante mortem, and all witnesses thus far say we should have some inspection, and in S. 1128 it says that the ante mortem shall be in the manner he deems necessary, which means that it could be very limited, it could be sporadic if he deems it necessary. It merely says that the Secretary shall in some form, some manner, shall prescribe some sort of ante mortem inspection. And may I say that there is a great deal of testimony for ante mortem inspection, including the Public Health officers, including the consumer, including women's clubs, and including people who are going to eat these products and who handle these products. I think ante mortem inspection has got to be handled very carefully and as I said to Senator Aiken, it may be that we may want to deal with this in the most broad manner so as to give the Secretary lots of discretion. But to ignore it is to ignore the facts of life, to ignore the disease features—and the producers, by the way. Ante mortem inspection is best for the producers-it gives them some protection; it gives the producer of the product some protection and the consumer protection. Mr. THURNBECK. I am sure Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, before we leave that, is there anything to be determined by an ante mortem inspection that would not be found by post mortem? Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, indeed; certainly. May I say, most respectfully Senator THYE. Wait a minute. First, let me ask that of the tradethe man that is engaged in the business and who is growing turkeys. You and I are legislators. Senator HUMPHREY. Then you should ask of the doctors, because they know more about it than any of them. Senator THYE. Well, let us find out what their interpretation is, the interpretation of the trade on ante mortem inspection. Is there anything that can be found in that inspection that cannot be found in the post mortem inspection? Mr. THURNBECK. It takes either a post mortem inspection or through the medium of, say, a blood sample of a live turkey in some cases, but in most cases it takes a post mortem inspection to determine exactly what was involved in that particular turkey. Senator THYE. That is true. dead in your lot. Mr. THURNBECK. That is right. You may have a bird that is found Senator THYE. And you may pick that bird up and you may be an expert, but you are not going to determine what that bird died from until the post. Mr. THURNBECK. That is right. Senator THYE. And a post mortem inspection is going to give you the signs of disease that may be showing up within the bird's body. The ante mortem inspection is a matter of whether the bird appears to be that is, what is visable to the eye, but when you get down to the 89520-57- -6 actual post mortem, that is when you determine whether any of the organs of the bird are in any sense diseased. Now, I believe that must be a positive fact. Mr. THURNBECK. That is right and that is why we are particularly concerned about that feature. Senator THYE. And a post mortem is positively a necessity. Mr. THURNBECK. That is right; we all agree. Senator THYE. The ante mortem is a question of whether somebody has pulled a bird or two out of a diseased flock which has not yet shown the advanced stages of the disease with the result that the whole flock is being offered for sale or is being marketed. That I think must be one of the factors for the necessity of an ante mortem inspection, but the ante mortem will never determine whether the bird is in any manner diseased. You have got to get inside that bird before you start determining that. Mr. THURNBECK. That is right, and you previously this morning suggested one of the things that you should have done. You spell exactly what we are thinking in terms of requirements for ante mortem inspection and it is unfortunate that it was not possible to do that and as a result, of course, all of us have been vague and uninformed, perhaps, as to what type of ante mortem inspection could be applied that would be practical and that would be workable and that would do the things that Senator Humphrey wants us to do from the standpoint of consumer protection-and we want all of those things. Senator HUMPHREY. And yet unfortunately the record indicates that you have been opposed to it-because I am sure that you do want it. Mr. THURNBECK. We stand for the same principle, it is merely a question of arriving-of different approaches. Senator HUMPHREY. Yes; only you have endorsed one bill and opposed another, and you have said that one bill does this and one does that-but it does not. One bill says that the Secretary may— and if the Secretary takes his duties seriously and there is disease in the flock he will; I am sure the Secretary will take his duty seriouslyand the other one is that he shall institute a procedure of ante mortem inspection in a manner that is left to his discretion. It simply says that since we have mandatory post mortem, we should have some manner of mandatory ante mortem, but not on each bird, not necessarily each flock; but within, as I repeat, within the manner such as the Secretary may deem necessary. Now, of course, we may want to settle for what Senator Aiken or his colleagues sponsored-but I do not want the record to show that the industry is opposed to ante mortem inspection when, for example, we know that certain respiratory diseases are not detectable in post mortem also, as an example, there was an epidemic of silicosis in 1956, in which 176 persons were ill and several were killed, there were three epidemics that ante mortem inspection would have obviated or prevented and you just cannot ignore those things. Mr. THURNBECK. We cannot and we are not; and what you are saying is true in either bill, S. 313 or S. 1128, provisions are made for the Secretary to impose ante mortem inspection. Senator HUMPHREY. Right, so you are not opposed to ante mortem inspection provided it is to a degree that meets with present scientific knowledge? Mr. THURNBECK. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. And the degree that the Secretary deems advisable. But I know that I cannot help feel, when you say that this bill "is not the American way of life," that I must take exception. Mr. THURNBECK. And I cannot blame you, Senator, and I would like to say that that testimony was prepared before we had the benefits of your personal interpretation of your bill and we appreciate that very much. Senator HUMPHREY. I think some people spoke about these matters before they realized that S. 1128, which is sponsored by a number of members of the Senate, is not the Murray bill of last year. Senator AIKEN. I think that explains the situation very well. Senator THYE. If I may make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, before we finally sit down in executive session to give consideration to this, that we should have the Department of Agriculture technicians come with veterinarians that could give us some sort of an explanation of all that would be involved in an ante mortem inspection so that we would know what we were legislating on. The CHAIRMAN. It is our purpose, Senator, to have the Solicitor as well as the technicians here so that the committee will know what it is doing. Now, off the record. (Discussion off the record.) STATEMENT FILED BY G. A. HEINZE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MINNESOTA POULTRY, BUTTER, AND EGG ASSOCIATION, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. My name is G. A. Heinze, and I am the executive secretary of the Minnesota Poultry, Butter and Egg Association representing the buyers, sellers, dealers, processors, packers, distributors, etc. of poultry, poultry products and eggs in the State of Minnesota. There are 3000 licensed produce buyers within the State, approximately 60 percent of which are poultry and egg operators. The Minnesota Poultry, Butter and Egg Association is opposed to S. 1128 and a proponent of S. 313. I appreciate the opportunity given me to appear before you in behalf of the members of our association and the State of Minnesota. Any proposal that will benefit the consuming public, we feel, will likewise accrue to the producer and processor, but any legislation detrimental to the processor will also reflect on the farmer-producer and the consuming public also. This poultry industry is so vital to the economic welfare of the State of Minnesota that I ask that you bear with me for just a moment or two while I cite you a few figures. As reported by the State-Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, there were produced in the State of Minnesota during the year 1955, 8,016,000 head live turkeys weighing 128,256,000 pounds, of which approximately 127,000,000 pounds were sold, bringing in cash income of $37,133,000. In the year of 1956 there were produced 9,560,000 turkeys weighing 152,960,000 pounds. The value of this 1956 turkey crop was $42,829,000. The production was about 19 percent over that of 1955. This year of 1957 it is esimated we will produce about 11,371,000 turkeys, or an increase of about 19 percent. During the same period of 1955 there were produced 19,777,000 head chickens weighing 89,737,000 pounds. Of this amount, approximately 79,000,000 pounds were sold, bringing in cash income of $12,241,000. The balance of both the chickens and turkeys apparently were consumed by the producers. In the year of 1956 there were produced 26,705,000 chickens weighing 122,843,000 pounds, bringing a cash income of $17,198,000. Again I reiterate that the poultry industry is so vital to the State of Minnesota that you consider very carefully so that legislation be not enacted that will handicap, stifle, or destroy it. The United States Department of Agriculture is already established in the State of Minnesota, providing sanitation, inspection, and poultry grading service. Presently, this Department is supervising 54 poultry processing plants and 20 egg plants, providing supervision service for shell egg grading and egg products |