nection, to detain product which he has reason to believe is not in compliance with the act. Such power further safeguards the public health and eliminates one step from the currently existing procedure whereby the Secretary must apply to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for the commencement of seizure proceedings. These comments do not relate to each of the provisions of the bill which would enhance the Secretary's powers of enforcement and administration, but only to those which are, in our view, most significant. With one exception, to be noted later, we are in fundamental agreement with each provision of H.R. 16363 which would improve the efficiency with which the act might be implemented.

(c) The establishment of uniform Federal standards of wholesomeness, sanitation and packaging, and labeling. The heart of H.R. 16363 is the effort, under section 5 of the bill, to encourage the States to adopt inspection, sanitation, and labeling programs which are in all respects "at least equal to" the Federal program, and to enforce these programs in a manner "at least equal to" Federal enforcement. At the heart of the National Broiler Council's objectives concerning an effective program is the achievement of uniform standards and enforcement applicable to all poultry from whatever source. It is evident that the Department of Agriculture and the sponsors of this legislation are of the opinion that uniformity can be attained through the exercise of responsible federalism. This is in the final analysis a political and constitutional question which others are more qualified to resolve than we.

ferred by th ity to insu poultry wil them. This

Our goal is uniformity and absence of competitive discrimination, and we are eager to work closely with any government agency, national, State, or local, to achieve it. Nevertheless, we do believe that section 5(c) (5) of the administration's proposal, which was deleted by the House, could present very serious problems in lack of uniform inspection and other regulation for the broiler industry. Poultry shipped in interstate commerce should be subject exclusively to Federal inspection. Accordingly, we urge the subcommittee not to adopt a provision comparable to section 5(c) (5) of S. 2932 whereby nonfederally inspected poultry might enter channels of interstate commerce. We commend to those States seeking to play a role in the inspection system the provisions of section 18(b) of the present law which are preserved by the last sentence of section 5(a) (2) of the act as it would be amended by H.R. 16363. Under this provision, the Secretary may conduct inspection, examination, and investigation through State employees commissioned for that purpose. In at least one instance, this program has worked very effectively in the broiler industry.

We remain concerned respecting one other potential for lack of uniformity which might be possible under H.R. 16363. The Secretary is authorized by section 13 (a) of the act as it would be amended by this bill to promulgate regulations governing the storage and handling of poultry products through successive levels of distribution. However, this authority shall not apply to establishments which are covered by the act solely because of purchases in commerce where the States implement storage and handling regulations in a manner which is adequate to effectuate the act's purposes. The need for uniform standards and uniform enforcement is as compelling with regard to storage and handling as with regard to any other authority con

ferred by the legislation. We strongly support the Secretary's authority to insure that wholesome and properly labeled and packaged poultry will remain in those conditions until the consumer purchases them. This assurance should, however, be under uniform standards, and no part of the inspection program should be susceptible to misuse through the erection of artificial trade barriers. Accordingly, we recommend that the provisions of section 17 of H.R. 16363, adding a new section 23 to the act, be amended to add, after the word "packaging" in the second sentence, the following: "storage and handling." For the same reasons, we recommend that the third sentence of section 14(a) of the act as it would be amended by section 13 of H.R. 16363 be deleted.

I would like to make some additional observations:

We wish to invite the subcommittee's attention to certain other aspects of H.R. 16363. We were concerned with the breadth of the recordkeeping and maintenance requirement as it was drafted in section 11 of the original administration bill. These provisions were unduly substantial to accomplish the purposes of the act. To authorize the Secretary to require all persons subject to the act to prepare such records as will fully disclose all transactions in their business and to keep them for such period as the Secretary prescribes may result in burdensome procedures which could have little relation to the act's objectives. As this provision was amended by the House committee and passed by the House, the recordkeeping requirement is appropriately limited in scope and the retention requirement is limited in duration in a manner which will protect the public interest without unnecessarily burdening industry.

Senator JORDAN. Does the House bill contain that?

Does it meet with your approval?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it would.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you.

Mr. FRAZIER. We recommend that section 11 of H.R. 16363 be retained by this committee.

Second, we approve the action of the House in imposing detailed reporting requirements on USDA as to the effectiveness of the FederalState program similar to those present in the Wholesome Meat Act. We believe that in the interest of uniformity the Secretary should be required to review at least annually this aspect of the act, if it is adopted in its proposed form, and report thereon in detail to this committee and its House counterpart. We think, under the circumstances, that these committees and the industry are entitled to know the extent to which equality of standards and enforcement have been, and are being achieved.

We also believe that the procedures prescribed by sections 701 (e), (f), and (g) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act should apply to the Secretary's rulemaking procedures under the bill, at least where such procedures would result in the promulgation of substantive rules, having the force and effect of law. Because of the far-reaching impact of such regulations, we submit that full opportunity must be accorded affected parties to submit their views and obtain judicial review in the same manner as set forth in the above-cited provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Accordingly, we recommend that the

following language be added to section 14(b) of the act as it would be amended by H.R. 16363 :

Regulations promulgated by the Secretary under sections 4(g) (2) (D), 4(h) (10), 4(h) (12), 7(a), 8(a), 8(b), 11(b) and 14(a) of this Act shall be promulgated and shall be subject to judicial review, pursuant to the provisions of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 701 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371 (e), (f), and (g).) Hearings authorized or required for the promulgation of any such regulations by the Secretary shall be conducted by the Secretary or by such officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture as he may designate for that purpose.

Senator JORDAN. Is that not the same language as Mr. Dunkelberger had in his testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER. This is an identical recommendation--I believe it is

identical language.

Mr. JAMES F. RILL. That is correct.
Senator JORDAN. Thank you, sir.

CONCLUSION

In the interest of continuing to assure the consumer of a wholesome, properly packaged and accurately labeled product we endorse the principles of H.R. 16363. We applaud the extension of Federal standards to apply to poultry produced, processed, distributed, and consumed intrastate. We recognize further that the effort to update certain provisions and strengthen enforcement powers would improve somewhat what we consider to be an excellent poultry inspection program. We most strongly hope that this committee will see fit to approve this legislation, with the amendments we have recommended, in time for Congress to take final action this year, thereby assuring the consumer of a continued wholesome, nutritious product which is properly packaged and labeled.

Senator JORDAN. I do not believe I have any questions, Mr. Frazier. I followed your testimony very carefully. You have a complete statement. We appreciate it very much. It will certainly be valuable in determining what to do with this bill.

We appreciate both of you being with us.
Mr. FRAZIER. Thank you very much.

Senator JORDAN. Our next witness is Mr. Marvin Johnson, president

of the National Turkey Federation of Rose Hill, N.C. We are coming into our own here, now.

I believe you have somebody with you, Mr. Johnson.

We are glad to have you with us here today.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Miller, here, is our Washington representative. Senator JORDAN. We are also glad to have you with us here today, Mr. Miller.

You may proceed, Mr. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF MARVIN JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TURKEY FEDERATION, ROSE HILL, N.C., AND HERMON I. MILLER,
WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL TURKEY FEDERA-

TION

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Marvin Johnson, and I am a turkey producer from North

Carolina. I was born in a rural community around Rose Hill and have spent practically all my life there. When I was a boy, my father, Nash Johnson, was a farmer and hatcheryman. After graduating from Rose Hill High School and serving in the merchant marine, I started farming about like other farmers in the area-raising tobacco, strawberries, and other crops that grow well in the area. I also had a few turkeys. In 1955, we began to expand our turkey operations. In 1967, we produced 1.5 million head of turkeys and about 15 million broilers. The turkeys were marketed through an officially inspected plant at Raeford, N.C., and the chickens at Rose Hill. Both processing plants are jointly owned by ourselves and others.

I am also president of the National Turkey Federation, and I appreciate this opportunity to present this statement on behalf of the federation.

The National Turkey Federation is a nonprofit association representing turkey producers and other segments of the industry in the United States. Membership in this organization covers those who are responsible for the production and marketing of the major portion of the Nation's turkey crop. It is the only national turkey organization we have in the country.

The National Turkey Federation was organized in 1939. Directors from each of our turkey-producing States are represented on our board of directors. Our organization is unique in that it has such wide representation. Members work together in developing those programs which are in the best interests of the industry. There is no other nationwide organization of the turkey industry. Therefore, the National Turkey Federation is in a position to speak authoritatively for the industry.

Ours is a rapidly growing industry. In 1957, we produced approximately 81 million turkeys contrasted to a record crop of 126 million in 1967. Correspondingly, consumption has increased in the same period from 5.9 pounds to about 8.7 pounds per capita. Turkeys are marketed on a year-round basis throughout the United States and in foreign countries and the great efficiencies which have been developed have greatly benefited consumers and are providing them with a great value in a wholesome nutritious food product.

The National Turkey Federation's Board of Directors, at their annual convention in early January resolved to support legislation to expand poultry inspection to full coverage. The resolution is as follows:

Whereas the National Turkey Federation strongly supported the enactment of the Poultry Products Inspection Act under which consumers are assured the wholesomeness and proper labeling of all poultry products which bear the Federal inspection legend, and

Whereas 87 percent of all live poultry sold off farms is now subject to mandatory Federal inspection, and

Whereas the National Turkey Federation recognizes the desirability of extending Federal inspection to all poultry and poultry products to further protect consumers: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Poultry Products Inspection Act be amended to bring the remaining 13 percent of poultry sold off farms under the Federal inspection system.

The turkey industry and the National Turkey Federation have strongly supported the present poultry inspection system. Along with

other poultry groups, it was instrumental in getting legislation for mandatory poultry inspection about 10 years ago.

According to Department of Agriculture figures, about 94 percent of the turkeys sold off the farms are inspected under the Federal inspection program. A portion of the remaining 6 percent is represented by producers who process and sell, turkeys of their own raising, direct to restricted outlets as provided for by the present act. Most of them sell all or a major portion of their production directly to consumer outlets.

At this time, I have been asked to enter into the record a statement from the Northeastern Poultry Producers Council. They are from the northeastern part of the country. They have a few growers and processors.

Senator JORDAN. Would you like for the statement to be inserted in the record at this point or would you like to have it inserted following your statement?

Mr. JOHNSON. To follow my statement.

Senator JORDAN. It will be inserted in the record following your statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. Under section 15(a)(1) of the present law producers are given a limited exception. This authority to the Secretary to grant such exemptions would be deleted by S. 2932. By H.R. 16363, the bill which passed the House, an exemption for such producers would be permitted only for intrastate movement and only for limited volume which would be ineffective because it would be uneconomical.

Although our association supports full coverage, we recommend that the committee provide for an effective producer exemption under which the Secretary could permit producers to process their own products and market them directly under such standards as to assure a wholesome product. This suggestion is in accord with existing law which has demonstrated its workability.

In other wo efficient progra new program the program no The extensi Would in no w carrying out a state agency requirements law clearly a pay the entir

The present poultry inspection system as it has been administered is widely recognized as being excelled anywhere in the world. The confidence it has helped to establish in poultry products has, we believe, contributed greatly to the increased use of poultry products both in domestic markets and for export. We believe that the worldwide recognition of this inspection system has been one of the strongest factors making it possible to secure and hold expanded export outlets in spite of attempts to curtail them through the use of economic tariffs or artificial health barriers.

so desires.
There will
which will b
Would be id
necessary fo
or for the
different law
We were

We would strongly recommend amending the present poultry products inspection law to expand coverage to the remaining 6 percent not now being subject to it in the manner suggested by Senate bill S. 2846, introduced by Senators Williams, Aiken, Boggs, Byrd, and Tydings. With this same thought in mind, we stated in our testimony to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Grain of the House Committee on Agriculture on February 21, as follows:

closely the demonstra reported present H Red Meat We wo have been

With this observation and experience, we strongly recommend this committee extend coverage of the present law to the remaining 6 percent not now subject to it. This could best be accomplished, in our judgment, by extending the Poultry Products Inspection Act to cover this area. Any of the provisions of bills similar to H.R. 15146 (the Administration's bill) relating to extension of coverage beyond the plant, which the Committee believes desirable, could also be added as amendments to the present law.

to chang legislatio will requ without The fi secion 4

the pre

regulati change

require vantag

second.

tions a

themse Our becaus

are pa the br have t

the di

Sen you h

Mr to use

chans

to ma

W

law

resul

the