has been properly processed in a shipper's plant over which the carrier has absolutely no control.

We suggest that the committee give consideration to (1) the elimination of this section, or (2) the inclusion of language similar to that in S. 3588. S. 3588, at page 10, lines 18 through 21, provides “that carriers shall not be subject to the other provisions of this act by reason of their receipt, carriage, holding, or delivery of poultry products in the usual course of business as carriers."

It is further suggested that should language similar to that appearing in S. 3588 be incorporated into any bill, it should more properly read "common carriers, contract carriers, or freight forwarders," rather than simply "carrier." Otherwise it might be argued that the bill also excludes private carriage, that is, movement of poulty products in trucks owned by a poultry processing establishment.

It is respectfully requested that this letter be made a part of the hearing on S. 3588 and S. 3983.

Very truly yours,

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.,
JAMES F. FORT,

Assistant to the General Counsel.

GREENWICH, CONN., June 10, 1956.

Hon. ALBERT P. MORANO,

House of Representatives.

DEAR AL: If you remember, when I told you of the horrible conditions that existed in the processed-chicken industry and the filth that existed therein you said you did not believe it and that I should not believe in everything I read. I investigated it and found out that it was worse than what found its way into print. The condition was so bad that the men that processed the products moved to stop such abuses, and this must be pretty bad. * * *

Al, there are now bills entered in our Congress which are numbered in this circular I think introduced by Senator James E. Murray, of Montana, to correct this situation that has long gone unattended in this modern day and age of sanitation.

Now what I am getting at, Al, is just how long are we going to allow a staff of only 200 inspectors to police a Nation of 150 million people, food processors which must run into the millions; why we have in the town of Greenwich a police force of half of that amount in number-what goes? This is foolish economy when its dealing with the American people's health, especially when we are spending billions for the rest of the world and can't spend a few million for our own backyard.

I would suggest you use your power of duty as an elected Representative to see that proper methods are taken to see that the Pure Food and Drug Administration has the proper amount of personnel to do the job that the act was created for. I was amazed at the condition that turned up in that letter from the head of that department which I have since had photostatic copies made for future

I would appreciate your views on this whole matter as to how you feel in regards to what should be done if something should be done, or is my whole way of thinking and interest in this matter entirely wrong?

Yours truly,

RICHARD C. MULLER

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 13, 1956.

Hon. EARLE C. CLEMENTS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and General Legislation,

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CLEMENTS: The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives supports the principles and purposes of S. 3588, the bill to provide for the compulsory inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture of poultry and poultry products.

This bill sets up a broad base under which the Secretary of Agriculture can develop and administer inspection of poultry and poultry produets along the

lines of red-meat inspection which has been effectively administered by the United States Department of Agriculture for 50 years.

This bill will protect the integrity of the poultry industry against the irresponsible processors who destroy legitimate business unless zealously dogged and restrained by an adequate enforcement program.

It is called to attention that there has been on the statute books the act of June 25, 1938 (title 29, sec. 342, U. S. C.) which apparently has not been thoroughly enforced, but whose language is largely duplicated in proposed alternative legislation on this subject.

Placing the broad authority outlined in S. 3588 in the Department of Agriculture, we believe, will draw on meat-inspection experience there to get the type of inspection for poultry which is effective and at the same time practical and satisfactory to consumers and to the industry alike at nominal cost per capita and per unit of product.

We will appreciate it if this letter can be included in the record of the hearings of June 18, 1956, before your subcommittee.

Sincerely yours,

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES,
JOHN J. RIGGLE, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. W. FULBRIGHT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, if I may, my principal function is to introduce to you and the committee three gentlemen who really know about this industry, although I know a little about it.

Mr. Charles D. Hawks, of Little Rock, is here and he is going to testify. He is the

Senator CLEMENTS. Mr. Hawks, come around here and take a seat. Senator FULBRIGHT. He is the general manager of the Arkansas Poultry Federation, and he is going to be the first witness.

Then there is Mr. John O. Kumpe from Bentonville, which is in Congressman Trimble's district, and Mr. Kumpe is president of the Southwestern Association, which includes several States, and is a very large part of this industry.

Then there is Mr. J. K. Southerland, of Batesville, who is also an official in the industry.

Batesville is one of the major producing areas in my State. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to undertake to give you the technical aspects of the problem.

I do want to emphasize and impress upon the committee the importance of this industry to my State, which I believe in my State is third in production. It produces up between 80 million and 90 million broilers a year.

It is, I believe, about the third most important crop after cotton and livestock in my State.

So that anything that would injure this industry in my State is an extremely serious matter for us, and I know they will give you the details for many of the areas.

Of course, we have great confidence in this committee, not only as to its general understanding, but particularly because Senator Williams of Delaware is an expert in this field also.

Senator CLEMENTS. Along with you he can also qualify as an expert. Senator FULBRIGHT. He is a better one than I am.

But my hometown is in one of the two principal counties that produce broilers in my State, those are Washington and Benton Counties.

I believe they are the two largest producing areas and they are also in the district which is represented by Congressman Trimble.

So I can assure you we have a very deep interest in this, and it is my understanding of the problem here, I am completely in accord with the testimony that will be offered by Mr. Hawks.

I think it is an extremely important question and I hope the committee will not make any radical changes in the procedures heretofore followed.

If any changes are seriously contemplated, we want plenty of time to develop the validity of the situation.

I don't wish to take the time of the chairman because these gentlemen are here representing the industry, and they will know what they are talking about, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to come here.

Senator CLEMENTS. Thank you, Senator Fulbright. We are glad to have had those remarks from you, and we are glad to have you approve of Mr. Hawks' testimony in advance.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I would like to stay and listen but I have a committee meeting of my own at 10:30, so I will have to walk out. Senator CLEMENTS. This committee can well understand your problems.

Congressman Trimble, is there any statement you desire to make at this time?

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. TRIMBLE, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I just want to reiterate what Senator Fulbright has said.

I am authorized to speak for our colleague, Congressman Mills of Arkansas, who is tied up in committee meeting and couldn't be here. He agrees with our feeling in this matter.

Now, two of these especially one of these witnesses is a constituent of mine, and my constituents are always right.

Senator CLEMENTS. The customer is always right.

Mr. TRIMBLE. The constituent is always right.

We have a problem. The industry is a proud industry, and what Senator Fulbright has said on his part, I want to reiterate on my part. I have read Charlie Hawks' testimony. I am for it. I agree with it completely.

We don't want to do anything that will destroy or impede this great industry that has been slowly built up through the 12 years that I

have been here.

And I have a committee meeting that begins at 10:30, and the blue smoke is probably thick over there, so I will have to be getting over there.

But I am in back of these men in their program and I am sure with you gentlemen here that they will have a fair and impartial hearing. Senator CLEMENTS. I am glad to have had those remarks from you, my friend.

The confidence you express in the committee is appreciated.

The first witness we will have this morning is Mr. Charles D. Hawks, who was previously presented to the committee by Senator Fulbright.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. HAWKS, GENERAL MANAGER, ARKANSAS POULTRY FEDERATION, LITTLE ROCK, ARK.

Mr. HAWKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Arkansas Poultry Federation respectfully submit the following points believed to be the most desirable in proposed legislation dealing with the inspection for wholesomeness of poultry and poultry products under consideration at this time.

The Arkansas Poultry Federation represents approximately 3,000 members of the Arkansas poultry industry including major processing facilities capable of handling 112 million pounds of poultry weekly. The poultry industry of Arkansas is proud of its record of processing poultry under voluntary standards. During the period of January 1, 1955, through December 31, 1955, just past, Arkansas graded a total of 45,230,438 pounds of poultry, excluding turkeys, to rank third nationally in this respect.

Arkansas graded 6,420,074 pounds of turkeys to rank 12th nationally in this respect.

Arkansas processors handled 97,420,454 pounds of poultry under supervised sanitation to rank seventh nationally.

Arkansas produces 7 percent of the commercial broilers produced in the United States with a total of nearly 80 million broilers.

Arkansas processors began using the services of the Inspection and Grading Division, Poultry Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service of United States Department of Agriculture, at its beginning nearly 25 years ago.

We believe in a program of sanitation in poultry processing. However, in substituting a program of compulsory inspection for wholesomeness for the present voluntary program, certain points must be considered.

We believe that the poultry industry problems, which are peculiar unto themselves, are best understood by those in the Inspection and Grading Division of the Poultry Branch in the United States Department of Agriculture, now administering the current inspection program.

It was obvious many years ago that standards of inspection applicable to beef, pork, lamb, and veal were wholly different in comparison to the poultry industry.

This situation has not changed despite advances in genetics, health control, feeding, and management.

We believe it would be a serious administrative mistake to attempt to develop a set of standards applicable to a combination of both the poultry and the red meat industry.

It is believed that there will be efficiency of handling and a greater benefit to consumers if the administration and regulation of each commodity group is handled separately.

May we respectfully reiterate that a compulsory program of inspection for wholesomeness should be specifically charged to the

present Inspection and Grading Division of the Poultry Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

The Secretary of Agriculture is best fitted with discretionary authority for the application of new techniques and methods as they are developed in the rapidly changing poultry industry.

Such a compulsory program should in fairness to the consumer who will benefit from such regulations, be financed from appropriated funds.

During the past 28 years, the costs of the present voluntary programs have been paid by the poultry industry.

It is obvious that such a program places the poultry industry at a distinct economical disadvantage to the red-meat industry. In fairness to the poultry producers compulsory programs should therefore be financed from public funds.

Under a voluntary program of inspection for wholesomeness, it is understandable and apparent that only a portion of the poultry industry voluntarily accepts the standards.

We must all recognize that a high degree of sanitation may be maintained by other than specifically recommended construction, materials for construction of plants and equipment.

Many of our plants have been operating for years under generally most satisfactory conditions.

Buildings and equipment may or may not be acceptable to proposed standards. In some cases, compliance will require major revision. We therefore suggest that serious consideration be given the selection of the effective date of proposed compulsory programs, not to precede July 1, 1958.

In converting from a voluntary to a compulsory program, it is evident that competent and trained personnel will be needed in far greater numbers. It is also questionable that a date earlier than July 1, 1958, would permit the time to train and organize the necessary staff.

Our federation earnestly pleads that the recommendations of the poultry industry be given serious consideration in the revision of laws proposing compulsory inspection for wholesomeness.

We ask that the Secretary of Agriculture be designated to administer such programs and the present staff of trained and competent personnel in the Poultry Branch of Agricultural Marketing Service be utilized for carrying out administrative directives and inspection

program.

It would be unwise not to use the long experience and knowledge of the present personnel of the Inspection and Grading Division of the Poultry Branch. The dismissal of the agency or the transfer of its personnel to a subservient position under the red meat inspection program would be damaging.

Therefore, we urge that the present staff and the present agency be retained in order to obtain the maximum high degree of administrative efficiency.

The poultry industry has demonstrated its willingness to accept a mandatory program of inspection for poultry products.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our recommendations to this committee.