CUSTOM SLAUGHTERING TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND GRAINS OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room 1301, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Graham Purcell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Purcell, Foley, Abernethy, Jones of North Carolina, Montgomery, Melcher, May, Mayne, Zwach, Kleppe, and Sebelius. Also present: Hyde H. Murray, associate counsel, and Christine S. Gallagher, chief clerk. Mr. PURCELL. The subcommittee meets this morning for consideration of H.R. 16485 and other related bills. This bill by Mr. Purcell, of Texas, for himself, Mr. Smith of Iowa, Mr. Foley, of Washington, Mrs. May of, Washington, Mr. Kleppe, of North Dakota, Mr. Andrews of North Dakota, Mr. Nelsen, of Minnesota, Mr. Denney, of Nebraska, Mr. Langen, of Minnesota, and Mr. Martin, of Nebraska, is a clarifying amendment regarding custom slaughtering operations at locker plants. This bill provides in effect that these plants shall be allowed to engage in custom-slaughtering operations while at the same time selling meat to the general public, provided that the custom-prepared meat is kept separate at all times from the meat prepared for sale to the general public, and that the custom-prepared meat is marked "Not for Sale" until delivered to its owner. By specifically requiring that custom meat be kept separate from meat to be sold to the general public, the bill provides adequate protection for the consumer while preserving for him his local outlet for fully inspected meat and meat food products. The Senate counterpart is S. 3592, which is nearly identical to H.R. 16485, except for a technical amendment. S. 3592 was passed by the Senate on June 5, 1970. The subcommittee will hear witnesses from the witness list who may address themselves to any of these bills under consideration today by the subcommittee. (H.R. 16480 by Mr. Martin; H.R. 16485 by Messrs. Purcell, Smith of Iowa, Foley, Kleppe, Andrews of North Dakota, Nelsen, Denney, Langen, Martin, and Mrs. May; H.R. 16791 by Mr. Hungate; H.R. 16895 by Mr. Scott; H.R. 16908 by Mr. Quie; H.R. 17276 by Mr. Berry; H.R. 17457 by Mr. Duncan; and S. 3592 are similar bills the text of which follows:) [H.R. 16485, 91st Cong., second sess.] A BILL To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, to clarify the provisions relating to custom slaughtering operations Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Federal Meat Inspection Act (34 Stat. 1260, as amended by the Wholesome Meat Act, 81 Stat. 584) is hereby amended by deleting the proviso from paragraph (a) of section 23 of the Act, and the colon preceding said proviso, and substituting therefor the following: "; nor to the custom preparation by any person, firm, or corporation of carcasses, parts thereof, meat or meat food products, derived from the slaughter by any person of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats of his own raising, or from game animals, delivered by the owner thereof for such custom preparation, and transportation in commerce of such custom prepared articles, exclusively for use, in the household of such owner, by him and members of his household and his nonpaying guest and employees: Provided, That in cases where such person, firm or corporation engages in such custom operations at an establishment at which inspection under this title is maintained, the Secretary may exempt from such inspection at such establishment any animals slaughtered or any meat or meat food products otherwise prepared on such custom basis if the establishment complies with regulations which the Secretary is hereby authorized to promulgate to assure that any carcasses, parts thereof, meat or meat food products wherever handled on a custom basis, or any containers or packages containing such articles, are separated at all times from carcasses, parts thereof, meat or meat food products prepared for sale, and that all such articles prepared on a custom basis, or any containers or packages containing such articles, are plainly marked 'Not or Sale' immediately after being prepared and kept so identified until delivered to the owner, and that the establishment conducting the custom operation is maintained and operated in a sanitary manner." DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1970. Hon. W. R. POAGE, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1970, requesting a report on H.R. 16485, "A Bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, to clarify the provisions relating to custom slaughtering operations." The Department supports the passage of this bill. The bill would amend Section 23 (a) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The effect of this bill would be to exempt the custom preparation by any person of carcasses, or parts or products thereof, of livestock slaughtered by the person who raised the livestock, or of game aimals, provided the articles are delivered by the owner for such custom preparation and are exclusively for use in his household by him and members of his household and his nonpaying guests and employees, and the custom operations are carried out in compliance with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary. The regulations would include requirements to assure that the establishment is maintained and operated in a sanitary manner and that the articles handled on a custom basis are separated at all times from meat products for sale and are marked as "Not for Sale" until delivered to the owner. The custom operator would be required to keep such records as would fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in his business. The adulteration and misbranding provisions of the Act (other than the requirement of the official inspection legend) would be applicable to all of the meat products prepared by the custom operator for interstate commerce or otherwise subject to the Act. The bill would retain present provisions exempting certain custom slaughtering operations but would eliminate the requirement that the exempted slaughterers shall not engage in buying or selling any meat or meat food products capable of use as human food. In many areas of the country both these functions have been carried out at a single establishment, often the only source of meat products or custom service in the community. The Bureau of the Budget advises there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Under Secretary. Mr. PURCELL. We will also insert in the record at this point a statement by one of our colleagues on this committee, Hon. Catherine May of Washington. STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE MAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Mrs. MAY. This bill deals with a problem which was inadvertently created by passage of the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967, and which we have been working on since then in an effort to find an equitable solution. Many small rural communities depend on the services of the small locker plants whose operators also engage in custom slaughter for farmers and residents in the surrounding areas. The problem, of course, is that many of these small businesses need both the custom slaughter operation and the retail operation in order to make a go of it, and the Wholesome Meat Act as it now stands prohibits a business from doing both. Our objective here has been to find a way to remove this prohibition without weakening in any way the requirements for wholesomeness and cleanliness which are embodied in the Wholesome Meat Act. Mr. PURCELL. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to have hearings in regard to an amendment to what we refer to as the meat inspection bill. We have been delayed a little bit, so we are proceeding now to call Mr. Dave Martin, who has a committee of his own. We are glad to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE MARTIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your taking me first because we do have a rather important piece of legislation before us in the Rules Committee this morning. I would ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the record and I will simply summarize and make a few statements in order to save time. Mr. PURCELL. All right, sir. (The complete prepared statement of Congressman Martin, above referred to, follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE MARTIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on the subject of amending the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as proposed in H.R. 16480 and H.R. 16485 which I sponsored and cosponsored, respectively. Mr. Chairman, I urge the swift approval of this legislation in the interest of saving the small community custom slaughter business, and consequently, many small communities themselves. This legislation is identical to the Senate bill, S. 3592, which was passed by the Senate on June 5, 1970, and which was introduced and sponsored by Senators Curtis, Hruska, Bellmon, Burdick, Dole, Jordan of North Carolina, Young of North Dakota, Proxmire and McGee. The need for this legislation has come about as a result of Department of Agriculture programs and policies to strengthen federal meat inspection requirements where the slaughter and sale of various meat animals is concerned. However, as the current laws in this matter are written, this strengthening of federal surveillance in the sale of meat goes beyond this area, and is threatening the small custom slaughter businesses that provide much-needed service. Section 23(a) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act at present exempts from inspection custom slaughtering. This is proper legislation, in my judgment, as it allows the slaughtering for hire by an owner with an established slaughterer of meat animals for the owner's sole consumption and use. It makes sense that if an individual can slaughter his own meat animals for his own consumption, without being subject to commercial production inspection regulations, he should be able to hire someone else to do this same slaughtering for him. Obviously, not every person, farmer or small community resident, is going to be set up for, or be able to, or want to do his own individual slaughtering, and he should be able to have this function performed for him, by someone such as a community butcher who is established in this trade. Mr. Chairman, just as this type of custom slaughtering has been rightfully allowed in the past, so it should be allowed to continue. However, because of the new regulations in this area, many small meat plants that have been providing custom slaughter along with their retail sales of federally-inspected meats are being priced out of business. High conversion costs for separating small custom slaughter operations from retail meat stores, building additions, and even the notion of requiring federal inspection of custom slaughtered meats, in most cases will prove too costly for the small, rural communities of Nebraska and virtually every state. Yet, these small businesses are essential, in many instances to the economies of the areas they serve. Their being forced out of business will be detrimental to rural development, impose higher costs and greater hardships on those small communities in obtaining meat for their families, and serve no good purpose as far as federal meat inspection requirements go. Mr. Chairman, in the case of custom slaughtering by the small community and neighborhood meat store, I know of no incidents of health hazards or resulting health problems in Nebraska. In a time when it is the policy of our government to promote economic development and opportunities in rural America, the forced closing of the many small meat businesses would be highly detrimental to rural America and our cause in this area. Mr. Chairman, the legislation that I have introduced and sponsor, along with several of my colleagues in the House, is supported by the Department of Agriculture and numerous farm organizations. It is further supported by locker plant operators, custom slaughterers, merchants and consumers organizations. I ask that the subcommittee give its approval to this legislation, and urge that the full committee give its approval for enactment by the House as soon as possible. Mr. MARTIN. H.R. 16485, of which the chairman is the author and I am one of the co-sponsors, is a piece of legislation that is very urgently needed, particularly in the agricultural areas and the small communities of our Nation. In my district in western Nebraska, locker plants have suffered very severe economic reverses because of the fact that they could no longer butcher critters brought in by farmers or other people who own cattle that they wanted to have butchered. These plants have been able to take care of deer, elk, and other game animals that have been brought in by the hunters-and I am one of the hunters that has brought in such animals to these plants to be butchered and taken care of-while they can't do it with the domestic animals. Since the Wholesome Meat Act was passed and these people have not been able to do this under the law or under the regulations it has created an extremely difficult hardship on both the operators of the locker plants and the farmers in the area. This legislation will correct this situation and I trust, Mr. Chairman, that your committee will promptly approve this legislation. Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. It is my hope we will do just exactly what you have said. Are there any questions of Mr. Martin? Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Chairman, one quick question. I would like to ask my colleague, Congressman Martin, in your opinion, is there any reason why this proposed amendment will not take care of all of the small locker plant operators you refer to that we have in such abundance in America? Mr. MARTIN. No, I think it will adequately take care of the situation. As you know, it has been worked out very carefully, this legislation, and rewritten two or three times in order to take care of certain things that we felt wouldn't be adequately covered. I believe this bill will do the job. Mr. KLEPPE. Thank you very much. Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Hungate of Missouri is the next congressional witness. We are honored to have you, Mr. Hungate. We will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to appear on some legislation, of which I am greatly interested, and I think it is extremely important to the country and I appreciate the committee's work on it. If I may, I will read my statement. I believe it is briefer than my summary might be. Mr. PURCELL. All right. We have learned, Mr. Hungate, most of us in public life, our written statement is briefer than our summary. Mr. HUNGATE. It is in my case, Mr. Chairman, and I should also like to express appreciation for appearing before the chairman that represents the district that has one of the most distinguished jazz organizations at North Texas State. I know the gentleman from Iowa appreciates such an institution. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your distinguished committee to express my support of H.R. 16485, which is identical to my bill, H.R. 16791, to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, clarifying the provisions relating to custom slaughtering operations. There is great concern in my congressional district that the Congress provide this amendment. I have received many letters from farmers, locker plant operators, and the Missouri State Department of Agriculture urging my support of this bill. Without this amendment, thousands of locker and freezer provisioners will be forced out of business, as the act unamended would prohibit them from engaging in both selling inspected meat and performing custom services for farmers; both are essential to their survival. This bill would not change the intent of the act, it would not cost any additional money; and it has the support of the Department of Agriculture. 47-403-70- -2 |