or processing plants to which these people can sell their checks. The sale at the door directly to the ultimate consumer is the practical solution, and the one presently practiced in most instances. However, to insure that this market is available, we would recommend that S. 2116 be amended to make such an exemption mandatory rather than one within the discretion of the Secretary, as is provided for in S. 2116. Attached hereto is a suggested amendment. See exhibit 2. Part of the amendment to the Texas egg law in 1969 was the requirement that the person establishing the grade and size of the eggs should be identified by name (name in which his Texas license is issued), address (location of the grading plant where the grade was established) and license number. This was included at the request of the Texas Commissioner of Agriculture, John White, and has proven to be an aid in his enforcement program. We are concerned that the provisions of section 23(b)(2) might be in conflict with this provision of the Texas law. This requirement is not nor was it designed or intended to be any kind of trade barrier, but merely as an aid to enforcement. Therefore, we would request that S. 2116 be amended so as to clarify this particular language, and to that end suggest the adoption of the amendment attached hereto as exhibit 3. I would like to state that this has proved to be an aid to the Commissioner. It has nothing to do with the source or origin of the eggs or where produced. It merely relates to identification of the grading plant so the Commissioner, if he finds one particular plant falling below grade consistently in its eggs, can go in and police conformance with the law, rather than putting a stop sale order on it. Many of our Texas license holders hold one license, and yet pack at a dozen different plants, some in-State and some out-of-State. These are the large chain stores and packers of that type. For this reason, the license number alone, which was in our old law, was never sufficient for the Commissioner in his enforcement program to specifically identify where an egg was coming from if he found a lot of bad eggs. In an effort to be extra cautious, we would like to negate the possibility that the applicability of this act to a producer or producerpacker might in any way adversely affect any of the presently existing "farm exemptions" in other acts which these producers presently enjoy. The inclusion of language as that in the attached exhibit 4 is urged by the producers of Texas. For the record, we would like to state that we are here today in support of S. 2116 and your bill, Mr. Chairman, subject to the four recommended amendments being adopted, and with the further understanding that the 3-cent inspection fee provision of our Texas law would not be affected. These remarks and the suggested amendments have been made in hopes of being constructive and to further the efforts of Congress to insure that the consumer is provided a wholesome product. On behalf of the egg producers of Texas, may I thank you for this opportunity to bring to you their position and suggestions on this matter, and urge that favorable consideration be given the suggested amendments. (The exhibits referred to follow :) EXHIBIT 1 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT-S. 2116 Amend S. 2116, Sec. 9, page 19 after line 3, by adding a new paragraph to said Sec. 9 to read as follows: "The Secretary shall, upon determining that any State has adopted a law or laws, the requirements of which are at least equal to the requirements of this Act, enter into a cooperative agreement with the appropriate agency of the State for the administration of this law and such state law by such State agency, and the expense therefor shall be reimbursed to the State of such agency in accordance with the cooperative agreement." EXPLANATION This amendment would carry forward into this bill the same type provision as was incorporated into the "Meat and Poultry Inspection Bills" passed several years ago. By keeping the inspection process on a state level the problems which inevitably occur can be resolved locally, with greater speed, thereby achieving better cooperation from the persons subject to the provisions of this bill. EXHIBIT 2 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT-S. 2116 Amend S. 2116, Sec. 15 (a), page 22, line 24 by changing the word "may" to "shall." EXPLANATION This amendment would make mandatory the promulgation of rules and/or regulations which would permit the sale of "check eggs" by a producer or packer under certain limited conditions. Should this bill remain permissive in this respect, and should such exemptions not be made operative by the Secretary the loss of revenue would be considerable to the producers and packers. For the egg business to survive the on-coming market decline, every source of revenue must remain open within the expressed intent of this bill. EXHIBIT 3 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT-S. 2116 Amend S. 2116, Sec. 23(b) (2), page 32, line 11, by changing the period to a semi-colon and adding the following immediately thereafter: ; "provided, however, this shall not preclude a State from requiring that the name, address, and license number of the person establishing the grade of such eggs, be shown on the container." EXPLANATION The Texas Egg Law presently requires that the State licensee establishing the grade of eggs for sale in Texas affix his name, address and license number on the container. Our State Commissioner of Agriculture requested that this requirement be placed in our Texas law as an aid to him in enforcement, and it was so adopted at the 1969 session of Texas Legislature. EXHIBIT 4 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT-S. 2116 Amend S. 2116, Section 23, page 33, after line 17, by adding a new subsection to read as follows: "(e) The fact that the provisions of this Act apply to any egg producer or egg producer-packer shall not, of itself, cause such egg producer or egg producerpacker to lose any 'farm exemption' applicable to them under other laws." EXPLANATION This amendment is suggested as an extra precautionary step in hopes of negating the possibility that this Act might not be the vehicle for the loss of rights and protection afforded by other acts. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Presnal. Are there questions? (No response.) Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you very much. The last witness for today is Mr. James L. Fox, attorney, Poultry and Egg National Board, Chicago. Mr. Fox? (No response.) Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Is Mr. Fox here? (No response.) Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. If not, the committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, September 15, 1970.) EGG INSPECTION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m. in room 1301 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. Stubblefield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stubblefield, O'Neal, Vigorito, Wampler, and Miller. Also present: Christine S. Gallagher, chief clerk, and Lacey C. Sharp, general counsel. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. The committee will please come to order. This morning we continue with the hearings on the Egg Products Inspection Bill and our first witness is Congressman Neal Smith of Iowa, co-author of H.R. 14687. Mr. Smith, we are delighted to have you with us this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on legislation to establish a Federal inspection program for eggs. I feel that, if at all possible, Congress should take action this session to provide American consumers with a program designed to assure that the eggs and egg products they purchase are wholesome and safe to eat and I want to commend the subcommittee for holding hearings on this important subject. As we become more and more aware of the great importance of nutrition and of its direct connection with the health of people of all ages, and as people become more able to purchase proteins which are needed to overcome the main nutrient deficiencies and which are the highest cost food, we must pay special attention to the principal sources of proteins. The principal sources of proteins that are desired and used by Americans are red meat, poultry, dairy products derived from skim milk, eggs and fish. The method of marketing all of these products has changed greatly in the last 50 years so that the consumer today seldom knows the State the product originated in-let alone the producer. This vastly increases the opportunity for including unwholesome, diseased or substandard products. In addition to that relatively new problem, more and more consumers are buying cakes, pies, and other manufactured goods which |