amount which is not, but practically all that comes in at New England and New York ports-and that is the bulk of it-is Pasteurized. I do not think any comes in which is not Pasteurized when it is for bottling or ice-cream consumption. The CHAIRMAN. What effort is being made by the Dominion of Canada to control tuberculosis in cattle? Mr. PARKER. In the Dominion of Canada they have a program for the elimination of all except tuberculin-tested cattle. They have carried that out very thoroughly in certain parts of Quebec and certain parts of Ontario. They are carrying that out as fast as they can get appropriations to put it through. The district around New York is very largely tuberculin tested now. The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of the milk that is imported from Canada is from cows tested for tuberculosis? Mr. PARKER. That would be very difficult for me to say. Mr. PARKER. No. The milk has been tuberculin tested. The CHAIRMAN. Has it all been Pasteurized? Mr. PARKER. All cream has been Pasteurized. The milk is Pasteurized, instead of on the Canadian side of the border, at the point of consumption, because if the milk were Pasteurized in Canada and shipped 250 miles into Boston, for instance, the bacterial content would creep up and give it an acidity, as it will milk in warm weather very often. Re-Pasteurization is forbidden by the laws of the city of Boston and of the State of Massachusetts, and the result is that they have to Pasteurize the milk in Boston in order to sell it. Now, no milk is sold in Boston as a Canadian product that is not Pasteurized in Boston, provided it was not Pasteurized prior to the time of reaching Boston. The CHAIRMAN. Are you trying by your first amendment, if I may ask the question here, are you trying to get away from the necessity of offering milk from tuberculin-tested cattle? You do not like that test, I infer. Mr. PARKER. It is not given in any State in New England. The CHAIRMAN. Let us not argue it. Is that the point you want to get away from, that language and for that reason? Mr. PARKER. Yes. We want the right to ship Canadian milk into Boston and to Pasteurize it there, the same as when it comes from Maine, Vermont, or any other New England State. The CHAIRMAN. Even if taken from tuberculin cattle? Mr. PARKER. There is no evidence that it is taken from tuberculin cattle. The CHAIRMAN. We all know that tuberculosis does affect cattle all over North America. In fact, we had a long hearing on that last year, and an appropriation to meet it went into the argicultural appropriation bill. I do know that there are lots of cattle in Canada that are suffering from tuberculosis and that the milk is being marketed. Mr. PARKER. That is probably true. The CHAIRMAN. That is not only probably true but it is true in fact. Under this bill you would not be permitted to import milk from cattle that had not been first subjected to a test for tuberculosis; that is true, is it not? Mr. PARKER. No; under this bill if it is Pasteurized in Canada it may be imported. The CHAIRMAN. Or if taken from tuberculin-tested cattle. Mr. PARKER. I think that Mr. Piper, of H. B. Wood & Son, will discuss that more at length. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to get it clear here. Mr. PARKER. That milk is Pasteurized before it goes to market. All that comes in is in the hands of a very few reputable dealers and they could be bonded, or you could make any provision you desire in order to protect the public on that proposition. But as drawn it is a differential against Canada in favor of New England and the Western States. Further on in the same section, if you will turn to line 6, it says that the test must be applied by a duly authorized veterinarian of the United States or of the country in which such milk or cream is produced. The Dominion of Canada is, I assume, the country with whom we are doing business. There are no herd inspections made by the Dominion of Canada, but tuberculin tests are made by the Dominion of Canada. The health departments of the Provinces there are very thoroughly organized and they take care of that thing, so that the Dominion of Canada is not the country that conducts these herd and dairy inspections, but the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario does so; and, therefore, I have suggested that we make this in compliance with the actual facts, that it be done by the duly authorized official veterinarian of the United States, or of the country, or of the provincial government thereof.. And that, I submit, is a fact that must be provided for, because the other language makes important the securing of a statement from the Dominion of Canada. Coming down to the dairy score, if the bill is to be enacted into law, and you are satisfied that 50 points is fair, all right. The CHAIRMAN. As to section 3, you have no objection to that. Mr. PARKER. If the bill is to be enacted into law we have no objection to that. The bacterial content is something that can be lived by. The CHAIRMAN. Now subdivision 4, page 2, that is all right? Mr. PARKER. Yes. Next is subdivision 5, on the question of temperature. I think there will be presented a little further on by the Sheffield Farms something on that matter, but I suggest that as milk comes in occasionally over the border there will be a breakdown of a truck, or something of that kind, and the temperature will be affected. You have provided later on that a man who has any milk to come in that is over temperature, or any milk that comes in with a high bacterial content, may be barred from shipping milk into the United States. This would make it possible that one accidental variation would permit the Department of Agriculture to say that it will exclude any shipment by that man. All of you know that these accidents do happen from time to time. We want that changed to 60° to make proper allowance. I call your attention to the fact that it is to the interest of every shipper of milk and cream to get it in with a low bacterial content, and to get it in with a low temperature, because a high temperature means waste and loss to him. So his selfinterest is working all the time for the health of the community. In the next section we have The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Section 3? Mr. PARKER. Yes; section 3; we have again at lines 10 and 11 the same question of a foreign government. The CHAIRMAN. That is on page 3? Mr. PARKER. Yes; on page 3, lines 10 and 11, it should read "or any province thereof." The CHAIRMAN. That would then read: Accept a duly certified statement signed by a duly accredited official of an authorized department of any foreign government or any provincial government thereof. Mr. PARKER. That is a subdivision. The paragraph not numbered, beginning with line 20 The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Is that on page 3? Mr. PARKER. Yes. That was introduced, I think, to cover the case of some manufacturing points near the border. It has no particular interest for me either way. It is a liberalizing of the bill, but does not affect our general market situation. The CHAIRMAN. You have no objection to that? Mr. PARKER. No; I have no objection to it. I do not think it amounts to very much in its present form. The CHAIRMAN. What other amendment have you? Mr. PARKER. On that, none. The CHAIRMAN. I know; but what is the next amendment you have to present? Mr. PARKER. Line 20, beginning with "Provided, however." Mr. PARKER. The same page. The CHAIRMAN. Is that on page 4? Mr. PARKER. Yes; on page 4. This is a liberalization The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What is the amendment you propose, if you please? Mr. PARKER. Do you want me to read the amendment now? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We have only a few copies of your suggested amendments, and all of the members of the committee present would like to hear it. Mr. PARKER. I wish to insert for that the remainder down to line 2, page 5, beginning with line 20 on page 4. The CHAIRMAN. You want to strike out the present section. Mr. PARKER. I want it stricken out if this can be inserted. The CHAIRMAN. You want to strike out the present language and insert what you present? Mr. PARKER. Yes, and it is: Provided, however, That no milk or cream shall be excluded from importation under the provisions of this act until the Secretary of Agriculture has made or caused to be made the inspections and bacteriological tests required under the provisions of this statute relative to said milk or cream, or has provided for the issuance of certificates as hereinbefore provided from the foreign government or a provincial government thereof within whose boundaries the milk or cream is produced or the State or municipality to which such milk or cream is imported. That is all provided for, that it can be done. The Secretary of Agriculture shall issue temporary permits to any shipper of milk or cream making application for a license under section 1 of this act until the inspections herein provided for are made. We do not want any authority left in the Department of Agriculture under which they may say: We have not had time to make the inspections. We have not a sufficient appropriation to make the inspections which are required under this law, and therefore you are barred from shipping any milk in because your milk does not comply with these provisions. We say that if the United States of America passes a law which differentiates against Canadian production in favor of production in the States, that they must at least provide the necessary appropriations, provide the necessary tests, provide the necessary officers to conduct them, to enable us to produce such milk and cream and import it into this country, and import it legally, and to be sure that it conforms to the requirements of the law. Now, the section provided in the statute is made to make it possible for the The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You do not mean the statute, but in this proposed bill. Mr. PARKER. Yes; in the bill. It is important to make it possible for the Department of Agriculture to do this, and yet it does not say that the Department of Agriculture shall do it. This reads: Provided, however, That if, when this act becomes effective, the Secretary of Agriculture is of opinion that such inspections as made or caused to be made by him, are so incomplete as to require the issuance of temporary permits, he shall issue temporary permits * * Now notice this language: He shall issue temporary permits to any applicant therefor to ship or transport milk and/or cream into the United States, which temporary permits may be revoked by the Secretary of Agriculture at any time. It does not even say for cause. It gives him absolute authority to shut out all Canadian cream. I submit that a clear-cut amendment is the only fair position we could take with regard to that matter. Senator KENDRICK. Does not the second paragraph take care of that in very good shape? It provides under what conditions he may revoke a permit. Mr. PARKER. Where does it provide it? Senator KENDRICK. On page 5, line 3: The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to suspend or revoke any permit for the shipment of milk or cream into the United States when he shall find that the holder thereof has violated this act or any of the regulations made hereunder Mr. PARKER. But this is a separate section standing on its own feet, and this provides that he may bar it altogether. Now that should be amended so that there will be no question about it. This is at the top of page 5. Is that fully and entirely clear to the committee, my contention on that point? The CHAIRMAN. You are particularly objecting to the language which refers to temporary permits? Mr. PARKER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Upon the theory that it gives the Secretary of Agriculture uncontrolled authority. Mr. PARKER. To revoke these permits. The CHAIRMAN. And in some instances you think it might work an injury to dealers. For Mr. PARKER. Yes; and also that a part of it is not clear. instance, these inspections have to be annual, and it does not say that the inspection shall be made before the milk is barred in case these inspections are not made. It says "he may," an entirely permissive proposition. Therefore, I wanted a clear-cut statement in that section. The CHAIRMAN. I think you have made your point clear. Pass on to the next one. Mr. PARKER. On page 5, the same section, you find the provision, lines 3, 4, 5, and 6, for the revocation of permits in case of a violation of any section of this act. I spoke of that fact in relation to 4 and 5 of section 2, on page 2. The CHAIRMAN. What are those? Mr. PARKER. Four and five, on page 2. I spoke of these in advance, the bacterial content, and the temperature might conceivably creep up from accident. The temperature might creep up on a hot day as the result of an accident. The CHAIRMAN. You have covered that, have you not? Mr. PARKER. No; I am referring to the effect of the present section so far as my amendment concerns it. If they do creep up accidentally, under this provision on page 5 in section 3, the Secretary of Agriculture has the power to bar them, even for an accidental variation on a particular day. My contention is that if you put that provision for suspensions or revocations into the act, you should make it refer only to the first, second, and third subdivisions or paragraphs under section 2, in order that in case of accidental variations he may not have the power to shut out shipments on 4 and 5. The CHAIRMAN. Now, the penalty you claim is found in section 5, page 5, is it not? Mr. PARKER. No; this is a separate proposition. This/is a revocation of permits. The penalty is later on. The CHAIRMAN. Where is it? Mr. PARKER. On lines 4, 5, and 6, at the top of the page: The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to suspend or revoke any permit for the shipment of milk or cream into the United States when he shall find that the holder thereof has violated this act or any of the regulations made hereunder * Senator DENEEN. Who would determine whether it was accidental or not? Mr. PARKER. The Department of Agriculture has under this bill absolute power regardless of whether it is accidental or not. If it is left to the Department of Agriculture there might be some injustice as it is constituted to-day I do not suppose there would be any, but there are possibilities, and I think things should be pro tected in the statute. The CHAIRMAN. What language would you use? the word "knowingly " after the word "holder "? Would you use Mr. PARKER. You could insert that, or if you would insert simply as I have suggested, the words in the first section, or third paragraph of section 2. These are things we can know, and we would be willing to submit to them, provided the law is to be passed. We know whether a man has secured a license. We know whether he has a permit. We know whether he has registered the score. If that is all in this section. |