[Senate Hearing 107-120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-120
OVERSIGHT OF THE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-012 PDF WASHINGTON : 2001
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming ZELL MILLER, Georgia
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
HUTCHINSON, TIM, Arkansas MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
MIKE CRAPO, Indiana BENJAMIN E. NELSON, Nebraska
Keith Luse, Staff Director
David L. Johnson, Chief Counsel
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Mark Halverson, Staff Director for the Minority
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, March 22, 2001, Oversight of the Food Safety and
Inspection Service............................................. 1
Appendix:
Thursday, March 22, 2001......................................... 23
Document(s) submitted for the record:
Thursday, March 22, 2001......................................... 39
----------
Thursday, March 2, 2001
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from Indiana, Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 1
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 5
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from Colorado................. 5
Nelson, Hon. Benjamin E., a U.S. Senator from Nebraska........... 18
----------
WITNESSES
Billy, Thomas.................................................... 6
Viadero, Roger C................................................. 2
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Lugar, Hon. Richard G........................................ 24
Harkin, Hon. Tom............................................. 25
Billy, Thomas................................................ 33
Viadero, Roger C............................................. 26
Document(s) submitted for the record:
Article from The New York Times: U.S. Officials Investigate
Meat Safety in New York and New Jersey..................... 40
OVERSIGHT OF THE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2001
U.S. Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. in room
328, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Richard Lugar (Chairman of
the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Harkin, Allard, and Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
INDIANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FORESTRY
The Chairman. This session of the Senate Agriculture
Committee will come to order.
The Chair would mention at the outset, we've begun promptly
because we'll have a Senate vote at 9:30, it's a single vote,
and so we'll take a recess at or about that time. I've informed
both of the witnesses of that.
My procedure will be to start with the opening statement
that I'll make. If other members, especially our Ranking
Member, Senator Harkin, appears, of course we'll recognize
those Senators and then proceed with Mr. Viadero and Mr. Billy.
The Senate Agriculture Committee meets today on oversight
of the Food Safety Inspection Service [FSIS] of the United
States Department of Agriculture. For several months, the
Committee has been receiving and investigating a wide range of
allegations from present and former USDA employees in the New
York metropolitan area. These allegations have also been
forwarded to the Office of the Inspector General of USDA for
appropriate action.
Among other matters, the Committee is concerned by reports
of retaliation against Federal employees who reported or
pursued allegations of mismanagement or corruption that may
have led to widespread abuse of the meat inspection system. We
will hear from Mr. Roger Viadero, Inspector General of USDA,
and Mr. Thomas Billy, the FSIS Administrator. Mr. Viadero will
comment on the status of the review by his office, and Mr.
Billy will then have an opportunity to respond.
It's important to note that some of the matters at hand are
the subject of an ongoing legal investigation. If either
witness believes his testimony or response to a question from
any Senator might enter into an area of sensitivity that
precludes the ability of the witness to respond, please advise
the Chair.
USDA officials have repeatedly testified to this Committee
that the United States has the safest food supply in the world,
and I do not doubt that. But I am deeply troubled by these
reports from New York.
If charges are accurate, mismanagement and alleged illegal
activity may have increased food poisoning risks. The USDA must
fix these problems before food safety confidence is lost.
Today's hearing is not a conclusion on the part of the
Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, but
rather an important component of a continuing, vigorous,
ongoing oversight on behalf of consumers. We want answers
quickly. We will be anticipating to your testimony today. We
will anticipate awaiting your progress reports.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lugar can be found in
the appendix on page 24.]
Senator Lugar. I'd like to call now upon Mr. Roger Viadero
for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROGER C. VIADERO, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U. S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY: GREGORY SEYBOLD,
ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS, JAMES EBBIT,
ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT
Mr. Viadero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to
you and members of the Committee.
As requested, I am here today to update you on the
activities of the Office of Inspector General regarding
allegations of widespread corruption in the meat inspection
program in the New York City metropolitan area. Before I begin
though, I'd like to introduce the members of my staff who are
with me today. Mr. Gregory Seybold, Assistant Inspector General
for Investigations, and Mr. James Ebbit, Assistant Inspector
General for audit.
As you are well aware, on August 22, 2000, you requested
that our office conduct an investigation of possible widespread
corruption in the meat inspection program in the New York City
area, based on broad allegations raised by several sources to
the Committee. We added those allegations to one of our many
ongoing investigations into alleged criminal activity in the
meat inspection program in the New York City area.
Also about that time, our office received other similar
allegations of inadequacies in the Food Safety Inspection
Service Federal meat inspection program in New York City and
New Jersey. Members of my staff or I personally met with each
of the complainants who were willing to talk with us in order
to obtain more specific information regarding the allegations
they were raising.
After careful analysis of their statements to us, we added
those allegations of criminality to our ongoing investigative
inquiry into the meat inspection program. Since receipt of the
initial allegations, we have completed numerous interviews,
record reviews and physical surveillances of FSIS inspectors.
Our investigation of the criminal aspects is continuing and
ongoing, and therefore, I cannot provide details to the
Committee without jeopardizing our efforts to date. As soon as
our inquiry is complete, though, we can provide the Committee
with a report of our investigative activities.
As the law enforcement arm for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, our principal focus as always is on those
allegations that are criminal in nature. However, as the second
set of eyes and ears for the Department and the Congress, we
did not disregard those allegations brought to us which were of
a non-criminal nature and required a vigorous regulatory
program response by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of
USDA.
Therefore, we coordinated with senior FSIS management
officials to ensure that a thorough and independent intensive
administrative review of the inspection program in the New York
City metropolitan area is conducted promptly. In fact, Sir,
intensive review began on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, and is
ongoing as I am testifying before you today.
This review is being conducted by the FSIS Technical
Services Review Staff from Omaha, Nebraska. The review includes
physical visits to meat plants, record reviews and interviews
with meat plant personnel. Our office has numerous special
agents from New York and from other parts of the country in
place assisting the FSIS review teams. My agents are prepared
to respond immediately to any criminal activity uncovered
during the review process and to insure the FSIS review teams
can complete their mission safely. Any details regarding this
regulatory review can best be addressed by FSIS.
In addition to our investigation of the issues brought to
the attention of this Committee, we currently have many other
investigations regarding the meat inspection program ongoing in
the New York metropolitan area. These cases encompass FSIS
employee misconduct, assaults against FSIS inspection staff,
and criminal allegations against meat processors. We received
the allegations for these cases from FSIS, our own hotline as
well as other sources.
In June 2000, OIG completed a series of audits to determine
if FSIS had successfully implemented the science-based Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point, or HACCP system, for
inspection of meat and poultry. This series of audits included
the implementation of HACCP, laboratory analyses, foreign
imports and FSIS' compliance program that carried over from the
previous inspection system. We made a series of recommendations
to FSIS in each of these areas to strengthen FSIS' oversight of
the meat supply.
To meet its responsibility of ensuring that meat and
poultry entering consumer channels is wholesome, FSIS performs
compliance reviews of non-Federally inspected firms, such as
warehouses, processors, distributors, transporters and
retailers. FSIS may initiate a compliance review to respond to
a consumer complaint, to carry out its random reviews of forms,
or to follow up its review of previous violators. Our review
looked at 5 of 17 FSIS districts then in operation. Generally
we found compliance needs to: assure that all firms subject to
compliance reviews are identified; target its resources to
metropolitan and geographic areas or at firms regarded as high
risk; and act more aggressively against repeat violators,
including obtaining authority to impose civil penalties where
violations do not warrant criminal prosecution.
The FSIS Albany, New York district was one of five
districts included in my office's review of FSIS' compliance
program. The results of the Office of Inspector General's work
in the Albany district was considered in formulating
conclusions about FSIS' compliance operations and whether
weaknesses and problems existed that FSIS needed to address
across the board.
FSIS had not implemented operating instructions to
establish documentation requirements for compliance random
reviews. For example, at the Albany district we reviewed 1,022
random reviews conducted by two compliance officers during the
6 month period September 1998 through February 1999. We were
unable to identify the review steps performed by the two
compliance officers, including meat and/or poultry inventory
observations and record reviews. The compliance officers did
not document whether assessments were made of controls on
product storage and handling, pest management or housekeeping.
Without such documentation, there was no record that key
components of the review were indeed performed.
We also noted inconsistencies in how reviews were conducted
among the districts visited and what were reported as random
reviews. For example, a random review in the Albany district at
a sandwich retail shop was counted as a review even though the
owner did not allow the officer to perform the review. Until we
brought it to the district's attention, one compliance officer
had counted visits to a police station as a random review. In
this case, the compliance officer was following up on a call
that the police department was looking for someone with a badge
who was going into restaurants.
OIG found that FSIS should target its resources to major
metropolitan areas and to those firms judged to be at high
risk. For example, 2 of 5 compliance officers located in Albany
made 1,167 random reviews during that same 6 month period and
found 20 firms with violations, or about 2 percent. In
contrast, 2 of 6 compliance officers in the Jamaica, New York
FSIS office which has the responsibility for the New York City
metropolitan area, performed 89 random reviews during the same
period and found violations at 22 firms, or 25 percent.
New York City has a high concentration of custom exempt
slaughter facilities, and the evidence suggests that resources
need to be shifted to the New York City metropolitan area where
more problems are being identified.
FSIS did not have an effective system to monitor consumer
complaints so that the number, status and disposition could be
tracked. This was also the case in the Albany district. FSIS'
Office of Public Health and Science referred 11 complaints to
the Albany district, but the office had a record of 2. Albany
had recorded 143 consumer complaints, but the documentation
indicated these were only the number where actual followup was
performed. My office could not determine how many initial
complaints were made, or how many where no followup was
undertaken at all.
We reported that FSIS' enforcement actions were not
sufficient to deter repeat violators where the violations did
not lend themselves to criminal prosecution. For example, a
firm in Atlantic City, part of the Albany district, was cited
by FSIS for five separate violations between October, 1997 and
September 1999, but FSIS could only issue letters of warning to
the company. Another firm had 5 violations, and 6 other firms
had 5 violations, each within a 24 month period. But again,
letters of warning were the only option, since criminal
prosecution did not appear warranted.
We believe these examples support the Department's effort
to seek legislative authority to assess civil monetary
penalties against firms that commit repeated violations.
I would point out that what we found and observed at the
Albany district was not the only support for our conclusions
and recommendations. Similar conditions were found at the other
four districts we visited.
In conclusion, I will continue to endeavor to respond as my
office's first priority to insure the health and safety of the
citizens of this great country against unscrupulous criminal
meat processing businesses and malfeasant employees.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Viadero can be found in the
appendix on page 26.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Viadero.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, I want to
recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his opening
comment, and I do so at this time.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
I would just ask that my comment be put in the record. I
thank you for holding this hearing. As Mr. Viadero just said, I
caught most of his statement when I came in, we just can't
afford to lose the confidence in this system. Once lost, it's
hard to get back. So if things are happening out there that are
starting to nibble away at that confidence, it's better we get
at it right now than to wait until it really gets terrible.
So I congratulate you on your investigation. I have some
questions I'd like to ask a little bit later, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin can be found in
the appendix on page 25.]
The Chairman. Very good. We'll have in just a moment Mr.
Billy's response. We have a vote at 9:30, and my intent would
be to recess the Committee at that point, so we could all be
here for the questions and to hear both of these gentlemen.
Senator Allard, do you have any opening comment or
statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, no, I'm new to the Committee
and new to this issue. I understand the Committee's been
following it since August. So I'm interested in hearing what
the testimony is.
I can't say how important it is to make sure that we
maintain integrity in the Food Service Inspection Service. As a
veterinarian, I appreciate the value of a healthy food supply.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now we will hear from Mr. Thomas Billy, Administrator of
the Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture.
Mr. Billy.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. BILLY, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD SAFETY AND
INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED
BY: MARGARET GLAVIN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, DONALD MUSACCHIO,
ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR MANAGEMENT
Mr. Billy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I thank you for the invitation to appear before you
to discuss information from the Office of the Inspector General
regarding the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and in
particular our operations in the Albany district, New York City
metropolitan area.
I have not been informed of the specific allegations made
by the OIG in this area, so I'm going to address this matter in
a general way. But obviously, I'm prepared to answer your
questions.
With me today is FSIS Associate Administrator Margaret
Glavin and FSIS Assistant Deputy Administrator for Management,
Don Musacchio.
FSIS is a public health regulatory agency. And as the
Administrator, I am proud to say that over the past 7 years,
FSIS has taken bold and dramatic steps to modernize its food
safety programs. And it's done so with great success. The
prevalence of salmonella has declined for all categories of
meat and poultry products. Even more significant, the incidence
of food-borne illness has declined each year since 1996. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have attributed a
portion of this decline to improvements made by FSIS. The
latest data for 2000 are expected to be released soon.
This success has occurred despite numerous challenges
facing us, including emerging pathogens, new products in the
marketplace that pose unique food safety concerns, and a
growing segment of the population that is particularly
susceptible to food-borne illness. There is still room for
improvement, and I am optimistic that FSIS is well positioned
to meet these challenges as well.
I believe this is the case because the changes we have made
are not superficial, but deeply rooted. For example, all
Federal and State inspected meat and poultry plants are now
operating under both sanitation standard operating procedures
and hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems,
a massive task indeed, but one well worth the effort. The
pathogen reduction and HACCP rule is not simply a new
regulation, but a new way of doing business that enables FSIS
to focus its attention on the most significant food safety
hazards.
It serves to prevent food safety hazards, rather than
catching them after the fact. And HACCP never goes out of date,
because it can be adapted as new scientific information comes
along.
Thus HACCP serves as the foundation for continual
improvement. Despite concerns that it might jeopardize some
small businesses, new data are emerging showing that businesses
of all sizes are benefiting financially from HACCP.
These changes and many others have been carried out in a
transparent manner with numerous opportunities for public
input. FSIS has held countless public meetings to receive input
from the public on its planned and ongoing food safety
improvements. We have provided more information to the public
on problems we have encountered during day to day activities as
well. This openness has been extremely important to the success
of our food safety initiatives.
Now that initial HACCP implementation is complete, it is
time to take the next steps to improve its effectiveness. To
prepare for these next steps, our agency is reviewing
information from a variety of sources, including reports from
GAO, from the Office of the Inspector General, and input from
internal working groups and our two advisory committees. One
major area for improvement is to strengthen the FSIS
infrastructure and resources to better support HACCP.
As you know, FSIS is a large agency with approximately
10,000 employees. This includes more than 7,600 inspection
personnel stationed in meat and poultry plants nationwide who
inspect more than 8.5 billion birds and 133 million head of
livestock annually. It includes a staff of 167 compliance
officers who address situations where unsafe, unwholesome or
inaccurately labeled products have been produced and marketed.
Last year, these compliance officers conducted nearly
50,000 compliance reviews nationwide, an 11 percent increase
over fiscal 1999. And FSIS includes a host of veterinarians,
microbiologists, chemists, physicians and others who provide
valuable scientific and technical expertise and support.
Many changes are underway. For example, FSIS is redesigning
the system it uses to assign field personnel to make these
field personnel assignments more risk based, as recommended by
the Office of the Inspector General. We have implemented
revised job descriptions and performance standards to make
field supervisors and managers more accountable for oversight
of FSIS regulatory activities within their jurisdiction.
FSIS also has underway its work force of the future
initiative, which involves upgrading the education, expertise
and skills of our employees. This is necessary to ensure that
the Agency's work force can support an increasingly complex
food safety system. And we're committed to improving the work
place environment for our employees as well.
Having said that, we also recognize that there's room for
improvement. For example, as mentioned by Mr. Viadero in his
testimony, in June 2000, they released a series of audit
reports on FSIS activities.
One of these reports focused on District Enforcement
Operations and that office's compliance activities in non-
Federally inspected establishments. In the report, the OIG
cited deficiencies in FSIS' ability to meet its compliance
obligations in over 1 million establishments in this category.
The release of that report coincided with our plans to consider
the next steps under the HACCP framework. We are looking at
ways to strengthen our coverage of distribution channels and to
assure timely and appropriate action in response to violations.
The OIG report offered useful advice for meeting our goals and
objectives. We agreed with every one of the key recommendations
and the eight specific recommendations the OIG presented in
this report, and we have made good progress in addressing them.
In addition, in cooperation with the OIG, FSIS has begun
reviews of several Federally inspected establishments in the
New York-New Jersey area to support an ongoing investigation by
the Office of the Inspector General. The reviews will involve
an examination of HACCP systems for safety and SSOPs for
sanitation, to determine that each facility has an effective
system in place to ensure the production of safe, wholesome
food for consumers.
Modernizing an inspection program that is almost 100 years
old is a challenge. Because of the importance of protecting the
public's health, we have worked hard to accomplish quite a bit
in recent years. But it remains a work in progress. We are
committed to working with Congress, with industry and the
public to make further progress in the next several years.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank
you again for the Committee's continued support in helping FSIS
meet its responsibilities to improve the safety of meat and
poultry and egg products. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Billy can be found in the
appendix on page 33.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Billy.
Let me commence the questions by asking you, Mr. Viadero,
in the testimony that Mr. Billy just gave, he states he has not
been informed of specific allegations made by OIG related to
FSIS operations in the Albany district. Did you not meet with
Mr. Billy on or about March 7 and provide some specifics,
including reference to the 14th Street Market situation? Please
elaborate on that if you will.
Mr. Viadero. In answer to your immediate question, Senator,
yes, we met with Mr. Billy in my office on the 7th of this
month and informed him of the violations and the nature of the
violations that we had. So far as specifics go, we mentioned no
names of the inspectors that we had the surveillances on, other
than to give him the broad details of what we found. The
purpose of that is, again, we have two issues here. Number one,
the ongoing criminal investigation and the second part, and
this does not apply to Ms. Glavin or Mr. Billy, their
trustworthiness or their credulity in this matter, but of other
ranking management people within FSIS as to how much we could
trust them. We didn't know how far up the ladder this was going
to go.
But we were most concerned, the special agent in charge of
the North Atlantic Region, the New York area, she requested
that the refrigeration units which apparently went out on or
about the 7th of July, servicing some 39 plants, we requested a
report from the area supervisor. We didn't receive a copy of
the report, she had called several times asking him where the
report was.
That sort of lent itself to us somewhat scratching our
heads and saying, this is just a report on 39 plants, where is
it. Then we find out that other organizations, as well as OIG,
requested a report. We didn't get a copy of a report until Mr.
Billy provided it, I believe it was dated March 14th. So we
have about a 9 month break from when the refrigeration units
went down.
We'd be happy at another time to go over the time line with
you, if you wish.
The Chairman. Mr. Billy, you provided a written response to
a Committee inquiry on the 14th Street Market situation last
July. Please provide the Committee now with a summary of this
matter. It would be helpful if you could clarify this timing
issue.
I would just say for reference in your report you stated
that nine Federally inspected facilities were affected by the
refrigeration outages at the start of their business operations
on Monday, July 10. Did the outages not occur earlier, for
instance, on July 6th or 7th?
Mr. Billy. Mr. Chairman, once it was brought to my
attention by Mr. Viadero that they wanted a report on this
incident that occurred last July, we proceeded to have a review
done of all of our records and information related to this
incident and to provide that report.
What it indicated was that one of three refrigeration
companies that supply refrigeration to a series of markets in
the 14th Street area decided to shut down its refrigeration
system on or about the 7th of July, and that was a Friday. We
were not informed of their decision. The plants where we
provide inspection don't operate over the weekend.
On Monday morning when our inspectors arrived, a couple of
them immediately noticed that there were problems with
refrigeration. They notified their Circuit Supervisor. He
organized a meeting of all the inspectors. They first
determined that, as you indicated, nine plants were affected by
this. The supervisor then established a procedure for closely
monitoring each of these nine plants to make sure that no
adulterated product was shipped from the plants.
As a result of that effort, we issued 6 Non-compliance
Reports [NRs] related to the refrigeration problem or product
that we found that should not go out to consumers. Most of the
plants either shut down temporarily until they could identify a
source for alternative refrigeration or, in a couple of cases,
shut down permanently and relocated. We were able to conclude
from our records that no adulterated product had been shipped
from those 9 plants.
On the 12th of July, which was the date we were contacted
by the Office of the Inspector General in New York, our
Compliance Officer proceeded to carry out reviews of 10 non-
Federally inspected plants in the area. Our compliance officer
also notified the State Department of Agriculture and
Marketing, because they also have jurisdiction over non-
Federally inspected plants. They were actively involved as
well, during the refrigeration problems.
So our bottom line is that our inspectors detected the
refrigeration problem, they took appropriate action and they
documented deficiencies. The plants responded appropriately and
no adulterated product, based on our record review, was shipped
into commerce.
The Chairman. Mr. Viadero, you received a copy of the FSIS
response to the 14th Street Market situation we've just been
discussing. What is your perspective on this matter, related to
timing and FSIS followup action?
Mr. Viadero. We have a different time lines that we have
documented on our side. Let me start by saying that we think
there was no notification of management here. None. I mean, if
we're talking 39 plants that were without refrigeration, 9
Federally inspected plants, and we have inspectors in this
market, it's a very small area, Mr. Chairman, it's about 3
square blocks we're talking about. And we have a good number of
inspectors there.
Why nobody knew about this, we have received documentation
both independently as well as supplied by Mr. Billy that the
Gainesvoort Market Refrigeration Company gave notice on June
26th last year that they had problems in paying the bills and
repairing the system. They wanted the equivalent of 4-months
rent from each user in order to maintain the system. It's a
very old system. And if they were not going to be given that,
they were going to terminate the refrigeration to these plants
on July 6th. July 6th was a Thursday.
On July 7th, FSIS, as of the date right now, we can't
determine a status of plant operations on July 7th. We see
nothing in there for the 7th of July, and again, it's rather
critical, because we're thinking of July, it's a hot time in
New York City. It's always a hot time, but temperature wise, it
seems to be warm, it's seasonal.
On July 8th and July 9th, the best we can determine is that
the plants were not in operation. That was a Saturday and
Sunday. On the 10th, we have information provided by FSIS that
indicates a USDA inspector, compliance officer, assigned to an
affected plant, was shown a copy of the Gainesvoort notice from
the refrigeration company that the refrigeration was terminated
at close of business July 6th, the prior Thursday.
So right now, we have a 4 day lapse here, actually a 5 day
lapse from the beginning of the 6th, or from the end of the 6th
when the service was terminated, to now the 10th. Then all was
listed, a non-compliance report was issued to one company, in
fact, that company was issued three non-compliance reports for
refrigeration issues.
Now, here's the key. July 12th, which is a Tuesday, my
office received a call from a source that called one of my
agents and said, ``There's no refrigeration down here. You guys
got to get down here and find out what happened.''
We responded. We had to call some time after noon. We
responded there between about 2:30 and 3:00. We found no
inspectors, other than one apparently drunk inspector. And by
then, my special agent in charge reported that to the area
supervisor, the district supervisor, who was in the State of
Maine at that time on business. She requested that he respond.
He drove all night back to New York City to meet with OIG.
That's now the 13th. And that's the first he's hearing about
it, is the afternoon of the 12th.
That's just--see, and I know everybody's going to say,
well, if the temperatures are right, why notify anybody? This
is a major metropolitan area without proper refrigeration at a
very crucial time of the year. Perhaps if it had been last week
with the ice storm, it may not have been noticed.
But we have evidence from the logs that Mr. Billy provided
that product on certain dates was brought into the plant, when
the product was received, it was received at 41 degrees, some
product at 42 degrees, yet the cooling room was at 61 degrees.
And there was evidence of condensation. As we learned from our
Sara Lee investigation, the condensation was the carrier of the
listeria monocytogenes.
So we're finding it a bit incredible and a little hard to
believe that FSIS management did not know about this at the
district level until we told them. We have no evidence to the
contrary, based upon our system of records at this time.
The Chairman. Mr. Billy, do you have a response to that?
Mr. Billy. Perhaps I could add a little bit in terms of the
nature of this refrigeration that would help. It is a very old
refrigeration system, it's brine based. There are long coils in
these refrigeration units and there's ice buildup on them. So
even if the refrigeration was shut off on the 6th, the evening
of the 6th or the 7th, whenever that occurred, you would
maintain temperature for some time. In fact, what we found when
our inspectors discovered the situation Monday, was that a
number of the plants in fact had maintained proper temperatures
up to that time.
But we closely monitored it, and our local inspection
personnel continued to deal with the situation as I described
earlier.
The Chairman. What about the 61 degrees?
Mr. Billy. When that occurred, that kind of situation,
that's when we would issue an NR documenting it. Most of the
plants stopped processing or shifted their processing to
another facility when those kinds of situations occurred. So we
stayed on top of it, we monitored both the temperature in the
processing area and the temperature of the product. There are
several instances where we did not allow product to be used
because of the temperature abuse.
Our full report is available, and it lays what I have
described out in a day by day sequence so you can see the
situation as it unfolded.
The Chairman. I'll have additional questions, but I would
like now to call upon Senator Harkin for his questions.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I should probably continue to yield to you, you're
on a good line of questioning here. The only thing I would say
is, it seems to me in all my reading of this, that we have in
the Albany district something going back 20 some years of
complaints and things happening. What I don't know is, is this
unusual in the United States? It seems like this is going back
a long way.
I don't know how many districts we're talking about.
Mr. Viadero. Seventeen.
The Chairman. Well, I've been here 20 some years, and I
think I've paid fairly decent attention to FSIS and food
inspection services. I was involved in the development of the
HACCP program here, in both the House and the Senate. I can't
remember hearing in any testimony, at least I can't recall, of
this many complaints coming from a district over that length of
time.
So I guess I'm just wondering aloud whether or not FSIS has
acted even before your time, Mr. Billy, to do something about
the Albany district. It just seems like there are some real
problems there that need to be addressed.
Mr. Billy. This has become an area of concern to us now,
once we had the meeting with Mr. Viadero. We are cooperating
with Mr. Viadero in his open investigation. In addition FSIS
will look at that aspect as well as a number of other aspects
in terms of the management of that district.
But one thing I can share with you is I did have folks look
at these kinds of complaints and see how this district compared
to others. I can't go back 20 years, but I have data back to
March 1, 1999. In terms of the Albany district from March 1st
to the present, nine districts had more inspector complaints,
seven had fewer. In terms of complaints related to compliance
officers, 10 districts had more, 6 had fewer.
My point being that just from looking at the nature of our
business and the kinds of complaints that come in, measured in
that way, the Albany district didn't stick out in terms of
having an unusual number. I will acknowledge that what Mr.
Viadero has shared generally with us is of great concern. I
agree with both of your statements earlier that nothing is more
important than the integrity of our inspection system. We will
vigorously follow up with Mr. Viadero and take appropriate
action as warranted.
Senator Harkin. I'm glad to hear that. Of course, again,
the number of complaints, I mean, you have to look at what kind
of complaints, too, and how serious they are. It seems to me
the ones from Albany are pretty serious. I don't know about the
other ones, whether they're serious or not.
Mr. Viadero, I don't know whether you can answer this
question, but it seems like there's enough allegations of
criminal activity here. Do you have other Federal law
enforcement agencies assisting you in this endeavor?
Mr. Viadero. Yes, Sir, we have one investigation we're
working jointly with my former employee, the FBI. If we go back
to your question you just gave Mr. Billy, when we review our
hotline, and again, people don't call us to tell us what a
great job is going on out there, by nature of the work, the
type of complaints we get on the Albany district are about 180
degrees from the complaints we get from the rest of the
country.
I'll give you an example. The vast majority of the country,
we get complaints on over-zealous inspection. The inspector is
being too hard, the inspector, he cuts me no slack, and it's a
terrible thing to be a processor and have these inspectors
here, and he's working with me, he's giving me an NR on my
HACCP plan or my SSOP that he finds, and I don't think I
deserve it.
As opposed to the New York district, where the vast
majority of the complaints come in from FSIS employees about
the management of the district. We don't get that type of
complaint in other districts. So we don't get the complaints
from the processors in the Albany district, in fact, we get no
complaints from the processors in the Albany district about
over-zealous enforcement, as we do in the rest of the country.
So there's something missing there, regardless of what the true
numbers just say on complaints. It's the type complaint we're
getting.
Senator Harkin. Very good, Mr. Viadero.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll leave most of the
questions up to you.
The Chairman. Well, I have some more, but we will recess
now, and Senator Harkin and I will vote. We will be back
promptly and look forward to continuing our dialogue.
[Recess.]
The Committee is called to order again.
Let me continue exploration, just for a few more moments,
of the New York and Albany situation. In your testimony, Mr.
Viadero, you pointed out that three of the five compliance
officers located in Albany made 1,167 random reviews from
September 1998 through February 1999, found 20 firms in
violations, 2-percent, as you pointed out. In contrast, 2 of 6
compliance officers in Jamaica, New York, FSIS officers that
have responsibility for the New York City metropolitan area,
performed only 89 random reviews during the same period, with
violations at 22 firms.
On the face of it, this is an extraordinary statistic in
terms of allocation of resources. Have you inquired, as a part
of your work, as to why this was so? I'll ask the same question
of Mr. Billy in a moment, because I'm simply curious as to the
administration of this office. I'll start with you, because
you've cited this in your testimony, you've found it
significant. Have you followed up further, or do you know any
more than simply the recitation of the figures?
Mr. Viadero. Mr. Chairman, we recently received a response
back from FSIS. This goes back to our four part audit that was
issued in June. Again, if we look at that whole audit, all 474
pages of it, there's one underlying issue--management.
Actually, lack of management, particularly at the district
levels. That's a glaring deficiency, and as I understand, it's
up to the district manager to move people around or assign
people.
I'd also like to add that on certain of those cases, if the
individuals that were working in Albany, the compliance
officers that went to the sandwich shop and police station also
listed a commercial laundry as a compliance visit. People
scratch their head and say, why a commercial laundry. Well,
before it was a commercial laundry, it was an establishment
subject to compliance review. Which leads me to believe,
they're not even going out and looking at these things. That's
the issue. Nobody's watching them. It's sort of who watches the
hens in the henhouse.
For instance, in Manhattan alone, there are more than 500
establishments subject to inspection and compliance. You don't
have that many plants throughout the rest of New York State, so
why would you just have such a few number of compliance
officers in a major metropolitan area? That's what we're
referring to so far as allocation of resources.
Also, we'd like to stress that for the recidivist violators
that FSIS work with the Committee and get it legislatively done
or however we can do this, maybe through regulation, and allow
them to levy fines, monetary fines where we don't have criminal
activity, but where we have repeat offenders on significant
health issues.
The Chairman. Mr. Billy, how do you explain this situation,
that is, the extraordinary surveillance of the agents in Albany
as opposed to New York City? And this occurred over a period of
time, in your reporting system, granted you would not be
personally involved with all of these situations, but surely
somebody reports how many inspections are occurring or some
abnormality that might have been noticed.
Do you have a comment about this?
Mr. Billy. I think that the audit that was done by the
Inspector General's office did in fact identify some weaknesses
in terms of how we set priorities for the non-Federal plant
oversight. We agreed with that audit observation. In response,
we've designed a new priority setting system that is based on
risk. And that has been completed and implemented.
In addition, the OIG recommended and we agreed that we put
a greater priority to the large metropolitan areas. So that
factor is built into our policy criteria and our strategy of
setting priorities. We think these changes we've made will
solve the problem.
As I indicated in my testimony, we agree with all eight of
the OIG recommendations in the District Enforcement Operations
Report. We are well along implementing changes regarding all
eight. We'll complete that work this summer. So there's good
progress there.
One other thing I'd like to point out is that, these
establishment reviews that are done by our Compliance Officers
are driven by consumer complaints and other information that
comes from a variety of sources. So to some degree, the number
preformed can be influenced by the type of information coming
into us. That could well impact those District numbers
somewhat. However, I agree with you that they seem to be out of
balance. The changes we made, I believe, will correct that for
the future across the country.
The Chairman. So you have two new criteria, metropolitan
areas, specifically, would receive a great deal more attention.
And then this risk factor, now, how would the New York City
situation rank in the risk business, as you look at that
criteria?
Mr. Billy. Well, it would result in a much higher ranking
in terms of targeting our reviews by our compliance officers,
based on our new system.
The Chairman. So on both criteria, New York City would
anticipate, because it's a very large metropolitan area and
because there is risk evaluation----
Mr. Billy. That's right.
The Chairman.--a great deal more attention would be paid,
you'd have a lot more inspections.
Mr. Billy. As I indicated in my testimony, when you're
talking about non-Federal establishments, you're talking about
well over one million such establishments that are involved in
the distribution of meat and poultry products. It's not
possible for 167 compliance officers spread throughout the
country to significantly impact over one million
establishments.
It is incumbent on us to leverage those resources. We have
initiated several new approaches to do so. We've been working
with the Food Protection Conference, which is an organization
of the State officials responsible for the retail area. We are
now an active participant in that. We've made changes in what's
called the Model Food Code to improve regulatory requirements
that the State and local authorities are enforcing. Also, we're
entering into new types of cooperative agreements with States,
so that they do a better job in distribution as well.
I think this approach, plus the changes I indicated
earlier, based on the recommendations from the OIG, will make a
big difference as we look to the future.
The Chairman. Mr. Billy, a New York Times story this
morning states that Mr. George J. Puchta, the inspection
services northeast district manager, has been temporarily
reassigned as the Nebraska group comes out to take a look at
this situation. The story goes on to indicate that, in his
managerial role, he may have been responsible for either as
many inspections or as few as were involved.
Do you have any comment about that situation?
[The information referred to can be found in the appendix
on page 40.]
Mr. Billy. Given the information that the Office of
Inspector General was able to share with us, we decided that it
was in the Agency's best interest to temporarily reassign Mr.
Puchta from his job as district manager to other duties while
we continue to work cooperatively with the Office of Inspector
General, and looking into this matter further. Depending on
what is found, we will take appropriate action regarding the
district manager or any other employee that may be found not to
be carrying out their responsibilities as appropriate.
The Chairman. Have any other administrative actions been
taken thus far in addition to this reassignment?
Mr. Billy. We have moved another District Manager into
Albany to manage that district while the investigation is
continuing.
The Chairman. As a result of the audit, let me just follow
up, have any facilities been shut down?
Mr. Billy. We started the reviews this Tuesday. It is my
understanding that we have withheld the marks of inspection in
three out of 15 facilities that have been reviewed to date.
That status could change any time, depending on the completion
of our work there.
It's really a little early to say much about the results.
We've conducting reviews of, a statistically based sample of
plants. We're focusing on completing that work as quickly as
possible and sharing the results with Mr. Viadero. We will act
immediately if we find any kind of a situation that's
unacceptable.
The Chairman. You say maybe early, but you have temporarily
reassigned the chief management officer?
Mr. Billy. That's correct.
The Chairman. There's somebody else there?
Mr. Billy. Yes.
The Chairman. So in any event, you are in touch with the
investigation, and it is working.
Mr. Billy. Yes. Our part of it if moving forward. In other
words, we're reviewing the targeted plants now. We will make
sure that the plants are functioning properly, are sanitary,
and have effective HACCP plans. We're doing that in cooperation
with the Office of Inspector General, and we're sharing the
information. And we will take immediate action as necessary if
we find any unacceptable situation in any of the plants we
review.
Depending on the results of the overall review, we'll take
followup management action. To be perfectly honest, I'm
outraged that this has even occurred. We will do whatever is
necessary to correct the situation and ensure that plants in
this area of New York City are operating appropriately under
our laws and regulations.
The Chairman. I appreciate that comment, that you're
outraged at what has occurred. Because that's the purpose of
this hearing, it is an oversight responsibility of this
Committee to make sure that all of us are in touch with
something that's very serious.
Let me just ask, because mention has been made by Mr.
Viadero and by yourself of sources of information that have
become available. One of the sources are so-called whistle
blowers. I simply want to know, what are the provisions in FSIS
for whistle blower protection? Explain the procedure by which
you deal with these comments and/or comments from consumers who
are not employees and not whistle blowers.
Mr. Billy. The starting point for a whistle blower
complaint is the whistle blower hotline managed by the Office
of the Inspector General. As they receive those complaints,
they make a determination whether it involves a matter that
warrants an investigation on their part or alternatively, it's
something that ought to be referred to the Agency.
If it's referred to the Agency, we then have an internal
review staff in headquarters that manages our process to look
at these kinds of complaints. Over 90 percent of the complaints
that come in through the OIG hotline are anonymous complaints.
Nonetheless, we follow through and investigate those referred
to us. If it involves personnel matters, our personnel office
looks into it. If it involves a matter of impropriety regarding
an inspector or whatever, we'll follow through as appropriate.
We then collect the information from our follow-up and
provide a report back to the Office of the Inspector General.
My view is that not only is the Office of the Inspector General
important to an agency like ours, but whistle blowers are as
well. They provide an important check and balance in terms of
making sure that our inspection system is working the way it
should.
Having said that, it is also important for us to ensure
that our employees are not involved in misconduct. And when
they are, we take appropriate action. So we are always trying
to strike an appropriate balance. That's what we try to do. And
I think we do a pretty good job at that.
The Chairman. Mr. Viadero, on the same question, how do you
handle whistleblowers? That is, as these calls come in or
inquiries Mr. Billy says most are anonymous, some are not. What
sort of protection is given to these employees who are making
these reports, or do you have any other general comments about
this area?
Mr. Viadero. Yes, Sir. First of all, we comply with every
respect of the WhistleBlower Protection Act. As you know, at my
confirmation hearing, you and I went into great detail as to
how this inspector general would handle whistleblowers. There
is no mention, there is no divulging of the whistleblower's
identity outside my office.
The issue here is on the anonymous ones, and a large
majority are anonymous. This is one of the incongruities that
we find, particularly with FSIS as opposed to many of the other
29 agencies of USDA.
The Chairman. In other words, you're receiving these calls
with all of these agencies?
Mr. Viadero. Yes, Sir.
The Chairman. And you have a responsibility to listen to
all 29 or what have you?
Mr. Viadero. As a general rule, we get them at intake,
people call in or they write in. The complaint is analyzed to
see where it belongs, to see if it is basically of substantive
nature, because some people will call in and complain that
today is Thursday, for instance. Those are the happy calls, if
you will.
But let's say we get a call, and let's say it's on Richard
Lugar, district manager of the Albany district. We then forward
the complaint to FSIS. And this is what we find, in order for
that complaint to be answered, it's not answered by FSIS
management. Richard Lugar is sent the complaint to answer, and
Richard Lugar now prepares the response on his complaint.
That one just blows my mind. So not only does Richard Lugar
know about the complaint, he knows the substance of the
complaint and he even gets to couch his response to that
complaint. That's what we're finding as we went into FSIS.
Again, these things, we handle several hundred calls a
month on the hotline, both complaints, questions, answers,
whatever. So for me to sit here and say I review every single
one, I don't. But when we take a look at it, once you see a
pattern arising or once something comes up which causes us to
go in and do the analysis, that one just rang like a bell.
The Chairman. How do the other agencies handle this? You
described how you believe FSIS does this. But how do they
handle these complaints?
Mr. Viadero. The other agencies get it, by the way, we
always put due caution on there, do not divulge the identity
and the name of the whistleblower, if it is a person. Not
anonymous. We always redact from the report. So in other words,
the complaint is rewritten so as to protect the identity of the
whistleblower or complainant.
Most of the other agencies have a process in place where
they receive the complaint, they investigate the complaint
through their own offices, and they report back to my office
with the disposition of it. This is the only office that we've
found so far where the complaint is responded by the person
who's being complained about.
The Chairman. Mr. Billy, why have you adopted that
procedure?
Mr. Billy. First off, I don't agree with what the Inspector
General just said. As I said earlier, we have a separate staff
in Washington that receives all these types of complaints and
manages the process of reviewing it. The information available
to me indicates that the type of practice just described does
not occur.
Now, can I sit here and say it's never occurred? No. But
what I'm told is, we do in fact have a procedure where we use
people appropriate to the situation to review the complaint and
take action as appropriate, regarding the problem that's been
identified. So in this instance, I have to disagree with the
Inspector General. We have a separate office and staff that
handles these whistleblower complaints. It's managed by that
office and I will look in to this further to see if there's any
validity to what the Inspector General just stated.
The Chairman. That would be well to do.
Let me just ask about a comment the Inspector General made
a while back, that was this extraordinary situation in which
most of the complaints, in at least the Albany, New York
situation, seemed to be coming from people who felt it was not
a sufficient inspection, whereas the bulk of complaints
frequently come, I gather from other areas, that the inspectors
have been too arduous in their work. Did that pattern ever rise
to your attention, or is this news that this is the trend of
this particular situation?
Mr. Billy. Since we don't see all of the complaints that
come in through the OIG hotline, I was not aware of this
pattern until we met with the Inspector General a couple of
weeks ago. Since I was made aware of it, we're now looking into
it to see if in fact that's the case and, if it is the case,
why we weren't picking up on this pattern earlier. We could
have reacted sooner if it is true.
We'll take appropriate action depending on what we find.
The Chairman. Please do that. It seems to me, as an
organizational principle, that would be important to know. In
our Senate office, we have no pretense of it, in any more
sophistication than you would. But we log in every complaint on
whatever the subject is. I know every day what people are
interested in and geographically where they are. That's a very
important part of my business and yours. So this, I think,
should be a part of your management situation.
We've been joined by Senator Nelson. I want to recognize
the Senator for either comments or questions. We appreciate
your coming to the hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN E. NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEBRASKA
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a
pleasure to be here with you today, and I too have scanned the
New York Times article. There was one bright note about it, and
that was that a team of Nebraskans was dispatched to New York
to assist in this difficult situation.
Obviously, the meat inspection process in food safety is
one of the most important elements of our economy and certainly
in terms of public health. As we think about that, and we see
that the process may not be functioning as we would prefer in
every instance, I guess my question of you is, Mr. Billy, do
you have confidence in the HACCP overall and do you think that
not only can it work, but do you think will it work when fully
implemented?
Mr. Billy. I have total confidence in the HACCP system. I
think it is the most important change we've made since the
initiation of inspection back at the turn of the 20th century.
It not only focuses the industry's and the Agency's attention
on food safety, but it does so on the basis of science. And
that change that now is in place in all Federal and State
plants throughout the country is the single most significant
positive change we have made for decades.
Is it working perfectly? No. Is there room for improvement?
Absolutely. That's why the Agency has identified a strategy
which we refer to as FSIS, The Next Steps. We have two
objectives. One is to ensure that the plants have the best
possible HACCP controls in place, and second, our other
objective is to ensure that we're doing our job as affectively
as we can.
We are going to be making further changes and improvements
to accomplish both of those objectives. People, our employees
all over this country, are dedicated to food safety and they do
a good job. Every day they go to work and they care about what
they do. So obviously, I'm concerned, in fact, as I said
earlier, I'm outraged at what appears to be going on in New
York, and we'll deal with that appropriately.
But I don't think in any way that should denigrate the hard
work of dedicated people throughout this country.
Senator Nelson. Thank you. It is encouraging to see the
food safety standards moved from something that seems to have
been more subjective to something that's clearly more
objective. I commend your Agency for working toward that.
Mr. Viadero, do you have a similar confidence, as the
Inspector General, looking at complaints and whistle blowing
information, that the system can and will work?
Mr. Viadero. Senator, I'm not a scientist. So I'm not going
to get into the science of this.
Senator Nelson. I'm thinking of it mostly in terms of the
process of the information that will come to you so that you
can critically evaluate the process, not the science.
Mr. Viadero. Well, based upon our HACCP review that we did,
and also reported in that same report last June, we have a high
degree of confidence in HACCP. Our only issue at this juncture,
and Mr. Billy mentioned it, that we have inspectors there and
based upon our response to hotline complaints and all, we have
no reason to believe that in all other districts that the
inspectors are not there, that they are there, they are doing
their job, they are dedicated, loyal civil servants.
The only problem we have in New York is, we have evidence
where people don't show up to work at all. Now, what kind of an
inspection system is that, which is one of the causative
factors, I would assume, based upon my understanding in this
morning's briefing I received on why the three plants in New
York, the mark of inspection was withdrawn. If it was working
there, they wouldn't be withdrawn.
That's the problem. It's a personnel problem. It's an FSIS
personnel problem we're faced with, primarily, in this
district.
Senator Nelson. The process will work if the people and
personnel involved in it follow through with the processes that
are in place?
Mr. Viadero. Absolutely. And just as part of our review,
and in support of the statement that HACCP is working, we
notice that recalls, for instance, are up about four times what
they were pre-HACCP. So HACCP is indeed working. And the vast
majority of the plants, whether it be stable to table,
slaughter to process or just the local delicatessen, if you
will, they are taking it seriously and it is working. It is
working.
Again, with the number of plants that we have and the
number of employees, I'd be very grateful if it's just limited
here.
Senator Nelson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Let me just ask, you mentioned inadequacies in the meat
inspection system in the New York City area, and numerous
investigations underway by OIG. Have these been consolidated,
or when you say numerous, are they headed on different tracks,
or how would you describe the course of the work that you're
doing there?
Mr. Viadero. Well, Senator, some are exclusively employees,
Department employees, some involve alleged corruption between
employees and plant owners, yet others involve exclusively the
meat processors or transportation providers for that industry.
The Chairman. So how many of these might be going on? Do
you have a figure? Are we talking about less than 10 or a
couple of dozen or do you have any----
Mr. Viadero. In the area of 10.
The Chairman. Separate investigations?
Mr. Viadero. Yes, Sir. And that's a lot of investigations,
because I don't have that many agents up there.
The Chairman. Yes. I was just going to ask about the
allocation of your own personnel. This is quite a
concentration.
Mr. Viadero. And this is quite a week, because we have
quite a few agents moving sheep today across the country, and
more agents moving sheep tomorrow again from Vermont, they're
going out to Ames, as well as this investigation. For instance,
when we did our surveillances, we had up to 40 agents working
these surveillances. We had to bring them in from other parts
of the country, because we had reason to believe, and we were
told that the FSIS people knew who my agents were in New York.
They had the tag numbers on their cars, they had their
photographs. So we had to bring in a whole fresh crew.
But Senator, in the last 5-years, I've lost approximately
24-percent of my resources due to reduced budgets. I just can't
sustain an operation much longer. We do need people. Perhaps
that's why myself and Mr. Seybold, the Assistant Inspector
General for Investigations, went out and did these interviews
ourselves, with some of these whistleblowers and sources of
information that came in.
The Chairman. On this particular case?
Mr. Viadero. On this particular case, yes, Sir.
The Chairman. You have been involved, and Mr. Seybold?
Mr. Viadero. Yes, Sir. We went out, Mr. Seybold and I, and
talked to at least two of these people ourselves. And Mr.
Seybold went out and conducted interviews on the rest of them.
The Chairman. Well, it indicates, of course, shortage of
personnel, but likewise, the priority that you and Mr. Seybold
place on it.
Mr. Viadero. Well, this is a health and safety issue. That
above all else, as you know, the bulk of our work comes to food
stamps and for instance, crop insurance, things like that. This
is A number one, health and safety issues for the American
people. So the sheep are, sheep is or sheep are----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Viadero.--a priority issue for us, as is the safety of
the meat supply.
The Chairman. What are you doing with regard to the sheep?
Mr. Viadero. Well, basically we're providing escort for the
sheep, and again, the safety, the safety of APHIS personnel
that are there. We don't want anybody--they're sheep. We don't
want anybody getting hurt over sheep. The individual State
police have been most cooperative with us. They're providing
escort to us as well.
But when we get back to focusing exclusively on New York,
we're looking at the integrity of the inspection system. And
again, if we compare, Senator Nelson, if we compare the
integrity of the system in a New York district to what we might
find in a district that covers Nebraska, it's the difference
between night and day.
The Chairman. Mr. Billy, with the work that you're doing
cooperatively with these inspectors, essentially is it a fair
statement that people are showing up for work now? In other
words, if there is an allegation that people have not been
showing up, that they are now? There's quite a bit of
management intensity upon performance of the inspectors. And as
you say, you've already taken some administrative action, may
take some more, have taken away the marks from three plants,
but that may be preliminary also.
In other words, if you were a New Yorker looking in on
this, even while the investigation is going on, what
reassurance could you offer that this is getting up to
standards, as a matter of fact, receiving the same sort of
priority attention that Inspector Viadero is going with regard
to even his personal interviews of the people?
Mr. Billy. Since the briefing a couple of weeks ago by the
Inspector General, I have spent most of each day addressing
this area, and will continue to do so until we have a clear
picture and we've taken the appropriate actions in terms of any
misconduct by any of our people. We will continue these plant
reviews and as we take action, will make sure that if there's
any question about product, we'll deal with the product
appropriately, even if it might involve a recall or something
like that.
So we're going to make sure that our system is working
properly.
I might add that my understanding is to date, as our teams
have visited the 15 plants I mentioned, in each instance, the
inspector was there and involved in that process. So I agree
with you that's a good sign.
The Chairman. It's reassuring in itself.
Mr. Billy. Yes.
The Chairman. Somebody on the job.
Well, let me just repeat some of my thoughts at the
beginning, and that is that the Committee is holding the
hearing because we want answers, as you do, very promptly. This
is a situation of food safety for the people we're talking
about now, in this particular case, New York City, but it could
be anywhere else. The importance of FSIS doing the job in all
the other areas is evident to all of us.
I've indicated, we were attentive to your testimony today,
but we anticipate getting answers on things that you both are
inquiring about. So we want to continue to be in touch with
you.
I hope that as you have material, either of you, that you
will make our staffs in a bipartisan way appraised of this, and
then the Committee will determine, at least, whether we will
have further meetings or whether we can make some kind of
report that offers proper reassurance that in fact the
situation has changed.
Let me just ask, Senator Nelson, do you have any further
questions or comments?
Senator Nelson. Other than to say that I appreciate the
fact that you have moved on this and with disclosure not only
made us aware but made the consuming public aware of it as
well, because food safety is a prime consideration for the
future of agriculture, certainly the food part of agriculture.
And I commend you for that, and want to support in every way
possible your efforts to do that.
I think combined with the fear today of hoof and mouth
disease and other considerations, the last thing we need to
have is the food safety part of our process collapse on us. I
think it's important that we give public confidence to it. I
appreciate the opportunity to help participate in that as you
move forward.
The Chairman. I'll express on behalf of the Committee,
Senator, our appreciation to Nebraskans for the contribution
they're making to this particular instance of food safety in
New York, and perhaps they'll help out elsewhere.
Senator Nelson. If you'll permit me to say it, we certainly
have a ``steak'' in it.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. On that note, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 22, 20001
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 22, 2001
=======================================================================