U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

75–012 PDF 2001

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

HUTCHINSON, TIM, Arkansas

MIKE CRAPO, Indiana

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

ZELL MILLER, Georgia

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

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)

(III)

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

(1)

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.

2

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.

3

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 disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:00 Oct 02, 2001 Jkt 075012 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75012.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
4

trict 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

5

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.

6

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.

7

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 recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:00 Oct 02, 2001 Jkt 075012 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75012.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
8

ommendations 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.

9

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

10

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 inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:00 Oct 02, 2001 Jkt 075012 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75012.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
11

vestigation, 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

12

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.

13

[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?

14

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.

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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.

19

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 preHACCP. 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 investigaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:00 Oct 02, 2001 Jkt 075012 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75012.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
20

tions 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 anyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:00 Oct 02, 2001 Jkt 075012 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75012.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
21

body 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

22

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.]

(23)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 22, 20001

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

(39)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 22, 2001

40

41

42

43

Æ