A decrease of $650,000 under the project “Animal disease control and eradication" to eliminate screw-worm inspection activities in the Southeast.

A line of inspection stations was established in 1958 along the eastern border of Arkansas and Louisiana to protect against screw-worms reinfesting the Southeastern States from which the pest had been eradicated. Livestock shipped interstate from the screw-worm infested areas of the Southwest and the West were inspected and any infested livestock were treated before continuing to destinations in the Southeast. Field inspections were conducted at market centers and other destination points to assure prompt identification of any screwworm-infested animals.

Eradication activities have now been undertaken in the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Excellent progress has been made in reducing the incidence of screw-worm infestations in the Southwest. In fiscal year 1963, the States of Louisiana and Arkansas have been kept free of the pest. Also, there have been no screw-worm infestations of livestock in the Southeastern States since October 1962.

It is expected that continuation of the current level of cooperative eradication operations in the Southwest during fiscal year 1965 would continue to reduce screw-worm populations and eliminate screw-worm infestations in the eradication area as they occur. Thus, the threat of reinfestations in the screw-worm-free Southeast from the Western United States would be reduced substantially and possibly eliminated.

The proposed decrease would discontinue this activity which in fiscal year 1963 amounted to $750,000. In order to meet the general reduction of $750,000 in fiscal year 1964 for plant and animal disease and pest control activities, a decrease of $100,000 was applied to this program.

MEAT INSPECTION

Mr. WHITTEN. For the remaining part of your time discuss meat inspection-give us the basis of the pending supplemental request for 1964 and the request for the coming fiscal year.

Dr. CLARKSON. The need for additional funds for meat inspection is made necessary

PROPOSED 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL

Mr. WHITTEN. Address yourself first to the supplemental request. Dr. CLARKSON. Yes, sir. The supplemental is made necessary by two factors: one is a substantial increase in the inspection workload to service new meatpacking plants coming under Federal inspection and in expanded production operations in a number of the plants already under inspection. As an example of this, it was estimated in the 1964 budget that 1,633 establishments would require inspection by the end of fiscal year 1964. But by the end of December 1963 there were already 1,627 under inspection. The numbers continue to increase at a very rapid rate. By the end of January there were 1,646 establishments under inspection.

We have now on hand, as of December, 328 applications for inspection. These are spread throughout the country and are shown on this

map.

Mr. WHITTEN. Will you provide the information on the map for the record?

(The map referred to follows:)

Dr. CLARKSON. We cannot tell how rapidly these applicants will prepare their plants and otherwise comply with the requirements for operating under Federal inspection.

HUMANE SLAUGHTER

Mr. WHITTEN. Some years ago the humane slaughter group pushed through Congress a requirement that some research work be done and certain other actions be taken with regard to humane slaughter. What are your regulations now? Does each plant select one of several methods of slaughter that you may have approved, or how is that handled?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes, sir. We have determined upon a number of methods found to be humane. These methods are published in detail in the Federal Register and are included in regulations for the guidance of the packing plant operators.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR SELF-SUPPORTING PROGRAM

Mr. WHITTEN. Doctor, this committee is thoroughly familiar with the fact that meat inspection is a must for the protection of health of the public. We also are familiar with the historical fact that for a brief period the cost of this meat inspection was billed back to the packers. They were able to get that action repealed by the Congress after 1 year.

Our attention is called here to the fact that the proposed legislation will again send the bill to the packers. Does the budget submission include a request for funds for the coming fiscal year for meat inspection?

Dr. CLARKSON. The budget request contains a sum for meat inspection for the coming fiscal year in the amount of $30,837,000.

Mr. WHITTEN. So the proposed reduction later is based on recommendations to the Congress?

Mr. GRANT. The recommendation is for new legislation to provide for sharing fees. If enacted, this legislation would result in a budget amendment later on.

COORDINATING MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION

Mr. WHITTEN. I see. Now, Dr. Clarkson, we are not trying to cut you short, but we recognize how this operates and that plants that meet certain requirements under existing law are entitled to the same service as that of their competitors. We also realize that as the packing industry spreads out from the former relatively few centers, more locations are established with wider spaces between them. This is creating increasing problems and as you say a need for new inspectors.

Now, have there been any special developments in this area? Has there been anything that you think should be called to our attention? We have periodically felt that some centralization of management for poultry and meat inspection would be feasible, at least at the departmental level, and possibly down close to the actual work in the field. It strikes me that there is some merit to seeing that it is centered up under some assistant secretary. Do you have any comments on that?

Dr. CLARKSON. I would agree that these two inspection services must be operated along parallel lines. The basic requirements of the laws and the regulations are similar. The objectives are similar. The actions taken and the requirements imposed in one case have a bearing on what is done in the other case. Between ARS and the administrator of AMS, as well as between the meat and poultry divisional offices, we make every effort to maintain a close liaison so that our actions are highly coordinated. This cooperation is carried to the fullest extent considering that entirely different products and disease problems are involved. At the field level, as perhaps the chairman has already commented, we have consolidated inspector positions wherever this was possible. I believe that is what you meant previously.

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes.

PROPOSED 1965 INCREASE

How many additional inspectors would your supplemental request provide for this fiscal year?

Dr. CLARKSON. A total of 129 inspectors involving 69 man-years of employment this fiscal year.

Mr. WHITTEN. That would give you a total of how many for the present fiscal year?

Dr. CLARKSON. 3,356 man-years.

Mr. WHITTEN. Now how many are you requesting for the coming fiscal year?

Dr. CLARKSON. 136 man-years.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is above the present number or above the number you would have with the supplemental?

Dr. CLARKSON. The 136 man-years under the proposed 1965 increase would include the full-year employment of the inspectors that could be hired under the supplemental.

Mr. WHITTEN. This is 67 more than you would have this year, provided you get the supplemental?

Dr. CLARKSON. The 136 additional man-years under the 1965 increase is 67 more than the 69 additional man-years shown in the supplemental. However, the 67 additional man-years would cover less than half that number of new inspectors in 1965 because a substantial part of the 1965 increase would be required to annualize the cost of the inspectors that would be hired under the supplemental. (Explanatory notes material follows:)

MEAT INSPECTION

An increase of $1,383,000 to meet increased needs for mandatory Federal meat inspection.

Need for increase.-The number of meatpacking establishments requiring Federal inspection continues to increase. Existing establishments are expanding production activities, utilizing new techniques and modern equipment. Production volume is expanding accompanied by new meat and meat food products which require laboratory examination to support plant inspection. With the present meat inspection force already understaffed, additional funds are necessary to provide for inspection personnel required to meet the increasing requests for Federal inspection.

Based on the applications which have been approved or are pending and anticipated, the following table reflects the actual and estimated increases in establishments requiring Federal meat inspection and the number of widely dispersed cities and towns in which located from 1961 through 1965:

In the 1964 budget estimates, it was estimated that 1,633 establishments would require inspection by the end of fiscal year 1964. By the end of December 1963, there were already 1,627 establishments under inspection. As indicated in the table above, it is estimated that 1,696 establishments will be under Federal inspection by June 30, 1964, an increase over previous expectations of an additional 63 establishments. A 1964 supplemental appropriation request of $590,000 has been submitted to the Congress of which $500,000 is to meet increased inspection workload. These supplemental funds would be available for use only in fiscal year 1964. Thus, it would be necessary to use most of the funds under the proposed increase to continue the services of inspectors who would be employed under the proposed fiscal year 1964 supplemental funds at the estimated 1,696 establishments under inspection by June 30, 1964. The rest of the proposed increase, including estimated pay act costs, represents the minimum amount of increased funds needed in fiscal year 1965 for mandatory Federal meat inspection.

Every effort is made to achieve maximum utilization of existing inspection personnel to handle the increasing workload. Each application for Federal inspection must be accompanied by blueprints for the proposed establishment. Approval of applications requires that plant production facilities be arranged so that maximum production is possible with a minimum of inspectors. The inspection personnel needed is determined by supervisory meat inspection officials based on such factors as type of production operations; amount of slaughter and/or processing per week; number of days of operation per week and other pertinent information.

In addition to increased numbers of new establishments, there is a trend in the industry to expand production operations by using multiple shifts of workers in order to obtain maximum economic benefits from investments in existing plants and equipment. This requires additional inspectors not associated with the opening of a new establishment. With little or no additional capital investment, meatpackers are thus able to substantially increase the amount of salable meat and meat food products per plant. When the inspection needs are provided, expanded production operations at existing meatpacking establishments provides greater employment opportunities for packinghouse workers. In fiscal year 1965, it is estimated that the net cost of required within-grade salary advancements will be approximately $220,000. This net cost gives effect to savings in salary rates due to employee turnover and to the need to finance only 1 extra working day above the 260-day base in 1965 instead of 2 such days as in fiscal year 1964. These additional salary costs must be met either by increased funds or through attrition in the inspection force. It is estimated that absorption of these costs would result in reducing the already understaffed inspection force by the equivalent of approximately 28 man-years. Plan of work. The proposed increase would provide for:

(a) Approximately 136 man-years of inspection services which includes retention of an average of approximately 121 inspectors employed under the proposed 1964 supplemental appropriations to provide continued inspection at the 1,696 meatpacking establishments, estimated to be operating under mandatory Federal inspection by June 30, 1964. Also, it would be possible to provide an additional 15 man-years to meet increasing needs for Federal meat inspection.

(b) The net cost of within-grade salary advancements ($220,000) to avoid absorbing such costs by reductions in the understaffed inspection force of about 28 man-years.

30-087-64-pt. 2-15