COOPERATION WITH STATES Mr. WHITTEN. Do you cooperate with the State in these inspections or in these decisions? Do you work with the local departments of agriculture? Mr. YEUTTER. We certainly attempt to do so, sir. Obviously the final decision on this lies with our program, but we hope that representatives of State government accompany us as much as possible during the time that surveys are made. Mr. WHITTEN. We would hope so, too. But my question was, do you cooperate with them? Do you call on them? Mr. YEUTTER. Do we initiate action on our part? Mr. WHITTEN. Do you ask them? Mr. YEUTTER. Yes, sir. SUPPLEMENTAL ESTIMATE FOR POULTRY INSPECTION Mr. WHITTEN. You anticipate a 1971 supplemental estimate of $2,464,000 for poultry. Place in the record the justification for the supplemental. (The information follows:) Justification for Supplemental Estimate, Fiscal Year 1971, for : Poultry Inspection. The estimate provides $2,464,000 to inspect the increased volume of poultry and poultry products moving in interstate commerce. The Wholesome Poultry Products Act requires that the Department inspect all poultry products moving in interstate commerce to assure that they are processed in a sanitary manner, and remove from marketing channels all products that might be dangerous to human health. The Act also confers on the Department the responsibility for assuring that poultry products are correctly labled. Because of the mandatory nature of this program, the Department does not have control over the amount of work to be performed. When poultry production increases, the demand for poultry inspection service also increases. Additional inspectors must be provided if the Department is to meet the requirements of the law. The poultry slaughter industry experienced large growth in producting during Fiscal Year 1970. The industry increased production by adding 154 slaughter lines and 176 processing shifts above the number earlier estimated. In 61 large poultry slaughter plants operating schedules were doubled which resulted in doubling their inspection requirement without increasing the number of inspected establishments. Thus, production capacity at the end of Fiscal Year 1970 was 2.1 million pounds above that originally projected. This increased workload as shown in the following table: In order to meet this rapid increase in production, and comply with the mandatory requirements of the Wholesome Poultry Products Act, about 300 new inspectors were added during the last half of Fiscal Year 1970. is they were on the rolls for only a short time in 1970, it was possible to absorb costs in that fiscal year. However, an increase of $2,464,000 is needed to provide for the full-year costs of the salaries of these personnel in Fiscal Year 1971. NUMBER OF PLANTS AND POUNDS INSPECTED Mr. WHITTEN. Provide a 10-year table showing the growth in plants and pounds inspected, Federal and State, for meat and poultry for the record. (The information follows:) Meat and Poultry Inspection Plants and Pounds under Inspection Federal Meat Inspection Poultry Inspection No. of Plants Pounds No. of Plants States cooperating Under the Federal-State Program a Pounds; a/Department has no information available for State inspection prior to the Federal-State cooperative program. 1972 BUDGET FOR MEAT INSPECTION Mr. WHITTEN. It is my understanding that there is a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the 1972 meat inspection budget. Discuss these uncertainties in the record. (The information follows:) UNCERTAINTIES IN 1972 MEAT INSPECTION BUDGET The estimates for the 1972 budget were prepared during November and December 1970. At that time, it was not known how many States might not be declared "equal to". Therefore, the budget was prepared on the basis that 49 States and Puerto Rico would be declared equal to that of the Federal program. This was with the intent that a supplemental appropriation would have to be requested to provide for inspection in States subsequently declared as not being equal to. In January and February, 1971, the Department announced its intention to place 14 States and Puerto Rico under Federal meat inspection. (North Dakota was placed under Federal inspection in 1969.) After this announcement, plant surveys were initiated to determine what corrective actions must be taken to meet Federal Inspection Requirements. When plant surveys are completed and final determinations are made on designated States, the 1972 estimates can be revised to arrive at the amount of a supplemental appropriation required for Federal inspection in designated States. Another uncertainty is the possibility that some States already declared equal to, might elect to drop their State inspection program. In any such States, C. & M.S. would have to take over the inspection program. At this time, there is no basis for estimating the additional funds which might be required to provide Federal inspection in such cases. Mr. WHITTEN. Do you anticipate that this will remain somewhat uncertain up until close to the end of the fiscal year? Mr. YEUTTER. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. You are requesting a meat inspection increase of $5,010,000 for a total of $99,449,000. How much of that is for grants to states? Mr. YEUTTER. It is approximately $22 million. Mr. WHITTEN. Give us a breakdown of the costs of Federal inspection, laboratory support, and supervision in Washington and the field. (The information follows:) Breakdown of 1972 Meat Inspection Request Mr. WHITTEN. Provide similar information for the $42,406,000 re quested in 1972 for poultry. (The information follows:) Mr. WHITTEN. This committee continues to get complaints on the administration of overtime. Part of the problem is the difference in administration between meat and poultry. I wish you would discuss this for the record. (The information follows:) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAT AND POULTRY OVERTIME For many years, meat and poultry inspection programs were separately administered. During this time, several variations existed in policy regarding assignment of personnel and overtime charges. Of these differences, two are significant : 1. Owing to the nature of their operations (slaughter), most poultry plants have traditionally required the services of at least one full-time inspector. This makes it possible to gear most inspectors' working hours to a single plant's operating schedule. If a plant then operates over 8 hours, the inspectors' overtime costs are charged to the plant. A small number of poultry plants require less than a full inspector. Wherever possible, several of these small plants are grouped into a single inspector assignment. However, unless these plants observe the same operating schedules, the inspector will have to work more than 8 hours even though none of the plants may operate over 8 hours. In these cases, it has not been the policy to charge the plants for the overtime unless they actually operate more than 8 hours. In meat inspection, on the other hand, there are 2,000 plants requiring the service of less than one inspector. Again, several of these plants will be grouped into a single inspector assignment. The plants are encouraged to adjust to a uniform operating schedule. But, if they do not, those plants still operating after the inspector has worked 8 hours are charged for his overtime. This will be the case even though the plant itself operates no more than 8 hours. 2. Poultry plants operating 24 hours daily have traditionally been staffed with three inspectors—each working an 8-hour shift. In meat plants operating 24 hours daily, three 8-hour assignments have been established, but are generally covered by two inspectors-each working a 12-hour shift and charging 4 hours overtime to the plant. This practice has been necessary in view of inadequate funding as pointed out in the 1966 hearings for supplemental appropriations. At that time, officials of C. & M. S. stated that plants operating 24 hours would continue to be staffed with two 12-hour shifts of inspectors. The Consumer and Marketing Service is in the process of preparing a proposal for publication in the Federal Register which will provide a uniform policy of staffing and charging for overtime in both meat and poultry plants. It is estimated that 65 additional man-years will be necessary to staff meat plants operating 24 hours daily so that inspectors will be limited to an 8-hour shift. We do not believe the continuous use of inspectors in assignments requiring them to work 12 hours daily is good personnel practice, nor does it give us the most effective inspection effort. Mr. WHITTEN. May I interrupt for the moment to say that this matter was before us during the period when the meat inspection costs were discussed. I think the late Senator Dirksen was chairman of the subcommittee at the time. It was decided that the overtime costs of meat inspection should be borne by the packers. The inspectors were selected |