Hagen: Meat inspector furloughs to be simultaneous, beginning in July
March 13, 2013 | 06:46 PM
To fulfill the requirements of the sequester, federal meat inspectors will be furloughed in July on the same day in every part of the country, and each inspector will be furloughed for a total of 11 days before September 20, Agriculture Undersecretary for Food Safety Elisabeth Hagen told the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee today.
Meanwhile, Republican senators proposed giving USDA flexibility to move money around to avoid the furloughs. (See following story.)
Elisabeth Hagen
Hagen said the Food Safety and Inspection Service had decided to furlough all employees at once because that would be fairest to the industry. If the agency staggered the furloughs and a solution is found after the furloughs had started, she noted, the meat, poultry and egg products industries in one part of the country would undergo an economic burden while the others would not.
The total amount of the FSIS budget cut is likely to be $52.8 million, or 5 percent of the agency’s annual budget, Hagen said. But the figure is not certain because Congress has not yet passed the continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year ending September 30.
Hagen said that all 9,212 FSIS employees will be furloughed, including the 8,136 inspectors and other personnel such as lab technicians that the agency considers “front line” employees.
She explained that 88 percent of FSIS budget goes for salaries and benefits, and that there is no way that the agency can avoid the furloughs and comply with the sequester law.
USDA officials have also noted that plans are for one furlough day per week and no more than two furlough days per pay period, but that the furloughs would be subject to negotiations with the labor unions for the employees.
Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala.
Republican members of the subcommittee, including the new chairman, Robert Aderholt of Alabama, repeatedly expressed frustration that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had not found some way to avoid furloughing the inspectors.
“I do not agree with the position that the secretary has staked out on this issue while traveling around the country with his sky-is-falling mantra,” Aderholt said in opening remarks.
“FSIS’s budget has increased by nearly $75 million since 2008, to $1.004 billion,” he said. “While I realize that this is a salary-intensive agency, I hope that there is a reasonable and responsible way to meet the challenges of sequestration while minimizing the impact on frontline inspectors and industry alike.”
But Hagen was firm that USDA lawyers have examined the meat inspection and sequester statutes and found no alternative to the furloughs planned.
Reminded that FSIS has kept the inspectors on the job during government shutdowns, Hagen noted that the sequester is different because Congress does not plan to provide the agency the money that has been sequestered for this year, and is planning on maintaining the cuts in future years.
USDA employees, she noted, are prohibited “from spending money we don't have. This is different from a shutdown.”
“We are looking at an enormous economic disruption,” Hagen acknowledged, but said there is no danger to food safety because meat that has not been inspected cannot be sold.
She also said it would not be practical to shift inspectors from one plant to another because that would involve travel expenses and could also endanger food safety because inspectors would be assigned to tasks they are not used to performing.
Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa
But Republican members of the subcommittee also disagreed on what approach to take.
Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, told Hagen that “the president insisted on sequestration” and asked her if she had been told “to make this as painful as possible,” and whether she had personally discussed the issue with President Barack Obama.
Hagen replied that she was not aware that anyone at USDA had been given that directive, and that, while she had not discussed the issue with Obama, “I think Congress can solve this problem.”
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb.
Rep. Tim Rooney, R-Fla., referred to a “blame game” going on that he does not like.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., said that sequester “was the president’s idea supported by Congress, so we are in full partnership on this.”
Fortenberry added that the subcommittee wanted to hear other options to the proposal, but Hagen said that if there were alternatives, “we would have pursued them.”
Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan.
Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., said that since the sequester is only 5 percent of the FSIS budget, the agency should be able to keep the inspectors on the job, and that the American public has a “healthy dose of skepticism” that a 5 percent reduction can’t be handled without “such a a big impact on the life of citizens.”
Yoder asked Hagen what FSIS would do if Congress ordered the agency to keep the inspectors on the job without additional money. Hagen replied that if that happened she would try to comply, but that the agency cannot spend money it does not have.
Rep. Rosa De Lauro, D-Conn., noting that she has been on the subcommittee for 16 years, said “I have never known the FSIS budget to be a padded budget,” and that she is not sure it has been adequate for the inspection of domestically produced meat, poultry and egg products or imports.
“Congress needs to re-evaluate the madness of sequestration,” DeLauro said.
Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, noted that she had not voted for the law that put sequestration into effect, and that she had no suggestions to Hagen on how better to handle the situation. “I'm glad I didn't vote for it.”
Meanwhile, Republican senators proposed giving USDA flexibility to move money around to avoid the furloughs. (See following story.)
Hagen said the Food Safety and Inspection Service had decided to furlough all employees at once because that would be fairest to the industry. If the agency staggered the furloughs and a solution is found after the furloughs had started, she noted, the meat, poultry and egg products industries in one part of the country would undergo an economic burden while the others would not.
The total amount of the FSIS budget cut is likely to be $52.8 million, or 5 percent of the agency’s annual budget, Hagen said. But the figure is not certain because Congress has not yet passed the continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year ending September 30.
Hagen said that all 9,212 FSIS employees will be furloughed, including the 8,136 inspectors and other personnel such as lab technicians that the agency considers “front line” employees.
She explained that 88 percent of FSIS budget goes for salaries and benefits, and that there is no way that the agency can avoid the furloughs and comply with the sequester law.
USDA officials have also noted that plans are for one furlough day per week and no more than two furlough days per pay period, but that the furloughs would be subject to negotiations with the labor unions for the employees.
Republican members of the subcommittee, including the new chairman, Robert Aderholt of Alabama, repeatedly expressed frustration that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had not found some way to avoid furloughing the inspectors.
“I do not agree with the position that the secretary has staked out on this issue while traveling around the country with his sky-is-falling mantra,” Aderholt said in opening remarks.
“FSIS’s budget has increased by nearly $75 million since 2008, to $1.004 billion,” he said. “While I realize that this is a salary-intensive agency, I hope that there is a reasonable and responsible way to meet the challenges of sequestration while minimizing the impact on frontline inspectors and industry alike.”
But Hagen was firm that USDA lawyers have examined the meat inspection and sequester statutes and found no alternative to the furloughs planned.
Reminded that FSIS has kept the inspectors on the job during government shutdowns, Hagen noted that the sequester is different because Congress does not plan to provide the agency the money that has been sequestered for this year, and is planning on maintaining the cuts in future years.
USDA employees, she noted, are prohibited “from spending money we don't have. This is different from a shutdown.”
“We are looking at an enormous economic disruption,” Hagen acknowledged, but said there is no danger to food safety because meat that has not been inspected cannot be sold.
She also said it would not be practical to shift inspectors from one plant to another because that would involve travel expenses and could also endanger food safety because inspectors would be assigned to tasks they are not used to performing.
But Republican members of the subcommittee also disagreed on what approach to take.
Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, told Hagen that “the president insisted on sequestration” and asked her if she had been told “to make this as painful as possible,” and whether she had personally discussed the issue with President Barack Obama.
Hagen replied that she was not aware that anyone at USDA had been given that directive, and that, while she had not discussed the issue with Obama, “I think Congress can solve this problem.”
Rep. Tim Rooney, R-Fla., referred to a “blame game” going on that he does not like.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., said that sequester “was the president’s idea supported by Congress, so we are in full partnership on this.”
Fortenberry added that the subcommittee wanted to hear other options to the proposal, but Hagen said that if there were alternatives, “we would have pursued them.”
Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., said that since the sequester is only 5 percent of the FSIS budget, the agency should be able to keep the inspectors on the job, and that the American public has a “healthy dose of skepticism” that a 5 percent reduction can’t be handled without “such a a big impact on the life of citizens.”
Yoder asked Hagen what FSIS would do if Congress ordered the agency to keep the inspectors on the job without additional money. Hagen replied that if that happened she would try to comply, but that the agency cannot spend money it does not have.
Rep. Rosa De Lauro, D-Conn., noting that she has been on the subcommittee for 16 years, said “I have never known the FSIS budget to be a padded budget,” and that she is not sure it has been adequate for the inspection of domestically produced meat, poultry and egg products or imports.
“Congress needs to re-evaluate the madness of sequestration,” DeLauro said.
Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, noted that she had not voted for the law that put sequestration into effect, and that she had no suggestions to Hagen on how better to handle the situation. “I'm glad I didn't vote for it.”
