House Ag subcommittee holds avian influenza hearing
July 30, 2015 |05:05 PM
As members of the House left town for a five-week break from legislating, the House Agriculture Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee today held a hearing to examine the federal response to avian influenza.
John Clifford the Agriculture Department’s chief veterinarian, and David Swayne, the laboratory director at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, testified for the government.
Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., the subcommittee chairman, said he had waited until now to hold a hearing because he did not want to distract USDA officials from dealing with the crisis when chickens and turkeys were still getting sick.
Avian influenza originates with wild birds and there have been no outbreaks recently, but officials expect them to begin again when the weather gets colder. They also fear the disease will spread from the Midwest to the East.
In their opening statements, Rouzer and House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., both praised USDA’s performance but said there are many issues that need further discussion, including the approval of an effective vaccine and what impact that would have on the willingness of other countries to import poultry from the United States.
“Questions persist regarding the efficacy of the industry’s biosecurity plans,” Rouzer said.
“While many farms have exceptional bio-security procedures and mechanisms in place, some observers have raised questions regarding the degree to which biosecurity protocols are being followed. We are certainly aware of some of the resource limitations that delayed depopulation, disposal and disinfection early in the outbreak. As repopulation commences, several members have heard from constituents raising questions related to some of the challenges that lie ahead.”
Some growers have raised questions about the fairness of indemnity payments.
Rouzer said, “The law is fairly clear regarding the payment of fair market value for animals that are destroyed, but how fair market value is defined and determined appears to be subject to some discretion.”
Rouzer also noted that there is a program for disease management and prevention under the Plant Protection Act and suggested there might be "a similar mechanism” under the Animal Health Protection Act “to facilitate a quicker, and perhaps a cheaper and more effective response.”
Noting that his district may have been affected more than any other, Peterson said that both USDA and the Minnesota state government “have done good work.”
“It hasn’t been perfect but perfection is hard to come by in times of crisis," Peterson said. “Now is the time to go over lessons learned that will help us develop a better plan if we have a future outbreak.”
Peterson he hopes indemnification can be simplified, a “workable” vaccine can be developed and depopulation can be speeded up.
John Clifford the Agriculture Department’s chief veterinarian, and David Swayne, the laboratory director at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, testified for the government.
Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., the subcommittee chairman, said he had waited until now to hold a hearing because he did not want to distract USDA officials from dealing with the crisis when chickens and turkeys were still getting sick.
Avian influenza originates with wild birds and there have been no outbreaks recently, but officials expect them to begin again when the weather gets colder. They also fear the disease will spread from the Midwest to the East.
In their opening statements, Rouzer and House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., both praised USDA’s performance but said there are many issues that need further discussion, including the approval of an effective vaccine and what impact that would have on the willingness of other countries to import poultry from the United States.
“Questions persist regarding the efficacy of the industry’s biosecurity plans,” Rouzer said.
“While many farms have exceptional bio-security procedures and mechanisms in place, some observers have raised questions regarding the degree to which biosecurity protocols are being followed. We are certainly aware of some of the resource limitations that delayed depopulation, disposal and disinfection early in the outbreak. As repopulation commences, several members have heard from constituents raising questions related to some of the challenges that lie ahead.”
Some growers have raised questions about the fairness of indemnity payments.
Rouzer said, “The law is fairly clear regarding the payment of fair market value for animals that are destroyed, but how fair market value is defined and determined appears to be subject to some discretion.”
Rouzer also noted that there is a program for disease management and prevention under the Plant Protection Act and suggested there might be "a similar mechanism” under the Animal Health Protection Act “to facilitate a quicker, and perhaps a cheaper and more effective response.”
Noting that his district may have been affected more than any other, Peterson said that both USDA and the Minnesota state government “have done good work.”
“It hasn’t been perfect but perfection is hard to come by in times of crisis," Peterson said. “Now is the time to go over lessons learned that will help us develop a better plan if we have a future outbreak.”
Peterson he hopes indemnification can be simplified, a “workable” vaccine can be developed and depopulation can be speeded up.
Witness testimony
- David Swayne, director, Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Services, Athens, Ga.
- John Clifford, deputy administrator, Veterinary Services, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington
- Douglas Meckes, state veterinarian, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Raleigh, N.C.
- Bill Hartmann, executive director, Minnesota Board of Animal Health, St. Paul, Minn.
