STATEMENT OF JOHN G. MOHAY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWIN H. PEWETT, GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. MOHAY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is John G. Mohay. I am executive vice president of the National Independent Meat Packers Association. the I am accompanied today by Mr. Daniel O'Callahan on my left, director of public affairs of the association; and on my right by Mr. Edwin H. Pewett, general counsel of the association. We wish to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to present this statement expressing the official opposition of the National Independent Meat Packers Association to H.R. 16485. Our association is comprised of several hundred meatpacking plants located in all parts of the United States, which plants are engaged in virtually every aspect of meatpacking industry operations. The word "independent" in the title of our association's name in general-although there are a few notable exceptions-indicates that our members operate a single plant serving a community or region, in contrast to meatpackers whose products have national or near-national distribution. At the outset, may I say that traditionally and historically it has been the policy of this association and its members to seek to provide consumers of meat with nutritious and wholesome products produced under sanitary conditions, accurately and truthfully labeled, honestly and fairly packaged, and sold at the lowest prices economically feasible. This longstanding policy was in effect long before the concept of consumer protection took on the added political and social force it presently enjoys. This association wholeheartedly endorses and subscribes to the principles embodied in the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967-Public Law 90–201—and has encouraged its membership and the industry to use every resource available to continue to produce meat and meat food products of the highest quality in order to assure public confidence in the meat supply. When and if public confidence in the integrity, wholesomeness, and sanitation of the meat supply is shaken the entire membership of the meatpacking industry will suffer. It is our aim to continue to reinforce, in the mind of the public, a feeling of security when approaching the meat counter-a feeling based on the knowledge that the meat products displayed in the showcase are the products of a sound, viable, and effective meat inspection system administered in a manner that in no way compromises consumer protection. We do not believe this aim would be furthered by the establishment of two levels of inspection, which we believe is contemplated by the bills under consideration by this subcommittee-one level for meat packers and processors, and a second, less stringent level for the custom slaughterer. It is our firm and considered opinion that the philosophy which prevailed and successfully enacted into law the Wholesome 47-403-70- 4 Meat Act of 1967 seeks to achieve one level of inspection-not two or more levels established for reasons other than consumer protection. We sympathize with those who may find it difficult to comply fully with the provisions of the act and regulations issued thereunder. Indeed, many of our members are still in the process of expending considerable efforts and substantial amounts of money in order to comply with the physical plant requirements of the law. We do not believe this exception to the act, which these bills would provide for, is in keeping with the purpose of the act. Thank you. Mr. PURCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Mohay. Are there questions of this witness? Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Foley. Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Mohay, I don't wish to quarrel with the statement, but just for the record, isn't it true that your association opposed the enactment of the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967? Mr. MOHAY. We supported the philosophy of the act, sir. We did oppose certain technical aspects of it. Mr. FOLEY. Did you at any time endorse the passage of the act? Mr. MOHAY. No, no, sir; we did not. Mr. FOLEY. And in fact you opposed it in its final form? Mr. MOHAY. I am informed that we supported or favored State inspection. Mr. FOLEY. Yes, but you opposed the enactment of the 1967 Wholesome Meat Act. As I recall you testified against it several times, public statements opposed its enactment and isn't it pretty clear that you did oppose the enactment of the 1967 form? Mr. PEWETT. May I answer? Mr. Congressman, we favored then, as now, as we always have, a concept of a strong inspection of our industry. We did not favor the idea that the Federal Government should take over all of the inspection. We felt that the strengthening of the State meat inspection services was also of paramount importance. We believe that time has shown we were not in error there, because the Federal Government, apparently, is now trying to make every effort to strengthen the State inspection system, and as far as we can tell from the excessive overtime that we are being required to pay due to the shortages of inspectors, we must have been right. But we have always favored the strongest type of inspection of our products. We did not, however, favor entirely turning it over to the Federal Government. Mr. FOLEY. I don't wish to prolong it, but if we were today discussing the 1967 Meat Inspection Act with this amendment, would you recommend that it be passed with this amendment, or would you recommend other amendments before it could meet your approval? Mr. PEWETT. I think we would have to be consistent, sir. We would feel again we would want strong inspection without two standards. We have to toe the mark at great expense and at great trouble, and today we think that it is a case of "what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander." We do not believe in exceptions to the act. We did believe and still believe that the State governments can perform a very useful service and that their inspection systems can help to perform a job which is, I think, as the Department of Agriculture people have testified, a tremendous one for them. We are also concerned, as we said to you then, sir, that we want to be sure that the Congress, once it has forced this inspection upon everyone, this Federal inspection, will make sure that it gives the Department of Agriculture adequate money to employ the necessary inspectors, because if you do not, we run into overtime, which we have to pay and which we are paying today in tremendous amounts of money, millions of dollars of money. But we are absolutely for inspection. I think that we would have said then it is entirely theoretical-but I think we would have had to say then, as we do say now, that we are not for exceptions to the act as to inspection. We are in favor of a strong inspection, but we did not then necessarily believe it should be all Federal. Mr. FOLEY. The only reason I raise this issue is not because I am trying to quarrel with the argument you are making in your statement, but because some of the organizations who testified in favor of this amendment were very active sponsors and proponents of the 1967 act. I didn't want your statement to leave the impression that such was your role in 1967, that you were strongly and enthusiastically in support of the Wholesome Meat Act, because as I recall, along with the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture, the Independent Meat Packing Association was one of the principal opponents of its enactment in that form. Mr. PEWETT. I am glad to correct the record for you, sir. Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Melcher. Mr. MELCHER. I would like to pursue this excessive overtime a little bit, if I could. Mr. MOHAY. Yes, sir. Mr. MELCHER. The term "millions of dollars" has been used. How prevalent is overtime for inspection? Mr. MOHAY. I would say in answer, yes, sir, that there are very few federally inspected packers that are not paying a considerable amount of overtime. We represent the local and regional packers, as I indicated. Our experience has been that virtually every one of our plants which is federally inspected is paying considerable overtime for inspectors. Mr. MELCHER. Under what conditions? Mr. MOHAY. We have some plants operating on a 24-hour basis: If you have a 24-hour operation, even though you may be qualified for three 8-hour shifts of inspectors, due to a shortage of inspectors at the time, it is usually scheduled on two 12-hour shifts for inspectors, so you are actually paying 8 hours a day overtime. In other instances, due to the nature of the beast, you might see in a packinghouse that different departments have different operating times of day-the plant might be operating for 10, 12 hours. It is extremely difficult to get inspection schedules to correspond, and as a result smaller packers will be paying from 2 to 4 hours a day where they are running especially a one-shift operation. Mr. MELCHER. Well, breaking this down into two groups, then, what you are telling me, if a packer operates 10 to 12 hours a day he is not entitled at public expense to more than 8 hours of inspection; is that what you are telling me? Mr. MOHAY. That is correct, and I don't want to mislead you, but there are possibilities that where a plant may be entitled to more than one inspector, they may be able to start the inspector schedules on different time schedules. But even in this instance we have had situations in parts of the country where there were not enough inspectors available. Mr. PEWETT. Congressman, may I say this: it has been our view, and still is our view, that if you are to be subject to the act you are entitled to have the inspectors at such hours as you designate. We have never believed that the Secretary of Agriculture should tell American plants when they should operate and when they should not operate. But we did fear, Mr. Foley, when we were in 1967 debates, the time would come when there would be a shortage of inspectors, and we were told that we would have to operate at least on full operations, which we think increases the cost of meat products and certainly increases our costs. We have found that they do not have, or by regulations they do not permit us to have, the number of inspectors that we think we need. They have their own criteria, which in our view tend to assure that there will be a shortage of work to fill inspectors' time. I think of one example of a packer in the South who had three inspectors to start with and they withdrew one of the inspectors. We had meetings with the Department of Agriculture people both here in Washington and down South, and a member of this committee went with me, a member of your committee went with me to see them. Suffice it to say, we never did solve all of the problems, because they apparently just don't have that number of inspectors. I just heard the other day that this operator has decided to drop his Federal inspection and go back to State inspection. Now, until December 15 he can do that all right, but then the law will apply to him with its full vigor. He would not have the exception which this legislation would give to custom slaughterers. We feel we are in a situation where we are discriminated against in this regard. We would appreciate anything that you can do to encourage the Department to give us inspectors-to give USDA the money that they need, or whatever it takes, the ceilings to be changed, which may not be in your branch of the Government-but whatever is needed to get us the relief, so we can get the inspectors, would certainly be appreciated. Mr. MELCHER. Well, the other point you made in answer to my question was that there are occasions when a plant is approved for 24-hour kill, 24-hour operation, and it has been assigned inspectors for the 24-hour Mr. MOHAY. Two 12-hour, which means automatic overtime. Mr. MELCHER. All right. Now, are there conditions where they are assigned three 8-hour shifts? Mr. MOHAY. I don't think so, Congressman. Mr. MELCHER. You mean it is a policy on a 24-hour kill operation, to force 8 hours into overtime? Is that a routine policy? Mr. MOHAY. I believe, Congressman, that is correct. I believe they would like to give us three 8-hour shifts, but they can't. Mr. MELCHER. I know. You have probably testified before the Appropriations Subcommittee on this question, have you not? Mr. MOHAY. Yes, sir. Mr. MELCHER. You must have gathered your facts at that time and presented them, so you don't have to tell me that you think that is the situation. You know, from your previous testimony. I wonder if you could provide this subcommittee with that testimony? Mr. MOHAY. Yes, sir. (The statement referred to above is on file with the committee and also appears in the Agriculture Appropriations hearings of March 16, 1970, pt. 5, p. 46.) Mr. FOLEY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. MELCHER. Yes, I would be happy to yield. Mr. FOLEY. I would like to say that I am in full agreement with your suggestion that there should be adequate appropriation for meat inspection. Those of us who supported the Meat Inspection Act of 1967 continue to support the concept of full funding for the implementation of that act. Mr. MOHAY. Thank you. Mr. MELCHER. Well, some question has been raised, at least in my mind, and I think a number of other people's minds, as to whether we are actually providing funds for adequate inspection, not only domestic, but adequate inspection on the import side. Mr. MOHAY. I don't think there is any question, sir, that there is not enough money available to adequately staff the Federal Meat Inspection Service with a sufficient number of inspectors to meet the need. Mr. MELCHER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PURCELL. This is only to follow up what both Mr. Melcher and Mr. Foley have said: Are you aware of a policy now in existence where there has been a directive put out whether by District Inspectors or others, stating that the policy is to instruct the inspectors and supervisors to use as much overtime as possible, indicating apparently a desire to insist on this rather than to try to have any more inspectors? Mr. PEWETT. No, sir; that is alarming. I am not aware of it, no, sir. Mr. PURCELL. All right. Any other questions? Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. MOHAY. Thank you, sir. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Foley. Mr. FOLEY. That completes the list of scheduled witnesses. Since we had many witnesses here today, I didn't want to take the time of the committee to do what, as you say in Texas, constitutes bragging on the accomplishments of Mr. Neal Smith of Iowa. But I think the record should show that Mr. Smith has been a pioneer in this Congress and in this unique field of Federal meat inspection ever since he came to Congress. He has been the constant champion of clean and effective meat inspection for the benefit of American producers and consumers. |