Press Conference with Senator Robert Casey and Senator Charles Grassley - Food Safety

Statement

Press Conference with Senator Robert Casey and Senator Charles Grassley - Food Safety

Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.

SEN. CASEY: Good morning. I want to thank you for being here today. I'm especially grateful for the presence of Senator Grassley, who, along with our staff and his staff, worked with us on this legislation. We're grateful for his support on this important legislation.

The title of this legislation is EAT SAFE, which is both a good message but also an acronym, which stands for the following words: Ending Agricultural Threats, Safeguarding America's Food for Everyone. And that's the act that we're here to talk about today.

This is the only bipartisan legislation of its kind. It's a very good start on this issue because it's common sense. We're dealing with existing agencies. We're dealing with the challenges they face. But also, I think, we're dealing most significantly with what is not just a threat to people's health and safety, not just a threat to our economy, as important as those are; we're also dealing with a threat to national security if we don't get this right and put the kind of controls in place that we need to make sure that our food supply is safe.

We're really dealing with smuggled food and agricultural products, principally. And I think they pose a serious risk to plants and animals but also, obviously, our food supply, our health, our safety and our national security.

A recent New York Times editorial spoke to a couple of issues that pertain to the content of our bill, but interestingly, this editorial pointed out that consumer or American consumer confidence in food safety has gone way down in less than a year, from about 82 percent, by one study, down to 66 percent.

And I would argue it's lower than that and going in the wrong direction.

There's a recent USA Today story that talked about the -- this is a story just from a couple of weeks ago. I have the date here somewhere. But basically it talked about a loophole that where you have a product, a food product, for example, coming into the United States, and yet the private laboratories that have to do the review of a product like that, even when they find a problem, they weren't required and they weren't telling, for example, the Food and Drug Administration. That's one example of one of the loopholes that this legislation will in fact close off.

I just want to give a summary of the bill, and then I want to have Senator Grassley come up as well. But here are some of the basic requirements here.

First of all, this act authorizes the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to hire 250 additional personnel to detect and track smuggled products.

Secondly, it provides for cross-training for customs agricultural specialists and Border Patrol agents to ensure that those working on the front lines are knowledgeable about serious food and agricultural threats.

Third, it increases importer accountability by requiring FDA certification of private laboratories, and that, of course -- they have to jump through a lot of hoops before they can become certified. But in addition to that, they would have to turn over the information that they find that they were not providing to the FDA.

It imposes civil penalties for laboratories or importers who knowingly falsify imported product laboratory sampling. It also imposes civil penalties for importers who circumvent USDA Import Reinspection System, the requirements under that. It ensures public awareness of smuggled and recalled products by requiring both agencies, USDA and FDA, to provide the information in a timely manner. We even specify the way they do that -- press releases, website, other ways of providing that information.

It directs both the agencies -- I'm sorry -- in this case, both the USDA and Health and Human Services, a third agency involved, to develop memorandums of understanding. You shouldn't have to do this in legislation, but sometimes you do to ensure data sharing with regard to food-borne pathogens, contaminants and illnesses.

And finally, it authorizes $3.5 million for a competitive grant program to provide funding for educational outreach and partnerships that do that.

So on a whole host of issues it deals in a very practical, common sense way with a terrible problem that we have that threatens our way of life here in America and indeed threatens our national security.

And with that, I want to make sure that Senator Grassley has an opportunity to speak to the bill. But we're grateful for his help and for the great help by his staff and our staff as well. Senator?

SEN. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Casey. It's been a privilege to work with you on such a bill that will have a very positive impact on our consumers. And you mentioned confidence of food supply; that confidence of food supply is not only important for consumers, but it's also important for agricultural America, because if people don't have confidence in their food supply, that's an economic negative for the American farmer.

This is a bill, though, that is not just about our domestic food supply. It's even more about food coming in from outside the United States. Imports are a very important part of our economy. They're something that gives choice and lower prices for our consumers, but even with these positives, we can't sacrifice safety. Importers have an obligation to ensure that the food being sent to the United States is in fact safe.

This legislation will provide added protections, as well as deter importers from attempting to bring products into our country illegally. That's why our bill would increase resources for food inspection and for safety training. We authorized more than $30 million for additional personnel at FDA, USDA and food safety training at the Department of Homeland Security. It would establish penalties for importers who try to bring products into the country illegally, and Senator Casey has talked about those penalties. And it would certify testing labs to make sure that importers don't cheat. We're taking these steps to make sure that our food supply is safe. No one should have to worry about the safety of their food when they go to the grocery store.

I also said earlier that we deal with some domestic issues. We boost the public notification of recalled food products as well as products that have been smuggled. Frankly, it's important that consumers have as much information as possible about the products they're buying.

There are a lot of food safety bills here, and as Senator Casey said, this is the only bipartisan bill being introduced.

Our bill has another important difference. This is a compromise that puts together simple solutions that can easily be adopted and implemented by the FDA and USDA. Our bill is the only bill that addresses smuggled food products. We establish penalties for importers who try to bring products into the country illegally.

America has the most abundant and safest food supply in the world. It's time that we ensured that it stays that way.

Senator Casey and I have a bill that we think jump-starts that process and enhances the debate.

SEN. CASEY: Thank you, Senator.

We're willing to take any questions you have.

Q What are the prospects for this bill passing this session, then?

SEN. CASEY: Well, I think they're good. We have -- I know I have some work to do to speak to people about cosponsorship. We wanted to work together, and I think the first step in any kind of bipartisan effort in the case of a Democratic senator is to try to get a Republican senator to work with you. I think that's the first part. I could have spent my time lining only Democrats up. That would be interesting but it wouldn't be the right way to go. So I'm going to work with people on both sides of the aisle, but even people within our own party, I've got to do some work there.

But I think there's a real urgency to this issue which has a resonance and a relevancy to people's lives that is unusual for an issue that we debate in Washington. So I think the prospects are good. I don't want to put a time frame on it. Even in my short time, I've learned not to do that.

Q Senator Grassley, what role or resistance does the Republican administrative have on this effort?

SEN. GRASSLEY: I don't know, and right now I don't care, because this is a process that you take step by step. And we will, obviously, hear from them if they have some objections, and maybe to some extent we can accommodate them. But I'm not going to assume that we have objections. But the answer to your question is, I just don't know.

But I think what he has said, I would emphasize. We need to get this process agoing, and in the United States Senate, at least, the best way to do that is in a bipartisan way. And as he said he would be working to get cosponsors, I would be glad to work to get cosponsors within my own party.

SEN. CASEY: And let me just add one thing to that. I should have mentioned that we both happen to be members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. That's a good start. And I think one thing we should seriously consider -- I'd certainly be in favor of it, and we'll talk to Chairman Harkin and others -- is try to have hearings on this under the auspices of that committee. But I think there will be a lot of support for this legislation.

SEN. GRASSLEY: And I have reason to believe that -- I have reason to believe that Senator Harkin, once we get the farm bill done, is going to have a high priority on food safety as a series of hearings.

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. CASEY: Well, you've got -- just in the training and, you know, kind of the intra-agency spending in terms of training and hiring new personnel, when you add it up -- I mean, in that first section, or that relevant section, it's about a little more than 32 million (dollars). You got 25 million (dollars) for FDA and USDA to hire additional personnel. You got 1.7 million (dollars) for food safety and cross training. That's with DHS ag specialists. Then you have another four-and-a-half million (dollars) for cross training for DHS Border Patrol agents.

So it's in that neighborhood. And we can get the other totals, but I think it's not a lot of money in the context of the impact, the adverse impact it's going to have. You've seen just in the last year the impact that one problem with a food product does to -- not just to the economy, but what it does to confidence, which you can't even -- which is probably immeasurable. So I think it's easily affordable, but it's important we spend money.

Sometimes in these agencies -- and I know this from doing a lot of investigative and audit work in state government -- you got to hire people and give them an assignment and monitor what they do. You can't just say to an agency, well, try to do a better job on this or that. You have to specifically tell them -- in this case we're specifically talking about appropriations -- to hire -- to hire the individuals they need, to train them, to monitor them, and to hold them accountable just like we hope that any agency would hold itself accountable.

Q Just a follow-up on one thing you said about DHS. A lot of these advocacy groups and even lawmakers in the Senate have talked about the fact that once DHS got some responsibility for doing the inspection, that's when you started to seeing the system sort of break down. Do you agree with that assessment? Do you think that responsibility needs to be brought back to USDA?

SEN. CASEY: Well, there's -- I mean, there's going to be a debate about that, and I guess that's ongoing. But I think the most important thing is that we take very practical steps within the existing agencies, within the existing -- the existing framework. I could probably come up with ideas about how to transform something, which is not necessarily achievable.

We're trying to be realistic here in a difficult environment. It's been pretty partisan. So we want to -- we want to be able to get as many votes on both sides of the aisle, but also do it in a practical way. And that's why I think the training focus, the focus on hiring, the focus on how they do public awareness, the focus also on what these agencies are doing right now I think has to be -- I'd rather not engage in a debate about when it started and why it started; I just think we need to fix the problem.

And fortunately, this problem -- that USA Today and others have commented on; it's just one example, but it's a good example -- that loophole is plugged now by this legislation, where it requires these labs, when they get an unfavorable result, that they get that information to the Department of Agriculture, which is a -- which is a loophole that's been sitting out there for a while. And it allows -- it allows importers and labs to have a kind of collusion which is very dangerous for -- you know, for the rest of us.

Q Senator Grassley -- (off mike). The FDA, given their recent -- (inaudible) -- to adequately police or monitor both the food and drug supply, I mean, why not do something for that as well? And I wonder if there is -- the Congress is adequately funding the FDA so that it can -- (off mike).

SEN. GRASSLEY: Well, it would be pretty hard for us to do more in this bill with FDA or directly towards the FDA because the FDA reauthorization bill is through the House and Senate already. And so that train kind of left the station. That'd be the best answer I can give you.

Q But (what happened is ?), Senator, is -- (inaudible).

SEN. GRASSLEY: Well --

Q Why wasn't -- I mean, given your concern, too, about FDA --

SEN. GRASSLEY: Well, we didn't have this bill put together at that time because, see, that was in -- wasn't that in June or July that we did the FDA?

SEN. CASEY: (Off mike) -- yeah.

Q (Off mike.)

Q Just on the committees of jurisdiction, would this go through the health committee as well -- (off mike).

SEN. CASEY: Well, and I know they had some hearings yesterday that touched on this certainly, but I think it -- I think it's -- I don't profess to be a committee jurisdictional expert. But I do think it's naturally -- I think it naturally resides in the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, and I think that's the way I'd -- that's the position I would take and that's the way we'd pursue it.

Q Can you give us an update on the farm bill -- where it is, where it's going?

SEN. GRASSLEY: It's still -- you got to ask Reid and McConnell that. It's at that level. It's a procedural thing.

SEN. CASEY: I would agree with that.

Q Got a question on another topic. The DOE decision to re- hear the --

SEN. CASEY: Do you mind if we just finish these and then do that? Is that all right?

SEN. GRASSLEY: I got to go.

SEN. CASEY: Thank you, sir.

SEN. GRASSLEY: (Off mike.)

SEN. CASEY: Anyone else on this? We can switch gears, certainly. Okay, sure.

Q Your reaction to DOE's decision to re-hear the power line transition -- (off mike) -- on that?

SEN. CASEY: Well, it's a -- sure, that's certainly a positive, but I think a lot more has to be done in terms of -- one of the principal frustrations I had, the principal concerns that I had with what DOD (sic) has done to date is that it's not enough to say, well, the statute says that in order to designate -- not site, that's down the road -- but in order to designate corridors for these -- for power lines or any other source of power that they -- that the federal government in working with state governments decide, that it's not enough to just say that the statute says you can designate it and you don't have to have a lot of hearings or a lot of public input.

In this case, the Department of Energy had but one hearing in the entire state of Pennsylvania. So 52 counties are affected, 75 percent of the state, and we got one hearing before they designated it.

Now, the department would say, oh, well, you've got to -- you know, we were in other states and we had a couple of hearings in different states and it's a big area and we have to designate broadly and all that, but I just don't think that's meeting their obligations.

I really don't care what the statute says in terms of what -- that's the minimum they have to do. I think the minimum should also include having more public input. This decision on re-hearing certainly speaks to that, but I don't think it goes nearly far enough to meet the concern that I have, but more importantly the concern that homeowners and property owners and families in Pennsylvania.

It's my judgment -- I haven't seen any data on this, but it's my judgment that most of the people in those 52 counties in Pennsylvania have no idea that this coming down the pike, and I think that's the responsibility of -- I mean, I think I have a responsibility to tell them about it, but I think it's -- that responsibility principally resides with the relevant agency, in this case the Department of Energy.

So in addition to opening the record or continuing to keep open the record, that's more -- that's -- that requires a unilateral action on behalf of a -- or by a homeowner or property owner. I think it's important for the Department of Energy to come into Pennsylvania and tell people about this however they do that, through hearings or through any kind of advertising campaign. But they haven't done that, and I've made it clear to them that regardless of whether they're going to do it, I'm going to be spending some time doing just that because people have to know what's at stake here. And we can't just skip this designation debate, and then when it comes to siting, that's when the lights go on and everyone's aware of it. I think people have to be made aware of it far in advance of siting the power lines or any other -- any other source of power.

Q Thank you.

SEN. CASEY: Will that be all? Yeah.

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. CASEY: Well, I would hope that when he does that, that he keeps in mind the concerns that we raised here today. I think the focus of this legislation is to -- is to pinpoint what we should be doing once products land at our shores, but there's a whole other area of concern, and a significant part of this debate is what happens on the front end, so to speak, when these products are leaving the country. And that's why when we talk about trade or we talk about agriculture, that unless we do something internationally at that end of it to work with -- work with countries around the world who may have a different philosophy on this, but it not only doesn't keep the playing field level when it comes to trade, but it also makes it harder for us when a product is coming into this country, especially when it's food, as best we can do even if the letter of this -- if this bill became the law, even if the letter of it was followed, we're still at somewhat of a disadvantage because of what might happen at the front end.

So I think whether it's the Chinese government or any government has an obligation to do more at their end. I know they've taken some steps lately, but I would hope that Secretary Leavitt would be cross- examining them on what steps they're taking to kind of keep their own house in order when it comes to these food products or toys or other products that come to our shores.

Brett (sp)?

Q (Off mike.) This focuses more on smuggled food, right, not legally imported food?

SEN. CASEY: Well, that's -- we want to keep the focus there because that's where the -- you know, the bad conduct or illegality or --

Q Hasn't most of the problem with food safety been with legally imported food? (Off mike) -- sprayed on it, pesticide, or -- (off mike).

SEN. CASEY: Yeah. I think there's certainly both scenarios, but we've had a lot of examples of smuggled products coming in to the country or just products that somehow or another may not be categorized as smuggled, but somehow they get through the screens that are there now. And if you have an agency like USDA or FDA that is charged with an important responsibility and they don't have the personnel; or even if they have the personnel, the personnel aren't trained; or even if they had personnel that are trained, they're not trained broadly enough -- that's where we talk about cross training -- it's just not working. And this would be a significant step, but I would not say this is the end of the discussion. This doesn't answer all questions, but I think it's a very important first step.

And also I was thinking -- and that's why it was important to work with Senator Grassley, because he's not only on the committee with me, he's not only a veteran member of this committee and Finance and has, I think, an awful lot of credibility on these issues, but also you've got to be cognizant of not just trying to work in a bipartisan way, which is a goal in and of itself, but we've got to be practical here. What can we get through the United States Senate? What can get signed into law? And I think on something that is this urgent -- if this were something we had to deal with over time down the road it would be one thing, but this is a more urgent problem. Frankly, sometimes, urgency compels you to be more practical and more focused on getting something that's common sense and not necessarily the whole answer, but most of the answer for these agencies and these threats.

Q Why not touch base, at least, with the administration at the beginning, even before you introduce -- (off mike) -- to see how amenable they are to the -- you know, having to sign it into law, if they're going to be opposed to it at the start?

SEN. CASEY: I think they are -- "they" meaning the relevant agencies -- are well aware of the general outlines of this legislation. There was some discussions at the staff level, but I think you'd have to ask them what their opinion on this is.

I would hope before they answer that they have taken a close look at it. I hope it's not just the usual response sometimes from the administration, which is something that is a little too cavalier. I hope when they answer they base that answer upon a review of what we're talking about here.

This is not difficult to do. We're appropriating money. We're talking about hiring, in the case of the initial part of the legislation, 250 people. It's very specific and I think it's easily achievable. It doesn't require a bureaucratic earthquake to get this done. But I don't want to -- you'd have to ask them what their answer is, but I would say that this will not be a news bulletin to them necessarily. I think there's been a lot of talk at various staff levels about this.

Thanks, everybody.

Source