On Tuesday, May 1, a rally will be held outside the Ames campaign headquarters of Democratic Congressional Candidate Christie Vilsack to demand that she stands up for food safety and oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed privatized poultry inspection program. The proposal has received widespread public criticism and national media attention including an April 18th ABC World News investigation that led the USDA to extend the public comment period until May 26.

Who: Food & Water Watch and the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Local Unions

What: Rally to oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed privatized poultry inspection program.

Where: Outside Christie Vilsack's campaign headquarters:  600 5th Street, Ames, Iowa 50010

When: Tuesday, May 1, at 9:00 a.m.

Speakers: Trent Berhow, Vice Chair of National Joint Council of Food Inspection Local Unions; Matt Ohloff, Iowa Organizer for Food & Water Watch; other speakers TBD.

Background:

Food & Water Watch released an analysis of the USDA's HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) that reveals large numbers of defects are routinely being missed when inspection tasks are performed by company employees instead of USDA inspectors.

The USDA has been running the pilot project with privatized inspection in two-dozen slaughter facilities since 1998. USDA is proposing an expansion of the pilot to all poultry slaughter plants, and forecasts that over three years this change will save $90 million through the elimination over 800 inspector positions. And, since most poultry plants will be able to increase their production line speeds to 175 birds per minute, the industry expects to save an estimated $256.6 million in production costs.

Poultry plants involved in the HIMP pilot have been granted line speed waivers. Some plants in the pilot have operated at line speeds upwards of 200 birds per minute, compared to 35 birds per minute for which each USDA inspector is responsible for in plants receiving conventional inspection.

More information on Food & Water Watch's analysis can be found here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/privatized-meat-inspection-experiment-jeopardizes-food-safety/

Food & Water Watch is a non-profit organization working with grassroots organizations around the world to create an economically and environmentally viable future.  Through research, public and policymaker education, media, and lobbying, we advocate policies that guarantee safe, wholesome food produced in a humane and sustainable manner and public, rather than private, control of water resources including oceans, rivers, and groundwater. For more information, visit www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

# # #

Labor Department announced it will drop proposed rule to limit youth labor on farms

Washington, D.C. - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) released the following statement after the US Department of Labor announced it was withdrawing a proposed regulation that would have made it more difficult for farmers and ranchers to hire youth to work in agriculture:

"The demise of the Obama administration's proposed rule to require children be a minimum age to work on farms is welcome news. A regulation prohibiting youths from working on farms would strike at the very core of agriculture across Iowa and the Midwest.  This is Iowa. Working on the family farm is part of growing up.  I know -- I remember many hot summer days I spent as a kid detassling corn in the fields. I'll keep working to ensure misguided regulations like this one don't see the light of day."

In December, Braley wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis urging her to drop the proposed rule.

# # #

Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Executive Business Meeting

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Mr. Chairman,

On the agenda today are three nominations ready for committee action - Curiel, Shea, and Shelby.  I believe a roll call may be requested for Mr. Shea's nomination.

Before we consider the nominations, I would like to speak about yesterday's hearing and a serious matter I raised with Secretary Napolitano.  I asked Secretary Napolitano about the Department of Homeland Security's failure to approve a single chemical facility site security plan under the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS).

The CFATS program was passed by Congress in 2006 to provide baseline security for chemical facilities that store certain types of dangerous chemicals.  Regulations were issued in 2007 that required sites to submit security plans for approval.  To date, 4,200 sites have submitted plans to DHS.  However, DHS has not approved a single one despite operating the program for more than five years and spending nearly a half-a-billion taxpayer dollars.  As implemented, this program is a disaster.

Secretary Napolitano admitted that the program is not operating as they would like.  I think that is a major understatement and an internal review of the failures of the program underscores how this is an understatement.

This memorandum, dated November 10, 2011, is one of the most candid assessments of an agency's failure I've ever seen. The authors found, among other things, that no site plans have been approved and that even if they were, DHS is not prepared to conduct compliance inspections.

Additionally, the memorandum paints the picture of an agency that has lost control.  Specifically, the authors found:

·         The Department had hired "people who do not have the necessary skills to perform key mission and essential functions."

·         "While the vast majority of employees are talented, hardworking people, there are numerous exceptions."

·         "There is a catastrophic failure to ensure personal and professional accountability" among agency employees.

·         The "lack of focus and vision has resulted in problems with how we have spent our money, and how we are managing those funds."

There are other major problems, including car fleet management problems, lack of oversight and accountability for purchase cards, travel cards used for unauthorized expenses, property management issues, and records management.

While I appreciate the candor in this memorandum and the significant detail included by those tasked with completing this analysis, it raises serious questions about how DHS uses taxpayer dollars.  It also raises questions about DHS's ability to implement the policies Congress has entrusted it with.

I'm also concerned with what this entails for those who are currently seeking to give DHS more regulatory authority and hundreds of millions more in taxpayer money to oversee cybersecurity.

For example, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy last night on the cybersecurity legislation the House is currently addressing.  One of the major reasons the statement was allegedly issued was that the bill "fails to provide authorities to ensure that the Nation's core critical infrastructure is protected."  In other words, the President won't sign the bill into law because it doesn't give DHS the power to regulate the private sector.

I'll admit I have been skeptical of giving DHS the power to regulate cybersecurity from the outset.

But, I do believe the threat to our country from cyber-attacks is real.  That is why I have cosponsored S.2151, the SECURE I.T. Act.  This legislation will enhance cybersecurity without creating a new bureaucracy at DHS and without stifling innovation in the private sector with burdensome new regulations.

After reading this DHS memorandum, my initial skepticism against DHS's role in cybersecurity has turned into outright concern.  Based upon the failures of CFATS to date, such an approach would surely lead to more wasted taxpayer dollars with nothing to show for it.  Given the fiscal situation we face, this is an unacceptable option.

Despite the failures outlined by DHS's own internal review, Secretary Napolitano did her best yesterday to say the program is moving forward.  I have my doubts, given the level of failures cited in this memorandum.  I'd be surprised if DHS has been able to turn this program around overnight.  So, I'll be requesting a briefing from DHS to find out what is being done to fix these problems.

Regardless of what DHS has done to address these problems, the fact remains that the American taxpayers are out nearly a half-a-billion dollars with nothing to show for it.  We have a duty to conduct oversight on the failures and problems mentioned in this memorandum.  We have a duty to our constituents and all taxpayers to ensure these problems are fixed and that they don't continue.

Absent proof, and not just assurances, that the problems are fixed, we should not even consider giving DHS another ounce of regulatory authority or additional layers of bureaucracy to deal with Cybersecurity.  I believe Cybersecurity is an important topic that we need to address, but not at the expense of throwing more taxpayer dollars at an agency with the sort of problems this internal review details.

Thank you.