Addendum to Myers Testimony
Addendum to Written Statement of
Lee M. Myers, DMV, MPH, Dipl. ACVPM
State Veterinarian and Assistant Commissioner of Animal Industry
Georgia Department of Agriculture
before the
U.S. House of Representatives
Homeland Security Committee
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology
on
Food Defense: Post-Harvest Preparedness
Responses to Questions from the Honorable James Langevin,
Subcommittee Chairman
Please Note: The responses below are submitted on behalf of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. The statements are intended to represent state agriculture departments as a whole and not any individual state agency.
Question 1: Under the National Response Plan, DHS is supposed to be a “coordinating agency” during a terrorist attack, major disaster, or other emergency involving the nation’s agriculture or food systems. Please detail your agency’s experience in DHS carrying out its role as coordinating agency. Has this been an effective process? If not what have been the challenges.
Answer: The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) believes that it is too early to project the effectiveness of DHS as a coordinating agency during an agriculture or food emergency. Hurricane Katrina has been the only major emergency since the formation of DHS and there are many reports detailing the lessons learned to this disaster. State agriculture representatives from Louisiana and Mississippi expressed frustration about the lack of federal government coordination and slow assistance to the agriculture sector during Hurricane Katrina. Many individuals, businesses, and agencies have not yet received financial compensation from the federal government as a result of hurricane damage.
One of the primary issues that Congress has not yet resolved is the application of agriculture to the Stafford Act. The provisions of agriculture and food should be clearly outlined in the Stafford Act and should not be subject to individual interpretation. In the event of natural disaster, the agriculture and food sector should receive emergency assistance and compensation to help minimize disruption of the food supply. The responsibilities of federal agencies for agriculture and food during an emergency should be codified to minimize competing interests and agency conflicts.
Question 2: With more than 15 agencies administering at least 30 laws related to food safety, how has your Department prepared against vulnerabilities? What type of coordination or information sharing do you routinely practice?
Answer: State agriculture agencies have completed a substantial number of vulnerability assessments utilizing a variety of methods, although states are relying upon the federal government to provide consistent tools for data collection and assessment. The joint efforts of the FBI, DHS, USDA, and FDA to develop a Strategic Partnership Program Agroterrorism (SPPA) initiative are encouraging. NASDA appreciates the FDA providing the assessment tool on-line for use by private industry in the food sector, and encourages the USDA to complete a similar on-line version for production agriculture. Only through consistent data collection and analysis in each state can a national threat matrix be formulated. State government agencies need additional resources to conduct these assessments, and develop and implement their food emergency plans. States need assistance in implementing cost-effective measures that enhance our ability to prevent an attack, detect an attack at the earliest possible time, respond to protect both the public health and industry and recover from an attack by restoring public confidence and the economic viability of affected sectors.
As indicated in my written and oral testimony, there is no operational, comprehensive and secure communications network for agriculture to share threat alerts and other information linking local, state, federal, and private partners, with appropriate security clearances. Current methods of routine communication are primarily through a hodge-podge system of emails and conference calls, neither of which provide a secure environment.
Question 3: What type of staffing challenges (vacancies, retention, recruitment, expertise, etc.) exists within your Department in carrying out your food safety/defense mission?
Answer: States are in dire need of additional human resources to fully implement their food safety/defense duties. State appropriations specifically for agriculture defense have been limited and the homeland security duties in most states are being assumed by personnel with full schedules in traditional regulatory programs.
Recruitment and succession planning is vital for the success of state food defense programs. It is critical that states successfully attract highly qualified career employees. With the majority of state employee salaries well below the market midpoint, recruiting and retaining a workforce to develop new programs and ensure business continuity is challenging to say the least.
The development and implementation of a national food defense strategy must be identified as a national priority and the compensatory resources allocated to state agriculture authorities from Congress.