    [Senate Hearing 107-918]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-918

                               HOMELAND SECURITY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                            NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 17, 2002

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov

                                     ______

    86-215              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

               COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                           TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman

    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
    KENT CONRAD, North Dakota            JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
    THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota      THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas         PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
    ZELL MILLER, Georgia                 PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
    DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan         CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
    MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
    PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE, Minnesota      MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                  Mark Halverson, Staff Director/Chief Counsel

                David L. Johnson, Chief Counsel for the Minority

                          Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk

                  Keith Luse, Staff Director for the Minority

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing(s):

    Homeland Security................................................    01

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, July 17, 2002
                        STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

    Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee
      on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry........................    01
                                  ----------

                                   WITNESSES

    Ridge, Hon. Tom, Director, Offic of Homeland Security,
      Washington, DC.................................................    02
    Torres, Hon. Alfonso, Associate Dean, Veterinary Public Policy,
      and Director, New York State Animal Health Diagnostic
      Laboratory, College of
      Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York......    21
    Veneman, Hon. Ann M., Secretary, United States Department of
      Agriculture, Washington, DC....................................    14
                                  ----------

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:
        Lugar, Hon. Richard..........................................    30
        Ridge, Hon. Tom..............................................    31
        Torres, Alfonso..............................................    40
        Veneman, Hon. Ann M..........................................    37
    Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
        Allard, Hon. Wayne...........................................    57
        American Nursery & Landscape Association (ANLA) and Society
          of
          American Florists (SAF)....................................    63
        Baucus, Hon. Max.............................................    50
        Leahy, Hon. Patrick..........................................    59
        Letter from Wayne Pacelle and Mimi Brody.....................    62
        Letter to Secretary Ann M. Veneman from Senator Richard Lugar    61
        Nelson, Hon. Ben.............................................    56
        Roberts, Hon. Pat............................................    51
    Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:
        From Senator Tom Harkin to Governor Tom Ridge (No answers
          were provided).............................................    79
        From Senator Tom Harkin to Secretary Ann M.Veneman (No
          answers were provided).....................................    78

                                  ----------

                               HOMELAND SECURITY

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in
    room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,
    chairman of the committee, presiding.
        Present or submitting a statement: Senators Harkin,
    Lincoln, Miller, Nelson, Dayton, Lugar, Roberts, Thomas,
    Allard, Hutchinson, and Crapo.

     STATEMENT OF TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA, CHAIRMAN,
                       COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                        NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

        The Chairman. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
    Forestry will come to order for this hearing on homeland
    security.
        The President has stated and we all agree that we have to
    be ready to respond to protect American interests against the
    new and very dangerous threat of terrorism. Protecting our
    borders and keeping our residents safe from harm is our
    Government's highest priority and represents an increasingly
    big challenge to all of us. President Bush's proposal for a new
    Department of Homeland Security included a call for the
    transfer of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
    APHIS, but recently the administration has indicated it is
    agreeable to some of the provisions that they worked out with
    the House in terms of transferring some of APHIS' functions
    regarding Plum Island and some border security.
        I won't go into all the details on that except to say that,
    at least from this chairman's standpoint, we want to do
    everything we can to make sure that the new Office of Homeland
    Security is up and running as soon as possible, that it
    functions as it is supposed to function, and that we transfer
    or get to this new Department of Homeland Security what is
    necessary to do their job, but in the most efficient manner, so
    that we can still have an Animal and Plant Health Inspection
    Service that protects the health and well-being of our people
    in this country but also that the new Homeland Security Office
    can do its job in protecting our borders. That is the
    standpoint from which I approach this, and what works the best
    and what works more efficiently, that is what we want to do.
        In the interest of time, since we have a 2:30 vote, I will
    dispense with reading any more of my statement. If the Senators
    don't mind, if we could go right to Governor Ridge right away,
    I would certainly appreciate it. We are honored indeed----
        Senator Roberts. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes?
        Senator Roberts. I have a statement I would like to insert
    in the record at this point on behalf of Senator Lugar.
        The Chairman. Absolutely. I am sorry. I apologize. Senator
    Lugar is unavoidably detained and will not be able to join us.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Lugar can be found in
    the appendix on page 30.]
        The Chairman. Any other Senators that have a statement they
    want to put in the record, it will be made part of the record
    in its entirety right now.
        Governor Ridge, we welcome you here. We thank you for the
    great job you are doing. As a former colleague of ours, we are
    proud of what you are doing down there, and we look forward to
    working with you to make this transition as smooth and as
    seamless as possible. Please, welcome to the committee, and
    your statement will be made a part of the record in its
    entirety. Proceed as you so desire.

       STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RIDGE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HOMELAND
                        SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Ridge. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is a
    pleasure to accept your invitation to spend this afternoon with
    you, at least part of the afternoon, and in the interest of
    getting into the kind of conversation and dialog that the
    committee was interested in when you extended the invitation in
    the first place, I would ask obviously unanimous consent that
    my full statement be included as part of the record. I had
    reduced it considerably, but we are on a short clock, and we
    ought to get into the conversation.
        You understand that the President appreciates the
    bipartisan support that has been evidenced so far in both
    chambers as we work together to achieve a mutual goal, and that
    is the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. You are
    very familiar with the units and the basic desire to create a
    department whose primary focus, primary mission is the security
    of this country. You understand that I am testifying today
    pursuant to an Executive order creating a transitional planning
    office for the new department, and I testify today as the
    Director of that planning office. Since all of the members are
    conversant with the provisions of the President's proposal and
    may or may not have had the opportunity to review the remarks,
    in the interest of conserving some time and getting into the
    conversation that we both think is very important to advancing
    our mutual effort to get this department set up, I conclude my
    remarks, and let's have at it.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Governor Ridge, and I
    will limit myself to 3 minutes, and then I will try to give 3
    minutes back and forth to all the Senators who are here.
    Whoever is running this clock, if you would put it on 3 minutes
    for me.
        Again, Governor, essentially the proposal we have before us
    would transfer all of APHIS' front-line employees charged with
    responding to agricultural health concerns, about 3,200 of
    them. To cover its domestic agricultural health
    responsibilities, APHIS then would have to borrow some of these
    employees back. USDA and the White House indicate that at any
    one time APHIS would have to borrow maybe 15 to 20 percent of
    those 3,200 former employees to meet domestic agricultural
    health responsibilities.
        Furthermore, the proposal states that APHIS will be
    responsible for training these 3,200 employees sent to the new
    department and will set forth the policy regarding what they
    are supposed to look for and how they do their inspections.
    Again, I don't know--what we want to--is this the most
    efficient management structure that we can come up with in
    terms of what your responsibilities are and what our
    responsibilities are in terms of just domestic Animal and Plant
    Health Inspection Service? As I said one time to one of your
    staff, I said surely you don't want to get into things dealing
    with corn bores and boll weevils and glassy wing sharpshooters
    and things like that, plus meat inspection and all that kind of
    endeavor. We have to determine what is the best management
    structure for you to be able to get these people when you need
    them and for us to continue the ongoing job of regular Animal
    and Plant Health Inspection Service. What are your thoughts on
    that?
        Mr. Ridge. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. As you know, the
    President's original proposal called for the complete
    integration of APHIS into the new Department of Homeland
    Security, and working with Members of Congress and looking for
    means to refine the allocation of those resources, particularly
    those invaluable people in a way that enhanced our ability to
    secure the borders and prevent an agroterrorism event by
    detection at the borders, we have kind of refined that initial
    proposal to just include the specialized border inspection and
    enforcement services. It seems to me that in the event that
    there is a need for the Department of Agriculture to use some
    of these men and women in another capacity, that could be
    worked out in a memorandum of understanding between the two
    agencies.
        Originally, as you are well aware, the grafting of the
    entire department would have been about 8,000 people, in
    recognition that there was a--we thought there was a clear line
    and a very good integration at the border for security and
    detection purposes to just include the specialized inspection
    group. Hopefully the concerns that you have addressed regarding
    these individuals being tasked to do other things just could be
    worked out with an executive memorandum between the two
    Secretaries.
        The Chairman. I hope so. Thank you very much, Governor.
        In order of people who arrived, I would go down the list to
    Senators Roberts, Nelson, Hutchinson, Thomas, Allard, Miller.
    Senator Roberts.
        Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Tom, thank you for your leadership, and thank you for being
    in a listening mode, more especially in regards to APHIS, the
    Department of Agriculture, and the obvious need to tighten up
    our border security.
        Senator Allard, who is probably the pre-eminent expert with
    expertise with his background in veterinary medicine, and I
    have a bill that pretty well mirrors what the House has
    suggested in regards to the division of labor and who we put on
    the boilers from APHIS and who we keep in APHIS and the
    function of that agency. It is my understanding that all these
    functions that the chairman has mentioned, that the House bill
    has been agreed to by you, and since our bill pretty much
    mirrors, is almost the same, as a matter of fact, and we plan
    to introduce that on Monday, would you be in favor of that
    bill? Have you agreed pretty much to the House proposal?
        Mr. Ridge. The answer, Senator, is yes. We think it gives
    us the refinement and better management that the chairman and
    you were concerned about. Yes, the administration would support
    that refinement of its proposal.
        Senator Roberts. Assume we have a foot-and-mouth--well,
    thank you for that answer, No. 1. Assume we have a foot-and-
    mouth outbreak that we eventually determine is a result of an
    intentional introduction in the United States. At the point
    that determination is made, who would be in charge of handling
    the situation, tracking down those who are responsible, and the
    consequence management? We hope, of course, to detect, to
    prevent, to deter, but in case we got into consequence
    management, would that be the USDA or the Department of
    Homeland Security? I am assuming the FBI would be in charge,
    too, as well, not to mention probably the National Guard under
    the circumstances. Have you really determined that kind of a
    situation to the degree that you can answer that kind of a
    question?
        Mr. Ridge. Senator, we have. In the President's national
    strategy, it talks about the elimination of the pre-existing
    division of labor at a time a terrorist incident occurs. You
    and I are now talking about an agroterrorist incident,
    bioterrorist incident perhaps. There is a distinction between
    crisis management and consequence management, and we think it
    was more rhetorical than it was practical. In the event of a
    terrorist incident of any nature, the Department of Homeland
    Security would have the coordinating role, but then, again, the
    FBI would be the leading law enforcement agency. The Department
    of Agriculture and the other relevant--in dealing with
    agriculture may head up the scientific and agricultural portion
    of that. The Department of Homeland Security would have the
    overall coordinating mission at the time an event occurred like
    that and was identified as a terrorism event.
        Senator Roberts. Are you anticipating in the near future,
    say this spring, some exercise with some of our land grant
    schools to work through that kind of a scenario?
        Mr. Ridge. Senator, we believe that one of the basic
    responsibilities of the new department and one of the real
    opportunities to get communities prepared, which in itself may
    end up preventing attacks, is expending resources and working
    with State and locals on this very kind of exercise that you
    are talking about. We need to do that in the urban and suburban
    community, but we need to do it in the rural America as well.
    We view agriculture as a critical part of our economic
    infrastructure, one-sixth of our gross domestic product. An
    agroterrorism event would have enormous economic implications,
    let alone the potential of loss of life. Engaging the
    agricultural community in these kind of exercises would be very
    much a part of what the new agency would intend on doing.
        Senator Roberts. My time is up, and I thank you for yours.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Nelson.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Ridge, it
    is great to have you here today and to get a chance to see you
    again.
        You have already pretty well made it clear that balancing
    efficiency, food safety, and food security is going to be a
    challenge that must be undertaken. I guess one of my first
    questions is: Can both food safety and food security be
    accomplished with APHIS? In other words, there is a major
    difference between what APHIS does today just on the food
    safety side that when you add food security, recognizing that
    it may be subject to a terrorist act, that this is--do you
    think, first of all, it can be a challenge?
        Second, in that regard, should we be looking at other
    facilities such as the NIH and the CDC being transferred as
    well? As Dr. Torres has--at least it is rumored that he has
    suggested that.
        Mr. Ridge. Well, Senator, it is clear that there are
    synergies in science that relate to both food security and food
    safety. As a matter of fact, the science relative to food
    security is probably derived from much of the work that has
    been done by the Department of Agriculture and others----
        Senator Nelson. It isn't necessarily a duplication of
    efforts?
        Mr. Ridge. I don't think so. When it comes to security and/
    or safety, a little redundancy is probably not a bad thing to
    have as it affects one-sixth of your gross domestic product,
    anyhow. When it comes to the border where we try to push the
    perimeter out and try to prevent these pathogens, this
    intentionally contaminated food or plant life from coming into
    the United States, we felt that the refinement of the APHIS
    provision got us to where we need to be. Clearly there will
    continue to be great collaboration and cooperation between the
    Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
    Agriculture and the other agencies that deal with food safety
    issues as well.
        Senator Nelson. Do you think then, though, that it might be
    synergy that would be involved with NIH and CDC?
        Mr. Ridge. It is invariable when the scientists get
    together to deal with the pathogens that could affect humans,
    affect animals, and affect plant life. I suspect there is
    probably some synergies there that exist today, and nothing we
    would do within the Department of Homeland Security would in
    any way inhibit further collaboration. We want these resources
    to be focused, depending on how we perceive a particular
    threat. If there is a threat of a particular kind of
    agroterrorism incident, we may need to ramp up the work that is
    being done not through just the agencies that the Department of
    Agriculture normally works through, but the CDC and NIH as
    well.
        It remains to be seen, but we have to be as flexible and as
    nimble and as aggressive as our enemies might be, which means
    we may have to direct certain kinds of research being done as
    quickly as possible.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Governor.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
        Next, Senator Hutchinson.
        Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor
    Ridge, thank you for your appearance. You are making a lot of
    appearances on the Hill these days, and we thank you for your
    patience in this huge task that is ahead of us. I commend you
    again for your leadership and your service to our country.
        I was talking with somebody this week who was involved in
    the creation of the Department of Energy back in the 1970's,
    and the complexity of what we are involved in is far greater
    than even the Department of Energy or the Department of
    Education or the Department of Veterans Affairs, all of which
    had complexities but nothing like what we are facing here, the
    number of agencies involved and the number of departments that
    are affected.
        Let me, first of all, say thank you for your comments on
    APHIS, and I concur with what my colleagues have said about the
    importance of taking a reasonable approach, and the House has
    done that, and I appreciate your response to Senator Roberts'
    question in particular.
        On the broader issue of creating this new department and
    the number of agencies involved and the complexity, do you feel
    that you have the kind of flexibility that you need to
    accomplish the goals? Are there statutory needs or changes that
    need to be made to ensure that the new department accomplishes
    the goals that have been laid out for it? Do you have that kind
    of flexibility?
        Mr. Ridge. Senator, we are asking the Congress of the
    United States to give the new management team of this
    department flexibility to deal with personnel, flexibility to
    deal with the organization, and flexibility to deal with the
    transfer and reprogramming of funds. It is absolutely critical,
    as we set up this very large and very complicated agency, that
    the ability to attract and retain people and giving the
    Secretary and his team discretion above and beyond what might
    exist under Title 5 or civil service is absolutely essential.
        The President has made it very clear. Historical,
    traditional, all Title 5 protections will continue to exist in
    this department: whistleblower protection, civil rights
    protection, veterans' preference protection. These men and
    women transfer over with collective bargaining rights, with
    their pay and their benefits. We do need to give the new
    management team some flexibility to move some people around, to
    reorganize.
        Clearly, given the nature of the mission of this agency, if
    there are savings to be realized by the reorganization--and we
    see immediately in the first couple of years, depending on how
    we construct the information technology piece and how we build
    the technological architecture, we can probably save some
    money. It is the hope of the President and the desire and the
    request before Congress that if you save certain dollars in one
    area of homeland security, you have the flexibility to apply
    them someplace else for homeland security. On that note, it is
    the request of the President--I know it is very controversial.
    It is very contentious. I hope everybody takes a good, honest,
    solid look at this. The ability for this Secretary to transfer
    some funds on an annual basis, we have requested up to 5
    percent, but to vest the discretion of that piece of the budget
    to the Secretary and his management team in order to react and
    respond to a threat, react and respond to a need, react and
    respond to a priority, we think is critical to maximize the
    effectiveness of this organization.
        We have requested congressional support of the management
    flexibility that is provided in the President's proposal and
    hope we can secure some bipartisan support for it.
        Senator Hutchinson. Well, Governor, I know it is
    controversial, but I certainly hope given the implications for
    the health and safety of the American people and the security
    of the homeland that you will be given that. That is a
    reasonable request, and I hope we will comply with it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson.
        Senator Thomas.
        Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Governor.
        The comments that have been made are pretty much the
    comments that I guess I would have. In Wyoming, our producers
    rely on APHIS primarily for two things: one is predator control
    and the other is disease monitoring, brucellosis and scrapie,
    whatever. We hope that core can continue to do what it has been
    doing, and certainly we don't deny that some parts should be
    transferred and we hope to do that. I don't think the whole
    thing should be transferred, and you have indicated that you do
    not either. I hope your department can be kept as small and
    simple as possible to get your job done.
        What about Plum Island? Is that something that will be part
    of your activities?
        Mr. Ridge. Well, we have asked for it in the President's
    initiative, Senator. It is more than a symbolic profiling,
    raising the visibility of potential agroterrorism activity.
    Plum Island does a great deal of detection research in the area
    of agriculture, and having that capacity within the Department
    of Homeland Security and ultimately sharing the resource,
    however, with the Department of Agriculture is ultimately how
    it is going to work out. Connecting the capacity at Plum Island
    to the security mission of the Department of Homeland Security
    is something we felt was consistent with the mission of the new
    agency.
        Senator Thomas. We appreciate your efforts and appreciate
    your flexibility. I hope we can be a little flexible as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
        As was said, I am sure this committee will look for a lot
    of guidance on a lot of these issues from Senator Allard, who
    is a veterinarian. Senator Allard.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to serve on this committee and work with you and
    Senator Roberts. I know that you in your own right are very
    knowledgeable about a lot of veterinary issues. You have a vet
    school in your home State. We have talked about the importance
    of some of these issues.
        Mr. Ridge. The University of Pennsylvania has a pretty good
    one, too.
        Senator Allard. They do. You are absolutely right.
        Mr. Ridge. A plug in for the home team.
        Senator Allard. The three top vet schools.
        The Chairman. I want you to know that my niece just
    graduated from vet med school at Pennsylvania.
        Senator Allard. I am sorry. Maybe five or six, if we keep
    looking at all the members on the committee.
        I just wanted to raise one question as far as Plum Island.
    As most members of the committee know, and you probably know,
    too, we deal with a lot of diseases on Plum Island--it is
    Federal research--that don't occur in the United States. We
    need to understand those diseases, and lots of times we say
    that those diseases do not occur on the mainland of the United
    States, ignoring the fact that we have Plum Island off to the
    side, so technically that is correct. The water barriers and
    whatnot provide some security, but what are your thoughts about
    enhancing security? It is very important because of the vital
    type of research that is conducted there and the potential of
    some of those diseases being introduced inadvertently, whether
    by birds or whatever, onto the mainland. Are you thinking about
    beefing up security there? Or, do you think it is pretty
    adequate right now?
        Mr. Ridge. Senator, I am ill-equipped to make an assessment
    as to the security at Plum Island today. I know that they
    have--the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health
    and Human Services and those members of the Cabinet have all
    looked at their own infrastructure subsequent to, even some of
    them before 9/11, to determine whether or not it was vulnerable
    to any kind of terrorist attack in and of itself and have begun
    to enhance security.
        I would think that one of the most important initial
    missions for the new Secretary of the new Department would be,
    as he or she goes about the business of aggregating all these
    resources to protect the homeland, is they make very sure that
    these facilities themselves have enhanced protection to
    maximize their effectiveness and use for this country.
        Senator Allard. A lot of us that have vet schools in our
    home States, understand that national support from Plum Island
    is important, as well as the national lab that we have in Iowa.
    A lot of the vet schools send specimens to Iowa, and they rely
    on a lot of research there to keep their students and everybody
    appraised of the latest technology as far as some of these
    diseases that don't occur in this country. We are in an
    environment now where our world is very small and we are
    getting more transportation of animals, such as birds and fish,
    which we have never had in the past. These functions remain
    extremely important, and I thank you for your interest in the
    Roberts amendment, which I worked with Senator Roberts on. I
    appreciate your working with us on that.
        Mr. Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Allard.
        Senator Miller.
        Senator Miller. Governor Ridge, it is good to see you
    again.
        Mr. Ridge. Good to see. Thank you.
        Senator Miller. Thank you for the job you are doing. Our
    thoughts have been with you.
        I want you to know that I support the administration's goal
    of creating a Homeland Security Department. I want you to know
    that I want to give that agency all the tools necessary to
    protect the citizens of this country. I would like to associate
    myself with the remarks that some of the Senators have already
    made, Senator Roberts about APHIS and what the House did, and
    something similar would certainly be acceptable to this
    Senator. It is a common-sense approach.
        I also would do what my other colleagues have done, and
    that is, remind you that there are a lot of land grant
    universities represented on this committee, including the
    University of Georgia that has excelled in poultry research and
    food quality. I know that you will be looking toward those
    universities and realize what they can mean in supporting your
    department. I wish you well.
        Mr. Ridge. Thank you, Senator. One of the units within the
    new department will be a science and technology unit, and it
    may not be as aptly named or might not strike you as--the way
    the phrase is or the terminology we use is the WMD
    Countermeasures. Clearly, it is a science and technology
    research and development unit that the President wants
    available to this country through the new department. As we go
    to enhance our research as it affects security issues affecting
    citizens, affecting agriculture, affecting whatever in this
    country, the President feels very strongly that we ought to
    look to existing laboratory capacity and the scientists that
    exist without trying to create our own laboratories or develop
    our own scientific base. As you pointed out, we have some
    fabulous institutions in this country with great scientists,
    great researchers, and we ought to take advantage of them.
        Senator Miller. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Miller.
        Senator Lincoln.
        Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Governor Ridge. We are glad to have you here.
        Mr. Ridge. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Lincoln. I am certainly looking forward to the work
    that we can achieve together.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing
    and to all of the other guests that will be testifying today,
    we appreciate the input that everybody has.
        I wanted to add just a few brief remarks to what has
    already been said by several of my colleagues. I, too, think
    that the President was wise to coordinate the many border
    security and protection functions of the Federal Government
    into one new department. Of course, the integration of so many
    of these Federal agencies from so many different parts of
    Government will not be a simple affair. We do want to be able
    to work with you providing that kind of flexibility that you
    need to be able to accomplish that.
        Yesterday in the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus held a
    hearing to look into the President's proposal to reorganize the
    functions of the U.S. Customs Service into the new Department
    of Homeland Security. At that hearing, both Chairman Baucus and
    myself expressed our reservations about folding all of the
    functions of the Customs Service into the new department. It
    makes the most sense to preserve some of the normal day-to-day
    commercial operations of the Customs Service separate and
    distinct from the border enforcement operations. Both kind of
    operations are clearly very, very important to all of which
    occurs in this country, and many here have expressed that the
    same logic applies to our consideration of what to do with
    APHIS, and certainly with some of the action that the House has
    taken. I am pleased to see that the administration has agreed
    to the House proposal that will do just that, I believe, with
    APHIS, keeping the important day-to-day agricultural functions
    within the USDA and moving also very important border security
    functions to your new Department of Homeland Security. We hope
    that this will prove to be a success not only with APHIS here
    but hopefully with other areas like U.S. Customs and others.
        This is a very prudent plan and think it will very much
    help to ensure that all of the people's business is carried
    out. I hope that we will use some of this as really a plan or a
    template as we work through how homeland security can really do
    its job in terms of, as Senator Miller mentioned, protecting
    the citizens of this great country in a security sense, but
    also recognizing the day-to-day operations that secure our
    economy through the industries of this country and making sure
    that we keep those day-to-day operations continuing.
        Just a couple of quick questions. Is my time up?
        The Chairman. I am trying to limit it to 3 minutes. We have
    about 10 minutes left in this vote on the floor, and I would
    like to get everybody in, if I could, if you could just----
        Senator Lincoln. OK. Well, can I just add these last two
    things? One is specifically how the administration does plan to
    allocate personnel between these two departments. As you
    formulate those ideas--I don't know if you have yet or not in
    terms of how you are doing that. Moving required personnel
    currently that are working in the normal agricultural
    operations of APHIS to be taken out of those jobs and sent to a
    new department. I just hope that we will take particular
    consideration in the decisions that you make there. Several of
    my colleagues have already brought this up. Will there be new
    personnel needed to fill the void that is left behind? Are we
    going to require personnel to be detailed back and forth
    between the departments as needed? All of those are very
    difficult situations, and we are already experiencing some of
    that concern of lack of personnel at USDA to begin with.
        I hope that as you approach that issue, you will recognize
    the concerns that we already have at USDA and certainly
    recognize how we can best get the functions of both the day-to-
    day operations and that of homeland security.
        The other is just to mention to you in our state of
    Arkansas, Jailnet is a program I have started with the law
    enforcement officers, and we have been able to incorporate into
    that a plan called E-Plan, which provides our first responders
    with an ability to really react to bio-terrorism and some other
    things. It is a very low-cost way to get to your first
    responders and your law enforcement officers in dealing with
    things that very often can be foreign to them where they may
    not have a great deal of background. We have five States now
    connected together, and it is a really good proposal. We would
    be glad to visit with you and pass some of that along to you.
        Mr. Ridge. We would be very interested in learning more
    about that. We are finding great leadership and innovation at
    the State and local level, particularly as it relates to first
    responders. I will have someone followup with you.
        Senator Lincoln. We have all of our law enforcement
    officers connected in our State with five other States, and we
    have the first responders as well.
        Mr. Ridge. It sounds to me like a good mutual aid
    agreement.
        Senator Lincoln. There you go.
        Mr. Ridge. It sounds excellent.
        Senator Lincoln. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. There are about 9 minutes left on the vote,
    so, Senator Crapo, then Senator Dayton, and we can let Governor
    Ridge leave.
        Senator Crapo.
        Senator Crapo. Governor Ridge, I would like to join all the
    others here in thanking you for your excellent work and
    indicate to you that I also support the President's proposal
    for this new department.
        I also would like to associate myself with the comments of
    Senator Roberts and others about the House proposal and the
    approach to which appropriate functions from APHIS should be
    shifted to the new department, and with Senator Miller and
    others who have commented about the importance of the land
    grant universities, and I look forward to working with you in
    that context.
        I just have one very quick question, and that is, in the
    area of trade, the sanitary and phytosanitary inspections and
    issues, I understand under the House proposal at least, would
    not be transferred to DHS. Is that your understanding? Would
    you support that? I guess I would really just like your general
    answer as to how your department, if established, would
    function with regard to the trade issues and the phytosanitary
    and sanitary issues that we deal with with our international
    trading partners.
        Mr. Ridge. Senator, it is my understanding that the
    specialized border inspection team will be focusing on security
    rather than food safety measures, and the FSIS and others would
    be dealing with that issue. I don't think it is transferred,
    but I need to give you more clarity and will make sure that I
    do by the end of the day.
        Senator Crapo. All right. I appreciate that. That that is
    the way it is, but I just wanted to clarify that myself.
        Mr. Ridge. All right.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Crapo.
        Senator Dayton.
        Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Governor, I join with the others in thanking you for your
    excellent service, and I certainly also want to work and be
    supportive with you. I serve on the Governmental Affairs
    Committee, so I have had a chance to work with Senator
    Lieberman who has certainly worked closely with you, and I want
    to start by acknowledging that you made here one of the more
    cogent and insightful observations that I have witnessed in my
    now year and a half in the Senate. That is where you say on
    page 3 here that you have examined the Federal Government and
    you quickly concluded the Federal Government could be much
    better organized than it presently is. That is spoken as a
    Governor, looking at that situation, and you need obviously in
    this exercise the wisdom of Solomon in terms of what to leave
    and what to take and the like.
        However, Solomon didn't split the baby, and I guess I
    almost as a devil's advocate could kind of question--and on
    behalf of most of those involved in Minnesota, appreciate the
    change in the position that you have now taken and the
    administration regarding leaving much of this in the Department
    of Agriculture.
        Given that you have the CIA, the FBI, some of these other
    entities with whom you need close working relationships are
    being left also out of the department and left intact outside,
    is there consideration given to leaving all of this in the
    Department of Agriculture and establishing the working
    relationships you need with that Department and this entity?
    What is the advantage of splitting it and doing it that way?
        Mr. Ridge. Senator, as you have pointed out, we would like
    to have the wisdom of Solomon, but none of us do. The
    refinement of our proposal was in recognition of both
    management and mission concerns that we had after consultation,
    frankly, with Republicans and Democrats in both the House and
    the Senate. If the primary mission is security and one of the
    means that you enhance security for this country is you
    consolidate different functions at the border, you have a
    significant portion of APHIS, about 3,000 FTEs out of 8,000,
    that has an ongoing relationship with INS and Customs and very
    much a part of our border security apparatus. That seemed to be
    a very good means by which we could separate a group of these
    employees who fit very directly into the primary mission of the
    agency. The others--the balance of APHIS and those good people
    down the road, there may be some connection, but the tear line
    seemed to be the appropriate one to take. These men and women
    will be focused on security issues, as they have been, and
    should be part of a border consolidation effort.
        Senator Dayton. I appreciate the great deal of time and
    care you have taken, and the resolution is the optimal one and
    am glad to support it. That is your decision to make.
        Mr. Ridge. Thank you.
        Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Governor Ridge, if I could just close up by just saying I
    wonder if we have a gaping hole here.
        Mr. Ridge. I hope not.
        The Chairman. Well, I hope not, either, but let's think
    about this. I will just take a couple of minutes here, and if
    you can't respond, maybe we will just do it in writing. When
    things come across our border in APHIS, APHIS is charged with
    the responsibility of making sure that what comes across our
    border in terms of animals and plants is not a threat to our
    animals and our plants. It doesn't take into account if it is a
    threat to human health safety. That is done by FSIS, Food
    Safety and Inspection Service, and the FDA. APHIS looks at the
    countries where it is coming from and if there is any
    possibility that it could infect our plants or our animals,
    foot-and-mouth disease, that type of thing.
        It seems to me if a terrorist wants to really terrorize our
    people, they might want to do something to affect food safety
    in terms of meat, meat products, vegetables, other things that
    may be coming across our border. That is what FSIS and FDA do.
        I don't see any proposal that the White House has, it
    doesn't mention food safety as a part of this. I am wondering
    whether this fits in because it seems like what you are going
    to do--at least I assume that Homeland Security would, if there
    is any indication of a threat, they would coordinate or call
    upon FDA and FSIS without putting them under Homeland Security.
    On APHIS, you put them under Homeland Security, and that is
    only covering one threat, the threat to plants and animals, not
    to humans. I am wondering if we might not want to think about
    how we put that there also; in other words, the protection of
    human health.
        What if someone came across the border, a terrorist, and
    they were able to contaminate something that made people sick
    and they were traced? I mean, that could terrorize a lot of
    people in our country, but that is not here under this
    proposal.
        Mr. Ridge. Well, conceivably, Senator, that, as I said
    before, there is a tremendous amount of synergy--maybe it is a
    word we use too often, but here it is appropriate--between the
    science and the detection of food security problems and food
    safety. Obviously, the FSIS and the FDA and others have much
    broader regulatory authority, and they are looking for natural
    contaminations rather than willful contaminations of animal and
    plant life. At the border it is very appropriate that we take
    that portion of APHIS to focus on food security.
        In the event that those who work in the various departments
    and agencies that deal with food safety issues suspect a
    terrorist act, clearly the resources and the collaboration with
    the new Department of Homeland Security would hopefully be a
    reflexive action. The first sign, the first indication, the
    first possibility that it is a terrorist act, engaging the
    Department of Homeland Security, calling in the FBI, bringing
    all the resources to bear to identify or to confirm whether it
    is or is not, and then trace back the etiology to determine
    where it may have begun and to take a look nationwide to see if
    there are other signs. Clearly, there will be the kind of
    collaboration and coordination on an ongoing basis between the
    food safety agencies and the Secretary of Agriculture and the
    new Department of Homeland Security.
        The Chairman. Well, we have to work on this. Someone once
    said to me, you are putting APHIS over there, that is fine. You
    are going to protect our animals and our plants. What about
    humans and the food that comes across our border? I thought,
    well, you are right. What about that?
        This needs to be further developed somehow and how you
    coordinate with FDA and FSIS on that. I don't have the answer.
    I am just throwing out the problem. That is all.
        Mr. Ridge. Senator, that we recognize we are both
    interested in resolving it. The existing structure, the way the
    department is organized does solve the problem.
        The Chairman. OK.
        Mr. Ridge. Obviously, as we chatted before the hearing,
    this deserves further conversation, and I look forward to that
    in the next few days, because I know you are working on a very
    limited time schedule, and I will look forward to that
    conversation.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Governor Ridge, and
    thank you for being here.
        Mr. Ridge. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Governor Ridge can be found in
    the appendix on page 31.]
        The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess. We will
    go over and vote and come back, and then we will have Secretary
    Veneman on.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Agriculture,
    Nutrition and Forestry will resume its sitting. The committee
    had just heard from the Director of our Homeland Security,
    Governor Ridge, and we took a break to go vote. We are back now
    to get the input from our Secretary of Agriculture, the
    Honorable Ann Veneman. Again, this committee, Madam Secretary,
    is trying to wrestle with just exactly how we form and shape,
    in the best and most efficient managerial regime, the
    jurisdiction for Homeland Security and not only how they
    operate in the jurisdiction for USDA under APHIS but also under
    FSIS and what is the best model for that.
        As I said to Governor Ridge, as chairman, as an individual,
    I don't have any set beliefs or parameters, just what works
    best for homeland security. That is what we are interested in
    trying to figure out, and we certainly welcome your input and
    expertise on how we can best shape it so that we get the job
    done without getting into turf battles. I am not concerned
    about turf battles. I just want to know what works.
        We welcome you, Madam Secretary, and your statement will be
    made part of the record in its entirety, and please proceed as
    you so desire.

      STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
               DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Secretary Veneman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a
    pleasure to be before this committee again and to have the
    opportunity to talk about this very important subject. I
    appreciate the opportunity that you have given me to follow
    Governor Ridge today. That this is certainly a very important
    topic and one which we have worked very closely with Governor
    Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security all the way along
    since he has been appointed. What we are discussing today
    indicates that that relationship has been a very good working
    relationship. He certainly has a very good understanding of the
    importance of our food and agriculture system to the whole
    issue of homeland security.
        That as we look to how it is--what is appropriate as we
    move forward, as you know, the initial proposal would have
    transferred all of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
    Service to the new Department of Homeland Security as well as
    Plum Island, through work with the House Ag Committee and with
    the Office of Homeland Security, we have created, as Governor
    Ridge referred to it, a tear line and we believe that the
    structure that has been agreed to within the House Ag
    Committee's proposal and I believe will be adopted, based on
    testimony that I was involved with yesterday, by the House
    oversight committee is the appropriate means by which to
    include the important role of agriculture inspection in the new
    Department of Homeland Security.
        We think that as you look at the various roles of the
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service there are a number
    of areas that then, under the House proposal, the Department
    will retain jurisdiction over. As you know, APHIS has a very
    broad responsibility, everything from biotechnology regulation
    to animal welfare to international issues including imports and
    exports, and all of the regulatory functions of APHIS will
    remain, under the House proposal, with the Department of
    Agriculture. We do endorse that proposal. We appreciate the
    collaboration we have had, and we look forward to working with
    you, as Senator Roberts has now indicated, he and others of
    this committee will introduce a parallel proposal in the
    Senate.
        I might add that we have been working very continuously on
    these issues for a number of months. As you know, just after I
    took office, we encountered the threat of foot-and-mouth
    disease, and we started to review all of our systems. We added
    money, we added inspectors, and we really began to look at our
    overall infrastructure in this regard.
        After September 11th, we began a whole other set of reviews
    that included a look at how do we know consider this real
    threat of an intentional act that might impact our food or
    agriculture. Again, we have used--our 2003 budget has allocated
    additional funds to beef up our programs. We got additional
    resources through the supplemental on homeland security. We are
    looking at the security of everything from our laboratories to
    our facilities to our research that needs to be done, to new
    diagnostic tests, and we continue to be very actively engaged
    in issues that impact on homeland security.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of this committee
    in this topic. It is something that we take very seriously, and
    I would be happy to answer your questions and the questions of
    those on the committee.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
        Again, we will go 3-minute time limits here on this.
        At a staff briefing with your staff and those from the
    Office of Homeland Security, we were told that there was no
    intention to increase FTEs. With 3,200 people being
    transferred, or at least being told to transfer--3,200
    employees from APHIS would be transferred over. Will you be
    able to carry out your agency's mission without APHIS in its
    entirety, or approximately--let's say that is about one-third
    of the people going over to Homeland Security. Or will you need
    increased numbers of employees?
        It seems to me that, we have a lot of other things to do in
    APHIS that is not concerned with homeland security, and if one-
    third of those people are transferring, are you satisfied that
    you will be able to meet your obligations with the remaining
    work force?
        Secretary Veneman. Mr. Chairman, the way that this proposal
    that is now in the House has been structured is that the
    employees that would be transferred are those employees that
    are currently doing the border inspection work, which amounts
    to about 3,200, plus or minus.
        Now, some of those employees are also used in the case of
    an outbreak, and we will take some of those inspectors and put
    them on an emergency situation in the case of an outbreak of,
    say, citrus canker or med fly, something like that.
        The way we have envisioned this in working with the Office
    of Homeland Security and the way the new department would work
    is that we would have a cooperative agreement with the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture that we could utilize still people
    from the border inspection part that would be transferred over
    for cases of emergency. We believe with that arrangement it
    should not impact current operations of APHIS other than those
    at the border, and that the border capabilities would then also
    be carried out as they are now, just through a different
    agency.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Roberts.
        Senator Roberts. Yes, I have three questions. Thank you,
    Madam Secretary. Thank you for your leadership in this whole
    area. I hope you can do more with the same or less. I have
    every confidence you will do your best.
        You have already answered this question. I just want to ask
    it for the record. Do you believe the split of APHIS functions
    between the USDA and Homeland Security, as outlined in the
    House Agriculture Committee proposal and in the Miller-Allard-
    Roberts bill and others to come, is the proper division of
    functions?
        Secretary Veneman. Yes.
        Senator Roberts. Thank you.
        Assume under a worst-case scenario--and you testified about
    a real threat scenario and looking ahead, and when you first
    assumed office, we had a good talk about this in regards to
    homeland security, agroterrorism, and the threat to our food
    supply. I truly appreciate that conversation and the many
    conversations we have had since that time. If we determined we
    had an intentional or unintentional outbreak of disease in
    multiple counties and locations all throughout the country, are
    we really prepared to handle this? Or do you think it would be
    useful to establish an organization within the USDA or to
    expand APHIS to create the equivalent of something like a CDC
    for agriculture?
        I know that has budget implications, policy implications.
    Now is not the best time to ask you that question. Down the
    road it seems to me that something like that certainly would be
    needed.
        Secretary Veneman. Well, Senator, that your question is a
    very good one, and it is obviously an issue we have spent a
    considerable amount of time looking at, and looking at our
    response mechanisms. It is very important that, as we looked at
    the whole foot-and-mouth disease situation we saw last year, as
    we then looked at much broader scenarios with the post-9/11, we
    have worked to not only strengthen our prevention but look at
    what would happen in the event of an outbreak.
        We have brought in our States. We have brought in
    universities. We have worked with other departments. We have
    had interagency meetings with FEMA and all of the other
    agencies that might be involved if we were to get an outbreak.
    We have been involved in exercises. While you can always do
    more in terms of preparedness, I believe that the Department
    has taken considerable steps in trying to be continuously
    better at what they are doing and in their preparedness.
        In terms of setting up additional offices, we have been
    strengthening our emergency response systems. We have
    integrated in something in our Forest Service, for example, the
    emergency teams that go out to forest fires. You know, they
    were used in New York City on 9/11, but we have also discovered
    they can be used for logistical support in the event of an
    outbreak. We recently did that in a case of avian influenza in
    Virginia, where we brought in the Forest Service logistical
    support.
        We think by thinking outside the box a little bit that we
    are improving our response systems and that we will continue to
    do so, and we have been working with the Office of Homeland
    Security, and we look forward to continuing that relationship
    with the new Department of Homeland Security.
        Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Could I
    be permitted 30 seconds for a real quick question?
        The Chairman. Absolutely.
        Senator Roberts. Along those lines, have you contracted
    with any outside parties or organizations to pursue a
    missionary analysis or something that I call a ``war game
    scenario'' to determine or identify any vulnerabilities in
    disease management functions, maybe located--and I am talking
    about consequence management or what Director Ridge called
    crisis management? Are you that far along the line in terms of
    those steps that you are considering?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, we are working with a number of
    organizations on different kinds of issues. We have had an
    outside firm looking at laboratory security issues. We have
    worked with some universities on some scenario planning types
    of issues. We will be glad to work with you and brief you on
    all of the kinds of outside activities that----
        Senator Roberts. I was thinking of the Dark Winter exercise
    which became not only famous but infamous, not that I am
    encouraging you to do that, but something of that nature. I
    appreciate your response.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Allard.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Those agencies that don't get transferred, that stay within
    the Department, what are you doing to assure that they
    coordinate their efforts on agroterrorism with the new
    Department of Homeland Security?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, as I indicated, we will have some
    memorandums of understanding with the department, but it is
    very important to recognize that we have worked very closely
    with the Office of Homeland Security since the President
    initiated it in October, a very close working relationship. We
    have coordinated our activities. They have become very
    cognizant of the issues that impact the food and agriculture
    system. Certainly the fact that they are putting put of the
    agriculture inspection service into the new department is a
    recognition of how important these issues are.
        This is an administration that works very closely together
    on a whole host of issues, and when it comes to food issues and
    homeland security, we have worked closely not only with that
    office but also with HHS and particularly Food and Drug
    Administration. I would anticipate that those relationships
    would continue to strength, if anything, and that we would
    continue to work very closely in an interagency coordinated way
    to continue to make sure that everything is coordinated
    completely.
        When you look at the response systems that FEMA has, for
    example, when we have a disaster today, we have a very
    coordinate Government system. The new Department of Homeland
    Security will make those systems even stronger because it will
    bring resources together. That doesn't undermine the fact that
    you are going to need very, very strong working relationships
    with all the departments and the regulatory agencies in
    particular.
        Senator Allard. If we had an outbreak of, say, foot-and-
    mouth disease on our border with Mexico it would bring up all
    sorts of international issues and whatnot. Who negotiates that?
    Is that the Department of State or is that all the agencies
    sitting down? Who negotiates with what agency in Mexico? Is
    that Agriculture or will they have a comparable law enforcement
    division over there? Have we given that some thought?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, it would be an interagency
    coordination, but Agriculture would have a key role. We work
    very, very closely with the Department of Agriculture in Mexico
    on regulatory issues, on animal health issues.
        As you know, I was involved in the Agriculture Department
    in the State of California, and we had agreements of all the
    border States on animal disease issues because of this very
    issue. You have an animal disease or you have a med fly
    outbreak. Animal diseases don't know that there is a border
    there, and so we have a number of cooperative agreements, both
    at the Federal level, primarily through APHIS, and also at the
    State level through our State veterinarians, on how these kinds
    of things are controlled and what we would do in the event of
    an outbreak. I would think that those relationships would just
    continue on and be strengthened.
        Senator Allard. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Allard.
        Senator Dayton.
        Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I commend you and Governor Ridge for
    having worked out this division, which seems like a good one,
    and I would be happy to support it, as well as others, and
    thank you for that.
        In Minnesota, as in many other States, homeland security is
    very much a part of the state of our agricultural economy, so I
    hope you will permit me that little extension as a way of
    asking you just a couple of questions. One, we talked before
    the hearing began here about the situation with Russia, and I
    have several turkey growers from Minnesota actually waiting in
    my office right now watching this hearing on television. I will
    be meeting with them. Can you give us any indication or update
    of what you and Ambassador Zoellick and others think is the
    future there?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, we have worked very diligently in
    our administration to try to resolve this issue with the
    difficulties we have had with Russia and our poultry exports.
    As you know, our largest export to Russia of anything, outside
    of food and agriculture as well, is poultry. This has been
    something that has been of extreme interest to the entire
    administration, and there has been a high level of engagement.
        We have had a number of teams go to Russia. We have had
    Russian teams come here. We most recently had a team in Russia
    that included our Under Secretary J.B. Penn. We feel that we
    have made considerable progress during that visit. There have
    been letters that are being exchanged even as we speak today.
    We remain hopeful that we can reach a quick resolution to this
    issue and get the agreed protocols negotiated so that trade can
    resume, hopefully in a manner that brings it up to near the
    levels that we had before.
        Again, we had not anticipated that it would take so long to
    resolve this issue. We are continuing to work very diligently
    to get it done.
        Senator Dayton. Well, thank you, and thank you for your
    efforts there.
        As we also discussed before--so I am not, hopefully,
    surprising you--the Senate bill which Senator Harkin so
    masterfully put together has as one of its key components
    disaster assistance money, and the House did not and,
    unfortunately, would not accede. I have a number of farmers--
    others do as well in the States, this strange anomaly where in
    some States they are burning up, and others like Minnesota are
    under water, farmers who have lost 90 to 100 percent of their
    crops, and without the countercyclical payments and without the
    disaster assistance that the House took out. I am told
    indirectly that there is thought that there is money in the
    Farm bill that was just passed that would be available for
    disaster assistance, which, of course, the Senate had made
    arrangements for, but I don't see any--is there any hope for
    the farmers who have lost their crops in terms of disaster
    assistance, either through existing funds that I am not aware
    of or through--would the administration be willing to support
    additional disaster assistance for those who don't have a crop?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, Senator, we are very aware that
    there have been some extreme weather conditions that have
    impacted not only our farmers and ranchers, but this has been
    the most extreme fire season we have seen in almost history.
    The extreme weather conditions have been a big issue in our
    Department, obviously.
        We have taken every tool that we have in our tool box and
    tried to make it available to people who have suffered this
    year because of weather, whether it is opening up CRP to haying
    and grazing. We have declared disasters as quickly as possible
    in counties where it has been requested because that then makes
    the emergency loans available to the farmers and ranchers. We
    have even opened up haying and grazing on non-disaster counties
    so that they can help out with the people that are suffering in
    the disaster counties. We have been doing everything we can to
    try to alleviate the disastrous situation.
        Senator Dayton. Well, I believe you have and I thank you
    for that, and you have extended the resources as far as
    possible. I guess I would just ask if you would implore the
    President on behalf of the farmers in Minnesota, who really are
    suffering, and consider the disaster aid, without which many of
    them won't be around next year.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        The Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you. I just have one
    follow-up question. The USDA and the White House indicate that
    at any one time, APHIS will have to borrow about 15 to 20
    percent of the 3,200 former employees to meet domestic
    agricultural health responsibilities.
        All of those 3,200 are not just used in the case of an
    outbreak. If we need 15 to 20 percent of those to do non-border
    activities, such as invasive species work, enforcing domestic
    quarantines, or monitoring and surveillance, I guess what I am
    wondering then again is do we leave a gap at the border if you
    at any one time have 15 to 20 percent of these plant and
    quarantine officers just to meet APHIS' day-to-day
    responsibilities.
        That is why I was asking so many questions about the FTEs,
    because we have indications that at any time you would need 15
    to 20 percent for day-to-day activities, but then how much do
    they need for border activities? Maybe we don't really need to
    transfer 3,200.
        Secretary Veneman. Well, let me see if I can explain that
    as well as I understand it. We utilize up to 15 to 20 percent
    of the inspectors during certain times when we have outbreaks.
    We have a lot of people assigned in Florida, for example,
    because it is a big State both in terms of airports and, as
    well, shipping ports. We have also had citrus canker and we
    have had control because of that disease and we have needed
    additional APHIS people, so they have been rotated in for
    control of that disease.
        Under the proposal, as it now has been passed by the House
    Ag Committee, that would anticipate that we would have contract
    authority and a memorandum of understanding so that we could
    still utilize those resources.
        We have overall increased inspectors over the last year-
    and-a-half since we have been in office, primarily because of
    the foot-and-mouth disease and then 9/11, and through the
    emergency funds and additional funding that we have put in. We
    believe that with the flexibility of this memorandum of
    understanding that we can maintain the level of inspection, as
    well as the level of containment and control and eradication
    that we need.
        I might also add that I believe that as you put all of
    these people under the same department, we will be doing more
    cross-training. For example, I would anticipate that Customs
    inspectors will be better prepared to look and ask the right
    questions about food and agriculture, so that we will gain
    resources, in my view, because of the agencies with whom the
    APHIS inspectors will be housed.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Did you have any followup at all, Senator Allard?
        Senator Allard. No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Madam Secretary, thank you very much for taking time from
    your busy schedule to come up here.
        Secretary Veneman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
        The Chairman. We will work with you, and also Governor
    Ridge, to get this thing figured out.
        Secretary Veneman. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Veneman can be found
    in the appendix on page 37.]
        The Chairman. Now, we will call Dr. Alfonso Torres,
    Associate Dean of Veterinary Public Policy and Director of the
    New York State Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratory at Cornell
    University. Dr. Torres was the former APHIS Deputy
    Administrator for Veterinary Services.
        Dr. Torres, we welcome you to the committee and your
    statement will be made part of the record in its entirety. If
    you would just summarize for us, we would be most appreciative.

    STATEMENT OF ALFONSO TORRES, ASSOCIATE DEAN, VETERINARY PUBLIC
     POLICY, AND DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE ANIMAL HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC
    LABORATORY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
                            ITHACA, NEW YORK

        Dr. Torres. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, members of the
    committee. Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to come
    here.
        As you requested, I am going to shorten by formal remarks
    before I can answer some questions. I must indicate to you, Mr.
    Chairman, that when I prepared these written remarks I was not
    aware of the amendment to the House bill that has made
    significant changes to the original proposal of the President.
    If I may, let me go right to the five points or recommendations
    that I indicated in my remarks and make reference to those as
    the current proposal stands.
        Let me say also, Mr. Chairman, that I am making these
    comments based on my extensive experience at the USDA, 8 years
    at Plum Island in charge of foreign animal disease diagnostic,
    and then director of the center, and then the last 3 years here
    in Washington, DC, working with Secretary Veneman and previous
    Secretary Glickman on animal health issues for the United
    States.
        My first recommendation or point was exactly what the House
    bill has done in modifying that only the port inspectors will
    be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. However,
    I do have similar concerns to the ones that you have expressed
    in the sense that PPQ, plant protection and quarantine, depends
    on many of those port inspectors for plant health activities.
        This is a little bit different than what we have on the
    animal health side, in which we have permanent personnel
    located in all 50 States that deal on a day-to-day basis with
    issues of animal health, whether we have an emergency or not.
    That is not exactly the same situation as PPQ is organized in
    APHIS. They depend quite a bit on those port inspectors when
    they have plant disease outbreaks.
        If those port inspectors will go to the Department of
    Homeland Security, I will suggest that either USDA will retain
    some funding or personnel to fill the gap that you identified
    in your remarks.
        My second remark or recommendation is that there are some
    import/export permitting activities for restricted agents, now
    called selected agents, that need to be coordinated between
    APHIS and Customs. That has been taken care of by the
    development of a new selected agent list, and that the two
    agencies are well coordinated there.
        A third point I would like to raise and a point that I have
    not heard up to this point in time is that APHIS from time to
    time during the past few years, certainly while I was there,
    was suggesting that there is a need to have emergency
    management specialist veterinarians located at FEMA. FEMA is
    taking more of a role of dealing with national disasters or
    disease outbreaks where animals are involved and they need to
    have this veterinary expertise within the FEMA organization.
        Whether FEMA stays or not within the Department of Homeland
    Security, I will suggest that the proposals that were put
    forward by APHIS in the past of having veterinarians in the
    headquarters of FEMA and one specialist in emergency management
    animal health issues at each one of the eight FEMA regions
    should be given consideration.
        My fourth point is in relation to the animal and plant
    health laboratories and science centers. The question came
    recently from Senator Roberts about whether or not APHIS should
    have a CDC-like organization, and my answer to that is that we
    do indeed have that organization in place.
        APHIS has the National Veterinary Services Laboratories at
    Ames, Iowa, with one of their labs is located at Plum Island.
    They have the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health in
    Fort Collins, Colorado, and the Center for Veterinary Biologics
    in Ames, Iowa.
        All these are, in essence, very, very similar in activities
    and organization as to what CDC has for human health, and I
    will suggest that the same treatment that CDC has had should be
    applied to these centers. Except for Plum Island, that the new
    amendment in the House bill takes care of that.
        My final points are in relation to Plum Island, a place
    where I spent 8 years with USDA in top managerial leadership
    positions. As most people know, Plum Island was created back in
    the 1950's with the main purpose of working with the foot-and-
    mouth disease virus because at the time the bio-containment
    technologies that existed required around the world that these
    centers would be located in an island setting. That is no
    longer the case today. Actually, most centers around the world
    working with foot-and-mouth disease are located on the
    mainland.
        Because Plum Island was then created with these bio-
    containment characteristics, then all the highly contagious
    diseases were moved to work at Plum Island. It is important,
    Mr. Chairman, to point out and to remember that not all foreign
    animal diseases are diagnosed or worked at Plum Island. Many of
    these diseases--all poultry diseases, all equine diseases, and
    many diseases that affect other species, including mad cow
    disease, chronic wasting disease, and scrapie--are diagnosed at
    Ames, Iowa. The notion that Plum Island is the only center in
    the United States where foreign or highly contagious diseases
    are worked is not correct.
        We have other activities at Plum Island. We also have
    research activities in some of the diseases that, because of
    the requirements of the law, need to be done at Plum Island,
    mainly foot-and-mouth disease and other highly contagious
    diseases.
        All the APHIS labs, at Ames, Iowa, and at Plum Island, also
    deal with zoonotic diseases, and in those cases there is a
    great deal of coordination with CDC, and I include in here
    working with rabies, working with the west Nile virus, and
    working with encephalitic conditions that affect horses and
    humans as well.
        While I understand to a certain degree the idea of having
    better coordination by moving a major Federal lab into Homeland
    Security, I will put forward the question of why is Plum Island
    singled out when it is not the only place in the United States
    where foreign animal diseases are studied?
        Second, given the similar nature of APHIS labs to CDC labs
    or NIH labs, why are those labs not transferred to the
    Department of Homeland Security? All scientific labs providing
    diagnostic scientific support for diagnosis of human or animal
    diseases should be treated the same.
        In the case of CDC and NIH, it is my understanding that
    they will remain under HHS and Homeland Security will provide
    additional moneys or programs to enhance their needs in case of
    bio-terrorism or other terrorism, for that matter. I will
    suggest that perhaps it will be good to think in those terms
    for all those scientific centers of APHIS.
        Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come
    here to speak to you and I will be glad to answer any specific
    questions that you may have.
        The Chairman. Well, Dr. Torres, thank you very much because
    you bring some valuable experience as former Deputy
    Administrator and also Director of the Plum Island facility.
        Let me see if I understand correctly the summation of your
    testimony. What you are basically saying is since the only
    facility being transferred is Plum Island--that is the one that
    they want to transfer, but they will be coordinating with all
    these other facilities for human health and safety and plant
    and animal safety.
        Are you saying that they could have the same type of
    arrangement with Plum Island? In other words, they could be
    used to fight bio-terrorism, but not necessarily transferred.
    Is that what you are saying in terms of Plum Island?
        Dr. Torres. Yes, Senator Harkin. What I am saying is Plum
    Island provides scientific basis, diagnostic technologies, and
    research on some of the foreign animal diseases that could be
    used for a bio-terrorism event. The same thing happened with
    the other laboratories in Ames, Iowa.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Dr. Torres. Plum Island is not exclusive for having these
    technologies. Those technologies exist in other APHIS
    laboratories in the country. What I am suggesting is that the
    same situation happens with the CDC labs in regard to human
    diseases.
        CDC provides the scientific basis, diagnosis, and
    surveillance for human diseases that could be used for bio-
    terrorism, and the President's proposal did not call for moving
    CDC labs from Atlanta or Fort Collins into Homeland Security,
    but provides some ways to enhance their capabilities through
    funding and cooperative programs.
        I am suggesting that Plum Island could and perhaps should
    be treated in the same way; that is, leaving it under the
    jurisdiction of USDA, but providing additional moneys and
    programs to enhance the needs of the new department in regard
    to agents of agroterrorism.
        The Chairman. I say to my friend, Senator Allard, this is
    the one thing that bothers me, or I am just concerned about
    anyway, and that is that with the other elements of human
    safety, CDC remains basically as it is, but will work in a
    collaborative function with the Department of Homeland
    Security; NIH labs the same thing.
        On Plum Island, they want to move it over there, but still
    there are a lot of things that go on at Plum Island that deal
    with safety and health things that aren't necessarily terrorist
    activities that we need there. I am just wondering why couldn't
    there be the same arrangement with Plum Island as they have
    with CDC labs. This is where I am a little hesitant.
        Again, you know about this kind of stuff. Maybe this was
    the first reaction was to say that they should move it over
    there, but I am not certain it should be. I am not expert
    enough to know, but I rely upon people like you and Senator
    Allard and others who know this better than I do.
        That is the essence of what you were saying?
        Dr. Torres. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Do you have any thoughts on that, Senator
    Allard?
        Senator Allard. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are foreign
    disease studies done in the United States, but I don't believe
    they are keeping live animals, for example, for study except on
    Plum Island.
        Chronic wasting disease, he suggested, doesn't occur in the
    United States. If you will pardon this getting a little
    technical, we have spongiform encephalopathies. These kinds of
    lesions are caused by a group of diseases--chronic wasting
    disease, scrapie.
        Mad cow disease doesn't occur in the United States. We have
    chronic wasting disease, which is a wildlife disease, and
    scrapie--these diseases have similar lesions, but mad cow
    disease itself, does not occur in the United States. There
    would not be any research done on that disease, nor any of the
    other foreign diseases, because the United States wants to
    claim that we are free of these foreign diseases.
        As you observed with foot-and-mouth disease, for example,
    if we let this in on the mainland, we could no longer make that
    claim. You saw what happened to trade with England. It shuts
    off. We don't want that to happen to our cattle producers here
    in this country. That is why we have Plum Island set over here,
    not on the mainland; so that we can make those claims and why
    we make those studies there.
        That doesn't happen with the human diseases so much. They
    are classified a little higher, too, on security perhaps. You
    don't have the industry impact and the claim of whether you
    have the disease on the mainland making an impact on whether
    you can export or import. That is the basic difference between
    the two.
        There are zoonotic diseases that both the CDC lab in
    Georgia and the one in Fort Collins, study. The lab in Fort
    Collins deals mainly with what we call vector diseases,
    diseases that are transmitted through an insect. They
    specialize in that, and the rest of the diseases are handled at
    the CDC lab in Atlanta, Georgia.
        There is kind of a fundamental difference between the two
    labs and how their research relates to trade. We want to make
    the claim that we don't have these diseases in the United
    States, but we also want to have a facility where we can do the
    research. Those diseases that occur at the CDC lab don't
    necessarily affect disease because there aren't countries that
    make rules and regulations on transporting animals. With on
    human diseases, it is probably not as apt to have an impact on
    trade issues.
        The Chairman. My question is will most of the work in the
    future at Plum Island be focused on terrorism threats and
    bioterrorist threats, or will most of the work there be done on
    what we have been doing all along, and that is, if you will
    permit me, the common old garden-variety types of threats that
    we have had from infestation into this country from other
    countries?
        If it is the latter, and only periodically would they be
    used to do something in the anti-terrorism regime, it would
    seem to me that the best thing would be to leave Plum Island
    under APHIS, but to have a collaborative type of an agreement
    with the Department of Homeland Security.
        If, however, the majority of the work that is going to be
    done there is of a nature that concerns itself with terrorist
    threats and a minority of its work is in the ongoing types of
    research and scientific work we do now, then I can see moving
    it to DHS and have a collaborative arrangement with APHIS. That
    is what I am wrestling with.
        Senator Allard. There is a greater likelihood that the
    diseases that you see at Plum Island would be used in bio-
    terrorism because of the impact they could have on the economy
    of this country.
        Take foot-and-mouth, for example. It would really shut down
    the agricultural economy in this country. I would suspect that
    it would have some appeal to a bioterrorist if he wanted to
    severely disrupt the agricultural economy in the United States.
        The Chairman. Dr. Torres, any thoughts on our little
    discussion here?
        Dr. Torres. There are about 50 diseases that are foreign to
    the United States that can affect livestock and poultry. Of
    those, not all of them again are worked at Plum Island. As I
    mentioned, avian diseases are diagnosed in Ames, Iowa. Avian
    influenza, for example, could shut down--and we have seen what
    happened with the non-pathogenic avian influenza in Virginia,
    let alone what could happen if we have the highly pathogenic
    form. All of that work is done at Ames, Iowa. Venezuelan equine
    encephalomyelitis, which is a disease that is also zoonotic for
    humans, as you well know, is done at Ames, Iowa.
        My point is that not everything that could be used as a
    bioterrorist weapon is done at Plum Island. Certainly, the most
    highly contagious are, but there are many others that also
    could shut our trade down that are done at Ames, Iowa. That
    makes an illogical separation of Plum Island away from other
    units of APHIS, and ARS for that matter, that are working with
    agents that also could be used for bio-terrorism.
        The Chairman. To belabor this a little bit further, as I
    understand it, what the House did--and my staff just kind of
    corrected me on this--what the House did is they transferred
    the facility of Plum Island to Homeland Security.
        Senator Allard. That is correct.
        The Chairman. All the people there and the professional
    staff would stay with USDA. Now, I am not certain if that makes
    much sense. Maybe it does. I don't know.
        Senator Allard. I am not sure that jives with the testimony
    we got earlier from Secretary Veneman. We will have to check
    that out.
        The Chairman. That is what I am told here. My staff is all
    nodding their heads. They are saying that that is in accordance
    with the briefing they attended from the White House that they
    would move the facility, but the USDA professional staff would
    stay with USDA. I don't know. As I said, I am not an expert in
    this area, so I don't know if that is a logical thing to do or
    not.
        You and I have to talk about this.
        Senator Allard. Yes.
        The Chairman. You have to tell me what you think is the
    best on this. I just don't know if that makes sense or not. I
    don't know.
        One more time, Dr. Torres, how would you see it? They are
    moving the facility, but they leave the people.
        Dr. Torres. Senator, it is not clear to me the actual
    meaning of the text of the amendment of H.R. 5005. It says that
    the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, including assets and
    liabilities, will be moved to the Department of Homeland
    Security. As I understand it, in the definitions of this bill
    that means building, equipment, the physical structures.
        Then the second paragraph indicates that the Department of
    Agriculture shall enter into an agreement to ensure that the
    Department of Agriculture has access to the center for
    research, diagnostic, and other activities. There is language
    that indicates that even though the facilities would be
    transferred, USDA will have to access to the activities of
    research, diagnosis, and training. It is not clear to me, at
    least, the meaning of that amendment.
        The Chairman. This is something we are going to have to
    clear up.
        Senator Allard. Yes, we have to clear up the term
    ``professional staff.''
        The Chairman. That is probably right.
        Senator Allard. If you are running a diagnostic lab, it
    makes sense to keep the veterinarians and the pathologists in
    the Department of Agriculture. I just don't know what is
    included under the definition of ``professional staff.''
        The Chairman. We are going to have to get our staffs
    together and take a look at this. I am told it is because the
    employees are either ARS or APHIS employees who don't work for
    the Plant Protection and Quarantine Service. That is what I am
    told, anyway, so I do believe we are going to have to look at
    this.
        I thank you again very much, Dr. Torres, for coming here
    and presenting this testimony. I hope we can call on your
    expertise as we work this through in the future.
        Did you have another question?
        Senator Allard. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Again, I would conclude by saying that these
    are things we are going to have to work out. As I said to
    Governor Ridge, I don't have any preconceived notions on this
    or territorial types of claims or anything like that; whatever
    works the best and the smoothest.
        I mean, obviously we have gone from transferring all of
    APHIS, which would have involved the Department of Homeland
    Security inspecting and caring for circus animals in this
    country, which obviously they don't want to do, and they
    shouldn't--so we have gone from that to a clearer delineation
    of what really Homeland Security ought to have.
        Perhaps we need to refine it a little bit further here and
    make sure that we have, again, the best functional operation,
    whatever works smoothest and managerially is the best setup.
    That is what we are going to be wrestling with here.
        Dr. Torres, thank you very much for being here.
        Dr. Torres. You are welcome.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Torres can be found in the
    appendix on page 40.]
        The Chairman. The committee will stand adjourned to the
    call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 July 17, 2002

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.018

    =======================================================================

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 July 17, 2002

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.044

    =======================================================================

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                                 July 17, 2002

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6215.047