[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