[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 60 (Monday, May 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4283-S4285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2508. A bill to preserve the effectiveness of medically important 
antibiotics by restricting their use as additives to animal feed; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my 
distinguished colleagues, Senator Jack Reed and Senator Jeff Bingaman, 
in introducing ``The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment 
Act of 2002.'' This important legislation will protect the health of 
millions of Americans by preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics.
  We rely on antibiotics to protect our health from deadly infections 
and to help safeguard the nation's security from the threat of 
bioterrorism. Yet we are squandering the effectiveness of these 
precious medications by using them indiscriminately as additives to 
animal feed.
  Study after study has shown that the practice of using antibiotics to 
promote growth and fatten livestock erodes the effectiveness of these 
important pharmaceuticals. Mounting scientific evidence shows that this 
nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals can lead to 
development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can be transferred to 
people, making it harder to treat dangerous infections.
  In July 1998, the National Academy of Sciences, in a report prepared 
at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture and the 
Food and Drug Administration, concluded ``there is a link between the 
use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial 
resistance to these drugs, and human disease.'' In 1997 and again in 
2000, the World Health Organization recommended that antibiotics used 
to treat humans should not also be used to promote animal growth, 
although such antibiotics could still be used to treat sick animals.
  In January 2001, a Federal interagency task force on antibiotic 
resistance concluded that ``drug-resistant pathogens are a growing 
menace to all people, regardless of age, gender, or socio-economic 
background. If we do not act to address the problem . . . [d]rug 
choices for the treatment of common infections will become increasingly 
limited and expensive--and, in some cases, nonexistent.''
  Major medical associations have taken a stand against antibiotic use 
in animal agriculture. In June 2001, the American Medical Association 
adopted a resolution opposing nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in 
animal agriculture. Medical professional organizations that have taken 
a similar position include the American College of Preventive Medicine, 
the American Public Health Association, and the Council of State and 
Territorial Epidemiologists. I ask for unanimous consent to include a 
letter of endorsement for our legislation from the American Public 
Health Association in the Record.
  Most developed countries in the world, with the exception of the 
United States and Canada, restrict the use of antibiotics for growth 
promotion in raising livestock. In July 1999, the European Union banned 
the use for animal growth promotion of remaining human-use antibiotics 
still in use to promote animal growth. Prior to that action, individual 
European countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, and 
Sweden, had banned the use in animal feed of specific antibiotics.
  The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002 will 
protect the health of Americans by phasing out the non-therapeutic use 
in livestock of medically important antibiotics, unless their 
manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to the public health. 
The Act requires this same tough standard of new applications for 
approval of animal antibiotics. The Act does not restrict use of 
antibiotics to treat sick animals or to treat pets and other animals 
not used for food.
  In October 2000, FDA found that one class of antibiotics posed such a 
grave danger to the public health that they issued an order to withdraw 
these drugs from animal use. Yet, over 18 months later, tons of these 
drugs are still being used, because their manufacturer has refused to 
comply with FDA's order. The Act takes immediate action to implement 
the decision of FDA to withdraw these drugs from our food supply.
  The National Academy of Sciences has found that eliminating the use 
of antibiotics as feed additives would cost each American consumer not 
more than $5 to $10 per year. Nonetheless, the legislation recognizes 
that there may be economic costs to farmers in making the transition to 
antibiotics-free farming practices. For this reason, the Act provides 
for Federal payments to farmers to defray their costs in switching to 
antibiotic-free husbandry practices, with a preference given to family 
farms.
  Antibiotics are one of the crown jewels of modern medicine. If we 
squander their effectiveness, the health of millions of Americans will 
be put at risk. The most vulnerable among us, children, the elderly, 
persons with HIV/AIDS, are particularly endangered by resistant 
infections. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation to 
protect the health of all Americans and preserve the effectiveness of 
antibiotics.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and an analysis of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   American Public


                                           Health Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
         Pensions, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mister Chairman: On behalf of the 50,000 members of 
     the American Public Health Association, I am writing to 
     express our strongest support for the Preservation of 
     Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002. The Act proposes 
     to withdraw certain antibiotics used in healthy food animals 
     to enhance their growth, as well as a class of antibiotics 
     related to the anthrax drug Cipro and used in poultry. These 
     withdrawals will help prevent transmission of antibiotic 
     resistant bacteria in food.
       It is common to add antibiotics to the feed of cattle, 
     pigs, and poultry to speed their growth. But it also speeds 
     the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria on farms, 
     that can then contaminate the meat and cause food-borne 
     illnesses for which treatment options are then limited. The 
     evidence of harm to public health resulting from this 
     practice has only gown. It is time for Congress to make the 
     health of consumers a priority and put an end to this 
     practice.
       According to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, there are 1.4 million cases of Salmonella 
     infection in the U.S. each year. Most of these infections are 
     acquired from food, and many of them are resistant to five or 
     more antibiotics. The Salmonella found in commercial meat and 
     poultry products has already become resistant to a number of 
     the most commonly used antibiotics. Your bill would phase out 
     each of these drugs as a feed additive for healthy animals.
       The bill also calls for withdrawal of a precious class of 
     antibiotics now used to treat pneumonia in poultry. Since the 
     approval of the fluoroquinolone antibiotics in 1995, 
     Campylobacter, the most common food-borne infection, has 
     developed resistance, and FDA has called for the drug's 
     withdrawal in poultry. APHA has gone on record supporting the 
     FDA's action.
       We are pleased to support this important piece of 
     legislation, and will work with you to see that it is passed. 
     Please contact Natalie Raynor for further information.
           Sincerely,
                                               Mohammad N. Akhter,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


    The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002


                               Background

       The widespread use of antibiotics beginning in the 1940's 
     provided, for the first time in history, effective treatments 
     for infectious diseases. These miracle drugs have saved 
     countless lives, but they are losing their effectiveness. 
     Antibiotics that once had the power to cure dangerous 
     infections are now often useless, because microbes have 
     become resistant to all but the newest and most expensive 
     drugs, and some ``superbugs'' are impervious to any weapons 
     in the medical arsenal. Resistance to antibiotics takes a 
     heavy toll on patients across the Nation.

[[Page S4284]]

     The World Health Organization estimates that 14,000 Americans 
     die every year from drug-resistant infections. This means 
     that one American dies from a resistant infection every 38 
     minutes.
       It seems scarcely believable that these precious 
     medications could be fed by the ton to chickens and pigs, but 
     that's exactly what's happening in farms all over America. 
     Over 20 million pounds of antibiotics are fed to farm animals 
     every year. That's more than is used in all of medicine. 
     These precious drugs aren't even used to treat sick animals. 
     They are used to fatten pigs and speed the growth of 
     chickens. The result of this rampant overuse is clear: meat 
     contaminated with drug-resistant bacteria sits on supermarket 
     shelves all over America. Every family is potentially at 
     risk. The most vulnerable among us, children, the elderly, 
     persons with HIV/AIDS, are particularly endangered by 
     resistant infections.
       At a time when the Nation is relying on antibiotics and 
     other medications to protect our homeland's security from the 
     grave threat of bioterrorism, we can no longer squander these 
     precious weapons in the fight against disease by feeding them 
     indiscriminately to livestock.


                     Provisions of the Legislation

       The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 
     2002 will protect the health of Americans by phasing out the 
     non-therapeutic use in livestock of medically important 
     antibiotics, unless their manufacturers can show that they 
     pose no danger to the public health. The Act requires this 
     same tough standard of new applications for approval of 
     animal antibiotics.
       The Act does not restrict use of antibiotics to treat sick 
     animals or to treat pets and other animals not used for food.
       In October 2000, FDA found that one class of antibiotics 
     posed such a grave danger to the public health that they 
     issued an order to withdraw these drugs from animal use. Yet, 
     over 18 months later, tons of these drugs are still being 
     used, because their manufacturer has refused to comply with 
     FDA's order. The Act takes immediate action to implement the 
     decision of FDA to withdraw these drugs from our food supply.
       The Act provides for Federal payments to farmers to defray 
     their costs in switching to antibiotic-free husbandry 
     practices, with a preference given to family farms.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator 
Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, in 
introducing this timely and important legislation. The Preservation of 
Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002 will address a critical 
public health concern facing our nation.
  There has been mounting scientific evidence that the overuse in 
animal husbandry of certain antibiotics is increasing the resistance to 
those antibiotics of bacteria that cause human disease. In farming, the 
drugs are often added to the feed of healthy animals to promote growth 
and productivity.
  In 1997 and again in 2000, the World Health Organization recommended 
that antibiotics used to treat humans should not be used to promote 
animal growth, though the drugs could still be used to treat sick 
animals. Most developed countries, other than the United States and 
Canada, restrict the use of antimicrobials in growth promotion.
  In July 1998, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in a report 
that there is a link among the use of antibiotics in food animals, the 
development of bacterial resistance to these drugs and human disease.
  Our legislation will require that an animal drug in the 
fluoroquinolone class of antibiotics, such as ciprofloxacin, and an 
other critical drug, such as penicillin and tetracycline, will be 
considered unsafe as an additive in animal feed unless the drug's 
manufacturer can demonstrate that use in animal feed of the drug does 
not pose a harm to human health. In addition, the legislation will 
require that the Food and Drug Administration refuse to approve a 
veterinary drug application for any antimicrobial drug critical to 
human health care. For drugs that are currently added to animal feed, 
the legislation will require that the drug's use be phased out over the 
next two years.
  It should be noted that three large commercial poultry producers have 
recently volunteered to significantly reduce or stop the use of 
antibiotics in their healthy chickens. In addition, the New York Times 
reported in February that the industry is stopping the use of a 
particular drug that is related to Cipro, which is used to treat 
anthrax in humans. The Times reported as well that some corporate 
consumers including McDonalds, Wendy's and Popeye's are refusing to buy 
chicken treated with that drug.
  Some will be concerned that our legislation may impose a heavy burden 
on family farmers. As a means to reduce any burden, the legislation 
will also authorize payment to producers of livestock or poultry that 
substantially reduce there nontherapeutic use of antimicrobials in 
animal feed. Family-owned and family-operated farms or ranches will get 
priority in the awarding of these payments. And while we understand the 
concerns of those farmers, we anticipate that the legislation will be a 
significant step in helping the public health system maintain an 
effective arsenal against serious diseases, including anthrax, sepsis, 
strep and salmonella, many of which result in serious illness or death 
in both children and adults.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Craig, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 2509. A bill to amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990 to specify additional selection criteria for the 2005 round of 
defense base closures and realignments, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee of Armed Services.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
addresses an issue of great concern to our Nation's current and future 
security as well as to hundreds of communities across our country.
  We have endeavored to reduce the excess infrastructure of our armed 
forces four times in the past 15 years through the appointment of a 
BRAC commission whose charter was to recommended the elimination or 
realignment of unneeded bases. Four times these commissions have made 
recommendations to the President resulting in the closure of 106 major 
bases. I would like to agree that in each instance, the best decision 
was made and the military is now better off without these facilities; 
however, this is not the case. Mistakes have been made.
  While most of these selections were proper, some have resulted in 
significant, unintended consequences. Staggering costs to clean up the 
environmental liabilities left behind is one such example. At the 
former Navy Station Long Beach, CA, post-closure clean up costs have 
consumed hundreds of millions of dollars more than had been 
anticipated. The final cost of closing that base remains unknown. How 
can the savings of closing this base be cited when even seven years 
later the costs continue to grow?
  The lack of facilities now available to properly train our remaining 
forces is another. When justifying the closure of Reese Air Force Base 
in 1995, the commission's report stated that ``the Air Force has a 
surplus of undergraduate pilot training facilities.'' However, only 
five years later, this service had a shortage of over 1,200 pilots. To 
make up for that shortfall, the Air Force was compelled to hastily 
establish another training base, at tremendous cost to the taxpayer.
  The severe economic impact that small, rural communities have endured 
is yet another unintended consequence. The '95 commission's decision to 
convey Fort Chafee to the local community was scandalous. How was a 
small, rural community like Barling, AR supposed to turn a post like 
Chaffee, pockmarked with over 700 World War II-era buildings, each 
contaminated with lead paint and Asbestos, into an economic asset to 
the community? They couldn't. While the closure of Chaffee may have 
saved the Pentagon money, it saddled a small town with an expensive, 
environmentally hazardous burden.
  I am convinced the root cause of these regrettable selections was 
vague and inefficient criteria which the commissions used in their 
efforts to select candidates for closure or realignment. To ensure we 
do not repeat these mistakes, I have worked closely with a number of my 
colleagues, particularly Senator Bingaman, to develop legislation that 
would refine the minimum criteria the commission must consider. Among 
the new criteria are: the impact on homeland security; the effects on 
co-located Federal agencies; and lessons learned in the previous rounds 
of closures. This measure also promotes greater transparency by 
requiring the weighting of these criteria be published well before a 
commission recommends any base for closure.

[[Page S4285]]

  I know the outcome of the 2005 BRAC is of utmost importance to both 
the military and the communities outside the fence. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill to ensure that the proper decisions are 
made, and that they are made for the proper reasons.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2509

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transparent and Enhanced 
     Criteria Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL SELECTION CRITERIA FOR 2005 ROUND OF 
                   DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

       (a) Additional Selection Criteria.--Section 2913 of the 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of 
     title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note), as 
     added by section 3002 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 
     1344), is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Additional Considerations.--The selection criteria 
     for military installations shall also address the following:
       ``(1) Force structure and mission requirements through 
     2020, as specified by the document entitled `Joint Vision 
     2020' issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including--
       ``(A) mobilization requirements; and
       ``(B) requirements for utilization of facilities by the 
     Department of Defense and by other departments and agencies 
     of the United States, including--
       ``(i) joint use by two or more Armed Forces; and
       ``(ii) use by one or more reserve components.
       ``(2) The availability and condition of facilities, land, 
     and associated airspace, including--
       ``(A) proximity to mobilization points, including points of 
     embarkation for air or rail transportation and ports; and
       ``(B) current, planned, and programmed military 
     construction.
       ``(3) Considerations regarding ranges and airspace, 
     including--
       ``(A) uniqueness; and
       ``(B) existing or potential physical, electromagnetic, or 
     other encroachment.
       ``(4) Force protection.
       ``(5) Costs and effects of relocating critical 
     infrastructure, including--
       ``(A) military construction costs at receiving military 
     installations and facilities;
       ``(B) environmental costs, including costs of compliance 
     with Federal and State environmental laws;
       ``(C) termination costs and other liabilities associated 
     with existing contracts or agreements involving outsourcing 
     or privatization of services, housing, or facilities used by 
     the Department;
       ``(D) effects on co-located entities of the Department;
       ``(E) effects on co-located Federal agencies;
       ``(F) costs of transfers and relocations of civilian 
     personnel, and other workforce considerations.
       ``(6) Homeland security requirements.
       ``(7) State or local support for a continued presence by 
     the Department, including--
       ``(A) current or potential public or private partnerships 
     in support of Department activities; and
       ``(B) the capacity of States and localities to respond 
     positively to economic effects and other effects.
       ``(8) Applicable lessons from previous rounds of defense 
     base closure and realignment, including disparities between 
     anticipated savings and actual savings.
       ``(9) Anticipated savings and other benefits, including--
       ``(A) enhancement of capabilities through improved use of 
     remaining infrastructure; and
       ``(B) the capacity to relocate units and other assets.
       ``(10) Any other considerations that the Secretary of 
     Defense considers appropriate.''.
       (b) Weighting of Criteria for Transparency Purposes.--
     Subsection (a) of such section 2913 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) Weighting of criteria.--At the same time the 
     Secretary publishes the proposed criteria under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     formula proposed to be used by the Secretary in assigning 
     weight to the various proposed criteria in making 
     recommendations for the closure or realignment of military 
     installations inside the United States under this part in 
     2005.''.

                          ____________________