[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9472-S9477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Brown):
S. 1793. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax credit for property owners who remove lead-based paint hazards;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, lead poisoning is a serious, persistent,
and entirely preventable threat to a child's health. Childhood lead
poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital
organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. At
very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, comas, and even
death; robbing a child of his or her future.
Lead poisoning is the number one environmental health threat to
children of color and low-income children in the U.S. African-American
and Mexican-American children are 5 and 2 times more likely,
respectively, to have toxic blood lead levels than white children,
while low-income children are 8 times more likely to develop lead
poisoning than more affluent children. Compounding the problem is the
fact that 77 percent of children eligible for lead screening under
Medicaid are not screened for exposure to lead.
An estimated 500,000 American children under the age of 6 have enough
lead in their blood to adversely affect their development. The most
common source of lead exposure for children today is lead paint in
older housing, particularly when it contaminates dust and soil in and
around residences. Furthermore, despite a ban on lead paint in 1978,
there are still over 24 million housing units in the U.S. that have
lead paint hazards, with about 1.2 million units in New York State
alone.
The good news is childhood lead poisoning can be dramatically reduced
by the abatement or reduction of lead-based hazards found in homes.
Today, I am please to reintroduce legislation to provide a tax credit
for safely removing lead-based paint hazards from homes and rental
units. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2007 offers much needed
incentives for property owners to ensure homes are free of
environmental dangers that can harm our children and will put America
closer to its goal of eliminating lead poisoning in children by the
year 2010.
This bill provides home owners and landlords with a 50 percent tax
credit for lead abatement cost for up to $3,000 and up to $1,000
interim control measures. These interim control measures, including
replacement of windows, specialized maintenance, and safe repainting,
are a cost-effective means of protecting the largest number of children
from harmful lead exposure in the near term.
This legislation targets a tax credit to homes with children younger
than 6 years of age, women of childbearing age, low-income residents,
and buildings constructed before 1960, as these include more than 96
percent of all units where lead-based paint is prevalent. Targeting
these tax credits has proven to be a successful way of eliminating
childhood lead poisoning. For example, a similar tax credit offered by
the State of Massachusetts helped reduce the number of new cases of
childhood lead poisoning within the State by almost two-thirds in a
decade.
I am glad the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers
eliminating lead poisoning to be a priority, and has established a
national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010: However,
current Federal lead abatement programs only have resources sufficient
to make approximately 8,800 homes lead-safe each year. At this pace, we
will not be able to end childhood lead poisoning by 3010, let alone
2010. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2007 would help homeowners
make over 80,000 homes safe from lead each year, nearly 10 times the
capacity of current Federal programs.
Every child deserves to grow up in a clean, healthy home environment.
I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation
to safeguard homes against environmental hazards that detrimentally
affect the health and safety of our children.
______
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Isakson, and Ms. Collins:
S. 1795. A bill to improve access to workers' compensation programs
for injured Federal employees; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Federal
Employees Compensation Act 41 years ago, we made a basic promise to
Federal workers that if they get hurt on the job, they will be taken
care of. Today, more than 2.5 million Federal workers rely on the act
as a safety net in case of injury. These men and women are our
Government at work in all its aspects, and they deserve a system that
will care for them when they are injured. The legislation which Senator
Isakson and I are introducing will ensure that this promise is
fulfilled for all Federal workers.
Today, many injured Federal workers find the treatment they need and
the compensation they deserve are out of reach. According to a
Congressional Research Service report last year, one in five Americans
lives in areas with a shortage of health care professionals. Citizens
in such areas must often travel more than a hundred miles to see a
doctor. Seeing a primary care doctor is often impossible or
exorbitantly expensive. To get immediate treatment, they often rely on
the expertise of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, who are
more likely than doctors to practice in such areas.
These health care professionals fill a vital need, as the primary
source of medical care for many patients. Their practice is regulated
in all 50 States
[[Page S9473]]
and the District of Columbia. They are licensed by State laws to write
prescriptions and provide many of the services provided by primary care
physicians.
But Federal workers who turn to nurse practitioners and physician
assistants for care are often denied compensation for their job
injuries under current law. This gap in the compensation system for
Federal workers is unacceptable. No one with a serious injury should
have to make the impossible choice between driving a hundred miles to
see a doctor who can sign the paperwork for a Federal compensation
claim, or getting convenient and competent care from a local nurse
practitioner or physician assistant, knowing he won't qualify for
reimbursement for medical bills.
This bill will solve the dilemma for our Federal workers across the
Nation who seek care from nurse practitioners or physician assistants.
It makes a simple change to our Federal compensation program by
allowing such cases to qualify for compensation. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill, so we can keep our promise of care for all
injured Federal workers.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cornyn, and
Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1798. A bill to establish grant programs to improve the health of
border area residents and for all hazards preparedness in the border
area including bioterrorism in the border area including bioterrorism
and infectious disease, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President today I am introducing a bill with
Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer entitled ``the Border Health
Security Act of 2007.'' This bill addresses the tremendous health
problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border.
The U.S.-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border
Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100
kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international
boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and
New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a
population of 12 million residents.
The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 native american
tribes, and 4 States in the U.S. and 6 States in Mexico.
Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? In the
past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the
Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted
funding to those areas. Yet, the situation along the border is among
the most dire in the country.
In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the U.S. are
located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as
economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200
colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities
that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking
water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lowest
per capita income as a region in the Nation.
In a recent report by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the
Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it would rank second
with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to access to health
professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health
professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis, third
with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes.
The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health
problems with few resources.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005, for
the 3-year average of 2002 to 2004, the States of Texas and New Mexico
rank first and second as the States with the highest uninsured rates in
the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent, respectively.
California and Arizona are not much better and had uninsured rates of
18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively.
However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of
uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall.
Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30
percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE,
the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4
percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than
twice the U.S. rate of 14.2 percent.
As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes:
The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border
health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial
resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health
professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of
health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to
health services out of reach for many border residents and
thus keeps the border communities at risk.
The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an
agenda through its health border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among
other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a
primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20
percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce
deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to
diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50
percent; reduce the incidence tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce
the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the
infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of
prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.
However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that
are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation
I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer,
would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border
Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to
improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care
services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities
to establish their own priorities about how to spend these funds for
the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary
care and preventative health, public health and public health
infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental
health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence
in the border region, medical and health services research, community
health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including
planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental
health; health education, and outreach and enrollment services with
respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
SCHIP.
We would certainly expect that those grants will be used for the
purpose of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the
health border 2010 initiative.
In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for
funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure,
preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.-
Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the
establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate
information quickly to health providers about emerging health care
threats.
On October 15, 2001, just 1 month after the September 11, 2001,
attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to the U.S.-Mexico
Border Health Commission and urged them to put together an application
for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The commission has
done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the vulnerability
that border communities have with respect to a bioterrorism attack. Our
legislation addresses the vulnerability of communities along the border
and targets funding to those communities specifically to improve
infrastructure, training, and preparedness.
Our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special
one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and
wrongly neglect our neighbor to the south and the much needed economic
development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second
largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the
busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet the region is often
neglected.
[[Page S9474]]
As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out:
Without increases and sustained federal, state and local
governmental and private funding or health programs,
infrastructure and education, the border populations will
continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.
I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original
cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation,
Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of
this legislation today. She has also been the lead senator in getting
funding for the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission since its
inception.
I would also thank Senators Cornyn and Boxer for working with us on
this important legislation and for their constant support over the
years for the work of the Commission.
I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1798
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 ``Border Health Security Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Border area.--The term ``border area'' has the meaning
given the term ``United States-Mexico Border Area'' in
section 8 of the United States-Mexico Border Health
Commission Act (22 U.S.C. 290n-6).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
SEC. 3. BORDER HEALTH GRANTS.
(a) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means a State, public institution of
higher education, local government, tribal government,
nonprofit health organization, trauma center, or community
health center receiving assistance under section 330 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b), that is located
in the border area.
(b) Authorization.--From funds appropriated under
subsection (f), the Secretary, acting through the United
States members of the United States-Mexico Border Health
Commission, shall award grants to eligible entities to
address priorities and recommendations to improve the health
of border area residents that are established by--
(1) the United States members of the United States-Mexico
Border Health Commission;
(2) the State border health offices; and
(3) the Secretary.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant
under subsection (b) shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under subsection (b) shall use the grant funds for--
(1) programs relating to--
(A) maternal and child health;
(B) primary care and preventative health;
(C) public health and public health infrastructure;
(D) health promotion;
(E) oral health;
(F) behavioral and mental health;
(G) substance abuse;
(H) health conditions that have a high prevalence in the
border area;
(I) medical and health services research;
(J) workforce training and development;
(K) community health workers or promotoras;
(L) health care infrastructure problems in the border area
(including planning and construction grants);
(M) health disparities in the border area;
(N) environmental health;
(O) health education;
(P) outreach and enrollment services with respect to
Federal programs (including programs authorized under titles
XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 and
1397aa));
(Q) trauma care;
(R) infectious disease testing and monitoring;
(S) health research with an emphasis on infectious disease;
and
(T) cross-border health surveillance; and
(2) other programs determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(e) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Amounts provided to an
eligible entity awarded a grant under subsection (b) shall be
used to supplement and not supplant other funds available to
the eligible entity to carry out the activities described in
subsection (d).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding fiscal
year.
SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR ALL HAZARDS PREPAREDNESS IN THE BORDER
AREA INCLUDING BIOTERRORISM AND INFECTIOUS
DISEASE.
(a) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible entity'' means a State, local government, tribal
government, trauma centers, regional trauma center
coordinating entity, or public health entity.
(b) Authorization.--From funds appropriated under
subsection (e), the Secretary shall award grants to eligible
entities for all hazards preparedness in the border area
including bioterrorism and infectious disease.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(d) Uses of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a
grant under subsection (b) shall use the grant funds to, in
coordination with State and local all hazards programs--
(1) develop and implement all hazards preparedness plans
and readiness assessments and purchase items necessary for
such plans;
(2) coordinate all hazard and emergency preparedness
planning in the region;
(3) improve infrastructure, including surge capacity
syndromic surveillance, laboratory capacity, and isolation/
decontamination capacity;
(4) create a health alert network, including risk
communication and information dissemination;
(5) educate and train clinicians, epidemiologists,
laboratories, and emergency personnel;
(6) implement electronic data systems to coordinate the
triage, transportation, and treatment of multi-casualty
incident victims;
(7) provide infectious disease testing in the border area;
and
(8) carry out such other activities identified by the
Secretary, the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission,
State and local public health offices, and border health
offices.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year.
SEC. 5. UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER HEALTH COMMISSION ACT
AMENDMENTS.
The United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act (22
U.S.C. 290n et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be
necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.
SEC. 6. COORDINATION OF HEALTH SERVICES AND SURVEILLANCE.
The Secretary may coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland
Security in establishing a health alert system that--
(1) alerts clinicians and public health officials of
emerging disease clusters and syndromes along the border
area; and
(2) is alerted to signs of health threats, disasters of
mass scale, or bioterrorism along the border area.
SEC. 7. BINATIONAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEALTH
INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine
for the conduct of a study concerning binational health
infrastructure (including trauma and emergency care) and
health insurance efforts. In conducting such study, the
Institute shall solicit input from border health experts and
health insurance issuers.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which
the Secretary of Health and Human Services enters into the
contract under subsection (a), the Institute of Medicine
shall submit to the Secretary and the appropriate committees
of Congress a report concerning the study conducted under
such contract. Such report shall include the recommendations
of the Institute on ways to expand or improve binational
health infrastructure and health insurance efforts.
SEC. 8. PROVISION OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADVICE TO CONGRESS.
Section 5 of the United States-Mexico Border Health
Commission Act (22 U.S.C. 290n-3) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Providing Advice and Recommendations to Congress.--A
member of the Commission, or an individual who is on the
staff of the Commission, may at any time provide advice or
recommendations to Congress concerning issues that are
considered by the Commission. Such advice or recommendations
may be provided whether or not a request for such is made by
a member of Congress and regardless of whether the member or
individual is authorized to provide such advice or
recommendations by the Commission or any other Federal
official.''.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN:
S. 1799. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply
rate parity to the excise tax on small cigars and small cigarettes, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of
enormous importance the health and safety of our children. Although we
have made great strides in recent years to combat youth cigarette
smoking, a few in the tobacco industry have found a loophole which
allows them to classify certain cigarettes as ``small cigars'' thereby
avoiding higher cigarette taxes that
[[Page S9475]]
have been implemented, at least in part, to deter children from
smoking.
The trend of small cigar use is growing at an alarming rate. Small
cigar sales for 2006 were at the highest level ever reported and have
increased by more than 100 percent since 1998. This increase has
occurred at the exact same time that cigarette usage has decreased.
More specifically, use of cigars among youth is rising. Multiple
studies over the last few years have shown that more and more high
school students are smoking cigar products while the percentage of high
school cigarette smokers is down.
What is the reason for this shift in tobacco consumption? It is my
belief and I am not alone that the emerging small cigar market has
played a significant role in this problem. Tobacco products are self-
classified by the manufacturer and labeled as small cigars. As
cigarette taxes have gone up in recent years, the flight to cigar
classification has become all the more tempting. As a result, there are
an increasing number of manufacturers with products that look like
cigarettes--the same size and shape as cigarettes--and smoke like
cigarettes--many of them are filtered--being marketed and sold as
cheaper alternatives to cigarettes simply because they are encased in
brown wrapping. Members of the tobacco industry even acknowledge that
small cigars are ``a smoking alternative to cigarettes.''
Under current law, small cigars are taxed at significantly lower
rates than cigarettes. This tax differential allows small cigars to
price themselves at about half of the usual cigarette shelf price. This
mischaracterization is costing the Federal Treasury in revenues and,
more importantly, having the effect of enabling our children greater
access to tobacco products. In addition, these small cigar products are
often sold in packs of five or eight, or sometimes even individually,
making them even cheaper and more accessible to our children.
Research shows that increased tobacco product pricing reduces smoking
among children. It is imperative that we implement policy to correct
the pricing disparity among similar tobacco products. We must ensure
that our laws intended to protect public health are not being
circumvented. The legislation I am introducing today would increase the
Federal excise tax on small cigars to the same rates as cigarettes.
This will level the playing field to ensure that all tobacco products
that look like cigarettes and smoke like cigarettes are taxed like
cigarettes. I ask my colleagues to join me in working to ensure this
loophole is closed.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1800. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to require
emergency contraception to be available at all military health care
treatment facilities; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last year, the FDA made emergency
contraception, EC, available over the counter for women 18 years of age
and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and
effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical
organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended
that Plan B be made available over the counter.
Senator Murray and I spent a great deal of time and effort tracking
the FDA's ``non-decision'' of whether emergency contraception should be
made available over the counter. We have come a long way in the fight
for access to EC.
Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our
servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency
contraception, up to 95 percent of those unintended pregnancies could
be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the
first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency
contraception offers hope for healing.
Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception
to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is
available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care
for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including EC
on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all
military health care facilities.
Introduced as a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives by
Congressmen Mike Michaud and Chris Shays, the Compassionate Care for
Servicewomen Act was written to implement exactly what the DOD's own
committee charged with determining which drugs should be added to the
basic core formulary recommended in 2002.
Unfortunately, about a month later, DOD political appointees
overruled their own experts' advice without any justification and
removed EC from the BCF. This bill restores what the DOD wanted to do
before it was blocked by politics.
There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon,
the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased
approximately 24 percent in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from
women and health providers in the military who have sought EC on an
emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough.
Ensuring that EC is more broadly available at military health care
facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to
agree on.
It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this
important legislation and I would like to express my thanks to my
colleagues who have already signed on.
______
By Mr. BURR (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 1804. A bill to enhance the ability of the United States to
prevent, prepare for, detect, and respond to agriculture and food
emergencies; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National
Agriculture and Food Defense Act of 2007, which I introduced today
along with the Senator from Maine, Senator Collins. This bill will help
the Nation better prepare for, detect, respond to, and recover from an
agro-terror attack or deliberate food contamination. I thank my
distinguished colleague from Maine for her leadership on homeland
security issues and for her support of this important legislation.
Our agriculture and food system is an important part of our Nation's
economy and our national security. As we increase our dependence on
agriculture not only to provide our food supply but to also produce
energy, we must ensure we can identify security vulnerabilities, fix
those vulnerabilities, respond to and recover from a deliberate attack
or catastrophic accidental or natural contamination.
The Nation's agriculture and food system remains vulnerable. The
system is open, complex, interconnected, and diverse, which makes it a
target. Many farms are geographically isolated with few biosecurity
measures in place. And livestock is frequently concentrated in confined
spaces. For example, 80 to 90 percent of U.S. cattle production is
concentrated in less than 5 percent of the nation's feedlots. An attack
on just one part of the production process could set off a devastating
domino effect felt through our entire food system, causing economic
loss and effects on human health.
Biological weapons and poisons in food and animals have been used in
attacks in the past. During World War I, German operatives allegedly
infected horses with anthrax before they were shipped to Europe. In
1984, a cult in Oregon spread salmonella in salad bars at restaurants
to influence a local election. More recently, documents found in al
Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan described how to make animal and plant
poisons, evidence that agriculture and food continue to be prospective
targets for terrorist organizations.
We have two main concerns when contemplating a deliberate attack on
our agriculture and food system, the potentially devastating economic
impacts, and the possible human health effects.
For example, studies show a single agro-terrorist attack on our
livestock industry could cost the U.S. economy $10 to $33 billion. The
United Kingdom's Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001 caused
approximately $5 billion in losses to the agriculture and food sector,
and U.S. beef exports plunged when 119 countries instituted bans on
American beef after ``mad
[[Page S9476]]
cow'' disease was found in a U.S. herd in 2003. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture estimates the annual cost to the country from premature
deaths caused by just one common food-borne illness, salmonella, is
over $2 billion.
Many infectious diseases affect both humans and animals, and a
significant number of those diseases cross over between the two
different populations. In fact, 75 percent of emerging diseases affect
both animals and humans, and 5 out of 6 agents of greatest concern for
bioterrorism are ``zoonotic''. We are all aware of the global threat of
H5Nl bird flu, a zoonotic disease that to date has infected 317 people,
and killed 191. In order to protect the human and animal health of the
United States, we must develop a unified human and veterinary approach
against infectious disease that anticipates disease evolution and acts
quickly.
In addition to transmissible diseases carried by animals, the health
of U.S. citizens is vulnerable to an attack because food systems can
become delivery mechanisms for diseases and poisonous agents, and a
highly contagious animal disease could seriously disrupt the food
supply. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 76
million Americans get sick each year, more than 300,000 are
hospitalized, and 5,000 die from naturally occurring foodborne
illnesses. A deliberate attack could be catastrophic.
In the National Agriculture and Food Defense Act of 2007, we take
five key actions to better prepare the nation for an attack on our
agriculture and food system.
First, the bill puts someone in charge. Consistent with Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 9, the Defense of the United States
Agriculture and Food, issued by President Bush in January 2004, the
bill identifies the Secretary of Homeland Security as the lead
coordinator of Federal Government efforts to protect critical
infrastructure and key resources, including the agriculture and food
system in case of a national emergency. The Secretary of Agriculture
remains responsible for agriculture, as well as meat, poultry, and egg
food products; and the Secretary of Health and Human Services is
responsible for food products other than meat, poultry, and egg
products. The bill also establishes an Under Secretary for Protection,
Preparedness, and Response position at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to lead and coordinate USDA activities relating to
agriculture and food defense.
Second, the bill requires a coordinated national strategy for
protecting our agriculture and food system. The Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health
and Human Services are required to work together to develop a
coordinated national strategy for agriculture and food emergency
preparedness, detection, response and recovery. This will ensure the
Federal Government identifies specific achievable goals and constantly
strives to improve our preparedness.
Third, this legislation provides guidance, assistance, and financial
support from the Federal Government to States by improving regional
agriculture and food defense continuity of business planning; by
training State personnel on food defense; and by improving
communication and coordination between States and the Federal
Government by hiring State agriculture and food defense liaison
officers.
Being from a large agriculture State, I know my State and many others
are potential targets for a deliberate attack on our agriculture and
food system. At $68 billion in revenues each year, agriculture is North
Carolina's largest industry. North Carolina is the second highest
producer of hogs and turkeys in the nation, and number five in
broilers. States, such as North Carolina, will benefit greatly from
additional resources, coordination and planning.
Federal, State, local governments and the private sector together
have a responsibility to defend and protect the agriculture and food
system through a layered defense established at each level of
government. States are the first responders in the event of a suspected
food contamination, animal disease or plant pest outbreak, and the
Federal Government must help States build the capabilities to prevent,
detect, respond to, and recover from a catastrophic animal disease
outbreak or food contamination. It is important to note that this
legislation maintains the authority of States to oversee food and
agriculture within their jurisdiction and to implement food safety
standards. The bill does not affect USDA or the Food and Drug
Administration's ability or authority to establish and enforce food
safety standards.
Fourth, the bill enhances public-private partnerships. The majority
of our agriculture and food system is privately owned and operated.
This legislation authorizes Government and private sector coordinating
councils to improve information sharing between Government and private
sector partners.
Finally, the National Agriculture and Food Defense Act implements
early detection of, and rapid response to animal disease outbreaks and
food-related emergencies. The bill authorizes and integrates Nation-
wide animal, plant, and food diagnostic laboratory networks, and
develops onsite rapid diagnostic tools, to speed up the detection of
animal and food-related emergencies. To rapidly respond to infectious
diseases, the bill authorizes a stockpile of animal vaccines and drugs
that can be deployed to an outbreak within 24 hours.
In closing, I thank Senator Collins for sponsoring the National
Agriculture and Food Defense Act with me. We Are taking a decisive step
forward today towards improving and protecting the Nation's agriculture
and food system. I would also like to thank all the experts from across
the country who worked with my staff to develop this legislation,
particularly the individuals in North Carolina who have dedicated their
lives to this mission. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation
and I look forward to working with them on this important national
security issue.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
National Agriculture and Food Defense Act of 2007 that my distinguished
colleague, Senator Burr, and I are introducing today.
A decade ago, the General Accounting Office report illustrated the
danger of lapses in food safety, a single-year toll of millions of
cases of food-borne illnesses and 9,100 food-related deaths. I
conducted a series of investigative hearings in 1998 that confirmed
America faced significant risks from tainted food imports.
In 2003, I also chaired a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing
that pointed out new threats. I noted that al-Qaida had announced that
the U.S. economy was a target, that hundreds of U.S. agricultural
documents had been found translated into Arabic, and that some of the
9/11 terrorists had investigated using crop-dusting planes as weapons
of agroterrorism.
Today, food security problems persist, and their potential for death
and disruption has been greatly magnified by the terrorist threats
against the United States. Ensuring the safety of our food must include
considerations of homeland security.
We have all heard the recent news stories of contamination involving
food and toothpaste imported from China. But the concerns extend
far beyond anyone trading partner. Food and Drug Administration data
for 2006 show that hundreds of shipments from India, Mexico, Denmark,
the Dominican Republic, and other countries were impounded for defects
or safety concerns. Considering that the vast majority of incoming food
shipments are not inspected, these facts are troubling. Even more
troubling, we must consider how much worse the potential impacts could
be if large-scale deliberate contamination were attempted, whether by
attacks on domestically produced food or imports or the distribution,
production, and processing systems.
Congress has recognized the threats to our seaports, chemical
facilities, transportation, and critical infrastructure. We have acted
to protect these vital systems that sustain our economy. We must also
extend our homeland security vigilance to the food that sustains our
very lives.
The National Agriculture and Food Defense Act would integrate and
strengthen the federal government's ability to promote food security.
With the Department of Homeland Security in a directing role, and with
sector-specific leadership roles for the Departments of Agriculture and
Health and Human Services, the bill would provide
[[Page S9477]]
a coherent National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy consistent
with our national emergency management plans.
As Congress has already provided in other areas, the national food
security strategy would address preparedness, mitigation, response, and
recovery. Its provisions for stockpiling veterinary supplies and
establishing a plant-disease recovery program would add vital new
Federal capabilities. Coordination of Federal food security budget
activity and outreach State, local, and private sector stakeholders are
also important features of the bill.
In light of the gravity of the threat to our food security and this
measure's thoughtful and promising response to that threat, I encourage
my colleagues to support expeditious action on this bill.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr.
Roberts):
S. 1806. A bill to restore to the judiciary the power to decide all
trademark and trade name cases arising under the laws and treaties of
the United States by repealing the prohibition on recognition by United
States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names,
and commercial names and impediments to registration of such marks, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to correct
a most unfortunate piece of legislation that was slipped into an
appropriations bill several years ago, which will restore the Federal
courts to their proper position in considering certain trademark
issues. I joined Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Roberts
on a version of this bill in the 109th Congress. That bill did not
reach final passage, but its importance demands our renewed attention.
Together, we are reintroducing the Judicial Powers Restoration Act of
2007.
We will repeal Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill of
1999. Section 211 was slipped into that appropriations bill at the
eleventh hour, under the radar of most members of the Senate. It was
done in a way specifically intended to bypass the normal legislative
process. Its intent was to affect the outcome of a dispute over the
``Havana Club'' trademark for rum. Section 211 prohibits the
registration or renewal of registration of a trademark of a business
that was expropriated by the Cuban Government. It also disallows ``any
assertion of rights'' by Cuban entities, or a foreign successor in
interest to a Cuban entity, with respect to trademarks of expropriated
businesses. Finally, the provision states that no U.S. Court may
recognize the attempt by a Cuban entity or its successor in interest,
from asserting treaty rights with respect to an expropriated mark
unless the owner expressly consents.
I am not here to help out a liquor company. Rather, I am here to
ensure that intellectual property protections recognized by our laws
are honored in our courts. I am here to ensure that U.S. courts may
consider trademark cases arising under U.S. laws. Most importantly, I
am here because the legislative process needs to take place in the open
and in front of the people, not under cover of darkness and behind
closed doors.
I have been working with Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, and Senator
Roberts for more than three years on this issue, and I hope we can move
quickly to pass this bipartisan legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1806
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 ``Judicial Powers Restoration
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to restore to the judiciary the
power to decide all trademark and trade name cases arising
under the laws and treaties of the United States by repealing
the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of
certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, and
commercial names and impediments to registration of such
marks.
SEC. 3. REPEAL.
(a) In General.--Section 211 of the Department of Commerce
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained
in section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 112
Stat. 2681-88) is repealed.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out the
repeal made by subsection (a), including removing or revoking
any prohibition on transactions or payments to which
subsection (a)(1) of section 211 of the Department of
Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999
applied.
____________________