[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.

                          ____________________