[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21983-21984]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               AN AGROTERRORIST ATTACK--ARE WE PREPARED?

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need for 
greater preparation to protect our agriculture from a terrorist attack.
  After September 11, the President placed agriculture on the list of 
critical infrastructure that deserved to be protected from an 
agroterrorist attack. Since then, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
USDA, has moved to improve our preparedness to prevent and respond to 
an attack upon our agriculture. The President's February 2003 
``National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical 
Infrastructures and Key Assets'' also outlines a strategy for 
increasing our ability to react to an agroterrorist attack. Yet, we 
still have a long way to go in protecting our agriculture industry.
  There has been a steady drumbeat of warnings about the vulnerability 
of our agriculture. Two major studies were recently released that 
concluded we should do more to guard our agriculture. The Council on 
Foreign Relations, CFR, published a report on our emergency response 
capability that said we lacked an effective response to an attack on 
our national food supply. The report recommended spending an additional 
$2.1 billion over the next 5 years to improve our ``animal/
agricultural'' emergency response.
  On the heels of the CFR report, the Partnership for Public Service 
issued a study that examined whether the Federal Government has the 
necessary expertise to defend against a bioterrorist attack. In regards 
to agricultural security, it said that federal agencies responsible for 
safeguarding our agriculture and food supply from bioweapons would face 
``crushing burdens'' if our food and water supplies were contaminated.
  These are just the most recent reports that recommend we need to do 
more to increase our guard. Last fall, the National Academy of Sciences 
published a major study on vulnerability of U.S. agriculture. The 
General Accounting Office, GAO, has issued three reports in the last 
year that looked at food processing security, foot and mouth disease, 
and mad cow disease. All suggested that we still have a way to go to 
prevent or prepare for an attack on our agriculture.
  An attack on our agriculture could have serious consequences. 
Agricultural activity accounts for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. 
gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. 
The United States is a top producer and exporter of agricultural goods, 
including beef,

[[Page 21984]]

pork, poultry, wheat, corn and soybeans. Major agricultural States 
could be severely affected depending on the nature of the attack.
  States with large cattle herds could be devastated by a deliberately 
set outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There were over 96 million 
cattle and calves in the United States valued at some $70 billion in 
2003. Texas has the largest number by far, 14 million animals, and 
could be particularly hard hit. In 2001, the cattle industry generated 
$6.8 billion in income for Texas. The breeding herd of beef cows is 
particularly concentrated in Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas, with each State 
having have more than a million head of beef cows.
  Dairy States could also suffer. The United States has over nine 
million milk cows that produce almost $25 billion in income. California 
and Wisconsin are the largest producers. Both have more than a million 
milk cows that yield close to $8 billion in income. But a number of 
States--Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington each have more than 200,000 cows, 
contributing substantially to their economies.
  Hog-raising States also could be vulnerable to the spread of foot-
and-mouth disease, or to an outbreak of African swine fever. The United 
States had almost 60 million hogs and pigs valued at over $4 billion 
dollars in 2002. Iowa has the largest industry with more than 15 
million animals valued at over a billion dollars. North Carolina is 
next with some 9.6 million animals valued at a half a billion dollars. 
Ten additional States have substantial industries with more than a 
million animals: Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.
  States with large poultry industries are vulnerable to Exotic 
Newcastle Disease or avian influenza. In 2002, 14 States had flocks of 
over 15 million birds each: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, 
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Iowa alone has over 40 million 
birds valued at over $64 million.
  Crops, such as wheat, could also be a target. A purposeful spread of 
the Karnal bunt wheat fungus could have a strong adverse impact on U.S. 
exports. The United States is the world's leading exporter of wheat, 
accounting for almost one-third of world wheat exports valued at over 
$3.5 billion in 2002. Since almost 80 countries do not allow Karnal 
infected wheat to be imported, a ban on U.S. exports could have a 
substantial effect on the U.S. economy. The Economic Research Service 
of the USDA estimated that the total cost of a reduction of exports 
from 2003 to 2007 could be over $7 billion if there was such a ban. The 
top wheat-producing States--Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 
South Dakota, Texas, and Washington--would be particularly hard hit.
  I have been concerned about the vulnerability of our agriculture for 
quite some time. When I was a member of the House Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I was a supporter of the USDA's Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. APHIS plays a critical role in 
guarding our borders and farms from agricultural pests and diseases, 
something that is of prime importance to Hawaii. As a Senator, I 
continue to be concerned about this problem. In the 107th Congress I 
introduced a bill to enhance agricultural biosecurity in the United 
States.
  In this Congress, I have introduced two bills that will help address 
our shortcomings in agricultural security preparedness. The Agriculture 
Security Assistance Act, S. 427, and Agriculture Security Preparedness 
Act, S. 430, are designed to address the need for increasing 
coordination in confronting the threat to America's agriculture 
industry. The two bills provide for better funding and better-
coordinated response to an incident of agroterrorism. The bills will 
also serve to increase our defenses against debilitating agro-
terrorism attacks.
  The Agriculture Security Assistance Act is primarily aimed at 
assisting States and communities in responding to threats to the 
agriculture industry. The legislation will provide funds for 
communities and States to increase their ability to handle a crisis. It 
also will help animal health professionals to participate in community 
emergency planning activities to assist agriculturists in strengthening 
their defenses against a terrorist threat.
  The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will enable better 
interagency coordination thereby enhancing agriculture security. The 
legislation will establish senior level liaisons in Departments of 
Homeland Security, DHS, and Health and Human Services, HHS, to 
coordinate with USDA on agricultural disease emergency management and 
response. The bill requires DHS and USDA to work with the Department of 
Transportation to address the risks associated with transporting 
animals, plants, and people between and around farms.
  Recently Mother Nature has provided warnings of the costs and dangers 
of a possible agroterrorist attack. In May, Canadians discovered that 
an 8-year-old cow that had been killed in January was infected with mad 
cow disease. The same disease affected cattle in Britain in the 1980s 
and 1990s leading to a slaughter of over 3.7 million animals.
  Canada faced an enormous adverse economic impact due to the discovery 
of the mad cow disease. Canada's cattle industry generates $7 billion 
in cattle sales and the industry remained paralyzed during the period 
immediately following the discovery of the disease. Major importers of 
Canada's beef, like the United States, Mexico, Japan and Australia, 
temporarily halted their imports causing almost $8 million a day loss 
to the cattle industry. The news also affected companies like 
McDonald's, Wendy's, and Tyson Foods.
  Canada acted to control the spread of the disease by quarantining 
herds of suspected cattle and slaughtering them to test for the 
presence of the disease. All the herds believed to have come in contact 
with the infected cow were quarantined and killed for medical 
examination. More than 2,700 Canadian cattle were slaughtered and 
eighteen farms were quarantined in the process of determining the 
disease's source and to control the spread of the disease.
  In the United States, the southwest poultry industry has been beset 
by a costly outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease, END, since last fall. 
The outbreak was first detected in a backyard chicken flock in Los 
Angeles County in early October 2002. It then spread to Nevada, Arizona 
and Texas. Over the past months, some 25 countries including the 
European Union have put embargoes on chicken from affected areas. In 
Texas, where the poultry industry employs about 15,000 people and is 
ranked sixth in the Nation, the industry said it could lose about $100 
million as a result of the embargoes. In California, State officials 
ordered the destruction of more than 3 million birds, enforcing a 
quarantine over a wide area. The outbreak in 2002 and 2003 cost the 
state almost $100 million to control the spread of the disease.
  We all know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The 
Nation's capability to counter agroterrorism is increasing. But 
agriculture's central importance to our country suggests greater 
efforts are needed. As the recent cases of Mad Cow and Exotic Newcastle 
disease dramatically demonstrate, the consequences of a lack of 
preparedness could be quite high. Containing these naturally occurring 
diseases was costly and it involved extensive coordination. It could be 
much more difficult to counter a deliberate attack. The two bills I 
have introduced will help us to act now so that a future agroterrorist 
attack can be avoided, or dealt with rapidly before it can get out of 
hand. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________