[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1781-1784]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, 
        Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. 
        Barrasso, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 337. A bill to prohibit the importation of ruminants and swine, 
and fresh and frozen meat and products of ruminants and swine, from 
Argentina until the Secretary of Agriculture certifies to Congress that 
every region of Argentina is free of foot and mouth disease without 
vaccination; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I introduce the Foot and Mouth 
Disease Prevention Act of 2009 with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator 
Mike Enzi, and with broad organizational support. I drafted this bill 
with one goal in mind: to keep America Foot and Mouth Disease, FMD, 
free.
  The United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, under the Bush 
administration proposed throwing open our borders to Argentine 
livestock, fresh meat and fresh product. While the United States of 
America has been free of FMD without vaccination since 1929, Argentina 
has consistently struggled with the disease, experiencing outbreaks as 
recently as 2006. Argentina has failed to remain FMD free for any 
length of time and arguably lacks the infrastructure necessary for this 
proposal to fly. In fact, a 2001 outbreak in Argentina went unreported 
and was hidden by the Argentine government, raising serious questions 
regarding their communication on this front.
  The Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention Act of 2009 doesn't interrupt 
the status quo. Argentina can import product that is dried or cooked, 
for example, that doesn't pose a risk for disease transmission. And 
we're not saying that increased trade is permanently prohibited. We are 
simply asking for Argentina to comply with certain acceptable standards 
for trade that would

[[Page 1782]]

ensure the country as a whole is FMD free, and FMD free without 
vaccination. Additionally, our requirement that the Secretary of 
Agriculture ``certifies to Congress'' that Argentina as a country is 
free of FMD is merely a reporting process regarding Argentina's disease 
status.
  Senator Enzi and I consulted extensively with nationally recognized 
livestock health experts on USDA's proposal. These livestock health 
experts resoundingly voiced their concern for USDA's plan, which fails 
to put American farmers and ranchers first. Dr. Sam Holland, South 
Dakota State Veterinarian and Past President of the National Assembly 
of State Animal Health Officials, NASAHO, has been instrumental with 
offering his guidance and expertise. A poll was taken within NASAHO and 
the majority of state veterinarians oppose regionalizing for FMD. While 
regionalization may be an appropriate approach in various other 
circumstances, it is unequivocally unacceptable in responding to Foot 
and Mouth Disease. An FMD outbreak in the United States is projected to 
cost our agricultural economy billions of dollars, and it is with good 
reason that the American Veterinary Medical Association, AVMA, has 
deemed FMD to be the most devastating of all livestock diseases.
  USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, APHIS, arguably 
violated its own World Organization for Animal Health-complaint 
regionalization plan in proposing increased meat trade with Argentina. 
APHIS must address eleven points when initiating the regionalization 
process, including points six and seven which speak to the degree of 
separation of the region and the extent to which movement can be 
determined and controlled. Nationally recognized livestock health 
experts believe that in the case of regionalizing for FMD, sound 
scientific evidence argues against USDA's proposal.
  This past fall, USDA APHIS Chief Veterinarian Dr. Clifford discussed 
with my staff his intention not to proceed with the Argentina plan 
until a review of the 2005 risk assessment was completed. It is my 
understanding that a team will be sent to Argentina to conduct this 
review in late February. Additionally, the new Administration is 
reviewing proposed rules, of which the Argentina plan is included. 
While both of these developments are encouraging, it is essential that 
we continue to communicate the potentially disastrous consequences of 
this plan.
  Organizations across the agricultural industry support this 
legislation, including the American Sheep Industry Association, United 
States Cattlemen's Association, R-CALF, National Farmers Union, South 
Dakota Stockgrowers Association, South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, 
Wyoming Stock Growers Association, South Dakota Farmers Union, Women 
Involved in Farm Economics, and Dakota Rural Action.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                      South Dakota


                                        Animal Industry Board,

                                     Pierre, SD, January 27, 2009.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: As a follow-up to our conversation on 
     Regionalization of Argentina for FMD:
       As you recall NASAHO was overwhelmingly opposed to such 
     regionalization during the last session of congress.
       As I understand a more current review and risk assessment 
     is planned regarding such regionalization. While a recent 
     review will provide useful risk information, concerns remain.
       Personally, the issues I stated in the past appear still 
     valid.
       (1) Economic benefits do not justify the risk of embarking 
     on a regionalization for this disease.
       (2) Inability to effectively monitor risk on an ongoing 
     basis.
       (3) Resources, Biosecurity, and experience in monitoring 
     FMD freedom are inadequate.
       (4) Regionalization for one of the world's most highly 
     contagious virus disease(s) (FMD) is much more complicated 
     than regionalization for tuberculosis, brucellosis and many 
     other diseases. FMD virus is not only arguably the most 
     contagious virus known for animals, but also is particularly 
     resilient in the environment and may persist in fomites and 
     be transmitted by such through aerosol or contact.
       While I certainly support trade based on science, 
     prioritization must occur. Regionalization efforts should 
     start at home and resources should be spent on enhancing 
     animal health in the United States, along with efforts to 
     increase our exports, prior to spending precious resources in 
     foreign countries in attempts to increase food imports.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sam D. Holland,
     State Veterinarian and Executive Secretary.
                                  ____



                                 U.S. Cattlemen's Association,

                                  San Lucas, CA, January 28, 2009.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sirs: The U.S. Cattlemen's Association (USCA) applauds 
     your leadership in introducing the Foot and Mouth Disease 
     Prevention Act. This bill would prohibit the importation of 
     ruminants and swine and fresh or frozen ruminant and pork 
     products from any region of Argentina until the United States 
     Department of Agriculture (USDA) can certify to Congress that 
     Argentina is free of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).
       This bill is extremely important as it protects the U.S. 
     cattle herd from FMD. If FMD infiltrates our borders, entire 
     herds would be destroyed leaving ranchers in financial ruin. 
     Furthermore, the scare would immediately shut global markets 
     to U.S. beef products, a move that would have a disastrous 
     economic effect on rural economies.
       The American Veterinary Medical Association has deemed FMD 
     the most economically devastating of all livestock disease. A 
     recent study by Kansas State University found that an 
     outbreak of FMD would cost the State of Kansas alone nearly 
     $1 billion.
       Despite the risks, the Department of Agriculture continues 
     to consider the implementation of a regionalized beef trade 
     plan with Argentina. FMD is an airborne disease that will not 
     stop at an imaginary border controlled by a foreign nation. 
     Argentina has proven time and time again that it does not 
     have America's best interests at heart. This is a country 
     that has attacked U.S. agriculture in the World Trade 
     Organization (WTO) and has intentionally turned its back on, 
     and still refuses to pay, billions in U.S. loans despite U.S. 
     court judgments mandating it do so.
       USCA is committed to working with you and moving this bill 
     forward by garnering support both on Capitol Hill and in the 
     country. USCA is firmly resolved to ensuring the U.S. cattle 
     industry is protected by the highest import standards 
     possible, and to seeing that this bill becomes law.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jon Wooster,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       National Farmers Union,

                                 Washington, DC, January 27, 2009.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington D.C.
       Dear Senator Johnson: On behalf of the family farmers, 
     ranchers and rural residents of National Farmers Union (NFU), 
     I write in strong support of your legislation to prohibit the 
     importation of Argentine ruminants, swine, fresh and frozen 
     meat, and fresh and frozen products from ruminants and swine 
     until the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary 
     certifies the country Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) free 
     without vaccination. I applaud your leadership to ensure all 
     measures are employed to protect the American livestock 
     industry and consumer confidence in our meat supply.
       The ban proposed in your legislation is necessary in order 
     to prevent jeopardizing our own efforts to eradicate 
     livestock diseases, and thereby protecting the food supply. 
     Your legislation enhances food safety through requiring every 
     region of Argentina to be FMD-free without vaccination before 
     exporting ruminants, swine and meat products to the United 
     States.
       FMD is a highly infectious virus that, if introduced into 
     the United States, could contaminate entire herds and leave 
     producers in financial ruin, as infected herds must be culled 
     to prevent the spread of the disease. FMD is so devastating 
     the American Veterinary Medical Association considers it to 
     be the most economically destructive of all livestock 
     diseases. The United States suffered nine outbreaks of FMD in 
     the early twentieth century, but has been FMD-free since 
     1929. According to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service, the economic impacts of a re-occurrence of FMD in 
     the United States could cost the economy billions of dollars 
     in the first year alone.
       America's family farmers and ranchers produce the safest, 
     most abundant food supply in the world. FMD presents a very 
     real threat to American agriculture and its introduction into 
     the United States can and must be prevented. Requiring a 
     country like Argentina, with such an apparent problem with 
     this devastating disease, to prove FMD-free status is an 
     acceptable standard to trade. Opening our borders to 
     Argentine ruminant products is a risk that American producers 
     simply cannot afford. Your legislation is

[[Page 1783]]

     needed to ensure harmful products are not allowed into the 
     United States and that Argentina is not an exception to the 
     rule.
       I thank you for introducing this important legislation, and 
     look forward to working with you to ensure its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Tom Buis,
     President, National Farmers Union.
                                  ____

                                                            R-CALF


                               United Stockgrowers of America,

                                   Billings, MT, January 26, 2009.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Johnson and Enzi: On behalf of the thousands 
     of cattle-producing members of R-CALF USA located throughout 
     the United States, we greatly appreciate and strongly support 
     the reintroduction in the 111th Congress of your joint 
     legislation to prohibit the importation of certain animals 
     and animal products from Argentina until every region of 
     Argentina is free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) without 
     vaccination.
       Foot-and-mouth disease is recognized internationally as one 
     of the most contagious diseases of cloven-hoofed animals and 
     it bears the potential to cause severe economic losses to 
     U.S. cattle producers. Your legislation recognizes that the 
     most effective prevention measure against this highly 
     contagious disease is to ensure that it is not imported into 
     the United States from countries where FMD is known to exist 
     or was recently detected.
       R-CALF USA stands ready to assist you in building both 
     industry and congressional support for this important 
     disease-prevention measure. Thank you for reintroducing this 
     needed legislation in the 111th Congress to protect the U.S. 
     cattle industry from the unnecessary and dangerous exposure 
     to FMD from Argentinean imports.
           Sincerely,

                                             R.M. Thornsberry,

     President,
                                  ____

                                                      South Dakota


                                      Cattlemen's Association,

                                                 January 26, 2009.
     Senator Tim Johnson,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Mike Enzi,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Johnson and Enzi: I'm writing on behalf of 
     the 1,000 beef producer members of the South Dakota 
     Cattlemen's Association (SDCA) to express support for the 
     Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention Act of 2009. In light of 
     numerous unanswered questions regarding the status of Foot 
     and Mouth Disease in Argentina, we believe passage of the 
     Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention Act is critical to ensure 
     this devastating disease doesn't enter the U.S. cattle herd 
     through the importation of Argentine cattle and beef 
     products.
       SDCA supports free and fair trade based on OIE standards 
     that will protect the health of our cattle herd and the 
     economic livelihood of our cattlemen. Our top trade priority 
     is to regain market access for U.S. beef in order to 
     recapture the lost value of exports that occurred after the 
     occurrence of BSE in 2003. To that end, we've worked closely 
     with elected and regulatory officials to ensure adequate 
     measures are taken to protect our herd health and maintain 
     consumer confidence in U.S. beef.
       We commend your willingness to stand up for South Dakota's 
     beef producers and look forward to working with you on this 
     important issue.
           Regards,
                                                    Jodie Hickman,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 338. A bill to amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify 
the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of 
California is deemed to be held in trust and to provide for the conduct 
of certain activities on the land; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton 
Gaming Oversight Act, a bill that will ensure federal law is followed 
when a Native American tribe seeks to operate any new gaming 
facilities.
  This legislation is simple, straightforward, and fair. It would amend 
language inserted in the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000 that 
required the Secretary of the Interior to take a card club and adjacent 
parking lot in the San Francisco Bay Area into trust for the Lytton 
tribe as their reservation. That legislation also required that the 
acquisition be backdated to October 17, 1988, before the passage of the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA.
  The ``two-part'' determination process in the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act is a critical component to tribal land acquisition for 
gaming purposes and should not be circumvented. Specifically, it 
requires the Governor's consent and the Secretary of the Interior to 
consult with nearby tribes and the local community and its 
representatives.
  The legislation that I am introducing would require the Lytton Band 
of Pomo Indians to follow these same critical oversight guidelines laid 
out in Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act before engaging 
in Class III, or Nevada-style, gaming on land acquired after the 
passage of IGRA in 1988.
  The bill allows the tribe to continue operating a Class II facility 
at the current site provided the tribe follows IGRA regulations for 
gaming on newly-acquired lands in the future. The bill also precludes 
any expansion of the tribe's current Class II facility.
  The bill would not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal 
recognition status, alter the trust status of the new reservation, or 
take away the tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard 
process prescribed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The bill serves 
only to restore the jurisdiction of IGRA over the gaming process, as 
originally intended by Congress.
  Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides an 
established and clear process for gaming on newly- acquired lands taken 
into trust after the enactment of IGRA in 1988. The ``two-part 
determination'' process allows for federal and state approval, and for 
input from nearby tribes and local communities.
  Circumventing this process can have negative and severe impacts on 
local citizens and deprive local and tribal governments of their 
ability to represent their communities on an incredibly important and 
contentious issue.
  If this bill is not approved, the Lytton tribe could take the former 
card club that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large 
gaming complex operating outside the regulations set up by the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in 
the summer of 2004.
  I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned a plan seeking a sizable 
Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse 
these plans at any time. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous 
precedent in California and any state where tribal gaming is permitted.
  Instead, Congress should reaffirm its intent that all new gaming 
facilities should be subject to IGRA without preference or prejudice.
                                 ______
                                 
      Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 342. A bill to provide for the treatment of service as a member of 
the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II as active service for 
purposes of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Last Thursday evening I came to the floor to speak to 
a decision by the United States Army, I understand at the urging of the 
Department of Defense, to reverse its position on whether service in 
the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II is creditable toward 
military retirement. I have asked repeatedly for a copy of the legal 
opinion supporting this decision. I am still waiting.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the decision was that it was to 
come into effect on February 1, 2009, in the dead of Alaska winter, and 
without any advance warning to those affected. The decision reduces the 
retirement pay received by 25 or 26 former members of the Territorial 
Guard by as much as $557 a month for one individual. The reduction in 
retirement pay to several others exceeds $500 a month. That is a 
substantial loss of income at any time of the year but it is especially 
difficult during the winter.
  This afternoon, Pete Geren, the Secretary of the Army, announced that 
the Army would make a onetime gratuitous payment from funds 
appropriated to cover emergency and extraordinary

[[Page 1784]]

expenses to these individuals, representing 2 months of the difference 
between what each would receive if service in the Alaska Territorial 
Guard were included in the retirement pay calculation and what each 
will receive as a retirement check beginning on February 1, 2009. I 
deeply appreciate Secretary Geren's compassionate decision. Increases 
in the cost of food and heat are making it very difficult for our 
Native people in rural Alaska to make ends meet this winter. I 
understand that the vast majority, if not the entire list of people who 
will receive this additional payment live in the villages of rural 
Alaska.
  However, I remain disappointed that the Army cannot continue its 
policy of paying retirement benefits on account of Alaska Territorial 
Guard service. Today I join with my colleagues in introducing 
legislation that clarifies that service in the Alaska Territorial Guard 
during World War II is creditable toward military retirement.
  Since I raised this issue on the floor last Thursday evening the 
response I have received from around the country has been nothing but 
overwhelming. I deeply appreciate all of those who have called and 
written to express their support for our efforts to protect the 
benefits that the members of our Alaska Territorial Guard earned 
through their legendary service.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
supporting material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 342

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT AS ACTIVE SERVICE FOR RETIRED PAY 
                   PURPOSES OF SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE ALASKA 
                   TERRITORIAL GUARD DURING WORLD WAR II.

       (a) In General.--Service as a member of the Alaska 
     Territorial Guard during World War II of any individual who 
     was honorably discharged therefrom under section 8147 of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
     106-259; 114 Stat. 705) shall be treated as active service 
     for purposes of the computation under chapter 71, 371, or 
     1223 of title 10, United States Code, as applicable, of the 
     retired pay to which such individual may be entitled under 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect 
     to amounts of retired pay payable under title 10, United 
     States Code, for months beginning on or after August 9, 2000. 
     No retired pay shall be paid to any individual by reason of 
     subsection (a) for any period before that date.
       (c) World War II Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``World War II'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     101(8) of title 38, United States Code.
                                  ____


             [From the Anchorage Daily News, Jan. 25, 2009]

             Fix This Now--Cut Is No Way To Treat Old Vets

       The Army has decided that some veterans of the World War II 
     Alaska Territorial Guard have been mistakenly drawing 
     retirement pay. So they've cut off some men in their 80s who 
     worked for nothing to defend Alaska during the war. The 
     argument is that a law that recognized their service was only 
     intended to provide benefits like health care, not retirement 
     pay. The Army says the law was misinterpreted. Then the Army 
     should stand by its misinterpretation and pay these men. 
     They're in their 80s. They served their country at a time 
     when neither their country nor their territory fully 
     recognized their rights because they were Natives. Their 
     guard service should count toward retirement pay out of sheer 
     decency. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich are working on 
     legislation to make the misinterpretation stand by making it 
     the law. Good. We don't care if the means is legislation, 
     executive order, administrative waiver or papal dispensation. 
     Just fix this so that some old men who did honorable service 
     get their due. Now. These soldiers earned their retirement 
     pay. They should receive it.
                                  ____


          [From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Jan. 25, 2009]

    Credit for Service: Restore Retirement Pay to the Eskimo Scouts

       The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, but they grind no 
     less thoroughly for their lack of speed. Unless the federal 
     administration and Alaska's congressional delegation can 
     reverse a recent decision, retirement pensions for a few 
     dozen old soldiers from Alaska's Territorial Guard will fall 
     victim to those wheels. The question of whether service in 
     the Territorial Guard--better known as the Eskimo Scouts--
     counted as active-duty service for purposes of calculating 
     military retirement pay was answered years ago. In 2001, 
     Congress said yes, it counts. At least that's what most 
     people thought Congress said. The Department of Defense, for 
     example, concluded as much and began sending retirement 
     checks to elderly Alaskans based on their service as Eskimo 
     Scouts. Recently, the Department of Defense reversed its 
     decision. It now asserts that the law requires credit when 
     calculating military benefits such as health care--but not 
     when calculating retirement pay. So, as of Feb. 1, according 
     to the congressional delegation, retirement benefits will be 
     cut by more than $500 per month in some cases. An Army 
     spokesman said the decision simply reinterprets the 2001 law 
     as it should have been all along. If that's the case, the law 
     should be clarified. That could take some time for the 
     congressional delegation to accomplish, though. In the 
     meantime, the Defense Department needs to find a better 
     solution than simply cutting the pay to a group of elderly 
     military pensioners. The issue arises because the Eskimo 
     Scouts from 1942 to 1947 were volunteers. Their service was 
     no less real than others in the military, especially since 
     they worked in Alaska, the only place in the country where 
     enemy forces successfully occupied territory during World War 
     II. The Japanese held several islands in the Aleutian chain 
     and bombed Dutch Harbor. It was real military service; those 
     who signed up deserve full credit for it, as Congress 
     intended.

                          ____________________