[Senate Report 109-209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE                          
 1st Session                                                    109-209
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 224

 
                       HOMELAND SECURITY FOOD AND
                        AGRICULTURE ACT OF 2005

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                 S. 572





     TO AMEND THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 TO GIVE ADDITIONAL 
  BIOSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY




               December 15, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island      MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

           Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                        James R. McKay, Counsel
      Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
          Jason M. Yanussi, Minority Professional Staff Member
                      Trina D. Tyrer, Chief Clerk


                                                       Calendar No. 224
109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    109-209

======================================================================




           HOMELAND SECURITY FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

               December 15, 2005.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Ms. Collins, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 572]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 572) to amend the 
homeland security act of 2002 to give additional biosecurity 
responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security, having 
considered the same reports favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose & Summary................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
  V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................6
 VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................7
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................7

                          I. PURPOSE & SUMMARY

    The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (the 
``Committee'') approved S. 572, the Homeland Security Food and 
Agriculture Act, on September 22, 2005. This legislation would 
establish a program at the Department of Homeland Security (the 
``Department'' or ``DHS'') to protect agriculture and the food 
supply by increasing the coordination and communication between 
federal, state, and local governments on agricultural security.

                             II. BACKGROUND

    United States agriculture generates over $1 trillion 
annually, including $50 billion in exports.\1\ ``The 
agriculture industry represents about 13 percent of Gross 
Domestic Product and nearly 17 percent of domestic 
employment.\2\ One in eight Americans work in an area directly 
supported by food production.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist 
Attack, but Important Challenges Remain,'' Government Accountability 
Office, GAO-05-214, March 8, 2005.
    \2\ Bio-security and Agro-Terrorism: Hearing before the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 109th Congress (2005) 
(statement of the Honorable Charles F. Conner, Deputy Secretary, United 
States Department of Agriculture).
    \3\ Agroterrorism: The Threat to America's Breadbasket: Hearing 
before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, S. Hrg. 108-491, (2003) 
(statement of Dr. Peter Chalk, RAND Corporation) at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An event that causes a loss of confidence in any portion of 
the U.S. agriculture sector could result in severe economic 
losses for the U.S. economy. As a result of the detection of 
only one case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad 
cow disease) in the United States in December 2003, most 
countries banned U.S. beef exports which caused the U.S. beef 
industry to lose between $3.2 and $4.7 billion in 2004. Two 
years later, Japan and South Korea, which together account for 
over 50 percent of U.S. beef exports, have not lifted the ban. 
According to a study conducted by the California Department of 
Food and Agriculture, each day that an outbreak of foot-and-
mouth disease is not contained could cost the United States $1 
billion in trade sanctions alone.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Experts warn that the American food supply system could be 
a target of terrorist attack. While testifying before the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on July 20, 
2005, Mr. John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, 
Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI), stated, ``Most people do not equate terrorist attacks 
with agroterrorism. But the threat is real, and the impact 
could be devastating.'' \5\ Another witness, Dr. Robert 
Brackett, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied 
Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), added, ``A 
terrorist attack on the food supply could have both severe 
public health and economic consequences, while damaging the 
public's confidence in the food we eat.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Hearing supra note 2, (statement of Mr. John E. Lewis, Deputy 
Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of 
Investigation).
    \6\ Id. (statement of Dr. Robert Brackett, Director, Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 1999 report to Congress by the Advisory Panel to Assess 
Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons 
of Mass Destruction (also known as the Gilmore Commission) 
stated:

          . . . a biological attack against an agricultural 
        target offers terrorists a virtually risk-free form of 
        assault, which has a high probability of success and 
        which also has the prospect of obtaining political 
        objectives, such as undermining confidence in the 
        ability of government or giving the terrorists an 
        improved bargaining position.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``First Annual Report to the President and Congress: Assessing 
the Threat,'' Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities 
for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Gilmore 
Commission), December 15, 1999, at 12-15.

In 2003, while testifying before the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee, Dr. Peter Chalk, RAND Corporation, further 
noted that unlike other types of terrorist attack, an 
agroterrorist attack could be executed with little technical 
expertise or financial cost and would not put the attacker in 
harm's way because most foreign animal and plant diseases are 
not transmittable to humans.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Hearing supra note 3 at 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration has taken 
steps to improve U.S. agriculture security, but holes in 
prevention, preparedness, and response remain.
    On December 17, 2003, the Administration issued Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) which established a 
national policy for federal departments and agencies to 
identify and prioritize United States critical infrastructure 
and key resources and to protect them from terrorist attacks. 
HSPD-7 tasks the Secretary of Homeland Security with 
coordinating the overall national effort to enhance the 
protection of the critical infrastructure and designates the 
Department of Agriculture with the sector-specific 
responsibility for food and agriculture protection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, ``Critical 
Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection,'' 
December 17, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 30, 2004, the Administration issued Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-9) to establish a 
national policy to defend the agriculture and food system 
against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other 
emergencies. HSPD-9 generally instructs the Secretaries of 
Homeland Security, Agriculture (USDA), and Health and Human 
Services, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central 
Intelligence to coordinate their efforts to prepare for, 
protect against, respond to, and recover from an agroterrorist 
attack. HSPD-9 specifically tasks DHS with developing a 
coordinated agriculture and food-specific standardized response 
plan, ensuring that adequate response capabilities exist at the 
federal, state, and local levels for an attack on the 
agriculture sector, establishing information sharing and 
analysis mechanisms for agriculture and food, and coordinating 
the federal research efforts into countermeasures against 
catastrophic animal, plant, and zoonotic diseases.
    According to a March 2005 Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) report entitled, ``Much is Being Done to Protect 
Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges 
Remain,'' DHS's communication with state and local officials 
and coordination of federal activities is lacking. GAO reported 
a lack of communication between DHS and states regarding the 
development of emergency response plans, grant guidance, and 
best practices. State and industry officials reported that 
there is no mechanism to share lessons learned from exercises 
or real-life animal disease outbreaks. The GAO report also 
stated that shortcomings exist in DHS's federal coordination of 
national efforts to protect against agroterrorism. Federal 
officials claim that there is confusion in interagency working 
groups as to which responsibility falls with whom. According to 
GAO, DHS has been unable to coordinate agriculture security 
research efforts throughout the government as it was tasked to 
do in HSPD-9. While some program staff from DHS, USDA, and 
Health and Human Services have engaged in preliminary 
discussions, there is no overall departmental coordination of 
policy and budget issues between the various federal 
agencies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Report supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lack of DHS leadership on agriculture security can be 
seen in the June 2004 incident in Washington State where 18 
cattle developed chromium contamination. Agroterrorism was 
suspected, yet neither USDA nor DHS were notified for over a 
week. In May 2004, representatives from the FBI, FDA, and USDA 
gave a presentation at an agroterrorism conference in Kansas 
City, Missouri on lessons learned from the Washington outbreak 
which included a slide stating that the following agencies 
should be contacted if agroterrorism is suspected: a state's 
Department of Agriculture, FDA, USDA, FBI, local law 
enforcement, and state and county public health officials. 
However, despite presidential directives, the Department of 
Homeland Security was not on the list. It is apparent that 
federal coordination remains inadequate if notification of DHS 
is considered unnecessary by other responding agencies.
    Since September 11, 2001, the Senate has held three 
hearings on agriculture security. The Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats of the Senate Committee on Armed Services held a 
hearing titled, ``Agricultural Biological Weapons Threat to the 
United States,'' on October 27, 1999. Four years later the 
Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing focusing on the 
federal government's preparedness and response capabilities 
titled, ``Agroterrorism: The Threat to America's Breadbasket,'' 
on November 18, 2003. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry held a hearing on the subject, ``Biosecurity and 
Agroterrorism,'' on July 20, 2005.
    However, no comprehensive agriculture security legislation 
exists and the Department of Homeland Security's role in 
agriculture security remains largely undefined in statute. S. 
572 would define and codify the important role DHS should play 
in agriculture security preparedness and response.

                        III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    S. 572 was introduced on March 9, 2005, by Senators Akaka 
and Durbin and was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs. On September 22, 2005, the 
Committee considered S. 572 and ordered the bill, as amended by 
an Akaka substitute amendment, favorably reported by voice 
vote. Members present were Senators Collins, Lieberman, 
Voinovich, Coleman, Chafee, Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, 
Lautenberg, and Pryor.
    Senator Akaka introduced similar bills in the 107th and 
108th Congresses. S. 2767, the Agriculture Security 
Preparedness Act, was introduced on July 22, 2002, and referred 
to the Committee on Agriulture, Nutrition, Forestry, and S. 
427, the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, and S. 430, the 
Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, were introduced on 
February 24, 2003, and referred to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry.

                    IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland Security Food and 
Agriculture Act of 2005.''

Section 2. Agricultural biosecurity

    (a) This subsection amends the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 (P.L. 107-296) to create Subtitle J, Agricultural 
Biosecurity, after Subtitle I under Title VII.
            Section 899(a)--Definitions
    Section 899(a) of the new Subtitle J defines the terms 
agriculture disease, agriculture, agroterrorist act, and 
biosecurity for the purposes of this Subtitle.
            Section 899(b)--Agriculture security responsibilities of 
                    the Department of Homeland Security
    Subsection (a) authorizes an agriculture security program 
within the Department to include advising and coordinating with 
federal, state, local, regional, and tribal homeland security 
officials regarding preparedness, detection, prevention, and 
mitigation of an agroterrorist act and executing the 
agriculture security responsibilities of the Secretary 
described in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 
(December 17, 2003) and Homeland Security Presidential 
Directive 9 (February 3, 2004).
    Subsection (b) tasks the Secretary of Homeland Security 
with the following responsibilities under the agriculture 
security program: organizing communication among federal, state 
and local emergency response providers for agricultural 
emergencies; ensuring that emergency response providers execute 
their roles in the event of an agroterrorist attack; ensuring 
that emergency response providers have the necessary 
information and resources regarding an agroterrorism; 
developing information sharing procedures among emergency 
response providers; working with the Department of 
Transportation to developing guidelines for the transportation 
of agricultural products in response to an agricultural 
disease; coordinating with the Environmental Protection Agency 
about the potential environmental impact of an agricultural 
disease; coordinating with the Department of Agriculture 
regarding recognizing agricultural products from suspected 
locations; coordinating with Department of State to establish 
mutual assistance agreements with other countries; ensuring 
state, local, and regional response plans include an 
agriculture security component; and establishing a taskforce of 
state and local homeland security officials to identify best 
agriculture security practices and disseminate the best 
practices to all states.
    Subsection (c) creates a grant program in the Office of 
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to 
facilitate the participation of agriculture specialists in 
agricultural security emergency preparedness. This grant 
program is intended to be used for events such as conferences 
and exercises that will bring emergency management and animal 
and plant healthcare officials together for planning and 
preparedness purposes.
    (b) This subsection makes technical and conforming 
amendments.

                    V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

S. 572--Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act of 2005

    S. 527 would amend the Homeland Security Act to require the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a program to 
protect the agriculture industry and the nation's food supply 
from terrorist acts. In addition, the legislation would 
authorize the appropriation of $5 million in fiscal year 2006 
for grants to state and local animal health care officials.
    CBO estimates that implementing S. 572 would cost $8 
million in 2006 and $53 million over the 2006-2010 period, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the 
legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    S. 572 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. Any costs incurred by these governments to 
participate in the activities authorized by this bill would be 
incurred voluntarily.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 572 is shown in the following table. The 
cost of this legislation falls within budget function 800 
(general government).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2006    2007    2008    2009    2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Establish Food Supply Protection
 Program:
    Estimated Authorization            6       9      12      12      12
     Level......................
    Estimated Outlays...........       5       8      11      12      12
Local Community Emergency
 Planning:
    Authorization Level.........       5       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........       3       2       0       0       0
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Authorization       11       9      12      12      12
         Level..................
        Estimated Outlays.......       8      10      11      12      12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bill will be enacted early in fiscal year 2006 and that 
spending will follow historical patterns for similar programs.
    DHS currently has a Directorate for Preparedness that 
identifies and assesses current and future threats to the 
United States. According to that office, it is working to 
coordinate the protection of the agriculture industry and food 
supply throughout the United States.
    S. 572 would codify and expand the current duties of the 
Directorate for Preparedness. The directorate would be 
responsible for communicating and coordinating among federal, 
state, and local emergency response providers regarding threats 
to the agriculture industry and food supply, for ensuring that 
state and local officials have access to information on 
agricultural terrorism, and for planning to prevent and respond 
to food and agriculture emergencies. Based on information from 
DHS, CBO estimates that the office would need about $12 million 
a year for additional staff to carry out its additional 
responsibilities under S. 572. CBO expects that the office 
would steadily expand its budget and staff over the next three 
years before it reached that level of effort. We estimate that 
the added duties for the directorate would cost $48 million 
over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary funds.
    The legislation also would authorize the appropriation of 
$5 million for grants to state and local animal care officials 
to participate in community emergency planning efforts. CBO 
estimates that implementing the grant program would cost $5 
million over the 2006-2007 period.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 572 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. Any costs incurred by these governments to 
participate in the activities authorized by this bill would be 
incurred voluntarily.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that 
there are no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on 
state, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains 
no other regulatory impact.

                      VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, S. 572 adds entirely new language 
and, therefore does not change existing law.

                                  
