The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROTECTING AMERICAN AGRICULTURE” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the in the Senate section section on pages S12044-S12045 on Dec. 8, 2004.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROTECTING AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last Friday, December 3, 2004, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, in his resignation speech, stated, ``For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do so.'' These are strong words coming from the man charged with protecting the Nation's food supply. Yet this sort of warning is not news to those of us who follow this issue.
The security of our Nation's food supply is of great concern to me. Over the past year, the United States has been reminded repeatedly of the vulnerable nature of the American agriculture system and the ease with which terrorists could manipulate that vulnerability. In 2003, mad cow disease surfaced for the first time in Washington State and various strains of the avian influenza began cropping up across Asia and in the United States. I have come to the floor repeatedly over the past few years to call attention to this growing problem. I also introduced legislation to strengthen prevention and response efforts as early as 2002.
At a November 2003 Governmental Affairs Committee hearing,
``Agroterrorism: The Threat to America's Breadbasket,'' Dr. Peter Chalk, a RAND policy analyst, testified that an attack on American livestock could be extremely attractive to a terrorist for the following four reasons: one, a low level of technology is needed to do considerable damage; two, at least 15 pathogens have the capability of severely harming the agriculture industry; three, a terrorist would not need to be at great personal risk in order to carry out a successful attack; and four, a disease could spread quickly throughout a city, State, or even the country.
Dr. Tom McGinn, formerly of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, demonstrated a computer-simulated attack of foot-and-
mouth, or FMD, disease at our hearing where FMD was introduced in five States. According to Dr. McGinn's simulation, after five days 23 States would be infected; after 30 days 40 States would be infected. In this scenario, it would be likely that the disease would not be detected until the fifth day and a national order to stop the interstate movement of livestock would take place a few days later. Using Dr. McGinn's assumptions, over 23 million animals would die from illness or need to be destroyed. It is horrifying that such a massive blow could strike one of the United States' largest markets by simply coordinating the infection of five animals.
As a senior member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, one of my greatest concerns is the lack of governmental organization--Federal, State, and local--to address this problem. Over 30 Federal agencies have jurisdiction over some part of the response process in the event of a breach of agricultural security.
In a report on the country's preparedness for responding to animal-
bourne diseases issued in August 2003, Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded to raise the profile of public health issues, stated:
The U.S. is left with a myriad of bureaucratic jurisdictions that respond to various aspects of the diseases, with little coordination and no clear plan for communicating with the public about the health threats posed by animal-borne diseases.
Protecting America's agriculture and its citizens requires Federal agencies to have clear areas of responsibility that leave no ground uncovered and open lines of communication, both between agencies and with the public.
State and local officials, and the communities they serve, are the front lines of defense for American agriculture. Without adequate resources, both in terms of funding and advice, these defenses will fail. Yet agriculture and food security have not been given the national attention necessary to prevent this failure.
On December 7, 2001, I stood on the floor of the Senate and warned of the vulnerability of American agriculture. To address my concerns, I introduced S. 2767, the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, on July 22, 2002. My bill was not acted upon in the 107th Congress, so I continued my efforts in the 108th Congress with the introduction of S. 427, the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, and S. 430, the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act.
The Agriculture Security Assistance Act would assist States and communities in responding to threats to the agriculture industry by authorizing funds for: animal health professionals to participate in community emergency planning activities to assist farmers in strengthening their defenses against a terrorist threat; a biosecurity grant program for farmers and ranchers to provide needed funding to better secure their properties; and the use of sophisticated remote sensing and computer modeling approaches to agricultural diseases.
The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act would enable better interagency coordination within the Federal Government by: establishing senior level liaisons in the Departments of Homeland Security, or DHS, and Health and Human Services to coordinate with the Department of Agriculture and all other relevant agencies on agricultural disease emergency management and response; requiring 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; requiring the Attorney General to conduct a review of relevant Federal, State, and local laws to determine if they facilitate or impede agricultural security; and directing the State Department to enter into mutual assistance agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the sharing of resources and knowledge of foreign animal diseases.
While some in the administration will say the situation is under control and there is no need for legislation from Congress, I would point to the failure of the Food and Drug Administration to comply with the basic food safety requirements in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 in a timely manner. On Monday, the FDA published regulations requiring all companies involved in food production, processing, manufacturing, and transportation to keep detailed records identifying the source from which a food product was received and/or the recipient to whom a product was sent.
The Bioterrorism Act required that these regulations be issued by December 2003--a full 12 months ago. The administration will continue to drag its feet on this issue if we in the Congress are not attentive.
In the wake of Secretary Thompson's remarks, there has been much national attention given to the vulnerability of the American food supply. Some who had not focused on this issue in the past are publicly expressing concern about the safety of American food, and the national media is broadcasting special investigative reports on agroterrorism. President Bush was questioned about the issue during his press briefing with President Musharraf on Saturday.
The spotlight is being focused on this glaring weakness in U.S. security. We must do more to protect the American public from what experts describe as an obvious and vulnerable target. The real, and perceived, security of the Nation's food supply is critical to the continued prosperity of the United States. I will reintroduce S. 427 and S. 430 in the 109th Congress, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my bills. Together we can move this legislation forward and demonstrate that Congress is protecting our food supply.
____________________
