Agriculture Smart Trade Act

Mr. President, today, I join with my colleague Senator Murray in introducing legislation that will help bolster childhood immunization in those parts of our country where immunization rates are much too low. Since the beginning of the 20th century, vaccines have completely eradicated the once frequent killer smallpox and almost eradicated polio. Vaccines save lives, avert communicable diseases and reduce health care spending for preventable diseases. We must continue in our efforts to achieve childhood immunization rates of 90 percent by 2010 and with passage of this bill, we can do just that.

Vaccines are one of the most effective tools for prevention of disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for every $1 spent on vaccines, America saves $18.60 in both medical costs and societal costs. But more important than the cost saving is the weight and value we must place on ensuring that children are fully vaccinated. We must not lose one more child to a vaccine preventable disease. Childhood vaccines prevent over 10 million cases of infectious illness and nearly 34,000 childhood deaths in America every year. Clearly, vaccines are a tried and true way to not only reduce health care costs, but also to keep our children healthy.

The legislation Senator Murray and I are introducing today authorizes funding for effective interventions recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services and helps to achieve childhood immunization rates of 90 percent by 2010. First, the legislation authorizes additional funding for a demonstration program allowing Women, Infant and Children clinics, also known as ``WIC'' to play a greater role in childhood immunizations. This is achieved by recommending vaccines to WIC recipients, coordinating care or immunization services, or employing an immunization coordinator. More than 45 percent of U.S. infants receive benefits through WIC clinics. A 2002 study by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases recommended coordinating government benefits to keep children up-to- date with their immunizations and noted that WIC programs have successfully accomplished this in numerous communities. Our legislation would enhance such efforts and would even go a step further to require that any grantee using these funds have access to the State Immunization Information System to better coordinate immunization screenings and services.

Second, this legislation authorizes additional funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct public, age appropriate immunization awareness campaigns and immunization education and outreach activities. Research shows that outreach, coupled with the coordination of immunization and WIC clinics, can increase childhood immunization rates by of approximately 12 percent.

Lastly, this legislation establishes a sense of the Senate concerning the importance of electronic record coordination by both the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and that these leaders should work together to improve the integration of immunization information systems with electronic medical records, health information systems, and health information exchanges.

Vaccine preventable diseases will continue to be a threat to our Nation's most vulnerable population if we do not ensure proper vaccination among infants. Through this legislation, we can work to achieve the Healthy People 2010 objective of vaccinating 90 percent of all children by age two. To take a quote from a former First Lady of the United States and a cofounder of the organization Every Child by Two ``No child in America should have to get sick from a vaccine preventable disease. It's time for us to redouble efforts to protect the 20 percent of preschoolers who are routinely not being immunized on time.'' The Infant Immunization Improvement Act will be a vital first step to increasing vaccination rates and will serve as an important safeguard against the spread of communicable diseases. I would like to thank the Partnership for Prevention for their input on this legislation and the 156 members of the 317 Coalition for endorsing the Infant Immunization Improvement Act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation--because leaving a single child unprotected is one too many.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe is vital to the survival and competitiveness of our nation's trucking industry. For too long, our small business motor freight carriers, who struggle every day to make ends meet, have had their concerns ignored and neglected. Today, as the entire trucking industry faces monumental economic challenges spurred by skyrocketing, record- breaking oil prices and exorbitant and volatile fuel costs, not to mention a detrimental slow-down in the hiring of new drivers, our independent operators are having to contend with a devastating economic downturn and enduring business failures--the likes of which this country has not seen since 2000.

During the first quarter of 2008, nearly one thousand motor carriers failed, and they were not just trucking companies with two or three trucks, but the average number of vehicles numbered 45 trucks! As you can imagine, the financial impact is enormous, especially given that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics projects freight to grow by more than 70 percent by 2020. Forestalling action is not an option if we are to sustain our trucking industry which is an undeniable, economic lifeline of this nation.

That is why I have taken this opportunity to join with Senator Brown in introducing the Trust in Reliable Understanding of Consumer Costs (TRUCC) Act which would provide our small business operators and carriers with the long-denied fairness that is owed to them. It is time that these hard-working men and women free from stranglehold of unscrupulous brokers and middle-men who charge shippers for fuel costs, but refuse to pass on those costs to operators who actually pay for the fuel. Our bill would provide not only a clear line-item delineating the fuel surcharge in the contracts provided to our small business carriers, but also would guarantee that the entity in the transaction-- whether a shipper, broker, or driver--who absorbs the consistently- rising cost of fuel will become the recipient of the fuel surcharge.

To our measure's detractors who mischaracterize it, calling it among other things--outrageous, I want to remind them that our focus is on small business motor carriers which comprise more than 90 percent of the truck industry, and that these individuals continue to traverse the country, carrying consumer goods and propelling our economy forward in the process. And they do so, despite the constant challenges that are part and parcel of this occupation . . . brokers who obfuscate the amount or even existence of fuel surcharges to the benefit of their own coffers, the escalation of fuel prices, maintenance costs for their vehicles,

the long days or weeks of travel--sacrificing time away from their families in order to make a living, feed their families, and finance the education of their children. And so, Mr. President, I ask, how can we afford to turn a blind eye to the plight of these Americans whose livelihood is so integral to commerce in the great country? Merely wishing the problem away or simply keeping it out of sight and out of mind is neither tenable nor acceptable.

Make no mistake, not all brokers are bad actors, nor are all small business operators being exploited. That is precisely why the legislation Senator Brown and I are offering today does not place onerous burdens on the logistics industry. We merely seek to ensure that an industry under siege on several fronts receives what its purveyors are rightfully entitled to--equitable treatment and a modicum of transparency. Is it too much to ask that they may see for themselves in a transaction who, if anyone, is receiving a fuel surcharge, and how much is being paid out for the cost of fuel? Is it too much to ask for an assurance that, if the motor carrier is willing to pay the high cost of fuel at the pump while transporting goods across this nation, that carrier will be reimbursed? The answer to both questions is a resounding, ``No!'' The solution to addressing this regrettable situation is our common-sense legislation the consideration of which is long overdue.

I urge all my colleagues who have small business motor carriers in their state to consider seriously this issue and lend their strong support to this welcomed legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture Smart Trade Act along with my colleague Senator Stabenow. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that, as we consider the various free trade agreements that come before the Senate, we are taking a look at the big picture, including the increased risk of accidently importing invasive pests or diseases and the ability for American agricultural producers to access new export markets once trade agreements are in effect. Our bill is supported by United Fresh, the national association of fruit and vegetable growers and processors, and the U.S. Apple Association.

The bill has two main components. First, it requires the Administration to send a report to Congress prior to the start of formal trade negotiations with a foreign nation detailing potential invasive pests and disease that could pose a risk to U.S. agriculture. Furthermore, this report must identify what additional agricultural inspectors and other personnel are needed to prevent these pests and diseases from being brought into the United States.

Second, the bill requires the Administration to disclose in the same report all sanitary and photosanitary, or SPS, trade barriers that could unduly restrict export markets for American commodities. What we've seen in the past is that a trading partner will raise SPS barriers to prevent American products from entering their country. Some of these SPS barriers are not grounded in science are simply non-tariff trade barriers. As the Administration begins negotiations for a trade agreement, we all need to take a look at what kinds of SPS issues we have with potential trading partners. Are their SPS concerns based in science? We need to be sure that once an agreement is in effect, we will have access to those foreign markets as stipulated in the trade agreement.

I want to make clear that this bill does not in any way limit the President's authority to negotiate trade agreements under Fast-Track, nor does it prevent trade legislation from being considered by the Congress. What this bill does is provide the Senate and the House of Representatives with a more complete picture of what potential trade agreements involve beyond the obvious import and export quotas.

Regardless of how any senator feels about the free trade agreements that we review and debate, I think all of my colleagues will agree with me that increased international trade means an increased risk of importing bugs and diseases that have the potential to devastate our food sources, jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers, and cost our states a fortune. We need to acknowledge the risk and put in place the best safeguards we can to prevent the accidental introduction of these harmful pests.

I am not merely speculating about the risk of invasive pests and disease. It is a fact that all of our States are battling insects and crop diseases and dreading the next outbreak. Most recently in Pennsylvania we discovered that the western part of our state is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer, an invasive beetle that was accidently imported to the U.S. through Detroit via wooden shipping pallets from China. This beetle is costing our commercial nursery growers millions of dollars in lost stock. Senator Stabenow knows better than anyone how much money, time and other resources the Ash Borer has cost the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But that's just one example. Orange growers in Florida have spent the past decade fighting to contain and eradicate citrus canker, an invasive disease that causes citrus trees to produce less and less fruit until they prematurely die. And California and Texas have dealt with expensive eradication programs to deal with the Mediterranean fruit fly or ``Med fly.''

The list goes on and on. And there isn't a single State that has not been impacted by invasive pests or diseases. So I hope that my colleagues will support the Agriculture Smart Trade Act, and help us make smart decisions that will protect our growers and our economy while opening new export markets. Because that is what this bill is about--smart trade.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture Smart Trade Act along with my colleague Senator Stabenow. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that, as we consider the various free trade agreements that come before the Senate, we are taking a look at the big picture, including the increased risk of accidently importing invasive pests or diseases and the ability for American agricultural producers to access new export markets once trade agreements are in effect. Our bill is supported by United Fresh, the national association of fruit and vegetable growers and processors, and the U.S. Apple Association.

The bill has two main components. First, it requires the Administration to send a report to Congress prior to the start of formal trade negotiations with a foreign nation detailing potential invasive pests and disease that could pose a risk to U.S. agriculture. Furthermore, this report must identify what additional agricultural inspectors and other personnel are needed to prevent these pests and diseases from being brought into the United States.

Second, the bill requires the Administration to disclose in the same report all sanitary and photosanitary, or SPS, trade barriers that could unduly restrict export markets for American commodities. What we've seen in the past is that a trading partner will raise SPS barriers to prevent American products from entering their country. Some of these SPS barriers are not grounded in science are simply non-tariff trade barriers. As the Administration begins negotiations for a trade agreement, we all need to take a look at what kinds of SPS issues we have with potential trading partners. Are their SPS concerns based in science? We need to be sure that once an agreement is in effect, we will have access to those foreign markets as stipulated in the trade agreement.

I want to make clear that this bill does not in any way limit the President's authority to negotiate trade agreements under Fast-Track, nor does it prevent trade legislation from being considered by the Congress. What this bill does is provide the Senate and the House of Representatives with a more complete picture of what potential trade agreements involve beyond the obvious import and export quotas.

Regardless of how any senator feels about the free trade agreements that we review and debate, I think all of my colleagues will agree with me that increased international trade means an increased risk of importing bugs and diseases that have the potential to devastate our food sources, jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers, and cost our states a fortune. We need to acknowledge the risk and put in place the best safeguards we can to prevent the accidental introduction of these harmful pests.

I am not merely speculating about the risk of invasive pests and disease. It is a fact that all of our States are battling insects and crop diseases and dreading the next outbreak. Most recently in Pennsylvania we discovered that the western part of our state is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer, an invasive beetle that was accidently imported to the U.S. through Detroit via wooden shipping pallets from China. This beetle is costing our commercial nursery growers millions of dollars in lost stock. Senator Stabenow knows better than anyone how much money, time and other resources the Ash Borer has cost the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But that's just one example. Orange growers in Florida have spent the past decade fighting to contain and eradicate citrus canker, an invasive disease that causes citrus trees to produce less and less fruit until they prematurely die. And California and Texas have dealt with expensive eradication programs to deal with the Mediterranean fruit fly or ``Med fly.''

The list goes on and on. And there isn't a single State that has not been impacted by invasive pests or diseases. So I hope that my colleagues will support the Agriculture Smart Trade Act, and help us make smart decisions that will protect our growers and our economy while opening new export markets. Because that is what this bill is about--smart trade.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, today, I join once again with Senator Hatch to introduce a bill that will have a significant and positive impact on our cultural heritage. Hundreds of thousands of so-called ``orphan works''--works that may be protected by copyright, but whose owners cannot be identified or located--are collecting dust. Despite tremendous interest in using these orphan works in new collections and new creations, they often languish unseen, because those who would like to bring them to light, and to the attention of the world, fear the prospect of prohibitively expensive statutory damages. In other instances, the copyright in an orphan work may have expired, but potential users lack the information to be certain of the propriety of going forward with its use.

The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 will remedy this situation. It will help potential users of orphan works find the owners of those works, and it will help the owners to receive compensation. The works will no longer be orphans; their owners will reap the financial benefits of their use, while the public reaps the creative benefits. More creative works will be used, contributing to our cultural and artistic heritage, and more creators will receive compensation for use of their work.

Our legislation permits the use of an orphan work only if the potential user performs and documents a good faith search for the copyright owner. If users cannot locate and contact copyright owners, they may use the orphan work. But if copyright owners later make themselves known, and if users have performed a search that qualifies under this legislation, owners are entitled to reasonable compensation. The user will not be liable for full statutory damages in those circumstances, but if a user does not perform that good faith search, the user will face up to $150,000 in statutory damages.

In practical terms, then, what does this mean? It means that a woman in Vermont can restore a wedding photograph of her grandparents, even if she

cannot locate the photographer to get permission to do so. It means that a library can display letters of American soldiers wrote during World War II, even if the library cannot contact the soldiers or their descendents. It means that museums can exhibit Depression-era photographs, even if they cannot determine the name of the photographer.

What this bill does not do is create a ``license to infringe.'' In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement. This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law: If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it. As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so. Orphan works are too important to our families, our communities, and our culture to go left unseen and unused.

I thank Senator Hatch for his help in developing this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this bill becomes law. I am especially pleased to name this bill for Shawn Bentley. Several years ago, Shawn died, tragically young, but he left behind a legacy of affection and regard for all of us who knew him. He served Senator Hatch as a counsel for intellectual property, and it was he who first inspired this effort on orphan works. Naming this bill for him is a testament to his dedication to the issue, and his value to the Judiciary Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the full bill text be included in the Record.