Foot and Mouth Disease Prevention Act of 2009

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.