i think that the -- there clearly are situations where you can prevent illness by giving

to evidence that is there, the fact there's no reasonablality a tiffs. and you know, we want to use as few antibiotics in children. we want to use as few as possible in animals, with we are going to use medicine, it should be paced on a solid foundation of evidence. so trying to set up a mechanism for that is challenging. i think as we go through, one use at a time, we have, just like we do in pediatrics, this use is appropriate, but this isn't. that's what needs to happen. >> >> you're looking at a situation, where you think it is difficult do have a working definition of this. is that right? >> i think it is one of the things that has to be worked out. i think in the bill it says routine prevention, but you know, how you define routine prevention. that's somewhere in this. that's a thing like agency like f.d.a. has done before and can do. we can talk about the principles that would go into this

determination like that or how you would assess that. but one question, i agree, with you completely, just calling something prevention doesn't make it based on evidence, doesn't make it appropriate to use. you know, it has for the to truly be based on evidence in that kind of assessment has to happen. >> that's your working definition on how we play move forward on this thing? >> these are principles we put in. i don't think it is so much a working definition. i wouldn't quite go that far but there's principles we want to look at and make sure that we're limiting what -- what is appropriate prevention to what is based on the science and supportered by the veterinary medicine. >> you believe the current practice in this country does not meet your sense of principles right now? >> there are two things. first, there's use for growth promotion and feed fish eens, which is updated as taking a position should not be used like for that period. and then, i i'm learning about

this issue just how little we understand about the farms and antibiotics and it is a high priority for dr. hamburg and myself to get a better understanding of that. it is one thing to have the rules but we need to know it is actually being followed and we need to see the use is coming down. >> that's a welcome change. on the f.d.a.'s website, there's a list of 16 judicious use principles for the use of antibiotics. one of these principles is that other therapeutic options should be considered prior to antibiotic therapy. it seems to me that the full range of other options has not yet been considered by many of our country's ranchers. do you agree more can be done within the meat producing industry to use alternative methods to achieve the same end of keeping animals safe from harmful infections?

>> that's an excellent question. i don't know if i could give you an answer. i'm not an expert in the practice of the meat producing industry but i do believe that analysis should be undertaken before their use is permitted. if it is the case that -- that there are alternatives, there's alternatives should be pursued. >> there's another judicious use principle. it is to minimize environmental contamination, with antibiotics whenever possible. would you clarify what this means? does it mean to the not to let antibiotics given into the water supply and the vegetables, is that what we're talking about here? >> that's a specific question that i can't answer. either i'm sorry -- i'm -- i don't know exactly what the

veterinarians intended with that. i nose we're concerned about the environmental impact. that's an issue that we as public health officials would want to engage in. i think we recently were written a letter by attorney general of maryland about a particular issue and of antibiotics and we look at that. if there's an environmental issue, that we could be aware of, we'll look at it and se what we can do. but i couldn't quite exactly. i think i would say, that we would look at the balance of the -- of the environmental impact and if there's environmental harm. that's something we should be aware of. >> okay. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. which was very interesting. and appreciate your public health, and i'll certainly add to the dimensions of what we talk about today and follow up on what, what miss matsui was

talking about. in your recommendation or potential recommendation, we talked about allowing for continued therapeutic use. i want to clarify -- i think we all generally know that this is in widespread use now, that without significant changes in the way animals are wrayed, the idea of, infections and outbreaks of infections could easily continue at the rate they do now. and i'm trying to understand why you mentioned that the criteria for not allowing it would be research that showed evidence of effectiveness and has research already been done that shows that it is effective in preventing outbreaks when you -- when you distribute antibiotic to feed or is that -- that something you want to determine? >> that would be something we want to determine. i think it play be that, people play be using antibiotics not knowing what they're treating or even having an effect. but it is in the realm of -- growth promotion and feed efficiency, we're saying it

shouldn't be permitted. if it is preventing a disease, what disease? is it effective? have you looked at other ways to do it that are reasonable first? those are the things that should go into an assessment before that is permitted. so i couldn't -- in fact, you know, pediatrics, very clear what you should be treating and what you shouldn't be treating. the american academy of pediatrics has guidelines. there's a huge campaign among pediatricians. i called one of my old teachers last night. he's on the pediatric side of the issue. he, he pointed me to research that antibiotics among pediatrician hass come down by 30%. and that's partly since -- because of government efforts. and we're actually tracking what pediatricians prescribe that is truly coming down. and the patients are doing fine, probably better.

what we like to see is something like that and -- animals, there does not seem to be at this point a real clear -- to me at least, a cheer list of what are the -- are the evidence based uses of antibiotics and prevention in animals? and -- like there was -- there would be in pediatrics and the field of medicine. i think it has got to be that if, the f.d.a. is going to put a label on for -- for particular use like that, that it is very -- [unintelligible]. >> it seemed like an important criteria. i wanted to be sure if you allowed therapeutic use that we didn't stay with the status quo. the example you gave of a tragic loss of a teacher was a good example is about outbreak of disease. what we're talking about here is routine use that creates a

constant use of the medications. and i wouldn't want to see that be called therapeutic use or necessary use. that's different. >> that's one reason i talked about it separately. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we are joined by congressman cordova from california. mr. pollack? >> thank you for your testimony. would you say that there should be or -- that there should be a different definition between therapeutic and nontherapeutic use as applied to humans and animals or do you think they're the same definition to cover both humans and animals? >> i can't think of the use of antibiotics in humans for growth promotion. other things are used for that. sometimes.

i don't know the concept of nontherapeutic use really, i don't know -- i don't know if it exists. >> that brings up a pet peeve of mine and that's overuse of antibiotics for diseases that pediatricians who come to us are using. >> i was trying to think of someone where they would come out and say, use it in a nontherapeutic way. but certainly pediatrics is taking the lead. >> that's good news. come down 30%. >> 30%. and for certain illness and find out further than that, and the very high priority. and -- in -- in -- you know, therapeutic use -- >> when you say working definition for both, the -- the,

in terms of the economic costs, would you agree when we're, effectively, if you have a -- an animal producer that is using antibiotics in a nontherapeutic way, there by, well documented of course, contributing to antibiotic resistant bacteria, that there would be a sizeable economic cost of that extra, that others would have to pay for. not the producer of the animal. somebody else would have to pay for treating people and -- secondary and tertiary antibiotics and another cost of treatment? >> i do believe it could be costly. >> maybe you could add to your own experience as a doctor and m.d., for somebody that has an antibiotic resistant infection, staff or strep or whatever it might be, what would then be the

secondary and temporary treatments for the individual and what might we look at from a cost perspective? >> depends on the infection. >> give me an example of a child who might say presents with -- strep or something and -- doesn't react to the first line of medications. >> i think it is something that would be staff, you play want to treat that with a formula that would be relatively expensive and you play wind up treating them [unintelligible] off the top of my head, it could be relatively -- [unintelligible] plus, you have the chance that if you don't catch it soon enough that you can't [unintelligible] because it spreads. and one of the things i did, is i rounded the hospital and they

presented two kids that came in with serious staff inecksfgs. and -- every month when i was a resident, we get them every month. [unintelligible] there's the consist of the medicine and then if you get hospitalized, which the evidence is you're nor likely to be hospitalized and then the cost is great. >> and i'm sure that -- doctor cornell would be hard price to put a price on the loss of his arm, an extreme health impact for the rest of their life. but i think clearly, we demonstrated that even in the best case scenarios where the health is positive the treatments can cost several times what the normal intervention would cost. i yield back.

>> thank you. >> sir, you work with u.s.a. today, correct? and i mean -- u.s. -- [unintelligible] it is my understanding that the f.d.a., i personally know that every tanker load of milk is delivered, gets tested, with an f.d.a. approved test. is that not correct? >> i'm seeing nodding. >> i think that's correct. >> and so, [unintelligible] the testimony. f.d.a. has a approved test, and it looks for residues and --

>> yeah.@@@@@@rr)g"'rr america have a positive and -- a tanker load is then at a cost of $12,000 per tanker load, so it is a pretty good intention -- it is not let the residue be in the milk production.

i'm trying to figure it out. >> i can help too. i think when you think about the implications of the use of antibiotics and animals, it is -- there's three that we generally talk about. one is there is bacteria that becomes resistant in the animal and the bacteria and the human eats them. that bacteria causes illness in the human. that -- the ill milk should be pasteurized. and the second mechanism is that it is for the -- not dangerous bacteria but usual bacteria but is still resistant and can pass the gene on to human bacteria in your body. that's the big concern that people have. the third is the residue, is there an amount of residue that causes a reaction within humans?

and i have not been briefed on ow or testified about whether that is an issue with milk at all? i think what i'm familiar with with milk is whether the first, an indirect route, which if you're treating dairy cows which wind up in the food supply, if they have been treated with antibiotics can develop antibiotics resistant bacter why. and that bacteria can blossom into the human food chain when the cow is lawsuitered and used for feed. i'm familiar with evidence that i believe, if i'm not mistaken, the salmonella news report, and this infection, which i believe play have implicated dairy cows. so i hope i'm wrong about that. i'll correct it. but i think there's evidence that -- cows that have been treated with antibiotics and go into the food supply play be linked to certain antibiotics, if that is not milk. somewhere. >> as a legislative body --

[unintelligible] there's concern of overprescription of antibiotics in medication and whether they're necessary. [unintelligible] we certainably don't want to -- to jeopardize the health and safety of our citizens. i think that we focused on what is really going on. we have to know what is happening. and i'm sorry, i have not had a chance -- [unintelligible] you said you thought there play be a connection. i would like for you to tell -- >> sure. >> and that would have passed. >> i think that the -- the -- the i'm not 100% sure whether this example applies but i'm in

the uncertain about the issue of whether you, when you -- if you're to treat a cow for dairy within a a year, you would have produced resistant bacteria and whether it is in the food supply directly, is there a risk of passing that on. what i can't remember is that particular example. that's what i would say. >> and maybe i could help a bit here. are we talking about the use of antibiotics for cattle, poultry and you're sick. in fact, 70% of all of the antibiotic the produced in the united states are given to animals that are not sick. and -- rapid rise of -- antibiotic resistance in human beings. as why r you mentioned mersa, it is common in dirt. [unintelligible] that's the

purpose of the hearing. we like to save eight kinds of antibiotics which are most at use for human beings for the use of human beings. >> that's it. thank you so much for the testimony. >> thank you so much. welcome. we're delighted to have you in washington. we look forward to working closely with you on these issues. >> thank you so much. >> and the next is dr. margaret melon, p.h.d. and science and director and food and environment program for the concerned scientists, and dr. lance price ph.d, director. and center for managing economics and associate investigator. and the research institute and

another chair up here which we can pull up. and dr. robert martin, senior officer of the pugh environmental group. we welcome you here today. >> dr. melon. >> my name is margaret melon. >> you play want to pull the mic closer to you. >> my name is margaret melon. i'm here representing the union of concerned scientists. a nonprofit science organization working for a healthy environment and safer world. i'm here on behalf of key antibiotics working the coalition of environmental agricultural and humane organizations dedicated to

addressing the overuse of antibiotics and production of agriculture. i'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss an you are jent crisis, the loss of effectiveness of drugs due to antibiotic resistance. before i begin, i want to thank representative slaughter for her steadfast leadership on this issue. before i begin, and a to go on, iver prepared written testimony but my message can be summarized very briefly, the drug of the 20th and 21st century are at risk in the enormous use of antibiotics and -- in production further is partly to blame. we all know that the more we use antibiotics, the missouri the more bacteria is resistant to them. many do not know, however, has

is that we use huge quantities of antibiotics. something like 13 million pounds a year, every year in the production of poultry, beef and swine. eakts are in the same chemical class as we use in human medicine. that means when those drugs, the penicillin and other drugs are used hospitals or doctor's offices, they do not work. i want to be clear, overuse of eakts occurs in both human medicine and -- and in animal production and both studies are responsible for the problems and need to take responsibility for solving it. but while the medical community as dr. sharpstein has made clear has taken action on the issue.

we simply cannot continue, the processing of the products through animals. we need to reduce that use and we can. because both of the drugs used by food producers are not used to treat sick animals but to increase food efficiency or for wrute teen disease prevention. those things can be accomplished by other ways, including better management and it is time we get about that process. as has been said, the resistant bacteria generated in food animals have lots of ways of moving to humans. most prominently but not solely food. this is connected to many diseases, not just the food born illnesses like salmonella but also, blood infections to

urinary tract infections and recently to resistant staph. we have delayed on this issue for too long. and antibiotics working on the case for almost deak aid now with little or nothing. those are the results for our efforts. but the story is the same for most issues. public advocacy has been stymied but finally congress is poised to act on food safety and as it does, it is inherent that the resistance issue of the dimension not be ignored. mrs. slaughter's bill and the act would require the f.d.a. to review the drugs in those class that is are used both in human and animal medicine. if they cannot prove get them

off the market. the bill is supported by the american medical association, the american nurses association, the american academy of pediatrics and the fin fexuous diseases of america and other medical organizations. git getting the antibiotics off the market would preserve the efficacy of the drugs for both humans and animals. in the words of the new england journal of medicine, it is time to stop it way past its prime. >> thank you. >> and would you make sure your mic is on. >> my name is lance price. i'm a microbial gist and have 15 years of research experience and training at public health. i am lower to present testimony to support the preservation of

antibiotics for medical treatment act. antibiotics have saved countless lives. they save lives by preventing bacteria. however, it creates resistance. when they'red a stered at low doses, a practice common in animals you rapidly select for resistance. animal feeding productions, and there are thousands of animals densely packed and given routine antibiotics. and when you treat an animal with antibiotics you select for resistant bacteria to grow in their guts and the bacteria is disseminated through the entire flock or herd and is rampant in feeding praysings.

it contaminates also during the slaughter process. to underscore this point, i brought a couple of products brought in, raw poultry, and -- and raw chicken, which from my research and government research would indicate that these are potential biohazards. these are just products that i bought at the grocery store. i don't know if you've noticed but when you buy these things, there's often this leaking coming out. that's a biohazard. there's evidence for that. my own research indicates there's a good chance that these products are contaminated with antibiotic resistant bacteria because of the antibiotic use in food animal production. now the most direct way to eliminate the antibiotic resistant bacteria on products such as these is to eliminate antibiotic use in food animal

production. so this including any routine uses, whether for growth promotion, prevention, control, or even therapy. and this is whether or not, they're accepted by the american veterinary association. this is not a public health association. if they're used on a regular basis, that's a problem. that brings me to my next point. if an al malproduction system requires routine use to keep animals from becoming sick, then that system is broken. and like -- so we do not try to prevent outbreaks of human disease using mass treatment of eakts, except in extremely rare situations like the anthrax mailings of 2001 and the meningitis case that we heard about. the prevention of infectious diseases within human populations is based on public health and hygiene interventions. like sewers and vaccinations. we would never do away with these, and rely solely on antibiotics so why do we do this

antibiotics so why do we do this with@@@@rr infection. given the -- given the human health risks posed by overuse of antibiotics and abmalproduction and existence of viable alternatives, we should ban all nontherapeutic and nonnecessary use in order to use these drugs for treating sick people. an industry lobbyist play ask you to not regulate this by

counting one of their favorite one-liners, the science is not there. however, the science and the researchers, who do not have take in keeping antibiotics in animal food production say there is sufficient evidence that antibiotics in animal food production poses a health risk. they do not respect borders and move freely and rapidly around the world. as soon as we curb all unnecessary antibiotic use in the united states, the sooner we can begin leading the rest of the world to do the same and we can protect american citizens from antibiotic resistant bacteria in the united states and abroad. and the preservation of antibiotics for medical treatment act of 2009 is a solid first step toward becoming global leaders. and i commend the distinguished chair woman for her commitment to this issue. i thank the entire panel for the opportunity to speak today. thank you.

>> thank you. my name is bob martin, i'm senior officer at the pugh environmental group. i was the director of the industry farm animal production. i appreciate the opportunity to appear here today on this important health issue. the the silent part of our health care crisis and antibiotic resistant infections. i appreciate your introduction of the treatment act as well. and the pugh group was a 21/2 year study by the charitable trust. it was funded by, involving a cross section of -- of individuals, the commissioners had expertise in animal agriculture, and public health and medicine and veterinary medicine and ethics and state and federal policy development. we were chaired by former governor john carlin, and one of

our members was former secretary of agriculture dan glickman. we have the in the audience, who will speak hair, mr. fiddle, who was a leader among the commissioners as well. the general charge to the commission was to develop consensus recommendations to solve the public health environment and animal welfare and rural community problems, caused by industrial farm animal production. as i said, we developed consensus recommendations using a fairly exhaustive process. we conducted 11 meetings around the country. spent 2ahours deliberating on the information, we received, and we received thousands of pages of information from the animal agriculture industry and all interested parties. we had two public hearings, one in north carolina and one in arkansas where over 400 people attended the two meetings. we visited all times of industrial farm animal production. in north carolina iowa and colorado and california and arkansas. we reviewed 170 peer reviewed

reports and commissioned eight reports of our own. we had a couple of general findings. one was that the current system of food animal production in the united states is unsustainable. it represents an unacceptable level of risk to public health, unacceptable level of damage to the environment and is harmful to the animals housed in the facilities and is detrimental to the long-term economic activity of the communities where they're housed. and another general finding was that we find undue or significant influence at every turn, but industrial animal ag industry, policy on the federal or state level and enforcement and economic research at our leading land grant schools. we developed 24 consensus primary recommendations. 12 concerned public health issues. five on antibiotic use alone. our primary number one concern from a public health aspect was

the end of the of the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in food animal production. . .

>> that is actually a savings of 12 to $7 per person if you go by the other study. the pew commission believes there is more than enough science to warrant a ban of the use of antibiotics. there have been studies that link antibiotic use on the farm to equalize and salmonella infections -- e. coli and a

salmonella infections. we also think that the experience is very important, as the chairman said. they banned the use of antibiotics in 1988. the data has been analyzed for the past 10 years and a city is being released in the journal of the american veterinary medical association -- a study is being released in a row of american veterinary medical association. they found that in the u.s. compared to the rest of the world, we use more antibiotics than any food production in the world. that is on page 10 of my submitted statement. in denmark, looking specifically in denmark, the total amount of am -- of antibiotics being used post-band is less than the total amount of antibiotics used pre- ban. that is on the chart in my written statement. it also shows that the pool of written -- of a resistance intin

humans has declined. the resistance in animals has declined. what did show an increase in more towny -- mortality in weaner pigs for a time, what they started cleaner practices, more space for the animals, better waste handling, then the mortality has decreased significantly in swine production. productivity has actually gone up post-band. -- post best band -- post-ban. the worry that there is one to be a food shortage that something would like to promote if we ban. -- vertherapeutic use of antibiotics is just not there.

i was very impressed with all of the knowledge that the camp -- members of the panel have about this very important issue. >> reserve and the appreciate all three of you being here today. it is because of c-span we have to turn this on. i need to remind everybody when you are not talking, please drop your microphone. again, i want to thank you for the great work you have done. you are one of the scientist and as long as i can remember that has really stood up for good science. cheap science has been pretty prevalent and i cannot tell you how much i appreciated that over the years. over the last eight or nine years, since about the fda, which i always thought was the gold standard for the world, has fallen that i hold the fda in

minimum low regard. i was so pleased that we would see some light at the end of the tunnel now with some new person is there. this has been a serious problem that the public really wants addressed. in my part of the country when they wanted the mill, the uprising was so strong. the ability to sell organic, free range animals, all sorts of things. people want to make sure that what they have is healthy. in addition to my does not taste so good either. i was pleased you brought up the denmark study again because i think that is a terribly important thing for us to do. one of the questions i wanted to ask for the three of you is the fda's 2004 queries, the company that makes penicillin for use in

food animals, did they say any animals were safe for people that you know of? >> now that we know of. we know of a request sent to the companies by the fda for evidence of food safety, but we do not know that any of the companies responded. the fda simply has not acted on -- >> we do not have any study results from that it in 2004, is that correct? >> it is amazing to me that despite repeated past requests from congress that risk assessments that apparently have been done by the fda have not been released, either to congress or the public. >> cephalosporin has been an interesting example that has

been prohibited. the fda provided it in july of 2008 and the federal registry determine the language use of the cephalosporin presented a wrist to human -- a risk to human health. the cdc on a member 28, 2008 -- the fda revoked the order. it said that they had too many comments on the order. are you aware of that? >> i certainly am. >> those are the ages that are supposed to be taking care of us. >> they did, they revoked the order and tthe union of concernd scientists have requested that the agency reinstates the order. but so far, we have not heard back from the fda. >> that is something to take up

with the fda. doctor, talking about the transfer, the resistance transfer, that is a bit hard to grasp. if you could explain to us how that is transferred among bacteria, we would appreciate it. >> anti- resistance in bacteria is coded for the resistance by either mutations in the day they were fragments of dna of resistance genes. a lot of those genes are on mobile resistance element, these pieces of dna that bacteria can hand back and forth -- well, without hands. they can pass back and forth. it is sort of like a lateral move in football, but in this case, you make a copy of it before you hand it off. or maybe, you can think of spice sigrid's that allow you to escape and rest. you make a copy that you pass on to another spy that allow you to

escape that antibiotic. every time you use an antibiotic, you're allowing for all of that information not contain that bacteria. çmaybe the passing of that information is rare, but when you apply that antibiotic, then all of those that do not have that information buyoff and the ones that do have the information grow. the system becomes dominated by the organisms that hold that resistance gene. does that help? >> you think to genomics is going to play role? >> i think that is it backwards way to approach this. i think the antibiotics being taken out of the food element is the thing to do. >> that is the thing we prefer to do. that is the whole question of this bill. the industry that feeds antibiotics to their animals on a daily basis because of routine preventive use -- they call it a routine preventive use. we have a system that makes

therapeutic and therapeutic use of the reflected antibiotics is fairly defined. tell us how you came to those conclusions. >> we have leaders in medicine and, i think, through the inquiry we found that -- just what we hear today at the hearing and with the chairman has expressed. unless you can clearly defined the terms, the industry will

use antibiotics on a routine basis and cause routine disease control or prevention. we make a definition of therapeutic use after several hours of discussion in consulting with other human health experts and veteran mary experts. i would like to reiterate what dr. price said. the system is broken. it is the lack of animal husbandry that is a patch on a broken system. and they are also at linchpin -- a linchpin of the director found in keeping these animals together that escalate the to the element of novel flu viruses. -- the development of novel flu viruses. we have a concern because of the intense exposure of individuals with overcrowding with the

animals that in all of flu virus would be generated similar to the swine flu. >> and we got one, didn't we? i know that you have worked with individuals. did you work with the animal industry as well? >> we did. >> with what results? >> in the report, we said that the response to the commission by the animal industry was pretty broad. it ranged from cooperation to open hostility. we did work with the animal alliance and they helped us get access to some facilities because it was very hard to get in to see some of these industrial operations. we consulted a lot of academics that receive their funding from the industry. in the end, i think that they were pretty upset because we called for broad opportunities. kristie culin -- thank you all very much. no. thank you, madam chair and

thank you all for being here today. i respect your expertise and experience in this matter. i'm interested in the economic imperative for why this legislation is needed. testimony that we receive is clear that failure to take action could have economic consequences. we heard the failure to act on this bill means that we will continue spending over $4 billion per year of preventable hospital visits. we also have a failure to act and this exposes our u.s. food industry to trade challenges in the global marketplace. through april of this year, the country exported almost $937 million worth of meat. that is about 277,000 metric tons of meat in the first four months of 2009 alone. this is a huge industry for country at a critical time in history. we cannot afford to leave our meat industry behind while there are market changes that we feel

to see your react to. dr. mellon, you have devoted a great deal of your testimony to the potential market disadvantages that the u.s. meat producersç would face if we failed to enact chairwoman slaughter's legislation. i am someone that does recognize the critical role that international trade plays in our economy. i'm hoping that you'll be able to elaborate on your analysis. used korea, thailand, and others as examples of countries that compete with us in beef and restrict beef imports that do not conform to their own quality standards. how are these -- how would these countries taking such action hurt american beef producers? >> any country that has already restricted the non therapeutic use of antibiotics in its own food animal production house what i would call a kind of card in its pocket and that it can

play any time it chooses. the card is as follows, under trade rules, the country is allowed to restrict the import of products coming into the country where those products and do not adhere to rules that the country is willing to impose on itself. so, where a country has itself decided to restrict antibiotic use, it has the card to play to restrict the import of u.s. imports into that country because we do not adhere to those roles, and for so long as we don't, we do not know if they are born to play that card. but many of our competitors are looking for virtually any angle in what is a very competitive international marketplace.

they could establish rules and those rules would not fall under a wto challenge, as i said, as long as they are not allowing in products that do not a cure to rules that they are willing to impose on themselves. >> you are basically saying that they use it as an excuse to not imports. >> yes kaman 2 not import -- yes, to not import car before any of a product. >> can you estimate the economic impact that would have, such as the poem on american beef producers. are we talking millions or billions of dollars? >> i would not want to enter into that area. it is not my area of expertise. i mean, just because the size of the international marketplace is so large, it could be important. i think and writing is on the wall. i think that american meat industry is a lot like the auto

industry. they just cannot see that it is in their own advantage to start doing what needs to be done. >> you feel like there are other countries that are moving toward limiting antibiotic use so they can legally enact trade barriers against the united states? >> no, i would say that based on the dangerous experience, the country is restricting antibiotic use in order to protect the health of its own citizens, but i think that's smart producers -- and denmark, i believe, is the world's largest exporter of pork. this is no small industry there. but they understand that there will be trade advantages as well. they would rather be ahead of the game and then behind it. >> thank you, can you go on with the denmark experience? my understanding is that they have as little as -- they have

little economic dislocation. they must have had some dislocation. >> actually, not. i was fortunate enough to be on a conference call with the author of a city that is going to be published next month. there have been very little economic dislocations. but to answer the question about disruption in the marketplace, i think it would cause the american meat industry billions of dollars a challenge like that were issued. i think you have to look at what happens when there is a bse scare, you know, what happens to imports hundred and russia periodically banned imports because of concerns over antibiotic residue on the export. the entire european union has joined the band on therapeutic use of antibiotics. in 2006 they didn't a e.u. wide band and i think what --

they did whate.u.-wide ban and i think that more people ought to age that produces the animals. but it was not this disruption that the u.s. industry would like you to believe. >> ok, thank you very much. >> thank you for your interesting and very informative testimony. i am a strong supporter of where one to talk about today and i have a little experience. i was very pleased to hear all of u.n. force that -- reinforce that, thank you very much. and thank you, mr. mellon, for reinforcing the economic impact of what we are hearing about here and how it has already had unintended consequences, certainly, in the health field,

but could continue to give us a disadvantage in the exports. i would like to just to reinforce how significant this could be if we continue down this path. and i want to thank you, mr. price, for reminding us again -- the system -- if the system requires constant use of antibiotics, it is unhealthy. my educational back to -- background and life experiences are around animals gives me a sense that it is such a simple premise. the fact that we cannot get there from here does not make any sense. the fact that we could even have this hearing knowing what we know about loss of life and economic issues does not make any sense. i would like to ask my only question of mr. martin. thank you for the work that pugh did and bring us to this point. you mentioned the influence and that you side at several levels. as far as i'm concerned, a and we would not be here today if

there was not undo influence -- undue influence. the producer set out with a little more length attached to it so we could really think about the root problem and why we do not fix it? >> one of the main problems is the lack of public funding for research at land grant schools. there have been cutbacks at the state and federal level that should be doing research, which if it is public dollars, it should be for the common good. i cut that has been replaced by industry funded research. -- that cutback has been replaced by industry funded research. that is not always in the vein of public health or in the -- in keeping broader public health in mind. there's also a lot of influence ethnilike the national pork pros council influencing state and

federal policy makers and enforcement of existing regulations and laws. >> well, thank you, thank yos an to all of you. >> [inaudible] isn't it true that half of that 70% figure [inaudible] >> i can take that question. 70% of -- i guess i should preface it by saying there are two broad classes of chemicals that we are talking about here. antibiotics and antibiotics that are used in medicine and

antibiotics that are not. often, the entire class, including but antibiotics that are used in human medicine and those that are not, are called anti- microbial. the figure that was cited in the union of concerned scientists, that was actually published, is that 70% of the anti microbial s are used in animals in only three species and for non- therapeutic use. as we made clear and as i make clear in my testimony, only half of the 24 million pounds are drugs that we use in human medicine and, therefore, of concern to the folks here. but the fact that the 70% number stands, whether it is a

percentage of all of the met -- all of the anti-microbials use or a wider defined use of antibiotics. >>ç [inaudible] >> nou, the 13 million pound number that we came up with represents antibiotics that were fed to animals for non- therapeutic purposes, mostly in feed, occasionally in water. it does not include the use of antibiotics for dips and other purposes. i would say across the board, regardless of the purpose for which antibiotics are used, we do not have adequate data to answer the questions with the specificity and accuracy are would like to be able to answer them. there was the main question,@å

some provisions with regard to control in the farm bill if i'm not mistaken? >> there are no provision that is i'm aware of in the farm bill that would require the collection of -- yeah. >> but there are some -- >> there is some research that is authorized in the farm bill to kind of provide the background for the issue, to figure out why antibiotics are used to trace their movement off the farm. that is in the farm bill. it is a program that although authorized there are no funds appropriated for it.

it is a kind of data that we would very much like to have but on top of that, we also would like to to have what they have in denmark, for example. i mean, they are able to tell you precisely the quantities of antibiotics used in their animal agriculture and for what purposes. so they can really follow it over time. >> i think that's very valid. i totally support having people have knowledge, for example, i am the chair of the organic subcommittee and the agriculture subcommittee, so i believe that people need to be able to make choices and to know what -- but as you talk about denmark and that's been mentioned several times today, they banned nontherapeutic use of antibiotics, it's my understanding that therapeutic use went up dramatically. in fact, it went up 135% between 1996 and 2005. >> it did go up some, primarily

for the treatment of disease in young pigs. but -- it did not go up as much as -- as overall use came down. >> the reason why i mention this is because we've seen this a number of times in agriculture committee when we studied this over the years. there's a reason why some diseases are treated and we are concerned with what those diseases could cause in the human population as well. so there is some reason to be concerned not just with the treatment but with the disease that they are trying to get at. and so that may go to other questions in how to prevent those diseases in other ways. it's not just a zero-sum game. >> absolutely. >> and that's the point i wanted to make. >> absolutely. >> thank you. mr. price, are you a vegetarian?

the way you handled that chicken, i thought that was maybe the first way you've done it. >> i've done it a lot testing it -- >> the reason i want to talk to you about that. you mentioned that commercial-produced chicken was -- the toxic bacteria. free range chicken, would that have the same kind of toxins or potentially the same health effects? would you cook it any different? >> well, i've done studies comparing products -- poultry products with animals raised without antibiotics and conventionally raised products and i was looking for bacteria just behind salmonella they kind of compete for first place and there was a significant difference and substantial difference, probably -- i need to go back to the numbers and i can give those exact numbers to you but it was about a ten-fold difference between those organic and raised without antibiotics products compared to

conventionally raised. there was much more bacteria on the conventional products. >> was that a peer-reviewed study? >> yes. >> if you could get it for me. >> i have two different studies that i conducted. i'll share those both. >> and was the -- was the chicken, that you compared, was it prior to processing or after processing 'cause i know there are some treatments that are used in processing that sometimes take care of some of those. >> this was grocery store. >> grocery store. >> just like this. >> okay. very good. thank you. i'd like to have that study. >> i'd be happy to you. >> the chair, i'll fold for the questions at this time. >> can i go back to just, i think, the danish experience which is very important. i want to reiterate on page 11 of my written testimony. this is the actual chart that will be issued in the journal of american veterinary medical association next month.

it's by the doctor who conducted the study. it shows that this is the prebaned antibiotic use both therapeutic and growth promoter and this is the antibiotic post-ban. it does go up some but it's leveled off it looks like like starting 2004 to 2008. so you can see it's adramatic reduction in use when you combine nontherapeutic and nontherapeutic. >> and i think there was a temporary spike due to -- there was some outbreaks initially -- >> i think you mentioned that with some young pigs. >> now, is that by weight or is that by -- because if you're mixing up the feed and you diluted it somehow and it's a less dilute -- i mean, if you provide a strong concentration and it's a very small pill, is

that -- how are you measuring the -- >> it's measured -- i think in your packet, the doctors have submitted written testimony that probably be better to address than me. it shows milligrams used per kilograms per meat produced. >> thank you all very much. we really appreciate you being here. your testimony has been invaluable. we thank you so much for it. our next panel will be two members of congress, congresswoman schakowsky from illinois and congressman boswell from iowa. they'll come forward, please. dr. price is going to take his chicken there, right? [laughter] >> ms. schakowsky, can we begin with you?

>> thank you, madam chairman. is this on? yeah. thank you madam chairman. i really appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to your committee. you know, some vulnerabilities are thrust upon us as a nation. and others like the one we're discussing is really self-imposed. we all felt extremely vulnerable after 9/11 and we looked for all of the ways that we could protect ourselves and all the potential attacks that might come upon us. we talked about biologic weapons that might threaten our country. and when the h1n1 virus came out, i know it wasn't a bacterial infection, but is this the big one and are we ready for that? and is this, you know, going to be the plague of our generation?

well, this battlefield -- it seems as if we are disarming ourselves. and we're not doing it for good, solid health reasons. we're doing it in order to grow animals faster or, you know, to -- but not to promote growth and not to promote health. we know that -- and you've heard all the science that the food and drug administration has seven classes of antibiotics that are highly or critically important in human medicine. and they're used as feed additives. i'm not going to go over the science which i think has been very adequately presented. but my friend, for example, is one of these people who has had breast cancer and has had trouble with her arms since then is very susceptible to bacterial

infections, spends a lot more time in the hospital for every admission when she get such an infection and here we are at this moment looking for ways that we're going to be able to provide healthcare to all americans and do it in an economical way. and again, you've heard some of those numbers. the estimated 1.4 people infected with salmonella each year, 1 in 5 cases is resistant to antibiotics. what does that mean? it means longer stays in the hospital, more medical care. of the 2.4 million annual bacteria infections, about half are drug resistant. many resistant to two or more antibiotics. so we have to keep trying more and more -- more and more things. we know that 2 million americans acquire bacterial infections during their hospital stays every year. 70% of their infections are

resistant to the drugs commonly used to treat them so we're bringing ourselves down at a moment that we want to protect ourselves as a nation and we certainly want to protect the healthcare of americans. the university of illinois researchers found in 2001 and 2007 that routine tetra-cyclenan was infecting the water and so the researchers concluded, quote, groundwater may be a potential source of antibiotics resistance in the food chain. the illinois department of health calculates that the incidents of one type of resistant bacteria, mrsa, has risen 57%, over 110,000 cases in just -- in just four years. so it seems to me when the solution is at hand and we've

heard testimony about other countries that have done this without any dramatic affect at all to the industry, when we're talking about using these antibiotics not for therapeutic reasons in animals -- and we're not really discussing that right now. that we ought to do the smart thing. as you may know, madam chairman, my hope was to introduce this legislation, your legislation, as part of the overall health reform that we're doing right now. we do have language in there now that would look at this issue and the importance of this issue. i did it as much again for the health of the country as an effort to save money in healthcare and do it in a smart -- in a smart way. so my hope is that this subcommittee -- this committee

and that the full house then will look at this as a stand-alone issue, pass your legislation, h.r. 1549, and for all the reasons that i've mentioned and with all the absolutely unassailable data behind us to back up its effectiveness and its importance. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. boswell? >> well, thank you, madam chairman, and members of the committee, for allowing me to appear before you today and to share my testimony. i might be a little different from my good friend from chicago. i do mean good friend. we came here together and we do a lot of things together. but, i believe, that we are growing animals just just for rapid growth but for healthy animals and healthy food to keep people healthy. and, i believe, that and you'll probably understand that when i share my testimony. i spent most of my life in agriculture and i've seen firsthand the responsible use of antibiotics.

i understand the issues that affect the livestock, dairy and poultry industries having spent most of my youth working in livestock production and today i still have a hand in managing an operation on my farm in southern weigh. -- iowa. once i retired from 20 years in the army i returned to farming. i knew things changed so i learned about it. so i sat down with my local veterinarian who manages this cow/castle operation and his senior people and people from iowa state university if you will to discuss the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals and prevent future illness. from my experience, the use of antibiotics is not the exception. it is the rule. part of that was my young son was going to have a 4h calf. i wanted him to learn.

i thought maybe he would farm someday, but he's not but so much for that. but i wanted him to understand what he was doing and i thought, well, you know, parents like to take care of the kids so i is on when i went to the fair i would probably end up buying it and we'd probably send it to the locker from there. so i wanted to be sure what i fed my children was healthy. during the 110th congress it was my challenge to serve on the committee. on september 25th of last year we held a hearing to review the advances in animal health within the livestock industry and i have a report that i would like to submit for the record if i may. >> without objection. >> thank you. we specifically looked at how antibiotics are used on america's livestock farms. our witnesses include veterinarians from usda's animal health and plant inspection service and fda center for veterinary medicine, cvm, producers, veterinary practitioners and academics from across the country.

we believe that we heard from the good cross-section of the users from animal health products, the doctor responsible for the use of the antibiotics and the experts studying the resistance trend in antibiotics in animals. as the subcommittee members listened to the witnesses it became very clear that america's livestock and producers have a responsibility to safeguard animal health and public health. responsibility they take very seriously. they're committed to using antibiotics responsibly and having developed responsible use guidelines for each of their respective industries. they didn't develop these guidelines because congress told them to do so. they developed the guidelines 'cause it was the right thing to do for their animals and their consumers. i think that the perspectives the witnesses shared in our hearing last year are important to discuss here today about h.r. 1549. i would like to take a few moments to take what we learned from the hearing in terms of what h.r. 1549 would do to the

livestock industry. as i understand, h.r. 1549 would remove seven classes of antibiotics from the market unless sponsors can demonstrate that they are safe and effective. well, i can tell you our witnesses clearly outlined the rigorous approval process animal antibiotics must go through to gain approval already. all antibiotics used keep animals healthy have passed the fda process and have been shown to be safe and effective and have ungone for their potential to increase antibiotic resistance. it will require to prove again what has already been proven during the initial fda approval. this fda process is stringent, science-based, regulatory review it, takes years and it takes millions of dollars. requiring another step undermines the fda's progress of reviewing the human health impacts of individual animal

drugs based on science and risk assessment. h.r. 1549 overlooks the legitimate veterinary needed to ensure that healthy animals enter the chain. there's new antibiotics anticipated approved for fda so if h.r. 1549 is enacted and products are removed from the marketplace america's livestock producers will be left few if any medicines to prevent and control animal disease. h.r. 1549 would result in more sick animals and it is my fear and concern that it will leave us with potentially less safe food supply. in the mid-1990s, the european union made a decision to phase out the use of antibiotics as growth promoters. denmark, which has been talked about, has a pork industry roughly equivalent to the size of pork, bird in my state of iowa which is the largest pork-producing state in the country and they instituted a

plan in 1998 which became mandatory in 2000. many proponent are respecting the use of certain antibiotics as a plan instituted in denmark citing a major drop in the amount of antibiotics used in pork production in that country. well, come on. when you began the use of a product it is self-evident that usage rates would drop. what they never seem to discuss are the other effects of the ban. i would like to call your attention to the testimony received in my subcommittee for these effects were discussed in detail. some of our witnesses had even visited denmark and had seen the downturn in swine flu in that country. after the ban became fully implemented they seen post-weaning diarrhea and piglet mortality which has had long-lasting effects on the danish industry. the increase in piglet deaths and the impact on animal

well-being might be acceptable if it resulted in improvements to the public health. but such improvements have not materialized and while overall use of antibiotics in denmark declined there has been a marked increase in the therapeutic use of antibiotics. those used to treat and control diseases. today the use of therapeutic antibiotics in danish pigs now surpassed what was used in disease and it continues to rise each year. as for costs, a 2009 iowa state university study estimated that the effect of a ban in the united states similar to denmark's would raise the cost of production by $6 per pig in the first year after such prohibition. 10 years after the ban the cost to u.s. pork industry would exceed 1 million. a recent study by dr. scott herd, professor of iowa state university's cause of veterinary medicine, demonstrated that when

pigs have been sick during their life, these -- those pigs will have a greater presence of food safety pathogens on their carcasses this is serious when looking at the cost and benefits of antibiotic use in livestock. in our discussions on antibiotic use in food animal production, we need to be clear what the issue really is. h.r. 1549 is confusing the problem by antibiotic resistance in general with the faulty proposition that blames human resistance on antibiotic use on animals. most informed scientists and public health professions acknowledge that the problem of antibiotic resistance in humans is overwhelmingly an issue related to human drug use. appear 2006 report from the institute of food technologists said, quote, eliminating antibiotic drugs from food animal production may have little positive effect on resistant bacteria that threaten human health, end of quote.

in fact, eliminate health antibiotics may be detrimental to public health. as our witnesses outlined on my subcommittee, antibiotic resisted bacteria developed from many factors including human use of antibiotics and household use of disinfectants such as soap. people and their pets on a per-pound basis used ten times the amount of antibiotics that are used in food/animal production. more than 95% of the antibiotics used for animals are devoted to treating them for disease conditions not as growth promoters as many seem to claim. protecting human health and providing safe food are paramount concerns of america's life stock to producers. that is why we test for antibiotics residue as part of our food safety programs. the fda establishes withdrawal times or withholding periods which are times after drug

treatment when milk and eggs are not to be used for food and during which animals are not to be slaughtered. two-thirds of this bill has been enacted to law and should be allowed to work before removing products from the market. provisions requiring more usda research into the causes of and solutions to antibiotic resistance were passed as part of the farm bill in 2008. the animal drug user fee amendments of 2000 require fda to collect antibiotic sales data from companies and make a summary of that data public. the provisions were designed to provide better information to researchers conducting risk assessments and should be allowed to yield information before products are removed from the market. congress has already taken action and we should see results from our action before we start removing antibiotics from the market. as your witness today discussed the topic that's important to the livestock producers not just my district in my home state but yours as well. i sincerely hope that you consider what my subcommittee learned last congress.

h.r. 1549 will have detrimental effects not only on our farmers who keep the world safe but also in public health. again, i want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. i hope as a farmer and as a user of antibiotics i have offered some insight into livestock industry's perspective. in the united states we are very blessed to have the safest, most plentiful and the most affordable food supply in the world. as a policymaker in the administration we'll take a hard look to look at human health to feed ourselves and a world as a closing note, the nobel peace prize winner and the world food prize winner tell us that world population is growing like 90 million a year. you have to feed them with safe, affordable food. that's whatjñ we're all about.

thank you for your consideration. >> may i correct, it was the food safety bill. >> yes. >> and there is language in there to look at this issue, but, yeah. it could be in the overall health reform bill 'cause that would be important. >> mr. boswell, you and i are really good friends and i think the world with you but i can't agree with you on this at all. the denmark study that you mentioned has been refuted by the scientists who said dr. mellon herself had talked about this great data collection that the fda was supposed to do. there wasn't a cent of money put in that bill for them to be able to do that. our first witness was a new person at the fda who says this is one of the most serious issues. he's a pediatrician. and that there would be absolutely no question by giving children a -- 3-year-old children day daycare center antibiotics every day so they don't get an earache.

we're finding it in the water. as a microbiolists it's been offensive to me as i mentioned earlier to what's happened to staph and we have salmonella infection so badly that you can't eat lettuce. the fda -- i've made that clear earlier -- let me give you an example. i'm just going to read this to you. sporings like many drugs used for purposes and those indicated on the labels, extra label use is legal unless it's prohibited and they did that in an order published june 3rd -- i want you to pay attention to these dates. on july 3rd 2008 the fda said that extra label use in food production animals presents a risk to human health and should be prohibited and that was july. cdc said that they agreed and they supported the decision.

their letter came on november 7th, 2008. on november 28th, the fda revoked the order, prohibiting the extra label in food and animals said they had received too many comments on the order. that's how the fda protected human beings in this country. but i would think the thing that would trouble you most -- because iowa -- we know food is produced in iowa and that you export a great deal of it. are you concerned that the e.u. has banned the use of antibiotics in meat and that would be a great loss on the trade -- agriculture trade? >> well, i suppose, it would and the point i was trying to make and i think the therapeutic has gone up. >> we don't want sick animals and the preventive use of

antibiotics mostly because animals are kept in some pretty awful conditions. and that the disease spreads so quickly among them -- between them -- yes, go ahead. >> you're a very strong lady and i want you to understand that. >> i am that. i know. i can't help that. >> i appreciate that. and i've learned that over the last several years. we've had some good discussions. >> yes we have. >> i know you come from agricultural country. >> yes, i have. >> but the study in ohio state found salmonella in conventional pig herds was 39% of those studies tested positive. you know, the center for disease control in atlanta we have the disease control in ames. i don't want anyone to have unhealthy food and nobody here does. we know that.

and we're spending a lot and we're doing a lot to try to g animals. one of the reasons i had the hearing last year was -- i'm out there among the reproducers. i make that to do that from time to time. and that they're very serious about how they separate the animals, how they handle them and how they go in and talk to the scientists and do the different things to be sure that they have the right atmosphere, air circulation and all those things. they make continuous adjustments and they want to do it right. not one of us wants to produce -- >> our major concern here is these seven antibiotics which are really efficacious in human beings. we're really finding that so many of them are no longer

useful in humans which as ms. schakowsky presented in her testimony has hospital and death. mrsa can kill somebody in 24 hours. staph didn't kill anybody back my day. any questions to any of these witnesses? miss matsui. >> thank you for being here. you know, i appreciate both of you being strong advocates for your positions because i think both of you have very valid positions. you know, i'm here because i think about the children. i mean, that's really what i -- i have grandkids. 2 and 5 years old. you know, i may not have thought about it so much but now i see these little kids and what is so important to them? but i also tell you, mr. boswell, that i'm a daughter of a farmer. i know the hard work it takes to produce the food that many of us take for granted. >> and i have grandchildren,

too, and i'm just as concerned for mine as you are. >> i know you are. and i know that -- and i understand how hard farmers work in order to bring us the healthy food that we need. and, you know, ms. schakowsky, how do you see this legislation for helping improve children's lives in this country? >> well, you know, when -- i have four grandchildren myself, and i know that we all care about our grandchildren. but i think the nightmare scenario is that something that perhaps when we were young would have been a routine dose of penicillin or some other antibiotic suddenly is impotent and now we're struggling to find exactly what it is that's going to prevent this from becoming even a life-threatening situation.7fp

what started out as a bad knee scrape or something like that. >> uh-huh. >> and so i think that while, obviously, we want to treat sick animals, the use of these antibiotics in farm animals do, i think, endanger our health and there's evidence to say that. this is not speculation. we know the increase of morbidity because of antibiotic resistance. >> you know, my home state in california we've been buffeted in recent years by salmonella and e. coli and our agricultural industry has suffered as a result especially the tomato and spinach sectors i know the fda had to recall beef in illinois because of concerns of e. coli.

how do you see chairman slaughter's legislation helping to eliminate these kind of market disruptions. >> well, you know, as a member of the energy and commerce committee over and over again we have -- and that was really the stimulus behind the food safety bill -- we have had to confront families that have lost loved ones, people who have been very sick because of a food-borne illness and we're concerned the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics has been linked to the number of incidents of food-borne illness and that it needs to be -- it needs to be addressed. >> and mr. boswell, you know, i'm not a vegetarian. i do like beef and pork. >> i know. i had dinner with you. >> yeah, i know. [laughter] >> and so, you know, i really want to make sure, you know -- i

do like this, my little kiddies like this, and i want to actually also ensure the economic stability of our and one of the concerns that was brought to us as chairman slaughter brought is what dr. mellon brought forth. the trade factor. the factor that we may be disadvantaged because we're not moving ahead as the e.u. and probably countries like korea and thailand as far as setting up situation where is they are not going to be using antibiotic situations so that they can actually say to us, you know, we're going to -- we're not going to have your meat products at all. because you don't -- you don't have the standard that we necessarily must have in our country.

i feel certainly that is something that we can't have happen and i think it's something that we ought to be thinking about as far as an agricultural industry about some of those global problems that we might be disadvantaged at. yes? >> well, i think your point is very valid and i think the different bodies, are pork producers, poultry. they are watching it very closely. they don't want to give up that market and i don't think they will and i would like to add this. you know, jan referred to the time when we were young. i can remember when people worried about us dying as humans from smallpox and mumps and all those different things. we figured out how it doesn't happen anymore. and we do the same thing with our animals. and we have regulations when you got to go off of it and let this get out of the system and so on.

i think we're trying very hard to do it and do it right. it doesn't mean there's no room for improvement but we're willing to do that. >> okay. >> and appreciation of what the very thing you said but i feel the same way. >> uh-huh. thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you both of you for your testimony. i think we've already had some good follow-up questions. i will just re-enforce one point that's important to me. thank you very much, mr. boswell, for your testimony about the work that was done on your committee and since everyone else is putting up their credentials i just want you to know that my family -- we're all scandinavian immigrants to iowa. and my uncle and cousin still own the family farm there so we are still deeply involved in the industry and i moved east and took up organic farming and kind of looked at that time from a different perspective. i want to re-enforce what miss schakowsky said. i feel like all the testimony that we've heard has reinforced this idea that this is something that we can change, that we're

bringing this on ourselves. that our industry will survive. that with better health practices and limited use of antibiotics, therapeutic use of antibiotics, our animals will do just fine. it's been my experience in farming generally that's how things work. and that we could make this transition without causing these undo consequences because of economics to farmers like denmark and people have lost their life with unintended consequences of antibiotics. i would say my grandmother was a dane. i don't think they're stupid. i think they know what they're doing. and the reduction in the use of antibiotics, there has been significant. everything we've heard in our testimony did not say they use equal amounts of therapeutic antibiotics. it said they increased the amount of therapeutic use of antibiotics but that's a targeted use. it's easier to remove from the animal before you ship it to market or ship their milk or product. it's very different than talking about a blanket use of

antibiotics in "the feed" and i think that's misuse of the data when people refer to it in that way. thank you both. >> thank you, madam chair. there are no farmers in my family. [laughter] >> and you're not from iowa. >> i'm not from iowa. since my family since arriving from eastern union around 1900 has been suburban dwellers but we do eat meat, most of us so we have a concern about as well. >> but we cook it to death. [laughter] >> my question for mr. boswell -- >> i hate to surprise you, but i do also do cook it. >> i mean, cook it, cook it. brisket. >> you're worried farmers will be no antibiotics and the difference between prevention and the animal control of diseases and you earlier mentioned in answer to your

questions smallpox and mumps. we have a number of vaccinations, inoculations. we have these for cattle and animals. these are prevention. these are not antibiotics. they'rem39 vaccinations, someti they're weakened agents of the infection itself. sometimes they're alternatives. we do not for human health use antibiotics, which are specifically designed to kill bacteria and frequently more than the bacteria they target, we don't use antibiotics in humans for prevention and so my question is, obviously, in different kinds of animals, humans are an animal, cows are animals. why would we have a different code for antibiotics and why would we want to use them as a preventive agent in one species but not another species. >> we've gone to the science. we've gone to the research universities, and we've learned

from them that this is something that would healthier animal, healthier food and healthier humans. >> i just want to be clear. so you do dispute -- we had earlier expert testimony that indicated that it is a belief among at least the scientists -- >> experts here and there who is in charge of the situation. i think you have to be very careful about jumping out here and doing that would be detrimental to our food supply. >> and your contention is that the use of antibiotics as a preventive treatment in animals has not contributed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans? >> that's what the science tells me. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. i think the point i was trying to make very well was made by mr. boswell. and they are really legitimate issues. and we need to use the best

science and complete science. you know, one of the things people always forget is farmers are in the business to try at the end of the day to make a profit. they don't want to spend any money on extra products they don't have to. i got to tell you one of the most frugal folks i have ever met are farmers and they don't like buying extra products. they do it for reasons. and one of the things we don't have on the panel is any -- on any of the panels today are farmers who are actually engaged in the production of these products. because they have significant challenges sometimes in trying to make sure the bacteria content in milk is such and so. they have a number of different challenges that they have to meet very strenuous regulatory food safety regulations that we've imposed on them. and i will concur that there are differences between animal operations. some of them are perfect and frankly some of them i'd rather eat there than some of the other places i've eaten.

others are horrible. and those are the ones that we need to target and work on and i think that's the kind of work that mr. boswell and i do on the agriculture committee. we had a hearing earlier in my committee last year on the question of the peanuts and the salmonella. and i happened to be one of the individuals who got sick on the peanuts i sat on my couch continuing to vote. it's a very serious concern. we take this very seriously. the other thing i will tell you is that farmers are the some of the folks who are concerned about this because they don't want anything to affect their product and put a taint on their marketing ability, and i will still say -- submit this. american foods are as safe or safer than any place else in the

world. consistently, we get testimony from that effect. now, mr. boswell put his testimony that there is 10 times the consumption of antibiotics in humans and in pets as there are in farm animals. on a per-pound basis. and i want to make sure this is the same kind of pounds because we were talking with the other gentleman that quantity and the strength of those pesticides, and the other thing i'd like to point out is that in denmark, we have not seen a decrease in the resistant bacterias, as i'm told, in humans even despite the ban. >> i understand. >> those two facts lead me to believe this. that we need to do more and significant research on this topic to find out what's really going on. let's let the truth and the science dictate the policy.

and that is one thing that we've done in the farm bill. it's another what we've done in the other act. i always forgot the acronym. somebody help me here. adifa. >> that's right. thank you. and i think that you really need to goat the bottom of this. and we need to make sure that we do everything we need to to make sure that food is safe and that we're not loading these micro by y'all organization i need to say that these microbials are getting out of control. thank you for going forward and i would like to let -- >> well, mr. cardoza, i agree with you. you know, again, i think it's a fact that we have the safest, plentiful food in the world.

there's a reason for it. one of it everyone in this room contribute it. whether you live in downtown new york, los angeles or wherever because we subsidize our farm to some degree but we get something for it. that's big. if you think someplace in the world where they can't get enough to eat, let alone to be healthy and safe. and so it's a big thing. we have to be very careful about it. and we're willing to do this. right now pork producers are losing money. cattle producers are losing money. dairy farmers have been losing money for over a year. they're in a very, very particular situation, and so if we don't want to affect this plentiful, safe, affordable food supply we have to think carefully. i would pledge, madam chairman, to work with mr. cardoza who's on your committee and our ag committee, you know, to continue to put effort in to go back to

our commodity groups but at least monitoring to make sure they are doing what they set out to do to start with. >> that's good. >> and keep our food supply safe. >> my organic farmers are making money. just throw that out there for public consumption. >> if you would yield for that. >> yes, i will. >> i mentioned in my congressional district it is the corporate headquarters of horizon dairy or organic dairy and it's clear by the success an amazing growth rates of these companies. they've grown high double digits growth the last decade that consumers really get this and are willing -- i count myself as one of them by the way. consumers are willing to pay a premium for milk in this case that is free of antibiotics. so i think in this case i think the next panel will demonstrate

consumers are already ahead on these issues. >> thank you for giving us your time. >> may i make a statement. >> without objection, of course. >> and the chair will yield to mr. polis for an introduction. >> it's my great privilege today to introduce mr. steve els who found the first chipolte in my congressional district in 1993. as a result of my residual jewish heritage, i don't eat pork. i met him six or seven years ago and he told me about how they were purchasing pork from these amazing organic farms. i had to wait several years to get my fulfillment. it was about a year and a half to two years ago when they now announced they are selling naturally-raised chicken at chipolte.

i sent him a congratulatory email and i'm a regular customer. he and chipolte are changing the way it eats. steve is a classically trained chef. has received considerable praise for his vision and leadership at chipolte. and in 2006, chipolte had a very successful public offering and has been featured in the "wall street journal" and a number of other publications. he holds a bachelor degree in art history from the university of colorado in boulder in my district and is a graduate of the culinary institute of america. it truly is a testimony to his vision as a business leader he considers the fact that chipolte. to show that they have this vision that food costs can, in fact, be an inverse metric in their business and an asset to

show that they have a valuable consumer value proposition really is great testimony to his tremendous vision which has left as its legacy a company with over 900 restaurants around the country, annual revenues in excess of $1.3 billion. it's truly a great honor to introduce to our committee my good friend steve els. >> it's so nice to have here. it is my great honor to introduce mr. picasso -- am i coming close to the name. i'm certainly happy to have you here. he began his career as a dishwasher in 1960 in the education division. and he in 1987 bon appetite management company was born for the first time.

his dream of the company was committed to culinary expertise to become a reality and his customers noticed and they fueled quick growth for the small san francisco-based company. he also was president of stewart anderson's restaurant train. had over 25 years of experience and knew the institutional feeding was ready for something more. in 1999, he once again to raise the bar for onsite food service making a commission -- a commitment, excuse me, to socially responsible food sourcing. today, bon appetite spends over $55 million annually on food from a 150 mile radius from each cafe using only sustainable sea forward, sources turkey, breast and chicken ics as a routine food additive. leads the industry in using cage-free shell eggs. 2007, the company debuted its

low carb dito make the connection between food and climate change. bon appetite is a $500 million company serving over 80 million meals a year. he was a recipient of the 1992 restaurants award and in 1998 was presented with the nation's restaurant news golden chain award for excellence. he was named the 19 -- the 2008 innovator of the year by nation restaurant news. received the prestige of going green award by the national resources defense council. that is really impressive. a board member of the compass group of north america. serves on the board of dynamic payment directors. chairman of university of san francisco management board and serves on the president's advisory council of the university of portland. we are so happy to have the two

of you and it is always a pleasure to eat in one of your restaurants. with that i welcome you to the committee and which one of you would like to begin? all right. >> chairwoman slaughter, honorable members of the rule committee, i'm ceo of bon appetite management company, a national onsite restaurant company as you heard that serves 80 million meals each year in over 500 locations. i think we're now at 32 states. as a company we're committed to two goals, culinary expertise and social responsibility. in that vein i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to voice my strong support for h.r. 1549 the reservation of antibiotics for medical treatment act. it is imperative that we as a country discontinue the use of antibiotics for nontherapeutic purposes in animals. in addition to being harmful to the animals themselves, this common practice of using antibiotics as feed additives

has led to dramatically increased antibiotic resistance in humans. it has become a serious public health problem. i feel so strongly about this issue that i have banned most meat that has been raised in this manner to be served in my restaurants. and i'd ban it entirely but there isn't enough supply for us to be able to make that commitment yet. our concern about this issue goes back seven years. in 2002, i learned that an estimated 70% of antibiotics used in this country are fed to farm animals that are not sick in order to promote growth or treat diseases caused by questionable animal husbandry practices. as i learned more and realized how widespread these practices are in the meat production industry, bon appetite served a partnership with environmental defense fund to look at how we could take the lead and discourage antibiotic use in meat and poultry production. our partnership resulted in the

creation of the farthest reaching corporate policy on antibiotic use to date. we only buy chicken raised without nontherapeutic routine use of human antibiotics as feed additives. in 2005, we extended this policy to turkey breast. we took this policy another step further and since martin 2007, we only serve hamburgers from natural beef with no trim. while there's no strict legal definition of the word "natural" our suppliers commit to using no antibiotics, no growth hormones, no animal biyproducts in treatig their animals humanely. it has always been sourcing the products. we have recruited both major poultry producers as suppliers. we only purchase food from those who provide written confirmation of their compliance. but there are not enough suppliers who meet our standards everywhere.

we use a purchasing preference to induce suppliers in the market but we don't have the concentration of businesses in our markets across the united states to buy enough chicken or turkey or beef to tip the scales as we have in some locations. and we can't find a national pork supplier who will commit to taking care of us across the whole united states. many producers are afraid to change even with an economic incentive. they need a push from this bill and that could be the level of change we need. from 2006 to 2008, i served as a member of the pew commission on industrial farm animal production. i learned from physicians, poultry producers, farmers and industry representatives on the committee as well as of those who testified before us. i came away from that experience enriched and much better educated about animal husbandry. one of the many things that i concluded is that there's

absolutely no good reason and certainly no good moral reason for feeding medically important animals feeding antibiotics to humans that we eat, no reason, none. the bottom line is americans want safe food. food is nourishment. it shouldn't be something that does us harm any antibiotic is harmful. it's met to treat humans and animals when we're really sick not as a feed additive so they won't be effective when humans need them. let's get our priorities straight. the time to ban antibiotics as a feed additive is long overdue. i strongly support this measure. thank you. >> thank you. thank you madam chair. and thanks to the members of the rules committee for allowing me to talk about this very important -- speak to this very important act which we strongly strongly support. i'm steve ells and i'm had founder, chairman and coceo of

chipolte. a decade ago we began a quest for more sustainability -- sustainability ingredients so that everybody who wanted to could have access to these foods. traditionally, these foods were available in high end grocers and very expensive, fancy restaurants in bigger cities. but we wanted to make these kinds of foods available so everybody could eat better. since i started the first chipolte 16 years ago, actually, 16 years ago this day, i wanted to show just because chipolte is fast and convenient doesn't mean it has to be a traditional or typical fast food experience with all the trappings of the fast food restaurant. we wanted to cook fresh food, food that was prepared in front of the customer in an open

kitchen so there was complete transparency. and we wanted to serve it in an interactive format so people could get exactly what they want, not only for taste but for nutrition. well, a decade ago, i realized that fresh food is not enough anymore. that you really need to know where your food comes from and how it was raised and the affect on the environment and the affect of animal welfare and the affect on ultimately the health of the person eating the food and so there are a lot of ramifications and fresh didn't cut it. i came to this conclusion because i had read an article about the way the ranch was raising pigs up in iowa and so being curious, i went up and visited some of the farms and i asked the folks -- the farmers, these independent family farmers, what was so special about the way they were raising the pigs. i mean, it looked great to me. they were either raising them

out on open pasture or deeply embedded barns and a protocol that's similar without antibiotics on all vegetarian feed and definitely in a humane way with room to roam around. and they informed me that the vast majority of pork raised in the united states, some 98-plus percent, is raised in factories. in raised in confinement operations. and so being very curious about this, i went to see a lot of these factory farms and at that moment i knew that i didn't want the kind of exploitation that i saw to be part of the reason chipolte was successful. so pork was the first thing to come under what we call with food with integrity or our naturally raised program and we started using only pork that met the very strict protocols again without antibiotics and the other things that i mentioned. since that time, since we were

very successful in introducing the naturally raised pork we also introduced over the years naturally raised chicken and today 100% of our chicken is raised without antibiotics and we also have introduced naturally raised beef and because of supply issues, we're only able to supply 60% of our needs with naturally raised but we're working very diligently with farmers and ranchers to increase that supply also. chipolte is unique because of the economic model. we're successful because we found a way to serve more expensive and have ingredients that remain accessible and affordable for consumers. at the same time, though, we're able to produce attractive financial results to our shareholders. and it's a really difficult balance to strike.

most restaurant companies can only remain affordable and produce attractive returns by lowering their food costs. and there's downward pressures of food costs has resulted in the industry driving down costs to the detriment of animal welfare and the environment and the overuse of antibiotics especially. so our journey to find better ingredients for more sustainable sources has been and remains difficult, there's no question about it. ..

them from doing so. the preserving antibiotics for treatment that is important to driving the change we have chosen to work for over the last decade. that too, and others have ignored. ours is a company that has a long track record of remaining out of discussions involving politics and matters of public policy but this is something we believe in. so on behalf of chipotle, our employees and customers, we thank you for introducing the preservation of antibiotics for medical treatment back and hope to given the consideration it deserves. thank you very much. >> pork chops indicate this.

sorry. we appreciate so much -- it is above your head in inspiration. the tragedy, the overuse of antibiotics, is ridiculous. after the second world war, antibiotics, save our troops. remembers that antibiotics are used. they were better than toothpaste at the time. people were dying of anaphylactic shock. i can't believe that discovery

of antibiotics was really -- all the people in the world, every day occurrences -- anybody else connected with that. as a scientist i contend the thing i love the most about science is it is true and accurate. the notion that science has several angles in forms -- so please to hear that as well, the mailman, there is some hope to change. and once again, the report that we have legislation to allow women to be used as test subjects for research projects, we need to write legislation to

present that. you can see how far we have come and how far we have fallen. i think that the return of that police officer, more than any other thing we might be able to talk to, the fact that both of you keep saying to everybody that it is important that we have a supply, the internet bloggers, more and more, that we might need funding, we should never in this world have had salmonella. there is no reason in the world except the fda is strict. the more harm there is, the more

dead animals. i am not a chairman, i should be. i don't have that kind of will power. those things are important to me. this is one of the reasons we need to pay more attention. thank you so much. i can't thank you enough. thank you again. >> the use of expertise to in form -- fascinating testimony for taking risks to do the right thing. being a good example for everyone in business who uses the excuse that i couldn't

possibly make money if i did that. not only are you keeping your customers healthier and healthier, you have proven you can be successful in business as well. this problem that should be simple to solve economically, scientifically, we heard it said over and over again that we would be better off if we reduce the use of antibiotics, both of you say you would buy more if you could. all of you have said in one way or another, farmers in the district doing well, talk about how many farmers aren't doing well in this economy. it is hard to understand what is standing in the way of good science, good economy and helping our farmers be more successful, happier and our constituents stay healthier. hopefully your business will expand and grow and we will find

ways for more business to provide healthy products. thank you very much. >> i wish mr. boswell was still here because to a certain extent the concerns, some of the producing districts and my colleague, mr. cardoso and some of your districts, doesn't, this would somehow hurt their ability to make money. we find to the contrary, those of us who represent, i represent a consuming district, my consumers would be thrilled to pay a few pennies more for their food, they voted with their dollars already. that led to the tremendous success of your businesses. we have lagged behind on the public health and government regulation fun, well behind these pioneers in the private sector who have championed these practices and proven beyond doubt that not only is it good

for consumers, it is good for producers as well. that is the message we need to drive home with our colleagues, the gentleman from california and others who might be worried about the impact with producers to sees the opportunity. my question for mr. ells, you mention the downward pressure on food costs which resulted in the death of animal welfare, the environment and the ovaries of antibiotics. i would like to add to that something my colleague, our chairwoman, louise slaughter, said, it detracts from the status of the product itself. if you could comment about the outcome for animal welfare, the crowding, poor muscular development, you as a culinary chef can give personal testimony to the taste profile and the difference between animals that are raised in a healthy way and one that are raised with antibiotics. >> it is the reason that i went

to iowa in the first place, to find better tasting pork. sometimes when i talk about our mission i forget that we are a restaurant first and we have to provide great tasting food in order to have a great business. that is something we absolutely do. investing in better quality food results in better taste which results in more visits by customers and so on. additionally i would like to, and about food costing more. i am not a scientist but i have heard the argument that it doesn't cost more tommy make it up in health issues and environmental degradation and loss of the independent family

farmer and that effect on the loss of our rural communities. so the real cause of that pork chop is of something of that cheap pork chop, something very great indeed. >> thank you. the economic onset you are referring to is the external. i raise this in my question, the original testimony, the first doctor who testified, with regard to on the -- to the cost of antibiotic bacteria, and would also contradicts the gentleman from iowa, the scientific evidence and consensus does show that a large and significant part of antibiotic resistance bacteria that affects humans does stem from overuse of antibiotics in animals, given that all of the costs associated with treating

people who encounter antibiotic resistant bacteria, and animals that encounter antibiotic resistant bacteria, is not accounted for, the simple cost equation many producers are facing, if we had an accounting for those real costs as part of the production formula, the producers determined that it made economic sense to will use antibiotics for treatment rather than convention. this bill further is that end. that is why i am proud to be a co-sponsor and applaud chairwoman louise slaughter for holding this important hearing today. >> i want to thank our panelists, thank you for your help on the bill. the submission of testimony is

material. seven days, the submission of questions. the testimony of all participants that are applicable. the chairwoman on july 8th, 2009, all -- according to the importance in human medicine. a result in management strategy for the use of that animal. the society of america, chairwoman lamar alexander,

july 10th, 2009. the national food federation in denmark, treasury for the subcommittee on livestock on agriculture, review the advances of animal health and livestock. and vaccine, the deputy commissioner, richard wood, chair of the committee, thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> in a few moments, republican senator lamar alexander talks about nuclear power. in a little less than an hour some of yesterday's senate debate on the future of the f-22 fighter plane. and the senate is back in session at 10:00 eastern to continue consideration of the defense program bill. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearings for supreme justice nominee judge sonia sotomayor continues this week on c-span3, c-span radio and on the web at c-span.org. you can watch the proceedings on weeknights on c-span2 and on the weekend on c-span. this morning the first hour of the hearing will be simulcast on c-span3 and c-span beginning at 9:30 eastern.

next, republican conference chairman senator lamar alexander on a plan to build 100 new nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. this is an alternative to the pending cap and trade legislation to address the nation's energy needs and climate change. it is 50 minutes. >> good morning, i am lamar alexander, united states senator from tennessee and chairman of the senate republican conference. to day in washington there are some other things going on, a hearing involving a supreme court nominee. on several television channels, that will be carried for the next week. that reminded me of the watergate hearings in the 70s, a story that senator andaway told me, in the 70s, there were only three television networks, not several hundred. the watergate hearings only involved seven senators, four democrats and three republicans, sam irvin was the chairman,

democrat howard baker was the ranking republican. one of the democrats was daniel enw enway, the world war ii hero of japanese-american decent. those hearings were on those three networks every day all day for weeks. all you could watch on television for several weeks was the watergate hearings. and senator enway said george gallup, the pollster, asked for a meeting, i have some information for you, according to a recent survey, there is only one man in the united states better known than you are and that is richard nixon. senator enway by his distinctive appearance and the boys and by being on the only television networks everyday for weeks, had become a very well-known american. there are lots of choices today and i appreciate you being here and i appreciate those who are

watching through television being here today. our country is at a critical point in its economic and energy history, today's recession is the most severe in decades, unemployment reachedes 10%, we have too much national debt, the gathering storm threatens the technological edge that has given americans, we are only 5% of the world's people, are remarkable standard of living that comes from producing 25% of the world's well. this remains from last year's oil prices, we rely too much on other countries for energy, we have the unfinished job of cleaning the air and the global warming of our planet has become an urgent concern. it is against this backdrop that for the first time ever, legislation dealing broadly with energy and climate change is coming out of the house of representatives. the senate is moving ahead on both issues and the decision congress makes will affect our

well-being for years to come. the house of representatives has chosen a high cost solution to clean energy and climate change. the economy wide cab and trade and renewable energy mandate is a job killing, hundred billion dollar year national energy tax that will add a new utility bill to every american family's budget. republican united states senators offer a different solution, a low-cost plan for clean energy based upon four steps. building 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years, and electric cars and trucks for conservation, offshore exploration for natural gas and oil, and doubling energy research and development to make renewable energy cost competitive. house plan will raise prices and send jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. the senate republican plan will lower utility bills and create

jobs, and it should put the united states within the goals of the kyoto protocol on global warming by 2030. our plan should not add to the federal budget since ratepayers will pay for the new nuclear power plants. federal loan financing for the first nuclear plant is not designed to cost taxpayers any money. nuclear plants in shore one another, there are no cost from there. offshore exploration for oil and gas which is part of our plan, should produce enough royalty revenue to pay for programs to encourage electric cars and trucks. doubling energy research and development should cost $8 billion more per year which is consistent with president obama's proposals for 2009, and 2010. so in furtherance of our low-cost plan, i am offering a blueprint to bill 100 nuclear

power plants in the next 20 years. other senators may have other blueprints in support of the same plan, but this blueprint will attract comments and support from americans of all political persuasions, in congress and outside congress and i welcome those comments at www. alexander.senate.gov. this is a good time to ask what we are trying to accomplish with this energy and climate change legislation, what kind of america should we have to create? first and foremost, we should want to see an america running on energy that is cheap, clean, reliable and abundant. in order to produce nearly 25% of the wealth in the world for americans, we consume 25% of the world's energy. we should want an america in which we create hundreds of

thousands of green jobs, but not at the expense of destroying tens of millions of red, white and blue jobs. it doesn't make sense to employ people in the renewable energy sector if we are throwing them out of work and manufacturing in high-tech. that is what will happen if these new technologies raise the price of electors to the end send manufacturing and other intensive energies, energy intensive industries overseas searching for cheap energy. we want clean new energy-efficient cars but we want them built in michigan, ohio and tennessee and not in japan and mexico. we should want an america capable of producing enough of our own energy so that we can't be held hostage by some other energy producing country. we should want an america where we are the unquestioned champion in cutting edge scientific research, and lead the world in

creating new technologies of the future. we should want an america producing less carbon. i believe we shouldn't be throwing twenty nine billion tons of carbon dioxide into the environment every year and that means less reliance on fossil fuels. and an america with cleaner air where smog and soot in los angeles and the smoky mountains is a thing of the past and where children are less likely to suffer as the attacks brought on by breathing pollutants. we should want an america in which we are not creating energy sprawl, occupying vast tracts of farmland, desert and mountain tops, with energy installations that ruin seen a landscapes. the great american outdoors is a revered part of the american character. we have spent a century preserving it. there is no need to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. none of these goals, the ones i

just outlined, are met by the house of representatives bill. what started out as an effort to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions has ended up as a contraction of taxes and mandates that will impose a huge and unnecessary burden on the economy. biomass and geothermal are intriguing and promising as a supplement. but this proves once again that one of the government's biggest mistakes can be taking a good idea and expanding it until it doesn't work anymore. trying to expand forms of renewable energy to the point that they become our prime source of energy has huge costs and obvious flaws that may be impossible to overcome. such an effort creates a whole new problem which some

conservationists call the renewable energy sprawl. we are asked to sacrifice the american landscape and overwhelm fragile ecosystems with thousands of energy machines in an effort to take care of our energy needs. for example, one big solar plant in the western desert where mirrors focus the sun's rays and spread across 30 square miles, that is more than 5 miles on each side, produces the same 1,000 megawatts of electricity that you can get from a single coal or nuclear plant that sits on one square-mile. to supplement with wind, you would need 270 square miles of 50 story winter generating 20% of the nation's electricity from wind, would cover an area the size of west virginia. to those of us in the southeast

where the wind blows less, they say use biomass. a sort of control bonfire. that is a good idea. it might reduce force fliers and -- let's not expect too much. we need a fourth larger than the 5,000 acre great smoky mountain national park to feed one thousand megawatt biomass plant on a sustained basis. think of the energy use and the carbon produced by hundreds of trucks. boone pickens has said that wind turbines are too ugly to put on his own ranch, last week postponed what was to be a matter's largest wind form -- wind farm because of the difficulty of building transmission lines from west

texas to population centers. the sacramento, calif. municipal utility district pulled out of another huge project to bring wind energy from the sierra nevada for the same reason. the transmission lines were meeting too much opposition from environmental organizations and according to the wall street journal california officials are worried that the state's renewable mandates have created a, quote, high risk to the state economy. if the problems continue to pile up -- add to that a point that many forget. solar and wind energy is only available a third of the time because today it can't be stored. you use it or lose it. solar is degraded vantage in that the sun shines during the peak usage hours, the wind often blows at night. there's plenty of unused

electricity. with either, if you want to make sure your lights will turn on and your factory will open its doors when you go to work, you still need the other power plants to back you up. is this really the picture of america that we want to see? there is a better option. let's take another long, hard look at nuclear power. nuclear is already the best source for large amounts of cheap, reliable, clean energy, it provides only 20% of america's electricity, but 70% of america's pollution free electricity, compared with approximately 6% of pollution free, carbon free electricity supplied by wind and solar. it is far and away our best defense against global warming. why not build 100 new nuclear power plants during the next 20 years? we did it before.

american utilities built 100 reactors from 1970 to 1990 with their own ratepayers' money, why not do it again? other countries are forging ahead of us. france gets 80% of the selectors the from 50 nuclear reactors and it has among the cheapest electricity rates and lowest carbon emissions in the european union to show for it. japan is building reactors from start to finish in four years. china is building 16 new reactors, more than the rest of the world put together, russia is selling its technology all over the world. india is making plans to build nuclear reactors with our help. president obama has even said that iran has the right to use nuclear power for energy. we americans invented the technology. isn't it time we got back in the game? there seem to be a couple things holding us back, both of which are discussed at length in the

blueprint which i am presenting today. first, valued to appreciate how different nuclear is from other technologies, how its tremendous energy density translates into a vanishing, vanishingly small environmental footprint. a uranium fuel, the size of a symbol contain the energy equivalent of 780 pounds of coal, 149 gallons of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, france gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear plants, stores all of its unusable radioactive waste from 30 years of producing beef floor of one room at their facility. the second thing holding us back is an exaggerated fear of nuclear technology. nuclear power plants were the result of president eisenhower's atoms for peace program.

the idea was to take the greatest invention of the last century and use it to provide low-cost energy to reduce poverty around the world. a nuclear power plant is not a bomb. the fissionable material makes up only 4% of the reactor fuel. it would have to be enriched to 90% to make a bomb and even then you have complicated physics to make it explode. nuclear plants are run completely differently today than they were when a valve failed 30 years ago at 3 mile island. now operated train for 3 years before they are allowed to take the controls. they have more training than airline pilots. as for terrorist attacks i invite you to go to youtube and type in, quote, plane crashing into wall. you will see a test conducted by the department of energy in the 1990s, 1980s, they took a fighter jet, strapped into a railroad track and accelerated

it to 500 m.p.h. faster than an airliner, before crashing it into a simulated nuclear containment structure. the containment structure, in other words the nuclear plant, was fine after the crash. there wasn't much left of the airplane. there's also the misconception that nuclear power plants are not insurable and can exist without huge federal subsidy. there is a federal insurance program for nuclear plants called price anderson but it has never paid a dime of insurance. the way it works, everyone of 104 nuclear plants in the united states can be assessed $100 million in damages for an accident at another reactor, that is another factor adding to safety consciousness. most reactors have revenue of $2 million a day which pays for of $5 billion construction loans

and still makes possible low rates for consumers. when the tennessee valley authority started its reactor 2 years ago, they thought it would take ten years to pay off the $1.8 billion, it took three years. when oil prices were skyrocketing, conn. propose putting the windfall profit tax on the two nuclear reactors in the state because they were making so much money. nuclear power is the obvious first step to a policy of clean and low-cost energy. 100 new plants in 20 years would double u.s. nuclear electricity production making it 40% of all of electricity production. and 10% for sun and wind and other renewable, another 10% for hydroelectric, maybe 5% for

natural gas, and we begin to have a cheap, clean energy policy. step ii is to electrify half of our cars and trucks. according to estimates by brookings institution scholars, there is so much unused electricity and night we could do this within 20 years without building one new power plant if we plug the vehicles in at night while we sleep. this is the fastest way to reduce dependence on foreign oil to keep fuel prices slow, and to reduce the 1 third of carbon that comes from engines. step 3 is to explore offshore for natural gas and oil using less oil, using more of our own. the final step is to double funding for energy research and development and launch many manhattan project like the one

we had in world war ii. this time to meet 7 energy challenges, improving batteries for plug in vehicles, making solar power cost competitive with fossil fuels, making carbon capture a reality for coal burning power plants. i have suggested to secretary chu that he reserve a nobel peace prize for the scientists who figures that out. safely recycling use of nuclear fuel, making advanced biofuels, make them competitive with gasoline, making more buildings green buildings and providing energy from fusion, which is recreating on the earth what happens at the center of the sun. the difficulties with nuclear power are political, not technological, social, not economic. the main obstacle is a lingering doubt and fear in the public

mind about the technology. any progressive administration that wishes to solve the problem of global warming without crushing the american economy should help the public resolve these doubts and fears. what is needed boils down to two words, president of leadership. we can't wait any longer to build our future of clean, reliable, affordable energy, the time has come for action, we can revive america's high-tech economy with the technology we already have at hand. the only requirement is that we open our minds to the possibility and potential of nuclear power. as we do, our policy of cheap, clean energy based on nuclear-powered, electric cars, offshore exploration and doubling energy research and development will help family budgets and create jobs. will also prove to be the fastest way to increase american energy independence, clean the

air and reduce global warming. i hope you will let me know your thoughts at www. alexander.senate.gov. you will find on our web site a copy of this blueprint for 100 new nuclear power plants. i thank you and i will be glad to take a few questions. >> you plan to introduce legislation to forward the blueprint on the energy package? >> we will start with the republican energy package, this is my blueprint, i expect there'll be other republican senators offering their own blue prints to advance the republican plan. i am going to wait and see what the reaction is. i hope to get response and feedback to what i have said in this blueprint.

i hope several democratic senators who support nuclear power will agree with me that the smart thing to do as a country is to build more nuclear power plants in 20 years. i am going ahead with senator carter on legislation to deal with sulfur, nitrogen and mercury. we know what to do with those, carbon is more e elusive and i will wait to see the reaction. >> senator alexander, what, at a minimum, needs to be in a nuclear title in a climate change bill? >> i'm not sure we need -- i am not sure we needed shot -- climate change build. but assuming that the democrats in the senate decide to proceed

with a democratic house bill and get some republican support, most people say the fastest way to do that is have a nuclear title. this is a likely hypothetical. what would you like to see? >> i would strenuously argue against arguing -- against adding a nuclear title to the bill. the waxman-markey bill needs to be jumped to. it has become a contraction of taxes and mandates that hurt the economy, that may not do very much for global warming. let me give you one example of why it is not fixable. we have had testimony before our energy committees and environment committees and senate that an economy wide cat and trade is an inefficient way

to discourage the use of carbon based fuels. all it would do for the near-term is raise the price of gasoline, but not reduce the amount of carbon because it is not enough to change the behavior of americans. if you are going to put limits on fuel which is 30%, a low carbon fuel standard gradually shifts carbon out of fuel and people move to something else such as electricity. i cannot support any legislation with an economywide cat and trade. the more americans look at that, the more they will see it is unnecessary and a huge tax and they won't want to pay an additional utility bill, especially when there is an alternative to reduce their utility bills and clean the air and, in my view, would put us

within the kyoto protocol by 2030. >> what is your sense of secretary to's view and whether he is an advocate in the administration? >> i'm very impressed with secretary chu, he is an impressive secretary, you understand nuclear power, he is restrained by administration policy, i congratulate him for moving ahead with the four loan financing arrangements created by congress in 2005, more than the bush administration got done in terms of home financing and that is very important. as soon as you get the first four nuclear power plants built in will be easier to build the rest. there is this strange reluctance on the part of the administration that declares global warming is one of its great missions, the single technology that would help us

deal with global warming in this generation. until the president becomes as interested in 100 nuclear power plants as use in building windmills, i don't think secretary chu will be permitted to have a very aggressive nuclear policy. but that is one reason for our agenda. sometimes our advocacy, we can change the minds of another people, and we have a bipartisan it and my goal would be that the president would adopt this and say we have to do this if we want to deal with global warming in this generation without running all of our jobs overseas. >> have you been approached by senator boxer and senator kerry who are trying to push the climate bill? would you vote against the bill even if it does everything you want along with having a catch?

would that be enough? >> i just said yesterday, an economy wide cap and trade is a disaster for the country, it is a job killing, $100 billion year tax. add to that the renewable mandates which require the southeast to put up a huge winter, like requiring a state that has as its to build electricity from hydroelectric dams and rivers that they don't have. they don't have the rivers, we don't have the wind. i would vote against it. i would hope that the senate would start over and draft a climate change bill that would avoid an economy wide cat and trade, and would focus on nuclear power, electric cars, offshore exploration, and many manhattan project to make

renewable energy cost competitive. >> to you anticipate any of the new nuclear power plants being built? >> it might very well. the tennessee valley authority is leading the country in terms of restarting nuclear-powered plants, just finished one, as i mentioned and it is half way through another. is exploring whether to build new plants in alabama which is part of the tb a territory. nuclear power is well-suited to tennessee. we have a clean air problem, the smoky mountains, the most polluted national park, cities like knoxville, always struggling with dirty air. we need to produce electricity from something that doesn't put smog into the air and doesn't contribute to global warming and for us, nuclear-powered is the best option. >> you mentioned there are a number of democrats who are in favor when it comes to nuclear

energy, you hope some of them will come on board, have you discussed this with any of them? >> only briefly. we know the senators, senator carbon of maryland, strong supporters of nuclear power and there are others. i have not discussed this proposal. i am offering this blueprint, i will send it to every senator, democrats and republicans, solicit their device and hopefully gain their support. >> i am confused about what you want the government to do to build these nuclear plants. is anyone stopping the industry from building the plants right now? >> yes. the ideal way to start would be for the president to direct the department of energy and nuclear regulatory commission to give him a plan for building a one hundred nuclear power plants

between now and 2030 and list the obstacles that stand in the way of it. it is not so much that the government needs to do anything, it is that the government need to avoid stopping the plans. the one affirmative thing the plan could do is increase the number of loan financing guarantees for the first we six or eight plans. secretary shoe -- secretary chu is committed to doing it before, i would like to see that go to $50 billion, those dollars should not be at risk to the taxpayer because they simply allow the plants to borrow the money to make the construction. the second thing the government could do that might be on the list would be a mini manhattan project to do a better job recycling nuclear fuel. we can't do that today. most people believe, and i

believe we should find better ways to recycle nuclear fuel than we have today. we can use nuclear waste on site for 40 to 60 years and in the next 12 years with aggressive research we can find ways to recycle that fuel in a way, the plutonium is not even separated from the other fuel. that would be the second thing the government could do. the third thing the government could do is make certain that it has sufficient staff at the regulatory commission to process the applications so it doesn't slow applications. take a position that it is a national goal to build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years, presidential leadership, the two things we need the most on nuclear power, we had that, it happened. >> on the issue of presidential leadership, you in insinuated

your frustration. i wanted to ask you about the economic policies have already cost half a million machine tool types of jobs. what the you propose to do about the loss of capacity to actually be able to build the parts required to have this type of program? >> the single best way to rebuild in america capacity to build nuclear plants is to start building them. there is a french company that has come to chattanooga to build large turbines that will be necessary, westinghouse is interested in building nuclear plants, building a school for welders. as soon as investors are clear that the united states is going to build 100 plants, there will

be new industry here. there was an announcement the other day by babcock and wilcox that it plans to seek approval of a small nuclear reactor that would be 125 megawatts instead of the 1240 or 1500 megawatts, great big things we now see. that is very promising. if we start building small reactors, that could accelerate the building of reactors because utility companies wouldn't have to invest such large amounts of money. all the parts are built in the united states, they're built in ohio, they build them at the factory. they should them by rail to -- if they need two or three they put them together like lego blocks. >> what do you think about contacting something to build

these things, would you be opposed to that? >> i don't want to see the government get into the business--the government is already getting into the insurance business, the banking business, the student loan business, the car business and maybe the health-care business, i don't want see the government in the business of owning nuclear power plants, it is not necessary we built the first twenty with ratepayers' money, not government money. all we have to do is create an environment in which private enterprise can succeed. >> your plan calls for long-term -- not increasing the use of electricity in the united states over the next 20 years and reducing the amount of coal, how do you propose the energy conservation and the coal

reduction? >> we won't use more electricity in the united states over the next 20 years, i think we will use more electricity in the united states which is why we need the bill -- need to build nuclear power plants. we are likely to use less coal over the next 20 years and we should use less coal. we have some dirty coal plants that ought to be closed and the best way to replace them is with nuclear power plants. they can't be replaced by solar or wind because they only shined a third of the time. even the big plants in tennessee that we are delighted to have that make pauley silicon, the material for solar panels on roofs, use 120 kilowatts of power. a favor dependent on solar power they wouldn't be there. they're dependent on nuclear or coal. the one exception would be that over this time i am very hopeful

as i said earlier that some scientists will win the nobel prize by inventing a commercially viable way to remove carbon from existing coal plants. that would be tremendous for our country and the world, it would permit the whole world to have low-cost, clean energy, and that will be a solution. if that is the case, we will be using plenty of coal. >> the energy legislation that ensures the emissions reductions that you are -- that your plan believes it could achieve? >> the answer is yes, i do. i am not speaking for the whole republican caucus because we have different views about that. but i would be in favor of a low carbon fuel standard. that is 30% of all of the carbon produced in the united states. and since we have a lecture cars and trucks about to be

manufactured by almost every manufacturer, there in tennessee, we can require less carbon and fuel without raising the price of fuel. i think we could lower the price of fuel. porting says, as i mentioned, that we have so much unused electricity at night that we could plug in our cars and trucks at night and not even have to build one new power plant. the difference with coal is we don't have an alternative to coal. we don't have a commercially viable way to take the car and out of coal. we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in 30 years. while we can build nuclear gas plants, that is a dangerous thing to do, the price can go up. it was $14 or $15 a few years ago, we use them for so many other things. i could support limits on carbon

on coal plants after we have built and opened some nuclear power plants and shown that we are going to open more, we have invented a commercially viable way to recapture carbon from existing coal plants. >> do we continue to store nuclear waste on site? how do we not resolve the issue we have now? how will you deal with doubling the number of plants? >> we can forget yucca mountain. the president has told us that. that is like saying we are not going to close -- we are going to close guantanamo bay without figuring where we are going to put the terrorists. that causes a problem. in the case of nuclear fuel, this is what we should do. it can be stored on site safely for the next 40 to 60 years.

france does it, ohrid scientists believe it can be done safely in. we should have a mini manhattan project, on the safest and best way to recycle used nuclear fuel. i am not satisfied that we have got that yet. and we don't have to use it yet. let's take ten or 12 years to figure that out and then we can recycle waste and have almost no residue left from the waist. it is the two part plan. yes? >> it sounds like most of the effort is going to come from the president in terms of pushing nuclear reactors. congress can up the loan guarantee. is there anything else congress can do? are you going to pursue this?

are you going to pursue this as a stand-alone bill? >> i am taking it step by step. i have goals, i am inviting comment and criticism and suggestions, i am looking for bipartisan support and i am meeting with people who understand nuclear power plants and asking them, what are the first ten things the federal government can do to make it more likely that we can build 100 plants in 20 years. i wish i didn't have to do that, the president should be doing that. if he really believes in global warming and that is the problem that we need to deal with, he ought to call in his very bright administrators, and distinguished scientists, and they tell me what we need to do at the federal level to make sure we have 100 power plants in 20 years. i mentioned one thing, loan financing for the first few plants, a second thing is the research on what to do with

fuel. we may discover four or five steps the federal government needs to take. diamond in the third thing -- i mentioned the third thing. congress would have to approve or financing, congress would have to approved a larger staff for the nuclear regulatory commission. congress would have to fund the research and development and recycling of nuclear fuel, but it would make it much easier if the president would say here are the ten things we need to do, i asked congress to do this as part of our bowl. we worked with president bush in a bipartisan way a few years ago on what we needed to do to remain competitive. we had the national academy of sciences tell us the ten things we needed to do, we tried to put them in legislation, we can do the same thing with this goal.

>> is this a subsidy to an industry, the loan is up front, the liability is becoming -- why can't you get the loans from the private sector, the liability insurance from the private sector? >> the credit is not available. the question would be -- the congress has authorized loan financing for nuclear power plants. i give secretary chu great credit for going ahead with the first four. that is not a taxpayer subsidy. the taxpayers' not out any money and taxpayers should not be in the end because the plants themselves have to put up enough money so if there's any default, they pay for it. as far as the price anderson federal legislation about insurance that often gets brought up, as i said in my remarks, that doesn't cost the taxpayer anything and it never

has. because today, if there is an accident in the nuclear plant, each of the 104 nuclear plants that exist are liable up to $100 million to pay for any damages that have occurred. there may need to be some federal action, but i am looking to say what it should be. but i haven't seen a reason for federal subsidies yet. i do support federal subsidies to encourage the use of electric cars and trucks, i support federal subsidies in the level of $8 billion a year about the president's proposals for energy research and development on renewable energy. >> you talk a lot about presidential leadership. if that is the key, why didn't we get it done under the previous administration? >> i don't know, it would have been better if we had. we can't constantly -- at some point the new administration is going to take credit -- we can't

just get in and say the boat is sinking and we have the problem is a hole in the boat so let's dig a second hole. i give secretary chu credit for doing something president bush wasn't able to do, which was loan financing for nuclear power plants that were authorized in 2005. what i would like to see is president obama be aggressive about 100 new nuclear power plants, make that a part of his goal of dealing with global warming and industrializing america. maybe one more and we will stop. >> you addressed earlier that there is a real problem with the economy and job losses, the fact that almost every state is bankrupt, difficult to get loans from banks, i am with political action committee, globalizing around the