U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

29–010 

" ! SENATE 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2012

112–240 

Calendar No. 553 

SAFEGUARDING AMERICAN AGRICULTURE 

ACT OF 2012 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 1673 

TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF AGRICULTURE INSPECTION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WHICH SHALL 

BE HEADED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR AGRICULTURE INSPECTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

NOVEMBER 26, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

BLAS NUNEZ-NETO, Professional Staff Member 

CARLY A. COVIEO, Professional Staff Member 

CHRISTINE K. WEST, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

JESSICA K. NAGASAKO, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

MARK B. LEDUC, Minority General Counsel 

RYAN M. KALDAHL, Minority Director of Homeland Security Policy 

CHRISTOPHER J. BURFORD, Minority CBP Detailee 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 553 

112TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 112–240 

SAFEGUARDING AMERICAN AGRICULTURE ACT OF 2012 

NOVEMBER 26, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1673] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 1673) to establish the Office of 

Agriculture Inspection within the Department of Homeland Security, which shall be headed by the Assistant Commissioner for Agriculture Inspection, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 6 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill ........................................................ 7 

V. Estimated Cost of Legislation ....................................................................... 8 

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 9 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill ................................................. 9 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 1673, the Safeguarding American Agriculture Act of 2012, 

seeks to improve the oversight and administration of a Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) program charged with inspecting all 

agricultural and biological products entering the United States that 

safeguards America against the accidental or deliberate introduction of harmful non-native pests and disease from other countries. 

It does so by strengthening the Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) agriculture specialist workforce and its capabilities, and authorizing interagency rotations with the U.S. Department of AgriVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:26 Nov 29, 2012 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR240.XXX SR240

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Report of 

the APHIS-CBP Joint Task Force on Improved Agriculture Inspection, at 1 (June 2007). Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plantlhealth/downloads/aphislcbpltaskforce/ 

FinalReport.pdf. 2Statement of Lisa Shames, Director of Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program: Management 

Problems May Increase Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Diseases, Hearing 

to Examine the Joint Performance of APHIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and CBP, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security in Protecting U.S. Agriculture From Foreign Pests and Diseases before the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO–08–96T, at 1 (October 3, 2007). Available at: 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0896t.pdf. 3 J.E. Aukema, B. Leung, K. Kovacs, C. Chivers, K.O. Britton, et al. Economic Impacts of NonNative Forest Insects in the Continental United States, PLoS One 6(9): e24587, at 1, 5 (September 9, 2011). Available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/ 

info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024587. 4 37 Stat. 315, codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 151–164a (1912). 

culture (USDA) to improve the program’s efficiency and effectiveness. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Over the past several decades, there has been increasing integration of the world’s economies and significant growth in international commerce and travel. While these changes have brought 

enormous benefits to the United States, the increased number of 

travelers and goods coming to the United States have also sometimes brought with them unwanted and harmful stowaways—in 

the form of non-native animals and plants as well as disease 

agents and other biological products—that can have the potential 

to wreak havoc on our existing ecosystems or spread disease. Failure to detect and intercept non-native pests and disease agents 

that enter the United States can impose serious economic and social costs on all Americans.1 USDA estimates that foreign pests 

and diseases cost the U.S. economy tens of billions of dollars annually in lower crop values, eradication programs, emergency payments to farmers, and increased costs for food and natural resources.2 For instance, invasive wood-boring pests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and the Asian Longhorned Beetle, cost homeowners an estimated $830 million a year in lost property values 

and cost local governments an estimated $1.7 billion a year as a 

result of damaged trees and woodlands.3 Furthermore, the potential for a disease or a biological weapon to be smuggled across the 

border by a terrorist represents a serious threat to our homeland 

security. These high costs highlight the importance of ensuring 

that invasive species and other biological threats are detected during agricultural import and entry inspection operations at ports of 

entry. 

Federal inspection of agriculture products at ports of entry has 

a long history, dating back a century to the Plant Quarantine Act 

of 1912.4 Currently, the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) 

program is the primary Federal program aimed at preventing 

invasive species from entering the U.S., by inspecting arriving 

international cargo and goods transported by passengers. Intercepted pests and disease agents are quarantined, identified, and 

the cargo is either destroyed or returned to its country of origin. 

Prior to 2002, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had sole responsibility for inspecting agricultural goods 

entering the U.S. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, which creVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:26 Nov 29, 2012 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR240.XXX SR240

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

5Pub. L. No. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 

6 Id. Section 421 of the Act transferred agricultural inspection functions from USDA to DHS; 

section 403 transferred Customs functions from the U.S. Department of Treasury’s U.S. Customs Service to DHS; and section 44 transferred the Border Patrol from the U.S. Department 

of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service to DHS. 7 Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Report of the Committee on Governmental 

Affairs, United States Senate Together with Additional Views to Accompany S. 2452, To Establish the Department of National Homeland Security and the National Office for Combating Terrorism, S. Report 107–175, at 9–10 (June 24, 2002). Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

pkg/CRPT-107srpt175/pdf/CRPT-107srpt175.pdf. 8 USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Transition and Coordination of Inspection Activities between USDA and DHS, Report No. 33601– 

0005–Ch, at i-v (March 2005). Available at: http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33601-05- 

CH.pdf. 9 Id. at i. 

ated the Department of Homeland Security,5 transferred AQI import and entry agriculture inspection responsibilities to DHS, while 

USDA’s APHIS retained responsibility for setting agriculture quarantine and inspection policies and procedures. In addition to agriculture inspection responsibilities, the Homeland Security Act also 

gave responsibility to DHS for customs, immigration, and border 

security functions.6 Previously, federal customs, immigration and 

agriculture inspections responsibilities at ports of entry—though 

they might all come into play with respect to an individual traveler—were distributed among three different departments—Treasury, Justice and Agriculture, respectively. The reorganization mandated by the Homeland Security Act was intended to enhance coordination and information sharing at our ports of entry by consolidating these functions and their associated personnel within a single new agency.7

Nonetheless, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the consolidation efforts brought challenges as well as benefits, as the new Department sought to integrate previously separate workforces and cultures. In the years immediately following the creation of CBP, several reports identified issues with the efficiency and effectiveness 

of agricultural inspection activities that had been transferred from 

USDA. For example, in 2005, the USDA Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) concluded that APHIS could not effectively assess whether 

CBP was implementing adequate safeguards to protect U.S. agriculture. The OIG cited several challenges, including CBP’s submission of inadequate risk assessments to APHIS, APHIS personnel 

being denied adequate access to ports, CBP failing to provide 

APHIS with data on the staffing levels and deployment of agricultural inspectors, and CBP and APHIS having differing viewpoints 

on the roles of each agency in the agricultural inspection process, 

among others.8 The USDA OIG recommended that APHIS establish better ways to coordinate with CBP.9

The following year, in May 2006, the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) observed that CBP and USDA faced management and 

coordination problems that increased U.S. vulnerability to foreign 

pests and diseases. GAO found that CBP had not developed a riskbased staffing model to determine necessary staffing levels and 

that it had not developed sufficient performance measures for agricultural inspections or used the inspection and interception data 

CBP did have to evaluate the performance of the AQI program. 

GAO also concluded that CBP and APHIS continued to experience 

information sharing problems, including APHIS not being notified 

by CBP of changes to inspections policies and urgent inspection 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

10GAO, Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease, GAO–06–644, at 4–5 (May 19, 2006). 

Available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06644.pdf. 11 Id. at 38–39. 12GAO, Agriculture Specialists’ Views of Their Work Experiences After Transfer to DHS, 

GAO–07–209R, at 2, 23–24 (November 14, 2006). Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/ 

94532.pdf. 13 Id. at 2. 14 Id. 15DHS OIG and USDA OIG, Review of Customs and Border Protection’s Agriculture Inspection Activities, OIG–07–32, at 5–6 (February 2007). Available at: http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIGl07–32lFeb07.pdf. 16 Id. at 6–7. 17Supra note 1, at 3–4. 18 Id. at 5. 

alerts.10 GAO made seven recommendations, including that the 

Secretaries of Homeland Security and Agriculture adopt meaningful performance measures, establish a process to identify and assess major risks, develop a staffing model to determine adequate 

staffing levels at ports, and improve information sharing between 

the departments and to the field.11

In November 2006, GAO published the results of a survey of 

CBP’s agriculture specialists on their work experiences before and 

after the transfer to DHS. GAO’s survey revealed that approximately 60 percent of agriculture specialists who responded said 

they were performing fewer inspections and making fewer interceptions. The same number expressed the view that CBP managers 

did not respect their work.12 In addition, the second most frequent 

response to the question on what is going well was ‘‘nothing is 

going well.’’ 13 GAO concluded that the results of the survey ‘‘suggested morale issues among CBP agriculture specialists.’’ 14

In February 2007, the DHS OIG and the USDA OIG released the 

findings of a follow-up joint review to the 2005 USDA OIG report. 

The joint review revealed that CBP still had not developed an agriculture specialist staffing model and that CBP did not have adequate performance measures.15 The report recommended that CBP 

develop a staffing model and comprehensive nationwide staffing 

plan, as well as comprehensive performance measures.16

To address some of these findings and recommendations, APHIS 

and CBP established a Joint Task Force to examine the state of the 

agriculture mission and organizations. In June 2007, a Report of 

the APHIS–CBP Joint Task Force on Improved Agriculture Inspection made several recommendations to address key issue areas, 

such as establishing a career ladder for agriculture specialists, developing tools to evaluate agriculture risk and staffing criteria, 

identifying and creating training opportunities, and ensuring that 

those staffing the agricultural mission have adequate equipment 

and supplies to do their jobs.17 The Joint Task Force recognized the 

importance of building and maintaining institutional knowledge by 

providing opportunities for agriculture specialists to advance their 

careers, as well as the need for effective joint planning efforts.18

The Joint Task Force developed implementation action plans for 

each key issue area and is overseeing the implementation of these 

plans. 

On October 27, 2011, the CBP Honolulu Area Port Director testified before this Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia. He reported that the agency had taken steps to address its 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

19Safeguarding Hawaii’s Ecosystem and Agriculture Against Invasive Species before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District 

of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (October 27, 2011) 

(statement of Bruce W. Murley, Area Port Director, Honolulu, CBP, DHS), at 5. 20GAO, Homeland Security: Agriculture Inspection Program Has Made Some Improvements, 

but Management Challenges Persist, GAO–12–885 (September 27, 2012). Available at: http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/650/648921.pdf 21 Id. at 8 22 Id. at 23–25 23 Id. at 22–23. In one small sign of improvement from the 2006 survey, ‘‘nothing is going 

well’’ was one of the least common responses reported in 2012. 24 Id. 26–29 25 Id. at 11 26 Id. 13–14 

agriculture specialist workforce challenges and improve coordination with APHIS. For instance, he described CBP plans to improve 

recruitment and retention for agriculture specialists. Additionally, 

he stated that CBP was in the process of creating a comprehensive 

agriculture specialists career track for entry-level specialists and 

working to establish a formal interagency rotation program with 

APHIS.19

Most recently, in September 2012, GAO released a report following up on the recommendations that it made in its 2006 report.20 In the new report, GAO concludes that DHS fully implemented the 2006 recommendations to improve information sharing 

between DHS and USDA on concerns and urgent alerts.21 GAO 

also identified training as an area of improvement since 2006.22

And, encouragingly, GAO found some improvement in the morale 

of agriculture specialists.23

At the same time, GAO notes a number of remaining challenges. 

Agriculture specialists, for example, continued to voice concerns 

about CBP’s management of the agricultural inspections process as 

well as the perceived lack of prioritization of the agriculture mission.24 In addition, not all of GAO’s 2006 recommendations have 

been fully implemented. GAO found, for example, that while CBP 

and APHIS have expanded the use of existing performance measures, these measures are not sufficient to assess all aspects of their 

performance.25 Further, while efforts have been undertaken to implement a risk-based staffing model, the staffing model is not yet 

complete. According to GAO, this is in part due to anticipation that 

the model would call for significant staff increases, and resources 

are not available for such an increase in this fiscal environment. 

GAO recommended that DHS create a plan to address resource 

constraints.26

The Committee believes that these continuing concerns make legislative action appropriate. To address some of the recommendations made by these various reports, and to reinforce the efforts of 

the APHIS–CBP Joint Task Force, S. 1673 seeks to further develop 

CBP’s agriculture specialist workforce, to ensure that needed 

equipment is provided, and to strengthen the partnership between 

CBP and APHIS. To maintain a highly skilled and motivated agriculture specialist workforce, S.1673 would require CBP to identify 

appropriate career paths for CBP agriculture specialists and to provide them the opportunity to acquire the education, training, and 

experience necessary to qualify for promotion within CBP. S. 1673 

would also require CBP to develop plans to improve agriculture 

specialist recruitment and retention, and to ensure agriculture specialists have the necessary equipment and resources to effectively 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

27These letters of endorsement are on file in the offices of the Committee. 

carry out their mission. Additionally, S. 1673 directs the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Agriculture to establish an interagency rotation program for CBP and APHIS personnel in order to 

strengthen critical working relationships and to promote interagency experience. The Committee believes that the bill, as amended, will ensure that CBP and APHIS enhance their processes for 

ensuring that dangerous biological pests and agricultural products 

do not enter the country. 

A broad range of organizations have endorsed S. 1673. Those 

supporting the bill include the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Treasury Employees Union, 

Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Sunkist Growers, Western Growers, 

Louisville Slugger, California Association of Nurseries and Garden 

Centers, The Nature Conservancy, National Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, California Farm Bureau Federation, 

San Diego Farm Bureau, Coordinating Group on Alien Pests Species, American Forest Foundation, American Nursery and Landscape Association, Department of Natural Resources at Cornell 

University, The Davey Institute, Greenspace-the Cambria Land 

Trust, International Maple Syrup Institute, Massachusetts Association of Campground Owners, National Association of Exotic Pest 

Plant Councils, North American Maple Syrup Council, Inc. Oregon 

Invasive Species Council, Society of American Florists, Society of 

Municipal Arborists, Department of Plant Science and Landscape 

Architecture at the University of Maryland, Virginia Native Plant 

Society, and Nisei Farmers League.27

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senators Akaka and Feinstein introduced S. 1673 on October 6, 

2011. The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senator Gillibrand joined as a cosponsor on March 8, 2012, and Senator Carper joined as a cosponsor on July 18, 2012. 

On October 27, 2011, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia held a hearing on the ways that government agencies and 

stakeholders are collaborating to prevent invasive species from entering the United States. Witnesses at the hearing included the 

Honorable Neil Abercrombie, Governor of the State of Hawaii; the 

Honorable Clifton K. Tsuji, Chairman of the House Committee on 

Agriculture of the Hawaii State Legislature; the Honorable Clarence K. Nishihara, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture of the Hawaii State Legislature; Dr. Lyle Wong, Plant Industry Administrator of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture; 

Bruce W. Murley, Area Port Director for Honolulu in the Office of 

Field Operations at CBP; Vernon Harrington, State Plant Health 

Director of Plant Protection and Quarantine at APHIS; and George 

Phocas, Resident-Agent-in-Charge of the Office of Law Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, at the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

On April 25, 2012, the Committee considered the measure, and 

Senator Akaka offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute 

and an amendment to amend the bill title. The substitute amendVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:26 Nov 29, 2012 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR240.XXX SR240

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

ment deleted a provision in the introduced version of S. 1673 that 

would have created a new Office of Agricultural Inspection within 

CBP. The Committee concluded that the bill’s other provisions ensured adequate emphasis on the importance of CBP’s agricultural 

mission. The other amendment altered the bill title to reflect the 

fact that this new office was no longer included in the bill. 

The Committee adopted both amendments by voice vote on April 

25, 2012. The Committee then adopted S. 1673, as amended, by 

voice vote, and ordered it reported favorably to the Senate on April 

25, 2012. Members present for the vote on the substitute amendment were Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, McCaskill, Begich, 

Collins, Coburn and Johnson. Members present for the vote on the 

amendment changing the bill title, and reporting S. 1673 favorably 

were Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Carper, McCaskill, 

Begich, Collins, Coburn, Brown, and Johnson. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides that the short title of the bill is the ‘‘Safeguarding American Agriculture Act of 2012.’’ 

Section 2. Enhanced Agricultural Inspection Functions 

Section 2 adds a new section 421a (6 U.S.C. § 231a) to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The following descriptions refer to the 

subsections of the new statutory section. 

Subsection (a)—Agriculture Specialist Career Track. This subsection requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 

through the Commissioner of CBP, to identify appropriate career 

paths for CBP agriculture specialists, including identifying the education, training, experience, and assignments necessary for career 

progression within CBP. The Secretary is to publish information on 

these career paths and may establish criteria by which appropriately qualified CBP technicians may be promoted to agriculture 

specialists. 

Subsection (b)—Education, Training, and Experience. This subsection requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, to 

provide agriculture specialists opportunities to gain education, 

training, and experience that are necessary for promotion within 

CBP. 

Subsection (c)—Agriculture Specialist Recruitment and Retention. 

This subsection requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, to develop a plan to improve agriculture specialist recruitment and retention. The plan must address numerical recruitment 

and retention goals and the use of recruitment incentives. 

Subsection (d)—Equipment Support. This subsection requires the 

Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, to determine the minimum equipment and other resources necessary to enable agriculture specialists to fully and effectively carry out their mission; 

inventory the equipment and other resources available; identify 

needed equipment and other resources that are not available; and 

develop a plan to address any resource deficiencies. 

Subsection (e)—Interagency Rotation. This subsection authorizes 

the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into an agreement establishing interagency rotaVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:26 Nov 29, 2012 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR240.XXX SR240

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

tions between APHIS and CBP to strengthen working relationships 

and promote interagency experience. 

Section 3. Report 

This section requires the Secretary, acting through the CBP 

Commissioner, within 270 days of enactment, to submit a report to 

this Committee and the Committee on Homeland Security of the 

House of Representatives that describes the implementation status 

of the action plans developed by the APHIS–CBP Joint Task Force; 

the findings and plans required under section 421a of the Homeland Security Act (as created by section 2 of this bill); and any additional legal authority the Secretary of Homeland Security determines is necessary to effectively carry out the agriculture inspection mission of DHS. 

V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

JUNE 1, 2012. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1673, the Safeguarding 

American Agriculture Act of 2012. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1673—Safeguarding American Agriculture Act of 2012 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 1673 would cost about $1 

million from appropriated funds in fiscal year 2013 and negligible 

amounts in subsequent years. Enacting the legislation would not 

affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

S. 1673 would direct the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to provide opportunities for promotion of agriculture specialists working for Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The bill 

also would require DHS to develop plans to better recruit and retain agriculture specialists and to upgrade equipment and other resources available to such employees. In addition, S. 1673 would authorize DHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to rotate personnel in CBP and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (in USDA) to promote interagency experience. 

Based on information from DHS, we estimate that it would cost 

about $1 million in 2013 to carry out the bill’s activities. CBO anticipates that S. 1673 would not require implementing the plan to 

acquire upgraded equipment or other resources for agriculture specialists. If DHS sought appropriated funds to acquire additional 

equipment, the cost to implement this legislation would be greater. 

S. 1673 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill. The Committee concurs with the 

Congressional Budget Office, which states that S. 1673, as amended, contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose 

no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The legislation 

would have no other regulatory impact. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing law made by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 (6 U.S.C. 

§§ 101, et seq.) 

TITLE IV—DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY (6 U.S.C. 201, et 

seq.) 

Subtitle C—Miscellaneous Provisions 

SEC. 421. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INSPECTION FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. (6 U.S.C. 

231) 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 421a. AGRICULTURE SPECIALISTS. 

(a) AGRICULTURE SPECIALIST CAREER TRACK.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection— 

(A) shall identify appropriate career paths for customs 

and border protection agriculture specialists, including the 

education, training, experience, and assignments necessary 

for career progression within U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection; 

(B) shall publish information on the career paths identified under subparagraph (A); and 

(C) may establish criteria by which appropriately qualified customs and border technicians may be promoted to 

customs and border protection agriculture specialists. 

(b) EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND EXPERIENCE.—The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall provide customs and border protection agriculture speVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:26 Nov 29, 2012 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR240.XXX SR240

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

cialists the opportunity to acquire the education, training, and experience necessary to qualify for promotion within U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

(c) AGRICULTURE SPECIALIST RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.— Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of the Safeguarding American Agriculture Act of 2012, the Secretary, acting 

through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

shall develop a plan to more effectively recruit and retain qualified 

customs and border protection agriculture specialists. The plan 

shall include— 

(1) numerical goals for recruitment and retention; and 

(2) the use of recruitment incentives, as appropriate and permissible under existing laws and regulations. 

(d) EQUIPMENT SUPPORT.—Not later than 270 days after the date 

of the enactment of the Safeguarding American Agriculture Act of 

2012, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

shall— 

(1) determine the minimum equipment and other resources 

that are necessary at U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture inspection stations and facilities to enable customs and 

border protection agriculture specialists to fully and effectively 

carry out their mission; 

(2) complete an inventory of the equipment and other resources available at each U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

agriculture inspection station and facility; 

(3) identify the necessary equipment and other resources that 

are not currently available at agriculture inspection stations 

and facilities; and 

(4) develop a plan to address any resource deficiencies identified under paragraph (3). 

(e) INTERAGENCY ROTATIONS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Agriculture are authorized to enter into an 

agreement that— 

(1) establishes an interagency rotation; and 

(2) provides for personnel of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture to take rotational assignments within U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

and vice versa for the purposes of strengthening working relationships between agencies and promoting interagency experience.’’. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS