Senate Amendment to H.R. 1295 - Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015
House of Representatives Committee on Rules / https://rules.house.gov/bill/114/hr-1295-sa
On June 10, 2015, the House adopted the following order by unanimous consent providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1295, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. No further action by the Rules Committee is expected:
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 1295, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House (1) concur in the Senate amendment to the title and (2) concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1; that the Senate amendments and the motion be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
NEWSFLASH: Vote on Trade Agreement Still Months Away
House Committee on Ways & Means / http://waysandmeans.house.gov/newsflash-vote-on-trade-agreement-still-months-away/
Truck waiting the House approaches a vote on trade promotion authority—or TPA—opponents are doing their very best to confuse people by conflating two completely different things: a procedural mechanism for trade agreements and an actual agreement itself. With all the acronyms floating around—TPA, TPP, TTIP, TAA, TISA—some confusion is understandable. But let’s cut through the cloud of dust that free trade critics have thrown up and get to the facts.
For starters, the House is not about to vote on any trade agreement. In fact, no new trade agreement is even completed. The United States is negotiating an important trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that could help us, instead of China, write the rules of the global economy and level the playing field for American workers. But that agreement is far from done, and it is NOT what the House is about to vote on.
The House is only set to vote on a procedure associated with trade agreements. What the House is considering is a reauthorization of TPA. This is a process that helps us deliver the best trade agreements possible, while asserting Congress into the process. A vote for TPA, is not a vote for TPP or any other trade agreement. In fact, TPA explicitly guarantees that no trade agreement can go into force without separate congressional approval for each deal.
Any vote on a trade agreement is still months away. If TPA is adopted, that will allow our trade negotiators to complete TPP. That will take time itself. But even then, it will be months—probably four or five—before Congress votes on it. In this way, TPA is a lot more like “slow-track” than “fast-track,” as the unions call it. Here’s why:
The public will be able to read any agreement long (like, really long) before Congress votes on it. For the first time, under this TPA bill, the text of an agreement must be made public and posted online for 60 days before the president can even sign off on it. That’s 60 days for the American people to read the deal. Only then does it go to Congress where there’ll be another month or two of debate. There’ll be no shortage of transparency on trade agreements if we pass TPA, which, again, is a procedure, not an agreement.
So Congress is a long way away from voting on any trade agreement. TPA, the bill that will be voted on soon, is purely the process for securing them. We need TPA, because we need more trade agreements. But we need good agreements, and if a deal doesn’t meet Congress’s standards, Congress can vote it down. Simple as that.
Philadelphia CBP Intercepts Two Destructive Insect Species New to the United States
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/2015-06-10-000000/philadelphia-cbp-intercepts-two-destructive-insect
Agriculture Specialists Also Intercept Two Local First Finds
PHILADELPHIA – Two recent insect pest interceptions on imported produce earned U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists in Philadelphia the distinction of being the first in the United States to discover these species of weevil and grasshopper.
That distinction was confirmed Monday by a national U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) entomologist. The entomologist also confirmed Monday that two additional insect pest interceptions – a leaf beetle and a seed beetle – are the first documented discoveries of their kind in the Delaware Valley.
The two first-in-nation interceptions include:
- Ampeloglypter sp. (Curculionidae), a species of weevil, intercepted in a shipment of Costa Rica pineapples that arrived in Gloucester City, N.J., May 12. Weevils belonging to the genus Ampeloglypter are known as agricultural pests of grape vines and other plants.
- Metaleptea adspersa (Acrididae), a species of grasshopper, intercepted in a shipment of Colombia plantains May 15 and again May 22. Grasshoppers are major pests in arid lands and prairies and primarily feed on grains, pasture, and vegetable crops.
The two first-in-port interceptions include:
- Pyrrhalta sp. (Chrysomelidae), a leaf beetle, on a shipment of Costa Rica pineapples in Eddystone, Pa., May 6. A number of Pyrrhalta leaf beetle species are considered agricultural pests with the potential to cause significant damage to native and cultivated plants.
- Amblycerus sp. (Chrysomelidae), a seed beetle, on a shipment of Costa Rico pineapples in Philadelphia May 15. Amblycerus sp. (Chrysomelidae) seed beetles are known as agricultural pests of plant seeds.
CBP issued Emergency Action Notifications to require all of the shipments except the plantains to be fumigated. The plantains were released.
The produce was destined to distributors in Florida and Oregon.
Invasive species in general cause an estimated $136 billion in lost agriculture revenue annually. Visit USDA National Invasive Species for more information on invasive threats to U.S. agriculture.
CBP agriculture specialists have extensive training and experience in the biological sciences, risk analysis, and in imported agriculture inspection techniques. CBP agriculture specialists are the first line of defense in the protection of U.S. agriculture, forest and livestock industries from exotic destructive plant pests and animal diseases.
“Protecting America’s agriculture against destructive insect pests is of paramount concern to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and being recognized for two first-in-nation pest interceptions is rewarding,” said Susan Stranieri, CBP Port Director for the Area Port of Philadelphia. “CBP agriculture specialists are very serious about their mission, and quietly carry out their important work every day.”
On a typical day nationally, they inspect over 1 million people as well as air and sea cargo imported to the United States and intercept 4,447 prohibited meat, plant materials or animal products, including 425 agriculture pests and diseases.
Please visit CBP’s Agriculture Protection webpage to learn how CBP safeguards our nation’s economy by protecting our agriculture industries.
CBP agriculture specialists work closely with USDA’s, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) to protect our nation’s agriculture resources against the introduction of foreign plants, plant pests, and animal diseases.
USITC: News Releases and Documents
USITC / http://www.usitc.gov/
The Federal Trade Commission highlighted to Congress its multi-faceted approach to protecting consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls and illegal robocalls (prerecorded phone messages) in testimony today before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Testifying on behalf of the agency, Lois Greisman, Associate Director, FTC’s Division of Marketing Practices, said the Commission is using every tool at its disposal to fight illegal robocalls (some of which target seniors) including aggressive law enforcement, crowdsourcing technical solutions, and robust consumer and business outreach.
To date, the National Do Not Call Registry has garnered more than 217 million active telephone numbers and protected consumers’ privacy from the unwanted calls of tens of thousands of legitimate telemarketers who subscribe to the Registry each year. The FTC amended its Telemarketing Sales Rule in 2009, making the majority of robocalls illegal – regardless of whether a consumer participates in the Registry or not.
According to the written testimony, the Commission has brought 120 Do Not Call enforcement actions against 377 corporations and 298 individuals, of which 37 are robocall enforcement actions against 121 companies and 90 individuals. Of the $100 million collected in Do Not Call cases, $28 million have resulted from cases involving illegal robocalls. The FTC also regularly coordinates its enforcement actions with state and federal law enforcement partners, including referrals to its partners for criminal prosecution.
Yet, illegal robocalls remain a significant problem for consumers because Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and other telephony technology make it possible for telemarketers to blast millions of prerecorded messages at low cost. Many scammers from around the world also use these calls to harass consumers and attempt to defraud them.
Recognizing a need to spur the marketplace to develop technical solutions, the agency has hosted a series of crowdsourcing initiatives in recent years. These public challenges are designed to put solutions in the hands of consumers as well as further the development of investigative tools used by law enforcement.
The qualifying phase of the FTC’s current contest, Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back, ends on June 15, 2015. The agency is challenging contestants to build solutions for consumers that not only block robocalls from reaching consumers, but also enables them to forward unwanted calls to a crowd-source honeypot so the data will be accessible to law enforcement and industry stakeholders. The FTC is offering up to $50,000 in cash prizes for the winners.
Staff also engages with industry experts including academics, telecommunication carriers, technology companies, and other counterparts to better understand the robocall landscape and seek new strategies and technical solutions to tackle this difficult issue.
Public education is another critical tool used by the agency. In addition to a variety of tips for consumers, the agency encourages consumers to sign up for the Do Not Call Registry, and to report violations, including illegal robocalls.
In wrapping up its written testimony, the FTC stated it is committed to remaining agile and creative in deftly responding to fraudsters who exploit technological changes.
The Commission vote approving the testimony and its inclusion in the formal record was 5-0.
FDA Research Helps Keep Pets and Humans Safe
Food & Drug Administration / http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm450115.htm
You may not be aware that pet foods and treats, when contaminated with harmful bacteria, can make your pet sick. These bacteria also can spread from an animal to its owner, and you can get sick simply from handling contaminated pet food.
But how often does pet food make a cat or dog sick? Does your pet carry the harmful bacteria without showing any symptoms and, if so, for how long? And what precautions can you take to keep you and your family safe?
These are some of the questions now under study by the Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network (Vet-LIRN) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Ultimately, we’re hoping to learn ways FDA can help minimize the incidence of foodborne illness associated with pet foods and treats,” says Renate Reimschuessel, V.M.D. (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), Ph.D., research biologist and head of Vet-LIRN.
Under Vet-LIRN, FDA partners with 34 state and university veterinary laboratories across the country to investigate concerns reported by pet owners. Over the past two years, 11 of the Vet-LIRN labs have focused specifically on Salmonella infections in dogs and cats.
How Did the Study Work?
The goal of each lab was to collect stool samples from 100 dogs and cats with signs of salmonellosis—such as diarrhea or bloody stool—and to collect samples from another 100 dogs and cats without signs to establish a control group. Because it’s harder to collect samples from cats, however, and because fewer cats with gastrointestinal problems were brought into veterinary clinics, the study focused mainly on dogs.
Reimschuessel says it was essential to harmonize study methods through a standard questionnaire and brochure. For example, originally, the 11 labs each had their own ideas about how to disseminate and collect information. For the study to work properly, all the labs needed to agree on what procedures to follow.
Ultimately, the survey asked pet owners in-depth questions on such topics as recent signs of illness, diet (including treats), dog park visits, and medication use. Almost 3,000 animals were tested in veterinary clinics across the country.
What Has the Study Found So Far?
Researchers are currently analyzing the data, and hope to publish study results no later than 2016. Careful attention is given to quality control. While final results aren’t available at this time, Reimschuessel says that the news for pet owners appears to be pretty good. Out of 2965 animals tested, researchers have found fewer than 100 actually testing positive for the bacteria.
“Pet owners should know, though, that almost half of the dogs that tested positive for Salmonella showed no symptoms,” Reimschuessel says. A dog may show no signs of illness yet still carry the bacteria, which can potentially spread to other members of the household. Moreover, for young children, older adults, or individuals with compromised immune systems, bacterial illnesses can be especially serious.
Additionally, the dogs that tested positive for Salmonella were more likely to have eaten raw pet food, study results show. Scientific literature indicates that raw foods are more likely than processed foods to test positive for Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes, another common cause of disease, in part because they have not gone through a “kill step,” such as heat processing.
The FDA routinely conducts sampling assignments to inform its research and surveillance activities, and this year will sample raw pet food products. The results from sampling assignments help the agency target its resources to areas that have the greatest impact on public health.
What You Can Do at Home
One way to know if a pet food may be a potential source of contamination is to check FDA’s list of recalled products.
In the meantime, there are a number of steps you can take to avoid spreading illness in the event that pet foods and treats may be contaminated.
- Avoid buying pet food in dented cans or with damaged packaging.
- Feed your pets in a location that can be easily cleaned and sanitized.
- Wash countertops, tables, or any surfaces compromised when pet foods have come into contact with them.
- Earmark some utensils for use only with pet foods.
- Wash hands carefully after handling pet foods.
- Keep dry pet foods in a cool, dry place and sealed in a container to prevent spoilage.
- No matter how you store your pet food, keep the original packaging which contains data such as the manufacturer’s contact information, lot code, and UPC number. These facts can be useful if a pet food is a suspected source of illness and an investigation is underway.
This article appears on FDA’s Consumer Updates page, which features the latest on all FDA-regulated products.