Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by The Department of Agriculture
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO RISK ZONES FOR INTRODUCTION OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY -- (Senate - March 03, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding 20 minutes. As the Senator mentioned, animals have been an important part of my life. I grew up on a cattle ranch and I have dedicated my life to animals and animal diseases.
I rise today to tell my colleagues that I do not believe the policy that is now being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is risky, I do not think it is premature, and I think if we want to protect our cattlemen, we must pursue a policy of opening our borders of free trade. Colorado is one State that has historically benefited from the cattle industry and today it remains an important part of our economy.
I will respond to a few specific points that were mentioned by my colleague on the other side. I will talk briefly about the people who became ill as a result of the BSE prion. It is a form of protein, modified virus, in Europe. The diet of Europeans is markedly different than the American diet in the fact that they view brains and spinal cord tissue as a delicacy.
Here in the United States and in Canada, as a part of our processing of meat, we discard our central nervous system tissue, so it does not get into the food supply. We have rigorous enforcement in the United States. Canada has rigorous enforcement. As late as February 22, we had a group of scientists go to Canada, and they reported back to us that the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada was very robust, as it is here in the United States.
But I think the most important thing we learned from the outbreak in Europe, and what we have learned with time, is that the prion, the organism that causes mad cow disease, occurs as a result of ruminant upon ruminant. By using that terminology, I mean that there are food supplements that are developed from animals, mostly ruminants, that then are fed back, either calcium or phosphorus, to the animal. When that happens that provides a vehicle for the transmission of the prion, the infectious organism. It doesn't transmit directly animal to animal by live contact or by human to animal by live contact. It is passed in the food supply when you have a ruminant supplement from another ruminant being fed.
Finally, of the three or four cases that we have in Canada, three of those actually were before the provisions were put in place by Canada and the United States to prevent the consumption of ruminant-on-ruminant feeds--except for one case. But that one case occurred very close to 1997. As a result of more rigorous efforts by both Canada and the United States, I believe beef is a good product, and I plan on eating beef. I do not hesitate for one moment talking to my colleagues about how good I think beef is and how we should not be overly concerned about the health effects of beef in our diet.
The closure of our Canadian border has cost Greeley County, CO, which is one of the largest agricultural-producing counties in the United States, alone, $250 million to $300 million over the past year from diminished economic activity due to declining production at one single meatpacking facility. This is a result of the Canadian border closure. Totally, the economic impact of the border closure throughout the United States is $3 billion. The border with Canada should be open based on sound, scientific principles that ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle food supply.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture approach to these discussions has been rational and science based. Sound science is critical because it separates fact from myth and ignores mad cow hysterics. Television pictures of seizure-stricken cows are intended to draw viewers but do not represent the truth behind the image.
Five other Senators joined me in April of last year in support of the immediate reopening of the Canadian border following these principles. Joining me on a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative were Senators BEN NELSON, Senator CAMPBELL, Senator Murkowski, Senator Hatch, and Senator Brownback.
I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
WAYNE ALLARD,
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, DC, April 6, 2004.
Hon. ROBERT ZOELLICK,
Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC.
DEAR AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention our concerns relating to the present economic and trade situation facing the U.S. beef industry as a result of the Canadian border closure. We ask for your assistance to facilitate the immediate reopening of the border to trade in live cattle, based on sound scientific principles that will ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle inventory and the American food supply.
Since the discovery of BSE in North America, the U.S. beef industry is confronting the most significant challenge in its 105-year history. The economic impact of the border closure has escalated over the past year and the industry is now at a point where difficult decisions are being made to protect long-term job stability. For example, beef processing plants across the country have had to reduce hours significantly to absorb the increasing pressure of the current situation, resulting in job loss and reductions in worker's take home pay. To date, the industry has suffered over a 12 percent reduction in U.S. fed cattle being processed for the domestic and international market place, at an estimated $12 billion loss to the economy and impacting over 80,000 direct and indirect jobs.
As recently demonstrated by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA), there is no body of scientific evidence indicating that there is any potential risk to the American consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 months to enter the U.S. marketplace destined for fattening or slaughter. Toward this end, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) proposed rule to amend its BSE regulations to allow the United States to import live cattle less than 30 months of age from Canada harmonizes the health interests of the American public with the international trade interests of the United States, provided that it is implemented based on sound scientific principles that will ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle inventory and the American food supply. By encouraging more practical, science-based guidelines relevant to BSE risk management, USDA's proposed rule will help restore the U.S. beef industry's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace and protect long-term job stability in the United States.
While the United States cannot unilaterally open trade borders with Japan, Korea and other key trade partners, USDA can act expeditiously with respect to reestablishing live cattle trade with our North American trading partners. We hope that actions can be expedited toward this end as well as with our other trade partners to remove scientifically unjustified barriers to trade.
We appreciate the attention and efforts that you have given this serious matter to date and look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that adequate and science based protections are in place to ensure open and free trade while also protecting the health and safety of all Americans.
Sincerely,
Wayne Allard, United States Senator. Lisa Murkowski, United States Senator. Orrin Hatch, United States Senator. Ben Nelson, United States Senator. Sam Brownback, United States Senator. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, United States Senator.
Mr. ALLARD. The USDA Minimal Risk Region rule should be implemented because it is grounded in solid, sound science and will help end a situation that has wreaked havoc on beef trade for too long. It will protect the integrity of the human supply system and stabilize agricultural trade.
Canada meets the requirements of a minimal risk region, based upon a number of its actions. It has prohibited specific risk material in human food, as we do here in the United States. It placed import restrictions sufficient to minimize exposures to BSE. It has built and structured surveillance for BSE at levels to meet or exceed international guidelines, as we do here. And it has enacted a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. Finally, the appropriate epidemiological investigations, risk assessment, and risk mitigation measures have been imposed.
Opening the border with Canada will help restore the beef industry's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace and protect long-term job stability in the United States.
I have a chart that reflects Canadian beef exports. If we look over here to 2003 when the mad cow disease began to impact Canada, we can see, obviously, that there was a reduction in billions of pounds of carcass weight that was exported from Canada. But here we are moving from 2004. Not all the figures are in, but they are indicating we are going to get a pretty steep climb back in exports from Canada. And based on projections for 2005, exports from Canada are going to reach a historic high, despite the fact they have had mad cow disease in Canada.
These facts come from a reputable analyst, analyzing firm based in Denver, CO, that traditionally cattlemen have relied on to analyze beef markets throughout the country.
Let's look at the chart for U.S. beef imports from Canada. Obviously, in 2003 we saw a reduction in the amount of beef imports from Canada. Again, this is a million pounds of carcass weight over time. What we see in 2004 is that the imports from Canada have exceeded an all-time high, despite the fact that we have mad cow disease.
The point is, we are importing Canadian beef at record levels. We need to change that policy because processors are moving their plants to Canada. More and more people are going into the Canadian beef business. As a result, we are at risk of losing our own market share of beef.
The Greeley Tribune published an editorial stating that the United States must open its border with Canada. The Tribune is published in Greeley, CO, Colorado's most productive agricultural county.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Greeley Tribune, Mar. 1, 2005]
OPEN CANADA TO U.S. BEEF SALAZAR MUST FOLLOW ALLARD'S EXAMPLE WITH JAPAN
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard is to be commended for his letter to the Japanese ambassador last week demanding that the Japanese government reopen its market to U.S. beef products.
Allard was joined by almost 20 other senators in the letter that was hand-delivered to Ambassador Ryozo Kato by Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, who expressed his appreciation to Allard in taking the initiative to address the issue.
In his letter, Allard--a Republican from Loveland and Colorado's senior senator--noted that since the only confirmed case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in the United States, the U.S. government has worked diligently to take the necessary steps to earn the confidence of the Japanese public, in many respects exceeding internationally established scientific requirements. Yet the Japanese government has continued to drag its collective feet in reopening the border.
Allard hinted, rather strongly, that Congress could be forced to take retaliatory actions on Japanese imports--which exceed $118 billion annually--while expressing hope that step would not have to be taken.
Colorado's freshman senator, Ken Salazar, was one of the others who signed the letter.
But at the same time, Salazar has joined eight other Democratic senators who signed a resolution of disapproval of the USDA's proposal to reopen the Canadian border to imports into the United States of live cattle starting this month. Salazar cited safety and accountability as key concerns on that move.
Salazar should reconsider that position.
The Canadian border is already open. Boxes of Canadian beef--beef from the same cattle that are currently being stopped at the border--are flowing into the United States, resulting in a tidy profit for Canadian processors. If science says that beef is safe, then so are the cattle which are producing it.
Economists have estimated that in the first four months the border was open to Canadian beef. Weld County lost about $100 million from diminished economic activity due to the declining production levels at the Greeley beef-packing plant of Swift & Co. alone. That does not include Fort Morgan's Cargill plant.
So keeping the border closed to live cattle is contributing to the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to Canada, which continues to expand its processing industry to handle all its cattle, while the U.S. beef-processing industry shrinks--running about 10 percent below pre-ban averages. The jobs moving to Canada are not likely to return.
Industry officials have determined that re-opening the border will not flood the U.S. market because the Canadian market is relatively current. Those Canadian processors have been running six days a week around the clock to process their cattle, then sell the beef in the United States or in the markets where they compete with U.S. beef.
During his campaign, Salazar said he intended to put his constituents ahead of party politics. yet in this case, he sides with primarily Democratic legislators against the Bush Administration.
This position, being pushed by senators without major beef-processing plants, puts Salazar at odds with the best interests of his constituents and his own state. He needs to put science and the people who helped send him to Washington ahead of politics.
We urge the new senator to follow Allard's lead with the Japanese and call for the U.S. borderto be opened to live Canadian cattle.
Mr. ALLARD. Many of the supporters of the Resolution of Disapproval argue that because of U.S. policies, U.S. corporations are outsourcing jobs. The border closure has allowed Canada to grow its beef industry and increase its slaughter capacity, making Canada into a global competitor. While U.S. jobs are lost because of an unfair trade policy that allows cheap Canadian meat into the United States, they are being replaced in Canada as it bolsters its beef industry. Estimates will show that Canada will have the industry capacity to replace U.S. beef by May of 2005. Supporters of this resolution support the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.
During the past several years, Canada's annual cattle slaughter has been 3.2 to 3.3 million head. This is equivalent to about 65,000 head of cattle slaughtered per week. In 2004, Canadian slaughter was about 30 percent larger than during 2003. In 2005, Canadian cattle slaughter capacity is expected to increase to about 95,000 head per week. Canada is expanding available slaughter capacity in the country so it can be less reliant on the U.S. market to process animals. Reliance on the U.S. market will continue, but Canada will compete effectively against the United States in the world marketplace.
According to the Canadian Meat Council, since May 2003, the Canadian beef industry has increased its daily beef capacity by more than 30 percent. The additional Canadian slaughter capacity that is available, or planned, will allow the Canadian beef industry to increase cattle slaughter totals by about 25 percent from 2004 to 2007.
Thanks to the border closure, thousands of U.S. workers have been laid off or have had their operations suspended. In Greeley, CO, located in the State's largest agricultural county, nearly 1,000 workers lost their jobs thanks to the closure.
Weekly cattle harvests in Canada are up 14 percent, from 72,000 to 82,000 over the past year, and are expected to rise to 95,000 per week by mid-2005, a 25-percent increase over pre-BSE levels. The jobs that go with that increased production probably will never return to the United States.
Prior to May of 2003, cattle imports from Canada accounted for approximately 4 percent of the U.S. production capacity. A number of these animals were also a part of the U.S.-Canadian Northwest Cattle Feeder Initiative. By allowing them to increase production capacity, we threaten U.S. production and marketing.
The average number of imported Canadian cattle for all purposes, between 1970 and 2003, is 795,563 head per year. The highest level of cattle imports was 1.68 million in 2002, and the lowest was 245,000 in 1986. The Minimal Risk Region rule requires animals to be imported exclusively for slaughter. Dairy, stocker, or other livestock segments are prohibited from importing animals for breeding or other purposes.
Frankly, the Canadian border is already open. Boxed beef is coming across the border from Canada in record numbers, numbers higher than they were before BSE was discovered in Canada, creating a public policy windfall for those companies with processing facilities in Canada while punishing those in the United States. U.S. beef imports from Canada set a record in 2004, approaching 1.2 billion pounds, a 12-percent increase over 2002 levels. During 2005, beef imports from Canada are expected to total 1.2 to 1.3 billion pounds.
Increased Canadian packing capacity is expected to increase beef production to more than 3.7 billion pounds in 2005 and exceed 4 billion pounds in 2007.
The unfair public policy is best illustrated in the following example. Canadian packers can buy a cow for about $17 per hundredweight and sell the processing-grade beef for about $123. He can also buy a fed steer or heifer at about $67 per hundredweight and sell the meat for about $132.
In the United States a cow will cost a packer about $55 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $125. The fed steer or heifer would cost about $85 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $135.
This imbalance has led, in part, to the layoff of thousands of people in the processing industry across our Nation. Eventually it will affect the cattlemen because our markets will be less available for those who have live fat cattle.
The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has stated there is no body of scientific evidence indicating there is any potential risk to the American consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 months to enter the U.S. marketplace destined for fattening or slaughter.
I have picked up, as a result of my colleague from North Dakota mentioning the Colorado cattlemen's position--I do have a list of the requirements they are requiring. I have read down through those, and those provisions are being met in the United States, and they are being met in Canada. We have just made a call to the National Cattlemen's Association, and they have indicated to us that they support the position of opposing this resolution. So they understand that the rules and regulations that are being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture do protect the American consumer. They do protect, in the long run, the future of the cattle industry.
I just wanted to call that to the attention of the Members here, and I also want to again refer to my State of Colorado. There are a lot of States that have their economies built upon beef. In Colorado, on exports in general we have about $154 million in trade. We export $97 million. Most of that is in the beef side. We have $51 million of beef that is exported. We import about $97 million. Some of it is live cattle, but a good percentage of it is breads and pastries and cakes and vegetables.
If we do not address this problem, we are going to have a profound impact, in a negative way, on the Colorado beef industry and, throughout the country.
Canada is one of our most important trading partners. Agriculture is a fundamental component of U.S. trade. If we cannot rationally restore the beef and cattle trade with our most important trading partner, I ask the question: How will we ever restore trade on a global scale?
Some 20 Members of the Senate have joined me in sending a letter to the Japanese Ambassador asking him to reduce his import restrictions on beef from the United States. If we don't--and the other countries throughout the world are watching--what we are doing here?
If we don't use good science and if we don't use good sound policy, it is going to have a prolonged impact on our trade policies throughout the world, particularly as it applies to the livestock industry.
From what I understand, USDA appears to support the policies of the World Health Trade Organization. In fact, I think it exceeds what is recommended by the World Health Organization. I think Canada has the same policies, and I think they exceed what is required by the World Health Organization. We are setting the standard for the world.
I feel comfortable in having beef for dinner. When I am asked the question, What's for dinner? I am not going to hesitate to say beef, because I think we have a quality product in this country. I think what is happening in Canada is comparable to what is happening in the United States. I think they are working hard to bring the regulations and rules into compliance with what we have here.
We received a report a week or so ago from a group of scientists who visited Canada, saying they have a robust effort in their rules and regulations, just as we have a robust effort in this country.
Again, when asked the question, What is for dinner? my answer is beef.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding some time to me so I can respond to a number of issues that have been brought up.
First of all, I would like to say that the information we have on the food contents is older information. The newest information we have is from a group of scientists that went to Canada to check on their rules and regulations, on their enforcement. These scientists reported back to us on about February 22 of this year, saying that the rules and regulations are being enforced robustly in Canada. That includes the ruminant on ruminant food regulation where you prevent the consumption of ruminant byproducts by other ruminants. I have confidence in these trained scientists who know what they are looking for and have given us the most recent report on what is happening as far as the food on food regulation.
I would also like to go over some of the positions by the Colorado Cattlemen Association as well as the National Beef Association. They support a minimal-risk region classification, and they support it on the following conditions:
No beef or beef products will be imported into the U.S. from cattle over 30 months of age. That is in place.
All imported feeder cattle must be harvested previous to 30 months of age, and the verification processes must be implemented to track and validate harvest age and location. They are doing that with earmarkings as well as brands.
All cattle direct to harvest must be 30 months of age or younger. That is being done. It is a provision in the rules and regulations.
Minimal-risk regions must meet all processing techniques and regulations relating to BSE as set out by the U.S. That is what those scientists were reporting to us as of the 22nd of February.
Adherence and implementation of a U.S. equivalent ruminant to ruminant feed ban. That is a requirement. That is what the scientists report back, that they are complying with the rules and regulations, and we should not have a concern about it.
And then:
The Colorado Cattlemen's Association is committed to normalizing global trade based on [good] science that protects the health of the beef industry.
And they express that:
Once our concerns have been adequately addressed, CCA will reconsider our position on opening the Canadian border.
The Colorado Cattlemen Association currently supports the minimal-risk region rules that have been put out by the Ag, and the Colorado Farm Bureau currently supports the Canadian reopening. The Colorado Livestock Association supports the reopening, and the National Cattlemen's Association, which is headquartered in Colorado, supports the Department of Agriculture's provision on minimal risk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to emphasize again how very important it is that we proceed on this matter using good scientific evidence. I appreciate the statement that was made by the Senator from Montana. He is right in many regards that we need to be sure that we use good science. I feel good about the enforcement of the rules and regulations based on the visit by scientists who just reported back in February. It is the most recent report that we have on the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada. They are very competent scientists, very dedicated scientists. And what they reported back to us is valid.
From a trade standpoint, we need to do something for our cattlemen. I believe strongly that what we need to do for the cattleman is get the borders opened because we are importing Canadian beef today. It is boxed beef. The reason that is coming in is because our plants can't economically make it. They are having to pay high prices for beef. They only have a limited supply of beef, and so they are not up to capacity. In the meantime, the processing plants, the beef that they are getting is lower cost beef. And then they are putting that on the world market. They are importing that into the United States.
The result is that we see an expansion of the beef industry in Canada. They have got plans to build more processing plants. They are in the process right now of building more processing plants.
That means there are going to be more people raising cattle in Canada. That means if our processors here don't make it like the one in Colorado, we lose our local markets. We lose an opportunity for our cattlemen to readily get their beef to market. That costs in shrinkage and extra transportation costs, particularly when we look at the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel. So this is a problem that needs to be resolved quickly.
We need to move forward with the guidelines that were laid out. By the way, the principles laid out in the guidelines have been used by the cattle industry in this country to control livestock disease, which also affects humans. The principles are laid out here, things like brucellosis. We know in cattle country what that is all about. We have States classified as brucellosis-free, and there are those having problems with that. The movement of cattle back and forth begins with addressing brucellosis in those States. Using those principles, we have been able to reduce the incidence of brucellosis in this country. It works. They are the same principles we are using on BSE and asking for Canada and the world organizations to apply, where we take minimal-risk countries, such as Canada and the United States, and apply those provisions in a good, scientific way.
That is only part of it. The other part is that during the process you don't increase the risk by handling the processes improperly. No. 1, you don't want to circulate the food and feed it back to the cows, the byproducts. That is a policy that has been adopted here and in Canada, and it is something we have learned since the outbreak in the European Community.
So, again, I also compliment Secretary of Agriculture Johanns for his efforts in trying to protect the beef industry and to use good science. He comes from Nebraska. That is a big beef State, as are many of the other States. But the important thing is to recognize that free trade is a benefit of agriculture. It has benefited particularly the beef industry. We want to make sure we get the border open, and we need to use good science in opening it.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, questions were raised earlier about the accuracy of dentition; in other words, looking at the eruption of teeth to identify when the animal is 30 months old. That is pretty exact science. It is very reliable; not to say maybe one or two cows will slip through that are off a month or two. That is why the 30-month period was selected, because this is a disease of slow onset, and when they are under 30 months, we ordinarily do not have to worry about them.
Let us suppose somebody has some concerns about an animal that may be infected with BSE coming across a border. What happens is there are certain rules and regulations where one transfers from Canadian regulation over to American regulation. We only have certain points of entry into the United States, and when that animal comes into the United States, it is very adequately marked. They have ear tags and they are branded so that if something should happen to the ear tags, they still have the brand on the animal.
The only thing that can happen to that animal is it moves into an approved feedlot, it is isolated in that feedlot, for the purpose of slaughter. So that animal then is processed for slaughter. In the processing procedure, all of the central nervous system tissue--the brain, spinal cord--is discarded. It is not used for consumption. If there is a temperature on that animal, it is not slaughtered.
So when one takes into consideration the final steps of the process, they can understand I do not hesitate to suggest that people ought to eat beef. Our beef is safe and the beef processed in this country is safe.
I have a letter dated March 3. It was sent to me and is from Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He states flatly that this resolution should be opposed for the following reasons, and he gives six reasons. He says this resolution should be opposed and in its place would urge the Senate to support an effort to open the Japanese, South Korean, and additional markets for U.S. cattle producers.
I thank those 19 Senators who joined me in writing a letter to the Japanese Ambassador to open their markets to American beef.
Mr. McAdams states that the failure to open these markets has cost the U.S. cattle producers $175 per head and a cumulative loss of nearly $5 billion in income. We need the full attention of the Senate to act on this issue, not to act to block science-based trade policies.
Then No. 2 states:
The resolution supports blocking a science and risk-based analysis and phasing in opening of the Canadian borders. This action does meet the real needs of U.S. cattle producers, as it will give excuses for other countries to block our exports.
Point No. 3 in the letter opposing the resolution:
The resolution should be opposed and in its place, we urge the Senate to support action to ensure the Canadian government eliminates their blue tongue and anaplasmosis trade barriers for all classes of U.S. cattle exports to Canada.
Think about that.
The resolution will allow maintaining the status quo with Canada further accelerating the shift of the packing, processing capacity, and jobs from the U.S. to Canada, and hurting U.S. cattle producers.
The resolution ignores the fact that beef is safe. Analysis of the reports by industry and government clearly indicate that Canada, just like the U.S., has taken the necessary steps to ensure that their beef is safe. This resolution perpetuates fear mongering over nonexistent safety concerns and misrepresents well-documented science doing a disservice to the cattle industry and U.S. consumers.
The USDA has already addressed prior producer concerns of this rule, to the extent that USDA has withdrawn the section of the final rule regarding beef from animals over thirty months.
We urge you to vote NO on this resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov