SJRsMAR14

TheWeekInCongress.com

Week Ending March 4, 2005

Senate Joint Resolution 4 providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture under chapter 8 of title 5, US Code, relating to risk zones for introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

BRIEF

Resolution opponent Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) “On January 4, 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published its final rule regarding further reopening of the U.S. border for beef imports from Canada. This rule designates Canada as the first ``minimal-risk region'' for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, otherwise known as BSE. It is due to become effective on this Monday, March 7, 2005. The original rule would have allowed bone-in beef from cattle of any age and live cattle under 30 months of age.

“USDA utilized the OIE, which is the International Office of Epizootics, the international body that deals with animal diseases worldwide. The USDA utilized the OIE guidelines, which recommend the use of risk assessment to manage human as well as animal health risks of BSE, as a basis in developing final regulations defining Canada as a minimal-risk country.

“The final rule places Canada in the minimal-risk category and defines the requirements that must be met for the import of certain ruminants and ruminant products from Canada. Under the USDA definition, a minimal-risk region can include a region in which animals have been diagnosed with BSE but where sufficient risk mitigation measures are in place to reduce the likelihood of the disease's introduction into the United States.

“On January 2, 2005, Canada confirmed its second domestic case of BSE, and a third case 9 days later. The USDA sent a technical team to Canada on January 24, 2005, to investigate Canada's adherence to the ruminant, ruminant feed ban. The results of that investigation were favorable, finding that the Canadian inspection program and overall compliance to the feed ban were good. The technical team's epidemiological report investigating possible links of the positive animals is still pending.

“In response to this, on February 9, 2005, Secretary Johanns announced USDA would delay the implementation of that part of the rule allowing for older bone-in beef--that is beef in excess of 30 months old--because the technical team's investigation in Canada would not be complete by March 7.

“The current rule now allows imports from Canada of bone-in beef and live cattle under 30 months of age intended for immediate slaughter.”

The Senator continued, “ In the past, a large percentage of Canadian cattle came to the U.S. processing plants for further value-added processing and to provide sufficient livestock numbers to keep in business many U.S. plants near the northern border. Since the closure of the U.S. border to Canadian beef, the Canadian processing capacity increased by 22 percent in 2004 alone.

“This means that those processing jobs and all the added carcass value are now increasingly in Canada and no longer in the United States. This may have especially significant impact on U.S. processors in the Pacific Northwest who have relied on Canadian cattle to keep their plants open. In recent months, several U.S. companies have announced that they are suspending operations or reducing hours of operation due to the tightening cattle supplies and lack of an export market. If we keep our border closed to Canadian-slaughtered cattle and bone-in carcasses, then their meat will still come to the United States as boneless cuts because that is already happening with or without this rule. But the added value and jobs that could be in the United States will increasingly be kept in Canada.”

“In 2003, we exported $1.3 billion worth of beef products to Japan, $814 million worth of beef to South Korea, and $331 million to Canada. In 2004, after the one BSE positive cow was found in Washington State, we exported essentially zero dollars' worth of beef products to Japan and South Korea and $98 million worth of beef to Canada. These countries are aware of our rulemaking and are watching how we address this issue with Canada. We have a huge stake in seeing worldwide trade in beef resume on the basis of sound science rather than on trade protectionism.

“Make no mistake, we are sending a very powerful message today with our actions on this resolution to all of our trading partners. For countries prohibiting beef imports from the United States, whether we continue to adhere to sound science in our dealings with Canada could influence their future actions toward our beef. Canada has met our minimal risk standards, and we must adhere to the policy dictates of sound science or face others using arbitrary standards toward us.”

Resolution Sponsor Kent Conrad (D-ND) “Let me remind my colleagues what happened in Europe when mad cow disease got loose on their continent. One hundred forty-eight people died in England alone. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered in that country. They found 183,000 head that were infected, and they believe there were 2 million head of livestock infected in England alone that they were not able to complete tests on because of the magnitude of the crisis.

“This vote may be critically important to the health of consumers and to the health of an entire industry. Make no mistake. When the question is science, that is precisely what this debate is about. Is, in fact, science being used by our neighbors to the north or are they simply putting regulations on the books that are not enforced?

“The record is clear and the facts will demonstrate conclusively, Canada is not enforcing their own regulations that are based on sound science. But if you don't enforce the regulations, if you don't do the inspections, what does it mean? What does it mean to have on the books regulations that are based on sound science if they are not enforced?

“I introduced S.J. Res. 4 on February 14 pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. It is a resolution to disapprove of the final rule produced by USDA that designates Canada as a minimal risk region for BSE or mad cow disease.

‘Let's review the facts. Canada already has four known cases of mad cow disease. That is not speculation. That is not based on some wondering about what is happening in Canada. That is based on facts, four known cases. In addition, they have one case of a cow imported from England positively tested for mad cow disease. So this is not some theoretical discussion we are having today. They have mad cow disease. It is demonstrated.

“Now the question is, Should we run the risk of opening our border to livestock imports from Canada when the evidence, I believe, demonstrates clearly they are not enforcing their regulations to reduce the risk to them and to us?

“I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle and expanded beef product imports at this time is risky and, I believe, premature. Allowing the USDA rule to go forward could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in this country.”

Sponsor: Senator Kent Conrad (R-ND)

Vote: Passed Senate 52 to 46, 2 not voting (RV 19)

Cost to the taxpayers: No discernible cost

MORE INFORMATION

SJR 4

Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, relating to risk zones for introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture relating to the establishment of minimal risk zones for introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (published at 70 Fed. Reg. 460 (2005)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.