[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 74--RELATIVE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

  Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Roberts) 
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Finance:

                            S. Con. Res. 74

       Whereas the European Union has banned imports of United 
     States beef treated with hormones since 1989;
       Whereas 9 out of 10 United States cattle are treated with 
     growth promoting hormones;
       Whereas growth promoting hormones have been deemed safe by 
     all countries that have reviewed the use of such hormones, 
     including reviews by European Union scientists in 2 separate 
     studies;
       Whereas since the implementation of the European Union ban, 
     United States cattle producers have lost hundreds of millions 
     of dollars in exports;
       Whereas the United States beef industry loses approximately 
     $250,000,000 in annual sales due to the ban;
       Whereas the United States beef industry, the United States 
     Department of Agriculture, and the United States Trade 
     Representative have invested substantial resources to comply 
     with strict dispute settlement procedures of the World Trade 
     Organization;
       Whereas the Dispute Settlement panel and the Appellate Body 
     of the World Trade Organization have ruled that the European 
     Union's ban of United States beef is not based on sound 
     science or supported by a risk assessment and is therefore in 
     violation of the World Trade Organization's Agreement on the 
     Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures; and
       Whereas noncompliance by the European Union regarding the 
     ban on United States beef threatens the integrity of both the 
     Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
     Measures and the World Trade Organization as a dispute 
     settlement body: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the United States expects the European Union to 
     immediately and completely comply with the World Trade 
     Organization's ruling and grant United States beef producers 
     access to the European market; and
       (2) the United States Trade Representative should take 
     immediate action to open European markets to United States 
     beef producers in the event the European Union fails to 
     comply with the World Trade Organization's ruling.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent 
resolution to open the European market to U.S. beef exports. Last 
month, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization affirmed the 
earlier findings of the WTO that Europe's ban on U.S. beef violates 
commitments made under the Uruguay Round Agreement. The decision should 
clear the way for U.S. beef producers to sell their product to Europe.
  This concurrent resolution requests the European Union to open its 
market immediately, in light of the WTO's decision, and directs the 
U.S. Trade Representative to take action if the EU fails to do so.
  This dispute goes back to 1989 when the EU banned all imports of meat 
from animals treated with growth hormones. About 90% of U.S. cattle is 
treated with hormones. They have been found to be safe by every country 
that has studied them. In fact, twice the EU commissioned its own 
scientists to study the hormones and found them to be safe.
  Mr. President, to put these growth hormones in perspective: A person 
would have to eat 169 pounds of beef from an animal treated with a 
growth hormone in order to consume the equal amount of that hormone 
present in one, single egg. They are completely safe for human 
consumption.
  Yet, nine years ago, the EU decided to ban this meat from coming into 
its market. At that time, there was little we could do to counter the 
ban. We negotiated with the EU and even imposed sanctions, but nothing 
has worked.
  Then came the Uruguay Round Agreement. For the first time, members of 
the GATT agreed to eliminate trade barriers not founded on a sound, 
scientific basis. In other words, trade decisions would be made on 
sound science, not political science. Clearly, the beef ban was not 
based on sound science.
  In 1996, the U.S. requested a WTO panel  to  determine  whether  the  
EU had breached the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the Uruguay 
Round. In August of last year, the panel found in favor of the U.S. 
position and the decision was affirmed in January. So the WTO has 
decided that the European's ban on U.S. beef violates the S/PS 
Agreement and must be removed immediately.
  Mr. President, you would think that would be the final word on this 
issue. But the trade press is reporting that the Europeans are looking 
for ways around the decision. They want to study the issue a little 
longer. Even though the ban has already been in place for nine years.
  It seems to me that they have had enough time. Our farmers have 
suffered the effects of this ban for too long. When the ban was put in 
place in 1989, we were sending $100 million of beef annually to Europe. 
If the ban was lifted, it is estimated that beef exports would total 
about $250 million per year. American beef producers literally have 
lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to this unjustified ban.
  This concurrent resolution says to the Europeans, open your markets. 
You would had your day in court, now it is time to abide by the judge's 
decision.
  If the WTO is to have long-standing legitimacy as an objective 
arbiter of international trade disputes, its decisions must be 
respected and complied with. We expect the Europeans to respect this 
decision, just as the United States has complied with the decision in 
the Kodak-Fuji case that went against us. We do not have to like the 
decision. But we have to respect the dispute resolution process.
  The concurrent resolution also states if the Europeans do not 
immediately comply with the decision and open its markets, the U.S. 
Trade Representative should take action. I leave it up to the able USTR 
to decide what action is appropriate. But we cannot stand by and allow 
this decision to be ignored.
  Mr. President, enough is enough. The private sector and several 
government agencies have spent significant time and money attempting to 
resolve this dispute. And they have been proven to be correct. The 
European beef ban is simply a trade barrier, disguised as a health 
concern. No scientific evidence exists to justify it. And the WTO has 
said so. Now is the time for the EU to end the ban and allow American 
farmers and ranchers a fair chance to compete in the European market.

                          ____________________