[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 28, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4445-S4446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURAL ISSUES FACING THE COUNTRY
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk today about several
agricultural issues.
First, last week, I met with John Stewart and Bill Fielding. They run
a company called Creekstone Farms that sells premium Black Angus beef
cattle.
Creekstone had a good marketing idea: In the wake of the mad cow
scare, Creekstone thought that one way to re-open the Japanese markets,
which had accounted for 28 percent of our Nation's beef exports, would
be to privately test all of their cattle for BSE, or mad cow disease,
at no cost to the taxpayers.
The Japanese markets have been closed for several months, but they
have said that they would re-open their markets for Creekstone's beef.
Creekstone has built a top-notch laboratory at their headquarters in
Kansas, and they have hired several full-time animal health experts.
But they wanted to do this the right way, so they asked USDA to support
them in their efforts.
The Department actually said ``no.'' They said Creekstone could not
test.
You see, USDA doesn't want to set a precedent that all beef needs to
be tested. They suggest that large meat packers might essentially be
forced into testing all animals. That, USDA contends, would be
expensive and, well, inconvenient.
But nobody is suggesting that the Government mandate 100 percent
testing. If a meat packer wanted to test, however, it might be a good
marketing tool for them.
But the packers say testing would be too cumbersome, that consumers
don't want and don't need testing information.
All of those arguments ring very familiar and very hollow. Remember,
the packers and the Bush administration opposed another marketing
tool--country-of-origin labeling for those very same reasons.
[[Page S4446]]
USDA says that mad cow disease, or BSE, isn't even a public health
issue. They say it is only an animal health issue, but tell that to the
more than 120 people who died from the human form of BSE in Britain. It
was a food safety issue for them. It is a public health issue.
Creekstone even acknowledges, and I agree, that the science does not
now suggest that all cattle need to be tested for BSE. They acknowledge
that. Most experts do.
But consumers don't always base their purchasing preferences on
science. The Japanese, who, by the way, test all of their beef for BSE,
want their imported beef tested, and Creekstone was willing to do so,
but USDA said ``no.''
Isn't this the administration that wants the free market to prosper?
Yet, here we have a willing buyer, the Japanese, a willing seller,
Creekstone, and the Government says ``no.''
Government is telling a U.S. business what they can and can't do to
add value to their product and create a market.
It is kind of like the Government telling automakers they can't have
leather seats. Leather seats aren't needed, but they add value to the
cars and make the product more marketable.
So I am hopeful that USDA will revisit this issue. Creekstone and
other companies want the ability to meet consumer demand, and the
Government should not get in the way.
If USDA wants to establish a testing protocol or some other structure
for the testing to ensure that it is done in an appropriate manner and
that we don't get false positives, I think we can all agree that such
an approach would make some sense. But to deny producers the ability to
use another marketing tool baffles me. I think USDA could and should
have done better, and I urge them to re-examine the issue immediately.
It is also clear that some of the other things that USDA has been
doing need to be reassessed. For example, on Monday, U.S. District
Court Judge Richard Cebull granted a temporary restraining order
prohibiting USDA from importing ground beef and bone-in beef from
Canada.
The judge said, and I agree, that the risk of BSE is simply too great
for us to fail to ensure that we have taken a thoughtful and deliberate
approach to resuming beef imports from Canada.
Both animal health and food safety demand that we take a science-
based approach to the reopening of our border with Canada. Producers
are extremely concerned that USDA has not done so.
The judge has scheduled a May 11 hearing, at which time I hope there
will be a full examination of the process USDA did or did not use in
making their decision to reopen the border.
Ensuring that we get this right is not only important for our
Nation's ranchers. It is important for our export markets and consumers
of U.S. beef.
Another issue I want to discuss today is what I see as an emerging
drought in many parts of the country. The Drought Monitor--a government
map that documents the ongoing extent of drought--already shows some
problem areas.
The yellow here--and you can see this on the map--denotes conditions
across the Southeast, conditions which have continued to deteriorate
for most of that region. Southern California, the area in Oklahoma,
Arkansas, through southern Missouri and into southern Illinois, and up
all the way through Indiana and Ohio and Michigan. You can see that
there is abnormal dryness occurring in that area, even getting into the
lower parts of the northern regions of Texas.
While there were some rains in parts of the upper-Midwest recently,
they missed the western part of Minnesota. And you can see here this is
where the extraordinary conditions are now becoming even more adverse,
creating what the Drought Monitor categorizes as ``severe drought''
conditions, represented of course in the areas here in the orange and
darker areas. The darker the color, the more severe the drought.
In my State of South Dakota, we have been able to avoid some of the
most severe parts, but you talk to ranchers and farmers today and it is
clear that this drought that we now see through almost the entire
western part of the United States is moving east.
South Dakota has now experienced a drought in each of the last 5
years. The experience has been daunting. But there is one thing we have
learned in dealing with drought and other weather-related natural
disasters: Our national polices are wholly inadequate. By any
legitimate standard, our policies have failed.
In 2002 the Senate approved, on a bipartisan basis, an amendment that
I offered to provide $6 billion in disaster assistance. Unfortunately,
the administration blocked its enactment.
But that was then, and today is, hopefully, a different story. Today,
I think we need to take a serious look at what more we can do this
year.
That is why today I am asking the President again to re-examine this
issue, while we still have time. I am urging him to take a fresh look
at what we can do, through an interagency approach, to address what
appears to be another extreme drought this year--already extreme in
some parts of the country, and certainly moving, as we have said, to
the Great Plains States as well.
Although USDA should take the lead in this effort, the SBA, the
Economic Development Administration, and other agencies, including, but
not limited to, FEMA, can all play a role in finding a solution to this
ongoing problem.
That is why I have requested that the President immediately ask the
Federal agencies involved to develop a comprehensive legislative
proposal to address weather-related natural disasters that impact our
Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.
If he does this now, and receives a report back within 45 to 60 days,
the Congress will still have time this summer to enact meaningful
disaster assistance.
In my letter to the President sent earlier today, I pledged that,
once he has provided Congress with such a proposal, I will work with
him and all of my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to approve
whatever disaster-related assistance is necessary to adequately
compensate producers and keep our nation's rural communities vibrant.
We can prepare now for what looks like another very bad year for
agriculture.
Drought victims are no less deserving of Federal assistance than
those who are impacted by a flood, tornado, or hurricane. As Federal
officials, we have an obligation to respond more effectively than we
have in the past.
Working together, with the leadership of this administration, I hope
we can.
____________________