[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 15 (Monday, February 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1349-S1350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Salazar, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution 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; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the final 
rule promulgated by USDA that designates Canada as a Minimal-Risk 
Region for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE.
  I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle 
imports at this time is premature. Allowing the BSE rule to go forward 
could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in 
this country. Reopening the border poses serious economic risks for the 
U.S. cattle industry. And it complicates our efforts to reopen export 
markets.
  BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. After BSE was first identified 
in England in 1986, Europe was forced to destroy millions of head of 
cattle. And, around the world, dozens of human deaths from Creutzfeld--
Jacob's Disease have since been linked to BSE. So we must be very 
careful before we consider opening our border to imports from a country 
known to have BSE.
  Since the European outbreak, scientists from around the world have 
been engaged in efforts to learn more about the disease. They have 
developed methods to test, control, and eradicate BSE. Through the 
International Organization for Animal Health, known as the OIE, experts 
have designed science-based standards for the safe trade of beef 
products and live cattle from countries that have or may have BSE. In 
particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed 
contaminated with animal proteins containing BSE, it is critical that 
countries adopt measures to ensure that animal proteins and other 
specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed.
  Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have fully followed OIE 
guidelines in developing its rules. Moreover, with respect to Canada, 
USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure that Canada's cattle 
feed is not contaminated with animal proteins.
  The United States has appropriately blocked cattle imports from 
Canada since Canada confirmed its first indigenous case of BSE in May 
of 2003. Concerns were only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a 
dairy cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December of 2003. 
This case resulted in many important U.S. trading partners banning the 
importation of U.S. cattle and beef products--a situation that 
continues today with regard to some of our most important customers.
  So it is very important that USDA move slowly and deliberately and 
evaluate all possible risks before re-opening the border to Canadian 
cattle.
  But the USDA rule does not do this. In particular, Canada has not 
effectively implemented measures to contain and control BSE for 8 
years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has applied a very loose 
and flexible interpretation to the specific recommendations developed 
by the OIE.

  Since USDA announced its proposed final rule designating Canada as a 
Minimum-Risk Region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE 
cases. The most recent one is particularly disturbing because it 
involves a cow born several months after Canada implemented its ban on 
animal proteins in cattle feed. This raises serious questions about 
whether the Canadian feed ban is being effectively enforced.
  These questions are only reinforced by other evidence of lax 
enforcement in Canada.
  For example, numerous Canadian newspapers have reported that Canadian 
Food Inspection Agency tests indicate a disturbingly high level of non-
compliance with Canada's overall livestock feed regulations.
  An article in the Vancouver Sun indicates that secret tests found 
animal proteins that violated Canada's feed regulations in 41 of 70 
Canadian feed samples. More than half of these ``vegetarian'' feed 
samples contained animal proteins. More than half. Clearly, feed 
regulation compliance in Canada is not up to par.
  Since October, 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 
19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are 
contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of those import alerts 
against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force.
  Finally, Canada has recently issued new rules to further restrict the 
Use of animal proteins in livestock feed as well as in fertilizer. 
Canada's own justification for tightening its regulations is to reduce 
the potential for the cross contamination of livestock feed products 
and fertilizers with animal proteins that might contain the BSE prions. 
To me, this suggests that even

[[Page S1350]]

Canadian officials are concerned that the enforcement and compliance 
with existing regulations may be inadequate.
  In addition, as noted in a letter I, along with Senators Harkin, 
Johnson and Salazar, recently sent to Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, 
there is concern, that not enough time has elapsed to be sure that 
Canada's education, surveillance and testing measures are truly 
indicative of their level of BSE risk.
  The bottom line is this. Canada has not achieved the necessary level 
of compliance with OIE rules to justify designating it as a minimal 
risk region.
  Canada's failure to enforce its BSE measures could have serious 
consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border.
  First and most obviously, it would create potential dangers for 
consumers in this country.
  Second, it would pose dangers for the health of our U.S. cattle herd.
  Third, even if we do not end up with BSE-tainted imports, the 
perception of heightened risk for consumers could have adverse economic 
consequences for the U.S. cattle industry.
  Finally, our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef 
exports, even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the 
U.S. I fear that reopening the border now, before we have reached 
agreement on reopening our export markets, will only give our trade 
partners an excuse to further delay reopening these critical markets 
for U.S. producers.
  Yesterday's announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the 
importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 
months of age is a small step in the right direction. However, this 
announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's 
compliance with its feed regulations, which has been cited as the 
primary basis for extending a Minimal-Risk Region designation to 
Canada.
  It was my hope that our new Secretary of Agriculture would withdraw 
the proposal to resume trade with Canada when he learned of these 
serious issues. But it now appears that the only way to stop this rule 
from going forward is for the Congress to block it. Therefore, I hope 
my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution of 
disapproval.
  Then perhaps we can have a meaningful dialogue on how to move forward 
in a way that will ensure the safety of the U.S. cattle herd and help 
open export markets. Our consumers and livestock producers deserve 
nothing less.

                          ____________________