[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4131-4133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  FOOD SAFETY IN THE UNITED STATES AS IT RELATES TO THE MEAT INDUSTRY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, just as a courtesy to whoever may follow, I 
will probably take about 20 minutes on this special order.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot help but notice a myriad of headlines touting 
gloom and doom on the horizon for our Nation's future. Whether it is 
foot-and-mouth disease threatening the world's livestock, the downturn 
in the world's economy, or the energy crisis that is jacking up home 
heating costs to really high levels, many of my constituents wonder 
where to turn for answers. Well today, Mr. Speaker, I would propose 
that America take a second look at its backbone, agriculture, as 
agriculture relates to some of these issues.
  So the first topic I would like to discuss is food safety. The United 
States has one of the safest food supplies in the world. Prior to 
coming to Congress I was a physician and I am a father and I have a 
very keen interest in the issue of food safety. A few years ago, I was 
on an overseas surgical mission; and instead of just bringing back good 
memories, I brought back a case of encephalitis which I may have picked 
up from food overseas.
  When I came to Congress, I cosponsored and helped pass the Food 
Quality Protection Act. It established new safety standards for the use 
of pesticides and required the EPA to use sound science in making its 
decisions. We all have a great stake in helping to ensure that our food 
supply is safe.
  There have been concerns about the safety of food with the spread of 
two diseases in Europe related to the livestock and meat industry: 
Foot-and-mouth disease and mad cow disease. Both of these diseases, 
believe me, are being taken very seriously by the United States 
Department of Agriculture, the USDA, and the livestock industry. A 
little bit of background is in order.
  Foot-and-mouth disease does not pose a threat to humans, but it is 
devastating to livestock herds. The disease attacks cattle, swine, 
sheep, deer, goats and other cloven-hoofed animals. The disease is 
caused by a virus that is very contagious and can be spread by physical 
contact between infected animals and people, animals and other 
material. The virus can persist in contaminated fodder in the 
environment for up to 1 month depending on the temperature and various 
other conditions.
  The disease causes blisters in the mouth and on the feet of the 
animals. It causes them to drool. It causes them to be lame. Let me 
repeat, the disease does not affect humans. This disease causes 
debilitation if the animal lives, and it frequently results in death to 
the animal. The disease is not new, and it has been fairly widespread 
around the world. It was not, however, prominent in areas with 
extensive agricultural trade with the United States until the recent 
outbreak in Great Britain and Northern Europe.
  Let me make a point. There are currently no cases of foot-and-mouth 
disease in the United States. But historically there have been nine 
outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in our country. The last outbreak 
in the United States occurred in 1929. According to the Animal, Plant 
and Health Inspection Service, livestock animals in the United States 
are highly susceptible to the foot-and-mouth disease virus. If an 
outbreak were to occur in our country, it would be essential to detect 
and eradicate it immediately. If it were to spread across the country, 
our livestock industry could suffer enormous economic losses. The 
disease could spread to deer and other wildlife making it even more 
difficult to eradicate, so it is crucial that we keep the virus from 
entering the United States.
  We have always prohibited infected animals and infected animal by-
products from entering the country, but in response to the recent 
serious outbreak in Europe, the USDA has taken the following actions: 
Number one, USDA has temporarily prohibited the importation of swine 
and other ruminants, and any fresh swine or ruminant meat and other 
products of swine and ruminants from the European Union.
  Number two, USDA is preventing travelers entering the United States 
from carrying any agricultural products, particularly animal products, 
that could spread the disease. The USDA has mandated that travelers 
report any farm contact to Customs and USDA officials. All baggage is 
subject to inspection with penalties for violations of up to $1,000.
  Number three, the USDA has established a team of 40 academic and 
government experts to evaluate, monitor and assist in containment 
efforts.
  Number four, the USDA has placed additional inspectors and dog teams 
at airports and other ports of entry to check incoming passengers, 
luggage and cargo. They have stationed USDA officials worldwide to 
monitor reports of the disease.
  Number five, the USDA has conducted a widespread public education 
campaign to make the public more

[[Page 4132]]

aware of this disease and the steps that we can all take to help keep 
our country free of this animal disease.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter and I hope that my remarks 
today are helpful in that public education effort.
  Now, in addition to foot-and-mouth disease, there have also been 
concerns about the cattle disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or 
what is called mad cow disease. It has been featured in many news 
stories. It is usually portrayed in a very ominous and foreboding 
manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, there has never been a 
case of mad cow disease in the United States. Not only has no human 
being ever been affected by it in the United States, but no cow has 
ever been infected by it in the United States, and that is not a 
coincidence. The USDA and the cattle industry have taken extensive 
measures to keep our beef supply safe. Mad cow disease was first 
discovered in England in 1985. Scientists believe that the disease 
began when remains of sheep that had suffered from a neurologic disease 
called scrapie were used as cattle feed. Cows developed a neurologic 
disease called bovine spongiform encephalopathy after eating the 
contaminated feed. It is not otherwise contagious between animals. 
Scrapie is found in some sheep in the United States, but it has never 
caused any health problems in humans.
  Mad cow disease in cattle causes a certain type of protein called 
prions, a normal part of human and animal brain, to become deformed. 
This leads to a degeneration of brain tissue and to eventual death. In 
Europe when they have seen these cases, it has occurred primarily in 
younger people. Although deformed prions are located in brain tissue, 
eye tissue and spinal cords of infected cattle, if humans eat beef 
products containing those tissues, it is possible for them to contract 
a form of the disease.




  About 90 people in Europe have died from the human form of the 
disease which is called Creutzfeldt-Jacob variant disease. All of those 
fatalities occurred in Europe, mostly in Great Britain. I wanted to 
again point out, there have never been any cases in the United States 
of either humans or animals catching this disease. Why is that? Well, 
it is because we have been watching for it. The USDA has been doing its 
job.
  The USDA began taking steps in 1988 to prevent the disease from 
reaching the United States beef industry. In 1989, they banned the 
importation of live ruminants such as cattle, sheep, goats and most 
ruminant products from countries where mad cow disease has been 
identified. In 1990, they began educational outreach efforts to 
veterinarians, cattle producers and laboratory diagnosticians about the 
clinical signs and diagnosis of the disease. They also began an active 
surveillance effort to examine the brains of U.S. cattle for possible 
signs of disease.
  In 1993, they expanded their surveillance to include what are called 
``downer'' cows. These are cows that fall down from a disease, 
frequently on the slaughterhouse floor, not just cows that were acting 
unusual.
  In 1997, the USDA moved to prohibit the importation of live 
ruminants, i.e. cattle, and most ruminant products from all of Europe. 
The Environmental Protection Agency also passed regulations to prevent 
the feeding of most mammalian proteins to ruminants.
  In 1998, the USDA entered into an agreement with Harvard University 
to analyze and evaluate the department's prevention measures.
  In 1999 and again in 2000, the USDA expanded their surveillance 
procedures. In December of last year, the USDA prohibited all imports 
of rendered animal products regardless of species from Europe. The 
restriction applied to products originating, rendered, processed or 
otherwise associated with European products.
  Last month, the USDA suspended importation of processed beef and 
associated products from Brazil, not because there was evidence of 
disease in Brazil, but because they could not document that they were 
taking all steps to prevent the disease in Brazil.
  The USDA has trained more than 250 State and Federal field 
veterinarians throughout the United States to recognize and diagnose 
animal diseases, including mad cow disease.
  In all of that time with the thousands of cattle that have been 
tested, there has never been a single cow found to have the disease in 
the United States.
  There has also been pathology work done on a systematic basis in the 
United States to investigate human deaths caused by neurological 
diseases. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention does this for a 
variety of public health reasons in the study of neurologic diseases. 
There have been no cases in the United States where the patient has 
died from a variant associated with mad cow disease. George Gray, a 
researcher at Harvard School of Public Health stated, ``The chance of 
this becoming a serious health risk in the United States is very low.''

                              {time}  1300

  He also said, ``We won't have a United States' style epidemic here. 
It just won't happen.'' An official of the World Health Organization 
agreed. He said that American officials are ``taking the right measures 
to prevent the occurrence of the disease in their country.'' He added 
that ``the risk in the United States is low.''
  This is not to say that we should stop taking steps to further 
decrease the disease from reaching our country. I plan to ask for 
increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control for surveillance 
of prion diseases to bring us up to the level being spent for research 
in other countries. I have also met with officials from the USDA and 
representatives of the cattle industry regarding this problem. I am 
also willing to support additional measures if the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service feels that that would be helpful in adding 
another layer of protection for our beef supply and for the public's 
health. This is a very serious issue, and it should be dealt with 
responsibly and rationally and calmly.
  Working to maintain and protect our food supplies goes hand in hand 
with building the United States' reputation as a reliable supplier of 
food products to the rest of the world. This, Mr. Speaker, will help 
strengthen our Nation's agricultural economy and our Nation's 
agricultural exports because we have a safe product and other countries 
are going to want that safe product.
  In light of the hoof and mouth disease in other parts of the world, 
it is even more important, in my opinion, to grant President Bush what 
is called ``fast track'' trade authority. Every President should be 
granted the opportunity to negotiate a treaty in good faith with a 
foreign government. Congress should have renewed that authority when it 
expired in 1994. In trade meetings, it is very important for all the 
negotiators to know that Congress will choose either to accept or 
reject the treaty without removing or inserting provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very important for international trade as it 
relates to these animal diseases which I have talked about. Other 
nations are going to be very leery of entering into agreements of 
international agricultural trade. We must be able to craft a treaty 
exactly and to have that treaty voted on without change or I am afraid 
those foreign governments will not want to enter into international 
treaties. Foreign countries are wisely hesitant to agree to contentious 
issues during negotiations if they know that later on when they have 
put their neck on the line with their own citizens that the treaty 
could be undercut by changes or congressional amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, my home State of Iowa is always one of the leading 
States in the production of agricultural products. In a recent year it 
exported more than $3.5 billion in farm commodities alone. It is 
probable that we will export even more meat if our meat remains safe. 
But this may be short-lived once other countries reestablish their 
livestock and then say from their experience with hoof and mouth 
disease, ``We're going to cut off those borders.''
  The ramifications of a trade slowdown based on caution due to animal 
health concerns is not just a problem

[[Page 4133]]

for agricultural products, either. If trade agreements are not reached, 
other sectors of the economy are going to be impacted.
  Iowa firms are very active, for instance, in the area of 
international financial services. Failure to bring trade agreements to 
conclusion can impact their ability to market their products around the 
world. Right now, the two most contentious issues in our international 
trade agreements are agriculture and financial services. And so we have 
a balance going on.
  It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how an issue like hoof and mouth disease 
can impact another area before us, such as international trade on 
financial services. History proves that the free flow of goods around 
the world is beneficial to our economy. Now is not the time for 
protectionism. We must have adequate safeguards at our borders, but we 
must also ensure that we are able to export our agricultural 
commodities.
  And it is not just for our own financial benefit. The Midwest, where 
I come from, is the world's breadbasket. We supply meat and grains to 
the world. When we are looking at burgeoning populations around the 
world, it is very important to prevent famine that we be able to export 
our goods. All one has to do is look back in history. High tariffs and 
retaliatory trade practices turned an economic downturn in the 1930s 
into the Great Depression, pushing unemployment to over 30 percent. We 
must make sure that our animals stay healthy and that we continue to 
promote international trade. It is important for the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, on a final note, the Bush administration has faced many 
important decisions in its first few months in office. I think one 
remaining decision will have long-lasting implications. It involves the 
oxygenate requirements of the Clean Air Act. The EPA is being asked to 
waive the requirement for the State of California. I think this would 
be very damaging if pursued by the administration. I believe the 
President understands the importance of maintaining the current 
requirement and that he will choose not to grant a waiver.
  I was able to talk to President Bush directly on Air Force One when 
he flew back to Iowa recently. I talked to the President about the 
matter of promoting ethanol and banning a chemical called MTBE. This is 
the oxygenate that is used in gasoline around most of the country. It 
is an oil-based oxygenate, an oil-based chemical. I think we have to 
phase that out.
  The EPA has determined that this chemical, MTBE, is a ground water 
contaminant and it is a possible carcinogen. If you take one teaspoon 
of that chemical and you put it into an Olympic-size swimming pool, it 
renders all the water in that swimming pool undrinkable. The stench is 
incredible, much less what it could be doing to your body once it gets 
inside.
  New York, California and other States have taken action to phase out 
and ban the chemical. The same action has been taken by major cities 
like Chicago. That chemical has got to go. It is even getting into 
Iowa's water supply as it comes out the exhaust tail pipes of cars as 
they drive across Iowa. The choice then becomes whether we make a 
sensible transition to a cleaner oxygenate, like ethanol, or just 
eliminate the clean air standards altogether. The reasonable answer is 
to turn to ethanol.
  Opponents argue that the ethanol industry cannot meet the demand. 
That is simply not accurate. The ethanol industry's annual capacity now 
exceeds 2 billion gallons.
  My colleague from New Jersey has arrived on the floor. They are even 
building ethanol plants in New Jersey these days. You do not need to 
use corn. You can use vegetable refuse. You can use any type of plant 
material. You can ferment it. You can create the ethanol. It helps that 
gasoline burn cleaner. It reduces carbon monoxide. We have had a great 
improvement in our Nation's air supply, and the EPA will tell you that 
a large part of it has been due to those clean air standards.
  We can supply the ethanol. The ethanol industry's annual capacity now 
exceeds 2 billion gallons. It has added 226 million gallons of capacity 
in the last year. It will add another 320 million gallons of capacity 
this year. Over the next 2 years, construction is scheduled to begin on 
an additional 1.13 billion gallons of additional capacity.
  Ethanol has twice the oxygen content of MTBE, and so it will only 
take half the volume of ethanol to replace it. The Renewable Fuels 
Association believes that about 580 million gallons of ethanol will be 
needed to fill the need in California and that we can meet California's 
target. Ethanol also provides a great benefit to the rural economy.
  We are talking about an energy policy. We are talking about how 
dependent we are on foreign oil. This is a renewable fuel. The United 
States Department of Agriculture reported last year that replacing MTBE 
with ethanol would increase farm income more than $1 billion annually. 
It would reduce our balance of trade deficit by $12 billion over the 
next 10 years. It would create 13,000 new jobs in rural America. It 
would reduce farm program costs and loan deficiency payments by 
creating an important new value-added market to our grain. Moreover, 
the USDA concluded that ethanol can replace MTBE used in reformulated 
fuels nationwide without price increases or supply disruptions within 
the next 3 years.
  And so I have a bill before Congress. It has a whole bunch of 
bipartisan supporters for this bill, from all parts of the country. I 
would encourage my colleagues to sign on to this environmentally sound 
bill.
  Ethanol production is the third largest use of corn in the United 
States, utilizing about 7 percent of the corn crop. Current levels of 
ethanol production add 30 cents to the value of a bushel of corn and 
adds about $4.5 billion to the U.S. farm economy annually. That will 
help us, Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at this budget. By creating 
an additional demand for corn, we can help ensure that the market price 
will provide a sufficient return on the cost of production to allow the 
farmer to break even, hopefully even turn a profit. That will lessen 
the need for Federal support subsidies that are currently needed to 
keep farmers on the farm. That is beneficial for the producer, it is 
beneficial for the rural economy, and it is beneficial to the 
environment.
  I have pursued this cause of ethanol along with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). We introduced the Clean Air and Water 
Preservation Act of 2001. We have been joined by more than 30 Members 
of Congress who have cosponsored this legislation. Our legislation 
would phase out MTBE over 3 years. It calls on the EPA to assist in 
dealing with groundwater pollution already caused by MTBE. It keeps the 
oxygenate provisions of the Clean Air Act intact. And it promotes the 
use of ethanol.
  At a time when energy is on the Nation's agenda, let us not ignore 
the role of ethanol, the clean-burning, homegrown natural fuel source, 
or the role that agriculture plays in our Nation's prosperity and 
security.

                          ____________________