[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 27-28]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MAD COW DISEASE

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in today's Federal Register, the United 
States Department of Agriculture has published a final rule that could 
have significant adverse impacts on our domestic cattle industry. The 
regulation I am referring to designates Canada as a ``minimal risk 
region'' for BSE, known as mad cow disease, and allows Canada to export 
more beef and beef products to the United States.
  I understand the desire of the administration to work with Canada, 
and I know how frustrated Canadian cattlemen are with the current 
situation. It is the same frustration my Montana cattlemen feel, as 
they watch Australia and New Zealand expand market share in the Pacific 
Rim, while those markets remain closed off to the U.S. But this rule 
has some significant problems, and to the extent that those flaws could 
harm domestic consumer confidence and the reopening of international 
markets, I'm not going to support the administration's decision to open 
the U.S.-Canadian border to increased Canadian exports.
  As I am sure everyone recalls, in May 2003, Canada discovered a case 
of BSE in Alberta. To protect the safety of America's food supply, USDA 
banned all imports of Canadian beef. In December of that same year, a 
Canadian-born dairy cow in Washington State with BSE was discovered and 
so we have the cow that stole Christmas. Important export markets 
around the world closed their doors to U.S. beef, the highest quality 
beef in the world. USDA then instituted a rapid screening pilot program 
to test random cattle samples for BSE. To date, the United States 
thankfully has never had a case of BSE in a U.S.-born cow.
  Since BSE jumped to the forefront of the cattle industry in 2003, 
USDA has been working with other nations, such as Japan and Korea, to 
reopen markets to U.S. beef. In October 2004, Japan agreed in principle 
to begin accepting U.S. beef and beef products from cattle under 20 
months of age. While that agreement represents an important step 
forward, exports have not yet started because of scientific and 
technical obstacles. I remain optimistic that exports will begin this 
spring, and would be very concerned about any decisions that could 
jeopardize our relationship with Japan.
  In addition to negotiating the resumption of U.S. exports, USDA has 
also been working with Canada to resume imports of Canadian beef. USDA 
began accepting Canadian boneless beef from cattle under 30 months of 
age in August 2003. In October 2003, USDA first proposed designating 
Canada as a minimal risk region, but after the December 2003 discovery 
of BSE, the rule was delayed. With the exception of a few incidents, 
that trade has generally been uneventful, and has had little impact on 
U.S. cattle prices. Most importantly, consumer confidence in the food 
supply remains strong.
  But today I fear USDA has gone too far.
  The rule published in today's Federal Register, which takes effect on 
March 7, will allow Canada to export to the United States live cattle 
under 30 months of age for feeding or immediate slaughter; sheep and 
goats under 12 months of age for feeding or immediate slaughter; meat 
from cattle, sheep, goats and cervids--deer, elk, caribou, moose and 
reindeer; and certain other products and byproducts, including bovine 
livers and tongues, gelatin, and tallow. Feeder cattle must be branded 
to indicate country of origin, must have an eartag so we can trace back 
to the premises of origin, and must be slaughtered before reaching 30 
months of age. The identification requirements must be preserved only 
to the point of slaughter, not carried through to the retail level. 
Cattle designed for immediate slaughter must move as a group in a 
sealed container to the facility and must be slaughtered as a group.
  As I said, this regulation has some significant problems, most 
notably, Canada's enforcement of its feed ban and the decision to allow 
beef and beef products from cattle slaughtered at any age. USDA needs 
to withdraw this rule now and fix these problems.
  USDA asserts that Canada has high levels of compliance with its feed 
ban, but fails to provide the hard data that supports that finding. In 
fact, USDA's own risk assessment states that in 2002, 8 percent of feed 
mills were not in compliance with the feed ban. This indicates that 
feed contamination is a recent issue, rather than a concern taken care 
of years ago.
  Even more surprisingly, the risk analysis states that the fact that 
no cases of BSE have been found in animals born after the feed ban is 
evidence that the feed ban is working. USDA claims that this rule is 
based only on science, but that is hardly a scientific assessment. It 
could just as likely be evidence that Canada is not testing enough 
samples in its rapid screening process. Montana ranchers are not

[[Page 28]]

going to rest easy based on these findings.
  On Dec. 17, the Vancouver Sun ran an article indicating that nearly 
60 percent of Canadian feed contains ``undeclared animal parts'', but 
that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, decided not to use DNA 
testing to determine if the feed is contaminated with cattle materials. 
While the presence of animal parts does not necessarily indicate feed 
ban violations, Canada should be willing to take necessary steps to 
reassure the United States, as well as its own cattle producers, that 
the feed is not contaminated. Failing to act represents a lack of 
commitment to enforcing the feed ban, in contrast to the effectiveness 
that USDA is willing to presume. Industry sources quoted in that 
article expressed concern about conflicting messages from CFIA, yet 
USDA seems quite willing to rely on CFIA representations for its 
scientific assessments.
  Similarly, the decision to allow beef and beef products from cattle 
slaughtered at any age is troubling. These products are likely to 
contain animals born before Canada's 7-year feed ban. While USDA seems 
certain that Canada can safeguard against contaminated beef, the rule 
provides little evidence to support that claim. In fact, USDA clearly 
admits that beef products could contain animals that have consumed 
contaminated feed, but brushes off the risk as ``low.'' Let me repeat--
I am certain of the safety of the U.S. food supply. However, I remain 
concerned that USDA has not fully evaluated the impact on consumer 
confidence of resuming Canadian imports.
  In its risk assessments, USDA seems most focused on preventing a BSE 
epidemic. A look at the past year shows that just one case--even the 
suspicion of a case--can throw the cattle markets into a tailspin. One 
single, non-native occurrence of BSE in the United States resulted in 
dozens of export markets closing to U.S. cattle producers. The economic 
and psychological impact of BSE needs to factor into USDA's analysis. 
Cattlemen need to be able to trust their markets, and consumers need to 
be able to trust their food.
  If exports to Japan have not resumed by March, then Montana ranchers 
will be in the unacceptable position of having to compete domestically 
against Canadian beef flowing through three Montana ports without 
having the option of exporting our products to other markets. In fact, 
given concerns already expressed by key export markets about Canadian 
beef, the decision to allow expanded Canadian imports could prevent 
those same markets from accepting U.S. beef. I cannot accept this 
outcome.
  I have often said that I support free trade, as long as it is fair 
trade. Right now, the situation facing Montana cattle producers is 
anything but fair. I urge USDA to reconsider some of the provisions of 
this regulation, to ensure that Canadian beef coming into the U.S. does 
not adversely impact the domestic cattle industry. There must be 
independent assessments of Canada's enforcement of its food ban. The 
30-month limitation on beef and beef products deserves another look. 
Like many folks back home, I am anxious for the Japanese market to 
reopen and do not want anything to stand in the way. We must do what's 
right for the U.S. cattle industry first.

                          ____________________