[Senate Hearing 109-040]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-040
EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) ON U.S.
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF CATTLE AND BEEF
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 3, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
98-459 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
Martha Scott Poindexter, Majority Staff Director
David L. Johnson, Majority Chief Counsel
Lance Kotschwar, Majority General Counsel
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Mark Halverson, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Examining the Effects of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
on U.S. Imports and Exports of Cattle and Beef................. 01
----------
Thursday, February 3, 2005
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia, Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 01
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 02
Coleman, Hon. Norm, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota................ 08
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho...................... 07
Dayton, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota................. 06
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S. Senator from Arkansas.............. 36
Lugar, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from Indiana................. 04
Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska........... 05
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from Kansas.................... 06
Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Senator from Colorado.................. 32
Talent, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from Missouri................. 29
Thomas, Hon. Craig, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................. 06
----------
WITNESSES
Johanns, Hon. Michael, Secretary, United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC, accompanied by Keith Collins, USDA
Chief Economist; and Ron DeHaven, D.V.M., Administrator, USDA
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service..................... 09
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Harkin, Hon. Tom............................................. 42
Allard, Hon. Wayne........................................... 72
Burns, Hon. Conrad........................................... 75
Cantwell, Hon. Maria......................................... 76
Craig, Hon. Larry............................................ 79
Crapo, Hon. Mike............................................. 50
Johanns, Hon. Michael........................................ 57
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche........................................ 53
Lugar, Hon. Richard.......................................... 43
Salazar, Hon. Ken............................................ 55
Thomas, Hon. Craig........................................... 51
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Baucus, Hon. Max............................................. 88
Cochran, Hon. Thad........................................... 90
Donald, Bill................................................. 92
Santorum, Hon. Rick.......................................... 84
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie........................................ 86
Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby........................................ 96
Harkin, Hon. Tom............................................. 97
Baucus, Hon. Max............................................. 130
Coleman, Hon. Norm........................................... 120
Conrad, Hon. Kent............................................ 132
Crapo, Hon. Mike............................................. 116
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche........................................ 128
Salazar, Hon. Ken............................................ 124
Santorum, Hon. Rick.......................................... 141
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie........................................ 144
Thomas, Hon. Craig........................................... 110
----------
EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) ON U.S.
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF CATTLE AND BEEF
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2005,
U.S. Senate,,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Saxby
Chambliss, [Chairman of the Committee], presiding.
Present or submitting a statement: Senators Chambliss,
Lugar, Roberts, Talent, Thomas, Coleman, Crapo, Harkin,
Lincoln, Nelson, Dayton, and Salazar.
STATEMENT OF SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
The purpose of the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry's hearing today is to hear testimony
regarding the impacts of bovine spongiform encephalopathy,
BSE--that is the last time you are going to hear anything other
than ``BSE'' because I do not think we can pronounce it again;
I know Senator Roberts cannot, so we do not want to give him a
chance--on trade and cattle and beef products in North America
as well as the rest of the world.
We are honored to have the Honorable Mike Johanns, our new
Secretary of Agriculture, here to testify today. It was less
than a month ago that this committee held a hearing on the
confirmation of this Secretary and favorably reported his
nomination to the full Senate. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you
back today. We are pleased to have the Secretary here and look
forward to his testimony on this important matter.
I cannot emphasize enough how important this complex issue
is to our livestock industry. I would like to briefly mention
three issues that I believe are involved with this situation.
First is jobs. Having the border closed with Canada for the
past year has already cost our country job losses in
slaughtering facilities in Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio, Mississippi,
and Idaho. If the border continues to remain closed for too
much longer, we will be seeing many more permanent job losses
in other States, including my State and probably at least a
dozen more. Many of these jobs have moved to Canada. More will
likely follow if a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached
soon.
Second is export demand. Having our export markets in Japan
and elsewhere closed to U.S. beef will certainly have a
negative impact on our market here in the U.S. Japan was
importing over $1 billion worth of U.S. beef annually prior to
our first domestic case of BSE. Having trade resume with Japan
is critical to the long-term economic success of our beef
producers and processors.
Last is sound science. It has never been more important to
use sound science to guide decision-making. As we have learned
all too often, when countries stray from sound science as a
basis for making decisions that affect trade, we end up with
arbitrary, artificial barriers that are even harder to
overcome. Many countries have used bogus claims to prevent U.S.
poultry products from being imported. Usually it is done under
the guise of protecting their domestic poultry supply or
protecting consumer food safety. It ends up being an artificial
barrier to trade, usually designed to protect a domestic
producer group from our exports.
We have to be very careful about having legitimate and
sound science as the foundation for all the decisions in this
area if we want to be credible regarding our commitment to
sound science in the international trade world.
Before I recognize my Ranking Member, my friend Senator
Harkin, for his comments, I would like to add one other thing.
While we hope today's hearing will be as comprehensive and as
helpful as possible, I do not expect Secretary Johanns to be
able to answer every question about every issue, because I know
there are some issues that are not quite ripe enough for final
answers today.
For instance, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
will soon be completing its follow-up review of the FDA's feed
ban implementation. The FDA itself has a pending rule-making on
to these matters. USDA's Office of Inspector General will be
releasing a report later this month pertaining to some of
USDA's administrative actions with respect to beef imports.
Currently, two lawsuits are pending against USDA regarding this
situation. I only mention these to show that I see a need for
this committee to probably have a subsequent hearing or
briefings on some of these matters as they become timely.
At this time I will turn to my friend Senator Harkin for
any comments he has to make, followed by any statements that
other members wish to make at this time. Senator Harkin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
calling this hearing. I again welcome the new Secretary and
congratulations again on your speedy confirmation here and your
swearing-in by the President. We certainly are delighted that
you are here today to talk about this very important issue.
As you know--and I will get into this in the questions--Mr.
Secretary, a number of us sent you a letter the other day about
this because this is a big concern, of course, in my State and,
as the chairman has said, all over the country. We need to
review this final rule that is supposed to be effective March
the 7th defining BSE minimal risk region and that would allow
live cattle and expanded beef trade with Canada.
This minimal risk rule raises questions not just about
expanding beef and cattle trade with Canada. There are also
questions about the effectiveness of anti-BSE measures in the
U.S. and Canada, and also broader U.S. efforts on our two-way
trade, as the chairman mentioned, especially with Japan and
South Korea.
I guess what bothers me is that the USDA--and you speak
about it in your prepared statement, Mr. Secretary, about using
sound science as the basis for making decisions. We all agree
on that. USDA says it is relying on OIE guidelines for defining
what is minimal risk. The rule ignores OIE standards in key
respects.
My question is: Is the Department saying that OIE is not
science based? I would like to know what this Department is
saying about that. If we are going to rely on science and if we
want to be in a global trading environment, it seems to me that
the O.I.E are the recognized world reference body. What I see
is that we are backing down from their recommendations in this
proposed final rule.
We need to reconsider adopting the OIE guidelines fully
unless you can show us that they are not science based; and
that we ought to work with our major trading partners using
these guidelines as a reference to have a comprehensive common
framework for deciding whether a country has minimal risk
standards.
Some of us also believe that we should maintain the ban on
beef from cattle over 30 months of age, and we are also calling
to delay the March 7th effective date until these concerns are
addressed. It just seems, finally, that USDA departures from
the OIE guidelines seem very likely to complicate our goal--our
goal of restoring trade with Canada. They are our friends, our
neighbors, our allies. We love Canadians. They have just got to
get their house in order. Second, it complicates our efforts to
develop this common framework with other trading partners
around the world to establish true minimal risk status.
These are the areas that I will be covering with you, Mr.
Secretary, in the question-and-answer period when we get to it.
Again, I compliment you. Thank you for being here today. I know
this is a tough issue, but it is one that concerns the health
and safety of our people, and it concerns our international
relations in terms of export markets, too.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin can be found in
the appendix on page 42.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Harkin.
At this time I will open it up to any statements that any
of our committee members wish to make, but before doing so, let
me say that we have had a number of requests from other members
of the Senate, not members of the committee, to testify today
or submit testimony, and we are going to accept written
testimony today from a number of other Senators. Senator Harkin
and I will make a joint decision later on with respect to
future hearings as to whether Senators will be allowed to come
testify or whether we are just simply going to ask for written
testimony from members.
At this time I will turn to Senator Lugar for any comments
he might want to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for this hearing on BSE. Thanks to the Secretary for your
appearance.
The proposed opening of the Canadian border on March 7th
has fueled much debate in the United States cattle industry
and, likewise, concerns have been raised regarding our ongoing
inability to export beef to Japan. I am interested in learning
more today about how these situations may cause negative, long-
term changes in our agricultural infrastructure markets and the
security of our food supply.
Because the United States is the world's foremost economic
power and the country with the most open markets, trade
agreements that open other markets to our goods are very much
to our advantage. That is why with respect to BSE it is both
important to resume beef trade with partners we typically
export to, like Japan, while also abiding by those same
standards and resuming trade with the country that typically
exports to us, Canada. For the United States economy to grow,
we cannot passively depend on selling only to our domestic
markets, which is essentially the precedent we will create by
prohibiting trade through non-scientifically based protections.
Ninety-seven percent of the world's population and 67
percent of the world's purchasing power is located outside the
United States. We must compete aggressively in the growing
world economy, and we must not surrender our trade advantage in
our own hemisphere by allowing industry to shift by employing
protectionist measures. I am keenly aware that many cattle
producers are fearful that a large number of Canadian cattle
will flood domestic markets, severely diminishing returns on
their own animals. I believe USDA originally predicted that
nearly 2 million cattle may become available to our market
should the ban be lifted. Others have suggested these numbers
are incorrect and that the number is more likely to be in the
range of 900,000 animals.
Regardless, it is very important that this committee
understand what may happen to our own markets when the Canadian
border is open and work to mitigate any severe market
fluctuations that could occur. However, I do not hold the
belief that we should maintain a closed border based primarily
on the interest of stimulating market prices, while as a Nation
we are strongly advocating the acceptance of many of our
agricultural products elsewhere based on scientific standards.
To abandon that approach in this situation severely undermines
our position across the board.
I am also aware of the food safety concerns associated with
resuming cattle and beef trade with Canada, and I am hopeful
that the hearing today will address the issue and apprise the
committee what the USDA will do to ensure the public safety.
The security of our food supply is of the utmost importance,
and our trade agreements must ensure that our food supply
remains the safest in the world.
In addition, I hope the committee is able to ascertain what
is happening to our domestic cattle infrastructure as a result
of our closed Canadian border and inability to export meat to
Japan. I have great concern that by not resuming cattle trade
with Canada we are shifting our processing capacity to that
nation. I am concerned that while the U.S. beef industry is
closed out of Japan, other nations will begin to supplant us as
a high-quality beef provider.
There are many challenges facing this committee concerning
the issue of BSE. I look forward to working with all members of
the committee to ensure a vibrant domestic cattle industry and
a safe food supply for our citizens.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar can be found in
the appendix on page 43.]
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEBRASKA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
welcome to the committee once again. I appreciate very much
your diving into the most difficult issues early on, and thank
you for your commitment.
You will learn, as you testify before this committee and
other opportunities that will be there, that no matter how many
times it has been said before, if I have not said it, it
probably has not been said. A little bit of repetition will
occur in spite of our efforts to be brief and original.
You have already heard the nontariff trade barriers that
are being suggested and how we need to deal with those. The
chairman has alluded to chicken wars and other kinds of trade
challenges that we face. What we need to do here is focus, as I
know you are, on sound science, but we also must be mindful of
the trade implications of reopening the market to live cattle
from Canada.
You are also aware of the inconsistency that is impacting
the U.S. beef industry by permitting boxed beef or processed
beef to come from Canada as imports. We have a terrible
inconsistency there that has caused many producers and
processors to say it is either open to both or how can you have
it open to one and not the other if it is sound science that we
are concerned about and legitimizing some of the questions that
have been raised about the Canadian processing as it relates to
feeding their live cattle.
You are faced with dealing with exports, a trade issue. You
are faced with food safety, sound science, and at the same time
some consistency as it relates to the American market. Those
are all challenges. I know that you are anxious to get to your
statement, and we will not further delay that. Thank you for
your commitment.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Roberts, would you hit your button there, please?
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, is it your desire that we go
under the 5-minute rule? Then obviously go in the order of
appearance. Would there be a second round? I have ten
questions. I am not going to ask ten questions. I will submit
six for the record. There will be four questions. Rather than
making an opening statement, I would rather reserve my time for
those questions. Could you provide that information as to a
possible second round?
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, are you under a time
constraint?
Secretary Johanns. I am not, other than this afternoon, at
3:30, I fly to San Antonio to be with the cattlemen tomorrow.
Senator Roberts. I can assure the Secretary that my
questions are not going to last to the degree that it would
interfere with your plane, unless, of course, your answers
would be that long. I do not anticipate that.
The Chairman. My reason for the question is that since this
is such a sensitive issue, I want to give every member of the
committee a full opportunity to ask all their questions.
Senator Roberts. We will be operating under the 5-minute
rule, or 6 or 8 or what?
The Chairman. The 5-minute rule with as many rounds as it
takes to get all your questions in.
Senator Roberts. The only other observation I would say is,
Mr. Secretary, you have two excellent shotgun riders to your
right and left, and Dr. Collins and Dr. DeHaven do an excellent
job.
The Chairman. Senator Dayton.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK DAYTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, this, as the record should show, is not a
policy of your creation, but you have inherited it. It
continues the very unfortunate pattern in U.S. trade policies
of harming American businesses and workers and shifting
production and jobs to other countries. This policy that has
been proposed creates a dream world for Canadian producers and
processors and nightmares for American cattle producers,
processors, and the workers in those industries. It is no
wonder then that they are increasingly cynical toward and
distrustful of their government. Today it is imperative, and we
still have the opportunity, to put this Federal Government
policy back on the side of Americans rather than foreigners.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I do
not have much new to say, but I simply want to reinforce what
has been said here, that the safety of our food, of course, is
our biggest concern, and we are all concerned about that. We
have some of the best and safest in the world, of course, and
we want to keep it that way.
We are very concerned about the rule and what will happen
to it in the future. Senator Burns and I, and Senator Thune,
are going to introduce a bill this afternoon that would have
some impact on it, as a matter of fact, and would not allow the
beef over 30 months of age to come over and so on. That will be
something we will have to all work at together.
I guess one of the real issues is to make a determination
on the Canadian compliance with ruminant feed and the BSE
safety measures and so on. This obviously in our industry is
one of the most important things that we have to deal with. You
understand that. I hope that, if nothing else, we can take a
long look at the present regulation and hopefully to get some
expansion of time or eliminate it, one or the other. Thank you
for being here, and we will be talking with you about it.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas can be found in
the appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. Senator Crapo.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Harkin, and
thank you, Secretary Johanns, as well as Dr. Collins and Dr.
DeHaven, for being here with us today.
With the final rule to reopen the U.S. border to live
cattle trade in Canada due to go into effect March 7th, this is
an opportune time for us to discuss the effects of the BSE
issue on cattle and beef trade. Secretary Johanns, I know you
understand the importance of this issue to the cattle
producers, processors, and the communities that we represent,
and I look forward to the discussion today.
There have been many challenges in dealing with the
unfortunate discoveries of BSE, and one very critical challenge
has been with regaining our foreign markets. I commend you for
the efforts that you have already put forward during your short
time as Secretary of Agriculture to regain our export markets,
and I was pleased to see that you asked the Japanese Government
to set a date for the resumption of U.S. beef trade. Frankly,
the Japanese trade issue is directly related to the Canadian
trade issue that we are dealing with here, and I would
appreciate all of the strong effort and aggressive push you can
make to make sure that we resume Japanese trade. We all hope
that date comes swiftly, and ideally before March 7th.
Due to Idaho's geographic location, Idahoans have benefited
greatly from trade with the Pacific Rim countries, and
prolonged closure of the Asian market hurts the Idaho producers
and our economy. Many are looking to you to continue to push to
get our markets open, and I look forward to the day when the
U.S. can once again ship our beef products to these markets.
Additionally, the continued absence of our key export
markets has contributed to the suspension of domestic beef
processing operations in the United States, including
processing here in Idaho. I understand the chairman mentioned
that. I am holding a press release right now from Tyson
indicating that they are continuing the closure of their
operations in our area.
This is very concerning because it not only results in a
loss of jobs and revenue for our economy, but it also decreases
the processing options for cattle producers. This results in
cattle producers being forced to ship greater distances,
driving up production costs. Far too many American companies
and cattle producers are suffering similar problems, and I have
concerns and questions about an aspect of the rule that I feel
could make this problem worse. Senator Thomas has just referred
to it. Specifically, I am concerned with the portion of the
rule that provides for the import of beef over 30 months of
age, even though cattle over 30 months of age will not be
allowed to be imported.
It is inconsistent to ban cattle over 30 months of age
while allowing in boxed beef over 30 months of age. When the
U.S. border was open for the importation of beef products under
30 months of age but not cattle to be processed at U.S. plants,
a vast opportunity was created for Canada to increase their
beef processing capacity for export of beef products to the
United States. Canada seized this opportunity and reportedly
increased their processing capacity by 20 to 30 percent. U.S.
cattle producers and our economy are impacted as domestic
processing capabilities are squeezed and shifted above the
border. This problem is poised to be expanded upon through
broadening the scope of products to be imported from cows that
are banned from importation. I would note--I doubt that you
have seen it yet, but the entire Idaho delegation has sent you
a letter today expressing these concerns and expressing our
hope to work with you on correcting this and some other aspects
of this rule.
I have further questions regarding this matter that I will
raise during the questioning portion of the hearing. Again, I
welcome you here today and look forward to the discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo can be found in
the appendix on page 50.]
The Chairman. Senator Coleman, we are departing from normal
procedure and giving all members an opportunity for an opening
statement, if you would like to make any comments, you may do
so at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just briefly.
First, it is a great pleasure to have the Secretary before
us, and I know he is working hard already.
I am going to start by associating myself with the comments
of my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, both in regard to
the concerns about Japanese trade and simply getting the market
open and saying that I--and I share his belief that this issue
of opening the market to Canada is in a way tied to what we
have to do with the Japanese. Each and every day that the
market is closed to a place like Japan and South Korea, what
happens is we have a huge competitor like Australia, and they
are not sitting back, and they are the main beneficiary, and
they are grabbing an even larger share of the world market. It
is going to fight to keep that.
Even if we get this done--and every day that we lose is a
day that hurts our producers--we are going to have a battle. We
are going to have to work like heck to regain what we lost, and
it is going to be tough.
I associate myself with the comments of my colleague from
Idaho. This may be when we have just got to get it done. Maybe
the President personally has to get involved. We have to get
this done.
I also associate myself with the concerns raised about
importations of beef over 30 months old while banning cattle. I
would hope--and I will follow this up during my question
period. You know, have we analyzed this? Have we looked at the
economic impact that this has? What is your assessment, Mr.
Secretary? We need to understand that.
There are a number of concerns. I am someone who believes
in trade. I am someone who believes that we have to in the end
rely on sound science. That is what this is about, sound
science. I want the folks who are part of our export
opportunities to operate that way and we have to operate that
way. That is critical. We have to get these markets open, and
we have to get them open soon.
I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, again, we welcome you, and as with Senator
Roberts, we recognize you have two of our long-time experts in
their respective areas with you. Dr. Collins and Dr. DeHaven,
we appreciate you being here in support of the Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, we will turn it over to you, and we look
forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL JOHANNS, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
ACCOMPANIED BY KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND RON DeHAVEN, ADMINISTRATOR,
ANIMAL & PLANT HEALTH
INSPECTION SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Secretary Johanns. Chairman Chambliss, Senator Harkin,
members of the committee, thank you for holding this very
important hearing today, and thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify. As has been noted, accompanying me
today are Dr. Keith Collins, USDA's Chief Economist; Dr. Ron
DeHaven, the Administrator of USDA's Animal & Plant Health
Inspection Service. I will be calling on them for help in
working through your questions. I do ask that my full statement
be included in the record.
Before I begin, if I might, I would like to take this
opportunity to say thank you to all of you for your
professionalism, your courtesy extended to Stephanie and me
during my recent confirmation process. I appreciate the close,
positive working relationships that we have begun forging, and
thanks to the diligence of this committee, it was an honor and
a privilege for me to be the first Cabinet member that was
confirmed during President Bush's second term. It is therefore
a pleasure to return today for my first hearing as Secretary.
I have said frequently that addressing BSE issues,
especially as they relate to trade disruptions, would be my top
priority as Secretary. I have also heard from this committee
quite clearly on this topic, and I believe very strongly, that
we are all on the side of American agriculture. The committee
and your constituents have also posed some very useful, valid
questions that deserve thorough examination, which I hope this
hearing will provide.
The actions that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Federal Government are taking in regard to BSE are potentially
precedent-setting and could affect international trade patterns
for years to come with important economic implications for our
cattle producers in the entire beef industry. Therefore our
actions must be taken with the utmost deliberation, using
science as the basis. In the absence of that science, sanitary
and phytosanitary or SPS restrictions will be used arbitrarily
by many nations without any basis of protecting human or animal
health. Accordingly, this hearing could not be more timely.
I want to be very clear that while protecting human and
animal health must remain our top priorities, I am confident
that we can seek to return to normal patterns of international
commerce by continuing to use science as the basis for
decision-making by U.S. regulatory authorities and our trading
partners.
Almost exactly a year ago, Secretary Veneman appeared
before this committee to discuss BSE. In the time since then
much has transpired. A scientific international review team was
convened to review our response to BSE. A greatly enhanced
surveillance program was designed and established. Our
laboratory infrastructure was greatly expanded. A minimal risk
rule aligning the U.S. with international standards was
proposed and finalized.
Let me briefly discuss USDA's enhanced surveillance
program, which began June 1, 2004. Our goal is to test as many
high-risk cattle as possible in 12 to 18 months. The plan was
reviewed by an international scientific review team which
characterized it, and I am quoting here, ``comprehensive,
scientifically based and address[ing] the most important points
regarding BSE surveillance in animals.''
If we test 268,500 animals we will be able to detect the
presence of as few as five targeted, high-risk cattle with BSE
at a 99 percent confidence level. To date, some 8 months later,
more than 200,000 animals have been tested, all of which have
been negative.
The role of producers, renderers and others in helping
obtain samples of high-risk animals has been indispensable to
the success of the surveillance program. I might mention the
cooperation we have received has been outstanding. Although
additional positive may be found, the results so far are
promising.
On December 29, 2004, USDA announced the final minimal-risk
rule, which designated Canada as the first minimal-risk region
for BSE, and which will become effective, as you have noted, on
March 7, 2005. This rule is an important step in aligning U.S.
policy with international standards.
On January 2, 2005, Canada confirmed its second domestic
case of BSE in a cow that was born in October 1996, the first
since May 20th of 2003. It was followed 9 days later by a third
case, an 81-month-old cow.
On January 24, 2005, USDA dispatched a technical team to
Canada. We sent the team to investigate the efficacy of
Canada's ruminant to ruminant feed ban because the animal was
born shortly after the implementation of the ban, and to
determine if there are any potential links among the positive
animals. We have appreciated Canada's cooperation and their
willingness to assist in these efforts.
The team is composed of experts from several USDA agencies,
APHIS, the Agricultural Marketing Services, the Foreign
Agricultural Service, and advisers from the FDA. We have been
receiving regular updates from the team. We expect an analysis
on the feed ban issues in mid February, and results from the
epidemiological investigation by the end of March. This
information will be critical as we consider whether any
adjustments to current policies are warranted.
As you are aware, USDA's minimal-risk rule has come under
legal challenge. We will continue to strongly defend the
promulgation of the rule, which was transparent, deliberative
and science-based.
The final rule establishes criteria for geographic regions
to be recognized as presenting minimal risk of introducing BSE
into the United States. It places Canada in the minimal-risk
category and defines the requirements that must be met for the
import of certain ruminants and ruminant products from Canada.
A minimal-risk region can include a region in which BSE-
infected animals have been diagnosed, but where there is
sufficient risk mitigation measures put in place to make the
introduction of BSE in the United States unlikely.
Because the rule permits the import of live cattle under 30
months of age and ruminant products from older animals, it is
useful to note the risk mitigation measures. They include:
proper animal identification; accompanying animal health
certification that includes information on individual animal
identification, age, origin, destination and responsible
parties; the movement of the cattle to feedlots or slaughter
facilities in sealed containers; the prohibition on cattle
moving to more than one feedlot in the United States; and the
removal of specified risk materials from cattle slaughtered in
the United States.
We remain confident that the combination of all of these
requirements, in addition to the animal and public health
measures that Canada has in place to prevent the spread of BSE,
along with the extensive U.S. regulatory food safety and animal
health systems, provides the utmost protection to U.S.
consumers and to livestock.
USDA continues to monitor Canada's compliance with its BSE
regulations. In addition to the investigation that I have
already discussed, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service is
continuing to work to ensure Canada's compliance with the BSE
requirements in the United States.
I am aware of concerns with the portion of USDA's minimal-
risk rule that would allow meat from animals over 30-months of
age to be imported from Canada, but continue the prohibition on
the importation of live animals of the same age for processing
in the United States. Some have suggested that going forward
with this new rule will change the historical beef-trading
patterns in North America to the detriment of U.S. packers.
As Secretary of Agriculture, I believe that the marketplace
should determine cross-border trading patterns. We must make
every effort to avoid policies that favor one group of packers
over another. Decisions, however, related to sanitary and
phytosanitary measures must be based in science.
I can assure you that I will be reviewing this issue very
carefully in the days ahead as we move closer to the March 7
implementation date.
I simply cannot emphasize strongly enough the central role
of science in the entire process, particularly with regard to
the rigorous evaluation of risk. Since the discovery of the
first case of BSE in Great Britain in 1986, we have learned a
tremendous amount about this disease. That knowledge has
greatly informed our regulatory systems and our response
efforts.
We have learned that the single most important thing we can
do to protect human health regarding BSE is the removal of SRMs
from the food supply. Likewise, the most significant step we
can take to prevent the spread of BSE and bring about its
eradication is a ruminant to ruminant feed ban. It is because
of the strong systems the United States has put in place,
especially these two essential firewalls, that we can be
confident of the safety of our beef supply, in that the spread
of BSE has been prevented in this Nation.
After Canada reported its first case of BSE in May 2003,
USDA conducted a comprehensive risk analysis to review the
potential threat that was posed. The initial analysis followed
the recommended structure of the World Organization for Animal
Health, or OIE, an drew on findings from the Harvard-Tuskegee
BSE risk assessment; findings from the epidemiological
investigation of BSE in Canada; and information on Canadian BSE
surveillance and feed ban, and history of imports of cattle and
meat and bone meal from countries known to have BSE.
The results of that analysis, available, I might add, on
the USDA website, confirmed that Canada had the necessary
safeguards in place to protect U.S. consumers and livestock
against BSE. These mitigation measures include the removal of
SRMs from the food chain supply, a ruminant to ruminant feed
ban, a national surveillance program and import restrictions.
The extensive risk assessment conducted as part of USDA's rule-
making process also took into careful consideration the
possibility that Canada could experience additional cases of
BSE.
In the risk analysis update for the final rule, USDA also
considered the additional risk protection from new slaughter
procedures, such as the prohibition on the use of downer
animals for food.
The OIE recommends the use of risk assessment to manage
human and animal health risks of BSE. OIE guidelines, based on
current scientific understanding, recognize that there are
different levels of risk in countries or regions, and suggest
how trade might safely occur according to the levels of risk.
USDA used OIE as a basis in developing our regulations defining
Canada as a minimal-risk country.
While SPS regulations protecting human and animal health
are the foremost concern, USDA also has examined the potential
economic impacts of the minimal-risk rule and related BSE trade
issues as required by Executive Order 12866.
The cost benefit analysis conducted as a part of the final
rule indicates that U.S. beef imports from Canada are projected
to actually decrease slightly in 2005, as Canada shifts its
slaughter capacity to lower-yielding older cattle not eligible
for export to the United States. At the same time, imports of
fed and feeder cattle under 30 months are expected to increase
in 2005, which is expected to drive up U.S. beef production,
reduce beef prices slightly, and consequently, reduce cattle
prices.
The precise economic effects will depend on the timing and
the volume of cattle and beef imports from Canada. In addition,
to the extent that we can continue to open markets that are
currently closed to our beef, U.S. cattle price prospects will
strengthen.
U.S. market maintenance activities have been critical in
helping restore our beef export markets. In 2003 the total
export value of U.S. beef and ruminant products was $7.5
billion. After December 23rd, 2003, 64 percent of that market
was immediately closed. Today we have recovered well over a
third of that, so that 41 percent of that market or 3.1 billion
remains closed. Two countries, Japan with 1.5 billion and Korea
with 800 million, account for three-quarters of the existing
closures.
As a leader in the critical Asian market, Japan is a vital
market to reopen to U.S. beef exports. We are aware that the
decision to resume trade in this market will set an important
precedent for trade resumption in many other markets.
Therefore, we have endeavored to use science in our ongoing
efforts. Efforts to reopen this market have drawn on resources
across the Federal Government, and I might add, at the highest
political levels. As I had previously said, this issue has
occupied much of my first few days as Secretary. Just last week
I met with Ambassador Kato, and also wrote to my counterpart,
Minister Shimamura, on the importance of this issue. At the
same time, Ambassador Baker continues to press this issue with
Government of Japan officials in Tokyo and other U.S.
Government officials continue to contact their counterparts.
These efforts are just the latest in many policy
discussions and technical exchanges over the past 13 months.
Indeed, the issue has been a major focus of direct discussions
between President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi.
While we are focusing on Japan because of our important
trading relationship and its leadership role in the region, we
are also pursuing efforts to reopen all markets that are closed
to us. We are actively engaged with Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
China, Egypt and Russia, and have specific actions under way in
each market to get trade resumed. I would be pleased to provide
members upon request additional detail on these and other
secondary markets. While the progress that has been made has
taken far longer than we had hoped, progress is indeed being
made. I have stated that USDA, and indeed the entire U.S.
Government, will exert every effort to resolve the matter at
the earliest possible time.
As traditional trade barriers such as tariffs are lowered,
our focus to eliminate unjustified non-tariff barriers such as
non-science-based SPS regulatory measures become all the more
important to maintain the flow of mutually beneficial trade.
For USDA a common touchstone across these issues is the need to
maintain consistency and predictability, to base our domestic
regulations on science, and to encourage the use of science-
based solutions within the international community. The United
States has long been a leader in this regard, including
negotiating the World Trade Organization agreement on the
application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures during the
Uruguay Round.
Even before the discovery of a single case of BSE in the
United States, USDA had begun talking with other countries
about the need for international trade standards to keep pace
with the science, and we will redouble our efforts in this
regard.
It is also critical that domestic trade rules reflect the
current state of knowledge regarding BSE, and here the United
States is leading as well. We are confident that trade can be
resumed with countries where BSE has been discovered,
contingent upon strong protections within those countries, as
well as the robust and effective regulatory system those
imports are subject to when they enter the United States. These
facts are reflected in the minimal-risk rule.
At the same time we will continue to work with our trading
partners to ensure the ongoing strength of their own BSE
protection systems, especially the removal of SRMs and the
implementation of the feed ban. While trade opportunities are
multiplying in an increasingly global marketplace, we must
remain mindful of our paramount responsibility to protect the
public health and animal health.
In summary, I am confident that we are continuing to keep
the protection of public and animal health foremost in our
concerns. It is critical that we continue to use science as a
basis for our decisions and regulations, and that the United
States maintain its leadership role in advancing our scientific
understanding of these kinds of SPS-related issues and
appropriate science-based responses.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for holding this
important hearing. I would now be pleased to take any questions
you or other members would have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
In May of 2003, when the first BSE case in Canada was
discovered, a decision was made by the Department to close the
border. I assume that decision was made on the basis of sound
science. Would you explain what the position of the Department
was that led to that decision and what has changed since that
time which now compels the Department to change its mind and to
reopen the border?
Secretary Johanns. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this process
has evolved now over an extended period of time. You referenced
back to May of 2003. We might even reference back to the
situation in Europe.
During that period of time since May of 2003 we have
learned so much more in this country in terms of what this
disease is all about. Think about where we have come in that
period of time. We put in place an aggressive surveillance
system. Quite honestly, once the system was designed, I am not
entirely certain we knew exactly what we were going to find. We
knew we had a goal in terms of the number of cattle. We wanted
to test at least 268,500, but we would test more within that
12- to 18-month period of time. As of today we have tested
about 200,000, and we have not found a case of BSE.
The other thing that I would mention is that we have also
understood a lot more about managing the risk involved. If you
look at the two points I emphasized over and over in my
comments, the removal of SRMs, the feed ban, ruminant to
ruminant feed ban, we have come to realize that they are far
and away the most effective things we can do in terms of
dealing with this risk.
I will also share something with you. If you read the
international standards, if there is one overriding message
that comes out of that, it is the whole idea of doing the risk
assessment and then managing that risk, and that has been a
part of this process, so it would be based upon science.
Now, there are others here with me. Dr. DeHaven was here
during that process when I was not, and I would invite him to
offer a comment to your question, but I would just summarize by
saying the Department has paid attention, they have learned a
lot. They have also referenced the standards. They have worked
through the risk assessment process. A tremendous amount of
information is available today that was not available back
then.
Dr. DeHaven. Mr. Secretary, thank you, and you have
captured very effectively the actions and the basis for our
actions since May of 2003.
I would only emphasize that at the time that the Canadians
discovered their first case on May 20th, 2003, indeed, our
trade policy was based on really two categories of countries,
those affected by BSE and those not affected. If a country was
affected as Canada then became on May 20th, we in essence shut
off all trade. That trade policy was not consistent with the
OIE guidelines and not consistent with the science that we know
about, so our activities since then have been toward bringing
our trade policies more in line with the science, and
obviously, more in line with the international guidelines.
Indeed, the fundamental of the changes that we've made is based
on that risk assessment that is done consistent with the OIE
chapter.
The Chairman. Thank you. The only thing I am not clear on
relative to that, has there been any change in the practice or
procedure on the other side of the border between May of 2003
and today?
Secretary Johanns. There has. As you know, we have a team
up there which I referenced, and a lot of publicity about the
team that is there, but over that period of time, we have
continued to work with Canada on issues, the feed ban, SRM
removal. It is fair to say really in lock-step they have
attempted to follow within the same time frame the very things
that we were doing on this side of the border. Keep in mind
that the ruminant to ruminant feed ban was put in effect in
both countries on the same day. The SRM removals that are now
occurring are the same really on both sides of the border, and
they have been very, very willing to work with us in terms of
making sure that what we are doing here is mirrored there on
the Canadian side.
The Chairman. I understand that some folks, both in the
U.S. and elsewhere, are advocating that the United States test
every head of cattle slaughtered for BSE as a way to resume
trade with Japan. I also understand that even though Japan
tests all animals destined for the human food chain, many
people think that the U.S. surveillance system is more
effective at finding BSE. Can you discuss the differences
between our system and testing every head of cattle
slaughtered, and please give us what your thoughts are on a 100
percent testing scheme?
Secretary Johanns. I will just jump in in terms of where
your question leaves off. I do not believe that science would
justify 100 percent testing scheme. Again, if you look at what
the international standards call for, they call for risk
management, and I do not see any basis whatsoever in science
for 100 percent testing of animals. It is just not justified
under any standard I have read, any science I have read. It
just simply should not be a part of the requirement to do
business in the international marketplace with beef.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you today and the USDA prior to your coming,
has often cited the OIE standards as the authority on BSE. With
all of the measures recommended by OIE, whether it be the feed
ban, surveillance or mandatory reporting of cattle with
clinical signs of BSE, there are two crucial factors that make
them effective safety measures. One, the amount of time the
measures have been in place, and second, how well those
measures have been complied with and enforced.
OIE standards recommends that a feed ban needs to be in
place, and effectively enforced for 8 years to confidently
ensure minimal risk. Canada does not meet that standard. Why
have we departed from the OIE standards if, in fact, the OIE
standards are science-based? That is why I said in my opening
statement, are you here today to tell us that the OIE standards
are not science-based?
Secretary Johanns. No.
Senator Harkin. Then if they are science-based why have we
departed from them?
Secretary Johanns. You are right. There are two items, the
time, there is compliance. We definitely want to pay attention
to those. We can agree, you and I, Senator Harkin, that they
are science-based. They are not prescriptive. The standards are
such that it is not a ``thou shalt'' sort of approach by the
standards. The essence of what the standards are saying is look
at it from a risk-based standpoint, and do a very thorough risk
analysis, and make sure you are doing everything you can to
deal with the risk that is presented. If you have one case of
BSE in a country, the approach may be vastly different than if
you have hundreds of cases of BSE in a country. How you
approach that is you are given guidance in these standards.
Your observation is correct in terms of the feed ban. We
are a few months short. It would be 8 years in August if I am
not mistaken.
Senator Harkin. That is true, but however, it has to be
effective. We checked, at least my staff did, with the
Canadians, and quite frankly, they have had their ban in place
for about 7 years, it will be 8 years coming up here shortly.
The fact is we do not know how effective it has been and
whether it has been in full compliance. For example, I am told
that Canada has been in 95 percent compliance for the last 3
years. What was it for the last 4 years, 5 years, 6 years? Was
it 80 percent, 70 percent, 50 percent? What standard do you,
does the USDA use? The OIE, I thought, was pretty clear. It has
to be effective. What, in your mind, is effective in terms of
percent compliance?
Secretary Johanns. It truly does depend on the risk
analysis, and that is what the OIE calls for. The steps you
take to deal with BSE in a country are interlocking steps. It
would not be fair to pull one step out without looking at all
of the other steps. The risk protection design depends upon the
risk analysis. In this case, we have SRM removal, we have the
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, which you are questioning about.
We have the national surveillance programs in the two countries
which are very similar, the import restrictions. Again, all of
these things interlock together to put a plan together in terms
of how you deal with the risk presented in that country.
The essence of the international standards is that a
country can have a BSE situation and a program is designed
based upon what the risk analysis shows, and that is what the
USDA did here, just a very careful, thoughtful risk analysis.
Senator Harkin. I understand that, and there are two other
areas that I just want to get into briefly. The one is this
feed ban, that we have departed from the OIE standards.
Second, you talk about surveillance. Well, again, the OIE
standard is that an effective surveillance plan must be in
place for 7 years. The final rule does not say that. The final
rule just says a surveillance plan has to be in place. Do we
really know how effective the Canadian system has been? Why
does the final rule not specify the same 7 years that the OIE
standard has set?
Secretary Johanns. I am going to ask Dr. DeHaven to jump in
here because he was part of this at a time when I was not. I
see from his body language that he is anxious to add something
to this discussion.
Doctor.
Dr. DeHaven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Indeed, we would not grant minimum risk categorization to a
country unless we felt that their feed ban was effective, that
their surveillance program was effective for an appropriate
period of time.
As the Secretary has mentioned, it is a comprehensive look
at the entire system based on a number of redundancies, the
fact that we start with import restrictions in Canada going
back to the early 1990's, the feed ban that has been in place,
as the Secretary mentioned, since August 1997. They have, in
fact, had very effective surveillance in place in Canada since
1992 and have exceeded the OIE requirements, in terms of
surveillance, for at least the last 7 years.
In fact, in calendar year 2004, the Canadians tested over
23,550 of the same high-risk or target animals that we are
testing. When you consider that in proportion to their adult
cattle population versus the larger adult cattle population in
the United States, in fact, their surveillance system would be
at least comparable to the system that we have enacted since
June 1st in this country, in terms of proportion of the adult
cattle population.
Again, it is a holistic look. The OIE guidelines are called
guidelines for that very purpose. They are not intended to be
prescriptive, but rather guidelines to help a country go
through a comprehensive risk analysis, which of course was the
basis for our final rule.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Dr. DeHaven.
Last, the third part of my question on departing from OIE
standards has to do with the reporting and investigation of all
cattle demonstrating signs of BSE. The OIE standard is
compulsory. The final rule, basically, does not even address
this at all on the reporting of cattle demonstrating signs of
BSE.
You take all three of those together, I understand what you
say, Dr. DeHaven, that Canada has had a surveillance system,
but I would turn the argument back around on you that one of
these elements they may have done well, but the other two they
did not do well. I am not certain they did all of them well.
While their surveillance may have been done well, some of the
other measures, we do not know about the feed ban and such, we
do not know how effective they have been over the last 7 years.
That is why I say--I would sum up, Mr. Chairman, I know my
time is out--that it just seems, that if you add up all of the
OIE recommendations, that if we were to adhere to them, that
Canada might not be minimal risk. It would be more like a
moderate-risk entity rather than minimal risk. I will come back
to that later. My time is up.
The Chairman. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
Secretary just to think aloud in these areas.
Clearly, the first bias of each Senator has to be food
safety for the American people. Likewise, we are deeply
concerned about food safety in our products for people around
the world. You have been discussing that with the distinguished
chairman and ranking member, and I am satisfied that USDA has
given extraordinary thought to this and has provided a safe
situation.
Now, I would not say it is a bias, but my own personal
enthusiasm would be to maximize trade with Canada, likewise
with Japan, and likewise with every country around the world. I
just think this is critical to American agriculture. Therefore,
I am heartened by the fact that we may be regaining some trade
with Canada, under the order of March the 7th of this year.
We have already queried you about it, but I want to ask
further about the opening up of the market to Japan, and I do
so as a practical matter of the debate that is ensuing, if not
with this committee, at least in the Senate, in which many
Senators, having heard that as many as two million animals
might come from Canada to the United States March 7th and the
border is open again or the modification that some think
900,000. I would say hang on here. Safety aside, if 2 million
or 900,000 animals are suddenly coming in, and we are not
exporting to Japan or we are even having problems with South
Korea, which you have identified as a large part, a fourth or a
third maybe, of our export market. This is bad news. Simply
sort of hold the horses for a while or the cattle, as the case
may be, and sort of wait this one out.
Now, I am wondering to what extent you have coordinated in
USDA with the State Department, with our Trade Representative,
with the other agencies of our Government who have a national
interest in this, in addition to an agricultural interest and,
likewise, your own advocacy with regard to enhancement of
trade, the movement of our agricultural products. Can you give
us some idea of how you perceive your leadership in these areas
and your coordination with others.
Secretary Johanns. As I indicated in my confirmation
hearing, I believe I have a key role, and I have every
expectation that I will be at the table. We have already had a
number of meetings and briefings at the USDA following my
confirmation on trade issues, and we are already strategizing
on how I can fit into these negotiations as quickly as I
possibly can. If that literally requires my attendance in
another part of the world to be at the table to advocate for
agriculture, I will not hesitate to leave Washington and do
exactly that.
As you have probably seen from the articles, I walked out
of the committee hearing. It did not matter who was asking the
question, everybody was saying, at that time, Governor, what do
you intend to do in terms of reopening Japan? I took that very,
very seriously. As soon as I was sworn in, I asked for an
immediate meeting with their Ambassador. We had a meeting. I
talked about it publicly. I have talked to our Ambassador in
Japan, a fine man, Ambassador Baker, and we talked at length
about where they are at. I have indicated our willingness to do
everything we can.
The important point is this. Those of us who have been
involved in trade policy, and many of you have been involved
many more years than I have, know that, as the tariff issue has
been resolved, in negotiation after negotiation or it is in the
process of being resolved, we continue to bump into these
issues relating to GMOs, and animal disease, and it just goes
on and on. I just think this is such an important area that,
without absolutely dogged determination, in terms of our focus
on science and being ready to lead by example, this thing has
just got the potential to bog trade down, whether it is beef or
chickens or whatever it is. Every member could talk about
issues in their area.
The last thing I wanted to mention, and I hope there is a
question on the economic analysis that was done, Dr. Collins
did a very thorough economic analysis, he and his people, about
what we might anticipate. There has been a lot of discussion in
the last few days about that. He could offer some insight on
that much more thoughtfully than I could.
I see the lights flashing. That probably means I need to be
quiet, but I hope we deal with that issue. It is an important
issue, and our producers want to hear about that.
Senator Lugar. I agree. Thank you very much.
Secretary Johanns. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Dr. Collins, is there anything you want to
add to that at this point?
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and take my cue
and comment on this question of the impending backlog of cattle
poised to come across the border. USDA was probably first out
of the box to characterize what might happen because we are the
ones that issued the rule. Of course, with any rule we issue of
this magnitude, we have to do an economic analysis, and we did
that with this rule.
We indicated in our analysis that we thought in the 12
months subsequent to March 7th that we might have 1.5 to 2
million head of Canadian cattle come across the border.
Unfortunately, from that characterization, it led people to
believe that diesel trucks would be lined up eight deep on
March 6th waiting to come across the border. We do not think
that is the case. In addition to our assessment, as I said,
which was the first out of the box, we have others, which you
have mentioned, others from credible organizations that have
suggested between 800,000 and a million might be a more
appropriate number. That is a number for the calendar year
2005. Ours was for the 12-month period beginning March 7th. The
numbers come a little bit closer together when you adjust for
those differences.
Even so, our estimate was that Fed cattle prices in the
United States would decline from $85 a hundred weight in 2005
to $82 a hundred weight. You could argue whether that is a
large effect or a moderate effect. If the analyses that were
done subsequent to ours that suggest 900,000 head are to come
across the border, then that effect would even be smaller, that
is encouraging for American cattle producers.
Of course, since the time we did our analysis, we have
learned more about the slaughter capacity expansion in Canada,
we have learned more about the transportation constraints.
There is reason to believe that the numbers might be smaller
than what we had initially anticipated. Our analysis was done
based on data that we had through the first 6 months of 2004,
and here we are sitting now in the beginning of 2005, and we
have learned a lot more. That is not to say there will not be
an impact, but it could be characterized as a moderate impact.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Collins, I know it seems like it is a risk that is out
there that might be an acceptable risk, but there are probably
some producers and processors here who are not necessarily
ready to take your risk, and we have to be very cautious and
careful on that date. If you are right, perhaps the adjustment
can be made. If you are slightly off, there are some folks in
this room who are going to lose some money. The American market
is going to be flooded at a time that we do not have an opening
in the Asian markets at the same time.
Let me say, Mr. Secretary, once again, you have inherited a
Hobbesian Choice here. If you move one direction, you have
created a certain situation; if you move the other direction to
be correct, you have created another situation. I know you are
aware of that.
I know that we believe it is about sound science because we
talk about it, but in 47 countries that have shut down American
beef exports, I am not so certain it is about sound science,
certainly not entirely about sound science. Sound science or
the threat of BSE is, at times, good reason not to accept the
market, but at other times it is just a very good excuse. That
is why I am pleased, Mr. Secretary, you are going to work on
these nontariff trade barriers because we are experiencing more
than a slight amount of that.
What I am concerned, though, is that until the Canadian
feed issue is resolved satisfactorily, to the satisfaction of
virtually every one of those markets, the cloud remains. The
irony is Canada started the problem. We compounded it by
inconsistent reaction, by shutting off live cattle, but
permitting meat, Canadian meat to continue to come into the
market. The result is that we are moving jobs to Canada,
creating all kinds of processing and producer problems here in
the U.S., and now correcting it threatens to flood the market,
as Senator Lugar has said, but we continue to give pause to the
Asian markets who capitalize on the food safety cloud caused by
Canada in the first place.
Now, it is too easy to blame Canada, so I am not going to
do that, and I am not going to blame the Australians for being
opportunistic to try to move into the markets they were losing.
We need to accept the fact that we seem to have shot ourselves
in the foot while aiming, by not stopping the Canadian meat
from coming in at the same time, given the constraints we have
had about BSE coming from Canada.
What alarms me more is that we are about to do it again. I
am not suggesting that it is not in our policy to try to
consolidate the cattle industry, but if we wanted to do that,
there probably would not be a better way to do that, to
consolidate processing, to consolidate production. I know it is
going to be very difficult to try to resolve this, but there is
a lot on the line, and I am getting flooded, as I am certain
you are, by people who are concerned that we even this out.
My question is, and I have still got a minute-and-a-half
here if we allow over 30-month cattle imports through rule-
making, would it not make more sense to bring all this back
together and do the rule-making for OTM cattle at the same time
that we concern ourselves with continuing to permit OTM meat
imports and resolve this all at once with one rule rather than
having this totally inconsistent, creating dislocation for
certain processors, threatening now to bring things in so that
we would now create a flood in the market, dropping U.S. beef
prices at a time when cattle producers and some people are
making some money at it.
Have you thought about putting it all under one rule-making
effort?
Secretary Johanns. Boy, you have touched on all of the
issues.
Senator Nelson. Well, I have all of these people touching
on me, as you know. We are reaching out.
Secretary Johanns. You have some excellent people there
with you because you literally have hit on key issues. I would
offer this thought. As you know, I was Governor back when we
discovered BSE, in the one animal, the ``cow that stole
Christmas,'' and we did everything----
Senator Nelson. He keeps on stealing.
Secretary Johanns. Yes. We did everything we could to make
sure that the right information was before the American
consumer, and decisions were made by the USDA at that time, and
I supported those decisions. We all did. I held a press
conference on the 24th. We found out about it the evening of
the 23rd, and we were literally before the media on the 24th in
encouraging consumers to hang in there, and they have. Gees,
they have just been champions, and they are confident in what
we are doing.
The very issues that you touch upon are some of the reasons
why pulling back the whole shebang, the whole rule, would cause
me a great deal of concern. The industry will restructure. It
just is the nature of the beast. It is the nature of the
economy. The industry is restructuring. There is not any doubt
about it. To what level? Gosh, we could have a whole separate
hearing and probably debate that. What do I mean by that? You
are seeing more processing in Canada. It is the jobs that you
refer to.
Your colleagues have also already referenced the fact that
that is having an impact in their States, in their communities,
and there is not any doubt about that. We can see that by the
announcements from beef packers. I would just be very, very
worried that this thing gets so far down the road, the industry
so restructures, that by the time we get in, we have put our
producers at a disadvantage.
Then there is the other issue. If we believe that what we
are doing is based upon good science, and when I look at the
risk assessment, when I look at SRM removal, the ruminant-to-
ruminant feed ban, the work that we have done in Canada, with
their cooperation, and on and on, the very, very, very
worrisome thing is that we just sent a signal to the
international marketplace that we are playing by different
rules than what we are articulating, and, Senator, that is just
about as candid and bold as I can be about your question. It
raises a whole bunch of concerns.
Now, I have studied this up one side and down another, and
I will welcome any advice I can get. I will listen to it and
consider it, but that would be how I would just respond as
directly as I can to your question.
Senator Nelson. I agree with you that we ought to try to do
things on an intellectually honest basis. I just wish others
would join. I will play by their rules. I just wish they would
play by ours. We have to look at this in a holistic fashion as
to what the current imports are doing, but by expanding those
imports what that could do to our export market. I know you are
aware of that, and we will continue to work together. This is
not a hostile environment.
Secretary Johanns. No.
Senator Nelson. We are all in the same boat. We are just
trying to row in the same direction.
Secretary Johanns. Yes.
Senator Nelson. I thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished Senator
from Wyoming has important business on the floor. I am going to
yield my time to him, with the understanding that I would be in
the batting circle the next time the Republican opportunity
comes up.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
I guess, Mr. Secretary, and I know this is a complicated
issue and a tough issue, but just to make it clear, what do you
expect to have happen now on the 7th of March? What is the
situation? What will be done?
Secretary Johanns. Well, the rule is proceeding to that
date. We do have a team in Canada that is looking at some very
important issues in terms of the ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban
and whether it is being honored. I will cue Dr. DeHaven up
here. I asked for a briefing just before I walked in here, and
he gave me a briefing, and I will ask him to give the same
briefing to you. I will emphasize it is very preliminary.
I am going to look at that information very closely. The
other thing I have promised is that we will be absolutely
transparent with that information. We will put it out there. We
will get it over to this committee and----
Senator Thomas. You do not know what the situation is going
to be. You do not know whether this regulation will be put into
place as it is or whether it will be changed or whether it will
not and put into place.
Secretary Johanns. It is on the road to implementation. I
will say this, I will absolutely consider everything right up
to that date because I believe that is my responsibility. You
cannot, on one hand, send a group up there and say, ``Take a
look at this,'' and then say, ``By the way, I will not being
paying attention to them.'' I am going to be paying attention
to them.
Senator Thomas. Oh, I understand. We have had quite a
little time to take a look at it and know what is going on. You
have all talked about what is happening and what you know, but
you do not know enough yet to be able to know what you are
going to do; is that correct?
Secretary Johanns. Senator, I would not go so far as to say
that because the USDA has done a ton of work in Canada.
Senator Thomas. I know, but you still do not where we are
going or not sharing with us.
Secretary Johanns. No, Senator. The data is out there, and
the rule is moving forward and each day you can cross off the
calendar. I do have a team, and I am going to consider their
findings. I do not think you would expect anything less of me
in terms of making sure that that is something I take a look
at, and I intend to do that.
Senator Thomas. What do we know about Japan and Korea,
assuming, as I assume now, that this regulation is going to go
into place, what is their reaction to that?
Secretary Johanns. In no discussion that I have had either
with our Ambassador, their Ambassador or anyone associated with
Japan has the topic of Canada or a quid pro quo been raised in
those discussions. My discussions have been purely on where are
we at with Japan, how quickly can we set a date and start
moving beef into that marketplace again.
Senator Thomas. Or does not the decision with Canada make a
difference to them?
Secretary Johanns. I can offer my thought on that. Again,
they have not raised the issue, but----
Senator Thomas. That is what has caused us to be in the
position we are in with them, is it not?
Secretary Johanns. Here is what I would offer, Senator. I
believe we have to be consistent in our presentation. If we are
truly about basing our decisions upon the science that is
available, the OIE standards, the risk analysis, the factors
that we build into the system based upon a risk analysis, then
I just think I feel very strongly you have to be consistent in
your dealings with each other country, otherwise trade
discussions become constantly entangled.
Senator Thomas. Yes, I understand, and I am not suggesting
that that would make a difference, that you would tell them
something different, but they can probably tell you now, at
this point, if this rule goes into place, what will they do?
Secretary Johanns. Canada has not been raised in any
discussion, and you have people that have worked on this a----
Senator Thomas. No discussion with Japan?
Secretary Johanns [continuing]. With Japan. We have people
that have worked on this. I will ask Dr. Collins to offer----
Senator Thomas. Well, that is why they closed our trade.
Mr. Collins. Senator, they closed the trade because they
have not done the kind of work we have done. They have not done
the risk assessment----
Senator Thomas. They closed it because of the mad cow in
Canada, correct?
Mr. Collins. They closed it because they wanted 100-percent
testing of the animals that we are going to turn into beef----
Senator Thomas. I am sorry, guys, but all of this science
stuff gets a little confusing, and we need to be a little more
broad. That is the reason we are not dealing with Japan on the
same basis we were.
Mr. Collins. The finding of BSE is the reason.
Senator Thomas. Sure. That is what I am saying.
Mr. Collins. OK. I got that.
Secretary Johanns. Senator, if I could just add a
clarification, just so our record is clear, my understanding is
that the Japanese took the action not because of the first
finding of BSE in Canada, it was the finding of BSE in the
United States, which was many months after----
Senator Thomas. Which was, also, Canadian.
Secretary Johanns. It was. Just, again, so we are clear,
they did not act on the finding of BSE the first animal in
Canada, they acted on the situation December 23rd.
Senator Thomas. I understand the difficulty, but at some
point, rather than talking about how many studies we are going
to do, we have to have some--we are getting fairly close to the
time when there is a decision is going to have to be made. It
affects people, and people ought to have some idea of where you
are, and where you expect to be, and where you hope to be.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Johanns. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you talk about using science in your
decisions. There is health science, and there is economic
science, and both are essential to a good policy. I am
certainly glad that the Department has applied the best health
science to this proposed policy, but your economic science is
out of Mad magazine. You are going to allow Canadian operators
to slaughter Canadian cattle over 30 months of age and export
that beef into the U.S. market, but you are not going to allow
American meat packers to slaughter Canadian animals that are
over 30 months of age. The price of a Canadian animal I am told
is now less than one-third that of a U.S. animal. Obviously,
the large meat packers are going to shift their processing
plants to Canada where they can literally make a killing and,
in fact, that is what is already happening.
Senator Crapo cited Tyson closing in Idaho. Tyson is
reportedly also preparing to open an expanded 5,000-head
slaughter operation in Alberta, Canada. Excel is, also,
reportedly starting up a 5,000-head slaughter operation in
Canada, which will slaughter the smaller U.S. meat packers who
will not be allowed to buy those much cheaper Canadian OTM
animals, and they will go out of business in the United States,
and those American jobs will be lost.
Those American workers, our taxpayers, our citizens and
constituents, and their families are going to be devastated by
those closings and loss of jobs, and you call that a moderate
impact. I find that ignorant and offensive to sit here in
suits, your job is protected, your salary is secure, and call
those people who are going to lose their jobs a moderate
impact. It is wrong, and it is ignorant, and it is offensive to
this committee and to the American people.
This rule should be exposed as having been crafted by
somebody as perfectly as could conceivably have been done to
benefit the Canadian industry and to harm the American
industry. The only American operators that are going to benefit
are the large U.S. companies, like Tyson and Excel, who are
being rewarded by our Government policy for shifting their
plants and jobs from the United States and Canada. I do not
blame them for following the economic logic, but it is
nonsensical that our Government would adopt a policy that would
reward them for taking jobs from Americans and passing them up
to Canada, as your own analysis predicts in the regulation.
I quote from the Federal Register final rule, ``Allowing
the United States to import Canadian beef from cattle
slaughtered at more than 30 months of age would enable Canada
to produce and sell much larger quantities of processing beef
without fearing the significant price collapse that would
likely occur if the entire additional product were only for the
Canadian market.''
The summary, your economic summary in your own analysis,
says, ``This final rule will cost U.S. cattle producers up to
$2.9 billion over a period of several years.'' You call that a
moderate impact. This is huge for Minnesota. It is huge for
other States. You know that. You are a Governor. I say, again,
you walked into this. You inherited this. This is a disaster,
and it is a disaster of the creation of this department.
I am so tired of people who campaign for office or
appointed to office with the ideology that Government does
everything badly, and then when they are in office, they go out
to prove themselves correct. They adopt policies that sever,
that do damage to Americans and sever the trust that should
exist between Government and its people, and then they point to
their failures and say, ``See, that proves Government does
everything badly.''
No wonder people, no wonder these producers, and workers,
and business owners are just fed up to here with Government,
and you are going to make it worse. You are going to cost them
their jobs, and then we are going to talk about process and
progress with the Japanese or the Koreans, which will go on,
and on, and on, while all of this damage takes effect that you
are forecasting in your own analysis. You say here today the
industry will restructure. The industry is restructuring. Well,
there is no doubt about that. Well, let us throw up our hands.
There is nothing we can do about that.
Well, here is something we can do about that. We can not
adopt a policy that is going to reward that restructuring for
taking jobs from Americans and giving them to the Americans.
That is about as simple and basic as it gets. If the U.S.
Government cannot figure out how not to do that, then we all
ought to go home and save the taxpayers the money.
This is crazy. It is crazy, and it is wrong, it is
destructive, and I cannot conceive that you are going to adopt
a policy that is this one-sidedly rewarding of Canadian
operations, and businesses and their people at the expense of
Americans and walk off into anywhere else in the world and talk
about fair trade policy. Countries make trade policy in their
own economic self-interest. This one, I do not know whose
economic self-interest this is, as it relates to Americans, but
it is not the folks that I hear from, and it is not many,
except for the large operators. Again, I do not fault them for
taking advantage of what you are doing for them, but I wonder
why you are doing something that is so harmful to everybody
else.
Secretary Johanns. I am going to invite Dr. Collins to say
a word, because the essence of your concern relates to the
economic analysis, and I would like him to offer a few thoughts
about it.
Senator let me emphasize there is so much at stake here in
terms of the international marketplace that our agriculture
enjoys----
The Chairman. Excuse me. Mr. Secretary, let us let him
quickly respond, if you will, and we need to move on.
Secretary Johanns. That I could not agree with you more,
that it is enormously important that we get this right and
think about the long-term impact on the industry and the
availability of marketplaces for the future.
You are right, there is a lot at stake here, and I do not
want anything that the USDA has said prior to my arrival or
after to minimize those issues.
Senator Dayton. My time is up. This regulation is not
right, Mr. Secretary, it is not right.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Secretary. The
USDA's Office of Inspector General, in a recent briefing to
staff reported three main concerns with APHIS and FSIS handling
of the Canadian cattle and the beef product imported in the
United States during the period of August 2003 through August
2004. The OIG's three main findings in their audit were as
follows.
APHIS expanded the list of products approved for
importation without public notice. Some of the products,
tongues, are considered moderate-risk products, not the low-
risk products mentioned in the Secretary's announcement. APHIS
and FSIS's definition of certain beef products were not
consistent. Further, the two agencies did not really
communicate with each other regarding their efforts to monitor
the Canadian beef imports; and finally, APHIS did not have
sufficient internal controls to issue and monitor import
permits. I am not pointing any figures. I would point out that
Mr. DeHaven has been on board about 6 months.
Mr. Secretary, in light of these disturbing findings by the
Office of Inspector General, what steps will APHIS and FSIS and
USDA take or have taken to assure the American consumer that
the USDA has the ability to enforce and monitor the
restrictions and the conditions in regards to regulating beef
and imports when the trade with Canada finally does resumes? In
addition, can you assure us that the USDA and the relevant
agencies will not change the list of approved items without
public notice and the notification of Congress?
Secretary Johanns. Let me ask Dr. DeHaven to respond to the
first part of your question in terms of those findings.
Dr. DeHaven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Roberts, the OIG report is still pending. We have
reviewed a draft and will be submitting our final comments to
that report in the very near future. Let me just address some
of the concerns.
As to the expanded list of products, we had a list
initially of products that we considered to be of low risk that
we would by permit allow into the United States from Canada,
which we did so. That list at the time that we created it was
not intended to be a complete list that we would never change,
but rather that was the requests that we were getting, and
comparing the requests for products that our importers wanted
to bring in and that we also considered to be safe to bring in
from a BSE risk standpoint.
After that initial list was in place, in fact it included
products like meat trimmings. We did then subsequently allow
some of those products to be processed, recognizing that the
processing in no way altered the risk relative to BSE. For
example, meat trimmings that are subsequently ground is still
the same meat trimmings, it has just been processed. We ensured
that we had procedures in place that would make certain that
that processed product in no way commingled or could be
contaminated by other products that would not already be
enterable prior to the processing. Tongues, while there may
have been some discussion about it being moderate risk, are
considered actually to be low risk. I would point out that we
would allow tongues in under this minimal risk rule that we
have simply published.
Having said all of that, we would clearly acknowledge that
while we do not feel that any of the products that we have
allowed into the United States from Canada represented any kind
of food safety or animal health risk. Clearly, the processes
and the transparency that we went about in allowing those
additional products was not what it should have been, and we--
--
Senator Roberts. The Secretary's announcement was different
from what was actually happening, which leads to public
perception that is not in the best interest of the USDA.
Mr. Secretary, we just had a meeting in Kansas where the
head of the Animal Health Division of our State Government was
asked a question about a national ID system. Where are we with
a national ID system? He said it would take another year, and
then made the remarkable statement that it would take 10 years
by the time we could really fully implement this and have a
national ID system where we would be able to trace every
animal, given the industry, given all of the movement of all of
these critters. Where are we with a national ID system?
Secretary Johanns. The national ID system, I have actually
pulled the team the already at the USDA, because again, as I
said previously, I am a believer that the system is necessary.
The premises ID will be ready sometime mid summer, and then in
terms of animal ID, my hope is that we can move that along
right behind that. Whether it will be 10 years, I cannot
imagine it would be that long, Senator. From my standpoint I
would find that unacceptable. We need to move that as quickly
as we can within the finances that I have available to make it
happen, but believe me, I see it as a very, very key component
for the future of this industry.
Senator Roberts. What is the top remaining hurdle to
reopening the Japanese market?
Secretary Johanns. I would say we have answered their
technical questions. That has been going on for 13 months, and
things arise, and we respond immediately. I just really think
it is time now for the Japanese Government, at whatever level,
to make the decision that this is going to be the date, and it
literally is that decisionmaking that I believe has to occur
for it to happen. That is where I see this process. There is
nothing more, Senator, that we could possibly provide. We have
been going through that now for many months before I arrived on
the scene, and answered their questions and met their concerns,
and I just really think it is a point now where somebody needs
to make a decision that we are ready to set a date and get it
done.
Senator Roberts. Before any American or any person in
Government says,
[Japanese phrases] say American beef?
[Japanese phrase], is that correct?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Johanns. Somewhere in all of that you lost me.
Senator Roberts. Where is the beef?
Secretary Johanns. Where is the beef?
[Laughter.]
Senator Roberts. Thank you very much, sir.
The Chairman. You want to run through that one more time?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Can you say BSE in Japanese for us, please?
Senator Harkin has a comment.
Senator Harkin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have to go to
another meeting, but I just wanted to mention that Senator
Baucus wanted to be here this morning, but is in Montana with
the President. Also, Senator Conrad also is in North Dakota,
same reason, with the President. I just ask permission, Mr.
Chairman, to submit questions in writing to the Secretary to be
answered?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Secretary Johanns. We will answer those very expeditiously.
The Chairman. Without objection. I would say the same for
Senator Burns, who also wanted to be here, but is with the
President.
Senator Talent.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TALENT, A U.S. SENATOR FORM MISSOURI
Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you have seen the frustration that we feel,
and you know we are just reflecting what our producers are
saying. It just seems like we are always the good guy. I do
feel sometimes like we are in the middle of that Peanuts strip
where Charlie Brown always trusts Lucy and Lucy always pulls
the football away.
[Laughter.]
Senator Talent. We are all waiting for everybody to do what
we have been doing a long time in terms of sound science. Yet I
understand your position, and I have to say that certainly in
principle, I agree with it. When you are the biggest exporter
in the world you have an interest other countries do not have
in following sound science so that exports can go across the
border.
Now let me ask you to comment on a couple of things because
so much of what I wanted to ask has been asked, which is a good
thing. First of all, the comment has been made--Senator Thomas
went into this, and I really sympathize with what he was
saying. Is there any sign that sticking to sound science and
moving toward a resolution where we allow the Canadian beef in
is sending any signals to the Japanese where they might do the
same thing with our beef? You said it has not come up, it does
not look to us like doing what we are doing is helping us with
them.
Let me take the flip side of that. This is my gut instinct,
that if we did not do it, would it hurt us with them? If I am
Ambassador Zoellick and I am sitting across the table from them
and it gets to the point where we are really demonstrably
dragging our heels here with the Canadians, it does give them
another excuse to delay yet again. I can just see that being
tossed back at our people under those circumstances. It is
incredibly frustrating, but my gut instinct is in that
direction. Maybe you want to comment on that.
Then let me switch to another point, another market. When I
had a meeting in Kansas City with various people interested in
agricultural trade and one of the representatives from the
Chinese Council was there, and it was a very constructive
meeting. He talked about his desire, their country's desire to
develop relationships and markets with us, and we talked about
beef. I realized the potential of that market in particular for
prices in the United States, because I believe once they really
start tasting American beef, we are going to be in good
position, and that is a great market. Are you looking at that?
That is what I am looking at, beyond the current pricing
situation for beef in the United States, beyond the
restructuring here, do you have any sense that they are
watching this, and that what we are doing here may have an
impact on our ability to develop that market in particular long
term, because that market is the prize for agriculture. We have
seen what their imports of our beans have done to prices of
soybeans in the United States, and really when we are just
beginning to penetrate. The potential there is enormous.
Comment on that if you would, or maybe Dr. Collins wants
to. The potential for enhancing obstruction if we are seen as
dragging our heels, the bad that may happen if we are seen that
way. Then second, where the Chinese are on all this, if you
would.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johanns. I will offer a couple of thoughts and
then I will invite Dr. Collins to offer his observations.
The first thing, I would be very worried about the very
thing your question is directed at, and that is just handing in
a bright package all tied in a bow, another excuse to delay
discussions, to go back to square one in terms of opening the
Japanese market. We keep pushing that the science justifies our
beef going back into Japan, and I just would be very worried
that if we send a contrary signal with our discussions and
negotiations with any control, we are going to jeopardize those
discussions.
I will also again point out when BSE was found in Canada,
Japan did not close our border. Our whole goal here is to deal
with these issues in a way that recognizes risk and develops a
plan to deal with that risk.
China, I have been there a number of times as Governor,
because I believe that that market has great potential, and
whether that is beef or soybeans or any other product, there
are a lot of people there, and I believe that we can provide
the needs of those people relative to agricultural products,
and again, in our discussions with them, I will guarantee part
of what we deal with is the whole issue of science and making
decisions based upon good science.
Mr. Collins. The only thing I would add to that is it is
fundamental that we follow the principles and recommendations
of OIE and have a science-based return to normalcy in trade
with Canada. That is a fundamental signal that we can send to
other countries of the world, and that includes China.
With respect to China, before suspension of trade, we were
exporting about $550 million a year worth of ruminant and
ruminant products. Today that market is about 88 percent open.
They take things like hides and skins. They do not take very
much fresh, frozen and chilled beef from us. It is a very small
portion of their imports. They have not opened that part of the
market yet.
In negotiations with China, which Dr. Penn and others have
led, China has raised many issues, technical issues, they have
even raised non-meat trade issues as you might expect. There is
a lot of pressure that still has to be put on China to move
them forward. The potential there down the road, as you
suggest, is immense.
Senator Talent. Doctor, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I want us to keep our eye on that ball
because the practical potential for our producers, if they
begin importing, as they progress economically, is huge.
Look, Mr. Secretary, one of the consistent messages here is
look at whether these discoveries in January are a basis for
perhaps some modification or some delay in view of the fact
that we may have been borderline in terms of the OIE guidelines
anyway. Senator Harkin was sending that message, and it is a
reasonable one.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to come back to two issues, and that
would be the opening of the trade with Japan, as well as the
question on the beef, live cattle over 30-months-old.
With regard to the trade issue with Japan, the issue that I
want to raise has been well covered, so I just want to make a
quick statement. Understanding that you have said that we have
basically done everything we need to do, and that is really not
much more we can provide in terms of justification of opening
the trade with Japan, it seems to me that we must apparently
face a political issue as opposed to a science issue in getting
this done. If I am correct about that, then I would simply
suggest that we develop a strategy and a rather prompt course
of action or action plan to elevate this to whatever level it
needs to be elevated to even if that means that the President
of United States has to deal with the top leadership in Japan
or whatever it takes. It seems to me that we cannot let this
languish.
If you would like to comment on that, I would welcome.
Otherwise, I will just make that as a statement and move on to
the next issue.
Secretary Johanns. Well, I agree with you. I absolutely
believe that all of us have to be a part of this. I really felt
the confirmation hearing sent an enormous signal, obviously. It
certainly got everybody's attention and that is what was talked
about. When I met with the Ambassador from Japan I emphasized:
Mr. Ambassador, it did not matter who is asking the question.
This is of paramount importance.
The other thing I would mention, we should not discount the
fact that we have had an excellent working relationship with
Japan for a long, long time, enormous amount of trade between
the two countries. We need to make sure that we are laying the
groundwork for that to continue. We just cannot get in the
business, each of us, of trying to figure out how to negatively
impact that. That will not serve anybody. It will not serve
their people and it will not serve our people.
The President has talked to the Prime Minister, as you
know, very directly about this issue. I have enlisted the
Ambassadors on both sides. I will enlist my Cabinet colleagues
to do everything they can, and as I have said, if it would be
helpful for me to catch the next flight to Tokyo, I am there. I
am ready to go. I understand its importance.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate that, and you will know from
the comments that you are getting here that you will have very
strong support from this committee.
Let us move quickly in the time remaining to the question
of the portion of the rule that will allow live cattle over age
30 to be brought into the United States from Canada. You know
the issue. It has been discussed with you at length here. It
seems to me that your answer implies that notwithstanding the
economic circumstances that have been pointed out, that there
is some kind of sound science that justifies allowing live
cattle over the age of--excuse me--allowing boxed processed
cattle over the age of 30 months into the United States, but
not live cattle.
I would like you to clarify that for me. If there is some
science that is prohibiting us from correcting this very
difficult problem, what is it?
Secretary Johanns. The rule is based upon good science, and
let me just reaffirm that. Let me specifically address the
issue that you have raised, because as I started drilling down
into this issue in asking for more information, the very issue
that you are talking to me about popped up on my radar screen,
and I said, ``Gosh, is there consistency in what we are doing
here?'' I looked at the economic analysis that was done, and I
even went so far as to ask for the Federal regulations in this
whole area of economic analysis and how much leeway I have.
As I indicated in my statement, it is an area I am taking a
look at because some of the very things that you are raising
are things that occurred to me as I have been working through
this. Again, today I do not want to announce a conclusion
because I do not have a conclusion. We do have some information
that is headed my way, and I just think I owe it to the process
to look carefully at that information, make sure I have
everything before me.
Senator, I encourage a continued dialog between you and I
and other members of the committee that are concerned about
this area of the rule because it is something I am taking a
look at.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Actually, I am
glad that you did not answer the question by saying, ``Here is
the science that justifies this distinction.'' As I understand
it, you are raising those same questions yourself and you are
asking those questions, and you are going to pursue it. The
answer is going to be that there is not a basis of sound
science that would justify the rule the way it is currently
written, and I hope to work with you in that regard.
Secretary Johanns. I welcome that, Senator, thank you.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave as well,
but I have a number of other questions. Are you going to allow
us to submit written questions to be answered later?
The Chairman. Yes. We are going to leave the record open
for 5 days. You will be able to submit written questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator.
Let me first say, Governor Johanns, thank you for coming
before the committee to address this very important issue, and
congratulations to you also on your unanimous confirmation in
the U.S. Senate. It shows the kind of bipartisan support that
this committee and this Senate does have, and the support that
we have for agriculture. I wish you the very best I your years
ahead leading this very important department.
Let me second say I was disappointed in the President's
State of the Union in that he did not address agricultural or
rural issue. From my point of view, that is a part of the
forgotten America that needs to be addressed, and I know that
you as former Governor of Nebraska know how important that part
of our country, and we need to have more focus on agricultural
and rural communities.
Third, let me say with respect to this hearing and the
issue that is before us today, what we are hearing from
everyone is that we have a problem with this rule. It seems to
me that what we ought to be doing is fixing the rule before we
actually open the borders. I had a meeting with most of the
agricultural leaders in my State, in Colorado this last
Saturday, and that is their sense. There is a sense that there
is a whole host of issues that are unanswered, many of which
have been raised here with you today. Without going through all
of those questions, the simple question as to how are you going
to verify at the border which one of these 900,000 animals plus
are either 30-months or less, and on and on and on and on. I
know that there are several organizations that are looking at
also instituting litigation against the promulgation of the
rule in March.
I guess I would say this. Given the contentiousness of this
issues, given the numerous questions that have been raised,
given the advent of this new position for you as Secretary of
Agriculture, it seems to me that it would be most prudent to go
ahead and to delay the opening up of the border until such time
as you can take the rule and give it a comprehensive review and
address all the questions that have been asked, including the
issue of the animal identification system and all the rest of
the issues that we have talked about before.
I do not understand why it is that we are at this point
stuck on this date on the opening of the Canadian border, given
the fact that we have so many questions that have been raised.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar can be found in
the appendix on page 55.]
Secretary Johanns. A couple of observations, Senator. The
rule has been making its way through the process for now many
months. There was a comment period and then another comment
period, and there were 3,300 comments, questions, concerns
raised, and those were responded to. We will do everything we
can to respond to the questions that are raised here, and
hopefully do our very best to address those very, very promptly
so you can get information to your constituencies.
There really is a big picture here for this industry and
for agriculture in general in our country. We are just an
enormous exporter of agriculture products. In the State I came
from, we were the fourth largest. Without good, sensible
agricultural export policy, this agriculture industry is in
very difficult shape.
Because of what has happened here, this industry is
restructuring in Canada. Like it or not, that is the way the
economy works, that is the way industry works. Boneless beef is
coming into this country by permit. It has for many, many, many
months. It is about equal to where it was before all of this
took place. Rather remarkably this industry is adjusting to
that.
What is happening? Well, to the extent that I can observe,
it appears to me that the processing, the packing industry is
growing in Canada, and that has an impact on a lot of people
here in this country. I just worry, Senator, that if I make a
decision here that we look back at 6 months from now or
whatever, and say, ``My goodness, the industry took off like a
rocket, readjusted, and now it is forever changed to the
detriment of the American producer,'' then there is a lot of
risk in terms of just simply saying, ``Gosh, this is so hot to
touch, I should not be touching it.''
I look at all the factors. I look at the risk analysis. I
look at our discussions with other countries. I look at our
constant discussion with other countries, that we have to be
science-based. I look at the economic analysis, and as I said
to Senator Dayton, none of this do I take lightly.
Senator Salazar. If I may, Governor, because my time is
already up, Mr. Secretary Governor, I guess, because you have a
dual title.
Secretary Johanns. I am proud of either title.
Senator Salazar. I do not think that the issue is going to
go away at all when you implement the new rule in March and you
open up the Canadian border. It seems to me that many of these
issues are going to continue for a long time, and they are
going to continue including in litigation. It would be best for
the American producer and for the industry at large if you were
able to take time, now that you are in your position as
Secretary of Agriculture, and say all of these issues have been
raised. This is a comprehensive way in which I am going to
approach the lifting of the Canadian ban, the science that is
going to go with it, the animal identification issues and all
the rest of the issues that have been raised.
Secretary Johanns. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
have some questions that I would like to be included for the
record and have some responses. I apologize. I had to make a
statement on the floor of the Senate.
I would just raise, and I am not sure if the question has
been asked, but I have some concerns about the disparity of
treatment of beef over 30-months versus cattle. I am not sure
whether the economic analysis has been conducted on that on the
impact of that portion of the rule. I would raise that issue. I
do have those concerns, but I have some other questions, Mr.
Chairman, that I would submit for the record and like to have
answered before we finish this matter.
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Coleman. Have we dealt with the question of the
assessment of the impact of the rule and the disparity between
dealing with live cattle versus----
Secretary Johanns. I will ask Dr. Collins because you have
raised some issues that he has worked on specifically.
Senator Coleman. Before he responds, I do want to say for
the record, I want to thank Dr. Collins and his staff. You have
been extraordinarily responsive, and from the perspective of my
staff, it has been a pleasure working with them, and I did want
to state that publicly, doctor.
Mr. Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Coleman.
Let me make a comment about the economic analysis. It has
come up here and I have not commented on it since sort of the
beginning of the hearing. It is important to understand that we
have been reducing cattle numbers in the United States for 9
years. We are at a cyclical low in cattle slaughtering in the
United States. In 2003 we slaughtered 35-1/3 million cattle.
Last year we slaughtered 32.8. This year, without opening up
the border to Canada, we will slaughter 32.5. Without opening
up the border to Canada, slaughter numbers are going now,
capacity utilization is going down, packer costs are going up.
We have a situation with no trade with Canada that the packing
industry is under some stress.
What this rule does is it takes another step in the return
to normalcy with trade. We will import, by various estimates,
900,000 to 1.8 million head of cattle. Those are cattle that
will be killed in the United States. Those are cattle that
packers will be able to use to increase their capacity
utilization, lower their labor costs, and presumably help their
profitability. That context has to be understood. Now, within
that, there is the issue of cow packers, those who slaughter
cows, which is the basis for most of the concern here today
because the broader picture of what we are doing here
economically has been lost. Cow packers kill about 5 million
head year out of the 32 to 33 million head. That is an
important sector of the meat packing business, but it is one-
sixth of the meat packing business, but it is a very important
sector. It is a sector that is in the spotlight here today
because this rule does not allow cattle in over 30 months, but
allows the beef in over 30 months. Not allowing the beef in
over 30 months versus allowing it in over 30 months, those two
options were explicitly addressed in the regulatory impact
analysis that accompanied the rule.
The answer to your question is, yes, these issues were
looked at. Were they looked at thoroughly enough? As I sit here
today I can answer that and say no. What we have learned over
the six to 9 months since most of that analysis was done was
that there will be a differential effect on cow packing plants.
You look at Canada, cows sells for less than $20 a hundred
weight. In the United States they sell for $50 a hundred
weight. If you look at the price of lean beef in the United
States, it is $140 a hundred weight. In Canada a packer can buy
a cow for $20 a hundred weight and sell the beef for $140 a
hundred weight in the United States. That is one heck of an
incentive to pull cow beef across the border.
There are estimates ranging from 250,000 head to 460,000
head additional cows will be killed in Canada, and that beef
will come to the United States. Now, that comes here at a time
when, as I said, there is a cyclical low in cattle slaughter in
the United States which means that cow prices are higher than
they would normally be because cow packers are bidding against
one another to find a scarce number of cows. All of a sudden
they are going to face lower beef prices at the same time they
have high cow prices. Their margins, already low, will be
further stressed, and their capacity utilization, already low,
is another factor that will hurt them as well.
There is no question. I have communicated this to the
Secretary. The Secretary is aware of the differential effects
on the cow industry. That is why he took great pains in his
opening statement to mention the fact that he did not want to
see differential effects in the meat packing industry. That was
not spelled out in his statement, but that is what that
referred to. We are well aware of this issue. It is an economic
issue, and it comes into collision with the science issues
about whether you should import this beef or not.
I just wanted to make sure, and you gave me the opportunity
to do so, that our economic analysis is aware of what is going
on, and the Secretary is informed on this issue.
Senator Coleman. I appreciate it.
I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman. As I said, I will
submit some other questions. On the one hand we want to be
judged by sound science. We want Japan to judge us by sound
science so we have to be very clear. Mr. Secretary, I will
repeat it again if it has not been said enough, you have been
on it from day one. The opening of that market is critically
important, but at the same time the economic impact issues are
significant, and I appreciate the fact that you have looked at
this. We will have to take a close look, and clearly, we want
to minimize any kind of disparate treatment that we can.
Secretary Johanns. Mr. Chairman, if I might offer a
thought, I welcome the opportunity to visit with you. The
question has come up as we have visited with your colleagues on
a number of occasions. As I sat down and kept looking at this
rule, I kept bringing these folks at the USDA back into
meetings and say, ``Now, why did we do that, and where are we
coming from?'' They are probably behind me nodding their heads
because more than one meeting was devoted to this. That is an
area that very, very clearly I am concerned about, I am taking
a very close look at, that is a part of this rule, but a very
important part because it does involve a lot of animals and it
involves packers on this side of the line, small and probably
some of the larger ones. I am taking a look at it.
I will share with you that in terms of cattle over 30
months, as I understand the process that was developed some
time ago, and Dr. DeHaven can address this, a risk analysis was
not done on that, so we would have some work to do on this.
That is exactly what I am trying to pull together here.
Senator Dayton. Mr. Secretary, I see your Minnesota
education is holding you in good stead.
Secretary Johanns. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Lincoln.
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding such a timely hearing so that we all might offer the
Secretary our concerns and thoughts, and we can share some
wisdom and hopefully come about something that is going to
really in the long term provide us what we need, both as a
trading partner and for the safety of our consumers as well. It
is a very important rule that has been proposed here in terms
of what it means to a very important industry in the U.S., our
cattle industry, and our consumers.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back. I am glad to see that you
still want the job.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lincoln. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to
talk with you about something that is of great concern to the
cattlemen and women of Arkansas and to our cattle industry as a
whole. The rule and the issues around it are very complex. You
have seen that from the response of many of us, both complex,
and they come at an unfortunate time when certainly we
recognize that Canada has two more positive cases, or has had
two more positive cases of BSE, and has been expressed by many,
that the Japanese and the South Korean and some of our other
U.S. export markets remain closed.
I want to associate myself a little bit with the comments
of Senator Roberts, where he talks about perception and
reality. That is a critical thing for all of us up here. We
continually have to remember it, and it is important for us as
a nation that oftentimes when dealing with others globally that
perception can be reality to them. We want to make sure that we
are very, very clear about what the reality really is.
In any case, during our last hearing when you were here we
talked an awful lot about the Japanese and the South Korean
markets and the negative impact that it is having on the entire
U.S. cattle industry, and particularly my cattlemen in Arkansas
which I hear about on a daily basis. I know this issue has been
probably, we have discussed it a great deal here today, but I
just feel compelled to have to emphasize that point one more
time. The time has really come where the President of the
United States needs to step up, and he has to step up to the
plate and deal with this issue personally, and I hope that you
will encourage that. This is certainly, with no offense
intended to you or to USDA, with your authority or your power,
but at the juncture we have come to, that we really need the
President to weigh alongside you with his counterparts and with
your counterparts in Japan. That is going to be essential.
I do not know what you know about the horizon and the
opening of those markets, and if you have anything further that
you can divulge to us in terms of those perspectives. I have
just personally come to the conclusion if the President does
not personally engage himself in this, we are going to spend
too much more time at a disadvantage here that is going to just
exacerbate the problem that you have with the rule and Canada.
We look at these markets that we seem to be losing, and we
always talk about what it is going to take to fight to get them
back. We lose these markets, sometimes we never get them back.
That is something very important to put into this equation in
terms of the timeliness of it, do I hope that you will consider
that.
In regard to the rule with Canada, looking at that, is it
going to move the process with Japan and South Korea and others
faster? Is it going to move us along faster in that initiative?
I hope it will. Again, I reiterate I just cannot impress upon
you enough how important that is. Is it going to set us back in
terms of opening export markets in other places? We have talked
about that, the impression that we leave globally and the
science that we use, and its predictability and dependability
in negotiating future markets is important.
Dr. Collins, I just wanted to make sure I am clear. Is your
economic evaluation complete, and do we have that up here? Have
I just not seen it?
[The prepared statement of Senator Lincoln can be found in
the appendix on page 53.]
Mr. Collins. There is what is called a Regulatory Impact
Analysis that is available. It is required by both statute and
Executive Order and regulation. It was complete for the
promulgation of this rule. It is about 57 pages with another 30
pages of appendices.
Senator Lincoln. That is available to us?
Mr. Collins. That is available to you.
Senator Lincoln. It is complete, or do you have further
work?
Mr. Collins. The analysis of this issue will never be
complete. We will be revising our thinking as we continually
get new information. That is a snapshot of how we saw this
rule, a snapshot of what we saw as the effects of this rule or
one that would go into place on March 7th. It is based on data
available to the Department through the first half of 2004. It
is complete as of that point in time. Every month we put out
official forecasts of the price of fed beef, the beef
production in the United States and so on, and so every month
we will be reevaluating those variables based on new
information.
Senator Lincoln. You will send us the updated information
that you have which is consistent with the study that you have
been doing ongoing, is that correct?
Mr. Collins. I would be happy to do that.
Senator Lincoln. OK, great.
Well, Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Senate Finance
Committee, which has jurisdiction over international trade, we
certainly spend a lot of time there talking about the needs to
base decisions on scientifically sound ways, and we work to
ensure that we are treated fairly in the international
marketplace based on rules that we all agree to live by.
I do not envy you, Mr. Secretary, you are in a perfect
storm right now. You have two sides that are coming at you, and
it is going to be critical, in my opinion, one, that the
President weighs in, and two, that every ounce of consideration
can be given in the timeframe of the rule, as Senator Salazar
has mentioned, and what kind of impact it is going to have on
our constituency. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I will probably have to excuse
myself too if you finish this up, and I am hoping that one of
these three lunch meetings I am going to is going to serve me a
steak after this.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lincoln. I am looking forward to it.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Johanns. Absolutely.
The Chairman. If you get a steak, how about calling me?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, do you want to comment on
anything that Senator Lincoln has said?
Secretary Johanns. Just a quick comment. I do appreciate
your thoughts in this area, and the economic analysis is
available. I have taken the time to review it, and the
regulations, and the Executive Order that are the basis upon
which that is built.
Dr. Collins' observations are correct, this is a dynamic
industry. What do I mean by that? It changes. Decisions are
made at an individual basis that all of a sudden collectively
can have a very profound impact. I would assert again that a
very important issue for us to pay attention to is that raising
cattle and processing go hand to hand, and without one or the
other, the industry can really have, there can be very serious
consequences. If we delay on this rule without basis we impact
our trade negotiations. I just have no doubt about it. We get
caught in a situation where the industry in Canada will, I
believe, continue to build the capacity to slaughter. Once
those decisions are made and those capital investments occur,
it will not be in your lifetime or mine that the industry will
retool itself in all likelihood, and all of a sudden you have a
whole different dynamic.
In the short term we may be thinking we are helping the
producer. In the long term it may be a very devastating
decision for him. You have a major presence in your State in
this area, so you share my concern, I would be pretty
confident.
Senator Lincoln. No doubt, but it is important to always
remember that we have to have, in this dynamic industry, a
customer. Again, as Senator Salazar mentioned, there are very
few of us that come from rural America any more up here, and it
is critical, that impact. I just really implore upon you and
the President to recognize. Hopefully the President will seize
this as an opportunity to show rural America that he is willing
to step in and fight for them in those marketplaces like Japan,
and I encourage that heavily.
Secretary Johanns. He has and he will. In his conversations
with the Prime Minister of Japan a few months ago, he
aggressively worked this issue, and I could not be more
appreciative of his efforts.
The Chairman. Let me ask one final question. We, Mr.
Secretary, have been talking here, obviously, about animal
health versus food safety relative to this issue. FDA is not
here today, but you mentioned FDA early on in your statement. I
want to make sure that as this issue is publicized and this
hearing is publicized, it is clear what role food safety plays
in this issue. Would you or Dr. DeHaven quickly comment on
that, please?
Dr. DeHaven. I would simply say that food safety hospital
always been the paramount issue that has been before us as we
made the decisions on all of our programmatic changes and
enhancements we have made to the program. Even to the extent
that we increase surveillance to determine what the prevalence
of the disease is or is not in the United States, that then has
implications for what additional measures we may need to take
with regard to a feed ban, additional food safety measures we
may need to take with regard to SRM removal or some of the
other actions. Clearly the starting point is ensuring food
safety. The fact that Secretary Veneman very quickly initiated
an SRM removal program shortly after the finding in the case is
indicative of that, but again, the starting point has been food
safety and all of the other actions we taken then stem from
that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you for
being here. Thanks for providing this testimony.
We have received written statements and testimony from
Senators Allard, Burns, Craig and Cantwell, that I would like
to submit for the record, and without objection, it is so
ordered.
[The prepared statements of Senators Allard, Burns, Craig
and Cantwell can be found in the appendix on page 72-79.]
The Chairman. I would remind all Senators that the hearing
record will remain open for 5 days to allow for Senators to
submit statements for the record, as well as questions, to
which, I would appreciate, Mr. Secretary, you all would respond
to as quickly as possible so we can move ahead with this issue.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Johanns can be found
in the appendix on page 57.]
The Chairman. With that, this hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 3, 2005
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.048
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 3, 2005
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.050
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
February 3, 2005
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8459.101