A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, relating to risk zones for introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I respect the chairman of the committee, but on this issue we have a profound difference. Let me alert my colleagues and their staffs who are watching, this is going to be a consequential vote. We are only spending 3 hours on this issue this morning because we are operating under special procedures. But let every colleague of mine understand: They are going to be responsible for the votes they cast today. The risk that is being run here is significant.

Let me remind my colleagues what happened in Europe when mad cow disease got loose on their continent. One hundred forty-eight people died in England alone. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered in that country. They found 183,000 head that were infected, and they believe there were 2 million head of livestock infected in England alone that they were not able to complete tests on because of the magnitude of the crisis.

This vote may be critically important to the health of consumers and to the health of an entire industry. Make no mistake. When the question is science, that is precisely what this debate is about. Is, in fact, science being used by our neighbors to the north or are they simply putting regulations on the books that are not enforced?

The record is clear and the facts will demonstrate conclusively, Canada is not enforcing their own regulations that are based on sound science. But if you don't enforce the regulations, if you don't do the inspections, what does it mean? What does it mean to have on the books regulations that are based on sound science if they are not enforced?

I introduced S.J. Res. 4 on February 14 pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. It is a resolution to disapprove of the final rule produced by USDA that designates Canada as a minimal risk region for BSE or mad cow disease.

Let's review the facts. Canada already has four known cases of mad cow disease. That is not speculation. That is not based on some wondering about what is happening in Canada. That is based on facts, four known cases. In addition, they have one case of a cow imported from England positively tested for mad cow disease. So this is not some theoretical discussion we are having today. They have mad cow disease. It is demonstrated.

Now the question is, Should we run the risk of opening our border to livestock imports from Canada when the evidence, I believe, demonstrates clearly they are not enforcing their regulations to reduce the risk to them and to us?

I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle and expanded beef product imports at this time is risky and, I believe, premature. Allowing the USDA rule to go forward could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in this country.

Let me be perfectly clear. It has never been my intent to keep the border with Canada closed on a permanent basis. Over the last several weeks, I and many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have raised concerns about this rule. Unfortunately, those concerns have fallen on deaf ears. The Secretary of Agriculture has refused to withdraw the rule so sensible modifications could be made. This has left us with no option, other than this process, to stop a bad rule from becoming effective on March 7.

We all know a judge has issued an injunction against the rule, but none of us can know when the judge might withdraw his injunction. Our obligation and our responsibility is clear. This rule can go forward on March 7 absent our action. Reopening the border under the conditions provided in the rule poses, I believe, grave safety risks for our consumers, serious economic risks for the U.S. cattle industry, and it complicates our efforts to reopen export markets.

BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. As I indicated earlier, after it was first identified in England in 1986, England suffered nearly 150 deaths from this disease. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered. Around the world, additional human deaths from Creutzfeld- Jacobs disease have been linked to BSE. So we must be very cautious before we consider opening our border to imports from a country known to have BSE.

Again, this is not a matter of speculation. We know they have mad cow disease in that country. Since the European outbreak, scientists from around the world have been engaged in efforts to learn more about the disease. They have developed methods to test, control, and eradicate BSE. Through the international organization for animal health, known as the OIE, experts have designed science-based standards for the safe trade of beef products and live cattle from countries that have, or may have, BSE.

In particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed contaminated with animal protein containing BSE, it is critical that countries adopt measures to ensure that animal protein and other specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed. That is what is so important to understand here. This is a matter of what is in the feed that the cattle are eating. The OIE guidelines require a ban on cattle feed containing meat and bone meal from cattle be in effect for 8 years as the primary means to reduce the likelihood of BSE infecting cattle.

Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have followed OIE guidelines in developing its rules. Canada's ban went into effect in August of 1997; that is less than 8 years ago. Even then, the Canadian rules allowed for potential BSE contaminants that were in the feed manufacturing and marketing system. Unfortunately, the way the Canadians put their rule into effect, it allowed potential BSE contaminants to work their way through the industry. Moreover, with respect to Canada, USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure that Canada's cattle feed is not contaminated with animal proteins.

The U.S. has appropriately blocked cattle imports from Canada since Canada confirmed its first case of BSE in

May of 2003. Concerns were only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a dairy cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December of 2003. This case resulted in many important U.S. trading partners banning the importation of U.S. cattle and beef, a situation that continues today.

Let me make this clear. When our friends say we have to open our border so others will open their borders to us, you have it backwards. The reason other countries have closed their borders to our exports is because of their concern about our allowing imports from Canada, when they have known cases of BSE, and when it is quite clear that Canada is not enforcing their regulations to prevent additional outbreaks of this serious disease.

So it is very important that we and USDA move slowly, cautiously, and deliberately, and evaluate all possible risks before reopening our border to Canadian cattle. But the USDA rule doesn't do this. In particular, Canada has not effectively implemented measures to contain and control BSE for 8 years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has applied a very loose and flexible interpretation to the specific recommendations developed by the OIE.

In fact, it appears that Canada has not dedicated the necessary resources for enforcement and compliance within a large part of its feed manufacturing industry. Colleagues, staffs who are listening, hear this well. There are nearly 25,000 noncommercial, on-farm feed mills in Canada that produce about 50 percent of Canada's livestock feed. Canada has inspected only 3 percent of these facilities over the last 3 years. This is a gaping hole in their compliance program.

Let me repeat for anybody who missed it the first time. In Canada, there are 25,000 on-farm feed mills that are producing feed. Only 3 percent have been inspected in the last 3 years. Are we going to bet the lives of American consumers, bet the economic strength of an entire industry on that kind of a review regime? Is that what we are going to do today? I hope not.

Since USDA announced its final rule designating Canada as a minimum- risk region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE cases. Let me repeat that. Since USDA proclaimed Canada to be minimal risk, two more cases of mad cow disease have been discovered. The most recent one is particularly disturbing, because it involves a cow born several months after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. Again, let me repeat that. The most recent case of mad cow disease in Canada is in a cow that was born after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. Let's connect the dots. Four cases of mad cow disease in Canada and an additional one of a cow imported to Canada from Britain. Half of the Canadian feed industry has been inspected in only 3 percent of the cases over the last 3 years. The most recent cow discovered with the disease was discovered after the Canadian ban on animal proteins in cattle feed was put forward.

What does this tell us? I believe it tells us the Canadian ban has been ineffective. It is not just my belief; we have evidence from Canada's own inspection service. Let's put up the first chart, if we could. This is from the Vancouver Sun, December 16, final edition:

Secret tests reveal cattle feed contaminated by animal

parts: Mad cow fears spark review of ``vegetable-only''

livestock feeds.

It says that according to internal Canadian Food Inspection Agency documents--obtained by the newspaper through the Access to Information Act--70 feed samples labeled as vegetable-only were tested by the agency between January and March of 2004. Of those, 41, or 59 percent, were found to contain undeclared animal materials.

This is the risk being run if this border is open to Canadian cattle on March 7 of this year. We know what happened in Europe. In England alone, 146 people died. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered. Canada has 4 known cases of mad cow disease, and their own inspection service finds that in 59 percent of the cases where they have done testing, material that was not supposed to be present was present--the very material that can lead to the disease. Are we going to run the risk of allowing that to come into the United States?

On February 2, 2005, 1 month ago, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency finally issued a report concerning these very serious charges. Of 65 Canadian samples that received further testing, 54 cases containing animal protein were determined to be proteins that were not prohibited. That is good news. Unfortunately, in 11 cases, or 17 percent, Canada could not rule out the presence of prohibited material.

Since October 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of these import alerts against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force.

I am getting very able assistance by my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts. That is high-class help.

Let me repeat this because it is important for my colleagues to understand. Since October of 2003, our own FDA has issued 19 import alerts concerning Canadian feed products contaminated with illegal animal protein. Eight of those import alerts are still in force. Here they are: Muscle tissue in feed, where it is not supposed to be; muscle tissue and blood material in feed, where it is not supposed to be; May 10, 2004, muscle tissue and blood material in feed, where it is not supposed to be; February 5, 2005, mammalian bone and bovine hair in feed; October 28, 2003, suspect muscle tissue and unidentified animal hairs; April 6, 2004, blood and bone material present.

These alerts--every single one of them--are still in force today. Are we going to run the risk here of opening this border before we can be confident that Canada is enforcing their own regulations?

Finally, Canada has recently implemented new rules to further restrict the use of animal protein in livestock feed, as well as in fertilizer.

Listen to this: Canada's own justification for tightening its regulations is to reduce the potential for the cross-contamination of livestock feed products and fertilizers with animal protein that might contain the BSE prions. To me this suggests clearly that even Canadian officials are concerned that the enforcement and compliance with existing regulations may be inadequate.

As I noted in a letter I sent with Senator Harkin, Senator Johnson, and Senator Salazar to the Secretary of Agriculture, there is concern that not enough time has elapsed to be certain that Canada's education, surveillance, and testing measures are truly indicative of their level of BSE risk.

The bottom line is this: Canada has not achieved the necessary level of compliance to justify designating it as a minimal risk region. Their failure to enforce their own BSE measures could have serious consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border.

What is the risk? First and foremost, it could create potential dangers for consumers in this country. The Consumer Federation of America has registered concern about the ramifications for consumer health and safety if the border reopened and support this resolution. They said:

The Department of Agriculture's rule to open the border to

Canadian cattle and cattle products under 30 months of age is

decidedly less stringent than the international standards put

forth by the [IOE].

. . . [I]t is important that USDA reconsider its push to

open the Canadian border and reexamine the risks that such an

action may pose to the U.S. consumers.

It is not just the consumer groups that are concerned. Agricultural groups are concerned as well because this would not only pose a danger to our consumers but to an entire industry.

The National Farmers Union and R-CALF USA have expressed strong support for the resolution because of their concern about ensuring the continued safety and integrity of our domestic cattle industry. This is what the Farmers Union has said:

. . . National Farmers Union President . . . issued the

following statement.

``We believe it is inappropriate to proceed with reopening

the border at this time given Canada's most recent

discoveries of BSE positive cattle and the uncertainty of how

many additional cases will be detected.

I urge members of the United States Senate to support and

cosponsor this important resolution.''

R-CALF USA said:

United States cattle producers should not be excluded from

protections afforded by the more rigorous science-based BSE

standards

recognized throughout the world as necessary to effectively

manage the human health and animal health risks associated

with BSE.

Our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef exports, even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the United States. Compared to 2003, our beef product exports are off by over 82 percent. Let's connect the dots. We have four cases of BSE, mad cow, proven in Canada. We have none in the United States. And yet countries we export to have remained closed to us. Why? Because of the risk they see from Canadian cattle coming into our market and being then further shipped to them.

Here is what has happened to our U.S. beef exports: in 2003, $3.2 billion, down to under $600 million in 2004. Prior to the discovery of BSE in Canada, Canada's total live product and beef product exports to the U.S. amounted to over $2.2 billion. In 2004, their exports to the United States were cut in half, $1.2 billion.

U.S. ranchers and our cattle industry have suffered greater trade losses in our overseas markets than Canada has experienced because of U.S. limitations on their sales. In fact, our losses have been twice as big as theirs.

I believe that reopening the border now before we have reached agreement on reopening our export markets will only give our trade partners a further excuse to delay reopening these critical markets for U.S. producers.

We heard earlier a reference to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which, prior to the new cases of BSE in Canada, supported reopening the border. They have recently adopted a new policy. It requires 11 conditions to be met before we designate Canada as a minimum-risk region. Of those conditions, only three will be met under the current rule.

Let's be clear, the National Cattlemen's Association has outlined 11 specific items that need to be met. Only three of them have been under the rule. And it is not just a national issue. My State perhaps has as much at stake as any. The North Dakota State Legislature recently passed a resolution urging that our border with Canada remain closed for live cattle and beef product trade. My legislature is overwhelmingly Republican--overwhelmingly. They adopted this resolution overwhelmingly, saying keep this border closed until you can assure us and assure our people that it is safe. They have made a determination that nobody can give that assurance today.

The recent announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 months of age is a step in the right direction; however, the announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's compliance with its own feed regulations.

It was my hope that our new Secretary would withdraw the proposal to resume trade when he learned of these serious issues. But it now appears that the only way to stop this rule is for Congress to block it. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution of disapproval.

At the very least, we ought to delay this rule from being put into effect until we have a better sense of what is happening in Canada. There is an investigation ongoing. Why ever would we decide to go forward and open this border before our own investigation is complete?

Let me conclude as I began by saying to my colleagues, this is a consequential vote. None of us know precisely how great the risk is. What we can say with some certainty is there is risk, and the consequences of a failure to get this right could be enormous. I hope my colleagues think very carefully about this vote.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Kansas. He is my friend. I profoundly disagree with him about the conclusion. I think the risks run the opposite way. We want Japan to open their market to us? Then we better be able to assure them that our market and our supplies are safe. I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Canada is not enforcing their own regulations. Their own tests show it. They are not our tests. Their tests show they are not enforcing the regulations.

I remind my colleagues of the consequences of a failure to get this right. In England, 146 people died. Almost 5 million head were slaughtered. There are four known cases of mad cow in Canada today, and an additional case of a cow imported from England. And we are going to open our border on March 7, when the Canadians' own testing agency shows that in 59 percent of the cases animal matter is present where it is not supposed to be? Is that what we are going to do? I hope not.

I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the Senator from Colorado, that in the Conrad family, when asked, What is for dinner? beef is often the answer.

But that is not the question. The question is, Are we going to keep the beef supply safe? The evidence is overwhelming that Canada is not enforcing their own regulations. Their own testing shows they have right now four cases of mad cow identified in Canada.

I suggest to my colleagues that the better part of wisdom is for us not to open this border in a premature way. The risk is too great to our people and to our industry. The Senator cites the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. I met with my representative of the National Cattlemen in my State. They urged me to proceed. They urged me to go to a vote. They urged me to try to carry the vote.

When I look at what the National Cattlemen said, here it is. They put out 11 conditions that need to be met before the border is opened, and only 3 of them have been met. I would be glad at a later point to go right through the 11 conditions they said should be met. We can go right to the eight that are clearly not met. This border should not be opened until these 11 conditions have been met.

I yield 10 minutes to my colleague Senator Dorgan.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, let me make a couple quick points. It is true we had an investigation group go to Canada. Here is what they found. They went to seven feed mill operations in Canada. In six of the seven, they found one or more unsatisfactory task ratings. In two of the seven, they found serious failures to ensure prohibited material did not enter the food chain. More seriously, the assessment found that only 3 percent of Canada's on-farm feed manufacturers have been inspected at least once over the last 3 years.

Now we are talking about 25,000 on-farm feed operations. These mills represent one-half of Canadian livestock feed production. Only 3 percent have been investigated, were checked in the last 3 years.

My friends, we are talking about risk. What are the consequences of failure? In England, 146 people died. In England, they had to slaughter 5 million head.

In Europe, these were the headlines, week after week: ``French Farmers in Grip of BSE Panic.'' ``World of Europe Suffering for UK Errors.'' ``Mad Cow Disease Kills 500 Dairy Cattle Every Week.'' ``Slaughter to Prevent Disease on Continent.''

There were 6 million heads slaughtered. We are talking about substantial risk to our industry, to our consumers. Let's be cautious. Let's not open the border before we are confident Canada is actually enforcing the regulations

they have on their books. The evidence is very clear that they are not.

Mr. President, I yield Senator Thomas 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.

I yield an additional minute.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana. If he asks for additional time, I will be happy to extend it to him.

Mr. President, the issue before this body is as clear as it can be. This is going to be a consequential vote, make no mistake about it. This may be a vote that Members look back on and, if they vote against this resolution, they may deeply regret that in the future, because if, God forbid, additional mad cow cases come in from Canada, and that awful disease spreads in America, the consequences to this country could be enormous.

We all know what happened in Europe. It is not a matter of speculation. In England, 146 people died. Nearly 5 million head were slaughtered in England alone.

Let us connect the dots. In Canada, we know there are four confirmed cases of mad cow disease from cattle raised in that country. In addition, there is one case of a confirmed BSE positive cow, mad cow, that was imported from England. That is five cases. The most recent was a cow born after Canada supposedly put in the protections. The Canadians' own inspection service found that in 59 percent of the cases where they tested, animal matter was found where it was not supposed to be. That is what heightens the risk of mad cow disease.

Some of those cases, in fairness, have now been resolved. Seventeen percent of the cases have not been. In Canada, there are 25,000 feed- producing entities on farms. They produce half of all the feed in Canada. Only 3 percent have been checked in the last 3 years. There are four known cases of mad cow in Canada. There should be no rush to open this border in the face of that evidence. The risk to this country, the risk to human life, and the risk to this industry is simply too great.

My colleague talks about the National Cattlemen's position. This is what they have said with respect to opening the border. They said there are 11 conditions that should be met, and 8 of them have clearly not been met. I do not know if they have changed their position subsequently, but this is what they outlined, and 8 of these 11 positions have not been met.

In my own State, the cattlemen have told me to go forward with this resolution. My own State legislature, overwhelmingly Republican, has overwhelmingly approved a resolution asking us to keep this border closed until we can have greater confidence that Canada is enforcing their own regulations.

This is a consequential vote. The potential risk to this country is enormous. Anybody who is betting that Canada is enforcing their regulations is making a bet that I do not think stands much scrutiny.

I will end as I began, at least in this part of the debate. When the Canadian media used the Information Act in their country to look at what the Canadian testing authority themselves had found, they looked at 70 tests conducted by the Canadian agency, and they found in 59 percent of the cases, animal matter was present where it was not supposed to be. This is a risk that is not worth taking. The consequences could be far too grave for the American people and the American economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may very briefly sum up, I hope my colleagues will give careful consideration to this vote. This vote would disapprove the ruling from the USDA that the border with Canada should be opened on March 7.

I say respectfully that this runs a risk which we should not take. It is very clear from all of the evidence that Canada is not enforcing the regulations upon which USDA relied in recommending that the border be opened. The consequences to our country could be serious and dramatic.

Let me close by reminding my colleagues that when mad cow disease got loose in England, 146 people died, and nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered. We cannot and we should not run the risk of prematurely opening our border when we know there are four confirmed cases of mad cow disease in Canada, and when we know from the Canadians' own inspection service that in nearly 60 percent of the cases, animal matter was found where it should not have been.

This is a consequential vote. I hope my colleagues will take it seriously. We ought to at least buy time until further investigations are made to assure us that the risk of mad cow disease coming into this country has been reduced in as significant a way as is possible.

I thank my colleagues.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, I say quickly in response, no court can relieve the responsibilities of this vote from our Members. Every Member is going to be responsible for the vote we cast. When my colleague says this is not a health issue, I respectfully disagree. This is profoundly a health issue. If mad cow disease is ever unleashed in this country, God forbid, we will find out what an acute health issue it is.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It is the prudent, careful, and cautious thing to do.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding 20 minutes. As the Senator mentioned, animals have been an important part of my life. I grew up on a cattle ranch and I have dedicated my life to animals and animal diseases.

I rise today to tell my colleagues that I do not believe the policy that is now being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is risky, I do not think it is premature, and I think if we want to protect our cattlemen, we must pursue a policy of opening our borders of free trade. Colorado is one State that has historically benefited from the cattle industry and today it remains an important part of our economy.

I will respond to a few specific points that were mentioned by my colleague on the other side. I will talk briefly about the people who became ill as a result of the BSE prion. It is a form of protein, modified virus, in Europe. The diet of Europeans is markedly different than the American diet in the fact that they view brains and spinal cord tissue as a delicacy. Here in the United States and in Canada, as a part of our processing of meat, we discard our central nervous system tissue, so it does not get into the food supply. We have rigorous enforcement in the United States. Canada has rigorous enforcement. As late as February 22, we had a group of scientists go to Canada, and they reported back to us that the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada was very robust, as it is here in the United States.

But I think the most important thing we learned from the outbreak in Europe, and what we have learned with time, is that the prion, the organism that causes mad cow disease, occurs as a result of ruminant upon ruminant. By using that terminology, I mean that there are food supplements that are developed from animals, mostly ruminants, that then are fed back, either calcium or phosphorus, to the animal. When that happens that provides a vehicle for the transmission of the prion, the infectious organism. It doesn't transmit directly animal to animal by live contact or by human to animal by live contact. It is passed in the food supply when you have a ruminant supplement from another ruminant being fed.

Finally, of the three or four cases that we have in Canada, three of those actually were before the provisions were put in place by Canada and the United States to prevent the consumption of ruminant-on- ruminant feeds--except for one case. But that one case occurred very close to 1997. As a result of more rigorous efforts by both Canada and the United States, I believe beef is a good product, and I plan on eating beef. I do not hesitate for one moment talking to my colleagues about how good I think beef is and how we should not be overly concerned about the health effects of beef in our diet.

The closure of our Canadian border has cost Greeley County, CO, which is one of the largest agricultural-producing counties in the United States, alone, $250 million to $300 million over the past year from diminished economic activity due to declining production at one single meatpacking facility. This is a result of the Canadian border closure. Totally, the economic impact of the border closure throughout the United States is $3 billion. The border with Canada should be open based on sound, scientific principles that ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle food supply.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture approach to these discussions has been rational and science based. Sound science is critical because it separates fact from myth and ignores mad cow hysterics. Television pictures of seizure-stricken cows are intended to draw viewers but do not represent the truth behind the image.

Five other Senators joined me in April of last year in support of the immediate reopening of the Canadian border following these principles. Joining me on a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative were Senators Ben Nelson, Senator Campbell, Senator Murkowski, Senator Hatch, and Senator Brownback.

I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

The USDA Minimal Risk Region rule should be implemented because it is grounded in solid, sound science and will help end a situation that has wreaked havoc on beef trade for too long. It will protect the integrity of the human supply system and stabilize agricultural trade.

Canada meets the requirements of a minimal risk region, based upon a number of its actions. It has prohibited specific risk material in human food, as we do here in the United States. It placed import restrictions sufficient to minimize exposures to BSE. It has built and structured surveillance for BSE at levels to meet or exceed international guidelines, as we do here. And it has enacted a ruminant- to-ruminant feed ban. Finally, the appropriate epidemiological investigations, risk assessment, and risk mitigation measures have been imposed.

Opening the border with Canada will help restore the beef industry's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace and protect long-term job stability in the United States.

I have a chart that reflects Canadian beef exports. If we look over here to 2003 when the mad cow disease began to impact Canada, we can see, obviously, that there was a reduction in billions of pounds of carcass weight that was exported from Canada. But here we are moving from 2004. Not all the figures are in, but they are indicating we are going to get a pretty steep climb back in exports from Canada. And based on projections for 2005, exports from Canada are going to reach a historic high, despite the fact they have had mad cow disease in Canada.

These facts come from a reputable analyst, analyzing firm based in Denver, CO, that traditionally cattlemen have relied on to analyze beef markets throughout the country.

Let's look at the chart for U.S. beef imports from Canada. Obviously, in 2003 we saw a reduction in the amount of beef imports from Canada. Again, this is a million pounds of carcass weight over time. What we see in 2004 is that the imports from Canada have exceeded an all-time high, despite the fact that we have mad cow disease.

The point is, we are importing Canadian beef at record levels. We need to change that policy because processors are moving their plants to Canada. More and more people are going into the Canadian beef business. As a result, we are at risk of losing our own market share of beef.

The Greeley Tribune published an editorial stating that the United States must open its border with Canada. The Tribune is published in Greeley, CO, Colorado's most productive agricultural county.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Many of the supporters of the Resolution of Disapproval argue that because of U.S. policies, U.S. corporations are outsourcing jobs. The border closure has allowed Canada to grow its beef industry and increase its slaughter capacity, making Canada into a global competitor. While U.S. jobs are lost because of an unfair trade policy that allows cheap Canadian meat into the United States, they are being replaced in Canada as it bolsters its beef industry. Estimates will show that Canada will have the industry capacity to replace U.S. beef by May of 2005. Supporters of this resolution support the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.

During the past several years, Canada's annual cattle slaughter has been 3.2 to 3.3 million head. This is equivalent to about 65,000 head of cattle slaughtered per week. In 2004, Canadian slaughter was about 30 percent larger than during 2003. In 2005, Canadian cattle slaughter capacity is expected to

increase to about 95,000 head per week. Canada is expanding available slaughter capacity in the country so it can be less reliant on the U.S. market to process animals. Reliance on the U.S. market will continue, but Canada will compete effectively against the United States in the world marketplace.

According to the Canadian Meat Council, since May 2003, the Canadian beef industry has increased its daily beef capacity by more than 30 percent. The additional Canadian slaughter capacity that is available, or planned, will allow the Canadian beef industry to increase cattle slaughter totals by about 25 percent from 2004 to 2007.

Thanks to the border closure, thousands of U.S. workers have been laid off or have had their operations suspended. In Greeley, CO, located in the State's largest agricultural county, nearly 1,000 workers lost their jobs thanks to the closure.

Weekly cattle harvests in Canada are up 14 percent, from 72,000 to 82,000 over the past year, and are expected to rise to 95,000 per week by mid-2005, a 25-percent increase over pre-BSE levels. The jobs that go with that increased production probably will never return to the United States.

Prior to May of 2003, cattle imports from Canada accounted for approximately 4 percent of the U.S. production capacity. A number of these animals were also a part of the U.S.-Canadian Northwest Cattle Feeder Initiative. By allowing them to increase production capacity, we threaten U.S. production and marketing.

The average number of imported Canadian cattle for all purposes, between 1970 and 2003, is 795,563 head per year. The highest level of cattle imports was 1.68 million in 2002, and the lowest was 245,000 in 1986. The Minimal Risk Region rule requires animals to be imported exclusively for slaughter. Dairy, stocker, or other livestock segments are prohibited from importing animals for breeding or other purposes.

Frankly, the Canadian border is already open. Boxed beef is coming across the border from Canada in record numbers, numbers higher than they were before BSE was discovered in Canada, creating a public policy windfall for those companies with processing facilities in Canada while punishing those in the United States. U.S. beef imports from Canada set a record in 2004, approaching 1.2 billion pounds, a 12-percent increase over 2002 levels. During 2005, beef imports from Canada are expected to total 1.2 to 1.3 billion pounds.

Increased Canadian packing capacity is expected to increase beef production to more than 3.7 billion pounds in 2005 and exceed 4 billion pounds in 2007.

The unfair public policy is best illustrated in the following example. Canadian packers can buy a cow for about $17 per hundredweight and sell the processing-grade beef for about $123. He can also buy a fed steer or heifer at about $67 per hundredweight and sell the meat for about $132.

In the United States a cow will cost a packer about $55 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $125. The fed steer or heifer would cost about $85 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $135.

This imbalance has led, in part, to the layoff of thousands of people in the processing industry across our Nation. Eventually it will affect the cattlemen because our markets will be less available for those who have live fat cattle.

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has stated there is no body of scientific evidence indicating there is any potential risk to the American consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 months to enter the U.S. marketplace destined for fattening or slaughter.

I have picked up, as a result of my colleague from North Dakota mentioning the Colorado cattlemen's position--I do have a list of the requirements they are requiring. I have read down through those, and those provisions are being met in the United States, and they are being met in Canada. We have just made a call to the National Cattlemen's Association, and they have indicated to us that they support the position of opposing this resolution. So they understand that the rules and regulations that are being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture do protect the American consumer. They do protect, in the long run, the future of the cattle industry.

I just wanted to call that to the attention of the Members here, and I also want to again refer to my State of Colorado. There are a lot of States that have their economies built upon beef. In Colorado, on exports in general we have about $154 million in trade. We export $97 million. Most of that is in the beef side. We have $51 million of beef that is exported. We import about $97 million. Some of it is live cattle, but a good percentage of it is breads and pastries and cakes and vegetables.

If we do not address this problem, we are going to have a profound impact, in a negative way, on the Colorado beef industry and, throughout the country.

Canada is one of our most important trading partners. Agriculture is a fundamental component of U.S. trade. If we cannot rationally restore the beef and cattle trade with our most important trading partner, I ask the question: How will we ever restore trade on a global scale?

Some 20 Members of the Senate have joined me in sending a letter to the Japanese Ambassador asking him to reduce his import restrictions on beef from the United States. If we don't--and the other countries throughout the world are watching--what we are doing here?

If we don't use good science and if we don't use good sound policy, it is going to have a prolonged impact on our trade policies throughout the world, particularly as it applies to the livestock industry.

From what I understand, USDA appears to support the policies of the World Health Trade Organization. In fact, I think it exceeds what is recommended by the World Health Organization. I think Canada has the same policies, and I think they exceed what is required by the World Health Organization. We are setting the standard for the world.

I feel comfortable in having beef for dinner. When I am asked the question, What's for dinner? I am not going to hesitate to say beef, because I think we have a quality product in this country. I think what is happening in Canada is comparable to what is happening in the United States. I think they are working hard to bring the regulations and rules into compliance with what we have here.

We received a report a week or so ago from a group of scientists who visited Canada, saying they have a robust effort in their rules and regulations, just as we have a robust effort in this country.

Again, when asked the question, What is for dinner? my answer is beef.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding some time to me so I can respond to a number of issues that have been brought up.

First of all, I would like to say that the information we have on the food contents is older information. The newest information we have is from a group of scientists that went to Canada to check on their rules and regulations, on their enforcement. These scientists reported back to us on about February 22 of this year, saying that the rules and regulations are being enforced robustly in Canada. That includes the ruminant on ruminant food regulation where you prevent the consumption of ruminant byproducts by other ruminants. I have confidence in these trained scientists who know what they are looking for and have given us the most recent report on what is happening as far as the food on food regulation.

I would also like to go over some of the positions by the Colorado Cattlemen Association as well as the National Beef Association. They support a minimal-risk region classification, and they support it on the following conditions:

No beef or beef products will be imported into the U.S. from cattle over 30 months of age. That is in place.

All imported feeder cattle must be harvested previous to 30 months of age, and the verification processes must be implemented to track and validate harvest age and location. They are doing that with earmarkings as well as brands.

All cattle direct to harvest must be 30 months of age or younger. That is being done. It is a provision in the rules and regulations.

Minimal-risk regions must meet all processing techniques and regulations relating to BSE as set out by the U.S. That is what those scientists were reporting to us as of the 22nd of February.

Adherence and implementation of a U.S. equivalent ruminant to ruminant feed ban. That is a requirement. That is what the scientists report back, that they are complying with the rules and regulations, and we should not have a concern about it.

And then:

The Colorado Cattlemen's Association is committed to

normalizing global trade based on [good] science that

protects the health of the beef industry.

And they express that:

Once our concerns have been adequately addressed, CCA will

reconsider our position on opening the Canadian border.

The Colorado Cattlemen Association currently supports the minimal- risk region rules that have been put out by the Ag, and the Colorado Farm Bureau currently supports the Canadian reopening. The Colorado Livestock Association supports the reopening, and the National Cattlemen's Association, which is headquartered in Colorado, supports the Department of Agriculture's provision on minimal risk.

Mr. President, since the floor manager is not here, I yield myself 5 minutes to respond further.

Mr. President, I want to emphasize again how very important it is that we proceed on this matter using good scientific evidence. I appreciate the statement that was made by the Senator from Montana. He is right in many regards that we need to be sure that we use good science. I feel good about the enforcement of the rules and regulations based on the visit by scientists who just reported back in February. It is the most recent report that we have on the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada. They are very competent scientists, very dedicated scientists. And what they reported back to us is valid.

From a trade standpoint, we need to do something for our cattlemen. I believe strongly that what we need to do for the cattleman is get the borders opened because we are importing Canadian beef today. It is boxed beef. The reason that is coming in is because our plants can't economically make it. They are having to pay high prices for beef. They only have a limited supply of beef, and so they are not up to capacity. In the meantime, the processing plants, the beef that they are getting is lower cost beef. And then they are putting that on the world market. They are importing that into the United States.

The result is that we see an expansion of the beef industry in Canada. They have got plans to build more processing plants. They are in the process right now of building more processing plants.

That means there are going to be more people raising cattle in Canada. That means if our processors here don't make it like the one in Colorado, we

lose our local markets. We lose an opportunity for our cattlemen to readily get their beef to market. That costs in shrinkage and extra transportation costs, particularly when we look at the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel. So this is a problem that needs to be resolved quickly.

We need to move forward with the guidelines that were laid out. By the way, the principles laid out in the guidelines have been used by the cattle industry in this country to control livestock disease, which also affects humans. The principles are laid out here, things like brucellosis. We know in cattle country what that is all about. We have States classified as brucellosis-free, and there are those having problems with that. The movement of cattle back and forth begins with addressing brucellosis in those States. Using those principles, we have been able to reduce the incidence of brucellosis in this country. It works. They are the same principles we are using on BSE and asking for Canada and the world organizations to apply, where we take minimal-risk countries, such as Canada and the United States, and apply those provisions in a good, scientific way.

That is only part of it. The other part is that during the process you don't increase the risk by handling the processes improperly. No. 1, you don't want to circulate the food and feed it back to the cows, the byproducts. That is a policy that has been adopted here and in Canada, and it is something we have learned since the outbreak in the European Community.

So, again, I also compliment Secretary of Agriculture Johanns for his efforts in trying to protect the beef industry and to use good science. He comes from Nebraska. That is a big beef State, as are many of the other States. But the important thing is to recognize that free trade is a benefit of agriculture. It has benefited particularly the beef industry. We want to make sure we get the border open, and we need to use good science in opening it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, questions were raised earlier about the accuracy of dentition; in other words, looking at the eruption of teeth to identify when the animal is 30 months old. That is pretty exact science. It is very reliable; not to say maybe one or two cows will slip through that are off a month or two. That is why the 30-month period was selected, because this is a disease of slow onset, and when they are under 30 months, we ordinarily do not have to worry about them.

Let us suppose somebody has some concerns about an animal that may be infected with BSE coming across a border. What happens is there are certain rules and regulations where one transfers from Canadian regulation over to American regulation. We only have certain points of entry into the United States, and when that animal comes into the United States, it is very adequately marked. They have ear tags and they are branded so that if something should happen to the ear tags, they still have the brand on the animal.

The only thing that can happen to that animal is it moves into an approved feedlot, it is isolated in that feedlot, for the purpose of slaughter. So that animal then is processed for slaughter. In the processing procedure, all of the central nervous system tissue--the brain, spinal cord--is discarded. It is not used for consumption. If there is a temperature on that animal, it is not slaughtered.

So when one takes into consideration the final steps of the process, they can understand I do not hesitate to suggest that people ought to eat beef. Our beef is safe and the beef processed in this country is safe.

I have a letter dated March 3. It was sent to me and is from Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He states flatly that this resolution should be opposed for the following reasons, and he gives six reasons. He says this resolution should be opposed and in its place would urge the Senate to support an effort to open the Japanese, South Korean, and additional markets for U.S. cattle producers.

I thank those 19 Senators who joined me in writing a letter to the Japanese Ambassador to open their markets to American beef.

Mr. McAdams states that the failure to open these markets has cost the U.S. cattle producers $175 per head and a cumulative loss of nearly $5 billion in income. We need the full attention of the Senate to act on this issue, not to act to block science-based trade policies.

Then No. 2 states:

The resolution supports blocking a science and risk-based

analysis and phasing in opening of the Canadian borders. This

action does meet the real needs of U.S. cattle producers, as

it will give excuses for other countries to block our

exports.

Point No. 3 in the letter opposing the resolution:

The resolution should be opposed and in its place, we urge

the Senate to support action to ensure the Canadian

government eliminates their blue tongue and anaplasmosis

trade barriers for all classes of U.S. cattle exports to

Canada.

Think about that.

The resolution will allow maintaining the status quo with

Canada further accelerating the shift of the packing,

processing capacity, and jobs from the U.S. to Canada, and

hurting U.S. cattle producers.

The resolution ignores the fact that beef is safe. Analysis

of the reports by industry and government clearly indicate

that Canada, just like the U.S., has taken the necessary

steps to ensure that their beef is safe. This

resolution perpetuates fear mongering over nonexistent safety

concerns and misrepresents well-documented science doing a

disservice to the cattle industry and U.S. consumers.

The USDA has already addressed prior producer concerns of

this rule, to the extent that USDA has withdrawn the section

of the final rule regarding beef from animals over thirty

months.

We urge you to vote NO on this resolution.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the resolution and in support of the rule as proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I do this, first of all, with great appreciation of the efforts of my colleagues to bring this resolution forward. But I must encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

This is not the time to pull the plug on a rulemaking process that is rooted in the best available science and, instead, to be guided by the concerns that seem to be less about science than about trade advantages.

The illustrious chairman of the Finance Committee went into great detail about the trade issues and the fact that the rule change is based on sound science. That is a lot of what I want to talk about initially this morning.

First, I think we need to understand exactly what the resolution seeks to disapprove of today. On January 4, 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published its final rule regarding further reopening of the U.S. border for beef imports from Canada. This rule designates Canada as the first ``minimal-risk region'' for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, otherwise known as BSE. I will not try that long word again. We are going to call it BSE. It is due to become effective on this Monday, March 7, 2005. The original rule would have allowed bone- in beef from cattle of any age and live cattle under 30 months of age.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted two rounds of public comment and received over 3,300 comments on the proposed rule. Over a period of months, USDA considered these comments, and responses were published with the final rule. The final rule establishes criteria for geographic regions to be recognized as presenting minimal risk of introducing BSE into the United States.

USDA utilized the OIE, which is the International Office of Epizootics, the international body that deals with animal diseases worldwide. Again, this will be referred to as the OIE. The USDA utilized the OIE guidelines, which recommend the use of risk assessment to manage human as well as animal health risks of BSE, as a basis in developing final regulations defining Canada as a minimal-risk country.

The final rule 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. Under the USDA definition, a minimal-risk region can include a region in which animals have been diagnosed with BSE but where sufficient risk mitigation measures are in place to reduce the likelihood of the disease's introduction into the United States.

On January 2, 2005, Canada confirmed its second domestic case of BSE, and a third case 9 days later. The USDA sent a technical team to Canada on January 24, 2005, to investigate Canada's adherence to the ruminant, ruminant feed ban. The results of that investigation were favorable, finding that the Canadian inspection program and overall compliance to the feed ban were good. The technical team's epidemiological report investigating possible links of the positive animals is still pending.

In response to this, on February 9, 2005, Secretary Johanns announced USDA would delay the implementation of that part of the rule allowing for older bone-in beef--that is beef in excess of 30 months old-- because the technical team's investigation in Canada would not be complete by March 7.

The current rule now allows imports from Canada of bone-in beef and live cattle under 30 months of age intended for immediate slaughter.

On January 24 of this year, USDA sent a team to Canada to assess the adequacy of Canada's current ruminant feed ban, as previously stated. On February 25, USDA published their report, and in this report USDA stated:

[T]he inspection team found that Canada has a robust

inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed ban

is good, and that the feed ban is reducing the risk of

transmission of BSE in the Canadian cattle population.

Furthermore, the report notes the obvious fact that:

[T]he Canadian feed ban is not substantially different than

the U.S. feed ban.

Those who want to seriously question the adequacy of the Canadian BSE controls should keep in mind that Canada almost perfectly mirrors the controls in place in the United States. The controls for BSE in the United States are sufficient and, according to all the data available, the similar controls in Canada are also sufficient.

We should keep in mind also that the question regarding Canadian beef and cattle imports is not a food safety issue. I repeat, it is not a food safety issue. It is an animal health issue. That is what we are talking about today.

BSE is not spread by contact between people or animals. Safeguards are in place in both the United States and Canada to ensure that no potentially infectious material would ever make it into the human food supply, period.

Internationally accepted science maintains that the removal of certain specified risk materials that contain the prions that cause BSE eliminates the disease's infectivity. Canada has adopted SRM removal requirements that are virtually identical to current U.S. regulations.

In addition, while the Canadians do not view tonsils in cattle under 30 months as SRMs, the U.S. requires that all meat exported from Canada to the United States have the tonsils removed pursuant to U.S. regulations.

Finally, the Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, has audited a number of Canadian plants and found them to be in compliance with U.S. BSE requirements, including SRM and small intestine and tonsil removal.

Since all potentially infectious materials are removed from every animal old enough to theoretically exhibit the disease, both in the United States and Canada, it should be clear that this is an animal health debate only. We are all committed to maintaining the highest standards of human health protection. We have those already today, and we will still have those standards after this rule takes effect.

Regarding the issue of animal health, the OIE has affirmed that Canadian BSE control efforts have resulted in a very low risk of BSE in their cattle herd. The best available science in both Canada and the United States tells us that the safeguards in place are protecting animal health also. USDA-APHIS has conducted multiple investigations into Canada's ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban compliance since the May 2003 border closure, and all scientific, risk-based evidence has pointed to resuming beef and cattle trade with Canada.

They have concluded that the Canadian ruminant feed ban, which took effect simultaneously with our own feed ban, is effective in preventing the introduction and amplification of BSE in both Canadian and U.S. cattle herds. We can choose to go down the road of trade protection or we can continue to trust the best science available. I encourage us to stick with sound consensus science.

On January 17 of this year, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association sent a delegation of producers and scientists to Canada to evaluate the effectiveness of that country's BSE control efforts. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is the largest beef producer organization in the United States, representing both beef producers as well as processors. The outcome of the NCBA review published on February 2 affirms their confidence that the Canadian BSE safeguards are adequate.

Regarding the Canadian feed ban, the NCBA Delegation concluded:

The Canadian feed industry appears to be in compliance with

its feed ban, based on visual inspections and multiple annual

audit reports.

They also concluded that Canada's BSE surveillance and proposed import requirements related to animal health were sufficient to protect the U.S. cattle herd, if the border with Canada is opened even further.

While we would never want to formulate U.S. policy merely based on the practices of another country, it is instructive to note that domestically produced beef consumption in Canada is up, not down. It is clear that Canadians are not shipping beef to us that they don't choose to eat themselves.

In 2003, the last year for which numbers are available, Canadian beef consumption increased 5 percent to 31 pounds per person per year. Indications are that consumption in 2004 will be just as strong if not stronger. We can be confident that the beef exports from Canada presently underway and the ones proposed by USDA's rule don't constitute dumping unwanted product in our market but are composed of the same beef that Canadian consumers recognize as wholesome and are buying in increasing quantities.

In the past, a large percentage of Canadian cattle came to the U.S. processing plants for further value-added processing and to provide sufficient livestock numbers to keep in business many U.S. plants near the northern border. Since the closure of the U.S. border to Canadian beef, the Canadian processing capacity increased by 22 percent in 2004 alone.

This means that those processing jobs and all the added carcass value are now increasingly in Canada and no longer in the United States. This may have especially significant impact on U.S. processors in the Pacific Northwest who have relied on Canadian cattle to keep their plants open. In recent months, several U.S. companies have announced that they are suspending operations or reducing hours of operation due to the tightening cattle supplies and lack of an export market. If we keep our border closed to Canadian-slaughtered cattle and bone-in carcasses, then their meat will still come to the United States as boneless cuts because that is already happening with or without this rule. But the added value and jobs that could be in the United States will increasingly be kept in Canada.

Agricultural trade is vital to maintaining a robust agricultural economy in the United States. The future of agriculture in this country, the future of ranching depends upon our ability to export the finest quality of agricultural product of anybody in the world. As the world's largest trading partner, we must base our trade decisions on sound science. We have the most to lose when nontariff trade barriers are enacted.

USDA has made resumption of international trade in U.S. beef a high priority. The United States and Japan have held consultations and agreed that the trade in beef between the two countries should resume given certain conditions and modalities. We have to remember that our beef exporting trade with Japan has been discontinued due to the fact that we found one cow in the United States with BSE, although it turns out that cow originated in Canada and came into the United States.

Japan is one of our largest markets, and it is a critical market for us to reopen. USDA is in the midst of negotiations today for the reopening of that market. Taiwan has also agreed in principle to resume imports of U.S. beef and beef products. Removal of restrictions by some of our major Asian trading partners is on the horizon.

In 2003, we exported $1.3 billion worth of beef products to Japan, $814 million worth of beef to South Korea, and $331 million to Canada. In 2004, after the one BSE positive cow was found in Washington State, we exported essentially zero dollars' worth of beef products to Japan and South Korea and $98 million worth of beef to Canada. These countries are aware of our rulemaking and are watching how we address this issue with Canada. We have a huge stake in seeing worldwide trade in beef resume on the basis of sound science rather than on trade protectionism.

Make no mistake, we are sending a very powerful message today with our actions on this resolution to all of our trading partners. For countries prohibiting beef imports from the United States, whether we continue to adhere

to sound science in our dealings with Canada could influence their future actions toward our beef. Canada has met our minimal risk standards, and we must adhere to the policy dictates of sound science or face others using arbitrary standards toward us.

Currently, there is a suit filed in U.S. district court in Billings, MT, challenging USDA's BSE minimal risk region rule. Yesterday, after a hearing, a temporary injunction was granted staying the implementation of the final rule and ordering the two parties to sit down and agree to a schedule for a trial which must take place in the short term because of this being a temporary injunction. At this point in time it would be wise to allow the court proceeding to play out. It would be premature to pass this resolution and interfere with the operations of that court. We can always come back after the judicial proceedings are finished and express our disapproval. It is appropriate for us to allow the third branch of Government to finish their review of this rule, and we should not usurp the judiciary on this matter.

In summary, according to the best science available in our hands today, further opening of the U.S. border to Canadian bone-in beef and cattle under 30 months of age does not pose a serious threat to the U.S. beef herd. It certainly does not increase the risk of human BSE exposure. Recent evaluations of the Canadian cattle industry by the NCBA indicate that there is not a wall of cattle that will flood into the U.S. market from Canada should this rule go into effect.

The Canadian Government, USDA, and the NCBA have all reviewed the Canadian BSE safeguards and found them sufficiently robust and protective for trade to be expanded as this rule proposes. Beef exported from Canada has to meet the same science-based standards that have been successfully protecting our consumers and beef producers for many years.

It has been stated before--and I repeat--that Americans are blessed with the most abundant, affordable, and safest food supply in the world. The action we take today will not make our food supply safer. It merely enforces and encourages the actions of those who would restrict trade with measures not related to sound science.

I encourage my colleagues to say yes to sound science by saying no to this resolution today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.

Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Colorado, who by profession is a veterinarian and certainly has, in addition to legislative knowledge, professional knowledge about this issue, Mr. Allard.

I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Colorado 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed as in morning business and that Senator Dole be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Martinez for 5 minutes, Senator Allard for 3 minutes, and myself for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes in relation to the Dayton and Nelson amendments, which were to follow immediately after the vote on S.J. Res. 4, now be set to occur at 2 o'clock.

I further ask unanimous consent that at 12:50 the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the pending resolution with the time equally divided between Senators Chambliss and Conrad.

Mr. President, again I thank my colleague from North Dakota for bringing up this issue. I know it is of critical importance, as do a number of Members of this body. But I must remind folks that as we have gone through the debate here today, we have heard time and time again from those who are opposed to this resolution that this is an issue not of emotion but an issue of sound science. All of the sound science says that the Secretary of Agriculture has made the correct decision and that the border should be opened with Canada for the importation of beef and cattle under 30 months of age.

I want to remind our folks, too, that as you think about how you are going to vote, know and understand that once again the checks and balances system we have in our Constitution is at work on this issue. There was a court decision yesterday. A temporary restraining order was issued relative to the further reopening of the border on Monday. That decision will be decided on the merits after a full hearing from both sides. In this body we have heard contradictory statements. There an impartial judge will make a decision based upon his findings relative to the facts in the case.

This is not a health issue. It is not a health risk to human beings if the border is reopened. This is an issue of animal safety. It should be based upon sound science.

Let me read two things.

First of all, I have a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture dated March 3, 2005, and I want to read two sentences from the letter.

First, the Secretary says:

If Canadian beef and cattle posed a risk to U.S. human or

animal health, USDA would never have proposed reopening the

border. Science must be the touchstone governing our trade

relations and guiding our actions.

Continued closure of the Canadian border is not justified by the best scientific understanding of BSE risks.

Lastly, let me read a Statement of Administration Policy dated March 3, 2005, from the Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and Budget, as follows:

The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J.

Res. 4, a resolution to disapprove the rule submitted by the

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) with respect

to establishing minimal risk regions and reopening the

Canadian border for beef and cattle imports. USDA's rule is

the product of a multi-year, deliberative, transparent, and

science-based process to ensure that human and animal health

are fully protected. S.J. Res. 4, which would prevent the

reopening of our Canadian border, would cause continued

serious economic disruption of the U.S. beef and cattle

industry, undermine U.S. efforts to ensure that international

trade standards are based on science, and impede ongoing U.S.

efforts to reopen foreign markets now closed to U.S. beef

exports. If S.J. Res. 4 were presented to the President, he

would veto the bill.

With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have apparently resolved what everybody is going to have for dinner. Apparently it is beef. We haven't resolved who is going to stand on the floor of the Senate this morning and support our farmers and ranchers who produce that beef. That is the question--not what we are eating for dinner. Who is going to stand for the farmers and ranchers on this issue?

It took a nanosecond to hear that we are protectionist this morning. Every thoughtful discussion turns into a thoughtless discussion in a nanosecond around here when it deals with trade, because instantly the subject of protection comes up and the word ``protectionism'' is used. God forbid that someone should be accused in this Chamber of the Senate of standing up to protect the economic interests of this country. It happens precious few times.

But let me be somebody who says, if that is the charge, I plead guilty. I want to protect our economic interests. I don't want to build walls around this country. I believe expanded trade is helpful. But I also want to stand up for the economic interest of this country when it is at stake.

Let me say one other thing, as I have been listening here. Let us stop walking hat in hand to the Japanese and asking for favors. Let us stop killing another tree to send one more letter to the Japanese. Last year, they had a $74 billion trade surplus with us. Because we had one Canadian cow found in the State of Washington with BSE, the Japanese don't want to eat American beef.

Now we have people who say somehow the Japanese will be more confident to eat American beef, if we allow Canadian cattle to come into this country--cattle from a country where investigations have shown that the feed supply has prohibited animal materials. My colleague Senator Conrad described it. In December, the Vancouver Sun reported that officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found prohibited animal materials in 141 of 70 samples. Of the feed that was tested, 58 percent was found to have had prohibited animal materials.

So somehow you are going to give the Japanese confidence by allowing Canadian cattle to come into this country on the heels of four examples of mad cow disease in Canada? I don't think so.

I know there is a lot of passion about this issue. Canada is a great big, old, wonderful country with great neighbors. They are a wonderful neighbor of ours. We share thousands of miles of common border. I am heartbroken for the Canadian ranchers. I know it must be tough for them. I wish them no ill will at all. I regret that they have found examples of mad cow disease in Canada. But they have.

Our responsibility is to stand up for the interests of American producers, American farmers, and ranchers. That is our job.

Listen. You all read the papers last summer. The President was going to go to Canada. The speculation last summer was that in discussions with Canada there would be a promise that border would be opened after the election. We all read that--not once, several times. Sure enough, the election comes and goes, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture decides that the border has to be opened. Canada meets every test.

It turns out they don't meet every test. It turns out this is not about sound science. This is about let us pretend. Frankly, some say let us pretend that everything is fine; that there is rigorous testing in Canada; that the testing meets all the requirements; that there is no difficulty, no problems; and, if we allow under the conditions set by the United States Department of Agriculture the import of beef and live animals from Canada, somehow things will turn out fine for us. But, of course, that is not the case. We know that is not the case.

My colleague Senator Conrad offers this Chamber this morning an opportunity to cast a vote on this issue. I know we have already heard about protectionism, and we have heard this is tough on packing companies, which is another part of this, obviously. But the question for the Congress is, Will it stand up for the interests of American producers? Will it be something that will make it harder to get into international export markets once again with our beef?

I think that it is time--long past the time--for this Congress to cast a vote in support of America's interests here, in support of our country's interests, and our producers' interests.

I can think of dozens of debates on the floor of the Senate where in every circumstance where you talk about the interests of American producers, somehow foreign policy is overwhelming. All of this mishmash, this soft-headed nonsense, of course, comes from the State Department, and from all those in this Chamber who stand up on cue and say, Yes, sir, yes, sir, we certainly don't want to be accused of protectionism when it comes to economic interests. Let us find a high board, and dive right off that old high board.

On this issue, Senator Conrad says he is not ready to dive, nor am I, nor I think are many in this Chamber ready to simply decide the economic interests of this country, the interests of farmers and ranchers, are to be sacrificed in this circumstance.

A few days before Christmas of 2003, the one instance of BSE, or mad cow disease, was discovered in this country. It wasn't an American cow; it was a Canadian cow sent to this country from Canada. The consequences of that are dramatic, and they have been significant. But, my colleague, as I listened to his opening statement today, described consequences far more severe than that in Europe.

We ought to move with some caution here and with some concern. We ought to move reasonably slowly to make sure we know what we are doing. But that has not been the case with USDA. And, in part, it is because the packing companies are putting on the pressure. It is partly, I think, because the President went to Canada last summer and made some representations. In part, it is because they say they are meeting all these tests. But my colleague Senator Conrad has taken the mask off all of that.

How does one describe a response to what my colleague Senator Conrad has said, my colleague Senator Johnson has said, and what I have said-- that the tests in Canada as reported by the Canadian news and by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found prohibited animal materials in 58 percent of the cattle feed tested?

I have not heard one person respond to that. Is there a response? If so, I would be happy to yield to someone to offer me a response. Is there anyone here who wants to respond to the proposition that 58 percent of the feed that has been tested, as reported in Canada, had animal parts in it? Is there no response? Doesn't it matter? Don't we care? Or, is this the case where we should ignore the evidence and decide that we came to the Chamber with our own preconceived conditions, opinions, and our own desire to support the President and USDA, and we have to vote that way?

Although I am not going to be on the floor for the entire debate, I hope at some point someone might respond to that proposition.

Evidence is a pretty difficult thing sometimes. The evidence here is compelling and clear. We have people saying that Canada meets all the tests, and then we have the evidence. They don't.

When my colleague Senator Byrd one day was speaking on the floor, he said that the caterpillar, the squirrel, and the eagle, seeing the Earth from exactly the same spot, saw it differently. The caterpillar climbs on a clump of grass, and says, I can see the world. And on the exact same spot, the squirrel climbs the tree and says, I see the world. And at exactly the same spot, the eagle flies overhead, and says, I see the world. All three look at the same spot and see different things. It happens.

But you can't look at the spot Senator Conrad asks you to look at today and see something different. You can't. The demonstration of that is there is no answer to the proposition that the feed testing in Canada is woefully inadequate. And if you believe that--and apparently you do, because nobody is contesting that--then opening that border at this point, in my judgment, compromises the interests of farmers and ranchers in this country.

Why on Earth would we decide to do that? In whose interest are we here serving? Why would we decide to put someone else's interest first?

There is nothing to be ashamed of, in my judgment, for standing up for this country's interest for a change. Perhaps once, just once today, on this vote we will see evidence of an interest of doing that here in the Senate.

Let me conclude one more time by saying this is not about ``protectionism.'' That is the kind of nonsense thrown around in every trade debate. But it is about protecting America's economic interests. That is what we come to the Senate to do. My hope is

when we finally cast this vote, we will have done so this morning.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his leadership on this crucial issue before the Senate today.

I rise to speak on an issue of enormous significance to consumers, producers, and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota and all across America. The U.S. border is scheduled to be thrown open on March 7, 2005, to Canadian live cattle and other assorted bovine products. While the rule was modified to ensure that live cattle and beef imports come from animals under 30 months of age, which is a modestly helpful adjustment, I retain profound concerns about the lack of scientific basis for the decision to throw open the border and feel that the timing of this administration decision could not possibly be worse for consumers and producers alike.

We have seen four instances of BSE in cattle of Canadian origin, while the United States has not experienced even one indigenous case. In fact, two of these cases were detected after the Department of Agriculture released their final rule. I think those numbers become even more troubling when we compare the annual slaughter populations or total animals slaughtered in that time frame.

There is an overwhelming difference when our neighbors to the north slaughter roughly less than 10 percent of the U.S. slaughter population and yet they have all of the indigenous BSE. I am concerned that the Department of Agriculture's rule is not based all on sound science, and I agree, science ought to be the determining factor.

The USDA has chosen instead to adopt weaker standards in their final rule. Animals entering the United States will not and cannot be tested for BSE and there are no safeguards available to United States producers to relieve the effect of the millions of Canadian cattle lined up at our border.

The final rule establishes minimal-risk regions for BSE and recognizes Canada as a minimal-risk region. However, that rule fails to recognize the internationally accepted standards set forth by the OIE, or World Organization for Animal Health, for minimal-risk regions, which are the only recognized standards that are accepted on a worldwide basis.

Transmission of BSE is, in fact, still unclear and uncertain. Maintaining segregation of the Canadian and American herds to the largest extent possible is the only scientifically sound approach, and USDA's final rule only seeks to mix these cattle populations.

The Bush administration and a Japanese Government panel have discussed certain parameters for importation of American beef. Namely, imported products would be from animals age verified at under 20 months of age and adhere to a certain grade of meat. These criteria were set because of Japanese consumer concerns. I fail to see how allowing the importation of Canadian cattle and products from cattle under 30 months of age into the United States, 10 months older than American beef that could be potentially exported to Japan, can possibly be beneficial for regaining consumer confidence in Japan or for maintaining consumer confidence in the United States.

At one point, we were exporting about 10 percent of our beef to foreign nations, the Japanese being the largest buyer of American beef abroad. The Japanese, because of their own experiences with mad cow disease and human disease in that nation, are understandably very concerned that if they buy beef from another country, they want that beef to, in fact, come from a non-BSE country. It is the United States that jeopardizes our export market by throwing open the doors to a huge tidal wave of Canadian animals into the United States, mixing the whole herds together and then selling that export product or attempting to sell that without being able to identify whether we are, in fact, selling Canadian product or American product to the Japanese or anyone else. It is no wonder that throwing open this border is going to further jeopardize what is already a difficult circumstance for American exporters.

Then for American producers, they wind up with a double whammy. The Canadian import into the United States is roughly equivalent to about 10 percent of our herd, while we lose and further jeopardize an export market that had been 10 percent of our herd. That is a 20-percent swing jeopardizing consumer confidence in the United States and having the potential to have devastatingly negative consequences for livestock producers in America.

I think the time is overdue, and USDA should spend more time being concerned about American livestock producers and a little less time being concerned about the viability of Canadian livestock producers, given the kind of public health and the export consequences this opening the border will entail.

We lost a $1.7 billion export market when Japan shut their borders, and what we need is consistent leadership and guidance from the USDA that recognizes we ought to abide by internationally accepted standards for minimal risk and that a premature opening of that Canadian border not only will serve to undermine consumer confidence in America but will further jeopardize our export market abroad. I believe the Japanese and other countries would love to buy American beef, but they want to know it is American beef that they are buying and not beef that has simply been funneled through our country from BSE-infected nations.

USDA's decision is not only an economic threat for the viability of our rural communities, but it is also a consumer choice issue. Consumer groups

have repeatedly voiced concern over this final rule. USDA is accountable and obligated to ensure that our consumers and ranchers are protected, which means keeping our borders closed for now. USDA has not been working for American consumers, ranchers, and producers with this final rule.

There are several steps that should be taken before the Department of Agriculture should even consider opening our border with Canada, and country-of-origin labeling is one of those steps. I have long advocated a mandatory country-of-origin labeling program. The administration delayed COOL for 2 years during closed-door consideration of the 2004 Omnibus appropriations measure. A mandatory country-of-origin labeling program for beef is now not scheduled to be implemented until September 30, 2006. Yet, even lacking that ability of consumers to make knowing choices about the origins of the meat they serve their family, USDA would open the borders to a cattle population that poses a significant risk without even ensuring consumer choice in the grocery store aisle to buy American beef. I introduced bipartisan legislation to ensure that Canadian beef and cattle could not come across the border until country-of-origin labeling is implemented because that is simply the right thing to do, and I am pleased that we have bipartisan support for that measure.

Because USDA insists on plowing ahead with an outrageously ill-timed decision, congressional action is required and we have a congressional resolution of disapproval to consider. An ample number of my Senate colleagues felt this opening the border rule should be set aside and chose to sign their names on the petition to do so. The vote on this resolution is an opportunity to stop a flawed course of action, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution of disapproval. It is crucial that USDA act in a responsible manner and revoke the final rule immediately.

I am hopeful the administration will recognize the message this body will send today about the severity and the urgency of this situation. We need America to side with the best science on the Canadian border. We need America to be prudent relative to the enormous risk to both the livestock economy and the public health in America and the jeopardy of opening the border to our potential export market for beef.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting passage of this resolution of disapproval and to send a strong bipartisan message to USDA and to the White House to reverse course, to allow greater time for the best science to determine what in fact is happening in Canada relative to BSE, relative to their feed regime, and to give us an opportunity to be assured we are not endangering either our economy or the public health in the United States of America.

I yield the floor.