home → articles → Columnists | Email to a Friend

Cattlemen’s Capitol Concerns

published: March 19th 2010
source: NCBA

NCBA Commends Senators Johanns and Lincoln for Bipartisan Resolution on Beef Trade with Japan
    The National Cattle-men's Beef Association (NCBA) applauds Senators Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) for their resolution calling on the Obama Administration to insist that Japan immediately grant increased market access for U.S. beef. The resolution calls attention to Japan's arbitrary and unscientific restrictions on U.S. beef trade.
    Following a detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the U.S. in 2003, Japan closed its borders to U.S. beef. Today, Japan only allows beef from cattle under 21 months of age, which is limiting us to only 25 percent of the potential market for U.S. beef in Japan.  American beef producers have been losing about $1 billion annually because of this ban.
    "Japan's trade restrictions are completely unjustified," explains Steve Foglesong, president of NCBA and rancher from Astoria, Ill.  "It isn't based on sound science, and it is in violation of international guidelines."
    A 2006 USDA study found that BSE was virtually non-existent in the United States. Interna-tionally, it is likely that BSE will be fully eradicated from the planet within the next 10 to 15 years. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), has classified the Unites States as a controlled risk country for BSE-the same designation as Japan. 
    "Senator Johanns brought this trade imbalance to the forefront by questioning how Japan would respond if the U.S. were to ban all imports of Japanese cars because of safety issues with some Toyota vehicles," Foglesong states.  "The U.S. would never consider such a heavy-handed and excessive measure, but that's essentially what Japan has done to U.S. beef. I'm pleased that Senator Johanns demonstrated the inconsistencies and flawed thinking behind this ban."
    The bipartisan resolution calls upon the Administration to immediately work to end this trade imbalance.  "This issue is critical to beef producers, but it goes far beyond our industry.  Ten-percent, or approximately 12 million American jobs, depend on exports," Foglesong says.  "In this economy, we simply cannot afford to allow our closest trading partners to unfairly restrict market access.  NCBA is urging Congress to support this resolution, and encourages the Obama Administration to begin work to end this ban immediately."
Fight Escalating against EPA Efforts to Regulate Greenhouse Regulation
    Additional federal and state lawmakers are joining in the fight against efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act.
    NCBA and more than 175 national and state agriculture groups sent letters this week to Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Joe Barton (R-TX) in support of their resolutions to prevent EPA from moving forward with its finding that human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are an endangerment to public health and welfare ("endangerment finding"). In addition to the resolutions by Reps. Skelton (H.J. Res. 76) and Barton (H.J. Res. 77), NCBA continues to support S.J. Res. 26, introduced by Senator Murkowski (R-AK) in January.
    Twenty state governors also sent letters to House and Senate leadership this week expressing deep concern about the economic impacts of EPA's finding. "EPA is not equipped to consider the very real potential for economic harm when regulating emissions. Without that consideration, regulation will place heavy administrative burdens on state environmental quality agencies, will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs," stated the letter, signed by the governors of Mississippi, West Virginia, Alaska, Nebraska, Georgia, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, Minnesota, Utah, Hawaii, Louisiana, Alabama, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virginia and Arizona.
    NCBA has also recently filed petitions with the DC Circuit Court and EPA challenging the science behind the EPA's finding.
Mexican Tariffs Continue to Impact U.S. Agriculture, Manufacturing Jobs
    Wednesday, March 10, marked the one-year anniversary of an ongoing trade dispute with Mexico that continues to put U.S. jobs at risk. The dispute began when Congress terminated funding for the U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking pilot program in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act-a move which failed to meet U.S. commitments under NAFTA, and prompted Mexico to impose damaging retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agriculture and manufacturing goods.
    "This dispute has been going on for far too long," said Steve Foglesong, president, National Cattle-men's Beef Association. "It's time for the Administration to take action before the critical relationship with our top trading partner is further compromised, putting agriculture exports and imports, and American jobs, at risk."
    Although Congress addressed the issue by removing the prohibition on the trucking program within FY10 appropriations, the Administration has yet to make progress with Mexico in removing the tariffs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates as many as 25,000.U.S. jobs could be lost as a result of the impasse.
    Mexico is the top export destination for U.S. beef, dairy, poultry, rice, soybean meal and oil, corn sweeteners, cotton, apples and dry edible beans. The U.S. exported a record $1.4 billion in beef and beef variety meats to Mexico in 2008, and a total of $910 million in 2009 (as a result of the economic crisis). Mexico is also a major market for pork, corn, soybeans, eggs, vegetable oils, fresh U.S. potatoes, snack foods and other consumer-oriented agricultural goods. Trucks move more than 70% of the value of U.S.-Mexico trade.
    "Escalating trade retaliations hurt everyone," Foglesong continued. "We live in a global society and our economy is inextricably linked to our ability to do commerce with key trading partners like Mexico."
    Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of more than 50 Members of the House sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Kirk and Transportation Secretary LaHood expressing concern about the Administration's lack of progress in resolving this year-long issue.

DOI Decides not to List Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species Act
    The following is a statement from Public Lands Council President Skye Krebs regarding the Department of Interior's (DOI) recent decision not to list the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act:
    "Last week, the DOI's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed sage-grouse as warranted for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but precluded by the need to first address higher priority species. 
    "The Public Lands Council (PLC) and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) are pleased that sage grouse will not immediately be listed under the ESA.  However, we are disappointed that the Fish and Wildlife Service found that sage grouse protection was warranted at all.  The grouse population has increased in each of the least four years.  Additionally, sage grouse hunting is permitted in nine states. 
This helps maintain stable and healthy numbers of sage grouse and demonstrates the sizable population of this species. 
     "Our ranchers are committed to maintaining ecological diversity and preserving wildlife on the range where our livestock graze.  Grazing not only helps prevent devastating wildfires, but it also helps manage natural resources and contributes to a stable habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including sage grouse. 
    "Livestock grazing is not harmful to sage grouse or their habitat.  In fact, ranchers help improve sage grouse habitat by using grazing patterns that improve nesting areas and developing watering sources that are suitable for wildlife like sage grouse.  Livestock grazing and habitat conservation are complimentary efforts. 
    "However, if the sage grouse are designated for protection under the ESA, many ranchers would no longer be permitted to allow livestock to graze on or near sage grouse habitat.  This would destroy the ranching industry in the west.  It would also halt the conservation efforts currently underway by public lands ranchers, which could have the unintended consequence of damaging sage grouse habitat.  
    "When Fish and Wildlife Service conducts its annual review of the sage grouse listing, we encourage them to definitively decide against listing this species under the ESA.  America's ranchers must be allowed to continue managing, conserving and protecting our public lands, as they have done for generations."