Comment from Jess Kane

February 11, 2008 The Honorable Cindy Smith Administrator U.S.D.A. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 4700 River Road Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 Re: Comments on USDA-APHIS Proposal for Additional Port of Entry for the Importation of Cattle from Mexico. Dear Administrator Smith, I write to express my support for the proposed regulation codified at 9 CFR Part 93 and for its underlying policy. The promotion of efficiency in beef trade between the United States and Mexico is good for all parties concerned. For Mexican producers, access to the American market increases their marketing options and the price they can command for their product. For American producers, the benefits are even more pronounced. Cattle imported from Mexico benefits American beef producers in multiple sectors of the industry. Mexican cattle come into this country on the hoof, but leave it in a box. American producers are given the opportunity to add value to the product at the stocker phase, at the feedlot phase, and finally, at the packing phase. Each of these sectors represents an integral part of the beef industry. Each is a significant source of jobs for Americans and a major contributor to the vibrancy of rural economies. Furthermore, as the largest buyer of American Beef (298,407 MT, or 46.7% of all U.S. Beef exports in 2007 according to AMS-USDA), Mexico is eager to buy that value-added product right back from us. Mexico has been an excellent trading partner. Since the 2003 BSE scare, Mexico has consistently made science-based decisions to keep their doors open to American beef. Anything that can be done to foster and further develop this mutually beneficial relationship should be applauded. Additionally, APHIS should avoid giving credence to the voices for economic protectionism. The false prophets of consumer advocacy have often successfully used ?consumer protection? as a proxy for economic protectionism and isolation. Opponents to this regulation have already advanced the idea that Mexican cattle should not be allowed to enter the U.S. because of the danger that Fever Ticks pose to consumer health. This claim is patently preposterous. Fever Ticks are an animal health issue, not a human health issue. Furthermore, through the use of dipping stations and quarantines identical to those that will be employed at St. Luis, APHIS has successfully moved the Fever Tick line far into South Texas. Opponents of this regulation must completely overlook the APHIS risk assessment to advance this argument, for it is nothing more than a veiled attempt to undermine the policy of free trade. Free Trade has been demonstrated to be the most effective way to increase demand for American agricultural products. It has been the predominant policy advanced in support of American agricultural producers for many years. The addition of a port of entry for Mexican Cattle at St. Luis, Arizona promotes efficiency and market access that benefits producers in all sectors of the beef industry and stimulates our trading relationship with Mexico. Thus, this regulation is an effective extension of the policy of free trade that should become a final rule. I thank the USDA for its continued work in this area, and hope that we can continue to expand the world market for safe, wholesome American beef. Sincerely, Jess Kane Greenleaf Ranch Bartlesville, Oklahoma