MEAT IMPORT QUOTA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 21, 2008
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: July 29, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
EXECUTIVE SETARIAT
Routing Slip
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INITIAL
1
DCI
2
DDC
3
EXDIR
4
D/ICS
5
DDI
6
DDA
7
DDO
8
DDS&T
9
Chm/NIC
10
GC
11
IG
12
Compt
13
D/EEO
14
D/Pers
D/OEA
C/PAD/OEA
M
SA/IA
8
A0/DCI
-
1
C/IPD/0IS
2
/V /,LZU
22
Copied to:
Executrv S cretary
/ 1>3
Dot.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
?
?
CABINET AFFAIRS STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
NUMBER: 1 1 R R -i r r A
DUE BY:
SUBJECT: Cabinet Council on Fnc c and Agri rii1 i tires xii -h f-han Pram
, A~~rn~SI 7' 1 9RR - 7? R(1 p m
Tiip_sdn~Z,
ALL CABINET MEMBERS
ACTION FYI
^ ^
Vice President
State
Treasury
13
Defense
0
Attorney General
Interior
Agriculture
Commerce
Labor
HHS
^
HUD
Transportation
Energy
^
Education
Counsellor
RJ
OMB
~CIA9
13
'1_1__r UN-
USTR
CEA
^
W,.
6
CEO
^
OSTP
^
^
^
ACTION
FYI
Baker
^
Deaver
^
^
Clark
Darman (For WH Staiag,)
^
01
Icty"'
^
Harper
?
^
Jenkins
^
0
^
^"
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
CCCT/Gunn
CCEA/Porter
CCFA/Boggs
CCHRJCarleson
CCLP/Uhlmann
CCMA/Bledsoe
CCNRE/Boggs
REMARKS: The President will chair a meeting of the Cabinet Council on
Food and Agriculture, Tuesday, August 2 at 3:30 p.m. The
agenda is: Meat Import Quotas' (paper is attached). The
meeting will 1 st for thirty minutes and it will be held in
the Cabinet Room.
RETURN TO: ^ Craig L. Fuller Larry Herbolsheimer
Assistant to the President Associate Director
for Cabinet Affairs Cabinet A$ai s
456-2823 456-2800
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
? .?
WASHINGTON
July 29, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Meat Import Q~u4ta
CM226
How should the Administration allocate meat import quotas among
supplying countries, should such quotas become necessary?
The Cabinet Council on Food and Agriculture met.on July 7 to
discuss the meat import quota issue, which was outlined in a
memorandum to the Cabinet Council dated July 6 (see Attachment
I). During that meeting, all members of the Cabinet Council
expressed a distaste for the imposition of a meat import quota
and evidenced an interest-in exploring all alternative means for
avoiding imposition of the quota. The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) indicated that it would undertake discussions with the
appropriate parties to see if there was a way that the quota
could be avoided legally.
USDA, in cooperation with the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) and the Department of State, attempted to
negotiate informal voluntary restraints on shipments of meat to
the U.S. with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The initial
U.S. offers were 562.5 million pounds for Australia; 364.5
million pounds for New Zealand; and 130 million pounds for
Canada. Later, the U.S. offered 579 million pounds to Australia.
While New Zealand and Canada appeared to be prepared to accept
the allocations offered to them, Australia indicated that for
domestic political reasons it would agree to voluntary restraints
only if the U.S. would provide an allocation of between 617 and
627 million pounds. To date, the Australians have resisted
extensive efforts on the part of U.S. Cabinet officials to secure
Australia's cooperation in restraining meat shipments to the U.S.
USDA and USTR agree that the Australian request cannot be
accommodated without undue adverse effects on other supplying
countries.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
? W
If the Australians continue to resist suitable voluntary
restraint agreements and force the U.S. to impose a quota on meat
imports, the U.S. may find itself in the awkward position of
defending its meat import quota while asking the Japanese to
liberalize their meat import quota. This could lead to some
embarrassment for the President during his forthcoming trip to
Japan. It has been suggested that the President may want to
consider making a personal request for cooperation from the
Australian Prime Minister.
Without Australian cooperation in a voluntary restraint
arrangement, there is no alternative but to impose a quota under
the Meat Import Act of 1979. The issue then becomes how the
Administration should allocate the import quota, which by opera-
tion of law cannot be set at less than nor more than 1.250
billion pounds.
There are basically two different 'methods that can be used under
current law to allocate the 1.250 billion pound quota among
supplying countries. The first method ("representative period"
method) is to allocate the quota among supplying countries on the
basis of the shares of the U.S. market for meat articles such
countries supplied during a representative period. In the past,
the "representative period" has been interpreted as being the two
most recent years in which meat shipments to the U.S. were not
subject to any restrictions. Under this interpretation, the
operative years would be 1980 and 1981. Prior to 1980 and 1981,
the two most recent "open" years were 1973 and 1974. The second
method ("special factors" method) is to allow for adjustments in
the quota allocations on account of special factors which have
affected or may affect the trade in meat articles or cattle.
Australia would like to see the U.S. allocate the quota using the
"representative period" method because this would assure the
Australians of a larger quota allocation. This larger quota
allocation would come at the expense of New,Zealand and Canada,
who would receive significantly smaller allocations (see Attach-
ment II).
Under the "special factors" method, the Secretary of Agriculture
could ameliorate the distortions caused by the application of the
"representative period" method by taking into consideration the
following factors (see Attachment II):
o The Australian drought has caused significant liquida-
tion of the Australian cattle herd and resulted in
sharply increased exports of Australian meat to the U.S.
both last year and this year.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
W
3
o Spotty droughts, the greater profitability of sheep
production, and the resulting general trend toward sheep
in New Zealand, plus the devaluation of the New Zealand
dollar, have all worked together to cause increased
shipments of New Zealand sheep meat to both the United
States and Canada.
o The strength of the U.S. dollar has encouraged all three
of the major suppliers to increase their meat shipments
to the U.S. But Canada's increase in shipments is also
due in large part to their taking well above traditional
levels of meat imports from New Zealand.
o It is unlikely that the Central American countries would
supply more than 140-145 million pounds even in the
complete absence of restraints; however, given the
Administration's Caribbean Basin Initiative as well as
the national security implications of U.S. trading
relations with certain Central American countries,
special care must be given to the allocation of the
quota among these countries.
o Trade would be severely disrupted vis-a-vis both Canada
and New Zealand if we were to try to bring Australia's
share anywhere near its perceived MTN level.
o It is quite possible that in the absence of restraints
Australia would supply about 595 million pounds and New
Zealand about 415 million. If we reduce each of the two
countries' meat exports to the U.S. by about 6 or 7
percent, we would leave adequate room to accommodate
Canada (where our trade in beef is two way) without
subjecting Australia and New Zealand to undue pain and
still allowing the Central American countries (who
desperately need foreign exchange) to supply about all
they can.
The Australians will react strongly to any attempt on our part to
.reduce their quota on account of these special factors. However,
to give Australia what it views as its minimum access to the U.S.
market under the MTN or to distribute to the Australians a quota
based upon a representative period would be to work an undue
hardship on Canada and New Zealand.
The U.S. has no waiver under the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) for quotas imposed under the Meat Import Act. There
is a strong likelihood that one or more of the supplying coun-
tries will take us to the GATT over the issue. The U.S. has
imposed a quota on meat imports only once before in 1976 for a
three-month period. The matter did not reach the GATT at that
time. In any event, U.S. obligations under the Meat Import Act
supercede our commitments under the GATT. Should the U.S. be
Approved For Release 2008/05/21: CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
challenged, it is very likely that a GATT panel would find the
U.S. to be in violation of the GATT; however, to the extent that
the allocation of the quota is based upon a representative
period, the U.S. would be better positioned to defend its
imposition of a meat import quota.
To make sure that the 1.250 billion pound minimum access level is
reached, one or more shortfall reallocations may be necessary as
the final weeks of calendar year 1983 approach. We must be
cognizant of the need to give preference to Caribbean Basin
countries should'it be necessary to reallocate the quotas of any
such countries in order to avoid doing unnecessary violence to
our Caribbean Basin Initiative.
USDA's current best estimates indicate that the trigger level for
imposing a meat import quota is likely to increase to well above
the 1.250 billion pound level in 1984. At the same time meat
shipments from both Australia and New Zealand should drop off
sharply due to heavy herd liquidations this year. Hence the need
for a meat import quota is not expected to extend beyond December
1. Allocate meat import quota on the basis of a
representative period.
One of two representative periods could be used --
1980-1981 or 1981 alone.
Allocation Using
1980/1981 as
Allocation Using
1981 as
Country Representative Period
Representative Period
(million lbs.)
(million lbs.)
Australia 652.5
594
New Zealand 320.0
360
Canada 100.0
121
Central America 168.7
164
European Community 10.0
11
Total 1,251.2
1,250
Advantages:
o Would benefit Australia.
o Would be consistent with the principle of allocating
quotas on a representative historical basis, thereby
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
reducing to some extent the chances of a successful
challenge against the U.S. meat import quota under
the GATT.
Disadvantages:
o Would impose undue hardships on Canada and New
Zealand.
2. Allocate meat import quota giving due account to special
factors.
USDA recommends the following quota allocation based
upon a special factors rationale outlined in Attachment
III:
Country Allocation Using Special Factors
(million lbs.)
Australia 578.21
New Zealand 3.78.23
Canada 130.00
Central America 142.56
European Community 1_1.00
Other 10.00
Total 1,250.00
Advantages:
o Would avoid subjecting Canada and New Zealand to
unwarranted reductions in their meat exports to the
U.S.
o Could provide an opportunity to shift part of the
unfulfilled quotas of some Central American countries
to Australia at a later date. .
Disadvantages:
o Would be inconsistent with the principle of allocat-
ing quotas on a representative historical basis,
thereby increasing chances of a successful GATT
challenge to the U.S. meat import quota.
o Would invite strong adverse reaction from the
Australians.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
'THE WHITE HOUSE
July 6, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CABINET COUNCIL ON FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
FROM: DANNY J. BOGGS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
SUBJECT:- Meat Import Quotas
How should the Administration allocate meat import quotas among
supplying countries, should such quotas become necessary?
BACKGROUND
It appears certain that import quotas for meat subject to P.L.
96-177 (the Meat Import Act of 1979) will have to be imposed for
the last few months of this calendar year. The law provides
that should quotas become necessary, the Secretary of Agriculture
"shall allocate. the total quantity proclaimed . . among supply-
ing countries on the basis of . . . a representative period .
Cgivin.g due account] to special factors which have affected or
may affect the trade . . ." Australia wants the U.S. to allocate
the...meat import quota on the basis of a representative period
without giving due account to any special factors.
USDA has just published the 1983 third quarterly estimate of meat
imports in the absence of restraints. That estimate is 1.224
billion pounds, 7 million pounds below the 1983 trigger level
(computed according to a formula prescribed by the Meat Import
Act) of 1.231 billion pounds and 26 million pounds below the
minimum quota access level of 1.250 billion pounds (also
prescribed by the Act).
As the docket for this third quarterly estimate was going through
the clearance process, information began to come out of Australia
indicating that a significant change was occurring in its meat
export outlook. The results of the annual cattle numbers survey
were made public and indicated that the effects of the severe
drought on the cattle herd were not as bad as had originally been
estimated. The survey indicates that as of March 30 there were
800,000 more cattle in the country than the previous estimate had
shown. The desire to take full advantage of the current wet
weather situation by planting every available paddock to wheat,
together with the desperate need to maintain cash flow at livable
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
V
W
levels are resulting in a much higher than expected level:of
movement of cattle to slaughter. Consequently, without import
restraints, it is now believed that Australia will ship to the
U.S. 595 million pounds of meat, 72 million pounds more than
estimated in the third quarterly estimate just published. With
the rumors initiated by Australia that U.S. imposition of import
quotas this year will be inevitable, prices here have risen, and
other supplying countries will have a tendency to increase
shipments to the U.S.
Since the trigger this year is below the statutory minimum quota
access level, it is believed unrealistic to attempt to negotiate
voluntary restraint agreements with exporting countries.
Suppliers as a whole will have greater access if quotas are
imposed than if.they were to agree to limit exports to below the
trigger level. Also, because production of domestic cow beef is
increasing, the President can suspend the quota only by declaring
a national emergency. There are no grounds upon which to justify
declaring a national emergency; hence, there is little choice but
to go to quotas.
The Australians seem almost delighted with the prospect of
quotas. They are finding the New Zealand. Meat Board to be a
formidable world competitor this year in both sheepmeat and beef.
The Australians seemed at *first to believe that the U.S. would
have no choice but to allocate the lion's share of the quota to
them at the very significant expense of both New Zealand and
Canada. If the U.S. were to allocate to the Australians what
they view as our MTN commitment on minimum access of Australian
beef to the U.S. market, they would get 667 million pounds, much
more than they could supply, and New Zealand and Canadian
shipments likely would have to be stopped well before the
calendar year was out. This approach also would obviate the need
for the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to allocate
export permits among their exporters, something they would prefer
not to have to do..
The U.S. has no waiver under the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) for quotas imposed under the Meat Import Act. There
is a strong likelihood that one or more supplying countries will
take us to the GATT over the issue. The U.S. has imposed quotas
on meat imports only once before (in 1976) for a three-month
period. The matter did not reach the GATT at that time. In any
event, U.S. obligations under the Meat Import Act supercede our
commitments under the GATT. Should the U.S. be challenged, it is
very likely that a GATT panel would find the U.S. to be in
violation of the GATT.
It is unfortunate that we have to resort to quotas at a time when
oyr efforts to get Japan to liberalize its import quotas on beef
are at a critical stage.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
w .. w
There must be a rationale for deviating from the principle of
allocating the meat import quota on the basis of a representative
period. The following factors provide such a rationale:
o The Australian drought has caused significant
liquidation of the Australian cattle herd and resulted
in sharply increased exports of Australian meat to the
U.S.. both last year and this year.
o Spotty droughts, the greater profitability of sheep
production and the resulting general trend toward sheep
in New Zealand, plus the devaluation of the New Zealand
dollar, have all worked together to cause increased
shipments of New Zealand sheep meat to both the United
States and Canada.
o The strength of the U.S.. dollar has encouraged all three
of the major suppliers. But Canada's increase in
shipments is also in large part due to their taking well
above traditional levels of meat imports from New
Zealand. . -
o It is. unlikely that Central American countries would
supply more than 140i'llion pounds even in the complete
absence of restr.a.int __....._.
o Trade would be severely disrupted vis-a-vis both Canada
and New Zealand if we were-to try to bring Australia's
share anywhere near its perceived "MTN level".
o With the rumors of the imminence of quotas making the
rounds, it is quite possible that in the absence of
restraints Australia would supply about 595 million
pounds and New Zealand about 415 million. If we reduce
each of the two countries' meat exports to the U.S. by
about 6 or 7 percent, we would leave adequate room to
accommodate Canada (where our trade in beef is two way)
without subjecting Australia and New Zealand to undue
pain and still allowing the Central American countries
(who desperately need foreign exchange) to supply about
all they can.
o The law requires that under current circumstances we do
all in our power to see that 1.250 billion pounds of
meat is imported, no more and no less.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
It must be stressed that the Australians will react strongly to
any attempt on our part to reduce their quota on account of these
special factors. However, to give Australia what it views as its
minimum access to*the U.S. market under the MTN or to distribute
to the Australians a quota based upon a representative period
would be to work an undue hardship on Canada and New Zealand.
To make sure that the 1.250 billion pound minimum access level is
reached, one or more shortfall reallocations may be necessary as
the final weeks of calendar year 1983 approach. The U.S. must be
-cognizant of the need to give preference to Caribbean Basin
countries should it be necessary to reallocate the quotas of such
countries.
It is important to understand that USDA's current best estimates
indicate that the trigger level is likely to increase to well
above the 1.250 billion pound level in 1984. At the same time
meat shipments from both Australia and New Zealand should drop
off sharply due to heavy herd liquidations this year. Hence the
need for meat import quotas is not expected to extend beyond
December 31.
OPTIONS
1. Allocate meat import quota on the basis of a representa-
tive period.
One could select any number of representative periods
for allocating the quota. The following is an example
of one such period:
Allocation Using
Country
Representative Period
1973/74 (million lbs.)
Australia.
641..2
New Zealand
263.8
Canada
62.1
Central
America
271.9
European
Community
11.0
Total
1,250..0
Advantages:
o Would benefit Australia.
o Would be consistent with the principle of allocating
quotas on an historical basis, thereby reducing to
some extent the chances of a successful challenge
against the U.S. under the GATT.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
w
Disadvantages:
o Would impose
Zealand.
undue hardships on Canada and New
2. Allocate meat import quota giving due account to special
factors.
The following is an example of
resulting from.the application
enumerated in the body of this
an allocation scheme
of the special factors
paper:
Allocation Using.'
Country
Special Factors
(million lbs)
Australia
551.0
New Zealand
383.5
Canada.
139.0
Central.
America
165.5
European
Community
11 .0
Total
1,250.0
Advantages:
o Would avoid subjecting Canada and New Zealand to
unwarranted reductions in their meat exports to the
o Could. provide an opportunity to shift part of the
unfulfilled quotas of some Central American countries
to Australia at a later date.
Disadvantages:
o Would be inconsistent. with the principle of
allocating quotas on an historical basis, thereby
increasing chances of a successful GATT challenge to
the U.S.. meat import quota.
o Would invite strong adverse reaction from the
Australians.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
New Unofficial 1983
Estimate In
int
t
Allocation Using
Traditional Period
1973/74
Allocation Using
Trade Period
1980/81
1Allocation Based 1981 and
982 Imports, Discounting
Australia Drought
Recommended
otInitiocation
Quota Allocation
Imports as
June 24
June 24
Country
ra
Absence of Res
576.3
551.0
284.0
Austral la
595.0
641.2
6 5 2 . 5
5
New Zealand
415.0
263.8
3 2 0 . 0
363.8
383.5
225.
l
100.0
125.0
139.0
el .
Canada
150.0
62.1
1
167.5
173.9
165.5
63.
? Central America
145.0
271.9
0
11'0
10. 0
11.0
11.0
3.
European Obnmmunlty
11.0
Total
1,316.0
1,250.0
1,250.0
1,250.0
1,250.0
?
of imports
mrecommended country quota levels reflect Import trends derived from the recent level for the major suppliers. We have factored In
much of the effects of a prolonged drought In Australia relative to shlpments-in 1902. The Australian trend, with a cattle presently
than 23 million and falling, has been downward since 1979, exempting the drought-caused Increase In 1982, and Is a level approximating sh
1970 when Australian cattle numbers were In the present range. Imports from New Zealand and Canada have been been on a rising trend In recent years
While the recommended level Is more liberal for Naw Zealand and Canada, they are the first that will probably be limited by our quota action.
It 1! leve likely that the quota will begin to severely curtail Imports from New Zealand and Canada nOctober or Hovemb
frer.otAustralia'srshipmelt level}may be
affected but probably not before December. In October and again In December more exact reviews reallocations that will total 25 to 50 million pounds.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
U.S. IMPORTS OF MEAT SUBJECT TO NEAT IMPORT LAW, BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN,
ANNUAL 1970-81 1/
(In thousands of pounds)
?
I/
2/
3/
4/
5/
6/
Country of Origin
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976 2/
1977
1978
1979
1980 3/
1981
Canada ..................:
77,716
58,298
55,269
36,540
21,159
80,358
70,115
61,297
77,785
297
92,636
242
120,603
586
1
Ii
Maxi co ..............??.?:
79,.108
81,870
61,253
40,418
29,763
52,000
60,095
62,568
1
5,
24
964
18
,
632
10
Gua1emela.:????.??.??00?:
25,968
32,028
36,504
29,520
33,426
34,300
32,347
32,12
32,2
5
,
404
4
,
370
El Salvador .............:
---
7,163
9,322
12,761
5,440
10,427
3,545
7,987
4
4
9,96
074
50
,
911
67
792
792
40
25,726
40,064
29,400
35,447
35,800
40,746.
0
6,5
,
,
,
,
966
17
Nicaragua ...............:
43,943
54,103
54,006
32,609
47,654
48,900
50,306
64,691
67,932
962
40,046
028
47
,
089
64
4
Costa Rica......????????:
40,804
50,460
47,814
60,130
' 60,492
53,700
642
2
58,053
766
2
68,118
34
of
66,
901
,
2 790
?
,
4 511
Panama.....??????????~??:
2,717
4,911
2,127
2,941
3,003
,
5/
,
660
1
706
1
2
733
Haiti .....??????????~???.
1,490
2,004
2,060
1,699
1,559
1,900
1,262
2,484
,
101
3
,
358
2
,
097
10
Dominican Republic.-....
6,982
14,260
16,155
14,3,9
8,607
14,086
2,009
2,212
,
,
,
--
-
---
92
Iceland ..............:..:
---
---
---
---
297
112
!
---
---
(88
79
20
---
430
60
232
=
Belize...:...:..........
---
---
- -
---
---
-
-
Norway-o- ??'?"
41
721
9
393
11
European Community..:..::
65,994
30,947
22,032
45,900
7,555
4,094
---
,
,
---
Japan I
-'
.
038
880
296
806
979
506
Au stralle?? :.::.........:
530,015
727,462
706,663
512,908
679,405
632,200
653,572
606,000
3
,
666
357
,
029
328
,
854
355
.. i ..... ....t
Z
aland
N
241,937
266,233
291,303
259,751
275,373
259,800
265,406
0,650
3
,
,
,
-
e
.
ew
I MB
310
1
--
---
-
---
---
---
,
Other :....... :....:.....:
878
553
1
226
431
1
235,719
1
1,3
Total 6/...?.????????': 1,132,638
1,355,465
1,355.561
1,079,142
1,200,904
1,231,713
1,250,214
1;465,470
,
,
,
,
,
Fresh, fro zen, and chilled beef, veal, mutton, and goat, Including rejections. Excludes rejections beginning 1975.
Beginning 1976, the Customs Service supplied data used In monitoring the Maat Import Law.
P.L. 96-177 amended the Law to provide for 'Inclusion of certain prepared Items.
Preliminary.
Total does not reflect 42,000 lbs. for Panama over-quote released under Immediate delivery Customs documents prior to the effective date of the qt
May not add due to rounding.
Dairy, Livestock and Poultry Division
commodity Programs, FAS, USDA
July 1983
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 C
C
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
ip w
OPERATION OF U.S. MEAT IMPORT LAW 1/ 1965-1983
(IN MILLION POUNDS) -
ADJUSTED BASE TRIGGER ACTUAL
YEAR QUANTITY LEYEL IMPORTS IMPORT PROGRAM
NO RESTRICTIONS.
NO RESTRICTIONS.
NO RESTRICTIONS.
FORMAL YRA'S WITH AUSTRALIA AND NEW
ZEALAND NEGOTIATED IN AUG.; OTHER EXPORTERS
ASKED NOT TO EXCEED-SCHEDULED SHIPMENTS.
1969 988.0 1086.3 1084.1 YRA'S NEGOTIATED WITH ALL SUPPLIERS
EXCEPT CANADA AND UNITED KINGDOM.
1970 998.8 1098.7 1170.6 YLfiVEL;QUUOTASE IMPOSED NEGOTIATED SUSPENDED RAT
MIDYEAR AND NEW RESTRAINT LEVELS ESTABLISHED
FOR PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES. SECTION 204
USED TO CONTROL TRANSSHIPMENTS THROUGH
CANADA.
1971 1025.0 1127.5 1132.6 PQUOTAS ROGRAMINEGOTIATED AT~REYISED 1970 LEVEL.
1972 1042.4 1146.6 1355.5 YRA PROGRAM NEGOTIATED, BUT PROGRAM
SUSPENDED AT MIDYEAR TO ENCOURAGE IMPORTS.
1973 1046.8 1151.5 1355.6 QUOTAS IMPO POSED AND SUSPENDED; NO
1974 1027.9 1130.7 1079.1 QUOTAS IMPOSED IMPOSED AND SUSPENDED; NO
1975 1074.3 1181.7 1208.9 PROGRAM
DNEGOTIATED WITH MOST
1976 1120.9 1233.0 1231.7 YRA PROGRAM NEGOTIATED, BUT QUOTAS
REQUIRED IN LAST QUARTER.
1977 1165.4 1281.9 1250.2 YRA PROGRAM NEGOTIAT-ED, SUPPORTED BY
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CANADA.
1978 1183.9 1302.3 1485.5 YRA PROGRAM NEGOTIATED AT BEGINNING
BUT QUOTAS IMPOSED AND SUSPENDED TO ALLOW A
200-MILLION POUND INCREASE IN THE YRA
PROGRAM IN JUNE..
1979 _ 1131.5 1244.8 1533.7 QUOTAS IMPOSED AND SUSPENDED, YRA
PROGRAM NEGOTIATED ABOVE TRIGGER LEVEL.
1980 1516.0 1667.6 1431.2 NO RESTRICTIONS-
1981 1316.0 1447.0 1235.7 NO RESTRICTIONS.
1982 1181.8 1300.0 1319.6 AUVRA STRALIA AND NEW ALANDD IN WITH THE LAST
QUARTER.
1968 848.7 933.6 613.9
1966 890.1 979.1 823.4
1967 904.5 995.1 894.9
1968 950.3 1045.3 1001.0
1983 1119.0 1231.0
PL 88-482 FPM 1965, MEPL = 8Y Pt. 96-177 BT 1980.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
W ,. P qW
PUBLIC LAW 96-177-DEC. 31, 1979 93 STAT. 1291
Public Law 96-177
96th Congress
L
C
An Act
To modify the method of establW ing cuotas on the impo-tation of certain meat, to Dec. 31. 1979
include within such quotas certain mess producta, and for other purposes [H.R 2727]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States ofAmerica in Congress,assemb1ed, That section 2 of the Meat im rte,
Act of August 22. 1964, entitled "An Act to provide for the free quota
importation of certain wild animals, and to provide for the imposition modifications.
of quotas on certain meat and meat products" (19 U.S.C. 1202 note) is
amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 2. (a) This section may be cited as the 'Meat Import Act of Meat Import Act
1979'. of 1979.
"(b) For purposes of this section- Definitions.
"(1) The term 'entered' means entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory of the
United States.
"(2) The term 'meat articles' means the articles provided for in
the Tariff Schedules of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202)
under-
"(A) item 106.10 (relating to fresh, chilled, or frozen cattle
meat);
"(B) items 106.22 and 106.25 (relating to fresh, chilled, or
frozen meat of goats and sheep (except lambs)); and
"(C) items .107.55 and 107.62 (relating to prepared and
preserved beef and veal (except sausage)), if the articles are
prepared, whether fresh, chilled, or frozen, but not otherwise
preserved.
"(3) The term 'Secretary'.means the Secretary of Agriculture.
"(c) The aggregate quantity of meat articles which may be entered
in any calendar year after 1979 may not exceed 1,204,600,000 pounds;
except that this aggregate quantity shall be-
"(1) increased or decreased for any calendar year by the same
percentage that the estimated average annual domestic commer-
cial production of meat articles in that calendar year and the 2
preceding calendar years increases or decreases in comparison
with the average annual domestic commercial production of
meat articles during calendar years 1968 through 1977; and
"(2) adjusted further under subsection (d).
For purposes of paragraph (1), the estimated annual domestic com-
mercial production of meat articles for any calendar year does not
include the carcass weight of live cattle specified in items 100.40,
100.43, 100.45, 100.53, and 100.55 of such Schedules entered during
such year.
"(d) The aggregate quantity referred to in subsection '(c), as
increased or decreased under paragraph (1) of such subsection, shall
be adjusted further for any calendar year after 1979 by multiplying
such quantity by a fraction-
"(1) the numerator of which is the average annual per capita
production of domestic cow beef during that calendar year (as
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
w
93 STAT. 1292 PUBLIC LAW 96-177-DEC. 31, 1979
s-=-- - ' -. j I-e Y calendar years preceding such calendar
year; =d
e denominator of which is the average annual per capita
pro?:iu -.:or. of domestic cow beef in that calendar year (as
estimate; and the preceding calendar year.
"Domestic cow For the - -:-L-.--_-3 of this subsection, the phrase `domestic cow beef
mean=. that portion of the total domestic cattle slaughter designated
by the Se-ret r, as cow slaughter.
"(e) For each calendar year after 1979, the Secretary shall estimate
and publish-
"M before the first day of such calendar year, the aggregate
quantity prescribed for such calendar year under subsection (c)
as adj us cad under subsection (d); and
"(2) before the first day of each calendar quarter in such
calendar year, the ago ate quantity of meat articles which (but
for this section) would entered during such calendar year.
In applying paragraph (2) for the second or any succeeding calendar
quarter in any calendar year, actual entries for the preceding
calendar quarter or quarters in such calendar year shall be taken
into accounc to the extent data is available.
"(fX1) If the aggregate quantity estimated before any calendar
quarter by the Secretary under subsection (eX2) is 110 percent or
more of the aggregate quantity estimated by him under subsection
(eX1), and if there is no limitation in effect under this section for such
calendar year with respect to meat articles, the President shall by
proclamation limit the total quantity of meat articles which may be
entered during such calendar year to. the aggregate quantity
estimated for such calendar year by the Secretary under subsection
(eX1), except that no limitation imposed under this paragraph for any
calendar year may be less than 1,250,000,000 pounds. The President
shall include in the articles subject to any limit proclaimed under this
paragraph any article of meat provided for in item 107.61 of the Tariff
19 USC 1202 Schedules of the United States (relating to high-quality beef specially
note. processed into fancy cuts).
"(2) If the aggregate quantity estimated before any calendar
quarter by the Secretary under subsection (eX2) is less than 110
percent of the aggregate quantity estimated by him under subsection
(eX1), and if a limitation is in effect under this section for such
calendar year with respect to meat articles, such limitation shall
cease to apply as of the first day of such calendar quarter. If any such
limitation has been in effect for the third calendar quarter of any
calendar year, then it shall continue in effect for the fourth calendar
quarter of such year unless the proclamation is suspended or the total
quantity is increased pursuant to subsection (g). Publica F emotion in 44(g) The President may, after providing opportunity for public
Regis ter comment by giving 30 days' notice by publication in the Federal
r of his intention to so act, suspend any proclamation made
under subsection (0, or increase the total quantity proclaimed under
such subsection, if he determines and proclaims that-
"(1) such action is required by overriding economic or national
security interests of the United States, giving special weight to
the importance to the Nation of the economic well-being of the
domestic cattle industry-,
"(2) the supply of meat articles will be inadequate to meet
domestic demand at reasonable prices; or
(, 0 zreements entered into after the date of enactment
0, insure that the policy set forth in subsections (c) and
(d) v, it 1 carried out.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
a
PUBLIC LAW 96-177-DEC. 31, 1979 93 STAT. 1293
Any such s'u- penziOn shall be for such periods, and any such increase
shall be in such amount, as the President determines and proclaims
to be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
"(h) Notwithstanding the previous subsections, the total quantity
of meat articles which may be entered during any calendar year may
not be increased by the President if the fraction described in subsec-
tion (d) for that calendar year yields a quotient of less than 1.0,
unless---
"(1) during a period of national emergency declared under
section 201 of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, he deter- 5o USC 1621.
mines and proclaims that such action is required by overriding
national security interests of the United States;
"(2) he determines and proclaims that the supply of articles of
the kind to which the limitation would otherwise apply will be
inadequate, because of a natural disaster, disease, or major
national market disruption, to meet domestic demand at reason-
able prices; or
"(3) on the basis of actual data for the first two quarters of the
calendar year, a revised calculation of the fraction described in
subsection (d) for the calendar year yields a quotient of 1.0 or
more.
Any such suspension shall be for such period, and any such increase
shall be in such amount, as the President determines and proclaims
to be necessa,ry to carry out the purposes of this subsection. The
effective period of any such suspension or increase made pursuant to
with the provisions of section extend 202 beyond
of the National aEe ge e
1976, of such rgencies cies Act Act o of
period of national emergency, notwithstanding the 50 USC 1622.
? provisions of section 202(a) of that Act
"(1) The Secretary shall allocate the total quantity proclaimed
under subsection (fXl) and any increase in such quantity provided for
under subsection (g) among supplying countries on the basis of the
shares of the United States market for meat articles such countries
supplied during a representative period. Notwithstanding the preced-
ing sentence, due account may be given to special factors which have
affected or may affect the trade in meat articles or cattle. The
Secretary shall certify such allocations to the Secretary of the
Treasury.
"(l) The Secretary shall issue such regulations as he determines to Regulations.
be necessary to prevent circumvention of the purposes of this section.
"(k) All determinations by the President and the Secretary under Determinations.
this section shall be final
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
w w
93 STAT. 1294 PUBLIC LAW 96-177-DEC. 31, 1979
Study, report "(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shc11 study the regional economic
and impact of imports of meat amcles and report the results of his study,
recommendations tcgether with an..recommendationE ii.ciuding recommendations for
to CongreM'on~ 'lotion, if any, to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
committees. o Representatives and to the Committee on Finance of the Senate
"
not later than June 30,
Effective date. Szc. 2. This Act shall take effect January 1, 1980.
19 USC 1202
note. Approved December 31, 1979.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
Mean
HOUSE REPORT 9
SENATE s).
ER REPORT No. 96-465 (Common Finance).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 125 (1979):
Nov. 13, 14, considered and passed House.
Dec. 18, considered and passed Senate. 'IS Vol. 15, No. 52:
WEEKLY COMPLLATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMEN
Dec. 3:. Presidential statement.
c
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
w
Comparison of Meat Import Quota Allocation
(millions of lbs)
Country
Representative Period
Special Factors
1980/81
1981
USDA
Australia
652.5
594
578.21
New Zealand
320.0
360
378.23
Canada
100.0
121
130.00
Central
America
168.7
164
142.56
EC
10.0
11
11.00
Other
---
---
10.00
Total
1,251.2
1,250
1,250.00
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
w MW
USDA's Recommended Quota Levels
The--table that follows shows UDSA's proposed quota le.vels. The
levels are calculated by adding to the actual shipments for each
country through July 1, the base period percentage for each
country of the amount remaining (i.e., 1,250 less 686.1 or
563.9). These numbers were then adjusted to take into account
the following:
1. Canada: the number is adjusted upwards slightly to
equal the informal voluntary restraint agreement share
offered and to reflect that otherwise live cattle trade
would increase;
2. The EC: has been given the 11 million pounds agreed to
in the MTN;
3. Mexico: an additional amount has been given to cover
amounts which Mexico could ship if their residue testing
program is approved for the last quarter of the year.
This can be reallocated if not used;
4. Guatemala: has been adjusted upwards in case it ships
heavily at the end of the year because it might be cut
off for inspection reasons as of January 1, 1984;
5. Nicaragua: has been reduced to 20 million pounds from
30.84 million per other agencies' requests. While 30.84
million represents the Department of Agriculture's best
estimate, the 20 million will cover what has already
entered and what might be on the water.
6. Other: this category is for product from the few --
countries who have recently become eligible to supply
and may have product on the water. Any remaining
amounts from the 10 million pounds will be reallocated
as soon as product on the water has cleared Customs.
The adjustments have been made by reducing Australia's and New
Zealand's shares according to their market weight to obtain the
extra amounts. Later in the yaer, if any of the country quotas
are not likely to be filled, reallocation will occur in order to
ensure insofar as possible that the minimum level of 1.25 billion
pounds is met.
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
 Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2
w
PROPOSED QUOTA LEVELS
Country
USDA
1983
Estimate
1980/81
Share
Shipment
Through
July 1
1983
Total
Quota Level
(adjusted o l)
Australia
595.0
.522
295.14
589.50
578.21
New Zealand
415.0
.256
239.44
383.80
378.23
Canada
150.0
.080
83.70
128.81
130.00
'European Community
11.0
.008
2.99
7.50
11.00
Mexico
2.0
.0007
0.26
0.65
10.00
Belize
0.0
.0001
0.00
0.06
0.06
Costa Rica
40.0
.042
16.86
40.50
40.50
Dominican Republic
8.0
.005
4.34
7.16
8.00
El Salvador
3.0.
.002
1.47
2.60
3.00
Guatemala
14.0
.011
8.04
14.24
16.00
Haiti
2.0
.002
0.23
1.36
2.00
Honduras
35.0
' .044
16.11
40.92
40.00
Panama
4.0
.003
0.80
2.49
3.00
Nicaragua
37.0
.025
16.74
30.84
20.00
Other
10.0
--
--
--
10.00
TOTAL
1,326.0
686.12
1,249.93
1,250.00
Approved For Release 2008/05/21 : CIA-RDP85-01156R000100110003-2