By Seymour Klierly

Following another announcement from Tokyo that the Japanese market will continue to be closed to U.S. beef, 21 members of the Senate introduced a bill that would impose tariffs--a tax on Japanese goods that enter into the U.S.

Led by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND, and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-KS, the bill's cosponsors come from the reaches of the great plains, and include the likes of Senate Agriculture Chairman Saxby Chamliss, R-GA, Finance Ranking Member, Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT. The idea here being to raise a big stink about the lack of any sort of progress in the negotiations with the Japanese. And, having the chairman of the committee in charge of American agriculture policy and the number two guy from the committee that has sole jurisdiction over tariff and trade bills sends a clear message to Tokyo.

This bill has been called a leap by some--arguing this is too much too soon. These nay-sayers say this bill puts the U.S. at odds with commitments within the World Trade Organization. Some have argued that Congress should have continued pushing the proposal introduced by Sen. John Thune, R-SD, and Rep. Jerry Moran, R-KS, earlier this year that is a resolution, rather than a mandate, calling Congress to consider sanctions.

However, it seems the Senate acted this week in unprovoked frustration--calling the latest failure of the Japanese to reopen their markets the last straw.

Some have been quick to ask if there will be a companion effort in the House--a step which would really increase the momentum behind the push for tariffs on Japanese products. However, for the time being, it appears that members of the House Agriculture Committee and House Ways and Means Committee are content working towards passage of Rep. Moran's resolution instead of tariff legislation.

Because of procedural restrictions, tariff and trade bills must originate in the House--meaning that a companion bill would have to be approved by lawmakers in that chamber before a bill of this kind would ever make it to the White House to be signed into law.

So the big question is, if there are procedural hoops to jump through and different legislative efforts in the House and Senate, what good does this do for the U.S. beef industry?

In the ideal world, Congress will not have to actually pass a bill demanding tariffs on Japan. These legislative efforts will be capital that U.S. negotiators along with President Bush can use to accelerate progress to reopen the Japanese market. Further, it coincides with what U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns has been saying for months--Congress, can't afford to wait and they will be forced to consider tariffs and sanctions.

In short, this can do good for the beef industry--but any effort on the part of the U.S. in this issue must be matched by efforts from Tokyo towards a mutual end. Otherwise, Congress can approve sanction bills all day long without a response from Japan.