Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - June 29, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Talent, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bond, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Allard, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Pryor):

S. 1333. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to establish a voluntary program for country of origin labeling of meat, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Meat Promotion Act of 2005.

This legislation is long overdue. When implemented, it will help assist our producers of cattle, pork, and other livestock to market and promote their products as born and raised in the United States. This proposal provides an efficient and effective solution to the country-of-origin labeling dilemma.

The Meat Promotion Act of 2005 will benefit U.S. food producers by promoting American-grown foods. This bipartisan effort is widely supported by producers, processors, and retailers as a means to finally move country-of-origin labeling forward.

This legislation provides for USDA implementation of a labeling program that will be similar to the many voluntary labeling programs that currently exist. Hundreds of programs that label products by region, state, and U.S. brand have already proven their value for producers and consumers alike. The Meat Promotion Act will put the marketplace in charge by allowing producers to meet consumer demand. Where that demand is demonstrated, more products labeled with country-of-origin will become available.

Country-of-origin labeling has been an issue in the Senate for quite awhile, and yet, after all this time, we're no closer to promoting U.S. products than we were a decade ago. In reviewing the storied history of this issue, it's clear that there is not a shortage of viewpoints. One view overwhelmingly vocalized is that U.S. producers of beef and pork want to market and promote their products as born and raised in the United States of America. They are proud of what they produce, and they should be: the U.S. produces the safest, most abundant food supply at the most affordable price, and our livestock producers want to capture the value they add to the market.

But just like every other debate in Washington, the debate over country-of-origin labeling has been about the means to accomplish the goal. It is not that we are fighting about whether or not promoting U.S. product is a good idea. We are fighting about how to do it. Some in the U.S. Senate and some around the country have said: ``If it isn't mandatory, it's not labeling,'' or that the current mandatory labeling law that passed in the 2002 Farm Bill is the only way labeling will work. I strongly disagree.

The current mandatory law is an example of a good idea gone awry. The warning signs of the negative impact of this law have long been on the horizon. On a number of occasions the Government Accountability Office published reports and studies, and testified before Congress about the burdens of mandatory country-of-origin labeling.

In 1999--3 years before the current mandatory labeling law was passed--GAO testified before Congress that ``There is going to be significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement'' of mandatory labeling. At that same hearing, a representative of the Clinton administration testified that ``There are a variety of regulatory regimes for country-of-origin labeling that could be adopted.''

In 2000, the GAO released another study indicating that ``U.S. Packers, processors, and grocers would, to the extent possible, pass their compliance costs back to their suppliers--U.S. cattle and sheep ranchers--in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.''

As if that was not enough, again in 2000, the USDA under President Clinton released another report which stated: ``[C]ountry-of-origin labeling is certain to impose at least some costs on an industry which will either be passed back to producers in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers via higher prices. There would also be compliance and enforcement cost to the government. The extent of these costs would vary depending on the nature of the regulatory scheme and the amount of enforcement and compliance action.''

Yet despite the warning signs, the current law passed as part of the 2002 Farm Bill.

When USDA issued the proposed rule, it contained a cost-benefit analysis that said implementation could cost up to $4 billion--with no quantifiable benefit. The rule was followed by a letter from the Director of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Dr. John Graham, which said ``this is one of the most burdensome rules to be reviewed by this administration.''

And so, I am not surprised by how upset many of my constituents are, and that they have come asked me to do something about the burdens this law imposes on them. They ask: ``How can something so popular, like marketing and promoting U.S. products be so expensive?'' I am introducing this bill to help relieve that burden.

There has to be a better way to market and promote U.S. products, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 will provide a better solution.

Some have said that voluntary labeling is like a voluntary speed limit--that it won't work. On what basis do they make that claim? Products like Certified Angus Beef, Angus Pride, Rancher's Reserve; these are all labeled on a volunteer basis under existing USDA programs. If producers want to have their products labeled, then they should participate in a voluntary labeling program rather than impose a costly burden on entire segments of our Nation's economy.

Others have argued that this is about food safety. Let's not kid ourselves: country-of-origin labeling is a product-marketing program, period. The security of our Nation's food supply is assured by a science-based, food-safety inspection system, not by labeling programs. In fact, the mandatory labeling law exempts food service and poultry. If this debate is about food safety, why are all poultry and the majority of beef imports for foodservice allowed an exemption? These exemptions clearly demonstrate food safety is not at issue.

Some have also pointed to the mandatory labeling law now in effect on seafood and fish, saying that the sky has not fallen on those industries. That is subject to interpretation. GAO analysis of the seafood provisions of the mandatory labeling law shows that the seafood industry could face up to $89 million in start-up costs and up to $6.2 million in additional costs in year 10 of the program. Likewise, USDA estimated total recordkeeping at $44.6 million for the first year and $24.4 million in subsequent years. The Office of Management and Budget found the rule to be an ``economically significant'' regulatory action and USDA believes the rule would adversely affect--in a substantial way--a key sector of the economy. GAO B-294914.

What do these numbers mean in a practical way? It means that these expenses are paid for out of the pockets of hardworking Americans, to fund a program that could be more efficient, more effective, and less costly.

I stand with the livestock producers that want to market and promote the products they are proud to raise. I believe they should be able to market and promote their products as born, raised, and processed in the United States, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 provides the most effective and efficient opportunity for them to do so, while adding value to their bottom line and helping the economy of rural America.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov