Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, 2006-- Conference Report

APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - November 02, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 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 is clear that there is no shortage of viewpoints. One view that has been 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. products 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Management and Budget have published reports and studies, and testified before Congress about the burdens of mandatory country-of-origin labeling.

In 1999, GAD testified before Congress that ``there is going to be significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement'' of mandatory labeling.

The next year, GAO released another study indicating that.

U.S. Packers, processors, and grocers would ..... pass their compliance costs back to their suppliers ..... in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. And when USDA issued its proposed rule, they included 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 at OMB, Dr. John Graham, which said ``this is one of the most burdensome rules to be reviewed by this Administration.''

Not surprisingly, these predictions were recently realized when several processors, preparing for implementation of mandatory labeling in September 2006, sent their suppliers letters spelling out the arduous procedures that would be employed to verify animal origin, ensure compliance, and indemnify the processors from liability for inaccurate information.

Given these ominous warnings, many of my constituents are rightly concerned about the financial and record keeping burdens this law will impose on them. They ask:

How can something so popular, like marketing and promoting U.S. products be so expensive?

There has to be a better way to market and promote U.S. products. I am pleased that the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act contains a provision that will delay implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling until 2008 because it gives us 2 more years to enact a meaningful, cost-effective labeling program like the Meat Promotion Act of 2005, which I introduced with 13 of my colleagues earlier this year. This bipartisan, commonsense legislation would establish a voluntary country-of-origin labeling program driven by the free-market, not the rigid legal interpretations of Federal bureaucrats.

I stand with livestock producers that want to market and promote the products they proudly 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/