[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 26, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2848-S2849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
        Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Reid, Mr. Roberts, Mr.

[[Page S2849]]

        Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sununu, 
        Mr. Warner, Mr. Wyden, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 456. A bill to remove the limitation on the use of funds to 
require a farm to feed livestock with organically produced feed to be 
certified as an organic farm; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce with Senator 
Snowe a bipartisan bill that will repeal a rider in the Omnibus 
Appropriations Conference Report. After the Conference Committee met 
and behind closed doors, this special interest rider gutted the organic 
standards just recently enacted by U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Thirty four Senators, and counting, from both parties are joining me to 
repeal this special interest provision and restore credibility to the 
USDA organic standards.
  I understand this special interest provision was inserted into the 
bill on behalf of a single producer who essentially wants to hijack the 
``organic'' certification label for his own purposes. He wants to get a 
market premium for his products, without actually being an organic 
product.
  This provision will allow producers to label their meat and dairy 
products ``organic'' even though they do not meet the strict criteria 
set forth by USDA, including the requirement that the animals be fed 
organically grown feed. This approach was considered and outright 
rejected by USDA last June. The entire organic industry opposed this 
weakening of the organic standards. If beef, poultry, pork and dairy 
producers are able to label their products as ``organic'' without using 
organic feed, which is one of the primary inputs, then what exactly is 
organic about the product?
  This provision is particularly galling because so many producers have 
already made the commitment to organic production. For most, this is a 
huge financial commitment on their part. I have already heard from some 
large producers--General Mills, Tyson Foods--as well as scores of 
farmers from Vermont and around the country who are enraged by this 
special loophole included for one company that does not want to play by 
the rules.
  My legislation strikes this rider from the Omnibus Appropriations Act 
and I hope to move it through Congress quickly before it does gut the 
organic meat and dairy industry. We need to send a message to all 
producers that if you want to benefit from the organic standards 
economically, you must actually meet them. When I included the ``The 
Organic Foods Production Act'' in the 1990 farm bill, it was because 
farmers recognized the growing consumer demand for organically produced 
products, but needed a tool to help consumers know which products were 
truly organic and which were not. The Act directed USDA to set minimum 
national standards for products labeled ``organic'' so that consumers 
could make informed buying decisions. The national standard also 
reassured farmers selling organically produced products that they would 
not have to follow separate rules in each state, and that their 
products could be labeled ``organic'' overseas.
  The new standards have been enthusiastically welcomed by consumers, 
because through organic labeling they now can know what they are 
choosing and paying for when they shop. This proposal to weaken the 
organic standards would undermine public confidence in organic 
labeling, which is less than a year old.
  Getting the organic standards that are behind the ``USDA Organic'' 
label right was a long and difficult process, but critically important 
to the future of the industry. Along the way, some tried to allow 
products treated with sewer sludge, irradiation, and antibiotics to be 
labeled ``organic.'' The public outcry against this was overwhelming. 
More than 325,000 people weighed in during the comment period, as did 
I. The groundswell of support for strong standards clearly showed that 
the public wants ``organic'' to really mean something. Those efforts to 
hijack the term were defeated and this one should be too.
  Consumers and producers rely on the standard. I hope more members 
will cosponsor my bill and send a message to special interests that 
they cannot hijack the organic industry through a rider on the spending 
bill. We need to fix this mistake and restore integrity to our organic 
standards.
                                 ______