[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 131 (Tuesday, November 16, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S11382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Enzi, and 
        Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 2987. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
expand the country of origin labeling for certain covered commodities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as you know, we are trying to finalize the 
appropriations bills this week so that we can get that done and go 
home. But in these appropriations bills, there are a lot of surprises. 
One of them is a movement to water down the country-of-origin labeling, 
a law that was passed in the 2002 farm bill.
  I will tell you that over the past weeks--in fact, before the 
election--I was in 45 communities and traveled 2,500 miles and found 
out that my State supports country-of-origin labeling and does not want 
to see it watered down. I heard from my folks. They strongly support 
it.
  In Montana, we want ``U.S.A'' on it. They are proud of what they 
produce. They are proud of the finished product. Of course, I have 
supported country-of-origin labeling for many years, and I was glad to 
see it finally pass in 2002 when we passed the 2002 farm bill.
  Now we are at the task of trying to write the administrative rules on 
a law that is already in place. We are having problems with that.
  But as Congress completed the bill and the President signed it into 
law, we had some folks already trying to dismantle it. That is wrong. 
Some folks wanted to muddle it up. That was wrong for the simple reason 
that you can't implement a law unless you know what the rules are. We 
don't know what those rules are right now. In fact, I think it is kind 
of like if the Washington Redskins go over to play Baltimore in 
football and they don't make the rules until after the opening kickoff. 
I don't think that works very well.
  But right now we have some folks who want to take another run at it. 
They are getting very aggressive and working overtime to get it done. 
Granted, the law has a couple of flaws in it. It is nothing that we 
can't fix. But keeping it muddled up all the time while we are trying 
to write the administrative rules becomes very difficult.
  There is a move to defund the entire writing process at one time. 
That was defeated.
  Now, instead of having a mandatory COOL law in effect today, which 
was the original intent to have a good program, of course, the rules 
continue because the implementation wasn't supposed to be until 2006. 
That was a compromise to continue the rulemaking process. Now I am told 
that there is another move again to soften the law and make it a 
voluntary law instead of a mandatory law. I don't support that. My 
producers don't support that. They are tired of waiting around.
  We need to get the country-of-origin labeling done. It needs to be 
done right, and it needs to be mandatory.
  I have a concern with the COOL law currently on the books. But today 
I am introducing legislation that begins to fix one part of that law.
  Right now, very little beef will actually be labeled in the grocery 
stores. The law excludes over half of the beef sold in this country. 
But let me be clear. Under no set of circumstances do I support rolling 
back the country-of-origin labeling. If Congress votes to make COOL 
voluntary, it may as well repeal the law because voluntary COOL does 
not work.
  On October 2002, the Secretary published guidelines for a voluntary 
labeling program so any retailer who chose to label could do it. But 
none did.
  Some of my friends say if we mandate a program, then let us try 
voluntary again. It is now time to shift the balance of power in the 
world of agricultural marketing and mandate country-of-origin labeling.
  You see, overwhelmingly, the folks who support COOL are small cow/
calf producers--my ranchers back home in Miles City, Judith Gap, 
Rudyard, Dillon, and across the State of Montana.
  These are guys who have worked hard on their ranches each and every 
day. They raise and produce healthy cattle and they want ``U.S.A.'' on 
their products. I don't blame them. But they do not have a lot of say 
in this decision. Once the calves leave the ranch, producers lose 
control to other parts of the industry.
  While what I am doing is offering a bill to fix it, let us expand the 
bill to processed meats. We have to do that. The bill I am introducing 
will remove the exemption in the law for processed foods. In practice, 
this means beef jerky, sausages, and marinated pork tenderloins which 
are all excluded from the labeling requirements as it stands. These are 
common consumer products and none of them would be just the same as 
they are for fish and shellfish which is already in effect. Looking at 
those rules, we are not asking for any more.
  With that, let us understand that attempts to weaken the law cannot 
happen in this body nor should it happen on these appropriations bills.

                          ____________________