[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7632-S7633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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

[[Page S7633]]

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.
                                 ______