[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5491-5494]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2646, FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Hooley of Oregon moves that the managers on the part of 
     the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2646 be 
     instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 
     1001 of the Senate amendment and section 944 of the House 
     bill, relating to country of origin labeling requirements for 
     agricultural commodities, but to insist on the six-month 
     implementation deadline contained in the House bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) 
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today with the support of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), 
and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), I bring a motion to 
the floor to instruct conferees to the farm bill regarding country-of-
origin labeling.
  Our friends on the conference committee have an incredibly difficult 
job to do, and I know they have been working hard. This is not an easy 
piece of legislation to agree on. However, one thing they should all be 
able to agree on is country-of-origin labeling. This is something that 
farmers want, this is something that consumers want, and this is 
something that your constituents want.
  There are hundreds of local, regional, and national organizations 
that support country-of-origin labeling. These include the American 
Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, United Stockgrowers of America, 
National Consumers League, Consumer Federation of America, Public 
Citizen, and hundreds of other organizations.
  I have in front of me a potato and an onion. These were purchased at 
the grocery store last night. Where were they grown? I have not a clue.
  Now, I have a hat. I know exactly where this hat is made. This I just 
wear on my head; this is what I put in my mouth. Which is the most 
important to

[[Page 5492]]

know where it is made? I think it is the food you put in your mouth. It 
is my right to know as a consumer where that food comes from. When I 
walk into that grocery store to buy food for my family, I want to make 
sure that it is grown in a place that is safe. What if I want to 
support American agriculture and buy American? I guess I just have to 
hope that it was made in the United States or grown in the United 
States.
  Our food is some of the safest produced, and the men and women that 
produce that food want Americans to know where it came from. Our 
growers have to comply with strict, exhaustive local, State and Federal 
regulations governing the use of land, water, labor and chemicals, 
rules that many of our trading partners do not comply with, such as 
worker safety, sanitation, environmental protection.
  Opponents of this amendment contend that the costs for the industry, 
including retailers, to comply with country-of-origin labeling 
requirements are too great and the price of the products and produce 
will rise as a result. This is simply untrue. We already have a great 
test case currently in place. The fourth most populous State in the 
country, Florida, has had the country-of-origin labeling requirements 
in place for over 20 years. If you take a poll of the people in 
Florida, they will tell you by 96 percent, they love it.
  Thirteen of our biggest trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, 
Japan, France, and the United Kingdom, require country-of-origin 
labeling on produce imported into their countries. When the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Bono) and I brought an amendment to the farm bill 
on the floor that would require all fresh fruit and vegetables to 
clearly be marked with its country of origin, this body responded 
overwhelmingly; 296 Members, almost 300 people, supported our 
amendment.
  All we are doing today is asking our colleagues to honor the wishes 
of its Members and retain these provisions as written into the House 
and Senate bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to credit the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley) for her hard work and leadership on this issue; the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Bono) for the work that she has done in advancing 
the cause of country-of-origin labeling; the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who along with me has introduced H.R. 1121, the 
Country of Origin Meat Labeling Act; and others in this body who have 
supported this effort to make sure that consumers in this country know 
where their food is coming from. This is important legislation.
  The bill requires, or the motion would require, suggests to the 
conferees that any meat or meat product imported into the United States 
must be labeled to indicate its country of origin. Additionally, any 
meat product produced in the United States that contains any meat or 
meat product, the origin of which is not in the United States, must 
also be labeled to indicate country of origin.
  Under this motion, U.S. consumers, if this language is adopted as 
part of the farm bill, would be assured that the products that they 
consume pass through one of the most stringent inspection systems in 
the world. Producers deserve the assurance that their reputation for 
producing quality meat is not damaged by inferior products. And 
consumers deserve the assurance that the meat that they buy is of the 
highest quality.
  During the farm bill markup in the Committee on Agriculture, I 
offered a country-of-origin amendment, labeling amendment, to the farm 
bill for beef, lamb and pork, as well as perishable commodities and 
farm-raised fish. It was a long, vigorous, and often contentious 4-hour 
debate. Yet it is a debate worth having, and it is a fight worth having 
because the issue is that important to the American people. The more 
people understand what is involved with this issue, the more convinced 
they become that this is the right policy for America.
  Why is this important? For several reasons. First, consumers have the 
right to know the origin of the meat that they buy in the grocery 
store. Second, ranchers deserve to have their product clearly 
identified. Third, current law creates a false impression about the 
origin of USDA grade meat. Fourth, most other consumer products are 
labeled as to country of origin. Meat should be no different. And, 
fifth, as the gentlewoman from Oregon already noted, numerous countries 
already are imposing country-of-origin labeling requirements, including 
Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. It is only fair to producers in 
this country and to consumers in this country that we do the same 
thing.
  The farm bill conference is currently deliberating this important 
issue. Conferees are considering a voluntary labeling requirement or 
provision in this bill. South Dakota producers find this unacceptable. 
We should find it unacceptable as well. The only real option is to 
include mandatory country-of-origin labeling in this farm bill.
  I would encourage my colleagues in the House to vote for this motion 
to instruct. I again want to compliment and thank the gentlewoman from 
Oregon for her leadership; the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) 
for the hard work that she has done in making sure that this issue is 
front and center as we debate farm policy in this country and as we 
debate it in the House Committee on Agriculture, the folks who are 
involved in that; and the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), also an 
active advocate and effective spokesperson on behalf of country-of-
origin labeling.
  It is important to those Members, to us, as well as to all people 
across this country and to the producers of this country that we put in 
place a mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirement so that the 
people in this country know where their food is coming from and so that 
producers in this country have an opportunity to have their product 
clearly identified as the finest and the best in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague from 
South Dakota for his great words about how important this is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Thurman), one of the States that has had mandatory labeling for the 
last 20 years.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I certainly thank my colleagues who have brought this 
motion to instruct to the conference committee.

                              {time}  1015

  I am especially appreciative because I can tell my colleagues a story 
of why this motion is so important and needed.
  In 2001, there were some cantaloupes that were found to be 
contaminated and word quickly spread, erroneously I might add, that all 
melons were contaminated, and the market collapsed. I have melon-
growers in my district. If we had country-of-origin labeling then, 
consumers would have known the source of the contaminated melons. They 
were foreign and not domestic. Our market would not have been 
disrupted, perfectly good produce would not have been thrown out, and 
domestic growers would have been protected.
  I want to address also the argument that the provision will be 
costly. Well, as has been mentioned, Florida has had a similar law for 
more than 20 years. When I walk into the grocery store, there is a sign 
that is placed to indicate the origin of the produce. It looks like it 
has been cut out of a piece of construction paper, printed, and put up. 
The Florida Department of Agriculture has indicated that it costs 
supermarkets $5 to $10 per store a week to comply with that law. It 
does not seem too costly to me that we could let our folks at home know 
the origin of our fruits and vegetables.
  They might say, well, it could be a trade issue. Well, I do not see 
it as a trade issue. Thirteen of our 28 largest trading partners have 
similar laws for fresh produce and stores in those countries find a way 
to comply; certainly, American stores are just as capable.

[[Page 5493]]

  Finally, the American people want this information: 78 percent, 
according to a recent poll, that shows that the House was correct last 
year when 296 of us voted for country-of-origin labeling.
  So I ask my colleagues now to support this motion, as my colleagues 
did before. Let us make sure that our consumers and our farmers benefit 
from a motion that helps all of us.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), someone who has been a 
fearless and effective advocate to ensure that we get country-of-origin 
labeling requirements in this farm bill, and someone who has been an 
incredible spokesperson on this issue; and, pending that, I ask 
unanimous consent that the balance of my time be controlled by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), and that she be able to yield 
that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from South Dakota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the House of Representatives passed the Bono-Hooley 
amendment on country-of-origin labeling to the farm bill, we took a 
positive step forward. However, despite the House's resounding approval 
of this amendment, the farm bill conferees are considering an option to 
give us country-of-origin labeling on a voluntary basis and then leave 
the question of whether to mandate labeling up to the discretion of the 
Secretary of Agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, this does us no good. We already have a voluntary 
program. So this offer to institute voluntary labeling does absolutely 
nothing to address the concerns our constituents have in wanting to 
know where in the world their produce and beef comes from.
  When the last comprehensive labeling act was passed by Congress 
nearly 70 years ago, there were very few fruit and vegetable imports 
into the United States. However, with our grocery stores now inundated 
with foreign-grown produce and beef, I believe it is up to Congress and 
not to the Secretary of Agriculture, to mandate a consumer's right to 
know.
  We have taken such action on other goods, and now it is the time for 
us to use our constitutional authority to act on mandatory labeling of 
fresh produce and beef.
  There are those who charge that this program would be too costly for 
the consumer. In 1979, the State of Florida passed the Produce Labeling 
Act, which mandates country-of-origin labeling. This highly successful 
program requires only 2 staff hours per store per week.
  Critics are also concerned about this provision leading to a trade 
war. But according to the GAO, 13 of our Nation's 28 biggest trading 
partners, including Mexico, the U.K., Japan and Canada, require 
country-of-origin labeling for fresh produce.
  Mr. Speaker, country-of-origin labeling is practiced by our trading 
partners, it is inexpensive to implement and, in the name of safety and 
the consumers' right to know, it is much needed.
  I urge my colleagues to let the conferees know how important this 
issue is. Vote in favor of the Hooley motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  This, again, should be a simple matter. We have heard from Florida, 
where it literally costs a person a penny a week or less. This can be 
achieved very easily by placing signs near produce bins or with price 
information in the stores displaying their items in their original 
shipping cartons. This does not have to be a tough issue. It should be 
mandatory that we know where the food that we put in our mouth comes 
from, and I urge the support of this motion to instruct.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, consumers are the only people in the produce 
marketing chain who don't know where their food is grown. The shippers 
know where the produce was grown. So do the buyers, the merchandisers, 
and the clerks. Produce shoppers rarely share in this information 
because the country-of-origin information is stripped off before it 
makes it to the display bin case.
  For the past 69 years, goods imported into the United States have 
been required to be labeled with the product's country of origin. Your 
clothing, coffee mug, and even the chair you are sitting in have 
country of origin labels. It's hard to find a consumer produce in this 
country without one. However, fruits and vegetables are exempt from the 
labeling law. It's time for Congress to change that exemption.
  The cost of administering labeling is, by the retail industry's own 
accounts, insignificant . . . far less than a penny for each consumer's 
weekly food bill.
  The GAO says that 13 of our Nation's 28 biggest trading partners 
require country of origin labels for fresh produce. Shouldn't U.S. 
consumers be entitled to the same information as consumers in these 
countries?
  Growers in the 1st Congressional District of Oregon, like all U.S. 
growers, must comply with strict, comprehensive local, state and 
federal regulations governing the use of land, water, labor, and 
agricultural chemicals. Compliance with these laws and regulations is 
very costly, but necessary to ensure, among other things, food and 
worker safety, sanitation and environmental protection. These 
production standards add safety and value to our products.
  With farm prices at record lows, we need to give our producers an 
edge in the market. Country of origin is one, low cost and effective 
way to help American consumers to make an informed choice at the 
supermarket, and benefit American growers at the same time. It's good 
for consumers and it's good for growers. And it's common sense. Why is 
it that I know where this tie was made, where this suit made, where my 
boots are made, but when I walk down the street and buy a head of 
lettuce, I can't find out where it was grown?
  The motion to instruct is not only common sense, it is not only good 
for American health and sanitation--it goes to the heart of American 
values--consumer choice and help for the small farmer. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Hooley motion to 
instruct farm bill conferees to retain language passed in the Senate 
farm bill that requires country of origin labeling information on meat, 
fish, fruits, and vegetables. Country of origin labeling is necessary 
to give U.S. consumers important information and give U.S. producers 
credit for the considerable investment they have made in the quality 
and safety of their products.
  Consumers support country of origin labeling so that they are able to 
make informed decisions and choose products based on their origin. Our 
food system has become more global and consumers are demanding new 
information on the products they buy. Studies show that over 80 percent 
consumers support country of origin labeling of their food products. 
Consumers can pick up any article of clothing, read the label, and know 
where it was manufactured. However, the head of lettuce or steak they 
purchase in their grocery store lacks basic information on where it was 
produced.
  Producers support country of origin labeling because it allows them 
to differeniate their product. American producers have placed a high 
priority on developing high-quality, safe food. They can benefit from 
this investment only if consumers are able to differentiate between 
products of U.S. origin and products from overseas.
  I do want to commend the conferees to the farm bill. They are working 
diligently to arrive at a compromise that we can all support in order 
to finish this farm bill quickly. However, we should still send the 
message to the Farm Bill conferees about consumers' right to know the 
origin of the food they buy and producers' right to distinguish their 
product.
  I urge my colleagues to support country of origin labeling and this 
motion to instruct. We must protect the considerable investment that we 
have made in our high-quality, safe meat supply.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 5494]]



                          ____________________