[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 310-311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE NEED FOR COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELING

  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I rise today to speak about country-of-
origin-labeling, an issue of critical importance to farmers, ranchers 
and the consumers in our great country.
  Yet even as our country grapples with its first case of mad cow 
disease, the Republican leadership and special interest groups aligned 
with the packing industry celebrate the possible delay in the 
implementation of my country-of-origin labeling law.
  Yes, country-of-origin labeling is the law. We voted on it and it was 
included in the last farm bill. Yet today I stand before you, concerned 
that an action in the dead of night by certain House members will sink 
this law, a law that is good for consumers of beef as well as producers 
of beef.
  Country-of-origin-labeling will help American producers market their 
beef as the superior product we know that it to be. It will also help 
American producers choose a product they know is safe while avoiding 
foreign product produced without the safeguards provided by the United 
States Department of Agriculture.
  Just a few weeks ago it was discovered that a cow from Canada was 
discovered with mad cow disease, yet consumers have no way to 
distinguish meat from a Canadian cow from meat from an American or 
Mexican cow.
  As recent events have shown Americans still have confidence in 
American beef and we must give them the ability to choose that beef. 
This law is also critical to our ability to begin exporting beef to 
countries, such as Japan, that closed their border to our beef after 
the recent case of mad cow in Washington State. Forty-eight out of 57 
of the United States' largest trading partners, including Japan, have 
country of origin labeling. Why can't we? I ask, why can't we?
  It dismays me, that there are people opposed to this law. It will 
allow consumers to make their own decisions about food safety, a 
critical issue in today's world of weapons of mass destruction and 
terrorism.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article written by 
Lee Pitts titled ``Who Killed COOL?''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Who Killed COOL?

                             (By Lee Pitts)

       COOL has been universally praised by producer and consumer 
     organizations alike. The overwhelming majority of farmers and 
     ranchers supported it and COOL even had bipartisan support in 
     Congress. So what went wrong? Who killed COOL?
       Here's a Most Wanted list of the thieves who stole COOL 
     from us and killed it in cold blood until COOL is deader than 
     a can of Argentinean corned beef.


                       the man who would be king

       To see who killed COOL just follow the money. And we can 
     start right at the top. George Bush has been vehemently 
     against COOL from the beginning. But one wonders why Bush 
     would feel so passionate about legislation and use up 
     political capital on something that will anger the very 
     people who helped elect him in a very tight presidential 
     race. Surely Bush must have had good reason to betray us? In 
     fact, he had had millions of reasons. Plain and simple . . . 
     Bush sold out to BIG business.
       Remember this name: Tom Hicks. According to Forbes Magazine 
     Mr. Hicks is the 350th richest man in America with an 
     estimated net worth of $750 million. Hicks heads up a 
     leveraged buyout outfit called Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst. 
     One of their better deals was buying Dr Pepper and 7-Up for 
     $45 million and selling it after two years for $700 million. 
     Hicks is also the man who made our current President a 
     multimillionaire by buying the Texas Rangers from a group 
     that included George W. In some circles Mr. Hicks is known as 
     ``The man behind the throne at the White House.''
       In May, 2002, Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst bought 54 percent 
     interest, along with ConAgra, in Australia Meat Holdings, 
     that country's largest meat processing company. Needless to 
     say, the firm sends a lot of meat in this direction. Do you 
     think Mr. Hicks' meat packing interests might have anything 
     to do with Bush's concern about COOL? If Mr. Hicks calls 
     Bush, I wonder, does he have any trouble getting through?
       The Texas Cattle Feeders, no doubt, also leaned on their 
     favorite son. The TCFA's members import thousands of Mexican 
     steers every year into the U.S. where they would like to 
     continue passing them off as domestics. Don't you find it 
     interesting that the

[[Page 311]]

     Representative who came up with the legislation to delay COOL 
     for one year, Mr. Bonilla, was a Texas House member. In the 
     Senate there was a similar attempt by Senator Cornryn. 
     Surprise, surprise . . . Mr. Cornryn is from Texas too.


                 usda: United States department of ann

       If you're looking for the killers of COOL you can take a 
     line from Casablanca and, ``Round up the usual suspects.'' 
     Ann Veneman and her cronies at the USDA surely are guilty. We 
     all know by now that Veneman is a free trader, that's why 
     she's currently trying to rewrite the rule book to reopen the 
     border with Canada to live cattle. COOL could be an 
     impediment to Veneman's vision of one global marketplace.
       We shouldn't be surprised by Ann's actions, she's sold us 
     out before. Like with mandatory price reporting. USDA 
     officials said COOL is a bad idea because ``there is no 
     definitive data available to quantitative the benefits of 
     COOL.'' In one voluminous COOL report there was page after 
     page of reasons why COOL is bad but there was not a single 
     sentence suggesting a benefit. If one didn't know better, a 
     casual observer might think the USDA was being biased. You 
     think?
       The USDA completely ignored a University of Florida study 
     that outlined the many benefits of COOL. The USDA came up 
     with cost estimates between $582 million and $3.9 billion but 
     it was always the higher figure they quoted. The Florida 
     study concluded that COOL would cost a fraction of that and 
     said consumers would be given a choice and producers would 
     benefit by increased demand for U.S. produced food. All good! 
     At exactly the same time Veneman saw no benefits to COOL, 
     Japan and Korea were making it clear they wanted only U.S. 
     labeled beef. Also, at the same time a hepatitis outbreak was 
     killing three people and sickening 259 in Georgia and 16 
     people in North Carolina. The feds aren't completely sure the 
     same strain sickened 600 people in Pennsylvania in the 
     Nation's biggest known outbreak of the disease. But they are 
     sure it was Mexican onions that caused the outbreaks in 
     Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina. Gosh, if only the 
     onions were labeled so consumers could decide for themselves 
     if they wanted to risk death by liver failure.
       If she had bothered to look Veneman could have also seen at 
     least one major benefit from COOL by looking northward to her 
     Canadian buddies. They started labeling their beef after the 
     Mad Cow scare and it paid off big time when Canadian 
     consumers started eating more domestic beef to show their 
     support for the domestic industry.
       And how's this for irony: A couple days after killing COOL 
     the feds announced they were launching a major initiative to 
     track food imports for national security reasons!


                            the meat we eat

       The food processing industry hates COOL because their 
     business models are based on being able to buy product 
     anywhere around the globe, wherever it is the cheapest. Then 
     they have a U.S. inspection stamp placed on it and mix it in 
     with domestic product. If you doubt that multinationals would 
     have the breadbasket of the world turned into a beggar nation 
     consider that 11.6% of beef eaten in the U.S. is imported, 
     40% of lamb, 16.6% of all vegetables, 23.1% of fresh and 
     frozen fruit, and even 10% of wheat and wheat products. Talk 
     about carrying coal to Newcastle!
       Meat packers don't want COOL because it would diminish the 
     profits they are making on cheap imports, like the obscene 
     profits they are now making on Canadian boxed beef. COOL 
     would derail this business model. So when COOL legislation 
     passed all the hurdles and road blocks and looked like it 
     would become a reality the packers were willing to resort to 
     dirty politics in an effort to kill it.
       First the packers said it would cost too much. What they 
     should have said it would cost THEM too much if they had to 
     start buying more U.S. beef because consumers were demanding 
     it. We know exactly how much extra COOL will cost ranchers. 
     You can currently get your calves verified as born and raised 
     in the U.S. using a USDA approved process for 50 cents 
     apiece. That's half of the beef checkoff buck. That doesn't 
     seem like too much, does it?
       Globalists hate COOL because it will build demand for U.S. 
     products, exactly what they don't want. COOL would dampen 
     their plans to outsource production to the cheapest supplier 
     because the only place to get U.S. products is guess where? 
     U.S.


                            the bottom line

       Ann Veneman herself helped identify some of the culprits 
     who killed COOL. She fingered the NCBA, the National Pork 
     Producers Council and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 
     Association as the groups responsible for blocking its 
     implementation. Yes, the primary contractor for your checkoff 
     dollars, an outfit that may not even exist without your beef 
     bucks, the NCBA, stabbed you right in the back. Again.
       In the 2004 election cycle so far, agribusiness interests 
     have given President Bush $1.8 million--ten times as much as 
     the next recipient. The NCBA is one of the top agribusiness 
     contributors. They even gave Bush a cowboy hat at their 
     convention.
       After the Conference Committee derailed COOL the NCBA 
     issued a press release saying, ``Congress carefully 
     considered possible dangers of the law before delaying 
     implementation for two years.'' Chandler Keys, NCBA's 
     lobbyist said that mandatory labeling would damage trade 
     relations with Mexico. (Although Mexico currently requires 
     country of origin labeling of U.S. beef exports.) NCBA 
     President Eric Davis said, ``Many producers were concerned 
     that these mandatory regulations could have a negative effect 
     on their bottom line.''
       Leo McDonnell of R-CALF had a different viewpoint: 
     ``Despite NCBA's claim that independent cattle producers do 
     not want mandatory country of origin labeling, 76 U.S. cattle 
     associations, representing 26 states and including 17 NCBA 
     state affiliates, worked with R-CALIF USA to pass mandatory 
     COOL in the 2002 Farm Bill.''
       In every poll this reporter has seen an overwhelming 
     majority of ranchers and consumers voice their support for 
     COOL. Both the American Farm Bureau and the National Farmer's 
     Union supported it. Even the NCBA admits it: ``What our 
     members have told us through votes was they want a country-
     of-origin labeling program that is beneficial to both them 
     and to the consumers,'' said Jim McAdams, a Texas cattleman 
     and NCBA VP. The NCBA, after killing COOL, then had the 
     audacity to announce it was launching plans to create a 
     VOLUNTARY pilot country-of-origin labeling program that would 
     differentiate U.S. meat products from foreign meat. Dun . . . 
     we already have a voluntary program and it doesn't work.
       According to Leo McDonnell the real bottom line is this: 
     ``The interests of producers are being compromised by 
     organizations purporting to represent producers, but who 
     actually incorporate the financial interests of packers in 
     their policies'' That's putting it nicely. Other response to 
     the killing of COOL was swift and angry:
       The New Mexico Stockgrowers had given the NCBA a couple 
     chances to come around but COOL was the last straw. It 
     exposed NCBA once and for all for what they really are: A 
     mouthpiece for the Texas and Kansas cattle feeders and the 
     Big Three packers. The stockgrowers recently voted to end 
     their association with the NCBA because they no longer 
     represent them. (I'd argue they never did.)
       Fred Stokes of the The Organization of Competitive Markets 
     said: ``Country-of-origin labeling has precipitated a war. 
     Food producers and consumers are on one side with food 
     cartels and their lackeys on the other. Regrettably, the 
     leadership in our government has come down on the wrong 
     side.''
       NFU President Dave Frederickson said, ``This two-year delay 
     is undoubtedly a tactic to make this widely popular law more 
     vulnerable to repeal after the presidential elections. The 
     delay will effectively kill COOL for meats, fruits and 
     vegetables. Wild fish would be the only food item exempt from 
     the delay, which should prove beneficial for salmon fishermen 
     in Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens' 
     state of Alaska. There is definitely something fishy about 
     this process.''
       ``This is just another example of the White House and 
     Republican leadership allowing their biggest corporate 
     contributors to set policy,'' responded Presidential 
     candidate Howard Dean. ``Since being elected, George Bush has 
     consistently put the interests of corporate agribusiness 
     ahead of family farmers and rural America.''
       South Dakota Stockgrowers Assn. President Ken Knuppe said, 
     ``This is a slap in the face to all of the cattle producers 
     who've fought so hard for this legislation. It is clearly a 
     political move, not an attempt to benefit producers or 
     consumers.''
       Perhaps Paul Ringling, President of the Montana Cattleman's 
     Assn said it best: ``NCBA, packers and USDA have an unholy, 
     incestuous alliance.''
       Some say the battle over COOL is not yet lost. Although the 
     House approved the Conference Committee report the Senate 
     will vote on it on January 20. But Tom Harkin does not expect 
     COOL to be in the final bill. ``They won't remove COOL . . . 
     they just won't give it any money,'' says Harkin.
       The only way to override the Conference Committee action is 
     to defeat the omnibus spending bill which would also shut 
     down the federal government. As tempting as that sounds . . . 
     don't count on it happening.
       If you must do something to voice your displeasure you 
     could dial the phone number (202-456-1111) and give a tape 
     recorder a piece of your mind. And you could quit any group 
     that played a role in COOL's defeat. I've heard some people 
     who are so upset they are going to refuse to pay the 
     checkoff, seeing how it's unconstitutional anyway. For sure 
     you should join R-CALF. As for Bush . . . if the next 
     Presidential election is as close as the last one, Bush may 
     have a lot more time to spend with his ``BIG Bidness'' 
     buddies as a result of his COOLish behavior.

                          ____________________