Washington, D.C.— If you want to get a good debate going, put a bunch of farmers in a room and ask them to agree on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL).  As your Congressman, I am asked often, “What is your position on COOL?”

I have had the opportunity to demonstrate my stance on COOL several times since coming to Congress almost two years ago.  In July of 2003, the House brought up the 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which would have delayed COOL implementation for two years.  I believed that it was essential to move forward with the details of COOL so that processors and producers would know what the law might require.  I wanted to vote in favor of the amendment that would strike the language delaying COOL.  Due to flight delays caused by severe weather, thirty-three Congressmen, including myself, missed the roll call vote.  That day, for the record, I submitted a letter stating my position on COOL. 

Several months later, on December 23, 2003, the discovery of BSE in a cow in Washington State changed the landscape for COOL.  As an active member of the Agriculture Committee, I have taken the opportunity to work on COOL in light of the BSE discovery.  Against my request, the Chairman and Ranking Member introduced H.R. 4576, the Food Promotion Act of 2004, to make COOL voluntary.  It was considered by the Committee in July of this year and passed by a voice vote. 

During consideration of H.R. 4576, Congressman Rehberg of Montana offered an amendment that kept COOL mandatory, but allowed a “self-verification” system and reduced the penalties for people who violated the law.  I voted against his amendment because I did not believe that the “self-verification” system allowed for enough accountability.  That day, I also voted against Congressman Osborne of Nebraska’s amendment that would have made COOL mandatory for only beef producers.  I do not think it is right to treat commodities differently when it comes to implementing COOL.  I disagreed with the merits of both the Rehberg and Osborne amendments, but I was also compelled to vote no to keep my amendment viable.  I then offered my own amendment that would have postponed current law (mandatory COOL) until the Secretary of Agriculture has implemented a national animal identification system.  During my two years in Congress, there have been three recorded votes on COOL.  My amendment was the only language offered that would preserve mandatory COOL, without watering it down.  While it is debatable as to whether COOL should be mandatory or voluntary, I oppose implementation of any kind of COOL before an effective animal identification system is in place.  Implementing COOL before animal traceability puts the cart before the horse.

A traceability system would be like an insurance policy that no cattleman should live without. Long before we discovered BSE in this country, beef producers in Western Iowa were calling for an animal ID system that would provide for the traceability of animals in the case of disease.  If a diseased animal were found again in this country, a traceability system would pinpoint the origin of the contaminated cattle in the quickest way possible.  In my view, it was a mistake for the 2002 Farm Bill to prohibit the use of an animal ID system to implement COOL.  This mistake causes more unneeded bureaucracy and increases the cost of the program for both the beef industry and the taxpayer.  My amendment failed on a voice vote, but it sparked a much-needed debate on the importance of an animal ID program.  I am pushing USDA to work swiftly to implement a workable animal identification system.  If USDA needs a legislative boost, I stand ready to champion the cause.

Although I have worked on the COOL issue over the past two years, there is still much to be done.  And, there are still many contentious issues that I look forward to hearing about in coffee shops and meetings with producers as I travel around Iowa. 

###