U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–180 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–152 

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING 

AND TRADE RETALIATION: 

WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR 

AMERICA’S FARMERS, RANCHERS, 

BUSINESSES, AND CONSUMERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JOEL T. LEFTWICH, MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

ANNE C. HAZLETT, MAJORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

JONATHAN J. CORDONE, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Country of Origin Labeling and Trade Retaliation: What is at Stake for 

America’s Farmers, Ranchers, Businesses, and Consumers ............................ 1 

Thursday, June 25, 2015 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 2 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 4 

Witnesses 

Carpenter, Barry, CEO, North American Meat Institute, Washington, DC ....... 9 

Hill, Craig, President, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation on behalf of American 

Farm Bureau Federation, Milo, IA ..................................................................... 10 

McDonnell, Leo, Executive Officer and Director Emeritus for the United 

States Cattlemen’s Association, Rhame, ND ..................................................... 12 

Moyer, Jaret, President, Kansas Livestock Association, Emporia, KS ............... 14 

Trezise, Jim, President, New York Wine & Grape Foundation, Canandaigua, 

NY ......................................................................................................................... 15 

Cuddy, Chris, Senior Vice President and President of ADM’s Corn Processing 

Business Unit, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Decatur, IL ...................... 17 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Grassley, Hon. Charles .................................................................................... 40 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. ..................................................................................... 41 

Carpenter, Barry .............................................................................................. 42 

Cuddy, Chris ..................................................................................................... 47 

Hill, Craig ......................................................................................................... 49 

McDonnell, Leo ................................................................................................. 53 

Moyer, Jaret ...................................................................................................... 68 

Trezise, Jim ....................................................................................................... 72 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Pat Roberts: 

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Ottowa Canada, prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 76 

Corn Refiners Association, prepared statement ............................................. 78 

National Foreign Trade Council, prepared statement ................................... 79 

Country of Origin Labeling Reform Coalition (COOL) and various organizations ............................................................................................................ 81 

Mars Inc., prepared statement ........................................................................ 87 

Government of Mexico, Office of the Secretary, prepared statement (with 

translation attachment) ................................................................................ 88-90 

National Association of Manufacturers, prepared statement ....................... 91 

National Pork Producers Council, prepared statement ................................. 96 

National Corn Growers Association, prepared statement ............................. 112 

Produce Marketing Association, press release ............................................... 113 

Page

IV 

Hon. Pat Roberts—Continued 

Produce Marketing Association, prepared statement .................................... 114 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, prepared statement ......................................... 115 

Western Premiers, prepared statement .......................................................... 122 

McDonnell, Leo: 

Addendum in response to Senator Roberts question on responding to 

retaliatory tariff’s .......................................................................................... 19 

(1) 

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING 

AND TRADE RETALIATION: 

WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR 

AMERICA’S FARMERS, RANCHERS, 

BUSINESSES, AND CONSUMERS 

Thursday, June 25, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman 

of the committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Roberts, Boozman, 

Hoeven, Ernst, Tillis, Sasse, Grassley, Thune, Stabenow, Brown, 

Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Casey. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. 

Before making my statement, I would like to yield to the distinguished Ranking Member for a very important statement. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in the 

interest of all of the terrific Senate women who are here today, I 

just want to congratulate everyone who played and the color commentator last night, Senator Klobuchar, for having the Congressional women beat the press in the charity game that is really a 

terrific opportunity to raise money for breast cancer. It was labeled, 

‘‘Beat the Press,’’ and we did. I should not say ‘‘we.’’ I was cheering. 

It is because I was cheering that that happened, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right, and the pitcher—— 

Senator STABENOW. —Senator Ernst—and the pitcher, yes, Senator Ernst and Senator Gillibrand did a terrific job. So, Mr. Chairman, it raised a lot of money for a very important cause. It was 

a beautiful night. Our team won, so congratulations. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am not speechless, I just—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. This is what happens when the Chairman 

is outnumbered—— 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. That is right. 

Chairman ROBERTS. —with regards to—well, anything I would 

say would be not PC, so I will—— 

Senator STABENOW. That is true. 

Chairman ROBERTS. —I will leave it alone. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You could say congratulations. 

2 

Chairman ROBERTS. Yes, congratulations. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That would be good. Madam Pitcher, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I do not know of any member of Congress 

who does not congratulate you on beating the press. 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. 

Chairman ROBERTS. With all due respect. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Today, the committee turns its focus once 

again to the issue of mandatory country of origin labeling, or 

COOL. Now, I have got a bit longer statement today and time will 

be extended for the distinguished Ranking Member, as well. 

My statement is full of history and details, but if you take nothing else away, I hope it is this. Facts are stubborn things, and 

whether you support COOL or oppose COOL, the fact is, retaliation 

is coming and this committee has to fix it. This committee has a 

long history with COOL, a history that now spans three decades. 

Discussions began in the mid-to late-1990s. 

Then in the 2002 farm bill, legislative language first appeared. 

Over the course of the next several years, the Department of Agriculture attempted to issue regulations implementing the program. 

After the Department experienced some difficulty, Congress continually moved the COOL implementation deadlines to allow the Department more time. 

Now, with the passage of the 2008 farm bill, the Department of 

Agriculture received more direction from Congress on how to implement mandatory COOL, and in the late year of 2008, the Department proposed an interim rule. However, they later withdrew that 

rule due to criticism from proponents that the regulation was too 

weak, and it was not until 2009 that the mandatory COOL program as we know it was born. That is when we began to see mandatory labels appearing on meat that read, ‘‘Products of the U.S.,’’ 

or ‘‘Product of the U.S. and Canada,’’ for example. But, that is not 

the end of the debate. 

Almost immediately upon implementation of the mandatory regulations, Canada and Mexico filed suit with the WTO, the World 

Trade Organization. They claimed that the COOL requirements 

were causing the U.S. beef and pork sectors to discriminate against 

Canadian and Mexican origin livestock. 

In 2011, the WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico, finding 

that the U.S. requirements were in violation of the WTO commitments by treating the Canadian and Mexican livestock less favorably than U.S. livestock. To use a baseball analogy, that was strike 

one. 

Later that year, the U.S. appealed the ruling, but in 2012, the 

WTO affirmed that the United States was in violation. Strike two. 

Then the USDA went back to the drawing board to create a new 

set of regulations to implement mandatory COOL, and in May 

2013, they put forth a recommendation that in the eyes of the WTO 

3 

were much worse and much more trade restrictive by requiring labeling of meat based on where the animal was born and raised and 

slaughtered. 

Despite the warnings of many in the livestock sector and in the 

Congress, the USDA implemented the regulation and Canada and 

Mexico again took us to the WTO in 2013. In 2014, the WTO came 

back with a decision affirming for the third time the claims of discrimination brought by Canada and Mexico. 

Of course, the U.S. appealed that WTO ruling, but on May 18 of 

this year, the fourth and final ruling of the WTO compliance—that 

the panel, the WTO compliance panel, affirmed that the U.S. attempts to fix mandatory COOL fell short. Some would say, strike 

three. 

Let us not forget that also occurring at this time, we were in the 

midst of the 2014 farm bill negotiations. Congress did have the opportunity to fix mandatory COOL in the 2014 farm bill. However, 

some stakeholders wanted to wait out the WTO process. My colleagues, that process has played out. There is no more time to wait. 

I share this history so all can understand that the Congress, the 

impacted industries, and the regulators at the Department of Agriculture have put in endless efforts over the past three decades to 

make mandatory COOL viable. However, that objective has not 

been reached and has cost the U.S. billions of dollars. 

Looking at my home state alone, a Kansas State University review of the current mandatory COOL regulations found that compliance has already cost Kansas $500 million. Despite the best of 

intentions of COOL supporters, the USDA estimated that mandatory COOL has cost the U.S. beef, pork, and chicken sectors approximately $1.8 billion. Furthermore, there have been no measurable increases in consumer demand to offset the losses inflicted on 

the livestock and the meat sectors. 

These costs are in addition to the strain this policy has put on 

our relationship with two of our closest trading partners, Canada 

and Mexico. That in of itself is cause for serious concern. We know 

that the damages Canada and Mexico are seeking are immense. 

Over $3.2 billion in sanctions on U.S. products is possible if we do 

not repeal mandatory COOL, and these are not just ag products in 

the crosshairs. Listen to the list available in 2013. Products including beef, pork, cherries, ethanol, wine, orange juice, jewelry, mattresses, furniture, and parts for heating appliances are just some— 

some—of the targets of the Canadian retaliation. Mexico has yet to 

finalize their list, but we expect it to be just as damaging. 

The U.S. economy cannot tolerate such economic injury. Now, the 

House has moved quickly to prevent retaliation by repealing mandatory COOL for meat. Now the responsibility falls on us. The Senate must act prior to the WTO’s authorization of retaliation. The 

WTO stove is hot and we do not want to touch it. 

One estimate from Iowa State University suggests that $2 billion 

in retaliation applied to U.S. exports would result in 17,000 lost 

U.S. jobs, yet we could face significantly higher retaliation damages 

of the $3.2 billion from Canada and Mexico, which would lead to 

many more lost jobs. 

Canada has made repeated statements that they intend to proceed with retaliation should the U.S. Congress fail to repeal COOL. 

4 

Just yesterday, the Canadian Minister of Agriculture sent a letter 

to members of this committee stating, and I quote, ‘‘For Canada, 

legislative repeal of COOL is the only approach that will achieve 

this end.’’ Another letter was sent on Tuesday by the Mexican Secretary of the Economy stating this, quote, ‘‘Retaliation is imminent 

and inevitable unless and until the U.S. takes action to repeal the 

underlying COOL statute.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent to include both of these letters in the 

record. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[The following information can be found on pages 76 and 88 

through 90 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I want to emphasize—I really want to emphasize—I understand completely the concerns of some members of 

this committee. I have encouraged alternatives to be brought forth, 

or especially by our distinguished Ranking Member and other 

members of this committee. 

But, as Chairman of this committee, I must emphasize to my colleagues and all of agriculture that retaliation is fast approaching 

and the responsibility sits squarely on our shoulders to avoid it. It 

is important to realize that regardless of what farm groups, the Department of Agriculture, or the USTR says, or regardless of what 

action Congress may take, regardless of what any member of this 

committee may say, Canada and Mexico—only Canada and Mexico—have the ability to halt retaliation. 

So, this takes me back to the beginning of my statement. It does 

not matter if you are pro-COOL, and many are, or anti-COOL, and 

many are. You cannot ignore the fact that retaliation is imminent 

and we must avoid it. Repeal of mandatory COOL is the surest 

way to protect the U.S. economy. 

The witnesses we will hear from today represent different perspectives in the agriculture and food production chain, all of whom 

stand to suffer immensely should retaliation go into effect. I want 

to thank each witness for providing testimony before the committee 

on such an important issue. 

As you can imagine, there are a number of folks—quite a few— 

who would have liked to have testified today. Simply put, that was 

not possible, so as a consequence, I ask for unanimous consent to 

include in the record testimony and letters submitted by the companies, trade associations, and coalitions listed on the handout included in your materials, all of whom urge repeal of COOL to avoid 

retaliation. 

[The following information can be found on page 81 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I now recognize our distinguished Ranking 

Member, Senator Stabenow, for any remarks she would like to 

make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and I appreciate very much your holding this hearing. I agree with 

you that we need to act together in a bipartisan way and appreciate your willingness to work together to be able to move something quickly, which is, I believe, overwhelmingly what we need to 

5 

do together. The question is being able to come together to determine the right way to do that. 

I want to recognize all of the officials and the industry representatives for testifying today. It is really critical we hear from everyone involved so we can make sure we are coming to the right point. 

COOL is a landmark law. It empowers consumers to know where 

their food comes from. It is supported by America’s family farmers 

and ranchers who proudly raise the world’s safest, most abundant, 

most affordable food, and we are proud of them for doing that. 

This partnership is a big reason that COOL has always enjoyed 

broad bipartisan support in the Senate. Even so, we are facing a 

very significant trade compliance issue that demands our full attention. 

As we know, the World Trade Organization has spoken decisively 

regarding COOL. They have spoken about the effects on the beef 

and pork trade with Canada and Mexico very specifically. Simply 

put, inaction from the Senate is not an option, not when the threat 

of retaliation is hanging over American agriculture and American 

manufacturing. 

We both know—we all know that both sides of this debate, those 

who want to repeal COOL, those who want to keep COOL, have 

been dug in for a long time on this issue and that entrenchment 

has not produced a path forward. Now is the time to come together 

to do that. As many of you know, there were many conversations 

in the process of the farm bill to try to come together to do that. 

We were not successful. Now, we are here, and now is the moment 

to do that. 

That is why today’s hearing is so important, and that is why we 

need all of our colleagues involved in this discussion so that we can 

find a path forward that is bipartisan and that we can do quickly. 

To help jump-start that process, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I 

am offering a discussion draft. I appreciate your comments regarding that draft as one option that I hope can be the basis for a bipartisan solution that can move quickly through the Senate and 

the House. 

This approach includes two very simple components. First, the 

removal of beef and pork from the mandatory labeling provisions 

deemed noncompliant by the WTO. Second, the establishment of a 

completely voluntary ‘‘Product of US’’ label for beef and pork, similar to the voluntary Canadian label. It is my hope that this simple 

WTO-consistent approach to addressing this dispute will help us 

find a solution that benefits American consumers and American agriculture, while also finding a pathway forward between the United 

States and our neighbors to the north and south. 

Now, as a Senator from Michigan whose state borders Canada— 

and we value that relationship, it is a working relationship every 

single day, many conversations not only on this issue, but many 

issues—I know firsthand the vital importance of protecting our 

North American trade relationships. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and members of the committee. I believe there is a way forward that accomplishes the goal and one that we can do together and one that can 

move quickly, because I know that that is what we need to do. 

Thank you. 

6 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member 

for her comments. 

We would like to welcome our panel of witnesses before the committee this morning. First, I would like to introduce Barry Carpenter of the North American Meat 

Institute from Washington, DC Mr. Barry Carpenter is the President and CEO of the North American Meat Institute. He has been 

in a leadership role in the meat packing industry since 2007, when 

he became CEO of the National Meat Association, one of the predecessor organizations to the North American Meat Institute. 

Prior to joining the private sector, Barry retired from an illustrious 37-year career as a public servant at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he headed up the Agriculture Marketing Services. The acronym for that, by the way, is AMS. He created the United States Beef Export Verification Program that was 

critical to reestablishing American beef export following the first 

U.S. case of BSE in 2003. Among many other impressive accomplishments while a government servant, Barry has received numerous governmental and industry awards, including the Presidential 

Rank Awards from President Clinton and President Bush, and is 

a member of the Meat Hall of Fame. 

Barry was raised on a multifaceted farm in Central Florida that 

produced cattle, hogs, corn, peanuts, and melons. Talk about diversification. He graduated in 1969 from the University of Florida 

with a B.S. in animal science, and we look forward to Barry’s testimony and insight. 

Our next witness is Craig Hill, who is an Iowa Farm Bureau 

President, on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I 

yield to the distinguished Senator from Iowa for her introduction. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member. I appreciate this time to give a great introduction to 

a great Iowan. So, thank you to all of our witnesses here today, but 

I would like to take this time and introduce Mr. Craig Hill. 

The World Trade Organization’s ruling regarding the country of 

origin labeling dispute between the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico is an important issue that could have major impact on the 

U.S. economy and on Iowa, in particular. Iowa is home to over 20 

million hogs. That is nearly six hogs for every person residing in 

Iowa. Our annual pork sales lead the nation, surpassing the next 

two states combined. 

Additionally, our state boasts almost four million cattle and 

calves on feed scattered across the 88,000 farms in the state, almost all of which are family owned. Consequently, Iowa is home to 

a robust meat packaging industry to support all of this production. 

Today, it is my great pleasure to introduce one of the leaders of 

our thriving agriculture industry. Mr. Craig Hill is a grain and 

livestock farmer from Milo, Iowa, and since 2011 has served as 

President of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation. As President, 

Craig serves as Chairman of the Board of FBL Financial Group, Incorporated, and Farm Bureau Life Companies. Additionally, he 

serves on the American Farm Bureau Board of Directors. 

Throughout his years with the Farm Bureau, Craig has been involved in a variety of projects. He was instrumental in the development of revenue assurance, a revenue-based crop insurance proVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:31 May 10, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96180.TXT MICAH
7 

gram for corn and soybean farmers. He served as the first chairman of the Iowa Ag State Group, which consists of representatives 

from all sectors of Iowa’s agriculture. Craig is on the Board of Directors for the Cultivation Corridor Project, which works to enhance the ag, bioscience, economic opportunities in Iowa. He is also 

on the Board of Trustees of the Council in Agricultural Science and 

Technology. 

In addition to his successes in farm and business circles, he and 

his wife, Patti, have two children. 

We are excited to have someone with his depth of knowledge and 

range of experience in the ag industry here with us today, and 

Craig, it is really great to see you again. It is always good to have 

you here. I appreciate having an Iowan on the panel with the type 

of knowledge and expertise that you do. So, thank you, Craig, very 

much for being with us today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Iowa, and we welcome Mr. Hill. 

Our third witness is Leo McDonnell, the Executive Officer and 

Director Emeritus for the United States Cattlemen’s Association. 

The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is scheduled to introduce this witness and I yield to her at this time. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am assuming, Leo, that is your hat. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HEITKAMP. I figured so. It fits with the description. I just 

want to make a point that you are one of those guys who are out 

there in North Dakota making this happen and continuing to diversify our opportunity in agriculture. We are number one in the nation in a lot of crops, big crops and little crops, specialty crops, but 

we definitely appreciate the cattlemen in our state, and so it is a 

great pleasure to introduce a rancher from North Dakota, Leo 

McDonnell, to testify on the importance of country of origin labeling to the ranchers of my home state, North Dakota. 

Leo, along with his wife, Debra, ranch in the southern tip of the 

North Dakota Badlands, between Marmath and Rhame, and if you 

have not been there, it truly is God’s country. Leo and Debra have 

four children and ten grandchildren. Leo’s grandparents were natives of another great cattle town, Towner, North Dakota. 

The McDonnell’s run a registered Angus herd and have a bull 

sale in May in Bowman, North Dakota, along with Angus herds 

near McKenzie, North Dakota. Mr. McDonnell owned and operated 

Midland Bull Test, the largest genetically tested bull development 

and sale in North America, in Columbus, Montana, and has since 

turned that operation over to his son, Steve, as Leo and Debra 

spend more time developing their program in North Dakota. 

He has been active in community and cattle groups over the 

years, probably longer than what he cares to remember, including 

as past member of the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association and 

a member of the Independent Cattlemen’s Association of North Dakota, otherwise known as IBAND. Mr. McDonnell has also served 

as Past Chairman of the Montana Cattle Feeders and sat on the 

8 

NCA, today NCBA, international marketing committee in the early 

1990s. 

Currently, Leo serves as Executive Officer and Director Emeritus 

for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, USCA, and is a member of 

the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, Director on the American Angus Association, and most recently stepped down from NCBA CBB Industry 

Long-Range Planning Committee, which has been tasked with setting the direction for CBB spending and various industry groups 

policies. 

I think Leo knows a few things about ranching, knows a few 

things about the cattle business, and knows what is good for the 

cattlemen of our country and for the state and for the region. 

Thank you so much for traveling to Washington, DC, Leo. We appreciate and look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Senator from 

North Dakota. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

Our fourth witness is Jaret Moyer, President of the Kansas Livestock Association, a good friend. Jaret Moyer and his wife, Shawna, 

ranch in the Kansas Flint Hills, where they run a cattle 

backgrounding operation. Jaret is current President of the Kansas 

Livestock Association and serves on the KLA Executive Committee 

and its Board of Directors. He also serves on the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Board of Directors and is the Past Chairman of the Kansas Beef Council. 

In addition to his many leadership positions in the beef industry, 

Jaret is also President of the Citizens State Bank and Trust Company. He is a graduate of Kansas State University, the home of the 

ever-optimistic and fighting Wildcats—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. —with a degree in animal science. Jaret also 

completed coursework at the Graduate School of Banking in Madison, Wisconsin. 

I am very glad to welcome a fellow Kansan and a friend and a 

fellow Wildcat to our nation’s capital. 

Our fifth witness was to be introduced by Senator Gillibrand, but 

she had to leave, and so I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

Senator Gillibrand apologized. She wanted very much to introduce 

Mr. Trezise, but had to leave for another hearing and hopefully will 

be able to come back and join us. 

Jim Trezise currently serves as the President of the New York 

Wine and Grape Foundation, a position he has held since the Foundation’s creation in 1985. In addition to his role as President, Mr. 

Trezise is the founder and President of the International Riesling 

Foundation, a coalition of top riesling producers from around the 

world seeking to promote riesling and educate consumers. 

He serves on the Presidential Council at FIBS, based in Paris. 

He is a member of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors 

of Wine America, the national organization of American wineries, 

as a board member of the National Grape and Wine Initiative, and 

as a board member of the Wine Market Council. 

He has received numerous awards and recognitions, most recently the Grand Award of the Society of Wine Educators in 2014. 

9 

In short, he is one of the greatest champions of the New York 

wine industry and we welcome you today. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. 

Our next witness is Mr. Christopher Cuddy, who is Senior Vice 

President and President of ADM’s Corn Processing Business Unit 

and an officer of that corporation. In that role, he has responsibility 

for all commercial activity operations and production for the company’s global corn business. 

Previously, Mr. Cuddy served as President of the Sweeteners and 

Starches in ADM’s Corn Processing Business Unit. He has also 

held a variety of merchandising and management roles prior to 

leading the Sweeteners and Starches Group, including time at an 

ADM joint venture based in Guadalajara, Mexico, roles in sales, 

marketing, and distribution of corn-based sweeteners and sugar, 

and North American Sales Manager for ADM Bioproducts. He 

began his career with the company as a Senior Commodity Trader 

with ADM Grain. 

Mr. Cuddy holds a Bachelor’s degree in business administration 

from Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. He 

serves on the boards of the Corn Refiners Association and Red Star 

Yeast Company, LLC, an ADM joint venture. He is also a board 

member of the Mid-Illinois Chapter of the American Red Cross. 

Mr. Cuddy, welcome, and I look forward to your testimony, as 

well. 

We will start with the first witness. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Excuse me, Mr. Barry Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY CARPENTER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NORTH AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CARPENTER. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking 

Member Stabenow, and members of the committee. My name is 

Barry Carpenter and I am the President and CEO of the North 

American Meat Institute. 

The Meat Institute members include 374 meat and poultry food 

manufacturers ranging from the nation’s largest to the smallest. 

Collectively, they produce 95 percent of the beef, pork, lamb, veal 

products, and 75 percent of the turkey products in the United 

States. Among the Institute members, 80 percent are small familyowned businesses employing fewer than 300 people. These companies operate, compete, sometimes struggle, mostly thrive in one of 

the toughest, most competitive, most scrutinized sectors of our 

economy, meat and poultry packing and processing. 

Make no mistake, the Meat Institute has opposed mandated 

country of origin labeling since the beginning. COOL for beef, pork, 

and chicken is a non-tariff trade barrier that adds great cost while 

providing no benefit. Further, USDA has repeatedly stated that 

COOL is not a food safety program and all credible parties have 

agreed. 

Government-mandated COOL is not WTO compliant. Let me repeat that. Government-mandatory COOL is not WTO compliant. 

This is a settled matter. In four separate decisions, WTO has 

ruled against the United States concerning COOL, putting the 

10 

United States on the brink of having its most important trading 

partners impose $3 billion in annual tariffs on U.S. products. 

Let us be candid. The most vocal proponents of COOL for livestock have a single objective, to block the importation of livestock 

from our neighbors. The law has never been about distinguishing 

meat products in the market. It is simply a protectionist measure 

intended to exclude Canadian and Mexican livestock from the U.S. 

market. It is and always has been a non-tariff trade barrier. Anyone ignoring this fact is not a serious participant in this discussion. 

COOL must be repealed now to bring the U.S. into compliance 

with its trade obligations and put an end to this protectionist nonsense. The U.S. has run out of opportunities to try to fix COOL. 

We should stop talking amongst ourselves to address COOL. We 

should be talking with the Canadians and Mexican governments. 

To do otherwise is a fool’s errand. I can tell you, the Canadian and 

Mexican governments are very clear. Repeal is the only solution. 

The House of Representatives recognized the gravity of the situation and 300 members of that body voted on a bipartisan basis to 

repeal COOL for beef, pork, and chicken. It is time to repeal government-mandated COOL for beef, pork, and chicken before Canada and Mexico levy a $3 billion annual retaliatory penalty that 

will cost jobs across the economy in virtually every State. We urge 

the Senate to move quickly and put this failed experiment behind 

us once and for all. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing, and 

I would be pleased to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter can be found on page 

42 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Carpenter, I thank you very much. You 

made your point and you had two minutes remaining, which is 

very unusual for a witness before the Senate. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am not sure what kind of an award we will 

give you, but we will think about it. 

Our next witness is Mr. Craig Hill, Iowa Farm Bureau President, 

on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. Hill. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG HILL, PRESIDENT, IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, MILO, IOWA, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. HILL. Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member 

Stabenow, members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, it 

is a great opportunity for me to be here today and to stand before 

you today as you take the next steps forward to resolve this longstanding and contentious trade dispute between the United States 

and North American neighbors. 

My name is Craig Hill and I am a grain and livestock farmer 

from Milo, Iowa. I currently serve as President of the Iowa Farm 

Bureau Federation, also a member of the Board of Directors of the 

American Farm Bureau, as well as a member of their Trade Advisory Committee. I am pleased to present Farm Bureau’s views 

today regarding the hearing on ‘‘Country of Origin Labeling and 

Trade Retaliation: What is at State for America’s Farmers, Ranchers, Businesses, and Consumers.’’ 

11 

Farm Bureau policy clearly states, set by our grassroots members, that we support country of origin labeling for a wide variety 

of agricultural products. Our policy states we support country of origin labeling, COOL, that conforms to the COOL parameters and 

meets WTO requirements. 

The American Farm Bureau has consistently supported the efforts of the U.S. Government to resolve the World Trade Organization, WTO, rulings that found in favor of Canada and Mexico regarding their challenge of the U.S. beef and pork COOL programs. 

With the latest WTO decision that rejected the U.S. appeal in the 

COOL case, it is clear. It is clear now that it is time to act, time 

to prevent Canada and Mexico from imposing retaliatory sanctions 

that will negatively impact U.S. agriculture and other goods and 

commodities. 

The WTO determination that provisions in the U.S. mandatory 

country of origin labeling for beef and pork is illegal under international trade rules and allows Canada and Mexico to impose these 

tariffs against U.S. ag commodities and other goods until the case 

is finally resolved between the parties. The WTO has consistently 

ruled against both the original USDA regulations and the revised 

regulations set forth by the Department in implementing mandatory COOL in accordance with farm bill provisions. 

To be clear, Farm Bureau supports the repeal of COOL requirements for beef and for pork which have been found do not comply 

with the WTO rules, and we also support the action taken by the 

House Ag Committee to repeal COOL for chicken. We appreciate 

the support this approach has given and also the effect of keeping 

and maintaining our COOL programs in place for other crops and 

commodities, including lamb, goat meat, and et cetera. 

The key factor in our position is the fact that WTO’s final ruling 

opens the gate for retaliation by Canada and Mexico against the 

United States. As you are no doubt aware, after Canada presented 

its request, the WTO dispute settlement body on June 17, 2015, for 

retaliatory tariffs equaling $2.52 billion worth of trade. The U.S. 

objected to the amount requested and this objection triggers a 60- 

day arbitration process. 

Mr. Chairman, 30 percent of Iowa’s economy is predicated upon 

agriculture. Twenty percent of Iowa’s workforce is either directly 

related to agriculture or indirectly related to agriculture. Eightythousand jobs in Iowa are export dependent with a whole array of 

products. 

Senator Ernst mentioned that we had lots of hogs in Iowa. Well, 

actually, our sales are $44 million a year of $144 million that are 

produced nationally. Twenty-five percent of America’s corn is produced in Iowa. Canada is Iowa’s number one export market. I understand number two in the U.S., but number one for Iowa. Iowa 

State University, as you mentioned, claims that 17,000 jobs nationally would be lost if this retaliatory effort began. 

So, to echo your remarks, it is intolerable and we urge the repeal 

of COOL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill can be found on page 49 in 

the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Hill. You also made a 

concise statement, very clear, with about a minute to go. So, we 

12 

have three minutes to the good. We will put that in the bank, Senator Stabenow. 

Our next witness is Leo McDonnell, the Executive Officer and Director Emeritus for the United States Cattlemen’s Association. Senator Stabenow and I said it was a close race between you and Mr. 

Trezise, but you have the sharpest tie of all the witnesses. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Simply put, we see you coming. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Please. 

STATEMENT OF LEO MCDONNELL, OWNER/OPERATOR, 

MCDONNELL ANGUS AND MIDLAND BULL TESTS, RHAME, 

NORTH DAKOTA, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES 

CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Stabenow, and members of the committee. I am Leo McDonnell. I 

am owner and operator of McDonnell Angus and Midland Bull 

Tests based out of North Dakota and Montana and I appreciate the 

invitation to be here today on behalf of the United States Cattlemen’s representing cow-calf producers, backgrounders, and feed lot 

operators, and also representing the largest segment of the cattle 

and beef complex as it has to do with investments, the largest segment who, consistently with every poll, supported country of origin 

labeling. 

American cattle producers provide the highest quality cattle and 

beef in the world. U.S. producers are recognized worldwide for having the highest and most rigorous standards when it comes to how 

we produce cattle and beef, from our conservation practices to having the most respected food safety inspection system and to having 

the highest quality product. U.S. beef is considered number one 

globally, which is why both producers and consumers are behind 

the effort to keep COOL and be able to identify our product. 

Efforts to strip this program through a blanket repeal approach 

is unwarranted and unprecedented at this point of the process in 

arbitration. This issue is personal for me, as it is for ranching families across the country. My wife and I ranch in the south western 

tip of the North Dakota Badlands, just five hours from where my 

grandparents called home and homesteaded in Towner. We run 

multiple registered herds. 

We also run the largest genetic seedstock test station and bull 

sale in North America, with sales in Montana, a three-day sale in 

Montana and one in North Dakota. We genetically measure about 

2,500 to 3,000 bulls. As I noted before, we are, I think, the largest 

seller of breeding bulls in North America. I do not know that for 

a fact. It is not the way we measure our business. 

But, we sell bulls into Canada, Mexico, Brazil—we actually partner with one of the largest ranchers in Brazil—Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand. We were also involved in very large shipments of breeding females to Turkey and Russia as they started up 

their agriculture industries in recent years and was involved in the 

very first shipment of breeding bulls quite a while back to Uruguay. 

13 

I note all that because my family and I have never seen a problem with being both pro-COOL and pro trade, and I take a little 

offense to having people call COOL as a protectionist act, because 

nothing is protectionist about it. We do it on 90 percent of the other 

products we bring into the United States. 

COOL was founded, though, as much to address deception in the 

marketplace as it was to address something so simple as the consumers deserving the right to know where their beef products come 

from. Since the late 1980s, we have been told by experts that those 

in the ranching business need to learn how to compete in the global 

market. You tell me how we can compete if we are not allowed to 

differentiate our product. That does not work in a capitalistic society. 

In other words, COOL is a program designed to promote choice 

and COOL also initiated a historic partnership between cattle 

country and consumers, and I would sure hate to lose that during 

the Information Age. 

The WTO has found some problems with COOL, but do not forget, one of the problems was that it did not go far enough, that it 

excluded some segments of our industry; such as, food service and 

wholesale. That was one of the early discoveries. That it is only 

perceived, the segregation costs that they found were discriminatory. They have not provided an economic analysis and they so admitted it in the last ruling. All other sectors of the ag industry 

have origin labels—‘‘avocados from Mexico.’’ 

You know, we should be stepping forward to meet those interests 

from consumers wanting to know where their food comes from instead of stepping backwards in trying to repeal this law and going 

back to deceptive practices. 

There is no question, we have hit a roadblock at the WTO, legitimate or otherwise. The global market is demanding U.S. beef and 

this ongoing case threatens the ability of our producers to seize 

these opportunities to compete. 

These differences have made it tough for us to address this issue. 

Unsubstantiated retaliatory tariffs—and I say unsubstantiated, because the arbitration process we are going through today, has 

shown in the past that in other cases where foreign countries have 

threatened $3 billion tariffs, and at the end of the day, such as in 

the gambling cases, got $25 million. Nonsense. 

I want to thank you all for considering looking at voluntary. We 

want to be able to keep what we have invested in so far. We want 

to have that opportunity if the arbitration fails. We want to preserve the integrity of the ‘‘U.S. beef’’ label and preserve our opportunity to truly compete in a global market. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonnell can be found on page 

53 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. McDonnell, you have a very impressive 

background. Senator Heitkamp, when she introduced you, said she 

had not seen you for a while, but that is your hat. In Dodge City, 

we have an expression, a big hat, no cattle. In your case, big hat, 

lots of cattle. 

[Laughter.] 

14 

Chairman ROBERTS. We have a lot of bull around this place, but 

you seem to have exceeded even our level of production. I thank 

you for your statement, sir. 

Mr. Moyer. 

STATEMENT OF JARET MOYER, PRESIDENT, KANSAS 

LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, EMPORIA, KANSAS 

Mr. MOYER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today to continue the discussion on COOL. I appreciate your 

leadership on this issue. In my opinion, COOL is a failure and the 

best solution is full repeal. 

I am President of the Kansas Livestock Association, a 5,200- 

member trade association representing all segments of the cattle 

industry. KLA members have long opposed COOL because we feel 

it is a cost to us without any benefits. Proponents of COOL have 

long said mandatory labeling would increase demand for U.S. beef. 

After six years of implementation, it is clear that is not the case. 

Kansas State University published a comprehensive study in November of 2012. Their study utilized multiple methods to gauge 

consumer perception in the use of COOL and came away with several findings. The study determined demand for beef has not been 

positively impacted by COOL. In addition, typical U.S. consumers 

are unaware of COOL and do not look for origin labeling. USDA’s 

own economic analysis provided to you in May supports these findings. 

While proponents of COOL say they have surveys that show 

Americans want to know where their beef comes from, the K State 

study actually measures how Americans vote, and Americans vote 

with their pocketbooks by purchasing beef. As the study found, 

they do not consider COOL in their purchasing decision. Why, 

then, would we incur the costs of a program that the consumer is 

not demanding? 

For a Kansas perspective, we sought input from Glynn Tonsor, 

Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State and 

a primary author of several studies on COOL. In the April 2015 report to Congress, Dr. Tonsor and his colleagues identified the industry costs of the COOL rules, totaled $8.5 billion—billion—dollars. The sum of the adverse impacts from the rules on all segments in Kansas, as, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned earlier, is $500 

million. That is $500 million out of the pockets of Kansas producers, processors, and consumers for a program providing no 

value. 

COOL is a failed experiment. The WTO has ruled against the 

U.S. four times. The next step is for Canada and Mexico to retaliate. We continue to hear some pro-COOL groups and members of 

Congress suggest that the process is not over and, therefore, it is 

too early to act. We disagree. 

We have two options, repeal or face retaliation from two of our 

largest export customers. Both countries are very clear about this. 

The only outstanding question is at what monetary level Canada 

and Mexico will be able to retaliate, damaging our economy and 

costing jobs. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has stated repeatedly there is nothing else USDA can do to fix this and that Congress must act. He 

15 

also reports to you in a letter in May that repeal is a way to prevent retaliation. On both of these points, we agree. The solution is 

for Congress to repeal COOL now. Three-hundred House members 

demonstrated in a strong bipartisan vote that the time has come 

to stop this madness. We encourage the Senate to exhibit the courage to do the same. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moyer can be found on page 68 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that, and we are 45 seconds 

ahead. This is a great panel. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Jim Trezise, President of the New York 

Wine and Grape Association. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JIM TREZISE, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK WINE 

AND GRAPE FOUNDATION, CANANDAIGUA, NEW YORK 

Mr. TREZISE. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to provide 

testimony today on behalf of the New York grape and wine industry about the potential retaliatory tariffs on New York and other 

American wines exported to Canada. 

My name is Jim Trezise. I am President of the New York Wine 

and Grape Foundation, which represents grape growers and 

wineries statewide. New York is the third-largest grape and wine 

producing state, with 37,000 acres of grapes owned by 1,600 farming families, over 400 wineries in 59 of 62 New York counties, and 

an economic impact annually of $4.8 billion for the state economy. 

I also serve on the Board of Directors of Wine America, the national organization of American wineries, which does such a great 

job representing us in Washington in collaboration with our California colleagues from Wine Institute. There are now wineries in 

all 50 states, which means all 100 Senators represent wineries and 

wine has become an all-American farm product and art form. Nationwide, the wine industry is growing strongly, especially in states 

like Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia, as well as New York, providing 

opportunities and challenges, as well. 

The COOL issue has become one of great importance and urgency for the wine industry. We did not really have a strong opinion about this until we were forced into the debate because of potential retaliatory tariffs on American wines, which would have a 

devastating effect. The urgency is that unless this issue is resolved 

before the August recess, those tariffs would take effect in September. Subject to a total appeal, which may take two years, American wine would be an innocent victim paying a huge price. 

Our New York wine industry has exploded during the past decade and especially the past five years. In 2010, there were 296 

wineries, today, 401, and those 105 new wineries represent 26 percent of all wineries created in the 175 years of our industry’s existence. This is all great news for New York’s economy because it 

means new investment, businesses, jobs, tourism, and taxes. 

But, the explosive growth also means we must expand our markets. Wine country tourism continues to grow, and so do the markets in New York State, but not enough to keep up with the numVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:31 May 10, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96180.TXT MICAH
16 

ber of new wineries, as well. So, we have to expand into the export 

markets and Canada is our number one export market. 

In 2014, the value of wine shipments to Canada originating in New York State was over $5.5 million. That income is important 

now, but will be increasingly so as our industry continues to grow. 

The market for all American wine in Canada has increased 78 percent since 2010, with wine exports totaling $487 million and translating into retail sales of $1 billion, representing a 16 percent market share. We are just doing great. 

For many years, we and our colleagues in California, Oregon, 

and Washington have benefited from USDA’s Market Access Program to build key export markets, with Canada right at the top. 

Our program includes many small wineries throughout the state. 

In addition, three large companies are major exporters and vitally 

important to New York’s 1,600 grape farming families, since among 

them they purchase more than 90 percent of all the grapes grown 

in New York. In other words, the impact is statewide and extends 

from grape farms to wineries both small and large. 

The wine industry worldwide is highly competitive and extremely 

price sensitive. The potential tariff increase by the Canadian government would roughly double the price of American wines to Canadian consumers overnight, drying up our sales and opening the 

door to competitors from throughout the world. Even if the increased tariffs were later dropped, the shelf space and restaurant 

wine listings would be long gone, requiring years of effort and millions of dollars to regain them. This would be a huge surplus—I 

mean, the huge surplus of American wine which, in turn, would depress grape prices for farm families as early as this fall. 

In closing, let me say how grateful we have been to have MAP 

funding to help build export markets for New York and other 

American wines. I hope that investment will not be jeopardized by 

increased tariffs that would make our fine wines unaffordable. 

We know there are many facets to this issue and appreciate you 

weighing them carefully. We are here because we feel a need to 

protect our investments, businesses, employees, and especially our 

families. 

So, on behalf of the New York grape and wine industry and my 

colleagues in other states, I respectfully request that our industry’s 

future in all 50 states be carefully considered as this process moves 

forward. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trezise can be found on page 72 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We thank you, Mr. Trezise. You finished 

about a minute and 20 left in your statement. Senator Stabenow, 

I cannot remember a panel where each and every one finished well 

ahead of the time period. 

Senator STABENOW. I cannot, either, Mr. Chairman. I think this 

is great, and we will just take the time that you have, extra time 

for questions. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I think if we quit talking, why, they can finish—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. —and we can recognize those who have persevered and been here. 

17 

Mr. Cuddy, you are on deck. No, you are at bat. I am sorry. 

Senator STABENOW. That is right. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER CUDDY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT, CORN PROCESSING BUSINESS UNIT, 

ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, DECATUR, ILLINOIS 

Mr. CUDDY. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Stabenow and all honorable members, for this opportunity to share ADM’s views on the current country of origin labeling rule. 

As you said, Mr. Chairman, my name is Chris Cuddy and I am 

the Senior Vice President at ADM and the President of our Corn 

Business Unit. Earlier in my career, I was President of the company’s Sweetener and Starch Business, and before that, I ran an 

ADM joint venture in Guadalajara, Mexico, where we manufactured corn syrups. 

ADM is one of the world’s largest agricultural processors and 

food ingredient providers, with more than 33,000 employees and 

customers in more than 140 countries. We play a vital role in feeding the world by buying millions of tons of farmers’ crops each 

year, including corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, edible beans, and peanuts, transporting these crops to our 300 processing facilities and 

transforming them into a wide range of food ingredients, animal 

feeds, and other renewable products. 

Here in the United States, we employ 17,000 colleagues in our 

various processing plants, grain elevators, transportation and logistics operations, and export facilities. Last year, we spent a total of 

$40 billion with U.S. businesses in all 50 states. That figure includes farmers and businesses of all sizes. 

ADM’s ability to generate this kind of economic activity depends 

in no small part on our export businesses. Last year, we exported 

$18 billion worth in crops and finished products to markets around 

the world, including Canada and Mexico. Companies in those two 

countries represent a sizeable portion of our customer base. We 

provide them with everything from crops, like corn and rice, to ingredients, like sweeteners, soy proteins, wheat flours, and bakery 

mixes. 

If these valued neighbors and trading partners follow through on 

their threat to retaliate against U.S. products over the COOL rule, 

the economic impact across the food production, agriculture, and 

manufacturing sectors could come to billions of dollars. We at ADM 

have calculated that the cost to our company alone would exceed 

$700 million per year. Retaliation would render our exports, from 

ethanol to soy proteins to corn sweeteners, completely uncompetitive. 

As a company and as an industry, we have gone down a similar 

road before and paid a heavy price. Between 1997 and 2001, Mexico imposed countervailing duties on corn sweeteners imported 

from the United States. It has been estimated that direct cost to 

our industry came to about $800 million and that the ripple effect 

on corn sales amounted to another $400 million in direct losses. In 

addition, if we account for the cost of industry capacity that went 

unused during this period, the idle time generated another $400 

million in indirect losses. That is $1.6 billion for one industry. 

18 

As unfortunate as that dispute was, the current situation involving COOL will have much more serious economic consequences if 

Congress does not act to prevent retaliation. The impact will be felt 

by ADM and our employees. It will take a tremendous toll on 

American agriculture more generally, particularly on farmers and 

their communities. 

So, Mr. Chairman, honorable committee members, on behalf of 

my colleagues around the world, in the interest of farmers, businesses, and communities who will suffer tremendous losses if this 

matter is not resolved immediately. 

I would respectfully ask you to act quickly and decisively to prevent retaliation by Canada and Mexico. Rescind the COOL requirement for muscle cuts of meat, respect our country’s obligation as 

a WTO member; reinforce the United States’ standing as a responsible trade partner, and return us to business as usual right away. 

Thank you for your time, and thank you in advance for taking 

action. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cuddy can be found on page 47 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Cuddy, thank you very much for your 

comments, and once again, you finished way under time. We will 

see if we can do the same thing when we ask questions. 

This is for the entire panel. We will just move down from Mr. 

Carpenter down to Mr. Cuddy. Canada and Mexico will soon be authorized by the WTO to retaliate against the United States. Once 

that happens, it does not matter if the Congress, the USTR, and 

the Department of Agriculture all agree that a certain labeling approach satisfies the WTO rules, not to mention members of the 

Senate. If Canada and Mexico disagree, they can keep any authorized retaliation in place until we get a ruling from the WTO. During this time, we expose our farmers, our ranchers, our businesses 

and consumers to pay the price. Are you willing to risk any period 

of retaliation so we can test whether another approach to labeling 

works? 

Mr. Carpenter. 

Mr. CARPENTER. None. Very clearly, we are already incurring tremendous cost to implement the program and lost market opportunities. To put on top of that additional tariffs is totally unacceptable. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Hill. 

Mr. HILL. The short answer is ‘‘unwilling,’’ Senator. American 

farmers are committed to rules-based fair trade practices, and 

there is an issue of good faith here. North American partners need 

to be treated fairly. It has not been brought up a lot today, but 

these obstacles of trade and barriers to trade affect all of us and 

we should be good trading partners and repeal this mandatory 

COOL. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. McDonnell. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. If I understand you correct, you are asking, are 

we willing to preempt the arbitration process? 

Chairman ROBERTS. The question was, are you willing to risk 

any period of retaliation so we can test whether another approach 

to labeling works. 

19 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Oh. I do not think that is necessary, to go that 

direction, sir. I think we can go through arbitration, see where we 

are at, see where those levels of retaliatory tariffs are at, which so 

far have never been documented. Even our own courts here, when 

AMI and others challenged COOL, said that they were not able to 

prove damages. So, I would like to see it go through the process 

as we have always done before. When we get to the end arbitration, 

if for some reason they get these ‘‘sky are falling’’ tariffs, then be 

ready to make a move to the voluntary. 

[As a preliminary matter, this Committee should consider 

the troubling implications of the WTO’s decisions on 

COOL. Though the WTO acknowledged that providing consumer information is a legitimate government objective, it 

also found that any labeling regime which alters the conditions of competition to the detriment of imports violates 

WTO rules, even if that detrimental impact results solely 

from legitimate regulatory distinctions. As all origin labels 

necessarily convey different information about products of 

different origins, this case could have much broader negative impacts beyond our cattle and beef sectors. 

On May 29, the U.S. Trade Representative expressed these 

concerns before the WTO: 

Paradoxically however, it would appear from those findings that there is no clear way under the covered agreements for a Member to achieve that legitimate objective (of 

consumer information). 

When examined as a whole, the Panel and Appellate Body 

findings appear to mean that the United States cannot require U.S. retailers to inform consumers of beef and pork 

about where the animals were born, raised, and slaughtered. This is a conclusion with which the United States 

strongly disagrees. 

USTR concluded that the Appellate Body had failed to address these and other ‘‘serious and systemic concerns’’ 

raised in the dispute. These concerns should give Congress 

pause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Moyer. 

Mr. MOYER. Senator, as you know, or maybe have heard in the 

Flint Hills of Kansas, there is the saying that good fences make for 

good neighbors. Now, I do not want to get into other issues that 

that may lead to in this town, but part of that saying is the fact 

that it is the respect of your neighbors, and the fence law in Kansas, each one is responsible for their half of the fence. So, if I do 

my part, they are willing to do their part. We have a good fence. 

We have good neighborly relations. 

I think it is a farce to try to go down this road of trying to see 

if they are serious when we know they are serious and that full repeal would be the best answer, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Trezise. 

Mr. TREZISE. Mr. Chairman, no, we would not want to see any 

period where the tariffs would be into effect because it would basically unravel the whole wine market system that we have worked 

so hard to develop in Canada. Once it starts going, it is gone, and 

20 

our wines would be replaced by wines from competing regions 

around the world. So, we would not want to take that risk. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Cuddy. 

Mr. CUDDY. As you stated earlier, Chairman Roberts, we have 

lost four times at the WTO. I think we have gone down the path 

correctly, but it is time to respect our obligations as a WTO member. So, the answer is no. 

Chairman ROBERTS. This question is for Jaret. Jaret, as you 

know, Kansas is the third-largest cattle producing state in the U.S. 

You certainly emphasized that in your statement. Further, our 

state has a wide variety of cattle producers, from cow-calf producers with a couple dozen cows to some of the largest feedlots in 

the country. Being from Dodge City, I certainly know that. We 

smell the money. 

Do you believe Kansas beef producers have options available to 

them when it comes to pursuing ways to differentiate their highquality beef in the marketplace? If so, what are some of those options? 

Mr. MOYER. Senator, I really do believe they have those options, 

and I think part of letting them fully realize those options is letting 

them differentiate their products out in the marketplace. Like it 

was said in my testimony, there is a sector of the consumer population that wants to buy the U.S. beef. That is their main purchasing reason. But, that is a very small percentage, and I think 

we need to allow the producers out there to supply that at a premium that they can realize instead of supplying it at a cost that 

they realize. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. My time is up. 

Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much to all of you, and 

Mr. Trezise, let me just say that we are very excited about the 

Michigan wine industry. We are winning some awards on rieslings, 

as well, so we are willing to compete with you in New York and 

what you are doing. 

Let me first start, Mr. Trezise and Mr. Cuddy, I am assuming, 

and I certainly understand this, we have a lot of food industry, a 

lot of others in Michigan very concerned about resolving this, and 

so I would ask each of you, if we have a solution that can move 

quickly, bipartisan support, WTO compliant, that would include a 

voluntary label similar to Canada, would you object to that? Mr. 

Trezise. 

Mr. TREZISE. I think the question, Senator, is whether Canada 

and Mexico would agree to that and suspend retaliatory tariffs—— 

Senator STABENOW. Of course. 

Mr. TREZISE. —for a time that it would take a look at. We do not 

necessarily have a position on the shape of a bill. What we have 

a position on is we really must avoid any kind of retaliation for 

even one day. 

Senator STABENOW. Absolutely. So, yours is about getting this resolved, and I agree with you. We all know the position, what is 

going on with Canada and Mexico. I have been talking to them in 

a lot of different conversations over time, and they are looking at 

the politics and trying to get the best position. I understand that. 

But, I also know what can be done, if people want to do it. 

21 

So, Mr. Cuddy. 

Mr. CUDDY. I concur with Mr. Trezise. If it is compliant with 

WTO and it keeps Canada and Mexico from retaliating, then we 

are open to those options. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

I would like to now turn to the folks representing our hard working ranchers and ask each of you, Mr. Hill, Mr. Moyer, and Mr. 

McDonnell—and, by the way, Mr. McDonnell, congratulations. It is 

five on one today, and I think you are doing pretty well, so appreciate your position. 

But, I guess I would ask each of you, and Mr. Hill, first of all, 

would the producers you represent support a purely voluntary 

country of origin label for meat derived from animals born, raised, 

and slaughtered in the United States if the label were consistent 

with WTO rules? I should underscore that I understand at some 

point, each of the rancher organizations actually have supported 

voluntary COOL measures, so I am wondering if you would still 

support a version of a volunteer effort. Mr. Hill. 

Mr. HILL. I guess those discussions subsequent to full repeal of 

mandatory COOL could be held. First, we need to repeal completely this very egregious—what is determined to be a very egregious trade violation. After that, I think commercial interests, suppliers, can avail themselves today of voluntary labeling that indicates country of origin. We have got the best ag industry in the 

world and we have got a great food safety system. If people are 

seeking that label and there is a commercial value to it, I think everyone should be capable of producing a label that indicates that. 

Senator STABENOW. Okay. Mr. McDonnell, you indicated that you 

are representing the largest segment of the industry today. How do 

you and your organization come to the conclusion that a voluntary 

COOL process would be an acceptable path for ranchers looking to 

resolve the dispute, again, assuming this is WTO compliant and, 

obviously, supported by our partners. But, why do you think that 

a voluntary COOL process is acceptable from your perspective and 

the ranchers you represent? 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, I would like to take it back to early in 

my talk where I said one of the reasons—and, by the way, I helped 

Senator Johnson write the COOL law when Senator Daschle was 

in there, and Senator Enzi, and we would sit around the table. But, 

I was in there right at the start, and Barry is aware of that. 

Half the reason we want country of origin labeling is because 

prior to the COOL law you could bring in a Canadian-fed steer, a 

Canadian cow, a Mexican cow, I could bring in loins from other 

countries, and if they were processed, slaughtered, or even just season them with salt and pepper, then you could call that U.S. beef. 

There were no definitions for U.S. beef except point of transformation. 

So, at the very minimum, I would hope that if we could go to voluntary—and I do not think we need to start a new law and go 

through all that process and waste that time and money—simply 

change ‘‘mandatory’’ to ‘‘voluntary,’’ preserve the integrity of the 

U.S. beef label, because I do not think anybody wants to vote for 

repealing it when that means we are going back to the old way of 

deceiving consumers. Simply do that and address the few WTO 

22 

concerns that we did not go far enough in other segments of the 

industry, such as restaurants. It is very simple. Everybody walks 

away a winner. Nobody gets harmed. How often does that happen 

in D.C.? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, and—— 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Good solution. 

Senator STABENOW. Finally, Mr. Moyer, I know your organization, as well, at various points has supported voluntary COOL 

measures, and so I am wondering, within the confines of, as I described them, is that a solution if we can get this done quickly, 

with bipartisan support? 

Mr. MOYER. I think, Senator, that is something that we could not 

support, and if you hear hesitation in my voice, it is that I am 

thinking of a story where I would have to admit on the Congressional record that my wife was right—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOYER. —and that comes—I am thinking of a piece of farm 

equipment that I a while back purchased at an auction. I told her 

it was going to solve a problem, make our life easier. I ended up 

putting more parts, more time, more work and ended up taking it 

to the salvage yard. She was right. I was wrong. I think that is 

where we are at with the COOL issue, that it is time to go ahead 

and repeal it, allow industry to realize premiums and not make industry realize costs. 

Senator STABENOW. It is interesting. Do you think we should 

challenge Canada for their voluntary label? 

Mr. MOYER. That would be up to people much wiser than I in the 

trade areas, but I think that a purely voluntary labeling done by 

industry to realize premiums is a much better way than even one 

brought up through this body. 

Senator STABENOW. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you to the Ranking Member and Chairman, and I will direct my question to Craig. Thank you again for 

being here. 

Senator Grassley sends his regrets. He did have to leave for another meeting. 

But, as you know, Craig, farmers in Iowa and all across the 

United States are facing low commodity prices, and especially those 

producers in Iowa and those around the Midwest that are now facing the outbreak of avian influenza, which has been very devastating. In your opinion, how devastating an impact would these 

retaliatory measures from Canada and Mexico have? What would 

the effect be on an already faltering ag economy? 

Mr. HILL. Well, as I mentioned, 80,000 jobs in Iowa are export 

dependent. The estimate has been given that 17,000 jobs in America would be lost, and a considerable amount of those jobs would 

be Iowa jobs. So, there has been some studies. An ISU study has 

been mentioned. There was also another study that was published 

in Feedstuffs that indicated a $1.3 billion economic impact to Iowa 

annually. So, that is a very, very significant impact. 

We value our relationship with Canada. They are our number 

one trading partner and we just believe it is time, it is time to give 

up on this failed concept that has been determined to be illegal. 

23 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Hill. 

Mr. McDonnell, I know you have stated you do not want to go 

this far, you do not want to see this happen. Maybe it is the sky 

is falling. But, I do not think the fourth time is a charm here coming from the WTO, and Canada and Mexico have the go ahead to 

retaliate. I think they will retaliate. I do think that. 

You know, you are saying that you want to keep the labeling in 

place, but I think we have not seen—there is no evidence that people are actually using that American labeling when making their 

selections. So, do you think that American shoppers are actually 

using that label to make their decisions, or maybe expound a little 

bit on that statement. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Okay. Is there any value to COOL, is what you 

are asking—— 

Senator ERNST. Well, are American shoppers actually using this 

labeling—— 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Sometimes it is pretty dang hard to read the 

label. I do not know if you have ever grabbed a package of meat, 

but it is in small print in the back. But, again, COOL was not 

meant to promote. COOL was implemented to allow us to be able 

to differentiate our product. It is up to the industry to promote. 

I sit on the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. I also sit on the Global 

Growth Committee. We are approving $8 to $9 million annually, 

Barry, in export targeted Checkoff funds which are then matched 

by another $8, $9 million from the USDA. Our number one directive to U.S. MEF is to promote U.S. beef in the global market 

arena. The only market where we have ever tested the value of 

promoting U.S. beef. It was reported to us in January that U.S. 

beef brings $3.37 a pound, and the next closest competitor is Canada at $2.50. We have never been given that opportunity in the 

U.S. to promote and market U.S. beef with our Checkoff. But, 

where we have been given that opportunity in the international 

market, people go after U.S. beef, and it is not surprising because 

you are able to differentiate it and we are able to promote it and 

we are able to market it. That is the way capitalism works. 

I do not want to go back to the dark ages, and I do not want the 

government’s money to promote it. But, I do not want other downstream industry segments using beef from a foreign country and 

being able to use our label as U.S. beef, and I do not think you all 

do, either. 

So, I would like to see it go to voluntary if needed to preserve 

the law. Preserve the integrity of the label, which we did not have 

before. We will take it from there. I can promise you, as American 

ranchers, we will take it from there. But, give us the opportunity 

first. Do not take it away. 

Senator ERNST. Okay. Thank you very much for your opinion. 

Thank you, Craig, again, for being here today. We appreciate it 

very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Leo. 

I mentioned your hat on the table, and I think everybody now 

knows you are not a guy who is all hat and no cattle, right? We 

24 

are pretty clear about what you do for a living and how you feel 

about it. 

But, we do have a situation that we are in right now, and I am 

sure you are sympathetic to what you heard from the wine growers 

and the fact that their business could be, in fact, affected by some 

of the things that the WTO could do, some of the things Canada 

and Mexico are requesting, and so I would like to look forward, because we are where we are. What are the opportunities to meet the 

challenges that you have, to accomplish what you hope can be accomplished in the cattle market, but also recognizing that we need 

to have some processes, some step forward? 

So, I would say we have had mandatory COOL for several years. 

I think the consumers out there have been used to and look for 

that ‘‘Product of the United States’’ label at the meat counter, contrary to what a lot of people have said here. I think that the movement in grocery shopping, if I can put it that way, has really been 

to read labels. It has really been to understand sourcing of food. 

That is an ongoing concern and an ongoing issue all across the 

board in America and we are proud of what we do in the beef industry in this country. 

But, how can we maintain that market and build on it, given 

what has happened before the WTO? Do you have any suggestions? 

I think you know Senator Stabenow has proposed a discussion 

draft which we have been very intimately involved in, my office. 

But, I am curious about kind of steps forward as you see them, not 

defending the old system, but looking at what might work to accomplish the purpose. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, and I appreciate that, and I may very 

well be the one that brought up voluntary here about two months 

ago as we were going through this process. I do hate to see us cut 

and run before we finish arbitration, and I will guarantee, I sympathize with our U.S. neighbors who are being targeted with these 

unsubstantiated threats. I remember Tom Brokaw and his Greatest 

Generation as he talked about those folks coming back from the 

Depression and the World War, working together for family, for 

community and country, and it truly was the Greatest Generation. 

I hope that I honor them in my share of concern for our neighbors. 

But, I hope they also honor those who went before us, too, and 

do not preempt the process we are in today. Certainly, with these 

high retaliatory tariffs, we need to address it. But, let these Canadians and our Mexican friends finally put their chips on the table 

and the facts, because so far, it is all unsubstantiated scare tactics. 

They cannot prove it in our courts. They cannot prove it in the 

WTO, that there has been any harm. 

If they do, and it is something we cannot live with, then just simply go to voluntary, okay, preserve the integrity of the label so our 

friends cannot deceive our consumers. Who wants to vote for that? 

Let the American rancher figure out how to promote it, and I guarantee you, we will. But, preserve that label and our investment and 

all the time we have spent on this to date. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So, I know you are—— 

Mr. MCDONNELL. But, simply going to voluntary. Just change 

one word, ‘‘mandatory’’ to ‘‘voluntary,’’ for cattle and beef. We are 

there. How much easier and painless can it be? 

25 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, I share your interest in kind of looking 

at how we can continue to provide the consumers with a path forward to recognizing where the source of their food is, how we can, 

in fact, continue to the good work that you all are doing in terms 

of sourcing your food. 

But, we are in a situation here where there is a tremendous 

amount of pressure to not wait, a tremendous amount of pressure 

to move forward, and I am assuming that you have had a chance— 

I understand, and I had this argument with your colleagues in the 

industry in my office. You know, sometimes we do not always get 

100 percent of what we want. So, recognizing that, I think the 

Chairman and a number of people here are very interested in moving forward. 

Have you had a chance to look at Senator Stabenow’s discussion 

draft and do you have any comments you can share with us? 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, I appreciate very much your work on 

that, and I support it. I mean, I think the voluntary approach is 

a very reasonable approach. It takes care of the people that are 

scared of the threats, and reasonably, and may have a right to be 

scared of them. No, I think it is a good approach. I would like to 

see it go a little bit farther in addressing the WTO concerns that 

we exempted. Where we failed by exempting some segments, such 

as food service and wholesalers. I mean, if somebody is going to 

label U.S. beef in the United States of America, whether it is 

wholesale or retail, by golly, I think we can all agree it better be 

U.S. beef, and I hope we can all agree on that. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you—— 

Mr. MCDONNELL. So, I think it is a big step and I congratulate 

you, and if we can find a way to move forward and satisfy everyone’s concern, how nice would that be in D.C. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, you fill me with pride, Leo. You have 

spoken like a true North Dakotan, just straight up. Thank you so 

much. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator Tillis. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sorry I was running 

late. I had to preside. 

Gentlemen, I am from North Carolina and I am deeply concerned 

with the economic impact that retaliation will have in my state. 

About a third, 33 percent of our exports in 2014 were to Canada 

and Mexico. 

I hear the discussion, and actually, Mr. McDonnell, you made a 

reference to having maybe Mexico and Canada put the chips on the 

table, and I think that is probably an interesting analogy, because 

I think all of our chips are on the table and Canada and Mexico 

have an ace in the hole. We have no leverage in this. The risk that 

we have for not repealing COOL is significant. 

I think your suggestion about voluntary policies, those sorts of 

things, may need to be looked at, but if they were going to happen, 

they needed to happen long before now because the clock is ticking, 

and I feel like we need to provide certainty. 

The thing that concerns me with my producers is we are talking 

about, well, we have got a few more weeks. We can work this out. 

Producers do not think that way. They have product that they are 

26 

thinking about now, and how it is going to end up in the supply 

chain based on whether or not they actually have to endure these 

retaliatory measures. 

I completely agree with what virtually everything you have said 

to consider policies going forward to make sure consumers know 

they are getting meat produced in the United States. That is great. 

But, I do not necessarily think the time is now to do that. The time 

is now to provide certainty to the agriculture industries and a number of other industries that can be affected if retaliation, which I 

am completely convinced, after meeting with people from Mexico 

and Canada, is going to go into place. 

I also agree that even a day will have a dramatic impact. We 

have estimates of almost a half-billion dollar economic impact in 

North Carolina alone at a time when we are negotiating trade 

agreements and the agriculture industry is getting excited because 

they see great potential for growth. I think it would be very helpful 

for us to set the stage for certainty and always look for other opportunities to take care of our farmers, our cattlemen, our pork producers, and our poultry producers. 

But, I, for one, think we have to start by making the difficult decision. I understand some of the concerns on the other side of this 

issue. Repeal, and then continue to look for ways to take care of 

my favorite industry in North Carolina, an $80 billion industry, 

two-and-a-half times bigger than the next closest industry. This is 

a very important industry for me, and it is because I know the negative impact that this could have. I, for one, think we need to repeal COOL and then work on other policies going forward. 

Do many of you agree that we need to understand that even the 

discussion of maybe waiting a week or two or a month to see if we 

can come up with some compromise has an immediate impact because of the uncertainty that it creates? 

Mr. MOYER. Senator, I definitely agree. Time is of the essence, 

and if we can get our fence fixed between our neighbors now, that 

is better than next week. I think I definitely agree with you. 

Mr. TREZISE. Senator, this is Jim Trezise, and yes, I agree wholeheartedly as well, and the reason really has to do with, as someone 

said, the supply chain. If there looks to be some more delay in 

terms of resolving this issue instead of repealing it, then the importers in Canada are going to stop making orders for American 

wines going up there because there is going to be a lot of uncertainty about whether our wines are going to continue to sell or not, 

because if there were the tariffs, the wine prices would double. So, 

a $15 wine now would become $30. The consumer is not going to 

buy it. The store is not going to stock it. The importer is not going 

to buy it, and so forth. That does not start at the time the tariff 

is imposed. That starts when the threat of a tariff is in the air, 

which it is now. 

Senator TILLIS. That is my greatest concern. You have got buyers 

making decisions today based on the most likely probability of the 

economic environment or the regulatory environment that exists in 

August, and that is why I am a real proponent of going ahead and 

just doing what we need to, what I believe many people think that 

we need to do, to just move forward. 

Any other comments? Mr. McDonnell. 

27 

Mr. MCDONNELL. First of all, I appreciate your understanding of 

agriculture and your concern about the uncertainty that we have. 

If you are in production agriculture, which Mr. Hill and I may be 

the only two at this table whose primary income is from that, we 

deal with that every day, sir. We have got a load of fat cattle we 

are trying to sell this week and the market has dropped by about 

seven dollars a hundred weight in the last ten days, which is a considerable drop. We learn to live with that. 

I have a concern that if we ever scrap COOL or repeal it, it is 

going to be a battle to ever bring it back because it has left a bad 

taste in some folks’ mouth. It is going to be a battle to get the description of what U.S. beef should be again. 

I will say again, simply take ‘‘mandatory’’ out, put ‘‘voluntary’’ in, 

problem solved and everybody walks away a winner and we all understand where we are at when we walk away instead of bringing 

it back up. But, I do very much appreciate your concerns. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I apologize to you and Senator Stabenow for being late. We have another 

hearing going on where Senator Hoeven and myself, were actually 

voting on an appropriations bill. 

Mr. Carpenter, both Canada and Mexico have said they would retaliate unless the United States repeals COOL. You have been 

working on the issue for a long time. I guess my question is, do 

you think they are bluffing or do you think they are really serious? 

Mr. CARPENTER. The indication I get is they definitely are not 

bluffing. They have been in this battle for quite a few years, five 

or six years at least. They have invested a lot in it. They have had 

a lot of economic damage, and they are very serious. 

I think it is—as we move forward, if there is a market demand 

for country of origin labeling, the industry will respond to that. We 

have historically done that. If you look at the programs USDA has 

and other voluntary programs, they have over 100 programs that 

do just that. If they get a signal from the marketplace that says, 

we need information, they step up and do it, whether it be 

grassfed, hormone-free, certified Angus beef. The system is there. 

USDA has that power right now. 

So, I think we need to take the Canadians and Mexicans serious. 

They are going to retaliate, and I think we can address the marketplace needs that are there through systems that already exist. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, does mandatory COOL have any food safety benefits, or is it entirely a marketing program? 

Mr. CARPENTER. It is not a marketing program and it has no food 

safety value. In fact, USDA at least five times in the regulation for 

country of origin labeling made it very clear that it is not a food 

safety regulation, and also other parties that have looked at it confirm that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Hill, in your testimony, you reference a 

report by the USDA that studied whether mandatory COOL had 

any economic benefits. What were the results of that study? Did 

the benefits outweigh the costs? 

Mr. HILL. There were very slim marginal benefits and great cost. 

Senator, if I could indicate a personal experience I had as a proVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:31 May 10, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96180.TXT MICAH
28 

ducer, we on occasion would buy about 1,200 isowean or feeder pigs 

every few months, and I recall talking to a buyer looking at the 

market to see where I could acquire these pigs. He said, ‘‘Well, 

Craig, I have got some Canadian pigs for you, but they can be 

bought a little cheaper, $5 to $8 a head cheaper. Some guys have 

trouble getting them killed. Would you want them?’’ I asked about 

the health quality and they said it was superior. They said everything was great, but recognizing you are going to have a hard time 

getting them killed because of country of origin labeling, the disruption, the segregation, the discrimination. 

So, that was a real event that occurred for me and gave me that 

understanding of the economic impact. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Moyer, in your testimony, you mentioned the cost of complying with the 2009–2013 mandatory COOL rules. What were the 

estimated costs of compliance for both of the rules? 

Mr. MOYER. The study that I was quoting was from Dr. Tonsor at K State, where he said that the total cost was $8.5 billion to the 

industry. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing. 

I would like to thank all of you for being here. I would particularly like to thank Mr. McDonnell from North Dakota for being 

here, and also I think it is good to hear from you, being a producer 

yourself directly. My family—my grandfather raised Hereford cattle, registered Hereford. I am guessing yours are black cattle, probably Angus, nowadays. But, we have got a lot of great cow-calf operators in our state and it is great to have you here and to hear 

from and from our other witnesses, as well. 

My question is that given that there are producers and organizations that favor COOL, is there some form of a voluntary COOL 

program that would both meet the requirements of the WTO and 

Canada and Mexico and still, on a voluntary basis, allow those to 

participate that want to? 

So, I am going to start with Mr. McDonnell, being a fellow North 

Dakotan, but, essentially, I am going to ask each of you that same 

question. Is there a voluntary program that could work? So, yes, 

we would repeal mandatory, but you would still have a voluntary 

form so that both sides, both the people that favor COOL can still 

have an option that they think works, but we meet the requirements of WTO, and we obviously cannot be in a position where our 

producers face tariffs. You know, we cannot have countervailing 

duty. That is not acceptable. 

So, that is the solution I am asking about, and Mr. McDonnell, 

if you would start, I would sure appreciate it. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Sure, and I appreciate your concerns. Again, I 

am going to go back, and I do not think you were in here—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes, I apologize. We were in an appropriations 

hearing. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Sure. 

Senator HOEVEN. They fell at the same time. I wanted to be here, 

but—so, I may have missed some of the testimony, obviously. 

29 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Yes. I understand. You know, I think this 

whole thing is much simpler than we are giving it credit for. But, 

I think we might all be so entrenched in the different ways we are 

going that we are not hearing. 

I think a very easy out that lets everybody walk away a winner 

on both sides, consumers and producers, and that is simply take 

the existing law where it concerns cattle and beef and change it 

from ‘‘mandatory’’ to ‘‘voluntary,’’ because if you do that, then you 

still preserve the integrity of the ‘‘A’’ label, or the ‘‘U.S. beef’’ label, 

which says it has to be born, raised, and slaughtered, which, again, 

is half the reason we started COOL, because we had people importing product into the U.S., throwing our name on it if they processed it, salted it, or cut it up, or slaughtered it, they could call it 

U.S. beef prior to COOL. Did you all know that? Yeah. 

So, just preserve the integrity. That is half the reason we want 

it. Make it voluntary if needed. We will go market it. We have 

proven the value of U.S. beef in the international market when we 

have invested money into it, and that is where KSU missed the 

boat. They never looked at whether it had ever been marketed or 

ever been promoted. They just said there is no value. Well, of 

course, there is no value. You can have the best gadget in the 

world, but if you do not market it, who is going to buy it? Preserve 

that integrity. Make it voluntary. Preserve the law. It should be 

WTO compliant, because it is voluntary. You do not have to repeal 

it. Let us go market it ourselves. 

Very simple, everybody wins. 

Senator HOEVEN. Let me ask the other panel members their 

thoughts along that line. Mr. Carpenter. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes. First of all, there is a simple answer. We 

have to start with the priorities. First, we need to repeal so we satisfy our concerns about retaliatory tariffs. Get that out of the system. 

USDA has significant ability to develop any type of marketing 

program that the marketplace desires. In fact, in my earlier career 

at USDA, we actually in the late 1990s put together a program 

specifically for born, raised, and slaughtered U.S. beef products. 

The marketplace has not used it—did not use it—because the demand was not there. It may be there now. But, USDA has numerous of these voluntary marketing programs. It has the full authority to do them. They do them for grassfed. They do them for Angus 

beef. They do them for over 100 different programs. 

So, the program is there. USDA could tomorrow develop a program and put it out there. They cannot make the consumers want 

it, they cannot make them buy it, but they can sure put it out 

there, and if the industry wants to get out there and push it, they 

can do that. It is pretty simple and it is market-driven and that 

is what this is all about. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Hill. 

Mr. HILL. I would concur with Mr. Carpenter. He said exactly 

what I would say, but much better, and he is the expert in this 

area. The first threshold would be, is it WTO compliant, and if you 

can cross that threshold and then look to USDA and what is permitted, what is available today, I think we should look at those and 

have discussions around that. I think those opportunities are availVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:31 May 10, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\96180.TXT MICAH
30 

able today through USDA and I do not see any harm in pursuing 

that. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Moyer, you are a producer, too, I understand. 

Mr. MOYER. I am. 

Senator HOEVEN. You have got a moustache, so that is another 

plus. 

Mr. MOYER. Okay. I agree. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOYER. Sir, as a beef producer, I would definitely agree with 

Mr. Carpenter in the fact that I do not believe it is worth the risk 

of any type of retaliation and the effect that it will have not just 

on my industry, the beef industry, as well as others that have got 

drug into this. 

I do believe, and I agree with Mr. McDonnell, that if you give the 

producers the ability to go out and market through something like 

what Mr. Carpenter brought up, I think we will see results. But, 

then it is producers like myself working with people up the processing chain from me and trying to work out premiums and discounts, not just the discount that the industry is seeing right now. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Trezise. 

Mr. TREZISE. Senator, yes, thanks for the question, and I must 

say that for us in the wine industry, it is a bit surreal to be talking 

about this. 

Senator HOEVEN. You look like a cattle guy for a guy in the wine 

industry. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TREZISE. I am the wine guy. 

Senator HOEVEN. I do not know—— 

Mr. TREZISE. Wine and beef. But, it is surreal because wine has 

been COOL before there was COOL. I mean, every bottle of wine 

that you buy in the United States or around the world has a country of origin on it. 

In fact, the vast majority of them also have a region of origin— 

Napa Valley, California, Finger Lakes, New York, Barossa Valley, 

Australia, Champagne, France, and so forth—because we are very, 

very proud of where we grow the grapes or make the wine from. 

So, we obviously do not have an issue with the idea of letting 

consumers know where our product comes from, for sure. We are 

not certainly going to demand that other products have the same 

type of system. 

But, it is very interesting, and I do agree with Mr. Carpenter, 

as well. I think the first order of business must be repeal, just so 

we can make sure that we are not going to get retaliated against. 

If the industry and the Congress and our trading partners want 

to work on some other voluntary solution or something, then I do 

not know that we would even be involved with that. But, I think 

repeal is number one. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Cuddy. 

Mr. CUDDY. Thank you for the question. This is all great dialogue 

about what we could do next. The problem is, it is too late. We 

have been found in violation four different times by WTO. We do 

not have time to act on a new policy. We must repeal COOL today 

31 

or we risk billions of dollars worth of retaliation. As I mentioned 

in my testimony, for ADM, $700 million annually. 

I think, going forward, any bipartisan right-to-know policy would 

be fantastic. But today, the number one goal is to prevent retaliation from Canada and Mexico. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. CUDDY. We have to do that by rescinding COOL. 

Senator HOEVEN. Excuse me. Thanks, Mr. Cuddy. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for your indulgence on the time. I appreciate it very much, sir. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, in previous testimony by the witnesses, they finished five minutes under time, so it is their bank 

that you were using, which I appreciate. 

Senator HOEVEN. I would like to thank all the witnesses. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am not calling you a bank robber, now. Do 

not say that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses. I am sorry, I had a Commerce Committee markup, so I just came back. I was here at the beginning. 

I am someone that supported country of origin labeling. I think 

it is good for consumers and it has been helpful to some of our producers. I also have companies on the other side of this and we have 

tried to work this out, and I also understand the danger of the retaliation. 

But, the one thing I did want to talk about as I look at a common 

sense solution here is just the fact that Canada, the country of 

Canada, has voluntary labeling. So, in reality, do you think that 

Canada and Mexico would actually object if we put in place—and 

I understand your concern, Mr. Cuddy, that there would not be 

time or—but, let us just say that Congress got its act together and 

put in place voluntary labeling. Do you think that they could actually object to it when they have it themselves? If you could all answer that—and say that it was retaliation if their own country has 

it. 

Mr. Carpenter. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you. Canada and Mexico both made it 

very clear that we need to repeal. If you do not take it out of the 

statute, I do not believe they are going to consider it has been repealed. Regarding voluntary—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, no. I was not saying not to take it out 

of the statute. I was saying, if you change the statute and then you 

also put in its place the voluntary labeling, do you think they 

would really object to that when they have that policy themselves? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I think their policy is not the same as having 

it as a part of our statute, which otherwise is mandatory. The simplest resolution is to repeal it from there and then develop a voluntary program, but to try to put something quasi-voluntary into 

what is perceived and in real from the Canadian’s perspective a 

mandatory program, I think, puts us at great risk. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, putting in place the same policy that 

Canada has, you think they would actually object to that? 

32 

Mr. CARPENTER. The same policy they have, probably not. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Mr. Hill. 

Mr. HILL. Senator, I am just not familiar with the Canadian policy. I really cannot speak to it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. McDonnell. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. I am not, either. I am presuming maybe Canada uses the old Codex kind of rules, where if it is transformed in 

any way, it becomes a product of Canada. So, if we have Montana 

calves up there and they are slaughtered up there, they can make 

it a product of Canada—I mean, that is what we used to have in 

the U.S. That is what we do not want to go back to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I think all they have is voluntary labeling—— 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Yeah, but—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. —and you are right, we can look at the details of it. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But, they have a voluntary label system as 

opposed to the mandatory, where if retail wants to have in their 

stores labels that say, ‘‘Made in America’’—this would be our 

label—they can do it. I mean, that is all it is. It does not—it is not 

required. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Right. But, I think that brings up the problem 

of going back to a rulemaking for a voluntary system, such as 

Barry suggested. I mean, you all know what Black Angus cattle 

are? So, you all know what Angus beef is. Under USDA and this 

voluntary kind of program and the PVPs that go with it, they only 

have to be 51 percent black hided. It does not even have to be 

Angus. If you make us go through that system of USDA, the opponents to COOL will beat us to death to get rid of born, raised, and 

slaughtered, and go to the system of voluntary that they are using 

in Canada and that we had prior to COOL. We will lose the integrity of the U.S. beef label. 

I say, just change the wording in the statute. Once it is no longer 

mandatory, I do not even think it is a WTO concern, or they can 

make it a concern. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Moyer. 

Mr. MOYER. Senator, I just do not believe it is worth the risk. 

You know, as mentioned earlier, we have already been found 

uncompliant, not just once, but four different times by the WTO. 

I think we really have to go above and beyond what might just 

be acceptable to those countries, and I really do not want you to 

risk dollars that I have got invested, that Mr. McDonnell has invested, that the grape growers in New York have invested in their 

products and the price impacts these retaliation efforts will have. 

Yes, it may be a case that we could just get by and make them 

happy, but boy, I just hate to take that risk, because where we 

have already been caught in the wrong four different times, I think 

we have to go and—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It just seems really odd that they would object to something they have themselves, but—— 

Mr. MOYER. Well, I—— 

33 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That our country would have to have—that 

we could not do what they are doing—— 

Mr. MOYER. I would—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. —that will not really sell with our citizens, 

I do not think. 

Mr. MOYER. I would be cautious of trying to out-guess what another government can do. I have a hard time guessing what my 

own will do sometimes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOYER. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. TREZISE. Yes. I basically agree with Mr. Moyer, and I do not 

know what they would be thinking of, but to me, the first order of 

business is repeal, and then perhaps to explore something like 

that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Mr. CUDDY. The risk of retaliation is just too great at this point, 

and the WTO has given Canada and Mexico permission to retaliate. It would be a complete disruption of our food supply chain 

for—across all sectors, frankly. So, the number one goal has to be 

to repeal this law, and then if we want to work on something after 

the fact, I think that is perfectly well and good. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you for all your answers. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let me point out, before I recognize—well, 

look who is here, Senator Casey. Senator Casey, I apologize for 

this, but I want to put this in the record at this point. 

With regards to replicating the Canadian COOL system, there 

are several important distinctions to keep in mind regarding that 

system. The only mandatory labeling in Canada is for the meat 

that is imported from a foreign country in consumer-ready packaging. All other labeling of meat is voluntary. It allows feeder cattle that have been in Canada for at least 60 days prior to slaughter 

to be labeled as ‘‘Product of Canada.’’ Here is the key. It does not 

require labeling indicating where the animal is born, raised, and 

slaughtered, thus, there is no segregation requirement. 

Senator Casey. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Knowing 

that I am the last to question here, or potentially so, I will make 

sure I stay within the time. 

This is a tough issue, and I know there is a great deal of difference here and Mr. McDonnell has a tough job today. I am in the 

camp of supporting what our Ranking Member, Senator Stabenow, 

is trying to do with what I would call, and I think what—and, in 

fact, I know what Mr. McDonnell called in his testimony a common 

sense compromise. We have heard that before. But, wow, do we 

need more of those around here on a lot of issues. 

I am sorry I was in and out of here. We had a Finance Committee hearing today on another big problem, transportation, in 

particular in my state, a real problem, just repairing bridges, so repairing and replacing bridges. So, we need common sense compromises all over this town. 

But, Mr. McDonnell, I wanted to highlight something you said in 

your testimony. I am quoting, because I think it is a good, or an 

important point to make. You said, and I am quoting, ‘‘U.S. cattle 

34 

producers want the integrity behind the ‘A’ label to remain intact. 

In no circumstance should a product not born, raised, and harvested in the U.S. be granted a,’’ quote, ‘‘U.S. label, ‘1A’’’ unquote. 

‘‘Through a voluntary program, we ask that this label be maintained and not commingled with other products originating in Canada or Mexico,’’ unquote. 

That makes a lot of sense to me, and I would hope that we could 

get as close as possible, maybe not today, but in the near term, to 

that standard. 

You also said, and it is both by way of your testimony, but I 

think you said this just in your summation of your testimony—you 

were not reading, I do not think, at this point, but I wanted to go 

back to it. You talked about the challenge of, quote, ‘‘differentiating 

your product.’’ Can you talk about that, because I thought that was 

an important point that needed to be highlighted. 

Mr. MCDONNELL. You are talking about the early challenges 

prior to COOL of differentiating our product, right. At that time, 

they had a system much like we see up in Canada, where it was 

point of transformation. 

If the animal was processed in the United States or beef was imported and cut up, ground, or salted, anything, it became a product 

of the U.S. It is especially troubling with cattle because nobody 

eats cows. 

You eat beef, everybody knows the end product is beef, and to let 

such deceptions go on in the marketplace, especially in the period 

we are in today, where consumers want to know where their food 

comes from, we are talking about taking a step backwards, ladies 

and gentlemen; I just do not think repeal is acceptable, and I know 

I have gone past your question. 

My apologies. 

Senator CASEY. I appreciate that. 

I also wanted to ask about the issue of cattle exporting countries 

like Canada, both Canada and Mexico, have actually experienced 

a period of record high profits, consistent profit margins and stabilization of their herd sizes following the implementation of 

COOL. So, I would ask you, can you elaborate on why you think 

this increase in profit margins may have occurred? 

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, I do not know if I can tell you why it has 

occurred, but I would like to include in this a response to Mr. 

Cuddy saying the WTO had granted retaliatory tariffs to Canada 

and Mexico. They certainly have not done that. We are in arbitration. What the arbitration process now has said is you boys now 

have to prove your scare tactics and put this on the table before 

we can even look at what level of retaliatory tariffs you are going 

to have. 

Part of that, to me, includes what you have asked, Senator 

Casey. It is, how has it hurt Canada? It has not hurt their price, 

because their price has more than doubled since the country of origin labeling went in place. The value of their cattle imports into 

the U.S. has more than doubled since country of origin labeling 

went in place. Today, where both of those herds were in severe contraction in the early 2000s, in 2009, when COOL went in place, the 

contraction slowed down. In fact, today and in recent years, we 

35 

take a higher percent of their cattle and beef production, based on 

their cow herd, a higher percent than we have ever taken before. 

Now, is that harmful? How did it damage them? The fact is that 

prices doubled and we are taking a higher percent of their product. 

Now, I would love for somebody to do that for me. Thank you for 

the question. 

Senator CASEY. I am out of time. Thank you very much, though. 

I thank the panel. Even where we disagree, we are grateful you are 

here. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not 

have questions at this point. I know as we wrap up, I just want 

to thank you for this hearing and indicate that I think for everyone 

listening, you see there is a difference of opinion and we have got 

to come to the middle so we can act. I would suggest that everyone 

who does not have a dog in this fight, or maybe I should say a steer 

or a pig, that if you are not in the steer business, the hog business, 

if you are not directly involved in this but you face retaliation, I 

would urge you to come down on the side of urging us to work together to find a bipartisan solution so that we can get this done 

quickly. 

I would also just put forward that I understand why our Canadian and Mexican partners are saying what they are now. I have 

had multiple conversations and different conversations over the 

last couple of years. I get it. We all get it. It is great negotiating. 

But, we also understand what we can do and should do together 

to get things done to move forward in a way that both recognizes 

what Mr. McDonnell is talking about in terms of standing up for 

our own ranchers, our own farmers and ranchers and consumers, 

but also meeting the needs of the industry more broadly. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, because I believe we can do this. We need to do it quickly. I honestly believe 

if we cannot come to an agreement, it will not be done quickly. I 

would urge everyone to work with us in terms of finding a common 

sense solution. Mr. Chairman, you and I do that on a regular basis 

and I look very much forward to working with you to be able to 

get this done. Thanks. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member. 

It would not be a real conclusion to the hearing without a 

PowerPoint. Once, when I was chairman of another committee, I 

outlawed PowerPoints, which is the best thing—— 

Senator STABENOW. You have a PowerPoint? Oh, my gosh, you 

have—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. No. Well, it is sort of a PowerPoint. It is just 

a poster being held up here by one of my brilliant staff members. 

Why do we not just put it right there. That is what we are talking 

about. 

Now, I hate to use the allegory or the example of my wife, because it is going to get me in a lot of trouble, but here is some 

Smithfield St. Louis style pork spareribs. When she goes into the 

grocery store, she first looks at the product. Well, that is the product. The next thing she looks at is right here, at the price, and that 

is what probably every consumer does, whether it is my wife or me. 

36 

Well, to tell the truth, I look at the product and I do not really care 

about the price. If I want it, I am going to get it. 

But, having said that, what all this is about—if I can find it— 

here is the mandatory COOL label the WTO has deemed noncompliant, right here. Very hard to read. But right up here, what 

most consumers will say is a current voluntary program by the industry themselves, by the people who have provided, in this case, 

the Smithfield rib product. It says right here, ‘‘Keep frozen. Product 

of the United States. USDA processed verified.’’ That is what they 

look at. Then they have, really, a lot of confidence with regards to 

this product, and this is why we are selling a lot of meat. 

This one has cost us, according to the studies by Kansas State University and others and as testified by Jaret, about $8 billion. 

That is a lot of money. Consequently, I wanted to point that out. 

We already have voluntary labels applied by companies, should 

COOL be repealed, similar labels indicating the origin of U.S. 

raised pork and beef could be still available. We have another one 

that says, ‘‘Rancher Reserve.’’ I do not know if that is effective or 

not. 

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that Smithfield is now a Chinese company, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. Excuse me. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, I wanted to show this for Mr. McDonnell. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I think his tie is getting a little tight here. 

At any rate, this is Rancher’s Reserve tender beef, 100 percent U.S. 

beef. So, you can have a voluntary label. On this particular product, you have to look up here and it is about eight-point, I think, 

or 12-point—I am an old newspaper guy—‘‘Product of USA.’’ 

With all due respect, I do not think many consumers can actually 

see that, but they see this and it is already a voluntary label. This 

cost us $8 billion. 

I will go again to my original statement—end of the 

PowerPoint—just yesterday, the Canadian Minister of Agriculture 

sent a letter to every member of this committee, and this is what 

the Canadian Minister of Agriculture said. For Canada, legislative 

repeal of COOL is the only approach that will achieve this end. 

Another letter sent by the Mexican Secretary of the Economy, retaliation is imminent and inevitable unless and until the U.S. 

takes action to repeal the underlying COOL statute. 

Now, I know that the distinguished Ranking Member and myself 

and other members are going to be meeting, trying to get to a conclusion, but at the same time, Canada and Mexico are making this 

statement, and it is imminent. There is no way that I can see the 

WTO is going to reverse their decision, all of a sudden, okay, U.S., 

you can go ahead and do this. This is the fourth time. Three 

strikes, you are out. The fourth time, we hit the battle. We do not 

need to be hit. 

So, as Chairman of the committee, I have to emphasize again to 

my colleagues and all of agriculture that retaliation is fast approaching. It is imminent. The responsibility sits squarely on our 

shoulders to avoid this kind of a problem. 

37 

Mr. Cuddy has already pointed out it is costing him $800 million. 

Things are already taking place with regards to many things that 

the witnesses have stated. 

So, this takes me back to the beginning of my statement. It does 

not matter if you are pro-COOL or anti-COOL. You cannot ignore 

the fact that retaliation is imminent and we must avoid it, and repealing the mandatory COOL is the surest protection to the U.S. 

economy. 

Senator Sasse, I welcome you back to the committee. I know you 

have been busy with other committees, as well. Your statement 

and any question that you may want to ask is welcome at this 

time. Thank you, sir. 

Senator SASSE. Mr. Chairman, I just thank you for holding this 

important hearing and your staff for the very useful materials and 

putting it together. I will not detain our witnesses any longer. 

Many of us have been double-booked at a hearing on the cybersecurity attacks that have been ongoing over recent months. But, just 

thank you to you for scheduling this hearing, and to the witnesses 

for your insights. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Do you have any updates on OPM and the 

cyberattacks? 

Senator SASSE. I want to make jokes about your cell phone ringer, but that would not be appropriate at this time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SASSE. The clarity of what would come from your—I am 

trying to come up with the name of the tune, the cartoon that—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Just let it go. 

Senator SASSE. ‘‘Frozen.’’ Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Just let it go. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SASSE. It would be more insightful—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let it go. 

Senator SASSE. —than much of what we are hearing about the 

reality and magnitude of the OPM breaches. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Well, maybe the other ring tone would be 

appropriate. It is by Johnny Cash that says, ‘‘I Walk the Line.’’ 

Every one of these witnesses have to do that. 

To my fellow members, we would ask that any additional questions you may have for the record be submitted to the Committee 

Clerk five business days from today, or by 5:00 p.m. next Tuesday, 

June 30. 

This concludes our hearing. Thank you so much for the witnesses. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

JUNE 25, 2015 

40 


96180.001
41 


96180.002
42 


96180.003
43 


96180.004
44 


96180.005
45 


96180.006
46 


96180.007
47 


96180.008
48 


96180.009
49 


96180.010
50 


96180.011
51 


96180.012
52 


96180.013
53 


96180.014
54 


96180.015
55 


96180.016
56 


96180.017
57 


96180.018
58 


96180.019
59 


96180.020
60 


96180.021
61 


96180.022
62 


96180.023
63 


96180.024
64 


96180.025
65 


96180.026
66 


96180.027
67 


96180.028
68 


96180.029
69 


96180.030
70 


96180.031
71 


96180.032
72 


96180.033
73 


96180.034
(75) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 25, 2015 

76 


96180.035
77 


96180.036
78 


96180.037
79 


96180.038
80 


96180.039
81 


96180.040
82 


96180.041
83 


96180.042
84 


96180.043
85 


96180.044
86 


96180.045
87 


96180.046
88 


96180.047
89 


96180.048
90 


96180.049
91 


96180.050
92 


96180.051
93 


96180.052
94 


96180.053
95 


96180.054
96 


96180.055
97 


96180.056
98 


96180.057
99 


96180.058
100 


96180.059
101 


96180.060
102 


96180.061
103 


96180.062
104 


96180.063
105 


96180.064
106 


96180.065
107 


96180.066
108 


96180.067
109 


96180.068
110 


96180.069
111 


96180.070
112 


96180.071
113 


96180.072
114 


96180.073
115 


96180.074
116 


96180.075
117 


96180.076
118 


96180.077
119 


96180.078
120 


96180.079
121 


96180.080
122 


96180.081
123 


96180.082
124 


96180.083