[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 132 (Wednesday, November 17, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11418-S11419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MANDATORY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of 
importance not only to South Dakota producers and ranchers, but to 
producers and ranchers all across America.
  The issue involves a program that would not only provide positive 
benefits for our agricultural producers, but ensure consumer choice in 
the grocery store aisle and on the dinner table.
  There are efforts underway, unfortunately, to gut the mandatory 
country-of-origin labeling law that was incorporated into the 2002 farm 
bill, a farm bill signed into law by this President, and which should 
be supported by this administration. I rise today to express concern 
that the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations measure may contain 
provisions which would weaken or replace mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling with a voluntary country-of-origin labeling program.
  As you will recall, last year the Senate overwhelmingly supported a 
resolution that Senator Daschle introduced instructing conferees to 
strike any language which would delay the implementation of a mandatory 
labeling program. The omnibus conference recessed hastily, and 
consequently no opportunity existed to debate and vote on that matter. 
In any event, the fiscal year 2004 agriculture appropriations bill, the 
vehicle for the fiscal year 2004 omnibus, contained language delaying 
country-of-origin labeling by 2 years for all covered commodities with 
the exception of farm fish and wild fish. This language was adopted by 
only a small margin in the House. I rise today to urge my colleagues in 
the Senate to convey their support for this measure and the importance 
of mandatory country-of-origin labeling.
  It is no secret that this administration has voiced its support for 
resumption of trade of live Canadian cattle, and it is only a matter of 
time before our producers feel the economic impact of this decision. 
When USDA opens the floodgates, and if our mandatory labeling program 
is gutted, consumers will have no way of determining where their meat 
comes from. And I worry that the Canadian border will reopen before we 
have resumed trade relations with some of our key export markets. That 
presents a dangerous situation for our producers, and I fail to see why 
the administration would continue to cheer large agribusiness while the 
burden of our faltering export markets is borne by the individuals 
feeding this great Nation.
  Country-of-origin labeling retains support from over 80 percent of 
American consumers, and recently about 95 consumer and producer groups, 
representing over 50 million Americans, wrote Congress to express their 
support for a mandatory food labeling program. They also conveyed their 
opposition to any effort to turn this program into a voluntary program 
in the 2005 omnibus appropriations measure. Country-of-origin labeling 
has overwhelming bipartisan support, and the majority of our trading 
partners have already implemented a country-of-origin system in their 
respective countries. It is time to

[[Page S11419]]

quit dragging America's feet and join the remainder of the 
industrialized nations throughout the world that afford their consumers 
the right to know the origin of the food they feed their families.
  I have worked on mandatory country-of-origin labeling for nearly 12 
years. My first labeling bill was introduced in 1992, and as the 
primary author of the origin labeling language incorporated in our 
existing farm bill, I join Mr. Burns and other Senate colleagues in 
introducing a bill on that issue today. I will persist in working to 
speed up implementation of this program with my colleagues. It is 
important that this Senate continue its bipartisan support for 
implementation of this commonsense law.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________