[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4020-H4030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2685, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2393, 
           COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 303

       Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2685) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
       (b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read.
       (c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2393) to amend 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal country of 
     origin labeling requirements with respect to beef, pork, and 
     chicken, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Agriculture now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Agriculture; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and 
reported a rule, H. Res. 303, providing for consideration of two 
important pieces of legislation: H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin 
Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, and H.R. 2685, the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act, 2016.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2393 under a closed rule 
and H.R. 2685 under the customary modified open rule process, which 
allows any Member to offer an amendment to the bill so long as the 
amendment complies with the rules of the House. The only restriction is 
on the amount of time that will be allotted for debating each 
amendment.
  H.R. 2393 is an urgent and critical response to the World Trade 
Organization's ruling on May 18 of this year, which found country of 
origin labeling, or COOL, for muscle meat cuts to be in violation of 
the U.S. trade obligations with Canada and Mexico. H.R. 2393 will 
simply repeal the COOL meat cut provisions, making the U.S. compliant 
and prevent retaliation.
  Critics of H.R. 2393 will say we have more time, but in truth, we 
don't. This final ruling is the fourth time the WTO has ruled against 
the U.S. for various versions of COOL, and on this final appeal, the 
WTO has given both Canada and Mexico the authority to impose more than 
$3 billion in combined retaliatory tariffs against U.S. products within 
60 days of the ruling.

                              {time}  1245

  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are now down to just 37 days to respond before 
these tariffs are imposed. This could deal an enormous blow to U.S. 
companies and the workers they employ, just when our economy is 
beginning to rebound.
  There is also an argument floating around that this will prevent all 
labeling or that a ``Made in North America'' label will satisfy our 
trade obligations. A North American label will not necessarily satisfy 
our obligations and can in no way, no matter how fast we try, be 
negotiated in the remaining 37 days to prevent retaliation.
  Also, it is important to note that repealing mandatory COOL doesn't 
prevent voluntarily labeling, as some companies already do.
  Finally, it is worth noting that some critics claim that this will 
weaken inspections for meat imports. Nothing can be further from the 
truth.
  The United States Department of Agriculture has and will continue to 
provide the most rigorous, science-based import inspections, 
inspections of foreign plants which export to the United States. 
Whether or not the product has a mandatory country of origin label on 
it will not affect these rigorous inspections.
  This legislation is desperately needed. Our manufacturers, pork 
producers, grape growers, confectionary exporters, and ranchers have 
repeatedly asked Congress to ensure that we repeal the COOL provisions 
and bring the U.S. back into compliance with our WTO obligations fully 
and quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2393 is important to ensure our economy is 
protected and that the U.S. plays by the rules we agreed to with two of 
our biggest trading partners, which are by far our largest export 
markets.
  This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2685, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which funds our Nation's 
national defense and provides the resources necessary to continue our 
essential military efforts abroad, as well as the funding for health 
and quality of life programs for the brave men and women of our Armed 
Forces.
  Overall, the bill provides $578.6 billion in discretionary funding, 
$800 million more than the President's request and $24.4 billion above 
the fiscal year 2015 funding level. Within this amount, $88.4 billion 
is appropriated for our war efforts in the global war on terrorism.

[[Page H4021]]

  H.R. 2685 is an imperative measure that funds our critical national 
security programs and addresses the vital needs of our men and women in 
the armed services. An effective military, one that is well equipped 
and well trained, is indispensable to the common defense of our country 
and is in the best interest of all Americans. This bill includes vital 
funding for the U.S. military and intelligence community as they remain 
engaged in responding to instability abroad.
  This bill contains $133 billion to provide for 1.3 million Active-
Duty troops and 820,000 National Guard and Reserve troops; $219 billion 
is included for operations and maintenance, which provides for the 
funding of readiness programs that prepare our troops for combat and 
peacetime missions.
  The Constitution charges the Congress to provide for our national 
defense, and this bill ensures we will fulfill that obligation. Our 
highest national priority should always be the protection of our 
country, and the funding levels in this bill will ensure our military 
remains the most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force 
anywhere in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, we must provide the resources necessary to fight 
America's enemies abroad. With the rise of ISIS, the continued presence 
of al Qaeda, the growth of terrorist groups in North Africa, 
instability throughout the Middle East, and Russian aggression in 
Ukraine, our military must be prepared for not only current threats, 
but for future ones as well.
  We also need to support those willing to fight alongside us, which is 
why H.R. 2685 includes critical support for our allies who are also 
facing this unprecedented instability due to the aggression of nation-
states and terrorist organizations alike.
  This bill makes difficult budgetary choices without undermining the 
safety, security, and success of our servicemembers and their families. 
It uses every tax dollar responsible to give our Armed Forces the 
resources they need to stay prepared, safe, and in peak fighting form.
  Supporting the men and women of our armed services--who, day in and 
day out, risk their lives in the service of our country--is one of the 
most important functions that we perform as Members of Congress, and 
this responsibility should not be taken lightly.
  I am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides 
for our Nation's military, security, and our courageous men and women 
in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for 
consideration of two very critical pieces of legislation that will 
protect our economy, provide necessary funding for our servicemembers 
and the defense of our country, and I support its adoption.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule, as well as the underlying 
bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this grab bag rule 
and both underlying pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, today marks the 18th time in this Congress that House 
Republicans have brought to the floor a grab bag rule, a single rule 
that governs floor debate for two or more unrelated pieces of 
legislation.
  Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, the use of 
grab bag rules has dramatically increased by over 400 percent. Using 
one rule to govern multiple, oftentimes unrelated bills stifles debate, 
which I guess is the point of them merging all these bills under one 
rule on the House floor, and leads to disjointed and confusing 
discussion between two sides.
  Ranking Member Slaughter and my Democratic colleagues on the House 
Rules Committee have raised these concerns with Chairman Sessions, but 
unfortunately, we are back on the floor today to consider one rule for 
two completely unrelated measures.
  Today's rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2393, the Country of 
Origin Labeling Amendments Act, also known as COOL, under a completely 
closed process. No amendments are allowed, none.
  Clearly, this is an issue that we need to address sooner rather than 
later, but H.R. 2393 is not the answer. It was introduced just 2 days 
after the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States' 
country of origin labeling requirements for meat.
  H.R. 2393 is a knee-jerk reaction to the WTO ruling that completely 
does away with labeling requirement for beef, pork, and chicken, which 
wasn't even addressed in the WTO ruling.
  We know from past WTO disputes that there are several steps that need 
to occur before retaliation would take place. The arbitration panel 
takes at least 60 days, but in the U.S.-Brazil cotton case, it took 15 
months to produce a ruling. The sky is not falling; we have some time 
to come up with a workable solution.

  Instead of H.R. 2393, we ought to be working toward a more thoughtful 
approach that balances consumers' right to know where their meat comes 
from with our trade obligations.
  More than 60 countries have successfully implemented COOL-like 
labeling requirements that comply with WTO standards, and we ought to 
look toward these programs for a workable solution.
  Such an important issue that impacts the safety of food we eat and 
the health of American families deserves the most robust debate 
possible, but this closed rule from House Republicans prevents us from 
having that kind of debate. As I said, not a single Member, Democratic 
or Republican, is allowed to offer an amendment to this bill. It is 
completely closed.
  Today's rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2685, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fiscal year 2016 Defense 
Appropriations Act, there is much to praise about the bill. It contains 
many important provisions and strong funding for suicide prevention and 
training, improved response to sexual assault and prevention, and 
medical research.
  I applaud the hard work put into drafting this bill by Defense 
Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky, along 
with Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey. 
However, this bill suffers from two major--I emphasize the word 
``major''--flaws, which to my mind makes it difficult, if not 
impossible, to support.
  First and foremost, this bill continues to use the overseas 
contingency operations account, or OCO, as a slush fund to get around 
parts of the Budget Control Act that Republicans don't like--namely, 
the caps on defense spending--while ignoring the damage the caps are 
doing to all our nondefense programs.
  This bill, like the Defense Authorization bill before it, completely 
bypasses the caps set down by the BCA by increasing OCO funding by $38 
billion above the President's request. The bill shifts $38 billion from 
the defense base budget and shoves those moneys into the off-budget OCO 
meant to cover the costs of our various wars.
  Rather than wrestle with the hard question of how to get rid of the 
sequester and the budget caps and bring our spending back into regular 
order, the Republicans have decided to wallow in a slush fund. Quite 
simply, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, don't you think it is about time that we found a way to 
provide for our national security needs without relying on war 
contingency slush funds to pay for the everyday expenses of the 
Department of Defense?
  Members on both sides of the aisle have recognized that the sequester 
does not work. Shouldn't we be honest about that? Shouldn't we 
negotiate a workable plan, rather than play these games of smoke and 
mirrors that actually undermine the Pentagon's ability to budget and 
plan for the long term?
  Second, Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to appropriate billions of 
dollars to carry out the war against the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, 
and elsewhere; but Congress has not even debated, let alone authorized 
that war.
  The leadership of this House continues to fail in carrying out its 
responsibilities under the Constitution and bring an AUMF before this 
body to authorize the military operations that have been ongoing since 
last August.

[[Page H4022]]

  In fact, just last night, we learned that the U.S. presence in Iraq 
will increase even further, with the administration planning to 
establish a new military base in Anbar province and send hundreds of 
additional American military trainers.
  This move is aimed at helping Iraqi forces to retake the city of 
Ramadi from the Islamic State, but it is clear our involvement is 
getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger--but still, no word 
from this leadership that it has the political will or intention to 
bring an AUMF to the House floor this month, next month, or the month 
after.
  With Americans investing more and more in this conflict--we are told 
that we spend about $3.5 million an hour on this latest war against the 
Islamic State--there has never been a greater urgency for this Congress 
to debate and to vote on this war.
  Time and again, bipartisan letters have been sent to the Speaker 
asking him to bring an AUMF to the House floor. Time and again, 
individual Members have sought to bring amendments up for debate that 
would authorize military operations in Iraq and Syria, only to have the 
Republican majority on the House Rules Committee reject them, depriving 
them of consideration and depriving them of debate.
  Just last night, I offered an amendment that simply states that no 
funds in this act may be obligated or spent on military operations in 
Iraq and Syria in the absence of an AUMF for such operations. It was 
also rejected by the Republicans of the House Rules Committee.
  Some stated that they voted to reject it because 10 minutes, which is 
the amount of time limiting debate on all amendments to the defense 
bill, is simply not enough time to debate a serious question. Well, I 
agree. Ten minutes is not enough time, but the Rules Committee has the 
power to increase that limit to as much time as it feels appropriate, 
and it failed to do so.
  The Rules Committee could provide 2 hours of debate or 2 days of 
debate or 2 weeks of debate; that is the power of the Rules Committee. 
Don't hide behind this excuse as a reason for Congress not to live up 
to its constitutional responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems that we can always find the time and find a way 
to spend billions of billions of dollars to fund wars; we can always 
find a way to send our brave men and women overseas to fight and die in 
these wars, but we can't ever seem to find the backbone or the time to 
debate and authorize them.
  Each night, each week, the Members of this House get to go home to 
their families and their communities, surrounded by loved ones and 
people who support them. If we don't have the stomach to take 
responsibility for sending our troops into danger, then the least we 
can do is bring them home to their families so that they might enjoy 
the same peace and privileges that we take so much for granted.

                              {time}  1300

  If we want to spend our Nation's treasure on these wars, if my 
colleagues believe that the war in Iraq and Syria is a priority for our 
Nation and our national security, then we should carry out our 
constitutional mandate and debate and vote on an AUMF.
  Now, I welcome the fact that the House Appropriations Committee, in a 
bipartisan vote, supported an amendment by the honorable gentlewoman 
from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, that says: ``Congress has a 
constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize 
the use of military force against ISIL.''
  That provision is in the Defense Appropriations bill. But the fact of 
the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we shouldn't just be saying that 
Congress has a constitutional duty; we should actually be carrying out 
our constitutional duty.
  So I hope that every single one of my colleagues will remember that 
when they cast their votes for final passage of this bill, you are 
providing money and equipment and lives to carry out a war that this 
House doesn't even have the courage to debate and vote on.
  The leadership of this House has to stop whining and stop trying to 
shift the responsibility on to anyone and everyone except to whom the 
responsibility really falls. It falls upon each of us to say to this 
leadership that the time has come to bring an AUMF before this body, 
and for the leadership to let us debate it and vote on it.
  It is time that we stopped acting like cowards and started behaving 
like Members of Congress our constituents elected to make the tough 
decisions. So I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, just let me say before I turn to some of 
my colleagues who have joined me on the floor that I agree with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. These are important issues, especially 
when we are talking about appropriations for the Defense Department. We 
do need an AUMF, and I remain committed to work with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts to accomplish that; that we should have that open debate 
and that discussion through the committee system.
  This is not the vehicle. But we will do that. We need to do that, and 
I agree with the gentleman.
  Today, I am very happy to have with me several people who would like 
to speak on this issue. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), a member of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and the underlying 
legislation to repeal country of origin labeling for meat products, and 
I believe this effort is long past due.
  I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for bringing this rule to 
the floor, and I appreciate Agriculture Committee Chairman Conaway's 
expeditious response to the WTO's final ruling that sets the table for 
a huge hit to America's struggling economy.
  Not only has COOL been a costly burden on our Nation's meat industry 
for more than a decade, but now massive retaliatory tariffs from Canada 
and Mexico will inflict pain on a vast amount of U.S. industries and 
jobs.
  At a time when American GDP is actually shrinking, and U.S. farmers 
and manufacturers are desperately seeking export markets, the worst 
thing we can do is allow this policy to damage our ability to get 
American-made to market.
  COOL represents yet another failed government mandate imposing heavy 
costs on private sector industry for no defensible purpose. While the 
primary goal of COOL is to give American-grown meat a competitive 
advantage, the result has been exactly the opposite.
  Even the Department of Agriculture agrees that COOL has actually 
negatively impacted the industry that it was supposed to benefit. As a 
direct result of this policy, we have not only seen sharp increases in 
the cost of marketing and selling beef and pork, but looming trade 
retaliation is already costing American industries that contract for 
future delivery of goods into these export markets.
  If we allow these retaliatory tariffs to go forward, our Nation's 
businesses will experience billions of dollars of market loss, which 
will kill jobs, harm our U.S. competitiveness, and have a long-term 
negative impact on America's economic health.
  Fortunately, today we have a chance to end the harmful impact of this 
policy. I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation to repeal COOL once and for all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to my colleague on the Rules Committee, I am glad he 
supports my position that we ought to have a debate on an AUMF when it 
comes to these wars against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
  But my question is, what are we waiting for?
  Eleven months ago, Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican, 
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a Democrat, and myself actually brought a 
resolution to the floor saying that if we are going to be engaged in 
combat operations in Iraq, that we ought to have a vote on an AUMF, and 
that passed overwhelmingly.
  We have been at war now for over 10 months. I mean, bombing every 
day. We have thousands of troops over

[[Page H4023]]

there. The President is going to send several hundred more over there. 
What are we waiting for?
  We were told in the 113th Congress that we ought to wait till the 
114th Congress. I don't know why, given the fact that the war began 
under the 113th Congress. But anyway, January came, and we are in the 
114th Congress.
  Then we were told we have got to wait for the President to submit a 
strategy or an AUMF. He did.
  Now, I know you don't like it. I don't like it. Some people want it 
broader and bigger. Some of us want it more restrictive. But 
nonetheless, he did what he is supposed to do. What we are supposed to 
do is deliberate.
  And here we are, 10 months later, and we are all told we will get to 
it. We will get to it. We will get to it.
  We announced yesterday that we are going to establish a new military 
base in Iraq, and close to 500 more American troops are going to go 
over there. What are we waiting for?
  We ought to be debating these AUMFs before we put people into harm's 
way, before we start getting engaged in hostilities.
  So I have to tell you, I am frustrated not only by the inaction of 
the leadership of this House, the excuses of the leadership of this 
House. I am frustrated by my friends who say, I am with you, but we 
will just get to it at some other point. I mean, how many months, how 
many years have to go by before we do our job?
  The gentleman talked about our constitutional duty to protect the 
people of the United States. We also have a constitutional duty when it 
comes to war, and we are not living up to that at all. We are failing 
miserably, and it really is a disgrace, and it is a disservice to the 
men and women whom we put into harm's way.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the COOL legislation, let me remind my 
colleagues that consumers, the American people, the people we are 
supposed to represent, are increasingly seeking more information and 
want more information about food source and production methods and want 
to make purchases from a trusted source.
  A 2013 Consumer Federation of America study found that 90 percent of 
Americans strongly support mandatory COOL for fresh meat and strongly 
favor requiring meat to be labeled with specific information about 
where the animals were born, raised, and processed.
  A 2010 Consumer Union study shows that 93 percent of consumers would 
prefer to have the country of origin label on the meat that they buy. 
That is what the American people want.
  And yet, rather than trying to respond to that, the first inclination 
in the aftermath of this WTO ruling is to basically cave, saying, We 
don't really care what the American people want. We are just going to 
cave.
  I think that is the wrong way to proceed, and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against this COOL legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State 
for giving me the opportunity to testify today regarding the rule 
governing debate on H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling 
Amendments Act of 2015.
  Country of origin labeling, or COOL for short, was first enacted for 
meat products as part of the 2002 farm bill. Implementation of the law 
was delayed until 2008.
  Less than 5 months after the COOL implementing rule was published, 
Canada and Mexico challenged the rule at the WTO, arguing that it had a 
trade-distorting impact by reducing the value and number of cattle and 
hogs shipped to the United States.
  The process has since progressed through the dispute settlement panel 
phase and a U.S. appeal to the WTO's Appellate Body. In both instances, 
the WTO found that the way the regulations were implemented violated 
WTO obligations by discriminating against imported livestock.
  The United States was given until May 13, 2013, to bring its COOL 
regulations into compliance. In response, USDA issued a revised COOL 
rule in May of 2013 which required that production steps--born, raised, 
and slaughtered by origin country--be included on meat labels. The 
revised rule also prohibited the commingling of meat from imported and 
domestic livestock.
  At the request of Canada and Mexico, the WTO established a compliance 
panel to determine if the revised rule brought the United States into 
compliance with the previous ruling. Canada and Mexico claimed that not 
only did the revised rule fail to bring the United States into 
compliance, but certain parts, especially the prohibition on 
commingling, were even more onerous than the original rule.
  A key criterion for current COOL implementation is that it requires 
``segregation'' of animals by country of origin, which significantly 
raises the cost of utilizing imported livestock. The compliance panel 
report, released October 20, 2014, upheld the earlier findings of 
discrimination.
  The United States appealed the compliance panel report and on May 18, 
2015, the WTO rejected, again, the United States appeal, and found for 
the fourth and, believe it or not, final time that the U.S. COOL 
requirements for beef and pork were unavoidably discriminatory.
  The final rule kick-starts the WTO process to determine the level of 
retaliatory tariffs that Canada and Mexico can now impose on the United 
States, which has been widely predicted to have effects in the billions 
of dollars.
  During a hearing in the House Agriculture Committee's Livestock and 
Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee to examine the implications of 
potential retaliation against the U.S., witnesses made it clear that 
losing the final appeal to the WTO and the inevitable impacts of 
retaliation against the United States would have a devastating impact 
on our economy.
  Witnesses included representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Confectioners 
Association, the Wine Institute of California, National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, and the National 
Farmers Union.
  Some have asked why we should act on the basis of a WTO decision. If 
COOL worked, perhaps there would be a response other than a repeal, but 
the fact is COOL is a marketing failure. In an April 2015 report to 
Congress, USDA explained that COOL requirements result in extraordinary 
costs with no quantifiable benefits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CONAWAY. In response to those who argue that COOL enhances food 
safety, I have also maintained for over 10 years now that is simply not 
the case. If it were, then all meat served at restaurants would come 
with an information label of the meat's origin. But it doesn't, and 
that is because retail food establishments are exempt from the COOL 
requirements.
  In a May 1, 2015, letter to Congress, Secretary Vilsack reaffirmed 
the need for Congress to repeal the disputed COOL label requirements. 
In other words, if we go down this path with Canada to try to negotiate 
something they have no reason to negotiate on, it will fail as well.
  Repeal is the only viable option for us to avoid these retaliatory 
statements. Canada and Mexico have both said they are uninterested in 
negotiation. We are now at a point of fixing this.
  COOL repeal is the answer. This bill does that. I support the rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  We have been involved with a long struggle in this Congress and 
Congresses before, dating back some 13 years, and even before that, 
about country of origin labeling. Do people have the right to know 
where their food comes from?
  As the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, the American public 
supports this.
  We have had a ruling from the WTO that does not prohibit country of 
origin labeling. To the contrary, the case upheld the country's right 
to require food labeling when it serves a broad

[[Page H4024]]

public interest that does not lead to treatment of a foreign product in 
a less favorable way than a domestic one.
  We are rushing in a repeal that goes beyond just the disputed 
elements, adding poultry, and raising questions, I think, about our 
commitment to being able to give consumers what they want.
  There are those that would attach cost to this, but it also is in 
terms of what people want.
  And I think, we ought to take a deep breath. There is not going to be 
any retaliatory tariffs that are going to be actually inflicted 
quickly. This is a process that is going to take months.
  The Brazilian cotton subsidies, about which I personally think Brazil 
was right--we had inappropriate cotton subsidies, and we are paying 
Brazilian cotton interests now because of our refusal to make our own 
cotton policies WTO-compliant.

                              {time}  1315

  That is another scandal, in my judgment, that we are giving $148 
million to Brazilian cotton farmers, because we are giving 
inappropriate subsidies to American cotton farmers when we have other 
priorities.
  But in this case, we have plenty of time in this Congress to follow 
regular order, to be able to carve out specific provisions that speak 
to the weakness in what the United States did. Because the United 
States, in enacting this for meat products, it was pretty convoluted, 
and the American Government had been told before that it would not be 
WTO compliant.
  So this isn't a surprise. It is not an emergency. It is a 
responsibility we have to try to make these adjustments.
  I don't want to have our other industries penalized with retaliatory 
tariffs, and they won't be, but we don't have to pass this bill. We 
ought to deal with the underlying problems, be narrow, be specific, and 
uphold the right of American consumers to have as much information as 
we can give them.
  So I would strongly recommend that we reject the rule and the 
underlying bill. Let's have this conversation. Let's do it right. And 
let's make sure that we defend our right under WTO to have appropriate 
food labeling.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), another member of the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2393, the Country of 
Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.
  This very important legislation is a direct response to the fourth 
and final World Trade Organization ruling that mandatory country of 
origin labeling, or COOL, is anticompetitive and will allow Canada and 
Mexico to seek over $3 billion in tariffs on American products, 
directly placing American producers at a competitive disadvantage.
  H.R. 2393 removes cattle, hogs, and chicken from COOL labeling to 
allow our producers to maintain access to two of our largest trading 
markets and protect U.S. exports from destructive sanctions.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt this combined rule and vote in 
support of the COOL Amendments Act. I encourage the Senate to move this 
legislation as quickly as possible so our producers can compete on a 
level playing field.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, country of origin labeling stands for the 
proposition that knowledge is power. The more knowledge you have, the 
better decisions that you can make. This is true about the food that 
you eat, and it is also true about the trade deals that we are being 
asked to swallow this week.
  With Fast Track hurtling down on us for a vote the day after 
tomorrow, this recent World Trade Organization decision against the 
United States ought to serve as more than a blinking yellow light. It 
ought to be viewed as a giant red stoplight.
  The World Trade Organization ruled that it just isn't ``cool'' to 
supply consumers more information. And while this decision may not 
actually overrule our law, what you are seeing today is the 
possibility--indeed, the probability--of expensive retaliation against 
American exports unless we yield to this WTO decision. If you support 
local decisionmaking, you need to consider the significance of our 
experience at the World Trade Organization.
  There have previously been some challenges to United States laws just 
like this, and the record of the United States at the World Trade 
Organization when it is challenged is not one to be really proud of. We 
have had 6 wins and 66 losses. These are losses that have been 
sustained when other countries challenge our laws.
  Only recently, as my colleague from Connecticut Rosa DeLauro and I 
attempted to present an amendment to a bill to say that corporate 
deserters--those that leave our country and renounce their charters 
here in order to dodge taxes--ought not to be given government business 
paid for by our taxpayers, we had some organizations who came and said: 
You can't do that. You can't deny corporate deserters an opportunity to 
get money from other taxpayers for government work because the World 
Trade Organization wouldn't like it.
  So there is already a range of threats being used based on existing 
trade laws. Consider now what will happen when the number of those who 
can challenge decisions in this Congress, at the State level, and at 
the local level is multiplied geometrically because of the fact that 
now, under an investor-state dispute settlement provision, thousands of 
foreign corporations can challenge our regulations and our laws. 
Taxpayers will be exposed to unprecedented amounts of liability because 
of our decision to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the 
people that we represent.
  At least the World Trade Organization, the group that decided this 
case, has an appeal process. There is no such appeal process for these 
cases that will be brought by foreign corporations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. And the panels that will decide them are usually made up 
of a majority of private lawyers, who one day are litigating cases for 
multinationals and the next day are deciding these cases.
  If you agree that foreign investors should not receive greater rights 
than American investors, if you support local and State decisionmaking 
to keep our air and water and our environment clean without having to 
pay foreigners for the privilege of doing so, then there should be 
great concern about these trade deals that are being fast-tracked this 
week.
  We don't have to look far to see the damage that could occur, because 
only three months ago, in Canada, it happened when a local decision 
about expanding a quarry in an environmentally sensitive area was 
challenged successfully. That is an unfortunate decision.
  We need to be wary of these Fast-Track proposals and insist that they 
put us on the right track for more trade without jeopardizing the 
health and safety of Americans. I tried to do that in the Ways and 
Means Committee, but, like every other amendment to put us on the right 
track, it was rejected. We need to reject that wrong track approach 
this week.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the good gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for this rule 
and for the underlying bill, H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling 
Amendments Act. This bill repeals the country of origin labeling 
requirement for certain meat products because, as it currently stands, 
it threatens the economic livelihood of farmers and ranchers in 
northeast Georgia and, really, across the Nation.
  Like so many other regulations that have been promulgated and upheld 
by this administration, it has achieved nothing but harm to our 
economy--not what it was ``intended to do.'' It does not improve food 
safety, and it now threatens to further devastate the ability of 
America's agriculture industry to provide for their families by 
violating our trade obligations and encouraging retaliation from two of 
our largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

[[Page H4025]]

  I was sent to Washington to be the voice of 700,000 Americans who 
live in northeast Georgia. These hard-working Americans produce more 
chicken than any other district in the United States. And now, like so 
many other Americans, they are facing devastating financial harm 
because of the COOL requirement, which arbitrarily mandates that meat 
products have a label that shows what country they were produced in.
  You see, the WTO has ruled on four separate occasions that mandatory 
COOL requirements violate our obligation to treat our trade partners 
fairly, just as we demand to be treated fairly by them. Now Canada and 
Mexico may seek to impose retaliatory tariffs against not only our meat 
exports, but exports on virtually every industry in the United States.
  Now I can't imagine how knowing that a pork chop came from a pig that 
was born in Canada could possibly improve food safety, and I really 
can't imagine it when we already require that all meat imports be 
inspected by at least the same standards that the USDA uses to inspect 
meat here at home, but I can tell you that it takes no imagination to 
foresee how this will impact our economy. Our trade partners will 
retaliate against us by taxing our exports.
  Retaliatory tariffs are expected on $493 million worth of Georgia 
exports alone. Nationally, tariffs will impact billions of dollars 
worth of exports. Chicken exports from my district will be taxed the 
moment they leave the country, and with 20 percent of chicken produced 
in the United States being exported, the impact will be overwhelming.
  So what will happen if we fail to repeal these mandates? The hard-
working farmers in my district and in districts across the country will 
be unable to compete in the international market.
  We need to support this rule and the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, again, let me say that this COOL repeal I think is a 
rash overreaction to the WTO ruling, and I think that we owe it to the 
American people to try to figure out whether there is a middle ground 
here.
  And to answer my friend from Georgia, who was like: Well, why do 
people want to know? Well, maybe the American people want to support 
American farmers. Maybe they want to support the small- and medium-
sized farms that are doing such incredible work all across this 
country. I don't think that that is an outrageous idea. As I mentioned 
before, there is overwhelming support for this. Ninety percent of the 
American people support this country of origin labeling.
  Let me suggest to my colleagues, let's do something really radical. 
Let's actually give the American people something that they want.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), another member of the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2393, the 
Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, as well as the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we oftentimes hear the debate that the mandatory COOL 
label is about food safety and protecting our food supply. Let me be 
clear. Mandatory COOL labeling is not about food safety. No matter 
where our food comes from, regulations remain in place to ensure safety 
and traceability, regardless of origin. This debate is about the cost 
that a government-mandated marketing program is having on our economy.
  The World Trade Organization has ruled against the United States four 
times in favor of Mexico and Canada, our largest trading partners. Over 
the next month, Canada and Mexico will begin seeking retaliatory 
damages against U.S. products from all over the country. In fact, 
Canada has already announced that it will seek more than $3 billion in 
retaliatory sanctions. These damages are real. They will affect 
farmers, manufacturers, and small-business owners in my State of 
Michigan and around the country.
  Michigan's First District produces 70 percent of the tart cherries in 
the country. We export a lot of these cherries to Canada. Canada has 
placed cherries on the list for retaliatory sanctions.
  We also produce other things in my district, like apples, pork, wine, 
maple syrup. Michigan is also famous for its auto and steel industry. 
Canada plans to target all of these things. These penalties are real. 
They will cost jobs, which is the last thing we can afford to lose 
right now.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), another fine member of the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and the 
gentleman from California for their leadership in bringing this 
legislation to the House floor. I will make my remarks short and 
simple.
  Country of origin labeling, or COOL, has been a 13-year failed 
experiment in public policy. It provides little to no value for the 
consumer, raises costs for all producers, and has created a significant 
trade dispute with our number one and number two trading partners, 
Canada and Mexico.
  It is an embarrassment to our country that we have lost four times in 
the WTO court and now are facing significant retaliation from our two 
closest trading partners. This is particularly concerning when you 
consider that my home State of Missouri alone could face up to $623 
million in economic losses from retaliation.
  America should be a leader in creating free and fair trade around the 
world by focusing on removing tariff and nontariff trade barriers, not 
creating our own.
  Americans expect labels on their meat and other food products to 
clearly state the health and safety information. COOL goes beyond that, 
though, and has amounted to nothing more than a government-mandated 
marketing program that provides little to no value to producers and 
consumers. The only solution to this failed experiment in public policy 
is full repeal of the country of origin labeling law.
  I support the underlying bill and encourage my colleagues to vote for 
H.R. 2393.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri that a lot of small- and medium-sized farmers strongly 
disagree with her. There are a lot of consumers who would like to 
support American farmers. Nine out of 10 Americans support country of 
origin labeling. Repealing this law would restrict their access to 
critical information about the food they feed their families, making it 
impossible to avoid food from countries with poor safety records.

                              {time}  1330

  The WTO has repeatedly ruled that using country of origin labels to 
inform consumers about the source of the food that they eat is a 
legitimate goal. More than 60 other countries have done this 
successfully without sanctions. So instead of throwing out COOL 
entirely, we should study the successful models and develop an 
alternative system that still maintains our constituents' access to the 
information that they demand.
  The legislation that we are talking about here today goes beyond the 
scope of the WTO case and repeals labeling requirements for ground 
beef, ground pork, and chicken, ultimately putting the interests of 
industrial meat processors above the concerns of 90 percent of the 
American public.
  Again, it shouldn't be a radical idea around here to try to do what 
the American people want. They want to know where their food is grown, 
where their food is produced. Let's give it to them. Let's try to work 
a compromise out here rather than just this knee-jerk bill that kind of 
throws the baby out with the bathwater.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H4026]]

  Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the COOL repeal, I include for the 
Record a letter to Chairman Conaway and to Ranking Member Peterson 
signed by hundreds of organizations--farm organizations, consumer 
groups, labor groups, food safety groups, and I could go on and on and 
on--basically saying that this legislation that we are considering here 
today is a bad idea.

                                                     June 8, 2015.
     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, 1301 Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Collin Peterson,
     Ranking Member, House Agriculture Committee, 1301 Longworth 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson: The 
     undersigned 283 farm, rural, faith, environmental, labor, 
     farmworker, manufacturer and consumer organizations 
     respectfully urge you to reject the repeal of the Country-of-
     Origin Labeling (COOL) law and support commonsense food 
     labeling. Polls show that nine out of ten Americans support 
     COOL. Consumers continue to demand more information about 
     their food and producers want to share that information.
       Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body 
     has issued its decision on COOL, the United States has a 
     sovereign right to allow the dispute process to proceed to 
     its completion and then decide how and whether to implement 
     the adverse ruling. Our organizations remain steadfast in 
     their opposition to any efforts to undermine COOL through 
     repeal or any other measures.
       It is premature for the Congress to unilaterally surrender 
     to saber-rattling from our trading partners in the midst of a 
     long-standing dispute. COOL opponents have highlighted Mexico 
     and Canada's threats of retaliation as if their aspiration to 
     seek billions of dollars in penalties were already approved 
     by the WTO. But these unapproved, unrealistically high 
     retaliation claims are merely aggressive litigation tactics 
     designed to frighten the United States--a standard practice 
     in WTO disputes. Congress should not fall for it.
       The WTO can only authorize penalties based on the extent to 
     which COOL caused a reduction in the volume and price of 
     livestock imports. But the economic recession was the driving 
     factor behind declining livestock imports, not the 
     application of a simple label.
       Cattle imports are higher today than when COOL went into 
     effect and hog imports are rapidly rebounding, even with COOL 
     in place. This straightforward logic is buttressed by a 
     recent economic report from Auburn University that 
     demonstrates that COOL has not impacted the livestock trade 
     and that any harm to our trading partners has in fact been 
     negligible at most.
       Moreover, retaliation is only relevant if the United 
     States, Canada and Mexico cannot reach an agreement after the 
     parties have undergone the full WTO arbitration process. In 
     past WTO disputes that the United States has lost, the United 
     States has waited for the process to conclude and then has 
     successfully avoided WTO-authorized trade sanctions by 
     negotiating a settlement with the other country in the 
     dispute.
       Finally, the proposed COOL repeal legislation is 
     particularly extreme in that it would roll back commonsense 
     labels that the WTO actually supported or that never even 
     were raised in the WTO dispute. The legislation would repeal 
     COOL for ground beef and ground pork as well as for chicken, 
     but the WTO explicitly ruled that the COOL label on ground 
     meat was WTO-legal, and the dispute never addressed chicken 
     or other covered commodities (including seafood, fresh and 
     frozen fruits and vegetables, goat, venison and some nuts).
       COOL is extremely important to our organizations and to the 
     American public. We oppose any legislation that would repeal 
     any portion of the COOL law. We urge Congress to stand up for 
     America's consumers, farmers and ranchers by rejecting any 
     effort to unilaterally repeal a popular food label even 
     before the WTO process has concluded. Thank you for your 
     consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
         AFL-CIO; AFL-CIO of Nebraska; Alabama Contract Poultry 
           Growers Association; Alabama State Association of 
           Cooperatives; Alaska Farmers Union; Alianza Nacional de 
           Campesinas; Alternative Energy Resources Organization 
           (AERO) (MT); American Agriculture Movement; American 
           Corn Growers Institute for Public Policy; American 
           Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO), Local 
           3354, USDA-St. Louis; American Federation of State, 
           County and Municipal Employees Local 2748 (WI); 
           American Grassfed Association; American Indian Mothers, 
           Inc. (NC); American Raw Milk Producers Pricing 
           Association; Angelic Organics Learning Center and Farm 
           (IL); Arkansas Farmers Union; Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake 
           County (OH) Farmers' Union; Berks (PA) Gas Truth; 
           Berkshire Organics (MA); BioRegional Strategies;
         Bold Nebraska; Boots on the Ground, LLC; Boston Food & 
           Farm PBC (MA); Buckeye Quality Beef Association (OH); 
           Buffalo Mountain Coop (VT); California Dairy Campaign; 
           California Farmers Union; Campaign for Contract 
           Agriculture Reform; Campaign for Family Farms and the 
           Environment; Caney Fork Headwaters Association (TN); 
           Carbon County Resource Council (MT); Carolina Farm 
           Stewardship Association (NC); Catholic Charities of 
           Central and Northern Missouri-Social Services Office/
           Diocese of Jefferson City; National Catholic Rural Life 
           Conference; Cattle Producers of Louisiana; Cattle 
           Producers of Washington; Center for Earth Spirituality 
           and Rural Ministry (MN); Center for Family Farm 
           Development (GA); Center for Food Safety; Center for 
           Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention;
         Center for Media and Democracy's Food Rights Network; 
           Center for Rural Affairs; Central Co-op (WA); Chicago 
           Consumer Coalition; Church Women United in New York 
           State; Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana; Citizens 
           for Sanity.Com, Inc. (FL); City Market Onion River Co-
           op (VT); Cleanwater Action Council of Northeast 
           Wisconsin; Coalition for a Prosperous America; Colorado 
           Independent CattleGrowers Association; Communication 
           Workers of America; Communication Workers of America 
           Nebraska State Council; Community Alliance for Global 
           Justice (WA); Community Farm Alliance (KY); Community 
           Food and Justice Coalition (CA); Connecticut Families 
           Against Chemical Trespass; Consumer Action; Consumer 
           Assistance Council, Inc.; Consumer Federation of 
           America; Consumer Federation of California;
         Consumers Union; Contract Poultry Growers Association of 
           the Virginias; Cooperative Grocer Network; The 
           Cornucopia Institute; Cornucopia Network NJ/TN Chapter; 
           Cottonwood Resource Council (MT); Crawford Stewardship 
           Project (WI); Cumberland Countians for Ecojustice (TN); 
           Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action of SD; 
           Dawson Resource Council (MT); Detroit Coalition Against 
           Tar Sands; East New York Farms!/United Community 
           Centers; EcoHermanas; Ecological Farming Association 
           (CA); The Ecology Center (CA); The Ecology Party of 
           Florida; Endangered Habitats League (CA); Equal 
           Exchange; Fair World Project (OR);
         Family Farm Defenders (WI); Farm Aid; Farm and Ranch 
           Freedom Alliance; Farmworker Association of Florida; 
           Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance 
           Fund; Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Rural 
           Training and Research Center (AL); Fiddleheads Natural 
           Food Cooperative (CT); Florida Alliance for Consumer 
           Protection; Food & Water Watch; Food Chain Workers 
           Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Food for Maine's Future; 
           Friends of the Earth U.S.; Global Justice Ecology 
           Project; GMO Free New Jersey; GMO Free Pennsylvania; 
           GMO-Free Florida; Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition 
           (ND); Grassroots International; Grow Youngstown (OH);
         Hanover Consumer Cooperative Society, Inc. (NH); Hawaii 
           Farmers Union United; Hmong National Development, Inc.; 
           Hunger Action Los Angeles; Idaho Organization of 
           Resource Councils; Illinois Farmers Union; Illinois 
           Stewardship Alliance; Independent Beef Association of 
           North Dakota (I-BAND); Independent Cattlemen of 
           Nebraska; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; Independent 
           Cattlemen's Association of Texas; Indian Nations 
           Conservation Alliance; Indiana Farmers Union; Institute 
           for Agriculture and Trade Policy; Institute for Rural 
           America (IA); Interchurch Ministries of Nebraska; 
           International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Intertribal 
           Agriculture Council; Iowa Citizens for Community 
           Improvement; Iowa Farmers Union; Johns Hopkins Center 
           for a Livable Future (MD);
         Kansas Cattlemen's Association; Kansas Farmers Union; 
           Kansas National Farmers Organization; Kansas Rural 
           Center; LabeIGMOS.org; Land Stewardship Project (MN); 
           Leverett Village Coop (MA); Local Futures/International 
           Society for Ecology and Culture; Long Beach Food Policy 
           Council (CA); Lowcountry Local First (SC); MA Right to 
           Know GMOs; Maine Fair Trade Campaign; Maine Organic 
           Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA); The 
           Manufacturers Association of Central New York; 
           Massachusetts Consumers' Council, Inc.; Michael Fields 
           Agricultural Institute (WI); Michigan Farmers Union; 
           Michigan Food & Farming Systems; Michigan Organic Food 
           and Farm Alliance; Middlebury Natural Foods Co-op (VT);
         Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Association; Midwest 
           Environmental Advocates, Inc. (WI); Milwaukee Fair 
           Trade Coalition (WI); Minnesota Farmers Union; 
           Minnesota National Farmers Organization; Mississippi 
           Assoc. of Cooperatives; Missouri Farmers Union; 
           Missouri National Farmers Organization; Missouri Rural 
           Crisis Center; Missouri's Best Beef Cooperative; 
           Monadnock Food Co-op (NH); Montana Farmers Union; 
           Montana Women Involved in Farm Economics; Montgomery 
           Countryside Alliance; Murray County (OK) Independent 
           Cattlemen's Association;

[[Page H4027]]

           National Center for Appropriate Technology; National 
           Co-op Grocers; National Consumers League; National 
           Family Farm Coalition; National Farmers Organization;
         National Farmers Union; National Hmong American Farmers, 
           Inc.; National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade 
           Association; National Organic Coalition; National 
           Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; National Young 
           Farmers Coalition; Nature Abounds; Near East Side 
           Cooperative Market (OH); Nebraska Alliance for Retired 
           Americans; Nebraska Easement Action Team; Nebraska 
           Farmers Union; Nebraska League of Conservation Voters; 
           Nebraska Sierra Club; Nebraska State Grange; Nebraska 
           Sustainable Agriculture Society; Nebraska Wildlife 
           Federation; Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics; 
           Nebraskans for Peace; Neighboring Food Co-op 
           Association (MA); Network for Environmental & Economic 
           Responsibility of United Church of Christ;
         Nevada Live Stock Association; New England Farmers Union 
           (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT); New York National Farmers 
           Organization; New York Women Involved in Farm 
           Economics; NH Right to Know GMO; North Carolina 
           Consumers Council; North Dakota AFL-CIO; North Dakota 
           Farmers Union; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers 
           Alliance; Northeast Organic Farming Assoc.--MA; 
           Northeast Organic Farming Assoc.--NH; Northeast Organic 
           Fanning Assoc.--NJ; Northeast Organic Farming Assoc.--
           NY; Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association; 
           Northern Plains Resource Council (MT); Northern 
           Wisconsin Beef Producers Assoc.; Northwest Atlantic 
           Marine Alliance (MA); Northwest Farmers Union; Oglala 
           Sioux Livestock and Land Owners Association (SD); Ohio 
           Ecological Food and Farm Association;
         Ohio Environmental Council; Ohio Environmental 
           Stewardship Alliance; Ohio Farmers Union; Oklahoma 
           Black Historical Research Project; Operation Spring 
           Plant, Inc. (NC); Oregon Rural Action; Oregon Rural 
           Action Blue Mountain Chapter Food & Ag Policy Team; 
           Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families; Organic 
           Consumers Association; Organic Farmers' Agency for 
           Relationship Marketing (OFARM); Organic Seed Alliance; 
           Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association (OSGATA); 
           Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas, Inc.; 
           Organization for Competitive Markets; PCC Natural 
           Markets (WA); Peach Bottom Concerned Citizens Group 
           (PBCCG) (PA); Pennsylvania Farmers Union; Pennypack 
           Farm and Education Center (PA); Pesticide Action 
           Network North America;
         Powder River Basin Resource Council (WY); Progressive 
           Agriculture Organization (PA); Provender Alliance (OR); 
           Public Citizen; R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America; 
           Raritan Headwaters Association (NJ); Real Food 
           Challenge (MA); Real Food for Kids--Montgomery (MD); 
           Real Pickles Cooperative, Inc. (MA); Right to Know 
           Minnesota; River Valley Market (MA); Rocky Mountain 
           Farmers Union; Roots of Change (CA); Rosebud Protective 
           Association (MT); Rural & Agricultural Council of 
           America; Rural Advancement Foundation International--
           USA (RAFIUSA); Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural; Rural 
           Development Leadership Network (NY); Rural Vermont;
         Rutland Area Food Co-op (VT); Sacramento Natural Foods 
           Co-op (CA); Seacoast Eat Local (NH); Slow Food 
           Nebraska; Slow Food USA; Small Planet Institute; 
           Socially Responsible Agricultural Project; Society of 
           Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE 
           Local 2001 (WA, KS); South Agassiz Resource Council 
           (ND); The South County Food Co-op (RI); South Dakota 
           Farmers Union; South Dakota Livestock Auction Markets 
           Association; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; 
           South Dakota Women Involved in Farm Economics; 
           Southwest Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics; 
           Springfield Food Co-op (VT); Stone Valley Coop & Cafe 
           (VT); Texas Farmers Union; Tilth Producers of 
           Washington;
         Tooling, Manufacturing and Technologies Assoc. (MI); 
           Toxics Information Project; U.S. Cattlemen's 
           Association; U.S. Public Interest Research Group 
           (USPIRG); United Church of Christ Justice and Witness 
           Ministries; United Steel Workers Local 1188 (ME); 
           United Steel Workers Local 900 (ME); Vermont National 
           Farmers Organization; Virginia Association for 
           Biological Farming; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; 
           Walter's Signs (NJ); Waterkeeper Alliance; Western 
           Colorado Congress; Western Organization of Resource 
           Councils (WORC); Western Sustainable Agriculture 
           Working Group; Western Wisconsin AFL-CIO; Wild Oats 
           Market (MA); Willimantic Food Coop (CT); Wisconsin Fair 
           Trade Coalition; Wisconsin Farmers Union; Women 
           Involved in Farm Economics; Women's Environmental 
           Institute; World Farmers; Yellowstone Valley Citizens 
           Council (MT).

  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I would just say to my colleagues on this 
legislation, the American people do not want a total repeal. Nine out 
of ten Americans support country of origin labeling. We ought to work 
out a good compromise so the American people can get what they want and 
have access to the knowledge about their food that they want. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule with regard to this and ``no'' on 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words about the Defense 
Appropriations bill. And for the viewing public who are watching this 
and who are trying to figure out what does country of origin labeling 
have to do with a Defense Appropriations bill, I would again remind 
them that the Republican leadership and the Republicans on the Rules 
Committee have this new technique of bunching diverse pieces of 
legislation together under one rule to stifle debate and to make it 
more difficult for people to have their say on these important bills 
and to try to confuse things.
  But I do think that it is important that people understand that the 
Defense Appropriations bill is given a role under this rule, and I 
would urge my colleagues to think long and hard before they vote. I 
would urge them to vote ``no'' on the Defense Appropriations bill for a 
whole number of reasons, notwithstanding the slush fund, the so-called 
OCO account, that is playing fast and loose with the numbers so that my 
Republican colleagues don't have to deal with the issue of 
sequestration. But I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this, because this bill will appropriate billions of more dollars for a 
war in the Middle East that Congress hasn't had the guts to debate and 
vote on.
  It has been 10 months--10 months--thousands of our troops have been 
deployed into harm's way. The President announced last night we are 
establishing a new base in Iraq. Close to 500 more American troops are 
going to be deployed in Iraq, and not a single debate in this Congress, 
not a single vote on whether this is the best strategy.
  The President has submitted his AUMF. I think it is too broad; some 
people think it is too restrictive. But it is up to the Congress to 
fashion an AUMF that gets 218 votes or to vote to bring our troops 
home. That is the choice. But doing nothing is not a choice. That is an 
abrogation of our constitutional responsibilities.
  Every single Member should be ashamed of the fact that 10 months into 
this war we haven't done a thing. How do you explain that to your 
constituents whose sons and daughters have been placed into harm's way? 
How do you explain that to your constituents that we are mostly 
borrowing $3.5 million an hour to pay for these wars, but we don't have 
the time to debate it or to vote on it?
  Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record two articles. The first 
one is an Associated Press article, entitled, ``U.S. to Send More 
Troops to Iraq for Expanded Training Mission''; and the other is a New 
York Times article, entitled, ``U.S. Embracing a New Approach on 
Battling ISIS in Iraq.''

               [From the Associated Press, Jun. 10, 2015]

     U.S. To Send More Troops to Iraq for Expanded Training Mission

                 (By Robert Burns and Lolita C. Baldor)

       Jerusalem.--An expected White House decision to send 
     several hundred more troops to Iraq to expand training of 
     Iraqi forces in Anbar province is not a shift in U.S. 
     strategy but is aimed at helping Iraq retake the provincial 
     capital, Ramadi, and eventually blunt the Islamic State's 
     battlefield momentum.
       The decision, which could be announced as soon as 
     Wednesday, would increase the number of U.S. training sites 
     in Iraq from four to five and enable a larger number of 
     Iraqis--mostly Sunni tribal volunteers, in this case--to join 
     the fight against the Islamic militant group. It is 
     consistent with the overall U.S. approach of building up 
     Iraqi forces while simultaneously conducting aerial bombing 
     of Islamic State targets.
       U.S. officials have said repeatedly that getting the Sunnis 
     more deeply involved in the war is critical to ousting IS 
     from Anbar.
       It leaves open, however, the larger question of whether the 
     Shiite-led Iraqi government will make the troop commitments 
     necessary to oust the Islamic State from Ramadi, which the 
     militants captured last month, and Fallujah, which they have 
     held for more than a year. Up to now, Iraqi officials have 
     chosen to deploy most U.S.-trained Iraqi troops in defensive 
     formations around Baghdad, the capital.
       President Barack Obama has ruled out sending U.S. ground 
     combat forces to Iraq.

[[Page H4028]]

     There now are slightly fewer than 3,100 U.S. troops there in 
     training, advising, security and other support roles. The 
     U.S. also is flying bombing missions as well as aerial 
     reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering missions to degrade 
     the Islamic State's forces, while counting on Iraqi ground 
     troops to retake lost territory.
       A U.S. official said Wednesday that the extra U.S. training 
     site will be at al-Taqqadum, a desert air base that was a 
     U.S. military hub during the 2003-2011 war. Establishing the 
     training camp will require between 400 and 500 U.S. troops, 
     including trainers, logisticians and security personnel, the 
     official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because a 
     final administration decision had not been announced.
       The U.S. already is training Iraqi troops at four sites--
     two in the vicinity of Baghdad, one at al-Asad air base in 
     Anbar province and one near Irbil in northern Iraq.
       The addition of one training site is a modest tweak to the 
     existing U.S. approach in Iraq. It was unclear Wednesday how 
     many more Iraqi troops could be added to the fight against IS 
     in coming months by opening one new training base. One 
     official said the training at al-Taqqadum is likely to being 
     this summer.
       Over the past year the U.S. has trained approximately 9,000 
     Iraqi troops.
       The new plan is not likely to include the deployment of 
     U.S. forces closer to the front lines to either call in 
     airstrikes or advise smaller Iraqi units in battle, officials 
     said. One official, however, said the adjustment may include 
     a plan for expediting the delivery of arms and military 
     equipment to some elements of the Iraqi military.
       On Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, said in Jerusalem that he has recommended 
     changes to President Barack Obama but he offered no 
     assessment of when decisions would be made and announced. He 
     suggested the president was considering a number of 
     questions, including what adjustments to U.S. military 
     activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world might be 
     needed if the U.S. does more in Iraq.
       Dempsey said the Pentagon also is reviewing ways to improve 
     the effectiveness of its air campaign, which is a central 
     pillar of Obama's strategy for enabling Iraqi ground forces 
     to recapture territory held by the Islamic State.
       Obama said Monday that the United States still lacks a 
     ``complete strategy'' for training Iraqi forces. He also 
     urged Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to allow more of the 
     nation's Sunnis to join the campaign against the violent 
     militant group.
       Dempsey said Obama recently asked his national security 
     team to examine the train-and-equip program and determine 
     ways to make it more effective. Critics have questioned the 
     U.S. approach, and even Defense Secretary Ash Carter has 
     raised doubts by saying the collapse of Iraqi forces in 
     Ramadi last month suggested the Iraqis lack a ``will to 
     fight.''
       The viability of the U.S. strategy is hotly debated in 
     Washington, with some calling for U.S. ground combat troops 
     or at least the embedding of U.S. air controllers with Iraqi 
     ground forces to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of 
     U.S. and coalition airstrikes. Dempsey was not specifically 
     asked about that but gave no indication that Obama has 
     dropped his resistance to putting U.S. troops into combat in 
     Iraq.
       ``What he's asked us to do is to take a look back at what 
     we've learned over the last eight months of the train-and-
     equip program, and make recommendations to him on whether 
     there are capabilities that we may want to provide to the 
     Iraqis to actually make them more capable . . . whether there 
     are other locations where we might establish training 
     sites,'' and look for ways to develop Iraqi military leaders, 
     he said.
       Dempsey said there will be no radical change to the U.S. 
     approach in Iraq. Rather, it is a recognition that the effort 
     has either been too slow or has allowed setbacks where 
     ``certain units have not stood and fought.'' He did not 
     mention the Ramadi rout specifically, but Dempsey previously 
     has said the Iraqis drove out of the city on their own.
       ``Are there ways to give them more confidence?'' This, he 
     said, is among the questions Obama wanted Dempsey and others 
     to answer.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 10, 2015]

         U.S. Embracing a New Approach on Battling ISIS in Iraq

                         (By Michael R. Gordon)

       Washington.--In a major shift of focus in the battle 
     against the Islamic State, the Obama administration is 
     planning to establish a new military base in Anbar Province, 
     Iraq, and to send up to 450 more American military trainers 
     to help Iraqi forces retake the city of Ramadi.
       The White House on Wednesday is expected to announce a plan 
     that follows months of behind-the-scenes debate about how 
     prominently plans to retake Mosul, another Iraqi city that 
     fell to the Islamic State last year, should figure in the 
     early phase of the military campaign against the group.
       The fall of Ramadi last month effectively settled the 
     administration debate, at least for the time being. American 
     officials said Ramadi was now expected to become the focus of 
     a lengthy campaign to regain Mosul at a later stage, possibly 
     not until 2016.
       The additional American troops will arrive as early as this 
     summer, a United States official said, and will focus on 
     training Sunni fighters with the Iraqi Army. The official 
     called the coming announcement ``an adjustment to try to get 
     the right training to the right folks.''
       The troops will set up the training center primarily to 
     advise and assist Iraqi security forces and to engage and 
     reach out to Sunni tribes in Anbar, a senior United States 
     official said. The focus for the Americans will be to try to 
     accelerate the integration of Sunni fighters into the Iraqi 
     Army, which is dominated by Shiites. That will be an uphill 
     task as many of the Sunni fighters in the area do not trust 
     the Iraqi Army.
       But the Obama administration hopes is that the outreach 
     will reduce the Iraqi military's reliance on Shiite militias 
     to take back territory from the Islamic State. ``The Sunnis 
     want to be part of the fight,'' the official said, speaking 
     on the condition of anonymity. ``This will help empower them, 
     creating more recruits and more units to fight ISIL,'' he 
     added, using another acronym for the Islamic State.
       He said the arms and equipment sent will go to the Iraqi 
     government forces in Anbar, not directly to the Sunni tribes, 
     adding that the new strategy was not a change in policy to 
     directly arm Sunnis, but rather a faster way to get equipment 
     and arms to the battlefield, which the Iraqi government had 
     requested.
       The United States Central Command's emphasis on retaking 
     Mosul depended critically on efforts to retrain the Iraqi 
     Army, which appear to have gotten off to a slow start. Some 
     Iraqi officials also thought the schedule for taking Mosul 
     was unrealistic, and some bridled when an official from the 
     Central Command told reporters in February that an assault to 
     capture the city was planned for this spring.
       Now, pending approval by the White House, plans are being 
     made to use Al Taqqadum, an Iraqi base near the town of 
     Habbaniya, as another training hub for the American-led 
     coalition.
       Alistair Baskey, a National Security Council spokesman, 
     said that the administration hoped to accelerate the training 
     and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and that ``those 
     options include sending additional trainers.'' The United 
     States now has about 3,000 troops, including trainers and 
     advisers, in Iraq. But the steps envisioned by the White 
     House are likely to be called half-measures by critics 
     because they do not call for an expansion of the role of 
     American troops, such as the use of spotters to call in 
     airstrikes.
       There has long been debate within the administration about 
     what the first steps in the campaign should be. Led by Gen. 
     Lloyd J. Austin III, the Central Command has long emphasized 
     the need to strike a blow against the Islamic State by 
     recapturing Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, which was 
     taken by the group in June 2014. Mosul is the capital of 
     Nineveh Province in northern Iraq and was the site of a 
     sermon that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic 
     State, defiantly delivered in July. The Baiji refinery, a 
     major oil complex, is on a main road to Mosul.
       While General Austin was looking north, State Department 
     officials have highlighted the strategic importance of Anbar 
     Province in western Iraq.
       Anbar is home to many of Iraq's Sunni tribes, whose support 
     American officials hope to enlist in the struggle against the 
     Islamic State. Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar, is 
     less than 70 miles from Baghdad, and the province borders 
     Saudi Arabia and Jordan, two important members of the 
     coalition against the Islamic State. The differing 
     perspectives within the administration came to the fore in 
     April when Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, asserted that Ramadi was not central to the 
     future of Iraq. The Islamic State's capture of Ramadi last 
     month also punctured the administration's description that 
     the group was on the defensive.
       Iraqis are ISIS, are Sunni, are Shia. But we'll train 
     whomever shows up and give them weapons and air support. At 
     what point does U.S . . . .
       Suddenly, it appeared that the Islamic State, not the 
     American-led coalition, was on the march. Prime Minister 
     Haider al-Abadi of Iraq scrambled to assemble a plan to 
     regain the city.
       The Islamic State now controls two provincial capitals, as 
     well as the city of Falluja. With the help of American air 
     power, the Iraqis have retaken Tikrit, northwest of Baghdad, 
     but so many buildings there are still rigged with explosives 
     that many of its residents have been unable to return.
       To assemble a force to retake Ramadi, the number of Iraqi 
     tribal fighters in Anbar who are trained and equipped is 
     expected to increase to as many as 10,000 from about 5,500.
       More than 3,000 new Iraqi soldiers are to be recruited to 
     fill the ranks of the Seventh Iraqi Army division in Anbar 
     and the Eighth Iraqi Army division, which is in Habbaniya, 
     where the Iraqi military operations center for the province 
     is also based.
       But to the frustration of critics like Senator John McCain, 
     Republican of Arizona, who say that the United States is 
     losing the initiative to the Islamic State, the Obama 
     administration has yet to approve the use of American 
     spotters on the battlefield to call in airstrikes in and 
     around Ramadi. Nor has it approved the use of Apache 
     helicopter gunships to help Iraqi troops retake the city.
       General Dempsey alluded to the plan to expand the military 
     footprint in Iraq during a visit to Israel on Tuesday, saying 
     that he

[[Page H4029]]

     had asked war commanders to look into expanding the number of 
     training sites for Iraqi forces. The United States is not the 
     only country that is expanding its effort.
       Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, said this week 
     that his country would send up to 125 additional troops to 
     train Iraqi forces, including in how to clear improvised 
     bombs.
       Italy is also expected to play an important role in 
     training the Iraqi police.
       Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this House, this Congress, is not working. 
The fact that we can be in the middle of a new war, spending all these 
resources, committing all these young lives into harm's way, and we 
can't even bring an AUMF to the floor to have a debate, it is 
appalling. I don't know how we can face our constituents, look them in 
the eye, and say we are doing our job here. We are not. I don't know 
anything more important that we should debate and deliberate on than 
war. I mean, war is a big deal. The unfortunate thing in this 
institution, war has become too easy. I am tired of the excuses, and I 
am tired of the whining. The President has done what he is supposed to 
do. Everybody has done what they are supposed to do except us. I am not 
going to vote for any bill that appropriates more money for a war that 
we don't even have the guts to authorize.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
grab bag rule, vote ``no'' on this ridiculous COOL repeal, and vote 
``no'' on the defense appropriations bill. Let's vote these down and 
come back and do our job the way the American people expect us to do 
our job.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
let me say thank you to the gentleman from Massachusetts and the points 
he raises. I enjoy serving on the Rules Committee with Mr. McGovern.
  Let me just say, this Congress, we are on track to be one of the most 
productive Congresses in many, many years, and part of the reason is 
the use of the compound rule, which provides for separate consideration 
of each underlying measure under a single rule. It helps expedite 
legislative business. Consideration of one rule allows the House more 
time to debate the underlying measures. It has given us the opportunity 
to achieve that efficiency and that effectiveness and productivity.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield for a 10-second question?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts for a 10-
second question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. How does this rule give us more time to debate the COOL 
repeal? It is a pretty straightforward, limited debate that we are 
given. I would argue that what you are doing is denying us the right to 
debate appropriately these important issues. We are not saving time. 
What the Republican majority is doing is limiting our opportunity.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time after that 10-second question, the 
Agriculture Committee has had ample time for debate on that question. 
We are bringing forward what is a very critical decision that has to be 
made in a very limited timeframe, and so it is an appropriate approach 
to addressing this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the issues we are considering today have serious 
consequences for the security and economic well-being of our country, 
which is why I am urging my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bills.
  H.R. 2685 is an important measure that funds our Nation's national 
defense and its critical national security programs. It provides the 
resources needed to continue our essential military efforts abroad and 
addresses the vital needs of our men and women in uniform.
  An effective, well-equipped, well-trained military is in the best 
interest of all Americans and is indispensable to the common defense of 
our country. This bill includes vital funding for the U.S. military and 
intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to these 
challenges abroad. This bill also makes difficult budgetary choices 
that will help us save taxpayer dollars wherever possible, but it does 
so without undermining the safety, the security, and the success of our 
troops and their families.
  With the rise of ISIS, the continued presence of al Qaeda, the 
emergence and growth of terrorist groups in North Africa, near systemic 
instability across the Middle East, and the ongoing situation in 
Ukraine, our military must remain strong and ready to address evolving 
threats both at home and abroad.
  Our highest national priority should always be the protection of our 
country, and the funding levels in this bill will ensure our military 
remains the most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force 
anywhere in the world. To me the choice is clear. What side are we on? 
We choose to be on the side of our troops, and I am proud to support 
this bill and the important funding it provides our Nation's military, 
security, and our courageous men and women in uniform.
  This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2393, the 
Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act, a measure that warrants 
immediate and serious consideration by both Houses of Congress, because 
the ramifications of doing nothing will be severe and could imperil 
many sectors of our country, from ranchers and grape growers to 
manufacturers and exporters.
  With only 37 days left to respond, the threat of retaliation is very 
real. My friends on the other side of the aisle may argue that we have 
more time to address this issue, but the reality is time is simply 
running out. For over 7 years, we have been trying to rectify this 
issue. WTO's latest verdict, handed down on May 18, is our fourth and 
final loss in the court proceedings. Now both Canada and Mexico have 
publicly stated they will retaliate against the United States, and the 
official request for retaliation is set to occur on June 17. This is 
not an idle threat. It is not saber rattling. Last week, Canada 
announced that it will seek $3 billion in retaliatory measures, and 
Mexico stated it will be seeking tariffs totaling $635 million.
  Even before retaliation, COOL has had a negative economic impact in 
many areas across the country. Tyson Foods has a plant in my district, 
and given the proximity to Canada, this plant in Pasco depends on 
Canadian cattle. However, under COOL, the plant cannot commingle U.S. 
and Canadian cattle. They have to be run in separate lines, and the 
plant has to use multiple labels depending on the origin of those 
cattle. COOL has increased the Pasco facility's operating costs due to 
the requirements and inefficiencies involved with the segregation of 
the cattle; and with less animals available across the Pacific 
Northwest, the plant is currently operating at less than 40 hours per 
week, leading to less money being put into the local economy from less 
compensation from employers.
  Mr. Speaker, COOL threatens the trade relationships we have with two 
of our biggest markets for the export of U.S. meat and agricultural 
products. If we don't repeal the requirements of COOL, we are in 
violation of our WTO obligations. As I said, we could face billions of 
dollars in retaliation that would hurt farmers and ranchers, small 
businesses, and, yes, American consumers. We need this legislation now 
in order to prevent those retaliatory actions and to bring the United 
States into compliance with our WTO obligations, which can only be done 
by repealing these provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the discussion we have had over the last 
hour. Although we may have some differences of opinion--we usually do--
I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that 
are important to the future of our country. I urge my colleagues to 
support House Resolution 303 and the underlying bills.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise against yet another closed 
rule on an issue that deserves weeks of open, transparent debate: 
trade.
  This House is debating whether or not to repeal a consumer protection 
measure that 9 in 10 Americans support--country of origin labeling on 
meat in our grocery stores. This essential provision could be reversed 
in one fell swoop all because the World Trade Organization has decided 
that those labels hurt Mexico and Canada, our so-called ``Trading 
Partners,'' who have threatened the United States with billions of 
dollars in sanctions if we don't capitulate.
  The WTO's ruling highlights yet another example of a trading system 
that benefits foreign competitors and global corporations at the 
expense of the American consumer.

[[Page H4030]]

  I hope my colleagues will remember this vote when the House turns its 
attention to fast track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade 
agreement.
  Advocates of fast track are selling the American people a flawed 
trade deal which has been negotiated in secret by multi-national 
corporations. This trade deal, which proponents will tell you will 
reinvigorate the middle class, create jobs, and strengthen the American 
economy, will do just the opposite. What's more, the president wants to 
circumvent congressional authority by stopping debate and using fast 
track to ram a bad deal through this chamber.
  Not only will fast track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership cause 
serious harm to the American worker, they threaten American 
sovereignty, and this repeal bill is a prime example of that.
  Not only does this silence the voice of the American people, it cuts 
out the People's House and would topple even more consumer protections.
  From changing fuel efficiency standards, limiting access to 
prescription drugs, weakening the Clean Air Act, and more, the TPP is 
not simply about trade, it puts every facet of our daily lives at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to reconsider their path forward and work for 
the American people, not against them.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 303 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 
295 and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 187, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               YEAS--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--187

     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Adams
     Flores

                              {time}  1411

  Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from yea to nay.
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________