[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4032-H4039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 303, I call up
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, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Agriculture, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as amended,
is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2393
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Country of Origin Labeling
Amendments Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
BEEF, PORK, AND CHICKEN.
(a) Definitions.--Section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (7);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6),
(8), and (9) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and
(7), respectively; and
(3) in paragraph (1)(A) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(i) muscle cuts of lamb and venison;'';
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(ii) ground lamb and ground venison;'';
(C) by striking clause (viii); and
(D) by redesignating clauses (ix), (x), and (xi) as clauses
(viii), (ix), and (x), respectively.
(b) Notice of Country of Origin.--Section 282 of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638a) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``beef, lamb, pork,
chicken,'' and inserting ``lamb,'';
(B) by striking ``beef, lamb, pork, chicken,'' and
inserting ``lamb,'' each place it appears in subparagraphs
(A), (B), (C), and (D); and
(C) in subparagraph (E)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``Ground beef, pork, lamb,
chicken,'' and inserting ``Ground lamb,''; and
(ii) by striking ``ground beef, ground pork, ground lamb,
ground chicken,'' each place it appears and inserting
``ground lamb,''; and
(2) in subsection (f)(2)--
(A) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as
subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
[[Page H4033]]
General Leave
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 2393.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling
Amendments Act of 2015.
Mandatory country of origin labeling is really a marketing
program, a heavy-handed approach by this Federal Government
to demand a marketing program that may or may not work.
Those were my words before this very Chamber, spoken more than 10
years ago today. It turns out that my doubts were well founded. The
program has not worked, and it is time to put this failed experiment
behind us once and for all.
Country of origin labeling, or COOL for short, was first enacted for
meat products as a part of the 2002 farm bill. Implementation of the
law was actually 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 market.
The WTO process has since progressed through the dispute settlement
phase, a U.S. appeal to the WTO'S appellate body, review by a WTO
compliance panel, and an appeal by the U.S. of that decision. In all
four instances, Mr. Speaker, the United States lost.
In the fourth and final decision, released on May 18, the WTO
rejected the United States' argument and found that the U.S. COOL
requirements for beef and pork are unavoidably discriminatory. The
final rule kick-starts the process to determine the level of
retaliatory tariffs Canada and Mexico can now impose on the U.S., which
has widely been predicted to have effects in the billions of dollars.
During a hearing of 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 and its economy would be
devastating.
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 repeal, but
the fact is COOL has been a marketing failure. In an April 2015 report
to Congress, USDA explained that COOL requirements result in
extraordinary costs with no quantifiable benefits.
Although some consumers desire COOL information, there is no evidence
to conclude that this mandatory labeling translates into measurable
increases in consumer demand for beef, pork, or chicken.
In response to those who argue that COOL enhances food safety, as I
have maintained now for 10 years, that is simply not the case. If it
were, then all meat served at restaurants would come with information
regarding the meat's origin, but it doesn't. That is because retail
food establishments are exempt from COOL requirements.
Meat sold in the U.S. will continue to be inspected for safety by the
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. This bill does nothing to
change that and will simply repeal a heavy-handed, government-mandated
marketing program that has proven to be unsuccessful.
Here we are with a policy that imposes high costs, no benefits, and
if we keep it in place, our national economy will suffer significant
damage that can reach into the billions of dollars.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has been quoted numerous times
acknowledging that repeal of the COOL requirements is a viable option
for bringing the U.S. into compliance with its WTO obligations and
avoiding retaliatory measures.
In a recent letter to Congress, Secretary Vilsack reaffirmed the need
for Congress to repeal the disputed COOL requirements or develop a
generic North American label. However, Canada and Mexico have
previously rejected the North American label, rendering that option
unacceptable.
In other words, if we go down this path which Canada and Mexico have
already rejected, we will continue to face retaliation unless and until
we can demonstrate we are in compliance with our trade obligations.
Repeal is the only viable option before us to avoid this retaliation.
I urge all Members to support this simple, straightforward
legislation so that we can, in the best bipartisan tradition of this
House, avoid damage to our economy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this bill. H.R. 2393 is a premature reaction
to the WTO ruling against the U.S. country of origin labeling, or COOL,
law. Rather than taking the time to find a workable solution, the
committee passed a repeal just 2 days after the WTO issued a ruling. We
understand that this needs to be dealt with.
My problem with this whole process is that it just is not giving
people enough time to look at this and figure out what is a reasonable
solution. Most other countries have labeling. The American people want
to know where their ag products come from.
If we repealed this on meat, we wouldn't be able to know where meat
comes from, but we would be able to know where your carrots, lettuce,
and all these other things come from. They all have mandatory country
of origin labeling.
We understand that this needed to be worked on, and we understand
that we can't get into a situation with the retaliation, but this is a
rush to judgment that is not necessary because this retaliation process
is going to take a while.
We had the Step 2 cotton case. It went 2 or 3 years before it got
resolved; this is going to go faster, but the first thing that has to
happen is they have to figure out what the damage is. That is going to
take them a while, a month or two, and then they are going to have to
have an arbitration panel to get everybody to agree that that is
exactly what it is.
{time} 1445
So this Canadian claim that there are $3 billion in economic losses
due to COOL is ridiculous and is based on unsubstantiated and not
publicly available data. The U.S. studies, using USDA data, have found
little, if any, economic harm.
As I said, more than 60 other countries, including Canada, have their
own version of COOL. In fact, Canada has a host of protectionist
agriculture laws in place that damage the U.S. dairy, poultry, and egg
sectors.
The Canadian system puts U.S. products at a disadvantage every day.
And yet, the Canadians take issue when we try to give consumers
additional information on where their meat comes from, claiming it
disadvantages Canadian producers.
Additionally, consumers are demanding more and more information about
where their food comes from and how it is produced. The WTO has
repeatedly ruled that COOL is a legitimate goal.
Rather than abandon our efforts to provide consumers with this
information, we need to have the time so we will be able to find a
reasonable solution to work this out without WTO sanctions. I believe
it can be done, and it can be done in fairly short order.
So, as I said, my biggest problem is that this bill is premature. I
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the former chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway, for his leadership on yet another
important issue for agriculture this week in the Congress.
I rise in strong support of the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments
Act of 2015, which would repeal mandatory country of origin labeling
for meat and bring the United States back into international trade
compliance.
I have always had concerns about mandatory country of origin
labeling, and now the WTO's continued rulings against this practice, as
well as Canada's and Mexico's threats to seek $3
[[Page H4034]]
billion in retaliatory tariffs, make the hard and fast case for repeal.
For my home State of Virginia, it is estimated the potential economic
impact of retaliation from Mexico and Canada could add up to tariffs of
$331 million worth of exports on products like paper, aluminum, and
bread.
Mandatory COOL has failed and threatens our trade relationship with
two of our strongest partners. Our markets, producers, and consumers
cannot afford the cost of this failed policy. We will all benefit by
its repeal.
Mandatory COOL for meat has been debated for almost 15 years. Within
5 months of its 2009 implementation, Canada and Mexico challenged COOL
at the WTO, arguing that it had trade-distorting impact by reducing the
value of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market. The WTO ruled in
favor of Canada and Mexico four times.
Now that the U.S. has lost its final appeal, it is imperative that
the Congress act quickly to avoid billions of dollars in retaliation.
In the case of cattle, hogs, and chicken, it has proved to be a
failed experiment, imposing significant costs on producers, packers,
and consumers with no quantifiable benefit.
United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack has stated
the Department has no further options for administrative remedies. The
issue has to be fixed legislatively through Congress, and this way of
repeal is, by far, the best.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure to repeal
the country of origin labeling.
I want to thank the chairman for bringing this measure up. I also
want to thank the ranking member always for his efforts to be balanced
and to try to solve problems.
But I have been saying--and he and I disagree on this measure--for
years that this country of origin labeling has simply not worked. So I
am pleased that we are here today to debate the legislation that, in
fact, repeals the country of origin labeling for beef, pork, and
chicken products. Hopefully we can move on to figure out a solution to
this problem.
That said, let's be clear: I want to emphasize, this measure has
nothing to do with food safety. Let me repeat. It has nothing to do
with food safety. The inspection process by the United States
Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration remains
in place for all consumable products that the American public eats.
So what this has to do with is simply about how we market beef, pork,
or chicken across the country.
Going further, to ensure that we act on this measure, we do not want
to have to deal with a devastating blow to our economy through economic
retaliation.
Last month, as has been noted by my colleagues, the World Trade
Organization rejected the United States appeal. This was our last and
final appeal. And for many of us, we felt it was predictable.
We now face harsh trade retaliations from two of our largest export
markets, Canada and Mexico, against products that are produced in
America. This especially impacts California, the number one
agricultural State in the Nation. The Canadian Government has already
published its list of commodities that will be subject to tariff
increases and estimates the impact could reach in excess of $3 million,
with the direct effect in California being over $1 billion.
This is real. They prepared the list, and it could be implemented as
early as this fall.
For example, Canada imports 90 percent of its table wine from my home
State of California. If the tariff is increased to 100 percent, that
will mean customers in Canada will have to pay double for a bottle of
good California wine. If consumers in Canada see that price double, I
suspect they are going to buy their wine elsewhere.
This will be detrimental to U.S. trade, as an example, but to all
products that are produced in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COSTA. The bottom line is, we don't want to see any retaliatory
efforts made by Canada and Mexico, and I don't think they want to
impose them.
This bill is our only option right now to satisfy the WTO compliance.
In addition, as has been noted, the Secretary of Agriculture has stated
a legislative fix is required to resolve this problem.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure, and let's take
action. And the Senate will need to then act, and then we have a chance
to come together and fix this legislation.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the chairman of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Agriculture.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I also rise in support of
H.R. 2393, which, as has been mentioned, provides a long-overdue repeal
of the country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork, and
poultry products.
Over the years, this law has forced USDA to use limited resources to
implement and enforce a program that has nothing to do with food
safety, and there is little to no evidence that it has increased
consumer demand, according to a USDA-commissioned survey.
Serving as chairman of the House Appropriations Agriculture
Subcommittee, I am very aware of the economic harm that this burdensome
law has already caused U.S. livestock producers, and more economic harm
is on the horizon.
The World Trade Organization, the WTO Appellate Body, has ruled in
favor of Canada and Mexico and found the U.S. country of origin
labeling requirements are in violation of international trade
obligations.
Both the Governments of Canada and of Mexico have clearly expressed
their intent to seek authority from the WTO to retaliate. This could
end up suffering economic impact in this country of almost $4 billion.
The FY 2015 exploratory statement accompanying the omnibus
appropriation bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide a
report with his recommendation for establishing a trade-compliant
country of origin labeling program. In his response, repeal of this
provision was a clear solution.
I know that there are some here in the Chamber this afternoon that
will not agree with the answer, but there have been ample opportunities
to craft another labeling program that meets our trade
responsibilities.
This could have been addressed in the farm bill, or those individuals
wanting a labeling program could have been working on it since last
October, when the WTO ruled again that this law violated our trade
obligations.
We are out of time, and the repeal is the only option that we have at
hand. I urge my colleagues to support the bill that is before us today
in order to prevent harm to U.S. jobs, to prevent harm to the United
States economy, and to protect the trading relations with our Nation's
strongest partners.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time and for taking up this important issue and helping us to
better understand the importance of it.
In my opinion, we shouldn't even be here today debating a repeal of
this important consumer protection law. I don't know if this bill is a
huge overreaction to the WTO decision or it is just an excuse to gut
these commonsense country of origin labeling requirements.
For years, we have required labels on virtually everything imported
into the United States. Every piece of clothing you wear has to have a
label showing where it was made. Your smartphone has to have a label
showing where it was manufactured. Even umbrellas and tablecloths have
to list their country of origin.
But for some reason we are here considering a bill that would make it
impossible for parents to know whether the chicken they are serving
their family came from the United States or China. Think about that.
What consumer, what parent would tell you they don't care what country
the food came from that they are about to serve their children?
Let's just talk about the WTO ruling for a minute. First of all, the
World Trade Organization ruling said that the
[[Page H4035]]
labels for ground beef were acceptable but doesn't even consider any
complaints from Canada or Mexico about chicken. So why are we voting on
a repeal of the labeling requirement for those products?
Secondly, the WTO has not even ruled about the extent to which
country of origin labeling affects exports from Canada and Mexico. And
it can't be much, since Mexico exports more beef into the United States
than before this law went into effect.
We do not have to give in to the WTO this easily. These kinds of
disputes are frequently settled by negotiations with Canada and Mexico,
not by giving up and throwing out an entire set of consumer
protections.
We don't back down this easily, and we shouldn't back down this
easily.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. PINGREE. So maybe the powerful special interests behind this
repeal are really using this WTO ruling as an excuse to roll back basic
right-to-know for American consumers. I don't think we should let them
get away with it.
I doubt there is a single consumer in America who says, ``I want to
know less about the food I am eating.'' In fact, the opposite is true.
Now more than ever, Americans want to know where their food comes
from, and they want to buy local food when they can. Buying local has
created huge new markets for American farmers, great economic growth in
States like mine, like Maine.
If this bill passes, it will be harder to know if the pork chop or
hamburger you are buying came from around the corner or around the
world.
Country of origin labeling is good for consumers; it is good for our
farmers and ranchers. Please don't gut these commonsense requirements.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify. We do not import
chicken from China, period. And the economic impact estimated for the
State of Maine will be something on the order of $74 million every
single year in imports that won't happen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Rouzer), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Livestock and Foreign
Agriculture Subcommittee, I rise in support of this bill, the Country
of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, which repeals the country of
origin labeling law, also known as COOL.
After numerous failed attempts to make COOL compliant with the World
Trade Organization, it has become apparent that full repeal of COOL is
unquestionably the right thing to do.
That said, I am sure there are some who are concerned that repeal of
COOL may compromise food safety. America had the safest, most trusted
food supply in the world before COOL and, let me assure you, we will
continue to have the safest food supply after this law is repealed.
{time} 1500
Let me explain why. Regardless of origin, if an animal is imported as
a live animal, it is harvested in USDA-inspected facilities.
Additionally, cattle, hogs, and poultry are inspected prior to
harvesting as live animals and throughout processing as a meat product.
If the animal originates and is harvested in a different country, the
plant has to have equivalent U.S. safety inspection standards and must
be regularly audited by the USDA. The U.S. only imports meat products
from countries that meet our standards. Furthermore, a foreign plant
that does not fully comply with our standards is not permitted to ship
meat into this country.
In short, the fundamental protocols ensuring food safety are apart
and separate from country of origin labeling. Suppliers in foreign
countries will still be expected to comply with the same inspection
standards as they have now.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Conaway, subcommittee
Ranking Member Costa, and the committee staff for their tremendous help
and guidance on this important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I commend this legislation to my colleagues and
appreciate their support.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and the former co-chair of
the Congressional Chicken Caucus, I rise in support of H.R. 2393, the
Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.
More importantly, as a Congressman for a heavily rural district, with
lots of poultry and beef production in middle and southwest Georgia, I
rise to support ending this failed experiment and repealing this
harmful government mandate.
Since its passage in 2002, the country of origin labeling law has
caused severe tension between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Canada and Mexico argue that country of origin labeling has hurt their
livestock industries, and they have taken their argument to the World
Trade Organization, which has ruled in their favor and against the
United States four times. We are now out of appeals.
Because of the WTO rulings, Canada and Mexico can now request
authorization to retaliate against the United States in order to repair
the damages they claim our labeling law has caused to their economies.
Therefore, we must act decisively to repeal the current COOL
regulations on beef, pork, and chicken. If we fail to do so, Canada and
Mexico have made clear that they will retaliate against a range of U.S.
products within a matter of months by imposing onerous tariffs,
resulting in higher costs and lost market share for U.S. producers up
to $3.5 billion a year. A hit of that magnitude would be devastating to
the U.S. pork, beef, and chicken industries.
While some say we need to hold out for arbitration, I believe we need
to repeal this harmful law and correct the situation ourselves before
facing overwhelming retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico.
By the way, it should be noted that this bill will not entirely undo
the country of origin labeling law, only parts of it.
I urge support for H.R. 2393 because it will safely remove
unnecessary burdens on our beef, pork, and poultry industries; bring us
into compliance with our trade obligations; and ensure that we avoid
damaging retaliatory tariffs.
Please join me in supporting H.R. 2393.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), the ranking member on the
Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's make no mistake about it. I will just tell you
this retaliation situation is real from Canada and from Mexico.
The question is: Why should we here put our agriculture foundation at
such a tremendous risk? Canada and Mexico are right now moving to
institute retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports.
It is critical that Congress also take this corrective legislation
and act on it right away before the August recess--it is just that
important--so we can send a powerful, quick message because Canada has
already issued a preliminary retaliation list, targeting our
commodities and our manufactured products not just in one State, not
just in two States, but in every State in the United States of America,
totaling over $3.5 billion in the first year alone. My own State of
Georgia will have an impact of losing $180 million.
Mr. Speaker, let's deal with this right. This country of origin
labeling is not about food safety. Let's not scare the American people
into thinking that; we don't need to make the American people confused
or feel that we are doing something to make the food unsafe.
What we are doing is protecting our American economy. We are
protecting our agricultural interests. More than anything else, at a
time when America needs it the most, we are standing up for America for
a change. Protect our farmers. Protect our agricultural economy.
Protect our people.
Make sure we pass H.R. 2393. Send a powerful message that we are not
going to stand for Mexico and Canada putting their tariffs on us. We
are going to stand firm and protect American interests.
[[Page H4036]]
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson) for yielding and for all of his work on this issue. He has
been great at trying to mitigate the problems.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of the idea of country of
origin labeling, and I think it is a good idea.
I refute what some have said, that there is no benefit to this. There
is great benefit to this. Area of origin labeling allows people to get
to know from where their food comes, and that is, I think, incredibly
important.
I don't think that repeal is the number one preference here. I don't
think that is what we should be doing; we should be fixing the problem,
but, because the majority hasn't been willing to work to fix the
problem, we are in a real catch-22.
I rise today in support of this bill because, if it is not repealed,
we are going to face tremendous retaliatory acts from both Mexico and
Canada, and these are going to be of great fiscal impact to our
economy.
My home State of California, for instance, it is estimated that we
will be hit by $1.8 billion worth of retaliatory action. A good part of
that comes from my home industry, the wine community; they will be hit
heavily. We know what happens. We have seen this movie before, and the
end is not good.
When Congress put in place the trucking program to deal with the
Mexican trucking problems, we were sued. The wine industry was hit with
retaliatory actions, and we saw a 25 percent reduction in our business.
That was financially devastating not only to California, but this is an
industry that puts $160 billion a year into the national economy. This
hurt us all. That was bad enough, but it took us 3 years to get back
that market share that we had lost.
It is important that we repeal this and then get on to fixing it
right away. I ask that we vote in favor of this bill today.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who has worked really hard on this
particular piece of legislation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for yielding and for leading
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I just would remark that wine has informed the meat
debate several times here today, and I am glad of that.
I rise in support of this legislation to repeal these components of
country of origin labeling. I have long held the position that this is
a North American market. We don't treat our best trading partners as
well as we should, Mr. Speaker, and that includes Mexico, and it
especially includes Canada.
I often have to go through the list of things we have done that turn
out to be something that looks like trade protection at least to them.
We have done it with steel. We have done it with softwood timber. We
have done it when we have BSE circumstances with beef, which did
originate in Canada, spilled over to the United States, and they opened
up their foreign trade before we did.
This is one of these examples of what happens when you go a little
overboard in an effort to try to establish some trade protectionism.
This was driven by the people, especially in the Northwest, that
thought that they would get an advantage on their cattle industry in
that part of the country.
Now, we are looking at these sanctions which, by my numbers, likely
go to somewhere in the area of $3.15 billion in sanctions between
Canada and Mexico. Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of our consumers don't even
look at the label to see where that comes from.
Consumers still have a choice. There is nothing that would prohibit
in the aftermath of this legislation. The consumer is saying: I would
like to know if this pig was born in Canada and fed in the United
States.
To give you an example of how this is, there is a lot of U.S. capital
that is invested also, especially in farrowing operations in Canada.
When the exchange rate was even more advantageous than it is today, a
lot of U.S. dollars went into Canada to establish farrowing operations
to raise pigs up there because they could isolate in order to do
disease prevention and because it was a good investment; then those
isowean pigs came down to the United States.
The numbers that I had was 6 million pigs coming down; 4 million of
them came to Iowa. A third of the pork raised in the United States is
from my State, and they are at a disadvantage because of this country
of origin labeling. It penalizes, Mr. Speaker, the very people we are
trying to help.
I urge the adoption of this bill.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2393, the Country of
Origin Labeling Amendments Act.
As it has been discussed in this debate, the WTO has made its fourth
and final ruling against the United States. Farmers and ranchers in my
district in Texas will be hit with tariffs if we don't act right away.
COOL has already put a burden on the beef, chicken, and pork producers
in the State of Texas.
For example, Texas cattlemen are required to spend another $35 to $45
per animal just to comply with complex cattle identification
requirements mandated by COOL. This cost will only get worse if
retaliatory tariffs are implemented on our exports, tariffs which are
completely legal under the World Trade Organization agreement that we
have.
For example, I have spoken to my friends on the other side of the
river, on the Mexican side, and they said that the American products
that will be hit by tariffs include beef, wine, corn, corn syrup,
furniture, dairy products, machinery, and a range of fruits and
vegetables. That doesn't even include the tariffs that the Canadians
will put, which probably includes jewelry, bread, beef, tomato
products, and other goods.
Again, we cannot afford these tariffs, and we should pass the
amendments to this COOL bill that we have to remove the threat of those
tariffs completely.
In Texas, we raise beef, chicken, and pork that is ``made in the
U.S.'' We only ask that this be voluntary labeling. We should act
quickly to avoid those tariffs, so we don't punish those farmers and
ranchers in the State of Texas.
I thank the ranking member and the chairman for all the good work
they have done.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left
on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 16 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Chairman Conaway for his
leadership in bringing the repeal of the COOL amendments to the House
floor so quickly.
I would like to thank my fellow Ag Committee colleagues for their
bipartisan support in passing the repeal of the COOL amendments out of
the committee.
The COOL amendments, or country or origin labeling, has nothing to do
with food safety. It is a mandatory marketing program. The USDA stamp
of inspection ensures consumers the meat we eat is safe and wholesome,
not COOL.
Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The U.S. has lost its last three
appeals in the WTO to Canada and Mexico regarding COOL. Both countries
are ready to retaliate against us, as we have heard, to the tune of
billions of dollars, thus hurting our ag sector and American jobs.
Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack has said that only a legislative
fix of COOL would bring the U.S. back into compliance.
Again, I thank and congratulate Chairman Conaway and urge all of my
fellow colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
{time} 1515
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
Let me first point out the irony that we are considering this bill in
what
[[Page H4037]]
could be a matter of days before we will vote on the administration's
request for trade promotion authority.
Last month, President Obama said in his speech at Nike: ``Critics
warn that parts of this deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would
undermine American regulation--food safety, worker safety, even
financial regulations. They're making this stuff up. This is not true.
No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.''
Country of origin labeling was passed by the Senate, passed by the
House. It is the law of the land. Yet today, the House of
Representatives is getting ready to repeal country of origin labeling.
Why? Because the World Trade Organization ruled against it, a trade
agreement ruled against it.
Contrary to what the President has said, trade agreements have a
direct effect on our sovereignty. They have the ability to uproot
domestic laws here in the United States. Members and the public need to
know what we are opening ourselves up to when we sign these trade
agreements. Literally no area of United States law is safe: food
safety, drug safety, consumer protection, environmental protection,
health care, label rights, Dodd-Frank, even the minimum wage.
In fact, today's trade agreements, including the TPP, go further than
the WTO rules. They allow challenges to U.S. laws not only by
governments, but also by foreign and domestic multinational
corporations who can circumvent U.S. courts and seek a remedy in an
independent tribunal.
Today, the casualty is country of origin labeling. I was conferree on
the farm bill in 2008 with my colleague Ranking Member Peterson. I
helped to work to author the language that expanded the country of
origin labeling. I have worked on this issue for many years as a member
and a former chair of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee. I am
proud of that record.
People deserve to know where their food comes from. American farmers
and ranchers deserve the opportunity to distinguish their products. It
is an economic truism that complete and accurate information is one of
the cornerstones of a free market. More than a decade of polling data
proves that American consumers consistently and overwhelmingly want
country of origin labeling, and frequently by majorities of more than
90 percent.
The World Trade Organization itself has repeatedly ruled provision of
information to consumers to be a legitimate goal for domestic
regulations. In light of that ruling, I agree that we should seek to
protect American exporters by avoiding retaliatory sanctions, but that
has not yet become necessary. It has been less than a week since Canada
and Mexico filed their retaliatory tariff requests. The WTO Dispute
Settlement Body will not consider it for another week.
We do not know whether retaliation will be approved. Canada and
Mexico have asked for $3 billion, but they must prove that they have
been harmed, and that could be difficult.
A study by Dr. Robert Taylor of Auburn University found that in the
case of Canada, COOL had no significant negative impact on either
imports of cattle or the price of imported cattle relative to domestic
cattle. Instead, Dr. Taylor concluded the decrease in exports was
likely the result of the global recession and a weak recovery. Even if
harm is found and retaliation is approved, it will probably not go into
effect for several months.
There is plenty of time to look for a reasonable resolution, as we
have done previously. More than 60 other countries have mandatory
labeling requirements. So it seems there is a scope to find an
acceptable way forward without compromising U.S. sovereignty. It is
much too early for outright appeal, but that is what this bill does.
Indeed, it is unprecedented for Congress to intervene so early in the
WTO process.
Moreover, this bill goes well beyond the scope of the WTO ruling. It
would repeal country of origin labeling on chicken, which is not
addressed in the ruling, and on ground beef and ground pork, which the
tribunal explicitly found compliant.
Why are we rushing to judgment on this issue? I am forced to conclude
that this bill is, in fact, a veiled attempt by the meatpacking
industry to deny consumers their right to know where their meat and
poultry is coming from. Is it coming from China? Is it coming from
Australia? Is it coming from New Zealand? Where is it coming from?
Earlier this week, a broad coalition of 283 agricultural
organizations wrote to Chairman Conaway and to Ranking Member Peterson
urging them to reject the repeal of country of origin labeling.
Farmers, rural advocates, faith groups, environmentalists, labor
unions, farmworkers, manufacturers, consumer groups all oppose this
ill-conceived and premature repeal. Why are we not listening to them?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PETERSON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. DeLAURO. As I mentioned at the outset, the context for this bill
is a failure of U.S. trade policy. The administration tells us that
trade agreements do not alter domestic laws. Clearly, this is false.
I admonish my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, beware of the
road that you go down today. Beware of a trade agreement that puts
American sovereignty at risk.
I hope that Members will bear that in mind and in that context as we
vote on this bill today and, in addition to that, when we come to
debate the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and grant fast-track
authority on that agreement.
In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentlewoman referenced a letter opposing what we are trying to do
here today. As you look through that list of organizations that is
cited, it is not surprising to find that several have consistently
advocated for policies that are intentionally destructive to animal
agriculture. So it is no wonder that these groups support a policy that
imposes a heavyhanded financial burden on livestock producers,
processors, and, ultimately, consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Bost).
Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise
today in support of H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling
Amendments Act.
In my home State of Illinois, we are a rich agricultural State, and
we have a rich agricultural heritage. Illinois is a national leader in
corn and soybean, but also beef and pork production. If Congress does
not act to address this issue of labeling, products in my State could
face higher tariffs from Canada and Mexico to the tune of $880 million
worth of goods.
I urge my colleagues to stand with American agriculture and support
the underlying legislation in order to avoid this harmful measure.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Peterson for yielding
me this time, and I rise in support of maintaining food labeling for
the American people.
Polls show 9 out of 10 Americans overwhelmingly support country of
origin labeling. I certainly look for those labels when I go to the
store. It ensures that the public knows the source of their food. What
could be more important? In fact, American producers want to share that
information because it is a way to differentiate their products in an
increasingly international marketplace.
Country of origin labeling is strongly supported by America's farmers
and ranchers, who are proud of what they produce. Restoring local food
markets, in fact, is a growing trend across the Midwest and the whole
country. Farmers and ranchers know that people are demanding more and
more information about their food. Restaurateurs are putting on their
menus ``local beef,'' ``local pork,'' and ``local chicken.''
COOL allows farmers and ranchers the ability to market their products
with pride because the label has integrity. The widespread support for
country of origin labeling is what led to its enactment and
implementation in the 2002, 2008, and 2014 Farm Bills. The trend is
very clear.
Current efforts in Congress to repeal country of origin labeling are
simply veiled attempts to gut these laws for meat--for beef, for pork,
for chicken, three arenas that are completely controlled by a few
processing companies. It is just like the book that Upton Sinclair
wrote at the beginning of the 20th
[[Page H4038]]
century. We are back to the jungle. We are back to the jungle.
Opponents are pressing for less information for consumers, not more.
They want to hide the product's origin.
H.R. 2393 is a premature attempt to undermine food labeling. They
argue it is necessary because of the World Trade Organization decision
that puts Canada and Mexico at a disadvantage. Well, this bill, as
such, was never even raised in the WTO dispute, and labeling is
supported by the WTO. The WTO dispute never addressed chicken. It has
explicitly ruled U.S. labeling requirements for pork and beef are
legal. And more importantly, Canada's claims of $3 billion in economic
loss due to COOL are absolutely unfounded. The data is not even
publicly available, and they are unsubstantiated.
The bottom line is the rationale behind this bill is a clear example
of what is wrong with our trade policy. Congress should not let a few
meatpacking companies use trade disputes as an excuse to gut important
consumer protections and the rights of farmers in this country. It is
our duty to protect American consumers, American farmers, and American
ranchers, not the trade interests of any other country. Our people
deserve a right to know where their food is produced and where it comes
from.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The previous speaker made reference to the current animal agriculture
businesses as being associated with those horrible circumstances of the
Upton Sinclair book. My guess, Mr. Speaker, is they would be vehemently
opposed to that comment because their practices today do not remotely
reflect those in Upton Sinclair's book.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), a
valued member of the committee.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
Agriculture is the backbone of many communities in Michigan's Fourth
Congressional District. With over 10,000 farms and 15,000 farm
operators, approximately $1.7 billion in products from our area are
sold across the country and around the world.
The law on the books right now that mandates country of origin
labeling threatens the success of agricultural exports. It is
unnecessary. It imposes a heavy burden on our farmers. It puts our
agricultural exports at risk, and it needs to be repealed.
Recently, based on the ruling from the World Trade Organization, it
is apparent that severe consequences could result and that our trading
partners and neighbors could penalize American-made products sold in
those countries with steep tariffs.
Already, Canada has announced that it will put tariffs on beef, pork,
and cherries if the current labeling law is not repealed. Manufactured
goods, including office furniture, would also be subjected to tariffs.
H.R. 2393 passed the Agriculture Committee on a bipartisan vote of
38-6. It is a good bill, and it repeals the current labeling law. It
will eliminate the possibility of steep tariffs and let Michigan
farmers and manufacturers focus on creating jobs and growing their
businesses without worrying about more regulations or retaliation.
I am pleased to cosponsor this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes.''
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
{time} 1530
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
COOL was perhaps a worthwhile effort at the time but, unfortunately,
has outlived its usefulness and its appropriateness. Country of origin
labeling, well intended, has started to cause irreparable harm to
producers in the Pacific Northwest. Beef and hog producers are facing
serious problems trying to work things through the packing plant.
We have international trade now; we have a global market. That needs
to be recognized. It is harming not just Canada and Mexico, but Pacific
Northwest producers. That point has to be driven home.
We are now facing huge retaliatory tariffs in the Pacific Northwest.
Some of our premier crops are wine, cherries, apples, cheese, potatoes.
COOL may have been well intended, but we lost four times at the WTO.
We tried to fix it. We worked on it in the farm bill last go-around
last year--couldn't get it done. We are facing these retaliatory
tariffs right now. Let's repeal it, and let's move on.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Blum).
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your committee for
your hard work on this most important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support to the passage of H.R.
2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.
This important legislation repeals country of origin labeling
requirements for muscle cuts of beef and pork. Unfortunately, the World
Trade Organization issued the final judgment of a long-running case
brought by Canada, ending all doubt that COOL violates U.S. trade
obligations.
Now, America's two largest export markets, Canada and Mexico, are
moving to institute retaliatory duties against U.S. products, including
$1.3 billion of products from Iowa. Canada has published their list of
retaliatory targets, including those aforementioned meat cuts, but also
corn, fructose, cereals from my district, along with products from
districts all across the United States.
Mexico has not yet published their list, but is likely to include
some of the same corn-based products and perhaps even include ethanal.
It is critically important that COOL requirements be repealed to
comply with existing trade obligations as soon as possible.
Implementations of these tariffs would negatively affect a great deal
of farmers and processors in my district and across Iowa.
I urge the House to pass this legislation today and the Senate to act
swiftly to avoid these potentially devastating economic consequences.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to join my
colleagues in rising in opposition to this important consumer and
farmer protection legislation. Someone said it earlier; knowledge is
power. When people know where something comes from, it gives them some
very clear ideas about what the content of it may be.
Furthermore, the legislation, as has been pointed out here, is really
quite, quite, quite premature. We need to let this process play itself
out. There may very well need to be a fix here on this whole matter,
but right now, it hasn't really been conclusively proven that the
Canadian and the Mexican claims are valid. There has been some
suggestions that perhaps they are not. Of course, this legislation goes
way beyond the scope of the dispute at hand here.
I want to thank my ranking member, Mr. Peterson, and all my other
colleagues for standing up in opposition to this legislation. Let's let
the process play itself out, and then, when and if it is necessary, we
can fix things at that time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I don't think anybody on our side wants to have retaliation,
but, again, we believe this is premature right at this moment.
We don't know how much damages are going to be found, if any. We just
feel that repeal is not where we are going to end up and where we
should end up. We understand this needs to be fixed, but I think there
is another way to do it short of repeal.
At this point, because of that, I encourage people to vote against
the bill. I kind of understand where this is going, but, as it gets
over to the Senate, we will figure out a way to work through this so
that we end up not having any retaliation.
We still have a system where people can figure out where their food
is coming from. It would be ironic, if this repeal would happen to get
through the Senate and signed by the President, you wouldn't be able to
find out where your chicken or beef or pork came from, as I said
earlier, but you will be able to find out where all the other ag
products come from, which I think most consumers would see as kind of
ridiculous.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose the measure, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[[Page H4039]]
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to know that no one wants the
retaliatory measures to be put into place. A ``yes'' vote on this bill
that we will take up on the floor here shortly will assure that of
happening.
Arguments that it is premature fall on deaf ears. Four years of
arguing with the Canadians and the Mexicans in the world court in this
deal has left ample time to have come to some sort of conclusion if, in
fact, there was a deal out there.
Quite frankly, if we had won a trade issue as decisively and
resoundingly as Canada and Mexico did, we wouldn't negotiate either. We
have no leverage; we have none to leverage against Mexico and Canada to
get some sort of a deal that might fix this without the repeal.
Frankly, this is not about the merits of country of origin labeling;
it is not about the merits of people knowing where their food comes
from. We are beyond that point. We lost four straight times.
If those merits or those arguments upheld in the court in our trade
obligation, then it would have prevailed, but it didn't. This isn't
about people knowing where their food comes from. This is about
avoiding the retaliatory measures that will be implemented by Canada
and Mexico.
The argument that folks want to know where their food comes from, if
you walk up to a normal person on the street and ask them that
question, I am surprised it is not 100 percent of Americans who would
say: Yes, I want to know where that food comes from.
But, if you follow that person into the grocery store and they go up
to the meat counter, they buy based on price and quality of the meat
and what it looks like. They are not looking at the label; 85 percent
of them couldn't care less.
If you go into every single restaurant and you order chicken or beef
or pork or fish or whatever, you have no clue where that came from. You
trust the safety network that we have in place at USDA to make sure
that that beef or that chicken, that pork, that whatever, is, in
fact, safe for you.
The argument that we are somehow depriving the American people of
information that they desperately need in order to make informed
consumer decisions, again, falls on deaf ears.
Mexico is not a stranger to retaliatory measures. As my colleague
from California mentioned earlier, they implemented those measures in
2011 as a result of a trucking case that we also lost in that regard,
and it took the wine industry 3 years to recoup and get back to where
they were when those retaliatory measures went in.
If you are not a wine connoisseur, pork rinds were also targeted. We
had testimony from an individual from New Mexico that said they lost 15
percent of their business as a result of Mexico including pork rinds on
the retaliatory measure. Somewhere between pork rinds and wine, you
have got some products that are going to be impacted by this.
These retaliatory threats that are going to come happen are already
having a chilling effect on commerce between our three countries. If
you are a wine distributor in Canada, you are not going to make any
kind of long-term deals with the United States until you know whether
or not what the impact is going to be. Commerce right now is being
affected; hence, time is of the essence to get this behind us and move
forward.
I would also argue that most Members down here would be very quick to
argue and demand, quite frankly, that our trading partners around the
world live up to their obligations, and we demand that. We get on our
high horse, and we thump our chest like crazy, demanding that other
folks live up to their agreements. That is what this is.
We have lost the appeals every step of the way. We have an agreement
that says we will treat our trading partners certain ways. We crafted a
law that broke that deal. We are now being demanded and required to
live up to our trade obligations. This is no different than us trying
to force all the other countries around the world to live up to their
obligations as well.
This is about protecting American exports from these retaliatory
measures that are unnecessary to happen. If consumers want their
business and want to know where their food comes from, we can certainly
craft a voluntary program that allows the market to exploit that
information if, in fact, consumers want that.
Nothing that we are doing today will prevent us from creating some
sort of a voluntary program that would, in fact, give consumers that
information without being in violation of our trade agreements with our
partners.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, avoid these retaliatory
measures, which are totally unnecessary, if we would, in fact, do the
work we are supposed to do.
I also want to thank my team that put together the work on this. They
have been incredibly diligent. I know the folks on the other side as
well have worked hard on this.
We have tried to come to a bipartisan agreement; we just couldn't get
there, but I want to thank my team for the great work that they have
done in getting us to that point.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, consumers deserve greater access to
information about where their meat comes from, which is why I have
always believed Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a critical tool
for American families and ranchers.
I join many South Dakotans in being deeply disappointed by the World
Trade Organization's recent ruling against COOL. While I don't
necessarily concur with the WTO's conclusions, I agree with my
colleagues that something ought to be done to make COOL workable and
prevent any damages against our agriculture industry. After all, it is
essential that South Dakota farmers and ranchers can continue to be
competitive in the export market.
The COOL repeal bill that the House is considering today, however, is
premature. By moving on this legislation just weeks after the WTO
ruling, we do not have the time necessary to explore what other options
may be available. We owe it to consumers and producers to thoroughly
consider alternatives. For these reasons, I am voting against the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERSON. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________