[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.

                          ____________________