[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 10, 2015

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2393, the 
Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015. This bill represents 
a hasty response to a recent WTO ruling on Country of Origin Labeling 
(COOL) and fails to take into account the wide-ranging views of 
multiple stakeholders, including consumer, labor, farm, environmental 
and faith-based groups.
  The WTO Appellate Body ruled against United States COOL regulations 
only a few weeks ago and two days after, H.R. 2393 was pushed through 
the House Agriculture Committee. While the WTO ruled that COOL 
discriminated against imported livestock, it also determined that COOL 
is a ``legitimate objective'' to provide consumers information on food 
origin. COOL has been successfully implemented for various nuts, 
fruits, vegetables, seafood and other food products. Congress must 
support this progress and take its time to develop a COOL policy that 
is WTO compliant and reflects the views of consumers and other 
stakeholders.
  While critics have pointed to the retaliatory threats issued by 
Canada as a reason to expedite this legislation, it is too soon to know 
whether these threats have merit. Canada and Mexico still must seek WTO 
authority to impose retaliatory tariffs. The WTO must determine whether 
this amount equals the damages incurred by Canada and Mexico under 
COOL. The U.S. can appeal these claims and request that the WTO appoint 
an arbitrator to determine the proper level of damages. Arbitration 
cases generally last several months. There is still ample time for the 
U.S., Canada and Mexico to come to an agreement before retaliation can 
take effect. The Congress should let this process play out before 
taking action.
  I also have concerns about the level of damages Canada is seeking in 
response to COOL. Its claims cite data that is not publically 
available, while studies from the U.S. supported by data from USDA show 
that COOL has not had a negative impact on Canadian and Mexican 
livestock imports.
  Consumers have a right to know where their food comes from and 
studies show that Americans strongly support country of origin 
labeling. Congress should support the desires of consumers and wait for 
the WTO process to run its course before taking action. I urge a no 
vote.

                          ____________________