Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2685, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2393, Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, H. Res. 303, providing for consideration of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, and H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2393 under a closed rule and H.R. 2685 under the customary modified open rule process, which allows any Member to offer an amendment to the bill so long as the amendment complies with the rules of the House. The only restriction is on the amount of time that will be allotted for debating each amendment.

H.R. 2393 is an urgent and critical response to the World Trade Organization's ruling on May 18 of this year, which found country of origin labeling, or COOL, for muscle meat cuts to be in violation of the U.S. trade obligations with Canada and Mexico. H.R. 2393 will simply repeal the COOL meat cut provisions, making the U.S. compliant and prevent retaliation.

Critics of H.R. 2393 will say we have more time, but in truth, we don't. This final ruling is the fourth time the WTO has ruled against the U.S. for various versions of COOL, and on this final appeal, the WTO has given both Canada and Mexico the authority to impose more than $3 billion in combined retaliatory tariffs against U.S. products within 60 days of the ruling.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are now down to just 37 days to respond before these tariffs are imposed. This could deal an enormous blow to U.S. companies and the workers they employ, just when our economy is beginning to rebound.

There is also an argument floating around that this will prevent all labeling or that a ``Made in North America'' label will satisfy our trade obligations. A North American label will not necessarily satisfy our obligations and can in no way, no matter how fast we try, be negotiated in the remaining 37 days to prevent retaliation.

Also, it is important to note that repealing mandatory COOL doesn't prevent voluntarily labeling, as some companies already do.

Finally, it is worth noting that some critics claim that this will weaken inspections for meat imports. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The United States Department of Agriculture has and will continue to provide the most rigorous, science-based import inspections, inspections of foreign plants which export to the United States. Whether or not the product has a mandatory country of origin label on it will not affect these rigorous inspections.

This legislation is desperately needed. Our manufacturers, pork producers, grape growers, confectionary exporters, and ranchers have repeatedly asked Congress to ensure that we repeal the COOL provisions and bring the U.S. back into compliance with our WTO obligations fully and quickly.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2393 is important to ensure our economy is protected and that the U.S. plays by the rules we agreed to with two of our biggest trading partners, which are by far our largest export markets.

This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which funds our Nation's national defense and provides the resources necessary to continue our essential military efforts abroad, as well as the funding for health and quality of life programs for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

Overall, the bill provides $578.6 billion in discretionary funding, $800 million more than the President's request and $24.4 billion above the fiscal year 2015 funding level. Within this amount, $88.4 billion is appropriated for our war efforts in the global war on terrorism.

H.R. 2685 is an imperative measure that funds our critical national security programs and addresses the vital needs of our men and women in the armed services. An effective military, one that is well equipped and well trained, is indispensable to the common defense of our country and is in the best interest of all Americans. This bill includes vital funding for the U.S. military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to instability abroad.

This bill contains $133 billion to provide for 1.3 million Active-Duty troops and 820,000 National Guard and Reserve troops; $219 billion is included for operations and maintenance, which provides for the funding of readiness programs that prepare our troops for combat and peacetime missions.

The Constitution charges the Congress to provide for our national defense, and this bill ensures we will fulfill that obligation. Our highest national priority should always be the protection of our country, and the funding levels in this bill will ensure our military remains the most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force anywhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, we must provide the resources necessary to fight America's enemies abroad. With the rise of ISIS, the continued presence of al Qaeda, the growth of terrorist groups in North Africa, instability throughout the Middle East, and Russian aggression in Ukraine, our military must be prepared for not only current threats, but for future ones as well.

We also need to support those willing to fight alongside us, which is why H.R. 2685 includes critical support for our allies who are also facing this unprecedented instability due to the aggression of nation-states and terrorist organizations alike.

This bill makes difficult budgetary choices without undermining the safety, security, and success of our servicemembers and their families. It uses every tax dollar responsible to give our Armed Forces the resources they need to stay prepared, safe, and in peak fighting form.

Supporting the men and women of our armed services--who, day in and day out, risk their lives in the service of our country--is one of the most important functions that we perform as Members of Congress, and this responsibility should not be taken lightly.

I am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides for our Nation's military, security, and our courageous men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for consideration of two very critical pieces of legislation that will protect our economy, provide necessary funding for our servicemembers and the defense of our country, and I support its adoption.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule, as well as the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and let me say thank you to the gentleman from Massachusetts and the points he raises. I enjoy serving on the Rules Committee with Mr. McGovern.

Let me just say, this Congress, we are on track to be one of the most productive Congresses in many, many years, and part of the reason is the use of the compound rule, which provides for separate consideration of each underlying measure under a single rule. It helps expedite legislative business. Consideration of one rule allows the House more time to debate the underlying measures. It has given us the opportunity to achieve that efficiency and that effectiveness and productivity.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield for a 10-second question?

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts for a 10-second question.

Mr. McGOVERN. How does this rule give us more time to debate the COOL repeal? It is a pretty straightforward, limited debate that we are given. I would argue that what you are doing is denying us the right to debate appropriately these important issues. We are not saving time. What the Republican majority is doing is limiting our opportunity.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time after that 10-second question, the Agriculture Committee has had ample time for debate on that question. We are bringing forward what is a very critical decision that has to be made in a very limited timeframe, and so it is an appropriate approach to addressing this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the issues we are considering today have serious consequences for the security and economic well-being of our country, which is why I am urging my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills.

H.R. 2685 is an important measure that funds our Nation's national defense and its critical national security programs. It provides the resources needed to continue our essential military efforts abroad and addresses the vital needs of our men and women in uniform.

An effective, well-equipped, well-trained military is in the best interest of all Americans and is indispensable to the common defense of our country. This bill includes vital funding for the U.S. military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to these challenges abroad. This bill also makes difficult budgetary choices that will help us save taxpayer dollars wherever possible, but it does so without undermining the safety, the security, and the success of our troops and their families.

With the rise of ISIS, the continued presence of al Qaeda, the emergence and growth of terrorist groups in North Africa, near systemic instability across the Middle East, and the ongoing situation in Ukraine, our military must remain strong and ready to address evolving threats both at home and abroad.

Our highest national priority should always be the protection of our country, and the funding levels in this bill will ensure our military remains the most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force anywhere in the world. To me the choice is clear. What side are we on? We choose to be on the side of our troops, and I am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides our Nation's military, security, and our courageous men and women in uniform.

This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act, a measure that warrants immediate and serious consideration by both Houses of Congress, because the ramifications of doing nothing will be severe and could imperil many sectors of our country, from ranchers and grape growers to manufacturers and exporters.

With only 37 days left to respond, the threat of retaliation is very real. My friends on the other side of the aisle may argue that we have more time to address this issue, but the reality is time is simply running out. For over 7 years, we have been trying to rectify this issue. WTO's latest verdict, handed down on May 18, is our fourth and final loss in the court proceedings. Now both Canada and Mexico have publicly stated they will retaliate against the United States, and the official request for retaliation is set to occur on June 17. This is not an idle threat. It is not saber rattling. Last week, Canada announced that it will seek $3 billion in retaliatory measures, and Mexico stated it will be seeking tariffs totaling $635 million.

Even before retaliation, COOL has had a negative economic impact in many areas across the country. Tyson Foods has a plant in my district, and given the proximity to Canada, this plant in Pasco depends on Canadian cattle. However, under COOL, the plant cannot commingle U.S. and Canadian cattle. They have to be run in separate lines, and the plant has to use multiple labels depending on the origin of those cattle. COOL has increased the Pasco facility's operating costs due to the requirements and inefficiencies involved with the segregation of the cattle; and with less animals available across the Pacific Northwest, the plant is currently operating at less than 40 hours per week, leading to less money being put into the local economy from less compensation from employers.

Mr. Speaker, COOL threatens the trade relationships we have with two of our biggest markets for the export of U.S. meat and agricultural products. If we don't repeal the requirements of COOL, we are in violation of our WTO obligations. As I said, we could face billions of dollars in retaliation that would hurt farmers and ranchers, small businesses, and, yes, American consumers. We need this legislation now in order to prevent those retaliatory actions and to bring the United States into compliance with our WTO obligations, which can only be done by repealing these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the discussion we have had over the last hour. Although we may have some differences of opinion--we usually do--I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that are important to the future of our country. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 303 and the underlying bills.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source