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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this grab bag rule and both underlying pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today marks the 18th time in this Congress that House Republicans have brought to the floor a grab bag rule, a single rule that governs floor debate for two or more unrelated pieces of legislation.
Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, the use of grab bag rules has dramatically increased by over 400 percent. Using one rule to govern multiple, oftentimes unrelated bills stifles debate, which I guess is the point of them merging all these bills under one rule on the House floor, and leads to disjointed and confusing discussion between two sides.
Ranking Member Slaughter and my Democratic colleagues on the House Rules Committee have raised these concerns with Chairman Sessions, but unfortunately, we are back on the floor today to consider one rule for two completely unrelated measures.
Today's rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act, also known as COOL, under a completely closed process. No amendments are allowed, none.
Clearly, this is an issue that we need to address sooner rather than later, but H.R. 2393 is not the answer. It was introduced just 2 days after the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States' country of origin labeling requirements for meat.
H.R. 2393 is a knee-jerk reaction to the WTO ruling that completely does away with labeling requirement for beef, pork, and chicken, which wasn't even addressed in the WTO ruling.
We know from past WTO disputes that there are several steps that need to occur before retaliation would take place. The arbitration panel takes at least 60 days, but in the U.S.-Brazil cotton case, it took 15 months to produce a ruling. The sky is not falling; we have some time to come up with a workable solution.
Instead of H.R. 2393, we ought to be working toward a more thoughtful approach that balances consumers' right to know where their meat comes from with our trade obligations.
More than 60 countries have successfully implemented COOL-like labeling requirements that comply with WTO standards, and we ought to look toward these programs for a workable solution.
Such an important issue that impacts the safety of food we eat and the health of American families deserves the most robust debate possible, but this closed rule from House Republicans prevents us from having that kind of debate. As I said, not a single Member, Democratic or Republican, is allowed to offer an amendment to this bill. It is completely closed.
Today's rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fiscal year 2016 Defense Appropriations Act, there is much to praise about the bill. It contains many important provisions and strong funding for suicide prevention and training, improved response to sexual assault and prevention, and medical research.
I applaud the hard work put into drafting this bill by Defense Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky, along with Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey. However, this bill suffers from two major--I emphasize the word ``major''--flaws, which to my mind makes it difficult, if not impossible, to support.
First and foremost, this bill continues to use the overseas contingency operations account, or OCO, as a slush fund to get around parts of the Budget Control Act that Republicans don't like--namely, the caps on defense spending--while ignoring the damage the caps are doing to all our nondefense programs.
This bill, like the Defense Authorization bill before it, completely bypasses the caps set down by the BCA by increasing OCO funding by $38 billion above the President's request. The bill shifts $38 billion from the defense base budget and shoves those moneys into the off-budget OCO meant to cover the costs of our various wars.
Rather than wrestle with the hard question of how to get rid of the sequester and the budget caps and bring our spending back into regular order, the Republicans have decided to wallow in a slush fund. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, don't you think it is about time that we found a way to provide for our national security needs without relying on war contingency slush funds to pay for the everyday expenses of the Department of Defense?
Members on both sides of the aisle have recognized that the sequester does not work. Shouldn't we be honest about that? Shouldn't we negotiate a workable plan, rather than play these games of smoke and mirrors that actually undermine the Pentagon's ability to budget and plan for the long term?
Second, Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to appropriate billions of dollars to carry out the war against the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere; but Congress has not even debated, let alone authorized that war.
The leadership of this House continues to fail in carrying out its responsibilities under the Constitution and bring an AUMF before this body to authorize the military operations that have been ongoing since last August.
In fact, just last night, we learned that the U.S. presence in Iraq will increase even further, with the administration planning to establish a new military base in Anbar province and send hundreds of additional American military trainers.
This move is aimed at helping Iraqi forces to retake the city of Ramadi from the Islamic State, but it is clear our involvement is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger--but still, no word from this leadership that it has the political will or intention to bring an AUMF to the House floor this month, next month, or the month after.
With Americans investing more and more in this conflict--we are told that we spend about $3.5 million an hour on this latest war against the Islamic State--there has never been a greater urgency for this Congress to debate and to vote on this war.
Time and again, bipartisan letters have been sent to the Speaker asking him to bring an AUMF to the House floor. Time and again, individual Members have sought to bring amendments up for debate that would authorize military operations in Iraq and Syria, only to have the Republican majority on the House Rules Committee reject them, depriving them of consideration and depriving them of debate.
Just last night, I offered an amendment that simply states that no funds in this act may be obligated or spent on military operations in Iraq and Syria in the absence of an AUMF for such operations. It was also rejected by the Republicans of the House Rules Committee.
Some stated that they voted to reject it because 10 minutes, which is the amount of time limiting debate on all amendments to the defense bill, is simply not enough time to debate a serious question. Well, I agree. Ten minutes is not enough time, but the Rules Committee has the power to increase that limit to as much time as it feels appropriate, and it failed to do so.
The Rules Committee could provide 2 hours of debate or 2 days of debate or 2 weeks of debate; that is the power of the Rules Committee. Don't hide behind this excuse as a reason for Congress not to live up to its constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, it seems that we can always find the time and find a way to spend billions of billions of dollars to fund wars; we can always find a way to send our brave men and women overseas to fight and die in these wars, but we can't ever seem to find the backbone or the time to debate and authorize them.
Each night, each week, the Members of this House get to go home to their families and their communities, surrounded by loved ones and people who support them. If we don't have the stomach to take responsibility for sending our troops into danger, then the least we can do is bring them home to their families so that they might enjoy the same peace and privileges that we take so much for granted.
If we want to spend our Nation's treasure on these wars, if my colleagues believe that the war in Iraq and Syria is a priority for our Nation and our national security, then we should carry out our constitutional mandate and debate and vote on an AUMF.
Now, I welcome the fact that the House Appropriations Committee, in a bipartisan vote, supported an amendment by the honorable gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, that says: ``Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force against ISIL.''
That provision is in the Defense Appropriations bill. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we shouldn't just be saying that Congress has a constitutional duty; we should actually be carrying out our constitutional duty.
So I hope that every single one of my colleagues will remember that when they cast their votes for final passage of this bill, you are providing money and equipment and lives to carry out a war that this House doesn't even have the courage to debate and vote on.
The leadership of this House has to stop whining and stop trying to shift the responsibility on to anyone and everyone except to whom the responsibility really falls. It falls upon each of us to say to this leadership that the time has come to bring an AUMF before this body, and for the leadership to let us debate it and vote on it.
It is time that we stopped acting like cowards and started behaving like Members of Congress our constituents elected to make the tough decisions. So I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say to my colleague on the Rules Committee, I am glad he supports my position that we ought to have a debate on an AUMF when it comes to these wars against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
But my question is, what are we waiting for?
Eleven months ago, Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a Democrat, and myself actually brought a resolution to the floor saying that if we are going to be engaged in combat operations in Iraq, that we ought to have a vote on an AUMF, and that passed overwhelmingly.
We have been at war now for over 10 months. I mean, bombing every day. We have thousands of troops over there. The President is going to send several hundred more over there. What are we waiting for?
We were told in the 113th Congress that we ought to wait till the 114th Congress. I don't know why, given the fact that the war began under the 113th Congress. But anyway, January came, and we are in the 114th Congress.
Then we were told we have got to wait for the President to submit a strategy or an AUMF. He did.
Now, I know you don't like it. I don't like it. Some people want it broader and bigger. Some of us want it more restrictive. But nonetheless, he did what he is supposed to do. What we are supposed to do is deliberate.
And here we are, 10 months later, and we are all told we will get to it. We will get to it. We will get to it.
We announced yesterday that we are going to establish a new military base in Iraq, and close to 500 more American troops are going to go over there. What are we waiting for?
We ought to be debating these AUMFs before we put people into harm's way, before we start getting engaged in hostilities.
So I have to tell you, I am frustrated not only by the inaction of the leadership of this House, the excuses of the leadership of this House. I am frustrated by my friends who say, I am with you, but we will just get to it at some other point. I mean, how many months, how many years have to go by before we do our job?
The gentleman talked about our constitutional duty to protect the people of the United States. We also have a constitutional duty when it comes to war, and we are not living up to that at all. We are failing miserably, and it really is a disgrace, and it is a disservice to the men and women whom we put into harm's way.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the COOL legislation, let me remind my colleagues that consumers, the American people, the people we are supposed to represent, are increasingly seeking more information and want more information about food source and production methods and want to make purchases from a trusted source.
A 2013 Consumer Federation of America study found that 90 percent of Americans strongly support mandatory COOL for fresh meat and strongly favor requiring meat to be labeled with specific information about where the animals were born, raised, and processed.
A 2010 Consumer Union study shows that 93 percent of consumers would prefer to have the country of origin label on the meat that they buy. That is what the American people want.
And yet, rather than trying to respond to that, the first inclination in the aftermath of this WTO ruling is to basically cave, saying, We don't really care what the American people want. We are just going to cave.
I think that is the wrong way to proceed, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against this COOL legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, again, let me say that this COOL repeal I think is a rash overreaction to the WTO ruling, and I think that we owe it to the American people to try to figure out whether there is a middle ground here.
And to answer my friend from Georgia, who was like: Well, why do people want to know? Well, maybe the American people want to support American farmers. Maybe they want to support the small- and medium-sized farms that are doing such incredible work all across this country. I don't think that that is an outrageous idea. As I mentioned before, there is overwhelming support for this. Ninety percent of the American people support this country of origin labeling.
Let me suggest to my colleagues, let's do something really radical. Let's actually give the American people something that they want.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentlewoman from Missouri that a lot of small- and medium-sized farmers strongly disagree with her. There are a lot of consumers who would like to support American farmers. Nine out of 10 Americans support country of origin labeling. Repealing this law would restrict their access to critical information about the food they feed their families, making it impossible to avoid food from countries with poor safety records.
The WTO has repeatedly ruled that using country of origin labels to inform consumers about the source of the food that they eat is a legitimate goal. More than 60 other countries have done this successfully without sanctions. So instead of throwing out COOL entirely, we should study the successful models and develop an alternative system that still maintains our constituents' access to the information that they demand.
The legislation that we are talking about here today goes beyond the scope of the WTO case and repeals labeling requirements for ground beef, ground pork, and chicken, ultimately putting the interests of industrial meat processors above the concerns of 90 percent of the American public.
Again, it shouldn't be a radical idea around here to try to do what the American people want. They want to know where their food is grown, where their food is produced. Let's give it to them. Let's try to work a compromise out here rather than just this knee-jerk bill that kind of throws the baby out with the bathwater.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the COOL repeal, I include for the Record a letter to Chairman CONAWAY and to Ranking Member Peterson signed by hundreds of organizations--farm organizations, consumer groups, labor groups, food safety groups, and I could go on and on and on--basically saying that this legislation that we are considering here today is a bad idea.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I would just say to my colleagues on this legislation, the American people do not want a total repeal. Nine out of ten Americans support country of origin labeling. We ought to work out a good compromise so the American people can get what they want and have access to the knowledge about their food that they want. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule with regard to this and ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words about the Defense Appropriations bill. And for the viewing public who are watching this and who are trying to figure out what does country of origin labeling have to do with a Defense Appropriations bill, I would again remind them that the Republican leadership and the Republicans on the Rules Committee have this new technique of bunching diverse pieces of legislation together under one rule to stifle debate and to make it more difficult for people to have their say on these important bills and to try to confuse things.
But I do think that it is important that people understand that the Defense Appropriations bill is given a role under this rule, and I would urge my colleagues to think long and hard before they vote. I would urge them to vote ``no'' on the Defense Appropriations bill for a whole number of reasons, notwithstanding the slush fund, the so-called OCO account, that is playing fast and loose with the numbers so that my Republican colleagues don't have to deal with the issue of sequestration. But I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this, because this bill will appropriate billions of more dollars for a war in the Middle East that Congress hasn't had the guts to debate and vote on.
It has been 10 months--10 months--thousands of our troops have been deployed into harm's way. The President announced last night we are establishing a new base in Iraq. Close to 500 more American troops are going to be deployed in Iraq, and not a single debate in this Congress, not a single vote on whether this is the best strategy.
The President has submitted his AUMF. I think it is too broad; some people think it is too restrictive. But it is up to the Congress to fashion an AUMF that gets 218 votes or to vote to bring our troops home. That is the choice. But doing nothing is not a choice. That is an abrogation of our constitutional responsibilities.
Every single Member should be ashamed of the fact that 10 months into this war we haven't done a thing. How do you explain that to your constituents whose sons and daughters have been placed into harm's way? How do you explain that to your constituents that we are mostly borrowing $3.5 million an hour to pay for these wars, but we don't have the time to debate it or to vote on it?
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record two articles. The first one is an Associated Press article, entitled, ``U.S. to Send More Troops to Iraq for Expanded Training Mission''; and the other is a New York Times article, entitled, ``U.S. Embracing a New Approach on Battling ISIS in Iraq.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this House, this Congress, is not working. The fact that we can be in the middle of a new war, spending all these resources, committing all these young lives into harm's way, and we can't even bring an AUMF to the floor to have a debate, it is appalling. I don't know how we can face our constituents, look them in the eye, and say we are doing our job here. We are not. I don't know anything more important that we should debate and deliberate on than war. I mean, war is a big deal. The unfortunate thing in this institution, war has become too easy. I am tired of the excuses, and I am tired of the whining. The President has done what he is supposed to do. Everybody has done what they are supposed to do except us. I am not going to vote for any bill that appropriates more money for a war that we don't even have the guts to authorize.
So, Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this grab bag rule, vote ``no'' on this ridiculous COOL repeal, and vote ``no'' on the defense appropriations bill. Let's vote these down and come back and do our job the way the American people expect us to do our job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source