K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It certainly is our understanding that products--and sugar is a good example of those--may come from a GE crop, but the finished product has no genetic material in it.

Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is correct. This is a perfect example of why passage of this legislation is so important.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1599. Mankind has used biological technologies for more than 10,000 years to improve crops and livestock and to make useful food products, such as bread, cheese, and to preserve dairy products. When applied to plant breeding, these technologies have led to evolution of nearly every food product we consume. These and other advances have enabled us to proudly boast that we enjoy the safest, highest quality, most abundant, diverse, and affordable food supply and fiber mankind has ever known. As our knowledge has increased, so has the speed and precision in which we are able to harness natural capabilities to improve the plants that we cultivate. These new applications of biotechnology have been available to American and international consumers for some three decades. The safety of technology has been documented and confirmed by the world's leading scientific and public health organizations, including the World Health Organization, the National Academies of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the Royal Society of Great Britain. The House Agriculture Committee has frequently reviewed these technologies. We have reviewed the regulatory mechanism that has been in place since the Reagan administration and have been regularly assured by the absence of any valid concerns regarding the safety or quality of products derived from these production technologies. Biotechnology is an essential tool for farmers and our food supply to have in the toolbox. If we plan to feed the estimated 10 billion people in the year 2050 in an environmentally sound, sustainable, affordable way, they must be used. Unfortunately, threats exist to our ability to fully utilize this technology in the form of proposed Federal and State laws as well as some new State laws that will be implemented soon if we don't act. Passage of any new antibiotech laws and amendments or implementation of those already passed will likely have far-reaching negative consequences, which we will debate today. The legislation before the House today addresses this threat in a manner that pays tribute to the successful voluntary, market-driven programs administered by the Department of Agriculture. These programs have not only enabled farmers to receive premiums in the marketplace for their efforts to distinguish their products, they have appealed to the growing desire of many food-conscious consumers. One such example is the highly successful National Organic Program, many aspects of which we have replicated in this legislation. The structure and coverage of this legislation, like that of the National Organic Program, will assure consumers are given reliable, accurate, and consistent information related to the genetic engineering, whether it is at the retail level or at a restaurant. In developing this legislation, we worked in a bipartisan fashion between the Agriculture and the Energy and Commerce Committees, receiving and integrating the ideas and suggestions of Federal agencies, organic interests, conventional producers and handlers, and more. Mr. Chairman, mandatory labels are used as a warning or a caution. Even our opponents to this legislation have said there is no safety issue here that we are talking about to ``scare'' potential consumers. We believe this voluntary program meets that need of letting consumers know, and I urge support of the bill.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill H.R. 1599.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I especially want to commend Chairman Ryan and his colleagues on Ways and Means for their hard work in bringing us the underlying legislation. Everyone in the room knows that America's farmers and ranchers are the most productive in the world. They have continuously proven their ability to meet rapidly growing and ever-changing demands here at home, and their reach stretches well beyond the shores of America. In fact, exports now account for almost one-third of total U.S. farm income. In the case of commodities like cotton, tree nuts, rice, and wheat, over one-half the total production is exported. In 2014 alone, U.S. agricultural exports set a record $152.5 billion, highlighting the growing demand for quality food and fiber around the world. As was noted in a recent hearing before the House Agriculture Committee, the United States exported almost as much beef, pork, and poultry to the 20 nations with which we have trade agreements as they did the other 170-plus nations in the world. Beyond the obvious benefits to producers, trade also helps support almost 1 million American jobs in production agriculture and in related sectors like food processing and transportation. As a result, it is crucial not only to American agriculture, but to the U.S. economy as a whole, to maintain and increase access to the world's 7 billion consumers, 95 percent of whom live outside the shores of the United States. To obtain that access, it is imperative that we work to reduce and eliminate international barriers to trade so that our farmers and ranchers can compete on a level playing field in the global market. With negotiations in the World Trade Organization languishing for the last 14 years, regional free trade agreements represent our best opportunity for expanding trade opportunities for U.S. agricultural. History has shown that trade promotion authority in one form or another has been vital in completing and implementing past agreements. In fact, Congress has granted TPA to every President since 1974, and the 114th Congress should be no exception. TPA will provide our negotiators with the credibility necessary to conclude the most effective trade agreements possible by making it clear to the rest of the world that Congress and this administration are serious about this endeavor. The legislation before us today empowers Congress to move the aggressive trade agenda. It includes the strongest measures, to date, for ensuring that this President sticks to the negotiating objectives laid down by Congress, including the unicameral ability to turn TPA off on an individual agreement. At the end of the day, it is Congress that will decide the fate of each agreement. In conclusion, I am a strong proponent of free trade and the benefits it provides our Nation's producers and consumers. However, if we are not going to continue to expand American markets, other countries, often with lower standards, will step up to the plate and fill that demand. Markets are not won or regained easily after they have been lost, and billions around the globe still want America's quality food and fiber. We can win over new markets, boost our economy, and meet these global demands first and foremost by showing that we are, in fact, a strong and reliable trading partner. We can make that happen by passing this rule and the underlying TPA agreement.

Mr. CONAWAY

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

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. 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. 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. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

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. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum).

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State for giving me the opportunity to testify today regarding the rule governing debate on H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015. Country of origin labeling, or COOL for short, was first enacted for meat products as part of the 2002 farm bill. Implementation of the law was 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. The process has since progressed through the dispute settlement panel phase and a U.S. appeal to the WTO's Appellate Body. In both instances, the WTO found that the way the regulations were implemented violated WTO obligations by discriminating against imported livestock. The United States was given until May 13, 2013, to bring its COOL regulations into compliance. In response, USDA issued a revised COOL rule in May of 2013 which required that production steps--born, raised, and slaughtered by origin country--be included on meat labels. The revised rule also prohibited the commingling of meat from imported and domestic livestock. At the request of Canada and Mexico, the WTO established a compliance panel to determine if the revised rule brought the United States into compliance with the previous ruling. Canada and Mexico claimed that not only did the revised rule fail to bring the United States into compliance, but certain parts, especially the prohibition on commingling, were even more onerous than the original rule. A key criterion for current COOL implementation is that it requires ``segregation'' of animals by country of origin, which significantly raises the cost of utilizing imported livestock. The compliance panel report, released October 20, 2014, upheld the earlier findings of discrimination. The United States appealed the compliance panel report and on May 18, 2015, the WTO rejected, again, the United States appeal, and found for the fourth and, believe it or not, final time that the U.S. COOL requirements for beef and pork were unavoidably discriminatory. The final rule kick-starts the WTO process to determine the level of retaliatory tariffs that Canada and Mexico can now impose on the United States, which has been widely predicted to have effects in the billions of dollars. During a hearing in 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 would have a devastating impact on our economy. Witnesses included representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Confectioners Association, the Wine Institute of California, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, and the National Farmers Union. 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 a repeal, but the fact is COOL is a marketing failure. In an April 2015 report to Congress, USDA explained that COOL requirements result in extraordinary costs with no quantifiable benefits.

Mr. CONAWAY. In response to those who argue that COOL enhances food safety, I have also maintained for over 10 years now that is simply not the case. If it were, then all meat served at restaurants would come with an information label of the meat's origin. But it doesn't, and that is because retail food establishments are exempt from the COOL requirements. In a May 1, 2015, letter to Congress, Secretary Vilsack reaffirmed the need for Congress to repeal the disputed COOL label requirements. In other words, if we go down this path with Canada to try to negotiate something they have no reason to negotiate on, it will fail as well. Repeal is the only viable option for us to avoid these retaliatory statements. Canada and Mexico have both said they are uninterested in negotiation. We are now at a point of fixing this. COOL repeal is the answer. This bill does that. I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues' comments, both the ranking member as well as the chairman of the subcommittee. We did work in a bipartisan manner. We worked out the differences of the bill, came up with a good work product. It is worthy of the system. I would like to, again, emphasize, as my colleague from Arkansas did, we are actually getting this done ahead of time. These rules aren't out-of-date yet. And so I would encourage my colleagues in the Senate to follow our example and get it done quickly so we can get this to the President's desk. I urge support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I am prepared to close if you are, and I reserve the balance of my time.