Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAURO

Mr. DeLAURO. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. What we are facing here today and what this is about, this so-called enrollment correction, is a procedural maneuver because the United States Senate sent over a continuing resolution that continues to fund Planned Parenthood. Because the majority is interested in defunding the opportunity for healthcare services for women, they have asked for this procedural maneuver to defund Planned Parenthood. It is simply about taking funds away from American women. Think about it. Think about shutting the government down because of women's health. The lack of care and concern, first and foremost, about the 2.7 million men and women that Planned Parenthood serves every year is a grave consequence. But in addition, shutting down the Federal Government the last time cost $24 billion to American taxpayers, held up disability checks for veterans, and, in fact, held back people's IRS rebates. Their preoccupation with denying women's health is cruel, it is spiteful, it is wrong, and it does great harm to this great Nation. Vote against this bad piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, nestled on the corner of Chapel and College Streets in Downtown New Haven is Claire's Corner Copia, a gourmet vegetarian restaurant that is among one of the most popular and beloved restaurants in the City. Founded by Claire and the late Frank Criscuolo, this community treasure is celebrating its 40th Anniversary and I am proud to rise today to join the community in extending my heartfelt congratulations on this remarkable milestone. A registered nurse by training, Claire decided she really wanted to find a way to work with her husband, Frank. Disappointed with some of the fare she was getting from local restaurants at the time, she and Frank opened Claire's Corner Copia in 1975. Claire was determined to bring the essence of her home-cooked meals to her restaurant and to create what she calls her ``own utopia.'' Claire's is, in a word, eclectic. Its two walls of windows allow customers to enjoy the bustling crowds on Chapel and Church Streets, the tables and chairs do not match, and the menu is a series of blackboards with your choices written in colorful chalk. You wait in line to place your order, give your name to have it brought to you, you get your own cutlery, and bus your own table. Claire liked the idea of her customers ``participating'' in their dining experience. Over the course of its 40-year history, Claire's Corner Copia has built a loyal following not only locally but for travelers as well. A Seattle resident who travels to New Haven on business recently told the local paper, ``It's the only restaurant I go to every time I come to New Haven. Everything is fresh and there is a wide assortment of characters.'' That is Claire's Corner Copia. What makes Claire's Corner Copia so special--aside from the all- vegetarian menu, the use of fresh ingredients, and its famous baked goods--is the atmosphere that Claire has created. Nearly everything on the menu is made in-house, you can always find Claire buzzing around the restaurant, and her employees, many who have been with her for more than a decade love their work. Instead of relying on tips, her staff is paid a fair wage, provided health benefits, and paid time off. Claire and her staff dedicate themselves to providing their customers with a unique experience. That is the secret of the success of Claire's Corner Copia. I want to extend a special note of congratulations to Claire Criscuolo. The restaurant business is not easy and her determination, vision, creativity, and entrepreneurial skill have made Claire's Corner Copia an iconic local landmark. Claire is also a dedicated member of our community, supporting a variety of organizations including New Haven Reads, St. Francis and St. Rose of Lima Schools, and Smilow Cancer Hospital. I cannot remember a time when I did not know her and I consider myself fortunate to call her my friend. I am honored to rise today to extend my very best wishes to her and her staff on this very special occasion. Happy 40th Anniversary.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. With this bill, the majority has declared war on the health and well-being of millions of women. Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million Americans every year with lifesaving services, like pap tests, breast exams, screenings for sexually transmitted infections. For many low-income families, Planned Parenthood is their only option. The majority claims that other clinics can take up the slack, but just listen to Dr. Mark DeFrancesco, the president of the American Congress of OB/GYNs: ``If Planned Parenthood went away, there are a good number of patients just in my service area that no longer will have a doctor. If they start calling my office, it is going to be `we could take you, but it might be 2, 3 months down the road.' And if they call other places, it might be `we can't even take you.' '' This bill creates chaos, and in that chaos, people's lives will be put at risk. This bill is spiteful; it is mean spirited, and it is cruel. It tells millions of low-income Americans: Forget your health. You can just die. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is with the deepest respect and the heaviest of hearts that I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend and outstanding political leader, Raymond L. Bramucci. His passing marks the end of an era and leaves a legacy of public service to which we should all strive. Born in Ludlow, Massachusetts, Ray's story is one so many children of immigrants share. His success was built on hard work and community service. One of four children of an Italian butcher who lost everything during the Great Depression, Ray worked a variety of factory jobs as a boy to help his family survive. He dropped out of high school at age 17 and entered the United States Air Force where he served for four years with honor and distinction. After finishing his service in the Air Force, Ray moved to New York City where he joined the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. Rising through the ranks, he became a senior director widely respected for championing fair play by both workers and employers. This commitment to balance earned Ray a distinguished reputation among all those he worked with. Senator Bill Bradley chose Ray to lead his New Jersey office, a post he held for more than twenty years before he was tapped by then Governor Jim Florio to serve as Commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Labor. His political acumen and policy prowess once again earned him the respect and admiration of all those who worked with him. As Commissioner, Ray left an indelible mark on public policy with one of his signature achievements--the passage of the Workforce Development Partnership Act, which trained unemployed workers in high-tech, emerging trades. Ray later served as the Executive Director of the Scion Hall University Institute on Work, a not-for-profit organization advocating workplace equity. He was also an arbitrator on the New Jersey Board of Mediation, a Special Advisor to the President of Montclair State University, and an adjunct professor of political science at Rutgers University. Ray ascended to the national stage in 1998 when then President Bill Clinton asked him to serve as Assistant Secretary of Labor at the United States Department of Labor. He oversaw the administration of national Youth Opportunity grants and became a driving force in employment and training nationwide. He also supervised job training across the country, including more than 100 Job Corps Centers. Even after his service at the United States Department of Labor concluded, Ray remained active as a consultant on worker training, labor issues, conflict resolution and arbitration for public and private sector clients. Throughout his life, Ray demonstrated a unique commitment to public service. He fought hard for policies that strengthened the American workforce in immeasurable and innumerable ways. On a more personal note, I will always be grateful to Ray for his friendship, support, and guidance. He was not only a good friend but, like for so many others, a mentor. I am honored to stand today to pay tribute to Raymond L. Bramucci for his many contributions to our nation and to extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Sue; his sons, Michael and Dante; as well as his many family, friends, and colleagues. I consider myself fortunate to have called him my friend and he will be deeply missed by all of those fortunate enough to have known him.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding member of our military and recent U.S. Army Ranger School graduate, Captain Kristen Marie Griest. A native of Orange, Connecticut, Captain Griest recently became one of the first women to complete the 62-day combat leadership course--shattering a gender ceiling as she joins the ranks of our country's most elite Army members. Though she will not yet be able to serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment, her hometown community and her state could not be more proud of her accomplishment. A graduate of Amity Regional High School in Woodbridge, Connecticut, Kristen Griest was known as a quiet leader and a tough competitor, always pushing herself to succeed. A track and softball star in high school, she entered the United States Military Academy at West Point in the fall of 2007. Following her graduation, Kristen went on to serve in the military police because, as her brother, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Michael Griest, an Army aviator himself, said ``it was the closest she could come at the time to serving in combat.'' She was deployed to Afghanistan in 2013 as a military police officer and upon her return took up the challenge of Ranger School. With courses including phases at Fort Benning in Georgia, on the mountains of northern Georgia, and in the Florida Panhandle swamps in and around Eglin Air Force Base, The U.S. Army's Ranger School is considered one of the military's most difficult courses physically and mentally. Critics of allowing women into the military's most elite units had used the argument that no woman has demonstrated she can keep up with men by passing Ranger School. Along with fellow graduate, 1st Lieutenant Shaye Haver of Copperas Cove, Texas, Kristen has successfully challenged such notions, demonstrating that women should be allowed the same opportunities as their male counterparts to join our military's elite forces. Kristen recently received her black and gold Ranger tab along with her fellow Rangers, but will return to her previous unit instead of joining her male colleagues in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Perhaps soon we will see that ceiling shattered as well. Today, I am proud to stand today to join her parents, Thomas and Laura; her brother, Michael; her many family and friends, as well as the community of Orange and the State of Connecticut in extending my sincere congratulations to Captain Kristen Marie Griest on the outstanding accomplishment of successfully completing the rigorous training at the U.S. Army Ranger School. She exemplifies the very best of our military and our nation.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to Bernard Sweeney who recently retired as the United States Small Business Administration's Connecticut District Director. In a career of federal service that spanned more than three decades, Bernie demonstrated a remarkable commitment to public service. Bernie's federal service included serving as Chief of Staff to the Under Secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Special Assistant to the Secretary at HUD, and Staff Assistant to the President of the United States at the White House. However, it was his work at the SBA that left an indelible mark on our state and region. Bernie began his career with the SBA in the Connecticut District Office in 1987 as Acting Assistant District Director for Business Development. During his tenure with the SBA, he served as a Team Leader for Marketing and Outreach, a Loan Officer, and Business Development Specialist. Prior to being named the Connecticut District Director in 2005, Bernie was the Branch Manager in the Springfield, Massachusetts SBA Branch Office. As District Director of the SBA's Connecticut District Office, Bernie oversaw the delivery of agency programs for the state of Connecticut, including financial assistance, management counseling, and business development. He was responsible for directing the activities of 10 permanent SBA employees, the administration of a business loan portfolio, oversight of the Connecticut Small Business Development Center (SBDC) network, including its 15 locations around the state, the coordination of 7 chapters of the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) and 3 Women's Business Centers (WBC) serving all of Connecticut. Bernie worked tirelessly to ensure that the district staff reached out to the underserved communities in Connecticut and that the SBA training programs reached these communities. He also helped to establish the three Hispanic Chambers of Commerce by offering both technical and financial assistance. I would be remiss if I did not extend a special note of thanks to Bernie for all of the help and guidance he provided to myself and my staff over the last decade. From coordinating informational briefings to immediately responding to storm and fire damage in various communities, Bernie was always just a phone call away. He was always ready to assist in whatever ways the agency could provide. He was a remarkable resource for all of us. For his many invaluable contributions to our small businesses, to our communities, and our state, I am honored to stand today to pay tribute to Bernard Sweeney. His is a legacy of public service to which we should all strive. I extend my very best wishes to Bernie, his wife, Sandy, and their son, Zack, for many more years of health and happiness as he enjoys his retirement.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the agreement reached by Secretary Kerry and the international community because I believe there is no better alternative for preventing Iran from immediately developing a nuclear weapon. Since the first sanctions were imposed on Iran a decade ago, I have supported tough economic measures as a means to bring Iran to the negotiating table. In that respect, the sanctions worked, but sanctions alone will not stop Iran from moving toward nuclear weapons. After strenuous review of the July 14 agreement and all its annexes, I have reached the conclusion that the agreement is the best option available today for keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands. Under the agreement, Iran is bound ``under no circumstances ever to seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons.'' Among other things, Iran must reduce its active centrifuges by two- thirds, give up 97 percent of its uranium stockpile, and reconfigure the Arak reactor so it cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. The number of inspectors in Iran will triple. They will gain full access to nuclear facilities, including the entire uranium supply chain, at any time. This is indeed the most intrusive inspection regime of any nonproliferation agreement in U.S. history. That is important because it will give the United States and the international community far greater insight into the regime's behavior and enable us to monitor them closely. It is true that Iran may try to cheat, but that is exactly why we need this agreement. With severe restrictions and an aggressive inspections regime in place, we will be much more likely to discover any violations. In that event, the United States will be authorized to reimpose sanctions on Iran immediately, and that applies not just to the U.S. sanctions, but to U.N. sanctions as well. In summary, this agreement comprises harsh restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities, a strong monitoring system, and tough penalties for violation. A group of 29 leading American scientists, including Nobel laureates, has called it ``a technically sound, stringent, and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decades and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.'' If we walk away from this agreement, the only remaining alternative is military action. We have been down that path for 15 years, and we have seen the grave consequences of not allowing diplomatic efforts to move forward. Ronald Reagan said of the Soviet Union: ``Trust, but verify.'' This agreement is not rooted in trust but in our ability to verify compliance and to deal with enforcement. I believe it meets the goals of our negotiations to deny a dangerous Iranian regime access to a nuclear weapon.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, next week marks the 90th birthday of a great American business, Pratt & Whitney. It all started with just 26 employees and 12 machines in an old car plant in Hartford, Connecticut. Nine decades later, Pratt & Whitney employs more than 9,000 people in Connecticut and ranks among my State's biggest employers. Planes with Pratt & Whitney engines carried Charles Lindbergh across America, Amelia Earhart over the Atlantic, and Wiley Post around the world. During World War II, the company powered half the U.S. aerial fleet. Later, Pratt & Whitney led the world in developing jet engines for iconic aircraft like the B-52, the Blackbird, and the Boeing 747. Its technology even helped power the Apollo 11 Moon lander. This tradition of excellence continues today. Pratt & Whitney engines built in my district provide the beating heart of the F-35 Lightning II. The company remains a key player in an industry that helps to safeguard our national security. It is my honor to congratulate Pratt & Whitney on 90 years of achievement. We thank you. To the men and women who work at Pratt & Whitney, we say again thank you for your service to our great country.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would make clear that foods labeled ``natural'' cannot contain genetically modified material. I want to emphasize right from the outset it is about our basic right to know what we are eating and what we are feeding to our children. FDA already requires clear labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and food processes. One example: fruit juice must indicate whether or not it is from concentrate. Clearly, that is not a judgment on food safety; it is a simple matter of transparency. Calling GMO foods ``natural'' is not transparent. It is confusing, and we have the data to back that up. As Members can see from the chart behind me, almost two-thirds of American adults believe that ``natural'' already means GMO-free, and 84 percent agree that that is what it should mean. We need to make sure that food labels reflect that commonsense understanding. As drafted, this bill would do the opposite. It would codify the status quo, being that food companies can put ``natural'' on a product, even if it was genetically engineered, which allows misleading labels. It would perpetuate misunderstandings and confusion. It would keep American families in the dark. This is not what the American public wants. More than 90 percent of us want clear GMO labeling. In response to this overwhelming demand, three States--Vermont, Maine, and my home State of Connecticut--have passed laws restricting the ``natural'' label to foods that do not contain GMOs. Several other States are considering similar laws. Without my amendment, this bill would nullify those State laws. This would represent a serious setback for the right to know in these States around the country. Mr. Chairman, American families want clear information about GMOs. They deserve that information. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning, this is not a question of safety or otherwise of GMO foods. We need to ask ourselves a simple question: Does the word ``natural'' really mean to a salmon engineered to grow at double the normal rate? a cereal created in a laboratory to be resistant to herbicide? a tomato with fish genes? Are these things natural? Our common sense says no. A clear majority of Americans agree. By overwhelming margins, we want to know when our food contains GMOs. We are what we eat, and whether it is the number of calories in our kids' Happy Meals, the country where our beef was raised, or the GMO content of the food we buy at the supermarket, as consumers, as parents, as Americans, we have a right to know. As drafted, this bill would fly in the face of that broad consensus and keep us in the dark. For the sake of transparency and for commonsense, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. The bill provides for an increase of $1.75 billion per year in the budget for the National Institutes of Health. I applaud all efforts to increase funding for the NIH. I am a survivor of ovarian cancer, and I am alive today because of the grace of God and biomedical research. So I appreciate biomedical research. Unfortunately, this increase is not nearly enough to restore the NIH's lost purchasing power. Since fiscal year 2010, the National Institutes of Health has seen its budget erode by about $3.6 billion in real terms, an 11 percent cut. If we are serious about funding life- saving medical research, we must raise our level of ambition. This bill also sets aside $500 million of the increase to be spent in certain specified areas of research. I think that this is a wrong approach. The people best placed to decide which scientific avenues are worth pursuing are scientists, not politicians. We should not substitute our judgment for theirs. I am also concerned that the bill will lower standards for medical device approval at the Food and Drug Administration and create a new pathway for antibiotic approval that, in my view, involves less rigorous testing requirements. Again, I think that this is a wrong approach. It is our duty to protect the public from potentially unsafe devices and drugs. We do not do that by reducing standards. Finally, the majority is yet again using this bill as a vehicle for anti-choice Hyde amendment language. Since January, the majority and its counterpart in the other Chamber have sought to restrict access to abortion no fewer than 37 times. The bottom line on this issue is that we need to trust women and that we need to trust the choices they make. We have to trust women. Politicians have no business meddling in those decisions. For these reasons, I believe that we should reject this bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. The vote last Friday and today's vote are critical in letting the American public know where we stand and that, in fact, we prioritize their economic security, their jobs, their increased wages and that we are opposed to special interests. And that is what this Trans-Pacific Partnership is all about. We must reject this bill.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this fast- track bill, which is only made worse by a gimmick of it being attached to unrelated legislation designed to help Federal public safety professionals. I might add, as has already been mentioned, the general president of the International Association of Firefighters, which this rule addresses as well, has said: We urge you to oppose this rule. For 20 years, our Nation's trade policy has been failing American workers and the businesses that want to invest in this country. It has driven away jobs, pushed down wages, and exacerbated inequality. A vote for fast track is a vote to continue that bad trade policy for another generation because if we approve fast track today, we rubberstamp the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership asks American workers to compete with labor in developing countries like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 56 cents an hour. It does nothing to combat the biggest source of lost jobs--currency manipulation--which The Economist's Fred Burcksen has said has cost us in the United States up to 5 million jobs. People lost their jobs and lost their livelihoods. It allows thousands of foreign corporations to challenge U.S. laws on food safety, drug safety, environmental protection, health care, labor rights, the minimum wage, and, indeed, any domestic law on any subject. The gentleman on the other side of the aisle said that that is not the case. Just witness what happened last week when the majority in this body voted to repeal country of origin labeling so that we know where our meat, our poultry, and our pork comes from because the World Trade Organization and Canada and Mexico ruled against us. So we are going to give up our domestic law. This is a trade agreement that has been crafted by lobbyists for the special interests and industries that stand to gain the most by weakening U.S. regulation and shipping jobs overseas, yet the administration has shown absolutely no interest in improving this deal or even listening to our concerns. That means that when the Trans- Pacific Partnership comes to this House, we need the ability to amend it. At the very least, it must include sanctions against currency manipulation, enforceable labor, environmental standards, and include a transparent process. If we vote for fast track today, we throw away our ability to make any of those amendments, and we turn our backs on our commitment to American workers: to their jobs, to their families, and to their economic security. We must make this a vote, and this vote must be a turning point so that at long last the American public can say that those of us in this House opposing fast track demand policies.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance failed in the House of Representatives last Friday by a 3-1 margin; yet this rule today would extend the revote on Trade Adjustment Assistance through the end of July. This is one more attempt to play games with the future of hard-working families. American workers demand and they deserve respect. They deserve a living wage and the right not to have their jobs shipped overseas. That is what we are united in fighting for. A vote for this rule is a vote for fast track. A vote for fast track is a vote against jobs and against wages. United States trade policy has been failing American workers, failing American consumers and families for 20 years. The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement has already cost up to 75,000 jobs, and it was just passed 3 years ago. Up to 5 million jobs have been destroyed by currency manipulation; and a number of the signatories to this trade agreement, their policy is to manipulate their currency to have their goods sold at a lower price than American goods, putting American workers out of jobs and lowering their wages. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, has written: ``Inequality is not inevitable. It is a choice that we make with the rules that we create to structure our economy.'' Trade policy is one of those choices. If we approve fast track, we throw away our ability, our constitutional authority to represent the people who sent us here in good faith. We throw away that ability to be able to fix the flaws in the trade agreement, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to the detriment of millions of American families. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the debate today is about one issue; it comes down to one question: Do we support hard-working Americans or do we abandon them? A vote for these bills is a vote against jobs, and it is a vote against wages. The Trade Adjustment Assistance bill is underfunded. It excludes teachers, police officers, firefighters, and farmers who are hurt when production jobs are shipped abroad, go overseas. If we want to protect working families, we must stop fast-tracking bad trade deals. Fast track denies public scrutiny, it denies debate in this House, and it relinquishes our congressional authority and does not allow us to amend a piece of legislation that will have such an effect on people's lives in this country. Why is this trade agreement in so much difficulty? Why? Because this is the first time that a majority of the Congress is starting to say: We need to prioritize what is happening to the hard-working men and women in our country. What is happening to their lives? What is their struggle? This trade agreement is only going to hurt their ability to have a job and to increase their wages. If we want to change that, then our job today is to vote down this bill. Say ``no'' to Trade Adjustment Assistance and say ``no'' to fast track.

Ms. DeLAURO

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 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?

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.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill; yet again, this bill deliberately sets out to weaken one of our most important financial regulators, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It fails to address the CFTC's biggest challenge, its flawed funding mechanism. It prioritizes Wall Street special interests over the economic security of our Nation's families. This bill is a recipe for another financial disaster like the one that led to the Great Recession and cost nearly 9 million American jobs. Americans are tired of casino banking and speculation. They want big banks and oil speculators held accountable. They want to increase the transparency of our markets, prevent market failures, and avoid future bailouts. That is the CFTC's job. This bill takes us in the wrong direction. Instead of helping the CFTC fulfill its mandate in an increasingly complex global financial sector, the bill throws up roadblock after roadblock. The CFTC is one of only two Federal financial regulators completely reliant upon the general fund. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and a host of others all collect user fees, so should the CFTC. This is not a partisan proposition. The first President to propose user-fee funding for the CFTC was Ronald Reagan. Every President since then, Republican or Democrat, has done the same. User fees would directly reduce the deficit while securing CFTC's funding for the long term. That is even more important now that the agency's responsibilities have been expanded in response to the bad behavior that created the financial crisis. I submitted an amendment that would have dealt with this problem, but the majority refused to allow it to be heard. We must avoid at all costs a return to the conditions that allowed the Great Recession to happen, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.