Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't appreciate this resolution being mischaracterized. The troops don't have to be withdrawn for 6 months, and the point of this resolution is to force this House to do its job and pass an AUMF. If my colleagues are so upset that we haven't debated and voted on an AUMF, they ought to support this resolution because it is the only way we are going to force the leadership in this House to do its job. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of the coauthors of this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to read the resolution because basically what it does, it gives the President up through the end of the year, if he so chooses. I mean, that is what the resolution says. And I would hope that in 6 months we could come together and pass an AUMF. I would hope that all my colleagues--who are complaining here that we don't have an AUMF--would actually come together in the next 6 months to do something because it hasn't happened in the first 10 months. We can point fingers all we want, but it is not getting done. And this is a way to force this Congress to do its job. It is that simple. This is not about walking away from the conflict in the Middle East. This is about making sure that the men and women who serve in the United States Congress live up to our constitutional responsibilities and do our job. I am sorry that so many people think that is a radical idea, but we haven't done our job. And I think it is a disservice to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, and it is a disservice to our duty as Members of Congress. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 55, which comes before the House today under the provisions of the War Powers resolution. Along with my colleagues Walter Jones and Barbara Lee, we introduced this bipartisan bill to force a debate on how Congress has failed to carry out its constitutional duty to authorize our military engagement in Iraq and Syria. Last August, the President authorized airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. For over 10 months, the United States has been engaged in hostilities in Iraq and Syria without debating an authorization for this war. On February 11 of this year, over 4 months ago, the President sent to Congress the text for an Authorization for Use of Military Force on combating the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere; yet Congress has failed to act on that AUMF or to bring an alternative to the House floor, even though we continue to authorize and appropriate money for sustained military operations in those countries. This is unacceptable. This House appears to have no problem sending our uniformed men and women into harm's way. It appears to have no problem spending billions of dollars for the arms, equipment, and airpower to carry out these wars, but it just can't bring itself to step up to the plate and take responsibility for these wars. Our servicemen and -women are brave and dedicated. Congress, however, is guilty of moral cowardice. The Republican leadership of this House whines and complains from the sidelines, and all the while, it shirks its constitutional duties to bring an AUMF to the floor of this House, debate it, and vote on it. This resolution requires the President to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and Syria within 30 days or no later than the end of this year, December 31, 2015. If this House approves this resolution, Congress would still have 6 months in which to do the right thing and bring an AUMF before the House and Senate for debate and action--6 months. Either Congress needs to live up to its responsibilities and authorize this war, or by its continuing neglect and indifference, our troops should be withdrawn and should come home. It is that simple. Two weeks ago, General John Allen, the U.S. envoy for the U.S.-led coalition that is fighting ISIL, said that this fight may take ``a generation or more.'' According to the Pentagon, we have spent more than $2.74 billion in the fight against the Islamic State. That is roughly $9.1 million each and every day. We have approximately 3,500 boots on the ground, and that number is rising. If we are going to invest a generation or more of our blood and our treasure in this war and if we are going to continue to tell our Armed Forces that we expect them to fight and die in these wars, it seems to me the least we can do is stand up and vote to authorize these wars or we should end them. We owe that to the American people. We owe that to our troops and their families. We owe that to the oath of office that each of us took to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear all kinds of crazy today about this resolution. Some Members will say that it demands the withdrawal of our troops in 30 days. That is true if you only read half of a sentence in the bill. The other half makes clear that the President has until the end of the year to withdraw our troops. Some Members will claim that this resolution will undercut our troops while they are carrying out bombing campaigns and training Iraqi and Syrian soldiers under dangerous conditions. They will claim it will deny the Iraqis and the Kurds our critical support in the fight against the brutal terror and threat of ISIS. They will claim that it will leave ISIS unchecked by U.S. airpower and allow them to overrun the region. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that it is precisely these threats and these challenges that make this debate so urgent. With such compelling issues at hand, how can Congress stand by and do nothing? How can Congress not have this debate and vote on an authorization for this war? By setting a clear deadline Congress cannot ignore, this resolution provides a strong guarantee that Congress will finally do its job, that Congress will honor its duty to our troops and to all Americans by debating and voting on an authorization for this war. Our troops deserve a Congress that has the courage to stand with them. I see the courage and sacrifice of our uniformed men and women, but I see nothing but cowardice from the leadership in this House. If they believe we should send our military forces to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS and possibly die over there, then, for heaven's sake, we should do our duty--we should do our job--and bring an AUMF to the House floor, debate it, and take some responsibility for this war. That is all this resolution is trying to do. Give the leadership of this House a deadline that even it can't ignore. Either enact an AUMF over the next 6 months or withdraw our forces from Iraq and Syria, one or the other. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from California and the gentleman from New York. I know that if it were left up to them, they could fashion an AUMF that could get 218 votes here. Quite frankly, we wouldn't be here today if we had done our job, because the only reason why you can bring up a privileged resolution under the War Powers Resolution is if our troops are in harm's way and we haven't acted. This could end right now if the Speaker of the House or the majority leader would give us a date certain by which we would debate and vote on an AUMF. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by our policy in Iraq and Syria. I do not believe it is a clearly defined mission, and I fear that it might be just more of the same. I am not convinced that by enlarging our military footprint, we will end the violence in the region, defeat the Islamic State or address the underlying causes of unrest. Regardless of whether you support the war or oppose the war, believe we should escalate our involvement or place restrictions on it, the bottom line is that Congress needs to debate an AUMF and vote on it. That is our duty. That is our job. If we don't have the guts to do so, then we should at least have the decency to bring our troops homes to their families and to their loved ones. I hope that each Member of this House, before they come down to this floor to vote on this resolution, takes a minute to look in the mirror. Ask yourself: Why do we get to go home to our families when our troops don't have that privilege? They have been sent to Iraq and Syria to fight in our name, but we don't have the courage to stand up for them and to authorize the war, and we don't have the guts to bring them home. Take a minute and ask: We are willing to send our troops into danger; we are willing to spend billions upon billions upon billions of borrowed money for this war, but we are not willing to carry out our constitutional duty, the same Constitution we keep asking our troops to put their lives on the line to protect? How can we keep asking them to sacrifice for us when we are not willing to put anything on the line for them? I have had colleagues come up against this resolution and say: We share your frustration over the fact that we have not debated and voted on an AUMF. I appreciate that, but I would ask them: What in the world can we do in a bipartisan way to force this question to come to the floor? What is it going to take to get the leadership of this House to say, I am going to schedule an AUMF, and we are going to debate it and vote on it? We have been involved in this latest war for over 10 months. Our resolution would give them another 6 months to come up with an AUMF, and if they didn't, then we bring our troops home. This resolution before us, I admit, is a bit of a blunt instrument; but if Congress had lived up to its responsibilities, we wouldn't need to be so blunt. Congress needs a clear deadline for a debate on an AUMF for Iraq and Syria. That deadline is the withdrawal of our troops by the end of this year. It gives this House, it gives this Republican leadership 6 entire months to get an AUMF enacted. It gives this House and this leadership 6 more months in which to simply do their job. A vote for this resolution is not a vote to pull out, as some have asserted; it is a vote to give House Republican leadership a deadline that they cannot ignore, to force them to do their duty as leaders of this House by finally bringing an AUMF to the floor for a vote. I heard some of my colleagues complain that they don't like the President's policy in Iraq and Syria; yet rather than trying to bring an AUMF to the floor to define that policy better, they are simply content to sit back and criticize from the sidelines. That is not what we are here to do. That is not our job. This is important stuff. War is a big deal. We ought to treat it like it is a big deal. War has become too easy for this Congress. I see no other way to force this issue than by supporting this resolution before us. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H. Con. Res. 55, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to insert in the Record a letter of support from the Constitution Project, which is signed by our former colleague, Republican Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma; a letter in support of this resolution from the Council for a Liveable War; a letter of support from Win Without War; and a letter of support from the Friends Committee on National Legislation. The Constitution Project, Washington, DC, June 17, 2015. Hon. Jim McGovern, House of Representatives. Hon. Walter Jones, House of Representatives. Hon. Barbara Lee, House of Representatives. Dear Representatives McGovern, Jones and Lee: We write to applaud you for your efforts to compel Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibility to decide on war. For ten months President Obama has prosecuted the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) under a specious legal claim that Congress authorized it fourteen years ago. Congress has done no such thing. It is high time that Members weighed in. We take no position on grave policy choices about whether to continue to use military force against ISIL, and if so how. But Congress must. The Framers vested the war power in the legislative branch precisely because they believed that young Americans should only be put in harm's way when the people, through their representatives' collective judgment, approved it. We know this is the most difficult issue that Members face. It is also your most important responsibility. If Congress agrees that U.S. service men and woman should be engaged in battle, it is Members' constitutional duty to say so. If Congress disagrees, those men and women should come home. What Congress cannot do is continue to avoid the question. We support H. Con. Res. 55 because it would force this long-overdue debate and vote. Please do not hesitate to contact us, via Scott Roehm at The Constitution Project, with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Mickey Edwards, Vice President, Aspen Institute; former Member of Congress (R-OK) and Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee; co-chair The Constitution Project War Powers Committee. Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library of Congress (ret.); Scholar in Residence, The Constitution Project. Virginia Sloan, President, The Constitution Project.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to my colleagues, while I appreciate their thoughtful statements, this resolution that we are debating here today would have no standing if there were an AUMF. We wouldn't even be allowed to bring this to the floor. I guess my question is: What do we have to do? What do Members of this House, both Democrats and Republicans, have to do to force the leadership here to bring to the floor an AUMF so we can do our job? That is all we are asking for. And, yes, this is a blunt instrument to do it, but I don't know what else it will take to force this issue. I think we owe it to our servicemen and -women to have this debate and to have this vote. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who believes Congress ought to do its job and pass an AUMF. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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.

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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. June 8, 2015. Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, 1301 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Collin Peterson, Ranking Member, House Agriculture Committee, 1301 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson: The undersigned 283 farm, rural, faith, environmental, labor, farmworker, manufacturer and consumer organizations respectfully urge you to reject the repeal of the Country-of- Origin Labeling (COOL) law and support commonsense food labeling. Polls show that nine out of ten Americans support COOL. Consumers continue to demand more information about their food and producers want to share that information. Although the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body has issued its decision on COOL, the United States has a sovereign right to allow the dispute process to proceed to its completion and then decide how and whether to implement the adverse ruling. Our organizations remain steadfast in their opposition to any efforts to undermine COOL through repeal or any other measures. It is premature for the Congress to unilaterally surrender to saber-rattling from our trading partners in the midst of a long-standing dispute. COOL opponents have highlighted Mexico and Canada's threats of retaliation as if their aspiration to seek billions of dollars in penalties were already approved by the WTO. But these unapproved, unrealistically high retaliation claims are merely aggressive litigation tactics designed to frighten the United States--a standard practice in WTO disputes. Congress should not fall for it. The WTO can only authorize penalties based on the extent to which COOL caused a reduction in the volume and price of livestock imports. But the economic recession was the driving factor behind declining livestock imports, not the application of a simple label. Cattle imports are higher today than when COOL went into effect and hog imports are rapidly rebounding, even with COOL in place. This straightforward logic is buttressed by a recent economic report from Auburn University that demonstrates that COOL has not impacted the livestock trade and that any harm to our trading partners has in fact been negligible at most. Moreover, retaliation is only relevant if the United States, Canada and Mexico cannot reach an agreement after the parties have undergone the full WTO arbitration process. In past WTO disputes that the United States has lost, the United States has waited for the process to conclude and then has successfully avoided WTO-authorized trade sanctions by negotiating a settlement with the other country in the dispute. Finally, the proposed COOL repeal legislation is particularly extreme in that it would roll back commonsense labels that the WTO actually supported or that never even were raised in the WTO dispute. The legislation would repeal COOL for ground beef and ground pork as well as for chicken, but the WTO explicitly ruled that the COOL label on ground meat was WTO-legal, and the dispute never addressed chicken or other covered commodities (including seafood, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, goat, venison and some nuts). COOL is extremely important to our organizations and to the American public. We oppose any legislation that would repeal any portion of the COOL law. We urge Congress to stand up for America's consumers, farmers and ranchers by rejecting any effort to unilaterally repeal a popular food label even before the WTO process has concluded. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, AFL-CIO; AFL-CIO of Nebraska; Alabama Contract Poultry Growers Association; Alabama State Association of Cooperatives; Alaska Farmers Union; Alianza Nacional de Campesinas; Alternative Energy Resources Organization (AERO) (MT); American Agriculture Movement; American Corn Growers Institute for Public Policy; American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO), Local 3354, USDA-St. Louis; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2748 (WI); American Grassfed Association; American Indian Mothers, Inc. (NC); American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association; Angelic Organics Learning Center and Farm (IL); Arkansas Farmers Union; Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake County (OH) Farmers' Union; Berks (PA) Gas Truth; Berkshire Organics (MA); BioRegional Strategies; Bold Nebraska; Boots on the Ground, LLC; Boston Food & Farm PBC (MA); Buckeye Quality Beef Association (OH); Buffalo Mountain Coop (VT); California Dairy Campaign; California Farmers Union; Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform; Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment; Caney Fork Headwaters Association (TN); Carbon County Resource Council (MT); Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (NC); Catholic Charities of Central and Northern Missouri-Social Services Office/ Diocese of Jefferson City; National Catholic Rural Life Conference; Cattle Producers of Louisiana; Cattle Producers of Washington; Center for Earth Spirituality and Rural Ministry (MN); Center for Family Farm Development (GA); Center for Food Safety; Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention; Center for Media and Democracy's Food Rights Network; Center for Rural Affairs; Central Co-op (WA); Chicago Consumer Coalition; Church Women United in New York State; Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana; Citizens for Sanity.Com, Inc. (FL); City Market Onion River Co- op (VT); Cleanwater Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin; Coalition for a Prosperous America; Colorado Independent CattleGrowers Association; Communication Workers of America; Communication Workers of America Nebraska State Council; Community Alliance for Global Justice (WA); Community Farm Alliance (KY); Community Food and Justice Coalition (CA); Connecticut Families Against Chemical Trespass; Consumer Action; Consumer Assistance Council, Inc.; Consumer Federation of America; Consumer Federation of California; Consumers Union; Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias; Cooperative Grocer Network; The Cornucopia Institute; Cornucopia Network NJ/TN Chapter; Cottonwood Resource Council (MT); Crawford Stewardship Project (WI); Cumberland Countians for Ecojustice (TN); Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action of SD; Dawson Resource Council (MT); Detroit Coalition Against Tar Sands; East New York Farms!/United Community Centers; EcoHermanas; Ecological Farming Association (CA); The Ecology Center (CA); The Ecology Party of Florida; Endangered Habitats League (CA); Equal Exchange; Fair World Project (OR); Family Farm Defenders (WI); Farm Aid; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Farmworker Association of Florida; Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund; Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Rural Training and Research Center (AL); Fiddleheads Natural Food Cooperative (CT); Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection; Food & Water Watch; Food Chain Workers Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Food for Maine's Future; Friends of the Earth U.S.; Global Justice Ecology Project; GMO Free New Jersey; GMO Free Pennsylvania; GMO-Free Florida; Grand Forks County Citizens Coalition (ND); Grassroots International; Grow Youngstown (OH); Hanover Consumer Cooperative Society, Inc. (NH); Hawaii Farmers Union United; Hmong National Development, Inc.; Hunger Action Los Angeles; Idaho Organization of Resource Councils; Illinois Farmers Union; Illinois Stewardship Alliance; Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I-BAND); Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas; Indian Nations Conservation Alliance; Indiana Farmers Union; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; Institute for Rural America (IA); Interchurch Ministries of Nebraska; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Intertribal Agriculture Council; Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement; Iowa Farmers Union; Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (MD); Kansas Cattlemen's Association; Kansas Farmers Union; Kansas National Farmers Organization; Kansas Rural Center; LabeIGMOS.org; Land Stewardship Project (MN); Leverett Village Coop (MA); Local Futures/International Society for Ecology and Culture; Long Beach Food Policy Council (CA); Lowcountry Local First (SC); MA Right to Know GMOs; Maine Fair Trade Campaign; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA); The Manufacturers Association of Central New York; Massachusetts Consumers' Council, Inc.; Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (WI); Michigan Farmers Union; Michigan Food & Farming Systems; Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance; Middlebury Natural Foods Co-op (VT); Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Association; Midwest Environmental Advocates, Inc. (WI); Milwaukee Fair Trade Coalition (WI); Minnesota Farmers Union; Minnesota National Farmers Organization; Mississippi Assoc. of Cooperatives; Missouri Farmers Union; Missouri National Farmers Organization; Missouri Rural Crisis Center; Missouri's Best Beef Cooperative; Monadnock Food Co-op (NH); Montana Farmers Union; Montana Women Involved in Farm Economics; Montgomery Countryside Alliance; Murray County (OK) Independent Cattlemen's Association; National Center for Appropriate Technology; National Co-op Grocers; National Consumers League; National Family Farm Coalition; National Farmers Organization; National Farmers Union; National Hmong American Farmers, Inc.; National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association; National Organic Coalition; National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; National Young Farmers Coalition; Nature Abounds; Near East Side Cooperative Market (OH); Nebraska Alliance for Retired Americans; Nebraska Easement Action Team; Nebraska Farmers Union; Nebraska League of Conservation Voters; Nebraska Sierra Club; Nebraska State Grange; Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society; Nebraska Wildlife Federation; Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics; Nebraskans for Peace; Neighboring Food Co-op Association (MA); Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ; Nevada Live Stock Association; New England Farmers Union (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT); New York National Farmers Organization; New York Women Involved in Farm Economics; NH Right to Know GMO; North Carolina Consumers Council; North Dakota AFL-CIO; North Dakota Farmers Union; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Northeast Organic Farming Assoc.--MA; Northeast Organic Farming Assoc.--NH; Northeast Organic Fanning Assoc.--NJ; Northeast Organic Farming Assoc.-- NY; Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association; Northern Plains Resource Council (MT); Northern Wisconsin Beef Producers Assoc.; Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (MA); Northwest Farmers Union; Oglala Sioux Livestock and Land Owners Association (SD); Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association; Ohio Environmental Council; Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance; Ohio Farmers Union; Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project; Operation Spring Plant, Inc. (NC); Oregon Rural Action; Oregon Rural Action Blue Mountain Chapter Food & Ag Policy Team; Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families; Organic Consumers Association; Organic Farmers' Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM); Organic Seed Alliance; Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association (OSGATA); Organizacion en California de Lideres Campesinas, Inc.; Organization for Competitive Markets; PCC Natural Markets (WA); Peach Bottom Concerned Citizens Group (PBCCG) (PA); Pennsylvania Farmers Union; Pennypack Farm and Education Center (PA); Pesticide Action Network North America; Powder River Basin Resource Council (WY); Progressive Agriculture Organization (PA); Provender Alliance (OR); Public Citizen; R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America; Raritan Headwaters Association (NJ); Real Food Challenge (MA); Real Food for Kids--Montgomery (MD); Real Pickles Cooperative, Inc. (MA); Right to Know Minnesota; River Valley Market (MA); Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Roots of Change (CA); Rosebud Protective Association (MT); Rural & Agricultural Council of America; Rural Advancement Foundation International-- USA (RAFIUSA); Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural; Rural Development Leadership Network (NY); Rural Vermont; Rutland Area Food Co-op (VT); Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op (CA); Seacoast Eat Local (NH); Slow Food Nebraska; Slow Food USA; Small Planet Institute; Socially Responsible Agricultural Project; Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001 (WA, KS); South Agassiz Resource Council (ND); The South County Food Co-op (RI); South Dakota Farmers Union; South Dakota Livestock Auction Markets Association; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; South Dakota Women Involved in Farm Economics; Southwest Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics; Springfield Food Co-op (VT); Stone Valley Coop & Cafe (VT); Texas Farmers Union; Tilth Producers of Washington; Tooling, Manufacturing and Technologies Assoc. (MI); Toxics Information Project; U.S. Cattlemen's Association; U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG); United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries; United Steel Workers Local 1188 (ME); United Steel Workers Local 900 (ME); Vermont National Farmers Organization; Virginia Association for Biological Farming; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Walter's Signs (NJ); Waterkeeper Alliance; Western Colorado Congress; Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC); Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group; Western Wisconsin AFL-CIO; Wild Oats Market (MA); Willimantic Food Coop (CT); Wisconsin Fair Trade Coalition; Wisconsin Farmers Union; Women Involved in Farm Economics; Women's Environmental Institute; World Farmers; Yellowstone Valley Citizens Council (MT).

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.'' [From the Associated Press, Jun. 10, 2015] U.S. To Send More Troops to Iraq for Expanded Training Mission (By Robert Burns and Lolita C. Baldor) Jerusalem.--An expected White House decision to send several hundred more troops to Iraq to expand training of Iraqi forces in Anbar province is not a shift in U.S. strategy but is aimed at helping Iraq retake the provincial capital, Ramadi, and eventually blunt the Islamic State's battlefield momentum. The decision, which could be announced as soon as Wednesday, would increase the number of U.S. training sites in Iraq from four to five and enable a larger number of Iraqis--mostly Sunni tribal volunteers, in this case--to join the fight against the Islamic militant group. It is consistent with the overall U.S. approach of building up Iraqi forces while simultaneously conducting aerial bombing of Islamic State targets. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that getting the Sunnis more deeply involved in the war is critical to ousting IS from Anbar. It leaves open, however, the larger question of whether the Shiite-led Iraqi government will make the troop commitments necessary to oust the Islamic State from Ramadi, which the militants captured last month, and Fallujah, which they have held for more than a year. Up to now, Iraqi officials have chosen to deploy most U.S.-trained Iraqi troops in defensive formations around Baghdad, the capital. President Barack Obama has ruled out sending U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq. There now are slightly fewer than 3,100 U.S. troops there in training, advising, security and other support roles. The U.S. also is flying bombing missions as well as aerial reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering missions to degrade the Islamic State's forces, while counting on Iraqi ground troops to retake lost territory. A U.S. official said Wednesday that the extra U.S. training site will be at al-Taqqadum, a desert air base that was a U.S. military hub during the 2003-2011 war. Establishing the training camp will require between 400 and 500 U.S. troops, including trainers, logisticians and security personnel, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because a final administration decision had not been announced. The U.S. already is training Iraqi troops at four sites-- two in the vicinity of Baghdad, one at al-Asad air base in Anbar province and one near Irbil in northern Iraq. The addition of one training site is a modest tweak to the existing U.S. approach in Iraq. It was unclear Wednesday how many more Iraqi troops could be added to the fight against IS in coming months by opening one new training base. One official said the training at al-Taqqadum is likely to being this summer. Over the past year the U.S. has trained approximately 9,000 Iraqi troops. The new plan is not likely to include the deployment of U.S. forces closer to the front lines to either call in airstrikes or advise smaller Iraqi units in battle, officials said. One official, however, said the adjustment may include a plan for expediting the delivery of arms and military equipment to some elements of the Iraqi military. On Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Jerusalem that he has recommended changes to President Barack Obama but he offered no assessment of when decisions would be made and announced. He suggested the president was considering a number of questions, including what adjustments to U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world might be needed if the U.S. does more in Iraq. Dempsey said the Pentagon also is reviewing ways to improve the effectiveness of its air campaign, which is a central pillar of Obama's strategy for enabling Iraqi ground forces to recapture territory held by the Islamic State. Obama said Monday that the United States still lacks a ``complete strategy'' for training Iraqi forces. He also urged Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to allow more of the nation's Sunnis to join the campaign against the violent militant group. Dempsey said Obama recently asked his national security team to examine the train-and-equip program and determine ways to make it more effective. Critics have questioned the U.S. approach, and even Defense Secretary Ash Carter has raised doubts by saying the collapse of Iraqi forces in Ramadi last month suggested the Iraqis lack a ``will to fight.'' The viability of the U.S. strategy is hotly debated in Washington, with some calling for U.S. ground combat troops or at least the embedding of U.S. air controllers with Iraqi ground forces to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of U.S. and coalition airstrikes. Dempsey was not specifically asked about that but gave no indication that Obama has dropped his resistance to putting U.S. troops into combat in Iraq. ``What he's asked us to do is to take a look back at what we've learned over the last eight months of the train-and- equip program, and make recommendations to him on whether there are capabilities that we may want to provide to the Iraqis to actually make them more capable . . . whether there are other locations where we might establish training sites,'' and look for ways to develop Iraqi military leaders, he said. Dempsey said there will be no radical change to the U.S. approach in Iraq. Rather, it is a recognition that the effort has either been too slow or has allowed setbacks where ``certain units have not stood and fought.'' He did not mention the Ramadi rout specifically, but Dempsey previously has said the Iraqis drove out of the city on their own. ``Are there ways to give them more confidence?'' This, he said, is among the questions Obama wanted Dempsey and others to answer.