tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN June 10, 2015 12:00pm-5:01pm EDT
origin labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken, and also the 2016 defense appropriations bill. the house will take those up this afternoon. we'll go live now to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain temperature am emmanuel texas. >> our god and god, god of
compassion, god of justice and god of peace. in this great hall where dreams come true, we ask your blessings upon these great men and women that are representatives of the people. they have devoted their lives to our welfare. give them wisdom and courage. inspire them with the teachings of our prophets as they answer isiah's call, to feed and clothed the naked, protect the orphan and the widow, lift up those who cannot stand on their own in this land and all lands. who came to this country 16 years ago and became an american
citizen just two years ago. i joined this house in the prayer of profound gratitude and deep appreciation for the blessings we the people of the united states of america are privileged to enjoy. i ask you god, to let the lights of truth and harmony shine from this chamber as beacons for the betterment of all americans. let us say amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal a announces his approval thereof, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i demand a vote on growing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: those in favor say aye.
the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from montana, mr. zinke. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa, is recognized for one minute.
>> his service today as guest chaplain. a nat i have of argentina the rabbi and his wife imgrated to the united states where he continued his studies and receiving several masters' degrees. the rabbi has served congregations all over the united states. he has worked to develop a strong interfaith connection with his christian and muslim counterparts. he has received numerous awards for hises as on religion and ethics. and in addition to his duties, the rabbi is also a medical doctor. he has been a high school teacher in cincinnati, ohio and combined his religious and medical training by serving as a hospital chaplain at a variety
of institutions. the rabbi is joined here today by his lovely wife and two beautiful children. i want to thank him for his prayer and for his service to my community. with that, i yield back mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives sir. i write to offer my official resignation as a member of the house committee on science, space and technology effective today, june 10, 2015. it has been an honor and a privilege to serve on this committee over the last four years. signed sincerelyly representative palazzo member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: by direction of the house republican conference i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its
immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 304, resolved that the following -- ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will now entertain 15 requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i pay tribute to our female veterans and active military duty in all branches as well as those who made the sacrifice for our country. clear path for veterans, an organization in central new york in my district, devoted to empowering servicemen and women, veterans and their families will
celebrate female duty appreciation day to honor the countless women in our community who have served our country. women across our debate nation have and continue to put their lives on the line for our freedom and our democracy. america's service women, veterans and families are continually changing the way that our military are defined in our homes, our communities and armed forces and around the world. with the number of female veterans at the highest percentage in united states history, clear path for veterans is a pioneer in empowering and inspiring women in all branches of service. i stand beside this organization and working to enable women veterans to reach their full potential. these women have made our country stronger, and courage and strength have given us freedom and the sacrifices that they have made should never be forgotten. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. frosm the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: today is a time when portuguese americans and families of portuguese descent come together to celebrate their shared heritage. over the years, united states and portugal have shared a strong friendship. beginning in may of 1791 when portugal became the first neutral country to recognize the new american government. continuing today through our shared security objectives and our cooperation on the global war on terror. i'm honored to celebrate day of portugal because my district has the largest portuguese constituents. as chair of the portuguese american caucus, i join my quints in celebrating the day of portugal and strengthening portugal relations to fighting and maintain air field in the
azores and cooperation in agriculture, education, tourism and health. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. mr. speaker, 25 years ago today was one of the most meaningful of my life as i served as an election observer for the post-communist elections in the republic of bulgaria with the international republican institute. it was a dream come true to visit talented and enthusiastic people at polling locations in the region and see a restoration of democracy amidst the cultures. i was welcomed by a professor who was elected to the national assembly and later reinstituted the rotary club. in congress, i have been grateful to co-chair the
bulgarian caucus and work with the ambassador and this year led a delegation to meet with the prime minister who is promoting rereforms to the people of bulgaria. it has been uplifting to meet with the troops along with my son serving in iraq and afghanistan, who now trains with americans at the training base. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. god bless bulgaria. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection. >> john grandville grew up in south buffalo and he had a desire to serve others. mr. higgins: he was a scholar and volunteer who became a diplomat. in 2007, john was distributing radios to remote villages in
south sudan. on new year's day in 2008, they were targeted and assassinated by terrorists. he was 3 years old. four men were convicted of the murders, but six years ago today, they escaped with the aid of a man later pardonned by the sudanese president. do two of the killers remain at large and there is a reward for their arrest. today i will introduce a resolution to maintain sudan on the state sponsors of terrorism list until the president of sudan of john's killers and the killers are captured. when the family expressed concerns, john would say he knew his work was dangerous. today, we remember a man of light and peace and pledge to bring to justice those who took him from us far too soon. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from illinois seek recognition? >> perge to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: my thanks to chairman
conaway to the recent w.t.o. ruling. since 2009, canada and mexico argued that our labeling policy distorts trade across our borders and increases cost of meat and poultry. we had hoped from a favorable ruling but the rulings and appeals have been against us. it is time to address the problems proposed by cool. if not addressed, canada and mexico have threatened $3.6 billion in trade retaliation. this would be a major plow. not just livestock producers that would feel the pain. threatening reinstallation would impact the corn growers in my district, one of the most
productive in the nation and candy makers like hershey and march mars. i thank chairman conaway and his prompt response to the w.t.o.'s ruling. end the years of uncertainty faced by our farmers ranchers
and so many others and urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: fixing our nations' crumbling infrastructure to boost the economy and increase transportation safety should not be a partisan issue. and yet republicans in congress continue to show neglect and indifference towards the nation's infrastructure and transportation and safety needs. the two-month extension of the high trust fund they offered in their unacceptable appropriation bills are the latest examples. it shows a dangerous disregard for safety measures on america's
highways at a time when we know transportation safety should be a priority. it allows double tractor trailers to travel on high speeds on america's interstate system and suspends safety guidelines aimed at eliminating trucker fatigue and allowing them to work more than twice the average work week. the short-term highway trust fund does not solve the problem of deteriorating roads and bridges but puts a band-aid on it. it got stuck in a pothole. now is the time to fix the infrastructure in our communities and need to put people back to work. what we need is a robust, long-term commitment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. i rise today to speak in favor of h.r. 2393, the country origin
labeling act of 2015 and i thank the chairman for his leadership. on may 18 the world trade organization ruled against the u.s. cool requirements. this ruling gives canada and mexico the green light to retail yate against united states products, particularly beef pork and chicken products and we are not looking at a slap in the face. unless cool is repealed, u.s. goods could be hit with tariffs totaling $3.6 billion. my home state would be hit hard. we have over 20 million hogs and four million cattle. iowa exported two billion of pork. we need to repeal the country of origin labeling requirpgtse that could hurt american work workers. we have programs in place to give consumers in information and the right to know where these products came from. we are out of options. other fixes have been ineffective as the u.s. and
state economies recover. the choice is clear. we cannot wait and see what trade retaliation would look like. it's time to repeal cool now. and i yield the floor. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to applaud the texas state legislature in passing house bill 48 establishing the tim cole exoneration review commission. mr. veasey: tim cole was wrongfully convicted of rape and the first texas man to be posthumously cleared by d.n.a. testing. oftentimes when people hear these stories people think what did he do to get on the radar of the police department? did he have something -- had he done something previously in his life that would have made the police department suspect him? i can tell you in tim cole's case, tim was an army veteran from fort worth, a texas tech
student and honorably served in the military. it was a very bad time to be a black man living in lubbock texas. and tim was sentenced to 25 years in prison and died behind bars without being able to prove his incense. i'm happy to -- incense. i'm happy to let you know the 11-member panel who will exam the convictions to determine what went wrong and make recommendation aimed at avoiding the mistakes made in tim cole's face in the future. on june 1, the governor signed the bill into law affirming all americans are entitled to due process and that tim cole's family can take some small solace in the knowledge that his death has resulted in changes that can provide hope to those who also are wrongfully convicted. also want to applaud tim's brother, corey session, who has worked tirelessly on clearing his brother's name for years and also his late mother, ruby session, who didn't get to see this bill signed into law, she did get to see some changes made
in texas. i'm happy for this family. sad that this happened to tim cole but glad that something positive has taken place. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition. mr. zinke: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: i rise today in solidarity for the millions of men and women in armed forces who are living with or died from the effects of posttraumatic stress disorder. june is ptsd awareness month. my home state of montana, nearly 15,000 veterans, or 15% of the population of all veterans, suffer from ptsd. ptsd no doubt is a serious condition that touches every aspect of a person's life. every day 22 veterans commit suicide nationwide. many of them struggle to live with ptsd. many of our veterans who live with btsd struggle to transition
from -- to civilian life because they have not been given essential resources and the care they need at v.a. hospitals and clinics or their local communities. i urge the veterans administration and local communities to work together to do everything we can to combat this epidemic. god bless america and the men and women who serve and defender. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of this year being the 150th anniversary of the salvation army. it all started in 1865 with the minister named william booth. he took to the streets of london slums to champion the poor and
neglected and decided we've got to do something. and that something transformed into innovative approaches to eliminate poverty by demonstrating faith and offering practical support to those in need. in my third congressional district and across the nation, the salvation arm ay provides assistance to families in need by-salvation army provides assistance to families in need. we have all seen the volunteers ringing the bells with the red kettles asking for donations and nationally they have raised $135 million and continue to make tremendous contributions locally in ohio nationally, and globally. i thank the salvation army members, staff, board, and volunteers in my district and honor their work and service throughout this year-long celebration of their 150th anniversary. happy anniversary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: as the house debates giving guidelines to the president on opening up american trade, i rise to urge the president to secure a verifiable nuclear agreement with iran. america's response to iran's nuclear program will be the most important foreign policy decision in a generation. this problem grows more urgent by the day. on june 1, "the new york times" reported that iran's nuclear stockpile had grown by 20% over the previous year and a half. the secretary of energy revealed that iran was two to three months away from a nuclear weapon in april, which was two months ago. the nuclear agreement without vare fiblet -- verifyibility is not an agreement at all but an act of faith in the worst state sponsor of terrorism in the wormed. -- world. i want to remind the president that he has said quote, the
nuclear armed iran is not a challenge that can be contained and that the united states will do what we must to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. end quote. i hope that this will not be another vanished redline for the president who has also said that quote, as president i don't bluff, end quote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you. i rise today to express my anger at what i saw on the video taken of the event down in mckinny, texas, on last friday where a big and burly police officer wearing white socks manhandled a young 15-year-old black girl in a bathing suit and manhandled other young black people who were there simply to attend a
pool party. that kind of heavy-handed out-of-control police misconduct must be stopped in this country. we must do something about it. i was so angry that i couldn't be there to do something about it, but i am here to do something about it. i pledge to the people to do everything i can to make sure that we eliminate those kinds of officers from police forces throughout the country. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. much of the economic turmoil has unanimous consent to gripped this nation as a result of the federal government spending beyond its means. however, democrats continue to insist on ignoring the consequences of our crushing debt burden. last week democrats in the senate announced they would block any appropriations bill,
including legislation providing funds for the defense of this nation, until republicans meet their demands for increased government spending. in a time of grave threats to our nation, we must be vigilant determined, and united in full support of our military personnel. providing for the common defense of the united states of america is the federal government's primary duty. holding hostage funding for our troops, their families, and the nation's veterans in order to extract more taxpayer dollars for washington bureaucracies is the worst kind of political gamesmanship. it's time to make protecting this nation a priority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as we celebrate the 52nd fliffer of the passage of the equal pay act, i rise
today to reflect on our commitment to equality and the work ahead to turn this commitment into reality. ms. kelly: in 1963, our nation declared that women deserve equal pay for equal work. yet more than half a century later we still have much work ahead to end pay discrimination against women. today women make just 77 cents for every dollar men earn. amounting to an $11,000 gap per year between full-time men and women. that's almost 1,000 more each month to help with groceries rent, and student loans. the work force disparates have disastrous effects on our nation. according to the census bureau, one in three women live below 200% below the federal poverty line compared to one in four men. and of the more than 100 million americans who live paycheck to paycheck, almost 70% of them are women and their children. meanwhile, of the s&p 500
companies women make up just 14.2% of their leadership positions and only 24 companies have female c.e.o.'s. women deserve a fair shot at the american dream. i urge my colleagues to work with me to address these issues. together let's eliminate gender disparates in our work force. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the centennial anniversary of one of our nation's most beautiful commutes, the city of clear water, florida. named for its abundant fresh springs and waters it was established in 1830. mr. jolly: it is renamed clear water and established as a municipality on may 27, 1915. clear water is known internationally for its clear gulf waters, award winning beaches, a rich history of major league baseball spring training
and home to our very own movie star, winter the dolphin. it's also a great place to visit year-round. it holds the guinness world record for the most consecutive days of sun shine. which is why they continue to warmly welcome hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. mr. speaker, it's an honor to represent the people of clear water and our greater pinellas county community. i ask everyone to join me in recognizing this milestone. happy anniversary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarksment the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, house democrats continue to try to move this country forward but the republican majority continues to try to turn back the clock. mr. jefferies: the effort to eradicate the export-import bank is another example after reckless act of legislative
malpractice. first house republicans shut down the government for 16 days costing the american people $24 billion in lost economic productivity. then house republicans attempted to shut down the department of homeland security risking the safety of the american people. now house republicans want to shut down the export-import bank. risking tens of thousands of jobs for hardworking americans. what is your addiction to shutting things down? the american people want us to lift them up and the best way we can do it right now is to re-authorize the export-import bank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i would like to recognize someone who is a very familiar voice to readers of the omac
chronicle newspaper located in okinagan county. mr. newhouse: liz liz is one of the most senior journalists in the pacific northeast. she has shared r love of the outdoors, her photography, and passion for all things concerning the community for 61 years. since 1954 elizabeth has written a column for the chronicle titled exploring the okinagwan. so far she's written almost 2,900 columns on an array of topics and continues to add to that number regularly. through sharing her ories with her down to earth words of wisdom and curiousity of the world around here, list also has shown a profound connection with the valley and has inspired generations of readers and those who know her. please join me in celebrating the contribution and dedication of this remarkable lady an explore -- explorer of things
great and small. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. . ms. wilson: mr. speaker, today six young girls who escaped boko haram will join us at a press conference after votes on wear red wednesday. boko haram has launched the slew of attacks that have killed more than 109 people in the last two weeks. as ties to the jihadi group boko haram becomes an even greater global and domestic threat. boko haram and isis have now
joined together. we must act now to ensure that our young people are not enticed by this terrorist group. i can see african-american children this summer becoming ininfatuated and move in that direction. these extremists exploit this, filling young people's heads with terrible lies and destructive ideas. everyday they are left undefeated and one more day that our young people are at risk, we are in danger. tweet, tweet tweet, # bringbackourgirls. we must destroy boko haram and isis. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recknizz? >> permission to address the house for one minute.
mr. massie: universities, students and professors come on up with new ideas, pursue their dreams late into the night. backed by venture capitalists who fund their ideas. why would entrepreneurs, inventors and universities be against the bill called the innovation act? i will tell you act. because it stifles innovation. would you take a lawn mower to your flower garden if you saw a weed in it. i wouldn't. that's what the innovation act does. it will destroy and degrade our patent system and i urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 9. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from state of illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my
remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: i rise today to recognize lg electronics for winning design for recycling award. it is one of the activities that each of us can do on a daily basis to protect the environment and protect natural resources. it is some of our country's and largest best manufacturers working to preserve our environment. mr. speaker the vast majority of recycled material comes from automobiles, refrigerators, old tires and electronics such as televisions and computers. lg electronics won for their 4-k and l.e.d. tv's. they include new innovative technologies that were designed with recycling in mind. i join in recognizing to their
commitment to the environment and recycling. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: permission to address the house for one minute. i rise today to celebrate the life, service and valor of captain john dearborn, an american hero. a lifelong resident of deerfield was new hampshire oldest living marine and served in world war ii. during his service, having seen the final japanese surrender on september 2 1945. marking the end of world war ii. dearborn was a active member and traveled to washington, d.c., to
participate in an honor flight with other veterans from around the nation. his service legacy and courage live on. we will never forget the service and sacrifice and what he made for our freedoms and liberty. it's because of nation's heroes like dearborn that our land is the home of the free and land of the brave. and we are forever grateful. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to congratulate marissa bartles winning four gold medals. she was born with spinea bifada. no longer able to participate in sports she knew and love, she discovered wheelchair sports. this was her third participating
and winning the races as well as shot put and d inch scus. her abilities stepped beyond track and field. she is a national champion in baseball and basketball. it is no surprise that this impressive competitor will be heading to the university of wisconsin whitewater in the fall as a student athlete. best of luck and congratulations, don't give up no matter whatever obstacle we may face. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today relating to the crew cfpb rule in truth and lending act disclosure that is scult to take effect on august 1. on behalf of home builders they requested a grace period. to date it will only commit to
saying they will have relaxed enforcement similar to the qualified mortgage. whether this rule will provide more confusion to the real estate purchaser leaving aside whether it will provide protection to buyers or more problematic to close on a real estate transaction. i spent 10 years in the industry working with agents, banks, mortgage professionals and it is well known that june, july and august are the most active months for real estate transaction requirements. changing the rules for real estate deals causes difficulties in those conducting settlements and without professional to test their systems and procedures. and it is unfair that you are compelling them to receive training during the busiest months and account for unanticipated disruptions and this is to the detriment to the
consumer. make the rule effective in january or february of 2016. it is historically the slowest months of the year and most fair to real estate consumers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> a young woman when our country went to war in 1941. as men answered their nation's call more than 16 million women worked for factories. may crier who is approaching her 90's and recalls her day as a riveter. american women like may gained not right and remain a symbol of strength and confidence for our nation. in paying tribute to these
heroes let us acknowledge the women who serve on the home front with continued recognition of a national rosey the riveter day. on behalf of pennsylvania's 8th district, thank you for your contributions to our country and your role in the legacy of the greatest generation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by the direction on the committee of rules i call up house resolution 30 and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: house calendar number 39, house resolution 30 , resolved, that a, at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union
for consideration of the bill h.r. 2685 making appropriations for the department of defense for fiscal year ending september 30 2016 and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and not exceed one hour controlled by the chair and ranking member. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five minute rule. points of order for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. b, during consideration of the bill for amendment, one, each amendment other than amendments provided for in paragraph 2, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent and shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in par graph 2. 2, no proper forma amendments shall be order except the chair
and ranking membering minority member may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate and three, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose and clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. c. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with recommendations that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section two upon adoption of this resolution it shall be order to consider the bill h.r. 239 to amend the agricultural marketing act to repeal country of origin labeling requirements
with respect to beef, pork and chicken. all points against consideration are waived. the amendment in the nature of the substitute are now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thrt to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the committee of agriculture and two, motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one hour. mr. newhouse: i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts,
mr. mcgovern pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, on tuesday, the rules committee met and reported the rule house resolution 303 providing for consideration of pieces of legislation, h.r. 2393, the country of origin labeling act of 2015 and h.r. 2685, department of defense appropriations act of 2016. the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 2393 under a closed rule and h.r. 2685 under the customary modified open rule process which allow any member to offer an amendment to the bill so long as the amendment complies with the rules of the house. the only restriction is on the amount of time that will be allotted for debating each amendment. h.r. 2393 is an urgent and
critical response to the world trade organization s' ruling on may 18 of this year, which found country of origin labeling or cool for muscle-meat cuts to be in violation with the u.s. trade obligations with canada and mexico. h.r. 2393 will simply repeal the provisions, making the u.s. compliant and prevent retaliation. critics of h.r. 2393 will say we have more time, but in truth, we don't. this final ruling is the fourth time the w.t.o. has ruled against the u.s. for various versions of cool. and on this final appeal, the w.t.o. has given both canada and mexico the authority to impose more than $3 billion in combined retall yacht other tariffs against u.s. products within 60 days of the ruling. today, mr. speaker, we are now
down to just 37 days to respond before these tariffs are imposed. this could deal an enormous blow to u.s. companies and the workers they employ, just when our economy is beginning to rebound. there is an argument floating around that this will prevent all labeling or that made in north america label will satisfy the trade obligations. north american label will not necessarily satisfy our obligations and can in no way no matter how fast we try be negotiated in the remaining 37 days to prevent retaliation. it's important to note repealing mandatory cool doesn't prevent voluntary labeling as some companies do. some critics will claim this will weaken inspections for meat imports and nothing could be further from the truth. united states department of agriculture has and will continue to provide the most rigorous science-based imported
inspections inspections of foreign products to the united states whether or not it has a mandatory origin of country labeling will not affect these inspections. this legislation is desperately needed. our manufacturers and pork producers, our grape growers and ranchers have repeatedly asked us asked congress to ensure we repeal cool provisions and bring the u.s. back into compliance with our w.t.o. obligations fully and quickly. . it is important to ensure our economy is protected and the u.s. play bice the rules we agreed to with two of our biggest trading partners which are by far our largest export markets. this rule also provides for the consideration of h.r. 2685, the department of defense
appropriations act which funds our nation's national defense and provides the resources necessary to continue our essential military efforts abroad, as well as the funding for health and quality of life programs for the brave men and women of our armed forces. overall, the bill provides $578.6 billion in discretionary funding. $800 more -- $800 million more than the president's request and $24.4 billion above the fiscal year 2015 funding level. within this amount $88th 4 billion is appropriated for our war efforts in global war on terrorism. h.r. 2685 is an imperative measure that funds our critical national security programs and addresses the vital needs of our men and women in the armed services. an effective military, one that is well equipped and well trained is indespencible to the common defense of our country
and in the best interest of all americans. this bill includes vital funding for the u.s. military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to instability abroad. this bill contains $133 billion to provide for $1.3 million active duty troops and 820,000 national guard and reserve troops. $219 billion is included for operations and maintenance which provides for the funding of readiness programs that repair -- prepare our troops for combat and peacetime missions. the constitution charges the congress to provide for our national defense, and this bill ensures we will fulfill that obligation. our highest national priorities should always be the protection of our country and the funding levels in this bill will ensure our military remains the most capable prepared, and exceptional armed force anywhere
in the world. mr. speaker, we must provide the resources necessary to fight america's enemies abroad. with the rise of isis, the continued presence of al qaeda, the growth of terrorist groups in north africa, instability throughout the middle east, and russian aggression in ukraine, our military must be prepared for not only current threats but for future ones as well. we also need to support those willing to fight alongside us which is why h.r. 2685 includes critical support for our allies who are also facing this unprecedented instability due to the aggression of nation states and terrorist organizations alike. this bill makes difficult budgetary choices without undermining the safety, security, and success of our service members and their families. it uses every tax dollar responsibly to give our armed forces the resources they need
to stay prepared, safe, and in peak fighting form. supporting the men and women of our armed services who day in and day out risk their lives in the service of our country is one of the most important functions that we perform as members of congress. and this responsibility should not be taken lightly. i am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides for our nation's military security andure courageous men and women in -- and our courageous men and women in uniform. mr. speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule allowing for consideration of two very critical pieces of legislation that will help protect our economy, provide necessary funding for our service members, and the defense of our country. and i support its adoption. i urge my colleagues to support the rule as well as the underlying bills. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts
is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, for the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this grab bag rule and both underlying pieces of legislation. mr. speaker today marks the 18th time in this congress that house republicans have brought to the floor a grab bag rule. a single rule that governs floor debate for two or more unrelated pieces of legislation. since republicans took control of the house in 2011, the use of grab bag rules has dramatically increased by over 400%. using one rule to govern multiple oftentimes unrelated bills stifles debate, which i guess is the point of them merging all these bills under one rule, but it stifles debate on the house floor and leads to dispointed and confusing discussion between two sides.
ranking member slaughter and my democratic colleagues on the house rules committee have raised these concerns with chairman sessions, but unfortunately we are back on the floor today to consider one rule for two completely unrelated measures. today's rule provides for consideration of h.r. 2393, the country of origin labeling amendments act, also known as cool under a completely closed process. no amendments are allowed, none. clearly this is an issue that we need to address sooner rather than later, but h.r. 2393 is not the answer. it was introduced just two days after the world trade organization ruled against the united states country of origin labeling requirements for meat. h.r. 2393 is a knee-jerk reaction to the w.t.o. ruling that completely does away with labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken which wasn't even addressed in the w.t.o. ruling. look we know from past w.t.o.
disputes that there are several steps that need to occur before retaliation would take place. the arbitration panel takes at least 60 days. but in the u.s.-brazil cotton case, it took 15 months to produce a ruling. the sky is not falling. we have some time to come up with a workable solution. instead of h.r. 2393, we ought to be working toward a more thoughtful approach to balance -- that balances consumer's right to know where their meat comes from with our trade obligations. more than 60 countries have successfully implemented cool like labeling requirements that comply with w.t.o. standards and we ought to look towards these programs for a workable solution. such an important issue that impacts the safety of food we eat and the health of american families deserves the most robust debate possible, but this closed rule from the house republicans prevents us from having that kind of debate. as i said, not a single member, democrat or republican are
allowed to offer an amendment to this bill. completely closed. today's rule also provides for the consideration of h.r. 2685, the department of defense appropriations act. mr. speaker, with respect to the fiscal year 2016 defense appropriations act, there is much to praise about the bill. it contains many important provisions and strong funding for suicide prevention and training. improved response to sexual assault and prevention, and medical research. i applaud the hard work put into drafting this bill by the defense subcommittee chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky, along with appropriations committee chairman rogers and ranking member lowey. however, this bill suffers from two major, and i emphasize the word major flaws which to my mind makes it difficult if not impossible to support. first and foremost, this bill
continues to use the overseas contingency operations account, or o.c.o., as a slush fund to get around parts of the budget control act that republicans don't like. namely the caps on defense spending while ignoring the damage the caps are doing to all our nondefense programs. this bill, like the defense authorization bill before it completely bypass the caps set down by the b.c.a. by increasing o.c.o. funding by $38 billion above the president's request. the bill shifts $38 billion from the defense base budget and shoves those moneys into the off budget -- into the off budget o.c.o. meant to cover the cost of our various wars. rather than wrestle with the hard questions of how to get rid of the sequester and budget caps and bring our spending back into regular order, the republicans have decided to wallow in a slush fund. quite simply mr. speaker, it is a disgrace.
mr. speaker, don't you think it's about time that we found a way to provide for our national security needs without relying on war contingency slush funds to pay for everyday expenses of the department of defense? members on both sides of the aisle have recognized that the sequester does not work. shouldn't we be honest about that? shouldn't we negotiate a workable plan rather than play these games of smoke and mirrors that actually undermine the pentagon's ability to budget and plan for the long-term? second mr. speaker, this bill continues to appropriate billions of dollarsle to carry out the war against the islamic state in iraq, syria, and elsewhere. but congress has not even debated let alone authorized that war. the leadership of this house continues to fail in carrying out its responsibilities under the constitution and bring an
aumf before this body to authorize the billtary operations that have been ongoing since last august. just last night we learned that the u.s. presence in iraq will increase even further with the administration planning to establish a new military base in anbar province and send hundreds of additional american military trainers. this move is aimed at helping iraqi forces to retake the city of ramadi from the islamic state, but it is clear our involvement is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. but still no word from this leadership that it has the political will or intention to bring an aumf to the house floor this month or next month or the month after. with americans investing more and more in this conflict, we are told that we spend about $3.5 million an hour on this latest war against the islamic state, but there is never -- there has never been a greater
urgency for this congress to debate and to vote on this war. time and time again bipartisan letters have been sent to the speaker asking him to bring an aumf to the house floor. time and time again individual members have sought to bring amendments up for debate that would authorize military operations in iraq and syria only to have the republican majority on the house rules committee reject them. depriving them of consideration and depriving them of debate. just last night i offered an amendment that simply states that no funds in this act may be obligated or spent on military operations in iraq and syria in the absence of an aumf for such operations. it was also rejected by the republicans of the house rules committee. some stated that they voted to reject it because 10 minutes, which is the amount of time limiting debate on all amendments to the defense bill, is simply not enough time to debate a serious question.
i agree. 10 minutes is not enough time, but the rules committee has the power to increase that limit to as much time as it feels appropriate. and it failed to do so. the rules committee could provide two hours of debate or two days of debate or two weeks of debate. that is the power of the rules committee. so don't hide behind this excuse as a reason for congress not to live up to its constitutional responsibilities. mr. speaker, it seems that we can always find the time and find a way to send billions and billions of dollars to fund wars. we can always find a way to send our brave men and uniform overseas to fight and die in these wars, but we can't ever seem to find the backbone or time to debate and authorize them. each night, each week the members of this house get to go home to their families and their communities surrounded by loved ones and people who support them. if we don't have the stomach to take responsibility presenting
our troops -- sending our troops into danger, the least we can do is bring them home to their families so they might enjoy the same peace and privileges that we take so much for granted. if we want to spend our nation's treasure on these wars, and my colleagues believe the war in iraq and syria is a priority for our nation and national security, then we should carry out our constitutional mandate and debate and vote on an aumf. . the rules supported an amendment by ms. lee that says congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force against isil. end quote. that is in the defense appropriations bill. but the fact of the matter is, mr. speaker that we shouldn't just be saying that congress has a constitutional duty, we should actually be carrying out our
constitutional duty. i hope every single one of my colleagues remember that when they cast their votes for final passage of this bill, you are providing money and equipment and lives to carry out a war that this house doesn't even have the courage to debate and vote on. the leadership of this house has to stop whining and stop trying to shift the responsibility on to anyone and everyone except to whom the responsibility really falls. it falls upon each of us to say the time has come to let the leadership debate it and vote on it. it is time we stop acting like could you ard -- cowards. oppose this rule and the underlying legislation and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: let me say before
i turn to some of my colleagues that i agree with the gentleman from massachusetts. these are important issues, especially when we are talking about appropriations for the defense department. we do need an aumf and i remain committed to accomplish that that we should have that open debate and discussion through the committee system. this is not the vehicle. but we will do that. we need to do that. and i agree with the gentleman. today, very happy to have several people that would like to speak on this issue a member of the agriculture committee i would like two minutes -- to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas. >> i strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation. and i believe this effort is long past due. i thank the chairman of the rules committee for bringing this rule to the floor and i thank the response to the w.t.o.'s time ruling that sets
the table. cool has been a costly burden on our nation's meat industry and now massive retaliatory tariffs from canada and mexico will inflict pain on industries and jobs. at a time when american g.d.p. is shrinking and farmers and manufacturers are desperately seeking markets, the least we can do is to he repeal. this imposes heavy costs for no defensible purpose. while the primary goal of cool is to give the american advantage, it is the exactly opposite. as the direct result of this policy we have not only seen sharp increases in the cost of marketing and selling beef and pork but looming trade retaliation is costing american industries who contract for
future delivery of goods into these export markets. our nation's businesses will experience billions of dollars of market loss, which will kill jobs, harm our u.s. competitiveness and long-term impact on america's health. form today, we have the chance to end the harmful act of this policy and i support this rule and the underlying legislation to repeal cool once and for all. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm glad he supports my position that we ought to have a debate on aumf when it comes to these wars against the islamic state and iraq and syria but my question is, what are we waiting for? 11 months ago, congressman walter jones, a republican and congresswoman barbara lee and myself actually brought a resolution to the floor saying if we are going to be engaged in
combat operations in either -- in iraq, we ought to have a vote on aumf. we have been at war for 10 months. bombing every day. the president is going to send another several hundred moreover there. what are we waiting for? we were told in the 113th congress that we ought to wait. i don't know why, given the fact that the war began under the 113th congress. january came and we are in the 114th congress and we were told we had to wait for the president to submit a strategy. he did. 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 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'll get to it. we'll get to it. we'll get to it. we announced yesterday we are
going to establish a new military base in iraq and close to 500 more american troops are going over there. what are we waiting for? we ought to debate these aumf's 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'm frustrated by my friend who say i'm with you, but we'll get to it at some other point. how many months, how many years have to go by before we do our job? the gentleman talked about a constitutional duty to protect the people of the united states, we also have a constitutional duty when it comes to war and we're not living up to that at all. we are failing miss rably and it is a dis-- misser rably and it is a disgrace.
on the cool legislation, let me remind my colleagues that are 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. you know, 2013 consumer federation of america study found that 90% of americans strongly support mandatory cool for fresh meat and requiring meat to be labeled with specific information about where the animals were born, raised and process. 2010 consumer union study shows 93% of consumers would prefer to have the country of origin label on the meat that they buy. that's what the american people want. and yet rather than trying to, you know, respond to that, the first inclination -- in the aftermath of this w.t.o. ruling
is to basically cave and saying we don't care what the american people want we are just going to cave. that's the wrong way to proceed and i would urge my colleagues to vote against this cool legislation. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: i would like to turn to the chairman of the agriculture mr. conaway for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman from washington state as well for giving me the opportunity to testify today regarding the rule governing debate on h.r. 2393. country of origin labeling or cool was first enacted as part of the 2002 farm bill and implementation of the law was delayed until 2008. less than five months canada and mexico challenged the rule arguing it had a trade
distorting impact on a number of cattle and hogs. the process has since progressed through the dispute settlement phase and the appellate body. in both instances, it was found the way the regulations were implemented discriminated against the imported livestock. the upes was given until may 13, 2013 to bring it into compliance. in response, they revised which require production be included on meat labels. the revised rule prohibited the co-ming willing of the processed meat. it established a compliance panel to determine if it brought the united states in compliance. canada and mexico claimed not only did the revised rule failed to bring the united states into compliance but certain parts were even more onerous than the
original rule. it required segregation of animals by country of origin which raises the costs of utilizing imported livestock. the report released october 20, 2014 upheld the earlier findings of discrimination. the united states appealed the compliance panel report on may 18 and may 18 2015, w.t.o. rejected the united states' appeal and found for the fourth and final time that the u.s. cool requirmingtse for beef and pork were discriminatory. and trying to determine the tariffs that canada and mexico can now impose on the united states which has been having the effects of billions of dollars. during a hearing to examine the implications of potential retaliation against the u.s., witnesses made it clear that losing the final appeal to w.t.o. and possible retaliation
against the united states would have a devastating impact. witnesses included representatives from the u.s. chamber, national association of manufacturers, the wine institute of california, national calt cattleman's beef association and national farmers union and some have asked why should we act. but the fact is cool is a marketing failure. in april of 2015 report to congress usda explained that the requirements result in extraordinary costs with no quantifiable benefits. in terms of producers, packers and retailers regulatory impact analysis for the 2009 cool bill -- another minute -- mr. newhouse: i give the chairman 30 seconds. mr. conaway: to those who argue, i have maintained for over 10 years that is not the case ffment it were, all meats served
in a restaurant would come with a label. it is exempt from the cool requirpgtse. in may of 2001 -- the letter to congress, the secretary said congress needed to repeal the requirpgtse, if we go down this path and have nothing to negotiate on. repeal is the only viable opinion -- viable option for us to avoid the retaliatory statements. we are now fixing this. cool repeal is the answer and this bill does that. and i support the rule and the underlying legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. we have been involved with a long struggle in this congress
and congresses before dating back some 13 years and even before that about country of origin labeling. do people have the right to know where their food comes from. as the gentleman from massachusetts pointed out, the american public supports this. we have -- had a ruling from the w.t.o. that does not prohibit country of origin labeling to the contrary. the case upheld the country's right to require food labeling when it serves a broad public interest and does not lead to treatment of a foreign product in a less favorable way than a domestic one. we are rushing in a repeal that goes beyond just the disputed elements, adding poultry, and raising questions about our commitment to be able to give consumers what they want. there are those that would attach costs to this but it
also in terms of what people want. but i think we ought to take a deep breath. there is not going to be any retaliatory tariffs that are going to be actually inflicted. this is a process that's going to take months. the brazilian cotton subsidies, which i personally think brazil was right, we had inappropriate cotton subsidies and we are paying brazilian cotton interests now because of our refusal to make our own cotton policies w.t.o. compliant. that's another scandal in my judgment, that we are giving $148 million to brazilian cotton farmers because we are giving inappropriate subsidies to american cotton farmers when we have other priorities. in this case, we have plenty of time in this congress to follow regular order to be able to
carve out specific provisions that speak to the weakness in what the united states did, because the united states in enacting this for meat products it was pretty convoluted. and the american government had been told before that it would not be w.t.o. compliant. so this isn't a surprise. it's not an emergency. it is a responsibility we have to try and make these adjustments. i don't want to have our other industries penalized with retaliatory tariffs and they won't be. but we don't have to pass this bill but ought to deal with the underlying problems be narrow and be specific and uphold the right of american consumers to have as much information as we can give them. so i would strongly recommend that we reject the rule and the underlying bill.
let's have this conversation. let's do it right. and let's make sure that we defend our right under w.t.o. to have appropriate food labeling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: i yield one minute to a member from the agriculture committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 2393, the country of origin labeling amendments act of 2015. this very important legislation is a direct response to the fourth and final world trade organization ruling that mandatory country of origin labeling, or cool, is anti-competitive and will allow canada and mexico to speak over $3 billion in tariffs on
products, directly placing american producers at a disadvantage. h.r. 2393 removes cattle, hogs and chicken from cool labeling to allow our producers to maintain access to two of our largest trading markets and protect u.s. exports from destructive sanctions. again, i urge my colleagues to adopt this combined rule and vote in support of the cool amendment act. i encourage the senate to move this legislation as quickly as possible so our producers can compete on a level playing field. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: thank you.
country of original labeling stands for more knowledge is power. the more knowledge you have the better decisions you can make. this is true about the food you can eat and it's also true about the trade deals that we're being asked to swallow this week. with fast track hurling at us for a vote day after tomorrow, this recent world trade organization decision against the united states ought to serve as more than a blinking yellow light. it ought to be viewed as a giant red stoplight. the world trade organization rule that it just isn't cool to supply consumers more information, and while this decision may not actually overrule our law, what you're seeing today is the possibility, indeed the probability of expensive retaliation against american exports unless we yield to this w.t.o. decision. if you support local
decisionmaking, you need to consider the significance of our experience at the world trade organization. there have been previously some challenges to united states laws just like this, and the record of the united states at the world trade organization when it's challenged is not one to be really proud of. we have had six wins and 66 losses. these are losses that have been sustained when other countries challenged our laws, and only recently, as my colleague, rosa delauro and i attempted to present an amendment to a bill to say that deserters those that leave our country and renounce their charters in order to dodge taxes, they ought not to be given government businesses paid for by taxpayers and we had some organizations that came and said you can't do that, you can't deny corporate desserters
and opportunity to -- deserters an opportunity to get money for work because the world trade organization wouldn't like it. so there are already a range of threats being used based on existing trade laws. consider now what will happen when the number of those who can challenge decisions in this congress and at the state level and at the local level is multiplied gee metically because of the fact -- jeometrically because of the fact under a resolution foreign corporations thousands of foreign corporations can challenge our regulations and our laws. taxpayers being exposed to unprecedented amounts of liability because of our decision to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people that we represent. and at least the world trade organization, the group that decided this case, it has an appeal process. there is no such appeal process for these cases that will be
brought by foreign corporations and the panels that will decide them are made up -- do you have an additional minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. doggett: those panels are usually made up of the majority of private lawyers who one day are litigating cases for multinationals for them and the next day deciding these cases. if you support local decisionmaking, if you agree that foreign investors should not receive greater rights than american investors, if you support local and state decisionmaking to keep our air and water and our environment clean without having to pay foreigners for the privilege of doing it then there should be great concern about these trade deals that are being fast tracked this week and we don't have to look far to see the damage that could occur because only three months ago in canada it happened when a local decision about expanding a youry in an environmentally
sensitive area that was challenged successfully. that's an unfortunate decision, we need to be weary of these fast track proposals and insist that they be made the right track for more trade without jeopardizing the health and safety of the american people. i tried to do that in the ways and means committee but like every other amendment to put us on the right track it was rejected. we need to reject that approach this week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd now like to yield two minutes to the good gentleman from georgia mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i rise today to voice my strong support for this rule and the underlying bill h.r. 2393 the country of origin labeling amendments act. the bill requires the labeling of meat products because it affects people across the nation because like so many policies it has achieved
nothing but harm to our economy not what it was, quote intended to do. it does not improve food safety and now threatens to further devastate the ability of american agriculture industry to provide for their families by violating our trade obligations and encouraging trade -- i was sent to washington to be the voice of 700,000 americans who live in northeast georgia. hees hardworking americans produce more chicken than any other district in the united states. and now, like so many other americans they're facing devastating financial harm because of the cool requirement which arbitrarily mandates that meat products have a label that shows what country they were produced in. you see, the w.t.o. has ruled on four separate occasions that mandatory cool requirements violate our obligation to treat our trade partners fairly. just as we demand to be treated fairly by them. now, canada and mexico can seek to impose retaliatory tariffs against not only our meat exports but exports on virtually every industry in the united states. now, i can't imagine knowing how -- knowing that a pork chop came from a pig that was born in canada could possibly
improve fod safety and i really can't imagine when we already require that all meat imports be inspected by at least the same standards that the usda inspects meat here at home. but i can tell you that it takes no imagination how it affects our trade partners. retaliatory tariffs are expected on 493 million worth of georgia exports alone. nationally tariffs will impact billions of dollars worth of exports. chicken exports will be taxed the moment they leave the country and with 20% chicken produced in the united states being imexported it will be overwhelming. what will happen if we fail to repeal the mandates? my district and districts across the country will be unable to compete in the international market. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me say this cool repeal i think is a rash overreaction to the
w.t.o. 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 to my friend from georgia, it was like, 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's an outrageous idea. as i mentioned before, the overwhelming, you know, support for this, for the american people 90% support this country of original 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 my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i'd like to introduce another member of the agriculture committee, the gentleman from michigan mr. benishek, a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is
recognized for a minute and a half. mr. benishek: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 3893, the -- 2393, the country of origin labeling amendments act of 2015 as well as the rule. mr. speaker, we oftentimes hear the debate about the mandatory cool label is about food safety and protecting our food supply. let me be clear. mandatory cool labeling is not about food safety. no matter where our food comes from, regulations remain in place to ensure safety and traceability regardless of origin. this debate is about the cost that a government mandated marketing program is having on our economy. the world trade organization has ruled that the united states four times -- ruled against the united states four times in favor of mexico and canada, our largest trading partners. over the next month, canada and mexico will begin seeking retaliatory damages against u.s. products from all over the
country. in fact, canada has already announced that it will seek more than $3 billion in retaliatory sanctions. these damages are real. they will affect farmers manufacturers and small business owners in my state of michigan and around the country. michigan's first district produces 70% of the tart cherries in the country. we export a lot of these cherries to canada. canada has placed cherries on the list for retaliatory sanctions. we also make other things in my district like apples pork, wine, maple syrup. michigan is also famous for the auto and steel industry. canada plans to target all of these things. these penalties are real. it will cost jobs. this is the last thing we can afford to lose right now. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts continues to reserve. the gentleman from washington.
mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the lady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for two minutes. hearts hearts thank you, mr. speaker. i had -- mrs. hartzler: thank you mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman for bringing this legislation to the house floor. i'd make my remarks short and simple. cool has been a 13-year failed experiment in public policy. it provides little to no value for the consumer, raises costs for all producers and has created a significant trade dispute with our number one and number two trading partners -- canada and mexico. it's an embarrassment to our country that we have lost four times in the w.t.o. court and now are facing significant retaliation from our two closest trading partners. this is particularly concerning when you consider my home state of missouri alone could face up to $623 million in economic
losses from retaliation. america should be a leader in creating free and fair trade around the world by focusing on removing tariff and nontariff trade barriers, not creating our own. americans expect labels on their meat and food products to clearly state and health and information concerns. cool goes beyond that, though, and has amounted to nothing more than a government mandated marketing program that provides little to no value to producers and consumers. we need full repeal of the country of origin label law. i support the underlying bill, encourage my colleagues to vote for h.r. 2393, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i say to the gentlelady a lot of the small and medium-sides farmers strongly disagree with her. and there are a lot of consumers who would like to support american farmers.
and nine out of 10 americans support country of origin labeling and repeal this law would restrict critical information about the food they feed their families, making it impossible food from countries with poor safety records. w.t.o. said labeling food about the source of their 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 ren tirle, we should study the successful models and develop an alternative system that still maintains our constituents' access to the information they demand. so the legislation that we're talking about here today goes beyond the scope of the w.t.o. case and repeals labeling requirements for ground beef, ground pork, ground chicken, putting processors above the concerns over 90% of the american public. it shouldn't be a radical idea
around here 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 bath water and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. . mr. newhouse: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. mcgovern: how many more speakers does the gentleman have? mr. newhouse: no more speakers. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: 6 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from washington 11 minutes. mr. mcgovern: first of all, on the cool repeal, i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter to chairman conaway signed by hundreds of hundreds of organizations, farm organizations, consumer groups, labor groups food safety
groups i could go on and on and on saying that this legislation we are considering today is a bad idea. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i would say to my colleagues on this legislation, the american people want it -- do not want a total repeal. nine out of 10 americans support country of origin labeling. we ought to work out a good compromise so people have access to the knowledge. and i ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule and the underlying bill. i want to say a couple of words for the defense appropriations bill and for the viewing bill, what does country origin labeling have to do with a defense department appropriations bill, i would remind them that they have this new technique of bunching diverse pieces of legislation together under one rule to
stifle debate, to make it more difficult for people to have their say on these important bills and try to confuse things. but i do think it's people that people also understand that the defense appropriations bill is given a rule under this rule. and i would urge my colleagues to think long and hard before they -- i would urge them to vote no on the defense department appropriations bill and the slush fund, so-called o.c.o. fund which is playing fast and loose with the numbers so they don't have to deal with the issue of sequestration. i 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's too broad and some think it is too restrictive. vote to bring our troops home. that is the choice. but doing nothing is not a choice. that is not us performing our constitutional responsibilities. 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 or vote on it. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record, two articles, an associated press article, u.s. to send more troops to iraq for expanding training mission and "new york times" article, u.s. embracing a new approach in battling isis in iraq. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this house, this congress is not working. the fact that we could be in the middle of a new war spending all these resources committing all these young lives into harm's way and we can't even bring an aumf to the floor to have a debate. it's appalling. i don't know how we can face our constituents. and look at them in the eye and say we're doing our job here. we're not. i don't know anything more important that we should debate
and deliberate on than war. i mean war's a big deal. the unfortunate thing in this institution, war has become too easy. and i'm tired of the excuses. i'm tired of the whining. the president has done what he is supposed to do. everybody has done what they are supposed to do except us. and i can't -- i'm not going to vote for any bill that properties more money for a war that we don't even have the guts to authorize. and so, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this grab-bag rule. vote no on this ridiculous cool repeal. and vote no on the defense appropriations bill. and let's vote these down and come back and do our job the way the american people expect us to do our job. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: just let me say
thank you to the gentleman from massachusetts and the points he raises. i enjoy serving on the rules committee with mr. mcgovern. let me say that this congress, we are on track to be one of the most productive congresses in many, many years and that's because of the use of compound rule which provides for separate consideration of each underlying measure under a single rule and helps expedite legislative business and allows the house to debate the underlying measures and has given us the opportunity to achieve that efficiency and effectiveness and productivity. i have limited time, mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: just for a 10-second question. how does it give us more time to debate the cool repeal? it is a straight forward limited debate. i would argue you are denying us
to debate appropriately. we are not saving time. what the republican majority is doing is limiting our opportunity. mr. newhouse: regaining my time, agricultural committee has had a.m.ment time. and so it is an appropriate approach to address this issue. mr. speaker the issues we are considering today have very serious consequences on the security of our economy and well-being of our country and i'm urging my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills. h.r. 2685 is an important measure that fund our national defense and critical national security programs. it provides the resources needed to continue our essential military efforts abroad and addresses the vital needs of our men and our women in uniform. an effective well-equipped and
well-trained military is in the best interests of all americans. and is dispensible to the common defense. it includes vital funding for the u.s. military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in responding to these challenges abroad. this bill also makes difficult budgetary choices that will help us save taxpayer dollars wherever possible. but it does so without undermining the safety and security and the success of our troops and their families. with the rise of isis the continued presence of al qaeda, the emergence and growth of terrorist groups in north africaner cyst temperatureic instability in the middle east and ongoing situation in the ukraine our military must remain strong and ready to address the threats here at home and abroad. our highest national priority should always be the protection of our country and the funding
levels will ensure our military remains the most capable prepared exceptional armed force anywhere in the world. to me, the choice is clear. what side are we on? we choose to be on the side of our troops. and i'm proud to support this bill. and the important funding it provides our nation's military, security and our courageous men and women in uniform. this rule provides for the consideration of h.r. 2393, country of origin labeling amendments act. that warrants immediate and serious consideration by both houses of congress because the ramifications, mr. speaker, of doing nothing will be severe and truly could imperil many sectors of our economy from ranchers and grape growers and ranchers and exporters, with only 37 days left to respond, the threat of retaliation is very real. and my friends across the aisle
may argue we have more time to address this issue, but the reality is time is simply running out. for over seven years, we have been trying to recktive eye this -- rectify this. now both canada and mexico have publicly stated that they will retaliate against the u.s. and the official request for retaliation is set to occur on june 17. this is not an idle threat. last week, canada announced it will seek $3 billion in retaliatory measures and mexico will be seeking $635 million. even before retaliation cool has had a negative economic impact in many areas across the country. tyson foods has a plant in my
district this plant in pasco depends on canadian cattle. however, the plant cannot co-mingle u.s. and canadian cattle and they have to use multiple labels depending on the origin of those cattle. cool has increased costs due to the requirements and inefficiencies due to the segregation of the cattle and less animals available the plant is currently operating at less than 40 hours a week. mr. speaker, cool threatens the trade ip relationships we have with two of our biggest markets for the export of u.s. meat and agricultural products, if we don't repeal the requirmentes of cool, we are in violation of the w.t.o. obligations and could face bill yops of dollars in
retaliation that would hurt, farmers ranchers and small businesses and american consumers. we need this legislation in order to prevent those retaliatory actions and bring united states into come prines with our obligations which can only be done by repealing these provisions. mr. speaker, i appreciate the discussion we have had over the last hour. and although we may have some differences of opinion, we usually do, i believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that are important to the future of our country. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 303 and the underlying bills. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas
and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 303 will be followed on motion to suspend the rules and house resolution 295 and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, to suspend the rules and agree to h.res. 295. on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 295. resolution supporting local law enforcement agencies and their continued work to serve our communities and supporting their use of body worn cameras, to promote transparency to protect both citizens and officers alike. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 256. the nays are 168. voting present are two. the journal stands approved. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam second. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with amendment h.r. 1314
cited as the trade act of 2015, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 10 2015, at 11:14 a.m. that the senate passed senate 653. that the senate passed senate 6 11. with best wishes i am signed sincerely karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 54 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of
the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 54, concurrent resolution authorizing the reprinting of the 25th edition of the pocket version of the united states constitution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 292, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 292 resolution permitting official photographs of the house of representatives to be taken while the house is in actual session on a date designated by the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, seek recognition? mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on bill h.r. 2393. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. does the gentleman seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. conaway: -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to call up the bill? mr. conaway: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 94, h.r. 2393, a bill to repeal country of origin labeling requirements with respect to beef, pork, and chicken and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution
303, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on agriculture printed in the bill is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson l. each control 30 minutes. -- peterson, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. mr. conaroy: -- mr. conaway: i rise in support of h.r. 2393, the country of origin labeling amendments act of 2015. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: it's really a marketing program, a heavy-handed approach to this government -- this federal government to demand a marketing program that may or may not work. these were my words before this very chamber spoken more than 10 years ago today t turns out my doubts were well-founded. the program has not worked and it's time to put this failed experiment behind us once and for all. country of origins labeling, or cool for short, was first enacted for meat products.
implementation of the bill was delayed until debate. less than five months after cool was implemented, the rule was published, canada and mexico challenged the rule at the w.t.o. arguing that it had a trade distorting impact by reducing the value and number of hogs shipped to the united states market. it has progressed through the dispute settlement phase. a u.s. appeal to the apell let body, 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 w.t.o. rejected the united states' arguments and found that the u.s. cool requirements for beef and pork are unavoidably discriminatory. the final rule kick starts the w.t.o. process to determine the level of retaliatory relief in tariffs that canada and mexico can now impose on the u.s. which has widely been predicted to be in the effect of billions of
dollars. during a hearing on the house agriculture committee's livestock and foreign agriculture subcommittee to exam the implications of the rele isation between the u.s. witnesses made it clear losing the final appeal to the w.t.o. and the impacts of retaliation against the united states and its economy would be devastating. soft money have asked why should we act on the basis of a w.t.o. decision, if cool worked perhaps there would be a response other than repeal, but the fact is cool has been a marketing failure. and in april 2015, report to congress, usda explained that cool requirements results 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 market measurable increases in consumer demand for beef pork, or chicken n response to those who argue it enhances food safety as i have maintained for over 10 years that is simply not the case f it were, then all
meat served at restaurants would cover the information regarding the meat's origin, it doesn't. that's 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 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. so here we are with the policy that imposes high costs, no benefits and if we keep it in place, our national economy will suffer significant damage that could reach into the billions of dollars. secretary of agriculture tom vilsack has quoted numerous times acknowledging that repeal of cool requirements is a viable option for bringing the u.s. into compliance with its w.t.o. 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, -- the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members and staff take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you mr. speaker. in other words, if we go down that path which can in a dean mexico have already rejected we will continue to face retaliation unless and until we did demonstrate we are in compliance with our trade obligations. repeal is the only viable option before us to avoid this retaliation. i urge all my 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. peterson: i rise in opposition to this bill, h.r. 2393 as a premature reaction to the w.t.o. ruling against u.s. country of origin labeling, or the cool act. rather than taking the time to find a workable solution, the committee passed repeal just two days after the w.t.o. issued a ruling. we understand that this needs to be dealt with. my problem with this whole process is that it just is not giving people enough time to look at this and figure out what is a reasonable solution, because most other countries have labeling. the american people want to know
where their ag products come from. and if we repeal this meat, that would -- we wouldn't be able to know where meat comes from, but we would be able to know where your carrots and lettuce and all these other things there, they all have mandatory country of origin labeling. we understand that this needs to be worked on. we understand that we can't get into a situation with retaliation, but this is -- this is a rush to judgment that's not necessary because this retaliation process is going to take a while. we have the cotton, step two cotton case, it went two three years before it got resolved. this is going to go faster, but the first thing that has to happen is they have to figure out what the damage is. that's going to take them a while. a month or two. and then we are going to have an arbitration panel to agree that that's exactly what it is. so this canadian claim that
there's $3 billion in economic losses due to cool is ridiculous. and it's based on unsubstaniated and not publicly available data. u.s. studies using usda data have found little if any economic harm. more than 60 other countries including canada have their own version of cool. canada has a host of protectionist agriculture laws in place to damage the u.s. dairy, poultry, and egg sectors. . the canadians take issue when we try to give consumers additional information on where their meat comes from, claiming it disadvantages canadian producers. additionally, consumers are demanding more and more information about their -- where their food comes from and how it's produced. the w.t.o. has repeatedly ruled that cool is a legitimate goal. rather than abandon our efforts to provide consumers with this
information, you know, we need to have the time so we'll be able to find a reasonable solution to work this out without w.t.o. sanctions and i believe it can be done and it can be done in fairly short order. so as i said my biggest problem is that this bill is premature. i urge my colleagues to oppose it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the former chair of the house agriculture committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. goode thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chair of the agriculture committee, mr. conaway, for his leadership on yet another important issue for agriculture this week in the congress, and i rise in strong support of the country of origin labeling amendments act which would repeal mandatory country of origin labeling for meat and bring the united states back into international trade compliance. i've always had concerns about mandatory country of origin
labeling and now the w.t.o.'s continued ruling against this practice as well as canada's and mexico's threat to seek $3 billion in retaliatory tariffs make the hard and fast case for repeal. for my home state of virginia it's estimated the potential economic impact of retaliation from mexico and canada could add up to tariffs of $331 million worth of exports on products like paper aluminum and bread. mandatory cool has failed and threatens our trade relationship with two of our strongest partners. our markets producers and consumers cannot afford the cost of this failed policy. we will all benefit by repeal. mandatory cool for meat has been debated for almost 15 years. within five months of its 2009 implementation, canada and mexico challenged cool at the w.t.o. arguing that it had trade distorting impact by reducing the value of cattle and hogs shipped to the u.s.
market and the w.t.o. ruled in favor of canada and mexico four times. now the u.s. has lost its final appeal it's imperative that congress act quickly to avoid billions of dollars in retaliation. in the case of cattle, hogs and chicken it is proved to be a failed experiment, imposing significant costs on producers, packers and consumers with no quantifiable benefits. the united states department of agriculture secretary vilsack has stated the department has no further options for administrative remedies. the issue has to be fixed legislatively through congress and this way of repeal is by far the best. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam -- mr. secretary. the secretary: imy' directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the united states house of representatives a message in writing.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. speaker i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. kosta, is recognized for -- mr. costa, is recognized for two minutes. mr. costa: mr. speaker i rise in support of this measure to repeal the country of origin labeling. you want to thank the chairman for bringing this measure up. i also want to thank the ranking member always for his efforts to be balanced and to try to solve problems. but i have been saying and he and i disagree on this measure for years that this country of origin labeling simply has not worked. so i'm pleased that we're here today to debate the legislation that in fact repeals the country of orling labeling for beef, pork and -- origin labeling for beef, pork and chicken products and hopefully we can figure out a solution to this problem. that said let's be clear, and i want to emphasize, this measure has nothing to do with food safety. let me repeat. it has nothing to do with food safety. the inspection process by the
united states department of agriculture and the food and drug administration remain in place for all consumeable products that american public eats. so what this has to do is simply about how we market beef pork or chicken across the country. going further to ensure that we act on this measure, we do not want to have to deal with the devastating blow to our economy through economic retaliation. last month, as been noted by our colleagues, the world trade organization rejected the united states' appeal. this was our last and final appeal, and for many of us we felt it was predictable. we now face harsh trade retaliations from two of our largest export markets -- canada and mexico, against products that are produced in america. this especially impacts california, the number one agriculture state in the nation. the canadian government has published its list of commodities that will be subject to tariff increases and estimates the impact could reach in excess of $3 billion.
with the direct effect in california being over $1 billion. this is real. they have prepared the list and they can be implemented as early as this fall. for example, canada imports 90% of their table wine from my home state of california. if a tariff is increased 100% that will mean customers in canada will have to pay double for a bottle of good california wine. if consumers in canada see that price stubble, i suspect they're going to buy their wine elsewhere. this will be detrimental to u.s. trade, as an example, but to all products that are produced in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. costa: i ask the chair for 30 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. costa: i don't want to see retaliatory efforts by canada and mexico and i don't think they want to impose them. this bill is the only way to satisfy the w.t.o. compliance. in addition, the secretary of agriculture has stated a
legislative fix is required to solve this problem. so i urge my colleagues to vote for this measure and let's take action and the senate will need to then act and then we have a chance to come together and fix this legislation. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. speaker. this afternoon i also rise in support of h.r. 2393 which has been mentioned provides a long overdue repeal of the country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork and poultry products. over the years this law has forced usda to use limited resources to implement and enforce a program that has nothing to do with food safety and there is little to no evidence that it has increased consumer demand, according to a usda commissioned survey.
serving as chairman of the house agriculture appropriations committee, i'm very aware of the economic harm that this burdensome law has already caused u.s. livestock producers and more economic harm is on the horizon. the world trade organization, the w.t.o. aplell ate body has ruled in favor of canada and mexico and found the labeling requirements are in violation of international trade obligations. both the governments of canada and of mexico have clearly expressed their intent to seek authority from the w.t.o. to retaliate. this could end up suffering economic impact in this country of almost $4 billion. f.y. 2015 exploratory statement accompanying the omnibus appropriation bill directed the secretary of agriculture to provide a report with his recommendation for establishing
a trade compliant country of origin labeling program. in his response repeal of this provision was a clear solution. i know that there's some here in the chamber this afternoon that will not agree with the answer but there have been ample opportunities to craft another labeling program that meets our trade responsibilities. this could have been addressed in the farm bill or those individuals wanting a labeling program could have been working on it since last october when the w.t.o. ruled again that this law violated our trade obligations. we're out of time and the repeal is the only option that we have at hand. i urge my colleagues to support the bill that is before us today in order to prevent harm to u.s. jobs, to prevent harm to the united states economy and protect the trade relations with our nation's strongest partners. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. conaway: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maine, ms.
pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: thank you mr. chair. thank you to the ranking member for yielding me this time and for taking up this important issue and helping us to better understand the importance of it. in my opinion, we shouldn't even be here today debating a repeal of this important consumer protection law. i don't know if this bill is a huge overreaction to the w.t.o. decision or it's just an excuse to gut these commonsense country of origin labeling requirements. for years we have required labels on virtually everything imported into the united states. every piece of clothing you wear has to have a label showing where it's made your smartphone has to have a label showing where it was manufactured, even umbrellas and tablecloths have to list their country of origin. but for some reason we are here considering a bill that will
make it impossible for parents to know whether the chicken they are serving their family came from the united states or china. think about that. what consumer, what parent would tell you they don't care what country the food came from that they're about to serve their children? so let's just talk about the w.t.o. ruling for a minute. first of all the world trade organization ruling says that labels for ground beef were acceptable but doesn't even consider complaints from canada or mexico about chicken. so why are we voting on repeal of the labeling requirements for those products? and secondly the w.t.o. has not even ruled about the extent to which country of origin labeling affects exports from canada and mexico. and it can't be much since mexico exports more beef into the united states than before this law went into effect. we do not have to give into the w.t.o. this easily. these kinds of disputes are
frequently settled by negotiations with canada and mexico, not by giving up and throwing out an entire set of consumer protections. we don't back down this easily and we shouldn't back down this easily. maybe lobbyists and powerful special interests behind this repeal are really just using -- can i have another 30 seconds? mr. peterson: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. pingree: so maybe they're using this w.t.o. ruling as an excuse to roll back basic right to know for american consumers. i don't think we should let them get away with it. i doubt there's a single consumer in america who says, i want to know less about the food that i'm eating. in fact, the opposite is true. now more than ever americans want to know where their food come from and -- comes from and they want to buy local food when they can. buying local has created huge new markets for american farmers, great economi growth in states like mine, like
maine. if this bill passes it will be harder to kn if the pork chop or hamburger you're buying came from around the corner or around the world. country of origin labeling is good for consumers, it's go for our farmers and ranchers. please, don't gut these commonsense requirements. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to clarify, we do not import chicken fm 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. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on agriculture -- foreign agriculture, mr. rouzer from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. rouzer: thank you mr. speaker. as chairman of the livestock and foreign agriculture subcommittee, i rise in support of this bill, the country of origin labeling amendments act of 2015 which repeals the country of origin labeling law,
also known as cool. after trying to make cool compliant with the world trade organization it has become apparent that full repeal of cool is unquestionably the right thing to do. that said, i'm surthere are some who are concernethat repeal of cool may compromise food safety. america had the safest, st trusted food supply in the world before cool and let me assure you we will continue to have the safest food supply after this law is repealed. and let me explain w. regardless of oriin, if an animal is impord as live animal, it is harvest iusda inspected facilities. additionally, cattle, hogs and poultry are ipected prior to harvesting as live animals and throughout the processing as a meat product. if the animal originates and is harvested in a different country, the plant has to have equivalent u.s. safety inspection standards and must be regularly audited by the usda. the u.s. only imports meat
products from countries that meet our standards. furthermore, a foreign plant that does not fully comply with our standards is not permitted to ship meat into this country. in short, the fundamental protocols ensuring food safety are a part and separate from country of origin labeling. suppliers in foreign countries will still be expected to comply with the same inspection standards as they have now. . in closing, i would like to thank chairman conaway, ranking member costa and the committee staff for their guidance and help on this matter. i commend this legislation to my colleagues and appreciate their support. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized. >> as former co-chair of the congressional chicken caucus i support this. as a congressman in a district with lots of poultry and beef production, i rise to support ending this failed experiment in repealing this harmful government mandate. since its passage in 2002, it caused severe tension between the united states, canada, and mexico. canada and mexico argue that the country of origin labeling has hurt their livestock industry. and they've taken their argument to the world trade organization which has ruled in their favor and against the united states four times. we are now out of appeals. they've taken their arguments, because of these w.t.o. rulings, canada and mexico can now request authorization to retaliate against the u.s. in order to repair the damages they claim our labeling law has
caused to their economy. therefore, we must act decisively to repeal the current cool regulations on beef pork, and chicken. if we fail to do so, canada and mexico have made clear they will retaliate against a range of u.s. products within a matter of months by staffs with lost market share, up to $3.5 billion a year. a hit of that magnitude could be devastating to the u.s. pork, beef and chicken industry. some say we need to hold out for arbitration, i repeal we need to repeal the harmful law and -- i believe we need to repeal this hampleful law before there are retaliatory tariffs from canada and mexico. by the way, it should be noted this bill won't completely undo the labeling law, only parts of it. it will remove burdens on our beef, pork and poultry industry,
bring us into compliance with trade obligations and make sure we avoid damage regular taliaer to tariffs. join me in supporting h.r. 2393 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: it's my pleasure to yield to mr. davis scott of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: let's make no mistake about it, mr. speaker. let me just tell you. this retaliation situation is real, from canada and from mexico. the question is why should we here put our agriculture foundation at such a tremendous risk. canada and mexico are right now moving to institute retaliatory tariffs against u.s. exports. it would -- it is critical that congress also take this
corrective legislation and act on it right away before the august recess. it's just that important. so we can send a powerful, quick message, because canada has already issued a preliminary retaliation list targeting our commodities and our manufactured products, not just in one state, not just in two states, but in every state in the united states of america. totaling over $3.5 billion in the first year alone. my own state of georgia will have an impact of losing $180 million. mr. speaker, let's deal with this right. this country of origin labeling is not about food safety. let's not scare the american people into thinking that. we don't need to make the american people confused or feel that we are doing something to make the food unsafe.
what we're doing is protecting our american economy, we're protecting our agricultural interests, and more than anything else, at a time when america needs it the most, we are standing up for america, -- for america for a change. protect our farmer. protect our agricultural economy. protect our people. and make sure we pass this house resolution 2393 and send a powerful message that we are not going to stand for mexico and canada to put these tariffs on us and we're going to stand firm and protect the american interests. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king who has worked really hard on getting this --
mr. peterson: i think the last gentleman was on mr. conaway's time. mr. mr. conaway: that's true. mr. peterson: i thank the -- i yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his hard work. i rise in strong support of area of origin labeling. mr. thompson: i refute what some have said that there's no benefit to this. there's great benefit to this. area of origin labeling allows people to get to know from where their food comes. that's, i think, incredibly important. i don't think that repeal is the number one preference here. i don't think that's what we should be doing. i think we should be fixing the problem. but because the majority hasn't been willing to work to fix the problem we're in a real catch
22 and i rise today in support of this bill because if it's not repealed, we're going to face tremendous retaliatory acts from both mexico and canada and these are going to be of great fiscal impact to our economy. my home state of california, for instance, it's estimated that we'll be hit by $1.8 billion worth of retaliatory action. a good part of that comes from my home industry, the wine community. they'll be hit heavily and we know what happens. we've seen this movie before and the end is not good. when congress repealed, or put in place the trucking program to deal with the mexican trucking problem, we were sued. the wine industry was hit with retaliatory actions, and we saw a 25% reduction in our business. not only was that financially
devastating, not only to california but this is an industry that puts $160 billion a year into the national economy. this hurt us all. that was bad enough but it took us three years to get back that market share that we had lost system of it's important that we repeal this and get on to fixing it right away and i ask that we vote in favor of this bill today. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mr. conaway: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, steve king, who has worked very hard on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding and for leading on this issue. just would remark there's been -- that wine has informed the meat debate several times here today, i'm glad of that. i rise in support of this legislation to repeal these components of country of origin labeling. i have long held the position that this is a north american
market. we don't treat our best trading partners as well as we should, mr. speaker. that includes mexico. and it especially includes can ka. -- canada. i often have to look at the list of things we have done that look like trade protection at least to them. we have done it with steel work soft wood timber, we did it with beef which did originate in canada, spilled over into the united states, and they opened up their foreign trade before we did. this is one of these examples of what happens when you go a little overboard in an effort to try to establish some trade protectionism. this was driven by the people especially in the northwest that thought they would get an advantage on their cattle industry along in that part of the country. so now we're looking at these sanctions sanctions -- by my numbers they will likely go to the area of $3.15 billion in sanctions between canada and mexico. 85% of our consumers don't even look at the label to see where
that comes frfment the consumers still have the choice. there's nothing that would prohibit in the aftermath of this legislation the consumer saying, i'd like to know if this pig was born in canada and fed in the united states but to give you an example of how this is there's a lot of u.s. capital invested also especially in operations in canada. when the exchange rate was even more advantageous than it is today a lot of u.s. dollars went into dan to establish operations to raise pigs up there because they can isolate in order to do disease prevention and because it was a good investment. then the pigs came to the united states six million pigs coming down, four million to iowa. a third of the pork raised in the united states is from my state. they're at aties advantage because of the country of origin labeling. it penalizes the very people we're trying to help. it urge -- i urge its adoption and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas
reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. cuellar: i'm an original co-sponsor of h.r. 2393, the country of origin labeling act. as has been discussed in this debate, the w.t.o. made its fourth and final ruling against the united states. farmers and ranchers in my district in texas will be hit with tariffs if we don't act right away. cool has already put a burden on the beef, chicken, pork producers in the state of texas. for example, texas cattlemen are required to spend another $35 to $45 per animal just to comply with complex cattle identification requirements mandated by cool this will only get worse once the retaliatory tariffs which will be implemented on our exports. tariffs are completely legal under the world trade agreement that we have. for example, i have spoken to my friends on the other side of the river, the mexican side, and
they said the american products that will be hit by tariffs include beef, wine, corn, corn syrup, furniture, dairy products, machinery and a range of fruits and vegetables. that doesn't even include the tariffs that the canadians will include, probably jewelry bread, beef, tomato products and other goods. so gep we cannot afford these tariffs. we should work on making the amendments to this cool product that we have and remove the threat of those tariffs completely. in texas, we raise beef, chicken, pork that is, quote, made in the u.s. we only ask that this be voluntary labeling and we should act quickly to avoid tariff so we don't punish ranchers and farmers in the state of texas. i thank the speaker and ranking member for the good work he's done and the chairman also, mr. conaway. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. mr. mr. conaway: may i inquire how much time is left on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 16 minutes, the gentleman from minnesota has 16 minutes remaining. mr. mr. conaway: thank you. it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. i congratulate chairman con no way for his leadership in bringing the repeal to the floor so quickly. i would like to thank my fellow ag committee colleagues for their bipartisan support in passing the amendment out of committee. the cool amendment or country of origin label, has nothing do with food safety it's a mandatory marketing program, the usda stamp of inspection ensures the meat we eat is safe and wholesome. the u.s. has lost its elast three appeals in the w.t.o. against canada and mexico.
both are ready to retaliate against us to the tune of $350 billion. thomas vilsack said the only legislative fix of cool, the repeal of it, would bring the u.s. back into compliance. i thank and congratulate chairman conaway and urge my fellow colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i yield to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro, six minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for six minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this bill. let me put out the irony we are considering this bill, 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, and i quote right here critics warn that parts of this deal, the transpacific partnership would undermine american regulation. food safety, worker safety even financial regulations. they are making this stuff up, he said. this is not true he said. no trade agreement is going to force us to change our law. country of origin labeling was passed by the senate passed by the house. it is the law of the land. and yet today the house of representatives is getting ready to repeal countries 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 the united states law is safe. food safety, drug safety, consumer protection, environmental protection, health care, label rights dodd-frank, even the minimum wage. the trade agreements go further than the w.t.o. rules. they allow challenges to u.s. laws not only by government, 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 this country of origin labeling. i was a conferee on the farm bill in 2008 with my colleague, the ranking member member, mr. peterson. i helped to author the language that expanded the country of origin labeling. i have worked on this for many years as a former chair of the appropriations committee. i'm proud of that record. american farmers and ranchers deserve the opportunity to distinguish their product. it is an economic truism that complete and accurate information is one of the cornstones 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%.
the world trade organization itself has repeatedly ruled provision of information to consumers to be a legitimate goal for domestic regulation. and in light of that ruling, i agree 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 have filed. the w.t.o. 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 prove they have been harmed and that could be difficult. a study by dr. robert taylor from auburn university that cool would have no significant effect on cattle relative to demresk cattle.
instead, he concluded, the decrease in exports is 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 requirementses. 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 w.t.o. process. mover, this bill goes beyond the scope of the w.t.o. ruling. labeling on chicken 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'm forced to conclude that this bill is, in fact, a valed attempt by the meat packing industry to deny consumers their right to know where their meat and poultry is coming from. it's 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 agricultural countries urging them to reject the appeal. farmers rural advocates, faith groups environmentalists, labor unions, farmworkers, manufacturers, consumers all oppose this ill-conceived and premature appeal.
why are not listening to them? 30 seconds. mr. peterson: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute. 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 law. clearly this is false. and 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 transpacific partnership agreement and grant fast track authority on that agreement. in the meantime, i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. and i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i yield myself 30 seconds. the goling referenced a letter opposing what we are trying to do here today. as you look through the list of organizations, it's not surprising to find that several have advocated for policies that are destructive to animal agriculture. it has a heavy hand on ranchers and farmers. i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bost: i rise in support of h.r. 2393. in my home state of illinois, where rich agricultural state and rich heritage. illinois is a national leader in corn and soybean but also pork and beef production. if congress does not act to address this issue of labeling, products in my state could face hire -- higher tariffs to the tune of $80 million. stand with american agriculture and support the underlying legislation in order to avoid this harmful measure. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i recognize the gentlelady from ohio, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.
ms. kaptur: i thank ranking member peterson for allowing me this time and i rise in support of maintaining food labeling for the american people. polls show nine out of 10 americans overwhelmingly support country of origin labeling. i certainly look for those labels when i go to the store. it ensures that our public knows the source of their food. what could be more important? american producers want to share that information because it's a way to differentiate their products in an increasingly international marketplace. country of origin labeling is strongly supported by america's farmers and ranchers who are proud of what they produce. restoring local food markets, in fact, is a growing trend across the midwest and the whole country. farmers and ranchers know that people are demanding more and more information about their food. restaurants are putting on their menus, local beef, local pork,
local chicken. cool allows farmers and ranchers the ability to market their products with pride because the label has integrity. the widespread support for country of origin labeling is what led to its enactment and implementation in the 2002 2008 2014 farm bills. the trend is very clear. current efforts in congress to repeal country of origin labeling is simply valed attempts to gut these laws for meat, for beef, for pork, for chicken, three arenas that are completely controlled by a few processing companies. it's just like the book that sinclair wrote at the beginning of the 20th century, we are back to the jungle. opponents are merelyly pressing for less information to consumers, not more. they want to hide the products' origin.
h.r. 2393 is a premature attempt to undermine food labeling. they argue it's necessary because of the world trade organization decision that puts canada and mexico at a disadvantage. well, this bill as such was never even raised in the w.t.o. dispute. and labeling is supported by the w.t.o. the w.t.o. dispute never addressed chicken. it has explicitly ruled re quirmentes for beef and pork are legal and canada's claim of $3 billion in economic loss due to cool are absolutely unfounded. it is unsubstantiated. the rationale behind this bill is a clear example of what is wrong with our trade policy. congress should not let a few meat packing companies use trade dispute as an excuse to gut important consumer protections and the rights of farmers in
this country. it is our duty to protect american consumers, american farmers and american ranchers, not the trade interests of any other country. our people deserve a right to know where their food is produced and where it comes from. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves and the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i yield myself 15 seconds. the previous speaker made reference to the current national agriculture businesses as being associated with those horrible circumstances of the sinclair book. my guess is they would be opposed to that comment because their practices do not reflect those of upton sinclair's book. i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar: i rise in support of this bill. agriculture is the backbone of
many communities in michigan's 4th congressional district. with over 10,000 farms and 15,000 farm operators approximately 1.7 billion in products from our area is sold across the country and around the world. the law on the books right now that mandates country of origin labeling threatens the success of agricultural exports. it is unnecessary. it imposes a heavy burden on our farmers. it puts our agricultural exports at risk and it needs to be repealed. recently, based on the ruling from the world trade organization, it is apparent that severe consequences could result and our trading partners could penalize american-made product sold in those countries with steep tariffs. canada has announced it will put tariffs on pork beef and cherries if the law isn't repealed. manufactured goods including
office furniture would be subjected to tariffs. h.r. 2393 passed the agriculture committee on a bipartisan vote, 38-6. it's a good bill and it repeals the current labeling law. it will eliminate the possibility of steep tariffs and that michigan farmers and manufacturers focused on creating jobs and growing their businesses without worrying about more regulations or retaliation. i'm pleased to co-sponsor this bill. and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. and the gentleman from texas has 11 1/4 remaining and the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, who has six minutes remaining. mr. peterson: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon mr. schrader. mr. schrader: i
mr. schrader: i thank the gentleman. cool was perhaps a worthwhile effort at the time but unfortunately has jouse lived its usefulness and it has started to cause irreparable harm to producers in the pacific northwest. our producers are facing serious problems, trying to work things through the packing plant. we have international trade now. we have a global market that needs to be recognized. it's harming not just canada and mexico, but pacific northwest producers. that point has to be drin home. we're facing huge retaliatory tariffs in the pacific northwest. some of our crops are wine, cherries, apples cheese potatoes. cool may have been well intended, we worked on the farm bill last go-round last year, couldn't get it done. we're facing these tariff, retaliaer to tariffs right now, let's repeal it, let's move on. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. mr. conaway: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. blum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blum: mr. speaker, i rise today to offer my support to the passage of h.r. 2393, the country of origin labeling amendments act of 2015. this important legislation repeals country of origin labeling requirements for muscle cuts of beef and pork. unfortunately, the world trade organization issued the final judgment of a long-running case brought by canada ending all doubt that cool violates u.s. trade obligations. now america's two largest export markets, canada and mexico are moving into retaliatory duties against u.s. product, including $1.3 billion of products from iowa. canada -- canada has published
their list of retaliatory target, including the aforementioned meat cuts, but also corn, fructose and cereals from my district and districts across the united states. mexico has not yet published their list but it's likely to include some of the same corn-based products and perhaps even include ethanol. it is critically important that cool requirements be repealed to comply with existing trade obligations as soon as possible. implementations of these tariffs would negatively affect a great deal of farmers and processors in my district and across iowa. i urge the house pass this legislation today and the senate act swiftly to avoid potentially devastating economic consequences. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two
minutes. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, members of the house, i want to join my colleagues in rising in opposition to this important consumer and farmer protection legislation. someone said that earlier, knowledge is power. and when people know where something comes from that gives them some very clear ideas about what the content of it may be. furthermore, the legislation has been pointed out is quite premature. and we need to let this process play itself out and there may very well need to be a fix here on this whole matter but you know, right now it hasn't been conclusively proven that the canadian and mexican claims are valid. there's been some suggestions that perhaps they're not. and of course this legislation goes way beyond the scope of the dispute at hand here.
so i want to thank my ranking member, mr. peterson and all my other colleagues for standing up and -- in opposition to this legislation. let's let the process play itself out and then when and if it's necessary, we can fix things at that time. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. mr. conaway: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i have no other speakers. i guess we're ready to close. mr. speaker, again, i don't think anybody on our side wants to have retaliation, but again,
we believe this is premature right at this moment. we don't know how much damages are going to be found if any. and you know, we just feel that repeal is not where we're going to end up and where we should end up. we understand this needs to be fixed but i think there's another way to do it short of repeal. so at this point, because of that, i encourage people to vote against the bill and i understand where this is going but as it gets over to the senate, we'll figure out a way to work through this so that we end up not having any retaliation but we still have a system where people can figure out where their food is coming from. ironic, if this repeal would happen to get through the senate and be passed, signed by the president, you wouldn't be able
to find out where your chicken, beef, or pork came from, as i said earlier. you should be -- but you'd be able to find out where all the other ag products come from, which i think most consumers would see is ridiculous. soy encourage my colleagues to oppose the measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: it's gratifying to know that no one wants retaliatory measures to be put into place, a yes vote on the floor will assure that from happening. four years of arguing with canadians and mexicans in the world court in this deal has left ample time to have come to some sort of conclusion if there was a deal out there. frankly if we had won a trade issue as decisively and resoundingly as the canadians
and mexican -- and mexico did we wouldn't want to negotiate either. there's no leverage. we have none for leverage against mexico and canada to get some sort of deal to fix this without repeal. we are well beyond, and this is not about the merits of country of origin labeling. it's not about the mir rits of people knowing where their food comes from. that's -- we're beyond that point. we lost four straight times and if those merits, those arguments that have held in the court, in our trade obligations, it would have prevailed but it didn't. so this isn't about people knowing where their food comes from, it's about avoid regular taliaer to 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 the normal person on the street and ask them that question i'm surprised it's not 100% of americans who would say yes i want to know. but you follow that consumer into the grocery store and follow them to the meat countier, they buy based on
price and the quality of the meat. they're not looking at the label. 85% of them can care less. in every single restaurant you have no clue where it came from. you trust the safety of the work we have in place of the usda to make sure that beef that chicken that pork, whatever is in fact safe for you. the argument that we're 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 no stranger to retaliatory measures. as my colleague mentioned earlier, they implemented those in 2011 as a result of a trucking case we also lost in that regard and it theek wine industry three years to recoup and get back to where they were when those retaliatory measures went in. if you're not a wine connoisseur, pork rinds were also targeted. we had testimony from an individual that said -- from new mexico they lost 15% of their business as a result of mexico's including pork rinds on the
retaliatory measures. somewhere between pork rinds and wine, you have some products that will be impacted by this. these retaliatory threats that are going to happen are already having a chicago -- a chilling effect on commerce between our three countries. if you're a wine deal for the canada, you won't make any long-term deals with the united states until you know what the impact will be. commerce right now is being affected. hence, time is of the essence to get this behind us and move forward. 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 thump our chest like crazy. that's what this is. we've lost the appeals on 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
view. we're being demanded and required to live up to trade obligations this is no different than us trying to force other countries to live up to trade obligations as well. this is about protecting american exports from retaliatory measures that are unnecessary to happen. if consumers want their business, want to know where their food comes, we can craft a very tear program that allows the market to exploit that information if in fact consumers want that. nothing we do today will prevent us from trading in a voluntary program that would give consumers that information without being in violation of trade agreement wours partners. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, avoid these retaliatory measures which are totally unnecessary if we would do the work we're supposed to do. i want to thank my team that put together work on this i've been diligent i know the folks on the other side as well have worked hard on this. trying to come to a bipartisan agreement, we just couldn't get there. i want to thank my team for the great work they've done in
getting taos this point. i urge my colleagues to vote for the bill and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 303, the previous question is oned or -- is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the agricultural marketing act of 1936 to repeal country of origin labeling laws with respect to beef, pork, and chicken, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider -- the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceed thongs question
will be postponed. -- proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for pubblecailings the enclosed notice that the emergency with respect to actions and policies of certain members of the government of belarus and other persons to undermine belarus'
democratic processes or institutions that was declared in executive order 13405 of june 16 2006, is to continue in effect beyond june 16, 2015. the actions and policies of certain members of the government of belarus and other persons to undermine belarus' democratic processes or institutions, commit human rights abuses related to political repression and to engage in public corruption continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for this reason, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 13405 with respect to belarus. signed barack obama, the white house, june 10 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend and include extraneous material and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. pursuant to house resolution 303 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2685. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to preside over the committee of the whole house. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2685 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making
appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time the gentleman from new jersey mr. prix ling hughesen and the gentleman from indiana mr. visclosky, will both control 0 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman as i rise to present the house appropriations committee's recommendation for the fiscal year 12016 department of defense appropriations bill, there are nearly 200,000 servicemen and women doing the work for freedom and serving in every one of our states active guard and reserve all volunteers. we are grateful to them and their families. it is certainly that the language and terms that will be part during this debate during
the next 24 phrases, phrases like sequester and continuing resolution, budget control act overseas contingency account and the global war on terrorism account, but they have every expectation that they will have our united bipartisan support for this bill whether they serve aboard a ship fly through airspace or provide overwatch on land to support our military mission. this legislation was developed after 12 hearings, many briefings, traveled to the middle east, europe and countless staff hours with those who serve us on behalf of those who serve us military and civilians. this is a product of a very bipartisan cooperative effort, which i thank my good friend, the ranking member member, pete visclosky. it's been a pleasure to work with him. we are fortunate to have
committee members who have engaged so much to this product and grateful for the support of chairman rogers and ranking member lowey. in total, the bill provides just over $578 billion in discretionary spending. an increase of $24.4 billion over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. this top line includes $88.4 billion in the global war on terrorism funding for war efforts and at the level assumed in the house-senate budget conference agreement. i would point out that our house total is very close to the number president obama submitted in his fiscal year 2016 budget request for national defense. of course the base funding recommendation is just over $490 billion which reflects the budget caps enacted in 2011 as part of the budget control act signed by president obama. to reach our reduced allocation we reviewed in detail the
president's submission and found areas and programs where reductions were possible without harming military operation warfighter readiness or modernization efforts. and we made every dollar count. to do so, we have taken reductions for programs that have been restructured or terminated, subject to contract or schedule delays, contain unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need or because of historical underexecution and rescissions of unneeded funds. of course our bill keeps faith with our troops and their families by including 2.3% pay increase, a full percentage above the president's own request. and also provides general funding to benefits and critical health defense programs. in another key area of this package, it contains robust
funding to counter serious worldwide cyberthreats now an every day occurance. the world is a much more dangerous and unstable and unpredictable place than it was in 2011 when the budget control act was signed into law by president obama. the budget caps developed back then could never have envisioned the emerging and revolving threats that we're seeing today in the middle east north africa asia, eastern europe and elsewhere. so to respond to current and future threats and to meet our constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common defense, we developed in a bipartisan way a bill that adheres to the current law and provides additional resources to end catastrophic cuts to military programs. these additional resources are included in title 9, global war on terrorism account.
and that account is vetted to ensure it's war-related uses. our subcommittee scrubbed the president's base budget for this year and past budget requests and identified those systems and programs that are absolutely connected to our ongoing fight against threats presented by isil, al qaeda the korsan group and boko haram and the iranian force. we projected resources that the military community will need to meet challenges like russia, china, iran, north korea and others. not surprisingly, we have heard objections that without the use of title 9 to boost our top line national security spending in this bill. frankly, i do not believe there is anyone on either side of the capitol who believes this should
be our first go-to option. rather it's a process we undertake as a last resort to make our troops answer the call and if they can answer the call in a worsening threaten virmente around the world. again, we have been very careful about what went into this global of war terrorism account. we resisted the temptation to transfer large portions of the base bill's operations and maintenance accounts into the global war on terrorism account. we worked to provide needed resources for the preparation of our forces in the field whenever a crisis may exist or develop in the future, like the current unfolding disaster, which is iraq. in the recent statement of administration policy, the white house asserted the global war on terrorism funding, the old o.c.o. account. in their words, a funding
mechanism intended to pay for wars end of quotations. i could not agree more and we enforced that account to provide president obama with the funding resources he needs to lead us as commander in chief. within that account, i want to highlight two critical points, i.s.r. and readiness. surveil heance exabets are a critical component on the global war on temporary. there was testimony before our committee that only a fraction of the i.s.r. requirements are being met and leading them blind to enemy's movements and intentions. the global war on terrorism account contains an additional $500 million above the president's 2016 request to improve i.s.r. capabilities
procurement of additional i.s.r. aircraft, ground stations the training of i.s.r. pilots and other personnel and the process of that derived data. likewise we share the concern of the army, air force and marines about the overall erosion of readiness in the force. so we begin to re-invest in readiness. title 9 includes $2.5 brillion above the president's request to be distributed to our services and to the guard and reserves. i would add that this sum must be detailed and justified to congress 30 days before it's spent. and again this bill is structured to give the president the tools he needs to act. for example, when he finally does develop a long awaited, complete and comprehensive strategy to combat isil and other terrorist groups, we provided in this bill the
resources he will need to execute his plans. i think we all agree that america must lead, and this bill enables leadership. mr. chairman, i allow myself a closing thought. the "washington post" recently talked about the defense authorization bill that there wasn't, in their words, there isn't much bipartisan governance left in washington, but if anything fits that drippings, it is the annual defense bill. end of quotation. this bill deserves bipartisan support and after many hours of productive debate i look forward to a vote. our national security requires it. our adversaries need to see it. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume and ask unanimous consent that my remarks be entered into the record.
the chair: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. visclosky: i express my appreciation to my good friend, to chairman frelinghuysen and to congratulate him on the collegial and the transparent manner in which he has crafted this legislation. i also want to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts of chairman rogers, ranking member lowey, all the members of the defense subcommittee. also this bill obviously could not have been written without the dedication of long hours, discerning judgment and thoughtful input of our committee staff and personal staffs. i thank them very much. the chairman has fully and fairly described the bill we are considering today. i believe he has accurately described the very dangerous and unpredictable world in which we live. as such i will enter my detailed comments on the bill for the record.
instead, i want to use my time during general debate to discuss the albatross around congress' neck the budget control act of 2011. despite near universal disdain and plenty of buyers' remorse from the 187 current house members that voted in favor of the budget control act, it has proven to be an exeemly resilient yet utterly ineffective piece of law. we have seen short postponements of sequestration and two year alleviations of the budget caps. yet we find ourselves nearly five years since its enactment far from the consensus needed to repeal the law. further, the continued halfhearted attempts to fix the budget control act are almost as detrimental as the law itself, as they add to the nation's
uncertainty. additionally, it is becoming increasingly difficult to point to any positive changes in our fiscal situation as a result. while intended to reduce the budget deficit, our national debt has increased by $-- 25.4% since the enactment of the legislation, mainly because the committees who are not truly constrained by discretionary spending caps continue to push politically popular legislation with little regard for its impact on the federal budget. for example, in april of this year congress passed legislation that permanently fixed the long-standing issues with medicare's payment rates for physician services. according to the congressional budget office, this fix will result in a $141 billion increase in federal budget deficits over the next 10 years
and yet the measure sailed through both houses of congress with very little opposition and a cheerful signing statement at the white house. after 17 temporary measures, it is clear that a permanent doctor fix was long overdue but illustrates my point that we are no where close to having a sincere conversation about our deficits while nondiss -- nondiscretionary revenue continue to get a free pass. until the president and congress stop whistling past the graveyard and confront the continued growth and mandatory spending, our appropriations committee has no choice to carry out the implausible mandate contained in the budget control
act and try to contain jurisdiction over 34% of one half of the federal ledger. it does not help that a majority of our colleagues have no idea when the fiscal year starts except that that's when you shut the government down. i despair that more continuing resolutions are the norman sequestration is not all that bad and that some delight every time a civilian employee is furloughed. all are symptoms of failure to me. the time we have caused people to waste by not finishing congress' work on time and acting in a number of continuing resolutions is deplorable. whether it is a federal agency, a state, other political subdivisions, a nonprofit organization contractors or an
allied nation, all have been less efficient in recent years because of the constant uncertainty concerning the federal government's finances. to illustrate, in nearly every fiscal year since the budget control act's enactment, there have been attempts to alter the caps on defense and nondefense spending. the house and senate had allocations that were $91 billion apart yet the suballocation for defense was only about $4 billion as far as difference. both were in excess of the caps. needless to say, we ended up at a point somewhere between the two, but only after we wasted an incredible amount of time and we happened to shut down the federal government. . this fiscal year the president got the process started by submitting a budget request that did not comply with the
limitations mandated by the budget control act across all budgeted fiscal years. the majority party's response to the president was to pass a budget resolution that purports to abide by the caps for fiscal year 2016, for defense and non-defense discretionary spending. yet it proposes $38 billion above the president's budget request for overseas contingency operations or purposes of this act the global war on terror. despite the objections of the secretary of defense this additional funding was furlt entrenched by the recently passed fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization act. there is no question that presidents bush and obama the department of defense and congress have been complicit since 2001 in using emergency war funding to resource enduring requirements for the military.
for the past few years despite the constraints of the budget control act, the defense subcommittee led by my good friend, has begun to make strides in limiting what is an eligible expense for o.c.o. and shift activities to the base budget and he is doing exactly the right thing. this was done because it is increasingly difficult after 14 years, that this operational tempo for our military is a contingency and not the new normal in defending our great nation and our interest. needless to say i find the increased reliance on contingency funding very troubling and not because i object to providing additional funds for the department of defense. i agree with the department and i agree with the chairman that sticking to the caps for defense spending would necessitate our force assuming -- our forces assuming unreasonable risk in carrying out our national defense strategy. but at the same time mr.
chairman, we need a strong nation as well as a strong defense. we cannot continue to let our country deteriorate with inter state bridges that collapse and kill our citizens. meaningful scientific research that atrophies and a population whose educational attainment falls further and further behind. looking ahead, only the most pollyanna-ish among us deny we'll be in a crisis come december. congress' time, the country's time should not be wasted any longer. the president of the united states, the leaders of both parties, of both house, ought to start meaningful negotiations now so that they can conclude before october 1 to allow this great committee the -- committee, the appropriations committee, to
again do the business of the country in an orderly and thoughtful and timely fashion. i stress this is not an issue of process. congress should not be searching for ways to alter the process in order to avoid making hard decisions on an annual basis. this is a matter of will. and we need to use the power of the purse to its fullest. i expressed a number of concerns, but i would close relative to the legislation before us given the constraints in this committee faces by observing that chairman frelinghuysen and the subcommittee have done an exceptional job in putting this bill together. in particular, the chairman has been meticulous with the $37.5 billion added to title 9 of this bill. he has avoided the easy path. rather he has painstakingly
worked to provide the needed resources for the preparation of r forces in the field. further, the chair was very thoughtful in his construction of the base portion of the bill and i believe it and the report provides the stability needed for our military personnel, as the chairman emphasized its readiness, and it preserves our industrial base. i close by indicating i look forward to the debates on the amendments and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to represent the chairman of the ful committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. -- of the full committee, the gentleman from kentucky mr. rogers, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. rogers: i thank the chairman and thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of this defense appropriations bill mr. chairman. the demands on our military are high. we're confronted with escalating russian and chinese
aggression threats from isil and other islamic terrorist groups, burgeoning nuclear programsin countries like north korea an ongoing war in syria yemen libya and other ples. e just don't know what may sprout up next. but in the face of this uncertainty we can ensur that our military forces are ready and able to meet whateve challenges may arise. we can make very sure that our troops and commanders have the tools and suppor that they need to protect this great nation and our way of life. to this end, theill provis $578.6 billion in diretionary funding, that's $24.4 billion
above last year's level and includes $ 8.4 billion to ensure that -- $88.4 billion to ensure that we can meet t needs of our military as they fight the global war on terrorism. this level of funding complies with the caps set by the budget control act, as well as the house-passed defense authorization bill. within this total, the bill prioritizes military readiness providing $219 billion for operation and maintenance programs that keep our troops trained and prepared to respond quickly and decisively. the bill also provides priority funding to ensure that our armed forces are supplied with the equipment and the weapons that they need to conduct successful military operations. mr. chairman our military is the best in the world and this
bill ensures that it stays that way. we invest $67.9 billion in research and development that will keep us on the cutting edge of defense technology and ebb able us to meet a -- enable us to meet a wide range of future threats to our security. but our military is nothing without the brave men and women in uniform who sacrificed so much in their service to this nation. we must keep morale high and provide for the health and well-being of our war fighters and their families. so the bill includes a $2 -- 2.3% pay raise for our troops. that's more than the president requested. and the bill contains $31.7 billion for the defense health program, to meet all estimated needs this year. this funding includes important increases above the president's
request for things like cancer research traumatic brain injury and psychological health research. and suicide prevention outreach. i'm proud, mr. chairman, that this appropriations bill accomplishes all of this but also takes the important steps to streamline spending at the pentagon, ensuring that no dollar goes to waste and that we live within our means. i want to thank chairman frelinghuysen and his subcommittee staff and members, and to his very effective ranking member for their good bipartisan teamwork on this bill. the chairman and ranking member demonstrated ironclad commitment to our troops and to the security of this nation with this bill. i'd also like to acknowledge the hardworking staff mr.
chairman. they spent many, many hours preparing this bill for consideration in the house today. mr. chairman, above all else above all else we must provide for the national defense of the united states. nothing can exist not our domestic government, not our private enterprise, not our freedoms without ensuring that that basic need is met. our national security is far too important to fall victim to political games. we can't risk having an underfund -- underfunded military during these uncertain times and our troops deserve unfailing unanimous support as they lay their lives on the line, no political games on this bill mr. chairman. this is for real. so i urge members to support this bill. these are bipartisan priorities addressed in a bipartisan way
and i want to see that our colleagues send a strong message to our military showing our support and our willingness to sacrifice for them. and i urge support of this bill on this floor. thank you mr. chairman, thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i will yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey, the ranking member of the full committee. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for four minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you mr. speaker. i would like to thank chairman frelinghuysen ranking member visclosky and chairman rogers for their efforts. and i particularly want to thank chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky for working in such a cooperative manner. however, the two parties remain very far apart in their
approach to the appropriations process. our differences were plainly evident during consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution. not one of my democratic colleagues supported the majority's budget because it main daned sequestration levels -- maintains sequestration levels. as the president said, the majority's returned our economy to the same top-down economics that has failed us before and slashes investments in the middle class that we need to grow the economy. during debate on the previous five appropriation bills, my majority colleagues argued strenuously that allocations at the sequester level were non-negotiable. they argued our committee was hamstrung by the budget control act and that we were powerless to renegotiate another
sequester relief package, as has been done under the murray-ryan agreement two years ago. at the same time others in our committee told the press the quote, pressure would build end quote, to address sequestration or pass a continuing resolution because sequester level bills cannot be enacted. the defense bill before us appears to be operating under a different set of rules with funding over the magical sequester level, a level we were told was the law of the land it was not cut below the president's request, as were all the other nondefense bell about -- bills. by using $38 billion in overseas contingency operations funding to plug the hole created by the budget caps, this bill fully funds defense
programs and avoids the inadequacy facing the other bills. let me be very, very clear. i am not making a case that the defense bill is too high or advocating that it should be reduced. we live in a very dangerous world. we need to attend to our defense, but we should do so in a responsible fashion. our military leaders have discouraged the use of the overseas contingency operations global war on terror budget to fund regular defense costs. they contend that doing so undermines the defense department's ability to plan over the long-term. funding $38 billion of the pentagon's regular base budget activities with war funds creates future year budget caps
that would be difficult to fill. this practice irresponsibly addresses only one of the budget imperatives creating clear losers in most of the other appropriation bills. if this bill were to move forward as it is i fear my majority colleagues would mentally move on the urgency facing the entire appropriations process would fade because we have, quote, taken care of our national security needs. that, my friends, is a dangerous strategy, especially given that we know none of these bills are likely to be signed into law by the president as they are currently written. . we can deal with that fact now -- may i have an additional minute? the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. >> i'd be pleased to yield the gentlelady one more minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
mrs. lowey: we can deal with that fact now ordeal with it again over the holidays but we're going to have to deal with it. members of the armed services and their families live in every one of our communities. they drive on crowded highways, over crumbling bridges. most of them send their kids to public schools. these families expect the meat and products they buy to be safe and the airplanes in which they fly to be protected. if they should ever get sick they need to have the biomedical research in place so that safe and effective treatments are available to them. these are reasonable expectations. what is not reasonable is to put forward several annual spending bills that mindlessly cut these priorities simply because we can't agree on a reasonable budget. national security, economic strains are inextricably linked. let's get back to the table. provide caps that's needed both
to our national security, improve jobs, improve infrastructure fund biomedical research and grow the economy. let's get together. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. lowey: vote no on this bill and let's move on. the chair: the gentleman reserves. 15 1/2 minutes for the majority and 15 -- 14 1/2 for the gentleman from indiana. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, a member of our defense appropriations committee a member of our subcommittee, two minutes, mr. crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crenshaw: well, thank you, chairman frelinghuysen, for yielding the time. i want to say a special thanks to you and to ranking member vis clows key for the hard work -- visclosky for the hard work you put in the bill today. this is the most important issue we face every year. and i know last year when we had this debate i pointed out
the fact that i think the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect american lives and we worked to do that every day. we talked about the fact that the best way to keep america safe is to keep america strong. and i think that you look back now here we are a year later not much has changed. national security is still a critical element of what we do here. i tell you this back home in northeast florida, the constituents that i represent, they're greatly concerned about national security. they're greatly concerned about the minute and women in uniform and greatly concerned that they'll have the necessary resources to accomplish their missions successfully. also to return home safely. and they're also concerned that we don't get caught up in the politics at the moment and lose sight of the fact that we have a constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. and so i just want to say in closing, mr. speaker, that when
we look at the ever-increasingly dangerous world that we live in i think we have to meet these challenges head on, and i want to remind my colleagues that most of everything that we've accomplished as a great nation we've accomplished with the foundation, the foundation built on national security. and this bill moves us forward down that path. i urge my colleagues to support this and i yield back my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, a member of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in reluctant opposition to this bill and please let me acknowledge the tremendous work of chairman frelinghuysen, ranking member visclosky, and appropriations staff in moving this defense bill forward. this bill deserves better treatment by the leadership of
this house than to have it cloaked in unfinished budget wrangling that could force future changes harmful to the defense of our nation. the bill before us funds key priorities, assuring the strongest, most agile and resilient military on earth. securing base and operational independence through energy innovation. improving defense health for the lives of our military and civilian forces. advancing cutting edge research at our defense labs to improve efficiency in the battlefield and drive tk nothing transfer to the private sector to grow our economy. and maintaining and upgrading essential defense facilities across our nation and globe. moving forward our nation must still address lingling veteran unemployment over half a million americans during to the bureau of labor statistics. the majority are over 45 years of age but over 200,000 are between the ages of 18 and 44. the capabilities of our national guard can be leveraged to address this imperative, engaging their talents to meet
domestic needs. globally too as leader of the free world the united states holds a special responsibility to uphold commitments to budapest. this was recently reaffirmed by president obama and german chanceler merkel it at the g-7 summit. a threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere. russia's invasion of ukraine cannot be tolerated. tough sanctions on russia and enforcement of the ukraine freedom support act lay the base for liberty's advance. those members who in good conscience ultimately will vote no on this measure will do so to fight for a responsible budget plan that not only meets the needs of our men and women in uniform but builds up the nation and citizenry they are fighting to protect. i would yield back any remaining time i have to the ranking member. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i yield to the
gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, member of the appropriations committee for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, chairman frelinghuysen. i'd like to thank you and your staff for all your hard work in crafting this defense appropriations act. as a marine veteran, current member of the mississippi national guard, as a former member of the house armed services committee, i fully understand the importance of this legislation. mr. chairman, as you well know, the united states navy and marine corps are the nation's forward deployment response force in times of crisis. the ability to responds to all types of conflict as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief is what separates the united states navy and the marine corps team from the rest of the world. however as a result of declining resources, the navy has struggled to reach oates h its own stated goal of 306 ships. a not insignificant portion of this fleet consists of amphibious ships to supports the requirements of the marine corps.
the current number of amphibious ships in the fleet does not meet validated national requirements to accomplish the tasks the marine corps is responsible to carry out in time of war or national emergency. this is the very marine corps that is tasked to be the most ready when our nation is the least ready. i know this issue also concerns you and i request your thoughts on how we might get our navy shipbuilding program back on track. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for his remarks and concerns and for his own military service, and i share his concern. the gentleman is correct, the navy's been struggling to maintain its shipbuilding program for many years. despite a requirement for over 306 ships, the navy's fleet has seemed to reach a plateau of about 285 ships for the last several years. it is our responsibility to work with you and the navy to ensure that our sailors and marines have the finest ships and equipment this nation can provide. mr. palazzo: well, thank you, mr. chairman. and i look forward to working
closely with you on this important issue and i can tell you i know where the finest war ships are built by the finest craftsmen. that's right there in mississippi's fourth congressional district. so i look forward to continuing to work with you on this important issue. i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for his passion and for his remarks and i yield -- retain the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. frelinghuysen: reserves thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from minnesota, a member of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you. for more than a decade this house has been committed to providing our troops with the body armor they need. body armor is essential to our deployed troops. in order to free throw advise our troops with modern, light-weight body armor the department requires a viable industrial base to produce the body armor and to continually work to improve it. the fiscal year 2015 ndaa defense appropriations bill
sustaining the industrial base was prioritized. $80 million was appropriated to the army specifically to sustain the industrial base for body armor. those f.y. 2015 funds have not been obligated and as a result the industrial base for body armor is laying off workers and about to go out of business. the army has ignored congress' directions and put this industry at risk. the f.y. 2006 defense appropriations report makes a commitment to body armor saying, and i quote from it, the committee encourages the secretary of army to ensure that body armor industrial base is able to continue to develop and manufacture more advanced body armor. end of quote. unfortunately the supplier of borin carbon ithe will be out of place before this bill is enacted. furthermore, this bill provides
zero funds for the procurement of body armour, another blow to the industrial base. we all share a strong commitment to our troops, fully understanding how important body armor is to a soldier's protection. to the chairman and to the ranking member, i would like to work with you to ensure that existing body armor -- body armour industrial base is not driven out of business for the armies' inability to mismanage this vital supply chain. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from kentucky mr. barr. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. barletta: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his yielding time to me today and i rise today to echo the concerns expressed by my colleague across the aisle from minnesota in concern for our nation's war fighters and our
military industrial base. as you know, the f.y. 2015 ndaa authorized and the f.y. defense appropriations authorized $80 million for body armor base industrial. however the u.s. army is not properly uniyouth ligse the funds the manner congress intended. congress has been clear on this manner. report language for both the f.y. 2015 and f.y. 2006 measures demonstrates, that the importance of body armor is critical to protecting our soldiers in combat. because of the army's repurposing of these funds at odds with congressional intent and the say the of our troops the army and the u.s. body armor industry will not meet high-tech light-weight body armor performance standards. after the wars in iraq and afghanistan we must replace used body armor to ensure the readiness and the safety of our troops in the field if they serve in another conflict.
if we do not act now to ensure -- yield 15 more seconds? mr. frelinghuysen: seconds, please, to yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barr: if we do not act now to ensure that the body armor industrial base is continue manufacturing more advanced lightweight body armor there will not be a capable body armor industrial base to fund. i thank the chairman for yielding. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california for purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you for giving me an opportunity to discuss something that will assist in our response. the air national guard assists in civil search and rescue operations during natural disasters and is capable of locating and rescuing people where civilian thornts cannot. the air national guard uses sophisticated technology to
assist in time-sensitive emergency operations, including the as-4 pod which includes wide range infrared sensors optimized for survivor detection, integrated communications and specialized radar for maritime, flood and swift water recovery. mr. thompson: lessons learned from hurricane katrina, the california wildfires and superstorm sandy highlight the need to outfit the air national guard with this important capability. i hope you will consider adding this vital piece of equipment to the list of equipment considered for priority purposing with the use of national guard and reserve equipment account which is governed by this legislation. mr. visclosky: i want to thank the gentleman from california for bringing this to our attention. i look forward to working with you on this important issue as we move forward with the legislation. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman. mr. visclosky: i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman
reserves? mr. visclosky: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, for purposes of a colloquy. he's the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces of the armed services committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman from new jersey, the distinguished chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee for his work to bring this important bill to the floor. . this legislation includes billions of dollars for programs that are vital to the nation's security and the men and women who have volunteered to serve our nation. however, i do have a question regarding a recommended reduction of $61 million from the missile defense agency request for the redesigned kill vehicle. does the gentleman share my belief that this is a critically important program and that it and the 2020 goal for deployment of this capability are vital to a robust and reliable national missile defense system, which is paramount to the defense of the nation against ever more capable adversary ballistic
missiles? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i agree with the gentleman and i know the gentleman from alabama will agree that the oversight of scarce defense dollars is important. the request for this program, despite the differences, yet there is no real acquisition plan. the defense wants us to be a responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman and i hope he'll let me know if there's anything that the subcommittee on strategic forces can do to make sure had the department knows that the acquisition strategy needs to be delivered to the congress without further delay. can the gentleman also assure me that the deployment of the site in poland remains a priority of his and the deployment by not later than december of 2018 will not be affected by any of the marks in the bill before the house today? mr. frelinghuysen: yes. i absolutely agree with the gentleman from alabama that this deployment is vital to our missile defense and the united states should be grateful for
our allies like poeland. nothing in the bill today will impact the one-time deployment of the european phase adaptive approach phase three. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman. i look forward to supporting the bill today and urge the house to do the same, to get this vital bill passed and to the president for his support of our men and women in uniform. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, if i could ask how much time remains for both sides, please. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has nine minutes. mr. visclosky: how much time does the minority have? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 8 3/4. the gentleman from indiana has nine minutes. mr. visclosky: i would yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you very much, thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank my ranking member for yielding and for your
tremendous leadership on this subcommittee. i also want to thank the ranking member and our chair for including report language on the department of defense's efforts to achieve auditability by the end of fiscal 2017. ensuring that the pentagon is auditable is common sense and it's something the congress mandated, mind you, 25 years ago. it's long past time to address the culture of unlimited spending and zero accountability at the pentagon and i know this issue has strong bipartisan support. yet there are many provisions of this bill which i cannot support. the appropriations bill includes an additional $38 billion over budget caps in the overseas contingency operations slush fund, and that's what it is, it's a slush fund. this is simply outrageous and this fund, quite frankly, in my opinion, it should be eliminated. we should have transparency and the public should know how much it's costing to fight these wars. this bill also includes $1.3
billion for d.o.d. operations against the islamic state in iraq and lebanon. it's been 10 months since the war started. and four months since the president submitted his draft authorization to congress and congress has yet to act. now we see additional troops being sent into this war zone. again, no congressional debate no vote. congress cannot continue to fund a war and that's what this is, without a robust debate and on an isil-specific authorization. that's why i offered an amendment in committee which was adopted on a bipartisan basis that simply reaffirms that congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force. it's also why i'm offering two amendments to this bill that would prohibit funding for the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force. with these authorizations still on the books, congress is
allowing this president and any president -- may i have 30 seconds let me thank you and -- seconds? let me thank you and hope we defeat this bill because we have to stop this policy of endless war. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i yield to the distinguished chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee again from alabama, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the distinguished gentleman from new jersey for yielding. mr. chairman, first i'd like it express my support for fiscal year 2016 defense appropriations bill and my appreciation for the hard work of the chairman in drafting this very good bill, which will provide essential funding to our national security. however, i have a serious concern with the proposed reduction of funding in this bill for an existing weather collection satellite called the defense meteorological satellite program or dmsp. our military is facing a critical capability gap in the
department of defense's two highest priority weather requirements. as the air force continues to work through its plan for addressing weather requirements, launching dmsp will help address these issues. much has been spent on dmsp already and it would be a shame to waste those dollars when the satellite could be put to good use. mr. chairman, i agree with you that the air force has not properly managed the space program -- weather program and they must submit a better plan. however, i ask for your support in working with me in conference to ensure that our military and intelligence professionals have the tools they need to safely prosecute our missions. with that i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: would you yield to the gentleman? mr. rogers: i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you mr. chairman. and congratulations, mr. chairman, on producing a very good bill that will provide the necessary funding to properly defend our nation. let me express my appreciation for providing $26 million in your bill to fund an air force pilot program for the acquisition of commercial sat comservices. aligned with the house---
satcom services. aligned, the program has the potential to lower costs. mr. chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss military satellite communications or satcom. as you are aware, the demand for satcom has increased by a factor of 10 since the outset of our simultaneous commitments in iraq and afghanistan and it continues to grow. mr. bridenstine: further, the need for protection against jamming, spoofing and other interference has also increased as our adversaries deploy for sophisticated countermeasures. the government-owned, government-operated satcom system cannot keep up with demand. not even close. as a result, the air force has sought less expensive, more protected satcom solutions from the commercial sector to augment national capabilities. mr. chairman, the military needs more satcom capacity and it needs one that is better
protected. congress can help by restoring $32. million for development and testing activities associated with the protected tactical test bed. we also need additional funding for the protected tactical wave form itself. this effort will help make both commercial and w.g.s. satellites more pro bust and protect it against jamming -- more robust and protect it against jamming. the protected tactical test bed and wave form may give war fighters access to a global architecture protected commercial satcom. with that said i understand the air force has challenges with the tactical test bed that must be addressed. however, i urge the committee to keep an open mind in conference. if the air force addresses your concerns then i hope the committee will consider restoring funding for the protected tactical test bed and wave form. i thank you again for this opportunity to speak on such an important issue to our military service men and women.
mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman from alabama and oklahoma, both vet -- both veterans for bringing these attentions to our matters. in both instances you both highlight important war fighter capabilities that are stimied by poor program planning and execution by the air force their lack of programmatic and financial discipline has led directly to these weather collection satellite communication issues. consequently, our appropriations bill highlighted each of these concerns and strongly encourage the air force to make adjustments. none unfortunately were made in a timely manner. based on existing capability i see no evidence that launching the dmsp is part of a plan that you but i am working, willing to work with the gentleman, both gentlemen, in conference if things change. and i thank the gentleman for his support and work. mr. bridenstine: thank you. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from
indiana is recognizeded. mr. visclosky: i claim two minutes for the purpose of a colloquy and i would yield now to the gentlewoman from california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. hahn: thank you and thank you, ranking member visclosky. i've been working to provide our world war ii merchant mariners the thanks they deserve. i would prefer to offer an amendment to the defense bill, which would have provided a token thank you, but it would have been the subblet of a point of order -- subject of a point of order. these brave men suffered the highest losses of any military branch in world war ii and did not receive veterans benefits under the g.i. bill. moving forward, i look forward to working with the ranking member to give our brave merchant mariners the recognition they rightly deserve. it's unfathomable that these merchant mariners, who served this nation so valiantly have never had full veterans benefits. they were not eligible for tuition subsidies, home loan guarantees or other provisions of the g.i. bill that helped
millions of veterans transition seamlessly into civilian life. time's running out. these merchant measure nars are now in their -- mariners are now in their 80's and 90's and there's only 5,000 left. let's act now to right this wrong. thank you and i yield back. mr. visclosky: i would thank the gentlewoman from california for bringing this to our attention and particularly, given the fact that my father is a naval veteran and 99 years old. so i understand the circumstances of which you speak. and we do look forward to working with you on this issue, as we move forward with the legislation. thank you very much. ms. hahn: thank you. mr. visclosky: and would reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield to the dean of the new jersey delegation for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for yielding and i rise to raise an issue of particular importance to my constituents in new jersey. joint base mcgwire dicks lake
hurst was created by the 2005 background and while joint basing has been successfully implemented as m.d.o., there remains an outstanding issue of gross unfairness for some employees. the overwhelm magazine jort of employees at the joint base are included in the new york pay locality area, yet the wage grade employees on the former ma gire air force base and fort dicks remain in the philadelphia locality area. these employees work on the same installation, but they are paid 7% less than their counterparts for the same work. joint base m.d.l. made a formal request for realignment of the philadelphia to new york wait survey area, to o.p.m.'s advisory committee in 2010 and the base leadership continues to believe pay parity should be a priority. mr. chairman, the joint base is a critical asset to d.o.d. and our national security. their missions could not be carried out effectively without
the skills of the men and women stationed there and those working in civilian support roles across the base. joint base m.d.l. is one installation and the men and women who work there are part of the same work force. it is time to fix this outdated policy accordingly. i am hopeful that we will -- you will work with me to bring about fairness to the roughly 20% of the work force that does not receive equally earned pay. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank my colleague for his leadership and for bringing my attention to this important issue and i can assure him we'll look forward to working with him as we move forward with our bill into conference. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for your commitment to the men and women who support our war fighters. look forward to working with you to move the pay parity for all joint base employees forward. i thank you. mr. frelinghuysen: reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman i would claim two minutes and would yield at this time to the
gentlewoman from massachusetts for a purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tsongas: mr. chair, rise in the purpose of engaging in a colloquy. our nation's federally funded research and development centers or ffrdc's play a critical role in advancing national security goals and he suring that our nation stays on the cutting edge of technological innovation. mr. chair, i wanted to engage in this colloquy to clarify congress' intent in section 8023-c which states, and i quote, notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds available to in the department from any source during fiscal year 2016 may be used by a defense ffrdc through a fee other payment mechanism for construction of new buildings. mr. chair, i am concerned that some could take an expansive interpretation of this
provision and view it as preventing the execution of critical facilities modernization projects, even when authorized by congress through military construction projects. i'm also concerned about the provision's medium and long-term implications for building maintenance and facility modernization projects that are necessary to continue important innovation programs for decades to come. chairman frelinghuysen, is it the committee's understanding that this provision is not intended to apply to military construction projects or to advanced planning and design funds that are authorized by congress? . mr. frelinghuysen: yes, that's my understanding. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. frelinghuysen. i appreciate that construction. i yield to the ranking member of the defense subcommittee mr. visclosky. is that your understanding? mr. visclosky: that's my understanding as well. ms. tsongas: thank you. i look forward to working with you. mr. visclosky: thank you. i reserve the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, could you give us the time that we each have left? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 2 1/4 minutes, and the gentleman from indiana has four minutes. the gentleman from new jersey wish to reserve? mr. frelinghuysen: i continue to reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would -- if i could ask the chair -- i would -- i'm prepared to yield back my time mr. chair. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm prepared to yield back as well. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from new jersey yields back. all time for general debate has experiod.
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. no pro forma amendment shall be in order except if the chair of the ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. the clerk will read. the clerk: be it enacted that the following sums appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for military functions administered by the department of defense namely, title 1, military
the chair: does the gentlelady from texas have an amendment at the desk? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. page 3, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the following -- increase by $2 million. page 31 line 7, insert after the dollar amount the following -- reduce by $2 million. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. the chair: the gentlelady will
suspend. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentlelady from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank you very much. the purpose of this amendment is to encourage the secretary of defense to allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by u.s. military women to military women in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war terrorism, human trafficking narcotics trafficking and their impact on women and girls across the comblobe. let me thank the chairman and the ranking member of the -- across the globe. let me thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee on defense for the work they've done in the backdrop of the very overwhelming sequester, which i certainly oppose, so that all of the appropriators will have the ability to provide the resources that they need. in particular, my amendment is recognizing the new face of war and the new fight of terrorism. and i hold up these pictures of the numbers of countries who
are adding women to their forces. america, of course, have had women in different parts of their military for a number of years. going back to nurses in world war i and ii and various types of work that has been done recently in iraq and afghanistan and the women are enormously proud and very effective. and so my amendment simply says that in this new war of terrorism and human trafficking we would have the opportunity to use the women in the united states military who have achieved levels of rank that are extremely important to be able to train and to provide technical assistance -- might i say, provide technical assistance to those who are just adding women to their military. the united states armed forces possess an unparalleled
expertise and technological capability that will aid not only in combating and defeating terrorists who prey upon innocent persons especially women, girls and the elderly but we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary technical military capabilities we face adversaries who adapt very quickly because they're not constrained by geographic limitations or norms. the caliphate, isil, isis, boko haram, al-shabaab, al qaeda, all. but we're finding these organizations are using women. but then of course the institutionized -- institutionalized militaries are also putting women in. what better interface than that of the united states military and women in particular? i have an article that i'd like to submit into the record, turkey's women expand the role in the military. the chair: the request will be covered by general leave. ms. jackson lee: so my amendment, of course, is to provide that pathway for the collaboration with other excellent force of u.s.
military women to be able to help these women and to be able to fight the globe war on terrorism through technical assistance, counsel and advice, which i think will add to the expertise of those militaries but more importantly to the work of the united states military. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order. mr. speaker, the amendment amends portions of the bill not yet read it may not be considered en bloc and you clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase the number of outlays in the bill. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to rise on the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i wish to rise. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i would like to take this moment to thank the chairman and the ranking member and their staff for working with me on this matter, hoping to be able to revise or
to resubmit this but at this time if the chairman would allow me i'd like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: we will accept the withdrawal, mr. chairman. and thank the gentlelady for hered a vow cassy. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will read. the clerk: military personnel, marine corps $12,586,679,000. military personnel, air force, $26,226,952,000. reserve personnel, army, $4463,164,000. reserve personnel navy $1866,891,000. reserve personnel, marine corps $705,271,000.
reserve personnel air force $1,689,333,000. national guard personnel, army, $7,980,413,000. national guard personnel, air force $3,202,010,000. title 2, operation and maintenance, operation and maintenance, army, $28,349,761000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: amendment -- the clerk will report the title. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lowenthal of california. reduce by $3 million. page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the following -- increase by $5 million reduced by $3 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman
from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. providing science technology, education and math education to america's youth is a -- is critical in our global competitiveness. the star-based program engages local fifth grade elementary students by exposing them to stem subjects through an inquiry-based curriculum and is currently active in 56 congressional districts throughout the nation. today i want to thank chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky for their strong leadership in re establishing funding for the program over the past two years and respectfully i am requesting an additional $5 million to help expand the program nationwide. today i'm offering star-based amendment number 18 to h.r. 2685 the department of defense
appropriations act. my amendment increases funding to the star-based youth program by $5 million and while providing support for the program it also reduces spending by $1 million. star-based program is carry -- carried out by the military service because the lack of stem educated youth in america has been identified as a future national security issue by the department of defense. two years ago both the house and senate rejected the office of management and budget's the o.m.b.'s proposal to terminate this critical program. as a member of congress, i appreciate o.m.b.'s desire to consolidate stem programs across the spectrum into one funding line. however, this is a national defense item and has been identified by the joint chiefs of staff as such. star based was created under the auspices of the department of defense to meet its critical needs in stem-related fields. regretly, the action during that time resulted in the
elimination of all the programs operated by the navy and reduced in fiscal year 2014, the number of star -- d.o.d. star-based programs from 79 to 56. d.o.d. currently has 25 sites on the waiting list for a program and that's why we need a small increase in funding for a number of star-based programs. it's one of the most cost-effective programs across the federal government costing an average of only $343 per student. last year, 3,062 classes were conducted in 1,267 schools, 413 school districts across the country, more than 70,000 students attended the program, bringing the total to 825,000 students since its inception in 1993. it is one of the most effective stem programs as well. it demonstrated the -- the
students demonstrate an improvement in stem, and i conclude by reading warren officer stacy hendrickson, director of the star-based program in my district, said, congressman lowenthal, i wanted to let you know that one of our schools, the 96 street elementary school in watts, california, earned their highest science standardized scores ever last year. this is significant because the class is second-year remediation and has english language lerners and special needs students -- learners and special needs students. this class is very special to us. we're all very excited to hear that all of these students also showed dramatic increases in our pre and posttests and now the improvement was reflected on the academic performance index scores as well. chairman frelinghuysen, ranking member visclosky star-based
inspires america's youth to discover technical career fields that's imperative during this time of economic recovery, we cannot lose this battle and concede our technical edge to the rest of the world. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. . i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: unfortunately, once again, the president's fiscal year 2016 budget did not support the program. there was no funds requested. as a result, the committee provided an additional $5 million in fiscal year 2016 to restore funding for the program. however, i can't support an