[fullwidth background_color=”” background_image=”” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_position=”left top” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_webm=”” video_mp4=”” video_ogv=”” video_preview_image=”” overlay_color=”” overlay_opacity=”0.5″ video_mute=”yes” video_loop=”yes” fade=”no” border_size=”0px” border_color=”” border_style=”” padding_top=”20″ padding_bottom=”20″ padding_left=”0″ padding_right=”0″ hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” hide_on_mobile=”no” menu_anchor=”” class=”” id=””][title size=”1″ content_align=”left” style_type=”underline solid” sep_color=”#000000″ margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” class=”” id=””]House approves bill that would repeal country-of-origin labeling[/title][fusion_text]Thursday, June 11th 2015
The House of Representatives late Wednesday approved a bill that would repeal country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for beef, pork, and poultry products sold in the U.S., a move made in hopes of avoiding billions in economic retaliation from two major U.S. trading partners. The bill, H.R. 2393, cleared the chamber in a bipartisan 300-131 vote with 66 Democrats and 234 Republicans voting in favor of the bill. Only 10 Republicans voted in opposition. The bill is in response to four rulings from the World Trade Organization (WTO) that a U.S. COOL rule was not compliant with international trade obligations and accorded less favorable treatment to foreign livestock by requiring labels to state where the meat-producing animal was born, raised, and slaughtered. A WTO Dispute Settlement Body is set to hear arguments on potential retaliatory measures next Wednesday and early indications from Canada and Mexico are that they may seek more than $3 billion in tariffs on a wide range of U.S. imports. During floor debate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle said they wanted to protect the American economy from billions in tariffs. Democrats argued that consumers want to know where their food comes from and there was still time to come up with an amicable solution, short of repeal. Retaliatory tariffs, if authorized, are not expected to be in place until late summer or early fall. House Agriculture Committee ranking member and Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson voted against the bill, upholding his previously stated position that full repeal is not the solution to the problem. He said that “nobody on our side wants retaliation,” but also noted that this bill only repeals COOL requirements for certain meat labels but leaves them intact for fruits and vegetables, something he called “ridiculous.” Speaking on the House floor, Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, who is also the bill’s chief sponsor, said those arguments “fall on deaf ears.” While this bill repeals mandatory COOL requirements, Conaway did leave the door open for a potential voluntary COOL rule, noting that “nothing that we’re doing today would prevent us from creating some sort of a voluntary program.” Several lawmakers – mostly Democrats – also tied the debate to upcoming votes on trade legislation by expressing concern that American laws were at risk due to international trade agreements. In a floor speech Wednesday morning, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie implored members to remember that they “took an oath to the Constitution; we didn’t take an oath to the World Trade Organization.” Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro advised her colleagues to be leery of the precedent this action could take, especially with the House facing a likely vote on Trade Promotion Authority on Friday.
[/fusion_text][/fullwidth]