that. is this real? are the threats potential? >> i had conversation last week with their equivalent to tomville sick, commissioner ritz. they are flat-out serious. the pine in particular has a recent experience with retall story measures. in 2011, we lost another wto case related to trucks coming out of mexico. they picked the wine industry to retaliate against. it's taken the wine industry until 2014 to recoup their market share of exports of wine exports into mexico. and apparently the mexicans picked pork skins as well, fried pork skins. i was not aware of that until last week when i was talking to the snack food industry. a manufacturer in mexico lost 20% of his business as a result of the retaliatory measure. mexico knows how it works. i take the canadians and the mexicans at their word that they are going to pursue these retaliatory measures. and they are uninterested in

negotiating anything but fixing this deal through a repeal. >> and from what i understand, you said earlier, i think i heard you say that the secretary has essentially done everything he could within the law the current law, to fix this? there is no more rule changes? is there any other avenues that he can pursue? >> those are his comments, that he has done all he can do, and it's now up to koyrngs thank you. mr. chairman. with that, i'll yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. thank you very much. you know mike, you bring such exciting topics every week. we really thank you very much. i want to thank both of our witnesses for taking time to be here. this obviously is an important issue to this committee and to our membership as a whole. and i want to thank you both. if you please, we have an exciting young stenographer here who is interesting in nation you have in writing leaving with her so that she can complete the record, she would appreciate it very much.

now this panel has done a great job, thank you very much. i'd like to call up the next panel. the gentleman from kentucky thomas massey. mr. massey, welcome to the rules committee. we're delighted that you're here. we're going to take care a second as we make the transformation as chairman conaway leaves as we move around. we're delighted, mr. massey, that you're not only before the rules committee today, but recognize that you'll have something in writing once again. our awesome stenographer would be eternally grateful if you would leave her at the time you leave anything you had in writing. and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here today to represent a group that i don't think is represented here today. and that is american consumers, millions of american consumers that do care about where their food comes from. and to also hundreds of

thousands of small livestock farmers who know that their product is more valuable than a product that comes from mexico or canada. and to tell them otherwise is quite an insult. in fact, i heard an argument here that there is not a higher value placed on american products when it comes to food than there is foreign products. so i pulled up mcdonald's website. a burger made with 100% american sourced sirloin. now, do you think mcdonald's would have put that on there if they weren't going to sell more hamburgers at a higher price? i guarantee they wouldn't. so this is a marketing issue. i would disagree a little bit about the safety issue. as a farmer myself, i understand that there is a trust there is a bond between the consumer and the farmer. the farmers can cut corners there is a withdrawal period. if you give your animal antibiotics before you take to it market, but nobody is checking that. and so there is a trust issue.

and i think the trust american consumers have a better trust with american producers than they do foreign producers. now, let me tell you who is represented in this bill. canadian farmers are represented. mexican farmers are represented. and large meat packers here in the united states are represented. but the small farmer is not represented. now, i'm not here to lobby against the bill. i'm not for the bill. but i'm here to offer an amendment. and my amendment, i must first go back to something that representative delauro said, the chances of stopping this may be slim and none, and slim just left town. so i'm offering an amendment. and that is a serious amendment. it's an amendment in the nature of a substitute. it's actually a bill -- it is the bill to repeal m-cool that chairman sessions you were a sponsor of in 2005. speaker boehner was a sponsor of this bill.

mr. conaway, our chairman was a sponsor of this bill. and what the bill did in 2005 was replace mandatory country of origin labelling with a voluntary country of origin labeling. and i think -- i don't know how the baby got thrown out with the bath water here. but if mr. mcgovern said he was looking for a compromise. and i've been looking for a compromise too. and finger we had a voluntary program to replace the mandatory program, it would certainly satisfy the constraints of the world trade organization. and i find it a little bit ironic that we're sitting here in congress trying to make our laws compliant with another country's laws. but if that's the goal, then i think the 2005 bill would do that. and so what i've done is to offer that bill. and again i want to list speaker boehner chairman conaway, chairman sessions mrs. fox, who is not here, and mr. mchenry were sponsors of this

bill. i want to offer this in the nature of a substitute. there was one thing i had to change. we weren't going to repeal it for chicken. and for some reason in 2015 we decided chicken needs to be repealed. i said okay, we'll repeal it for chicken. but we need to also have a voluntary program for chicken. what the voluntary program says, and i'm just about done, let me finish here, i know we have votes to go to. the voluntary program would say that, and it's completely voluntary, a person participating in the program established under section 292 may not designate a covered meat product as having the united states as a country of origin unless the covered meat product is derived exclusively from an animal born, raised and slaughtered in the united states. and the reason we need this in there, and i don't like government intervention but we got to have some rules. because people want to cheat. and you can't raise a cow in mexico and feed it in mexico and

bring it over here for a day and slaughter it and say okay, this is american beef. usa beef. you can't take 10% usa beef and mix it with 90% mexican beef and say okay, this is usa beef. so in the voluntary program we need some rules. these are the same rules that the chairman himself offered in 2005. and so i would just stop now and ask that you consider this amendment. allow us to have a vote on a compromise that i think is a very fair compromise. and it's a well written bill. it wasn't written by me. it was written by members of congress before i got here. and i yield back. >> i want to thank the gentleman. i have no questions. move to mr. burgess. do you have any questions? the young lady from kentucky? >> -- the united states we should be -- >> the gentleman from ohio -- >> i don't want to repeal cool.

>> if the lady would yield? >> yes. >> i don't want to repeal the cool either. i would like to declarify i'm not for the bill today. i'm trying to offer -- i'm concerned the bill is going to pass. it's definitely on a fast track so to speak. and i'm trying to offer something that gives our american farmers some relief some little bit of fairness in the market, some way to differentiate their product. it won't increase the price to consumers unless consumers want to pay the extra price for something that is made in usa. and that's what i want to preserve is our ability to just use the english language when we sell products for farmers to guarantee their ability not to have their products confused with other products. thank you. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> i guess i wasn't going to ask a question. i'll ask one question to the gentleman from kentucky. so what happens if you don't

pass this? can people voluntarily put product of the united states on their label without this? >> my concern is that they would then be putting the labels on. and again, they would be skirting the rules -- well, there wouldn't be any rules. they'd be saying look, this is made in usa. but it could have maybe 10% made in usa. >> so the problem now is with the mandatory that everybody does that it violates the wto. so your concern is if there is no rules people will say it's made in the united states, even though that -- their definition of made in the usa might differ from yours that. >> is my concern. and i think that was the concern of a lot of members of congress, including speaker boehner 2005 when they introduced this bill. >> so you're endorsing speaker boehner? >> i am endorsing his bill in 2005. >> just checking. okay. >> but i could trade something here.

>> the gentleman is advised that would be wrong. the gentleman from massachusetts have any questions? the gentleman from alabama? gentleman from florida? gentleman from colorado? gentleman from washington? very good. the chairman is coming back to preside. but no further questions. i think it's fair to say the witness is dismissed. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> one point i want to say, kentuckians sure can produce a horse, right? >> absolutely. and we can produce pork and chickens and beef. and we want people to know those are our products when we produce them. >> absolutely. and triple crown winners. thanks for pointing that out. >> mr. massie as always, this committee not only appreciates and respects you coming up here but i know you come up here and do a lot of study with us also. so thank you very much for coming up, not only prepared, but in the spirit in which you have done this. and i appreciate you very much. he does. he does. he does.

>> thank you, chairman. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. this chairman does not see anyone else that seeks to offer any amendments or discuss hr-2393. this now closes the hearing portion of hr-2393. and the chairman will be in receipt of motion from the gentleman from oklahoma. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee grant hr-2685 the department of defense appropriations act 2016, the modified open rule. the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on appropriations. the rule waves all point of order. against provisions in the rule for failure to comply with clause 2 of 21. the rule provides after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule except that, one, amendments shall be debatable for ten minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and unopponent

and shall not be subject to amendment. and two, no pro forma amendment shall be in order except the chair and ranking committee member on appropriations or their respected designees may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each for the purpose of debate. the rule authorizes the chair to accord priority to members who have preprinted their amendments in the congressional record. the rule provides that one motion to recommit with or without instruction. section 2 of the rule provides for consideration of hr-2393 the country of origin labeling amendment. act of 2015. under a closed rule. the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the ranking member. the rule provides that the amendment and the nature of a substitute now printed into bill shall be considered as adopted

and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. the rule waves all points of order as amended. finally, the bill provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. >> you have now heard the motion from the gentleman from oklahoma. and i would defer to the gentleman from washington for a brief summary of the rule. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this rule provides for consideration of two important measures hr-2465 under our standard modified open rule which allows members to offer any amendment to the rule which complies with the rules of the house but limits debate on each amendment to ten minutes. and hr 2393 the cool bill under a closed rule. and i urge all members to support the rule. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman for a discussion on the rule. the chair now be in receipt of

any motion or discussion. gentlewoman from new york is recognized. i got that. it just takes me a second to get it out. >> okay. mr. chairman, have i an amendment to the rule. i move the committee grant hr 2658 2393 each an open rule so all members have the opportunity to offer amendments on the floor. >> you have now heard the amendment from the gentlewoman from new york. discussion? see none. vote now will be on the amendment. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no? >> no. the no's have it. >> ms. fox? no. >> mr. cole? >> no. mr. woodall, mr. burgess, no. mr. stivers, no. mr. collins? >> no. >> mr. collins. no mr. byrne? >> no. >> mr. byrne new.

mr. new house? ms. slaughter aye. mr. mcgovern aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis? mr. polis, aye. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> the clerk will report the total. >> four ayes, eight nays. >> chairman i move the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers for my amendment, which would say that no funds may be obligated or spent for u.s. armed forces engaged in combat operations in iraq or syria in the absence of the enactment of for the use of military force for such operation. i would say briefly that here we are appropriating money, a lot of money for the war in iraq and syria. but congress doesn't seem to have the stomach to vote for it or want to bring it up for a debate or consider uamf and vote on it.

the president has done what he was supposed to do. he submitted to us. we may not like the strategy. we may not think it's a good enough strategy. but he did what he is required to do. it is now up to us to do what we're required to. do you can limit what the president has proposed. you can expand it. you can vote up or down yes or no on it. you can bring all of our troops home. i just think it's unforgivable for us ten months into this war to continue to put our troops into harm's way spend on average of -- i should say borrow an average of $3.5 million an hour to do this in iraq and syria and to sit on the sidelines. i think the excuses have run out. and i think we need to force a vote on this. and my colleagues will vote yes. >> further discussion? >> mr. chairman? >> gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> thank you very much. i find myself in the uncomfortable position of supporting what my friend is trying to do but opposing this particular amendment.

so i feel compelled to explain why. i think what my friend from massachusetts is trying to do is exactly the right thing. and as a matter of fact, the defense appropriations bill actually contains an amendment passed by a bipartisan majority of that committee calling for congress to take up and do exactly that. miss lee offered the amendment, and myself, i think seven or eight other republicans on the committee supported her. she prevailed. i think in doing, that i think what that amendment recognizes is if we do simply an amendment to this bill we're under a ten-minute rule. so we're going to decide whether to go to war or not in ten minutes of debate. and, again, i share my friend's frustration. this should have been taken up. it was taken up, but not seriously taken up by the committees of jurisdiction. but i don't think we ought to be making a decision of this magnitude with that little debate. so i'll continue to work with my friend. i know this amendment is offered

in good faith. i agree with him on the position. i just don't think the amendment is the appropriate vehicle. i'll yield back. >> just say to the gentleman i appreciate what he and barbara lee tried to do in the appropriations committee. it is a sense of congress resolution. we did that in july, what the gentleman supported as well, and i appreciate it. i'm under -- and this is not -- we're not voting on an aomf here. we're saying we ought to vote on an aomf. so it's not ten minutes of time on an aomf. that's something i hope the committee of jurisdiction which i guess in this case is still the foreign affairs committee will ultimately do. but i guess my worry and i would feel a lot better if the leadership of this house would tell me that you know, by a date certain, we're going to consider this, then we wouldn't have to do this. but my worry is it's become too easy for people -- i'm not just saying republicans but democrats as well to be on the sidelines and be a critic, point

fingers, and have absolutely no skin in the game here. and i think if we're not going to -- if we're not going to do what i think is our constitutional responsibility, then we ought not to have our troops deployed in harm's way. and so i appreciate the gentleman's comments but i still think that -- i offer this out of frustration and out of anger and out of kind of regret that i can't get any confirmation that we're ever going to do this. i don't want to be here ten months from now or two years from now or three years from now talking about the need to authorize a war that quite frankly we should have authorized before we gotten gauged in it to begin with. i yield back. >> reclaiming my time. again, i agree with my friend's frustration. i think it's appropriate to be frustrated. and i'll just continue to try and work with him and exert pressure on my side of the aisle. i note my friend is doing that in another vehicle legislatively, and i think that's appropriate to do as well.

i thank him for his leadership on this issue. i just don't think this is the appropriate place for this. but, again, there is no question your optics the right one. i think everybody hasthis. the president waited eight months after he began hostilities before he set something up here. i agree with my friend's statement. though having said something, we ought to act on it. i think you're absolutely correct on that. hopefully we'll do that. i sense a growing bipartisan movement. i know my friend has continued his efforts and other members on both sides of the aisle, mr. shift and i have worked together on this. had 30 member and sent a letter to the speaker on this. i think this is an issue that eventually we will confront. but certainly not critical, my friend, for trying to move us a little more rapidly along that path. i think you're doing the right thing. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. further discussion? >> mr. chairman i agree with

the gentleman -- >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i agree the gentleman from ohio and massachusetts. i don't think ten minutes is enough time to debate this. so i look forward to working with the gentleman from massachusetts in another forum to try to figure out how we can have congress do its job. >> mr. chairman, if i could just add we're a rules committee. we could give this two hours right now. there's no requirement it has to be ten minutes. what this simply says is that come up -- if we want to continue these funds for this war, that by october first because that's when the bill kicks in we ought to have a debate and a vote on an aumft. there's no requirement this has to be ten minutes. we could make this two weeks if we wanted to in this committee. and all i'm saying is, we ought to put some pressure on the leadership and on the committees of jurisdiction here to do this.

and so anyway i appreciate everybody's comments. but i'm going to and for a yes vote on this amendment. >> gentleman asks for the vote. we'll vote on the government. those favor sayase i. >> ms. fox, no. >> no. >> mr. coal. >> no. >> mr. burgess. >> no. >> mr. steinbers. >> no. >> mr. collins. >> no. >> mr. burn. >> no. >> mr. newhouse. >> no. >> ms. slaughter. >> yes. >> mr.b mcgovern. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> chairman, no. four yeas eight nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to further amendment or discussion seeing none the vote will now be on the motion that is made by the gentleman from oklahoma, those in favor sicknifysickgnify

by saying no. >> no. >> aye? >> aye. >> roll call vote. >> ms. fox. >> eye. >> mr. wood all. >> aye. >> mr. stybering. aye. >> mr. collins. >> i. >> ms. slaughter snow. >> mr. mcgovern. >> no. >> mr. pole us. >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. eight yeas four nays. the motion is agreed to and the gentleman from washington mr. newhouse will be handling this. >> mr. mcgovern for inthe minority. i would say to our committee that at this time i have no

further information about the next time we will meet. excuse me. i'm sorry. >> tomorrow i believe. >> i'm sorry. i'm the one that's getting that mixed up. tomorrow, it is tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. you are exactly right. >> i would also like to ask you about the trade bill. we have a lot of rumors it will be coming up this week. do you know when? >> that's where my brain was. i don't know exactly for sure. i tell you what we're going to do. we'll have a meeting tomorrow at 3:00. >> you will tell me then? >> i will tell you then. >> i am very curious to know -- i think the senate sent over three bills you're contemplating four. there's no committee action. has any decision been made on that? >> it has not. >> can you tell me that tomorrow? >> i promise to tell you as soon as i know, how about that? >> all right. >> thank you very much. 3:00 we will meet and we will finish with the committee work

today. thank you very much. >> the house rules committee wrapping up their work. aapproving 2 bills. the country of origin labelling bill that would repeal the country of origin labelling

requirements for beef, pork and chicken sold in the u.s. they also approved the rule for debate on the 2016 defense department spending measure. meanwhile, on that measure, the white house has issued a veto threat on the measure largely because the white house says that the measure uses quote, the overseas contingency operation funding in ways that leaders in both parties have made clear are inappropriate, they write the white house saying in their veto threat the u.s. of ocu funding to circumvent defense spending also ignores the long term connection between national security and economic. and provides to provide for national security functions. they're talking about $8 billion. that's part of the 2011 -- on that department of defense measure. those measures coming up for debate in the house later this week. meanwhile, the president also today defended his affordable

care act the healthcare law citing economic growth as success. the president was the key note speaker at the catholic health association's annual membership event in washington. >> thank you. thank you so much.

>> i want to thank the catholic health association for the incredible work you do. and it's true i just love nuns generally. i'm just saying. it is an honor to join you on your 100th anniversary of bringing hope and healing to so many. i want to acknowledge dignity health and his ceo lloyd dean. honored by the catholic health association last night for his out standing support of our efforts to improve healthcare in america. i want to think ascension health, a great provider of care. that also recently raised its

minimum wage. i want to thank secretary burrpleburr burrwell and the members of congress that are here today because they have obviously doing extraordinary work. my first job in chicago when i moved after college to work as a community organizer, my first job was funded by the campaign for human development. an anti-poverty initiative of the catholic church. and my first office was at holy rosary church on the southside of chicago across from palmer park. clap in there, you should know the holy rosary. and the task was to work with parishes and neighbors and faith and community leaders to bring low income people together to

stitch neighborhoods together. clergy and laypeople. and the work was hard. and there were times where it was disspirited. we had plenty of set backs there were times where i felt like quitting. where i wondered if the path i had chosen was too hard. despite these challenges i saw how kindness and compassion and faith can change the arc of people's lives. i saw the power of faith. a shared belief that every human being made in the image of god deserves to live in dignity. and all children, no matter who they are or where they come from or how much money they were born into. ought to have the opportunity to achieve their god given potential. that we were -- are all called in the words of his holiness pope francis to satisfy the