```

[House Report 114-131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress     }                                 {         Report
  1st Session      }     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES    {         114-131                                         
======================================================================
 
           COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

  May 29, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Conaway, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2393]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2393) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
repeal country of origin labeling requirements with respect to 
beef, pork, and chicken, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Country of Origin Labeling Amendments 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR BEEF, 
                    PORK, AND CHICKEN.

  (a) Definitions.--Section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended----
          (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (7);
          (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8), 
        and (9) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7), 
        respectively; and
          (3) in paragraph (1)(A) (as so redesignated)----
                  (A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the 
                following new clause:
                          ``(i) muscle cuts of lamb and venison;'';
                  (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the 
                following new clause:
                          ``(ii) ground lamb and ground venison;'';
                  (C) by striking clause (viii); and
                  (D) by redesignating clauses (ix), (x), and (xi) as 
                clauses (viii), (ix), and (x), respectively.
  (b) Notice of Country of Origin.--Section 282 of the Agricultural 
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638a) is amended----
          (1) in subsection (a)(2)----
                  (A) in the heading, by striking ``beef, lamb, pork, 
                chicken,'' and inserting ``lamb,'';
                  (B) by striking ``beef, lamb, pork, chicken,'' and 
                inserting ``lamb,'' each place it appears in 
                subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D); and
                  (C) in subparagraph (E)----
                          (i) in the heading, by striking ``Ground 
                        beef, pork, lamb, chicken,'' and inserting 
                        ``Ground lamb,''; and
                          (ii) by striking ``ground beef, ground pork, 
                        ground lamb, ground chicken,'' each place it 
                        appears and inserting ``ground lamb,''; and
          (2) in subsection (f)(2)----
                  (A) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
                  (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
                subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.

                           Brief Explanation

    The Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, H.R. 
2393, amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal 
country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork, and 
chicken.

                    Purpose and Need for Legislation

    In 2002, Congress enacted mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling (COOL) provisions requiring retailers of certain meat 
products to inform consumers of a product's country-of-origin. 
Controversial aspects of COOL prompted Congress to revisit the 
law in the 2008 Farm Bill, which included several amendments to 
the 2002 statute.
    Less than five months after the COOL implementing rule was 
published in 2008, Canada and Mexico challenged the rule at the 
WTO, arguing that it had a trade-distorting impact by reducing 
the value and number of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. 
market.
    The process has since progressed through the dispute 
settlement panel phase (report issued November 2011), and a 
U.S. appeal to the WTO's Appellate Body (report issued June 
2012). In both instances, the WTO found that the way U.S. COOL 
regulations were implemented violated U.S. WTO obligations by 
discriminating against imported livestock.
    The United States was given until May 2013 to bring its 
COOL regulations into compliance with the findings of the 
dispute settlement panel, as modified by the Appellate Body. In 
response, USDA issued a revised COOL rule in May 2013 which 
required that production steps--born, raised, and slaughtered, 
by origin country--be included on meat labels. The revised rule 
also prohibited the commingling of meat from imported and 
domestic livestock. Canada and Mexico claimed the revised rule 
did not bring the United States into compliance, and 
furthermore they said the revised rule, especially the 
prohibition on commingling, was more onerous than the original 
rule. A key criterion of current COOL implementation is that it 
requires ``segregation'' of animals by country of origin, which 
raises the cost of utilizing imported livestock.
    At the request of Canada and Mexico, the WTO established a 
compliance panel to determine if the revised rule brought the 
United States into compliance with previous rulings. The 
compliance panel report, released October 20, 2014, upheld the 
earlier findings of discrimination.
    The United States filed to appeal the compliance panel 
report on November 28, 2014. On May 18, 2015, the WTO rejected 
the United States' appeal and found for the fourth and final 
time that the U.S. COOL requirements for beef and pork are 
unavoidably discriminatory. The final ruling kick-starts the 
WTO process to determine the level of retaliatory tariffs 
Canada and Mexico can now impose of the U.S., which has widely 
been predicted to have effects in the billions of dollars.
    On Wednesday, March 25, the House Agriculture Committee's 
Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee held a public 
hearing to examine the implications of potential retaliation 
against the U.S. Witnesses at the hearing testified as follows:

          Canada and Mexico are by far the United States' 
        largest export markets, and purchased a record $485 
        billion in manufactured goods in 2014. Those exports 
        support millions of U.S. jobs. WTO-authorized 
        retaliation by two of the largest U.S. trading partners 
        could result in billions in tariffs affecting multiple 
        sectors of the U.S. economy, threatening the 
        livelihoods of American families.
          With the threat of retaliation looming for our 
        nation's manufacturers, time has run out. The NAM and 
        the COOL Reform Coalition urge Congress to bring the 
        United States back into compliance with its WTO 
        obligations fully and quickly through the repeal of 
        these WTO inconsistent provisions.
        --Ms. Linda M. Dempsey, Vice President of International 
        Economic Affairs, National Association of 
        Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.

          Overall, an estimated $21.8 billion of personal 
        income and $35 billion of gross national product are 
        supported by the U.S. hog industry. Regrettably for the 
        U.S. pork industry, pork is on Canada's target list and 
        will likely be on Mexico's. Because COOL involves 
        agricultural products, retaliation is inevitably going 
        to fall heavily on U.S. agriculture.
          Congress must be prepared to repeal the offending 
        parts of the statue to bring the U.S. into compliance 
        with WTO rules. Congress should not allow retaliation 
        against pork producers and other sectors of the U.S. 
        economy.
        --Mr. John P. Weber, President Elect, National Pork 
        Producers Council, Dysart, IA

          The importance of the U.S. trade relationship with 
        Canada and Mexico for American workers, farmers, 
        ranchers, and companies of all kinds is worth bearing 
        in mind. A trade dispute with a minor commercial 
        partner can be damaging; a trade dispute with the two 
        largest markets for U.S. exports could be highly 
        damaging.
          More than 95% of the world's consumers live outside 
        our markets, but American farmers, workers, and 
        companies will not be able to sell their goods and 
        services to those consumers if we fail to live up to 
        these rules ourselves.
          [T]he Chamber strongly urges Congress to move swiftly 
        to approve legislation repealing the COOL requirements 
        for muscle cuts of meat due to the imminent and all-
        but-certain adverse ruling by the WTO Appellate Body in 
        May. Failure to do so could cost tens of thousands of 
        American jobs and jeopardize mutually beneficial trade 
        relationships with our two closest neighbors and 
        largest export markets.
        --Mr. Christopher W. Wenk, Executive Director of 
        International Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
        Washington, D.C.

          With Canada the number one and Mexico the number six 
        market for U.S. wine exports, COOL-related retaliatory 
        tariffs would have an enormously negative economic 
        impact on our winemakers and grape growers.
          COOL-related retaliatory tariffs will result in an 
        enormous loss of sales for U.S. wineries, estimated to 
        be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Since the 
        strong growth of U.S. wine exports to Canada and Mexico 
        over the past decade has in part been due to USDA's 
        Market Access Program, it would be most unfortunate now 
        for Congress to allow another U.S. law, such as COOL to 
        undo these hard-fought export gains.
        --Mr. Tom LaFaille, Vice President and International 
        Trade Counsel, Wine Institute, Washington, D.C.

          Forty percent of U.S. confectionery exports are to 
        Canada ($900 million) while 15 percent (more than $300 
        million) are to Mexico. These two markets together 
        total over 50 percent of U.S. confectionery exports. We 
        are deeply concerned that retaliatory duties from both 
        countries will target our industry.
          U.S confectioners have worked hard to grow the 
        presence of U.S. confections and intermediates in 
        Canada and our efforts are paying off. Exports of 
        finished chocolate grew by almost $45 million in just 
        the last two years, while exports of bulk chocolate 
        grew by almost $12 million. Those years of investment 
        will quickly be diminished if the retaliations are 
        implemented.
          We are aware already of Canadian companies using the 
        threat of the retaliation to lure manufacturers to new 
        and more secure supply sources. The loss of business 
        will impact U.S. confectionery companies and their 
        workers, also their communities.
        --Ms. Alison Bodor, Executive Vice President, National 
        Confectioners Association, Washington, D.C.

          The solution is for Congress to repeal COOL now. 
        Half-measures or other alterations to COOL will only 
        bring more uncertainty and possible WTO challenges. 
        That is unacceptable to the meat industry, as well as 
        to the other industries forced to look over their 
        shoulders, worried about potential retaliatory tariffs 
        from Canada and Mexico. We encourage you to work with 
        Chairman Conaway to repeal COOL before retaliation is 
        implemented.
        --Mr. Michael T. Smith, Special Projects Manager, 
        Harris Ranch Company, Selma, CA; on behalf of the 
        National Cattlemen's Beef Association

    Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack has also been quoted 
numerous times acknowledging the repeal of the offending COOL 
requirements as a viable option to bringing the U.S. into 
compliance with its WTO obligations and avoiding retaliatory 
measures.
    In November 2014, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack said 
that USDA analysis shows that there is no regulatory fix that 
will allow COOL regulations to be consistent with the COOL law 
and also satisfy the WTO rulings. Secretary Vilsack said that 
Canada and Mexico would need to specifically say what measures 
would be acceptable, or Congress would have to provide, in the 
law, ``different directions'' to USDA to allow for WTO 
compliance.
    Testifying before the House Appropriations subcommittee on 
agriculture on February 25, 2015, Secretary Vilsack explained 
``[s]o either there has to be a generic label established by 
Congress or you have to essentially repeal what is in the 
current law if we lose the WTO appeal. Those are the two 
options.''
    In a May 1, 2015 letter to Congress, Secretary Vilsack 
reaffirmed the need for Congress to repeal the disputed COOL 
requirements or develop a generic North America label. However, 
Canada and Mexico have previously rejected the North America 
label rendering that option unacceptable.
    Furthermore, an April 2015 report to Congress from USDA 
explains that COOL requirements result in extraordinary costs 
with little to no corresponding benefits:

          In terms of producers, packers, and retailers, USDA's 
        regulatory impact analysis for the 2009 COOL rule 
        estimated incremental implementation costs of $1.3 
        billion for beef, $300 million for pork, $183 million 
        for chicken, and $2.6 billion for all covered 
        commodities (beef, pork, chicken, lamb, goat, fish, 
        fruits, vegetables, ginseng, peanuts, pecans, and 
        macadamia nuts).
          [T]he increased costs of producing, processing, and 
        marketing food products to comply with COOL without a 
        commensurate measurable increase in consumer demand 
        results in economic losses to producers, packers, 
        retailers, and consumers and leads to a smaller overall 
        industry with higher consumer prices and less product 
        available.
          [A]lthough consumers desiring COOL information 
        benefit from its provision, there is insufficient 
        evidence to conclude that such benefits translate into 
        measurable increases in consumer demand for beef, pork, 
        or chicken. Due to increases in the costs of production 
        resulting from COOL implementation, however, the 
        results of economic models indicate that consumers over 
        the longer run face higher beef and pork prices and 
        therefore purchase less beef and pork.
          Namely, the benefits to COOL do not result in 
        measurable increases in demand that are sufficient to 
        offset losses to producers stemming from costs to 
        implement the rule.

    Finally, although chicken was not a part of the WTO dispute 
between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., the industry requested 
that COOL requirements for chicken be repealed as well due to 
the high costs and minimal benefits associated with the 
requirements. The National Chicken Council has repeatedly 
expressed its desire to be removed from COOL requirements and 
recently reiterated its support for repeal in a May 21, 2015 
letter to Chairman Conaway stating:

          The National Chicken Council greatly appreciates your 
        swift action yesterday in the House Agriculture 
        Committee to repeal country of original labeling 
        regulations for beef, pork and chicken products. Canada 
        and Mexico are our two largest trading partners, and we 
        have a keen interest in sustaining and growing these 
        important export markets.
          The U.S. chicken industry is a proponent of free and 
        open trade. While we cannot speak on behalf of Canada 
        and Mexico as to why they limited their WTO appeal on 
        Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) to pork and beef, we 
        are keenly aware that chicken was near the top of the 
        list for retaliation by both countries. NCC supports 
        legislative action that will allow U.S. laws and 
        regulations pertaining to meat and poultry to be 
        compliant with our international trade obligations.
          NCC is fully supportive of your COOL repeal bill, 
        H.R. 2393, and are grateful for your and 
        Representatives Costa and Rouzer's leadership in 
        resolving this critical issue before retaliatory 
        tariffs are imposed on United States agricultural 
        exports.

               Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 of the bill designates the title of the bill as 
the ``Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.''

Section 2. Repeal of country of origin labeling requirements for beef, 
        pork, and chicken

    Section 2 of the bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act 
of 1946 to repeal country of origin labeling requirements for 
beef, pork, and chicken. Subsection (a) amends the definitions 
section, section 281 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 
to remove definitions of and subsequent references to beef, 
pork, and chicken. Subsection (b) amends section 282 of the 
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal country of origin 
labeling notice requirements for beef, pork, and chicken. 
Subsection (c) further amends section 282 and is a conforming 
amendment to remove unnecessary references to two voluntary 
programs.

                        Committee Consideration

                              I. HEARINGS

    On March 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Livestock and 
Foreign Agriculture held a public hearing to examine the 
implications of potential retaliatory measures taken against 
the United States in response to meat labeling requirements.
    Members of the Subcommittee heard testimony and discussed 
the impacts of potential retaliation by Canada and Mexico in 
response to the United States' country-of-origin labeling 
requirements for beef and pork. During the hearing, the 
following witnesses testified on matters included in H.R. 2393:
     Mr. John P. Weber, President Elect, National Pork 
Producers Council, Dysart, IA
     Mr. Christopher W. Wenk, Executive Director of 
International Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, 
D.C.
     Mr. Roger Johnson, President, National Farmers 
Union, Washington, D.C.
     Ms. Linda M. Dempsey, Vice President of 
International Economic Affairs, National Association of 
Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.
     Mr. Tom LaFaille, Vice President and International 
Trade Counsel, Wine Institute, Washington, D.C.
     Ms. Alison Bodor, Executive Vice President, 
National Confectioners Association, Washington, D.C.
     Mr. Michael T. Smith, Special Projects Manager, 
Harris Ranch Company, Selma, CA

                           II. FULL COMMITTEE

    The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with 
a quorum present, on May 20, 2015, to consider H.R. 2393, a 
bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal 
country of origin labeling requirements with respect to beef, 
pork, and poultry, and for other purposes.
    H.R. 2393 was placed before the Committee for 
consideration. Without objection a first reading of the bill 
was waived, and it was open to amendment at any point.
    Chairman Conaway, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Rouzer, and Mr. Costa 
were recognized for statements. Mr. Costa offered an amendment 
to insert a short title for the bill as the ``Country of Origin 
Labeling Amendments Act of 2015''. The amendment was adopted by 
voice vote.
    There being no further amendments, Mr. Costa moved that 
H.R. 2393, as amended, be adopted and reported favorably to the 
House with the recommendation that it do pass. Mr. King asked 
for a recorded vote. By a roll call vote of 38 yeas to 6 nays, 
H.R. 2393, as amended, was ordered reported. See Roll Call No. 
1.
    At the conclusion of the meeting, Chairman Conaway advised 
Members that pursuant to the rules of the House of 
Representatives Members had until May 22, 2015, to file any 
supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views with 
the Committee.
    Without objection, staff was given permission to make any 
necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect 
the intent of the Committee. Chairman Conaway thanked all the 
Members and adjourned the meeting.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record of the 
following roll call votes taken with respect to H.R. 2393.

                            ROLL CALL #NO.1

    Summary: Costa Motion to report the bill, H.R. 2393, as 
amended, favorably to the House with the recommendation that it 
do pass.
    Offered By: Representative Jim Costa
    Results: Passed by a recorded vote of 38 yeas to 6 nays.
        YEAS                          NAYS
1. Mr. Conaway                      1. Mr. Peterson
2. Mr. Neugebauer                   2. Mr. Walz
3. Mr. Goodlatte                    3. Mr. McGovern
4. Mr. Lucas                        4. Ms. Lujan Grisham
5. Mr. King                         5. Ms. Kuster
6. Mr. Rogers                       6. Mr. Nolan
7. Mr. Thompson
8. Mr. Gibbs
9. Mr. Austin Scott
10. Mr. Crawford
11. Mr. DesJarlais
12. Mr. Gibson
13. Mrs. Hartzler
14. Mr. Benishek
15. Mr. Denham
16. Mr. LaMalfa
17. Mr. Davis
18. Mr. Yoho
19. Mrs. Walorski
20. Mr. Allen
21. Mr. Bost
22. Mr. Rouzer
23. Mr. Abraham
24. Mr. Moolenaar
25. Mr. Newhouse
26. Mr. David Scott
27. Mr. Costa
28. Ms. Fudge
29. Ms. DelBene
30. Mr. Vela
31. Mrs. Bustos
32. Mr. Maloney
33. Mrs. Kirkpatrick
34. Mr. Aguilar
35. Ms. Plaskett
36. Ms. Adams
37. Ms. Graham
38. Mr. Ashford

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's 
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 
body of this report.

           Budget Act Compliance (Sections 308, 402, and 423)

    The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new 
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority, 
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not 
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to 
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the 
filing of this report are as follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 28, 2015.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2393, the Country 
of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jim Langley.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2393--Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015

    H.R. 2393 would repeal existing requirements for retailers 
of beef, pork, and chicken to inform customers at the final 
point of sale of the country of origin of those products. The 
repeal would not affect existing requirements for country-of-
origin labeling for lamb, venison, goat meat, perishable 
agricultural commodities, peanuts, farm-raised and wild fish, 
ginseng, pecans, and macadamia nuts.
    USDA inspects retail stores and audits supply chains 
through cooperative agreements with state agencies to enforce 
requirements for county-of-origin labeling. Based on 
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), CBO 
estimates that enactment of this bill would have an 
insignificant effect on spending subject to appropriation over 
the 2016-2020 period because USDA would continue to enforce 
compliance with labeling requirements for other commodities. In 
2015, USDA received an appropriation of $5 million for country-
of-origin inspections. Enacting H.R. 2393 would not affect 
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 2393 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jim Langley. The 
estimate was approved by H. Samuel, Deputy Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to 
repeal the country of origin labeling requirements for beef, 
pork, and chicken in order to come into compliance with a World 
Trade Organization ruling.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

  Earmark Statement Required by Clause 9 of Rule XXI of the Rules of 
                        House of Representatives

    H.R. 2393 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of 
the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another 
Federal program, a program that was included in any report from 
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee does not believe that the legislation directs 
an executive branch official to conduct any specific rule 
making proceedings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT OF 1946

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 Subtitle D--Country of Origin Labeling

SEC. 281. DEFINITIONS.

   In this subtitle:
          [(1) Beef.--The term ``beef'' means meat produced 
        from cattle (including veal).]
          [(2)] (1) Covered commodity.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``covered 
                commodity'' means--
                          [(i) muscle cuts of beef, lamb, pork, 
                        and venison;
                          [(ii) ground beef, ground lamb, 
                        ground pork, and ground venison;]
                          (i) muscle cuts of lamb and venison;
                          (ii) ground lamb and ground venison;
                          (iii) farm-raised fish;
                          (iv) wild fish;
                          (v) a perishable agricultural 
                        commodity;
                          (vi) peanuts; and
                          (vii) meat produced from goats;
                          [(viii) chicken, in whole and in 
                        part;]
                          [(ix)] (viii) ginseng;
                          [(x)] (ix) pecans; and
                          [(xi)] (x) macadamia nuts.
                  (B) Exclusions.--The term ``covered 
                commodity'' does not include an item described 
                in subparagraph (A) if the item is an 
                ingredient in a processed food item.
          [(3)] (2) Farm-raised fish.--The term ``farm-raised 
        fish'' includes--
                  (A) farm-raised shellfish; and
                  (B) fillets, steaks, nuggets, and any other 
                flesh from a farm-raised fish or shellfish.
          [(4)] (3) Food service establishment.--The term 
        ``food service establishment'' means a restaurant, 
        cafeteria, lunch room, food stand, saloon, tavern, bar, 
        lounge, or other similar facility operated as an 
        enterprise engaged in the business of selling food to 
        the public.
          [(5)] (4) Lamb.--The term ``lamb'' means meat, other 
        than mutton, produced from sheep.
          [(6)] (5) Perishable agricultural commodity; 
        retailer.--The terms ``perishable agricultural 
        commodity'' and ``retailer'' have the meanings given 
        the terms in section 1(b) of the Perishable 
        Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (7 U.S.C. 
        499a(b)).
          [(7) Pork.--The term ``pork'' means meat produced 
        from hogs.]
          [(8)] (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means 
        the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 
        Agricultural Marketing Service.
          [(9)] (7) Wild fish.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``wild fish'' means 
                naturally-born or hatchery-raised fish and 
                shellfish harvested in the wild.
                  (B) Inclusions.--The term ``wild fish'' 
                includes a fillet, steak, nugget, and any other 
                flesh from wild fish or shellfish.
                  (C) Exclusions.--The term ``wild fish'' 
                excludes net-pen aquacultural or other farm-
                raised fish.

SEC. 282. NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

  (a) In General.--
          (1) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection 
        (b), a retailer of a covered commodity shall inform 
        consumers, at the final point of sale of the covered 
        commodity to consumers, of the country of origin of the 
        covered commodity.
          (2) Designation of country of origin for [beef, lamb, 
        pork, chicken,]  lamb, goat, and venison meat.--
                  (A) United states country of origin.--A 
                retailer of a covered commodity that is [beef, 
                lamb, pork, chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison 
                meat may designate the covered commodity as 
                exclusively having a United States country of 
                origin only if the covered commodity is derived 
                from an animal that was--
                          (i) exclusively born, raised, and 
                        slaughtered in the United States;
                          (ii) born and raised in Alaska or 
                        Hawaii and transported for a period of 
                        not more than 60 days through Canada to 
                        the United States and slaughtered in 
                        the United States; or
                          (iii) present in the United States on 
                        or before July 15, 2008, and once 
                        present in the United States, remained 
                        continuously in the United States.
                  (B) Multiple countries of origin.--
                          (i) In general.--A retailer of a 
                        covered commodity that is [beef, lamb, 
                        pork, chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison 
                        meat that is derived from an animal 
                        that is--
                                  (I) not exclusively born, 
                                raised, and slaughtered in the 
                                United States,
                                  (II) born, raised, or 
                                slaughtered in the United 
                                States, and
                                  (III) not imported into the 
                                United States for immediate 
                                slaughter,
                        may designate the country of origin of 
                        such covered commodity as all of the 
                        countries in which the animal may have 
                        been born, raised, or slaughtered.
                          (ii) Relation to general 
                        requirement.--Nothing in this 
                        subparagraph alters the mandatory 
                        requirement to inform consumers of the 
                        country of origin of covered 
                        commodities under paragraph (1).
                  (C) Imported for immediate slaughter.--A 
                retailer of a covered commodity that is [beef, 
                lamb, pork, chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison 
                meat that is derived from an animal that is 
                imported into the United States for immediate 
                slaughter shall designate the origin of such 
                covered commodity as--
                          (i) the country from which the animal 
                        was imported; and
                          (ii) the United States.
                  (D) Foreign country of origin.--A retailer of 
                a covered commodity that is [beef, lamb, pork, 
                chicken,] lamb, goat, or venison meat that is 
                derived from an animal that is not born, 
                raised, or slaughtered in the United States 
                shall designate a country other than the United 
                States as the country of origin of such 
                commodity.
                  (E)  [Ground beef, pork, lamb, chicken,]  
                Ground lamb, goat, and venison.--The notice of 
                country of origin for [ground beef, ground 
                pork, ground lamb, ground chicken,] ground 
                lamb, ground goat, or ground venison shall 
                include--
                          (i) a list of all countries of origin 
                        of such [ground beef, ground pork, 
                        ground lamb, ground chicken,] ground 
                        lamb, ground goat, or ground venison; 
                        or
                          (ii) a list of all reasonably 
                        possible countries of origin of such 
                        [ground beef, ground pork, ground lamb, 
                        ground chicken,] ground lamb, ground 
                        goat, or ground venison.
          (3) Designation of country of origin for fish.--
                  (A) In general.--A retailer of a covered 
                commodity that is farm-raised fish or wild fish 
                may designate the covered commodity as having a 
                United States country of origin only if the 
                covered commodity--
                          (i) in the case of farm-raised fish, 
                        is hatched, raised, harvested, and 
                        processed in the United States; and
                          (ii) in the case of wild fish, is--
                                  (I) harvested in the United 
                                States, a territory of the 
                                United States, or a State, or 
                                by a vessel that is documented 
                                under chapter 121 of title 46, 
                                United States Code, or 
                                registered in the United 
                                States; and
                                  (II) processed in the United 
                                States, a territory of the 
                                United States, or a State, 
                                including the waters thereof, 
                                or aboard a vessel that is 
                                documented under chapter 121 of 
                                title 46, United States Code, 
                                or registered in the United 
                                States.
                  (B) Designation of wild fish and farm-raised 
                fish.--The notice of country of origin for wild 
                fish and farm-raised fish shall distinguish 
                between wild fish and farm-raised fish.
          (4) Designation of country of origin for perishable 
        agricultural commodities, ginseng, peanuts, pecans, and 
        macadamia nuts.--
                  (A) In general.--A retailer of a covered 
                commodity that is a perishable agricultural 
                commodity, ginseng, peanut, pecan, or macadamia 
                nut may designate the covered commodity as 
                having a United States country of origin only 
                if the covered commodity is exclusively 
                produced in the United States.
                  (B) State, region, locality of the united 
                states.--With respect to a covered commodity 
                that is a perishable agricultural commodity, 
                ginseng, peanut, pecan, or macadamia nut 
                produced exclusively in the United States, 
                designation by a retailer of the State, region, 
                or locality of the United States where such 
                commodity was produced shall be sufficient to 
                identify the United States as the country of 
                origin.
  (b) Exemption for Food Service Establishments.--Subsection 
(a) shall not apply to a covered commodity if the covered 
commodity is--
          (1) prepared or served in a food service 
        establishment; and
          (2)(A) offered for sale or sold at the food service 
        establishment in normal retail quantities; or
          (B) served to consumers at the food service 
        establishment.
  (c) Method of Notification.--
          (1) In general.--The information required by 
        subsection (a) may be provided to consumers by means of 
        a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear and 
        visible sign on the covered commodity or on the 
        package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the 
        commodity at the final point of sale to consumers.
          (2) Labeled commodities.--If the covered commodity is 
        already individually labeled for retail sale regarding 
        country of origin, the retailer shall not be required 
        to provide any additional information to comply with 
        this section.
  (d) Audit Verification System.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may conduct an audit 
        of any person that prepares, stores, handles, or 
        distributes a covered commodity for retail sale to 
        verify compliance with this subtitle (including the 
        regulations promulgated under section 284(b)).
          (2) Record requirements.--
                  (A) In general.--A person subject to an audit 
                under paragraph (1) shall provide the Secretary 
                with verification of the country of origin of 
                covered commodities. Records maintained in the 
                course of the normal conduct of the business of 
                such person, including animal health papers, 
                import or customs documents, or producer 
                affidavits, may serve as such verification.
                  (B) Prohibition on requirement of additional 
                records.--The Secretary may not require a 
                person that prepares, stores, handles, or 
                distributes a covered commodity to maintain a 
                record of the country of origin of a covered 
                commodity other than those maintained in the 
                course of the normal conduct of the business of 
                such person.
  (e) Information.--Any person engaged in the business of 
supplying a covered commodity to a retailer shall provide 
information to the retailer indicating the country of origin of 
the covered commodity.
  (f) Certification of Origin.--
          (1) Mandatory identification.--The Secretary shall 
        not use a mandatory identification system to verify the 
        country of origin of a covered commodity.
          (2) Existing certification programs.--To certify the 
        country of origin of a covered commodity, the Secretary 
        may use as a model certification programs in existence 
        on the date of enactment of this Act, including--
                  (A) the carcass grading and certification 
                system carried out under this Act;
                  [(B) the voluntary country of origin beef 
                labeling system carried out under this Act;
                  [(C) voluntary programs established to 
                certify certain premium beef cuts;]
                  [(D)] (B) the origin verification system 
                established to carry out the child and adult 
                care food program established under section 17 
                of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
                Act (42 U.S.C. 1766); or
                  [(E)] (C) the origin verification system 
                established to carry out the market access 
                program under section 203 of the Agricultural 
                Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    The purpose of country of origin labeling--to provide 
information to consumers about the food they eat--has 
repeatedly been ruled by the WTO to be a legitimate regulatory 
goal. The challenge for us is to find a way to provide U.S. 
consumers with the information they have said in numerous 
surveys that they would like to see on food labels. These 
surveys include those conducted by leading consumer 
organizations such as Consumers Union and the Consumer 
Federation of America. Many other countries have been able to 
achieve this goal without sanctions. We should not so readily 
abandon our efforts to provide U.S. consumers with information 
they have repeatedly said they want.
    We agree with the goal of avoiding retaliation under the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) decision on country of origin 
labeling, but a repeal of mandatory labeling for beef, pork and 
poultry is premature. Retaliation is unlikely to begin for many 
months. In the case of Brazil's cotton case against the United 
States, retaliation began 21 months after the WTO upheld the 
panel ruling on appeal.
    Many supporters of a repeal of country of origin labeling 
have argued that retaliation by Canada and Mexico will result 
in lost trade opportunities. In fact, we do not know how much 
the WTO will allow Canada and Mexico to raise tariffs as a 
result of the decision. The amount will largely depend on how 
much of the meatpacking industry's segregation and tracking 
costs can be attributed to country of origin labeling. In fact, 
meatpackers already have infrastructure in place to track 
voluntary marketing attributes such as ``certified Angus,'' 
``grass-fed,'' ``organic,'' and USDA grades including 
``choice'' and ``prime.'' It makes little sense to repeal 
country of origin labeling when we do not yet know the amount 
of retaliation that may be permitted.

                                   Collin C. Peterson.
                                   Richard M. Nolan.
                                   Timothy J. Walz.
                                   Michelle Lujan Grisham.
```