Senators have taken note of the vote in the House. Senator
Pat Roberts (R-Kan), the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, issued a statement last night praising the House for its action and his counterpart there, Rep.
Mike Conaway for his leadership. "I applaud the House for its swift action to prevent retaliation from Canada and Mexico," Senator Roberts said.
In the same press release, Senator Roberts talked about his approach to the issue as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. "I am continuing to take suggestions from my colleagues in the Senate for alternatives that meet our trade obligations," he said. At the same time, he acknowledged that
"repeal remains the surest way to protect the American economy from retaliatory tariffs."As for the alternatives to repeal, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway mentioned one possibility in his remarks yesterday, though only to dismiss it. Rep. Conaway said:
"In a recent letter to Congress, Secretary [of Agriculture] 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, if we go down this path which Canada and Mexico have rejected, we will continue to face retaliation unless and until we can demonstrate we are in compliance with our trade obligations."
And that retaliation could hit fairly quickly. Canada's Minister of Agriculture
Gerry Ritz said after the vote that "the only way for the United States to avoid
billions in retaliation by later summer is to ensure legislation repealing COOL passes the Senate and is signed by the President."
Mr. Ritz's threat is real enough, but the argument to focus on is the one Mr. Conaway made. His comment, in effect, explains the significance of the "fourth and final" ruling by the WTO on May 18. It took years for Canada and Mexico to reach this point, the point where they will have the WTO's blessing for retaliation against the United States. If they do retaliate, it could take years for the U.S. to convince the WTO that the situation has changed and retaliation is no longer warranted.