[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 77 (Tuesday, May 19, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3015-S3024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1314, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1314) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal 
     relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of 
     certain organizations.

  Pending:

       Hatch amendment No. 1221, in the nature of a substitute.
       Hatch (for Flake) amendment No. 1243 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to strike the extension of the trade adjustment 
     assistance program.
       Hatch (for Inhofe/Coons) modified amendment No. 1312 (to 
     amendment No. 1221), to amend the African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act to require the development of a plan for each 
     sub-Saharan African country for negotiating and entering into 
     free trade agreements.
       Hatch (for McCain) amendment No. 1226 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to repeal a duplicative inspection and grading 
     program.
       Stabenow (for Portman) amendment No. 1299 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to make it a principal negotiating objective of the 
     United States to address currency manipulation in trade 
     agreements.
       Brown amendment No. 1251 (to amendment No. 1221), to 
     require the approval of Congress before additional countries 
     may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
       Wyden (for Shaheen) amendment No. 1227 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to make trade agreements work for small businesses.
       Wyden (for Warren) amendment No. 1327 (to amendment No. 
     1221), to prohibit the application of the trade authorities 
     procedures to an implementing bill submitted with respect to 
     a trade agreement that includes investor-state dispute 
     settlement.


[[Page S3016]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we resume consideration of our TPA bill, 
I want to delve a little deeper into the process of considering and 
approving trade agreements.
  Throughout the debate surrounding this bill, I have heard the term 
``fast-track'' used quite a few times. There was, in fact, a time when 
trade promotion authority was commonly referred to as ``fast-track.'' 
Now, only TPA opponents use that term.
  They want the American people to believe that under TPA, trade 
agreements come to Congress and are passed in the blink of an eye. 
Sometimes they use the term ``rubberstamp'' as if under TPA Congress 
wielding ultimate authority over a trade agreement--the power to reject 
it entirely--is a mere administrative act.
  There is a reason the term ``fast-track'' isn't used anymore. It is 
because those who are being truly honest know the process is anything 
but fast.
  I think it would be helpful for me to walk through the entire process 
Congress must undertake before rendering a final judgment on a trade 
agreement, to show how thoroughly these agreements are vetted before 
they ever receive a vote.
  Before I do, though, I will note for my colleagues that this bill 
adds more transparency, notice, and consultation requirements than any 
TPA bill before it. This bill guarantees that Congress has all the 
information we need to render an informed up-or-down verdict on any 
trade agreement negotiated using the procedures in this bill. 
Congress's oversight of any trade agreement starts even before the 
negotiations on that agreement begin.
  Under this bill, the President must not only notify Congress that he 
is considering entering into negotiations with our trading partners but 
also what his objectives for those negotiations are. Specifically, this 
has to happen 3 months before the President can start negotiating. That 
is 3 months for Congress to consult on and shape the negotiations 
before they even begin.
  Congress's oversight continues as negotiations advance.
  This bill requires the U.S. Trade Representative to continuously 
consult with the Senate Finance Committee and any other Senate 
committee with jurisdiction over subject matter potentially affected by 
a trade agreement. Moreover, the USTR, the U.S. Trade Representative, 
must, upon request, meet with any Member of Congress to consult on the 
negotiations, including providing classified negotiating text.
  The bill also establishes panels to oversee the trade negotiations. 
These panels, the Senate Advisory Group on Negotiations and the 
designated congressional advisers, consult with and advise the USTR on 
the formulation of negotiating positions and strategies. Under the 
bill, members of these panels would be accredited advisers to trade 
negotiating sessions involving the United States.
  Congressional oversight intensifies as the negotiations near 
conclusion. At least 6 months before the President signs a trade 
agreement, he must submit a report to Congress detailing any potential 
changes to U.S. trade remedy laws.
  Then, 3 months before the President signs a trade agreement, he must 
notify Congress that he intends to do so. At the same time, the 
President is required to submit details of the agreement to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission. The ITC is tasked with preparing an 
extensive report for Congress on the potential costs and benefits the 
agreement will have on the U.S. economy, specific economic sectors, and 
American workers.
  I want to focus on the next step required by this bill because it is 
a new requirement never before included in TPA. Sixty days before the 
President can sign any trade agreement, he must publish the full text 
of the agreement on the USTR Web site so that the public can see it. 
This ensures an unprecedented level of transparency for the American 
people and gives our constituents the material and time they need to 
inform us of their views.
  Only after the President has met these notification and consultation 
requirements, only after he has provided the required trade reports, 
and only after he has made the agreement available to the American 
people, may he finally sign the agreement.
  The process this bill requires before an agreement is even signed is 
obviously quite complex, full of checks and balances, and provides 
unprecedented transparency for the American public.
  However, once the President does sign the agreement, his obligations 
continue. Sixty days after signing the agreement, the President must 
provide Congress a description of changes to U.S. law he considers 
necessary. This step gives Congress time to begin considering what will 
be included in the legislation to implement the trade agreement.
  This is also the time when the Finance Committee holds open hearings 
on the trade agreement in order to gather the views of the 
administration and the public.
  Following these hearings, one of the most important steps in this 
entire process occurs, the so-called informal markup. The informal 
markup is not always well understood, so I will take a minute to 
describe it.
  The informal markup occurs before the President formally submits the 
trade agreement to Congress. As with any markup of legislation, the 
committee reviews and discusses the agreement and implementing 
legislation, has the opportunity to question witnesses about the 
agreement, and can amend the legislation.
  In the event of amendments, the Senate can proceed to a mock 
conference with the House to unify the legislation. The practice of the 
informal markup produces or provides Congress an opportunity to craft 
the legislation implementing a trade agreement as it sees fit and to 
direct the President on the final package to be formally submitted to 
Congress.
  While the informal markup is well established in practice, this bill, 
for the first time in the history of the TPA, specifies that Congress 
will receive the materials it needs in time to conduct an informal 
markup. It requires that 30 days before the President formally submits 
a trade agreement to Congress, he or she must submit the final legal 
text of the agreement and a statement specifying any administrative 
action he will take to implement the agreement.
  The bill therefore ensures that Congress will have all the materials 
it needs in time to conduct a thorough markup. Only at this point may 
the President formally submit legislation implementing a trade 
agreement to Congress, and only at this point do the TPA procedures, 
first established in the Trade Act of 1974, kick in.
  Once a bill implementing a trade agreement is formally submitted to 
Congress, a clock for consideration of that bill starts. This clock 
gives Congress 90 days in session to consider and roll out a bill. As 
everyone here knows, 90 legislative days takes a lot longer than 90 
calendar days. When I hear my colleagues talk about ``fast-track,'' I 
think this is where they start the clock.
  They are disregarding the years of oversight and consultations that 
occurred during trade negotiations. They are ignoring the many months 
of congressional consideration of trade legislation that occurs before 
the President ever formally submits that legislation to Congress. They 
are discounting that by this point in the process, Congress has held 
hearings on the agreement, received views from the public, and 
extensively reviewed the agreement and the implementing legislation 
through an informal markup. Calling this part of the process fast-track 
is like skipping to the end of a book and saying the author did not 
develop a plot.

  As I said, even here at the end of the process, the bill provides 
more than 3 months for hearings, committee action, floor debate, and 
votes. Sometimes I think that only a United States Senator could argue 
that more than 3 months to formally consider legislation--legislation 
that has already been thoroughly debated, vetted, and reviewed--is 
making decisions too fast.
  When Congress votes on an implementing bill, it is only after years 
of oversight and months of formal review. So I have to ask, does this 
process seem fast to you? If TPA is not fast, then what does TPA do? 
Put simply, TPA guarantees a vote. TPA says to the world that when they 
sign an agreement with the United States, Congress promises to say yes 
or no to that agreement. Most importantly,

[[Page S3017]]

TPA guarantees that Congress will have the information in the time we 
need to make that decision.
  Without TPA, we are essentially telling the President to try to 
negotiate the price of a house, and then after buying that home, we are 
asking to renegotiate with the sellers. This would be absurd and rob 
Americans of financial opportunities, employment, and a fair world 
marketplace they can only get from free-trade agreements.
  Once again, I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss two 
amendments that are pending to the trade bill. I want to begin by 
thanking Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, as well as Senators 
McConnell and Reid, for working with me to make these amendments 
pending.
  I believe it is important that we have an amendment process as we 
consider granting trade promotion authority to the President. Enacting 
the bill before us will have major impacts on our Nation's economy for 
years to come, and Senators should have an opportunity to improve the 
product reported by the Committee on Finance.
  The trade promotion authority bill by its very nature demands that 
Senators be able to debate and vote on key trade issues. That is 
because the trade promotion authority bill creates a process by which 
trade agreements are submitted to Congress for approval without the 
opportunity to change them on the House or Senate floor. So it is 
critical that we utilize the opportunity we have now to set the rules 
of the road for future trade agreements and to enact important trade 
reforms.
  Today, I would like to discuss two amendments I believe will 
strengthen the trade package.


                           Amendment No. 1227

  As ranking member of the small business committee, it is my 
responsibility to look at bills on the Senate floor and ask: How does 
this affect small businesses? How will they benefit or be harmed? How 
can we improve this bill so that small businesses have a seat at the 
table?
  I think that is especially important as we talk about trade. Trade 
has become increasingly vital for small businesses that are looking to 
diversify and grow. Yet, even though 95 percent of the world's 
customers live outside of the United States, less than 1 percent of our 
small- and medium-sized businesses are exporting to global markets. By 
comparison, over 40 percent of large businesses sell their products 
overseas. As we consider this trade package, we must make sure small 
businesses have a seat at the table and the resources they need to sell 
overseas.
  The amendment I filed incorporates bipartisan, commonsense measures 
that will help small businesses take advantage of trade opportunities. 
It reauthorizes the SBA's State Trade and Export Promotion Grant 
Program. This program, known as STEP, was created as a pilot program to 
help States work with small businesses to succeed in the international 
marketplace. In just a few years, STEP has been a great success. Since 
2011, it has supported over $900 million in U.S. small business 
exports, producing a return on investment of 15 to 1 for taxpayers.
  It has helped small businesses such as Corfin Industries, located in 
Salem, NH. Before STEP, Corfin's international sales were just 2 
percent. Now they are up to 12 percent. As a result, the company has 
added 22 employees. That is the kind of job growth we will see in our 
small businesses when we make sure they are part of our trade agenda.
  Reauthorizing the successful STEP Program is a commonsense way to 
make sure our small businesses can benefit from trade, and it builds on 
bipartisan legislation that was first introduced by Senator Cantwell, 
who was just on the floor, Senator Collins, and me.
  The amendment also takes a number of steps to make it easier for 
small businesses to access export services provided by the Federal 
Government. It encourages those Federal agencies, such as the Small 
Business Administration and the Department of Commerce, to work hand in 
hand with State trade agencies that have on-the-ground knowledge of 
local needs.
  Finally, the amendment makes sure we understand how trade agreements 
negotiated under trade promotion authority will affect small 
businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to support this small business amendment, and I 
hope we can reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank so that our small businesses can 
access that funding and get into those international markets.


                           Amendment No. 1226

  The second amendment I would like to discuss is an amendment Senator 
McCain, who is on the floor, and I have filed to repeal a harmful, job-
killing program--the USDA Catfish Inspection Program. This is something 
Senator McCain has been working on for years. I have joined him in 
recent years to try to address the concerns I have heard from companies 
in New Hampshire that are going to be affected by that new USDA Catfish 
Inspection Program.
  Back in 2008, a provision was added to the farm bill that transferred 
the inspection of catfish--only catfish--from the FDA, which inspects 
all foreign and domestic fish products, to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. It required USDA to set up a new, separate program to 
inspect catfish alone.
  I think this is a wasteful, duplicative program that will hurt 
seafood-processing businesses across the country. There is no 
scientific or food safety benefit here. In fact, officials from FDA and 
USDA have explicitly stated that catfish is a low-risk food. In nine 
separate reports, the Government Accountability Office has recommended 
eliminating this program.
  Even worse, this program is actually a thinly disguised trade barrier 
against foreign catfish. We are facing an immediate 5- to 7-year ban on 
imported catfish as soon as the USDA program is up and running. As a 
result, our trading partners are explicitly threatening retaliation. 
And since there is no scientific basis for this program, any WTO nation 
that currently exports catfish to the United States could challenge it 
and secure WTO-sanctioned trade retaliation against a wide range of 
U.S. export industries, including beef, soy, poultry, pork, grain, 
fruit, or cotton. The program is becoming a major issue of concern in 
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.
  The only other time the Senate has voted on this issue was in 2012 
when we voted to repeal it in a bipartisan voice vote. But since then, 
we have been denied the opportunity to address this issue on the floor. 
I think it is very important that we have an opportunity to vote on 
this amendment because the USDA is poised to begin its inspection of 
catfish very soon. This may be our last chance to solve this problem 
before the program's harmful effects begin.
  Again, we need an opportunity to vote on this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support it and to repeal the duplicative USDA Catfish 
Inspection Program.
  I look forward to hearing what my colleague Senator McCain has to 
say.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New 
Hampshire for her support and continuing efforts to get rid of this 
wasteful, pork barrel, outrageous program that has cost the taxpayers 
tens of millions of dollars and with regard to the catfish office 
alone, about $20 million to date. As the Senator from New Hampshire 
pointed out, this could put the entire TPP--Trans-Pacific Partnership--
Agreement in jeopardy. So this has a lot more to do with just catfish 
here; it has a lot to do with our international relations and the 
prospects of concluding or not concluding one of the most important 
trade agreements arguably of the 21st century, obviously.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Shaheen, Ayotte, 
Isakson, Kirk, Crapo, Risch, Casey, Reed, Peters, Wyden, Warner, 
Cantwell, and McCaskill, in introducing this amendment, which has 
already been made pending to the trade promotion authority act, which 
would repeal a proposed Catfish Inspection Program at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. The amendment would end the waste of 
taxpayer money pouring into the creation of a USDA catfish office, 
which is about $20 million to date. It would also save American farmers 
and livestock growers from potentially losing billions of dollars in 
lost market access to Asian nations.

[[Page S3018]]

  As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, I have been fighting 
this catfish battle for a long time. I first tried to kill an old 
catfish-labeling program in the 2002 farm bill. Later, during the 
Senate's debate on the 2012 farm bill, I offered a similar amendment to 
repeal this new catfish program, which was adopted by voice vote. But 
when the Senate took up the 2014 farm bill after failing to pass it in 
2012, I was blocked from having a vote by the Democratic manager 
despite her assurances that my amendment would receive a vote.
  I note that my dear friend from Mississippi is here, and I know there 
may be others who will want to preserve this $14 to $20 million waste 
of taxpayer dollars. All I want is a vote. All I am asking for is an 
up-or-down vote on whether we should continue to squander millions of 
taxpayer dollars on a program that is not only duplicative but 
endangers the entire Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement we are 
discussing today.
  American agriculture is the heart of our efforts to pass TPA, 
particularly as negotiators move closer to completing the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership Agreement. TPA can put wind in the sails of the 12-nation 
TPP, which will promote hundreds of billions of dollars of American 
exports, including beef, pork, poultry, soy, wheat, vegetables, and 
dairy products. The TPP covers an area of the world that accounts for 
about 40 percent of global GDP and one-third of all trade. The TPP will 
strengthen our security relationships with countries such as Japan, 
Malaysia, Vietnam, and Australia, and provide a strategic counterweight 
to Chinese protectionist influence. So it is our responsibility to pass 
a trade promotion authority that signals to Asian trading partners that 
we are serious about free trade.
  Free trade is good for America. I am a representative of a State that 
has immeasurably benefited from the North American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  By the way, many of the same interests and people who opposed that 
are opposing this now--i.e., primarily the labor unions.
  Here, that means eliminating this catfish program, which is one of 
the most brazen and reckless protectionist programs that I have 
encountered in my time in the Senate. The purpose of the USDA catfish 
office is purportedly to make sure catfish is safe for human 
consumption. I am all in favor of ensuring that American consumers 
enjoy wholesome catfish. The problem is that the Food and Drug 
Administration already inspects all seafood, including catfish.
  The true purpose of the catfish program is to create a trade barrier 
to protect a small handful of catfish farmers in two or three Southern 
States. Let's be clear about what this is all about--protecting catfish 
farmers in two or three Southern States. Yet, we are endangering the 
entire agreement here. That is not right, and it is not right for the 
American people.
  In classic farm bill politics, southern catfish farmers worked up 
some specious talking points--which will probably be repeated here 
today--about how Americans need a whole new government agency to 
inspect catfish imports. As a result, USDA will soon hire and train 
roughly 95 catfish inspectors to work right alongside the FDA inspector 
doppelgangers in seafood-processing plants across the Nation. Experts 
say it could take as long as 5 to 7 years for foreign catfish exporters 
to duplicate USDA's new program, which would give southern catfish 
farmers a lock on the American seafood market.
  Growing government is not cheap. To date, the USDA has spent $20 
million to set up the catfish office without inspecting a single 
catfish. I am not making that up. Moving forward, the USDA estimates it 
will spend around $14 million a year once the program is operational.
  GAO has investigated this catfish office and warned Congress in nine 
different reports--nine different reports to GAO, which is probably 
clearly the most trusted organization here--nine different reports. The 
catfish office should be repealed. It is wasteful and duplicative. The 
FDA already inspects seafood. It fragments our food inspection system. 
Nine different reports. One GAO report is simply titled 
``Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to 
USDA.'' The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly found that 
catfish inspectors are a phony issue and warned that implementing the 
USDA program might actually make food less safe for Americans by 
fragmenting seafood inspections across two Federal agencies.
  Here are a few GAO excerpts.
  GAO, May 2012:

       USDA uses outdated and limited information as its 
     scientific basis for catfish inspection. The cost 
     effectiveness of the catfish inspection program is unclear 
     because USDA would oversee a small fraction of all seafood 
     imports while FDA, using its enhanced authorities, could 
     undertake oversight of all imported seafood.

  GAO, February 2013:

       Congress should consider repealing provisions of the Farm 
     Bill that assigned USDA responsibility for examining and 
     inspecting catfish.

  GAO, April 2014:

       We suggested that Congress consider repealing these 
     provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. However, the 2014 Farm Bill 
     instead modified these provisions to require the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to enter into a memorandum of understanding with 
     the Commissioner of FDA that would ensure that inspection of 
     catfish conducted by the FSIS and FDA are not duplicative. We 
     maintain that such an MOU does not address the fundamental 
     problem, which is that FSIS's catfish program, if 
     implemented, would result in duplication of activities and an 
     inefficient use of taxpayer funds. Duplication would result 
     if facilities that process both catfish and other seafood 
     were inspected by both FSIS and FDA.

  Even if my colleagues do not care about ballooning government 
spending and taxpayer waste, then consider the risk this catfish 
program presents to jobs and agriculture exports from their home States 
to an area of the world that accounts for 40 percent of the world's GDP 
and one-third of its trade.
  Ten Asian-Pacific nations have sent letters to the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative warning that this USDA catfish office is hurting 
TPP negotiations. At least one nation--Vietnam--has threatened trade 
retaliation if the program comes online.
  American trade experts are equally outraged. In a legal opinion 
written by the former chief judge at the World Trade Organization--the 
chief judge at the World Trade Organization said:

       The United States would face a daunting challenge in 
     defending the catfish rule . . . there was, and still is, no 
     meaningful evidence that catfish--domestic or imported--posed 
     a significant health hazard when Congress acted in 2008 . . . 
     the complete lack of scientific evidence to justify the 
     catfish rule combines with substantial evidence of 
     protectionist intent.

  He further notes that when it came to creating the USDA Catfish 
Inspection Program in the dead of night using a farm bill conference 
report--that is interesting, my colleagues; a farm bill conference 
report was how this whole thing came about--``Congress shot first and 
asked questions later.''
  This is perhaps Mr. Bacchus's most poignant warning:

       If Congress continues to mandate the transfer of 
     jurisdiction over catfish, it will not only be inviting a WTO 
     challenge to the rule; it will be giving other nations an 
     opening to enact ``copycat legislation'' which will 
     disadvantage our exports. Moreover, if the United States 
     somehow prevails in defending the catfish measure in a WTO 
     case, it will truly be ``open season'' in the rest of the 
     world for new restrictions on U.S. agriculture exports of all 
     kinds.

  Mr. Bacchus is not alone in his assessment. The Wall Street Journal 
has covered this catfish debacle over the years. The Wall Street 
Journal has editorialized and reported on this many times.
  This past weekend, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal 
penned an editorial entitled ``Congress's Catfish Trade Scam.''
  The Wall Street Journal, lead editorial, ``Congress's Catfish Trade 
Scam.''
  ``The U.S. slams a trade partner and raises prices for Americans.''
  ``Senate Democrats dealt a blow to economic growth Tuesday by 
refusing to advance . . . Japan, Vietnam,'' et cetera.

       The problem dates to 2002, when Congress barred Vietnamese 
     exporters from marketing as ``catfish'' an Asian cousin known 
     as pangasius with similar taste, texture and whiskers. But 
     that failed to curb American enthusiasm for the cheaper 
     foreign creature, which is common in fish sticks and often 
     called ``basa'' or ``swai'' on menus. So in 2003 Washington 
     slapped tariffs on the Vietnamese fish, claiming they were 
     ``dumped'' into the U.S. market at unfairly low prices.
       That didn't work either, so Mississippi Republican Thad 
     Cochran slipped a provision into the 2008 farm bill to 
     transfer regulatory

[[Page S3019]]

     responsibility over catfish, including pangasius, to the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture from the Food and Drug 
     Administration. The pretext was public health, but pangasius 
     posed no risk, and the USDA regulates meat and poultry, not 
     fish. The real aim was to raise costs for Vietnamese 
     exporters and drive them from the U.S. market.
       Thus was born one of Washington's most wasteful programs, 
     which the Government Accountability Office has criticized 
     nine times and estimated to have cost $30 million to start, 
     plus $14 million a year to operate--as opposed to the 
     $700,000 annual cost of the original inspection regime. This 
     is ``everything that's wrong about the food-safety system,'' 
     said former FDA food-safety czar David Acheson recently. 
     ``It's food politics. It's not public health.''
       Pangasius imports continue for now as the USDA sets up its 
     expensive new office, with the fish passing cod and crab last 
     year to become America's sixth most-popular. (Shrimp is 
     first.) Meanwhile, Vietnam has threatened to respond to a ban 
     by demanding the right to retaliate against U.S. beef, 
     soybeans and other products as part of TPP negotiations and 
     suing the World Trade Organization, where it would probably 
     win.
       Most Members of Congress understand the damage, but Mr. 
     Cochran has used his seniority to block repeal. The latest 
     effort at repeal, sponsored by John McCain and nine other 
     Republicans and Democrats, could get a vote when the Senate 
     reconsiders the trade-promotion bill, then would have to go 
     through the House. Ending catfish protectionism would be a 
     sign that at least some in Washington are serious about free 
     trade.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the aforementioned Wall Street Journal editorial.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2015]

                     Congress's Catfish Trade Scam

       Senate Democrats dealt a blow to economic growth Tuesday by 
     refusing to advance the trade-promotion bill needed to 
     complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact (TPP). Now 
     Japan, Vietnam and other negotiating partners will look to 
     see if Washington can salvage its trade agenda. They'll also 
     be watching Congressional jockeying over catfish. Allow us to 
     explain.
       The problem dates to 2002, when Congress barred Vietnamese 
     exporters from marketing as ``catfish'' an Asian cousin known 
     as pangasius with similar taste, texture and whiskers. But 
     that failed to curb American enthusiasm for the cheaper 
     foreign creature, which is common in fish sticks and often 
     called ``basa'' or ``swai'' on menus. So in 2003 Washington 
     slapped tariffs on the Vietnamese fish, claiming they were 
     ``dumped'' into the U.S. market at unfairly low prices.
       That didn't work either, so Mississippi Republican Thad 
     Cochran slipped a provision into the 2008 farm bill to 
     transfer regulatory responsibility over catfish, including 
     pangasius, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture from the 
     Food and Drug Administration. The pretext was public health, 
     but pangasius posed no risk, and the USDA regulates meat and 
     poultry, not fish. The real aim was to raise costs for 
     Vietnamese exporters and drive them from the U.S. market.
       Thus was born one of Washington's most wasteful programs, 
     which the Government Accountability Office has criticized 
     nine times and estimated to have cost $30 million to start, 
     plus $14 million a year to operate--as opposed to the 
     $700,000 annual cost of the original inspection regime. This 
     is ``everything that's wrong about the food-safety system,'' 
     said former FDA food-safety czar David Acheson recently. 
     ``It's food politics. It's not public health.''
       Pangasius imports continue for now as the USDA sets up its 
     expensive new office, with the fish passing cod and crab last 
     year to become America's sixth most-popular. (Shrimp is 
     first.) Meanwhile, Vietnam has threatened to respond to a ban 
     by demanding the right to retaliate against U.S. beef, 
     soybeans and other products as part of TPP negotiations and 
     suing at the World Trade Organization, where it would 
     probably win.
       Most Members of Congress understand the damage, but Mr. 
     Cochran has used his seniority to block repeal. The latest 
     effort at repeal, sponsored by John McCain and nine other 
     Republicans and Democrats, could get a vote when the Senate 
     reconsiders the trade-promotion bill, then would have to go 
     through the House. Ending catfish protectionism would be a 
     sign that at least some in Washington are serious about free 
     trade.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record an article dated June 27, 2014, entitled ``U.S. Catfish 
Program Could Stymie Pacific Trade Pact, 10 Nations Say''; a letter by 
Jim Bacchus dated May 14, 2015; a letter dated May 13, 2015, from the 
National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayers 
Protection Alliance, and Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, 
all of them urging Congress to repeal the catfish program in TPA; a 
letter dated May 14, 2015, from the National Restaurant Association; 
and a letter dated April 22, 2015, from the Vietnamese Ambassador to 
the Senate Finance Committee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 27, 2014]

  U.S. Catfish Program Could Stymie Pacific Trade Pact, 10 Nations Say

                             (By Ron Nixon)

       Washington.--Ten Asian and Pacific nations have told the 
     Office of the United States Trade Representative that the 
     Agriculture Department's catfish inspection program violates 
     international law, and their objections could hamper Obama 
     administration efforts to reach a major Pacific trade 
     agreement by the end of next year.
       They say that the inspection program is a trade barrier 
     erected under the guise of a food safety measure and that it 
     violates the United States' obligations under World Trade 
     Organization agreements. Among the countries protesting are 
     Vietnam and Malaysia, which are taking part in talks for the 
     trade agreement--known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership--and 
     have the ability to derail or hold up those negotiations.
       The complaints are outlined in a May 28 letter signed by 
     diplomats from the 10 countries. The letter does not threaten 
     retaliation, but it emphasizes that the American catfish 
     program stood in the way of the trade talks.
       Vietnam, a major catfish producer, has long complained 
     about the program, but it has never before won international 
     support for its fight. Several of the countries whose 
     representatives signed the letter--including the Philippines, 
     Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia--do not have catfish 
     industries to protect and are not involved in the trans-
     Pacific trade talks.
       But the letter expresses the concern that the inspection 
     program could lead the Agriculture Department to expand its 
     ability to regulate seafood exports to the United States, 
     catfish or not.
       ``Many of these countries are looking to see what happens 
     to Vietnam on the catfish issues, and what precedents it 
     might set for other trade deals in the region,'' said Jeffrey 
     J. Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for 
     International Economics in Washington and the co-author of a 
     book on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States and 
     11 countries on both sides of the Pacific--as well as 
     Australia, New Zealand and Brunei--are still negotiating the 
     trade pact, which has been repeatedly delayed over various 
     disputes.
       The Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers 
     recently hired James Bacchus, a former chairman of the World 
     Trade Organization's appeals panel, to prepare a possible 
     legal challenge to the catfish inspection program.
       Mr. Bacchus said in an interview that only governments have 
     standing to bring a case before the trade organization, but 
     that the export group was working closely with Vietnamese 
     officials to monitor the catfish inspection program.
       ``I'm confident that Vietnam would have a case before the 
     W.T.O. if they decided to bring one,'' said Mr. Bacchus, a 
     former United States House member from Florida who is now a 
     lawyer with Greenberg Traurig in Washington.
       The inspection program was inserted into the 2008 farm bill 
     at the urging of catfish farmers, who have been hurt by 
     competition from both Vietnam and China and by the rising 
     cost of catfish feed. The domestic catfish industry has 
     shrunk by about 60 percent since its peak about a decade ago, 
     and in the past few years about 20 percent of American 
     catfish farming operations have closed.
       The catfish industry and lawmakers led by Senator Thad 
     Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, fought for the new 
     office, saying it was needed to protect Americans from eating 
     fish raised in unsanitary conditions or contaminated with 
     drugs. The Food and Drug Administration has a similar 
     program, but it inspects less than 2 percent of food imports, 
     and advocates of the Agriculture Department program said that 
     was not good enough.
       The Agriculture Department has traditionally inspected meat 
     and poultry, while the F.D.A. has been responsible for all 
     other foods, including seafood.
       Agriculture Department inspections are more stringent than 
     those conducted by the F.D.A. The Agriculture Department also 
     requires nations that export beef, pork and poultry to the 
     United States to set up inspections that are equivalent to 
     the agency's program--an expensive and burdensome regulation 
     that Vietnam says is unnecessary for catfish. A Government 
     Accountability Office report in May 2012 called imported 
     catfish a low-risk food and said an Agriculture Department 
     inspection program would ``not enhance the safety of 
     catfish.''
       The Agriculture Department said it had spent $20 million 
     since 2009 to set up its office, which has a staff of four, 
     although it has yet to inspect a single catfish. The 
     department said it expected to spend about $14 million a year 
     to run the program; the F.D.A., by comparison, spends about 
     $700,000 annually on its existing seafood inspection office.
       Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and other 
     critics say the Agriculture Department program is a waste of 
     money, and Mr. McCain sponsored an amendment in the latest 
     farm bill that would have killed the program. But the measure 
     was never brought up for a vote. The Obama administration has 
     also called for eliminating the Agriculture Department 
     program.

[[Page S3020]]

     
                                  ____
                                                     May 14, 2015.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Majority Leader.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Minority Leader.
       Senators McConnell and Reid: As the Senate considers Trade 
     Promotion Authority, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and related 
     legislation, I wanted to make certain that you have the facts 
     about the USDA Catfish Inspection Program and its 
     implications for the United States in the world trading 
     system. In particular, I want to make sure you are aware that 
     the United States would face a daunting challenge in 
     defending the catfish rule.
       As background, I am a former Member of Congress, from 
     Florida; a former international trade negotiator for the 
     United States; and the former Chairman of the Appellate 
     Body--the chief judge--for the World Trade Organization. In 
     nearly a decade of service to the Members of the WTO as one 
     of the seven founding judges on the highest global tribunal 
     for world trade, from 1995 through 2003, I judged many of the 
     most notable WTO trade disputes and wrote the legal opinions 
     in many of the WTO trade judgments on issues relating to 
     numerous aspects of both agricultural trade and food safety. 
     Currently, I chair the global practice of the Greenberg 
     Traurig law firm, for which I am writing in my capacity as 
     counsel to the National Fisheries Institute.
       As you will recall, the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills contained 
     language that would shift inspection of catfish from the Food 
     and Drug Administration (FDA) to the United States Department 
     of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). FDA 
     currently regulates all seafood, and FSIS regulates beef, 
     pork, and poultry. Supporters of the transfer of jurisdiction 
     have reassured Senators that the USDA program would not 
     create a problem for the United States under WTO rules 
     because imported catfish would be subject to the same 
     standards as American catfish.
       This is not so. The legal test of whether a measure, as 
     written or as applied, is consistent with WTO obligations is 
     not whether it imposes the same standard on like domestic and 
     imported products. The legal test in the WTO is whether such 
     a measure, as written or as applied, denies an equal 
     competitive opportunity to the like imported products in the 
     domestic marketplace. The catfish measure promises to fail 
     this fundamental legal test under international law.
       It is not my intent here to list the entire catalogue of 
     claims that would be likely to be brought against the United 
     States in a ease in WTO dispute settlement by Vietnam and 
     possibly by other affected Members of the WTO following 
     implementation of the catfish measure by the USDA. There will 
     be more than ample opportunity for doing so later in Geneva 
     if the catfish measure is not repealed.
       Suffice it to say that, if the catfish measure is not 
     repealed, and if it is implemented by USDA as currently 
     contemplated, quite a few strong claims could very likely be 
     made in WTO dispute settlement by the affected trading 
     partners of the United States under both the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the GATT) and the Agreement 
     on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
     (the SPS Agreement), which are both part of the overall WTO 
     treaty.
       Because WTO litigation is intensely fact-specific, and 
     requires painstaking and extensive development and analysis 
     of the measures being challenged, I am always reluctant to 
     express a definitive opinion about a potential WTO case. 
     Having judged so many WTO cases, I am less inclined than 
     others to predict their outcome. This case, however, stands 
     out for the egregiousness of its inconsistencies with WTO 
     obligations. Quite rightly, the Congressional Research 
     Service has quoted approvingly a Wall Street Journal opinion 
     article that described the treatment of Vietnamese catfish in 
     this measure as ``protectionism at its worst.''
       Nothing good can result for the United States from applying 
     the catfish measure.
       Continuing with the implementation of the catfish measure 
     would further complicate the efforts of US trade negotiators 
     to secute significant concessions from Vietnam and others on 
     other issues of considerable importance to US businesses and 
     workers in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
       Losing a WTO case that challenged the catfish measure 
     would, if the United States chose not to comply with the WTO 
     ruling, give the complaining countries the right to retaliate 
     against American agricultural and other products bound for 
     their markets.
       Perhaps worst of all for the United States would be winning 
     a WTO case that challenged the catfish measure.
       The United States has a long and contentious history of 
     trying to overcome European and Asian trade barriers to our 
     agricultural and food products that are justified as ``food 
     safety'' measures but are in fact intended to block entirely 
     safe American food exports. For this reason, the United 
     States has long been the leading advocate for a strong SPS 
     agreement that ensures that food safety measures will be 
     based on real scientific evidence, including a serious risk 
     assessment.
       If Congress continues to mandate the transfer of 
     jurisdiction over catfish, it will not only be inviting a WTO 
     challenge to the rule; it will be giving other nations an 
     opening to enact ``copycat legislation'' which will further 
     disadvantage our exports. Moreover, if the United States 
     somehow prevails in defending the catfish measure in a WTO 
     case, it will truly be ``open season'' in the rest of the 
     world for new restrictions on US agricultural exports of all 
     kinds.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James Bacchus,
     Chair, Global Practice.
                                  ____

                                                     May 13, 2015.
       Dear Senator McCain: The undersigned groups representing 
     millions of taxpayers and allied educational bodies write in 
     support of your efforts to repeal the duplicative catfish 
     inspection program at the United States Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) in S. 995, the Bipartisan Congressional 
     Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. The 
     undersigned groups have been vocal critics of the catfish 
     inspection program that has spent $20 million over four years 
     and not inspected a single fish. The Government 
     Accountability Office has nine times listed the program as 
     ``wasteful and duplicative;'' and it is one that the former 
     Chief Judge of the highest court of international trade says 
     will result in not just a trade war but also a lawsuit the 
     U.S. will lose. Right now the program is on track to spend 
     $15 million annually for the USDA to do a job the FDA is 
     already doing.
       Specifically on the issue of trade, according to an April 
     24, 2012 bipartisan letter to Senate Agriculture, Nutrition & 
     Forestry Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), ``And beyond 
     the fiscal implications, the catfish program has caused 
     considerable concern among trade experts. According to them, 
     the program would create a discriminatory de facto ban on 
     exports from key trading partners and expose us to 
     retaliation. . . . We are aware that no scientific data that 
     catfish, imported or domestic, pose any greater food safety 
     risk than other farmed seafood--all of which will remain 
     under FDA regulation.''
       Eliminating the duplicative USDA catfish inspection office 
     was agreed to by voice vote in the 2013 Senate farm bill 
     debate, yet inexplicably the Senate was never granted an 
     opportunity to debate the merits of including this program in 
     the 2014 farm bill. But now with Trade Promotion Authority, 
     there is an opportunity to finally implement the will of the 
     Senate and end the duplicative waste that the USDA catfish 
     inspection program has continued to foster. We support your 
     efforts to repeal the program restoring some measure of 
     fiscal discipline and we urge your colleagues in the Senate 
     to do the same.
           Sincerely,
       Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, National 
     Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayers 
     Protection Alliance.
                                  ____



                              National Restaurant Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2015.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Restaurant 
     Association, I strongly urge you to support the bipartisan 
     McCain-Shaheen catfish amendment to the Senate's pending 
     trade related legislation. This amendment supports our 
     nation's businesses, farmers, customers and taxpayers by 
     removing funding for the duplicative U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) catfish inspection program.
       During the 2008 Farm Bill Conference, language was added to 
     transfer the responsibility for catfish inspections from the 
     Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the USDA.
       The USDA has already spent $20 million drafting regulations 
     and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that 
     the USDA will spend $170 million over the next decade 
     implementing the program. The GAO also found that 
     implementation of the USDA catfish program will cost American 
     taxpayers millions annually to provide a duplicative service 
     because the FDA currently inspects all seafood, including 
     catfish. Every U.S. facility that processes, handles, or 
     distributes catfish would now be subject to duplicative 
     regulation by both FDA and USDA.
       As members of the foodservice industry, we are committed to 
     food safety. However, this new program would provide no 
     benefit. In fact, the USDA itself has stated that its Food 
     Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) would not provide additional 
     food safety protection. The Agency's cost-benefit analysis 
     also found no significant safety benefit in creating the 
     program.
       Finally, implementation of this program could strongly 
     impact U.S. agricultural relations with key trading partners. 
     This program would create a potential trade barrier to 
     catfish imports and could violate the World Trade 
     Organization Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary agreement. It could 
     also make U.S. agricultural exports susceptible to trade 
     retaliation.
       For these reasons, we encourage you to help our nation's 
     businesses, farmers, customers and taxpayers by supporting 
     the bipartisan McCain-Shaheen amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Matt Walker,
       Vice President, Government Affairs, National Restaurant 
     Association.
     Laura Abshire,
       Director of Sustainability & Government Affairs, National 
     Restaurant Association.

[[Page S3021]]

     
                                  ____
                                                   The Ambassador,


                                           Embassy of Vietnam,

                                   Washington, DC, April 22, 2015.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Washington, DC.
       Your Honorable: As ambassador of Vietnam to the United 
     States, I am writing to bring to your attention to the 
     concern of the Vietnamese Government related to the 
     discussion on the TPA/TPP at the Senate Finance Committee 
     under your leadership and seek your kind assistance on the 
     matter.
       The concern is related to the so-called ``catfish 
     inspection program'' being transferred from the FDA to USDA, 
     for the following reasons:
       The USDA program is duplicative with the FDA and National 
     Marine Fisheries Service.
       It costs much more the U.S. tax payers and imposes 
     unnecessary regulatory complexity for seafood processors, 
     which in turn adds burden to the U.S. customers.
       It adds nothing more to ensuring the safety of the 
     products.
       It creates an inappropriate trade barrier that violates the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.
       In particular, this provision is not in line with what is 
     to be achieved for the TPP, which is based on high standards, 
     including on trade liberalization.
       The Government of Vietnam strongly urges that an amendment 
     to be set up to repeal the above-mentioned provision in the 
     process of consideration and approval of the TPA/TPP.
       I count on your support in this regard. Please, accept, 
     Your Honorable, the assurances of my highest consideration.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                  Pham Quang Vinh.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the National Restaurant Association sent a 
letter:

       On behalf of the National Restaurant Association, I 
     strongly urge you to support the bipartisan McCain-Shaheen 
     catfish amendment to the Senate's pending trade related 
     legislation. . . . As members of the foodservice industry, we 
     are committed to food safety. However, this new program would 
     provide no benefit. In fact, the USDA itself has stated that 
     its Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) would not provide 
     additional food safety protection.
       Finally, implementation of this program could strongly 
     impact U.S. agricultural relations with key trading partners.

  The Taxpayers Protection Alliance:

       We support your efforts to repeal the program restoring 
     some measure of fiscal discipline and we urge your colleagues 
     in the Senate to do the same.

  Mr. President, I understand that the parliamentary situation is that 
we have a number of pending amendments and that probably it is very 
likely that a cloture motion will be filed. That, of course, would then 
mean I would not be allowed to have this amendment.
  If we do not allow this amendment, I have to say that we will be 
really showing a degree of contempt and arrogance for the taxpayers of 
America. I have watched this program and this incredible--I have seen 
$14 million wasted. I have seen an example of protectionism.
  I was told in the last bill on agriculture that I would receive a 
vote on my amendment. All I am asking for is a straight up-or-down vote 
so we can save the taxpayers $14 million, $20 million, $30 million, $40 
million on a program that is both wasteful and not needed.
  I understand my colleagues from Mississippi and other Southern States 
want to protect their catfish industry, which I have enjoyed many 
samples of over the years. I do not understand the rationale for 
continuing--particularly under conditions of sequestration--any program 
that costs the taxpayers unending millions of dollars per year.
  I urge my colleagues to demand a vote. All I am asking for is an up-
or-down vote on an amendment that is clearly relevant to the 
consideration of this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I want to add my support to the amendment 
Senator McCain has just spoken to and my colleague from New Hampshire, 
Senator Shaheen.
  Absolutely we should have a vote on eliminating this duplicative 
inspection of catfish, what the Wall Street Journal is calling one of 
Washington's most wasteful programs, calling it the catfish scam.
  In fact, we had testimony before the small business committee the 
other day, and I asked the representative of the FDA whether we need 
duplicative inspections of catfish because right now the FDA is 
inspecting catfish for $700,000 a year, and this duplicative inspection 
of it is estimated to cost over $14 million a year. In fact, there was 
already a study done by the National Fisheries Institute that the USDA 
had spent more than $20 million to have a duplicative inspection 
regime. As Senator McCain mentioned, there are nine GAO reports about 
the fact that we are wasting taxpayer dollars on a duplicative 
inspection regime that we should eliminate.
  The fact that we cannot get a vote on the Senate floor on such a 
wasteful use of taxpayer dollars--this is why people get frustrated 
with Washington when it is sitting right before us, and it is so 
obvious that we should not waste their money when we already have a 
perfectly good inspection regime that costs so much less versus this 
added inspection regime, which in the end is going to hurt jobs across 
this country, including jobs in New Hampshire, because it is going to 
create not only a duplicative program that wastes taxpayer dollars that 
common sense would tell us we should have a vote to eliminate, but it 
is also going to eliminate the opportunity for trade. The free-trade 
agreements that are currently being negotiated could mean over 8,200 
jobs in my State.

  James Bacchus, the former chief judge on the highest international 
tribunal of world trade and former Member of Congress, said this 
program will result not just in a trade war but also a lawsuit, and the 
United States will lose. Not only will we lose taxpayer dollars by not 
having a vote on this program and wasting money, but we will also 
create an unnecessary trade barrier that could impede future trade 
agreements and American jobs that can be created.
  I offer my support for this amendment, and I do believe we should 
have a vote on this amendment. Why wouldn't we have a vote on a program 
that has demonstrated--by nine GAO reports--it has wasted millions of 
dollars which could otherwise be used to pay down our debt or put to 
good use in programs that are worthwhile. Yet here we are. We cannot 
even get a vote.
  I share my colleague's concern. I thank Senator McCain and Senator 
Shaheen for bringing this important amendment forward, and I hope we 
will have a vote to eliminate the wasteful money going into the USDA 
inspection regime of catfish.
  How many times do we need our catfish inspected? It is absurd and 
time to end this waste and quit wasting taxpayer dollars.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Wyden has 
priority recognition at this time. I have been informed he does not 
object to me entering into the debate at this moment.
  May I proceed on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, there are a couple of objectives this McCain amendment 
would accomplish. For one thing, it was in the 2008 farm bill. The 
current move to change the inspection from the FDA to the Department of 
Agriculture is in the current farm bill, and it is about to take place, 
so it would revisit the last two farm bills. I do not think we should 
be doing that in a trade promotion authority piece of legislation. 
Also, it is absolutely not duplicative. It can be said on the floor of 
the Senate 100 times, but the fact is that the USDA Catfish Inspection 
Program is not duplicative. It transfers inspection from the FDA to the 
USDA and the USDA has testified before Congress that when the program 
is operational, as it is about to be, the FDA program would be 
eliminated.
  Why move it from the FDA to the USDA? Here is the reason: There are a 
few of us--under controlled situations--who grow most of the catfish 
that is produced in the United States on farms, including the State of 
Mississippi and the State of Arkansas.
  My distinguished colleagues from Arkansas and Mississippi will speak 
on this issue in a few moments, I hope.
  This is about food safety for Americans in 50 States who deserve to 
know that the fish they are eating--the product they are eating--is 
unadulterated.
  Here are the facts: Under the current FDA program, only about 2 
percent of the billions of pounds of imported catfish are inspected--
only about 2 percent. The other 98 percent of this large

[[Page S3022]]

quantity come in uninspected. Now, that gives me pause as a consumer. 
It should give residents of all 50 States pause that 98 percent of the 
catfish which comes into our country is not inspected.
  Here is what we do know about the 2 percent we look at under the FDA 
program: An alarming volume of the catfish inspected by the FDA already 
failed to meet standards. They failed to meet consumer safety 
standards. Many overseas productions are simply not operated under the 
sanitary conditions that we insist upon in the United States with our 
farm-raised catfish.
  The FDA program does not ensure that trade partners have sufficient 
health standards nor does it inspect any overseas agriculture 
operations. They don't go over to Vietnam and look at the operations 
there and see the safety standards that cause the health risks.
  What kind of health risks are we talking about? We are talking about 
cancer. I have in my hand a page from a draft rule by the Department of 
Agriculture, dated February 10, 2009. This is a draft rule from the 
Food Safety and Inspection Service. It turns out--and the GAO has been 
mentioned here--that the GAO got OMB to ask the FSIS to rework this 
statement and make it a little softer so we would not go so hard on 
imported Vietnamese catfish.
  Here is what the Department of Agriculture report, which has now been 
buried, says as to whether or not the Agency used random or risk-based 
samplings: Applying the Food Safety Inspection Service program to 
imported catfish yielded a reduction of approximately 175,000 lifetime 
cancers for Americans--I want that kind of reduction from carcinogens 
coming into the United States--and 0.79 percent acute toxicities. Using 
random sampling in the Agency's program yielded a reduction of 91.8 
million exposures to antimicrobials and 23.28 million heavy metal 
exposures. We are talking about carcinogens, we are talking about 
improper antimicrobials that the USDA program would catch, and over 23 
million exposures to heavy metals that we don't need in the United 
States. Using risk-based sampling yielded a reduction of 95.1 million 
exposures to antimicrobials.
  We are talking about a program that is not going to be duplicative 
because it is going to move--according to the last two farm bills--from 
the FDA to the USDA. This excessive government waste we have heard 
about will not exist, but we will have better safety for the consumers 
of the United States of America. That is why we do not need to revisit 
this issue, and that is why the McCain amendment should be rejected. 
That is why we should take every precaution we can to protect the 
American consumer, whether in their home kitchens or restaurants.
  I yield the floor. Perhaps other of my colleagues would like to 
address this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senate has made clear the authority 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for imported catfish inspections. 
It has been debated and resolved in two previous farm bills; first, in 
2008 and again in 2014. The USDA catfish inspection is about protecting 
the health and safety of American consumers. The 2008 and 2014 farm 
bills required catfish inspection responsibilities to be transferred 
from the Food and Drug Administration to the USDA Food Safety and 
Inspection Service upon publication of final regulations.
  The need for this regulatory clarification is clear: American 
consumers could be exposed to dangerous chemicals and unapproved drugs 
in the imported catfish they eat. According to the Government 
Accountability Office, about half of the seafood imported into the 
United States comes from farm-raised fish. Fish grown in confined areas 
have been shown to contain bacterial infections. The FDA's oversight 
program to ensure the safety of imported seafood from residues of 
unapproved drugs is limited, especially as compared with the practices 
of other developed countries.
  According to the Department of Agriculture and other Federal 
agencies, the Food and Drug Administration inspects only 1 percent of 
all imported seafood products. This is just not acceptable. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, on the other hand, inspects 100 percent of 
farm-raised meat products that enter the country, which illustrates why 
the Department of Agriculture is the appropriate Agency for farm-raised 
catfish inspections.
  Following enactment of the catfish mandate in the 2008 farm bill, the 
Department of Agriculture conducted risk assessments on the dangers of 
exposure to foreign agriculture drugs and determined that moving 
catfish inspections under the USDA inspection system would result in a 
reduction of 175,000 lifetime cancers, 95 million exposures to 
antimicrobials, and 23 million heavy metal exposures.
  The Catfish Inspection Program will enhance consumer safety but will 
not result in duplication activities by U.S. government agencies. Upon 
issuance of final regulations, catfish inspection responsibilities will 
be transferred to and not shared with the Department of Agriculture.
  In order to address perceived concerns regarding duplication, a 
provision was included in the 2014 farm bill that required the FDA and 
USDA to enter into a memorandum of understanding to establish clear 
jurisdictional boundaries.
  We consider that this is a time to resolve this issue and put this 
matter to rest. International equivalence is a concept that originated 
with the WTO and is regarded as a way to encourage the development of 
international food safety standards and will help this issue to be 
balanced fairly among all Members and facilitate our trade with other 
countries.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Portman-
Stabenow amendment.
  First, I wish to say a word in support of the efforts by Senator 
Cochran and Senator Wicker. I was a partner with Senator Cochran in the 
2014 farm bill. I support their position as it relates to the catfish 
provision. Hopefully, we will be able to retain that provision.


                           Amendment No. 1299

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Hirono as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1299.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter dated September 23, 2013, signed by 60 U.S. 
Senators, that calls on the administration to include strong and 
enforceable currency provisions in all future trade agreements.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2013.
     Secretary Jack Lew,
     Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
     Ambassador Michael Froman,
     Office of the United States Trade Representative, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Secretary Lew and Ambassador Froman: We agree with the 
     Administration's stated goal that the Trans-Pacific 
     Partnership (TPP) has ``high standards worthy of a 21st 
     century trade agreement.'' To achieve this, however, we think 
     it is necessary to address one of the 21st century's most 
     serious trade problems: foreign currency manipulation.
       Currency is the medium through which trade occurs and 
     exchange rates determine its comparative value. It is as 
     important to trade outcomes as is the quality of the goods or 
     services traded. Currency manipulation can negate or greatly 
     reduce the benefits of a free trade agreement and may have a 
     devastating impact on American companies and workers.
       A study by the Peterson Institute for International 
     Economics found that foreign currency manipulation has 
     already cost between one and five million American jobs. A 
     free trade agreement purporting to increase trade, but 
     failing to address foreign currency manipulation, could lead 
     to a permanent unfair trade relationship that further harms 
     the United States economy.
       As the United States negotiates TPP and all future free 
     trade agreements, we ask that you include strong and 
     enforceable foreign currency manipulation disciplines to 
     ensure these agreements meet the ``high standards'' our 
     country, America's companies, and America's workers deserve.
           Sincerely,
       Lindsey Graham; Rob Portman; Debbie Stabenow; Ron Wyden; 
     Jeff Merkley; Christopher Murphy; John Boozman; Elizabeth 
     Warren; Al Franken; Jay Rockefeller; Barbara A. Mikulski; 
     Benjamin L. Cardin; Tom Udall; Amy Klobuchar; Charles E. 
     Schumer; Joe Manchin III; Robert Menendez; Heidi

[[Page S3023]]

     Heitkamp; Claire McCaskill; Jeanne Shaheen; Mark Begich; Roy 
     Blunt; Edward J. Markey; James M. Inhofe; Jeff Sessions; 
     Kirsten E. Gillibrand; Saxby Chambliss; Robert P. Casey, Jr.; 
     Christopher A. Coons; Carl Levin; Richard Burr; Jerry Moran; 
     Patrick J. Leahy; Daniel Coats; James E. Risch; John Hoeven; 
     Jack Reed; Tom Harkin; Tammy Baldwin; Joe Donnelly; Mark 
     Pryor; Sheldon Whitehouse; Sherrod Brown; Susan M. Collins; 
     Martin Heinrich; Bill Nelson; Richard Blumenthal; David 
     Vitter; Bernard Sanders; Jon Tester; Angus S. King, Jr.; 
     Richard Durbin; Brian Schatz; Mazie K. Hirono; Pat Roberts; 
     Kay R. Hagan; Mary L. Landrieu; Chuck Grassley; Barbara 
     Boxer; Tom Coburn.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before speaking specifically to our 
amendment, I wish also to indicate that there are a number of very 
important amendments coming before us in this open debate process. I am 
pleased we have a number of amendments pending that, hopefully, will be 
offered and voted on that relate to other very important topics.
  One of those topics is an amendment currently pending offered by 
Senator Brown. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that amendment. It 
will clarify the process for new countries to join the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership and to ensure that additional countries, including China, 
cannot join the agreement without congressional approval. So I hope we 
will get a vote on that amendment, which is certainly part of this 
whole discussion on currency manipulation when we look at Asia, when we 
look at Japan now, and when we look at China. This is an important 
amendment.
  I also wish to indicate that I have terrific respect for the chairman 
of the Finance Committee. I wish to address an amendment that I believe 
will be offered as a side-by-side to the Portman-Stabenow amendment. I 
urge colleagues to reject what is essentially nothing more than a 
rewrite of pretty much the same weak language that exists in the 
underlying bill. It changes some words around. It basically would not 
put us on record as 60 Members of the Senate to make sure we have 
enforceable currency provisions in this trade agreement moving forward.
  At this point in time, when we look at currency manipulation, it is 
the most significant 21st century trade barrier there is. To quote the 
vice president of international government affairs for Ford Motor 
Company in the Wall Street Journal:

       Currency manipulation is the mother of all trade barriers. 
     We can compete with any car manufacturer in the world, but we 
     can't compete with the Bank of Japan.

  We want our businesses and we want our workers to have a level 
playing field in a global economy. When we are giving instructions--
when we are giving up the right to amend the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
through this fast-track process involving 40 percent of the global 
economy--we have the right and obligation to make sure we have a 
negotiating principle in there. We are not mandating exactly what it 
looks like. We are just applying a negotiating principle that addresses 
the No. 1 trade barrier right now to American businesses, which is 
currency manipulation. By some estimates, it has cost the United States 
5 million jobs. If we don't address it in this reasonable way, it will 
cost us millions more.
  Our people, our workers, and our businesses are the best in the 
world. We know that, but they have to have a level playing field. 
Currency manipulation is cheating--plain and simple. A strong U.S. 
dollar against a weak foreign currency, particularly one that is 
artificially weak due to government manipulation, means that foreign 
products are cheaper here and U.S. products are more expensive there.
  One U.S. automaker estimates the weak yen gives Japanese competitors 
an advantage of anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000 in the price of a car, 
not because of anything they are doing other than cheating by 
manipulating their currency. It is hard to compete with those kinds of 
numbers: $6,000 to $11,000 difference in the price of an automobile. At 
one point it was calculated that one of the Japanese company's entire 
profit on a vehicle was coming from currency manipulation.
  Frankly, this is not about competing between--the U.S. going into 
Japan--that has also been a red herring. It is about the United States 
and Japan competing against each other in a global economy for the 
business of the developing countries. For instance, we are talking 
about Brazil having 200 million people. We are competing for that 
business. India has a population of 1.2 billion people. We are 
competing--Japan and the United States--for everything in between, 
everything else. That is what this is about, and it is about whether 
they are going to continue to be able to cheat.
  Also, it is not just the auto industry. It is other manufacturers, as 
well. This is also about companies that are making washing machines or 
all kinds of equipment or refrigerators and all of the other products 
that we make and create using good middle-class jobs here in America.
  It also affects agriculture. Anything that impacts the distortions in 
the economy affects agriculture and every other part of the economy.
  So what we are asking for is something very simple and 
straightforward--very simple--which is that just as we have negotiating 
objectives in the TPA fast-track for the environment, for labor 
standards, and for intellectual property rights, we should have a 
negotiating objective that is enforceable regarding currency 
manipulation. We are not suggesting what that would look like in a 
trade agreement, any more than we are specifying exactly what the other 
provisions would look like. We are saying it is important enough that 
if we are giving up our right to amend a trade agreement--we are giving 
fast-track authority--currency manipulation is the No. 1 trade 
distortion, trade barrier right now in terms of the global marketplace, 
so we should make sure there is a negotiating principle there. We also 
say that it is consistent with existing International Monetary Fund 
commitments and it does not affect domestic monetary policy.
  I have heard over and over that somehow what we do through the Fed is 
impacted. That is not accurate. We are looking, in fact, at over 180 
countries that signed up under the International Monetary Fund, saying: 
We won't manipulate our currency. Yet, even though that has happened--
we have seen, in fact, in the case of Japan, for the last 25 years, 
they have manipulated their currency 376 times. We should say enough is 
enough.
  Now, I also understand we are hearing from the administration. By the 
way, I am very supportive of their efforts, this current 
administration's time on trade enforcement efforts. They have won a lot 
of excellent cases. I wish to commend them for that. I disagree with 
them on this one position, because they are saying, first of all, that 
Japan is no longer manipulating their currency--the Bank of Japan. OK, 
fine. The administration says if we put a negotiating objective into 
fast-track authority, Japan will walk away. Why would they walk away if 
they are not doing it anymore? Maybe they want to do it again right 
after we sign the TPP. Maybe they will do it again, and it will be 377 
times. If they aren't doing it anymore, why should they care? It makes 
no sense.
  Either we can trust them and they are no longer manipulating their 
currency or we can't trust them and we need this provision. It can't be 
both. Right now, what they are talking about makes no sense. Again, we 
are not talking about domestic policy; we are talking about direct 
intervention in foreign currency markets, and that if there is direct 
intervention in foreign currency markets, we would like to see 
meaningful consequences that fit with the IMF definitions that 
countries have all signed up for saying they will not manipulate their 
currency and that it should comply with WTO enforcement, as we do for 
every other trade distorting policy, every other trade barrier.
  This is actually very straightforward. I am very surprised that it 
has not been accepted. Frankly, I would have gone further. In the 
Finance Committee I had an amendment I would love to do which says that 
TPP doesn't get fast-track authority unless it is clear that there are 
strong, enforceable provisions on currency in the agreement. This 
doesn't say that. This is a reasonable middle ground to say, for the 
first time, that currency manipulation is important, it is a 
negotiating principle, and we leave flexibility in terms of how that is 
designed, just as we do with other provisions.
  We have strong bipartisan support for this amendment. I wish to thank

[[Page S3024]]

Senators Brown and Warren, Senators Burr and Casey and Schumer, 
Senators Graham, Shaheen, Manchin, Klobuchar, Collins, Baldwin, Hirono, 
Franken, Menendez, and Heitkamp for understanding and supporting this 
amendment. We have other support as well. I wish to thank Senator 
Graham. He made a comment, because we care deeply--we were so pleased 
to get the Schumer-Graham-Brown-Stabenow and others' efforts in the 
Customs bill related to China and currency, which is so important and 
which we also need to get all the way to the President's desk. But we 
know that if we don't put language in the negotiating document we give 
to the White House, then we are not really serious. Senator Graham 
said: This amendment is the real deal. That is firing with real 
bullets.
  So if we are serious, if the 60 people who signed the letter are 
serious--and I hope and believe we are--then we need to make sure the 
negotiating position we take is to ask--and to direct--the 
administration to put this in the final negotiations on TPP.
  We have, as I mentioned before, enforceable standards language on 
labor and environment and intellectual property rights. This is not 
complicated. We need to make sure we are clear on currency 
manipulation. The IMF has rules about what is and what is not direct 
currency manipulation. They are clear rules. There are 187 countries, 
in addition to Japan, that have already signed up saying they will 
abide by that definition. We just don't enforce it, and we have lost 
millions of jobs. Again, Japan, after signing, has intervened--the Bank 
of Japan has intervened 376 times in the last 25 years. We are being 
asked to rely on a handshake and good-faith assurances that there won't 
be 377 times. But we are being told if we even put language requiring a 
negotiating principle into this document, that somehow Japan will walk 
away. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We have a 
responsibility, if we are giving up our rights to amend a document, to 
amend a trade agreement. If we are giving up our rights to require a 
supermajority vote in Congress, if we are doing that, we have a 
responsibility to the people we represent to make sure we have given 
the clearest possible negotiating objectives to the administration as 
to what we can expect to be in a trade agreement. That is what TPA is 
all about. If, in fact, currency manipulation is the mother of all 
trade barriers, why in the world would we not make it clear that 
currency manipulation should be a clear negotiating objective for the 
United States of America?
  Let me just say again that we can compete with anybody and win. Our 
workers, our businesses, our innovation can compete with anybody and 
win. But it is up to us in Congress, working with the White House, to 
make sure the rules are fair. I hope colleagues will join us in passing 
the Portman-Stabenow amendment to make it clear we understand in a 
global economy what is at stake and that we are going to vote on the 
side of American businesses and American workers.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________