[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3084-S3091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                        SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture relating to inspection of fish of the order 
     Siluriformes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Pursuant to the provisions of 
the Congressional Review Act, 5 USC 801, and following, there will be 
up to 10 hours of debate, equally divided between those favoring and 
opposing the resolution.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their vote to 
move to this resolution. I think we can count this, frankly, as a 
victory for the American taxpayer rather than certain special 
interests.
  I would like to begin by making clear in the Record the groups that 
are supporting this resolution: the National Retail Federation, the 
Food Marketing Institute, Taxpayers for Protection Alliance, National 
Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Heritage

[[Page S3085]]

Foundation, FreedomWorks, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, 
Citizens Against Government Waste, Center for Individual Freedom, 
Independent Women's Voice, R Street Institute, Campaign for Liberty, 
the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the American Frozen Food 
Institute, and the list goes on and on and on.
  Ten times--ten times--the Government Accountability Office has said 
the same thing over and over, and that is that this program is 
duplicative and it is unnecessary. It is unfortunate we are spending 
tens of millions of dollars every year on a program that is duplicative 
and unnecessary.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Wall Street 
Journal editorial entitled ``Ending the Catfish Fight.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2016]

                        Ending the Catfish Fight


 The Senate can roll back a protectionist barrier to freer trade with 
                                  Asia

       President Obama is in Vietnam and Japan this week, where 
     he'll probably be getting an earful about America's rising 
     antitrade sentiment and the threat that poses to the Trans-
     Pacific Partnership trade deal. So here's hoping the U.S. 
     Senate can provide at least some leadership by ending the 
     protectionist treatment of one of Vietnam's most valuable 
     exports: catfish.
       Vietnamese exporters have competed with U.S. catfish 
     farmers from the Mississippi Delta since the 1990s. Trouble 
     began in 2002, when Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran and 
     other Southern lawmakers barred foreigners from calling their 
     product ``catfish'' because technically it's pangasius, also 
     called basa or swai, an Asian cousin with similar taste, 
     texture and whiskers.
       This didn't stop Americans from buying the tasty, cheaper 
     imports, and neither did a round of spurious antidumping 
     tariffs imposed on the Vietnamese fish in 2003.
       So Mr. Cochran went further, using the 2008 farm bill to 
     transfer oversight of catfish to the Department of 
     Agriculture from the Food and Drug Administration, even 
     though the meat and poultry experts at the USDA regulate no 
     other fish. This required classifying pangasius as catfish 
     after all, and claiming that there was a public-health risk 
     where none existed. The true motive was to impose high new 
     compliance costs on Vietnamese exporters, who might then be 
     priced out of the U.S. market.
       The Government Accountability Office has slammed the new 
     inspection regime 10 times, estimating its cost at $30 
     million to start and $14 million annually to operate, as 
     compared with $700,000 a year for the original program. 
     Repeal would ``save taxpayers millions of dollars annually 
     without affecting the safety of catfish intended for human 
     consumption,'' says the GAO. It would also let Americans keep 
     buying the fish they prefer, while eliminating the likelihood 
     that Vietnam and others will sue at the World Trade 
     Organization and retaliate against U.S. exports of beef, 
     soybeans and other products.
       Yet multiple bipartisan efforts at repeal have failed, so 
     the wasteful program took effect in March, beginning an 18-
     month phase-in period. Exporters in Vietnam are already 
     feeling squeezed, and our sources say that Vietnam's top 
     leader planned to raise the issue with Mr. Obama in Hanoi, 
     echoing years of complaints from lower-level officials.
       The good news is that more than 30 Senators from both 
     parties introduced a measure Monday to repeal the program in 
     a straight up-or-down vote under the Congressional Review 
     Act. That may be easier than attaching it to larger bills, as 
     in the past, that Mr. Cochran and his allies could block. A 
     vote could come before Mr. Obama leaves Asia. Repeal would 
     boost U.S. credibility in a region that needs trade 
     leadership.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, quoting from that article:

       President Obama is in Vietnam and Japan this week, where 
     he'll probably be getting an earful about America's rising 
     antitrade sentiment and the threat that poses to the Trans-
     Pacific Partnership trade deal. So here's hoping the U.S. 
     Senate can provide at least some leadership by ending the 
     protectionist treatment of one of Vietnam's most valuable 
     exports: catfish.

  This is from the Wall Street Journal. Most of us--at least on this 
side of the aisle--have a great deal of respect for the opinions that 
are on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
  The article goes on to say:

       Vietnamese exporters have competed with U.S. catfish 
     farmers from the Mississippi delta since the 1990s. Trouble 
     began in 2002, when Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran and 
     other southern lawmakers barred foreigners from calling their 
     product ``catfish'' because technically it's pangasius, also 
     called basa or swai, an Asian cousin with similar taste, 
     texture and whiskers. This didn't stop Americans from buying 
     the tasty, cheaper imports, and neither did a round of 
     spurious antidumping tariffs imposed on the Vietnamese fish 
     in 2003.
       So Mr. Cochran went further, using the 2008 farm bill to 
     transfer oversight of catfish to the Department of 
     Agriculture from the Food and Drug Administration, even 
     though the meat and poultry experts at the USDA regulate no 
     other fish. This required classifying pangasius as catfish 
     after all, and claiming that there was a public-health risk 
     where none existed. The true motive was to impose high new 
     compliance costs on Vietnamese exporters, who might then be 
     priced out of the U.S. market.
       The Government Accountability Office has slammed the new 
     inspection regime 10 times, estimating its cost at $30 
     million to start and $14 million annually to operate, as 
     compared with $700,000 a year for the original program. 
     Repeal would ``save taxpayers millions of dollars annually 
     without affecting the safety of catfish intended for human 
     consumption,'' says the GAO. It would also let Americans keep 
     buying the fish they prefer, while eliminating the likelihood 
     that Vietnam and others will sue at the World Trade 
     Organization and retaliate against U.S. exports of beef, 
     soybeans, and other products.
       Yet multiple bipartisan efforts at repeal have failed, so 
     the wasteful program took effect in March, beginning an 18-
     month phase-in period. Exporters in Vietnam are already 
     feeling the squeeze and our sources say that Vietnam's top 
     leader planned to raise the issue with Mr. Obama in Hanoi.
       The good news is that more than 30 Senators from both 
     parties introduced a measure Monday to repeal the program in 
     a straight up-or-down vote under the Congressional Review 
     Act. That may be easier than attaching it to larger bills, as 
     in the past, that Mr. Cochran and his allies could block. A 
     vote could come before Mr. Obama leaves Asia. Repeal would 
     boost U.S. credibility in a region that needs trade 
     leadership.

  It is pretty clear that we have the highest regard for the Government 
Accountability Office. Now, sometimes we don't always agree, but this 
is why 10 times the Government Accountability Office has found this 
program duplicative and a waste of tax dollars. This is why the 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the 
National Taxpayers Union, Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, and the 
Center for Individual Freedom--literally every watchdog organization in 
this town and in America--support this resolution.
  The disapproval resolution is the means to stop this wasteful rule 
because all efforts to work within the normal procedures have been 
blocked. Whether it be the farm bill or TPA, efforts for the Senate to 
debate this issue have been shut off. The sole time the Senate voted on 
this program, it voted overwhelmingly to eliminate the program.
  I think at least on this side of the aisle there is an organization 
we are pretty respectful of, and it is the Heritage Foundation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a statement from Heritage Action for America, which weighs in 
regularly, as we know, on this issue.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From Heritage Action for America, May 24, 2016]

       ``Yes'' on CRA To Block the Catfish Program (S.J. Res. 28)

                            (By Dan Holler)

       On Tuesday, the Senate is expected to vote on S.J. Res. 28, 
     a resolution offered by Sen. John McCain under the 
     Congressional Review Act (CRA) that would block the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) catfish inspection rule.
       For over a century, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
     has been responsible for inspecting and regulating the 
     nation's food supply, including both domestic and imported 
     seafood. That was, however, until the 2008 Farm Bill carved 
     out catfish to instead be regulated by the USDA. As a result, 
     facilities that process seafood will now have to comply with 
     both USDA (for catfish) and FDA (for all other seafood) 
     regulations. These overlapping, duplicative, and possibly 
     conflicting regulatory regimes will cost taxpayers an 
     unnecessary $140 million.
       There is no policy justification for carving out catfish 
     from the broader seafood regulatory structure. To wit, the 
     Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan group 
     generally reserved and measured in its conclusions, entitled 
     its report on the program: ``Responsibility for Inspecting 
     Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA.'' GAO has elsewhere 
     concluded (as part of it's ``High Risk'' of waste series) 
     that the catfish program results in duplication and wasted 
     spending while in no way enhancing food safety.
       The duplicative regulatory requirements also have trade 
     implications, as foreign exporters selling catfish would also 
     have to abide by both the FDA and USDA's regulatory 
     structures, and specifically would require imports alone to 
     abide by a new ``equivalency'' test that would effectively 
     block out foreign catfish for years. This could harm 
     consumers by limiting competition and choice in the catfish 
     market. In

[[Page S3086]]

     fact, this appears to be precisely the motivation: To use a 
     non-tariff trade barrier to burden foreign competitors in an 
     attempt to help domestic providers corner the market. As the 
     New York Times reported, Vietnam has taken particular offense 
     to the new rule, and rightly so:
       ``Vietnam, a large exporter of catfish and one of the 
     nations in the trade talks, says it is nothing more than a 
     trade barrier in disguise.
       `And it's not even a good disguise; it's clearly a thinly 
     veiled attempt designed to keep out fish from countries like 
     Vietnam,' said Le Chi Dzung, who heads the economics section 
     at the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.''
       While this $140 million program may appear small relative 
     to the overall budget picture, it nevertheless looms large as 
     a poster child of government cronyism, with special interests 
     benefiting at the expense of everyone else. It is difficult 
     to state it better than former FDA seafood inspection chief, 
     Bryon Truglio, who stated:
       ``[A] group of lobbyists and a trade association 
     representing elements of the American catfish producers . . . 
     has bullied Congress into moving catfish regulation to the 
     USDA, making it harder for their foreign competitors to enter 
     the US market. This move is a win for US catfish producers, 
     but ultimately, a loss for American taxpayers and 
     consumers.''
       Fortunately, Congress may actually have the chance to block 
     the catfish rule this year. The Obama Administration 
     acknowledges the duplication inherent in the USDA's catfish 
     inspection program, and proposed eliminating it in a recent 
     budget. Despite having advanced the rule--apparently agreeing 
     (for once) it must abide by clear congressional statute and 
     intent--Obama Administration opposes the rule. By sending the 
     President this CRA for him to sign, Congress will allow this 
     duplicative and wasteful catfish inspection rule to be 
     blocked consistent with the rule of law.
       Heritage Action supports S.J. Res. 28 and will include it 
     as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, quoting from the statement of Heritage 
Action for America, they say:

       There is no policy justification for carving out catfish 
     from the broader seafood regulatory structure.

  The statement goes on to say:

       While this $140 million program may appear small relative 
     to the overall budget picture, it nevertheless looms large as 
     a poster child of government cronyism, with special interests 
     benefiting at the expense of everyone else. It is difficult 
     to state it better than former FDA seafood inspection chief 
     Bryon Truglio, who stated: ``[A] group of lobbyists and a 
     trade association representing elements of the American 
     catfish producers . . . has bullied Congress into moving 
     catfish regulation to the USDA, making it harder for their 
     foreign competitors to enter the U.S. market. This move is a 
     win for U.S. catfish producers, but ultimately, a loss for 
     American taxpayers and consumers.''
       Fortunately, Congress may actually have the chance to block 
     the catfish rule this year. The Obama administration 
     acknowledges the duplication inherent in the USDA's catfish 
     inspection program, and proposed eliminating it in a recent 
     budget. By sending the President this CRA for him to sign, 
     Congress will allow this duplicative and wasteful catfish 
     inspection rule to be blocked consistent with the rule of 
     law.

  That is from the Heritage Foundation.
  Now, this is FreedomWorks:

       As one of our over 5.7 million FreedomWorks activists 
     nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators and ask them 
     to vote YES on S.J. Res. 28, a resolution that would repeal 
     the U.S. Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection rule.

  The FreedomWorks statement goes on to say:

       The program was developed to assess the risks associated 
     with catfish consumption.

  And it goes on as to how they want it overruled.
  Also, I have a statement from the Taxpayers Protection Union, the 
Campaign for Liberty, the Center for Individual Freedom, Independent 
Women's Forum, the National Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute, 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the list goes on and on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter to Senator Ayotte which is signed by David Williams, 
president, Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Norm Singleton, president, 
Campaign For Liberty; Jeff Mazzella, president, Center for Individual 
Freedom; Tom Schatz, president, Council for Citizens Against Government 
Waste; Sabrina Schaffer, executive director, Independent Women's Forum; 
Heather R. Higgins, president and CEO, Independent Women's Voice; 
Brandon Arnold, executive vice president, National Taxpayers Union; 
Andrew Moylan, executive director, R Street Institute; Karen Kerrigan, 
president and CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; and Steve 
Ellis, vice president, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 23, 2016.
     Hon. Kelly Ayotte,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ayotte, As organizations that represent 
     millions of taxpayers across the country, we write to support 
     your efforts to repeal the United States Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) catfish inspection program. We are pleased 
     to see you and your cosponsors, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) 
     and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), using the Congressional Review 
     Act to repeal one of the most demonstrably wasteful and 
     duplicative programs ever enacted.
       The unnecessary and duplicative bureaucracy created by this 
     program has now been targeted by the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO) a record ten times: February 
     2011, March 2011, May 2012, February 2013, April 2013, April 
     2014, December 2014, February 2015, April 2015, and April 
     2016.
       The USDA spent $19.9 million to develop and study the 
     catfish inspection program, then told GAO it would cost the 
     federal government an additional ``$14 million annually'' to 
     run the program. This after GAO found the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) currently spends ``less than $700,000 
     annually to inspect catfish.'' If the cost of other, similar 
     regulatory programs is any guide, the USDA program will cost 
     far more than the estimated $14 million.
       The GAO also notes that it not only wastes taxpayer dollars 
     and duplicates work already being done by the FDA, it 
     actually weakens, rather than strengthens, our food safety 
     systems:
       ``. . . the agency's proposed catfish inspection program 
     further fragments the federal oversight system for food 
     safety without demonstrating that there is a problem with 
     catfish or a need for a new federal program.''
       Eliminating wasteful federal spending and burdensome 
     regulation is a very difficult task, especially when 
     proceeding one program at a time. But the value to taxpayers 
     of doing so is undeniable. Thus, as you gather support for 
     S.J. Res 28, please know we strongly support this effort to 
     close the book on this now infamous and embarrassing example 
     of government waste.
       The USDA catfish work is an embarrassing waste of tax 
     dollars and so overtly duplicative a program it belongs in 
     the annals of Washington waste history.
           Sincerely,
       David Williams, President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance; 
     Norm Singleton, President, Campaign for Liberty; Jeff 
     Mazzella, President, Center for Individual Freedom; Tom 
     Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government 
     Waste; Sabrina Schaffer, Executive Director, Independent 
     Women's Forum; Heather R. Higgins, President & CEO, 
     Independent Women's Voice; Brandon Arnold, Executive Vice 
     President, National Taxpayers Union; Andrew Moylan, Executive 
     Director & Senior Fellow, R Street Institute; Karen Kerrigan, 
     President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; 
     Steve Ellis, Vice President, Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Mr. McCAIN. In other words, literally every watchdog organization has 
supported what we are trying to do here.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S3086, May 24, 2016, in the middle of the third column, 
the following language appears: . . . Business & Entrepreneurship 
Council; Steve Ellis, Vice President, Taxpayers for Common Sense. 
In other words, literally every watchdogorganization has supported 
what we are trying to do here.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . Business & 
Entrepreneurship Council; Steve Ellis, Vice President, Taxpayers 
for Common Sense. Mr. McCAIN. In other words, literally every 
watchdog organization has supported whatwe are trying to do here.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Here is one from the National Retail Federation. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     May 23, 2016.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators McConnell and Reid: We understand the Senate 
     may soon consider a resolution of disapproval of the United 
     States Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') catfish 
     inspection program. We support this resolution and write to 
     explain the negative impacts this program will have if fully 
     implemented by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service 
     (``FSIS'').
       The USDA program was created in 2008 and shifts food safety 
     regulatory authority over certain domestic and imported 
     seafood from the Food and Drug Administration (``FDA'') to 
     FSIS. The program applies to imported pangasius, a mild white 
     fish that is today the sixth most popular seafood item in the 
     United States. FSIS issued a final rule in December 2015, and 
     a resolution of disapproval was filed in the Senate soon 
     thereafter.
       The USDA program is of great concern to our member 
     companies. The shift of food safety oversight from FDA to 
     FSIS for this specific product establishes a nontariff trade 
     barrier against imported pangasius. Exporting countries will 
     have to obtain an ``equivalency'' determination from FSIS if 
     they wish to preserve their producers'' ability to export to 
     the United States. Because the FSIS equivalency process 
     routinely takes five years and sometimes over a decade to 
     complete, this will create for those producers an 
     insurmountable barrier to the U.S. market.
       Thus in a single stroke more than a fifth of the ``value 
     white fish'' supply in the United States--about 250 million 
     pounds a year--

[[Page S3087]]

     will disappear. This reduction in supply will cause a 
     dramatic increase in prices for our companies and our 
     customers who rely on an affordable product for fish sticks 
     in the freezer aisle and popular fish and chips menu items in 
     restaurants. In addition, we are aware of persistent calls 
     for expansion of the program to even more popular tilapia and 
     shrimp. Such calls suggest that the existing USDA program is 
     just the beginning.
       Nor is the program justified on a food safety basis. USDA 
     concedes that not a single case of Salmonella has been 
     attributed to pangasius (or, for that matter, to domestic 
     catfish) since establishment of the current FDA seafood 
     regulatory approach in 1998. The Government Accountability 
     Office has concluded that the USDA program will harm Federal 
     food safety oversight by fracturing seafood regulation 
     between two different regulatory agencies. For that and other 
     reasons, GAO on ten different occasions has identified the 
     program as a waste of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars 
     and has urged the Congress to eliminate it.
       The United States must have a rigorous, effective food 
     safety system. That system, however, should not prevent 
     retailers and restaurants from sourcing the seafood that 
     meets the demand of middle class American families for 
     affordable, accessible protein. We urge you to support the 
     resolution of disapproval of the USDA catfish inspection 
     program, under the Congressional Review Act.
           Sincerely,
     Jennifer Hatcher,
       Senior Vice President, Food Marketing Institute.
     David French,
       Senior Vice President, National Retail Federation.
     Jennifer Safavian,
       Executive Vice President, Retail Industry Leaders 
     Association.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the National Restaurant Association 
strongly supports what we are trying to do, and the list goes on and 
on.
  I know there are my colleagues who want to speak on this issue, but 
this is more than a vote on catfish, I would say to my colleagues. What 
this is all about is government overriding the taxpayers of America, 
which is why we are seeing so many of these watchdog organizations 
supporting what we are trying to do.
  Some of us, including this Member, have been surprised--been 
surprised by the American people's votes recently for both parties, 
both for Mr. Trump, who has never stood for public office before and 
has based his campaign, to a large degree, on campaigning against 
Washington, DC, and those of us who serve here, and of course on the 
other side is Senator Sanders, a Member of this body, but clearly one 
who is running his campaign against the status quo. So we have been 
surprised to see this uprising of the American voter, and I don't 
believe there is a Member of this body on either side of the aisle who 
would have predicted 6 months ago that we would be where we are today.
  This kind of program is exactly what our hard-working citizenry who 
work hard and pay their taxes--they don't get it. They don't get it, 
when the GAO 10 times--10 times--said that this program is wasteful and 
duplicative, and tens of millions of dollars are being wasted on behalf 
of one industry, and that is the catfish industry--and it has been done 
by powerful appropriators, powerful members of the Appropriations 
Committee. There was never a debate. There was never a bill before this 
body. There was never amendments proposed. It was put in a large 
omnibus appropriations bill and kept there.
  So sometimes we wonder why the American people have had it, why they 
are fed up. This is the best example I can come up with recently, $30 
million per year being wasted on a duplicative--10 times--10 times that 
the GAO has said it is not only unneeded but unnecessary: a special 
catfish office, $14 million a year.
  I don't know how many low-income taxpayers make $14 million, but I 
know this; that when I go back to Arizona and tell my constituents that 
we have a program GAO 10 times has said is totally unnecessary and 
duplicative and the government is spending $14 million of their tax 
dollars on it, they don't get it. They don't get it.
  Then, after they don't get it for a while, they say: We have had it. 
They say: We have had it. We have had it with programs that nobody ever 
debated, nobody ever discussed. There was never a vote. It has been in 
existence since 2012, but it began in 2002.
  So this is why Americans are fed up. This is why our hard-working 
citizenry does not understand why we would ever have such a program 
that wastes $12 million per year and, I believe, was $30 million to set 
up. That is chickenfeed to us. It is in the margins. To them, it is 
something. It means, to them, that we are not taking care of them. It 
means we are taking care of a powerful interest called the catfish 
industry, which happens to be in a number of Southern States.
  There was a large number of Republican votes against this proposal--
as I recall, a majority of Republican votes, Republicans who say: We 
are watchdogs of the Treasury. We don't waste money the way the 
Democrats do. But on the resolution just taken, if it had been only up 
to Republican Members, we wouldn't be debating this right now. Isn't 
that a little embarrassing? Isn't that a little embarrassing that a 
majority of Members on this side would not even vote to at least debate 
this?
  All I can say is I have been fighting this issue for about 12 or 13 
years. We finally now have a chance to get rid of it. Does it make the 
debt and the deficit any less? Is it a huge undertaking that somehow is 
going to save the taxpayers billions of dollars? I will tell you what. 
If we keep this program in, with a majority vote of the United States 
Senate, I tell my colleagues on this side of the aisle: Just don't go 
back and say you are a fiscal conservative. Say you take care of the 
fat catfish industry. Maybe some people like that. But don't go back 
and call yourself a fiscal conservative.
  I know others want to speak. They are going to raise problems; that 
there could be contamination, there could be all these kinds of things, 
that it is the end of Western civilization as we know it, it is going 
to be worse than Ebola; that it means we don't trust the Food and Drug 
Administration, the people who are supposed to be inspecting all 
seafood--and if that is true of catfish, don't we have to worry about 
all the other seafood that the Food and Drug Administration inspects? 
Of course not.
  So we are going to hear that it is the end of Western civilization, 
that there has been some pollution detected, et cetera. All we have to 
do is have the Food and Drug Administration do their job and inspect 
all seafood, just as they do today, including catfish. We don't have to 
have a new $30 million bureaucracy set up at a cost of $14 million per 
year.
  I have a lot more to say, but the hour grows late. I just hope we 
will show the American taxpayer that we are at least willing, in a 
small way, to eliminate some government duplication and waste. I say 
that there is a lot of symbolic aspects of this vote that far exceed 
$14 million per year. It is now going to be a vote on how we do 
business in the United States Senate. If we don't succeed in 
eliminating this program, I then think we would be embarrassed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and have my time charged for the proponents of the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I agree completely with my fellow Senator 
from Arizona on this catfish issue. We have a lot of fiscal challenges 
ahead. If we hope to tackle the immense fiscal challenges ahead, we 
have to vote right on issues like this. Where there is duplication and 
waste going on, we have to tackle it. So I commend those who are 
sponsoring this initiative.


                       Tribute to Matthew Specht

  Mr. President, I rise to recognize Matthew Specht as the longest 
serving member of my staff. He has dedicated the past 15 years of his 
life in service to the people of Arizona.
  In that time, Matt has established himself as both a top-tier 
political strategist and one of my most trusted advisers. He has done 
so without fanfare and without self-promotion. That kind of modesty is 
refreshing in this line of work. So I obviously had to write this 
speech about him without telling him about it.
  I first met Matt back in the year 2000, when he volunteered for my 
first campaign. Now, at that time, the main area of advertising for us 
was the 4-by-8 big signs that we put by the side of the road. Trying to 
get them to stay by the side of the road was difficult. Arizona is dry, 
the ground is hard, and we

[[Page S3088]]

had to get big post pounders and pound big stakes, big posts in the 
ground. Matt was out there with the post pounder, lifted a little too 
high over the post, and it came down on his head, creating a large 
wound that bled profusely. Another campaign staffer ran over to help 
him and immediately fainted at the sight of blood. So there we had two 
campaign workers on the side of the road. It looked like a crime scene, 
when it was just a campaign activity, but Matt gratefully recovered--a 
few stitches and he was back on the job.
  After helping me win that race, Matt came to Washington as my first 
legislative correspondent and systems administrator. Now, if you want 
to test someone under pressure, put them in charge of troubleshooting 
BlackBerrys in the early time of BlackBerrys. It was a tough thing, but 
Matt handled it like a pro. To his relief and our great benefit, he was 
soon promoted to press secretary.
  It was in communications that Matt really came into his own. In the 
early days of the fight against congressional earmarks, Matt's 
foresight and creativity played a big role in raising awareness in the 
media. You can thank or blame Matt for many of the gut-wrenching bad 
puns that were part of my ``Egregious Earmark of the Week'' series. Of 
course, I claim all the good puns as mine and all the bad ones were 
his, but he knows that is not the case.
  Let me just say, as a press secretary, if you can handle doing a 
segment on the ``Daily Show,'' you can handle just about anything, and 
Matt did it well.
  He would eventually rise to the top of my staff, serving as chief of 
staff during my final years in the House and through my election to the 
Senate.
  When I took this seat in the Senate, Matt--who never intended to stay 
in Washington for more than a couple years--returned home to Arizona 
after 10 years in Washington.
  Being director of my State office in Arizona is no easy task. There 
are countless veterans issues, loads of immigration casework, endless 
border issues, and a myriad of public lands disputes, but Matt has 
handled it all in stride.
  Truly a man of few words, Matt has long been a steady and calming 
leader on my staff. He is well known on my staff for his amazing quick 
wit as well. His pranks have become the stuff of legend among my staff. 
Fortunately, for Matt, none of the pranks are appropriate to detail in 
a setting like this. Suffice it to say that birthdays in my office are 
celebrated with a mixture of fear and trepidation.
  Matt is truly a staffer's staffer, it goes without saying, but his 
calm, steady leadership, his wealth of knowledge, his informed, 
dispassionate advice, and his sense of humor will be dearly missed as 
he moves to the private sector.
  The only consolation with Matt leaving is that he will have more time 
to spend with his beloved cats. He is a proud cat guy, something I will 
never understand. I am glad I will still be able to call on Matt for 
his wise counsel.
  Thank you, Matt, for your 15 years of honorable service. You will be 
missed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 28, and 
I have to comment on a number of allegations made by my friend from 
Arizona and by other people who support the resolution.
  I have in my hand a statement from the Budget Committee that is 
required for resolutions of this sort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     From Budget Committee: Congressional Review Act on Mandatory 
                   Siluriformes (Catfish) Inspection

       S.J. Res. 28, A joint resolution providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture relating to inspection of fish of the order 
     Siluriformes (Senator McCain).
       The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee 
     concludes that S.J. Res. 28 (Senator John McCain, R-AZ), a 
     joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of a 
     rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture relating to 
     mandatory Siluriformes (catfish) inspection, is not subject 
     to a budgetary point of order.
       S.J. Res. 28 disapproves of the rule submitted by the 
     Department of Agriculture on ``Mandatory Inspection of Fish 
     of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived From Such 
     Fish'' that was published in the Federal Register on December 
     2, 2015. The rule implements Siluriformes inspection under 
     the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Department's Food Safety 
     and Inspection Service (FSIS). Enactment of the resolution 
     means such rule shall have no force or effect and may not be 
     reissued in substantially the same form.
       This memo is for informational purposes only. The 
     Congressional Review Act, which provides for expedited 
     consideration of a resolution of disapproval in the Senate, 
     waives all points of order against such a resolution, which 
     includes any potential budget points of order (5 U.S.C. 
     802(d)(1)).


                            POINTS OF ORDER

       Under the Congressional Review Act, budget points of order 
     are waived against resolutions of disapproval. Based on staff 
     analysis of the direct spending estimate provided by the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO), S.J. Res. 28 would not 
     trigger any budget points of order. A revenue estimate is not 
     available at this time.


                                  COST

       CBO has determined that S.J. Res. 28 would not have any 
     impact on direct spending, but has not produced a complete 
     estimate of the budgetary effects of this resolution at this 
     time.


                           PROCEDURAL STATUS

       The Senate is expected to consider S.J. Res. 28 this week, 
     possibly as early as Tuesday, May 24, 2016.

  Mr. WICKER. From the Budget Committee, with regard to S.J. Res. 28, 
we get down to the place where it says ``COST,'' and it says that ``CBO 
has determined that S.J. Res. 28 would not have any impact on direct 
spending. . . . ''
  So I would submit to my colleagues that they can say as many times as 
they want to, they can say until they are blue in the face that this 
program at USDA is costly and we are saving money, but it doesn't 
square with the information we have from the Budget Committee, quoting 
CBO that says you don't save any money by passing S.J. Res. 28. There 
may be other reasons, but certainly it doesn't save money, according to 
the Budget Committee information, which I have now entered into the 
Record.

  Why do we inspect catfish at all? We inspect it for the consumer. We 
want to make sure that at restaurants, in grocery stores, and in our 
homes, we are not consuming contaminated and adulterated product. Every 
bit of domestically raised, American farm-raised catfish is inspected 
by USDA. It is inspected just as other farm-raised meats are inspected 
by the USDA.
  Until this new procedure went into effect in April, FDA inspected 
imported catfish. So you had the strange situation of 100 percent of 
farm-raised American catfish being inspected by USDA, but our foreign 
competitors--Vietnam sending in catfish and FDA inspecting only 2 
percent of that. Only 2 percent of imported Vietnamese catfish was 
inspected by the U.S. Government until this new inspection procedure 
went into effect April 15. Since it has gone into effect, 100 percent 
of imported catfish has been inspected, just like 100 percent of 
American-raised catfish. Isn't that fair? If we are going to inspect 
all American-produced catfish, isn't it fair to inspect our 
competitors'?
  What has USDA found? This is what my colleagues seem to be missing. 
In the short time USDA has been inspecting 100 percent of Vietnamese 
catfish, they have found contaminated substances that would have been 
consumed by Americans at restaurants and in homes, catfish purchased in 
supermarkets. On May 12, USDA found crystal violet. Crystal violet 
causes bladder cancer. Because USDA inspected the catfish coming in 
from Vietnam, American consumers were protected from this cancer-
causing substance. I think we ought to be grateful for the new law 
because it protected us from crystal violet, which causes bladder 
cancer.
  A week later, on May 19, the USDA--once again inspecting, as they 
have been required to do under the last two farm bills--found malachite 
green in Vietnamese catfish. Malachite green causes thyroid cancer, it 
causes liver cancer, and it causes mammary gland cancer.
  I would say to my colleagues who are so pleased we might go back to 
the old regime, shouldn't we be proud of USDA for protecting Americans 
from cancer-

[[Page S3089]]

causing substances--bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, 
mammary gland cancer? I take this seriously. I think Americans take 
this seriously.
  Since we find that this Vietnamese catfish comes in in contaminated 
form, aren't we glad we are inspecting more than 2 percent of it? No 
one contends that I am wrong on this. FDA only inspected 2 percent. Now 
we are inspecting the vast majority, if not all of it.
  Again, my friends can say this is a duplicative program, but it 
simply is not a duplicative program. FDA formerly did the inspections. 
They ceased inspecting at the end of February of this year and USDA 
took it over. That is not duplicative. According to the last two farm 
bills, FDA quit; USDA picked it up. Where is the duplication there?
  We are told that the rule is a violation of trade policy, a WTO 
violation. In fact, USDA has pointed out that equivalent standards are 
applied both to imported and domestic fish. There is no different 
treatment. If we are going to look at all American catfish, we need to 
look at all Vietnamese catfish. For the life of me, I cannot understand 
why we would want to do otherwise, particularly when you have crystal 
violet and malachite green coming in.
  Also, my friends on the other side of this issue say over and over 
again that this is costly. As a matter of fact, USDA--which will 
implement the program, is prepared to implement the program--says it 
will cost $1.1 million annually to implement this new inspection 
program. That is a reasonable amount, and it is far different from the 
figures that other agencies that are not going to actually be doing 
this are talking about. USDA is going to do it, and they said we can do 
it for $1.1 million a year. That is not costly.
  Once again, I would go back to what the Budget Committee said. There 
are no savings. There is no difference in direct spending if we pass 
this rule or not. But there is a great deal of protection from not only 
crystal violet, not only from malachite, but from enrofloxacin and 
fluoroquinolone. A 2009 draft version of the catfish inspection rule 
said the rule would yield ``a reduction of roughly 175,000 lifetime 
cancers.'' They are talking about saving Americans from contracting 
cancer, to the tune of 175,000 Americans, a reduction of 91.8 million 
exposures to antimicrobials and 23.2 million heavy metal exposures. So 
we are not talking about something theoretical. We are not talking 
about something that has to do with trade or good government. We are 
talking about adulterated, contaminated catfish coming in and 
threatening the consuming public.
  Now that we have an inspection procedure that is working, we are told 
that somehow it is good government to go back to the old way of only 
looking at 2 percent of this suspect product coming in. I would hope 
that, upon reflection, my colleagues would conclude that the farm bill 
was right in 2008, that the farm bill was right in 2012, and that the 
Ag Department was correct to follow the congressional dictates.
  This is not an example of an agency--as we have seen so many times in 
the Obama administration, this is not an example of the agency coming 
up with something they would like to do. They were following a House 
and Senate directive based on legislation passed here, passed down at 
the other end of the building, and signed by the President on two 
occasions. This is not USDA overreach; this is USDA doing what has been 
required under law.
  Let's prevent cancer-causing substances from coming into the United 
States, let's vote no on this rule, and let's keep this new program, 
which is already working to protect the consuming public from very 
harsh chemicals that cause cancer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of what, frankly, 
is an egregious example of why folks get very frustrated with 
Washington and what happens here; that is, what has been described as 
one of Washington's most wasteful programs--the duplicative USDA 
catfish inspection program, which was slipped in the farm bill in 2008.
  All other fish species are inspected not by USDA but are inspected in 
this country by the FDA. Yet, added to the 2008 farm bill was a 
provision to create a special office within the USDA for the one 
species of catfish. We know they are bottom dwellers, but this was 
something that was done to protect domestic catfish producers, and it 
was something that is wasting taxpayer dollars.
  There have been 10 GAO reports, each finding that this inspection 
regime--set up especially for catfish but no other species--is 
duplicative and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  The good-government groups, such as Citizens Against Government 
Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and 
many of the other groups that my colleague Senator McCain cited on the 
floor that are supporting the resolution to disapprove this duplicative 
rule, have called this program one of the most demonstrably wasteful 
and duplicative programs ever created. Boy, in Washington, that says a 
lot, to call something one of the most demonstrably wasteful and 
duplicative programs ever created. These groups have written that the 
GAO also notes that it not only wastes taxpayer dollars and duplicates 
work already done by the FDA, but it actually weakens rather than 
strengthens our food safety systems.
  The agency's proposed catfish inspection program further fragments 
Federal oversight over our system for food safety without demonstrating 
that there is a problem with catfish or a need for a new Federal 
program.
  With all respect, I heard my colleague from Mississippi on the floor 
citing the most recent findings by the newly stood up USDA office for 
the inspection of catfish talking about harmful contaminants in catfish 
that the USDA intercepted. There are some facts that are conveniently 
missing from this argument. First of all, when the FDA was inspecting 
catfish--like they inspect all other fish in the country--at times, 
they were also able to intercept contaminants found not only in catfish 
but in other fish species. So the notion that the FDA couldn't find 
these very same contaminants--well, guess what, folks, they did, just 
as they do every day when they are looking at ensuring that all of our 
fish species are appropriate for our public health and for us to 
consume.
  One of the interesting things about it is that not only would the FDA 
find this in the catfish coming from overseas, but they have actually 
intercepted contaminants in the domestic catfish supply at times as 
well. I think that is important for people to understand.
  This notion that somehow we need to set up a special program within 
the USDA for just catfish because that is the only way we can find 
contaminants and protect the public health--apparently the FDA is able 
to do it for every other fish species, was able to do it before 2008, 
and yet we now have a separate office for the catfish, and the GAO 
found that it cost us nearly $20 million extra to set up this special 
office to inspect catfish for the one species.
  In fact, my colleague from Mississippi serves on the Budget 
Committee, as I do, and he mentioned on the floor the fact that the CBO 
said that there will not be additional spending on this program. One 
thing that is important for people to understand--and those of us who 
serve on the Budget Committee understand this--is that the Budget 
Committee said that there is no additional mandatory spending. That 
means mandatory spending that has already been set aside in the budget. 
We separate spending in the Federal Government--mandatory versus 
discretionary spending. Guess what? Yes, there isn't mandatory spending 
on this, but, conveniently, what has been left out is that there is 
absolutely discretionary spending on this program.
  In fact, GAO has found that it not only cost $20 million to set up 
this new inspection regime, but they have estimated that it costs $14 
million a year in discretionary spending to run this new inspection 
regime for catfish.
  I just want to make sure that people understand, for the record, that 
this budget opinion that is being cited is really meaningless because 
it is saying there is no mandatory spending. Well, guess what? I could 
come to the floor on almost any kind of domestic spending, whether it 
is on an issue of DOD,

[[Page S3090]]

a weapons system, or anything we are talking about here, and tell you 
that there is no mandatory spending on this, and the Budget Committee 
would issue the same opinion.
  What really matters is this: Are we spending any taxpayer dollars? 
The answer at the end of the day is absolutely, because the dollars 
that go to the USDA or the FDA are actually discretionary spending.
  I hope my colleagues who are listening to this understand that this 
budget opinion really means nothing. We are still spending taxpayer 
dollars that matter to you and me, and we could spend these millions of 
dollars much more effectively elsewhere than on a duplicative program 
for catfish.
  In fact, former FDA Safety Chief David Acheson commented that this 
duplicative program is ``everything that's wrong about the food-safety 
system. . . . It's food politics. It's not public health.'' For all the 
claims that have been made on this floor about somehow needing to set 
up a separate inspection regime for catfish, the USDA itself said: 
``The true effectiveness of FSIS inspection for reducing catfish-
associated human illnesses is unknown.'' This is the USDA itself: 
``unknown.'' ``Also, the rate at which FSIS inspection will achieve its 
ultimate reductions is unknown. . . . There is substantial uncertainty 
regarding the actual effectiveness of an FSIS''--meaning the USDA 
inspection regime--``catfish inspection program.''
  That is not very promising. We already had an inspection regime in 
place, as we do for every other fish species under the FDA, and that 
costs us roughly $700,000 a year, according to the GAO reports, and 
now, under what we have done with the duplicative inspection regime 
with the USDA, it costs roughly $20 million to build a new inspection 
regime with new infrastructure in a different agency, and then roughly 
$14 million, according to the GAO. We just asked them again if they 
could confirm the numbers that are being cited of it only costing $1.5 
million. No, they can't confirm those numbers. There were 10 GAO 
reports defining duplicative and wasteful spending, yet here we are.
  I was really shocked by the vote on the Senate floor. I was very 
shocked that my colleagues would have 10 GAO reports in front of them 
that say this is a duplicative and wasteful program, and we already 
have every other fish species inspected by the FDA. Yet we are going to 
set up a separate office for catfish. Almost every good government 
group that focuses on addressing wasteful spending in Washington has 
called this duplicative program egregious and really cited this as an 
example of what is wrong when we are worried about taxpayer dollars and 
what happens in Washington.
  I hope, as I look at the votes on the Senate floor, that as we 
proceed to this measure, my colleagues will look at these GAO reports, 
listen to these good government organizations that have basically said 
that this program is really a waste of taxpayer dollars, and that they 
will support the resolution to disapprove this duplicative inspection 
program.
  Before 2008, the FDA was inspecting catfish, and they were doing 
their job just like they do with every other fish species. They can 
continue to do that rather than have an entire separate program just to 
inspect one fish species under the USDA. By the way, the focus of the 
USDA is actually on meat and poultry. They don't regulate any other 
fish. They don't have fish experts like the FDA, and that is one of the 
reasons it costs so much more to set up this new program.
  There is a lot of talk about why people are frustrated with 
Washington; right? They are very frustrated. They want to make sure 
their taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. My constituents complain to me 
about wasteful spending and duplicative programs. Yet here we have such 
an obvious example. As I look at what we have pending on the Senate 
floor--if we don't pass this resolution of disapproval for this 
duplicative program after so many groups have said that they have 
looked at this and concluded that it is wasteful and duplicative--and 
10 years of GAO reports saying the same thing, that we don't need a 
separate inspection regime for catfish, I don't know how we are ever 
going to address $19 trillion in debt. I don't know how we are ever 
going to take on the big burning issues that the American people want 
us to address.
  I know a lot of bad things have been said about Congress. I 
personally think we might be called bottom dwellers if we don't pass 
this legislation. I am hoping that as we look at the duplicative 
program of catfish inspections, we will understand that one fish 
species does not deserve a separate office just to look at the catfish, 
that the FDA can handle this inspection as it does for every other fish 
species, that we could save millions of taxpayer dollars by doing this, 
and that we can let the American people know that we get it and we want 
to wisely spend their money wisely, we want to eliminate wasteful 
spending, we want to get our fiscal house in order, and we want good 
government. We don't want protectionist government that is just trying 
to protect one industry, crony capitalism, and all the bad things. What 
we want is common sense.
  I hope my colleagues will join me. I thank Senator McCain and Senator 
Shaheen for their efforts in helping us bring this important resolution 
for disapproval forward, and I hope we can take a small step forward in 
this body for good government, eliminating wasteful spending, 
eliminating duplicative programs, and tell the American people: We are 
not bottom dwellers. We really get it, and we want to make sure we do 
the right thing by them.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                              Puerto Rico

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the ongoing crisis 
affecting the 3.5 million citizens who call Puerto Rico their home and 
to comment on the legislation that is pending in the House of 
Representatives.
  We are facing a critical moment in the history of Puerto Rico. The 
island is sinking under a mountain of debt. I said it before, but it 
bears repeating. Just servicing the government's $72 billion debt 
swallows 36 percent of all of the island's revenue. That means that for 
every dollar Puerto Rico takes in, they immediately send over one-third 
to bondholders. This is not sustainable for any government, especially 
one that has been mired in a decade-long recession. Congress is faced 
with an immediate and serious choice. Indeed, the decisions we make in 
the next month will have profound consequences on the people of Puerto 
Rico for over a generation, and the stakes are high. We simply have to 
get it right.
  I said from the beginning that any fix needs to provide a clear path 
to restructuring with an oversight board that represents the people of 
Puerto Rico and their democratic rights. If we truly want to help the 
economic situation on the island, we also need to provide parity for 
health care funds and worker tax credits that all 3.5 million American 
citizens living in Puerto Rico have access to once they move to the 
American mainland.
  I must say I have been encouraged by Speaker Ryan and Chairman 
Bishop's acknowledgement that Congress needs to act to prevent this 
fiscal crisis from becoming a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe, but, 
unfortunately, the legislation that is being marked up tomorrow falls 
far short on several fronts. Instead of offering a clear path to 
restructuring, the legislation creates a number of obstacles that could 
derail the island's attempt to achieve sustainable debt payments. Most 
strikingly, it requires a 5-to-2 supermajority vote by the control 
board to access this necessary restructuring authority--an authority 
that Puerto Rico had years ago and somehow--in the dark of night, in 
some legislation several years ago--was eliminated. Nobody seems to 
understand why. But it had the authority to restructure its debt. Now, 
restructuring its debt isn't a bailout because no one gives them money. 
They ultimately have to restructure the debt they have.
  While most reasonable people agree it is absolutely vital for Puerto 
Rico to be able to restructure its debt, this authority can be blocked 
by a simple minority on the board. That is right. A simple minority on 
the board could block the pathway to restructure. Without the authority 
to restructure its debt, this legislation does virtually nothing to 
help Puerto Rico dig out of the hole they are in.

[[Page S3091]]

  Exacerbating this concern is the composition and scope of power 
endowed to the control board. The fact that the people of Puerto Rico 
will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action they 
decide to take is blatant neocolonialism. It is OK to say to Puerto 
Ricans: Yes, please, wear the uniform of the United States, as they 
have done in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. If you went with me to 
the Mall, you would see a disproportionate number of names of Puerto 
Ricans who gave their lives on behalf of the United States. Recently, 
the Speaker awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the Borinqueneers, 
the 65th Infantry Division, which was one of the most decorated in U.S. 
military history. Yes, it is OK. Please put on the uniform of the 
United States and go fight for your country. Die for America. But it is 
not OK for you to have a voice in your future. It is not OK for you to 
have self-governance.
  If that control board--with no Puerto Rican representation--uses its 
superpowers under the bill as drafted and decides to close more schools 
and hospitals than have been closed, cut pensions to the bone, sell 
Puerto Rico's natural assets without any say by the elected 
representatives of the 3.5 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, I am 
sure some would suggest we look the other way and say Puerto Ricans are 
worth less than any other U.S. citizen.

  While there is some fancy language to pretend that the President will 
get to pick the board members, this is all a figleaf to hide the real 
levers of power. The board will be composed of four Republican 
appointees and three Democratic appointees, and in addition to being 
the gatekeeper to restructuring, it will have the power to veto laws 
and regulations, override budgets, determine the level of debt 
payments, and make in essence what is the governing body of any State, 
any municipality, or of the people Puerto Rico totally obsolete. They 
will decide--unelected, they will decide. To me, it is simply wrong and 
un-American to take away the basic democratic rights of the people of 
Puerto Rico.
  The bill even puts speculating hedge funds above pensioners, 
including language to ensure that in any restructuring deal, the people 
who worked their entire lives--their entire lives--to help the island 
are put at the back of the line behind Wall Street.
  I remind my colleagues that each and every Puerto Rican is an 
American citizen, many of whom have fought and died, as I said, for our 
country in every war over the past century. They deserve the same 
rights and respect as citizens in New Jersey or Wisconsin or Utah or 
any other State in the Nation. If they can do this in Puerto Rico, why 
not see any other State that sees a crisis have it become a reality as 
well.
  Finally, the proposed legislation sensibly cuts minimum wage rules 
and new overtime protections that would apply to workers in Puerto 
Rico. At a time when cities and States across the Nation are moving 
toward increasing the minimum wage, I cannot fathom why anyone would 
support decreasing it for Puerto Rico. With the poverty rate of 
approximately 45 percent, lowering people's wages is not a pro-growth 
strategy, as some have called it. It is a pro-migration strategy. We 
already see an incredible migration from Puerto Rico to places in the 
United States--most particularly Florida, New Jersey, New York, and 
other places in the country. Why? Because as an American citizen they 
have every right to reside anywhere in the United States. They also 
have a right to receive any right or privilege that any citizen has in 
the United States. So there is a brain drain leaving Puerto Rico coming 
to the mainland, which only exacerbates the problem in Puerto Rico. 
These unrelated riders are counterproductive and will only drive more 
Puerto Ricans to migrate to the mainland, where they will not have to 
work for subminimum wages.
  I am afraid this bill provides little more than a bandaid on a bullet 
hole with regard to Puerto Rico's unsustainable debt. Mark my words, if 
we don't seize this opportunity to address the crisis in a meaningful 
way and in the right way, we will be back here a year from now, but we 
will be picking up the pieces because there will not be much left. So 
while it is absolutely clear that we need to act and act decisively and 
expediently to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, just as 
important, we also need to get it right.
  Working together and helping each other in a time of need is what 
this country is all about. When a hurricane hits the gulf coast or a 
tornado ravages the Midwest, I don't ask how many of my constituents in 
New Jersey were affected. Rather, I stand with my fellow Americans and 
fight to provide relief regardless of what State or territory they are 
from. That is why we call this country the United States of America.
  Let's continue to honor that timeless American tradition. Let's honor 
our country's motto of ``e pluribus unum,'' out of many, one. Let us 
provide our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico with the tools they need to 
help themselves. It is not a bailout. We are not going to give them any 
money. They are going to have to restructure and figure out themselves 
how they will get out of the mess, without taking away their self-
governance. You can't preach democracy and human rights and then deny 
it to the American citizens of Puerto Rico.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________