[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3131-S3135]
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. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 28, which the clerk will report.
  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.


[[Page S3132]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time will be 
equally divided between opponents and proponents until 11 a.m., with 
Senator Shaheen controlling 10 minutes of the proponent time.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 28 and 
ask to be allowed to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it seems there are only two speakers. So 
perhaps we will be able to finish this discussion by the top of the 
hour.
  Last week, the Senate appropriated a large sum of money to fight the 
threat of the Zika virus. We are going to spend, together with what was 
already available and what was appropriated last week, at least $1 
billion fighting this Zika threat and probably $2 billion, and rightly 
so because Zika is a potential health threat to Americans. We believe 
it is money well spent to prevent more serious diseases and more 
serious afflictions to Americans. Yet we have in place today a USDA 
program that is protecting Americans against 175,000 cases of cancer, 
according to USDA documents. It is protecting Americans against 91 
million exposures to antimicrobials.
  This USDA catfish inspection program that is under threat this 
morning is protecting Americans from some 23.3 million exposures to 
heavy metals, and yet this program cost the taxpayers, in the 
Department of Agriculture, only $1.1 million a year. Compared to the $1 
billion or $2 billion we are going to spend on Zika, a relatively small 
$1.1 million a year is protecting Americans against contaminated 
foreign catfish coming in from overseas.
  We have been inspecting imported fish for quite a while in the United 
States of America. Under the old procedure, the Food and Drug 
Administration inspected imported catfish. There was a problem. Under 
the old procedure, FDA inspected only 2 percent of all imports and what 
we found out was that in the 98 percent of catfish imports that were 
coming in, there was a lot of bad stuff coming in that threatened 
Americans and their good health.

  In 2008 Congress passed--and the President made a change to it, which 
was reiterated in 2012 and has recently been enacted--the farm bill. It 
provides for 100 percent inspection of foreign catfish instead of the 2 
percent that we had before.
  What has been the result of that? By comparison, when the FDA was 
inspecting Vietnamese and other foreign catfish coming into the United 
States during the years 2014 and 2015, the FDA picked up on a whopping 
total of two shipments of foreign catfish containing known carcinogens 
over the course of more than 2 years. I am glad they found those 
carcinogens and stopped these cancer-causing agents from coming in, but 
think of what we could have discovered that was eventually consumed by 
Americans if we had inspected not just 2 percent but the whole 100 
percent. By contrast, the USDA inspection procedures began in April, 
and in that short time the USDA has intercepted two shipments of 
foreign catfish containing known carcinogens in less than 2 weeks. If 
you do the math, the USDA is intercepting harmful catfish--and there is 
no question that the carcinogens are harmful and there is no question 
that we can't legally bring this contaminated catfish in--at a rate 21 
times greater than under the old procedure under the FDA.
  It is mystifying that we will soon vote on a resolution that would go 
back to the old way. We caught two deadly shipments in the last 2 
weeks, and we have before us today a resolution that would put us back 
to a procedure that found two violations in the course of 2 years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter, dated May 24, 
2016, from the Safe Food Coalition be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                          Safe Food Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2016.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned members of the Safe Food 
     Coalition write to strongly oppose S.J. Res. 28, which 
     provides for congressional disapproval and nullification, 
     under the Congressional Review Act, of the final rule for a 
     mandatory inspection program for fish of the order 
     Siluriformes, including catfish and catfish products 
     (``catfish''). Congress transferred regulation of catfish 
     from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service (FSIS) as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. Since then, we 
     have supported FSIS rulemaking in written comments and in 
     public meetings.
       Starkly different catfish farming practices in foreign 
     countries, often accompanied by inadequate environmental and 
     food safety standards, raise significant public health 
     concerns. The FDA regulation of catfish did not sufficiently 
     address those concerns. As the U.S. Government Accountability 
     Office found in 2011, FDA's inspection of imported seafood 
     products was ``ineffectively implemented,'' and subjected 
     just 0.1% of all imported seafood products to testing for 
     drug residues. Yet chemical residue violations in imported 
     catfish are rampant. According to testing performed by FDA 
     and the Agriculture Marketing Service, fully 9% of imported 
     catfish products tested positive for the banned antimicrobial 
     chemical malachite green, and 2% tested positive for the 
     banned chemical gentian violet.
       The FSIS inspection program, and its continuous inspection 
     requirement, will provide a sorely needed safeguard against 
     this type of adulteration. The program, which applies to both 
     domestic and foreign processors, incorporates more robust 
     import inspection protocols. These more rigorous standards 
     are already paying off. Within the past two weeks, FSIS 
     inspectors have detained two shipments from Vietnam of 
     catfish products adulterated with gentian violet, malachite 
     green, enrofloxacin, and fluoroquinolone--all banned 
     substances under U.S. law. Under the new inspection program, 
     these importers will have to cover the expense of test-and-
     hold sampling while they undertake corrective actions. 
     Compared to the former inspection regime, this will provide 
     needed assurance to American consumers, and more equitably 
     assign the costs of enforcement.
       For the foregoing reasons, we urge rejection of the motion 
     to rescind the catfish inspection rule.
           Sincerely,
     Center for Foodborne Illness, Research & Prevention,
     Consumer Federation of America,
     Consumers Union,
     Food & Water Watch,
     National Consumer League,
     STOP Foodborne Illness.

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I will read a few sentences from the 
second paragraph of this Safe Food Coalition letter, which is signed by 
a coalition, including the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & 
Prevention, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, 
Food & Water Watch, the National Consumers League, and STOP Foodborne 
Illness. Those groups have formed this coalition, and they say this:

       Starkly different catfish farming practices in foreign 
     countries, often accompanied by inadequate environmental and 
     food safety standards, raise significant public health 
     concerns. The FDA regulation of catfish did not sufficiently 
     address those concerns.

  Two percent of all imports were inspected and the others came in 
without a single look from the government.
  The letter continues:

       As the U.S. Government Accountability Office found in 2011, 
     FDA's inspection of imported seafood products was 
     ``ineffectively implemented'' and subjected just 0.1% of all 
     imported seafood products to testing for drug residues. Yet 
     chemical residue violations in imported catfish are rampant. 
     According to testing performed by FDA and the Agriculture 
     Marketing Service, fully 9% of imported catfish products 
     tested positive for the banned antimicrobial chemical 
     malachite green, and 2% tested positive for the banned 
     chemical gentian violet.

  I will simply say, these people don't have an ax to grind. They don't 
stand to make a lot of money by selling cheap catfish to the American 
consumer. They are looking out for food safety, and they say there is a 
starkly different farming practice here than they have in foreign 
countries. It strikes me as stunning that with the starkly different 
practices--the unsafe practices in Vietnam and places like that in Asia 
and the safe practices here--that we would be about to vote in a few 
moments on a procedure that is very tough on catfish produced by 
American workers. If this resolution passes today, 100 percent of 
catfish produced by American workers earning a living and doing this 
for their families will be subject to inspection, and only 2 percent 
will be subjected--only 2 percent of the starkly different catfish 
procedures that are potentially bringing in carcinogens--will be 
subjected to testing by the government. It is completely backward.
  I hope my colleagues will vote no on final passage of this S.J. Res. 
28. Let's treat American workers at least the

[[Page S3133]]

same as we treat foreign workers. Let's treat products grown and 
produced in America the same as products grown and produced in foreign 
countries, and let's do it in the name of food safety.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise to support this Congressional 
Review Act resolution to block the USDA catfish inspection program.
  Despite what my colleague from Mississippi has said, there is no 
evidence that the catfish program provides any additional food safety 
benefit. It was designed to create a trade barrier.
  I appreciate the opposition of my colleague from Mississippi. He is 
working for his catfish farmers in Mississippi. I know I like 
Mississippi catfish, but I like all kinds of catfish. In fact, the 
USDA, FDA, CDC, and the GAO have all confirmed that catfish, both 
domestic and imported, is already safe under FDA's jurisdiction. In 
fact, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than to get sick from 
imported or domestic catfish.
  Let's not lose sight of what we are talking about. The FDA inspects 
hundreds of species of domestic and imported seafood. There is nothing 
particularly dangerous about catfish that merits setting up a whole 
separate inspection program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
The fact is, the FDA is responsible for the safety of most--about 80 to 
90 percent--of all U.S. domestic and imported foods, and it has years 
of successful expertise in the unique area of seafood safety. The FDA 
system has worked for both domestic and imported seafood, and it has 
done so for years.
  Let's talk about how we got to this point. Before 2008, the Food and 
Drug Administration was responsible for inspecting all foreign and 
domestic fish products. The Department of Agriculture inspected 
livestock, such as beef, pork, and poultry. However, a provision was 
added to the 2008 farm bill that transferred the inspection of 
catfish--not all imported seafood, just catfish--to the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, requiring that agency to set up a new, separate program 
to inspect just catfish alone. Again, inspection of all other 
noncatfish seafood remains at the Food and Drug Administration, and it 
still does today. This means that seafood businesses across this 
country that handle catfish are now subject to two different sets of 
regulations from two completely separate Federal agencies.
  I have heard from businesses in New Hampshire and across the country 
that are being hit by these burdensome new regulations. They are 
affecting their ability to grow and create jobs. There is no scientific 
or food safety benefit gained from this new program. There is no 
evidence that transferring catfish inspection to the USDA will improve 
consumer safety.
  I appreciate that there have been a couple of examples given in the 
last few weeks of imported catfish. I think we ought to address that 
and do it very quickly, in the same way we address domestic problems 
with our food system and do it very quickly.
  Officials from the FDA and USDA have explicitly stated that catfish 
is a low-risk food. The USDA acknowledges in its own risk assessment 
that no one has gotten sick from eating domestic or foreign catfish for 
more than 20 years. The USDA catfish inspection program is a classic 
example of wasteful and duplicative government regulation that is 
hurting our economy, and it is expensive. The FDA has been inspecting 
catfish up until now for less than $1 million a year. The USDA, by 
comparison, has spent more than $20 million to set up the program 
without inspecting a single catfish during that time. Going forward, 
estimates are that the program could cost as much as $15 million to 
operate per year.
  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has recommended 
eliminating this program 10 separate times.
  If there is no food safety benefit, costing millions and actively 
hurting jobs across the country, why was this program created in the 
first place? This program, as I said earlier, is a thinly disguised 
illegal trade barrier against foreign catfish. This kind of a barrier 
leaves us vulnerable on other American products, such as beef, soy, 
poultry, and grain, to a wide variety of objections from any WTO 
nation. Since there is no scientific basis for what we are doing, any 
WTO nation that currently exports catfish to the United States could 
challenge it and secure WTO sanction trade retaliation against a wide 
range of U.S. exports, as I said, things like beef, soy, poultry, 
grain, fruit, and cotton, to name a few.
  Again, it is important to go back and note how this policy change was 
created. It was not included in either version of the 2008 farm bill 
that passed the House and Senate, and it was never voted on or debated 
in either Chamber before it was enacted. It was secretly included in 
the final version of the farm bill by the conference committee in 2008. 
The only other time the Senate has voted on this issue was in 2012, and 
we voted to repeal it in a strong bipartisan voice vote.
  The resolution we are talking about today has strong bipartisan 
support. A discharge petition was signed by 16 Democrats and 17 
Republicans in order to initiate floor action and, most importantly, 
this resolution actually has the chance to become enacted into law. 
This is not a program this administration ever wanted to have to 
implement. In fact, it delayed implementing a final program for 8 
years, I think in hopes that we in Congress would finally be able to 
get a vote that repealed the program. Unfortunately, this is an 
expensive and harmful special interest program--something some might 
call an earmark--and it is already having severe impacts on some 
businesses.

  I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
important resolution to block the USDA catfish inspection program once 
and for all.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate to reject S.J. 
Res. 28, which would overturn a catfish inspection rule that is working 
to protect American consumers.
  In both the 2008 and 2014 farm bills, Congress directed the 
administration to transfer authority for catfish inspection from the 
Food and Drug Administration to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We 
did so based on evidence that the FDA inspection regime then in place 
was inadequate.
  And we have been proven right. The FDA's inspection regime was 
inadequate.
  Over the course of 2 years, from 2014-2015, the FDA caught a total of 
two shipments of foreign catfish containing known dangerous cancer-
causing chemicals that are illegal in the United States--two shipments 
over 2 years.
  Under the catfish inspection rule, USDA has intercepted two shipments 
of foreign catfish containing illegal, cancer-causing chemicals in less 
than 2 weeks.
  If you do the math, USDA is intercepting harmful catfish at a rate 
nearly 21 times greater than the rate at which FDA was before its 
inadequate program was closed down.
  USDA's inspection program has already proven to better safeguard 
consumer safety than FDA, which makes sense. After all, USDA is the 
most experienced, well-equipped agency to ensure farm-raised meat 
products, including catfish, are as safe as possible.
  The catfish rule is not costly. The Congressional Budget Office has 
said this resolution won't save a dime.
  The catfish rule is not duplicative. The FDA ceased all catfish 
inspections on March 1 of this year. USDA is now the only agency 
charged with inspecting catfish.
  The catfish rule does not create a trade barrier. The rule applies 
equally to foreign and domestic producers. USDA has stated that the 
rule is compliant with the World Trade Organization's equivalency 
standard.
  The catfish rule has already been proven to keep American consumers 
safe from illegal, cancer-causing chemicals. Adoption of this 
resolution would not change the law regarding catfish inspection. It 
would only call into question, and potentially halt, the ability of the 
U.S. Government to carry out these proven consumer safety protections.
  It is clear that the inspection rule is working as intended to 
protect U.S. consumers. Congress was right in twice mandating these 
inspections.
  I hope Senators will reject this resolution.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3134]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in 
a quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this morning we will be voting on a joint 
resolution of disapproval for the rule that establishes the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection program. As I mentioned 
yesterday, I would remind my colleagues that the General Accounting 
Office, a watchdog organization we rely on for their views, 
particularly on fiscal issues and matters--and I think that of all the 
institutions of government right now, probably the GAO is arguably the 
most respected--GAO has warned in 10 different reports between 2009 and 
2016 that ``the responsibility of inspecting catfish should not be 
assigned to the USDA,'' calling the program ``wasteful'' of tax dollars 
and ``duplicative'' of the FDA's existing inspections on all other 
seafood products.
  That is an interesting item, I say to my colleagues. The FDA performs 
inspections on every seafood product that comes into the United States 
of America. And guess what. There is only one, and that is catfish.
  Let's be very blunt about the reality. The reality of this is to stop 
the competition from foreign sources--specifically one of which is the 
country of Vietnam--from coming into this country. It isn't much more 
complicated than that when you see that there is only one. And by the 
way, that only one, according to the GAO, cost the taxpayers $19.9 
million to develop and study the inspection program, and the GAO says 
it will cost the Federal Government an additional $14 million annually 
to run the program. The GAO found that the Food and Drug Administration 
currently spends less than $700,000 annually to inspect catfish. So, 
according to my calculations, over $13 million a year will be saved by 
doing away with this duplicative inspection program.
  I noticed in the vote yesterday that a majority of my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle who call themselves fiscal conservatives, 
including the Chair, have said: Well, we want to keep this duplicative 
program. That is fine with me, if that is your view, but then don't 
come to the floor and call yourself a fiscal conservative if you are 
willing to spend $14 million a year that is not needed and not wanted 
and is clearly duplicative and especially is earmarked for a special 
interest--i.e., the catfish industry in Southern States. So vote 
however you want, but don't come back to the floor when you see a 
duplicative or wasteful program and say you are all for saving the 
taxpayers' dollars, because you are voting to spend $14 million of the 
taxpayers' dollars on a duplicative and unnecessary program.
  Don't wonder why only 12 percent of the American people approve of 
what we do. The reason is because we allow programs such as this, where 
parochial interests override what is clearly the national interest and 
the taxpayers' interest. That is why the Center for Individual Freedom, 
the National Taxpayers Union, the Heritage Foundation, the Taxpayers 
for Protection Alliance, the Campaign for Liberty, the Independent 
Women's Forum, the National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers for Common 
Sense, and on and on, are all totally in favor of this resolution. 
Every watchdog organization in this town and in this country favors 
this resolution.
  I also point out that one of the arguments my dear friend from 
Mississippi will raise again is that somehow, unless we have this 
special office, this specific office for inspecting catfish, there will 
be a problem with the safety of the catfish that are imported into this 
country. In classic farm bill politics, proponents worked up specious 
talking points about how Americans need a whole new government agency 
to inspect catfish imports. As a result, USDA has begun operating a 
program that will require foreign importers to adjust the catfish 
program over a period of 5 to 7 years while the USDA duplicates the 
FDA's inspection program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the opponents has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. All I can say is that the FDA has been doing this job for 
years and has intercepted banned compounds in foreign imported catfish, 
and I would point out that the USDA has encountered problems in 
domestic catfish as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the opponents has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, do I understand that the proponents of 
this resolution have 4 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of that time to my friend 
from New Hampshire who has sought recognition and then reserve 3 
minutes for myself. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, first of all, we have 10 GAO reports that 
have found this to be duplicative and wasteful.
  For some reason, there is a special office for catfish but no other 
fish species. The USDA normally inspects meat and poultry, not fish, so 
to waste taxpayer dollars this way lacks common sense.
  I say to my friend from Mississippi, I know he made an argument on 
the Budget Committee, but the Budget Committee's opinion basically says 
there is no direct spending. We all know that a lot of domestic 
spending is discretionary spending, and discretionary spending will 
continue on this program. The GAO has found that this costs an 
additional $14 million a year, this duplicative program. By the way, 
the $1.5 million that has been cited has not been confirmed by GAO.
  Colleagues, let's not be bottom dwellers. Let's get rid of 
duplicative and wasteful spending. We have 10 GAO reports stacked up. 
We can get rid of this duplicative program that inspects catfish, which 
is already inspected by the FDA. By the way, as Senator McCain has 
said, the FDA has intercepted the toxins my colleagues and friends from 
Mississippi have cited as well as toxins found in domestic fish. They 
know how to do this, and we don't need a special office for catfish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I oppose the resolution. My friend from 
New Hampshire has said: Let's inspect catfish like all other catfish. I 
would tell her and I would tell my colleagues that American-produced 
catfish is inspected by the USDA at a rate of 100 percent. If the 
resolution passes, that will not apply to foreign catfish. How does 
that make sense? How is that fair to Americans? How is that fair to 
American consumers when we have information that indicates clearly that 
there are different, less safe procedures overseas than we have in the 
United States? Yes, let's treat all catfish the same. We inspect 
American catfish; let's inspect foreign catfish.
  We can say this new program is expensive, and I guess if we say it 
enough, it becomes true. But the fact is that the agency that is going 
to enforce this program, the USDA, says it is going to cost $1.1 
million a year. It seems like a reasonable cost to prevent cancer-
causing agents from coming in from overseas, goods that will be eaten 
by Americans.
  One could say that it is duplicative, and I guess if it is said 
enough, one might think it becomes true. But the fact is that the FDA 
is out of the inspection business, according to law, and the USDA is in 
the business, and they can do it for $1 million a year. That is not a 
duplication.
  Saying it is expensive doesn't make it true, and saying it is 
duplicative doesn't make it true. The facts are exactly otherwise.
  This is about food safety. This is about preventing cancer-causing

[[Page S3135]]

agents from coming in and being consumed by Americans. Now is the time. 
This is the time to vote no, to protect American consumers from cancer-
causing agents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cotton
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cruz
     Sanders
       
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 28

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture relating to ``Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the 
     Order Siluriformes and Products Derived From Such Fish'' (80 
     Fed. Reg. 75590; December 2, 2015), and such rule shall have 
     no force or effect.

                          ____________________