[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.
____________________