[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6812-6813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    USDA CATFISH INSPECTION PROGRAM

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, tomorrow, apparently the Senate is going 
to have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue of whether it is good 
policy to allow uninspected, adulterated Vietnamese catfish into the 
United States. That will be the issue before us in the form of a 
resolution to disapprove a USDA regulation.
  The Senate will vote on whether it is a good idea to expose American 
consumers to catfish containing illegal antibiotics, heavy metals, and 
other carcinogens. I think the Senate will once again say that we need 
to protect American consumers from these harmful contents of imported 
catfish, and we need to protect them by continuing a new U.S. 
Department of Agriculture catfish inspection program.
  What happened before we had the USDA catfish inspection program? 
Under previous law, the Food and Drug Administration inspected catfish 
coming into the United States, principally Vietnamese catfish. What we 
found out in this program is that only 2 percent of the catfish coming 
in got inspected. The other 98 percent came through without the Federal 
Government taking a look at it. What we learned from the information 
given to us was that some of the catfish coming in did have these 
harmful chemicals in them. So the farm bill passed by the Congress 
changed the inspection regime from the FDA to where it is now--the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. Under the Department of Agriculture program, 
almost all of the catfish will be inspected to make sure it is free of 
these harmful substances.
  The people who are trying to go back to the old method of inspection 
make some claims. They say the new USDA rule is duplicative. They say 
it is a WTO violation. They say it is costly.
  I will tell my colleagues--and I want my colleagues listening in 
their offices to understand this--there will not be a

[[Page 6813]]

duplicative program. FDA is out of the catfish inspection business as 
of March 1 of this year. The only inspections being carried out now are 
through USDA. So the argument that this new program is duplicative is 
factually incorrect. You can say it as many times as you want to; that 
doesn't make it true. There is no duplication.
  Furthermore, there is no WTO violation. The equivalent standards are 
being applied both to imported and domestic fish, so the standards are 
the same. We just want to make sure they are safe. We are pretty sure 
about domestic catfish. A lot of it is grown in my State of 
Mississippi. A lot of it is grown in Missouri, Arkansas, and Alabama. 
Those catfish farms are inspected. The fish are not caught out in a 
river somewhere; they are inspected where they are grown and are 
harvested under very controlled conditions. We just want all fish 
consumed in the United States to be as safe as domestically produced 
fish.
  Thirdly, they say the new rule is costly. Well, the entire program is 
going to cost $1.1 million a year through USDA. I would say $1 million 
a year to protect the American consumers is a reasonable price to pay. 
It is not costly in the scheme of things.
  Let me tell you what we found so far in the brief history of this new 
USDA program. We found that catfish coming in from Vietnam was 
adulterated. I can hardly pronounce these words, but I have here a 
publication from Food Chemical News dated today, May 23. It reports 
that according to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, they 
have already found two shipments that have just come in in recent weeks 
that were adulterated. This is Vietnamese catfish that the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture caught that would have been consumed by 
American consumers in restaurants and would have been bought at 
supermarkets. They wouldn't let it in. They sent it back. Thank heavens 
they did because one shipment contained gentian crystal violet, so they 
didn't allow it to come in. That is the kind of inspection this vote 
tomorrow will try to stop. I want to keep those inspections. The other 
shipment that was not allowed in contained malachite green, and it 
contained enrofloxacin and fluoroquinolone--all chemicals and 
substances that are prohibited to be consumed in the United States 
because they are not safe. They contain heavy metals, they contain 
carcinogens, and they contain illegal antibiotics that we are trying to 
protect U.S. consumers from.
  I will give credit to the authors of this resolution of disapproval: 
This would somewhat cut the price of fish in restaurants. But I will 
tell you what. If my colleagues want to foist less expensive catfish 
that contains heavy metals, antibiotics, and carcinogens off on 
American consumers, let them have at it. I don't think the majority of 
the Senate wants to do that in the name of a duplicative program--and 
it is not duplicative--and in the name of reducing costs when the whole 
program costs about $1 million a year.
  I want my colleagues to be aware that this vote is going to come up 
tomorrow. It is a very unusual vote. It is a Congressional Review Act 
vote. Thirty of my colleagues have signed a petition, so it must come 
to a vote, and it must come tomorrow afternoon. The vote to proceed 
will take place tomorrow afternoon. If the motion to proceed is agreed 
to--and I certainly hope it is not--then we will have 10 hours of 
debate right here in the middle of the week when we should be talking 
about national defense and all of the issues that really trouble 
Americans. We have 10 hours of debate, according to the law, on whether 
the regulation should go forward.
  I hope we will simply vote against the motion to proceed tomorrow. 
That way, under the Congressional Review Act, that will be the end of 
the matter and the Department of Agriculture can keep inspecting and 
keep protecting American consumers.
  Americans should be aware this is coming up, and my colleagues and 
their staff should get schooled in this rather obscure issue.
  Should the resolution pass, we will have the very unusual and 
unworkable situation of the farm bill still being the law of the land, 
of the Department of Agriculture still being the agency in charge of 
inspections. That will still be the law; we simply won't have a rule 
allowing that part of the bill to be implemented. So, in effect, since 
the FDA inspection regime has ended, according to law, we will have no 
inspection whatsoever. That is my understanding of the result should 
the resolution of disapproval be approved. I don't think it will be 
approved. I think we will stand tomorrow for consumer protection and 
for applying the laws of consumer safety and food safety evenly and 
across the board.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote tomorrow on the motion to proceed.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________