Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By the Secretary of Agriculture

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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- 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source