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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

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

Here is one from the National Retail Federation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

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-- 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source