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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of what, frankly, is an egregious example of why folks get very frustrated with Washington and what happens here; that is, what has been described as one of Washington's most wasteful programs--the duplicative USDA catfish inspection program, which was slipped in the farm bill in 2008.

All other fish species are inspected not by USDA but are inspected in this country by the FDA. Yet, added to the 2008 farm bill was a provision to create a special office within the USDA for the one species of catfish. We know they are bottom dwellers, but this was something that was done to protect domestic catfish producers, and it was something that is wasting taxpayer dollars.

There have been 10 GAO reports, each finding that this inspection regime--set up especially for catfish but no other species--is duplicative and is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The good-government groups, such as Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, and many of the other groups that my colleague Senator McCain cited on the floor that are supporting the resolution to disapprove this duplicative rule, have called this program one of the most demonstrably wasteful and duplicative programs ever created. Boy, in Washington, that says a lot, to call something one of the most demonstrably wasteful and duplicative programs ever created. These groups have written that the GAO also notes that it not only wastes taxpayer dollars and duplicates work already done by the FDA, but it actually weakens rather than strengthens our food safety systems.

The agency's proposed catfish inspection program further fragments Federal oversight over our system for food safety without demonstrating that there is a problem with catfish or a need for a new Federal program.

With all respect, I heard my colleague from Mississippi on the floor citing the most recent findings by the newly stood up USDA office for the inspection of catfish talking about harmful contaminants in catfish that the USDA intercepted. There are some facts that are conveniently missing from this argument. First of all, when the FDA was inspecting catfish--like they inspect all other fish in the country--at times, they were also able to intercept contaminants found not only in catfish but in other fish species. So the notion that the FDA couldn't find these very same contaminants--well, guess what, folks, they did, just as they do every day when they are looking at ensuring that all of our fish species are appropriate for our public health and for us to consume.

One of the interesting things about it is that not only would the FDA find this in the catfish coming from overseas, but they have actually intercepted contaminants in the domestic catfish supply at times as well. I think that is important for people to understand.

This notion that somehow we need to set up a special program within the USDA for just catfish because that is the only way we can find contaminants and protect the public health--apparently the FDA is able to do it for every other fish species, was able to do it before 2008, and yet we now have a separate office for the catfish, and the GAO found that it cost us nearly $20 million extra to set up this special office to inspect catfish for the one species.

In fact, my colleague from Mississippi serves on the Budget Committee, as I do, and he mentioned on the floor the fact that the CBO said that there will not be additional spending on this program. One thing that is important for people to understand--and those of us who serve on the Budget Committee understand this--is that the Budget Committee said that there is no additional mandatory spending. That means mandatory spending that has already been set aside in the budget. We separate spending in the Federal Government--mandatory versus discretionary spending. Guess what? Yes, there isn't mandatory spending on this, but, conveniently, what has been left out is that there is absolutely discretionary spending on this program.

In fact, GAO has found that it not only cost $20 million to set up this new inspection regime, but they have estimated that it costs $14 million a year in discretionary spending to run this new inspection regime for catfish.

I just want to make sure that people understand, for the record, that this budget opinion that is being cited is really meaningless because it is saying there is no mandatory spending. Well, guess what? I could come to the floor on almost any kind of domestic spending, whether it is on an issue of DOD, a weapons system, or anything we are talking about here, and tell you that there is no mandatory spending on this, and the Budget Committee would issue the same opinion.

What really matters is this: Are we spending any taxpayer dollars? The answer at the end of the day is absolutely, because the dollars that go to the USDA or the FDA are actually discretionary spending.

I hope my colleagues who are listening to this understand that this budget opinion really means nothing. We are still spending taxpayer dollars that matter to you and me, and we could spend these millions of dollars much more effectively elsewhere than on a duplicative program for catfish.

In fact, former FDA Safety Chief David Acheson commented that this duplicative program is ``everything that's wrong about the food-safety system. . . . It's food politics. It's not public health.'' For all the claims that have been made on this floor about somehow needing to set up a separate inspection regime for catfish, the USDA itself said: ``The true effectiveness of FSIS inspection for reducing catfish- associated human illnesses is unknown.'' This is the USDA itself: ``unknown.'' ``Also, the rate at which FSIS inspection will achieve its ultimate reductions is unknown. . . . There is substantial uncertainty regarding the actual effectiveness of an FSIS''--meaning the USDA inspection regime--``catfish inspection program.''

That is not very promising. We already had an inspection regime in place, as we do for every other fish species under the FDA, and that costs us roughly $700,000 a year, according to the GAO reports, and now, under what we have done with the duplicative inspection regime with the USDA, it costs roughly $20 million to build a new inspection regime with new infrastructure in a different agency, and then roughly $14 million, according to the GAO. We just asked them again if they could confirm the numbers that are being cited of it only costing $1.5 million. No, they can't confirm those numbers. There were 10 GAO reports defining duplicative and wasteful spending, yet here we are.

I was really shocked by the vote on the Senate floor. I was very shocked that my colleagues would have 10 GAO reports in front of them that say this is a duplicative and wasteful program, and we already have every other fish species inspected by the FDA. Yet we are going to set up a separate office for catfish. Almost every good government group that focuses on addressing wasteful spending in Washington has called this duplicative program egregious and really cited this as an example of what is wrong when we are worried about taxpayer dollars and what happens in Washington.

I hope, as I look at the votes on the Senate floor, that as we proceed to this measure, my colleagues will look at these GAO reports, listen to these good government organizations that have basically said that this program is really a waste of taxpayer dollars, and that they will support the resolution to disapprove this duplicative inspection program.

Before 2008, the FDA was inspecting catfish, and they were doing their job just like they do with every other fish species. They can continue to do that rather than have an entire separate program just to inspect one fish species under the USDA. By the way, the focus of the USDA is actually on meat and poultry. They don't regulate any other fish. They don't have fish experts like the FDA, and that is one of the reasons it costs so much more to set up this new program.

There is a lot of talk about why people are frustrated with Washington; right? They are very frustrated. They want to make sure their taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. My constituents complain to me about wasteful spending and duplicative programs. Yet here we have such an obvious example. As I look at what we have pending on the Senate floor--if we don't pass this resolution of disapproval for this duplicative program after so many groups have said that they have looked at this and concluded that it is wasteful and duplicative--and 10 years of GAO reports saying the same thing, that we don't need a separate inspection regime for catfish, I don't know how we are ever going to address $19 trillion in debt. I don't know how we are ever going to take on the big burning issues that the American people want us to address.

I know a lot of bad things have been said about Congress. I personally think we might be called bottom dwellers if we don't pass this legislation. I am hoping that as we look at the duplicative program of catfish inspections, we will understand that one fish species does not deserve a separate office just to look at the catfish, that the FDA can handle this inspection as it does for every other fish species, that we could save millions of taxpayer dollars by doing this, and that we can let the American people know that we get it and we want to wisely spend their money wisely, we want to eliminate wasteful spending, we want to get our fiscal house in order, and we want good government. We don't want protectionist government that is just trying to protect one industry, crony capitalism, and all the bad things. What we want is common sense.

I hope my colleagues will join me. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Shaheen for their efforts in helping us bring this important resolution for disapproval forward, and I hope we can take a small step forward in this body for good government, eliminating wasteful spending, eliminating duplicative programs, and tell the American people: We are not bottom dwellers. We really get it, and we want to make sure we do the right thing by them.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source