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 ask to be allowed to speak.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, do I understand that the proponents of this resolution have 4 minutes remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source