Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Mississippians who competed in the Olympics and Paralympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. They have indeed made us proud. One of our Olympic all-stars--Tori Bowie--came home with a complete set of medals, earning bronze, silver, and gold in track-and-field events. Tori is from Sandhill, a community in Rankin County, and attended the University of Southern Mississippi. She earned her bronze medal in the 200-meter, her silver in the 100-meter, and her gold in the 4x100-meter relay. Another track-and-field star, Sam Kendricks, also made news headlines for both his bronze medal in pole vault and a powerful moment of patriotism. During the qualifying round, the second lieutenant in the Army Reserve stopped sprinting during his pole vault attempt to stand at attention when he heard ``the Star-Spangled Banner.'' Sam is from Oxford and attended the University of Mississippi. Gulfport native Brittney Reese made history at the 2012 London games, where she became the first American woman to win a gold medal in long jump in more than 20 years. She did not leave Rio empty-handed. The six-time world champion and Ole Miss alumna earned a silver medal in her third Olympics. Rounding out Mississippi's roster was Ricky Robertson of Hernando, a former track-and-field star at the University of Mississippi who competed in high jump at his first Olympics. For 10 other athletes, the road to Rio went through Mississippi. These talented individuals have made our State home as alumni, students, or coaches at our universities. Congratulations are in order for Gwen Berry, Mateo Edward, Marta Freitas, Antwon Hicks, Anaso Jobodwana, Mariam Kromah, Brandon McBride, Raven Saunders, Khadijah Suleman, and Michael Tinsley. Following the Olympics, Mississippians again turned to Rio to cheer for our local all-stars in the 2016 Paralympic Games. Charlie Swearingen from Gulfport competed on the sitting volleyball team, which finished eighth. He joined two-time Paralympians Joey Brinson from Florence and Shaquille Vance from Houston, who had earned a silver medal in 2012. Joey finished ninth in his category of wheelchair fencing, and Shaquille finished fourth in the men's T42 200-meter run. The Olympics and Paralympics are an inspiring showcase of international goodwill and sportsmanship. These Mississippians have represented us well on the world stage, and I have no doubt they will continue to succeed in their future endeavors.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. This very bill we will be voting on funds Zika at that amount?

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, the Senator makes an excellent point about the tremendous cost increases that American taxpayers and American medical consumers have experienced, as well as the number of insurers that are just leaving the scheme altogether. So Americans really are not any better off. I appreciate the Senator coming to the floor time and again with the facts about this issue, but in particular I want to go back to a point the Senator made with regard to what we are going to vote on in a few minutes. Do I understand from my friend from Wyoming that we will soon be voting on--at the top of the hour, we will be voting on a proposal that funds the Zika disease at an amount that the CDC says is necessary and at an amount that our friends on the Democratic side have argued for and voted for time and again? Do I understand that to be correct?

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. WICKER. I was disappointed to hear the Senator say that he believes the Democrats will come in and once again block this funding this afternoon. If that happens, when will be the next opportunity that this body will have to vote on this vital funding?

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I would just observe--and there may be others who wish to speak in the very short time we have--I would just observe that we have a bill before us that gives the administration what they have been requesting, that gives our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle what they have asked for time and time again, saying that the Senate should act. We have an opportunity to do that today and to leave here with a victory for health care and a victory for the American people. Yet, if we do not act--and it appears we will not because Democrats will come in and object and not get the 60 votes--then it is going to be a month and a half to 2 months before we can provide the funding for this vital disease-prevention legislation. So I would just say that I would call on my colleagues, here at the eleventh hour, to reconsider their position. Let's go out for the conventions on a positive note and give the American people the funding the experts in our government tell us is necessary. I yield the floor to the Senator from Wyoming and thank him for yielding the time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I think this is a very appropriate time to recognize the Meredith March Against Fear. On June 5, 1966, 4 years after becoming the first African-American student to enroll at the University of Mississippi, James Meredith began his historic Meredith March Against Fear. The march began at the Peabody Hotel in downtown Memphis and would conclude some 3 weeks later at the Mississippi State Capitol in Jackson. On June 6, Mr. Meredith and his small band of supporters encountered gunshots about 1 mile south of Hernando, MS. James Meredith was shot three times on that day and was taken to a hospital. Although he would recover, Meredith was unable to complete his March Against Fear, and the leadership was taken over by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Floyd McKissick, and Stokely Carmichael. By the time the march reached the city limits of Canton, the number of marchers had doubled to 250. By the time it concluded in Jackson, there were 15,000 people in attendance. This overwhelming turnout made it the largest civil rights demonstration in the history of the State of Mississippi. More than 4,000 African Americans were registered to vote from rallies and drives during the march along U.S. Highway 51. Mr. Meredith still lives in Jackson, where he is frequently seen wearing his Ole Miss cap and attending Ole Miss athletic events in Oxford. He will turn 83 1 day before the 50th anniversary of the march's conclusion. Today, the Senate recognizes the courageous leadership of James Meredith. I think it is appropriate that this resolution is sponsored by the three current Members of the Senate who are graduates of the University of Mississippi--Senator Cochran, Senator Shaheen, and this Senator. I commend the Senate on its recognition of this important individual and this significant milestone in the history of the civil rights movement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 488, submitted earlier today.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, let me congratulate my friend from Oregon for his remarks and simply point out to the Chair and to my fellow Members that this is another example of bipartisan accomplishments in the Senate and in the House. This represents a lot of work on both ends of the building, Republicans and Democrats coming together. As my friend said, it is about to get done. When we put this on top of a number of accomplishments, including education, including dealing with the Zika virus, including dealing with the drug problem and so many other things, we have actually been able to get legislation done and sent to the President and signed into law to help make our country better, stronger, and better protected. I appreciate what my friend said about the TSCA bill. I am also optimistic about it. Madam President, switching gears to the National Defense Authorization Act, I am also optimistic about that. Obviously, we had hoped to pass the bill before Memorial Day as a tribute to the people who have gone before us and paid the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom we enjoy as Americans. Obviously, the bill has taken longer than I hoped it would and for reasons that are hard for me to understand. Nevertheless, we are going to get to it. We are on the bill now, and we are going to hopefully finish it the week after the Memorial Day recess. I very much appreciate the fact that we are going to pass another bipartisan NDAA bill, which will be signed by the President. It is going to give our troops the opportunity to have the tools and resources they need in a very dangerous world. It funds the Defense Department at $602 billion. Our friends should know and the public should know that this $602 billion is the figure requested by the President of the United States, so we are coming with a bipartisan number. We have had some questions on the part of our friends on the other side of the aisle about spending elsewhere, but we should be clear--and there is no question about it--the President requested $602 billion for defense, and this bill gives our troops and the President that $602 billion. It deals with such important issues as preserving the progress we have made in Afghanistan, continuing our fight against the Islamic state, bolstering readiness against an aggressive Russia, standing up on behalf of one of our most important allies, the state of Israel, in a very troubling time. Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said it correctly. He reiterated the reality of unpredictable instability. And that is what we are facing, Madam President. So this bill is designed to address that. Also, I would mention it is designed to alleviate some of the shortages caused by the Budget Control Act when it was passed in 2011. The world is a lot different today than it was in 2011. As a last resort, the law put in place across-the-board defense cuts that were really never intended to take place. Collectively, we should have addressed the mandatory programs where the spending problems actually are, but instead, over the past 6 years, the Budget Control Act has required almost $200 billion in defense cuts. Sequestration remains the law of the land and will return unless Congress acts in 2018. The Army now has 100,000 fewer soldiers than it did 4 years ago. The Marines will be nearly 5,000 below their optimal force. Our Air Force is the smallest it has ever been in the history of the Air Force. And with 272 ships in the fleet, the Navy is well below its requirement of 308 ships. I am pleased to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services. As such, I was happy to work with other members of the subcommittee on the Navy and seapower title to this bill. I want to thank my colleague Senator Hirono of Hawaii, the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, for her leadership. As I said, we are years away from achieving the Navy's ship requirement of 308 ships. There is also no plan to meet the National Defense Panel's recommendation for more ships--either 323, at a minimum, or up to 346 ships. So we are well away from where we really need to be to protect America and our freedom of movement around the globe. Meanwhile, the Navy has significant budget constraints. Its 2017 request is $8 billion less than the 2017 value presented in last year's budget. Nonetheless, we worked on a number of items to do the best we can with the money we have. First, we looked at the viability of the 30- year shipbuilding plan. Secondly, we worked to ensure that limited taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Thirdly, we looked forward to the future and what should be required of our future surface combatant ships and what costs might constrain the budget. And fourthly, we worked to ensure that the Navy and Marine Corps can continue to provide force protection around the world. So thanks to the members of my subcommittee and my ranking member Senator Hirono for that. But seapower is only one part of the bill. It may be the one I have worked on more carefully, but there are other parts of the National Defense Authorization bill. As you know, Madam President, there is no authorization in the bill for another round of base closings. I very much support that provision and believe that no further base closing rounds should be authorized, and we don't. Also, there is an extension of prohibitions on the closing of Guantanamo Bay and a prohibition of the transfer of any detainees from there. There is also support for the recommendation of the National Commission on the Future of the Army regarding aviation force structure. I advocated the creation of this commission, along with my colleague Senator Graham, in the wake of unvetted proposals to cut the size of the National Guard and reallocate Apache helicopters. So I am glad we have addressed that problem and are on the way--hopefully week after next--to passing this important bill. It is fitting that Americans will gather on Memorial Day in the next few days, remembering the patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice and honoring the patriots who are today voluntarily stepping forward to make our country strong and great and helping all our citizens enjoy the freedoms we have today. I am glad to be part of this bill. I congratulate the leadership of the committee and the Senate, and I look forward to passing this Defense bill without further delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, are we in morning business?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CDR Andrew Cook, a defense legislative fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. WICKER

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. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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. I yield the floor.

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.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 28 and ask to be allowed to speak.

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter, dated May 24, 2016, from the Safe Food Coalition be printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, do I understand that the proponents of this resolution have 4 minutes remaining?

Mr. WICKER

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the Record.

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. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WICKER

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 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.