[Pages S3084-S3091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Pursuant to the provisions of
the Congressional Review Act, 5 USC 801, and following, there will be
up to 10 hours of debate, equally divided between those favoring and
opposing the resolution.
The Senator from Arizona.
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

[[Page S3085]]

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.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Wall Street
Journal editorial entitled ``Ending the Catfish Fight.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2016]

Ending the Catfish Fight

The Senate can roll back a protectionist barrier to freer trade with
Asia

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.
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.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, quoting from that article:

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.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a statement from Heritage Action for America, which weighs in
regularly, as we know, on this issue.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Heritage Action for America, May 24, 2016]

``Yes'' on CRA To Block the Catfish Program (S.J. 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

[[Page S3086]]

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.

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.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter to Senator Ayotte which is signed by 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 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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
May 23, 2016.
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.

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

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S3086, May 24, 2016, in the middle of the third column,
the following language appears: . . . Business & Entrepreneurship
Council; Steve Ellis, Vice President, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
In other words, literally every watchdogorganization has supported
what we are trying to do here.

The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . Business &
Entrepreneurship Council; Steve Ellis, Vice President, Taxpayers
for Common Sense. Mr. McCAIN. In other words, literally every
watchdog organization has supported whatwe are trying to do here.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Here is one from the National Retail Federation. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

May 23, 2016.
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--

[[Page S3087]]

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.

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.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business and have my time charged for the proponents of the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I agree completely with my fellow Senator
from Arizona on this catfish issue. We have a lot of fiscal challenges
ahead. If we hope to tackle the immense fiscal challenges ahead, we
have to vote right on issues like this. Where there is duplication and
waste going on, we have to tackle it. So I commend those who are
sponsoring this initiative.

Tribute to Matthew Specht

Mr. President, I rise to recognize Matthew Specht as the longest
serving member of my staff. He has dedicated the past 15 years of his
life in service to the people of Arizona.
In that time, Matt has established himself as both a top-tier
political strategist and one of my most trusted advisers. He has done
so without fanfare and without self-promotion. That kind of modesty is
refreshing in this line of work. So I obviously had to write this
speech about him without telling him about it.
I first met Matt back in the year 2000, when he volunteered for my
first campaign. Now, at that time, the main area of advertising for us
was the 4-by-8 big signs that we put by the side of the road. Trying to
get them to stay by the side of the road was difficult. Arizona is dry,
the ground is hard, and we

[[Page S3088]]

had to get big post pounders and pound big stakes, big posts in the
ground. Matt was out there with the post pounder, lifted a little too
high over the post, and it came down on his head, creating a large
wound that bled profusely. Another campaign staffer ran over to help
him and immediately fainted at the sight of blood. So there we had two
campaign workers on the side of the road. It looked like a crime scene,
when it was just a campaign activity, but Matt gratefully recovered--a
few stitches and he was back on the job.
After helping me win that race, Matt came to Washington as my first
legislative correspondent and systems administrator. Now, if you want
to test someone under pressure, put them in charge of troubleshooting
BlackBerrys in the early time of BlackBerrys. It was a tough thing, but
Matt handled it like a pro. To his relief and our great benefit, he was
soon promoted to press secretary.
It was in communications that Matt really came into his own. In the
early days of the fight against congressional earmarks, Matt's
foresight and creativity played a big role in raising awareness in the
media. You can thank or blame Matt for many of the gut-wrenching bad
puns that were part of my ``Egregious Earmark of the Week'' series. Of
course, I claim all the good puns as mine and all the bad ones were
his, but he knows that is not the case.
Let me just say, as a press secretary, if you can handle doing a
segment on the ``Daily Show,'' you can handle just about anything, and
Matt did it well.
He would eventually rise to the top of my staff, serving as chief of
staff during my final years in the House and through my election to the
Senate.
When I took this seat in the Senate, Matt--who never intended to stay
in Washington for more than a couple years--returned home to Arizona
after 10 years in Washington.
Being director of my State office in Arizona is no easy task. There
are countless veterans issues, loads of immigration casework, endless
border issues, and a myriad of public lands disputes, but Matt has
handled it all in stride.
Truly a man of few words, Matt has long been a steady and calming
leader on my staff. He is well known on my staff for his amazing quick
wit as well. His pranks have become the stuff of legend among my staff.
Fortunately, for Matt, none of the pranks are appropriate to detail in
a setting like this. Suffice it to say that birthdays in my office are
celebrated with a mixture of fear and trepidation.
Matt is truly a staffer's staffer, it goes without saying, but his
calm, steady leadership, his wealth of knowledge, his informed,
dispassionate advice, and his sense of humor will be dearly missed as
he moves to the private sector.
The only consolation with Matt leaving is that he will have more time
to spend with his beloved cats. He is a proud cat guy, something I will
never understand. I am glad I will still be able to call on Matt for
his wise counsel.
Thank you, Matt, for your 15 years of honorable service. You will be
missed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

From Budget Committee: Congressional Review Act on Mandatory
Siluriformes (Catfish) Inspection

S.J. 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.

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-

[[Page S3089]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
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,

[[Page S3090]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Puerto Rico

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the ongoing crisis
affecting the 3.5 million citizens who call Puerto Rico their home and
to comment on the legislation that is pending in the House of
Representatives.
We are facing a critical moment in the history of Puerto Rico. The
island is sinking under a mountain of debt. I said it before, but it
bears repeating. Just servicing the government's $72 billion debt
swallows 36 percent of all of the island's revenue. That means that for
every dollar Puerto Rico takes in, they immediately send over one-third
to bondholders. This is not sustainable for any government, especially
one that has been mired in a decade-long recession. Congress is faced
with an immediate and serious choice. Indeed, the decisions we make in
the next month will have profound consequences on the people of Puerto
Rico for over a generation, and the stakes are high. We simply have to
get it right.
I said from the beginning that any fix needs to provide a clear path
to restructuring with an oversight board that represents the people of
Puerto Rico and their democratic rights. If we truly want to help the
economic situation on the island, we also need to provide parity for
health care funds and worker tax credits that all 3.5 million American
citizens living in Puerto Rico have access to once they move to the
American mainland.
I must say I have been encouraged by Speaker Ryan and Chairman
Bishop's acknowledgement that Congress needs to act to prevent this
fiscal crisis from becoming a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe, but,
unfortunately, the legislation that is being marked up tomorrow falls
far short on several fronts. Instead of offering a clear path to
restructuring, the legislation creates a number of obstacles that could
derail the island's attempt to achieve sustainable debt payments. Most
strikingly, it requires a 5-to-2 supermajority vote by the control
board to access this necessary restructuring authority--an authority
that Puerto Rico had years ago and somehow--in the dark of night, in
some legislation several years ago--was eliminated. Nobody seems to
understand why. But it had the authority to restructure its debt. Now,
restructuring its debt isn't a bailout because no one gives them money.
They ultimately have to restructure the debt they have.
While most reasonable people agree it is absolutely vital for Puerto
Rico to be able to restructure its debt, this authority can be blocked
by a simple minority on the board. That is right. A simple minority on
the board could block the pathway to restructure. Without the authority
to restructure its debt, this legislation does virtually nothing to
help Puerto Rico dig out of the hole they are in.

[[Page S3091]]

Exacerbating this concern is the composition and scope of power
endowed to the control board. The fact that the people of Puerto Rico
will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action they
decide to take is blatant neocolonialism. It is OK to say to Puerto
Ricans: Yes, please, wear the uniform of the United States, as they
have done in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. If you went with me to
the Mall, you would see a disproportionate number of names of Puerto
Ricans who gave their lives on behalf of the United States. Recently,
the Speaker awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the Borinqueneers,
the 65th Infantry Division, which was one of the most decorated in U.S.
military history. Yes, it is OK. Please put on the uniform of the
United States and go fight for your country. Die for America. But it is
not OK for you to have a voice in your future. It is not OK for you to
have self-governance.
If that control board--with no Puerto Rican representation--uses its
superpowers under the bill as drafted and decides to close more schools
and hospitals than have been closed, cut pensions to the bone, sell
Puerto Rico's natural assets without any say by the elected
representatives of the 3.5 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, I am
sure some would suggest we look the other way and say Puerto Ricans are
worth less than any other U.S. citizen.

While there is some fancy language to pretend that the President will
get to pick the board members, this is all a figleaf to hide the real
levers of power. The board will be composed of four Republican
appointees and three Democratic appointees, and in addition to being
the gatekeeper to restructuring, it will have the power to veto laws
and regulations, override budgets, determine the level of debt
payments, and make in essence what is the governing body of any State,
any municipality, or of the people Puerto Rico totally obsolete. They
will decide--unelected, they will decide. To me, it is simply wrong and
un-American to take away the basic democratic rights of the people of
Puerto Rico.
The bill even puts speculating hedge funds above pensioners,
including language to ensure that in any restructuring deal, the people
who worked their entire lives--their entire lives--to help the island
are put at the back of the line behind Wall Street.
I remind my colleagues that each and every Puerto Rican is an
American citizen, many of whom have fought and died, as I said, for our
country in every war over the past century. They deserve the same
rights and respect as citizens in New Jersey or Wisconsin or Utah or
any other State in the Nation. If they can do this in Puerto Rico, why
not see any other State that sees a crisis have it become a reality as
well.
Finally, the proposed legislation sensibly cuts minimum wage rules
and new overtime protections that would apply to workers in Puerto
Rico. At a time when cities and States across the Nation are moving
toward increasing the minimum wage, I cannot fathom why anyone would
support decreasing it for Puerto Rico. With the poverty rate of
approximately 45 percent, lowering people's wages is not a pro-growth
strategy, as some have called it. It is a pro-migration strategy. We
already see an incredible migration from Puerto Rico to places in the
United States--most particularly Florida, New Jersey, New York, and
other places in the country. Why? Because as an American citizen they
have every right to reside anywhere in the United States. They also
have a right to receive any right or privilege that any citizen has in
the United States. So there is a brain drain leaving Puerto Rico coming
to the mainland, which only exacerbates the problem in Puerto Rico.
These unrelated riders are counterproductive and will only drive more
Puerto Ricans to migrate to the mainland, where they will not have to
work for subminimum wages.
I am afraid this bill provides little more than a bandaid on a bullet
hole with regard to Puerto Rico's unsustainable debt. Mark my words, if
we don't seize this opportunity to address the crisis in a meaningful
way and in the right way, we will be back here a year from now, but we
will be picking up the pieces because there will not be much left. So
while it is absolutely clear that we need to act and act decisively and
expediently to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, just as
important, we also need to get it right.
Working together and helping each other in a time of need is what
this country is all about. When a hurricane hits the gulf coast or a
tornado ravages the Midwest, I don't ask how many of my constituents in
New Jersey were affected. Rather, I stand with my fellow Americans and
fight to provide relief regardless of what State or territory they are
from. That is why we call this country the United States of America.
Let's continue to honor that timeless American tradition. Let's honor
our country's motto of ``e pluribus unum,'' out of many, one. Let us
provide our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico with the tools they need to
help themselves. It is not a bailout. We are not going to give them any
money. They are going to have to restructure and figure out themselves
how they will get out of the mess, without taking away their self-
governance. You can't preach democracy and human rights and then deny
it to the American citizens of Puerto Rico.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________