if she had aspirins. she then came to court and sued, because it was a state school, for an unreasonable search and seizure. the court was hearing the argument, and i wasn't there when this happened, so i'm talking about something i read about, okay? some of my -- >> so the senate has gaveled back in. they're working on a house-passed bill that repeals new regulations on retirement investment advisers. they have used about two of the allowed ten hours of debate on the bill. f live coverage on c-span2. fiduci. this resolution which provides congress with an opportunity to express its disapproval with the administration's regulations is important for a number of reasons. on the substance, d.o.l.'s new rule is extremely problematic. as a number of my colleagues have already attested, the rule on its face would unnecessarily

impose a new set of regulations under the employment retirement income security act or erisa on a greatly expanded number of people. under current law, brokers and dealers that provide services to retirement plans are already heavily regulated. they are not, however, automatically consider labor law fiduciaries and therefore they are not subject to the increased liability provided under erisa. instead, these service providers are subject to regulations issued by the securities and exchange commission to protect investors from fraud and ensure transparency. under the new d.o.l. rule, virtually any broker that provides investment advice of any kind to individuals regarding their individual retirement accounts or ira's will be considered a pension plan fiduciary subject to higher standards and greater liability. as my colleagues have aptly noted, this rule will reduce the

availability of investment advice for retirees and make the advice that is available more expensive which will have a disproportionate negative effect on low- and middle-income retirees. higher costs mean more expenses for small businesses trying to sponsor retirement plans for their employees. a 2014 study found that as a result of these rules, many affected retirees which, once again, are predominantly middle class or low-income retirees, will see their lifetime retirement savings drop by between 20% and 40%, which will translate into a reduction of between $20 billion and $32 billion in system-wide retirement savings every year. d.o.l.'s own analysis indicates that the rule will have a

compliance cost. that's dead weight lost to the system of between $2.4 billion and $5.7 billion over the first ten years, virtually all of which will be passed on to american retirees. and i think it should go without saying that if anyone has an interest in understanding the cost of the d.o.l.'s regulations, it's the d.o.l. itself. all of these problems -- and they are real problems -- with the d.o.l.'s fiduciary rule are within the substance of the rule itself. i want to take just a few minutes, however, to talk about the process by which the rule came into existence because it is no less problematic. this regulation is an attempt to rewriter reus is a-prohibit -- rewrite erisa prohibited transactions for ira's that have been in place since 1975. however the prohibited transaction rules for iras are codified in the internal revenue

code which, generally speaking, would give treasury regulatory jurisdiction over the matter. that was the understanding in 1975 when the current regulations were first established. however, in 1978, an executive order transferred some of the treasury's jurisdiction over prohibited transaction rules. rules generally directed at preventing self-dealing and conflicts of interest to the department of labor. in other words, the rule that d.o.l. has rewritten with this new fiduciary regulation predated the department's grant of jurisdiction. and while this might be a little arcane and in the weeds, this distinction is important given the reported disputes between agencies on this rule. indeed, according to a report released by the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs, career officials at the s.e.c. and

treasury have expressed concern over d.o.l.'s course of action with regard to this rule. they also offered suggestions for improvements, most of which were disregarded by d.o.l. in favor of a quicker resolution to the rule-making process. and not surprisingly, this report found that political appointees at the white house played an outsized role in the rule-making process. given these procedural concerns, not to mention the substantive conditions with the rule itself, i think we should revisit why d.o.l. is in this in the first place. they should be governed by the agencies responsible for overseeing the implementation of the tax code and not by

officials outside of those agencies who far more often than not have agendas that are geared more towards business pension plans and not tax-deferred savings accounts set at the individual level. toward that end i have drafted legislation that would restore treasury's rule making authority in this area in order to ensure that the proper expertise is brought to bear on these issues and that future rules governing financial advice and marketing are at the very least crafted with the broader financial regulatory framework in mind. as it is, we have a rule that appears to be drafted by those who lack expertise about the retail investment industry in order to achieve a goal that is, to put it kindly, at odds with the purpose of that industry and the interest of the individual savers who rely on it in order to be 0 taeupb -- to obtain a

secure retirement. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us as it is the best near-term vehicle we have to putting the administration in check with regard to this rule. for the long term, i'm hoping we can have a reasonable discussion about d.o.l.'s role in regulating ira's to begin with. ultimately if that discussion takes place, i think that more and more people will realize that the labor department should not be responsible for crafting what is essentially tax policy. i plan to vote "yes" on this resolution and i hope that all of my colleagues will do the same. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, april the department of labor, as senator hatch just mentioned, issued its final conflict of interest, its fiduciary rule putting in place a framework of meaningful protections for americans save for retirement. the rule helps families save for retirement at a time when fewer and fewer workers have traditional pensions. today my republican colleagues are trying to block this rule. i join ranking member murray of the help committee and ranking member wyden of the finance committee on which the presiding officer and i both sit to recommend that you vote "no" on the joint resolution. it's important to remember why this rule is necessary. since the enactment of erisa,

the creation of 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts in the 1970's, there's been a dramatic shift from traditional pension plans run by employers -- that's where when you retire, a so-called defined benefit where you can count on a certain number of dollars for the rest of your life and perhaps for your spouse -- from traditional pension plans run by employers to defined contribution plans that workers are left to manage themselves. maximizing retirement savings, avoiding high fees and costs, all that is more critical than ever. but most american workers need advice how to prepare for retirement and navigate these plans which can be both complicated and maybe more importantly, can be risky. the d.o.l. rule, the labor department's rule, make sure brokers and advisors act in the best interest of their kufrplts and minimum -- customers and

minimize conflict of interests. this doesn't mean diligent brokers and advisors have not been helping their customers but the rule creates structural protections to make sure that is always the case. it's that simple, customers come first. there is no alternative to that basic principle, whether you're visiting your doctor, your interest comes first, or going to a lawyer your interest comes first. following the rule proposal in 2015, the d.o.l. reviewed hundreds of comments, held days of hearings, issued a final rule with extensive changes that address a variety of concerns that many, many of us have heard. the major changes include extending the implementation period, simplifying disclosure requirements and clarifying the difference between education and advice. the full list of changes is much longer and resulted in significant improvement. most of industry recognizes that and has said so. banks and brokers are already working, thankfully already

working on implementation. the department of labor is committed to helping companies figure out how to make the necessary changes and adapt to the rule. industry and some in congress have called for the s.e.c. to issue its own fiduciary rule before the labor department. the wall street reform bill required the s.e.c., the securities and exchange commission, to consider its own rule. i urge them to move forward as well, but there's no reason for the department of labor to wait for the sometimes too slow s.e.c. congress gave retirement accounts tax-favored status and significant protections under erisa. the labor department's rules build on the statutory framework under erisa and now the fiduciary rule reflects the reality of the modern retirement landscape. it's time to move forward to help protect this generation and future generations of american savers. i urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the resolution so the implementation of this rule can continue to move forward to protect the interests of

millions of hardworking americans who are saving for retirement. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, last week the c.d.c. announced it is monitoring nearly 300 pregnant women in the united states and territories for possible zika infections. that means nearly 300 families across our country are living through a true nightmare for expecting parents. they are waiting for news about whether their newborn will be safe and healthy. unfortunately, with almost 1,400 cases of zika already reported, the number of expecting moms and

dads in this awful position is only expected to grow. as a mother and a grandmother and a united states senator, i strongly believe it is our responsibility to act as quickly as possible for these families and the families who will unfortunately be impacted by the zika virus in the weeks and months ahead. just to be clear, mosquito season has already started in some parts of our country. we do not have any time to waste. in fact, we should have been able to act much, much sooner. president obama's emergency funding proposal to support the zika response has been available for everyone to see since february. like many of my colleagues, i was disappointed the republican leaders refused to even consider it and instead they came up with one excuse after another to delay, even though public health experts and researchers have made it very clear this is truly an urgent public health crisis.

some republicans said that zika wasn't something they were willing to give the administration a penny more for. others said they would think about more money to fight zika but only in return for partisan spending cuts. and others spent more time thinking about how to get political cover than actually trying to address this problem. but many of us knew how important this was, and we didn't give up. so i'm very glad that after a lot of pressure from women and families and governors and scientists and after a lot of pushing republicans to get serious about dealing with this emergency, many of our republican colleagues in the senate finally joined us at the table last week to open up a path for an important step forward. and i appreciate the work of chairman blunt who joint me to get this done, as well as all the senators on both sides of the aisle who voted for it. while democrats didn't get the full amount we'd hoped for in this compromise, i'm glad the senate was able to pass a $1.1

billion down payment on the president's proposal as an emergency bill without offsets. our agreement would accelerate the administration's work and it would allow money to start flowing to address this crisis even as we continue fighting for more as needed. and this agreement was support ped by every democrat and a little less than half of the republicans in the senate. so the senate has a strong bipartisan first step ready to go. unfortunately, mr. president, house republicans went in a very different direction. they released an underfunded partisan and, in my opinion, mean-spirited bill that would provide only $622 million, less than a third of what is needed in this emergency without any funding for preventive health care or family planning or outreach even to those who are at risk of getting zika. and they are still insisting

that funding for this public health emergency be fully offset, and the administration should somehow siphon money away from critical ebola response and other essential activities in order to fund zika efforts. house republicans clearly feel that this public health care crisis is an appropriate moment to somehow nickel and dime and that it's a good opportunity to prioritize heritage action over women and families. but if you are one of nearly 300 mothers, the c.d.c. is monitoring for likely zika infection or one of the almost 1,400 people infected so far, or one of the millions of expecting mothers nationwide, i bet you'd like to know your government is doing everything it can now to tackle this virus. so i'm continuing to call on senate republicans to get our bipartisan zika agreement to the house as quickly as possible.

now senate republicans have already said they'd be willing to do this if we exchange it for affordable health care act cuts, and i think they should be just as willing to do it for the sake of women and families who are at risk. this agreement has strong bipartisan support. it can move through the house and it can get to the president to be signed into law, so our researchers and our scientists and those in the field can get to work. this republican-controlled congress has already waited far too long to act on zika. we should not wait any longer. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate receives from the house h.r. 5243 that all after the enacting clause be stricken, that the blunt-murray substitute amendment to provide $1.1 billion in funding to enhance the federal response and preparedness with respect to the zika virus be agreed to, that there be up to one hour of

debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, that upon the use or yielding back of time the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i wish our democratic colleagues would spend as much time working with us to try to solve problems as they do engaged in political theater and posturing. now, senator murray, the senator from washington, has done good work working with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, senator blunt, in coming up with a piece of legislation that funds the zika response at $1.1 billion. that legislation has already passed the united states senate. what remains to be done is the house and the senate need to come together in a conference committee, which is the typical

way where differences in approach are reconciled to come up with a responsible piece of legislation. in the meantime, i'm glad the president has taken up our suggestion initially that until this can happen, that they reprogram money, $589 million, from the ebola response that had not yet been expended, and to transfer that to the zika response. i'm confident that that money has not been spent yet, and plenty of it's available to deal with it while congress does its business in an orderly sort of way. and i would just have to say to my friend from washington, my state is going to be directly in the cross hairs because this mosquito is not native to washington state but it is to the warmer parts of our country: texas, louisiana. and thank goodness no one so far has been, has gotten the zika

virus from a mosquito as people who have traveled to south america or puerto rico or elsewhere and have come back to the united states. but we all agree on a bipartisan basis, this is a very serious matter and we can't waste time. but there's $589 million available to deal with it now. and secondly, we're working, as we typically do with the house, to try to reconcile the differences and to do our work in a responsible sort of way. in the meantime our democratic colleagues are blocking legislation like the defense authorization bill. they're throwing obstacles in our way to send it back to work and every way they possibly can, including this which i'm sorry to say is just political theater and posturing. so with that, mr. president, i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, let me just say this.

this zika virus is an emergency now. and tow -- though my constituents don't live in texas, we have cases in washington state of people who have traveled to infected countries, gotten zika through mosquito, come home and now they need to have tests to determine whether or not they have been infected. those tests will not be available until we provide this money. the ebola response money that was just referred to needs to be there because ebola is not eradicated and can come back at any minute and we are doing everything we can as a nation to protect our american citizens. what we are trying to do is move the bipartisan bill that's been approved here in the senate quickly to the house. yes, it's been attached to an appropriations bill but for us to sit back and wait until a conference committee is

appointed is too late. we can deal with this now. that's what i ask to do today. and we will continue to push until we can assure people in our states, across the country that we are it doing everything we can as a nation to help protect our citizens from the zika virus, and particularly expect mothers or possibly expectant mothers and families. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president stph-p. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and

that i'm permitted to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to ask unanimous consent that the defense legislative fellow in my office, senior master sergeant tray walker, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the national defense authorization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to address the bait and switch being pulled on the american people and this congress regarding catfish inspection. we've all been told by lobbyists for fish importers in the socialist republic of vietnam that the catfish inspection program is -- quote -- duplicative and trade distorting, but this simply isn't true. this rule is not duplicative. the rule is not distorting.

and the program is working to keep food safe for americans. there is nothing duplicative about this rule. the f.d.a. no longer inspects any catfish. usda's food and safety inspection service is the only agency inspecting catfish. additionally, the usda and the f.d.a. operate under a memorandum of understanding to prevent duplication. for decades, usda and f.d.a. have coordinated to prevent duplicative inspections with regard to seafood, beef, pork and poultry. the fact is the f.d.a. did not adequately inspect catfish. the f.d.a. inspected less than 2% of catfish, and it lab tested even a smaller percentage. it would not be a stretch to argue that we had very little inspection at all. in contrast, the usda's food

safety service inspects all catfish as they do with other farm-raised meat. this rule is not a w.t.o. violation. equivalent standards are applied to imported and domestic fish. the usda has been inspecting beef, pork and poultry with this system for decades. is that too much to ask for? why should american consumers be subjected to harmful contaminants that we can prevent? contrary to what you may hear, this program is also not costly. i've heard many different numbers thrown out and around, but the bottom line is the congressional budget office has determined that this resolution would not save the taxpayer a single penny. if congress votes to disapprove the usda's catfish inspection rule, the food safety of the american people will be significantly undermined. this is a health and safety

issue, pure and simple. with only a few weeks of inspection under its belt, the usda has already denied entry of two shipments of imported catfish because they found crystal violate and another dangerous carcinogen in another. earlier today the american cancer society said they support keeping u.s. farm-raised fish inspection at usda. overturning the usda's catfish inspection rule would set a bad precedent. congress has never used the congressional review act to overturn a rule that congress explicitly directed by law. if the rule is overturned, the law requiring usda catfish inspection would remain in place. usda simply would not have a rule to implement the law which would lead to significant trade disruption.

catfish farming is an important industry to arkansas. arkansas producers are proud to supply a safe product for american consumers. the bottom line is that our farmers aren't afraid of competition. they just want the security to know that the domestic industry and imports are all safe. voting to disapprove this rule would put consumers at risk. i strongly urge my colleagues who share my concerns about the security of our food system to let this important food safety program continue to operate and continue to keep harmful carcinogens out of the food supply of americans. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: it would appear to me that a quorum call might be in place. i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: madam president, i'm rising in opposition to the resolution of disapproval of the department of agriculture's catfish inspection program on several grounds.

this has become a rather heated issue, and i think there are some things that we need to clear up, especially speaking from the privilege of being the chairman of the senate agriculture committee. the amendment seeks to make changes to food safety inspection by eliminating the department of agriculture's inspection program of domestic and foreign-raised catfish. this program just started in march. some of the comments about the expense of this program have been made as if they were on an annual basis. most of the costs that were cited in the general accounting office report did not mention the fact that these were start-up costs. and the program was created due to concerns -- obviously it was related to food safety. the department has a strong record, the usda has a very strong record, as the president knows, of requiring meat that's imported to the united states to

be processed in foreign facilities that are equivalent -- that's a quote -- equivalent to u.s. meat processing facilities. the department of agriculture visits these facilities now and conducts audits to ensure their practices are in line with what we require here in the united states. this is done to ensure that food coming into the united states is safe. now, that product is also inspected. once it arrives at u.s. ports of entry. so simply put, what we have here is a program that requires the same equivalency determination for foreign-raised and processed catfish as we require for beef, for chicken, for lamb, for pork, all the other commodities or all the other animal products that you would imagine. just last week, i was notified by the department of agriculture that their inspections of vietnamese catfish found illegal

drug residues in two shipments destined for the united states. i'm sure that others who have spoken to this issue, more especially senator boozman and senator cochran, have repeated this. but had this program not been in place, madam president, this violation would not have been caught and the product would have been allowed to enter into commerce. i am really surprised. i know this is an easy issue to bring up with regards to a g.a.o. report for ten years that said that this is duplicative to what the food and drug administration does, it is, but it is no longer because the department of agriculture is taking it over because they have a much more robust program. the food and drug administration really only inspects 2% of the catfish. we're talking about a much

higher percentage by the department of agriculture. so i hope that those in the u.s. senate who are trying to remove this important safeguard just two months into the program being enforced and on the tails of it paying off and preventing adult rated -- adulterateed catfish from being in the commerce. in the 2008 and 2014 farm bills that were delayed for a while, start-up costs just started last year, and again those costs that are mentioned in the general accounting office are just not pertinent to what is happening today. i want to say one other thing. farm bills are developed through five years of thoughtful discussions and also negotiations. when a farm bill is passed, any producer of any product or any

animal product expects almost as if it is a contract that they can depend on it. so if you have a burgeoning industry of domestic catfish, you want to make dog gone sure that they're safe and we have no imports that represent a health hazard. that's exactly what's happened as of this particular instance. so this is the kind of thing that you just do not want to be opening up farm bills will any nilly on a -- will any nilly on a special issue that may make a good tv spot which has not taken into consideration again that this is just a start-up kind of situation in terms of the money. it's interesting to me that this is scored at zero, the congressional budget office has scored it at zero so all this talk about wasting money i think i understand that. i don't know anybody in the congress that, house or senate that is for wasting money.

one person's wasteful money is another person's viable investment so we have to look pretty close. i ask my colleagues to vote no on the resolution, to maintain these important safety protections and also the carefully crafted 2014 farm bill is not the time to be opening up the farm bill. we will certainly begin discussions on that in the next year and the year following. we will take up these matter and be going over it with a fine tooth comb. i yield back and i -- after careful consideration have noted that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president, i -- mr. president, i strongly urge the senate to reject the motion to proceed to senate joint resolution 28. mr. cochran: this resolution would overturn a catfish inspection rule that is working to protect american consumers. congress directed the department of agriculture to right this rule in both the 2008 and 2014 farm bills. it did so based on evidence that the inspection regime then in place was inadequate. almost all catfish consumed in

the united states is raised on farms in controlled environments. mr. cochran: the department of agriculture, usda, is the most experienced and well equipped agency to ensure farm-raised meat product, including catfish, are as safe as possible. while assuming responsibility of catfish inspection just a few weeks ago, the department of agriculture has intercepted and impounded two large shipments of foreign catfish contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals banned for use in the u.s. prior to the implementation of the rule, less than two in 1,000 catfish products entering the u.s. was laboratory tested. if it were not for the rule that

senate joint resolution 28 seeks to nullify, this dangerous foreign fish would be in the u.s. food supply today. sponsors of this resolution have said that the catfish rule is costly. this is not true. the congressional budget office has said this resolution won't save a dime. sponsors of the resolution have said that the catfish rule is duplicative. this is untrue. the food and drug administration ceased all catfish inspections on march 1 of this year. the department of agriculture is the only agency charged with inspecting catfish. sponsors of this resolution have said that the catfish rule

creates an artificial trade barrier. this is untrue. the department has stated that the rule is compliant with the world trade organization's equivalency standard and would not violate its principles. adaption of this resolution would not change the law. it would only call into question the potentially half owe halt -- halt the ability of the u.s. government to carry on important activities authorized by law to keep american consumers safe. mr. president, it is clear that the inspection rule is working as intended to protect u.s. consumers. congress was right in twice mandating these inspections and

reconsidering that decision would be a poor use of the senate's time. i hope senators will reject the motion to proceed to this resolution. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i've been on this floor many times talking about zika. i think some people are thinking

it's out of sight, out of mind. it's equally as much if not more of a crisis, an international crisis as was the ebola crisis, and yet you remember how suddenly everyone suddenly became so concerned about ebola when there were only a couple of cases that showed up in the united states? remember how we in this body suddenly rushed in and appropriated on an emergency basis several multiples of billions of dollars to address the ebola crisis? and remember, also, how successful that was?

even though ebola is still raging in parts of western africa. this is certainly the case so we continue to try to help out those african nations so that it won't spread across the rest of the world, especially coming here to our shores. well, the same thing is happening with the zika virus, but people are not recognizing it, and this -- that's why this senator continues to talk about it. because we need the resources necessary to stop the spread of zika, because it's only a matter of time before there is a local transmission in the continental u.s. now, what is a local transmission?

well, we know they put a fancy name on this. it's called vector. what is the vector? the vector is a strain of mosquito called the aegypti, and, oh, by the way, it's may. what happens across a lot of the coastal united states and southern united states in june? it gets hot. the rains come. and what comes along with that? swarms of mosquitoes. and since this particular strain, the aegypti, is prevalent across the united states up the west coast, the pacific coast, up the atlantic seaboard, much further than what you consider southern states, lo

and behold this strain of mosquito carries the zika virus, and what it does when it sticks its sticker into a human being starts drawing blood, the virus is transmitted into the blood of the human being, and now you've got a carrier, a human carrier of the zika virus that can be transmitted through sexual contact, but lo and behold if it is a pregnant female, then that zika virus -- and the virus itself sometimes doesn't manifest itself in many ways. it might be like a mild form of the flu, but if it's a pregnant

female, then you've got some disastrous consequences coming ahead, and that's these horrible pictures that we've seen, the microcephaly that -- the virus gets in and attacks the fetus and does not allow the fetus to develop, particularly with regard to the structure of the head and the brain, and that's what turns out into these terrible family tragedies. and so last week we voted and we voted as part of an appropriations bill $1.1 billion. we turned down senator rubio's and my proposal of $1.9 billion.

by the way, did you notice a republican and a democrat coming together, saying this is tough in our state. our state there is well over 120 cases. there is also multiples of handfuls of pregnant women in florida that are infected. nationwide, there is 1,200 americans in 48 states that we know of who have been infected with the virus. we know in puerto rico, the centers for disease control tell us that 25% of that island population of our fellow american citizens are going to be infected. that's in puerto rico alone 800,000 people. and so we saw as a result of

that infection in puerto rico, we saw the first case of microcephaly linked to the zika virus reported in puerto rico, and that was determined because there was a miscarriage of a pregnant woman and lo and behold the miss -- miscarried fetus indeed had all the markings of microcephaly. prior to that the c.d.c. had confirmed the first zika-related death in the u.s. that had also occurred in puerto rico. now, while we here in the senate last week turned down $1.9 billion, which was the administration request, we appropriated $1.1 billion, but guess what they did down at the

other end of the hallway here in the u.s. capitol building. they only did $622 million, and want this to go to a conference committee to be worked out over time. folks, it's late may, and summer is upon us. and so with these cases, it's going to increasingly become apparent. now, why don't you add into the mix brazil is hot, it's humid. and oh, by the way, there is something that's happening in a few months in brazil that are going to have people from all over the world going to brazil for the olympics, and right now brazil has more than 100,000 cases of zika virus in this year

alone. and so we are playing around and delaying around in a very dangerous emergency, and congress has not stepped up and is failing the american people by not treating it as an emergency. it ought to be clear that it's up to us to protect our constituents to stop the spread of the virus and to do everything that the administration has requested, including the multiple hundreds of millions that they raided out of the ebola fund to try to get a jump-start on this because the congress was sitting around on its hands, not willing to get

the money, so they borrowed from the ebola fund. we need to replenish that fund, and that's a part of the $1.9 billion request. and so, madam president, i'm going to ask unanimous consent that we proceed for a vote on this emergency. we ought to be trying to do the right thing. we ought to give the president and the public health experts the resources they need that they tell us they have to have to stop the spread of this virus. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate receives from the house h.r. 5243, that all after the enacting clause be stricken,

that the nelson-rubio substitute amendment to provide $1.9 billion in funding to enhance the federal response and preparedness with response to the zika virus be agreed to, that there be up to one hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill as amended be read by a third time, and the senate vote on the passage of the bill as amended, no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: reserving the right to object, this was debated extensively and considerably more than an hour equally divided just last week, and was resolved by a vote of this body. i don't think there is anybody

in this body that isn't worried about the zika virus and wanting to do what can be done in the quickest way possible. it was determined an emergency and put into a bill that way. there was your bill for the $1.9 billion, but it lacks specificity on how that was to be spent. so the $1.1 billion is the one that got the vote. now, i was hoping, of course, that it would be the cornyn vote that would pass because it was offset, offset with health prevention money that we have. i know that some of that fund was sent for global warming. i don't know why that was more precedent than the zika virus and why there would be an objection to using that for the zika virus, but there was. even so, we resolved it. we resolved it without offsetting it and adding another $1.1 billion to the deficit and are able to move that project

forward. so in light of that, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: the senator from wyoming knows my affection for him as a friend. the senator from wyoming is a great senator from the state of wyoming. wyoming does not have the threat like the southern states do in the united states as the summer comes upon us. madam president, as the senator has referred to the cornyn amendment, yes, the cornyn amendment $1.1 billion which was voted down was paid for and it was paid for by raiding the affordable care act, and that's just not going to happen. whenever emergency happens, the

tradition of the united states congress is in fact to provide for that emergency on a basis that you don't have to go over and rob some other piece of funding in order to pay for it. so when a hurricane hits, if it hits florida, i certainly hope you all are going to appropriate emergency funds. if there is an earthquake or the eruption of a volcano, whatever the fires -- whatever the -- fires, whatever the natural or manmade disaster that occurs, that is what a government does. one of the functions of government is to protect the health and welfare of the people, and sometimes that calls on the funding of an emergency.

now, we don't have a lot of microcephaly that has been born to pregnant women here, but that's coming, and we've already seen it. wait until all of the americans, including in the northern tier of states and the western united states, go to rio for the olympics. wait until there is a further migration out of puerto rico, which is causing a brain -- a brain drain because of the financial condition of that island, which we're not helping them on, as we continue to dither about their financial distress. wait until that migration of

american citizens comes from puerto rico more and more to the continental united states and brings with it infected with the zika virus. all of this is about to happen, and it's about to explode, and this senator suspects that a lot of the people that are objecting to moving on this in an emergency basis are going to rue the day when we see the consequences. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i have a fondness for the senator from florida as well and recognize that he is further south and that they perhaps have more mosquitoes than we do, although i think even alaska would have a competition with that, but we did pass emergency money for this. we did declare it an emergency

and pass $1.1 billion. that's 1,100 million dollars to work on this problem. before we had the ebola problem. that's the crisis of the year. we allocated more money to that than it needed and that's why some of that money was brought over as an emergency into solving the zika problem. i've been doing some research as the budget chairman. i was saying i think we have about $6 billion worth of emergencies every year. we ought to budget for what we know is consistent. unfortunately, i had them look it up and i found out we do $26 billion in emergencies every year. that ought to be a part of the budget, not just passed on to future generations. they're going to have their own emergencies that they're going to need to solve. so somehow we're going to have to get control of this and i'm pleased that we have a bipartisan effort going to see

if there aren't some solutions that can be built into the budget process. madam president, that isn't what i came over here for to begin with. i came over because i was supposed to have some floor time at 3:30 to talk about a very important issue which is supposed to be the issue of the day because we have the right when a government rule is passed, if we don't agree with it, we can get a petition up. if we get enough of a petition, we can get a guaranteed eight hours of debate and an up-or-down vote on that rule. in america we're trying to get people to save more, to invest more. and then this administration makes it harder. so i rise today to speak in support of h.j. resolution 88 expressing congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the department of

labor. with respect to charging for retirement investment advice. how many people do you think are going to be willing to seek investment advice if they have to sign a contract before they even see if that's the person they want to work with? now, it's called fiduciary and conflict of interest rule. we're all against conflict of interests. there aren't even a lot of people who know how to spell fiduciary. that's to confuse people on what this is about. we have retirement coverage gap. there are tens of millions of americans who are not prepared for retirement. the regulation put forward by the obama administration that we're debating today will limit the advice that individuals seeking access to retirement plans can receive. that will increase the size of this retirement gap. this regulation will significantly impede the ability

of low and middle-income americans to save for retireme retirement. they won't even have anyone to ask. won't happen to those who have a lot of money. they've been handling this for years. i've heard for many years that the goal of this regulation is to force financial advisors to work in the best interest of their clients. i'm completely in favor of financial advisors doing so. i've cosponsored legislation requiring that practice in law. i've cosponsored it and tried to pass it. in fact, in my almost 20 years of working on retirement policy in the united states senate, i've never met anyone who doesn't agree that financial advisors should act in the best interest of their customers. the problem with this rule is that it goes far beyond requiring a best interest standard. it goes so far as to effectively prohibit the means by which low and middle-income americans

receive retirement advice. a massive regulatory regime has been created in this rule. it will undoubtedly raise the costs in a $24 trillion -- or for put the numbers easier to understand -- a $24,000 -- 24,000 billion dollar industry. those with large assets will probably be able to deal with the increased costs but what about the small investors? the small advisors? the people interested in retirement savings? the ones who have modest assets, like most of the cities and towns of wyoming? this rule will negatively impact the services and choices available to investors. i can't imagine why limiting options, limiting choices, and limiting services is being

touted as a victory for anyone. my own state of wyoming is hurting. our energy-based economy is declining significantly largely due to regulations added by the obama administration. now that same administration is issuing a regulation that will hurt the future savings of my constituents. wealthy americans across america will not be affected by this rule. yes, wealthy americans will not be affected. they can go about receiving their retirement advice the same way they always have. however, many of my constituents will be affected by this rule. their retirement savings will suffer. it's as simple as that. there are approximately 28.8 million small businesses in america. those businesses create two out of every three new private sector jobs and employ nearly

half of america's work force. i'm a former small business owner. i know well what it takes to run a small business. this rule will hurt retirement coverage among small businesses. it will create burdens and limits options for small businesses trying to offer retirement plans. in my experience that will result in one of two things. either increase costs or no access to retirement advice. the obama administration is going to force small businesses to choose between paying increased fees -- that would be a tax, wouldn't it? -- increase fees and that would jeopardize the success of the business and therefore the jobs of the employees or not providing access to retirement savings for their employees which jeopardizes the lifelong income of those employees. it's a no win situation for small employers who are trying to take care of their employees and grow their business.

i always say learn from the mistakes of others. there's not time enough to make them all yourself. this has been tried before. we have precedent to look to when examining the impact this rule will have on our economy, a very similar change was made in the united kingdom just a few years ago, but this march the united kingdom released a study which confirmed that there's a very disturbing retirement advice gap for low and middle-income individuals, the very ones i'm talking about. i've read how this administration as well as some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have said that rule is different than that issued by the united kingdom. here's the thing. it's really not all that different. the impact will be the same and here's what has happened. wealthy individuals are getting access to retirement advice while middle and lower income individuals are not.

i've not understood nor will i understand why this regulation was put forward and finalized. the department of labor itself admitted on february 29 -- that's an interesting date. only happens in leap year -- the department of labor itself admitted on february 29 that relatively little is known about how people make planning and financial decisions before and during retirement. but that didn't stop them. the department of labor, which is the proponent of this rule, does not know how people make planning and financial decisions before and during retirement. why would they go ahead with such a disastrous regulation? why should such a seemingly disastrous regulation be put forward when it's unknown how many people it will affect? perhaps they should start out by finding out how much the average people make in investment and retirement savings decisions. the regulation that we're

debating today has been lauded as one that will help low and middle-income individuals save for retirement. i refute that claim with two main points. first, analysis of a very similar change to retirement system has proven that the opposite occurred. and second, the authors of this regulation did little or nothing about how many people this will impact or even in what ways. people who give investment advice give it for tree right now, but they can see what's coming. that's why they've been to my office and visited with me about what they're going to have to do with the people that come to them for investment advice or people that they want to sell something to. you have to sign a contract before they make the discussion. i don't know if you've had an insurance agent that you wanted to pay to have him talk to you. there may be unintended consequences but they will be

painful consequences. as i stated in the beginning of my remarks, we have a retirement coverage gap in america. i've been working for almost 20 years in the senate to help close that gap. all this new regulation will do is limit retirement advice for the people who need it the most. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. a senator: i would ask consent to speak in morning business.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, on monday i hosted a round table discussion at the johns hopkins school of medicine in baltimore to review with experts from my community the strategy that we need to employ in regards to the zika virus. i pointed out at the beginning of that round table discussion that the world health organization has labeled the zika virus as a public health emergency of international concern. the world health organization has estimated that as many as four million will be infected in the americas. we know the current numbers of reported cases in the united states as of last week we had over 1300 cases in the united states. almost all -- the united states and our territories. almost all of those that we have in the united states, in the

continental united states are travel related. we have 17 confirmed cases in maryland. those cases are going to go up dramatically. we know that as the summer months and the warm weather occurs, the wet weather occurs with the mosquito population increasing, we know that the number of people affected by the zika virus is going to go up dramatically. and here's the challenge. we know that it's transmitted primarily through mosquito bites, through mosquitoes. and we know that in puerto rico, for example, that it's going to be very active, but we also know the united states, the mosquito population could very well act as a major transmitter of the zika virus. but the zika virus is also transmitted through sexual intercourse. and, therefore, people who have the zika virus who may not know they have the zika virus because

many individuals who are affected -- infected don't know they have the virus, that this could become a major problem here in the united states. what's at stake here? well, we do know that the zika virus is directly linked to birth defects, microcephaly. that is a tragic circumstance affecting fetuses that could present a lifetime challenge for the child that's born with microcephaly. we know it from the small skull but what i learned at this round table discussion is that the complications from microcephaly include lifetime disabilities. the brain is much smaller. it's not capable. it leads to many cases to blindness and death and that it's not unusual not only to have the human costs involved in this birth defect but the actual

lifetime cost is estimated as high as $10 million for each child that is born with microcephaly. so this is a huge challenge to our country with the spread of the zika virus. but there's also other conditions that have been associated with the zika virus, including guillain-barre syndrome. that is a nervous condition, a nerve damage condition that can lead to death. so what is the answer here? as i was -- i had in this round table discussion, we had the public health officers from baltimore city, from anne arundel county, from howard county, from frederick county. we had experts in dealing with mosquito control. we had experts who were dealing with the development of vaccines and treatments, and we had a robust discussion as to what can be done. first and foremost, madam

president, there was strong understanding that public awareness is going to be critically important to dealing with the zika virus. the public needs to know. if you are pregnant or intend to start a family, you need to know the risk factors. now, it would be nice if you could have a test done to know whether you had the zika virus or not. but here's the problem: the current state of development for the tests have produced two tests that the f.d.a. has made available on an emergency basis. one looks at the person's immune system that shows certain signs if that person has the zika virus. as i said before, i.t. not clear whether -- i.t. not clear whether -- it's not clear whether l you'll have any symptoms even though you have the virus. this one test is not reliable by

any stretch of the imagination, but at least gives some indication. in many cases, you have to take the test more than once. in other cases, if you actually have the virus in your system, it will show that. the virus does not stay long in your system, but you still have the impact of the virus. that could come back negative, but you still have the effects of the zika virus. also we're not sure as to how long the zika virus can be transmitted through sexual contact. that issue is still being studied. so it is very possible that a person may have been infected by the zika virus, did not realize the person was infected and several months later through sexual intercourse has transmitted the zika virus to his partner. so these are all areas that we want the public know more about and we are developing more and more scientific information on tests that can help us identify those who have the zika virus

and hopefully develop some way of dealing with those who are infected. obviously we want people who want to start a family to recognize that they should try to avoid areas where there's large vulnerability for the zika virus. that's going to be particularly important this summer. and then lastly, we want to develop a vaccine. mr. president, i must tell you, i was very encouraged with the individuals who were involved -- actually in vaccine development who were at the round table discussion that i had about the fact that later this summer they will start clinical trials on vaccines that can, they hope, produce a way that they can immunize a population from being subject to the zika virus. that's very exciting. but before we get too excited, i was sobered by the discussion that tells me that the first

round of these vaccines are going to be rather difficult, and may take several times that you have to take it, may be of a very short duration understand that it will take -- and that it will take more time before we can develop the type of vaccines that are efficient, that are perhaps once-in-a-lifetime you have to take them, that will protect you from the zika virus indefinitely. and here's also the challenge: the people thanders d around -- the people -- the people around -- the experts there on monday said we can expect that the zika virus will be with us in the future. so let me just give you some of the takeaways from this discussion that took place at johns hopkins hospital. one -- and dr. wynn who is the health commissioner for baltimore star made this point when we were talking about the money. i talked about the $1.9 billion that the administration has requested. i went through the different agencies, both domestic and

international, that would benefit from that $1.9 billion. i then compared it to the $1.1 billion which has been acted on by the senate and showed the differences. for example, if my math is correct, n.i.h. would receive $77 million less under the $1.1 billion than the $1.9 billion. we had people from n.i.h. that were at the round table talking about the research that's being done right now to develop medicines and treatments that we hope can minimize the risk of a birth defect from those who have been inp effected. -- infected. no, we don't know how to cure it. we don't have a treatment that candure the zika virus -- that can cure the zika virus, but we're hopeful we'll be able to develop the protocols to minimize the effects of the virus or developing neurological problems. what i take away from that discussion, we want to make sure that they have all the tools

they need in order to deal with this crisis. dr. wynn pointed out that if you take a look at some of the action in the house of representatives where they're taking additional moneys away from the funds that go to our local health departments, that's counterproductive. dr. wen pointed out that the money that she receives from the public health emergency preparedness funding has been cut -- cut -- in order to pay for the zika funds. well, it's these emergency preparedness funds that are used bid our local health departments -- by our local health departments to reach out and deal with the vulnerable populations, to make sure they understand the risk factors and do what they can to prevent the risk factors. i also was talking to our representative from maryland from the department of agriculture which does mosquito control. several people talked to me about mosquito control. one of the things you want to do is have a comprehensive plan to

eradicate mosquitoes during the season. and it's very effective. the problem is that these budgets are capped. they don't have the resources to do what they need to do. they were telling me that we were better-prepared a couple years ago than we are today in dealing with mosquito control. so we need to coordinate that effort, to do a better job on mosquito control. we can't take money away from these programs. and, mr. president, they made this point very clearly: the crisis is now. it's here. it's here in america today, and it's going to get worse every month. we know that. and we need to act now on the funding, in an emergency supplemental aappropriations bill that can get to the president's desk today, not in an appropriations bill that has to go through the process that

usually takes until the fall before we can make those funds available. i want to just go over a point that was made to me by one of the individuals who was at this round table who is an expert on cost issues. he was explaining to me the mathematics here, dr. bruce lee. he is at johns hopkins university, associate professor of international health, who modeled the cost issues here, and he came up -- and he uses the most conservative estimates -- that our delay in dealing with the zika virus will add an additional $2 billion in cost. as i said, every child that's born with the birth defect, we estimate the cost to be about $10 million. if we can avoid 100 of these birth-defect children, that's $1 billion.

so the first issue, of course, is the human cost of the zika virus and the impact it has on families and on those who are directly affected. but this isn't -- as dr. lee said, this is an investment. the money that we're make available is an investment. what do we need to do? we need to make sure money is available for mosquito control. that's one way we can stop the spread of the zika virus. we've got to make sure that money is available for our local health departments, because they're reaching out to pregnant women, and dr. wen made a very important point to me that in many cases you're dealing with low-income families. they don't have air conditioners. in some cases they don't even have screens. and they're going to be more susceptible to the zika virus because of the mosquitoes. so they have to reach out. the things that the local health departments can do -- the baltimore city health department has been a leader on this. but they need their resources. so we've got to make sure we

fund our local health departments. we certainly can't cut the funds that are being made available. then also the proud work that's being done by n.i.h. and the center for disease control. we need to make sure they have the funds they need so we can develop the way ways that they t and hopefully develop protocols to treat people who have the virus and develop a vaccine as quick lynn as possible that's -- as quickly as possible that's efficient and can be widely used to prevent the zika virus moving forward. all that is possible. i left this discussion in baltimore with hope. there is a way of dealing with it, but we have to express the urgency that this crisis demands. and, yes, we need to be an international leader. part of this is u.s. leadership globally. this is not the last crisis we're going to have. ebola was -- u.s. leadership helped avoid an department of justice -- a worse international crisis than we saw.

we've now developed health capacities in many countries around the world to deal with the next pandemic. we know there's going to be another episode in the future. we need to prepare today for this. there's no more fundamental responsibility in government than to keep our people safe. and we have the opportunity to respond in the right way to the zika virus, but it requires congress to provide the tools so that the experts in this area can do their wo work, develop te medical protocols to deal with this, get the information out to the public so they can protect themselves the best possible, using pest sides, using insect repellents, using common sense, not traveling to areas that are high-risk asia -- high-risk are, particularly in you're pregnant, and that we can develop a vaccine that can protect not only the people of this country but globally from this health care crisis. i'm convinced we can get it done. let's start today by passing the funding necessary so our agencies can do the work. with that, mr. president, i

would yield the floor. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the department of labor's fiduciary rule. over the past year, nebraska's small business owners, retirees, insurance, and financial professionals, and individuals in a wide range of other industries have expressed their concerns regarding this fiduciary rule. unfortunately, the negative feedback that i hear has only grown since the final version of this rule was published last month. this dense and complicated rule would change the definition of a if fiduciary and what constituts investment advice. in -- in short, the rule could make it more difficult for many individuals to open and to

maintain ira's. it could also lead to future companies offering 401(k) plans for their employees. if the rule is implemented, lower-income savers may face a disadvantage compared to wealthier consumers with higher account balances. it is often convenient for regulators in washington to claim that they are protecting the middle class, but that is the very segment which stands to lose the most from this new rule. wealthier consumers and larger businesses, they often have the resources to comply with costly regulations, but small businesses are already struggling to stay afloat. this rule could further hamper their operations by pricing them out of the market. because of these and other concerns, i joined my colleagues to cosponsor the senate version

of the joint resolution of disapproval of this rule. an identical resolution passed the house an april 28 by a -- on april 28 by a wide margin and later today the senate will vote to pass the house resolution and send it to president obama's desk. congress has already offered responsible solutions to the problems that this rule is trying to address. for example, i'm a cosponsor of legislation introduced by senator mark kirk, the strengthening access to valuable education and retirement support, or the savers act, as well as legislation introduced by senator isakson, the affordable retirement advice protection act. both of these bills would protect americans who are saving for retirement without forcing them into the fixed-fee arrangements that the i fiduciay

rule would, in many circumstances, mandate. these arrangements could create new roadblocks, making it harder -- it'll make it harder for consumers to receive financial advice. nebraskans depend on this financial guidance. they plan their futures and to also to provide for their families. washington bureaucrats should not be dictating who you can hire and what investments you can make. it is time to draw the line and to stop this injection of government into the free market. i am proud to fight on behalf of nebraskans and their families and their freedom to make the best financial decisions for their own future, and i urge my colleagues to vote with me in support of this resolution of disapproval.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, a poll last month found four in ten americans heard little or nothing about the zika virus and many others were unaware that it was a risk to the united states. and the likely reason for this is that the virus isn't yet being transmitted locally here in the united states but for all of us in congress this is not excuse for inaction. our jobs are to get ahead of the threats, anticipate them, not

just to respond to them. we have all the information we need to know that the zika virus is bad and it is potentially about to get worse. it won't be long, i believe, before virtually all of our people have heard about this virus and are concerned about it and want to know why their leaders aren't doing more to fight it. they want to know what we're doing now and sadly the answer is not enough. even though the problem has been suddenly getting worse, the congress has refused to treat it with the urgency that i believe it deserves. there was a time when zika was considered a foreign virus but that is no longer the case. as much today there are 544 cases in the mainland united states with more being confirmed almost daily. all of those so far are travel related but there are also 832 cases locally transmitted in american territories, mostly puerto rico. if the problem is there it won't be long before it is here on the mainland. this week the national institutes of allergy and

infectious disease, the government's top authority on these issues warned that the zika will begin affecting americans in the next month or so. once those mosquitoes are here they will reproduce. as soon as we have one case transmitted locally there will be others that will follow shortly there after. a few days ago the centers for disease control announced that 157 pregnant women in the united states and 122 in u.s. territories have shown signs of infection from the zika virus. this should be another wakeup call for the congress, knowing that there are at least 279 pregnant women in the united states with likely zika virus infections means we also have at least potentially 279 unborn children at risk of microcephaly and we should be doing all we can to save these human beings. so we have a limited amount of time to brace ourselves and get a head start on confronting this threat. keep in mind there is not yet a

vaccine for zika. there is no cure for the conditions and for the birth defects that it causes. so for all of us as americans, but especially for all of us as elected leaders, it is long past due to take this virus seriously because the virus is not just serious. this virus is deadly serious. and so far i must say that the congress is failing this test. now i am proud of the work done here in the senate to pass a funding measure. it may not have been as much as we ultimately need, but at least that $1.1 billion, a significant amount of money, is going to go towards fighting this threat. to date in the house the story is different. last week the house passed a $622 million package. this is about a third of what was originally requested. the funds were secured by redirecting money approved to respond to the ebola outbreak in 2014. i really hope and i want to be wrong about this, but i, but $622 million i fear is not going

to be enough to deal with this problem if it heads in the direction that the doctors and the experts are telling us it's headed. so i come here on the floor of the senate today to urge our colleagues in the house and leadership to realize that this threat is knocking on our door, that the opportunity to get out ahead of this problem is quickly slipping away. within a month we are likely to have a very different situation on our hands with regard to zika. not only have we delayed action for far too long already but we're also not expecting any action this week before congress goes into recess next week. in other words, it is likely congress will let at least, at least another two weeks go by on this issue without any action. so i urge the american people to make next week a tough one on those who are home from congress, who have refused to take meaningful action to confront zika because they need to hear from you. and to any members of congress who don't receive pressure at home next week, you should know that you soon enough will. while only a portion of our constituents are currently concerned about zika, that will

change the moment the first case of locally transmitted zika by a mosquito is confirmed in the mainland united states. and then we're going to have to answer to those who want to know why we didn't act. and quite frankly, we're not going to have a satisfying answer. waiting to act until we have a panic on our hands is not leadership. so i encourage the house to act on the scale the american people need it to act, and i urge congress to send a bill to the president as soon as possible regarding this matter. i hope we will properly fund this fight so we can win it. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 4:45 p.m., all time be expired on h.j.res. 88. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so for the information of all of our colleagues, we expect two votes at 4:45 this afternoon. the first vote will be on passage of h.j. res. 88. the second will be on the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 28. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, today families have enough to worry about.

questioning the advice they get for their retirement savings accounts should not have to be one of them. we finally, finally have a new protection on the books that would help protect seniors' retirement savings from biased retirement advice. it's called the fiduciary rule, and it's pretty simple. it says if financial advisors are giving people advice on their retirement accounts, they should put their clients' best interests ahead of their own. but wha -- with the resolution before us, the republicans want to prevent that rule from ever helping people save up for retirement. they are dead set on saving the status question that has allowed financial advisors to line their own pockets at the expense of people trying to save for their retirement. after a lifetime of hard work, all seniors should have the chance to live out their golden years on firm financial footing and with peace of mind. so once again i urge my colleagues to vote "no." i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rubio: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, all time is expired on h.j. res. 88. the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 460, h.j. res. 88, a joint resolution disapproving the rules submitted by the department of labor related to the definition of the term fiduciary. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the passage of h.j. res. 88. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change your vote? if not, the ayes are 56 and the nays are 41. the joint resolution is passed.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. cane madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i move to proceed to h.j. res. 28. the clerk: motion to proceed to senate joint rest liewtion 28 providing for congressional disapproval under chapt 8, title 5 united states code of the rule submitted by the secretary of agriculture with respect to fish on the order -- the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. cane i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 57 and the nays are 40. the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will report the joint resolution. the clerk: calendar number 47, s.j. res. 28, providing ar 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. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- pursuant to the provisions of the congressional rerue act 5u.s.c.8 and following, there will be up to ten hours of debate between those favoring and opposing the rsmtion the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank my colleagues for their vote to move to this resolution. i think that we can count this, franfrankly, as a victory for te american taxpayer rather than certain special interests. i'd like to begin, mr. president, by making clear in the record of the groups that are supporting this resolution. the national retail federation, the food marketing institute, taxpayers for protection alliance, national taxpayers union, taxpayers for common sense, the heritage foundation, freedomworks, small business

entrepreneurship council, citizens again government waste, center for individual freedom, our street institute, campaign for liberty, the retail industry leaders association, american frozen food institute, and the list goes on and on and on. ten times -- ten times the congressional -- the government accountability office has said the same thing over and over, and that is that this program is duplicative, it is unnecessary, it is unfortunate that we are spending tens of millions of dollars every year on a program that is duplicative and unnecessary. i'd like to ask -- be included in the record the wall street editorial tomorrow that is entitled "ending the catfish

fight." this is from "the wall street journal." i quote, "president obama is in vietnam this week where he will probably be get an earful about america's anti-trade sent many." so here's hoping the u.s. senate can provide at least some leadership by ending the protectionist treatment of one of vietnam's most valuable exports: catfish." this is "the wall street journal." most of thans side of the aisle have a great deal of respect for the opinions that are on the editorial page of the "wall street journal." they go ton say that, "vietnamese exporters have competed with u.s. catfish farmers since the 1990's. trouble began in 2002 when mississippi republican thad cochran and other southern lawmakers barred foreigners from calling their product 'catfish' because tech neckly it is pangasius, an asian cousin with

similar tastes and whiskers. this didn't stop from buying the tasty imports, neither did tariffs imposed on the 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 claim tag it was a public health risk where none existed. the true motive -- 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 ten times -- ten 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 -- quote - -- quotg taxpayers millions of dollars annually without affecting the safety of catfish intended for human consumption," says the g.a.o. 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 have repealed or 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 leaders plan 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 measure 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 obama leaves asia. repeal would boost u.s. credibility in a region that needs trade leadership." mr. president, it's pretty clear that we have the highest regard for the government accountability office. no, sometimes we don't always agree, but this is why ten 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, center for individual freedom -- literally every watchdog

organization in this town and in america -- supports 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 t.p.a., efforts for the sna the to debate this issue has been shut off. the sole time the senate voted 0 thng program, it voted overwhelmingly to eliminate the program. mr. president, i think there -- at latino on this side of the iecialtion -- at least on this side of the aisle, there i thero organization that -- the hair heritage foundation u i ask for inclusion in the record---- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: -- a statement from the heritage foundation weighs in for example i regularly on this issue. they say "there's no policy justification for carving out catfish from the broader seafood

regulatory structure." if goes ton say, "with this -- 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 f.d.a. seafood inspection chief byron truglio, who stated, 'a group of lobbyists a understand 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 a changes to block the catfish rule this year. the obama administration acknowledges the duplication

inherent in the usda's catfish inspecial program and proposed eliminating it in a recent budget. by sending the president this c. aa. for him to sign -- this c.r.a. for him to sign, congress will allow this rule to be blocked consistent with the rule of law. that's from heritage foundation. freedomworks is one of 1.75 million activists nationwide, i ask you to contact your senators and ask them to vote "yes" on the resolution to repeal. "the program was developed to assess the risks associated with catfish consumption." and it goes on how they want it overruled. also i have from the taxpayers protection union, campaign for liberty, the center for freedom, independent women's forum, national taxpayers union, our street -- taxpayers for common sense -- the list goes on and on, and this letter which i ask

unanimous consent to be included in the record to senator ayotte is signed by david williams, president, taxpayers protection alliance, norm singleton, president campaign for liberty, strt for individual freedom, tom schatz, citizens against government waste, hedger higgins, present c.e.o. independent women's voice, national taxpayers union, r street institute, small business and institute council and steve ellis for the taxpayers for common sense. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: in other words, mr. president, literately every organization that are watchdog organizations have opposed -- have supported what we're trying to do here. here's one from the national retail federation, which i ask unanimous consent would be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mccain: and, mr. president, the national restaurant association strongly supports what we're trying to do here, and the list goes on and on. i know that my colleagues -- there are my colleagues that want to speak on this issue, but i think that this is -- this is more than a vote on catfish, i'd 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're trying to do here. some of us, including this member, have been surprised, have been surprised by the american people's votes recently from both parties, both for mr. trump, who has never stood for public office before, and has said -- based his campaign to a large degree on campaignin

against washington, d.c. and those of us who serve here. and of course on the other side is mr. sanders, senator sanders, a member of this body, clearly one who is running his campaign against the status quo. and so we have been surprised to see this uprising of the american voter, and i don't knoa member of this body that would have predicted six months ago that -- on either side of the aisle that we would be where we are today. well, this kind of program is exactly what our hardworking citizenry who work hard and pay their taxes, they don't get it. they don't get it when it says -- when the g.a.o. ten times, ten times said that this program's wasteful, duplicative.

tens of millions of dollars are being wasted on behalf of one industry, and that's the catfish industry, and it's 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 in a large omnibus appropriations bill and kept there, so then sometimes we wonder why the american people have had it, why they're fed up. this is the best example that i can come up with recently. $30 million per year that is being wasted on a duplicative -- ten times, ten times the g.a.o. said that this is not only unneeded but unnecessary.

a special catfish office, $14 million a year. i don't know how many low-income taxpayers that comes up to to make $14 million, but i know this, that when i go back to arizona and i tell my constituents that we have a program that the g.a.o. ten times has said is totally unnecessary and duplicative and i'm spending -- and the government is spending $14 million of their tax dollars on it, they don't get it. they don't get it. and you know, after they don't get it for a while, they say we've had it. they say we've had it. we've had it with programs which nobody ever debated, nobody ever discussed, no one was ever a vote. it's been in being now since -- since 2012, but it began in 2002. so this is why the americans are fed up.

this is why our hardworking citizenry don't understand why we would ever have such a program and being that wastes $12 million per year, and i believe it was $30 million to set up. that's not chicken feed. to us, it's in the margins. to them, it's really something. it means to them that we're not taking care of them. it means that we're taking care of a powerful special interest called the catfish industry, which happens to be in a number of southern states. and there was a large number of republican votes against this proposal. as i recall, it's a majority of republican votes, republicans that say that we are watchdogs in the treasury. we don't waste money the way the democrats do, but a majority of

the votes on the resolution just taken, if it had been -- 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 a majority of them, at least to debate this? so all i can say, mr. president, is i have been fighting this issue for about 12 or 13 years. we're finally now at a chance to get rid of it. does 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? but i tell you what, if we keep this program in being with the 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're a fiscal conservative. say you take care of the catfish industry. maybe some people like that. but don't go back and call yourself a fiscal conservative. so, mr. president, i know that others want to speak. they're going to raise a problem with there could be contamination, there could be all these kinds of things that it's the end of western civilization as we know it. it's going to be worse than ebola. you know, that means that we don't trust the -- the people of the food and drug administration that are supposed to be inspecting all seafood. and if that's 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 you're going to hear it's the end of western civilization, that there has been some pollution detected, et cetera, et cetera. all we have to do is have the

food and drug administration do their job and inspect this all seafood, just as they do today, including catfish. you don't have to have a $30 million new bureaucracy set up at a cost of $14 million per year. so i have a lot more to say, mr. president, but the hour grows late. i just hope that we will show the american taxpayer that we are at least willing, in a small way, to eliminate some government duplication and waste. and i say that there is a lot of symbolic aspects of this vote that far, far exceed any $14 million per year. it really is now going to be a vote on how we do business here in the united states senate, and if we don't succeed in eliminating this program, then i think we would be embarrassed.

mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and have my time charged to the proponents of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: thank you, mr. president. before i speak on the subject, let me just say i agree completely with my fellow senator from arizona on this catfish issue. we have a lot of fiscal challenges ahead, and if we hope to tackle the immense fiscal challenges ahead, we've got to vote right on issues like this, whether there is duplication and waste going on, we've got to tackle it. so i commend those who are sponsoring this initiative. mr. president, i rise today to recognize matthew spect 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 advisors. he has done so without fanfare, 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 four-by-eight 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. we had to get big post pounders and pound big stakes in the ground, big posts. and 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 and it was just a campaign activity. but matt gratefully recovered, a few stitches and he was back on the job. but 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 trouble shooting blackberries at the early time of blackberries. it was a tough thing, but matt handled it like a pro, and 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, all the bad ones were his, but he knows that that's 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 continueded to stay in washington for more than a couple of years, returned home to arizona after ten years here in washington. now, being director of my state office in arizona is no easy

task. there are countless veterans issues, loads of immigration casework, endless border issues, myriad 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 has -- 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. but 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 in matt

leaving is he will have more time to spend with his beloved cats. he's a proud cat guy, something i'll never understand, but i'm glad that 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. i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, i rise in opposition to s.j. res. 28, and -- and i have to comment on a number offallizations 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, and i'm going to ask that it be entered into the record at this point.

the presiding officer: without objection. 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 c.b.o. has determined that s.j. res. 28 would not have any impact on direct spending. unquote. so i would submit to my colleagues, mr. president, that they can say as many times as they want to, they can say until they're 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 c.b.o. it says you don't save any money 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've now entered into the record.

now why do we inspect catfish at all? we inspect it for the consumer we want to make sure that at restaurants, in grocery stores, from our homes, we are not consuming contaminated and adulterated products. every bit of domestic indicated, farm raised fish is inspected by usda. it is inspected just as other farm-raised meats are inspected by the usda. and until this new procedure went into effect in april, f.d.a. inspected imported catfish. so you had the strange situation of farm-raised american, 100% of

it being inspected by usda, but our foreign competitors -- vietnam -- sending in catfish and f.d.a. inspected only 2% of that. only 2% of imported vietnamese catfish was inspected by the united states government until this new procedure went into effect april 15. since it has gone into effect, 100% of imported catfish has been inspected just like 100% of american-raised catfish. is that fair? if we're going to inspect all american-produced catfish, isn't it fair to in-l expect our competitors? what has usda found? and this is what my colleagues seem to be missing. in the short time that we've

been inspecting at usda, 100% of vietnamese catfish, they found contaminated substances that would have been consumed by americans at restaurants, in homes, purchased in supermarkets. on may 12, usda found crystal violate, crystal violate causes bladder cancer. and 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 vie -- crystal violate. may 19, the usda inspecting as they have been required to do under the last two farm bills found malachite green, the substance malachite green in

vietnamese catfish. malachite green causes thyroid cancer. it causes liver cancer, and it causes mammary gland cancer. and so i would say to my colleagues who are so pleased that we might go back to the old regime, shouldn't we be proud of the usda for protecting americans from 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're inspecting 2%? no one contends i'm wrong on this. f.d.a. only inspected 2%.

now we are inspecting the vast majority, if not all of it. again, my friends can say until they run out of air that this is a duplicative program, but it simply is not a duplicative program. f.d.a. formerly did the inspections. they ceased inspecting at the end of february of this year, and usda took it over. that's not duplicative. according to law, according to the last two farm bills, f.d.a. quit, usda picked it up. where's the duplication there? we're told that the rule is a violation of trade policy, a w.t.o. violation. usda pointed out that equivalent standards are applied both to imported and domestic fish.

so there's no different treatment. if we're going to look at all american catfish, we need to look at all vietnamese catfish. i cannot for the life of me understand why we want to do otherwise particularly when you've got 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 programs, 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's far different from the figures that other agencies are not going to actually be doing this are talking about. but usda is going to do it and they say we can do it for $1.1 million a year. that is not costly. and once again, i would go back to what the budget committee

said. there is no savings, there is no difference in direct spending if we pass this rule or not. but there is, there's a great deal of protection, not only crystal violet, not only malachite green, but enrofloxacin, a 2009 rule said the rule would yield a reduction of 175,000 lifetime cancers. they're talking about saving americans from contracted 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're not talking about something theoretical here. we're not talking about something that has to do with trade or good government. we're talking about adulterated contaminated catfish coming in and threatening the consuming public. and now that we have an inspection procedure that is working, we're told that somehow it's good government to go back to the old way of only doing 2%. only looking at 2% 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 like we've seen so many times in the obama administration. this is not an example of the agency coming up with something that 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 in to 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. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: if no one yields time, time will be charged equally to each side. flocks. ms. ayotte: mr. president? 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. and 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. mr. president, all other fish, all other fish species are inspected not by usda, but are inspected in this country by the f.d.a. 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 really something that was done to

protect domestic catfish producers, and it was really something that is wasting taxpayer dollars. in fact, there have been ten g.a.o. reports, ten of them, each finding that this inspection regime set up specially for catfish, but no other fish species, is duplicative and a waste, waste of taxpayer dollars. in fact, the good government groups like 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, ever

created. and 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 g.a.o. also notes that it not only wastes taxpayer dollars and duplicates work already done by the f.d.a., 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. and with all respect, i heard my colleague from mississippi on the floor citing the findings most recently by the newly stood up usda office for the inspection of catfish, talking about harmful contaminants that

the usda intercepted in catfish. there are some facts that are conveniently missing from this argument. first of all, the f.d.a., when they were inspecting catfish like they inspect all other fish in the country, they also were able to intercept times when there were contaminants found not only in catfish, but obviously sometimes in other fish species. so the notion that the f.d.a. couldn't find these very same contaminants, well, guess what, folks, they did. just like they do every day when they're looking at ensuring that all of our fish species are problem for our public health and for us to consume. and one of the interesting things about it is not only would the f.d.a. find this in the catfish coming from overseas, but they've actually intercepted contaminants in the domestic catfish supply at times as well too.

so that's important, i think, for people to understand. so this notion that somehow we need to set up a special within the usda for just catfish because that is the only way we can find contaminants and protect the public health, well, apparently the f.d.a. 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, which, by the way, the g.a.o. found it cost us nearly $20 million extra to set up this special office to inspect catfish for the one species. and in fact, my colleague from mississippi serves on the budget committee as i do, and he mentioned on the floor the fact that there's -- the c.b.o. has

said there's not going to be additional spending on this but one thing that's important for people to understand and those of us that serve on the budget committee would understand this, what came from the budget committee is -- that there's no additional mandatory spending. well, that means mandatory spending that is already set aside in the budget. we separate spending in the federal government from mandatory versus discretionary spending. and guess what? yeah, there isn't mandatory spending on this, but conveniently what has been left out is that there absolutely is discretionary spending on this program. in fact, g.a.o. has found not only that it 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's being cited is really meaningless because it's saying there's no mandatory spending. well guess what? i can come to the floor on almost any kind of domestic spending, whether it's on an issue of d.o.d., on a weapons system or anything that we're talking about here and tell you we're not spending any mandatory spending on this and the budget committee would issue the same opinion, but what really matters is are we spending any taxpayer dollars and the answer at the end of the day is absolutely because those dollars that go to the usda or the f.d.a. are actually in discretionary spending. to i hope my colleagues that are listening to this understand that this budget opinion really means nothing. we're still spending taxpayer

dollars that matter to you and matter to me and we could spend these millions of dollars much more effectively elsewhere than on a duplicative program for catfish. in fact, former f.d.a. safety chief david akinson commented on this duplicative program in this way. he called it, this program is everything that is wrong with food safety system. its food politics. it's not public health. and for all the claims that have been made on this floor about somehow we need to set up a separate inspection regime for catfish, this -- the usda itself has said in their own words, the true effectiveness of the ffis inspection for reducing catfish associated human illnesses is unknown. this is the usda itself. unknown. also, the rate at which ffis

inspection will achieve its ultimate reductions, unknown. there's substantial uncertainty regarding the actual effectiveness of an ffis, meaning the usda inspection regime of the catfish inspection program. not very promising when we already had an inspection regime in place as we do for every other fish species under the f.d.a. that costs us roughly $700,000 a year, according to the g.a.o. reports, and now under what we have done with the duplicative inspection regime on the usda, it costs us $20 million roughly to build a new inspection regime, new infrastructure, and a different agency and then roughly $14 million according to the g.a.o. and we just confirmed again could they confirm the numbers that are being cited if it's only a million and a half a year? no, they can't confirm those

numbers. and so ten g.a.o. reports finding duplicative and wasteful spending and yet here we are. i was really shocked, actually, by the vote on the senate floor, very shocked that my colleagues would have ten g.a.o. reports in front of them that would say that this is a duplicative and wasteful program that they would have before them a situation where you already have every other fish species inspected by the f.d.a. and yet we're going to set up a separate office for catfish on a situation where 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's wrong when we're worried about taxpayer dollars and what happens in washington. and so i would hope, as i look at the votes on the senate floor to proceed to this bill that my colleagues would look at these g.a.o. reports, that my colleagues would listen to these good government organizations that have basically said that this program is really a waste of taxpayer dollars, and that they would support the resolution to disapprove this duplicative inspection program. you know, before 2008, the f.d.a. was inspecting catfish and they were doing their jobs just like they do with every other fish species, and 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 f.d.a. that's one of the reasons it costs so much more to set up this new program. you know, one of the things i hear from my constituents, and i understand. there's a lot of talk about why people are frustrated with washington, right? they're very frustrated with -- they want to make sure that their taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. my constituents complain to me about wasteful spending, duplicative programs, and 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 disappositively for this duplicative program where so many groups are saying we've looked at this, it's wasteful, it's duplicative, where we have ten years of g.a.o. reports that

have said duplicative, wasteful, you don't need a separate inspection regime for catfish, then i don't know how we're ever going to address $19 trillion in debt. i don't know how we're ever going to take on the big, big issues burning that the american people want us to. and i know there's been a lot of bad things said about congress. i personally think that, you know, we might be called bottom dwellers if we don't pass this one. and so i'm hoping that as we look at the duplicative program of catfish inspections, we will understand that the catfish, one fish species does not deserve a separate office just to look at the catfish, that the f.d.a. can handle this inspection like it does for every other fish species, that we could save millions of taxpayer dollars by doing this, and we can let the american people know that we get it, that we get it, that we want

to wisely spend their money. we want to eliminate wasteful spending. we want to get our fiscal house in order. we want good government. we don't want protectionism government that is just trying to protect one industry, crony capitalism, all the bad things. what we want is we want common sense. so i hope that my colleagues will join me, and i want to thank senators mccain and senator shaheen for their efforts in helping us bring this important resolution for disapproval forward. and i hope that we can take a small step forward in this body for good government, for eliminating wasteful spending, for eliminating duplicative programs, and to tell the american people we're not bottom dwellers. we really get it and we want to make sure that we do the right thing by them. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: mr. president, i rise to speak about the ongoing crisis affecting the three and a half million american citizens who call puerto rico their home and to comment on the legislation that is spending in the house of representatives. mr. menendez: we are facing a critical moment in the history of puerto rico. the island is sinking under a mountain of debt, and i've said it before but it bears repeating. just servicing the government's $72 billion debt swallows 36% of all of the island's revenue. that means that for every dollar puerto rico takes in, they immediately send over a third to bond holders. this is not sustainable for any government, especially one that has been mired in a decade-long recession.

and 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've 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 represents their democratic rights. and if we truly want to help the economic situation on the island, we also need to provide parity and worker tax credits that all three and a half million american citizens living in puerto rico have access once they move to the american mainland. now, i must say i've been encouraged by speaker rye yandz and chairman bishop's acknowledgement that congress needs to act to prevent the 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 5-2 super majority 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 can seem to understand why, but it had this authority to restructure its debt. now, restructuring this debt isn't a bailout because no one gives them money. they ultimately have to restructure the debt that they have. now, while most reasonable people agree it's 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's right, a simple minority on the board could block the pathway to restructuring. and without the authority to restructure its debt, this legislation does virtually nothing to help puerto rico dig out of the hole they're in. 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, no say over who is appointed or what action they decide to take is blatant knee crow colonialism. so it's -- neocolonialism so it's okay to say puerto ricans, yes, please, wear the uniform of the united states as they have done, world war ii, korea, vietnam where if you went with me to the mall, you'd see a disproportionate number of names

of puerto ricans who gave their life on behalf of the united states or where we recently had the -- the speaker had the congressional gold medal to the 50 -- 65th infantry division that was one of the most decorated in u.s. military history. yes, it's okay. please, put on the uniform of the united states. go fight for your country. die for america, but it's not okay for you to have a voice in your future. it's not okay for you to have self-governance. and if that control board with no puerto rican representation uses its super powers under the bill as drafted and decides to close more schools that have been closed, more hospitals than have been closed, to cut pensions to the bone, to sell puerto rico's natural assets without any say, any say by the elected representatives of the three and a half million united

states citizens in puerto rico, i'm sure some will suggest that we look the other way and say that puerto ricans are worth less than any other united states citizen. and while there is some fancy language to pretend that the president will get to pick the board members, this is all a fig leaf 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 poo you are to visa stow -- the poo you are to veto -- the power to veto laws, determine the level of debt payments and make in essence what is the governing body of any state, any municipality, or of the people of 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 and fundamental democratic rights of the premium of puerto rico. the bill also puts speculating hedge funds above pensioners, including language to ensure that in any restructuring deal, the people who work their entire lives -- their entire lives -- to help the island are put at the back. -- the back of the line behind wall street. i will remind my colleagues that each and every puerto rican is an american citizen, many of whom have fought and dierksd as i said -- and diet died, as i said, for our exon. they deserve the same right rigs with respect to the citizens of new jersey, 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 faces a crisis have this become the reality as well? finally, the proposed legislation senselessly 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 towards increasing the minimum wage, i cannot fathom why anyone would support decreasing it for puerto rico. with a poverty rate of approximately 45%, lowering people's wages is not a pro-growth strategy, as some have called it. it's 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, not only toreside anywhere in the united states, they also have the right to receive any -- to receive any right and privilege that any other 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 won't have to work for subminimum wages. mr. president, as it currently stands, i'm afraid this bill provides little more than a band-aid 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'll be picking up the pieces because there won't 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 importantly, we also need to get it right. to get it rievmen right. but working together and helping each other in a time of snead 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're from. that's why we call this country "the united states of america." wcialg let's continue to honor that -- well, let's continue to honor that timeless american tradition. let's honor our country's motto of e pluribus unum, out of many one, and provide our fellow americans in freak with a tool they need -- in puerto rico with a tool they need to help themselves out. it is not a bailout. they are going to have to figure out how they will get out of the mess. you cannot preach democracy and human rights and then deny it to the american citizens of puerto rico. with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor and oabs observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. res. 473, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 473, expressing appreciation of the goals of american craft beer week and commending the small and independent craft brewers of the united states. officer snrer objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, wednesday, may 25. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks, the senate resume

consideration of s.j. res. 28 with the time equally divided between opponents and proponents until 11:00 a.m., with senator shaheen controlling ten minutes of the proponent time. finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22 and the c.r.a., all time on s. res. 28 be deemed expired at is 1:00 a.m. tomorrow. -- at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if ness no further business to come before the senate, i ask that is it stand in adjournment under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until tn

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, last week the c.d.c. announced it is monitoring nearly 300 pregnant women in the united states and territories for possible zika infections. that means nearly 300 families across our country are living through a true nightmare for expecting parents. they are waiting for news about whether their newborn will be safe and healthy. unfortunately, with almost 1,400 cases of zika already reported, the number of expecting moms and dads in this awful position is only expected to grow. as a mother and a grandmother and a united states senator, i strongly believe it is our

responsibility to act as quickly as possible for these families and the families who will unfortunately be impacted by the zika virus in the weeks and months ahead. just to be clear, mosquito season has already started in some parts of our country. we do not have any time to waste. in fact, we should have been able to act much, much sooner. president obama's emergency funding proposal to support the zika response has been available for everyone to see since february. like many of my colleagues, i was disappointed the republican leaders refused to even consider it and instead they came up with one excuse after another to delay, even though public health experts and researchers have made it very clear this is truly an urgent public health crisis. some republicans said that zika wasn't something they were willing to give the administration a penny more for. others said they would think about more money to fight zika

but only in return for partisan spending cuts. and others spent more time thinking about how to get political cover than actually trying to address this problem. but many of us knew how important this was, and we didn't give up. so i'm very glad that after a lot of pressure from women and families and governors and scientists and after a lot of pushing republicans to get serious about dealing with this emergency, many of our republican colleagues in the senate finally joined us at the table last week to open up a path for an important step forward. and i appreciate the work of chairman blunt who joint me to get this done, as well as all the senators on both sides of the aisle who voted for it. while democrats didn't get the full amount we'd hoped for in this compromise, i'm glad the senate was able to pass a $1.1 billion down payment on the president's proposal as an emergency bill without offsets. our agreement would accelerate

the administration's work and it would allow money to start flowing to address this crisis even as we continue fighting for more as needed. and this agreement was support ped by every democrat and a little less than half of the republicans in the senate. so the senate has a strong so the senate has a strong the senate has a strong, bipartisan first step ready to go. unfortunately house republicans went in a very different direction. they released an underfunded partisan and in my opinion mean spirit bill, that will only provide $620 million, less than one third what is needed in this emergency without any funding for preventative healthcare or family planning, or outreach to those at risk of getting zika. they are still insisting that funding for this public healthhe emergency be fully offset. the administration should

somehow get the money from other essential activities in order to fund the zika efforts. house republicans clearly feelpp that this of public healthcare crisis crisis is an appropriate moment to somehow nickel and dime and it is a good opportunity to prioritize over women and family. but, if you are one of nearly 300 mothers, that the cdc is monitoring what the likely zika infection or the almost 1400 people infected so far, or one of the millions expecting mothers nationwide, i bet you would like to know your government is doing everything it can now to tackle this virus. so, i, i am continued to call and senate republicans to get our bipartisan zika agreements to the house as quickly as

possible. now republicans have always said they would be willing to do this if we exchange them for the affordable healthcare cut act cuts. i think they should be just as e willing to do it for the sake of a women and families at risk. this agreement has strong these bipartisan support, it can move through the house and it can get to the president to be signed into law for our researchers, scientists can get to work. this republican-controlled congress has already waited far too long we should not wait any longer. there are other enacting the strict in, that the substitute amendment to provide one pointns 1,000,000,000 dollars in in funding to enhance the federal response and preparedness with u respect to the zika virus be agreed to. that it would be up to a one hour debate equally divided between the two leaders

for their designated time and yielding back the time of the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote onic passage of the bill with no intervening action for debate. >> is their objection? >> no. >> mr. chairman reserving the right to object, i wished our democratic colleagues would spend as much time working with us to try to solve problems as they do to negates in political theater and posturing. now senator murray, the senator from washington has done good work working with the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, senator blunt. he was coming up with a piece of legislation that funds the zika response at $1.1 billion. that legislation has already passed the united states senates but what remains to be done is the house in the senate need to come together in a conference committee which is typical way

in which a differences of approach are reconciled to come up with a responsible piece of legislation. in in the meantime, i'm glad the president has taken up our suggestion initially that until this can happen that they reprogram money, $589 million from the e bullet response that had not yet been expended and my transfer that to the zika response. i am confident that money has not been spent yet and plenty of it is available to deal with while congress does it's a business in an orderly sort of way. my i would just say to my friend in washington, my state is going to be directly in the crosshair because this mosquito is not native to washington state, butt it is for the former parts of our texas and parts of louisiana texas, think it is no one so fad has gotten busy got virus from a mosquito. it it is people who have traveled to south america or puerto rico or elsewhere and

come back to the united states. we all agree on a bipartisan basis that this is a very serious matter and we cannot wit waste time. but there is 589,000,000 hundred $89 million available to deal with it now, secondly we areered working with the house to try to reconcile the differences and try to do our response. in the meantime, our democratic colleagues are blocking legislation like the defense authorization bill, they are throwing obstacles in our way to get in the senate back to work in every way they possibly can, including the switch i'm sorry to say this is just political theater. with that mr. president, i woule object. >> the objection is heard. >> mr. president. >> the senator from washington. >> to me just say this. emergen this zika virus is an emergency now.

the my constituents do not live in texas, we have cases in washington state of people who have traveled to infected countries, gotten zika through a mosquito, come home, and now they need to have tests to determine whether or not they have been infected. those tests will not be available until we provide this money. the a a bola response money is not there and where doing every thing we can't protect the citizens. what we are trying to do is move the bipartisan bill that has been approved in the senate, quickly to the house. yes it is been attached to the appropriations bill but for us to sit back and wait until a conference committee has appointed on that and over the summer in the fall it's too late. we can deal with this nowt that is what i ask of you today

and we will continue to push until we can assure people in our states across the country that we are doing everything we absolutely can across the nation to help protect our citizens from the zika virus and in particularly expectant mothers and families. thank you. i yield the floor. >> more about the zika virus now, the director of the infectious diseases this morning outlined the zika risk as the summer and high mosquito season pouches. doctor anthony spoke at the wilson center. this is a is a little more than one hour. >> good morning. welcome to the wilson center. we are impressed that you have managed the metro and the other

issues getting into this building and we are delighted to host, or maybe terrified to host a national conversation on zika in the us, can we manage the risk? i am jane harman, president and and ceo of the wilson center, recovering politician, and we think that the subject could not be more importance. over the weekend in the washington post there was an op ed by ron claim to many of us know from various roles and governments, including as president obama's former trend for. he says quote zika is not coming to the united states, it is already here. puerto rico is already facing a crisis. when mosquito season picks up which could be any minute, the rest of the company will too.

zika is an urgent threat to american public health but you would not know it from the attitude of my former employer, susan sue, in the united states congress. for too many members this is just another occasion for the blame game. with failures like flint michigan on everybody's mind, i would have thought there would have been a rush to get ahead of the next preventable tragedy. because when these a public health crises blowup, politicians who drag their heels get embarrassed. but much more important, people become ill and some die. to their credit to the individuals on today's panel have been out there on the airwaves getting the word out from a range of angles. i am delighted they are taking our stage today. susan molinari, as i have mentioned was one of my colleagues in the house,.

>> a reforming politician also. >> she, like i have escaped the toxic partisanship. she now heads public policy at google which is dedicated funds, data, and engineering to mapping the transition of the zika virus. thank you google. likely, i'm thank you google. likely, i'm sure she is frustrated that her colleagues are not moving faster to address the health crisis. and shook it, principal deputy at the cdc has been combating disease for decades. i remember dealing with you when i was in congress. diseases like h1n1 and sars, ebola and now zika. for those who missed the memo she suggested that we could see hundreds of thousands of zika cases in puerto rico and hundreds of cases of microcephaly. let's just focus on that for a moment. my sixth grandchild, very their healthy boy was born three weeks ago. as a grandmother, and as a

parent i cannot imagine what it must be like to have a child born with microcephaly. you really have to do more to get ahead of this. when and says zika is sick. then we thought she's speaks from a deep medical background in a long record of service. the same goes for my friend, doctor anthony grouchy. the longtime director of the institute of allergy and infectious disease at nih. tony tony is a giant in the field. i cannot tell you how nervous i was to hear him say "we cannot pretend to know everything we need to know about zika". we are grateful again for jason, npr's global health in developing correspondent correspondent for moderating an important conversation. we hope that it will be a wake-up call for this town especially for the folks one-mile way on capitol hill.

now they had held a conference to bridge the gap between the two measures. i cannot imagine that congress is so busy that i can't find time for this priority. i do not know when they'll conference but tonight would not be soon enough. in the meantime, please join please join me in welcoming our distinguished panel. [applause]. >> thank you for coming today. i hope it is going to be a conversation among all of us. we will get to q&a at the end. if end. if you have questions, think about it will pass the microphone around and try to get some of the questions you have. susan i am going to start with you, just on the amount of interest, you are in some degree teaching that by what you're seeing in terms of traffic, the number of people searching about zika in the u.s. i look at some of the data you

are pulling together and, what are you seeing? it seems like you are seeing a lot of concern out there. >> that is for sure. first i want to thank the wilson center and my dear friend jane for bringing me together with all of you to discuss this issue. anytime i get an opportunity to be in this fashion ice feel extremely blessed. google, if i could just backtrack a little bit so i can put some of this in context, has context, has decided about a little over one year ago to work to try to get our arms around zika. this initially started not in the united states because so much of the attention when we begin this project in our partnership with the cdc and nih was when we are focused on other parts of the world, particularly in places where we have a very large employee base like brazil, for example. so it googled it at this point is we have three main components of our global, product

integration uncertain awareness campaign, so what we do and that is working with groups like unicef we try to predict and we do this for over 900 health conditions, people go on search and we are trying to provide more information in over 70 languages on what zika is, how to detect it, symptoms, how to deal with it and how to prevent it, an overview of the virus, public-health virus, public health alerts that we keep updating the world health organization. we do that on search. on youtube, we have partnered with content creators across latin america including sesame street and a brazilian position to try to get the word out there to raise awareness via their channels and subscribers to try to provide information on prevention message in preventing

the spread in both spanish and portuguese. the last thing we have done for long time with cdc and nih is mapped global interest on the zika virus starting in october 2015. we highlighted the timeline for when zika became a global became a global epidemic. with all of that we have given over 1,000,000 dollars and we can talk about that, engineers, we can get deeper into what we are doing on the day today. to answer your question then, knowing that is the kind of information that we look to compile, because that look to compile, because that is what google does. we try to order the world's information. so the concern around zika is it really, really clear and we have seen as of march, since november, 3000% increase in searches. so a lot of time google searches are very predictive of what is going to happen. i think that my partners on stage will tell you that we work with them on flu trends. when people start to search antihistamines, or i guess i'll be allergy trends, or but how to cure us or throw, how to do with a high fever, we we can sort of help the government to figure out when flu trends are coming.

our guys will tell you that we can start to see the beginning of the housing crisis because people started doing, they started to see this amazing birth on the scene of people trying to figure out how to get second mortgages, how to deal with bankruptcies. so now, we. so now, we have started to see this amazing growth, 3000% just from november to march in terms of people searching. that really is a dramatic increase, daresay and i would love to say that it's out of curiosity, i daresay that most of it comes from really concerned. >> i think that's at the big issue is. people are concerned and i would like to send it over to you, have prepared is the u.s. to deal with this? were going into the summer season when mosquitoes are about both hard to manage in the disease itself and that concern that people have questioned. >> well i need say that we are

not starting a good place. we used to have a lot stronger mosquito control and mosquito a readiness. the surveillance or surveillance for where the mosquitoes are in resistance patterns that they have. we really have a patchwork nation around mosquito capacity. the state health department, the local government, are really concerned and working on this. we absolutely need we absolutely need resources to get ahead of it. this is the season when mosquitoes are coming. we really have worked out plans of how to be ready and what to do at each step of the way. we really need to build that up. we have prepared the lapse across the country, cdc develop some new lab test and ship them out to states and cities, and a number of other countries around the world, those are new lab test data network as well as we would like. we also need to get better at diagnostic test that will answer more questions. >> at the beginning of this there was not really a definitive test for zika, was there? everything was getting sent to your lab in atlanta, zach correct? >> yes. the cdc. the cdc developed lab tests based on 2007 outbreak of zika, before we knew it was related to

birth defects. the virus itself can cause no symptoms in four out of five people. one person will have symptoms that are relatively mild, fever, joint pain, red eyes, really a rash that is itchy but not varies specific. you do need a lab test to know if it is eager something else. the lab test don't really give you a perfect answer every time because they have to be collected at certain times. that said, we, we are doing thousands and thousands of test every week to get information to family so that they can plan. >> were talking before coming out here, i was asked to asking how pregnant women are there on an annual basis. i have two children, a a lot of people have gone through pregnancies, it's a very nerve-racking time for people. when you think about the number of women, were women, were going to get bitten by mosquitoes the summer, and are going to be concerned, is the healthcare system in the capacity there to

manage that concern? >> every day about 10,000 babies are born. born. with zika, if you come back from an area where the virus is spreading and you are pregnant, we are recommending you see your healthcare provider, that you get a test in the first trimester and then potentially later, but you actually understand whether you are exposed and got infected or not. but we do not yet know whether babies that are born looking healthy following the zika infection are going to be developing normally. so we really need to be able to follow these babies longer term. last week we announced a new tracking system of a pregnancy registry system in the u.s. as well as a special in in puerto rico. with those registries we hope to be following women and their babies longer term so that we can understand and give good information to families about what to expect. as you are saying, what we know about the virus is pretty

concerning. microcephaly concern, these babies may never walk, talk, be able to feed themselves, care for themselves, their families are effective for life, their siblings, and their communities, we really want to prevent that kind, we really want to prevent that kind of problem for families. but we need to know more in order to prevent a 12th. >> doctor, were where do things stand in terms of a vaccine that would put this crisis behind us? is he like we could get people vaccinated. >> certainly a vaccine will be important in the long-term solution and how we address zika, particularly if you have a low level of infection in a nation like brazil, let's say you really want to do with zika what we have done with rubella. some people may remember the 1960s there is considerable risk, about 20000 rubella

babies, congenital rubella syndrome were born in the united states. the rubella vaccine which we all take as children, is one of the mandatory vaccines was originally directed to women of childbearing age. the way you get women of childbearing age as you vaccinate everybody as children so they went up and protected. if you got zika, there is some good news and some realistic sobering news. the good news is that we have made successful vaccines against other viruses, other other lady viruses you may be familiar with our yellow fever, west nile, and others. we have a very good vaccine against yellow fever and were working on even better ones. conceptually i do not see any scientific roadblock to developing a vaccine for zika. in that regard, as soon as the cdc in any age realize that we're going to have to put a full-court press on this we started working on the zika vaccine. we have done of the kinds of

technology that we have made other successful vaccines. the the way the timetable is now we have a list of about four or five vaccines that are at different levels of when we can move them from preclinical into what we call phase one study to see first of their say. the big thing about vaccine that people need to realize is that everyone wants a vaccine, the most important thing is safety. you are giving it to hundreds of thousands of normal people. so we have several candidates, the first one in the queue may not necessarily be ultimately the best one, but the first one and the key was going to go into a phase phase one clinical trial for safety and if it produces the type of response that we predict will be protected. that will happen almost certainly buys a temper 2016. there will be about 80 people because it is a note small number of people because of safety. we will do it here in the united states at multiple

sites including at the nih clinical center and bethesda. we should know in the beginning of 2017 of its day. if that's the case and we have no reason to assume it won't be, then we'll start the phase two to allow multi- thousand patients to see if it works. the thing that confuses its house and you get efficacy data is two things how effective it is, the more effective it is the quicker it works. the second factor is how many infections there are in the community at any given time. if there are still many infections in the first quarter of 2017 as we're as we're seeing now in brazil, colombia, and puerto rico, we can of the vaccine works by the end of 2017, the 17, the beginning of 2018. if the infections go down, which is good news for the public

health, it may take a couple of of years longer. that is what happened with transport, we had a good vaccine and we did the vaccine and as soon as we got it going the infection disappeared with ebola. we kind of feel it's a good vaccine. >> if you look at the outbreak, they think that outbreak peaks at the moment, it's quite possible that we will not have a vaccine until after we have had a peak in the u.s. >> be careful of when you say peak in the united states. we do not fully expect, we are going to be prepared for everything, but we have travel related cases in the continental united states over 500. we have 800 plus more in puerto rico and in the territories. we almost certainly are going to see local transmission so we need to see and get ready for

what the public and press response to that is going to be. local transmitted is going to be when someone never leaves the continental united states and gets infected. we know fairly certain we'll see it because we saw with dengue and florida, texas. we saw it in florida as well. the the critical issue is how to prevent that to becoming sustained. if we we do the kind of things and was talking about with public-health and mosquito control we can prevent it from being a disseminated outbreak. we need to be action oriented to do that. with regard to vaccines the publishing you would use it would likely be in those countries in which you have a degree of zika that it is not just, and disappear. dengue has been in the south america and caribbean for a few years now, it has now disappeared, it is still a problem. i do not think it is going to disappear after one

year. >> we had a story on air this morning about people collecting mosquitoes in houston and looking at some of the mosquito control programs there. is there, all across u.s. places where people are collecting mosquitoes, or is it very patchy ? tell us a little about what it is like in terms of the monitoring for zika virus out there, especially across the southern gulf states. >> much of mosquito control efforts are local. they can be across-the-board in texas in texas from one county to another, with what the capacity is. we're intensively doing mosquito surveillance in puerto rico right now. to try to understand where the population and hotspots are and what is heroes are resistant to certain insecticides and what works in terms of the reducing the amount and density of mosquitoes.

across the southern states are variable. we had a summit in atlanta unable first. we had a 30 state leadership team came to atlanta to talk about mosquito control. what were they doing, what could they do, could they learn from best, could they learn from best practices and some other jurisdictions. we know that there is room for improvement. there are excellent programs but across the street it might not be as strong as where you are. of course the mosquitoes are not following the district lines of where the control programs are strong. the mosquito that is a principal one that spreads the virus is really difficult to control. it is quite hearty, it can overwinter, very little very little water is needed to maintain it. it is not the kind of mosquito that you notice abiding you, can be very subtle. so. so it can be inside and outside the house. some puerto rico or some southern states where people leave the windows open, they get

the nice breeze they can have mosquitoes inside and outside that are quite difficult to control. so this is an intense part of our work right now, really evaluating different efforts to understand the best strategy. >> to also have a strategy if you start getting local transmission? also just to deal with public reaction to that? if you start having people who have not been traveling and they're coming up with ck one particular place, how do you deal with that? >> the implication of local transmission are quite large. they're not just concern on part of the public and particularly pregnant women, it's about the blood supply. in puerto rico we ship blood there for about six weeks until we could get adequate screening test to screen the blood. so this is one of the areas were state and local governments are really intensively trying to prepare, and, and again where the resources are needed. what we really want people to do

right now is when you have a travel associated case, work that out. go. go and see if there mosquitoes around the home because it is actually three travelers that our mosquitoes could get infected. we recommend if you're coming back from the caribbean or puerto rico, you should actually use mosquito repellent for about three weeks because you may have picked up the virus silently. if you get bit by a mosquito in your own area, that mosquito could pick up the virus. it is not really intuitive once your home to be born on the repellent. but that's what we recommend. but we do think the health department should be out there looking at the mosquitoes in the area. if there's more than one case we want to understand if it's a householder nearby, these are drills really that the states and locals need to do now is the weather gets warmer so they can react promptly.

we need to search lab testing, we need to get the communication out there, we need to make sure the doctors know how to do evaluations. a lot of work to do. >> do you have any sense of how likely it is, if someone goes to brazil or puerto rico or somewhere where it is clear that there is local transmission, how likely is it that someone has gotten infected, has gotten bitten and doesn't know it? >> we know that over 500 people have traveled back from the sea get infected areas to the 50 states and developed a zika infections. we probably have many more than that because those are people that are going to see someone and getting tested and going through the detection efforts. we we are probably had thousands and thousands of travelers, we know over 500. i think there are issues with probability. it would be great to know what the chances are but i think the reality is, one bites and if you're pregnant,

your baby could be harmed, that is a phenomenal problem to be working on. that really motivates the cdc, we have over 1000 people as part of our response already. there is actually 11 different centers centers and cdc are involved because it's birth effects and mosquito experts in infectious disease folks. the probability only gets you so far if you're pregnant. >> the other issue and was saying, it is counterintuitive you come back from brazil or puerto rico say i made it, i'm not affected so why should i put on put on mosquito repellent. the other interesting thing is that it is complicated and confounded by the fact that it's sexually-transmitted also. some men who return, especially from men to women but not women to men because we've been able to demonstrate the presence of the buyers through after someone has been recovered but also the documented case of sexual transmission from a man to a woman, but it's always man is a

transmitter. when you come back from a region you should really take a look, and is very well delineated on the cdc website, if you come back from a region and you have a pregnant wife, clearly you should be, if you have been effective or highly suspected of being effective, use a condom for the duration of the pregnancy. if you do not have unknown pregnant sexual partner, the same thing, if you have been infected, you have a documented infection or high suspicion of infection, you should either refrain from sex or have safe sex with a condom for six months. if you're down there do not have any symptoms any figure maybe i was, maybe in one of the 80% that do not have symptoms, you symptoms, you should use safe sex either as abstinence or the use of condoms for eight weeks. that is something that is a difficult difficult message to get across to people. you can see that, go to vacation now i'm going to come home and

it's not an easily acceptable recommendation. but it is a confounding issue when you think in terms of how it could be spread. it cannot only be spread by someone coming back, being effective bit by a mosquito and then bite someone locally which is local transmission but it could be sexual transmission. >> are we getting more information about exactly when people are risk? is it possible that if you are infected just before you got pregnant or at the very end of the third trimester, we getting this information? >> there are cohort studies and case-control studies. the cdc is doing well, we're doing one with the national institute of child health and human development of 10000 pregnant women in the study that is called the zika infancy and pregnancy study. we're trying to answer some of the questions like any viral he transmitted disease that results in congenital abnormality, the first trimester is always the most vulnerable with regard to the effects on the fetus.

we have some concerning evidence that there have been transmission at a time beyond the first trimester, well well into the second trimester and beyond in which there have been affects. it is not just first trimester. >> i was just on to say, i think this is one of the most critical questions people want to know. we know now that this virus can cause microcephaly and and some. we do not know how often it happens, if you have a zika infections what are the chances? the studies at any agency vc and collaborators on the world are so important to get that information. the other kind of study that is ongoing that we really want answers to is about what the virus does to the body. as tony was saying this persistent virus and semen is why we have to have these really complex guidance around sexual transmission. you may remember from ebola that could persist and we're seeing survivors of ebola able to start

of flareup of ebola through sexual transmission. for a bullets up to 18 months that there could still be virus and a survivor. we do not know what it is going to be with zika. my goodness, what if it was the second pregnancy you had to worry about. i think these are really important to research questions that we need to answers to. the beginning of an emergency infection like this is so much in certainty. it's uncertainty that causes concern. the more we have knowledge and hard information, the more we can plan and understand what we need to do. >> i'm wondering if the google you are seeing people drooling down people drilling down in terms of what they're searching for about zika, you getting

stuff beyond people freaking out and worried about it? racing people are looking for specific information? >> we are starting to see a trend where people are looking for more specific information. again, why i am here, and why google is so committed to this and i should add, we spent way over $1 million with unicef and have given our engineers to try to help track this because what we're seeing when people start to look, they are looking deeper, they're asking more questions, and it is mirroring the epidemic. that is something that we do know. a significant portion of time for google searches is that when those questions, after when you take it past the first click that you do start to see it follows a trend usually, proceeds a trend. so we are now at the point where we are starting to shift some of those engineers to the united states so we can continue to work with the world health organization and with the cdc, and unicef to try to get a handle and get as much information out to people in the united states where i think it has been a late coming in terms of our concern, or knowledge.

so now you will see we have put up knowledge panels and directed people to places where they can go. definitely the intensity and the click through's have grown, particularly here in the united states. >> the fact that it is mosquito borne, do do you think that adds to people's concern about it? >> well, i think it adds to a concern because it is very frustrating and how you can control mosquitoes when you have a mosquito species that is -- so that is a dimension of frustration because there's almost, there's not a lot you can do. you can try your best with larva sigh, insecticide and cleaning up the environment but even with that history has told us that this is a really difficult mosquito to deal with. it is a different kind of public health measure then when you're trying to prevent transmission from person-to-person like a

with a respiratory illness. it's a whole new venue of transmission which is quite difficult to contain. >> are the insecticides working against it? are you getting some resistance there? >> this is going to be variable. in puerto rico where we have the best data, there is one insecticide that we know works from our island testing. in some areas there's more than one but there is one that works throughout. one of the issues we have is how to deliver it. inside, outside, adult larvae, there some innovative traps that have been developed that are being used where the mosquitoes are attracted to a little bit of a sweet substance and they end up essentially killing the mosquito. i think there there are different approaches. people are naturally questioning, is it okay, if it's

going to kill mosquito what is going to do to me or my child? their procedures to make sure the products that are being used in and around homes are going to be ones that are safe and that the benefit to risk ratio is really going to be on the benefits i. it is is an area where understanding the full range of options and investing in innovation is very important. you you probably heard about innovative strategies for mosquito control genetically modified mosquitoes, the bacteria, think it's exciting to have several new avenues being evaluated. in the meantime before they are really ready for massive scale up have to use the tools that have been out there, but we really have to assess whether they are working in real-time. >> given that so many of the cases that we are dealing with the u.s. are travel related, i have to ask the trouble question. everyone wants to know, if i'm going to go somewhere can i protect myself? is a possible for me to go to save elin picks in brazil and protect myself and come back and be fine? >> of course you can.

nothing is 100%. those are the recommendation we make. if you are pregnant, it might be pregnant, going to be pregnant, don't go to an area in which there is local outbreak. if you do go, you can do things to protect yourself to the best of your ability. for example wearing close that cover considerable part of your body. there seems. there seems to be in some situation reluctance to use insect repellent. the approved insect repellent that contain 30% deed are safe. they're safe to use. you should. you should not hesitate to use insect repellent. obviously when you're in a country that does not have, screens, air-conditioning, sometimes it is difficult to protect yourself in that regard. it is easier here in the united states because we do have that. we do have air. we do have air-conditioning and screens. but proper dressing, keeping in

a place that is not mosquito friendly. mosquitoes don't like air-conditioned rooms. using insect repellent is another way that you can help to protect yourself. >> i left to open it up to questions in the room, if anyone has a question i will start with you in the back, wait wait until you get the microphone. tell us who you are, wait until you get the mic. >> thank you so much for your expertise. i am an associate with the wilson center, i've been looking at this issue for some time now. the trend of this problem seems to be about knowledge and management, i wanted to ask you the u.s. we consider two strategies that have been used in other regions in europe and latin america? what is the use of genetically modified mosquitoes come of that something days in brazil and

other places, and then could we harness the power of citizens? could we teach them and harness the power to improve mosquitoes. >> it do we think about going further and using citizens and really the power to understand better what it's about to actually innovate? >> maybe i can start. the issue with the genetically modified mosquitoes is there are some evaluations being considered, the fda has okayed a pilot assessment by which community input communities are deciding whether they want to go that way or not. in terms of citizen engagement,

it's incredibly important. it's an area where everybody has a role to play. i do not know that i would say for diagnostic tests distribution, at least, at least in the u.s. there is a good system, in terms of source control, in, in terms of making sure that your cleaned up the neighborhood in the backyard, cleaned up the standing water in the tires and so forth in the garbage areas, but also in terms of information. that issue pregnant women making sure they know what they need to do to protect themselves and couples know what they need to do. i think that question of mosquito monitoring and think some innovative ways that they could be tapped into that. there certainly is science to figuring out which kind of mosquito it is and is it resistant or not? i think there is more power of communities that could be used. that is part of what is being developed for puerto rico and in the southern states i think it is a good idea as well. >> is there some way to get people to move beyond just searching? i don't know if there's some way

to take that interest and channel people to take action the way she was asking. >> i was thinking about that and about a proposal while you're talking. particularly here in the united states. i think one thing we have done successfully in latin america is using our youtube channels and partners because then you really have an ability to deal with subscribers, it's not just a one-shot message, you're reaching different populations that work with unicef and the world health organization in terms of how to get that message out there. the knowledge panels are written particularly in the united states with the help of our health partners. whenever we get the opportunity to get a message from these amazing individuals we will put it on our health panels. as we are are here i was just thinking about the memo that i'm going to send. >> it's not what i say, 22 after i leave.

we need to talk more proactive things that people can do in the united states in particular and may be evolving some more less traditional media outlets to get some of the conversation going. >> i want to add just one of the things that would help in the areas of where there's a lot of circulation like puerto rico, is in follow installing screens. all of the schools and clinics that need the screens. when we we look at the map it's a humongous effort. community volunteer engagement may help. there are some private sector companies helping think through the product availability. there is involvement of governments but i do think there's some community effort that if you want to clean up a park one day maybe can also help with screen or net availability and some of the public setting. >> i want to get a few more questions. all. all the way in the back corner. tell us your name as well.

>> [inaudible question] >> go ahead and stand up. we are not hearing you. >> i am a physician and a student of anthropology. my research has to do with music and culture factors rented central america. my question is to continue with the idea people's behavior and prevention, i wonder if there is social science research in your agencies that deals with different cultural, structural conditions and framed the way that people react to make decisions? >> i can say that there has been some involvement of that in some of our fieldwork and particularly focusing on

planning for the communication or outreach efforts. we have done focus groups are informant interviews, a lot going on with pregnant women in puerto rico to understand what are their concerns, what are are their practices and what are they interested in. but there's probably a lot more that could be done. i am am not sure about nih work. >> we are not doing this ourselves in funding it, but our interactions with our colleagues in brazil. what you said about social determinants is very important. what we're finding is that the ability for people in a particular region to have any control over their risk is very difficult because like it many diseases, poverty is a bad thing. if you if you live in an area where you have watcher that you cannot get rid of, you have environmental neglect which

leads to the breeding of mosquitoes, it makes it very difficult. the people at least in the beginning in the epidemic that suffered the most for the people that lived in the very poor northeastern section of brazil. it was really the epicenter early on. we're seeing it more diffuse now. they really had nothing to do a social or behavioral issues, and had to do with the unfortunate poverty circumstances that they were in. >> the microphone is coming to. >> i have a quick question. most of the new stories have been directed toward and separately and the effects on pregnant women, i wonder if it affects another demographic, neurological diseases that might affect other parts of the population. >> you're talking about a

cambrian others? >> it will be on bray is, no doubt we are not seeing the effects of that, we're seen 2400 infections, that's not, that's not the most accurate, we need to do more of these studies, but the relationship between gilly and and seek it is very clear. we have seen individual case reports and we have to be careful. we see this in viral disease there are outliers like met encephalitis and in 81-year-old man,, we cannot say for sure that their significant part of it but there does not seem to be anything of anything significance above and beyond --

in an on pregnant situation. what we are seeing which is important and i think this is an underappreciated fact is that we look at microcephaly as one particular problem that is the thing that is with infection. if you look at these babies, microcephaly microcephaly may be one reflection of developmental reality due to the virus or developmentally tissue but these babies have other issues, retinal, eye problems, deafness problems, deafness and other problems. i think when we do finally get the full scope, we we are going to see that microcephaly may be the most obvious gross manifestation of the effects. there may be a lot of other things that we are seeing that will be detrimental to the fetus. >> just in terms of the trend

five or the trend -- we have enough to say that the risk is high enough in terms of the concern about the birth defects. we do not know factors to make it more likely that someone is going to get trained in general it increases with age. the older you are the high the risk risk is. it is a on common condition. i do think that further study of the full spectrum of zika infection from the mildest no symptoms to what are these rare but potentially serious complications will help us understand whether there are

some predictors that would help give some warnings to people. >> i wonder if the goods showing us some weaknesses. is it the potential that another virus that is also mosquito borne could be creating trip three and a much higher rate then what did you say 24000? is it showing us that there is the potential there in the ways that the disease is spread that someone who could be even far worse than zika has access? it may not be happening now but you said it could have the potential of other factious diseases. >> yes. they are going to keep coming. at the end of 2015 i was giving a talk and at the end of the a bowl a epidemic that you can be absolutely certain that you're going to see another emergence affectionate sometime and no further than did i say that that zika came. we are going to

continue to see the interaction between and sometimes you get them explosive like hiv-aids and then there is more than 70 million people infected. you have things that clips of curiosities, you have things that, and then good public health measures to suppress them, we did not have a vaccine for sars but it was a very intensive public health measure to suppress them. then you have something that is devastating to a region like ebola and something that is causing concern to the americas but beyond the americas, because i can tell you that the europeans and people in africa are quite worried that this is going to be seen what we are seen in the americas were going to see there. the right. there's a possible you're good to see more this. >> between the way that we live in the way microbes evolve there will always be new ones. this one is more concerning than a lot of them because of the permanent harm that babies can

experience. we know there are more of them. there are some circumstances that let us know this was happening. a very dense population in northeastern brazil, good surveillance to detect that it was not -- it was it zika that was causing the fever. then us to clinicians recognize this and said that we have not even seen microcephaly now have several in my clinic. it raised the alarm about that. we need every country to have a strong front-line public health system where they can detect new problems, they can react quickly to prevent catastrophe. we had a strong public health system in other places we would not of had 20000 people suffer from the disease. even in the u.s. where we have a good system we were not as ready as we needed to be for the importation. between human behavior and the mosquito concern and then these

pathogens, it just really adapt and evolve, and spread, we know that we have to be ready for multiple outbreaks at the same time. >> i'm going to know to this guy right here. >> thank you jason. i'm from the medical college, recently i just come back from a number of countries in south america doing risk assessment for zeke at hospitals and labs. for now doing the same thing in the u.s. but with state and local county level. what's really evident from people i've talked to is that zika is becoming a gender nightmare. the burden that that we put on women of reproductive age, whether they can protect themselves from mosquito bites were actually decide when, how, and when they're going to have sex is really they're not empowered to do that. we have seen a lot of worried people and their turning up to the physician and also am i pregnant, do i have zika? were talking to a lot of physicians and nurses about the counseling and mental health needs for the

families, grandparents, the community, and i put the analogy to other programs that were familiar with like malaria, national campaigns were going to schools, is it to schools, is it time for u.s. national zika, a united states zika campaign so we do mobilize the community and address the needs and we take that burden off just the moms? >> we do think that everyone has a role to play and people are saying don't do this and don't to that, and and often they can feel like they're in the salon. i think the idea of protecting our communities against the harm of zika can cause is very important. we have to remember is the risk is really different. in mid it's different in minnesota than the florida keys and puerto rico. right now were launching the committee case and campaign in puerto rico to make it a community issues with the billboards, besides a level works, partly funded through the

gates foundation because we do not have a lot of money at. i think the issue of this is not any one individual's problem, it's a problem we need to work together and not put more pressure on one person. the the other thing to say is that importer rico, two out of three pregnancies are not planned. in the u.s. one out of two is not planned. if you're you're not planning to have a pregnancy then having access to contraceptives is a good thing because this is a time where having that access would be important if you're not trying to get pregnant because there is a new threat the pregnancy that you have to be concerned about. >> thinking about this issue about it not been as much of a threat in minnesota, is there more clarity on the transmission -- the way that the those two mosquitoes, the map of them is different. the people of the surrency board need to be

worried about this? is a more clarity on that? >> they can be transmitted but in situations when you have over lapping, the dominant vector is that ag vector. that focuses on one species and other mosquitoes get distracted, they bite animals, these mosquitoes have one objectives, bite humans and only humans, indoor outdoor, morning, noon, and night. that's the mosquito you have to worry about. >> my name is aaron i'm from -- recognize that i'm speaking to the public health professionals

and business representatives i'm curious if you could reflect on the media landscape associated with zika and public health threats that are popping up in the past. how can we learn from the domestic media frenzy related to ebola and how does increased attention to the public health threats help or hurt domestic and international response, raising the political profile of health threats, helping or hurting, if you could speak on that. >> do you want to try to tackle that one? >> no. [laughter] >> i think that at google at least where people have to seek us. so i think probably what were talking about here is not causing panic in areas where there may not be panic, certainly i was pregnant twice and went through anxiety every

day for everything that i caught, did are damaged. and so to make sure that we are people with knowledge but not on do panic and make sure that i think that's one of the things google is helpful. people who do have concerns will be brought to a series of knowledge panels that are going to be updated all of the time. the people who are concerned who may be at risk are going to be getting the information, at the same time working with these individuals so that we start to see mapping that means we the rest of the media have to be more aggressive, so we can see those trends. >> i think the media has been good about not being overly hysterical about this. in fact i've been pleased with

it. there's always exception, but for the most part there have not been stories, or headlines that have been egregiously misleading about threats that are not there. usually, there was a situation and it was really isolated during the evil outbreak when there is a paper that came out that said that ebola is a virus that is mutated in the next thing you knew someone who should not of said it said all mutating it could be respiratory born. the next thing you knew there was this concern that now all of a sudden abel is going to be respiratory born. i don't like that, i thought that was a little little bit over the edge there were talking about that when there is no evidence whatsoever. i would not blame that on the media but that is something that came out in the media that i think was misleading. >> that is really the challenge the right informing not alarming. >> i do agree that i think the media has been responsible and frankly this virus is scary

enough on its own. you actually don't have to hide this to have a virus that a mosquito bite bite can affect you and you can have a baby that is harmed forever. but i think there is another problem that we just get fatigued with the new problem. tony and i will be working on something for years, that the public moved on years ago. we cannot fix this overnight. this is overnight. this is going to take time and a lot of work. so whether it's the media, the social media for the attention to it cannot fade before our response is strong. we really need to not hype this to find a way to have persistent attention and focus. and public health health and research we are activated, we are working intensively on how we get support for that without alarming people i think that is the challenge. >> we have time for a few more questions. way in in the back on the right.

>> again tell us your name. >> hello i'm charlotte i'm an ob/gyn at the george washington university. it is going to be a long summer for us, every woman coming in with a mosquito bite, what general advice do you have for that particular situation? [laughter] >> oh boy. thank you so much for what you do. i know an ob/gyn you're always counseling because people want to take care of themselves, they want a healthy baby. there's probably many other things besides the insect repellent that are important for women to do during pregnancy. but i think we hope to have better information that can help with the risk in context. right now we do not have any local transition in the 50 states. the only part of the united states with local transmission from mosquitoes is a puerto rico, the u.s. virgin islands, the territories in u.s. somalia. right now the focus is on travel

risks. also having that health department come out and assess the travel associated circumstances. good luck this summer and the woman that you will be seen. >> what is going to happen is that women, the first message you get your patients is that if there is no local outbreak there is very little chance that a mosquito bite that person got in their backyard is going to get them zika. you never say say zero but it is almost zero. if we do have local outbreak, which as i mentioned a few minutes ago i think there is a reasonably good chance we'll see it likely in the gulf coast the way that we did with other viruses than it is not going to be unreasonable for someone to come into clinic at gw and seo sitting in my backyard and i got bit by mosquito. i know that there is a good florida and in texas so how do i know that

mosquito -- that's going to be a problem. they're going to be demanding to have tests for zika. when you have a demand for testers to type a test, there is a test, mi affected now? that? that will tell you whether you're actively affected. then there's one that if you got infected three weeks ago, the question is was i infected? that's the test we are trying to work on to get a great deal of asbestos city that you don't confuse it with something else like a view been vaccinated with yellow fever or if you have to live in the southern part of this region to have had dengue. that is going to be a challenge. that's the reason why the cdc, to a, to a great extent and nih are working on diagnostic that is highly specific and highly sensitive to be able to answer the question of somebody, what infected four weeks ago because i'm a week pregnant now.

>> when you look at the question of if were prepared as a nation for this, were talking earlier was the number of tests he could do a week? 23000? >> that is what were doing now, 23000. but. >> but potentially millions of women are pregnant. >> one of the things that we have a couple of test that the fda have given approval for and to companies that have gotten approval i believe in anything we really want the commercial sector to step up this. that is that is another reason why the resources are quite important. if they see this as a real commitment there's going to be more commercial interest in doing their part. ideally we will get better test and scale even further with a test that we have right now. >> i do not mean to play the doomed scenario. but if if you do have local transmission is not just the women was bit, my my husband works as a river over there and now do i need to be concerned about whether or not there's a sexual transmission?

i think if we start to get local transmission, a lot of this, some of that will really ramp up and terms of the concern. how that gets managed, i think it's going to be the hallmark. >> it's very interesting because we have faced this with other perceptions of risk. with the anthrax letters before asking if i actually picked up the letters that came into my house in a variety of things in the earlier years of hiv/aids and whether not you could get it by casual contact. so the issue of relative risk, so a risk may be a new roof, mainly a risk that your patients perceive that you have, that risk may be far less than that's everyday of their lives but a

risk that their use two. risk, even though they are less risky than a risk of getting on the beltway every morning which is probably more risky than anything that your patients face, the extra twist with this, when the risk is to your developing baby, that trumps everything. >> absolutely. >> that is really the thing that is going to transform people's perception of risk. that brings it into a whole new category. >> well said. >> i'm going to have one more question. >> well, so what a a superb panel first of all. exceptional people who know how to tell it straight and now scare us to death, although as a grandmother now i am geared for the yet unborn new grandchildren that may children will have. my question is about congress. i started there, susan susan i know you want to answer this question. do we need these bills that i've

been passed by both houses, do we need congress to step in, what do we need from congress, and how do we make that happen in this toxic partisan town? >> i guess my initial reaction would be that even though this town is -- we hope that an issue like this would not be partisan. when we're talking about the difference in this which is really that of emotional and societal difference of taken responsibility for something and making decisions to deal with your unborn baby or deal with your child it is something that i do not know, at least in my lifetime have experienced with regard to the level of concern in the generations after. the repercussions for generations after, so it is sad that this is one area -- what

i've heard you say the entire time is that this is a significant matter of resources to do it done well and thoughtfully. >> the answer to your questions that the president asked for 1,900,000,000 dollars because $9 billion because we need $1.9 billion. he did not ask for a slush one. so what the cdc is doing, what other agencies are doing, is that we are now using money that we would otherwise be using for other things. you can you can only do that for certain period of time. you cannot go beyond that. you really have to start paying it back and then you're going to start doing things that are also very important. we really need the congress to act quickly. taking money from the able account is not the solution. it just just is not. as anzac, we're still seeing outbreaks of zika that if we lay gunned down, this cdc is still seen a thousand a month. for ebola.

so the short answer is that we need the money that the president asked for. >> i think that is a fairly good place to end. we'll bring it right back to where we started. think overcoming [applause]. thank you all for coming. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> ..