U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–457 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–239 

IMPACT OF FEDERAL LABOR AND SAFETY LAWS 

ON THE U.S. SEAFOOD INDUSTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 6, 2015 

Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Chairman 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Ranking Member 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

ANN JACOBS, Democratic Staff Director 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page 

Vitter, Hon. David, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana ................... 1 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ....................................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

PANEL 1 

Dr. Steven Solomon, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration ................................................................... 8 

Ms. Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor ................................................................... 26 

PANEL 2 

Dr. Mike Strain, Commissioner, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and 

Forestry ................................................................................................................. 43 

Mr. John P. Connelly, President, National Fisheries Institute ........................... 51 

Mr. Frank Randol, President, Randol Inc. ............................................................ 60 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Connelly, John P. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Highliner Foods 

Letter Dated May 5, 2015 ................................................................................ 4 

Randol, Frank 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Addendum 1 ...................................................................................................... 74 

Addendum 2 ...................................................................................................... 77 

Addendum 3 ...................................................................................................... 79 

Addendum 4 ...................................................................................................... 81 

Addendum 5 ...................................................................................................... 90 

Addendum 6 ...................................................................................................... 112 

Addendum 7 ...................................................................................................... 123 

Addendum 8 ...................................................................................................... 142 

Addendum 9 ...................................................................................................... 149 

Addendum 10 .................................................................................................... 177 

Addendum 11 .................................................................................................... 193 

Addendum 12 .................................................................................................... 212 

Addendum 13 .................................................................................................... 237 

Addendum 14 .................................................................................................... 263 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Letter Dated April 30, 2015 ............................................................................. 72 

Solomon, Dr. Steven 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Responses to questions for the record ............................................................. 264 

Strain, Mike 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

Page

IV 

—Continued 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Vitter, Hon. David 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Wu, Portia 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Responses to questions for the record ............................................................. 269 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(1) 

IMPACT OF FEDERAL LABOR AND SAFETY 

LAWS ON THE U.S. SEAFOOD INDUSTRY 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in Room 

SR–428A, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. David Vitter, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Vitter, Risch, Fischer, Ayotte, Shaheen, and 

Cantwell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, CHAIRMAN, 

AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Chairman VITTER. Good afternoon. We are going to start our 

hearing today on the Impact of Federal Labor and Safety Laws on 

the U.S. Seafood Industry. Thanks for joining us today. 

We are going to be hearing from two panels of expert witnesses 

and stakeholders, a Federal panel who I will introduce in a minute, 

and then a stakeholder panel. I want to thank all of our witnesses 

for being here today to testify on these important issues. 

As anyone who has visited Louisiana knows, we enjoy great quality seafood and that plays a major role in our culture and our economy, and this is true for other States in the United States and it 

is an important part of our economy. In Louisiana, that seafood industry supports 20,000 jobs in the State with an annual economic 

impact of over $1.7 billion. 

More regionally, the Gulf States produce 70 percent of the nation’s oysters, 69 percent of domestic shrimp, and are a leading producer of domestic hard- and soft-shell blue crabs. More broadly, the 

seafood industry is responsible for creating jobs and revenue that 

supports so many families along the Gulf, in Alaska, and elsewhere, including the East Coast and the West Coast. 

Seafood processors in Louisiana and across the Gulf Coast rely 

on seasonal foreign workers to fill the most labor-intensive positions throughout the sector. These workers come to the United 

States legally under the H–2B visa program. This program is vital 

to many in the seafood business, as many of these operations take 

place in small rural communities where access to a stable, reliable 

labor force can be extremely difficult. 

Recently, we have seen the difficulty of compliance with this program increase, most notably the Department of Labor’s decision to 

stop accepting private wage rate surveys, which has often forced 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

2 

businesses to reallocate their financial resources, and that has been 

a big, big cost increase for these businesses. 

Another area that requires attention is ensuring the safety of 

seafood that is being imported into the country. It is imperative 

that we ensure that foreign imports are playing by the same rules 

and regulations that our domestic producers operate under, and 

that is one of the reasons I introduced the Imported Seafood Safety 

Standards Act. This legislation increases inspection rates, quality 

standards, and penalties in order to protect American families. 

In closing, we need to make sure that Federal regulations of all 

types, like the two areas I have highlighted, do not unfairly and 

negatively impact our small domestic seafood providers. What 

Washington bureaucrats often fail to realize is that their rulemaking can literally put some small businesses, like domestic seafood producers, out of business. So, we need to focus on these and 

other regulatory areas. 

Again, I thank everyone for being here today and I look forward 

to our discussion. 

With that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member, Senator 

Shaheen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, RANKING 

MEMBER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

all of our panelists this afternoon for being here. 

As the Chairman said, seafood is a big issue in my home State 

of New Hampshire just as it is in Louisiana. Even though we only 

have 18 miles of coastline, it is an industry that is important to the 

State, both because of our tourism industry and the fishing—the 

pleasure boat fishing that goes on off the coast of New Hampshire, 

but also because we have not only a small fishing industry, but we 

also have a fish processing industry in New Hampshire. 

And, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of brevity and because I have 

to leave early, I am going to submit my full statement for the 

record, but I just wanted to raise a couple of concerns. 

One is not directly related to this hearing, but since we are talking about seafood, I feel compelled to talk about the concerns that 

we have in New Hampshire and the Northeast relative to the fishing quotas that have been set by the Department of Commerce and 

specifically by NOAA. Over the past few years, the Federal Government has found that the declining levels of cod in the Gulf of 

Maine have been dramatic. There is some disagreement about that 

among scientists and among the fishing industry, but they have set 

very dramatic, very low quotas that have almost totally decimated 

the fishing industry in New Hampshire, and again, I appreciate 

that that is not the subject of today’s hearing, but it is an issue 

that we are very concerned about and I think it is something that 

we need to deal with because of its impact on our small business 

fishing fleet in New Hampshire. 

The other issue that is relevant to today’s discussion is one that 

is having an impact in New Hampshire, as well, and that is the 

impact of creating a separate Federal program to remove catfish inspection authority from the FDA. As some of you probably already 

know, the 2008 farm bill transferred the inspection of catfish alone 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

3 

from FDA to the Department of Agriculture and it left the FDA 

with the jurisdiction of all other seafood products. That means that 

all of our seafood processors that handle catfish will now be subject 

to two separate sets of regulations. This is a costly and unnecessary burden on these businesses. It will kill jobs and hurt economic 

development. 

And, in fact, just the prospect of this regulation has put a freeze 

on job creation in some of those companies in New Hampshire. One 

seafood company, High Liner Foods, which I have had the opportunity to tour, has put on hold the job expansion that they would 

like to do because of the uncertainty around these regulations, and 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this letter from High Liner 

Foods for the record, if I can. 

[The letter follows:] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

4 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 99457.003
5 

Chairman VITTER. Without objection. 

Senator SHAHEEN. This duplicative regulation does not just affect 

the seafood industry and it is not really about food safety, I believe. 

I think it is an effort to set up trade barriers against foreign catfish 

that will dramatically affect not only the seafood processing business in New Hampshire and this country, but it also could put us 

open to challenge at the WTO and trade retaliation against other 

agricultural industries. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I have been working with other members of 

the Senate to try and repeal this duplicative program. I hope we 

can do that. I think it is unnecessary and I hope that we will have 

the opportunity to do that and to further discuss this, not just in 

this committee, but when we get to the floor of the Senate. 

So, thank you again to our panelists for being here and I look 

forward to the discussion today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

6 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 242 here 99457.242
7 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 243 here 99457.243
8 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

We will now go to our first panel of witnesses, our Federal panel. 

I will introduce both and then we will hear their testimony and 

have discussion following their testimony. 

Dr. Steven Solomon is Deputy Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs at the FDA, and he was appointed to that in April 

2014. Prior to his appointment, he served in several capacities at 

the FDA since 1990. Dr. Solomon holds a D.V.M. degree from Ohio 

State University and a Master’s of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University. Prior to joining the FDA, he owned and operated 

a private veterinary practice. 

And, he will be followed by Ms. Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary 

of the Employment and Training Administration within the U.S. 

Department of Labor. She was appointed to that in April 2004 and 

she now leads that Employment and Training Administration with 

its mission to address our nation’s workforce needs through high 

quality training and employment programs. Prior to that, she held 

a number of positions in public, nonprofit, and private sector situations, including serving at the White House on the Domestic Policy 

Council as Special Assistant to the President for Labor and Workforce Policy. Ms. Wu holds a Yale Law School degree and a degree 

from Yale College and a Master’s degree from Cornell, and is originally from Albany, New York. 

Welcome to both of you, and we will start with Dr. Solomon. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN M. SOLOMON, D.V.M., M.P.H., DEPUTY 

ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR REGULATORY AFFAIRS, 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Dr. SOLOMON. Good afternoon, Chairman Vitter, Ranking Member Shaheen, and members of the committee. I am Dr. Steve Solomon, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs at the 

Food and Drug Administration, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the agency’s ongoing efforts to 

oversee the safety of the U.S. seafood supply. 

FDA has a strong regulatory program in place to ensure the safety of both domestic and imported seafood. In fact, the Hazard Analysis and Risk Preventive Control framework of FDA’s seafood safety program is a basis for the preventive controls requirements for 

other FDA regulated foods called for in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, or FSMA. The agency has a variety of tools to ensure compliance with seafood safety requirements, including inspections of both domestic and foreign processing facilities, a hundred percent electronic screening of all imported products, examination of sampling of domestic seafood and seafood offered for import in the United States, domestic surveillance sampling of imported products, inspection of seafood importers, and foreign country program assessments. 

In today’s testimony, I want to discuss FDA’s regulatory framework for overseeing the safety of the U.S. seafood supply, emphasizing the agency’s risk-based efforts with regard to imported seafood. 

Processors of fish and fishery products are subject to FDA’s Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, or HACCP, regulation. In 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

9 

short, the regulation requires both domestic and foreign processors 

of fish and fishery products to understand the food safety hazards 

associated with their process and product and require a preventive 

system to control for those hazards. Every processor is required to 

have and implement a written HACCP plan whenever a hazard 

analysis reveals one or more food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur. Foreign processors who export seafood to the 

United States also have to have—apply to the HACCP regulation. 

In addition, HACCP regulations require importers to understand 

the hazards associated with the products they are importing and 

to take positive steps to verify that they obtain shipments from foreign processors who comply with these requirements. 

In recent years, there have been reports of seafood in the United 

States being labeled with incorrect market names. FDA is aware 

that there may be economic incentives for some seafood producers 

and retailers to misrepresent the identity of the seafood species 

that they sell to buyers and consumers. While seafood fraud is 

often an economic issue, we have heightened concerns when species 

substitution poses a public health risk. 

The agency has invested in significant scientific advancements to 

enhance its ability to identify seafood species using state-of-the-art 

DNA sequencing. FDA is actively working to transfer this technology, which will enable the seafood industry and others to monitor and test their products to confirm the species purchase is correct. 

Turning now to imports specifically, it is the importers’ responsibility to offer for entry into the United States product that is fully 

compliant with all applicable U.S. laws. FDA has numerous tools 

and authorities that enable the agency to take appropriate action 

regarding imported product. In recent years, the agency has significantly increased its number of foreign food inspections. Furthermore, if FDA requests to inspect a foreign facility and is refused, 

FSMA gave the agency the authority to not allow that facility’s 

food submission into the United States. 

Besides HACCP inspection of foreign facilities, the agency also 

conducts surveillance of food offered for import at the border to 

check for compliance with U.S. requirements. FDA reviews all import entries electronically prior to the product being allowed into 

the country. The agency has implemented an automated screening 

tool, the PREDICT system, which significantly improves FDA’s 

screening of imported food. PREDICT utilizes the admissibility history of the firm and/or a specific product and incorporates the inherent risk associated with the product. For example, a PREDICT 

review includes the facility inspection history, data quality concerns, sample analytical findings, and type of product that the firm 

offers for entry into U.S. commerce. 

Based on this electronic screening, the agency will direct resources to the most critical entries that have the greatest impact 

on public health. A subset of the import entries flagged may be 

physically inspected and/or sampled at varying rates depending on 

the type of the seafood product and the risk factors described. 

Another key regulatory tool for controlling imported goods is the 

Import Alert. Import Alerts inform FDA field personnel that the 

agency has sufficient evidence or other information about a parDeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

10 

ticular product, producer, shipper, or importer to believe that future shipments of an importer product may be violative. On the 

basis of that evidence, FDA field personnel may detain the article 

that is being offered for import in the United States without physically examining the product. The agency has over 45 active seafood Import Alerts that focus on imports from certain firms, products, and/or countries based upon past violations or public health 

concerns. 

An Import Alert shifts the burden to the importer to demonstrate 

that the product meets FDA regulatory requirements. For example, 

FDA imposed a country-wide Import Alert on five aquaculture species from China in June 2007 due to the presence of unapproved 

animal drugs. These entries are currently subject to private laboratory testing before they are allowed into domestic commerce. 

Finally, I would like to note that the FDA is working globally to 

better accomplish its mission to promote and protect the public 

health of the United States. As one example, the agency has conducted foreign country assessments to evaluate the country’s laws 

for and implementation of good aquaculture practices. FDA uses 

the information from country assessments to target better surveillance sampling of imported aquaculture products, informs its planning of foreign seafood HACCP inspections, provide additional evidence for potential regulatory actions, and improve collaboration 

with foreign government and industry to achieve better compliance 

with FDA’s regulatory requirements. 

In closing, oversight of the safety of the U.S. food supply continues to be a top priority for FDA. The agency has a strong regulatory program in place for seafood products. We will continue to 

work with our domestic and international partners to ensure the 

safety of both domestic and imported seafood. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

11 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 99457.004
12 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 99457.005
13 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 99457.006
14 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 99457.007
15 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 99457.008
16 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 99457.009
17 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 99457.010
18 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 99457.011
19 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 99457.012
20 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 99457.013
21 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 99457.014
22 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 99457.015
23 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 99457.016
24 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 99457.017
25 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 99457.018
26 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Now, we will hear from Ms. Wu. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PORTIA WU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Ms. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Vitter, Ranking 

Member Shaheen, members of the committee, thank you for having 

me here today to discuss the H–2B program and the seafood industry. My name is Portia Wu and I am the Assistant Secretary at the 

Employment and Training Administration at the Department of 

Labor. Together with the Department of Homeland Security, we 

administer the H–2B program. 

The H–2B program allows employers to meet legitimate needs for 

temporary foreign workers and the Department takes very seriously its statutory responsibility to administer this program and to 

ensure that U.S. workers have meaningful access to these job opportunities, that their wages and working conditions are not adversely affected. These efforts also help protect foreign-born workers from exploitation. 

The Department recognizes the vital role that the H–2B program 

plays for the seafood industry. Many seafood employers are multigenerational family-owned businesses and they are a source of cultural pride in coastal areas. The jobs these businesses provide are 

critical to local communities and create additional jobs in other related industries. 

And, Mr. Chairman, as you referenced, these businesses are 

often in remote or rural areas and so they can struggle to attract 

and retain a sufficient workforce necessary to provide seafood products for the United States and for the world. Thus, many do depend on temporary workers, including temporary foreign workers. 

Over the last five years, employers in some of the largest seafood 

producing States, like Louisiana and Maryland, were among the 

top ten users of the H–2B program, and last year, approximately 

55 percent of the seafood jobs certified by the Department of Labor 

were located in the Gulf Coast States, ranging from shrimp boat 

deckhands in Texas to seafood and crawfish processors and packagers in Louisiana. 

We understand that seafood employers and others are impacted 

by the current annual 66,000 number cap on H–2B workers. That 

cap is set by Congress. And, we are again seeing demand nationwide that exceeds that cap. 

The Department is committed to maintaining a fair and reliable 

application process for those who use the program. However, unfortunately, in recent years, we have faced difficulties in achieving 

stability in this program because the Department of Labor’s H–2B 

regulations have been subject to numerous cases brought in court 

by both employers and worker advocates. In fact, this litigation ultimately resulted in temporarily suspending the processing of H– 

2B applications earlier this year. 

Last week, in order to quickly reinstate the H–2B program and 

also to bring certainty, stability, and continuity to that program, 

the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security jointly issued two new regulations. One is an interim final rule 

establishing the overall framework for the H–2B program. I should 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

27 

note that is an interim final rule, so it is open for public comment 

until June 29. The other is a final updated wage rule that allows 

the use of private wage surveys in certain circumstances in keeping 

with a recent court decision. 

These rules immediately restore processes for approving prevailing wage requests and labor certification applications so the 

program can continue to operate. They expand employer requirements for recruitment and consideration of U.S. workers so United 

States workers have a fair shot at finding and applying for these 

jobs. It also permits employers in the seafood industry to continue 

to stagger the entry of their H–2B workers into the United States. 

The regulations strengthen worker protections by clarifying employer obligations with respect to wages, working conditions, and 

benefits that must be offered to H–2B and U.S. workers alike. 

And, finally, as I noted, the rules explicitly include the use of private wage surveys, which were restricted by a recent court decision, and they—so, we set guidelines for how these surveys can 

now be used, and that includes State surveys, which are often used 

in the seafood industry. 

Both the Department of Labor and DHS are trying to ensure a 

smooth transition between the former regulations and the new 

rules. First and foremost, anyone who had already applied under 

the old rules or who were in line does not have to change anything. 

They will continue to operate under the prior regulations. 

Second, the new regulations allow an expedited process for employers who have a start date of need before October 1, 2015, so 

people will have time to quickly transition. 

In conclusion, the Department of Labor strives to maintain an 

H–2B program that is both responsive to legitimate employer needs 

where qualified U.S. workers are not available and to provide adequate protections for U.S. and foreign temporary workers. Doing so 

is not only good for law-abiding employers, including employers in 

the seafood industry, but also for the many U.S. workers seeking 

jobs in fields that rely heavily on the H–2B program. 

Thank you again for this opportunity and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wu follows:] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

28 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 99457.019
29 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 99457.020
30 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 99457.021
31 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 99457.022
32 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 99457.023
33 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 99457.024
34 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 99457.025
35 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 99457.026
36 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wu, and we will start 

with our questions, and let me begin with you on one of the topics 

you discussed directly, and that is private wage surveys. 

Is it not correct that the new rule you were describing greatly 

limits compared to past practice, greatly narrows and limits the 

use of private wage surveys? 

Ms. WU. Senator, it is true that in December last year, we had— 

our previous rule allowed significant use of private wage surveys. 

That use was enjoined by a court in December of last year and the 

court’s opinion lays out a great deal of reasoning, including concerns about how private wage surveys might undercut wages and 

some other reasons that, for example, surveys that use only entrylevel wages are not permissible under the law. They found that to 

be a violation of the law. 

At that time, we had to immediately suspend the use of surveys 

because of the court’s order. However, with our new rule, we allow 

surveys in limited circumstances. There are some, and again, it is 

in keeping with the court’s order, we believe, where, for example, 

an occupation is not well represented in the Occupational Employment Statistics. 

We also specifically allow for State conducted surveys, and I 

know this is a subject of particular interest in the seafood industry 

because many States do this. There are some basic criteria in keeping with the court’s order. For example, as I mentioned, you have 

to look at average wages in an industry, not simply entry-level 

wages. But, we believe that this may be an opportunity for many 

in the seafood industry to take advantage of this provision. We actually—I was talking with some of your folks from Louisiana today 

and we are putting out some assistance next week to explain to 

people how they can use these surveys. 

In the transition provisions, we also said that, for example, if you 

already got your certification but you have not brought your workers in and you are wondering, can I go back and get a new survey 

wage, as long as it complies with our basic criteria, we put in a 

provision to allow people to go back and adjust that wage. 

Chairman VITTER. Well, Ms. Wu, as you know, there is a lot of 

concern that the new system is too narrow and narrows the use of 

these surveys way beyond anything that would be absolutely required or demanded by the court. What is your reaction to that critique, which I think is a fair one? 

Ms. WU. Thank you, Senator. I think we believe that the new 

provisions are in keeping with the court’s order. I should note, the 

State-provided surveys, frankly, we may be getting some criticism 

from the other side that it may be going beyond what the court allowed. So, there are many points of view on it. 

But, I do think that this provision of State-provided surveys may 

be an avenue that industries, particularly the seafood industry, 

could take advantage of and have taken advantage of in the past. 

Chairman VITTER. Does use of these State surveys allow for recognizing differences which exist from one local area to others within the State? 

Ms. WU. Yes, Senator, it could. Obviously, it is up to the State 

as to what level of detail is conducted in the surveys. They certainly could provide a survey where there are differences in localDeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

37 

ity. Obviously, with different sorts of tasks in the industry, they 

would have different levels of wages. And, the Department is not 

in the business of dictating how employers should pay their wage 

or not. I know some employers, for example, use piece rate. They 

will be able to continue doing so. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. And, Dr. Solomon, my understanding is 

that in 2014, only about 2.77 percent of all seafood imports were 

inspected. Do you think that percentage is adequate, and if not, 

what does the FDA plan to do differently? 

Dr. SOLOMON. So, the seafood safety system that I described during my testimony is multi-faceted, so there are many components 

of it. First, it is putting the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point 

regulations into place, which puts the burden on the processor to 

produce safe product. Then, we have oversight by doing foreign inspections of them. Then, we also conduct inspections of HACCP 

regulations by the importers. 

So, the testing that takes place at the border is a verification activity or a surveillance activity to try and find if there is any flaws 

in the system and how it is working and to identify them and it 

is verification activities. 

So, we test at different rates a sampling. So, taking generic rates 

for seafood, we test higher rates for certain products, certain commodities, higher risk areas in much higher rates than that because 

we want to have additional verification for those particular aspects 

which pose the greatest safety concerns. 

Chairman VITTER. I understand all of that. I did not mean to 

suggest by my question that you just do one thing, you just stop 

2.77 percent at the border and test it. So, as part of that overall 

effort, do you think the net inspection rate of 2.77 percent is adequate? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Examination at the border as a verification activity at the various rates we do, we think is a viable control measure 

in light of all the other measures that we have in place. 

Chairman VITTER. So, you have no plans to increase it? 

Dr. SOLOMON. With the resources we currently have, we would 

not just increase sampling testing. If the agency had additional resources, we would focus on all the aspects of the framework, the 

regulatory structure that I described. 

Chairman VITTER. Why would you increase it if you had more resources? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Greater oversight and greater confidence in how 

the system is working. We would do more foreign inspections. We 

would do more importer examinations. But, once again, not on a 

universal basis, on a risk basis, on the products—— 

Chairman VITTER. So, the level you do now is not optimal? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Uh, we think we actually have very few foodborne 

illnesses associated with seafood products, but with more resources, 

the agency could do more. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. I am just trying to understand. You are 

suggesting it is adequate, but in the next sentence, you said you 

would certainly do more with more money. 

Dr. SOLOMON. So, it is a risk basis in terms of looking at the 

products that are coming in. With additional resources, we could 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

38 

look at lower levels of risk. We are looking at the highest levels of 

risk now. 

Chairman VITTER. Doctor, certainly in the past, the following has 

happened. A batch of actually tested and rejected seafood imports 

has been simply shopped to another port of entry. What in your 

overall system today categorically prevents that? 

Dr. SOLOMON. So, we have a notification system, electronic notification system. When we refuse an entry, that electronic notification 

system not only notifies Customs and Border Protection, but all the 

other FDA district offices and ports. 

Chairman VITTER. And, so, how is that batch tagged indelibly so 

that that notification is meaningful so that those other ports can 

identify the same batch we are talking about? 

Dr. SOLOMON. So, as you may be aware, we have been working 

for many years to try and get a marking rule that would provide 

that marking of the product. That is not in place yet, but right 

now, we do notifications based off the data that we have of who the 

importer is, what the commodity line is, and make sure that everyone is aware about that shipment was refused. 

Chairman VITTER. So, if they—so, there is not a set marking 

rule, so if they change the packaging or any of the markings, they 

could very possibly get away with what I am describing? 

Dr. SOLOMON. The system is not foolproof, I agree with you, but 

we do do notifications. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Well, I mean, I would suggest that is 

a bigger hole than simply saying it is not absolutely foolproof, but 

we will pursue that. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Solomon, as I said in my opening statement, I am very concerned that we are in the process of setting up a new program 

under the Department of Agriculture to separate catfish out from 

all other seafood and inspect them separately. I think it is duplicative and it does not make sense. 

So, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the program that 

has been operating under FDA, which up until now has had the responsibility for inspecting catfish. Can you tell us how it has functioned and whether or not catfish consumption has posed a risk to 

human health. Is there a reason why we should be setting up a 

separate program? 

Dr. SOLOMON. So, the last part of the question, catfish is not one 

of the species that we particularly target as being a risky product. 

It is not a product that is typically eaten or consumed raw. It is 

cooked beforehand. It is not put into reduced oxygen packaging, 

some of the other risk factors that may be associated with it. So, 

we handle catfish under the same framework that I described before. We have both inspections, domestic inspections, foreign inspections, the HACCP controls in place that have been adequately 

controlling issues associated with catfish. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So, and just to be clear, it is not the FDA or 

the Department of Labor or USDA that has set up this program 

separately. It was Congress that did this in the farm bill. But, 

there was not a safety risk to human health from catfish that triggered this effort, is that how you would analyze the situation? 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

39 

Dr. SOLOMON. I am not aware of any specific safety hazards 

unique to catfish. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. And, I know it may be hard for 

you to put a cost figure on the inspection of catfish under the FDA 

jurisdiction, that it may take you some time to come up with that. 

It is my understanding that right now, the USDA’s catfish inspection program, it is estimated that it will cost about $14 million a 

year to operate. So, I am going to ask you to take for the record 

and try and get for this committee the cost of the inspection of catfish under FDA jurisdiction, if you would. 

Dr. SOLOMON. We would be happy to provide that back to you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Wu, I appreciate the fact that the Department is in a challenging position relative to how to make the H–2B visa program 

work, given that we have not yet taken up comprehensive immigration reform, which would go a long way towards addressing this 

challenge. But, in the meantime we do have small businesses in my 

State, we heard from the Chairman in Louisiana, who are using 

the H–2B program and are confused about how the new rules will 

affect their business. So, can you talk a little bit about how you are 

addressing outreach to those small businesses that are affected. 

Ms. WU. Absolutely, Senator. As I noted, we have a bunch of fact 

sheets on our Web site. We are also doing some sort of webinars 

and outreach next week to talk with people. We always—we have 

frequent listening sessions. We recognize the use of this program 

by small business. We are happy to answer any questions. 

We have very detailed questions about, you know, if I already 

submitted my application, what happens to me now. And, I think, 

as I noted, for people who had already submitted their application 

before this whole court case in April, they can just keep going 

along. They got approved. They can keep going along, running the 

program the way they were going to do it this summer. There will 

be changes in the future. 

For those who want workers before October 1, we put in a sort 

of expedited process. As you may know, DHS administers the cap, 

but the cap was hit fairly early this year. But, we continue to process requests for labor certification, because there are some exceptions. So, we are happy to answer any questions. We are doing outreach to small businesses. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And, so, when you advertise those webinars 

that you are doing, do you notify the Small Business Administration so they can get it out to the Small Business Development Centers to share that with other businesses around the country? How 

do you get the word out that you are doing those kinds of 

webinars? 

Ms. WU. Well, first and foremost, we use the contacts list that 

we have of the users of the program, because, obviously, the Small 

Business Administration deals with many, many businesses who do 

not even know what the H–2B program is. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

Ms. WU. So, we really focus on the contacts that we have and 

work with our colleagues at DHS and others to make sure that we 

get the word out. But, if you have other suggestions or if you are 

concerned about the employers in your State, we would be happy 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

40 

to conduct some targeted outreach there. We also work with many 

of the associations who follow these regulations very closely. We 

make sure we get the word out to them. And, we have regular listening sessions with them to hear about their concerns. 

I will note the new comprehensive rule is an interim final rule. 

We took comments on a similar rule in 2011–2012. We made some 

changes, in part in recognition of the concerns of small business. 

We are taking comments again and we very much welcome people’s 

comments on how we can improve the program and make it usable 

for them. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So, just because I am still not quite clear, if 

anybody has—if a company has applied for H–2B visas in the past, 

would they get a notification of proposed rule changes, of various 

outreach efforts that you are doing automatically because they are 

on your list? 

Ms. WU. They should. They should. I will check with my operations people—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Okay. 

Ms. WU. Yes, we do. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Behind you, they are nodding. 

[Laughter.] 

So, hopefully, that means that any New Hampshire company 

that has applied in the past will get those notifications. 

Ms. WU. Yes, that is our hope. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you. 

Next is Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I wanted to follow up on the question that Senator Shaheen had 

asked Dr. Solomon about the catfish program. As far as I can tell, 

the U.S. FDA handles seafood inspections for all other forms of seafood, correct? 

Dr. SOLOMON. That is correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. And, so, there is no reason why you could not 

continue to handle independently the inspection as you did before 

Congress on its own created this duplicative inspection regime, the 

inspection of catfish, which is actually a low-risk species, correct? 

Dr. SOLOMON. We are currently, since that rule is not in effect 

yet, we are currently handling all the catfish inspections. 

Senator AYOTTE. And in the end, as I understand it—you know, 

it has been interesting to me, we have nine GAO reports on this 

topic, and those nine GAO reports actually consistently recommend 

eliminating the newly created by Congress USDA program that, as 

I understand—you would not know these numbers—but as I understand, has already spent $20 million. Not one fish has been inspected. Obviously, the FDA has handled the inspection of seafood 

for a long time. And, here we are in the Congress going to—already 

spent another, you know, USDA, trying to stand up duplicative inspection, already spent $20 million on it, and as Senator Shaheen 

mentioned, it is going to cost USDA, the estimate is, $14 million 

a year to continue doing what you already do quite well. 

So, I do not know if you have had a chance to look at these GAO 

reports. Have you? 

Dr. SOLOMON. Not nine of them, but I have read some. 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

41 

Senator AYOTTE. And, do you agree that you can handle the inspection of catfish, that we do not really need another office to inspect catfish? 

Dr. SOLOMON. The program has worked effectively as far—from 

FDA’s perspective. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. So, this is a great example of government 

run amok, truthfully, because the notion that we already have the 

FDA doing its job inspecting seafood, and to carve out just catfish 

so that we can spend millions of dollars more to have the USDA 

have another office inspecting catfish, which you are already doing 

quite well, for one species of fish—you know, these are the kinds 

of things that I think people look at Washington and they say, 

what are you all doing down there? 

So, I really hope, you know, that we will have some common 

sense on this and allow you to continue to do what you have been 

doing historically rather than creating another—continuing to 

plunk millions of dollars into a duplicative program. 

I also wanted to follow up, Ms. Wu, on the H–2B issue. I share— 

obviously, I serve in New Hampshire with Senator Shaheen, and 

what I have heard in New Hampshire, many of our seasonal businesses depend on these workers. In fact, in Portsmouth, Nashua, 

Laconia, they had the most H–2B visas granted. But, the abrupt 

breaks and a burdensome process, especially for smaller business, 

have been very, very difficult. So, when are we going to make sure 

that we are not in the same position we were this year as we look 

to the application process next year, you know, given that this is— 

people have to plan on what their workforce needs are? 

Ms. WU. Thank you, Senator. It has been frustrating, I know. It 

has been frustrating for us trying to run a program. I am sure it 

has been frustrating and frightening, frankly, for a lot of small 

businesses when these abrupt court decisions come along and halt 

us from doing something we have been doing in the program, make 

us suspend this. I mean, it has really been very difficult. 

That is why we asked for a stay with the court order so we could 

keep running the program this spring, and now we have issued 

comprehensive rules—even though the Department of Labor believes we have the authority to do this on our own, because of the 

legal challenges, we jointly issued these regulations with DHS. So, 

I think we feel like we are at least insulating ourselves from that 

level of legal attack. Unfortunately, we do continue to see attacks 

from all sides on this program, but we hope that brings some certainty and stability. And, we also are trying to include some provisions that will make things easier over the long run for businesses 

using this program. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I really appreciate that, because just the 

feedback I have gotten from businesses in New Hampshire on the 

program is that under the administration, it has become more complicated, more difficult, more paperwork, and as I look at the new 

H–2B interim and wage final rules that were issued on April 29, 

it is more than 100 pages, and I see the burden on employers increasing. So, I hope when you look at this that we need to decrease 

the burden on employers, not create more paperwork, especially 

when many of them, as you know, this is something that they do 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

42 

every year and they have been in the program already. So, thank 

you for being here today. 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you. 

And next, we will go to Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Solomon, I wanted to ask you about Russian pollack. Last 

fall, I sent a letter, led by my colleague, Senator Murkowski, to the 

FDA Commissioner Hamburg requesting to fix this labeling problem. The FDA has authority to change the acceptable market name 

of product from pollack, and not just Alaska pollack. The change 

would prevent Russian pollack from being labeled as United States 

Alaskan pollack. So, we requested that the FDA make this change 

in September and now it is May of 2015. So, do you agree that the 

term ‘‘Alaskan pollack’’ would give consumers the impression that 

the product is from Alaska? 

Dr. SOLOMON. So, the determination about the species naming is 

handled by our Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. They 

have what they call a seafood list. I know that your submission— 

that issue is before that group. They look at both the species name, 

they work with fish taxonomists and look at the DNA sequencing 

that talks about these different species, and I know they have that 

issue under review. 

Senator CANTWELL. And, so, when will we hear about that decision? 

Dr. SOLOMON. I know they are actively working on it. I do not 

have that. We will be happy to try and get back with you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. Do you think, in your view, is the Russian pollack industry a sustainable fishing industry specifically— 

scientifically, I guess I would say? 

Dr. SOLOMON. So, I do not think I am qualified to speak on that. 

We look at fish from a food safety perspective and we are not, you 

know, related to the trade issues or other issues associated with it. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I think we see things, obviously, about 

it. They are known for labor issues. Just last month, a Russian pollack catcher/processor vessel sank in the Bering Sea. Only 63 crew 

members survived. Sixty-nine were lost. Forty percent of the crew 

were—they are illegally from countries like Burma, Ukraine, Latvia. And, so, these lives are being lost because of lack of training 

and survival skills, and then consumers are seeing a product that 

is labeled Alaska and is not really Alaskan pollack. So, we hope 

that you will get a decision through the FDA about this and look 

at both the way the industry is operating and the right that consumers have to understand this product. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Thank you both very much. We will excuse you and call up our second panel of witnesses. As they get situated, I am going to go ahead and be introducing all three of them. 

We are really pleased to be joined by Dr. Mike Strain, the Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, who was elected to that position in 2007, sworn into office 

in January 2008. Dr. Strain holds a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine from LSU and opened the Claiborne Hill Veterinary Hospital 

in Covington soon after he received that degree. 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

43 

We are also joined by Mr. John P. Connelly, President of the National Fisheries Institute, America’s leading trade association advocating for the full seafood supply chain. John was Chairman of the 

International Coalition of Fisheries Associations and a board trustee of the Marine Stewardship Council and is currently a board 

member of the International Seafood Sustainability Organization. 

And, we are also joined by Mr. Frank Randol, President of 

Randol, Incorporated. Frank is a seafood processor from Lafayette, 

Louisiana. He has over 40 years of experience in the industry and 

also owns Randol’s Restaurant in Lafayette, Louisiana. 

Welcome to all of you, and we will start with Dr. Strain. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE STRAIN, D.V.M., COMMISSIONER, 

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 

Dr. STRAIN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Vitter. Thank 

you very much for the opportunity to come here and speak today. 

My name is Dr. Mike Strain. I am the Louisiana Commissioner of 

the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Aquaculture. I am 

testifying today on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture. 

State Departments of Agriculture are responsible for a wide variety of programs, including food safety, combating the introduction 

and spread of plant and animal diseases, and fostering the economic vitality of our rural communities. Our department oversees 

all agriculture activities within the State, including the markets for 

products produced by our farmers, and especially what we are here 

to talk about today in seafood, in the crawfish industry, which falls 

under my purview. 

First of all, I would like to thank Ms. Wu and other members of 

the Department of Labor for allowing us to come and visit with 

them on March 23 about this issue and have a very open and frank 

discussion. 

Also with me today is the Director of the National Association of 

State Departments of Agriculture, which I am a Vice President, Dr. 

Barbara Glenn. My statement is also consistent with the position 

of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 

representing commissioners, secretaries, and directors across all 50 

States and four Territories, in the development, implementation, 

and communication of sound public policy and programs which support and promote American agricultural industry while promoting 

and protecting the environment and our consumers. 

In order to feed our increased U.S. population, we must have a 

stable agricultural labor supply. The ability of seasonal businesses 

to keep their doors open and retain their full-time U.S. employees 

relies upon having successful peak seasons to offset the rest of the 

year when business is slow. During their busy seasons, companies 

must supplement their permanent staff with temporary seasonal 

employees. Employers spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of 

hours in their efforts to fill these positions. 

Unfortunately, even in today’s tough economic climates, there are 

not enough local workers available to fill all the temporary seasonal positions, and efforts to obtain U.S. workers to relocate for 

temporary seasonal employment have not been successful. As a result, businesses must utilize the H–2B guest worker program to 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

44 

find seasonal workers and workers for their peak workforce needs. 

The H–2B program is vitally important for many industries, including forestry, nursery, landscaping, outdoor amusement, restaurant 

and hospitality, tourism, livestock, horse training, sugar, and many 

others. 

In Louisiana, the seafood industry, which includes crawfish, 

shrimp, crabs, oysters, and catfish, is in a critical situation because 

seafood processors traditionally cannot fill their temporary or seasonal vacancies with U.S. workers. Many of these businesses are located in rural areas that simply do not have sufficient populations 

to supply their extra workforce needs. Additionally, many who are 

willing to work want full-time, year-round jobs. Indeed, many of 

the jobs in these locales that are year-round and are full-time depend on the various processors operating for their own jobs and 

business operations. 

In 2014, Louisiana hired 5,546 H–2B workers. For each H–2B 

worker, it is estimated that 4.64 American jobs are created and 

sustained. 

Over the last ten years, Louisiana has seen many natural challenges to the agricultural sector of our economy, with Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, floods on the Mississippi River, spilling water 

through the spillways into the Atchafalaya Basin, and drought. The 

H–2B regulations released on April 29, 2015, by the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

could impact an already fragile industry’s economic competitiveness. 

The seasonal industries have had to weather several years of regulatory instability. The H–2B wage rule that the Department of 

Labor adopted on January 19, 2011, imposed a new, untested wage 

determining methodology that would significantly increase costs for 

small and seasonal small businesses. After being blocked by Congress in April 2013, the DOL issued an interim final rule that included the same methodology for setting wages, but recognized the 

importance of State wage surveys. Unfortunately, the new rule released two weeks ago is virtually identical to the rule that was 

blocked by Congress, causing additional obstacles for employers in 

the program. 

In December 2014, the Department of Labor announced that it 

would no longer allow the private wage rate surveys that were developed by many State Departments of Agriculture, including Louisiana. My staff has spent countless hours gathering information to 

accurately depict the current wages that the industry is paying in 

our geographic location. This action forced employers into accepting 

higher prevailing wages that are not representative of the wages 

that are being paid domestically. 

To make matters worse, the H–2B worker caps have already 

been exceeded and now many seafood processors have not received 

the workers that they need. Seafood processing has already begun 

early in the spring, and with the crawfish industry especially, it is 

time sensitive. These actions have a negative impact on the seafood 

industry and related commerce sectors, such as restaurants, et 

cetera. 

Two months ago, the LSU Ag Center conducted a rapid economic 

analysis of the recent H–2B policy changes from the U.S. DepartDeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

45 

ment of Labor for the Louisiana seafood industry. The assessment 

was conducted in response to potential changes in the cost and 

availability of labor stemming from a mid-year cap on H–2B permits and the Department of Labor announcement that it would no 

longer accept the private wage rate surveys. Results indicate that 

for every one dollar of employee compensation created by the seafood preparation and packaging industry in Louisiana, employee 

compensation increased by $2.06 across all sectors of the Louisiana 

economy. This includes the original one dollar of employee compensation created by the seafood preparation and packaging industry plus $1.06 of induced multiplier effects across all sectors of the 

economy. 

Total income generated by H–2B visa workers in the Louisiana seafood industry is estimated between $36 and $43 million. Based 

on the assumption of $35 million in revenue, the loss of this revenue for any given number of firms would lead to a total reduction 

in labor income across the entire Louisiana economy, eventually 

leading to a number of companies closing. The economic impact of 

two processing facilities closing is $5.3 million, and with five firms 

shutting down, $13.3. Louisiana has already faced a number of 

processing facilities closing due to hurricanes and oil spills and the 

industry simply cannot be sustained without a stable workforce. 

I am certain that not only is the seafood industry in Louisiana 

impacted, but the entire United States seafood industry will be affected by these actions. Our markets are subject to particularly 

fierce competition from abroad. For example, the Chinese have 

been extremely aggressive in trying to corner the U.S. crawfish 

market. This predatory practice and behavior began in 1993 and it 

has continued. The Chinese presently control over 50 percent of the 

market and are poised to capture even a larger market share if our 

producers are put at a further competitive price and labor disadvantage. 

Without temporary H–2B guest seasonal workers to process seafood, Louisiana seafood processors would shut down, eliminating 

the primary market for our fishermen and our farmers to sell their 

catch. As a result, foreign seafood would gain a stronger foothold 

in the U.S. market and our fishermen and farmers who produce 

and harvest crawfish, shrimp, crabs, oysters, and catfish would be 

devastated and a key segment of the Louisiana economy crippled. 

Once we lose the processors, we would not be able to depend on 

them coming back in future years. Therefore, the losses because of 

the processors scale back and do not have the ability to operate 

during the season will have irreparable and bad repercussions now 

and in the future. 

The short-term consequence of an immediate expulsion of this 

vital segment of the workforce will cause a production crisis in a 

wide variety of seafood processing, field and nursery crops, sugar 

processing, forestry, livestock, restaurant industry, and others. 

This would leave the United States and our State of Louisiana no 

alternative but to import many food products from countries with 

surplus foreign labor. This is unacceptable. We must do everything 

in our power to grow and support America’s jobs and economy. 

We are asking for your help. We must streamline and expedite 

the H–2B process. We need a working system without overburdenDeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

46 

some rules, unrealistic time tables, and outright road blocks. Neglecting the labor needs of agriculture will raise the costs of production in a way that harms farmers, fishers, and industries 

throughout America. 

I appreciate your time and encourage you to work with us to find 

workable solutions, ways that we can facilitate rather than making 

it so difficult to where our processors and our industries cannot operate. Where we are at currently, we have a large crawfish harvest 

and we do not have enough peelers to process it and that puts us 

in a severe economic state, and I am sure Mr. Randol will address 

that, as well. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Strain follows:] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

47 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 99457.027
48 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 99457.028
49 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 99457.029
50 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 99457.030
51 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you very much, Dr. Strain. 

We will now go to John Connelly. John, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. CONNELLY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

FISHERIES INSTITUTE 

Mr. CONNELLY. Thank you, Chairman Vitter, for inviting the National Fisheries Institute to present our views today. Our comments will include a brief introduction, the importance of H–2B 

visas to seafood processors, the economics of the American seafood 

industry, and the U.S. seafood safety system and its results. 

NFI is the nation’s most comprehensive trade association. Our 

members include harvesters, like those on ‘‘Deadliest Catch,’’ to importers who enable us to enjoy seafood from around the globe, to 

processors who put fish in a form that consumers recognize, to retailers and restaurants. We do represent all geographic regions, 

and we were particularly proud to have had the late Louisiana seafood leader, Mike Voisin of Motavatit Seafood in Houma, as our 

Chairman. 

On H–2B visas, a functioning H–2B system is essential to seafood processors. Senator Mikulski captured many of the Senator’s 

concerns in her letter to Secretary Johnson last week. Quote, ‘‘The 

lack of available temporary foreign workers has caused chaos 

among businesses in Maryland that depend on the H–2B program. 

More than 40 percent of Maryland’s seafood processors have been 

unable to get the workers that they need for the 2015 crab season.’’ 

I think Dr. Strain pretty much said it all, and I think that is reflective of the rest of the seafood community in the U.S. 

On economics, seafood is the most globally traded food commodity. That benefits our fishing communities, as we send high 

quality and bountiful American seafood to Northern Asia and 

throughout Europe. Trade also benefits the more than 525,000 

Americans that process, distribute, and sell imported seafood. 

Those jobs are found in nearly every State and are an important 

reminder that trade benefits the U.S. not just when we export. 

Seafood trade also benefits farm States in two ways. About 18 

percent of all soy goes into fish farms, many of those fish farms in 

Asia. And, two, the countries to which American farmers increasingly seek to send our ag products are countries that export seafood 

to America. We cannot expect to open Asian markets to U.S. pork, 

beef, poultry, corn, dairy, and soy if we shut off access to our seafood markets. 

To seafood safety. NFI has been a long and strong supporter of 

seafood safety in word and deed. NFI has worked closely with academia and regulators to understand how to best implement 

HACCP. NFI joined you, Mr. Chairman, as an early and strong 

supporter of FSMA. And, NFI works with the Alliance for a Stronger FDA to urge Congress to appropriate the needed resources for 

the agency to meet its statutory obligations. 

As Dr. Solomon aptly and fully described the HACCP system, I 

will not duplicate that extensive discussion. 

I will close, though, speaking to results. Results, after all, are 

what matters. The fact is, the Centers for Disease Control analyzed 

and reported illnesses from all foods. Over the five-year period endDeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

52 

ing in 2010, CDC found that 141 of 122,000, that is, 0.001156, or 

0.12 percent of illnesses were caused by imported seafood. 

Most of us love baseball. It is a great day to go down to the Nats 

game. But, we recall going to the games with our dads, clutching 

that mitt, and hoping to catch that foul ball. Unfortunately, we 

often came home crestfallen because we rarely, if ever, did, because 

the chance of catching a foul ball is the exact same as becoming 

sick from imported seafood, 0.001156, or 0.12 percent. 

As an example of the effectiveness of the FDA, and again, while 

the hearing focus is not on the USDA catfish program, I did want 

to acknowledge the leadership of Senators Shaheen and Ayotte and 

others on this committee in working in a bipartisan manner to 

eliminate a program that USDA’s own risk experts have said will 

not improve public health, primarily because the FDA regulation of 

catfish, both domestic and imported, has reduced illnesses to less 

than two per year. That is a safe product. 

It is because of the stringent requirements of HACCP, a system 

required for both domestic and imported seafood, a system that requires problems to be fixed thousands of miles away from America 

and not caught at the border, that Congress acknowledged and exempted companies in seafood HACCP compliance from some of 

FSMA’s key provisions. NFI agrees with Congress’ determination. 

The safety of domestic and imported seafood is excellent. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connelly follows:] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

53 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 99457.031
54 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 99457.032
55 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 99457.033
56 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 99457.034
57 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 99457.035
58 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 99457.036
59 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 99457.037
60 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you very much. 

And now, we will hear from Mr. Frank Randol. Frank, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK B. RANDOL, PRESIDENT, RANDOL, 

INC., LAFAYETTE, LA 

Mr. RANDOL. Thank you, Chairman Vitter, and for the members 

that are not here, Ranking Member Shaheen, Senator Cardin. I 

want to thank you for inviting me here to testify about the guest 

worker program that we refer to as H–2B. 

The program is a vital part of the survival—this program is vital 

to the survival of seafood processing, especially in Louisiana and 

Maryland. The program—I will—and I am getting shook. Excuse 

me. Just let me go. 

Chairman VITTER. Sure. 

Mr. RANDOL. It is vital. I will submit my statements for the 

record, in addition to a number of exhibits that will provide a useful reference for the committee. I will now provide my oral comments. 

I am here to express my concerns for the future of my business 

and other small businesses that struggle daily to succeed. I started 

Randols in 1971, starting small—one man, one truck. After four 

decades, Randols has grown in size and scope. We are transitioning 

to the next generation. The future is in my sons that work my business, allowing me to pull back. 

Hurdles over the last four years were detailed by the Commissioner—floods, hurricanes, oil spills, lack of product, predatory imports from China, yet the single most pressing issue for us has always been the lack of labor. 

In the 1970s, when I started my business, I was lucky enough 

to have the refugees from Vietnam come in, so we brought in 

roughly 40 to help us get through that time. Over the course of the 

years, we came to the 1990s, when that started to wane just a little 

bit. We discovered the H–2B program and started bringing in the 

guest workers from Mexico. We started with 40, dwindled to 30, 

now we are to 25. 

I am here to talk about the H–2B guest worker program, the 

legal—legal—temporary workers that we get from visas to support 

businesses from farming, fishing, to restaurants, wholesale, and retail food operations. The attached declarations that I have submitted from Dr. Strain, filed in our suit of 2011 against the Department of Labor, gives an overview of the importance of the H–2B 

program to the Louisiana economy. 

The H–2B application process has been a growing and expensive 

challenge. Since DOL took over the initial wage certification from 

the State in 2008, the process has become increasingly more time 

consuming and costly. Initially, I did the paperwork myself, but 

now, I have to turn it over to someone else more qualified to run 

through the governmental hoops. Many people are using legal or 

international immigration attorneys to do their paperwork. The 

stack of paperwork here represents what was submitted on the October 2014 application for the first cap. The same amount was resubmitted for the second cap, so it would be twice that stack. 

We missed both caps. Our plant was scheduled to open February 

2015. We are still waiting to see if we will be getting any workers 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

61 

this year so we can open and salvage a part of it. Last year, we 

were processing between 6,000 and 8,000 pounds of seafood daily, 

and like I said, right now, we are shuttered. 

Often, we hear the remark, why, if you pay more money, then 

you will get the labor you need. We feel that that is not the case. 

It is more about the job than the money in our seafood industry. 

After missing the cap—both caps—we tried something different, 

seven prison trustees. After one day, one prison trustee said, ‘‘I 

would rather go back to jail than to peel crawfish.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

The warden picked him up, brought him back, we did not see 

him again. The remaining trustees continued to shrink until after 

a two-week effort, they were all gone. 

Now, union activity has started to increase and created problems 

for us, and recently, the NLRB has surfaced and getting involved. 

We have referenced this in documents that we brought as exhibits. 

We need—urgently, we need fixes to save the H–2B program for 

small businesses. Congress has to take action now. The lost opportunity to fix the problems created by DHS and DOL last year have 

already done severe harm in Louisiana. Some of Louisiana’s small 

businesses will not recover. Others may be forced to cross the border. As in the past, we need immediate Congressional action to 

block the new DHS and DOL proposals of last Wednesday. The H– 

2B Workforce Coalition has submitted a statement which we have 

attached as an exhibit. 

In addition, we need to resume the H–2B returning worker, 

guest worker exemption from the annual cap. We also have to return to the authority of determining prevailing wages to the States. 

Additionally, we feel we need a seat at the table with DOL, just 

like the National Guest Workers Alliance. SBA’s Office of Advocacy 

needs to be more aggressive in confronting DHS and DOL as policy 

changes are being discussed. 

And, part of what came up today, as I was listening to the testimony, is what we have been hearing, that somehow, what is happening here was caused by a judge or was caused by industry. You 

know, we just do not see it that way. We are small people, but we 

do know that no matter where it was caused or what, somehow, 

when something like this happens, if there is an error or whatever, 

the people that make the error still have their jobs. But in our 

case, we are small. We do not survive. 

So, there is some give and take that has got to take place here, 

and that is really why I am here. Somebody had to come up and 

tell you about what is going on back home, the little guys that are 

having problems. And, some of the big guys have the same problem. Hershey had these problems the last part of—from 2007 on to 

2011 when they decided to open up in Monterrey, Mexico, and most 

of their growth has already been funneled into that plant for 

their—American chocolate is now the Americas’ chocolate. 

We have one right here, Elmer’s, Louisiana, Ponchatoula, largest 

employer in Ponchatoula. He hires—he uses H–2B. He missed the 

cap and he is struggling. He is trying to make his orders for this 

year. Small business. He is up against somebody like Hershey. I 

am not saying that they are going to Mexico. This is good chocolate. 

It needs to stay home. 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

62 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank 

you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Randol follows:] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

63 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 99457.038
64 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 99457.039
65 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 99457.040
66 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you very much, Frank, and let us start 

with you, since you offer such a great real world perspective. 

If you can—I know you touched on it in your testimony—walk 

through the specific, concrete impact to your business that the various recent Department of Labor changes and rulings have had, 

number one. Number two, if you have any reaction so far—and it 

may be too new, maybe you do not—but, if you have any reaction 

so far of the new Department of Labor guidance moving forward 

on wage surveys. 

Mr. RANDOL. Let me start from the back. It is more of the same, 

as I see it, from DOL. We have reviewed this stuff. It is stuff that 

does not work. I mean, program rules, 75 percent guarantee. Hurricane comes, I cannot turn them back, got to keep them for ten 

months and got to pay them. That does not work in Louisiana. 

As far as the parity, if I pay one person this, another person has 

to be paid the same. In the seafood industry, we pay for productivity. You know, we might bring them in at entry level, but we 

give them the incentives through piece work. They accelerate. They 

get better. They might enter at a nominal rate, but a lot of these 

people get up to these larger rates, $12 to $15 an hour, peeling 

crawfish. That is attainable. 

Chairman VITTER. Just to take those two examples, as far as you 

know, is any of that mandated by statutory law, or is it just a creation of the Department of Labor? 

Mr. RANDOL. Creation. These mandates are killers for us. You 

know, you all write the laws, they interpret the laws, and then we 

try to say that is not what you meant, and that is what I have been 

doing for the last decade. You saw me up here in 2006. It was very 

easy to predict or see where we were going, and now we are here, 

you know, when I first came to discuss this. The pain is in reality, 

and the pain to me. I feel it because I am in it and I cannot get 

out of it. 

We got through the process. We missed the first cap. I have been 

at this for a half a year, trying to make a deadline that was imposed—I can only start four months before I need them, four 

months, and I have been at it for six months and I am still not in 

the last step, which would gain me access in six weeks to bring 

them in. The real lifting is at the border to determine whether 

these people really need to come in. We demonstrated that we do 

not have the workforce here, but—— 

Chairman VITTER. Frank, if I can interrupt for a second, if I can 

just through the record ask Ms. Wu, we talked about two specific 

requirements that you mentioned that are just flat out unworkable 

in the real world from your perspective. Ms. Wu, if you could submit for the record any statutory basis that requires the Department of Labor to do that, because from what I see, there is none. 

Thank you. 

Go ahead, Frank. 

Mr. RANDOL. Okay. The last one, we see that a lot of this stuff 

is outlined in the H–2B Coalition paper, but what comes to mind 

is open up a job order that starts four months out and you have 

to take it 20 days to where these people are coming inside the 

country and leave it open. So, normally, we—you know, we have 

demonstrated that there are no people that want this job. But 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

67 

these are just some of the few, and what I have offered to DOL is, 

you know, the NGA apparently has their ear. Let us let small business somehow be in the process so that we do not see the results 

of a mandate, but we have a team effort to try to move forward. 

Because, like I say, when they impose these things, we feel the 

pain. A lot of people go out of business. 

Chairman VITTER. Right. Let me ask both you and Dr. Strain if 

you have any specific reaction yet to their new guidance about allowing private, including State, surveys. Is it workable? Is it not? 

Is it reasonable? Is it too narrow? Do you have any reaction yet? 

Dr. STRAIN. Mr. Chairman, the reaction I have is that we have 

been using the State prevailing wage rate surveys for many years, 

and when you look at the final rule, it says they will be used in 

limited exceptions. And, so, now we have several different methodologies to determine a wage rate. I mean, simply let us continue 

to use the prevailing wage rate rule. 

If you look at it in the seafood industry and the crawfish industry, the State prevailing wage rate, as determined by the LSU Ag 

Center and my office, it is currently $8.66. That is a floor. But, 

they are also paid on piecemeal, and you have some—you have 

workers that make $12, $15, $18 an hour depending on production. 

This sets a minimum wage. 

So, let us not—if you look at what is in the interim rule there, 

it is very—it is complicated. We need to simplify this. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. And, Dr. Strain, I also wanted to touch 

on my Imported Seafood Safety Act. 

Dr. STRAIN. Yes, sir. Please. 

Chairman VITTER. As you know, we have worked on it together. 

We have talked about it. As you know, it would give States more 

power to increase seafood inspections for foreign imports—— 

Dr. STRAIN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman VITTER [continuing]. In conjunction with the Federal 

Government. We have talked about this before, essentially empowering you to reinforce the effort of the Federal Government to put 

more cops on the beat. We do this in many other areas where the 

primary regulation is at the Federal level, but related State entities can help enforce that. What is your view on that and how it 

could improve seafood safety? 

Dr. STRAIN. Mr. Chairman, the American public, when they go 

to the market, 100 percent of the mammalian proteins for beef and 

pork and 99 percent for poultry—there is a specialty thing for poultry, if you have a very small amount, less than 10,000 chickens, 

you can sell them, but it is very tiny—but all those proteins are 

inspected. They are monitored from the farm all the way through 

slaughter. They are inspected at slaughter and they are tested and 

back-traced. The American public believes their seafood that they 

consume is inspected and safe at that same level. 

If you look at the CDC report, and I am going to quote their 

press release, March 14, 2012, it says that we currently import 

about 85 percent of our seafood, 60 percent of our fresh produce, 

and we currently import about 50 percent of our crawfish. And, I 

quote, ‘‘CDC experts reviewed outbreaks from their Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System from 2005 to 2010. During that 

five-year period, 39 outbreaks, 2,348 illnesses, were linked to imDeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

68 

ported food from 15 countries. Of those outbreaks, 17, half, occurred in 2009 and 2010. Overall, fish, 17 outbreaks, were the most 

common source of implicated imported foodborne disease outbreaks, 

followed by spices. Nearly 45 percent of the imported foods causing 

outbreaks came from Asia.’’ 

The American public assumes that we are doing this testing. We 

know that we are not. Less than three percent of the imported seafood. Eighty-five percent of the seafood consumed in the United 

States is imported, and less than three percent is being tested. 

Furthermore, when you look at that particular issue, if you look 

in a container of seafood, there could be, in the case of crawfish, 

there could be up to 20 different lots—20 different lots, different 

origins, coming together. So, when you think that it is all a blended 

product and you take one sample and that it is consistent with everything in the container, it is not. 

And, when you look at the particular issues that we are talking 

about, we are talking about antibiotics that are banned from the 

United States, such as chloramphenicol, chemicals such as malachite green that are banned from the United States. 

And, so, when you look at that, it is imperative that we all be 

on the same level playing field. And, when you start talking about 

why we need to test this seafood and you say, well, how are we 

going to stop port shopping, well, it is very simple, is that we need 

to make sure that we have eyes on at the processing level in those 

foreign countries, and I think some of that will take into effect in 

the future under the Food Safety Modernization Act, but that is 

somewhere in the future, and that container be accompanied by a 

certificate stating that it has been tested, and that when—if you 

get—and if that container comes in and you retest that container 

and it is not what it says, then it can either return directly and 

be certified to go back to the country of origin or be destroyed on 

site. 

Now, our department, I am responsible—I oversee the Department of Animal Health and Food Safety and we have a food inspection program. We also work hand in hand with the USDA Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, to where we do joint meat inspection. We do State plants and we can work jointly on Federal 

plants where those products can cross State lines. But, I am not 

permitted to test imported seafood. Now, I can look at the containers to make sure that, and as I, as the Commissioner of the Office of Metrology, Weights, Measures, and Standards, that if there 

is a pound of seafood in there, there is supposed to be a pound. 

But, we are not allowed to take samples and test it for contaminants. 

So, just like we are having a working relationship and we have 

a cooperative endeavor agreement with the Federal Government to 

do the other protein inspections, let us have the same arrangements where my inspectors who are out at those plants looking at 

other things—and we do label inspections for the Federal Government, as well—give us the authority under cooperative endeavor 

agreement to be a further arm. We have testing labs in Louisiana. 

We do half of the seafood testing. 

Chairman VITTER. And, so, if that were done, which I certainly 

support and am advocating through my bill, that would be fully 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

69 

consistent with the Federal standards. It would not be using different standards in any way. You would just be additional cops on 

the beat, correct? 

Dr. STRAIN. That is correct. And, if you—and, what we do, our 

standards, our procedures are in alignment with the Federal procedures. 

Chairman VITTER. Right. Right. 

Dr. STRAIN. And, we should have standards as high as the European Union. 

Chairman VITTER. Right. 

Dr. STRAIN. They test, and I believe it is up to 15 to 20 percent 

of all the products going to the EU. We should meet at least those 

standards. 

Chairman VITTER. Right. Well, thank you all very much. 

We are going to wrap up, but in doing so, let me also ask through 

the record if Dr. Solomon could supplement his testimony with a 

response to this question. Dr. Strain mentioned the use of chemicals on imported seafood that are banned in the United States. 

Why should not that practice be presumptive grounds to not allow 

that seafood into the country, if Dr. Solomon could respond for the 

record. 

Thank you all very much. I think this was very informative and 

productive, particularly focusing on Department of Labor activity 

and regulations and the safety regime for seafood imports. 

Thanks very much, and our hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(71) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

72 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 99457.001
73 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 99457.002
74 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 99457.041
75 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 99457.042
76 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 99457.043
77 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 99457.044
78 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 99457.045
79 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 99457.046
80 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 99457.047
81 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 99457.048
82 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 99457.049
83 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 99457.050
84 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 99457.051
85 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 99457.052
86 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 99457.053
87 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 99457.054
88 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 99457.055
89 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 99457.056
90 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 99457.057
91 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 99457.058
92 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 99457.059
93 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 99457.060
94 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 99457.061
95 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 99457.062
96 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 99457.063
97 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 99457.064
98 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 99457.065
99 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 99457.066
100 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 99457.067
101 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 99457.068
102 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 99457.069
103 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 99457.070
104 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 99457.071
105 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 99457.072
106 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 99457.073
107 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 99457.074
108 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 99457.075
109 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 99457.076
110 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 99457.077
111 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 99457.078
112 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 99457.079
113 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 99457.080
114 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 99457.081
115 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 99457.082
116 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 99457.083
117 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 99457.084
118 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 99457.085
119 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 99457.086
120 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 99457.087
121 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 99457.088
122 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 99457.089
123 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 99457.090
124 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 99457.091
125 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 99457.092
126 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 99457.093
127 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 99457.094
128 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 99457.095
129 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 99457.096
130 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 99457.097
131 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 99457.098
132 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 99457.099
133 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 99457.100
134 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 99457.101
135 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 99457.102
136 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 99457.103
137 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 99457.104
138 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 99457.105
139 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 106 here 99457.106
140 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 107 here 99457.107
141 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 108 here 99457.108
142 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 99457.109
143 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 110 here 99457.110
144 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 111 here 99457.111
145 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 112 here 99457.112
146 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 113 here 99457.113
147 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 114 here 99457.114
148 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 115 here 99457.115
149 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 116 here 99457.116
150 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 117 here 99457.117
151 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 118 here 99457.118
152 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 119 here 99457.119
153 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 120 here 99457.120
154 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 121 here 99457.121
155 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 122 here 99457.122
156 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 123 here 99457.123
157 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 124 here 99457.124
158 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 125 here 99457.125
159 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 126 here 99457.126
160 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 127 here 99457.127
161 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 128 here 99457.128
162 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 129 here 99457.129
163 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 130 here 99457.130
164 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 131 here 99457.131
165 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 132 here 99457.132
166 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 133 here 99457.133
167 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 134 here 99457.134
168 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 135 here 99457.135
169 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 136 here 99457.136
170 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 137 here 99457.137
171 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 138 here 99457.138
172 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 139 here 99457.139
173 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 140 here 99457.140
174 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 141 here 99457.141
175 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 142 here 99457.142
176 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 143 here 99457.143
177 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 144 here 99457.144
178 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 145 here 99457.145
179 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 146 here 99457.146
180 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 147 here 99457.147
181 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 148 here 99457.148
182 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 149 here 99457.149
183 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 150 here 99457.150
184 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 151 here 99457.151
185 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 152 here 99457.152
186 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 153 here 99457.153
187 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 154 here 99457.154
188 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 155 here 99457.155
189 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 156 here 99457.156
190 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 157 here 99457.157
191 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 158 here 99457.158
192 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 159 here 99457.159
193 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 160 here 99457.160
194 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 161 here 99457.161
195 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 162 here 99457.162
196 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 163 here 99457.163
197 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 164 here 99457.164
198 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 165 here 99457.165
199 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 166 here 99457.166
200 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 167 here 99457.167
201 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 168 here 99457.168
202 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 169 here 99457.169
203 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 170 here 99457.170
204 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 171 here 99457.171
205 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 172 here 99457.172
206 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 173 here 99457.173
207 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 174 here 99457.174
208 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 175 here 99457.175
209 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 176 here 99457.176
210 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 177 here 99457.177
211 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 178 here 99457.178
212 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 179 here 99457.179
213 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 180 here 99457.180
214 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 181 here 99457.181
215 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 182 here 99457.182
216 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 183 here 99457.183
217 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 184 here 99457.184
218 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 185 here 99457.185
219 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 186 here 99457.186
220 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 187 here 99457.187
221 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 188 here 99457.188
222 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 189 here 99457.189
223 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 190 here 99457.190
224 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 191 here 99457.191
225 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 192 here 99457.192
226 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 193 here 99457.193
227 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 194 here 99457.194
228 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 195 here 99457.195
229 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 196 here 99457.196
230 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 197 here 99457.197
231 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 198 here 99457.198
232 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 199 here 99457.199
233 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 200 here 99457.200
234 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 201 here 99457.201
235 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 202 here 99457.202
236 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 203 here 99457.203
237 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 204 here 99457.204
238 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 205 here 99457.205
239 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 206 here 99457.206
240 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 207 here 99457.207
241 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 208 here 99457.208
242 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 209 here 99457.209
243 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 210 here 99457.210
244 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 211 here 99457.211
245 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 212 here 99457.212
246 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 213 here 99457.213
247 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 214 here 99457.214
248 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 215 here 99457.215
249 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 216 here 99457.216
250 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 217 here 99457.217
251 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 218 here 99457.218
252 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 219 here 99457.219
253 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 220 here 99457.220
254 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 221 here 99457.221
255 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 222 here 99457.222
256 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 223 here 99457.223
257 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 224 here 99457.224
258 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 225 here 99457.225
259 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 226 here 99457.226
260 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 227 here 99457.227
261 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 228 here 99457.228
262 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 229 here 99457.229
263 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 230 here 99457.230
264 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 231 here 99457.231
265 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 232 here 99457.232
266 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 233 here 99457.233
267 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 234 here 99457.234
268 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 235 here 99457.235
269 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 236 here 99457.236
270 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 237 here 99457.237
271 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 238 here 99457.238
272 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 239 here 99457.239
273 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 240 here 99457.240
274 

Æ 

DeShaun on LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 241 here 99457.241