Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. True.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman, and while he was talking about the hearing that we both attended, where Secretary Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, spoke, I was just looking over a summary of what she outlined as to briefly why this near elderly proposal was necessary and the specifics, which is pretty basic, of who would be covered. If I could just mention it very briefly, what she said is that a lot of people in this age bracket lose their coverage because an older spouse becomes eligible for Medicare and retires, ending their work- based coverage. That is one category. Then we have, of course, we mentioned others who lose their coverage because of downsizing or layoffs, which of course happens very frequently. And then the third are the people who lose their insurance when employers either unexpectedly drop their retirement health care plans or somehow change the plan. And as the gentleman knows, a lot of people expect that they will continue to have coverage but all of a sudden their employer decides to drop it or change it. There were three components that Secretary Shalala mentioned to the proposal. One is that Americans aged 62 to 65 can buy into Medicare by paying the full premium. Second, displaced workers over age 55, who have involuntarily lost their jobs and their health care coverage, can buy into Medicare by paying the full premium. And last, that Americans age 55 and older, whose companies reneged on their commitment to provide retiree health benefits, are given a new option through extending the COBRA. Now, the President's proposal does not get into this, but when the gentleman and I were at that hearing that day, we also mentioned the possibility, which I know the two of us would like to see, of probably providing some sort of sliding scale subsidy so that people who could not afford the full premium would still be able to buy into it. And I think that in the context of the tobacco settlement or other monies that might be available, we could probably do something like that and still keep the budget balanced.

Mr. PALLONE. And we cannot even guarantee that. We have people spending millions of dollars coming here to Washington next week to start advertising campaigns not to keep your records confidential. It is amazing how basic these things are and yet we are getting the opposition from the other side.

Mr. PALLONE. And the most amazing thing, if the gentlewoman will remember last night when the President spoke and he mentioned the importance of having confidential medical records, and there was a huge roar of applause. And I said to myself, you know, such a simple concept that your medical records should be confidential and should not be available to everyone.

Mr. PALLONE. But it is so basic and it so simple, and that is why there was so much support here last night.

Mr. PALLONE. I am so glad that the gentlewoman went through the list. And, of course, that is sort of general; we could get into the details.

Mr. PALLONE. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. And such a simple concept. I want to yield to the gentleman, but even the disclosure part. We had a hearing last week in New Jersey, Senator Torricelli and I, and it was amazing how many of the stories just revolved around people's not knowing what their health plan consisted of. Just a simple statement so that they know what their coverage consists of. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman. I just want to say again with regard to two points, you said about the near elderly. I did not start out this afternoon talking about the near elderly proposal, but that, I think, was just as important in terms of what the President mentioned last night. And one of the things that really aggravates me is that so many of our colleagues on the other side, not so much maybe individuals, but certainly Republican leadership, keep bashing Social Security, keep bashing Medicare. We went through the whole Medicare debate where they talked about how bad Medicare was. The reality is that Medicare is a very good program and Social Security works. People are getting their checks. They get their COLA every year. Medicare works. And if we can institute a program for the near elderly, for people 55 to 65 or 62 to 64, depending on their circumstances, if they lose their job or their spouse is no longer covered, if we can somehow manage to get the people who need this Medicare coverage into Medicare without any additional cost to the Medicare program, which is what the President is talking about, because they would be paying the premium, why not? Let some of these people take advantage of the Medicare program, particularly since we know about downsizing, we know about layoffs, we know what is going on out there now so that people in this age bracket, where they are close to 65, increasingly have problems keeping or getting health care coverage. I would say the same thing about Social Security. Social Security is great. It was a democratic initiative passed by the Democrats. And yes, I think the President is absolutely right. If there is a surplus, when there is a surplus, it should be used for Social Security. But again I keep hearing on the Republican side about Social Security is broken, we cannot fix it. All these suggestions out there to maybe privatize and move to another way of doing things. I think it is wonderful that the President not only stood up and said, look, Social Security is out there and it is working, but also said that if we have extra money, we should use it to shore up the system. The difference between the President's approach and the Democrats' approach and what we hear from a lot of the leadership on the Republican side is that we want to improve these programs, Medicare and Social Security. We want to improve them. We know that we can improve them and we are going to put our dollars where our mouths are in terms of improving these programs rather than just say they are not working when they are. They are working. I wanted to yield again to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. I want to yield now to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) who is on the Committee on Commerce with me and who for a long time now has expressed concern over this issue.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. As you mentioned, the President basically put out the challenge last night, and it is our obligation now to get the Congress to enact these consumer patient protections. I think what we are just going to do over the next few weeks is basically bring out all these examples and point out how so many of our constituents are negatively impacted and need some kind of Federal regulation or patient protection in order to have quality care. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his comments. I think that what the gentleman is pointing out, and obviously what we all must do but he has done it so well today and, I know, beforehand, is to give the individual cases of how people are individually impacted by managed care and the problems that we are hearing from our constituents. Because everyone can relate to it. It is direct. The gentleman mentioned again about last night in the State of the Union address how, when the President spoke about this, how there was such a positive reaction on both sides of the aisle. But we know that the Republican leadership, unlike many of the Republican colleagues, rank and file colleagues, have already joined together with this coalition of certain business and insurance interests. They are starting this million dollar campaign to try to fight the consumer protections that we are talking about and that the President talked about last night. My understanding is that next week some of these special interests are going to be down here, and we are going to have a battle. We know we are going to have a battle. It is just like we had with kid's health care and with the portability provisions of Kennedy-Kassebaum. We know that the people and most of our colleagues support this, but we are going to get these special interests and big money campaigns supported by the Republican leadership against it, and we are just going to have to keep bringing up these cases and the problems that our constituents talk about. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania again. I know it is just the beginning.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to start out this afternoon by saying how happy I was with the President's State of the Union address last evening and the reaction of Congress on both sides of the aisle. The President stressed his pro-family, pro-child message. It is an agenda that I think that everyone can get behind. It will have the strong support of the American people. And it is very important, I think, that in order for us to enact this agenda, that we get the Republicans, both the leadership and the rank and file, together with my Democratic colleagues so that we can enact what are essentially common sense proposals in 1998. I, along with several of my colleagues who will join me this afternoon, just wanted to call attention to two points that the President raised with regard to health care reform which I think are particularly important. One is managed care reform. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), who is going to be joining us soon here, stressed that during the break, during the congressional district work period. Congressman Klink, myself, and others had a number of forums in our districts where we heard from our constituents about the problems with managed care, with HMOs and managed care organizations. I thought it was particularly interesting last evening that when the President mentioned the need for consumer protections and a consumer Bill of Rights to deal with managed care organizations, that the response was overwhelming. I think it had a better response from the Congress, again on a bipartisan basis, than almost anything else that he talked about. I think that is because we are hearing from our constituents and they are telling us the problems and the horror stories that exist with regard to existing managed care organizations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this point yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who I was listening to his comments before and they are really appropriate in terms of some of the problems that we hear from our constituents.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last night the President outlined his agenda for Americans. Democrats and Republicans should strive to work together and implement his ideas on issues such as enacting a true consumer Bill of Rights to guarantee choice, access and quality health care in HMOs and enabling the near elderly to buy into the Medicare program. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is already putting special interests ahead of the American public by supporting million- dollar ad campaigns to fight these new health care initiatives. Numerous constituents have contacted me with their concerns about managed care. Congress needs to pass a ground floor of quality assurance standards for managed care organizations, and Democrats will also fight to enact the President's Medicare buy-in proposal that would grant access to the Medicare program for those aged 62 to 65 and those over 55 who are laid off or displaced. This initiative will not cost the Medicare program or raise the deficit. Instead, it will provide access to the best health care program in the world for these near elderly. I just want to say, we should support these initiatives on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as a result of democratic leadership, Congress passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill in 1996, which extended health care insurance portability to millions of Americans and further limited preexisting condition exclusions. Last year the Democrats successfully fought to pass legislation that will provide health care benefits to over 5 million children, and both of these bills were enacted into law despite strong initial opposition from the Republican leadership. Now, under the President's leadership, Democrats are now poised to fight for two new health care initiatives. The first proposal would enable those aged 55 to 65 to buy into the Medicare program under certain conditions. The second initiative would provide for managed care reform or basic consumer protections for individuals in HMOs. Already Republican leaders are voicing opposition to these proposals. Again, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are fighting for the average American family. Meanwhile, Republicans are teaming up with special interest groups in a million-dollar campaign to prevent common-sense health care reform.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman; and I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has for several years now been talking about the need for this school construction program.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) again. I think she really summed up what tonight is all about, and that is trying it help the average American, the family, the children. That is what my constituents and I am sure all of our constituents are telling us; and, also, we are doing it in the context of this balanced budget. The President keeps saying over and over again, look, we passed the Balanced Budget Act this past summer in 1997. We are meeting the guidelines of that. Even within that we can still help with some of these other pro-family measures. Many of them, as my colleagues know, either cost no money or very little money and in the long run actually saved the Federal Government money. He keeps stressing that. I think that is important in the context of what he is going to state tonight. But I think it is a very auspicious beginning for 1998; and we have to work hard, as Democrats, to make sure that the pro-family, pro- child agenda gets passed and that we can bring our Republican colleagues along. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I did not mention Social Security. But I know that the President is going to emphasize it tonight. I think that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) brings up a very good point; and that is, the Republicans I think want us to forget or want the American people to forget that Social Security works. It has been working. People have gotten their checks. They have gotten their COLA on an annual basis. It does bother me, I have to say, to some extent to hear these constant references to the fact that the system is broken or that we need to find alternatives to Social Security and different private- sector options that are out there. I am not saying that we should not study those things. But I think there has been a concerted effort on the part of our Republican colleagues and the Republican leadership to give the impression to the American people that the Social Security system is broken and it cannot be fixed. That is simply not the case. Everyone gets a Social Security check. People have gotten a COLA on a regular basis. It is true that we need to study what needs to be done to make sure that in the future that Social Security is there and is intact, and Democrats are certainly a big part of that and have been emphasizing that there does need to be some attention paid to that. But, what is the expression, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water? Social Security works, and we need to emphasize that. Too often I hear from the other side that somehow it is broken or we need to replace it. I do not want our colleagues on either side of the aisle or the American people to think that that is the case. It is not, and it is simply not true. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not intend to use all of the time this evening. I will be joined by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and we wanted to briefly, if we could, talk a little bit about the Democrats' unity behind the pro-family and pro- child message that we know will be an important part of the President's State of the Union address this evening. I think it is fair to say that for the last few years, and certainly in this past year in 1997, the Democrats have stressed the need for measures that basically help the family, help the average family in this country, particularly those who have children, and a big part of that has been affordable health care. We all realize, and Democrats in particular realize, that more and more people in this country do not have health care insurance. And even if they do have health care insurance, a lot of times they are not getting the quality of care or they do not have the access to all the procedures that they should have. In addition to that, there is a real problem in this country in terms of the availability of child care for America's working families. And also pensions. Many of my constituents have complained to me about lack of adequate pensions, people that were promised pensions, or thought that when they retired that pensions were going to be available to them and all of a sudden find out that they are not. So tonight the President will be stressing this Democratic pro- family, pro-child message, and there are just four points that I wanted to highlight. One is the need for more affordable and accessible health care for what we call the near elderly, those seniors aged 55 to 65 that have a greater risk of losing employer-based health insurance but yet are not eligible for Medicare. Democrats are proposing a targeted and self-financing proposal which will enable Americans ages 62 to 65 to buy into Medicare by paying a premium. And they will also provide coverage to displaced workers over 55 through Medicare and COBRA coverage for those whose companies renege on their commitments to provide retiree health benefits. Also, Democrats are very conscious of the fact that there are problems with managed care in this country, and we are going to work, and the President will talk tonight about high quality health care through a consumer Bill of Rights that he has proposed. No patient should be denied high quality care. Care should be based on medical needs and not financial ones. So a big part of the Democratic agenda this year will be managed care reform and basic consumer protections for individuals in HMOs or managed care organizations. Also, Democrats want to invest in child care for America's working families. The President will announce a historic initiative to improve the quality and availability of child care for all parents. Democrats are working to ensure that parents no longer have to make choices between work or not working that basically revolve about whether or not they have access to child care. And lastly, Democrats want, and the President will talk tonight about the effort to achieve secure and comfortable retirement. For more than 50 million American workers, there is no pension coverage. And Democrats will work to promote pension plans among small businesses. I do not want to take up a lot of time. I want to yield to my colleague from Texas, who has been so much involved over the last year, in 1997 and before, in bringing this pro-family, pro-child message to the floor of the House of Representatives. I would yield to her at this time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise in strong support of H.R. 1658, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments. The remarkable recovery of the striped bass fishery, a little more than a decade after the passage of the original Striped Bass Conservation Act, is a success story, demonstrating that fish conservation can work. For the last three decades, Atlantic striped bass stocks have been declining due to overfishing, pollution, habitat destruction and other factors. Recently, however, the Atlantic striped bass stocks have grown and are slowly returning to their previous abundance. Many Atlantic Coast states have recognized the significance of this growth and understand the pressure that commercial fishing interests may have on breeding stocks. In response, states such as New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Georgia, and several others, have passed gamefish laws or have prohibited the Atlantic striped bass commercial angling. The management program established under this Act was, at the time of its inception in 1984, unique. It relies on the states to develop regulations for their waters that are consistent with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's management plan for striped bass. If the state fails in its efforts, a federal moratorium is imposed. This plan was so successful, that last year the Commission declared the striped bass to be fully recovered. Today, the fish are being found in record numbers up and down the coast. Mr. Speaker, as I previously stated, striped bass populations were placed in jeopardy due to severe over-harvesting. Support of this legislation would allow us to better understand striped bass stock and management plans that not only benefit the striped bass stock, but the striped bass fishing community as well. Furthermore, these amendments increase public participation in the preparation of striped bass management plans. This fishery is one of the most important fisheries for marine recreational anglers. In 1995, over a million anglers made almost seven million trips and nearly spent 160 million dollars in pursuit of this fish. We must support this legislation and ensure that over a decade striped bass conservation and restoration is not erased.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge support for the bill that we are considering tonight. The conference report contains important provisions affecting Armenia and the Caucasus region, most of which I support. I do want to express my respect and gratitude for the gentleman from Alabama, Chairman Callahan, for his willingness to listen to the concerns of the Armenian community, and particularly I want to salute the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and Members of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, particularly the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] for their tireless efforts on behalf of Armenia, the Nagorno Karabagh, and the cause of peace and stability in the Caucasus, and I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen]. This bill provides an unprecedented $12.5 million in humanitarian aid to Nagorno Karabagh. Despite relentless opposition from the administration, the lobbyists for Azerbaijan and Turkey, the bill provides, for the first time, an earmark of humanitarian assistance for the people of Karabagh. These funds will help refugees, internally displaced persons and needy civilians in Nagorno Karabagh. This is the first time this has been approved by Congress and signifies the beginning of U.S.- administered assistance programs to Nagorno Karabagh. Earlier this year, I became the first Member of the U.S. Congress to address the Parliament of Nagorno Karabagh, and I expressed regret that the United States had disengaged itself from the courageous people of Karabagh. But this legislation provides a welcome change. In addition, the bill provides us with $87.5 million for the Republic of Armenia, a former Soviet republic that is making huge strides in terms of democracy and market economy, but still needs our help. While I am pleased that the bill retains the ban on government-to- government economic aid to Azerbaijan, I regret that the legislation carves out several major exemptions for OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to provide political risk insurance to U.S. companies investing in Azerbaijan, and for TDA, the Trade Development Agency, funding for feasibility studies and other related economic development projects. The ban on direct aid to Azerbaijan, section 907 of the Freedom Support Act of 1997, is an important law, passed to encourage Azerbaijan to lift its blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. Azerbaijan has not complied with the basic condition of section 907, lifting the blockades, so the sanctions should not be relaxed. While I regret the exemptions to section 907 that have been carved out, I appreciate the fact that the conferees resisted the strong pressure to repeal section 907 outright. I also want to express my appreciation to the conferees for the $52.5 million discretionary fund established for the Caucasus to restore transportation, communication and other infrastructure between the States of the Caucasus, funds to which Azerbaijan is not entitled until it complies with section 907. I also appreciate the fact that the House conferees held out for insisting that 50 percent of the aid to Turkey be provided through nongovernmental organizations to promote democracy and build a civil society. American taxpayers have contributed millions to Turkey. It is only right that we should expect that country to respect some of our American values. Finally, I want to state for the record that I regret that the bill before us relaxes some sanctions on Pakistan which were imposed because of concerns over Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities. But I do want to thank the conferees for maintaining the prohibition on IMET assistance to Pakistan. Overall, this is a good conference report, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of President Clinton's decision to withdraw fast-track legislation, the time has come to forge a new policy that provides direct access for labor, environmental health, and safety concerns to be addressed in negotiating future trade agreements. Those of us who opposed fast track did not do so because we oppose expanded trade but because the pending legislation gives Congress only one vote on trade legislation that may have profound impact on American workers and the quality of our lives. If the President were to embrace trade procedures that require consideration of labor and environmental standards followed by adequate enforcement and then subject the negotiated agreement to congressional approval, I believe the President's trade agreements would pass in Congress with a large consensus. I am sending a letter today to the President and will ask support from my colleagues who opposed fast track to discuss and explore alternatives which properly balance expanded trade and the preservation of American values.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have been very surprised to hear my colleague from Florida, Mr. Goss, and my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, both of whom I have a great deal of respect for, decry this rule that has been in effect for so many years as too traditional. I think my colleague from Florida said times have changed, and the gentleman from Illinois talked about traditions having to change. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a tradition that should not change because it is based on protections that were put into place, in effect, in reaction to the McCarthy era of the House Un-American Activities Committee, specifically the Hollywood 10 hearing. Mr. Speaker, we know, those of us who have seen clips or videos from that day, know that witnesses were filmed, blacklisted, their lives were destroyed. Why would we want to go back to that? Why do we not learn the lessons of the past and not repeat the mistakes that were made in the past? Now I heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] say that we should not have to worry about possible abuse because if there was abuse, people would understand, they would react and say, well, that witness is being abused and is that not terrible that that is happening? Well, my colleagues know how TV is. People turn TV on and off. They might watch the individual being scrutinized or being harassed and not watch the reaction. So the suggestion that somehow someone is going to be watching this process for half an hour or an hour and 2 hours and see both sides, that is not the way things often happen. People sometimes flick on the TV for a minute or two, and that person is defamed. Then I heard the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] say, well, this is a classic conflict of rights, the right of the public to know. Well, I think that there was an understanding when this rule was put into place that there was a conflict of rights and that this was the compromise. As was said previously, there is no reason. The cameras can come into the room, the cameraperson can come into the room, the broadcast media can be there, the print media can be there, they just cannot film the person while they are testifying. That was the compromise. Mr. Speaker, I just am concerned that the type of protections that were talked about by my Republican colleagues are not going to exist. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] said, well, someone will defend the witness; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] or the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] or others will get up there and defend the witness. We have no guarantee of that. We have no guarantee that the public is going to really understand or that they are going to watch the whole proceedings or that someone is going to step forward and defend the witness. That person is out there, they are out there on their own, and they should have the right to be able to turn off the camera, because it does happen on occasion that people are abused, and we do not want to go back to the mistakes of the past.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us has been the product of hard work, tough negotiations, and true bipartisanship. The result is a well-crafted bill that will reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, and enact common-sense Food and Drug Administration reform. I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and the professional staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle, particularly Kay Holcombe, for their work on this very successful piece of legislation. Pursuant to the bill, patients will have access to safe new drugs, treatment, and equipment faster than before; businesses will be able to save their customers money without sacrificing safety; and the FDA will be able to focus more time and money on regulating medical treatments instead of pushing paper. I think it is a win for everyone. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention a few provisions of the bill that I am particularly concerned with, concerning the drug provisions. I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of a bipartisan amendment that would provide for notification when a company terminates a product which could cause severe harm to a patient because of its discontinuance. To allay industry concerns, I ask that there would be included in the bill a good cause waiver that allows the FDA to waive the time requirement. I understand that the provision has been slightly modified in conference in that companies have to certify to the FDA that these good cause waiver requirements are met. This provision still represents good citizenship by the sole-manufacturers of medical products, and I believe that the conference report compromise is a good one. In addition, two amendments concerning mercury were incorporated into this bill. One of them requires the FDA to restudy the impact of a form of organic mercury in nasal sprays on the brain, and the second provision provides for a study that would examine the sale of mercury as a drug or for other home use. These are both good government provisions. I appreciate the work of the committee for including them in the conference report. On the device side, I wanted to congratulate the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for their ability to find common ground with the FDA and the industry on many issues. While third-party review may not be the panacea, freeing up the FDA's limited resources to review and approve high-risk devices is the next best thing, especially without greater resources being devoted to the FDA directly. Finally, I am very pleased that language was included, the House language, to ensure that this legislation does not hinder the FDA's authority to reduce teen smoking. We are going to be dealing with the issue of teen smoking and tobacco in general in the committee. I know we are going to start having hearings on it next week. I think it was important and sound policy that this provision be included. I just want to urge adoption of this conference report. I know that the committee and the staff and all have worked very hard on this. I think it is a very successful bill that will be passed into law and signed by the President.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against giving the President fast track authority in order to ensure that new trade agreements advance the interests of U.S. workers as well as the health and safety of all Americans. My opposition to fast track is based on our experience with NAFTA, which I believe has been a dismal failure. In 3 years since NAFTA was implemented, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has skyrocketed, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. Environmental problems along the border with Mexico have gotten worse. Drug trafficking has increased. The public health in the United States has been threatened by the importation of tainted food. The President made all kinds of promises with NAFTA a few years ago and is making more promises now. But these promises in the form of NAFTA side agreements on the environment and labor have not been kept. I urge my colleagues to vote against fast track. Do not be led astray by false promises again.