Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to accept this amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank everyone for their help and cooperation in these efforts and for a fine Coast Guard bill we have here, and ask for support of my amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, let me at the beginning here thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] for not only allowing me the opportunity to offer my amendment but for the excellent bipartisan bill they have put forward. We have heard a lot here tonight about some of the strengths in this bill, such as keeping the operation of the Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson] mentioned, the authorization of continuation of shipbuilding of Coast Guard cutters and buoy tenders at Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette, Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if I may just briefly, yesterday I was actually at a Coast Guard ceremony to honor the Coast Guard in somewhat of a unique way in Charlevoix, Michigan. Yesterday we recognized the heroic action of Coast Guard members, especially Officer Henning, the crew of the buoy tender Acacia, the members of the Coast Guard Station Charlevoix, the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Back on July 26 as we were enjoying the Venetian Festival in Charlevoix, unfortunately fireworks exploded prematurely and a number of 12-inch fireworks exploded, sending shrapnel some 1200 feet into a crowd of 30,000 people. We had one person unfortunately died. Many were seriously, very seriously injured, limbs ripped right off their bodies. If it was not for the crew of the Coast Guard Station Acacia and Coast Guard Station Charlevoix and the Coast Guard Auxiliary which was on their waterfront and they had rendered heroic assistance and first aid in saving lives and maintaining control in a very emergency situation that many people did not realize because the rest of the fireworks continued to go and they tried to continue the evening with this tragic set of circumstances. So just yesterday we were honoring the Coast Guard in sort of a unique action and all the accolades given to the Coast Guard here tonight are well deserved. Mr. Chairman, more specifically to the amendment I have, it is a simple amendment which would merely transfer Eagle Harbor Light Station in Eagle Harbor, Michigan to the Keweenaw County Historical Society. The society has held a lease on this property since 1982, operating it as a museum that depicts the history of the lighthouse and maritime transportation on the Great Lakes. In addition, the society has made repairs to the light station and the surrounding buildings and property. The society wishes to obtain this light station in order to continue their current preservation efforts and to further develop educational programs to teach all ages about the Keweenaw County heritage with an emphasis on the importance of maritime transportation, especially in the copper ore industry. This transfer is supported by the Coast Guard, the county of Keweenaw and Eagle Harbor Township. Once again I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] for their work on this and other transfers I have worked on in the past. I urge my colleagues to pass this transfer. I would also especially like to thank the chairman for including in his mark the transfer of land in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan which will be used for the American Legion. The land will transfer from the Coast Guard to the American Legion. But I would especially like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Mr. Leno Pianosi of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. He is a friend of mine and the chairman of the county board of commissioners. Without his efforts and his continued dedication to this project and persistence, this transfer could not have taken place. I thank both gentlemen for giving Mr. Pianosi and this transfer in the chairman's mark the opportunity to be in the bill.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for his amendment as I do have two foghorns in that amendment myself. I just mention for the Record that I have 3 of the 5 Great Lakes, Lake Superior being one of them. Not all of the areas yet are in position to use the GPS technology due to some charting that still has to take place. So I would hope that this amendment would stay at least for this authorization and further, if needed, until the GPS and the wonderful things it brings to the boating community is available to all parts of the Great Lakes.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill today, because I believe this legislation will begin an important process in modernizing and improving the operations of the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the bill will reauthorize and improve the highly successful Prescription Drug User Fees Act. However, I am concerned that we should not take up a bill of this magnitude on the Suspension Calendar. While it is true that Chairman Bliley and Ranking Member Dingell informed members of the Commerce Committee of their intentions, I do not believe this is an appropriate process. First, not every member of this body is a member of the Commerce Committee. We should not restrict the rights of the members of the House to debate and offer amendments to this legislation. We cannot know if members planned to offer amendments, since the regular order was not followed and the Rules Committee did not meet on this bill. Second, the Suspension of the Rules procedure is generally used to approve measures that are non-controversial or do not require large authorizations. This historical practice is reflected in Rule 28 of the House Republican Conference Rules that admonishes the Speaker not to schedule Suspension bills of over $100 million in authorization, except if he seeks a waiver from the leadership. When Democrats had control of the House, they instituted a similar procedure. This legislation authorizes user fees in great excess of the $100 million threshold and should be debated through regular order. Third, this legislation creates a number of new responsibilities for the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the FDA will need to divert a substantial amount of resources to implement the new policy changes contained in this legislation. This year the President requested $68 million less than in FY 1997. Even though Congress appropriated substantially more, we must continue to ensure that the FDA has the resources to meet all its mandates, not just prescription drug reviews. I co-signed a letter with 85 other members of the House to request the President to expend more resources inspecting imported food. I have included a copy of the letter for the record and want to urge this body not to stretch the FDA so thin that it cannot perform its necessary public health functions. Finally, I intended to speak in support of my amendment to the legislation authorizing a notification procedure at the FDA in relation to Food Contact Substances. Although the substance of my legislation was adopted by the Committee, a portion of my proposed authorizing user fees, a concept supported by the industry that would pay the user fees, was not accepted. I want to make it clear that although I acceded to the request of the majority to drop the user fees, it is my sincere hope and belief that the House should accede to the Senate position in conference and adopt the user fees. In short Mr. Speaker, the issues surrounding this legislation are very complex. They do not lend themselves to suspending the rules of the House and expediting consideration, just because it is convenient. The Rules of the House protect the members in their rights to debate and thoughtfully consider legislation. I do not believe they should be suspended so lightly. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 24, 1997. Hon. William Jefferson Clinton, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We urge you to give serious consideration to remedying the inadequate food safety provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Because of your commitment to ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, we expect that you will not agree to fast track authority that does not contain adequate food safety protections. Current fast track proposals do not address these concerns. In an effort to increase trade with Mexico, NAFTA limited border inspections of food and allowed Mexican trucks to enter the U.S. with limited inspection. These lax inspection practices contributed to a sharp increase in food imports from Mexico: imports of Mexican fruit have increased 45 percent, and vegetable imports have risen 31 percent. More than 70 percent of these imports are carried into the U.S. on trucks. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently found that 99 percent of Mexican trucks enter the U.S. without any inspection. These provisions in NAFTA have resulted in imports of fruits and vegetables contaminated with diseases and unhealthy pesticides. We were alarmed earlier this year when 179 Michigan school children contracted hepatitis after eating tainted Mexican strawberries. In order to prevent similar incidents in the future, we urge you to take the following action: Renegotiate the provisions in NAFTA that relate to border inspections and food safety, and ensure that any fast track authority include strong food safety protections. Increase the funding for border inspections or, alternatively, limit the increasing rate of food imports to ensure the safety of our food supply. Begin an aggressive program to label all food stuffs-- including fresh and frozen fruits, vegetables and meats--with their country of origin. We look forward to working with you on these vital public health issues. Sincerely, Sherrod Brown (D-13-OH), Bart Stupak (D-1-MI), Neil Abercrombie (D-1-HI), Tom Allen (D-1-ME), John E. Baldacci (D-2-ME), Jim Barcia (D-5-MI), Rod Blagojevich (D-5-IL), David Bonior (D-10-MI), Sonny Bono (R-44-CA), Bob Borski (D-3-PA), George Brown Jr. (D-42-CA), Julia Carson (D-1-OR), Tom Coburn (R-2-OK), Jerry Costello (D-12-IL), John Conyers (D-14-MI), William J. Coyne (D- 14-PA), Pat Danner (D-6-MO), Danny Davis (D-7-IL), Jim Davis (D-11-FL), Peter DeFazio (D-4-OR), Rosa Delauro (D-3-CT), William Delahunt (D-10-MA), Ronald Dellums (D-9-CA), Mike Doyle (D-18-PA). Eliot Engel (D-17-NY), Lane Evans (D-17-IL), Vic Fazio (D-3-CA), Marc Foley (R-16-FL), Martin Frost (D-24-TX), Elizabeth Furse (D-1-OR), Sam Gejdenson (D-2-CT), Luis Gutierrez (D-4-IL), Maurice D. Hinchey (D-26-NY), Jay Johnson (D-8-WI), Paul E. Kanjorski (D-11-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-9-OH), Joseph Kennedy (D-8-MA), Patrick Kennedy (D-1-RI), Dale Kildee (D-9-MI), Ron Kind (D-3-WI), Ron Klink (D-4-PA); Dennis Kucinich (D-10-OH), Tom Lantos (D-12-CA), John Lewis (D-5-GA), William O. Lipinski (D-3-IL). James H. Maloney (D-5-CT), Thomas Manton (D-7-NY), Matthew Martinez (D-31-CA), Frank Mascara (D-20-PA), Carolyn McCarthy (D-4-NY), Jim McGovern (D-3-MA), Cynthia Ann McKinney (D-4-GA), Marty Meehan (D-5-MA), Jack Metcalf (R-2-WA), George Miller (D-7-CA), Patsy Mink (D-2-HI), Jerrold Nadler (D-8-NY), Jim Oberstar (D-8-MN), David R. Obey (D-7-WI), John Olver (D-1-MA), Frank Pallone (D-6-NJ), William J. Pascrell (D-8-NJ), Colin Peterson (D-7-MN), Glen Poshard (D-19-IL), Steve Rothman (D-9-NJ), Lynn Rivers (D-13-MI), Bobby Rush (D-1-IL). Martin Sabo (D-5-MN), Bernard Sanders (I-At Large-VT), Adam Smith (D-9-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-8-MI), Pete Stark (D-13-CA), Ted Strickland (D-6-OH), Karen Thurman (D-5-FL), John Tierney (D-6-MA), Ed Towns (D-10-NY), James A. Traficant, Jr. (D-17-OH), Bruce Vento (D-4- MN), Nydia Velasquez (D-12-NY), Peter J. Visclosky (D- 1-IN), Maxine Waters (D-35-CA), Mel Watt (D-12-NC), Henry Waxman (D-29-CA), Robert Wexler (D-19-FL), Robert A. Weygand (D-2-RI), Sid Yates (D-9-IL).

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House and the country tonight. I could not help but overhear my colleagues who are talking about campaign finance, and the evilness they see about that. But I think it is time for us to stop talking about it and really get on with it. We have a number of pieces of campaign finance legislation. I think we all know what the problems are with campaign finance, and we should really go at it and bring those bills to the House floor and actually address it. I think maybe this country and the integrity of this body could be better served in that manner and method. I find it ironic that they would get up and rail about campaign finance, while it was the majority party here that caught a plane about 4 o'clock in the afternoon and takes corporate jets to go up to New York to raise funds. I think that is the soft money that causes problems in campaigns, and we have some bills like McCain-Feingold and the Shays-Meehan bill here in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I wish we could get at it. We all know what the problem is. Let us cut the rhetoric and get on with the business of campaign finance. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be what is going to happen with majority party in control here in this Congress. What I do want to talk about is something that is coming forward, something that should be discussed openly, and I hope that the American public joins with me. That is on food safety. I sit on the Committee on Commerce, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment. We have been devoting some time there to the outbreak of E. coli and other problems throughout this country of our food supply. There is no greater security that a family can provide or the providers of that family provide for young people but to make sure that the food they serve each night is safe for their family's security. Unfortunately, what we have seen here in the last few years in the U.S. Congress and across this Nation is that the food coming into this country, we have more and more imports of food coming into this country, and the safety of that food has been very questionable, to say the least. What brings this issue to a head is recently the President came about 3 weeks ago to the Democratic Caucus and presented his legislation to outline his fast-track authority. Fast-track authority, of course, is to allow the President and his negotiators to enter into trade agreements. The trade agreements would then come before the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and we do not have the opportunity to change, amend, or alter those trade agreements. In those trade agreements, when we take a look, we can see many difficulties have developed in recent years. This new fast-track authority that the President is requesting is to actually increase our trade with the Caribbean nations and South American countries. While that is admirable and something we would all like to do, we must ask ourselves, why are we increasing trade at this point in time when our economy is doing so well, and what is the rush to enter into another trade agreement, especially when we take a look at it, and the trade deficit in this country is so high, and every year it continues to go up? Every President, be it Democrat or Republican, has come to the White House and has said, we are going to cut down on this trade deficit. Well, it has never happened. We have had fast-track legislation for the past five Presidents. That includes President Clinton, President Bush, President Reagan, President Carter, President Ford, and the trade deficit continues to spiral out of control. Our economy is doing so well, but yet we seem to be in this hurry to fast-track into another trade agreement. We must ask ourselves, why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? What is the rush to enter into another trade agreement? What is the rush to enter into another trade deficit that continues to go up? When I came to Congress in 1993, January 1993, the issue then was the budget deficit. We have basically erased that budget deficit, but the other deficit, the trade deficit, continues to go up. Our economy is growing, more jobs ever in this country, yet our trade deficit continues to spiral out of control. So what is the rush to give the President more authority, authority to actually enter into more trade agreements which would actually lower our standards here in the United States, especially when we deal with food safety? Mr. Speaker, that is where I would like to direct my comments here tonight. What is the rush to lower our standards, especially when it comes to food safety? When I say lowering standards, understand the safety and security of our Nation's food supply has recently been in the news because of the contamination at the Hudson plant in Nebraska. And recently we had Beef America we have seen splash across our screens about E. coli. If we take the Hudson plant situation in Nebraska, over 20 million pounds of beef was recalled by the company when it was determined that some of the meat was contaminated with the deadly E. coli virus. In response, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman wants more authority to inspect and take action against meat and poultry factories. I think that is probably a step in the right direction. But at the same time the administration is saying to us, let us increase and give us more authority to inspect and recall meat here in this country, why is the administration then proposing to weaken inspection standards of our supply of food coming into this country by opening up our borders to more and more imported foods? Our border cannot keep up with the increased flow of traffic. In fact, if we take a look at what has happened to food safety and food inspection in this country since the passage of NAFTA, and I am going to look at NAFTA here tonight because that is the real trade agreement that came under fast-track authority, it came up in 1993, and if we take a look at 1993, here we are 4 years later, Mexican imports to the U.S. are up by 82 percent and nearly 70 percent of those imports are carried into the United States on trucks. Mr. Speaker, how many do we actually inspect? Let me comment briefly that while the food imports have doubled now in the last 4 years to more than 2.2 million shipments a year, and if we take a look at it, that comes out to about 9,000 trucks per day, 70 percent of those trucks are carrying some type of food products, yet only 2 percent are actually inspected at border. Yet under this new fast-track authority, the President is saying, let us allow more and more food to come into this country. The trade deficit goes up, our inspection, our food safety, continues to go down. Imports are up, less inspections are taking place, and we have more problems with food safety here in this country. If we take a look at what has happened, the increased traffic has caused great outbreaks of disease in the United States. After the passage of NAFTA in 1993, the rate of hepatitis A in the border regions rose two to five times greater than the national average. In Maverick County, TX, the rate of hepatitis A has doubled from 5.3 in 1993 to over 10 times the State average in 1994. That also is true in Webb County, where the rate of hepatitis A has nearly tripled, and in El Paso County and Cameron County the rate has nearly doubled. But yet we are asking, under the fast-track legislation, to allow more and more food to come into the country. While we are having more food come in the country, what has happened to food inspection here in the United States? If we take a look at the records, and again I sit on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, and this is some of the information made available to us. Mr. Speaker, take the U.S. domestic food supply. In 1981, we conducted on the domestic food supply in this country 21,000 inspections. In 1996, how many inspections did we have? We had just 5,000. Why did we go from 21,000 to 5,000? We are not even keeping up with the food being processed here in the United States, yet foreign food imports have doubled in the last 4 years. So while we have more food being processed in the United States, doubling the food coming into the United States, inspections are down six times what they were in 1981. Is it any wonder then that our food supply has been under real, constant attack by pathogens previously unknown, and like cyclospora that was found in the Guatamalan raspberries that came in earlier this year that sickened some 1,400 Americans? We did not know about those pathogens a few years ago, but now we are finding they are in our food supply. Whether they are Guatemalan raspberries or melons or carrots or lettuce, we are finding them and finding health problems associated with it, but we have less and less inspections here in the United States or in other countries. And again, the food coming into this country from foreign countries has actually doubled. So the President recently, and I will give him some credit, he took a good first step in trying to say, what can we do to help out and make sure that the food produced in other countries, fruits and vegetables especially, meet the U.S. standards, meet certain safety standards? And what the President suggested was a $24 million program which would help to increase inspections in foreign countries at the farm level, and also U.S. farmers would also face some new sanitation guidelines. Well, the problem with that is, and if I can go to my home State of Michigan, earlier this year we had strawberries come in the United States from I believe it to be Mexico, that were tainted, and they were only 1 or 2 percent of those strawberries that were tainted with the hepatitis A bacteria, and they were put in with a bigger shipment of strawberries, and they were distributed to schoolchildren throughout this country. In my home State of Michigan, approximately 140 children were very, very sick. While we only had 1 or 2 percent, it was mixed with a clean batch, and young children all across this country, 140 in my own State of Michigan, got very, very sick. So while we may inspect on the farm in Mexico or Guatamala, once it is put into a wholesaler and distributor and mixed in with clean fruit and it comes to this border, we are only inspecting 2 percent of the some 9,000 trucks entering the country each day. We are only inspecting 2 percent. We can see how healthy good, safe fruits or vegetables mixed in with bad, because we do not catch it all, can cause a serious outbreak throughout this country. When I talk about serious outbreaks and food standards, I am talking about making sure that the irrigation water is clean, that there are lavatories, latrines out in the field, field latrines for the berry pickers, and make sure that they are taught to wash their hands, make sure that the water they use that they put on our fruits and vegetables is actually clean water and not already contaminated. While we have to comply with those standards here in the United States, we cannot, under fast-track agreements or trade agreements, enforce them on other countries because then it becomes a condition or tariff or barrier to free trade. If we look closely at chapter 7 and chapter 9 of the NAFTA agreement that was passed in 1993, many of those provisions were very weak in chapter 7 and 9 about inspection and what we can and cannot inspect and look for at the border. When we do that, what do we do? We lower our standards. While we have the world's healthiest food in the food we place before our family each night, we have some assurance, because it is inspected by U.S. inspectors, that it is relatively free of anything that may harm us, we have found that under these fast-track agreements it has prevented our ability, our ability to make sure that the food we put on our table each night is safe. Let us take a look back, and, again, on the committee I sit on, we received a report in May of 1997 from the General Accounting Office which released a study of the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service and their efforts to minimize the risk from agricultural products which we may put on our table. The GAO reported that the NAFTA and the political muscle from importers had put pressure on their agency, their service, to carry out increased inspections more quickly. And, as I said, almost 9,000 trucks per day enter the U.S., but only 1 or 2 percent are actually inspected. If we look at it, because of staff shortage, one work unit along the U.S.-Mexican border can provide inspector coverage at a very busy area only 8 hours in a 24-hour day. So the port inspections have not been there. Increased inspections, of course, would only help to prevent the problems we are seeing throughout this country with food safety and food health problems. Mr. Speaker, earlier, about 2 weeks ago, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and I wrote a letter to the President, and we had almost one- fourth of the Members of this House join in that letter. We said we are very concerned about the lack of inspection processes, that NAFTA has contributed to a sharp increase in food imports from Mexico, and the imports of Mexican fruit have increased 45 percent, vegetable imports have risen 31 percent. More than 30 percent of these imports are carried in the U.S. on trucks, but yet we find 1 or 2 percent of these trucks are being inspected. The provisions of NAFTA, and we have to look at NAFTA because that is the only free trade agreement we have to base decisions on, and the new fast-track that the President has requested will take in South America and Latin American countries. And when we took a look at NAFTA, it has resulted in the imports of fruits and vegetables which have been contaminated with diseases and unhealthy pesticides. We are alarmed that Michigan schoolchildren contacted hepatitis A from strawberries, and in order to prevent future incidents, we urged the President to do three things: Number one, renegotiate the provisions of NAFTA which relate to border inspections and food safety and ensure that any future requests, this current request for fast-track authority, include strong food safety protections. We wanted to increase the funding for border inspections or, in the alternative, if he cannot do that, limit the increasing rate of food imports coming into this country to ensure safe food supplies. And last but not least, we asked that he begin an aggressive program to label all foodstuffs, I am talking about fresh and frozen fruits, vegetables and meats, and their country of origin, so the American consumer, before they pick that batch of carrots or the head of lettuce, that they know if it was grown in the United States or if it was grown in Chile or if it was grown if Mexico, and then the consumer makes the decision, what is best for themselves and their family. We look forward to working with the President on these vital public health issues. What we are saying is, let us not lower our standards as we enter into these fast-track agreements. There are many reasons probably to oppose fast-track. It could be because of environmental standards, it could be because of labor standards, but I think most importantly it is because of food safety standards. It was interesting today in the Committee on Ways and Means, which was the first committee to actually look at the President's fast-track authority. I was speaking to the Members after the vote. They reported out the President's fast-track authority in a weak vote. It did not contain strong provisions for food safety. It did not attempt in any way or shape to renegotiate fast-track with the NAFTA agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which related to border inspections of food safety. It did not have strong food safety protections. It did not increase any funding for border inspections. And it certainly did not contain any food labeling program. When we look at that and the report on how the vote came out in the Committee on Ways and Means tonight, we will find it a weak vote. A very small majority of the committee reported out the fast-track legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, as we begin consideration of this fast-track legislation, I would hope that Members of Congress would take a very, very close look at it. This is not a trade issue. It is really a safety issue. Can we provide for our families safe, reliable food? Do we have the inspectors to do the job? Can we assure that the fruit or vegetables or meat or poultry coming into this country have been certified, have been inspected? Have the hands, the human hands that handled it, whether it is in the United States or whether it is in another country, have they used proper sanitation practices? Has the water that has been used for irrigation, has it been clean, fresh water? These are the questions we must all ask ourselves, or we will have more and more E. coli bacteria, cyclospora, or even E. coli contamination. Mr. Speaker, this is, again, not a trade issue, this is really a safety issue. We urge the President, before he comes and once again asks Members of Congress to approve fast-track, which is a broad trade negotiating authority, that he make sure that those three provisions we have asked for, labeling, food inspection, and make sure we have agreement that does not limit our right to inspect as chapter 7 and chapter 9 of NAFTA does. We want to make sure that we have every guarantee for the American family. I do not know why we would want to compromise our strong food safety standards in this country to increase trade with other countries. Our economy is doing well. Our trade deficit continues to go up. We must get that under control. Let us not fast track this Nation's health and our children's health for another fast track agreement. When we take a look at it, I find it really sort of ironic that at a time when the administration is pushing for more regulation of meats and poultry and continues to raise concerns about pesticide safety in this country, those who want fast track extended to other countries want to make it easier for unsafe food to enter into this country. I find it amazing that when one goes on vacation, if one is from the north land, like I am from northern Michigan, one goes down to maybe the Caribbean or other parts to vacation during the long winter months, what do they say? Do not eat this; do not drink that. But yet that same food is going to come into this country without any kind of label or knowledge. How do we then guarantee our family's health and safety, especially when we find that back in 1981 we used to make 21,000 inspections. Last year we only made 5,000 inspections. Yet the food coming into this country over the last four years has doubled. Less inspectors, twice as much food coming in, but there is no mechanism to do the inspection. We certainly hope that as we begin this debate on fast track legislation, that the debate will be on its merits, that we will look at the inspection of not only U.S. domestic food supply but most certainly the food supply that is coming into this country from foreign countries. As I said, imports have doubled to over 2.2 million shipments per year, and we have to have more than just a 2 percent inspection. The FDA certainly has been pushing for changes since 1993, but unfortunately we have not kept pace with America's food supply. That is why we see the outbreaks of things like cyclospora or E. coli or hepatitis A throughout this country. They say, well, it is just along the border of Texas. But I live in Michigan, and when we have 130 to 140 children ill because of strawberries and we have reasons to believe it came from Mexico, a tainted batch, but yet they can make it all the way to Michigan, we know it is a national issue. So while trade agreements and the standards are something we should all look at, by ``standards'' I just mean our own standards in this country, before we allow other products, especially food from other nations, into this country, they must meet our standards. I think that is only fair. I think it was only a year ago when the administration was very concerned about CDs, compact discs, and how they were ready to have a trade war with China because they did not honor our intellectual property rights on things like CDs. What about our health and safety rights on things like food, food safety, fruits, vegetables, meats, poultry? So while there may be many reasons, and we hear many reasons to oppose fast track authority, or at least fast track agreements where the U.S. Congress does not have the right to alter, amend or change, when the agreement comes here we must vote yes or no with no amendments, we always hear about labor standards We hear about environmental standards. But how about consumer protection? How about food safety? How about the safety of the American family? So I would urge my colleagues, as we begin this debate, as I said, the Committee on Ways and Means has recommended that the bill be considered by the full House, that we have a debate, a debate on the food standards, what has happened, what is happening throughout this country with E. coli, with hepatitis A and many of the other pathogens that we did not know about a few years ago which contaminate our food sources. What are the chemicals that other countries use on their fruits and vegetables as they grow them? DDT is one of them used in Mexico that has been outlawed for many years in this country. Those are the questions that we must ask. So I come to the floor tonight to offer my hand to extend to the administration to assist them as we debate these issues, and at the same time I hope I bring awareness to the other Members who are maybe listening in their office or to constituents throughout this country that they raise the same issues that I am raising here tonight. I do not have all the answers. But if we work together in a collective way, we can guarantee that the fast track agreement has the protections, that we do not lower our standards for food safety, for the health and security of our families.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of coming before Congress today to pay tribute to a company operating in my district that has played a major role in the economic, cultural and historical development of northern Michigan and in the rise of the economic and military power of the United States itself in the last century and a half. The history of Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. is a fascinating one, because it is entwined with the development of the Soo Locks, the growth of shipping on the Great Lakes, and the development of pelletizing iron ore. The company's history even has ties to a candidate for the U.S. Presidency in the year 1876. The company began as the Cleveland Iron Co. in 1847, just 3 years after iron ore was discovered in the remote wilderness of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Michigan had been given the Upper Peninsula as compensation for a disputed piece of land along the Michigan-Ohio border known as the Toledo strip. The discovery of iron and of copper in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan made this exchange suddenly seem very much worthwhile. Northern Michigan in those years was still a remote frontier area. Mining began in earnest in the 1850's, but getting the ore to port from this wilderness was a great challenge. The construction of a plank road through miles of rugged terrain brought ore to the budding city of Marquette on Lake Superior, and by 1857 a railroad with steam engines was hauling ore to the new docks in Marquette. The opening of the Sault Ste. Marie Ship Canal, allowing ships to bypass the rapids on the St. Mary's River en route between Lake Superior and Lake Huron, was a significant event in the development of the iron and steel industry in the United States. The passage of the two-masted brigantine Columbia through the Soo Locks in August 1855 with 120 tons of ore was significant in this regard. It meant not only that ore would be mined in Upper Michigan, and later in Minnesota, but that processing of ore and the manufacture of steel would be done in blast furnaces far from the mines, in States on the south shore of the eastern Great Lakes. During the Civil War and in the years that followed the war, production tonnages increased on a regular basis, with shipments hitting the 200,000 ton mark in 1880. Surface deposits of ore were exhausted by then, and shaft mining was begun to follow the rich iron ore veins underground. By 1890 there were two major iron mining operations on the Marquette Iron Range. Joining the Cleveland Iron Co. was the Iron Cliffs Co., founded by Samuel J. Tilden, Democratic Party nominee for President against Rutherford B. Hayes. A merger of these two companies in 1891 created the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. This new company was a pioneer, bringing many firsts to the industry and to the region. It brought electrical power to the Upper Peninsula by building an hydroelectric plant in 1910. In 1900 it created the first geological department for an iron mining company in the Lake Superior Region. It organized a welfare department in 1905, developed a pension plan in 1909, formed the region's first mine safety department in 1911, built a modern hospital in 1918, and even build lumber mills to harvest the abundant timber. Making good use of its vast land holdings, the company hired a landscape architect to design a model town for the area. The community of Gwinn is named for Elizabeth Gwinn, mother of company president William Gwinn Mather. Perhaps the most significant breakthrough for the region and for the industry occurred when Cleveland Cliffs researchers, working with the U.S. Bureau of Mines, developed the current method of concentrating low-grade ore into pellets. The process of pelletizing iron ore has provided Cleveland Cliffs and the steel industry with more than 375 million tons of iron ore pellets. These pellets are made from ore once considered too low in iron to have any value. Despite periods of economic slowdown, the company, now known as Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., is the world's largest producer of iron ore pellets and the leading supplier of high-quality iron ore products to the steel industry in North America. The company employs approximately one-third of its 6,000-member work force in northern Michigan. Others work in the corporate headquarters in Cleveland, OH, as well as in northern Minnesota, where the company also mines iron ore. Mr. Speaker, Cleveland-Cliffs has an economic, historical and cultural presence deep in the geography and the people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and in the economy of the United States. We wish the company and its employees years of success and the blessings of innovation that will keep it viable well into a new millennium.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about fast track. Recently the President has requested fast track authority from the United States Congress to extend the NAFTA-like trade agreements to South America, Chile, and the Caribbean Basin. Mr. Speaker, what the fast track authority really does is extend trade agreements to countries without any chance of the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Senate to amend, alter, or change these agreements. We are very concerned about this fast track authority. We do not know what the rush is and why we have to enter into another fast track type of agreement when we find problems with past fast track legislation, namely, the NAFTA agreement. In the past, Mr. Speaker, when we may have criticized fast track agreements, and it centered on labor or environmental concerns, and these are good reasons to oppose fast track if they do not address our environmental or labor concerns, but there is a third reason and maybe a more pressing reason to reject this new fast track authority for the President if the fast track legislation does not contain food safety and pesticide use and control of fruits, vegetables, meats, poultry coming into this country. Food safety should be of the utmost concern of all Americans. It is not a trade issue, it is a safety issue, based upon the food we present to our family each and every day. If we take a look at the NAFTA experience, Mr. Speaker, we find that over the past 3 years that NAFTA has been implemented, we find that the standards for food safety, pesticide use on food and products coming into the United States has actually been lowered under NAFTA. Why should our standards, our high qualities that we enjoy here in the United States to ensure proper food, nutrition, and safety on our dinner tables, be waived or lowered in the name of some fast track agreement? If we take a look at the May 1997 General Accounting Office review of the NAFTA and the food safety issue, we find that over 9,000 trucks per day come into this country from Mexico. That is 3.3 million trucks a year. When we take a look at it, there is very little or no enforcement or inspection of these vehicles entering the United States. For instance, the GAO study reports that strawberries alone has an 18-percent violation of our health food and safety standards. Carrots have a 12-percent violation. Head lettuce that comes into the United States from Mexico, 15 percent of them are found to be in violation of our food and health standards. Now, these are not my statistics, or it is not my report, but that of the Government Accounting Office, May 1997 study. When we eat contaminated food, we have problems, as we have seen recently in this country, with E. coli, or hepatitis A. Hepatitis A along the Mexican border with Texas has a 2 to 5 times greater hepatitis outbreak in certain counties in Texas than the national average, and it is directly related to food entering into the United States not properly cared for, inspected, and treated before it is being placed on our tables. Even in Michigan where I am from, Mr. Speaker, this past year we had 130 schoolchildren who were infected with hepatitis A when they consumed strawberries that were grown in Mexico. When we talk about pesticides, which ones can and cannot be used to grow fruits and vegetables, many of those standards are waived under the current NAFTA agreement, and I am afraid that under the new fast track authority for the South American and Caribbean Basin that there will not be adequate pesticide standards placed in that agreement. Again, this is not a trade issue, but really a safety issue. We should not lower our standards. We should not jeopardize the health and safety of our families in the name of trade, but let us not lower our standards. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] and myself have been preparing a letter to send to the President which asks him, before he agrees to any fast track authority, we would ask him and we would urge him to do the following: Renegotiate the provisions of NAFTA which relate to border inspections and food safety, and ensure that any future requests for fast track authority include strong food safety protections. Increase the funding for border inspections, or in the alternative, limit the increasing rate of food imports to ensure that safety of our food is paramount at the time of inspection. We would also ask the President to begin an aggressive program to label all food, including fresh and frozen fruits, vegetables, and meats, and also place what country they are from. What we find now is food coming into the United States, and they are in a big truck or container ship.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] for his leadership on this issue. Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 2027. While not a perfect bill, it is a move in the right direction. This bill will establish a pilot program that aims to prove that once again, while the Federal Government has good intentions, its regulations can, at times, be overburdensome on American citizens. For years, recreational boaters were permitted to obtain form I-68 from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, for free. This form allowed the boaters to reenter the United States without inspections on bodies of water along the Canadian border during the navigation season. In the Great Lakes, Canadian waters can be as close as a stone's throw away. In fact, in my congressional district, which has more shoreline than any congressional district except Alaska, and most of that shoreline is with Canada, we want the freedom to move back and forth without further interference and disruption from the Federal Government. Two years ago, the INS began charging a fee for this form. What this all boils down to is that American citizens are paying a new fee for the privilege of reentering the United States. They are not receiving services, because that was the whole purpose of the form, to allow citizens to move back and forth freely without inspection. I find it incredible that we are now charging U.S. citizens for the simple act of reentering their own country. Furthermore, individuals must apply and pay for this form in person. This may not seem like such a hardship to other States, but in northern Michigan, this could mean at least an 8-hour drive for many of my constituents to the nearest INS office. This bill is simply an 18-month pilot program that reestablishes a system that has worked well for years. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to restore a small sense of integrity to the Federal Government.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Twelve thousand trucks a day.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is amazing that the President indicated at the caucus today that the way to get around this and to make sure there is inspection and food safety at the border is to increase the inspections. And if Congress will not appropriate the money, the heck with it, let us just move forward with this trade agreement anyway as the fast track trade agreement. But, remember, it was 2 or 3 weeks ago the administration was up here pushing for more regulation, more regulation for more inspection in this country for meats, poultry, and they continued to raise concerns about pesticides being used in this country. If we cannot control and inspect adequately, and the Secretary of Agriculture wants more regulations and more authority to invoke emergency powers to take food off our tables and the grocery store shelves, if we cannot do it within our own country, because we do not have enough people and they need more authority, how will we do it on items coming into this country where we inspect 1 percent of everything that comes in? It defies their argument. It defies their logic. So I certainly hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am glad to see the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] is here helping us out on this issue tonight and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. I hope they will all join us in sending a letter to the President urging him to include specific food safety provisions in his fast track proposal. And we welcome all Members, Democrats, Republicans, Independents to sign this letter because, as we said earlier, what we want to know is what are the rules of the game? What are the rules of the trade game? We should not lower our standards as a country. We should not lower the health and safety requirements of this country. We have rules that affect intellectual property rights, compact disks, patent law. Why can those same standards, those same rules not be afforded to labor, the environment but especially food safety? Let us not fast track our standards, our safety and our families' health and security. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and the staff, I said I would be brief, but I was joined by all my friends here tonight, that I could not anticipate, so we went a little longer.

Mr. STUPAK. Right. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, when they say do not look back, do not look back at NAFTA, I think we do have to take a look at it. Remember, we had side agreements on tomatoes, and we had side agreements on lettuce, we had side agreements on citrus fruits, to try to protect the U.S. interests here. Yet, if we take a look at it and take a look at NAFTA, and I think we have to, because it is the only agreement we can make a comparison to, but again we are expanding it to South America and Chile, and Mexico is right there in Central America, it is all part of that region, we have an increase. Fruit imports in the United States has increased 45 percent. Vegetable imports have risen 31 percent. So those are going up, the imports in the country, from Mexico. But then yet, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] pointed out, the inspections, and take a look at chapter 7 and chapter 9 of the NAFTA food requirements or food trade requirements, we have limited inspections. In fact, they will inspect a limited number of Mexican trucks, and there is a limited infrastructure to even carry it out, where 1 percent of 12,000 trucks per day are being inspected. Actually, it is 3.3 million trucks entering this country, and we are inspecting 1 percent. And we say, how can there be an increase in drugs coming into this country? The truck may say ``bananas,'' but we do not know what is really in there because we are not inspecting it. They all know that. Then we have a NAFTA Agreement which limits our ability to make the inspection at the border and to limit the number of trucks that will be inspected. So the more trucks you bring up, the less are going to be inspected, the greater chance of getting through whatever you want, be it contraband, be it fruits or vegetables laced with DDT. Again, this is not just us who oppose NAFTA saying this. This is found in the Government Accounting Office May 1997 report. It is all documented. And their recommendations that we have been talking about here tonight are certainly contained in here. Again, I think the issue here is not necessarily a trade agreement, but really a safety agreement: What standards are we going to apply? Do we lower our standards to allow more goods to come in this country? Is that not what this is really about? What are the standards, and should we not all go by the same standards? We have to have standards. We have them for, as I said earlier, for patent law, intellectual property, compact disks. Remember the big fight with China on that? We have these standards and enforce them, but somehow when it comes to food safety, the environment, labor, we are not going to enforce it? I think there are some very good arguments here that must be made. What is the rush? Let us slow this thing down.

Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a good point about the trade deficit, how we had a surplus, and now we have somewhere between a $16 to $20 billion deficit. And the idea of parts going down to Mexico, they are being assembled, and they come right back. The gentleman mentioned tourism. When we take parts and assemble them in another country and send them right back as a finished product at a high rate of cost, such as vehicles, we call those things industrial tourists. They just go down for a few days, enjoy the sunshine, come right back up and be sold to us northerners up here. Industrial tourists is what we call this. That is why we see the big trade deficit. I know the last time we did a special order we talked about the twin deficits, not just the budget deficit but also a trade deficit which needs to be addressed. What we are asking for, and it is not that we are against free trade, and we are not protectionists, but what we are really saying here is what are the rules of trade here? We have standards for intellectual property, we have standards for patents, we have standards for compact disk players or CDs, as we call it. Can we not take those same standards, those same rules we apply to intellectual property, to CDs, and to patents, and should they not apply to things like labor standards, environmental standards, but especially food safety standards? What we are saying, before we have this new fast track, what are the standards we are going to live by, what are the rules of the game, and let us all have the same rules of conduct, whether it is food safety, intellectual property, truck safety, whatever it might be, because we insist, and we have strong consumer standards in this country, and we insist that they be part of any trade agreement. I see my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is here, and I gladly yield to him.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I will not be using all my time tonight, but I do want to say a few comments. Today the President and Vice President came to the legislative hill, to the Capitol Hill to detail for us, at least the Democratic Caucus, the fast-track trade authority that the President would like this Congress to approve. As I listened to the comments being made by my colleagues and others on fast-track legislation, and I hope the listeners understand that fast track means give the President the authority to enter into a trade agreement mostly with South America, Chile, and the Caribbean Basin, and that authority or that agreement, frayed agreement, that the President would negotiate on behalf of his negotiators, would then come before the Congress for approval or disapproval. There would be no opportunity to amend this fast track. You have no opportunity to alter it. You have to accept it as is and vote yes or no. I sit on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce, and as we have dealt with over the past few years food safety and food standards in this country and how it was affected by the NAFTA agreement, and what can we expect as we look for a new round of trade negotiations under a fast track authority with South America, Chile, or the Caribbean Basin. In the caucus today when the President came, we heard a lot of discussion about labor standards and environmental standards, and those are very important, and those standards in and of themselves would be enough to defeat any kind of fast-track legislation, if not adequately covered. But I come to the floor tonight because I did not hear a lot of discussion about the food safety issue and the pesticides that are used in other countries. As food is developed in other countries and shipped here to the United States, of course the United States being the largest consuming Nation, do those standards underneath these trade agreements, our standards, the U.S. standards, the highest in the world, are they going to be upheld? Or do the trade agreements, as is pointed out in NAFTA, will they be lowered, either due to the written word of the agreement or because of the lack of inspection of the vehicles, container ships, coming into the United States? Understand when a container ship comes into the United States, and let us say it has bananas in the container, the large container on the outside may be marked bananas from Ecuador. But once they are removed from that container and put into boxes and on our grocery shelves, we do not know where they come from. There is no way. There is no labeling required. Therefore, you do not know what pesticides, what country it even came from, and do they have standards that you wanted for yourself and for your family? Recently in this country we have had a lot of outbreak of E. coli and hepatitis A breaking out throughout this country, including my own State of Michigan. How does it get by our inspectors? If you take NAFTA alone, if you look back at NAFTA, North American Free-Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, coming up through Mexico, 12,000 trucks a day, 3.3 million trucks a year cross the border. Less than 1 percent are inspected. Now, there is not enough inspection, there is no enforcement. I am not talking about the trucks, which are another story in and of themselves, but I am talking about the container and what do these trucks contain, what kind of food, what have we found? The Government Accounting Office in May of 1997 reviewed NAFTA and the effect of the food and use of pesticides on food products coming into this country, and they found strawberries alone, about 18 percent, just a random sample, 18 percent violate our standards for food safety and the use of pesticides. Head lettuce, which we get a lot from Mexico, 15 percent is in violation of our food standards in the pesticide use. Carrots, another 12 percent of them. There is not enough enforcement, there is not enough inspection, not just the vehicles they are traveling in, but also what pesticides are used on these food products and how they are shipped, handled and labeled and sent to the United States. I mentioned hepatitis A. If you take a look at Texas, where most of the food comes in through this country from Mexico, you will find that along these border communities, hepatitis A outbreak is 2 to 5 times greater than other parts of the country. In fact, there are some counties in Texas where it is 10 times greater than the state average and the national average. I mentioned Michigan, and being from Michigan, even in Michigan we have the strawberries where we had 130 children affected with hepatitis A because of strawberries, when after we traced back, came out of Mexico, because they do not have the same sanitation requirements, the same safety inspections, the same food inspection. Once they get across the border, again, in a truck, only 99 percent of them are not inspected, less than 1 percent are inspected. Of 12,000 trucks per day, then you can see how these things easily get into our society, into our food chain, and on our dining room table. Pesticides, if you take a look at it under NAFTA, and in the past agreements and the studies have shown, that basically we have waived our standards. When we come to food safety, we should not be waiving our high standards, and we have. It is not necessarily a trade issue, but reality is a health issue, about the health and safety for our families. So those who would argue that those of us who may oppose any kind of NAFTA or fast track authority, it is not because we are against trade, it is the health and safety of our families that we are concerned about. In fact, the concern is not just for our own families and what is happening from other countries and food being shipped into this country that we are consuming, but even if we take a look at it, what have we seen? Even the Department of Agriculture, Secretary Glickman has been on Capitol Hill and has called upon us, the legislative branch, to push for more regulation of meats and poultry, and he continues to raise concerns about the pesticide safety in this country. But yet at the same time that administration and the Department of Agriculture, the opponents of a fast track extension actually make it easier for unsafe food to enter into this country. So the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], who sits on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment with me, will be sending a letter to the President urging him to include specific food safety provisions in his fast track proposal. Again, we did not hear much about it at the caucus today when the President and Vice President were there, but we welcome all Members of the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to join on the letter. What we are asking the President to do is to renegotiate the provisions of NAFTA which relate to border inspections and food safety and to ensure that any future request from this fast track authority includes strong food safety protections. We would like to see increased funding for border inspections, or alternatively, limit the increasing rate of food imports to ensure the safety of our own food supply that we put on the table every night. We would like to see an aggressive program of labeling on all foodstuffs, including fresh and frozen fruits, meats, and vegetables, and also what country were they grown in, what is the country of origin. We think these are just some very basic things we should do to assure the health and safety and security of our families. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair to ask the American people, when we start talking about fast track or NAFTA, to start lowering our own high standards for the health, safety, and welfare of our children. When we take a look at it, what is the rush to enter into another fast track agreement? There are many arguments for and against, and I am not here to argue trade agreements but I am just trying to say, what is the rush here? Why are we continuing to enter into these trade agreements? Why do we have to have fast track agreements we cannot amend or alter? I think it is a bad deal for American workers and American consumers. I think we need to take a very serious look, and I think if we do, the country would say, why are we making these trade agreements so quickly? Why are we giving the President so much power? It is really not necessary. The economy is going well; let us keep it going. I see the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] is here on the floor, and I yield to him.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate him coming out and saying a few words. I know some people thought, and I do not have much auto in my district, in fact basically none, maybe some parts but no cars are being built there, that it was all a manufacturing issue. A lot of us, and I know the gentleman did also, were against NAFTA, and he is from California and we see the wave of these trucks coming in every day and not getting inspected. In particular, I know the gentleman was familiar with chapter 7, which dealt with NAFTA, the food trade chapter. Actually, when we read it, it limits our border inspections of food and similar items, and also chapter 9 basically comes right out and says we are going to have an open border to Mexican trucks of limited inspection. We are seeing these problems developing. The gentleman mentioned DDT as being one of them, and the gentleman is right that they allow DDT being used on lettuce and tomatoes and carrots and vegetables and fruits. One of the things we are saying is, let us renegotiate some of these provisions of NAFTA which relate to border inspections and food safety, and ensure that future requests for fast track would include strong food safety protections. My concern in coming to the floor tonight is we did not hear that today in the caucus when the President appeared. Also, we want to increase the funding for border inspections to limit the increasing rate of food being imported in. The gentleman was absolutely correct when he said the gentleman from California (Mr. Bono) has the legislation that puts in an aggressive program to label all foodstuffs, including fresh and frozen vegetables, meats and fruits, and label the country of origin, because the gentleman is correct. The farmer's market has an insurance that it is grown in his State and in the local area, it has been inspected, and not being brought from outside the country where we have all kinds of chemicals being used. So we are concerned here as we start another round of fast track that we want to make sure there are adequate protections, that child labor laws are there, there are workplace and environmental safety standards and some basic human rights. But I would hope that we do not fast track our standards, our safety, and our family's health and security. If I just may close, once again I find it amazing that at a time when the administration is pushing for more regulation in meats and poultry due to what happened with the Hudson hamburger, and they tell us Burger King, and I am not slamming the company, but in this State we still cannot determine where the meat that goes for those hamburgers comes from. We do not know if it is from Europe, we do not know if it is from Mexico, we do not know if it is from Canada or Kansas; we really do not know, but yet we certainly consume them as a nation, because we are a consuming nation. So those assurances we want in any kind of fast track legislation. So we, certainly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and I have been urging Members to make sure there are the food safety provisions in any fast track proposal, and we still have not seen it. As I say that I see that my friend the gentleman from Ohio has joined us on the floor, and I will yield to him at this time.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. If I may cut in here, the gentleman and I both have a letter that was going to the President in which we are asking him to include very specific food safety provisions in his fast track proposal. This really is not a trade issue. It is really a safety issue. What we are asking here, while Secretary Glickman says we have to do more things in this country, let us make sure that these provisions and regulations we are going to put out for our producers and growers and poultry and meat plants in this country also apply to goods and services. Especially when it concerns our health, meat and poultry and vegetables and fruits, let us apply those same standards in our trade agreements. Isn't that only fair? When we take a look at it, and if we study NAFTA, whether it is chapter 7 or 9, which talks about inspection of trucks, if we put kind of a standard out there, the first thing people say is we are putting up a trade barrier, we are putting up trade barriers. Let us have fair trade, but let us have a level trading position here and make sure our safety standards are not compromised. That is the least we should expect from these agreements, because it does threaten the well-being of every American family. There is no doubt that NAFTA has been a direct cause of threats to our communities and our health and our safety. The NAFTA rules securing investment in Mexico was actually lowering the few existing tariffs and quotas that are directly responsible for the new wave of NAFTA imports. So if we take a look again at NAFTA, chapter 7, which limits the border inspections of food and similar items in NAFTA, and then take a look at chapter 9, which opens the border to Mexican trucks, with limited inspection, how about the trucks themselves? Are they safe to be on our highways, 12,000 trucks a day? Do the people driving those trucks have the qualifications and credentials, the chauffeur license, as we know it in this country? Being a former State trooper, I am concerned about that. Really the bottom line here is that while many consumer and health groups that opposed NAFTA in 1993 feared, NAFTA is threatening the public health and safety; and the government inspection systems that were charged with guaranteeing our health and safety, they just have not been followed through. They have not been followed; in fact, we have been overwhelmed. If we take a look at the May 1997 General Accounting Office report, certainly the border inspection documentation is alarming. We are not doing it. We are not doing a good job. When 1 percent of 3.3 million trucks coming over from Mexico are actually inspected and then there is pressure on them to do it quickly, what about the other 99 percent that are coming in and are not being inspected? Is the truck being inspected? Are the contents being inspected? Is the driver being inspected? Is there any kind of test given to him as to whether he is under the influence of any kind of alcohol, drug or whatever other kind of chemical or substance that may be used at the time. I would certainly hope that as we begin this debate on fast track, and I am here to talk about the food safety issue and I appreciate the help of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] and leadership in this as we sit on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment. We have watched this unveil for the last 3, 4, 5 years, that while we demand more of our own country as far as inspecting food, meats, fish, and poultry as Secretary Glickman wants more authority to do that and to take action, should that same action not be taken about food, meat, poultry, and vegetables coming into this country? It is an issue of safety, it is an issue of security for our families, it is an issue of fairness, it is an issue of free trade, but fair trade. We certainly are calling upon the President to make sure that food safety is number one paramount in any kind of fast track extension. Remember that under fast track, while we give the President great power and actually Congress delegates broad negotiating authority to the President and his advisers in this area, we do not have an opportunity then when it comes back before this House floor to put on an amendment for food safety, to put on an amendment for increased truck safety, to put on an amendment that says at least 50 percent of all trucks would be inspected and thoroughly inspected. It is either an all-or-nothing vote. We either accept it or reject it. So unfortunately, and I say that even though I opposed NAFTA in 1993, it is unfortunate what we have seen. They have been overwhelmed by trucks and vehicle traffic moving across here, and we are beginning to see whether you are in Michigan, California and especially Texas with the doubling and tripling of hepatitis A, the great threat it is to the health of this Nation and to our families.

Mr. STUPAK. Those three points that the gentleman points out have come from discussions we have had on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment which has jurisdiction over health and safety and food and FDA in this country; but also in looking at the GAO report, the Report to Congressional Committees on Agricultural Inspection, Improvements Needed to Minimize the Threat of Foreign Pests and Diseases, GAO Report 97-102. What we are asking for before we extend what we feel are the inadequacies of NAFTA under another fast track authority which the President would like done this fall, before we rush headlong into it, before we put further restrictions on American producers and manufacturers and meatpacking plants throughout this country, that those same quality assurances apply not just to items produced in this country but also coming into this country. We have done a dismal job according to the GAO report in even trying to address the issues. Again I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him. We do have the letter going to the President. We are asking Members to sign that letter and just to say whatever your position is on fast track, let us make sure we take these minimum basic three steps to ensure the health and safety and security of American families.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] for yielding to me. The safety and security of our Nation's food supply that has recently been in the news because of contamination of the Hudson plant in Nebraska, but the gentleman and I both sit on the Health and Environment Subcommittee of the full Committee on Commerce, and we have watched over the last few years especially what has happened to food safety in this country. If we take a look at the Hudson plant situation, over 20 million pounds of beef was recalled by the company because it was determined that this meat was contaminated with the deadly E. coli virus. In response, we have a bill sent up to the Hill here last week by Secretary of Agriculture Mr. Glickman, who wants more authority to inspect and take action against meat and poultry factories. So if we take a look at what is going on here in this country, we are demanding more authority by the Secretary of Agriculture because he is concerned about the safety and security of our Nation's food supply. But what we are saying here tonight is that the concern for safety and security of our Nation's food supply must extend to NAFTA and to any other fast track agreement that we may be presented with. As the gentleman mentioned, the President is preparing once again to ask Congress to delegate broad trade negotiating authority to him, and we still have many arguments not only to the economic effects of NAFTA, but also as regards NAFTA's undermining the food safety in this country. There is no discussion to engage in to fix it, on how to fix this growing problem that threatens the well-being of every American family. So I appreciate the gentleman's efforts here and we have come out here tonight to start alerting the American public that this fast track authority will be here. There is a major concern about food safety in this Nation. The Secretary of Agriculture has pinpointed it, but when we take a look at it, when we take a look at what has really happened since the passage of NAFTA, Mexican imports to the United States are up 82 percent and nearly 70 percent of these imports come across the United States border by trucks. In May 1977, the General Accounting Office released a study of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's efforts to minimize the risks to agriculture from pests and disease from entering the United States. This General Accounting Office report states that NAFTA and the political muscle from the supporters have, and I quote now, ``have put pressure on these inspectors to carry out the increased inspection responsibilities more quickly.'' In other words, go ahead and inspect, but they have to do it much more quickly, because if we take a look at it, 12,000 trucks per day, 12,000 crossing from Mexico into the United States, carrying fruits and vegetables and meat. So that is a total of 3.3 million trucks coming into this country carrying poultry and vegetables and meat into the United States, and only 1 percent, 1 percent of 3.3 million, are actually being inspected. And then when they are inspected, there is pressure to do it quickly, to move them along. Again let me quote from the GAO. The GAO said, quote, ``At the Mexican border crossing, with the heaviest passenger vehicle volume in the country, a supervisory inspector said the staff was inspecting less than one-tenth of 1 percent, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the passenger vehicle traffic because the volume is so high.'' So if they are not even inspecting cars, how are they going to inspect these large trucks? And, again, 12,000 per day enter the United States. Most of the ports visited by the GAO investigators who were doing this report said that the inspection program could not keep up with the increasing demand. Due to the heavy workloads, inspectors do not conduct complete inspections, allowing possibly unsafe products into the United States. And they said, quote, ``Because of staffing shortages, one work unit alone at the U.S. Mexican border can provide inspection coverage of a busy pedestrian crossing for less than 8 hours in an 18-hour port operation a day.'' So that means that not even 50 percent of the time is there someone there to even do the inspections. This increased traffic, as the gentleman has indicated, has caused outbreaks of disease in the United States. After passage of NAFTA in 1993, let us just take a look at what happened. In 1993, NAFTA was passed. The rate of hepatitis A in the border region rose 2\1/2\ times greater than the U.S. national average. This is in the border communities. In fact, in Maverick, TX, the rate of hepatitis A doubled from 5.3 times in 1993 to over 10.3 in just 1 year, in 1994. Webb County, that is El Paso County and Cameron County, they all had at least 2-, almost a 3-percent increase, or 2 to 3 times doubling the rate of hepatitis A in Texas. Each year we have about 130 cases of hepatitis A identified even in Michigan. The gentleman mentioned Michigan and the strawberries. We had 130 cases of hepatitis A identified in Calhoun County, MI, because of illegally imported strawberries from Mexico. Now, not only did it come from Mexico and it was not inspected, but we already have a law on the books which says that in the school lunch program we cannot use agricultural goods grown in another country, bring them in the United States and put them into the U.S. agriculture food program. So as we can see, even the laws we had prior to and since NAFTA have not increased the safety of our Nation's food supplies to make sure they are safe and secure for all of us. So when we take a look at it, overall NAFTA, and especially the food safety, certainly has been a disaster. Besides the increased flow of traffic of foods, there is evidence that Mexican fruit have high levels of illegal pesticides. On studies performed by the environmental working group using data before and after NAFTA, 42 different fruits and vegetables, which comprise 96 to 83 percent of all the fruits and vegetables coming into this country, they found that the imported crops from Mexico have very high rates of illegal pesticides, including strawberries. This is a violation rate of like 18.4 percent. Lettuce from Mexico is at 15.6 percent violation, and carrots are at 12.3 percent. These are staples in the American diet, carrots and lettuce and strawberries, and we have an average here of about 15 percent of it coming into this country violating U.S. law because of illegal pesticides. Illegal pesticides were under-reported actually by the FDA on crops from Mexico, where this environmental working group felt it was much higher. Certainly, the strawberry has drawn a lot of attention, especially because it occurred in my State of Michigan; and at the time, while the administration, through Secretary Glickman, is here pushing us for more and more regulation of meats and poultry and continuing to raise concerns, and rightfully so, about the pesticide safety in this country, those who are in favor of this new fast track authority, they want to make it easier for unsafe food to come into this country.