Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think it is particularly important to point out that the gentleman here is from South Carolina.

A few weeks ago we had a hurricane called Isabel that was heading in on the East Coast, and the folks from South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia began to plan for that hurricane because through modern technology, we can see it coming through, and we followed it. And there were a lot of homes that were boarded up. There were a lot of preparations made, a lot of batteries were bought and other supplies were bought preparing for what we could see coming.

It is amazing to me that the majority party in this House refused to acknowledge the coming perfect storm. The perfect storm of fiscal deficit, now as far as the eye can see, of 400, $500 billion, trade deficits as far as the eye can see, $500 billion this year and growing, and these are the jobs that we are losing, the exporting of the jobs that are occurring.

That is happening under current policy and then the third component of this perfect storm, the upcoming baby boom generation that will begin retiring in 2011. We know that is going to hit all 50 States. It is not going to pick out Virginia or North Carolina. It is going to hit all 50 States, and what are we doing in this body to prepare for it today? Zero. In fact, worse than nothing we are doing. We are digging the hole deeper.

Fiscal deficits now do not matter anymore, and it is amazing to me, someone who has been around here and used to vote with my friends on the other side for attempting to bring fiscal responsibility to this body, we are now told deficits do not matter anymore. Oh, they are tried to be explained away as a percent of gross domestic product. The last one we come in with was $374 billion deficit last year; and folks say, hey, good news, it is less than the 450 we projected last July. And we are supposed to rejoice? The 374 happens to be the biggest deficit in this history of our country. Amazing.

Another little perspective perhaps that people might begin to pay attention in this body is who I am talking to. It took this country 204 years to borrow the first $1 trillion. In the first 2\1/2\ years of this administration, we borrowed another $1 trillion. In the next year and a half, we are going to borrow another $1 trillion. I would hope with $1 trillion we could get one quarter of 7.2 percent gross domestic product increase. I would hope that because as we saw on my colleague's chart a moment ago, the math on this does not add up to being good business practices.

Oh, when we start down this line, how many times have we heard somebody say, well, if only Congress would control spending. There are still a lot of folks out there, particularly on the talk radio shows, still blaming it on Democrats. Well, we have been in the minority for 8 years in this body, and let me give my colleagues the record of the last 8 years of Republicans in the Congress.

Spending went up 6.5 percent per year compared to an average 1.6 percent in the previous 8 years. Now, I happen to agree that we have got to constrain spending. I have promised on this floor, and again, tonight, I will, to the best of my ability and knowledge, not vote for one penny more spending than President Bush asked us to spend, period; but let us stop blaming spending unless my colleagues are willing to control spending, and that means all spending. We cannot just pick out that which we like, because in the economy it is all spending.

I happen to be personally of the opinion that it is worse policy to borrow and spend than it is to tax and spend; and I say that because when we tax and spend, the voters take it out on us; but when we borrow and spend, the voters are still in diapers, and they cannot take it out on us. Therefore, it is easy to borrow and spend to get through the next election; but then somebody's got to pay the piper, and boy, the hole we are digging is getting deeper and deeper.

My friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle and Mr. President and this administration, the perfect storm is gathering. The idea that we can borrow at the rate we are borrowing and spend at the rate we are spending and not have somebody pay the piper is redefining basic economics.

The trade deficit is the second leg of that perfect storm, and the baby boomers are going to begin retiring in 2011, guaranteed. What are we doing? Tax cut a week. Tax cut a month. New economics. Dig the hole deeper. Well, I do not know whether it was Confucius or Garfield that first uttered the words, When you find yourselves in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging.

The second observation I make in closing tonight, in listening to my colleagues on this side earlier tonight, 5-minute speeches talking about waste, fraud and abuse, it is on my colleagues' watch. If we are spending too much, Mr. President, veto some bills because they do not spend or they spend too much.

Also, I am reminded of the words of the late Will Rogers, ``It ain't ignorance that bothers me so much. It's them knowing so much that ain't so is the problem.''

We listened to the debate tonight, we listened to some of the statements that

were made earlier, and we look at charts that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is showing. These are facts. What I have just said about the deficit are facts. They are not made up. They are not made up. But what are we doing about it? Not one cotton-picking thing except digging the hole deeper, until somebody starts paying attention.

I thank the gentleman tonight for attempting to cause some of us, hopefully to get 218 of us, to start paying attention again and do something about the deficit and the approaching perfect storm before it is too late. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the legislation to approve the administration's request for $87 billion in additional funding for operations in Iraq. We must provide our men and women in uniform in Iraq with the resources they need to complete their mission, as safely and securely as possible. They have performed brilliantly-- protecting civilians, maintaining order and promoting democracy while facing the threat of attacks each and every day. We are proud of them and we need to continue supporting them. I will vote to provide whatever resources our troops need to complete their mission.

Unfortunately, the administration and leadership have brought this request before us under a process which forces us to approve $20 billion in spending for an ill-advised plan for Iraq reconstruction. Many of the items in the reconstruction are more appropriately the responsibility of the Iraqi provisional government or have extremely inflated costs. I commend the work of Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey and the rest of the Appropriations Committee to scrub the administration's request and remove many questionable or low-priority items.

Even with these improvements, many questions remain about how these funds will be used. Our constituents deserve to know that their tax dollars are being used in the most effective manner possible. The missteps of the past must not be compounded by wasteful spending now. The President must be willing to report to Congress--and the American people--on how the money is spent. That is what this amendment would require. A detailed accounting is needed.

The American people also deserve to know what our plan is for successfully completing our mission in Iraq to improve the security and political situation and reducing our presence. While the battle to oust Saddam Hussein was well-planned and well-executed, we did not plan well for winning the peace and rebuilding the nation of Iraq. Our troops have been taking almost all the risks, and American taxpayers have been paying all the bills.

Our ``go-it-alone'' strategy must end. This amendment will require the President to present a detailed plan for improving the situation in postwar Iraq and report on our progress in achieving the goals of improving the political and security conditions in Iraq.

Congress and the American public need to know the impact our operations in Iraq will have on a federal budget that is nearly a half trillion dollars in deficit already. It is now abundantly clear that the costs of operations in Iraq will be much greater than was anticipated when the budget was approved just six months ago. Already, we have spent $63 billion in Iraq this year, and we are being asked to provide an additional $87 billion in this bill.

That would bring the total spending on operations in Iraq to $150 billion in the year 2003--a staggering figure for one year--with more to come. There is no question that we will be in Iraq for a long time, at great expense to the American taxpayers.

We have a responsibility to reevaluate our budgetary priorities to reflect that reality so that these additional expenses are not simply added to the national debt. It would be irresponsible to completely ignore those costs. We need to budget honestly for the costs of continued operations in Iraq so that Congress can consider the tradeoffs necessary to provide the needed funding without adding to the national debt. Paying for our operations in Iraq will require sacrifices. It would be extremely irresponsible for us to refuse to make any sacrifices ourselves and expect our troops to also pay the financial debts once they return home. The cause of freedom and justice is great, but it demands great commitment and sacrifice by all of us who enjoy its benefits, not simply by the men and women in uniform.

Like all of my colleagues, I pray for the successful completion of our mission in Iraq and the safe return of our men and women in uniform. This amendment will help ensure that we have a plan to accomplish this goal as quickly as possible.

There being no further amendments in order, pursuant to House Resolution 396, the Committee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3289) making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 396, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, $87 billion is a lot of money to add to our already exploding debt. There is no question we will be in Iraq for a long time at great additional expense to American taxpayers. Many of us are willing to make tough choices to pay for these costs. The cost of freedom and justice is great, but it demands great commitment and sacrifice by all of us who enjoy its benefits. Since the leadership of this body will not even allow us to consider options to pay for these costs, the least we can do is require a portion of the spending on rebuilding Iraq to be repaid by those who will benefit most from that spending. Every dime we spend in Iraq will come from borrowed money added to our national debt. It is extremely irresponsible for us to expect the young men and women who are making great sacrifices in Iraq today to also bear the burden of the financial debts for rebuilding Iraq once they return home.

I urge a vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I thank him for bringing again this motion to instruct to the floor of the House.

Some of our colleagues are asking why do this again. Listen carefully to the rationale and the reasons of why we are doing it again. It is critical to rural districts all over the United States. This is a matter of life and death for 27 hospitals in my district. The issue is fairness, and this is the third time that I have had to correct my friends on the other side of the aisle for the red-herring approach that they are talking about. No one is advocating a government-run program unless by that they are suggesting that they are not in favor of continuing Medicare. If they are in favor of letting Medicare go, then they are correct; but I do not think the majority of the House is talking about that.

Certainty we are not. And when they talk about budget issues, make it very clear, we are proposing to live within the budgeted amount of $400 billion and not one penny more, period. But what we are saying is that when we are looking at rural hospitals in particular, there are some issues that the conferees need to listen to, and yes, one can make the argument this is procedural, and I understand that, but when that conference bill comes back on the floor and we are going to have to vote on this issue, I am asking my colleagues, for example, in Kansas 1, 37 hospitals will lose $21,682,000; Georgia 11, six hospitals, $17 million; Texas 19, 18 hospitals, $39 million; Texas 23, 11 hospitals, $11 million; Indiana 8, 13 hospitals, $28 million; North Carolina 8, 12 hospitals, $43 million; Minnesota 1, 15 hospitals, $45 million.

I can go on and on on this list. This is money that would not be coming if the conferees come back and say market basket is not applicable. And one can say, yes, this is a cut from a rate of increase; but that is precisely what we are talking about in rural areas. We have been cut and cut and cut to the point we cannot take any more, and we have got to have some rationale and reasoning, some logic, now in saying to rural areas, you must be treated fairly; and that is what the best of both the House and the Senate bill does.

We are arguing about a philosophical direction, and with all due respect, I do not agree with the direction that the majority wish to take the conference, and I think a majority of this body does not. I really do. That is why we will continue to come on this floor and suggest to our colleagues who continue to vote against this motion to instruct, take a good look, listen to their hospitals back home, listen to what is being proposed and see how they will vote when that conference committee completes its work and brings it back to the floor of the House.

And everyone now I hope understands that the conference is in trouble because we have some irreconcilable forces. It is kind of like the Texas redistricting plan. We have got some folks not willing to give. And when we have that, then we run the risk of doing nothing, and no one wants to come out of this Congress by doing nothing. We have a tremendous need of dealing with the cost of medicine, and there are ways that we can do some great things to reducing the amount of cost of health care to our senior citizens and to others, middle-income America. But pay particular attention, and this is done for the benefit of our colleagues, the conferees having to recognize that we have got to come to an agreement with the Senate or otherwise nothing will happen.

Again, I repeat, this is not a budget issue. We are just saying we have a recommendation to the conferees of how they spend the money. We are not talking about spending any more. And if you believe your hospitals can do with less, continue to vote as you have been voting. Do not instruct the conferees. But you had better start talking to them because if the conferees insist on doing it the way they insist on doing it, we risk the whole bill; and nobody wants to see that done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Kind motion to instruct. It was amazing listening to my colleague from Colorado, because his statement has no relationship whatsoever to this motion to instruct.

The Kind motion will include a fallback provision to ensure that seniors have prescription drug coverage where private plans choose not to participate. It has nothing to do with increasing the size of any program. It just says if the program that is in the House bill does not work, there is a fallback.

Congress has a responsibility to guarantee this very important component of health care for all seniors, not just those who happen to live in an area where a private drug plan is offered. Contrary to what you may have heard, and we just heard it a moment ago, this motion will not require a government prescription drug plan or bust the budget. The Medicare fallback would only apply if the private sector fails to provide prescription drug plans in rural areas.

The Kind motion to instruct also includes important improvements to rural health care providers. Because of the very high proportion of elderly in rural areas, Medicare is a very large and critical source of payment for rural health care providers. Inadequate Medicare payments to rural hospitals and other rural health care providers over the last several years have only deepened the challenges to quality health care.

The Kind motion to instruct would take the best provisions. It was amazing listening to all of this stuff that is going to happen in this bill. We are saying take the best provisions in the House bill and the best provisions that have passed the Senate and make sure that those get in the final bill, because rural America can stand no less.

The Kind motion to instruct also rejects the House provisions that would cut hospital inflation increases. Hospitals cannot rebound from a $12 billion payment cut from rate of increase. I want to be sure everybody understands rate of increase. But that is not the problem. The problem is rural areas have not kept up over the last 10 years, and, therefore, unless we have the market basket as designed, rural hospitals are going to find themselves in an even deeper hole.

Hospitals are already operating on a thin profit margin. They are hurting. One out of three hospitals in America is operating in the red. More than 57 percent of all hospitals lose money under the Medicare program. A reduction in the market basket would wreak havoc on our Nation's hospitals, particularly the more vulnerable rural hospitals.

That is why we come again to the floor again tonight saying, please take a look. And to those on the other side of the aisle who did not vote yesterday on it, take another look. Look at your district. Listen to your hospitals, listen to your constituents, and see if they do not agree.

Again, let me repeat, the myth that this is a budget-busting motion, it is not. We agree with the $400 billion, period. I do not want to hear any more of this ``budget-busting.'' That is right out of the playbook that has got us into $560 billion deficits today.

We agree. We are just saying take the $400 billion, reprioritize, and make certain that rural hospitals get a fair shake. That is all that we are saying.

Even with stronger rural provisions, a Medicare fallback and no reduction

in the hospital market basket update, the bill passed by the other body stays within the $400 billion. They do it; we can do it. We just disagree with some of the priorities of some of the folks on the other side of the aisle, and we believe that most Members of rural areas, most Members who have rural hospitals, agree with this basic presumption that we ought to have an instruction.

Hospitals are important. The crisis has, of our rural hospitals, we have closed 470 in the past 25 years. I have several in my district hanging by a thread. If you succeed in doing what you are arguing for, they will bust that thread.

Please support the Kind motion to instruct. It is good for 9 million rural Medicare beneficiaries and will put us on a path toward economic stability.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this body have an enormous responsibility to the American people as we put together a bill that will shape the lives of 40 million current Medicare recipients and the millions more that will be retiring in the near future. This bill will make changes that will have profound effects on all Medicare beneficiaries and particularly on the one in four who live in rural America. Rural beneficiaries have different health care needs and delivery systems than those living in urban areas and Congress has a responsibility to pass a Medicare prescription drug reform bill that is responsive to their needs.

The motion to instruct conferees that I am offering today will put the House on record in support of a conference report that addresses the unique challenges facing seniors and health care providers in rural areas as much as possible. The motion would instruct conferees to agree to the following:

Guaranteed prescription drug coverage through a Medicare fallback option in areas where private drug plans are not available.

The best provisions improving Medicare payments to health care providers in rural areas that were included in the Senate bill or the House bill.

Reject the cut in payments to hospitals in the House bill which will adversely affect hospitals in rural areas and undercut the benefits of the rural health care improvements.

Rural beneficiaries have consistently had less access to Medicare managed care plans. Since 2000, rural beneficiaries have been four times more likely than urban beneficiaries to lack a private plan option. This problem of low market penetration in rural areas by private insurance plans may be even more pronounced for a drug-only insurance plan. This motion would address this problem by calling on the conferees to accept a guaranteed fallback plan be offered through traditional Medicare that would be offered in areas where fewer than two private plans have entered to ensure that all seniors have access to this benefit.

The House bill does not include a fallback provision to ensure that seniors have prescription drug coverage in areas where private plans choose to not participate. Instead, the House bill allows the Secretary to pay the drug-only plans whatever it takes to entice them to offer plans. Because premiums for prescription drug coverage are based on what the plans are paid, plans that take the bribe to participate may have significantly higher premiums than those operating in more competitive areas. With one in four seniors residing in rural areas, it is extremely important that we not exclude rural seniors from having a prescription drug benefit, which is a very real risk if we do not provide a guaranteed fallback plan for seniors in areas where private plans are not available. To deny seniors in rural America the prescription

drug benefit option is to deny them access to quality health care.

The motion also calls on conferees to provide the strongest package possible for rural health care by taking the best of the House and Senate bills. Because of the very high proportion of elderly in rural areas, Medicare is a very large and critical source of payment for rural health care providers. Both the House and Senate bills would provide many important improvements in payments to rural health care providers. Unfortunately, there have been reports that assistance to rural health care providers is being held hostage in conference negotiations for leverage on other issues. This motion will send a clear message that the health care needs of rural America should not be used as leverage to advance an agenda on Medicare.

The House bill offers assistance to health care providers in rural areas with one hand but takes away that assistance with the other hand through a reduction in payments to hospitals, which will be particularly harmful to rural hospitals. I am sure that all of us in this body who have talked to our local hospitals as I have done have heard about the challenges that our hospitals face, higher medical malpractice premiums, an increase in the uninsured population, and uncompensated care and cutbacks at the State and local levels. Reducing payments to hospitals could jeopardize the financial life of rural providers and undercut the benefits of the rural health care improvements in the bill. The benefits of improving payments to rural health care providers and increasing access to health care in rural areas will be negated if the hospital in a rural community is forced to close its doors. We must provide equal access to care for all Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of where they live. A vote for this motion is a vote to make sure that seniors and health care providers in rural America are treated fairly by the current Medicare system and the new prescription drug benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

To respond to my friend from Texas, this is not a budget-busting amendment. We fully expect the conferees to live within the $400 billion. We have a different idea of the prioritization than what the majority party has, and we are just expressing that today. And also, when the House has a chance to vote, Members on both sides can see whether or not the priorities we believe are the most important should be considered by the conferees. And also with the emphasis on government-run, let me remind my friend from Texas that it is only if the private system fails in rural America, will we have a return to a Medicare plan. Only if it fails. We worry because of the past history of private plans in rural America. We worry that they may not work, and we think it would be irresponsible for us not to provide a fallback. That is our opinion. It is not government- mandated, and these little speech lines that keep flowing out, this is a different idea, a different opinion, and we just expressed it today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees is not a budget buster. It is a red herring to suggest that we are going to bust the budget at $400 million. I support that, and those of us who support this resolution support that. It is a red herring.

One of the things my friend from Texas does not seem to want to acknowledge is that there are many hospitals, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) pointed out, there are many hospitals that have not enjoyed the increases that hospitals in the bigger towns have enjoyed over the last 20 years. And when you have not gotten the increases that some have gotten and you have gotten a lesser amount of reimbursement, you are hurting. That is why we believe the Senate provisions are fairer to those hospitals.

The gentleman is totally correct when he says they get less of an increase, no one is getting cut; but when you have a baseline that is too low, it is important that you get a chance to compete on a level playing field with those hospitals who enjoy a little better situation. We have argued for that for years, but unsuccessfully. Now we notice that there is bipartisan support for acknowledging that rural hospitals and many inner city hospitals have the same problem and that we should, in fact, recognize and begin to correct that disparity.

Regarding the pharmaceutical benefits and the going back to a government program, only if it fails will we go back to a Medicare government program. But some of us, myself included, are very skeptical that private businesses are going to be as interested in rural areas with less people as they are in urban areas; and, therefore, a fall- back is critical to us. But it does not do what the gentleman said it did. It is only if it fails; only if it fails will we have a fall-back.

Now, in conclusion, it is difficult for me, and I will not miss the opportunity to say that to be lectured by my friend from Texas on fiscal responsibility, I say to the gentleman, that is a joke. For the gentleman to have supported and continue to support the economic game plan of his side of the aisle that has given us the largest deficits in the history of our country, $689 billion and going up, and I know this because my friend from Texas voted for the last bill that increased the deficit another $12 billion. I did not, and I will get criticized. But I think it is time for us to be fiscally responsible, but I find that it is only when it is convenient. If it is a tax cut, it is great. But if it is being fair to rural hospitals, that is a no-no.

As to the child tax credit, the debate that went on before this, let me point out that every single dime of tax dollars that have been collected on the Social Security system are being spent for current operating expenses. Really, we are borrowing, in addition to that, $560 billion. Differentiating between Social Security taxes and income taxes is a joke, a joke. Just because it was done for 40 years is no longer reason for us to continue to do it.

But do not lecture me on fiscal responsibility. Do not let staff feed the little notes in saying here is what it does and here is what it does not, because this motion does not bust the $400 million budget. We live within it. We only ask the conferees to make the changes. Yes, it will be difficult. Yes, you cannot do what you want to do. You cannot do the things that you want to do in total, but it is a reasonable compromise; and that is what conferences between the House and the Senate are all about. It is taking the differences and working them out in a

very, very good and concise way. But do not lecture us on budget. Go somewhere else. Argue the philosophical. That is a fair shot. The gentleman and I philosophically disagree apparently on the direction that this ought to be. That is a fair shot, and we will argue that. But this amendment does not bust the budget. It offers some, we hope, constructive suggestions; and I hope that the House will in an overwhelming vote say to the conferees, we believe this has merit, take a look at it, and let us pass it.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is not what is important. It is what comes back, because that is what is, in fact, going to be affecting lives. And in rural areas, this is a critical difference from a hospital's standpoint. If we cannot do what this amendment does, we are going to continue to have real problems in rural areas, and anybody that represents a rural area needs to take a good hard look and hopefully join in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Stenholm of Texas moves that the managers on the part

of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of

the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be

instructed as follows:

(1) The House recede to the Senate on the provisions to

guarantee access to prescription drug coverage under section

1860D-13(e) of the Social Security Act, as added by section

101(a) of the Senate amendment.

(2) To reject the provisions of section 501 of the House

bill.

(3) The House recede to the Senate on the following

provisions of the Senate amendment to improve rural health

care:

(A) Section 403 (relating to inpatient hospital adjustment

for low volume hospitals).

(B) Section 404 (relating to medicare disproportionate

share adjustment for rural areas), but with the effective

date applicable under section 401(b) of the House bill.

(C) Section 404A (relating to MedPAC report on medicare

disproportionate share hospital adjustment payments).

(D) The following provisions of section 405 (relating to

critical access hospital improvements):

(i) Subsection (a), but with the effective date applicable

under section 405(f)(4) of the House bill.

(ii) Subsection (b), but with the effective date applicable

under section 405(c)(2) of the House bill.

(iii) Subsections (e), (f), and (g).

(E) Section 414 (relating to rural community hospital

demonstration program).

(F) Section 415 (relating to critical access hospital

improvement demonstration program).

(G) Section 417 (relating to treatment of certain entities

for purposes of payment under the medicare program).

(H) Section 420 (relating to conforming changes relating to

Federally qualified health centers).

(I) Section 420A (relating to increase for hospitals with

disproportionate indigent care revenues).

(J) Section 421 (relating to establishment of floor on

geographic adjustments of payments for physicians' services).

(K) Section 425 (relating to temporary increase for ground

ambulance services), but with the effective date applicable

under the amendment made by section 410(2) of the House bill.

(L) Section 426 (relating to appropriate coverage of air

ambulance services under ambulance fee schedule).

(M) Section 427 (relating to treatment of certain clinical

diagnostic laboratory tests furnished by a sole community

hospital).

(N) Section 428 (relating to improvement in rural health

clinic reimbursement).

(O) Section 444 (relating to GAO study of geographic

differences in payments for physicians' services).

(P) Section 450C (relating to authorization of

reimbursement for all medicare part B services furnished by

Indian hospitals and clinics).

(Q) Section 452 (relating to limitation on reduction in

area wage adjustment factors under the prospective payment

system for home health services).

(R) Section 455 (relating to MedPAC study on medicare

payments and efficiencies in the health care system).

(S) Section 459 (relating to increase in medicare payment

for certain home health services).

(T) Section 601 (Increase in medicaid DSH allotments for

fiscal years 2004 and 2005).

(4) The House insist upon the following provisions of the

House bill:

(A) Section 402 (relating to immediate establishment of

uniform standardized amount in rural and small urban areas).

(B) Section 403 (relating to establishment of essential

rural hospital classification).

(C) Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of section 405

(relating to improvements to critical access hospital

program).

(D) Section 416 (relating to revision of labor-related

share of hospital inpatient pps wage index).

(E) Section 417 (relating to medicare incentive payment

program improvements).

(F) Section 504 (relating to wage index classification

reform).

(G) Section 601 (relating to revision of updates for

physician services).

(H) Section 1001 (relating to medicaid disproportionate

share hospital (DSH) payments).

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in honor and remembrance of Robert Lloyd Kelley, who tragically passed away on March 15, 2003, at the age of 57. Robert Kelley, known as Bobby, was not only an outstanding father and beloved husband, he was also a great community leader and mentor who gave freely of his time and energy.

Those who knew Bobby knew that he loved life, especially his family, his church, the Texas Aggies, his job, and his community. He was devoted to his aging parents and took care of their physical and emotional needs. Bobby was kind and generous to many in the community, but his rewards are now being reaped in the splendor of heaven.

Bobby was born on February 4, 1946, in San Antonio, Texas, to Dr. E. Lloyd Kelley and the late Mary Yvonne McGarry Kelley. He is preceded in death by his mother as well as his son, Timothy Lloyd Kelley.

Bobby played an active role in his community of Hondo, Texas, serving both on the board of directors and as president of the Hondo Area Chamber of Commerce, as well as president of the Hondo Owl Band Booster Club.

During his life, he received numerous service awards and recognitions, including Volunteer of the Year for the Hondo Volunteer Fire Department, 1986; Community EMS Service Award, 1986 to 1990; Medina County Peace Officers Association Citizen of the Year; Hondo Area Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year; Outstanding Band Booster Service Award; and special recognition from the San Antonio Area Chapter of the Red Cross, as well as the Boy Scouts. He was an active member of the Hondo Church of Christ. He was the chief of the Medina County Juvenile Probation Department where he worked with the troubled youth of the area, a job which he found most rewarding, and through his department he helped a faith-based program called Angels Crossing.

Bobby was always willing to volunteer and work on any project that was ``for the kids.'' He always said, ``If you can't do something for kids, what's the point? Kids are our future.''

He also served as a Texas Department of Criminal Justice religious volunteer for approximately 8 years. He loved to sing and served as a song leader at church services held at the Joe Ney Unit in Medina County. Through his work at the Joe Ney Unit he was able to secure funds to have a chapel built, and now with his passing, a formal request has been made that the chapel to be constructed as the unit be named the R.L. Kelley Chapel. It will be dedicated to helping men find God and change their life just as he dedicated his life to helping people.

I extend my deepest condolences to Bobby's wife of 35 years, Jill, who is a seventh grade Texas history teacher at McDowell Middle School in Hondo, and his daughter, Lisa, who works for me on the House Agriculture Committee. Although he will be deeply missed, Bobby's spirit will live on in the hearts and memories of everyone he loved and inspired, especially his family and closest friends, today and for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honor and remembrance of Robert L. Kelley. Medina County, Texas, was indeed fortunate to have such a dynamic and dedicated community leader who willingly and unselfishly gave his time and talents to make his community a better place in which to live, to work, to call home and to raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding to me. I thank him for a very excellent presentation of the facts.

I know as often we have stood in this floor that I will get calls from some that have been watching and they will have various different opinions of what has been said and what the facts are, but let us relate it to what we are facing tonight, at least many of our fellow citizens somewhere in the North Carolina area as Hurricane Isabel bears down on the United States, and we still hope and pray that something will cause it to veer back out into the ocean. But in the meantime folks are preparing because they know the devastation that can occur when a hurricane hits.

In my opinion, we have the makings of the perfect storm in this country today, 500, now $600 billion deficit as far as the eye can see and we are ignoring it, $500 billion trade deficit as far as the eye can see and going up and we are ignoring it.

The baby boomers are set to begin retiring in 2011, and everyone admits that that will put one of the biggest strains on the economy of the United States in our history. The gentleman's chart shows it today and no one argues with that, no one. From the AARP up and down all admit we have got a problem. And what have we done about that problem? Zero. Talk about it. But nothing. The makings of the perfect storm. And every time I make this speech somebody will say, and I have heard this said, people will stand up and say if only Congress would control spending.

Well, the first thing I like to do is remind the American people that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been in charge for the last 8 years. I make no bones about it. I opposed this administration's economic game plan when they put it in place in 2001. I stood on the floor, I stood with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) standing, looked at my friends on the other side and say, I hope you are right. I hope I am wrong. But I do not believe it has a chance of working. And in 2002 we said the same thing. In 2003 we say the same thing. But have we had a change in the economic direction for this country? No. The hole gets deeper and what do we do? We take another shovel and start digging. That makes no sense.

Let me put it in proper perspective. Those who say if only we would control spending, let me give another fact, if we take defense, military construction off-budget, which we are, exempt from cuts, because we cannot cut in those areas when we are at war on three fronts, and we will not cut, and we should not cut. We have got young men and women's lives at stake tonight and, therefore, we do not wish to jeopardize them further. Interest on the national debt, we cannot cut that.

The gentleman's chart shows the debt tax that is going up as the interest rates continue to spiral. We cannot cut the interest. So if you take defense and interest off-budget or off-cut it, we can cut 100 percent of the other 11 appropriations bills, 100 percent, not waste, fraud and abuse, not 1 percent here, cut it all out, zero for the rest of the government, and we would still run $160 billion deficit next year.

Now, that is the truth. That is how deeply we have dug the ditch for the American economy. Now, if it were working, as the gentleman shows the jobs charts, we have lost 2.7 million jobs. Nothing is working according to plan, and yet we have those who absolutely refuse to even consider changing the plan. In fact, they will stand on this floor and argue over the next several weeks, as they have for the last several weeks, that we just got to do more of it.

The makings of the perfect storm. Anybody that ignores the power of a hurricane, anybody that ignores the power of the perfect storm of $500 billion deficit, this next year I will predict based on the administration's own numbers, the deficit for this country will be closer to $1 trillion than it will $500 billion, and nobody cares. Nobody cares that is in charge. It is just more of the same.

I am worried about that. I wish some others would get worried about that. I thank the gentleman for taking the time tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to share in it. And I hope that this chart that the gentleman has right behind him tonight, I hope people will take a look at that because we can talk about the fiscal deficit, we can talk about the trade deficit, and they are all real. This one is too. And our grandchildren will not hold us in very high stead because this Congress and this administration have refused to address the very real problem that is facing us. Instead, we keep on with some of the economic bunk that I saw in the Washington Post by the fellow that is running, running the economic policy for this country, Mr. Grover Norquist, the expert, it is his plan and he wants more of it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, remember in the last couple of years how many times we have stood on this floor and voted to put those numbers in a lock box, and that was laughed at. But if we would have just done it, and we did for a couple of years, but we need to be doing it today because those are obligated funds, those are obligated to the retirees beginning in 2011, our military retirees, our civil service retirees, this is money that is obligated that we are again spending on current operating expenses. And it was a valid criticism and it is still an accurate statement when our friends on the other side of the aisle will stand up and say, well, you Democrats did it for 40 years. Well, that may be true but that is not a reason for us to continue to do it, because 2011 is a lot closer today than it was 40 years ago, and that is the problem we face.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Chile Free Trade Agreement, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.

The Chile Free Trade Agreement will eliminate tariffs on 85 percent of the U.S. exports to Chile immediately. Under the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, American workers, consumers, businesses, and farmers will enjoy preferential access to a small but fast-growing economy, enabling trade with no tariffs and under streamlined customs procedures.

Over 75 percent of U.S. farm goods, including pork, beef, wheat, soybeans, feed grains, and potatoes will enter Chile duty-free within 4 years. Other duties on U.S. agriculture products will be phased out over 12 years.

U.S. farmers' access to Chilean markets will be as good or better than our competitors in Chile. Now, that is something to be emphasized: as good or better. This will help reverse the gains Canada and Europe achieved in market share after implementing their free trade agreements with Chile.

U.S. wheat, wheat flower, and vegetable oils will now receive the most preferential rate available and will be duty free at the conclusion of the transition periods.

While U.S. tariffs will also be eliminated over time under the free trade agreement, the agreement has a provision that will help protect farmers and ranchers from sudden surges in imports of designated agricultural products from Chile, a very key new and significant additions to the trade agreement.

The agricultural safeguard provision will apply to imports of certain Chilean products, including many canned fruits, frozen concentrated orange juice, tomato products and avocados. The safeguard is price- based and automatic.

The prices for the commodities subject to safeguards will be programmed into U.S. Customs Service computers, which will automatically assess the tariff uplift if the import value of the commodity falls below the trigger price established in the agreement. When the safeguard is triggered, additional duties will be applied.

Mr. Speaker, Chilean consumers appreciate the quality of U.S. agricultural products, but prior to this agreement there were significant hurdles to U.S. exports, something that gets overlooked by those who oppose this agreement. Chile's associate membership with MERCOSUR and its free trade agreements with other countries meant that while U.S. products paid the full common external tariff, up to 10 percent, products from Europe, Canada, Mexico, Argentine and Brazil entered Chile at either zero duty or reduced rates.

Progress was made in 1997 when the United States gained exclusive market access for table grapes, apples and citrus after resolving a number of sanitary and phytosanitary issues.

Let me just say in conclusion that this Chile Free Trade Agreement benefits the U.S. by lowering duties on exports to Chile. Clearly, it will benefit us over current law and the current situation. It also includes innovative provisions on transparency and customs facilitation that will help promote full implementation of these agreements and further respect for the rule of law.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support implementation of the Chile Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements. The Chile Free Trade Agreement will eliminate tariffs on 85 percent of U.S. exports to Chile immediately. The Singapore Free Trade Agreement eliminates Singapore's few remaining tariffs to U.S. goods and locks in Singapore's tariff-free treatment of U.S. imports.

Under the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, American workers, consumers, businesses and farmers will enjoy preferential access to a small, but fast-growing, economy, enabling trade with no tariffs and under streamlined customs procedures. Over 75 percent of U.S. farm goods, including pork, beef, wheat, soybeans, feed grains, and potatoes will enter Chile duty free within 4 years. All other duties on U.S. agriculture products will be phased out over 12 years. U.S. farmers' access to Chilean markets will be as good or better than our competitors' in Chile. This will help reverse the gains Canada and Europe achieved in market share after implementing their free trade agreements with Chile.

In light of the previous debate going on, I fail to understand how we can contend that American workers will benefit by denying our workers the opportunity to compete, in this case in Chile and in Singapore, for the jobs which is exactly what we have been doing, because other countries have negotiated free trade agreements with Chile and with Singapore. We have denied our workers the opportunity to compete. With 96 percent of the world's consumers living outside the United States, we must continually look to expanding our markets outside the United States and, yes, working for fair trade agreements.

While U.S. tariffs will also be eliminated over time under the free trade agreement, the agreement has a provision that will help protect farmers and ranchers from sudden surges in imports of designated agricultural products from Chile. That is a key ingredient. The agricultural safeguard provision will apply to imports of certain Chilean products, including many canned fruits, frozen concentrated orange juice, tomato products and avocados. The safeguard is price- based and automatic. The prices for the commodities subject to safeguards will be programmed into the U.S. Customs Service computers, which will automatically assess the tariff uplift if the import value of the commodity falls below the trigger. I think this is an exciting component of this agreement.

Quickly on Singapore, it guarantees zero tariffs immediately on all U.S. goods, and the FTA ensures that Singapore cannot increase its duties on any U.S. product.

In conclusion, both the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements provide benefits for the United States by lowering duties on exports to Chile and locking in duty-free treatment for U.S. goods to Singapore. Both agreements also include innovative provisions on transparency and customs facilitation that will help promote full implementation of these agreements and further respect for the rule of law.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support implementation of the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

In the remaining part of the minute that the gentleman yielded to me so that I could yield back to him, I would return the compliment and also commend him for continuing to emphasize jobs, workers, environmental issues, which are all going to have to be more seriously addressed in all future agreements. We both agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 798 days since President Bush and the Republican Party embarked on their economic plan for our country. During that time, the national debt has increased by $1,078,466,570,109. According to the Web site for the Bureau of Public Debt at the U.S. Treasury Department, yesterday at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time the Nation's outstanding debt was $6,718,791,956,467. Furthermore, in fiscal year 2003, interest on our national debt, or the ``debt tax,'' is $277,768,492,816 through June 30.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

There have been significant developments in science, adaptive management and the concept of sustainability within the Forest Service. However, the current regulations were written 30 years ago and are not adapting the new regulations as fast as we need to for the preservation of healthy forests. This amendment will prevent the Forest Service from modernizing its planning regulations under the National Forest Management Act by removing funding for the implementation of the proposed 2002 regulation.

Now, I understand people that can oppose new and better techniques. I understand how we can have differences of opinion. But those who make accusations that the proposed 2002 regulations weaken wildlife protection and public involvement simply are not true. Read the bill. It is not true. It does allow for more attitudes to be considered, and that is healthy. It is healthy.

Completing the 2002 regulations should be a priority, thus allowing land managers to get more accomplished on the ground. Our public lands face a grave forest health crisis and are in need of active management to restore them. If you support scientific forest management over red tape, you oppose this amendment, you let the regulations be written, you let them be implemented and then, if they are not doing what needs to be done, you correct them. But holding fast with regulations 30 years old are not a way to

manage our forests for a more healthy, sustainable environment, as well as industry, as well as those who love the outdoors.

Oppose this amendment. Let us get on with changing the regulations to adapt sound science to our forests.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would, Mr. Chairman, because the gentleman is simply describing what we have been going through for the last 10, 15 years: litigation, difference of opinion. In the meantime, look at what is happening to our forests: infestation, forest fires out of control.

What I hear the gentleman describing is what we have been doing. Let us try to make it work a little better, and that is what we are trying to do with the new regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to talk about something that apparently no one else wants to talk about: the Federal debt and the deficit. We are about to see record deficits, nothing like this country has ever seen. This year $615 billion we will borrow. Next year, $639 billion we will borrow.

The mid-session review just came out. The Office of Management and Budget tends to explain it away that it is really not the largest that has ever been before as a percent of GDP; it is less. But every time the deficit has been larger in the past, the Congress and the President have come in with a proposal of how to do something about it. This time for some strange reason no one on the majority side chooses to talk about what we are going to do to reduce the deficit.

We will hear that the tax cuts are in place and that will turn the economy around. We were told that in 2001. We were told it again in 2002, and we were told it again this year. As I have said from this floor many times, I hope Members are right, and I hope I get to eat the biggest plate of crow in town, and I see some colleagues on the floor tonight that would love to serve it up to me. But that is not what I am here tonight about. Finger-pointing does not do any good, and it darn sure is not going to do our grandchildren any good.

It is time for us to start looking at what can we do to turn this around other than talk about platitudes. We keep hearing if we just reduce spending. And the chairman of the Committee on the Budget said in his presentation today, if we just control spending. Well, let me remind Members we are at war. We are at war on the homeland front, we are at war in Iraq in which we are losing a soldier or two or three every day. The cost of that war is estimated at $4 billion per month. At no time in the history since 1812 of this country have we ever gone to war and not had a sacrifice demanded of those of us fortunate enough to stay back home. But this time some way we are looking at it differently. I guess it is not going to change because the minority party cannot change the direction that we are going.

I suppose that we can continue to talk about the deficit. We can continue to explain it. No matter how Members attempt to describe it, in the last 2 years we borrowed a trillion dollars. In the next 2 years, we will borrow in excess of $1.2 trillion. That is trillion. When we consider it took us over 200 years to borrow the first trillion dollars, that should mean something to somebody.

OMB Director Mitch Daniels has left, but where has he been over the last year or two? Usually OMB directors come up and proudly defend the economic game plan we are under, but that is not to happen.

The economy has lost 2.5 million jobs and employment has increased from 4.1 to 6.4 percent. The number of workers unemployed for more than 6 months has tripled to 2 million. That is where we are. Yet there is a curious silence of what are we going to do about it, or does it not matter? Do deficits not matter?

I have been told that now so many times. I have been here too long. During the 25 years that I have been here, I remember standing with my friends on the other side of the aisle decrying deficits. I remember voting five or six times in the last 3 years to lock up the Social Security surplus and not touch it because that is money that is reserved for the baby boomers about to begin retiring in 2011. The same folks that voted for locking it up today, just curious silence, or having some platitude, do not bother.

I remember when we passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment, which was one of the happiest

days of my life here because I believed finally we were about to put something into the Constitution to demand what we would do and not be able to do what we have now done in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Tax cuts with borrowed money, no reputable economist today believes that is good economic policy. Tax cuts with money that is surplus that should not be spent, that is a different argument. That is one I would gladly join with my friends on the other side of the aisle, but we are borrowing $639 billion next year, $615 billion this year; and we keep hearing we are just giving the money back to you because it is your money.

It is not your money. It is our children and grandchildren's money that we are giving back. The result of the supply side economic theory folks is not working.

It is kind of like we heard some speakers earlier today, we have got a problem in Iraq, and our plan for peace is not working as I had hoped it would, as I had been supportive and still support certainly the troops and my President regarding that endeavor. But we have got a problem, and we will continue to be on this floor talking about it. We look forward to joining with our colleagues on the other side very soon and hopefully coming up with a bipartisan solution and no finger- pointing.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I commend the chairwoman, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the full committee chairman for their work in a very difficult task. They were handed a very difficult situation in which they would take the amount of revenue available for the much-needed rural development, agricultural conservation issues and did the best they could under a very difficult situation. But I commend them for that action and look forward to working with them throughout the process to do as good a job for American agriculture that continues to feed the United States.

We have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people than any other country in the world; and what we are about to debate today is what has contributed to that over the years. I urge the support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.

Once again, legislation relating to agriculture policy demonstrates the progress that can be made when a broadly-inclusive, bipartisan approach is taken towards solving national problems.

America's farmers and ranchers continue to struggle to survive as they face the global market. But while particular problem areas continue to plague the agricultural economy, overall there is reason for optimism that recovery in the farm and ranch sector is taking hold.

The Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service recently forecast that 2003 net farm income will be $46.2 billion; this is significantly higher than 2002, with both crop and livestock receipts predicted to increase. The 2002 Farm Bill--which was developed on a bipartisan basis, passed overwhelmingly in both Houses, and signed by the President--is part of the story for this improvement.

Mr. Chairman, this view of recovery in agriculture has to be qualified to a significant degree, however. Milk, livestock, and many crop prices have not recovered to the degree that would allow producers to resume significant capital investments. Also, much of the improvement shown in the net farm income figure is attributable to timing changes associated with programs enacted by last year's Farm Bill. And, of course, the rural economy continually must adjust to the rapid consolidation that continues to occur in farming and

ranching. And while these statistics demonstrate that conditions have improved for some of agriculture, many producers still find themselves faced with very difficult financial conditions.

So while total victory can't be claimed, I stress the point that inclusive development of agricultural policy has led to more optimistic conditions for the agricultural economy. Perhaps a similar approach to general economic policy would remove some of the doubt that clouds prospects for our economy in general.

Mr. Chairman, this partial improvement in the agricultural economy has been noticed in the cities. On June 16, the Wall Street Journal reported that the farm economy ``is in recovery and moving toward strength.'' The article discusses the very difficult times that have afflicted agriculture for the last five years, and cites rising commodity prices, a devalued dollar, improved weather, and resurgent imports as reasons to be bullish for agriculture.

But the article also makes it clear why the cities are taking note: the improving situation is a key factor behind improved economic conditions in middle America--which is recovering more quickly than the rest of the nation. I'll quote from the article: ``While farmers by themselves are a tiny part of the economy, they have a broad impact on it. The industries that sell to farmers and use farm products account for 12.3 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 16.7 percent of jobs, according to the Agriculture Department.''

Mr. Chairman, the Wall Street Journal and many other big city newspapers criticized the Farm Bill when it was passed. But if they read their own pages today, they'll see that this country has made a wise investment, and that the returns go well beyond the farmstead.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today provides the funding needed to implement the farm bill's programs. These include the commodity income support programs, the greatest expansion in farm conservation spending in our history, the Food Stamp program, and foreign food aid. It also funds important research efforts--investments in our nation's future; crucial pest and disease eradication programs, and rural economic development.

Mr. Chairman, fiscally speaking these are tough times and the Appropriations Committee labored under very tight constraints in the development of this bill. While being diligent and confining themselves to their allocation, they have struck a responsible balance among the competing priorities. I congratulate Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Kaptur, Chairman Young and my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, many of us have spent countless hours on country-of-origin labeling on the authorizing committee both during the discussion on the farm bill and since. The Committee on Agriculture has conducted a series of briefings on country-of-origin labeling to educate staff on the implementation of the requirements, and recently held a full committee hearing on the issue. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), chairman of the subcommittee, has indicated that he will hold additional hearings on this issue in the near future.

It is not my purpose to stand in opposition to the amendment to subvert the law. I am standing here saying we want this to work; and for it to work, it will take an additional 1 year of time to make it work.

I question the wisdom of a mandate to include on labels every piece of information that a random consumer survey identifies as something consumers want to know. Current U.S. food labeling requirements are based on the attributes of the food itself, such as nutritional composition, ingredients, special safety considerations such as presence of allergens and requirements of handling and safe use.

This was pointed out by the previous administration in a letter to the EU concerning biotechnology. Every additional piece of information we require on a label by government mandate diminishes slightly the information that is already there.

I have heard that Americans know where their shirts are made, Americans know where their cars are made, but not what they are putting in their mouth. I say what is wrong with this picture? Those who say that are right, we do not know where these things are made, but these items do not have to participate under guidelines even remotely similar to those included in the current COOL law. Members will notice their shirt may say ``Made in the USA,'' but it does not say where the cotton came from or where the dye that went into the shirt came from.

Be careful what we ask for when we stand on this floor and say we want to mandate something, just in case we get what we are asking for. Every single beef producer group that testified in front of the Committee on Agriculture testified very clearly that this is a marketing issue and not a food safety issue. Too many of us in this body right now tend to mix the two together in saying that meat that does not come from the United States is not safe. Please do not send that message to the consumer because the consumer today in America has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world; and when we begin to suggest that unless there is a certain label there will be a problem with the safety of the food, it is dangerous for producers. That is why most producers do not support the full intent of this law, and that is to mandate something that no one has yet figured out how to do.

We exempt most meat from even the applications of the law. Restaurants are exempted, for example. So let us be careful as we vote on this amendment today. And again I point out, this is not a food- safety issue. This is a marketing issue. If we are going to deal with the food safety, and I fully concur and fully intend to be back on this floor very, very soon with a food safety component, trace back. Our producers today are beginning to look at how can we truly certify where our meat comes from from a BSE standpoint. In Canada, they have a trace-back system. We do not have a trace-back system yet, but we will have one soon because producers all over the country recognize that we must have a way of tracing. We do not have it yet, but we will have one that will be supported by a majority of our producers.

This is one of those things that gets very emotional because there are those that tend to mix this up with food safety. I want to repeat for the third time, this is not a food-safety question. I absolutely support identifying where all food products come from to the best of our ability. I happen to believe, for example, that American lamb identified as such and Australian lamb identified as such is something that the consumer ought to know. We are working to get that kind of agreement and do it in a way that makes sense.

But if we implement this in the way that those who support this amendment are suggesting today, we are going to create some tremendous uncertainty. This has all kinds of trade implications. It has all kinds of food-safety implications. With all due respect to those offering this amendment, it is interesting that most of the producers supporting this do not deal with Canadian or Mexican cattle. If we want to ban all Canadian cattle, all Mexican cattle into the United States, then be prepared to have all United States cattle banned from country after country after country, because under trade agreements, reciprocation is something that we truly agree to. I urge Members to oppose this amendment and support the delay, not circumvention of the law, but a delay to get this right.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I will be glad to yield to my friend from New York at any time on the point, but I think some of the points the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) made need to be reemphasized.

Existing statutes and regulations are sufficient to address the issue of preventing conscious, nonambulatory livestock from being inhumanely handled prior to slaughter.

Now, there are differences of opinion as to what is ``inhumanely handled,'' and I respect those who have a different opinion than I have. Now, Federal and State veterinarians at slaughter establishments are best capable of identifying and segregating suspect animals from entering the food chain. FSIS personnel verify that disabled livestock handling procedures are carried out to ensure that nonambulatory animals are set apart and humanely slaughtered. That is what the chairman was pointing out will no longer happen if the gentleman's amendment is passed.

In accordance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, FSIS inspectors conduct anti-mortem inspection of livestock. Unconscious, disabled livestock cannot receive anti- mortem inspection and must be condemned and disposed of in accordance with FSIS regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Non- ambulatory, disabled livestock that have not received anti-mortem inspection and cannot be humanely moved must be humanely condemned before they may be transported from the slaughter establishment's premises.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

And that sick animal will never find its way into the food chain under the current law that we are enforcing today.

BSE was talked about. It is extremely critical that we do not create a situation in which downed animals which have very good food value, simply because they may have had a dislocated hip or a broken leg still have food value, not be discouraged from coming to the marketplace, which is exactly what the gentleman intends to do; and I respect his desire for doing that. But in the handling of livestock, it is extremely important that livestock continue to be handled as we are doing it under FSIS, particularly with the BSE question.

It is extremely important that BSE-suspect animals are tested; and, accordingly, right now USDA's aggressive BSE surveillance system targets these animals, the ones we are talking about for testing. During fiscal year 2001, USDA tested 5,272 head. In fiscal 2002, 19,990 head, more than 40 times the internationally recognized standard for appropriate surveillance for a country that has never detected BSE within its borders.

It is extremely important that the suspect animals get into the inspection system. But I fear because of those who believe that any animal that cannot walk should be immediately destroyed wherever it is, this will do some real harm potentially to the future of the very food safety issues that the gentleman is trying to correct.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, the chairman has been overly generous in sharing of his limited time with me.

I repeat, the picture the gentleman is showing, that sick animal will never find its way into the food chain. Period.

It does no service to this institution to continue to show that.

This amendment would create a disincentive to producers. The gentleman does not understand the cattle business as many in this body do. I understand the sentiments in what you are trying to correct, but the amendment would have a totally different result.

I thank the chairman for his generosity.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it is imperative that we distinguish between sick animals and downer animals. There is a big difference, and I think the author of the amendment and some of the arguments made, including by my good friend from Ohio, is tending to mix up downers and sick.

We all agree sick animals have no place in our food chain, period; and I would submit under current law that is a occurring 99.9999 percent of the time. No one can be perfect.

On the question of BSE, I worry about us continuing to be able to reassure the American public since in 2002 we tested 19,990 cattle, 40 times the international standard, but of those 19,990, 14,000 were downer animals. It is critical that we continue to look at downers to make sure they are not sick and remove them from the food chain, but when we read the gentleman's amendment today, I really respectfully say it would create a disincentive for producers to send downers to market.

We agree with the basic statement of keeping the animals out of the food chain that are sick. It is a question of how we best do it. Therefore, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment in the belief that it will not accomplish what we all agree we need to do, and that is keep sick animals out but allow downer animals that can be humanely consumed to continue to be presented so we can make that determination as to whether they are sick or consumable.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman for yielding, and we look forward to having a discussion on the issue of our Federal debt, national debt, deficits, what is causing them. We look forward to this discussion tonight, and it will be informal and hopefully it will be productive; and to those watching, hopefully it will be interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) to introduce our team.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about spending, this is the record on spending, and we have to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle since 1994, they have been in charge. It is not Democrats that have been in charge, but you have been in charge. And, therefore, if we are talking about spending, spending is going up. And the Blue Dogs agreed with President Bush and with you in the budget on total spending this year in the budget. We are not asking one dime more to be spent than what the gentleman is talking about spending. This is the record of spending, and it is going up.

We want to keep it based on the facts tonight, and the Blue Dog budget did not spend one dime more than the Republican budget.

Let me just try to end it on the same positive note, and I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Smith) contribution to this tonight and the major points they made. We are not here to blame. That is not the point. We were here to point out we have got a problem. Now, you can explain it away all you want to about the various, and we can have our political stump speeches which we heard from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) a moment ago on that line. And that is great, but that does not change the fact that where we started with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is we are going to owe $13 trillion at the end of the 10-year period following the budget that you passed. Yes, we did not support it. I do not support it tonight.

When you talk about spending our budget, the Blue Dog budget spent $400 billion less than the budget that you passed that you are so proud of, $400 billion on interest. Yes, we did not cut taxes as much as you did because we said, let us not cut them until we see whether there is money to cut them with. And that was before the war. After the war we said, we ought to be fiscally responsible and not borrow additional money. It will be the first time since 1812 that the United States Congress did not raise taxes in order to pay for a war. First time. But we are saying we ought to be conservative. And it is not conservative to move ahead as the direction you are moving.

Now, there are some things we can agree on. I do not know why we eliminate the pay-go provisions. I do not know why we said that if you bring a tax cut or a spending increase, you do not have to come in with offsetting revenue or expenditure. I do not know why you dropped that, because we agree with that. You can put together a pretty good majority of people to do that. These are things that I would like to see us discuss next week when we do this again.

But let us end it on the same note that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) put out. We are not here to blame, but by the same token we are here to set the record straight. And there were some statements made here about the Blue Dog statements that are not factual. If you are going to come to the floor and speak about what we do or do not do, then keep it on the facts. Then we will take our share of the blame.