Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM. 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.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM

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

Mr. STENHOLM. 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.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STENHOLM. 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.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. 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.

Mr. STENHOLM. 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.

Mr. STENHOLM. 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. STENHOLM. 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.