Mike Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I briefly yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, to respond to some comments that were made regarding national defense.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), our Blue Dog colleague.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a distinguished Blue Dog colleague and member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to respond.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, again, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1997, we cut taxes by $100 billion as part of the Balanced Budget Agreement. This does not do anything to hamper tax cuts. It just says we have to be honest. We have to pay for them. Pass the tax cuts, but pay for them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished policy chair of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Mr. Speaker, first I want to just make sure everybody understands, this does not make it more difficult to raise taxes. This merely makes it honest to raise taxes. My friend from Iowa is correct, taxpayers pay all right. They pay $1 billion a day in interest on the national debt, $50 billion a year in interest to countries like China and Japan and the OPEC nations. When budgets do not balance, taxpayers do pay. That is why we need PAYGO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond briefly to my friend. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is not about tax cuts, it is about balancing the budget. In 1993, when we had PAYGO rules, we passed tax cuts. In 1997, with PAYGO rules, we passed tax cuts. This is merely saying if a bill is important enough to pass, it ought to be important enough to pay for. The American people deserve it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last week, the House passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. They did so on a straight party-line vote. But it was the alternative with the strongest budget enforcement provisions, the Blue Dog budget, that got the bipartisan support. Budget enforcement received bipartisan support in the Senate, also. They passed an amendment extending PAYGO rules to both revenue and spending measures with the support of a bipartisan majority. Common ground, bipartisan ground, can be found on the issue of budget enforcement; and if we are really going to reduce the deficit, bipartisanship is a must. Spring is a time of March Madness and the basketball tournament. But when it comes to responsible budgeting, I feel like it is baseball season around here. On March 17, the House Committee on the Budget voted down a PAYGO amendment on a straight party-line vote. Strike one. On March 24, the House Committee on Rules ruled out of order a PAYGO amendment on a straight party-line vote. Strike two. And on March 25, the House approved a budget that had no PAYGO rules by a straight party-line vote. Three strikes, and we were out. When it comes to budget enforcement, the House of Representatives struck out, but, unfortunately, it is our constituents that are the real losers here today. And our constituents understand that deficits impact them directly. They know that a $477 billion deficit means that we are borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay our bills. They understand that a $7 trillion national debt means that $50 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars are being sent to other countries every single year in interest payments on that national debt. Our constituents understand that Washington expects them to balance their budgets and to pay their bills. What they do not understand is why Washington does not require the same of ourselves. Families across America sit down every week to balance their checkbooks. Our government, unfortunately, has not balanced its budget in 3 years. We have maxed out our national credit cards not once but twice; and instead of paying down the debt, we have increased our spending limit on that national credit card. Today, we can send a clear message that Congress needs to hold itself to the same standards that it holds American families. Congress needs to pay for what it does. It does not matter if it is an increase in spending or a reduction in revenue. If it is important enough to become law, we should be required to pay for it. That is the motion to instruct that is before us today. The motion instructs the conferees to agree to the strongest possible enforcement rules for all spending increases and tax cut legislation in the House and Senate, and it instructs conferees to adopt the Senate amendment on PAYGO as applied to all legislation that increases the deficit. Members of the Blue Dog Coalition have been calling for the reinstatement of PAYGO on both revenue and spending since the Budget Enforcement Act expired in 2002. And it is not a partisan concept. As a matter of fact, in its original form, PAYGO was part of a bipartisan budget agreement between the first President Bush and a Democratic Congress. A Democratic President and Congress extended PAYGO in 1993, and a Democratic President and Republican Congress extended it again in 1997. Members of both parties have long appreciated the PAYGO rules as an enforcement tool that helps Congress achieve and maintain a balanced budget. Today, I urge Members of both parties to vote yes on this motion to instruct. Such a vote will tell our constituents that this House of Representatives understands that we are not sent here to play games with the budget, but we are sent here to balance the budget. It will say that we are serious about deficit reductions and that we are willing to reach that goal in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to please vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. THOMPSON of California. We are prepared to close.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. How much longer does the Chair plan to keep the roll open? Parliamentary Inquiries Mr. SPRATT (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, how long has the roll been open on this 5-minute vote?

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, how long has the roll been open? Mr. Speaker, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, how long will the Chair keep the role open on this particular vote?

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thought that we had House rules that limited the time that the roll could be kept open.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on the Budget reported out a budget that failed to address one of the most critical problems facing our Nation, and that is our national debt. I offered an amendment in committee that would have included the pay-go rules in that budget, pay-go on both revenue and spending legislation. It was defeated, sadly, on a straight party-line vote. Not one single Republican supported it, not even those who had previously and publicly said that they supported extending pay-go to both revenue and spending. Yesterday I brought the same amendment to the Committee on Rules; and, again, the majority voted against the extension of the pay-go rules. And in doing so, they denied this House the opportunity to debate one of the most successful budget enforcement mechanisms that we have at our disposal. Today we are over $7 trillion in debt. By the chairman's own numbers, we will be over $10.4 trillion in debt by the year 2009. Pay-go would allow us to rein in control over our debt and our deficits. Pay-go would mandate that we actually pay for the legislation that we pass. Pay-go would force the Congress to recognize that there are fiscal consequences to our actions. That is a wake-up call that we desperately need because, lately, Congress has been pretending that there are no consequences. We have been spending more than we have. We have been cutting taxes with abandon. We have squandered a $256 billion surplus like it was monopoly money. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a get-out-of-debt-free card, we cannot pass go, and we cannot collect $7 trillion. Now, our surpluses are gone and our deficits are predicted to be $521 billion, a $700 billion reversal in just 3 short years. That is not a surprise. We have been living far beyond our means, and a deficit explosion was the inevitable result. The surprise is that some folks still do not believe it is a problem, and it is the unwillingness of these few people to acknowledge this problem that is preventing the rest of us from fixing the problem. Our colleagues in the Senate get it. They see that a $521 billion deficit does matter. They realize that it is not a good idea to finance tax cuts and spending increases by letting places like China, Japan, and the OPEC nations buy almost $800 billion of our debt. They understand that their voters did not send them here to come up with fancy budget tricks that amount to little more than shell games and smoke and mirrors. Our colleagues in the Senate voted by a bipartisan majority to include an amendment identical to mine in their budget resolution: pay-go on both tax and spending legislation. The House needs to do the same. Mr. Speaker, we need to hold ourselves to the same budgeting standards that we hold every family in this country. Whether we are increasing spending or decreasing revenue, we need to pay for it. We need to pay as we go. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this fiscally irresponsible rule.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the gentleman from Washington, my friend, that, first of all, the Blue Dog budget has the pay-go provision in it. It would just make for a much more vigorous and a much more honest debate if we could, in fact, debate the very simple and basic idea that we pay for our bills; we do not just pass bills, we pay for them. The fact of the matter is there is not one of us on either side of this aisle that could go back home and make that argument to our constituents where we would not understand that. They are not interested in the political inside-the-beltway mumbo jumbo; they know that we need to pay our bills, pay as we go, and that should be before this House to debate.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As we heard the gentleman from Texas say, the Blue Dog budget is not just a responsible budget, it is an honest budget. It matches the President's overall spending levels, it extends tax relief for our middle-class families, and most important, it pays for that tax relief. The Blue Dog budget includes the strongest budget enforcement mechanisms of any budget being debated here today. It extends the pay- as-you-go rules to both the spending side and the revenue side. To be clear, neither the Republican budget nor their alternative being offered by the Republican Study Committee does that. Republicans rejected the PAYGO amendment in the Committee on the Budget on a strict party-line vote. They rejected the amendment in the Committee on Rules on a strict party-line vote, and they have refused to put the PAYGO provisions in their budget. We expect our constituents to pay their bills, and I do not know why some folks here in Congress think we should be exempt from that standard. Our constituents did not send us here to play games with their tax dollars and play games with the budget. They sent us here to balance the budget. Vote for the Blue Dog budget. It is strong on enforcement and responsible on spending and revenue.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Yolo Health Alliance as it celebrates its 10th anniversary of service to the community. Created in 1994, the Alliance is an integrated public-private partnership including Sutter Davis Hospital, CommuniCare Health Centers, Yolo County Health Department and Sutter West Medical Group. The Alliance provides a seamless continuum of medical care to Yolo County's uninsured residents. During the ten years of its existence, The Yolo Health Alliance has served to maintain a healthy community in Yolo County by ensuring that quality health care is available to all residents, regardless of their ability to pay for services. The Alliance has served to significantly reduce unnecessary visits to hospital emergency rooms and to increase patient satisfaction by providing comprehensive care to the underserved population of Yolo County. Since its inception, The Yolo Health Alliance has provided health care services to over 24,000 individuals, delivering multi-lingual and culturally-appropriate care to residents representing many ethnic backgrounds. Services have grown to include both primary medical and dental care services through a network of seven community clinics located in Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento, Esparto and Knights Landing. Mr. Speaker, The Yolo Health Alliance has been a cost-effective model that lowered the cost of care per member since its inception and saved local government millions of dollars in indigent health care expenses. It is therefore appropriate that The Yolo Health Alliance be recognized on its 10th anniversary and commended for its success and good work in providing an exceptional quality ``safety net'' of health care services for those in Yolo County without any coverage and without the resources to pay for care.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, last month the President submitted to us his 2005 budget. This week, later this week, in the Committee on the Budget we are going to have a hearing on and mark-up that budget. Unfortunately, it is a 402-page document with one huge credibility problem. We are in the middle of a war, and yet it includes no war funding. It is a 5-year budget, but almost 80 percent of the cost of the President's new tax plan does not go into effect until after the 5 years after this budget. It finances a $519 million increase to veterans programs by shifting costs on to the veterans that this budget purports to help. It does that through the health insurance enrollment fees and co-pays on prescription drugs to the very veterans that we are supposed to be helping. It gives homeland security the largest increase of all the agencies, as it should; but it takes $800 million away from our local firefighters and our local police officers at the same time it says it is going to help these first responders. These are the first line of defense. These are the first responders, and we are taking money away from them in order to pay for them to do the job that they are supposed to do. It discloses that the Medicare prescription drug benefit costs $135 billion more than we were told it would cost just 2 months ago. This unexpected cost of $135 billion totals more than the budgets of Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, HUD, Interior, State, and EPA combined. It calls for $1.2 trillion in new tax cuts, $65 billion in health tax credits, and $43 billion in other new spending; but it claims that we can cut the deficit in half by 2009. These are all new costs, new expenditures that this budget does not pay for. It is not credible, Mr. Speaker, to say we have presented an accurate and honest budget when it includes no funding for a war we are in the middle of fighting. It is not credible to say that cutting domestic spending by $118 billion will pay for a $1.2 trillion tax cut. It is not credible to say that you are strong on budget enforcement, but only apply the PAYGO rules to mandatory spending programs. It is not credible to say that deficits do not matter when you are spending over $349 billion a year just on the interest payments on our $7 trillion national debt. Democrats keep getting told that we need to be tough on spending and that if we are tough on spending, all the other problems will take care of themselves. Well, that is another example of this great credibility gap. Blue Dog Democrats are tough on spending, as you will hear from a number of us today who are speaking. We voted for budget alternatives that do not exceed the President on spending. We are tough on spending. And as important, we are responsible on revenue. We do not pretend that you can have a tax cut without paying for it. Rather, we work with what we have got: a war that needs to be paid for, a budget that needs to be balanced, and an American public who looks to their leaders for credibility and for truth. Right now we are faced with a choice. We can continue buying on credit, or we can begin budgeting with credibility. Our constituents want and our constituents deserve a credible budget. It is incredible that this administration has refused to submit one.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jean E. Sawitzky. Jean will have completed 38 years of loyal and productive work for the United States Postal Service on February 29, 2004. Jean Sawitzky began her outstanding career at the West Sacramento post office soon after graduating from high school. She worked her way up through the administrative ranks and has served as the Postmaster for Courtland and Clarksburg, California. In addition to running an efficient office, Jean's smile and superior customer service have marked her tenure. She will be missed.- Jean has also been a very active member of the West Sacramento and Delta communities, serving as a member and leader of numerous civic, church and community-service organizations. In recent years she has become widely known for the quality and originality of her handmade quilts, and has been honored at the Yolo County and California State Fairs. Jean now teaches this craft to others in northern California. We are confident that in her retirement years, Jean will find more time to invest in community service and her artistic endeavors. I want to thank Jean for her years of excellent service and wish her well in the active retirement years ahead. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we recognize Jean E. Sawitzky for her contributions to her community and her service to our Nation.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two extraordinary women who have jointly been named the city of Sonoma's 2004 Alcaldesas, or honorary mayors. For more than 10 years, Sue Holman and Susan Weeks have volunteered countless hours to Sonoma Valley's Meals on Wheels program. They work 5 days a week preparing 2 gourmet meals for housebound residents. A typical weekly fare is pork chops in mushroom sauce, spicy lamb logs, linguini and clams, tamale pie and roast beef. Over the past 10 years, they calculate that they have prepared a quarter of a million meals. In addition to all of the food preparation, they prepare the menus, shop for groceries, do all of the baking, maintain inventory control and supervise the 90 volunteers who package and deliver the food and assist in the kitchen. They recognize that many of the people they serve live alone and try to make each day special. Each holiday has a theme meal, and each client receives a personalized present or two at Christmas of Hanukkah and on their birthday, plus a split of wine or champagne. They are able to maintain a high quality of fare and bolster the spirits of the people they serve while running the only all-volunteer Meals on Wheels program in the State of California. In recognition of their contributions, the city of Sonoma designated them ``los dos Alcaldesas,'' following a 28-year-old tradition of selecting someone in the community who works selflessly on behalf of others. The Alcalde/Alcaldesa reflects the town's Spanish and Mexican heritage and the ``honorary mayors'' will preside at all ceremonial functions on behalf of the city. Susan Weeks settled in Sonoma 18 years ago following an international career that took her to Jerusalem, South Africa and Washington, D.C. In addition to Meals on Wheels, she has also been active in public safety and infrastructure issues, and working with the Verano Springs Association and the Sonoma Valley Citizens Action Committee. Sue Holman is a retired investment banker who has been in Sonoma 11 years. An animal lover, she was one of the driving forces in the establishment of Sonoma's only dog park. Mr. Speaker, Susan Weeks and Sue Holman provide an invaluable service to their community, and it is appropriate that we honor them today as Sonoma, California's 2004 Dos Alcaldesas.

Mr. THOMPSON of California

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority (NCIHA) as it celebrates its 25th Anniversary. The NCIHA is the Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) for eight federally recognized Indian Tribes in Northern California. Originally created in 1980, the NCIHA is a valuable asset to Butte, Colusa, Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, providing safe and sanitary housing for low and moderate-income Native American families. The NCIHA is governed by a twenty member Board of Commissioners and staffed by 17 dedicated employees. Over its 25-year history, the NCIHA has built 324 housing units in nine locations, directing $60 million in construction planning and development programs. The organization manages an additional 232 housing units located in seven reservation communities. The NCIHA also administers a down payment assistance home ownership program, rental subsidy programs, housing rehabilitation and replacement services for member tribes. In addition to these services, the NCIHA has worked to develop a Community Housing Development Organization to access state funding and increase housing opportunities for Native Americans. The NCIHA is sharing valuable resources and providing technical support with the newly formed United Native Housing Development Corporation to help assure its success. Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of the NCIHA are recognized by many, most notably by the Office of Native American Programs, who awarded the NCIHA a Certificate of Excellence in 2000 and declared the organization one of the best of its kind. With the support of both the federal government and private foundations, the NCIHA is committed to the establishment of healthy communities for the Native Americans it serves. In addition to constructing and managing sufficient housing, NCIHA builds infrastructure including roads, water and sanitation facilities, and electric services. Mr. Speaker, for its commitment to serving the Native American population of Northern California, it is appropriate that we honor the employees and board of the Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority as they recognize their 25th anniversary.