[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 149 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7455-H7456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND 
                                 REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I think that every Member of Congress, 
and especially Democrats, at this point should welcome the 
recommendations of the two cochairs of the National Commission on 
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. This is one of the rare, tangible, 
and comprehensive approaches that have come through the political 
process to deal with an issue that everyone should be concerned about: 
how we pay for what America needs amidst growing budget deficits and 
strains on our entitlement programs.
  We must not underestimate the value of two reasonable, credible 
people, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, both with experience on a 
national scale and an assignment from the President, who have 
recommended a combination of ways to increase revenue and deal with

[[Page H7456]]

entitlement spending. Every independent observer feels that such a 
balance is a critical part of the solution. The question is what the 
balance should be between revenue increases, budget and benefit cuts, 
and most critical of all, how we change doing business. The reform and 
evolution of our government's role is central. Unless we can change the 
way we do business--Medicare, defense, agriculture--no amount of tax 
increase or program cuts will get America to where we need to be with 
our economy and government services.
  This is the debate that we Democrats, especially those who are in the 
center or left of center, should welcome. This is what the majority of 
the American public and independent observers without an axe to grind 
believe to be the real issues. This is a debate that certainly has not 
occurred on the national level, especially during the election, but it 
should have. I, for one, will resist the efforts to reject out of hand 
the cochairs' proposals before they have even worked their way through 
the commission. Instead, I will focus on areas where I think agreement 
can be built across the political spectrum and, most important, with 
the American public.
  In a period of spiraling deficits and reductions in government 
services, how high a priority is a mortgage interest deduction on 
expensive third homes? Do we need to spend billions of dollars 
protecting West Germany from the Soviet Union when both countries 
ceased to exist more than two decades ago, and it has been more than 
half a century since the end of World War II?
  Many candidates who ran under the Tea Party banner have argued 
against the lavish, unnecessary system of agricultural subsidies that 
are bad for the taxpayers, bad for the environment, and shortchange 
most of America's small farmers and ranchers. This has been an area 
where Republicans and Democrats alike have labored for reform; and in 
some areas, we have been joined by President Obama. Don't we see the 
potential for a coalition to get this across the finish line?
  Yes, by all means, debate the rebuilding and renewing America. This 
was a great point in the report. There will, for example, be high-speed 
trains in America in the next 20 years. The question is: Will Americans 
invest and build them? Or will they be built, financed, and operated by 
the Chinese? What is the price of our high-speed rail connections 
managed by foreigners, and we pay them for the privilege? This is why I 
hope that people across the country, especially Democrats and, in 
particular, our leaders, move to embrace areas of agreement.
  To be sure, there are areas that I find problematic. There are some 
with which I strongly disagree. But they shouldn't merit rejection of 
the whole package before we even have the debate. Instead, I welcome 
the opportunity to discuss, debate, and analyze elements on which we 
don't see eye to eye. How about some good old-fashioned, if somewhat 
boring, civic education and discourse? It is, after all, only the 
future of our Nation that is at stake.

                          ____________________