[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 356-357]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 DEFICIT COMMISSION BY EXECUTIVE ORDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Today the press, Mr. Speaker, is reporting that a backroom 
deal has been cut with Democratic leadership to create a deficit 
cutting commission by executive order. I oppose this effort, and so 
will the American people.
  In light of this news, the remarks that Representative Lamar Smith of 
Texas made on the House floor this morning ring truer and more urgent 
than ever. Representative Smith offered a series of lessons to be 
learned from yesterday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. He 
said all true reform starts with the voice of the people. The people 
will not have a choice in a deficit commission established by executive 
order. He also said common sense trumps partisanship. A commission 
through executive order negotiated by one party is the height of 
partisanship. He also said voters can exercise real independence. Where 
is the voice of the people in a process that will not go beyond the 
Beltway?
  Mr. Smith correctly noted that one-party control leads to arrogance. 
We are seeing today an arrogance of power on a party that forecloses 
the minority from a seat at the table. To be fair, the Republicans in 
the majority were arrogant at times. And Mr. Smith concluded that we 
should be listening to the people, not defying them. The people of 
Massachusetts spoke yesterday. They proved that when the people get mad 
enough, anything is possible, even in Massachusetts. Lawmakers in 
Congress on both sides of the aisle would be wise to hear that message 
loud and clear, yet the Obama administration doesn't seem to be 
listening.
  There are a number of serious problems being exposed as details of 
the administration's executive order commission are revealed. Any 
commission should be authentically bipartisan, passed by the Congress. 
Press reports indicate that instead of putting every spending program 
and tax policy on the table, discretionary spending would be exempt. 
How can we have an honest conversation about the Nation's financial 
health without looking at discretionary funds that accounted for more 
than 33 percent of Federal spending in '09?
  The $447 billion omnibus appropriations bill that was considered by 
Congress and signed into law in December corresponded with the 
Democrats' budget blueprint that increased nondefense discretionary 
spending by 12 percent over the previous year. When all appropriations 
spending is combined, the Democratic majority will have increased 
nondefense, nonveterans discretionary spending by 85 percent over the 
last 2 fiscal years. The American household has certainly not seen 
their income rise by 85 percent in recent years.
  Simply put, discretionary spending, with the spending set by annual 
appropriations levels of Congress, matter. A deficit reduction 
commission that is barred from looking at one-third of the Federal 
budget is a fig leaf. The bipartisan commission process I have talked 
about for nearly 4 years puts everything, entitlements, tax policy, 
discretionary spending, everything on the table for discussion by the 
commission members.
  Moreover, the American people will be cut out of the process under 
the President's plan. The SAFE Commission plan I have advocated for 
includes legitimate public engagement, mandating public town hall-style 
meetings. But under President Obama's plan the public voice will be 
nonexistent. There will be no input from the hardworking taxpayers in 
our communities. This is not the right way to form public policy.
  Perhaps the most glaring sleight of hand, one I believe the American 
people will recognize and refute, is that the Democratic leadership 
intends to bring the commission recommendations up for a vote in 
Congress, but only after the mid-term elections and before the new 
Congress begins in 2011. It would be a lame duck vote.
  Lawmakers who are retiring or get defeated could vote on a set of 
recommendations with regard to entitlement spending and tax policy, but 
never be held accountable by the American people. Is it right for 
outgoing Members of Congress to consider proposals that could affect 
every single American knowing that days and weeks later they would no 
longer be answerable to the voters of the district they once 
represented?
  Between the Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, over 30 
Members have already announced they are retiring or running for another 
office, and this number will grow. During the lame duck session, some 
outgoing Members may already be looking for new jobs, which could well 
be lobbying special interest groups and other stakeholders that have a 
vested interest in the outcome of the vote on the commission's 
recommendations. Yet the Obama administration is setting up a process 
that would allow these outgoing lawmakers to vote on the commission's 
recommendations and run the risk of blurring the lines between what is 
best for the American people and best for their future employer.
  Any recommendation put forward should be considered by the newly 
elected Congress, which would have to publicly stand by their vote on 
the commission's recommendation. This Congress has run up the country's 
credit card to a point of no return, and now the administration wants 
to be able to tout a bipartisan solution to spending for political 
cover to survive the upcoming elections.
  A commission through executive order is political gamesmanship. It is 
a blatant effort by the administration to find political cover after 
advocating for the $787 billion economic stimulus, supporting health 
care reform being negotiated behind closed doors that could cost a 
trillion, and pushing other budget breakers that are wildly unpopular 
in the eyes of the American people.
  In closing, the American people understand the depth of our financial 
problems. They recognize the spending gorge that Congress has embarked 
on since the Obama administration began,

[[Page 357]]

and they will not be fooled about by a fig leaf commission established 
by executive order. Just ask the people of Massachusetts.

                          ____________________