calling for a peaceful transition. we will have more on all this later in the day. the news conference is available online at c-span.org. and more tomorrow morning on washington journal. a live look at the u.s. house of representatives where members will take a number of issues including the ongoing debate about sequestration and with votes expected later in the day. also on capitol hill, ben bernanke testifies. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. july 18, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable jean schmidt to act as speaker

pro tempore on this day, signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall the debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: there's a sad unnecessary battle shaping up again over the future of public broadcasting. it's not an exaggeration to say that this battle is about the very future, its very existence

of public broadcasting. you might have thought we were past this when 15 months ago the republican house leadership targeted n.p.r. and tried to defund the corporation for public broadcasting. luckily last year the 170 million people who don't just listen and watch public broadcasting but depend upon it unleashed an unprecedented show of support and as a result the republican leadership went back, they cut but did not kill federal support for public broadcasting despite the rhetoric. there was actually a constructive sign in last year's appropriations bill that will requested a study to examine alternatives to funding public broadcasting to federal funding. so people would have hard facts to operate on this year. ironically that study requested by our republican colleagues is now being circulated, clearly shows there is no viable alternative to federal funding for public broadcasting and that many of the proposals that

have been suggested would actually end up with less overall revenues in the long term. the house appropriations bill being marked up this morning would slash funding now, defund n.p.r. support, and end public broadcasting as we know it within two years. at the same time we have a republican presidential nominee who singled out public broadcasting as one of the five programs that he would eliminate. in recent -- it's because governor romney and the republicans listened to a tiny fraction of the american public that is even a minority in their own party. a recent poll showed that 2/3 of the republicans surveyed would either keep federal funding as it is or increase it. what resonates with republican primary voters is not what america wants, needs, or

believes. the unprecedented threat comes at exactly the time america needs public broadcasting most. npr news, the object of greatest scorn, is the most trusted brand in the american news media. listeners learn something, unlike fox news viewers where surveys show actually know less about the facts than people who listen to no news at all. npr news as rated again -- has been the highest rated for the ninth year in a row. pbs shows like "sesame street" have helped three generations of parents raise their children with effective commercial-free carble programming. locally owned news is becoming only a memory for most of america as larger corporations buy up radio and television stations and local newspapers.

there's no money to be made by commercial stations that cater to the special needs of rural and small town america, but public broadcasting is there because their mission is to serve not make money. often these locally owned managed public broadcasting stations are the only source that is direct news, education, and entertainment locally managed for local needs. we must stop this attack on this critical service for rural and small town america. it's time for the 170 million americans who depend on public broadcasting every month to speak out again and for congress to finally listen. the radical proposal to slash public broadcasting funding defund npr, and terminate public broadcasting as we know it is the most powerful symbol of how out-of-step the republican leadership is from the country they are supposed

to represent. there's no reason to make public broadcasting a partisan issue. the american pun lick -- public has broad support, republicans, independents, and democrats alike, especially when public pbs and its member stations would need number one in public trust and a, quote, excellent use of taxpayer dollars for the ninth consecutive year. since i have been in congress, we have beaten back this destructive effort, but our challenge now has never been more urgent. it's time for people who believe in public broadcasting to stand up to what can only be termed extremism and settle this question once and for all. about the future of public broadcasting. for unless we fight it now, there may be nothing left to protect. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman

from california, mr. dreier, for five minutes. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, the cover of this week's economist magazine covers it truly well. rebuilding america's economy is its point. we all want to do everything we can to create good american jobs. well, unfortunately we are on the verge of losing a potential market of 140 million consumers. the reason i say that is just last week and today debate is taking place in the duma, the russian parliament, and the duma's lower house and the federation first down sill is the upper house, the duma has passed it and the federation council today is debating, they may have already voted on it, they are going to be joining the world trade organization. and this economist publication

talks about the fact that is the market is exports. we know forcing russia to live with a rules-based trading system is something that can inure to the benefit of u.s. workers. that's what accession to the w.t.o. is. guess what? russia is going to be a member of the world trade organization within 30 days, the question is whether or not the united states of america will be able to have access to that market. we all know that will putin engages in crony capitalism, they have a massive bureaucracy and corrupt court system. forcing them to live with a rules-based trading system is the right thing for us to do. i'm happy to say that there has been an effort led by my colleagues, mr. long and mr. reed, within the freshman class that has brought 73 republican members to send a letter to the president of the united states urging support of permanent normal trade relations with

russia, and urging this institution to support that. i'm happy it's a bipartisan effort. my friend, mr. meeks, has joined in this effort as well, and i'd like to at this point yield to my good friend from missouri, mr. long, and thank him for the effort that he has made to tackle this important issue. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. long: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, we agree that we need to get our nation's economy growing again in order to create jobs for american families. increasing our nation's exports is one area that would help grow the economy, create jobs, without costing one thin dime. i support free-throw because more exports -- free trade because more exports equal more jobs. i recently led an effort as mr. dreier mentioned to rally my freshman class to support the permanent normal trade relation was russia. after nearly two decades of negotiationings, russia is poised to join the world trade organization this summer and without repealing a cold-war era trade restriction,

america's businesses will be at a severe disadvantage to international competitors. while the u.s. already trades with russia, the repeal of the jackson-vanik position would level the playing field for u.s. exports after russia joins the w.t.o. the media in some of this country like to portray my freshman class as a group not willing to work for the benefit of the american people or work in a bipartisan spirit. we can put that to rest. the president has shown an interest in increasing american exports anti-purpose of my letter was to show the president that 73 members of the republican freshman class are willing to work on this issue to help support american jobs. i will continue to support efforts that will boost trade opportunities for american manufacturers and businesses. this is about doing what is right for our country and supporting efforts to create jobs for american families. i yield back. mr. dreier: let me thank my friend for his thoughtful contribution. and disabusing people of this notion that somehow this group

of 87 new republicans who have come to congress are not willing to tackle important issues. they led the effort to bring about passage of the panama, colombia, and korea free trade agreements, and once again they are providing tremendous leadership on our goal of creating good american jobs by prying open that mark and ensuring that the united states worker will have access to it. if you think about not only creating jobs here, but dealing with the problems of crony capitalism, dealing with the problems of a massive bureaucracy, and dealing with a corrupt court system which is what exists under putin today, this is the right thing for us to do. we should not lose access to the market. i also want to note that my very good friend, mr. herger, who has been a great leader on the issue of trade is here, mr. berg is here who has very involved in this. i would be happy to yield to my friend from new york, mr. reed, who has played an important

role on this issue. mr. reed: i thank the gentleman. i rise today in strong support to join my friend from california as he knows we have been supportive of free trade from the moment we got here. i was so pleased to see colombia, panama, and south korea be passed. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. this month as america's families and businesses anxiously await congress' action on the expiration of any number of tax cuts, i thought it would be a good idea to ask ourselves again that question, what would ronald reagan do?

let's query the gipper. after all, for the past three years all we have heard from republicans is the claim that president obama taxes too much. and when the tea party started its lobbying efforts in 2009, their name actually, tea, was an acronym standing for taxed enough already. just like the republican party, the tea party expressed an furor about what they thought was happening in taxes. while blind conjecture and pithy slogans are useful in getting attention, they ultimately fail unless they are backed by facts. thankfully the nonpartisan congressional budget office, came outle with a comparison of the average federal tax rates paid by american families over the past 31 years. i'm sure republicans in the tea party were all as surprised as many of us to learn that since 1979 americans paid the lowest average federal rate in 2009 under president obama. that's right.

thanks in large part to the recovery act, $243 billion in middle class tax cuts which my friends on the other side of the aisle opposed to a person, the average federal tax rate fell to a 1-year low. the average federal rate since 1979 is 21%. meaning an average over the past 31 years, americans pay 21% of their yearly income to the federal government each april. the previous low for the past 31 years was 18%. but in 2009, president obama's first year in office, the average federal tax rate actually fell to 17.4%. the lowest since 1979 when jimmy carter was in the white house. that means a lower percentage of taxes paid than under bill clinton, lower taxes than under both of the two george bushes, and lower average federal tax rate than under the gipper, ronald reagan. throughout president reagan's eight years in office, the average federal tax rate was

20.9%. never dropping below 20.2%. in contrast to his first year, the average rate under president obama was 17.4%. in other words, after taking into account all the takes and loopholes, especially the recovery acts making work play tax cuts, americans in 2009 paid 2.8% less of their income to the federal government than they paid during ronald reagan's best year. ronald reagan, george bush, bill clinton, george -- the other george bush and president obama. by far president obama has the lowest tax rates. perhaps if the average federal tax rate under president obama was as high as those under president clinton's second term, then republicans may have a better argument. of course, president clinton's second term in office saw

significant job growth and expanding economy and the only surplus since 1969, four in a row. but to complain about federal deficits and then immediately call for cutting taxes on the highest income brackets even lower than the current 31-year low under president obama shows significant hypocrisy or lack of basic addition and subtraction skills. so as today's republicans try to spin a tax fairy tale with the lowest average federal tax rate under president obama is somehow too high while ignoring the higher rates through the 1980's and 1990's, perhaps it's time to ask, what would ronald reagan have done? republicans, even those who profess to idolize president reagan won't ask. president reagan subsequently signed into law a host of taxes to try to bring the budget back into balance. five times he raised taxes in his eight years.

madam speaker, as congress debates the extension of the current tax burden, comprehensive tax reform and overall budget deficits, i again feel compelled to ask my colleagues, what would ronald reagan do? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. recently i heard from jacqueline, a small business owner in southeast texas, and here's what she said. business owners who want to succeed put their heart and soul into their business. they are the ones who get there at the crack of dawn and leave after everyone else has long settled in for the night. i have been a small business owner and i know a great many others like me, and nobody did anything for us. we did it ourselves and the only thing the government did for us was to tax us. apparently this president disagrees with jacqueline's statement. according to the administration, quote, if you

got a business you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen. so the president is infering that government should get the credit for the success of entrepreneurs. he is wrong, madam speaker. people are the reason for americans' success, not government. americans have the vision, creativity and audacity to pursue a dream, not the government. americans risk their life savings, not knowing what profit they will get back in return for their labor. government doesn't risk anything. americans spend long days, sleepless night and working on weekends away from their family in order to keep their company afloat and pay their employees. americans battle through discouragement and criticism in the hope for better days ahead. it is americans who give up their home in order to pay for a store, and it's americans who pay all those taxes and expensive government regulations that they're forced

to pay. government isn't there when a decision is made to get started, to take a leap of faith, make a hire, sell first good or tally bills. these people pursue the american dream without government hand holeding their hand. those believers in big government say that americans can only be successful if government controls their lives. madam speaker, government isn't the answer. government's the problem. america is not great because of government programs. it's great because of americans. individuals with the spirit and desire to make their lives and this country better. government doesn't assume the risk of business. individuals do. and starting a business is not easy. business is driven by american ingenuity, creativity and, yes, hard work. those who have been successful didn't wait around for someone else to help them with a government handout. the reality is that government actually makes it harder to do

business now, not easier. when i asked texas businesses what washington can do for them, their answer's always the same. get out of the way. businesses cannot afford to hire others and give them jobs because of the costly unnecessary regulations imposed by government. according to the world's bank 2012 "doing business report in the world," the u.s. now ranks 13th in the world in places to start a business. we trail countries like belarus, macedonia and rwanda. now, isn't that lovely? america should not be a place where people wait for a government handout check. instead, they should get a paycheck for working. individual achievement used to be celebrated in this country, but the administration seems to punish success. and what does the government do when individuals are

successful? the government punishes them with taxes. according to the collectivists, wealth was created by government and so it belongs to everybody. sound a lot like statism to me, madam speaker. the idea that citizens should be beholden to the government for everything and government is worshiped as the savior of us all. that is not the american philosophy. so the policy is under the statist, tax them to death. you heard the statement, madam speaker. if something is moving, regulate it. if it stops moving, subsidize it. government is doing all of the above to businesses in this country. and government is also overtaxing those small businesses, keeping 23 million americans from finding jobs. madam speaker, small businesses create most of the jobs in this country. you see, when a small business is successful, it can expand by hiring people. government doesn't create jobs. people and businesses do. so what next? are the good days of american

exceptionalism behind us? no. americans are exceptional as ever before, and it's the government that is our problem. where i come from we teach our kids in this country no matter who you are or where you came from, hard work and personal responsibility will pay off. and the america i know, people earn their paycheck and don't sit around waiting for a free government check. small business owner jacqueline is correct. individuals, american ingenuity and free enterprise creates success, not washington. that is the american dream, madam speaker, and when you tell -- see the president, tell him he's wrong and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, for five minutes. mr. meeks: thank you, madam chair. russia was some of the -- with some of the most rapidly growing consumers and growing

market will join the world trade organization at year's end. after reducing tariffs, yes, very shortly, russia will be a member of the world trade organization. for the united states, this could mean improved market access for our exports of goods and services. it could mean protection if russia violates international rules. it could mean a trade boost and additional 50,000 jobs or more right here in the united states of america. it and all of this if all of this if the united states and this cock lifts the cold war relic, jackson-vanik amendment,

and has normal trade relations. we waived jackson-vanik for over 20 years. we need pntr and we need to do it now. our competitors will have access to that market. we will then fall behind them. we can compete with anybody in the world. this is the greatest country in the world. let's not lock ourselves out of the market in russia. let's not put ourselves behind our competitors. here's an opportunity for us to come together. you heard earlier this morning my friends and colleague -- my friend and colleague, david dreier, talking about we can do this together with the president of the united states who has an export initiative to create more jobs. here we can demonstrate to the american people that we're concerned about creating jobs and that we're going to make sure that we take advantage of

that opportunity by bringing pntr for russia immediately, getting involved and trading with them to create jobs right here in the good old united states of america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, for five minutes. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, it has been 41 months of unemployment above 8% and the president is calling for higher taxes on small businesses. that is the devastating reality currently facing 13 million unemployed americans. america is the in the midst of a jobs crisis unlike anything this country has seen since the great depression, and the president's most recent answer to this address -- this crisis,

a tax hike on small businesses, to feed their appetite for more wasteful, ever-expanding government spending. this past week the president followed up his recent call for higher taxes by scolding entrepreneurs, and i quote, if you got a business, you didn't build it. somebody else built that, end quote. his disdain for american enterprise truly underscores that he is not -- that he not only doesn't know what it takes to start and run a business but he is clueless about how jobs are created. if the president gets his way, instead of small businesses creating more paychecks for more workers, they will be paying more taxes to the federal government. i wonder if the president has considered the fact that small businesses create two out of every three new jobs in america. and that means for the majority of the nearly 13 million

unemployed americans, their best hope of being able to provide for their family hinges on small business' ability to hire more people. the fact that the administration's online slaut of new regulations and obama -- onslaught of new regulations and obamacare has already placed a huge burden on america's small businesses. the president wants to add insult to injury and stipend away $200 billion more from job creators. the president's latest tax hike plan would destroy 700,000 jobs and further weaken our struggling economy. the house is scheduled to vote in a couple of weeks on legislation to extend all of the current federal income tax rates. while at the same time laying a groundwork for making our tax

code simplier and fairer by lowering rates and closing loopholes. pro-growth tax reform is needed to help create the climate for job creation and to ensure more jobs stay right here in the united states. the most recent unemployment report shows that a number of people leaving the job market to go on social security disability outnumbers the number of people who are going back to work. let me repeat that. the most recent unemployment report shows that the number of people leaving the job market to go on social security disability outnumbers the number of people who are going back to work. so regardless of one's political ideology, it's true unconscionable for the president or any member of congress to be calling for tax hikes on americans when millions are out of work and the economy is still treading water.

but to make matters worse, this week many democrat leaders in the senate have said they are willing to allow these taxes to increase for all americans if they aren't able to get their way and raise taxes on 1.2 million small businesses. now every day the president and senate democrats continue with this political posturing and class warfare nonsense while the economy suffers and small businesses suffer and ultimately the american people suffer. the question is, will the president and the senate democrats who run washington work with the house republicans to stop this huge job-killing tax increase from hitting small businesses and every american who pays an income tax? or will they continue to insist on higher taxes to pay for wasteful government spending and bailouts for political allies? thank you, madam speaker, and i

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, for five minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. rangel: this sunday the international conference on aids is going to be held in our nation's capital. it's been some 30 years ago that this serious disease became known in our great country and it spread from other parts of the world. . since that time we have lost over half a million people, yet we have not foundal cure for this deadly disease. i have introduced legislation, h.r. 1462, with senator gillibrand, to see whether or not we could have more national

attention focused on the fact that we can do a lot more than we are doing. what we have to do is to educate people that this disease, although it used toe have a great stigma, -- used to have a great stigma, is recognized there's so many different ways to come in contact with it, that education is one way that we can help people. prevention, of course, is another. but i'd like to emphasize the need for testing. so many people are walking around with virus and have no idea that they have it. and even though there has been efforts made by community organizations for free testing, this is one of the exciting things about the president's affordable care act. there's no question after we get finished with the political

circus that we are forced to go through because of the coming election, that more and more americans would understand thep benefits -- the benefits that they are receiving even now from this universal coverage that so many people need. and the dramatic decrease in cost when people are able to get preventive care. preventive care is one of the major parts of the president's affordable care act. and what it means is that people can now go to doctors for regular checkups and find out things in time to prevent it from becoming more serious. when i was a kid, my mom had three kids, and someone told her that she was going to the doctor with us and we were not sick. well, that was something that we didn't think was a luxury we could afford. but now in seeing how important it is to contain serious

illnesses and to reduce the cost of health care, it is so important that preventive care be a part of our national health system. and the quicker we get on with the implementation of this great bill, the more lives and more dollars we would be able to save. and so remember if you have any interest at all, take a look at what's going to be happening in september and the congressional black caucus during our legislative weekend in september, will have professionals to come in to talk with us, to teach us, to tell us what we can do to extend this education process throughout our great country. i thank you for this opportunity, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, for five minutes. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise this morning to express my support for the russian accession to

the w.t.o. and our need here in this chamber and in washington, d.c., to grant russia permanent normal trade relations status -- pntr status so we can establish a strong, forward-looking trade relationship with russia. madam speaker, it's simple, american trade opportunity as represented by the russian market equals american job opportunity here on our soil. i am proud to support this need to get pntr trade status recognition for russia, and i'm joined this morning by a good friend from north dakota who i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume on the same issue. mr. berg. mr. berg: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berg: thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to urge congress

to grant permanent normal trade relations with russia. also known as pntr. russia will soon join the world trade organization. this will increase trade with russia and create significant export opportunities. however, before we can take advantage of these trade benefits, we must grant permanent normal trade relations with russia. this is a great opportunity for our state of north dakota to increase trade with the ninth largest economy in the world. in 2011, last year, north dakota had over $46 million worth of exports to russia. this impacts 160 jobs in our state directly. that number will grow significantly if we grant pntr to russia. on the other hand, failing to grant pntr will significantly

impact north dakota businesses as well as all american businesses. it will put us at a competitive disadvantage. this is why it's important for congress to grant permanent normal trade relations with russia and to do it as quickly as possible. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the remainder. mr. reed: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i thank the folks that came to the chamber this morning, madam speaker, in a bipartisan fashion to recognize the need to grant pntr status to russia in order for us, american manufacturers, american job creators, take advantage of that trade opportunity that is represented by their russian accession to the w.t.o. madam speaker, if we go forward and grant pntr status to russia, our exports, united states exports, could double or perhaps even triple as a result of the trade opportunity that russia represents to our

american job creators. and in the great state of new york, that means tremendous numbers of jobs will be created. as we all know the number one issue facing us in this chamber, in this city, is how are we going to grow jobs across america? as i said in the beginning and i'll say again, american trade opportunities such as represented by russia equals american job opportunities. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, this week the house is debating the defense appropriations bill which provides an excellent opportunity to point out some things quite ironic about my colleagues in the majority. because, madam speaker, for all of their talk about getting spending under control, that same rhetoric is surprisingly

absent when we are talking about the pentagon budget. which we are talking about this week. you see, they are eager to slash and burn when it comes to programs that invest and support middle class working families, but somehow when it's time for sacrifice to be shared, the military industrial complex is nowhere to be found. while we have to fight for every penny of domestic spending, the pentagon simply fills in its amount on a blank check, it appears. so i think we ought to have a dollar for dollar match in spending cuts. i will be offering a series of amendments to the d.o.d. appropriations bill to call for defense cuts in the exact amount that other important programs are being reduced. for example, the proposed labor-hhs education spending bill eliminates the title 10 program.

title 10, the family planning program, that historically has been passed with bipartisan support, as provided contraceptive and preventive health services to low-income women for more than 40 years. the republicans want the title 10, $294 million investment, gone. so let's cut the defense budget by an identical $294 million. the ag appropriations bill provides $119 million less than the president requested for w.i.c. that's the women, infant, and children program that provides badly needed nutrition assistance for poor pregnant women, new mother, and children up to the age of 5. if we are going to shortchange a pillar of our safety net by $119 million, then i believe

the department of defense can do without that same $119 million. here's the big-ticket item, the republican budget. the budget that passed this body in march and zeroed out all funding for the social services block grant, including $1.7 billion in cuts for next year. if my republican friends believe that we can't afford $1.7 billion next year to provide daycare, housing, home health care, home meal deliverry, and other social services, then i say we can also eliminate a corresponding $1.7 billion in defense spending. the fact is, madam speaker, defense cuts are not only fiscally responsible and morally defensible, they are

widely popular. "usa today" reported yesterday on a new survey that shows that 2/3 of those living in republican congressional districts believe the defense budget is too large. it is no secret military spending is widely out of control. and let's remember that none of this takes into account the war in afghanistan, which isn't funded through the appropriations process. so on top of the bloated defense budget, american taxpayers are shelling out another $10 billion a month, a month, not a year, a month for a decade-long war that is failing to advance our national security objective. it's time to reverse this course. it's time to bring our troops home from afghanistan. it's time for the pentagon to assume its share of the shared sacrifice.

it's time to do what's right and the sensible thing, stop spending on weapons and warfare. start investing in the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. herger, for five minutes. mr. herger: madam speaker, coming from a small business background, i originally ran for public office not because of what government was doing for me but rather because of what it was doing to me. many small business owners in my northern california district feel the same way but apparently the president isn't getting that message. the other day he said, quote, if you've got a business, you didn't build that business, somebody else made that happen, close quote. madam speaker, perhaps that's why he's so determined to raise

taxes on small businesses on january 1. now senate democrats are saying that they can't -- if they can't get their small business tax hike, they'll let taxes go up for everyone. that's just wrong. let's stop the tax hike for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon >> president obama to provide specifics on what he would cut

if sequestration goes into effect in january. sequestration requiring congressional record -- across-the-board spending cuts. defense secretary leon panetta was on capitol hill today talking about the violence in syria. here's a portion of that event. >> question for both of you on syria. what do you make of the accelerating pace of the developments on the ground, in particular today's suicide bombing at the national security building that killed both the defense minister and parnle the deputy defense minister, do you see any indications that the regime could be cracking from within? and also on the question of chemical weapons, the report they have moved some of their munitions, do you think they are preparing to use them perhaps out of desperation? >> we are very concerned by the

increasing violence that's taking place in syria. and the tremendous loss of lives associated with that increased violence. it is more essential than ever that the united states and the international community continue to work together through the united nations, through whatever possible vehicles we have to bring additional pressure on assad to step down and allow for a peaceful transition of government there in syria. it is -- it's something that we have made very clear to them that they have a responsibility to safeguard their chemical sites. and that we will hold them responsible should anything happen with regards to those sites. this is something that we and

our allies are working very closely together to ensure that they are fulfilling their responsibility to effectively secure these chemical sites. >> we were all horrified by the level of loss of life, the atrocities against civilian populations being carried out in syria. as you say there is a sense that the situation is deteriorating and is becoming more and more unpredictable. mr. secretary panetta has said in these circumstances it is ever more imperative that the international community, including all players who have influence, bring pressure to bear on the assad regime to implement in full the plan to stabilize the country and allow an orderly transition of power. because you raise the question of chemical weapons and disorderly transition in syria

raises significant issues for all of us. and as the secretary said we are all watching very a carefully how the syrians discharge their obligations with regard to these chemical weapon sites that they are sitting on. it's very much in all of our interest that despite the chaos in the country, these sites remain under control and there is no proliferation of material found on those sites and no use of them against the civilian population. >> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke back on capitol hill this morning giving his twice a year report to congress on the state of the economy. right now he's testifying before the house financial services committee. he spoke to the senate banking committee yesterday. we have that live for you on c-span3. defense industry contractors testifying on capitol hill today before the house armed services committee. they are talking about the impact of automatic federal

spending cuts known as sequestration. witnesses this morning include lockheed martin's c.e.o. and former nasa head who is speaking right now. heads of u.s. unit of europe's largest aerospace company, eads. both pentagon programming and social programs will be cut by more than $500 billion each over a decade starting in january unless congress agrees on alternative cuts. live now on capitol hill on c-span. >> providing in both markets will exit the public defense market faster than any other. just to shed that 20% overhead, the cost to do business in. so as a consequence it becomes an easy choice or one that they are driven to in order just to survive in many cases. that's an opportunity at the same time to examine what that cost of doing business is uniquely to the public sector. if every article or most require

roughly the same comparability of its application in a commercial or defense context, why does it cost that much more just to sell to the public? and that should -- that has an opportunity for re-examination. the defense business board has advocated what's now called a regulatory holiday. during the 1990's in the post-cold war period, the administration at that time referred to this as a procurement holiday. let's just stop buying things, got enough of an inventory, no need to buy more. the same could be applied in these particular cases in which 20% of the cost that's applied just to do business with the public could be re-examined on a case by case basis. but to demonstrate why not stay there as opposed to being accepted and therefore be justified on each occasion? they have come up with -- the business board has come up with

a very creative method to do that and that's to be advanced as one method in the alternative. to looking at a across-the-board application of no priority, everything is a priority kind of reduction. and that's an overhead that i would encourage is an opportunity to really look at what those expenses could be to yield a lower cost and ultimately the kind of savings that are to be accrued. lost in all this, though, maybe this is the most important element, is that while there will be -- there's no doubt, almost equal proportion a. reduction in this area of domestic discretionary appropriations, as congressman smith described, it none the less is going to resonate in a different way. we are looking predominantly public servants or delivery of public services that require personnel. and as a result how the federal

government goes about the process of determining how those reductions will be made is something yet to be heard from. so while there may be a prospect of fewer t.s.a. agents at the airports on a given day, or flight disruptions as a consequence of the f.a.a. air traffic controllers not being asked to report for duty that day, and there will be fewer research grants because the n.i.h. or the national science foundation, is withholding the grant that was required to a university for some research activity. all those are severe impacts. but by comparison to the impact that will be particularly on the armed forces of the united states, men and women in service who voluntarily are there in order to defend us, that impact is going to be particularly profound on them and their families. and it is really, therefore, of consideration of what that

consequence will be that's far greater nan anything we are talking about here -- than anything we are talking about here this morning on the industry. >> mr. o'keefe -- >> i'm done. i simply would want to add i commend the committee for seeking some rugs to this issue and i -- resolution to this issue and i very much appreciate opportunity to testify. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. hess. >> chairman mckeon, ranking member smith, and members of the committee. >> is your mike on? >> i believe it is, sir. is that better? >> you have to get close. >> thank you, sir. chairman mckeon, ranking member smith, and other members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the serious matter of the potential for sequestration and the implications it has to our defense industry. as you know, i wear two hats currently, one is the president of a $13 billion company that employs more than 36,000 employees worldwide, and second, as the chairman of the aerospace industry association, which

represents 300 aerospace companies across the united states which collectively account for about 90% of the revenues for the entire -- aerospace and defense industry. i commend the committee for assembling such a representative group of witnesses to provide diverse answers based on the different challenges faced by each of us in the coming months. as chairman of a.i.a. it has been my privilege to visit capitol hill on numerous occasions to outline what we see with regard to sequestration. the potential to effect over one million highly skilled, highly compensated aerospace and defense related jobs. a.i.a.'s second to none advocacy campaign has been spreading throughout the country with grassroots rallies, highlighting the importance of fixing sequestration versus suffering its consequences. as an industry, we are already seeing the effects of potential sequestration budget cuts today. companies are limiting hiring and halting investments largely

due to the uncertainty about how sequestration cuts would be applied. as our u.t.c. sister division, the leadership has indicated given this environment if they had to choose right now between investing in internal r&d dollar between a commercial and defense program, they would choose commercial programs because of the uncertainty in defense budget. that's considering there is a fair amount of uncertainty in the commercial environment right now. equally concerning are the impacts of sequestration on the domestic side as it relates to homeland security, border security, air traffic control, t.s.a., and other agencies. the sequestration threats facing other government agencies, contracts, and work force affects our member companies' ability to do business safely and effectively. in the near term, some clarity from the office of management and budget about how sequestration cuts would be implemented would be helpful in terms of avoiding some of these impacts. regardless of how the cuts are implemented, the consequences

for the industry would be dire. the defense industrial based task force, commissioned by secretary of defense, panetta, has reported sequestration lower cuts would result in the clowshureb of production lines, layoff of skilled workers, and reduced ability to respond to the emergent needs of the u.s. military. however, today i'm here as the president of pratt whitney to offer my view on how sequestration will affect us directly and share with you how the threats are becoming a reality for us. we build jet engines for both the commercial and military marketplace. as you know, our future military base market consists prior marely the f-135 engine for the f-35 joint strike fighter. while we are also proud of our engine chosen to power the next generation refueling tanker for the u.s. air force, these engines will not really add to

our production business until 2016 or later. with the end of the production run of the f-22 engine this year, potentially the end of the production run for our engine for the c-17 next year, the f-135 engine is our future for our military business. already the decline in defense spending is neglect negatively affecting the f-135 ramp and our engine production. as you know $487 billion of defense budget cuts are already announced pushed out 179 f-35 joint strike fighter aircraft between 2012 and 23020. originally projection as few years ago had us building over 100 f-135 engines gins per year. this year wield build 50, about half. next year the production will actually decrease. if sequestration were to take effect, that number would decline dramatically. it's not just new engine

deliveries impacted at pratt, spare parts are the key to keeping our manufacturing base healthy and sustainable, but as rault of the announced $487 billion defense budget cuts, flight hours have already been cut back and sequestration would result in still further reductions. this undercuts demand for our spare parts and overhaul work. for my company the situation poses both a work force and supply-based problem. as the f-22 program winds down, i'm currently transitioning many of these workers to the f-135 production, but this is extremely difficult getting the near term production declined i described earlier. with sequestration it will be even more difficult to retain those highly skilled employees. and quite simply my work force is aging, specialized in highly compensated. if and when we do ramp back up production, the learning curve for new employees is steep and will affect production, quality, and training, all of which adds time and cost. pratt whitney is somewhat unique

because from a production standpoint a jet engine is a jet engine, whether it goes in a military aircraft or commercial aircraft. this allows us to absorb disruptions between -- some of the disruptions better than small companies in the supply base. for a short time i may be able to move employees between military and commercial programs, assuming i have an increase in demand for the commercial area. i can't if forced take risks if there is to be a reward at the end of the day, but this is like putting a proverbial band-aid on a bullet wound. in terms of our supply base, they, too, are currently struggling. many of them are small businesses making specialized parts for military engines that simply cannot survive another production decline or disruption. we continue to hear from our supplier that if further cuts take place, we would be -- they would be forced to lay off employees, curtail investment, and pursue other businesses. one large sployer has told us quite frankly they don't believe

the d.o.d. will ever produce the number of engines and that the joint strike fighter program. this uncertainty makes the buyers less willing to enter into long-term agreements and drives our costs up today f sequestration were to go into effect norks amount of juggling is going to preserve my work force or help me maintain our supply base. a step down in the current production ramp for the f-135 means some people la lose their jobs. it also means reduced volume for suppliers and cost goes up. more importantly it puts a good program in a very tenuous position, a program that we cannot afford to lose. to reiterate, mr. chairman, we at pratt whitney are better able than smaller companies to deal with short-term implications of sequestration, make no mistake, it's dangerous to the war fighter, for us as a business, for our supply chain companies, and for us as a nation. again i appreciate your perseverance on this important topic and for your allowing me to be here today. thank you, sir. >> thank you. ms. williams.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member smith, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on sequestration, implementation options and the effects on national defense industry perspective. my name is della williams, and i am the president and c.e.o. of williams pyro in fort worth, texas. this is a woman-owned small business that designs and manufacturers innovative products, including custom cables, connectors, adapters, automated test equipment, and intelligent power management systems. our products have improved the safety of flight line maintainers. reduced aircraft down time, boosted the buying power of the defense and procurement dollar. we currently have 89 employees who continue to amaze me every day. i have been here since day one.

as a manufacturer and part of the defense industry supply chain, i very much appreciate your focus on defense industry and the impact of the impending cuts in defense spending set to begin on january 1, 2013. . while i wish i were here under different circumstances and the impending threat of these wholesale cuts, it is is deep concern to me. my goal today is to put a face and a name to what is rather cavalierly discussed in the press as sequestration. most people would associate defense cuts with a big tier one defense contractors which are represented by several of my colleagues here today. supporting every one of these large integrators on dozens of programs are thousands of tier two and tier three suppliers,

most small and medium-sized businesses who design and manufacture what seems like small parts. moreover, the defense supply chain companies collectively employ millions of hardworking people who each support spouses and children and communities. so these cuts will not just impact a few companies. these cuts will flow down the supply chain and through the broader economy. they will impact companies like mine and threaten the jobs of thousands of skilled workers who work for them. in fact, a report released last month by the national association of manufacturers concludes that by 2014 the defense spending enacted last year combined with the cuts set by january 1, 2013, will result in the loss of more than one million jobs. increasing the unemployment

rate by almost 1%. just in texas alone, this means a loss of more than 100,000 jobs. if small business -- and i would submit even further, manufacturing -- is an engine of economic growth, why are we making decisions that will inevitably stall that engine? the budgetary issues the federal government is facing are the same ones that i, as a small manufacturer and a taxpayer, deal with every day in my business. the defense industry is faced with several choices. either exit the market, double down on defense by buying your competitors or weather the storm. at williams-pyro, however, we have chosen to invest in product development. these are major investments for our small business, but we are committed to developing

products that will meet the military's operational and procurement requirements. i believe that this dedication to providing innovative products for the defense industry helps to illustrate the potential impact sequestration will have on my business and many others. sequestration, as it's deemed discussed, will create a mass exodus of talent and skills to other industries. williams-pyro presently has almost 90 employees, including machinists, assemblers and r&d engineers experienced in mechanical, mechanical, software, firmware, hardware and manufacturing. these jobs are in jeopardy. what is being built -- billed as a stopgap budget fix will have a lasting affect on our defense capabilities for years to come. the switch will just not get

flipped back on to reverse that trend. moreover, the deep personnel and program cuts will threaten our national security. indeed, the united states could lose our technological and strategic advantage and never get it back. in conclusion, i urge members of congress to go back and sharpen your pencils. sequestration is cosmetic surgery with a chainsaw. working together, we can solve this, but we need to do it smartly and strategically while keeping the economy moving and defending this great land. thank you, again, for inviting me to appear before you to talk about this very important issue. i would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you very much.

i think we on this committee probably all understand more than perhaps the rest of the congress how serious these impacts will be on our military and on our industrial base, but you've laid out even further these problems. i have a series of questions that probably could be answered very briefly. i would encourage you to do that so we get these things on the record which will help us as we go forward. based on your testimony, it appears to be that you believe that sequestration goes into effect january 2 there will be job losses. can you each confirm at this time that layoffs are reasonably foreseeable? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much. do you believe you are obligated by either the spirit of the letter of the worker

adjustment and retraining notification, known as the warn act, to give conditional notices to your employees that may be laid off as a result of sequestration in advanced of making a final determination regarding which specific employees will be let go? >> sir, given the uncertainty in this environment today, yes, we do. >> may i -- i'd like that answer from each of you, but you have a specific history regarding the presidential helicopter that's very important to -- could you just expand on that a little bit as to your history there? >> i can, sir. with respect to the termination of the vh-71 helicopter, where we knew there would be layoffs at a particular site in new york but we didn't know which employees would be laid off, we did not issue warn notices at the time of that termination.

opting rather to do internal planning to see if we could replace the worker in another assignment either in that location or in another location, look at dimensions of the business we might have to provide some flexibility here, that process took about 4 a days. in the subsequent evaluation of the termination claim that is typical in a termination for convenience environment, we have an opinion from the defense contract audit agency that said we should have acted more timely and that the costs associated with that 45 days may well not be allowable. and viewed, i believe, in their draft opinion that our actions were unreasonable, that we waited an unreasonably long period of time. so experiences like that inform us in an odd way of the compelling requirement to take timely action and not allow the ambiguity of the situation to accrue against the interests of

the company even though in that case our preference was in our judgment to act prudently and see if we could move these employees around. >> and you're still in litigation on that issue as i understand it. >> it's a negotiation over the termination, yes, sir. it's not been concluded yet. >> thank you. mr. o'keefe. >> yes, sir. no, i concur entirely with your question that yes, indeed, we will be compelled to do something, yes. >> mr. hess. >> we would certainly abide by the requirements of the warn act. we have certain advantages in our business that mr. stevens doesn't have. mr. stevens' business, roughly 80% of it is defense. at pratt-whitney, roughly 75% of our business is defense. so depending what's happening in other elements of the business, the commercial environment, we might have the potential, the opportunity to redeploy people. but it's far from certain and certainly when you're looking

at budget cuts of the order of magnitude that sequestration would involve, potentially another 10% to 14% on top of the 10% budget reduction that's already being implemented today, certainly there would be scenarios where we would be looking at proportional head count reductions. >> thank. ms. williams. >> i don't believe we are covered under the warn act because we are less than 100 employees. however, if that changes, absolutely. and even if it doesn't change, if we don't get some contracts soon -- and i don't see how we'll be able to get -- keep our employees. and the sequestration is going to cut drastically in our contracts. >> thank you. barring additional guidance from the office of management and budget and the department of defense on the application of sequestration, do you believe that conditional notices will have to be issued this fall prior to january 2 to

comply with the warn act? how many employees do you estimate will receive those conditional notices, and if you will not have to issue conditional notices this fall, what extenuating factors affect your decision? >> yes, sir. i think that we will be compelled to issue notices. there is an ongoing discussion about how many warn notices will need to be issued and exactly when. there is so much uncertainty in this environment. i think that will be a capstone sirmente that the committee wrestles in your deliberations but we do know several things. we do know that sequestration is the law. we do know that law takes effect january 2. we believe any reasonable modeling around the law will require significant reductions in force with double-digit reductions in the budget. in the past when we've had budget reductions we look internally at a strategic assessment of our company because if we cut the clock uniformerly it will be

uneconomical and those costs will flow back in the future. that restructuring will likely mean we will have plant closings. plat closings and significant reductions in employees will trigger the warn act. the question becomes when. our best judgment, as we try to put pencil to paper with all this uncertainty about planning, is that agencies will actually move closer to january 2 because the act requires a $55 billion reduction in fiscal 2013, but the act takes effect after the first quarter. so the $55 billion has to be reduced over nine months, not a year. every year that's delayed after january 2 makes the magnitude of the reduction to accumulate $55 billion in the year more. if three more months go by, the equivalent of $110 billion would have to be taken out of the agency which would be more and more disruptive. so i think as people come to terms with their responsibilities in that sequestration is the law and we must prepare for it, there will

be an impetus to move closer to january 2. we need to be prepared to enable agencies to make those determinations because of that preparedness of, we'll set back 60 days, or in the case of new york, 90 days from that. the question is which employees would be terminated. we don't really know. we'd have to broaden the notification under warn appropriately. we are very hungry for more guidance, very hungry for more information so we can nairy this and behave responsibly. >> and yet when we held one of our hearings in september and we asked the assistant secretary, dr. carter, what they were doing to prepare, his comment was rather flipant. we don't have to do anything to prepare. we just take the budget out, take the percentage off of every line item so it takes no manage. i just think that is totally

irresponsible. mr. o'keefe. >> again, i think much as you heard from others here, absent any specific guidance on how this should be applied, we will be compelled, as a matter of compliance with the spirit of the law of following through on the warning act provisions. now, we've already begun that process. again, we've notified many members of congress that represent constituencies and districts in which we operate in as well as the governors of those states that this provision will have applicability. we're assessing at what point we have to make that determination. and much as you heard from bob stevens, we have to make that choice as we see the time unfold here absent any guidance that's going to have to be sooner or later. again, the determination from the office of management and budget and d.o.d. will prescribe that. but much what you heard as well from dave hess, 70% of what we do is commercial related.

we are going to have options and alternatives, but there are going to be very specific contracts and programs that will be affected that are federal contracts across the board. and once we get those more specifically targeted, that will be focus and where the warn act applications will occur. >> thank you. mr. hess. >> we will certainly abide by the regulations of the warn act. as you heard from my colleagues, you know, given the amount of uncertainty in terms of how the budget reductions play out and also given the opportunity to maybe redeploy people to other parts of the business, it's not clear to us today that we would trip the threshold involving implementation of the warn act. with respect to conditional notification, we are still considering that possibility. >> thank you. >> i understand you're not affected by this, but please explain whether any of the exemptions to the 60-day notice of the warn act requirements are applicable in this

situation. for example, could your company claim that layoffs results from sequestration were sudden, dramatic and unexpected? >> we don't believe so. >> no. they're well forecasted and anticipated. we're motz in advanceed and -- we're months in advanced and we see it coming. >> they say sequestration will occur on january 2. not contingent on anything. it's the law of the land and we're obligated to plan on it. >> even though some in the administration say it's not going to happen, don't worry about it, you feel you're bound by the law? >> we have a fiduciary responsibility to our board, to our shareholders and our employees to plan based on the laws in the books today. >> and aside from issuing notices to your current employees, how has the possibility of sequestration

impacted your current hiring practices or that of your industry partners? >> well, sir, we slowed down on the i think very simple and logical premise that if we're going to engage in significant reductions in the work force in january, it's prudent to bring people on for six months. what struck me as more interesting and maybe more telling about the future, we recruit heavily on college campuses. we do get a million resumes a year from very talented young people, and i know you interact and members of the committee interact with these young people all the time and it gives you the optimism of the future of america when you have the ability to seele talent and -- see the talent expressed by these graduates. they started to ask whether they wanted to come into the industry or specifically with our company even though they love the technology and they love the mission because they question, if i join you now, will i have a job next year?

these are very smart kids. we want them because they're smart young people and they're smart enough to realize this uncertainty could cause them to look at other options for their career. we want the best and brightent talent in the defense industry so we can continue to innovate the products and services that our women and men in the armed forces rely on to keep themselves safe. >> mr. chairman, i would say we've slowed down hiring as a consequence indirectly of sequestration. what's occurring now is requests for proposals, range of different contractual activities are all shifting to the right in the federal activity. it's all been delayed. so as a consequence of that, it refocuses your attention. we are not going to hire folks in anticipation of what we think is going to be market opportunities coming down the road that we think we can compete more successfully. we've slowed that down significantly. >> so even though you've been told that it's probably not

going to happen, don't worry about it, the department is already slowing down in anticipation of it happening? >> absolutely. >> there is no question. >> thank you. mr. hess. >> clearly the threat of sequestration is tempering our decision today with respect to hiring and capital investments. quite honestly, we've seen companies in the past that have made decisions to invest and are suffering the consequences today, for example, in the joint strike fighter program. i mentioned the fact that the lines we're looking at, production volumes, are about half of what they were forecasted to be. companies that invested based on the prospects of a much higher volume are now struggling. in fact, some of them we have examples, small businesses like williams that have gone chapter 11 or chapter 7 because they can't support the cash flow. they made decisions based on forecast of growth. sequestration would only exacerbate that. >> ms. williams. >> i feel that i owe an

obligation to my employees to explain this as well as i can to them so that -- i mean, they get very nervous about this word, sequestration. they are like, what does this mean? but i owe it to them so that they know what might be happening and whether they should go look for another job. and believe me, i don't want to lose those people because they're longtime employees, but this consumes about 50% of our business, a little over 50%. and i think my hands are going to be tied if all of this happens. >> thank you very much. mr. smith. >> thank you. first of all, just out of curiousity, have even of you been told, it's not going to happen, don't worry about it? >> in my case, sir, there's lots of discussion when we engage in a dialogue about what we should prepare for, and

there are suggestions that a remedy will be developed. sure. i would say -- and i think your comments earlier certainly reflected this, sir, there are lots of opinions and there are lots of points of view, but we hold ourselves to a set of standards that i know you and the committee expect business leaders to hold themselves to. >> i understand that. further question. the chairman said a couple time the administration's position is it's not going to happen. >> we're preparing. >> don't think that's accurate. >> we are preparing. >> the administration is aware of the fact that this is the law and until we cheaning it it's potential. they don't want it to happen. nobody in this committee in this room wants it to happen. the problem isn't so much a matter of preparation. the problem is that the law is regrettably on the books, and coming, and we have to find a way to change it. and towards that end -- and i do have a question at the end of this -- but i think what we've learned here is that government spending kind of matters. you can't just blindly putt it

and assume there's no problem which is sort of what led us to this horrible deal in the budget control act last time was, you don't raise the debt ceiling, it's no big deal. that will get us to a balanced budget. that will work. government spending matters. so does private sector. so does keeping taxes low. but we can't simply blindly say whatever you cut from government it will be fine because they are not really doing anything that important anyway. and it is that attitude that led us to where we're sitting here. the notion that you didn't have to raise the debt ceiling and then if you put in place mandatory cuts it really isn't that big of deal. so i hope that lesson will be learned. and as we go forward looking at our budget situation with $.3 trillion deficit, as i mentioned, even though tomorrow we say we won't do

sequestration, i'm curious as you look at the next 10 years. a boom time for defense contractors, no matter what happens, sequestration or no sequestration, we've got pretty tight fiscal situation for the next 10 years. how are you looking at that? how are you anticipating the impact of simply the reality of, you know, revenue being in one place and spending being in another and the need to reconcile that and the reality that the defense budget right now is 20% of our budget? how are you planning for that over the next 10 years? >> the way we're focusing our business now is to accommodate the reductions already in the budget control act of $487 billion that defense secretary panetta has spoken about that's embedded in our national security strat he gee. -- strategy. a number of our programs have been capped, canceled. we slowed down our programs. our work force is 18% smaller today than it was three years ago. we're hitting the brakes there. we've taken out a million and a half square feet of facilities.

we will take out another 2 million square feet by 2014. we cut our research and development. sizing the cloth of the business to meet the market reality. we're also looking to work with the administration and the leadership in the pentagon at international work because our nation has asked others to step up as security cooperation partners, as good security cooperation partners, if we have interoperable systems we could do well together. they burden share some of the expense, and any incremental work flowing into our businesses stabilizes our businesses, stabilizes the work force and it lowers the cost of every bit of equipment that the u.s. buys for u.s. purposes. so that's how we focus the strategy in the business. >> if i could, mr. o'keefe, maybe you could take a stab at this one. how worried are you, give given the budget reality, that that reduction number will go above the $487 billion that's currently projected? if i could piggyback on that

projection. there are a number of studies coming out now that the pentagon's plans to, quote, reduce that spending over the course of the next 10 years, don't really quite add up. what they say get them savings doesn't. it will wind up costing them more than that. do you think it will be more than what's currently been talked about? >> it's certainly possible. if there are reductions we'll do the best we can to accommodate our business. we've done it historically and we'll continue to do our very level best to size the business so that we can deliver against these commitments. i think the greater concern we have is that the resources that are available for national security alined with a strategy of -- aligned with a strategy. >> does anybody else want to comment on that? >> to pick up on the last point, it is yet to be mentioned. this is the first time we've seen in the course of better than 40 years in which every

change and reduction in national security spending in that span of time has been precipitated by a change in strategy to accommodate or to recognize a different threat level. this hasn't happened in this case. this is purely exclusively driven by the financial realities of -- >> if i may -- >> yes, sir. >> we just took $175,000 troops out of iraq. we're drawing down afghanistan. there are national security changes that are precipitated. some of it the budget is part of it. there have been, you know, just like in those previous cases, changes in our national security needs based at least on iraq and afghanistan. >> there has been accommodation to that. i think you also suggest, as you have in your opening statements as well, that much of what we're seeing going forward here is going to be a consequence of the fiscal uncertainty and less about the threat. so it's very difficult.

it's near impossible from where we sit to anticipate exactly what kind of market changes that will involve. and i think very realistically there are pearg back expect -- parring back expectation will look like. and what we are seeing is a gravitation towards second to third tier suppliers to those that are far more commercially oriented. >> it would help if the government have more revenue so it is not forced into as bad of a budget situation. would any of you disagree with that assessment? >> i think the choice of exactly what spending and revenue balance is is more dominantly of your portfolio. and so as a consequence, i'd defer the answer to that, sir. >> that is true. i yield back. thank you. >> thank you. mr. bartlett.

>> thank you. 20 years ago i sat in the most junior seat on this committee and frequently frustrated particularly in important hearings like this that time was going to run out before i came up in the cue. sensitive to that frustration, i would like to yield my time to the most junior member of our committee here, that's mr. west. >> thank you, mr. bartlett and thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. ranking member. i'd like to try to get a little bit more specific. i'd like to know from each of you what are your four major weapon systems programs or developments that you have the most concerned being affected by sequestration and, of course, the corresponding work force concerns as well. so if you could give us that idea of kind of your top four. >> i want to be responsive to your question, sir. when you align the top four with sequestration, one of the challenges we have, our understanding of sequestration is across the board. >> irregardless of sequestration, what are the top

four that you think will cause you concerns if they were affected by sequestration? >> undoubtedly the joint strike fighter program. undoubtedly programs in missile defense, and there's a portfolio associated with missile defense. without question programs like latoral combat ship, excelling combat capabilities. and then an array of classified or intelligence oriented programs. all of which, as we understand the environment, would not be immune so the support service we provided the intelligence community would be adversely impacted. >> how about work force impacts? >> our best estimate, which i admit, is sufficiently crude, i am a little embarrassed to offer it, 10,000 people, but we've done it at the back of the envelope where we've made up the assumption of 120,000 people, in the neighborhood of 10,000, that number could be more or less depending upon

will there be accounts that will be excluded as the chairman and ranking member said. there is still yet information to be determined. we'll shape our outcome there. i think 10,000 across the board is about the best answer i could offer. thank you, sir. >> well, sir, the three i would highlight in particular are the first and foremost, the uh-72 lakota helicopter, the program that is frequently recognized by every audit service and the defense department overall as on time, on budget for over 225 aircraft thus far without any exception to that whatsoever. that could be compromised as the changes and production rates alter, that will almost certainly cost increase per unit and that will be the first time in the entire experience of that program that we would see a cost increase or a failure on delivery. i really would hate to see that record of absolute achievement

compromised or blemished even for a moment. the second, as much as bob stevens described, is the combat ship. we have a lot of interest in the systems that are engaged there for radar and a variety of other activities all of which will turn on whether or not the number of vessels -- commission for production and contracted will be engaged. that's going for an uncertainty for a period of time which therefore takes whole upets and defers them until there is time certainty. and the third is the united states coast guard. often recognized as a very strong support element of the defense establishment and national security overall, we produce most of their helicopters and a good number of their cargo aircraft. all of which by contract at this point have a prospect of being deferred given the very

small maneuverability that this particular agency has for their capital accounts. we don't know what will be. so trying to estimate the number of peoples will be not impossible to figure out what would be involved here until we see what those exemptions are as well as which programs in specific may ultimately have to deal with that if they are all going to be applied across the board evenly. >> for pratt-whitney, we are seeing significant engine delivery reductions in our legacy engine programs. certainly our sole source engine on the f-22, now that program has been terminated, we are finishing up some spare engines. for the c-17 and f-16 where we deliver military engines, both of those program delivery rates are declining as well as they shift largely to international sales. we were counting on the ramp up and the increase in the joint strike fighter program that bob

talked about with our sole source engine there to offset those declines and really kind of stabilize our operation and enable us to maintain our industrial base. as we see that program continue to be delayed, the last recuxes that support the $487 billion in reductions took on 187 airplanes out of the sky. so that impacted our delivery rates. and we were looking for the ramp up in the tanker program. but that doesn't start until 2016 and beyond. so joint strike fighter and tanker will be the most important programs for us. >> the weapon systems, test equipment that we manufacture for all aircraft that we do currently for f-16, f-15, f-18, the a-10 program and the f-35 and some on the f-22. but this concerns me because we

go to the air force bases and recently we saw 1969 technology still being used. do you remember 1969? rabbit ears, transistors. >> i was only 8 years old. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> thank you. mr. andrews. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your testimony this morning. i agree with you completely that i favor repeal of the sequester as soon as we can possibly do it for many of the reasons you very well articulated here this morning. i also acknowledge the responsibility to understand the comments that admiral mullen gave us when he was chair of the joint chiefs of staff in which he recognized that a country that borrows 40% of its operating funds can no longer be a strong country. inevitably, the national debt

is a national security issue. the way we got into this mess is that for five decades people on this side of the aisle and people on that side of the aisle have gone through the following exercise. whenever anybody brought up a reduction in spending, we had hearings about how bad that was and who it would hurt. and whenever anyone brought up an increase in revenues we had hearings about how bad that was and who it would hurt. so we made a series of decisions that you would never make in your fiduciary responsibilities. we made stovepipe decisions about those spending programs and those revenue increases in isolation. that's how you create a $17 trillion debt. how you get out of it is to do things that people do not like. i think most of you would agree that since nearly half of our budget -- i guess more than half of our budget is social security, medicare and

medicaid, that we have to do something about restraining the growth of those programs in an equitable way. i agree. that's why i'm one of the fewer than three dozen people who voted for the simpson-bowles budget proposal, mr. cooper put on the house floor in march. it will stipulate that -- i think you would agree with that. let me ask another question. it's become an article of almost religious faith around here for some members that any revenue increase at any time on anyone should be taken off the table. who here agrees with that proposition? >> let me speak. i don't think you'll hear any of us here today arguing against the need for fiscal responsibility. we have jobs to do running the companies we run. i can look honestly at my colleagues here saying we're first and foremost americans. as possible talked about, we are all making decisions today to deal with the 10% budget reduction that's already been

enacted and being planned on implemented now. we're making decisions in terms of head count reductions. we're right sizing our companies. we're closing facilities, consolidating our footprint, making the tough decisions and taking the tough actions to deal with the need for fiscal responsibility. we i think are supportive of that and understand that. >> mr. hess, if i may, the specific question i asked was, who here would advise the congress to rule out under all circumstances any revenue increase on anyone at anytime? would any of you make that recommendation to us? >> i'd say that i don't think any of us are sitting here today presuming that we have the wisdom to recommend a solution here. >> no. i don't think it's a matter of wisdom. i think you have a lot of wisdom. do you have an opinion? you are an american citizen. you are the leader of a major institution. do you or do you not think it's wise for congress to rule out all revenues on all people at all times forever.

do you think that's a wise congress, -- thing for congress? >> i think you have to put everything on the table. >> i know when we face challenges in our business -- and i don't intend to imply that the challenges that we face come close to the magnitude of the challenges you face on this committee or that congress faces. it makes ours look pale. we try to put in the recipe every possible ingredient that might lend itself to the formation, not just of a solution but in a perfect world a flexible array solution, allows us the flexibility to run the business. philosophically i think you'lly

that in our actions. i think we're held accountable from our board and our shareholders, i think our employees expect it. >> i appreciate that. since my time has run out, i'll give you this context. social security was truly imperiled in the early 1980's and a president named ronald reagan and stepped forward and on two occasions agreed to raise more revenue for us. the reason that social security still exists today. and i think our friends on the other side would be wise to follow president reagan's example in this time of emergency. i yield back. >> all that we had president reagan. >> mr. chairman, i want to first thank you not just for holding this hearing, for being across the country alerting the public to the dangers of sequestration long before anybody else was doing it. and also for actually putting the solution on the table. we're not going to change this by press conferences. unfortunately, the house, as

you mentioned, has passed a solution. second thing i have to do is take issue with something the ranking member said at the beginning because i just believe it to be blatantly inaccurate. we did not get here because the majority of members of the house of representatives or majority of individuals across the country realize the insanity of continuing to allow an irresponsible and uncontrolled massive increase in the smothering debt our nation is mounting. we got here very easily. picture's worth a thousand words. if you look -- joe, if you could hold that one up for me. this administration decided they would spend $825 billion on a stimulus package. $347 billion of interest. if you look at these charts, if they look identical, it is identical, because what actually happened is they decided to spend in one year on

a stimulus package almost the entire amount they are now taking out of defense for 10 years. and even though this package has no measurable significant increase in jobs, we know this is going to cost us between 1.5 million and two million jobs. it's important to know how we got here. but we are not the ways and means committee. we are not here to talk about tax increases. we are not even a jobs creation committee. what we're here for is looking at the national defense of this country and that's what you guys do and you do it very, very well. my big concern as i go back to the 1990's and look at all the cuts in a are taking place, and i am concerned about the $487 billion that we have already taken much less the $1 trillion that's coming, my understanding is we started that decade with 50 major defense firms and we ended up with six prime contractors. we started that decade and at the end of it we had our major

surface combatant shipbuilders and our fixed wing developers fell from six to three. our tactical missile producers fell from 13 to three. and the number of tract combat developers fell from three to two. today there are just two companies, boeing and lockheed martin, that build fighter aircraft. my question for you is what impact do you think sequestration may have that might be similar to the 1990's in terms of weeding out our industrial base and the impact it may have on that over a long-term period of time? >> yes, sir. having lived through the 1990's, i think the consolidation that you described was an effort to size supply for the likely demand that has to equalibreate somehow. another round of reductions on the demand side of this will --

should we try another? there has to be a healthy relationship between the demand for the products and services that we have and our ability to supply them. so the supply chain in some form or fashion will either be graceful and focused and have a good architecture or it won't be, but it will size and shape itself differently to meet the level of demand that exists. >> i think that the shakeout in the market we're seeing right now in the second and third tier of suppliers is already a manifestation of that point. we're seeing either companies consolidate, be bought by larger primes as we've seen in the last few years or simply exited the public market. and have consolidated much more towards the vague reasons some of the commercial trends that occur but at the same time much

more reliable than we're seeing as forecasted over the next decade in the public spending market. i think that's already occurring. it's happening right now. >> i guess i would have to agree with you. i think we're getting to have a very critical point. it's not the big companies you referenced. people like lockheed martin and boeing. where we see a greater concern is with the smaller companies such as represented by ms. williams today. we're down to one company that may has a unique skit set or technology -- skill set or technology that they're consider exiting the business. they'll go pursue or other market. that's quite honestly where we're really starting to see some concern. >> excuse me. i would agree with the gentleman here that this is going to affect us greatly. >> mr. chairman, thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you very much. mrs. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

thank you all for being here. i just want to say as someone representing san diego that i want to thank you for your work on behalf of your employees and certainly their families. and i really relate to what you're saying about people being affected, but as we know it is not just in the defense industry that we see tremendous affect on families today, uncertainty and i know that you have to be concerned about that. how young people are educated today is critically important to our national security and so that's a concern as well. i want to just identify myself with some of the comments and questions of my colleague, mr. andrews, because i think we do want to see this in a balanced way and i call upon you and i hope that you are considering that you obviously need to be very strong advocates which you are for the industry that you represent. but i would hope you would extend that as we work into these very, very difficult issues that we're facing. i wonder if i could count on you to do that to include those

kind of comments as well and the need to balance out and put everything on the table as you suggested. >> i'd be happy to do that. >> thank you. what i want to ask you about, let's be strategic about this. i don't support sequestration. as we said, nobody here does in those kind of across-the-board cuts. in reality is you had to deal with cuts and different ways of really analyzing the work that you do within the budget control act and some of that extends to additional changes that may be made in the industry. and are you in a position today to suggest to us, are there reforms in contracting that you think is critically important to make? we think multiyear contracts, perhaps that could spread out some of the sacrifices, if you will, that might be made in terms of looking at the

strategy that is put in place, the targeted kind of cuts. and i know, ms. williams, you spoke about that as well. what is it that we should and could be looking at? i don't want to say next generation of reform. something you talk about but we don't acknowledge as part of this whole discussion. >> thank you. i'll try first, ma'am. i will say this probably won't sound inventive or innovative in any way. it's interesting about acquisition reform, the fundamentals that seem to keep resurfacing are the same observations we have across the industry. i tell you first is stability. whether that stability is the funding environment or the requirements environment or industry's ability to hire, train, get the right people in the right place at the right time, do those fundamentals, those fundamentals drive this process substantially. secondly, if we could look at shortening the cycle times, cycle times in the industry are getting longer and longer and longer from the formation of a

proposal, the early test phases, it's getting longer and time is money. anything we can do to streamline, simplify and shorten that process certainly would accrue to a portfolio of efficiency initiatives that i think would result in good savings. >> i'd simply offer the recommendations of the defense business board that reports to the secretary of defense, take them up on their suggestion. what they're proposing is simply suspend regulatory environment in which every regulation then has to justify the reasons for its application as is being sought to be applied. otherwise, dispense with it. that is an approach that will sort out this question, not our recommendations, one that the business board made to the secretary of defense in that regard, that's not an unreasonable proposition. it is a documented proposition that costs precisely the same

articles, at least 20% more to sell to the public than it does in any other commercial activity. so sorting out what causes that 20% is one manner that the defense business board has recommended. i'd take them up on their suggestion and do it. >> what do you think keeps us from doing that now? >> i don't know. resolve, commitment, suggestion, whatever. it was just been put forward but it's one that would be worthy i think of inquiring -- and of the office of management and budget what is errant about the logic that this group has recommended forward to be implemented which doesn't suspend regulation. it simply says justify in every term why it needs to be there or else it's dismissed. it's a fairly reasonable proposition. one would love to contribute on every effort because of the

cost of doing business. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your leadership. you have proposed legislation that would address sequestration. in fact, chairman mckeon has led three times in the house. we voted to address sequestration, but sadly the president has threatened to veto. the senate has not taken up the legislation. but the more the american people learn about the consequence, -- i want to thank all of you for bringing this issue up. also, i'm really grateful that bloomberg government has done a study of every state which indicates defense spending. a state near and dear to me -- and this is available for the american people -- is virginia. my mother was born in richmond. i am a very proud graduate of university of lexington and i have a son who is active duty at norfolk. particularly in northern virginia, as you look at the

consequence of defense spending, it's just not northern virginia. it's by community, and there are communities which have over $1 billion which could be affected by sequestration which include mcclain, sterling, arlington, falls church, alexandria, quantico. each one over $1 billion. northern virginia would be such a state affected or district, communities affected. jobs, military families truly are put at risk. it's already been addressed but there's been some confusion about the warn act. the notices of layoffs. 60 days, 90 days, state law. what is it? with a minimum of 60 days, when would persons anticipate through notice of layoff, if each of you could give your point of view? >> i'm certainly no attorney or warn act specialist but i surround myself with attorneys

who is a warn act specialist. it's 60 days with timely notification. puts end of october, early november. new york is a 90-day notification state. i think we set that back. 30 days in time and it would be end of september, early october. >> again, we've already begun to notify members of congress who represent districts in which we operate and do business as well as governors of those respected states that we may be compelled to do this once we in the absence of guidance from the office of management and budget or the defense department. now, that will have to occur sometime prior to that 60-day notification stage. and exactly when is going to be very much contract dependent depending on what advice or guidance we receive from the administration.

>> i think mr. stevens clearly defined the requirements of the warn act and, again, we're certainly prepared to comply with the law. again, given the uncertainty in how sequestration will play out, it's not clear to us that u.t.c. we'd trigger the warn act thresholds but it's certainly a concern that we have. >> as i said earlier, i don't think this applies to me because i'm less than 100 people, but i still want to give my employees an update and bring them up to speed on this because they don't understand what's happening. >> and it's an extraordinary coincidence, each one of you identified a date prior to november 6 which is election day, so this is something the american people need to know. ms. williams, as your company stopped or slowed down capital investment in an effort to conserve funds and in anticipation of sequestration? >> which we have done previously. the way we got our business, a lot of our business was that we

would make prototypes and that's how we developed all these years. but i recently, as i was talk earlier, we went to an air force base and saw the 1969 technology. we personally invested lots of dollars in order to bring this up to current technology. we have done that. we are not through by any means, but we have done that. what concerns me is, will i be able to continue to finish that project? and if that happens i will lose those engineers. >> i just want you to know, i particularly appreciate it. i represent the communities of fort jackson, fort gordon. i currently represent paris island. i want the best for our troops. we -- for their health and safety, we want -- and we do have the best in the world. it really is dependent on your efforts. i want to thank you for your prototype efforts and however

we can help. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing and the witnesses for your really important testimony here today. and i want to also note, mr. o'keefe, your comments regarding the sort of genealogy of sequestration, talking about the gramm-rudman act. there is the concept that is now lost in the midst of time a little bit and i think it's important for us to remember that, again, it was a measure that was used at a time of structural deficit and one of the sponsors of it, then congressman graham, was quoted at the time saying, it was never the objective of gramm-rudman to trigger sequester. it was the threat of sequester, force compromise and action. obviously those are the critical two words that i think is our burden to satisfy here as members is, a, to compromise, and b, to act.

if you finish the story of gramm-rudman, it was a bumpy ride to get to the point where we actually deal with the structural deficit that was at the time and it was not until george herbert walker bush that walked off some sacred cows to help the measure. it put in place pay-go rules. and the budget that president clinton passed in 1993 which changed the tax rates that finally intersected spending and revenue to a point where the first time in our lives we actually had the government public finances in balance. and by the way, we created 22 million jobs during that time period. and when i view the budget control act, which again i join the majority of people in this committee supporting passage, that is certainly the path that i think we voted for or should have been thinking we were voting for that compromised an

action what was we were looking for, not a chainsaw going through the government. and so it's going to require people to move off of pledges and some sacred positions to really fix the problem and, again, we have a historical precedent. we can do this. our country did it. and, again, your testimony, all of you here today, again, reinforces the fact that the stakes are huge if we don't. one issue, which i -- you mentioned, a number of you, is the question, again, having that horizon, that stability which really provides the basis for you to move forward and plan and invest. and coming from a district where the construction of nuclear submarines sakes roughly four to five years, obviously a one-year horizon is not enough. in terms of really trying to, you know, get to that sweet spot of efficiency and quality. and one of the measures that

we've been voting on here is just a one-year fix to sequestration. and i was wondering if you could sort of comment whether or not that in your mind really fixes the problem or just delays it and just again leaves the challenge of trying to do intelligent planning sort of out there for just a short period of time. >> well, we're a long cycle business. our products last 20, 30, 40 years. right now we don't have six months visibility which is short. and we are doing our business planning in one year, three years, five years. i think the best suggestion i could give, recognizing how complex and difficult the actions will be associated with this suggestion is a complete, a comprehensive and durable approach is i think the very best solution. when we look at the challenges in our company, we think a lot about growth.

the growth of our business, and i think you could extrapolate the growth of our country is through competitiveness. that means getting the best talent, investing in that talent, getting the best innovation. that investment cycle is absolutely determined of how much visibility and how much certainty or uncertainty is in the environment. right now there is crushing uncertainty that's limiting all of that. so the more comprehensive a solution that could be put together, the longer duration of that would clear the debt chairs considerably and i think open up businesses to take action that would lead to that kind of growth that we are looking for in our business. >> we are going to break away from this hearing. you can continue to watch this if you'd like at c-span.org. the house is returning in just a moment for their legislative work today. members debating a bill that would require the president to report on what would be cut if sequestration goes into effect in january. after that the house will turn to defense department spending in 2013. a number of amendments are

awaiting. work on that bill could continue into tomorrow. we also expect a vote on the sequestration bill somewhere between 1:00 and 1:30 this afternoon. live coverage of the -- from the floor of the u.s. house. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, reverend stan ballard, middleton baptist church, jonesboro, arkansas. the chaplain: let's pray together.

father in heaven, thank you for this unique privilege you have given me today to pray and ask your blessings on the congress of the united states. i pray for your wisdom and guidance to be given to each member of congress. i pray for your protection for them and their families. please reveal to each of them that they have a great responsibility to vote and conduct themselves according to your divine will and purpose. show them that they are accountable not overwhelm to the voters, but to you, almighty god. thank you for the united states and the freedom and opportunities we enjoy as americans. thank you for allowing us to be blessed by your omnipotent hand for over 236 years. your purpose is for us to share your blessings of love and grace to all people. we pray for our strong economy and for national unity. we are blessed because you are our god. in jesus' name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved.

the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey. ms. woolsey: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, is recognized for one minute. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor for me to introduce our guest pastor this morning, dr. stan ballard. he has pastored numerous congregations and today he serves as pastor to my family church. he's a native mississippian. earned his undergraduate degree in mississippi state university. after graduating, he earned a bachelor's degree from new orleans brantist theological seminary in new orleans. and a doctorate degree in

atlanta. he has pastored churches in louisiana, mississippi, ohio, and arkansas. the pride and joy of his life are his wife and children and grandchildren. during their 42 years of marriage, they have been blessed with three sons and more recently four grandchildren. on a personal level i can say he's been a constant source of guidance for the entire congregation. any time a member of our congregation is in need we can rely on him. it's an honor to introduce pastor ballard and welcome him to the u.s. house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i come to the floor today to call on the administration to inform the american people how they intend to implement the sequester cuts mandated by the budget control act. with the failure of the

supercommittee, we now face the defense cuts that everyone agrees are too steep. secretary of defense leon panetta has said cutting military spending by an additional $500 billion, quote, would do real damage to our security, our troops, and their families, and military's ability to protect the nation, end quote. cuts of this nature would result in us having the smallest ground force since world war ii, the smallest navy since world war i. and the smallest tactical air ir air force since it was created in 1948. independent economists have testified before the house armed services committee that these cuts will quas -- cause massive job losses. mr. heck: the house has passed a plan to replace these devastating cuts, maintain national security, and prevent job losses. today i urge the administration to outline its plan for addressing this situation. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island

rise? mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the international aids conference that will bring 25,000 men and women to washington, d.c., next week. as a country has made incredible strides in the three decades since the first case of the hiv-aids were identified in the united states, in the 1980's, after ryan white, a teenager living in indiana, acquired the disease through a blood transfusion, the family had to fight the local school board that feared he might infect his classmates simply by showing up for school. today men, women, and children with h.i.v. are living longer, more fulfilling lives due to advancement in treatment and better understanding of the disease. just this week the f.d.a. approved the first bill designed to prevent healthy people from acquiring the virus. even today hiv-aids is still a epidemic that primarily afflicts our poorest and most vulnerable citizens across the world and here in the united states. we must continue to work with advocates so that one day we

can finally eradicate hiv-aids. in rhode island, under the leadership of dr. degree, is working to adopt a global vaccine. i wish them great success if their work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i come before you today to not just as a congressman from mississippi's fourth congressional discontribute, but also marine veteran of the persian gulf war and only member in this groid that is currently served as a noncommissioned officer in the national guard simply to say that one of the biggest threats to our national security that we face as a nation are the crippling defense cuts that would put our men and women in uniform at physical risk and more than one million americans out of work. mr. palazzo: it will harm folks bike the 857th that i had the

privilege to send off this weekend as they are about to deploy to afghanistan. or the more than 170,000 war fighters from all across the united states who come through the gates of camp shelby, joint forces training septemberers as part of the global war on terrorism. so today once more i join my colleagues in asking the president and senate democrats to come to the table, consider the solutions we have already brought forth, or propose your own. the american people deserve answers on how these defense cuts will affect them and american soldiers deserve leadership from their commander in chief. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: next week, more than 20,000 delegates from around the world will convene in washington for the international aids conference. i find it ironic and a little bit sad that so many mobilize to fight this deadly epidemic, the majority in this body want

to cut $150 million from u.s. aid -- usaid's global health initiatives which funds aids prevention efforts. when will we learn? fighting diseases in the develop world is more than a matter of humanitarian decency, it's also critical to our national security. this week as we debate how much money to appropriate to the defense department, i hope we'll remember that defending america and our values isn't just about how many weapons we build but how many lives we save arpped the world. this is -- around the world. this is what's behind my smart security proposal, fighting terrorism, keeping our country safe depends less on american military force and more on american compassion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker.

just when i thought the administration's economic policies couldn't get worse, the president's now calling for a tax increase that will hit 53% of small business income. at a time when small businesses aren't able to hire because of the constant threat of hire taxes, that just doesn't make sense. the president's tax plan does nothing to reduce the ever increasing national debt. instead of threatening job creators with more job destroying taxes, we need to cut spending, get our fiscal house in order, and ensure that american families and businesses will not have to fork over more of their hard-earned money to uncle sam. the president should recognize that job creators put their own blood, sweat, and tears into building their businesses and the government shouldn't be destroying small business owners with any tax hike. yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: madam speaker, the american people need congress to take full action to create jobs. while our economy is slowly improving, unemployment rate at 11.9 in my home of san bernardino county. in the last 500 days since the republicans took control of the house, they have refused, i say they have refused to move forward a real plan to put more americans back to work. instead of working to create jobs, republicans have passed a budget that gives away $3 trillion in tax breaks to big corporations and ultrarich. end medicare as we know it. by turning a program into a private voucher system. just last week the republicans again voted to repeal the affordable care act which benefits millions of americans. it's time to stop the political

game and get to work on finding real solutions to the problems we face. we must end the bush tax for the rich, protect medicare, and work to create new jobs for all americans and assuring we don't outsource those jobs as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. last week the president said to american job creators that if you've got a business, you didn't build that. somebody else made that happen. let me tell you, mr. president, the prior to coming to congress i ran my own business for 16 years. where was that president or family person he claims created my business, where were they when i was driving 60,000 miles

a year chasing business, or signing the loan paperwork at the bank so i could make payroll or keep the wheels turning on my vehicles? the only other person there when i started my business was my wife who supported me in so many ways. this comment by the president of the united states clearly shows that neither he nor anyone in the administration know anything about creating jobs or running a business here in america. may god bless the real job creators in america and may god continue to bless this great nation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? le the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: thank you, madam chair. next week marks the launch of the 19th international aids conference. bringing together advocates and leaders from all over the world. the conference's presence in the united states for the first time in 20 years is a testament

to the hard work that members of the hiv-aids community, including many in my district, and my colleagues in congress, like my dear friend, barbara lee, have done. in the 20 intervening years we have for the first time in a generation seen infection rates go down within the united states and stabilize abroad. despite these steps, however, it is clear that we are still losing the war to keep minority communities. rising infection rates in the african-american, latino, asian, gay, and lease beian communities are a stark -- lesbian communities are a stark reminder our work is not done. it is critical that our nation's capital is hosting this event as it is the epicenter of this rising problem. washington, d.c., has a higher hiv-aids infection rate than most places in africa, primarily in the minority communities. from legislative action to grassroots efforts, now is the time for more commitment to h.i.v. and aids not less.

more advocacy, not less. more research, not less. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. pence: madam speaker, i rise with a heavy heart to remember two hoosier national guardsmen who fell in kandahar province, afghanistan, on 16 july. this week. army specialist, sergio eduardo and specialist nichlas an crew taylor of verne, indiana. perez, crown point, indiana. both loves their lives in the same attack. while courageously supporting combat operations. specialist perez and specialist taylor both served with the 713th engineer company of the indiana national guard based out of valaparaiso, indiana. perez was born in indiana, enlisted after graduating from high school in 2010. by all accounts he was a young man who could get along with everyone. he was the pride of his family and would do anything for anybody. .

army specialist nick taylor from a town in my district, vern, indiana, despite receiving several offers to play college football after graduating high school in 2010, he signed up to serve his country in the indiana national guard. he was a hard worker, a man of integrity, excelled in everything he tried, and he was active in the first missionary church. our hearts in indiana are heavy as we remember those who lost their lives wearing the uniform on our behalf and those they left behind. on behalf of all hoosiers, i extend our condolences to their families, especially sergeant taylor's parents and sib lynns and specialist perez's family. it's said the lord comforts the

broken hearted and that shall be our prayer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> in the wake of the tragic crash of continental flight 3307 in my community, congress passed airline safety reform. while time rules have begun to be released for these reforms, there are still many regulations yet to be finalized and implemented. mr. higgins: yesterday, congresswoman jean schmidt and i, along with our colleagues, sent a letter about finalizing long overdue rulesen crew training this this would mandate additional training and evaluation requirements, ensuring that those working aboard an aircraft are best equipped to handle the situation. the national transportation safety board found that between 1988 and 2009 inadequate training was found to be a leading factor in 178

accidents. the flight of 3407 was -- the crash of 3407 was preventable. each day these rules go unimplemented is a risk to the flying publicful i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to congratulate recently appointed president mildred garcia for the cal state university system's fullerton campus. president garcia currently serves on the committee on the commission for educational excellence for hispanics and she was apointed to that by president obama. ms. sanchez: peevesly serving

as the 11th female president for california state university dominguez hills, she became the first latina president in the cal state system in 2007. she began her career as an educator, she's still an educator, still teaching at cal state fullerton while having the presidency also. she is a scholar. president garcia focuses much of her research on the fairness for higher education policy and practice. she has authored many books on the subject. i wish her great success in her new position and again congratulations, millie. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the welt is recognized for one minute.

>> i rise to support removing our troops from afghanistan. we went into afghanistan to get those who attacked us on september 11, 2001. osama bin laden has been brought to justice and al qaeda has been largely crushed. our troops have done their jobs. mr. schrader: our troops are given their lives in afghanistan. it's time for afghans to stand up for afghanistan and it's time for us to do our job to bring our troops home. we have tens of thousands of troops fighting a ground war in afghanistan. the $88 billion we're talking about putting into afghanistan in this appropriations bill this week could be put into our

own infrastruck cher rebuilding roads here at home. it is ludicrous to spend so much rebuild orge countries when our own problems are so large and persistent. our greatest leaders say our greatest threat is not -- is economic. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: this afternoon, we take up the transparency act, it's harmless enough but it doesn't do anything. what is it? a year ago, mr. boehner and mr. mcconnel took this country to the brink of debt default they demand an offset for the increase in the debt limit. their plan was get the job done

but if they -- if that failed, they had a backup, automatic cuts that would be half pentagon and half discretionary. now the day arrives, january 1, 2013, those cuts go into effect. but they don't want them to go into effect. so this legislation tells the congressional budget office to look at the law we passed and tell us, what did we do? why did we do it? what will happen if what we ordered to be done is aloud to be done. this is a comedy central joke. we have to have a balanced approach to a serious problem but that means making decisions today about a balanced approach that includes revenues, includes the pentagon, includes domestic discretionary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? for what purpose does the --

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> thank you, madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for the courtesy of allowing me to speak at this time. i want to join my colleague, congresswoman barbara lee in acknowledging that this weekend we will begin the international aids conference. ms. pelosi: it will come to america with a fitting theme, turning the tide together. there's a long history in 1990, expert scientists and political officials from across the globe gathered in san francisco, in my district, for the international aids conference to turn our promise of leadership into progress. since that time, however, the conference has never returned to an american venue for two deck kids. -- for two decades.

next week when the conference assembles here in our nation's capital, the world will see how far we've come. together we will commit to turning the tide, as the theme indicates, toward the next phase in our fight, a cure and an end to h.i.v.-aids. consider what this congress has done. creating housing opportunity for people with h.i.v., expanding access to medicaid for people with h.i.v., but not full-blown aids, that's an early intervention, increased investments in research, care, treatment and prevention by more than half a billion dollars and response to global challenge and the leadership of congresswoman barbara lee we have supported global solutions, increasing funding for the bilateral aids efforts, making the first american contribution, congresswoman lee, to the global fight to footh aids, tuberculosis and malaria in 2000.

working with presidents bush and obama to establish pepfar. i know it's a source of great pride to president george w. bush, the leadership he provided, the support he gave, and the pride i think he takes in pepfar. we salute him for that. president obama has continued that work. we're doubling the support for global health initiatives and doubling our investment in the global fund. these commitments and more have helped families in the united states and the vill as of africa and communities worldwide for these actions -- worldwide. these actions have saved lives and there's much more to do. with the international aids conference coming to washington, d.c., we have an opportunity to recommit ourselves to the cause of a world without hiv-aids. that is the challenge that is the goal. we can turn the tide together. after 20 years in congress nothing surprises me much anymore but one thing that does is that after all this time we

don't have a cure, but we're hopeful. with the aids conference, when it opens its doors next week, we must stand united in our pledge to discover a cure and raise up an aids free generation. science is making progress. we have a moral obligation to support that. it has been done in a bipartisan way under president bush's leadership, under president clinton, under president obama. hopefully we can continue to do that. we can and we must work together to make hiv-aids a very, very sad memory and not part of our futurism thank you, congresswoman lee, for your tremendous leadership, locally, globally and in every way and certainly in this congress of the united states. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker. a message if the president of the united states. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr.

secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president 240e6 -- by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. it's clear that my republican colleagues cherish the many tax loopholes that funnel billions to oil companies, outsourcers and operators bent on repealing wall street reform. that's why they killed the disclose act, which would close loopholes used by special interests to secretly spend on elections. mr. deutch: it did not include the right to buy elections anonymously. s the plup congress that protects the identities of those writing the multimillion dollar checks.

they want a battle of bank accounts because they can't win a battle of ideas. they can't run on deregulating wall street when america's fpsrble security is at risk. they can't run on blocking taxes -- on taxes for -- on tax cuts for millionaires when they've destroyed the middle class. if my republican colleagues believe they're worthy of competing in the great battle of ideas that is our democracy, they should put their mouth where their money is and pass the disclose act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam chair, this past friday the 13th, the president was on the campaign trail, as he seems to be all the time, he had the nerve to say, if you've got a business,

you didn't build it, somebody else made it happen. that statement shows not only the contempt but the arrogance that this president has toward our small business owners and the people working hard out there in a tough economy and in many cases working hard in spite of the many rules and regulations coming out of this obama administration that's making it harder for them to create jobs. mr. scalise: that's one of the biggest reasons we have seen so many jobs outsourced by the president who could be called the outsourcers in chief for all the millions of job that was left this country to go to other countries in the last three and a half years. a report came out yesterday by the national federation of independent businesses that showed the president's newest tax proposal to raise taxes on small business owners will cost 700,000 jobs. that's friday 13th for every small business owner out there, trying to get the economy back on, trying to keep their businesses anote. that's over 10,000 jobs lost just in louisiana.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded that it is not in order to engage in personalities with the president. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. . ms. hanabusa: when the supreme court decided citizens united, it lifted the floodgates to special interests. this country is for the first time a small member would influence our elections, something we never experienced before. let us remember it is our election, our right to vote which makes us a great nation that we are. it is what people have gone to war for and died for. but now we are seeing the buying of america. we have been told there are about 600 superp.a.c.s that raised over $240 million, and they have already spent over

$113 million on our elections. we do know that the republican donors' famous brothers who they with their friends who spend about $400 million in the upcoming election, and we also know there is a republican donor casino ownor who has already spent $71 million to effect their elections. we can't prohibit the spending but we can require transparency so that the public knows who is spending this money. this is the disclose act. but, madam speaker, republicans have stopped the vote under the disclose act. the democrats have signed a discharge petition to bring it up to vote. we must bring it up to vote, madam speaker. we must show the people that america is not for sale. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: madam speaker,

despite our economic challenges, agriculture is one of the bright spots in our economy. last week the house agriculture committee in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion sent a simple message, we need a farm bill now. we have challenges in america and agriculture to be sure. such as the very prices fluctuations, the current drought affecting crops nationwide. and creating a level playing field for farmers to compete in foreign markets. this bill isn't perfect, but there is a great deal of consensus in it. our farmers need certainty and only a farm bill can give them that. there are 11 days left for the house to vote on a farm bill before the august recess. the american people are tired of congress bickering just to keep the lights on. this legislation has bipartisan support in the committee and in the united states senate. madam speaker, the leadership of this house is serious about

providing certainty and promoting economic growth, they will bring this legislation to the floor for a vote now. the farm bill has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. let's keep it that way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: madam speaker, twice this week senate republicans blocked a vote on the disclose act, which would shine a much needed light on the dark corners of secret anonymous political spending. the bill stands on a simple idea, voters have the right to know who is trying to influence their vote. this year alone more than 600 super pax have spent $13 million on outside ads, most of which have been negative and many dishonest. much easier to lie about a candidate when you are anonymous and can't be held accountable. the american people see the damage being done. more than 3/4 of voters believe campaign finance reform is a key national issue and the vast

majority of americans oppose the citizens united decision which opened the floodgates for outside spending and dishonesty in an election. even in the decision, the supreme court anticipated that congress would require disclosure as a critical means of providing transparency in campaigns. madam speaker, the voters have a right to judge the credibility of campaign ads. they can't do that without disclosure of those paying for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. speier: thank you, madam speaker. i regret to say that america is for sale. and the white house will go to the highest bidder. 17 people have given $1 million to the biggest conservative p.a.c.s in this country. and those contributions represent more than one half what those p.a.c.s have

received. who are these 17 people? well, the median age is 66. the median wealth is $1 billion. and they are interested in a couple things. they want to eliminate inheritance tax. they want to extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. and they want to slash the highest tax bracket. let's talk about some of them. mr. aidleson, he's contributed $25 million, $10 million to mr. romney's restore our future. what is $10 million in his budget like? his $10 million is a contribution in a $24 billion worth of worth. how does that compare? that would be like a $40 contribution to someone whose net worth was about $100,000. mr. aidleson can give a lot more money with much less effort. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: when six wall street megabanks control 2/3 of the wealth in our nation, it's too much economic power in too few hands. when undisclosed billionaires spend billions on political campaigns and they crush the voices of ordinary citizens, it's too much political power in too few hands. america must put an end to the influence of secret money on our elections. the disclose act of 2012 would shine the light on the secret money in political campaigns, but the republican leadership won't bring it up. even though americans, 3/4 of our voters think campaign finance reform is a key issue for the election, and 69% of the public believes that superpacks should be illegal. jet house republican leaders refuse to bring up the disclose act. it's long past due that we put power back in the hands of

other ordinary citizens. let's rechannel the billions being wasted on campaign overkill to help our seniors afford food and balanced the national budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within the 90-day period prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in executive order 13581 of july 24, 2011, is to continue in effect beyond july 24, 2012. the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations have reached such

scope and graphity that they threaten -- gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. such organizations are becoming increasingly sophisticated and dangerous to the united states. they are increasingly entrenched and the operations of foreign governments and the national -- international financial system. thereby weakening democratic institution, degrading the rule of law, and underline miening economic markets. these organizations facilitate and aggravate violent civil conflicts and increasingly facilitate the activities of another dangerous persons. the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the united states. therefore i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 13581 with respect to significant transnational criminal organizations.

signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection on clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5872, the sequester transparency act of 2012. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up the bill as amended. mr. ryan: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: occupyon calendar number 417, h.r. 5872, a bill to require the president to provide a report detailing the sequester required by the budget control act of 2011 on

january 2, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5872, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: madam speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: madam speaker, here's basically why we are here today with the sequester transparency back. because the super committee was unable to agree on a deficit reduction package, the office of management and budget will implement a $110 billion billion across-the-board cut which -- billion across-the-board cut which we refer to as sequestration on january 2, 2013. this comes after on defense,

half on domestic discretionary. in other words, $55 billion cut, 10% cut to defense immediately, and then $8% cut to domestic discretionary. but we do not know the actual reductions that will result from the sequester. as we debate this bill today, we will probably not be able to avoid the contentious issues on the sequester, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the bill before us simply directs the office of management and budget to tell us how they'll implement the sequester. we are asking for more transparency, more details within 30 days, they should give us the plan how they'll do this. this bill is essentially about transparency. it's not relitigating the budget fight. it's about making sure that we have as much information as we can to make the right decisions. it's about carrying out a constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and we fully understand the budget control act see quester how it's going to be implemented. it has strong bipartisan support, the house budget committee voted 30-0 to report

this bill here to the floor. and the senate has passed similar legislation on a bipartisan basis. with that, madam speaker, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i support this legislation as the chairman of the budget committee said, it passed unanimously out of the budget committee. i believe that more information is better than less. i also believe from the comments i have heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we also agree that we have enough information to know right now today that a across-the-board meat ax approach to reducing the deficit, the sequester, is a reckless way to deal with our budget. we have heard a lot about the impact of the cuts on defense. secretary panetta's talked about those. we have heard a lot less about the impact of the cuts on other

important investments, such as those in biomedical research, and a coalition recently reported that the cuts to the national institutes of health alone would reduce -- cut 33,000 jobs, that means fewer people investigating cures on treatments to diseases that plague every american family. that's one small example on the nondefense side. madam speaker, i believe given what we know we should be focused today and every day on avoiding the see quester. and in the budget committee proceedings, the democrats offered a alternative approach, i have it right here in my hand. it called for a balanced approach to replacing the see quester, the kind of balanced approach that every bipartisan commission that has looked at our deficit challenge has recommended. it included a combination of cuts such as direct payments in excess of farm subsidies. it also included cuts to things

like big oil companies, eliminating taxpayer subsidies. and that plan would totally replace the see quester for one year and it wouldn't have to have the deficit -- the impact that we have heard about. so great to get more information. may have a unanimous vote here today on the house. but let as take a balanced approach to reducing our deficits and let's take a balanced approach to replacing the see quester. i reserve the balance of my time. -- sequester. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the author of this bill, the chairman of the house republican conference, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, we know our nation faces very serious threats overseas, but we also

have a very serious domestic threat as well. and that is our national debt. a debt that has increased more in the last three years on a nominal basis than in the previous 200. thus the budget control act, budget control act, because as the chairman of the house budget committee pointed out, the supercommittee, of which i served, as did the ranking member, did not prove so super. we are staring into the face of a sequester. . i would like to compliment the chairman for his vision in bringing a proposal to the sequester but i'd also like to compliment the democrat ranking

member for also offering an alternative man, one i disagree with, one that by my reckoning includes 73% tax increases, but he should be applauded and house democrats should be applauded at least for recognizing the draconian defense cuts that could do real damage to our national security, as secretary panetta has said, quote, the -- they will do real damage to our ability to protect our nation. though i compliment the ranking member, i find it more channeling to compliment the democrat senate majority leader. senator reid has said, quote, i'm not going to back off sequestration. that's what he has said. thus we are looking at a 10%

real cut in our national defense. madam speaker, i also picked up monday's edition of the "washington post," not exactly known as a bastion of cop servetive thought, and i read the headline, quote, democrats threat ton go over fiscal cliff if g.o.p. fails to raise taxes. so on the one hand, again, this is a very simple piece of legislation. that i've co-authored with the chairman of the house budget committee. it simply says, mr. president, since under sequestration you get to call a lot of the shots, according to the congressional budget office, quote, the administration's o.m.b. has sole authority to determine whether sequestration is required and if so the proportional allocations of any necessary cuts, all this is is saying, mr. president, show us your hand, show us your plan. let the american people know what the true impact is going

to be on our national defense, on our economy, on a number of vital service. because you have the discretion. that's all this bill does. but i fear to some extent it may mask another agenda of what the debate is really about. madam speaker, i need not tell you, we continue to face the weakest, slowest recovery in the post-war era, and there are some who seem to have an ideological passion for raising taxes on the american people. an earlier speaker got up in an earlier debate and said that the largest small business group in america, the national federation of independent business, has just released a new study saying that the president's tax plan will cost 710,000 jobs, jobs of working families, and those same working families will see their

wages fall by 1.8%. so why would we want to raise taxes on anybody in this economy? some are points out, we need to reduce the deficit, and we do, but madam speaker, if you do the math, give the president the top increase in tax rates in the top two tax brackets, not only does it destroy jobs, it's about 2% to 3% of his 10-year spending budget. it harms jobs and doesn't solve the problem. i fear it is a diversion from the failed policies that we have seen from this administration that has created the worst unemployment crisis since the great depression. but i would hope that we would at least have a growing consensus that we shouldn't decimate national defense and there should at least be transparency, and i urge my cloogs to support the sequestration transparency act. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for hi comments about the supercommittee, we all wish it had succeeded but it did not. it was a privilege to serve with my colleague if texas. just a quick correction on the math. under the budget control act, we cut tchrs 1 trillion if the budget. 100% cuts. the alternative that the democrats have proposed to the sequester takes a balanced approach of additional cut bus also revenue. in fact the one-year proposal we put forward puts additional cuts in direct payments, excessive subsidies around the farm bill. yes, we also eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. former president bush testified that when oil is over $50 a barrel, you don't need

taxpayers shelling out money to encourage oil companies to invest. we think we should eliminate those subsidies to help remove the sequester, including the sequester defense. the reason we're here is that our republican colleagues deliberately chose as part of the sequester to put defense spending on the chopping block, along with other spending. that was the choice above an offer to deal with revenue as part of a sequester. when the choice boiled down to cutting tax subsidies for oil companies an other special tax breaks or cutting defense, republicans chose to put in the sequester cutting defense. now, i know we have a hearing today in the armed services committee, i see the distinguished chairman on the floor today. i have to commend him because he has said before that if we were -- if he were faced with

that choice, he would take that next, more balanced approach. that ultimately is what we'll have to do. that's the approach that's been take bin every bipartisan commission that's looked at this challenge. with that, i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, a member of the budget committee, ms. schwartz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. schwarz: thank you and i appreciate -- ms. schwartz: thank you and i appreciate the couldn't to speak on the issue before us. i do support there being better information on the impact, sequestration which is the automatic spending cuts scheduled for next year. sequestration which would trigger those automatic cuts was put in place to force corning to work to find bipartisan, balanced approach to deficit reduction. today's legislation does not move us any closer to achieving that goal. time and again the moneys in

congress rejected a balanced approach that would include spending cuts and revenue and economic growth. they reject a plansed approach that would protect our nation's short-term economic recovery and create the right environment for long-term growth. they reject a balanced approach that's been recommended by every bipartisan commission that would move our country forward by making tough yet responsible choices on the deficit and would reflect american's priorities and build americans' economic strength. the american people deserve to know the impact of across-the-board cuts resulting from the failure of the republican majority to find that common ground and avoid sequester. but they also deserve real solutions, something they have yet to deliver. the house republican budget takes a partisan, one-sided approach to deficit reduction and relies solely on spending

cuts and directs the $100 billion cuts next year from sequestration to come only from one part of the budget, nondefense discretionary. all of the $100 billion cuts next year would come from our domestic priorties, health care, education, scientific research, transportation, law enforcement, to name a few. their budgets failed to acquire other, even larger parts of the federal fwounlt reduce costs and be more effective. it failed to protect our fragile economic recovery. they should work together with democrats to make a real deficit reduction economic growth package for the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized mr. ripe: when we hear a balanced approach --

mr. ryan: when we hear a balanced approach, it means keep feeding higher spending with higher taxes. the problem is the arithmetic doesn't add up. you cannot tax your way out of this mess. spending is a cause, we need to address our spend, the sooner we do it, the sooner we get back on the path to prosperity. with that, madam speaker, i yield five mins to the distinguished chairman of the house armed services committee and ask unanimous consent he be allowed to yield such time as he chooses. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california will control the time and is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him and chairman ryan for bringing this pill to the floor. mr. mckeon: it is greatly needed. barring a new agreement between congress and the white house on deficit reduction, over $1 trillion in automatic cuts, known as sequestration, will

take effect. although the house has passed a measure that would achieve this necessary deficit reduction, avoid sequestration for a year and give us time to work on it outside of an election year pressure, the senate has yet to consider any legislation. now i hear a lot of good ideas from the other side, they talk about increased revenue. all i'm saying is, put it down on paper. we have a process by which we work. it's outlined in the constitution of the united states. one body passes legislation, the other body passes legislation, a conference committee is formed and the differences are resolved, goes back to the bodies for final passing and then goes to the president. for his signature. we have taken action in the house, we're waiting for the other body to take some action. the president weighed in on

this. he submitted a budget. his budget sought $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, he followed the process. that budget was defeated in a bipartisan, bicameral manner. now we need another bill that we can work on. this impasse and lack of a clear way forward has created a chaotic and uncertain budget environment for industry and defense planners. compounding the issue is a lack of guidance from the administration on how to implement sequestration. we just held a hearing in the armed services committee where we had industry leaders come in to tell us the problems they're having on getting guidance. you know, i come from a small business background. nothing like building planes or ships or botes or the other things our war fighters need to carry out their mission. and i might remind people that we are at war, we do have war

fighters going outside the wire as we speak every day putting their lives on the line and they're watching us. they're watching what we're doing, they're wondering if they're going to have the things they need to carry out this mission and to return home safely. my business, as i said, was small, family business. we were in the western wear business, we sold boots and hats in a retail way and we would go, my brothers and i, family business, would go to the market in january, we would buy for our needs for the next six months, we would buy shirt, hats, jeans, boots, and then our suppliers would go to pliers -- to their suppliers and buy the things they need to make those things, they would ship them to us in an order hi manner and we would have the product on the shelves when our customers came in in february, march, april, may. these industry leaders are asking for a little guidance. all they know is the law as we

have it now kicks in january 2, says that there will be no thought, no planning, just we take out the budget and cut every line item a margin, 12%, 20%, whatever it is, realizing we're already a quarter of the way into the year. one of the leaders gave us this quote in this conference, this is shawn o'keefe, president and ceo of aods north america. i quote. most immediately, the administration must communicate its sequestration implementation plan to the public, our armed forces and to industry. the current uncertainty has effectively put sequestration and its consequences in motion. in the absence of any guidance, industry is already holding back investment, questioning back investment, questioning the fairness of