decades been dumping everything we don't like on land and can't figure out where else to dump it into the ocean. at the same time we take whatever we want out of the ocean. well, you dumping and taking can upset the system so badly that you have oceans dying, and certainly we have big parts of the ocean that are dying because of all the debris and waste that are in the oceans. what this bill does is allow the coast guard, working with noaa, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, to jointly look at, monitor and figure out ways in which to clean this stuff up. if we don't do that, we're going to suffer. . . it is like living in i think those of us who have done ocean legislation over the years realize that in solving

the problem is going to require local action, it's going to require national and international coordination, it's not our ocean alone, it's the, you know, it goes all over the world and things in the ocean, think of the old stories about bottles and where they end up. now we saw with the tsunami that all this japanese land mass stuff that was washed to sea is now showing up in skea and showing up in oregon and showing up on the beaches in california and in capitoa, where i live. this problem is also going to require some partnerships, the fishing community that knows where the drift nets are, and from public sectors, it's going to require innovative techling in to the tect it. we have found nets left in monterey bay that are too heavy to lift out with the conventional craft. we have to go back to the fishing boats and the families who lost those notes and use their fishing boats, which is a

private enterprise, supported by public know-how of how to retrieve the nets. that's exciting. it's going to require education so people don't keep dumping things they don't want in the ocean. california is now addressing it in every local community by just stormwater, the fact that all the watter that falls on our streets and roads, picks up oil, picks up other stuff, that isn't compatible with ocean life and washing into it. we have that a lot to clean up sewers and say we're not going to dump that stuff out in the ocean, but we're still allowing other stormwaters to get at of there. california is addressing this almost community by community. in one town we dopped -- stopped stormwater and polluted stormwater from getting into the ocean. this legislation re-authorizing debris cleanup is much more than just giving noaa money to go out there and figure it out. it's really entire program of

figuring out how to keep oceans healthy. so i appreciate the bipartisan support, i appreciate the leadership of mr. young, and i appreciate the leadership on the committee. this bill went to two committee the transportation and infrastructure committee and to the natural resources committee and both committees passed it out in bipartisan fashion and now we have to pass it to the senate. i hope it's not too late. i hope congressman young will work with me in getting bipartisan support in the senate to get this bill to the president and get it signed before the calendar year runs out. with that, i yield back the remainder of my time and thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, for your patience. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i want to thank the gentleman from california. mr. farr has been one of the leaders and concerned with the oceans and this debris bill is crucially important especially to the state of alaska. mr. farr came to me many months ago and said, we've got to get this done, got to get this done.

now we get to a point where we see what's occurring from the tsunami. we may not have that reoccur again but trash that's in the ocean is detrimental, as i mentioned in my opening statement, to the fishermen, which i represent, recreational people, which i represent. get it out of the ocean even before it reaches the beaches, that's crucially important. beaches are sometimes fun to beachcomb but if there's something bad in the ocean we should try to retrieve it sooner and when it gots there we want to be able to take care of it. there should be more money, i won't disagree, but we're moving this down the road and we'll see what happens on the senate side and see if we can't get more effort because it's a partisan, not a partisan, it's a partnership program. that make this is thing work. a lot of people in alaska are trying to clean the beaches, we're trying to get people more interested in cleaning the ocean up before it does arrive.

with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- mr. young: i have no further speakers, i yelled back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 11 1 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and with without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2446. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady seek to call up the bill as amended? does the gentlelady seek to call up the bill as amended? mrs. biggert: as reported. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 455, h.r. 2446, a bill to honor home owner warranties and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert and the gentleman from

georgia, mr. scott, each will control 0 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i do have the -- i do have the bill as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the screalt is recognized. mrs. biggert: i rise in support of h.r. 2446, the respa home warranty clarification act and ask my colleagues to support the bill. h.r. 2446 is a bipartisan bill that mr. clay of missouri and i introduced last year. the bill has 40 co-sponsors, including 13 democrats and 27 republicans. i thank the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, for managing this bill.

on march 27, the financial services committee reported out the bill by voice vote. the respa home warranty clarification act would amend the real estate settlement procedures act of 1974 to clarify that as long as a consumer or borrower receives specific disclosures about it, a fee paid to a real estate broker or -- related to the sale of a home warranty is not a respa violation. when congress passed respa in 1974, it intended for the law to provide consumers or borrowers with timely disclosures related to to the cost of real estate settlement service. title insurance, a fund elevation certificate and homeowner insurance are a few examples of services required at a mortgage settlement. unlike the settlement services, a home warranty is not required. for a borrower or consumer, the

purchase of a home warranty is optional. it's a contract under which a home warranty company provides repair or replacement coverage far home's system components and appliances. a real estate broker or agent typically acts as a representative for the home warranty company that offers the home warranty and the real estate broker or agent receives a commission from the home warranty company for presenting the home warranty to the home buyer if the homeowner chooses to purchase the warranty. congress origin in a -- originally delegate -- delegated respa rule making and enforcement authority to the department of housing and urban development, h.u.d. for nearly 20 years, from 1974 to 199 , h.u.d. issued no rules or guidance related to the sale of a home warranty by a real estate broker or agent. in 1992, h.u.d. issued regulations adding homeowners'

warranties as a settlement service but was silent on the matter until recent years citing no evidence to demonstrate a problem with home warranty related sales practices, commissioned arrangements, disclosures or the product itself between 2008 and 2010. h.u.d. issued an unofficial staff interpretation letter, interpretted rule and subsequent guidance. in short after 34 years with no apparent problem with the product that is not required for closing, h.u.d. determined that under respa, it is a violation for a real estate broker or agent to be compensate bid a home warranty company for offering a home warranty to a were rower in connection with a real estate transaction. mr. speaker, h.u.d. clearly is seeking to create a solution where there simply is no problem. h.u.d.'s unfounded interpretation doesn't follow the letter of the law as

intended by congress. according to witness testimony, received by the financial services subcommittee on insurance, housing, and community opportunity this misinterpretation of law has resulted in unnecessarily disrupting long standing business practices that could increase the cost and decrease the availability of home warranties to consumers as well as unintentionally harm small businesses. h.r. 2446 would clarify long standing law and practice while restoring certainty related to home warranties in the real estate marketplace. i like to -- i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. clay, for working with me on this bill and i'd like to thank the gentleman from georgia for managing this bill and i'd also like to thank the bill's 40 bipartisan co-sponsors from across the country. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2446 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the

balance of her time they have gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 2446, the respa home warranty clarification act. but before i explain exactly why this legislation is so important and vital, let me first take a moment to thank my friend and colleague and my fellow financial service committee member and the sponsor of this legislation, mrs. biggert, for her hard work on this bill. the fact that this bill passed both subcommittee and full committee by voice vote is a testament to not only the issues important -- issue's importance but also to mrs. biggert's dedication and openness in alleviating members' concerns. regarding the bill itself, mr. speaker, this legislation will help small businesses.

it will help real estate professionals. and most importantly, it will help homeowners by clarifying the law on the sale of home warranties. congress enacted legislation many years ago to outlaw kickbacks paid in connection with services that must be performed to close a federally related mortgage loan. an interpreted rule released by the department of housing and urban development has unfortunately created uncertainty about application of the law to home warranties. which are not necessary to close a loan to purchase a home. to eliminate confusion and reduce uncertainty, our bill makes clear that the term settlement services does in the include home warranties. this legislation also provides new notice requirements applicable to home service contract companies and to real

estate professionals so that prospective purchasers of home warranties are aware that a payment may have been made in connection with the selling, advertising, marketing, or processing or performing an inspection in connection with a home warranty. this clarification will allow members of the home warranty industry to pay modest sums to real estate professionals for direct marketing and related services in connection with the sale of a home warranty without a risk of running afoul of a law congress never intended to be applicable for a completely optional product. this is a simplification of this law. it's very important. it's very simple. but it's very important so that

our real estate industry and home mortgage tri-can move more smoothly. so please join me in voting for this commonsense legislation that will benefit consumers and the small businesses that repair and replace home systems covered by home warranties. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i have no further requests for time. if the gentleman is ready to close? mr. scott: likewide, i'm ready to close. i want to say in closing, mrs. biggert has done a wonderful on this, to be commended for it. this is an important, simple piece of legislation that will help iron out or smooth out confusion and allow for our real estate and housing and home mortgage industry to move more smoothly and url i urge my colleagues to vote for it and i yield back my time. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: i thank you for your time and i urge my colleagues to support the bill as amended and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2446 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table bill s. 3363 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3363, an act to provide for the use of national infantry museum and soldier center commemorative coin surcharges and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of this bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass bill h.r. 3187 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3187, a bill to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the march of dimes foundation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, and gentleman from georgia mr. scott control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. dold: i ask all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous materials on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dold: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dold: i rise in support of h.r. 3147, the march of dimes commemorative coin act. i'm proud to have introduced

this bill and worked closely with my friend and colleague from new york, congresswoman nita lowey. this legislation authorizes the minting and issue in 2015 of a commemorative coin honoring the 75th anniversary of the march of dimes and recognizes their landmark accomplishments in maternal and child health. surcharges on the sales of these special coins will fund critical research and programs to support healthy mothers, healthy infants, and healthy families nationwide. mr. speaker, it's summertime across our nation and back home in our districts, children are playing outside with friends or going swimming at the pool. but more than 75 years ago, children stayed indoors during the summer. their parents wouldn't let them go to the park or to the pool because out brass of polio. polio back then could strike any child and no one knew what the cause was. the march of dimes is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1938 by president

franklin delano roosevelt with a mission to eradicate polio. and in f.d.r.'s day polio was an epidemic disease that paralyzed or killed up to 55,000 americans, mostly children each and every year. even the president had polio. so during the great depression, citizens sent dimes, four bill one of them, to the white house to fund polio research. that effort funded the research by doctors sauk and sabin that produced the vaccines to eradicate polio in the united states and much of the world. in the quest for a vaccine, the march of dimes supported many other research milestones in newborn and child health. for example in 1953, the march of dimes grantee dr. james watson identified the double helix structure of d.n.a. and in 1962 won the nobel prize for mapping the human genome.

another research breakthrough, mr. speaker, came in 1960 when the march of dimes supported research that developed the first screening test for p.k.u., a rare metabolic genetic disorder that caused intellectual disabilities. since that time, the march of dimes has led the effort to expand newborn screening. now every baby born in the united states receives screening for dozens of conditions that have the potential to cause catastrophic health problems or death if not detected and treated properly at birth. today the march of dimes is leading the nation's effort to reduce premature birthday. -- birth. every year nearly half a million infants are born far too soon. in my home state of illinois, almost 13% of all infants are born prematurely. preterm birth is the leading cause of death among newborns. many of those who survive face a lifetime of serious health problems. including cerebral palsy,

intellectual disabilities, chronic blood disease, and vision and hearing loss. preterm delivery can happen to any pregnant woman and in nearly half of the cases, no one knows why. the march of dimes national prematurity campaign funds a robust portfolio of research and education programs designed to unveil the causes and address the risk factors of preterm birth. for example, the march of dimes is working with hospitals to implement best practices that discourage early elective deliveries before 39 completed weeks of pregnancy. thanks to the dedication of the march of dimes and others, the united states has seen a decline in prematurity rate for four consecutive years. the march of dimes has an extraordinary history of achievement, more than four million infants are born every year in the united states and the march of dimes helps each and every one through research, education, vaccines and

breakthroughs. the commemorative coin will help fund these vital, important program activities. h.r. 3187 has broad bipartisan support in both chambers of the congress with 304 co-sponesors here in the house and 68 in the united states senate. this legislation complies with all statutory requirements for the commemorative coin program and the coins will be produced at no cost to the american taxpayer. to claim the surcharges, the march of dimes will raise matching funds from private sources. mr. speaker, i'm proud to have sponsored this bipartisan bill, and i'd like to thank the congresswoman from new york, representative lowey, for hjertstedt fast leadership and hard work to see this day become a reality. i'd also like to thank chairman spencer bachus and ranking member barney frank for helping to get this bill here today. i'd also like to thank my friend from georgia for representing time on the other

side today and his leadership as well. and mr. speaker, for 75 years, the march of dimes has dedicated itself to helping all infants get a healthy start. to get a healthy start in life, which is what i think is very, very important. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting for h.r. 3187, the march of dimes commemorative coin act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. -- i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to lend my support to this extraordinary and wonderful piece of legislation, an expression of strong bipartisan support. i certainly want to thank my friend, congressman dold from illinois for his leadership on this, and it's a pleasure to join with him on the floor today to manage time on this bill.

and this bill, h.r. 3187, as was pointed out, the march of dimes commemorative coin act, for 75 years now, the march of dimes organization has worked to prevent infant mortality, premature birth, and birth defects in our children in the united states and other parts of the world. and i can think of no better time and place to honor this wonderful organization than right here and right now in the halls of congress. this organization was originally founded by president franklin delano roosevelt to help treat and prevent polio. the march of dimes would meet with tremendous success and through their founding of the work of dr. jonas salk would contribute greatly to curing that disease. having accomplished their original goal, the march of

dimes would now turn their attention to promoting healthy women, healthy pregnancies and healthy babies. the march of dimes foundation works not only here in the united states in local communities around the country, but as i mentioned, also around the world, to educate and inform both women and doctors and policymakers on the prevention of birth defects and premature births. this work is so vital, so very important, and really so very precious, mr. speaker. as a healthy pregnancy and a healthy birth can mean so much and start the child off on the right foot that will last the rest of their entire life. this bill is simple, mr. speaker. it would allow for the minting, the making of a commemorative coin which basically will be a silver one dollar coin for this wonderful organization. these coins would then be sold

to the general public with a portion going to pay off the cost of minting the coin, but the rest going to support the very, very important work of this foundation. so i ask, mr. speaker, that my colleagues join me in voting in favor of this bill, and in so doing will be sending a big thank you to the march of dimes for their hard work and for their dedication over the last 75 years. and mr. speaker, i also mention the fact that we also support them each year in our special cooking and preparation for their nature fundraisers that members of congress and our families and our wives take part in. what an extraordinary organization during an extraordinary thing for those who are most precious to us. and that is the children of the united states of america.

thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. dold: mr. speaker, before i yield, i want to thank my good friend from georgia, mr. scott, for his leadership and support of the march of dimes. and he talked a little bit about the recent fundraiser the march of dimes held where members of congress were actually cooking for this fundraiser. what he failed to mention was, i believe mr. scott and mrs. scott for that matter actually won the cooking contest. thank you again. it was one of the few places we went back for seconds. we really appreciate that. at this time i'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from illinois, for two minutes. john: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman from illinois for yielding and commend him for his hard work on this bill and i rise in support of the bill, h.r. 3187, the commemorative

coin act of 2011. this bill recognizes the tremendous achievements of the march of times and protecting the health of mothers and infants across the united states. founded by president franklin roosevelt, as was noted, in 1938 the march of dimes was instrumental in eradicating polio. the organization then turned its sights on birth defects, premature birth and infant mortality. for decades, the march of dimes has been on the forefront of medical research. it educates parents and medical professionals about healthy pregnancies and has helped significantly expand access to neonatal intensive care for premature and sick infants. h.r. 3187 recognizes the accomplishments of this great american success story of goodwill and public service and it celebrates the 75th anniversary of the march of dimes through a commemorative coin. i'm pleased to have been an original co-sponsor of this

important bill, and i urge my colleagues to join us in paying a fitting tribute to an organization known as the champion of all babies. with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers so i would just close my remarks. again, it's a pleasure working with you on this bill, mr. dold. . what a noble occasion this is for this noble cause. i give all credit to my wife for that cooking, i think she did shrimp and grits, i think, yeah, and gumbo, her mother's gum oh beau and it won first prize at that event. thank you. it's such a wonderful occasion and to have all members of congress who participate with this fundraising every year is wonderful. i just urge certainly a

unanimous vote on that. again, it's been a pleasure working with you on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. >> i ask unanimous consent that the exchange -- mr. dold: i ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committee be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dold: i want to commend my colleagues, this is a bipartisan bill, talking about the commemorative coin act for the march of dimes a wonderful organization that help prospect our nearest and dearest and our children. i want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and support and urge a quick and swift passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3187 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h r. 4104 with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4104, a bill to require the secretary of the

treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the pro football hall of fame. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. renacci, and the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. renacci: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. renacci: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. renacci: i rise today to urge approval of h.r. 4104, the pro football hall of fame commemorative coin act. since being introduced on february 28, 2012, we have gathered 294 co-sponsors. i'd like to give a special thanks to representative stivers and shore for helping me collect such a large,

bipartisan group of co-sponsors and i would like to thank che chairman and ranking member os they have house financial services committee, representative bachus and representative frank for their support. the bill before us celebrates the 50th anniversary they have pro football hall of fame, the pride of canton, ohio. the hall opened its doors on september 7, 1963. six legends were enshrined that day. sammy bau, red green, jim thoirp, these were the first of the 273 men who are now enshrined in the hall of fame. i must add that 23 of those members are from ohio. americans are all walks of life have enjoyed the game of football for decades and the pro football hall of fame ensures the achievements of the gridiron greatest will be remembered and preserved for generations of future fans. since its opening almost 50 years ago, the pro football

hall of fame has attracted more than nine million visitors to ohio from across the world. through its media and internet outreach, nearly 15 million more participate in hall-related activity thesms pro football hall of fame's efforts go beyond preserving the history of the gride iron. two of the hall's core missions are educating youth and promoting positive values. a few highlight programs exemplify its missions. camps for kids, designed to promote good nutrition and physical finance. the hall's black history month program which details the african-american experience in professional football. the hall of fame reader, a kindergarten through 12th grade literacy program and teacher workshops if barrage watt and continuing education studies. these educational programs are designed to strengthen core curriculum knowledge and skills across key learning areas, the arts, geography, health,

history, language arts, math, and science. mr. speaker, this legislation recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of our sports heroes but it also will help support those exceptional philanthropic efforts. each coin will be sold for an amount that recovers all real and imputed costs and a surcharge so there's absolutely no cost to the taxpayers. once the hall raises matching funds from the private sector, it may claim the surcharges to renovate its property and carry out its mission. i urge all members to support this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meeks: i want to thank the sponsors of this bill, i want to thank the gentleman from ohio for putting this bill, having this bill on the floor, indeed the pro football hall of fame is the pride of canton, ohio, it is also the aple of the eye of all americans. when we think of the national football league, we immediately think of the grand names of football history. the gentleman from ohio named the initial inductees, initially coming in, my mind as individuals, such as jim brown. or jerry rice or johnny ewe nigh das of -- unitas, joe namath, these are household names that are now in the hall of fame in the national football league. but we forget that the national football league and the hall of fame says we are giving back.

we're not going to just be involved in keeping the fame and the records of the nfl. we understand that we are a -- an american sport, so we're going to give back to the american people. especially our young people. our children. who, like i, growing up, idolized many of the players that are now in the hall of fame. so what the hall of fame does is to make sure that it gets involved in programs that the gentleman from ohio just talked about. camps for kids. to help them promote nutrition and physical fitness. we often hear in this society that we're talked about, people are too obese. well, the nfl recognizes that. and the nfl hall of fame, a pro football hall of fame, as a

result, make sure there's programs promoting good nutrition, eating good foods, exercise, particularly it's been very important to me, when i look at the hall of fame's black history month program, which details the african-american experience. i can recall growing up with my father talking about marianne mot lee with the cleveland browns at the time and the history that he played in helping and promoting others and this gives us all-around history about every american. kindergarten through 12 graders. a literacy program. we talk about the need to make sure that our young people are able to compete. you can't compete if you're not literate. the pro football hall of fame makes sure that every child

that it can touch will also be a reader. we want to be competitive in health and history and language and arts and math and science. the pro football hall of fame has a program it takes throughout america to help make that happen. so, this commemorative coin act will help them at no cost to the taxpayers. run these programs and preserve its facilities so that it can continue to build the legacy of a strong american game but of also making sure that all of america's children and all of america's people have an opportunity to grow up, to be literate, to be helpful -- healthy, and to be competitive, globally, with anyone. so indeed, i urge all of my

colleagues to vote aye for the pro football hall of fame commemorative coin act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. renacci: i ask unanimous consent that an exchange of letters between the committee on financial services and the committee on ways and means regarding this bill be included in the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. renacci: thank you. mr. speaker, i also want to thank the gentleman from new york for his inspiring comments and i would agree that you know, the pro football hall of fame is a great asset not only to the city of canton, the state of ohio and to america. the accomplishments that it provides other than just enshrining assets are a great asset to this hall. so with that, i would reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

mr. meeks: i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. renacci: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time, i ask my colleagues to join me in passing h r. 4104 and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4104 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.

the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h r. 3706 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 435, h r. 3706. a bill to create the office of chief financial officer of the government of the virgin islands and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house prules and pass the bill as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, an without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the question on suspend the rules and -- suspending the rules and passing s. 270, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: senate 270, an act to direct the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal land to deschuttes county, oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing s. 271, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: senate 271, an act to require the secretary of agriculture to enter into a property conveyance with the

city of -- with a city in oregon and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules -- the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question of h.r. 3796 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize certain programs established by the adam walsh child protection and safety act of 2006. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those present having voted in the affirmative, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

table. the speaker pro tempore: the unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1950 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1950, a bill to enact title 54, united states code, national parks system as positive law. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many as are in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those being in the affirmative, the rule is suspended, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 5120 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 430, h.r. 3120, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to acquire -- require the accreditation for certain educational institutions for purposes of a

nonimmigrant student visa and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those present having voted in the affirmative, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 6029 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar 443, h.r. 6029, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rule is suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

table. the unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 6063 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 459, h.r. 6063, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, with respect to child pornography and child exploitation offenses. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 4362 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 460, h.r. 4362, a bill to provide effective criminal prosecutions for certain identity thefts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 6062 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 457, h.r. 6062, a bill to re-authorize the edward bird memorial justice assistance grant program through fiscal year 2017. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1550 as

amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1550, a bill to establish programs in the department of justice and in the department of homeland security to help states with high rates of homicide and other violent crime and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. so many arrests in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 12011, the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, is recognized for 35 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. edwards: they say he who pays the piper plays the tune. but unfortunately in today's campaign finance system, it's just like one johnny one note and it's about millionaires and billionaires. i arrive today, mr. speaker, to speak on an important issue, the fact is our democracy is

for sale to the highest bidder, superp.a.c.s, millionaires and billionaires are taking over our elections and doing what ordinary individuals don't have the capacity to do and the impact on policymaking and elections is debilitating. and it makes that voiceless the very people, mr. speaker, who most need a voice in these very troubling times, our seniors, young people, poor people, working people, women, middle income families, small business owners, all of them have just been shut down because of this system. but it's worse now than it was even in the dark days of watergate. before coming to congress, mr. speaker, i spent nearly 15 years in my career actually working on issues related to campaign finance reform, election law, voting rights, and government ethics. from my time as a lawyer to my service as executive director of several nonprofit organizations, and i just can't

think of a worse time than this time that we're living in now. the complexity of balancing important constitutional considerations is really important but with appropriate public policy is also important. and we're just not striking that balance. in fact, mr. speaker, if you think about it, in the days following watergate and the reforms that came thereafter, much of the way that we thought about our campaign finance system, that we thought about the role of money in politics and its relation to policy-making was almost completely circumscribed by pretty much one decision and a couple of others, the buckley v. bairkd system and we could not have imagined the landscape we have today. here we are facing the supreme

court 2010 decision in citizens united versus the federal election commission. now, you would think that a lot of people would not really be familiar with any one supreme court decision, but in fact, all across this country, people are outraged by that decision because it has been devastating to the political system. now, mr. speaker, my congressional district is in the metropolitan washington area in the maryland suburbs, so we get the benefit in this area of hearing advertising that comes on television from virginia. now, virginia is a battleground state in the presidential elections, so that means that we get to experience in maryland, where we wouldn't ordinarily all of the elections advertising. and what we see is ad after ad and you can't even read the small print on the ad. you don't know who is paying for it. you don't know where it's coming from and you don't know what's behind it because none of that is disclosed.

and you hear hammering one candidate or hammering another candidate. so here you sit as an ordinary person at home wanting to get up and take care of your family and make sure that your kids are ok, and this political system has gone amuck and awash in campaign dollars. money coming from all sorts of sources. but what citizens united did was it upended the role of the people in the process. it took away our voice in the face of unlimited, undisclosed sources of money that did not in the past have a place in the campaign finance mix. well, mr. speaker, i think this can't continue. we can't allow it to go unchecked. it's been too debilitating to people at home. it's having an impact -- it has an impact all across the board on participation, on whether people feel they have a voice on policy-making, on the candidates who choose to run

for elective office or not. and i can understand why the american people feel like, you know what, i just want to shut down because the system simply isn't working for me. and so here we are, mr. speaker, and i'm glad to have this opportunity to say a few words this evening because we're 97 calendar days away from the november 2012 election. but we're 16 legislative days away. and that means that congress, every elected member of the house and the senate, has 16 legislative days, 16 days of opportunity to restore sanity to the campaign finance system, to let the people know we actually care about whether their voice is important versus the voices of the millionaires and the billionaires who get to set the agenda. 16 days. there's a lot you can do in 16 days. or you can do nothing. and that's the choice that we have today. so there can't be any doubt

that in fact we've entered a really unprecedented era in our political system where super-p.a.c.s -- i didn't know what a spr-p.a.c. was and most americans didn't but we know now where one person, one vote has been more appropriate for a history lesson than a description of the electoral process. and how did we get to this framework that allows a free reservation in to outside corporations and their treasuries, to the wealthy allowing them to raise cash to influence the american election? the question really is, we got here because of citizens united. so two years ago the supreme court in a 5-4 ruling said, you know what, we're going to invalidate everything we've known about the campaign finance system, the federal election campaign act which has been rendered pretty much useless, the bipartisan, and i'll repeat that, bipartisan, mr. speaker, campaign reform

act that was a way that republicans and democrats came together for things like disclosure and limiting contributions and circumscribing the role of money and politics and in a 5-4 decision, the united states supreme court threw it all out. in doing so, what the court did was struck down long time prohibitions against corporate use of general treasury funds for independent expenditures and for communicating an election. now, what the american people need to understand, mr. speaker, is that means that no matter what corporation you are, maybe you represent insurance companies or the financial sector or the energy sector, or any number of sectors that certainly hire a lot of employees, and they have shareholders. but what they said is the supreme court said is we're going to reach into the corporate piggy bank and we're going to allow corporations for

the first time ever really in our modern day politics to spend their money directly on campaigning. now, mr. speaker, corporations have name brand identity, so they don't do this willy-nilly. so what do they do? they pass it through an organization that's a shadow organization, and so we don't know where that money is coming in directly until until -- until after the fact. maybe we see it on a television screen that passes right by, mr. speaker. but the fact is the american public doesn't know. now, there have been long settled cases in this country that said corporations didn't have the ability to spend out of their corporate treasuries when corporations are formed for all kinds of reasons, but not really to spend out of their treasuries like people, real people can and should in the political process, but

citizens united changed all of that. then came another case. now, keep in mind, this is just in the last two years that our system has been completely upended. then came another case called speech now versus the federal election commission. and what the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia decided was that contributions to political action committees that only make supposed independent expenditures can't be limited. . that's right. these have come to be known as superpacs and why are they so super? because it's unlimited money and it's just gushing into the political system. in states all across the country that are the favored battle ground states, people in those states and states like north carolina and virginia and ohio and other states can actually

see that money firsthand because it's just being spent like crazy. and you know what? with 97 days, mr. speaker, left until the election, there will be more. in fact, i think that the american people will be so sick and tired of the advertising and not knowing who's behind it and the cross messaging and things that may or may not be true but you have no way of checking it, the american people are going to be so sick and so outraged that they will continue to demand, as they have been, that we return some sanity to the system. these court decisions of course have said that corporations have equal rights to those as an individual. can you imagine that your local corporation that does a great job of hiring people in your community is on par with an individual when it comes to making a political contribution? but that is in effect the land

that we live in right now. the result has been a stunning influx of money that threatens to erode our democratic process. and leads us even lower voter participation rates. -- leaves us even lower voter participation rates. this was heralded by justin stevens and his descent -- dissenting opinion in the case. answered couldn't be more press yent. he said, he warned that it would, quote, undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation. well, you don't have to look very far, mr. speaker, to know that the american people understand and believe that our institution is about as low as you can go. i mean, all of us have seen the numbers. and it can't be separated, the way that the american people feel about our elected officials, feel about our elected institutions, feel about the ability of our institutions to respond to their everyday needs. we must know that that is deeply

connected to the role, the perverse role of money in politics. i don't have to tell the american people, mr. speaker, you don't have to tell the american people because they know. they know in their gut that it's actually wrong for corporations to reach in their treasuries and spend on campaigns. they know in their gut that it's wrong for a handful of millionaires and billionaires to control the agenda, to control the policy, to control the message. they know it's wrong. now, just as kennedy -- now justice kennedy in his majority opinion, and remember the majority won in citizens united, stated that, quote, independent expenditures simply do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. clearly the justice has not really participated in politics. because you don't have to look very far to know that in fact the corruption is actually rampant. now, there is the appearance of

corruption, maybe not outright, nobody's buying or selling a vote. that's not the point. but the point is that it appears to be just really dirty. most people look at our politics, they look at the nastiness, and you know what, mr. speaker? they just want to wash their hands. now, it's possible that this flow of superpacs into elections would allow for independent expenditures, but the fact is there's nothing independent about it. it's not independent when a family member starts a superpac. it's not independent when a former business partner starts a superpac. it's not independent when former colleagues and co-workers start a superpac and then begin spending on elections. not very far from the candidate. and the american people understand this. now, we can try to pretend that it's something different.

but it's nothing different. the op operations of these superpacs provide a stark contrast to the flawed assumptions that the court made in its ruling. it's up to us in the congress, in 16 legislative days, 97 days before this important election, to change that dynamic. to say that for the future, that for going forward we understand that there's no role for this kind of money in our politics. there's no role for it in our elections. and so although these organizations have been supposedly declared independent by the courts, the reality is that they flout the coordination rules that have set up, that supposedly would keep them independent. staffers, family, friends of a particular candidate that the superpac is supporting. no great secret. in fact, coming out of the

republican primary election, it was no secret at all who the millionaires and the billionaires were putting their money behind. and so while the official campaign and the candidate are allowed to keep their hands clean, and i use that term loosely, clean, these shadow arms of a campaign are used to launch unrelenting attacks against an opponent that they pretend or that are unaffiliated or with a particular candidate or an election strategy. it's almost laughable. and in fact i think people at home, when they're not tuning out, in fact they're laughing at us. justice stephens warning materialized initially in the 2010 election. i know that i recall that because for the first time in our history, corporate and wealthy individuals really began to flood the airwaves. and here we are in 2012 and in

that two-year interim, boy, have they figured out this system, mr. speaker. and it's all over the place. flooding the entire electoral process. in the 2010 election cycle, the spending by corporations and outside groups actually multiplied fourfold from the 2006 election. going to nearly $300 million. astonishing at that time. but you know what? you haven't seen anything yet. let's take a look at where we are today. from 2008 to 2010 the average amount spent for a house seat, that is for a winning candidate, increased 32% from about $2 million to over $2.7 million. but as we know, the worst really was yet to come. at the start of the 2012 republican presidential primary, we really began to see the creep and the crawl and the impact and

the danger of citizens united. and the results, as i said, were on full display in iowa. superpacs there actually outspent candidates 2-1. that's right. the so-called independent expenditure groups outspent the actual candidates. the superpacs had a bigger voice than the actual candidates for the republican primary. republican presidential hopeful and former speaker of this house, newt gingrich, who at the time actually supported the supreme court's decision, what did he see? he saw his poll numbers plummet after a barrage attack of about $4 million in negative advertising that was paid for by, restore -- for by restore our future, a superpac supporting president romney. the same group then poured nearly $8 million into the florida primary, with winning our future, a superpac,

supporting former speaker gingrich spending ads 6 million ad bite. let's look at the numbers. and i'm sure the american public, mr. speaker, must be saying, i can't believe they spent that much money on politics, but surely they do. and after being targeted by restore our future, former speaker gingrich, who, keep in mind said that he had supported citizens united, concluded, quote, i think, referring to the unanimous ads, that it debilitates politics. he said, i think it strengthens millionaires and it weakens middle class candidates. i couldn't agree with him more. i could not agree with him more. mr. speaker, the landscape has continued to darken as we march toward the general election. groups are collecting and planning to spend enormous sums of money. american crossroads and priorities u.s.a. reportedly plan to raise and spend $240 million and $100 million

respectively on the election. just recently national public radio reported that republican superpacs and other outside groups including karl rove, the koch brothers, and tom donahue of the u.s. chamber of commerce, supposedly independent, plan to spend combined $1 billion before election day. that's right. the american people need to understand that. $1 billion. unless we think that this is just about republicans, democrats are trying to play, too. it doesn't matter who's playing. it's wrong. according to the center for responsive politics, as of august 1, that's today, 705 groups have organized as superpacs and have reported receipts of over $318 million in independent expenditures already of more than $167 million in the 2012 election cycle.

that's as of today. and here we are, they've got 97 more days to raise more money, to spend more money and to do all of that under cover. i want to put it into stark contrast. because just a couple of weeks ago, just two weeks ago, the number stood at 678. today it's 705. who knows what it will be next week. with receipts of $281 million, but now those receipts are $318 million. now, can you do a little math and a multiplier? because this thing is like rampant fire all across the country in this election cycle. the growth is really out of fire. citizens united will continue to allow superpacs to permeate the airwaves with distortions, with half truths, and all of that in an attempt to alter the

political discourse. this is not about what candidates are saying individually, because it's hard to even hear directly from them because we're hearing so much from superpacs. now, i can recall that many years ago, when i began working on issues of campaign finance reform, mr. speaker, it was the republicans who said, you know what? we don't all that other regulation but we love disclosure. it turns out that now in the day when the majority opinion in citizens united declared that the one thing that wasn't offlimits is actually disclosure , and so democrats put forward a disclosure bill called disclose, introduced by my colleague from maryland, chris van hollen, all -- many of us have signed onto it. that disclosure bill was brought up in the senate, it's been brought up over here in the house, and you know what? it's gone nowhere. and so the same people who said over the last 0 years or more,

even since that and more, have said, we support disclosure, we are robust supporters of disclosure, but not today. not today, mr. speaker. not today. they don't want to disclose anyone, any individual, any corporation that's behind these contributions. and why is that? it's about politics, mr. speaker. it's because maybe it's working in the favor of those who don't want disclosure. who don't want their names out there. who don't want the american public, whether it's in my district or any other district, to know who they are and to know what's being spent. now, of course i envision that like many members of congress, you could run the risk as a member of congress to be sure to speak out against this, you know, nasty, dirty, unlimited money in our politics and run the risk that they'll all gang up on you. i'm going to take that risk, mr. speaker. because i happen to believe that

the american people are sick and tired of it. they want us to do something about it. it's important for us to speak out about that. because otherwise we lose everything. we lose participation, we lose people, you know, wanting to be involved and engaged in politics, wanting to run for elective office. and those who pay the piper just get to carry off in the process. we can't allow that to happen. and so i believe in disclosure, but i don't think we can end that disclosure. i think we have to go a step further. we want to promote that kind of transparency, though, in the political process. we want to enhance public reporting by corporations and unions and all outside groups. i'm happy to let anybody know who's funding my elections. all of us should be pleased to do that because we know that it contributes to public confidence in us as elected officials. i want to stand by any ad and

say i approve this message. well, a corporation should stand by and say that they approve that message too. i want to know who's behind that -- those ads. and so i think we still have 16 legislative days left in this congress, bring disclose to the floor. it's time to do the right thing. now, i don't control the agenda on the floor, mr. speaker. the republican majority does and so they do have the capacity to bring reforms to this floor before we do anything else. . i think thm campaign finance problem requires other things, too. and i supported the fair elections act, now act, that's in the senate. s. 750 and here in the house, h.r. 1504 and modeled after successful programs in the states. now there are some people who believe the states, are the

laboratories for democracy. the states have responded in ways in which you can fund campaigns to encourage different and more diverse people to run for elective office, that you could clean the dirty money out of the system so we aren't governed by making phone calls to ask people for money and fund our campaigns. i think fair elections now actually does that and that's why i have supported it. and what would happen we have created a voluntary program where congressional candidates could qualify for funding to run for campaigns. in exchange, candidates, what i would do as a candidate is agree to strict campaign limits and forego all private fundraising. and to the american public, what i would say is, if you don't own your elections, then who does? and right now, we know we don't

own our elections, mr. speaker. we need that kind of reform. so i believe those interim reforms are really necessary. but as an attorney and someone who has spent decades working on campaign finance. we have to go further. congress, you don't have any authority to regulate except by doing disclosure. to me, mr. speaker, what that means, it requires serious consideration of an amendment to the constitution. and i don't take that lightly. in fact, as an advocate and donor long before i came to congress, i spent the better part of my career shunning reform groups who wanted me to work on reforms that required us to amend the constitution and i always said no. and the reason is because i think amending the constitution is a serious step.

requires serious consideration. but here, the supreme court really hasn't left us any choice. and in fact, in a couple of cases from citizens united, they have said so. they have said, congress, you don't have the authority to regulate campaigns except to the extent that you do disclosure. i made a proposal to amend the constitution. i worked with lawrence tribe, noted constitutional professor, worked with colleagues here in the congress, including then house chairman of the judiciary, john conyers in the last congress. we introduced that amendment in this congress, because i think that the time is now. and i have always questioned the rationale for the court's decision but i have done a reality check because writing this decision requires us to start in the halls of this congress and requires us to

continue on with the states with a constitutional amendment. i have introduced this amendment and i know there have been a number of other constitutional amendments introduced. just last week, i testified over in the senate judiciary subcommittee on the constitution, where there is consideration of constitutional amendment in the senate. now is the time. the other thing that we can do in these legislative days, in addition to bringing the disclose act to this floor is to convene serious hearings among serious people that amending the constitution so we can restore sanity to our system and make sure that our sit science' voices count more than about going into the corporate treasury. i think it's important to put something on the table. and so, i urge consideration by this house of house joint resolution 78, which is an

amendment to the constitution that goes at the very limited track of saying that congress, indeed, has the authority that it needs under our constitution to make the changes that we need to campaign finance system to make sure elections are earned by the american people. really simple thing to do and take it to the legislature. because so many of my colleagues have introduced constitutional amendments also, many of us have joined with people across this country, millions of people across this country who are calling for us to be on the side of democracy. and we have had -- we have signed on to a declaration for democracy. i'm a proud person for democracy. and so we have 275 cities and towns from new york to boulder to los angeles, all across the country, big cities, small

cities, who have called on a declaration for democracy, passed citizens united, anti-citizens united resolution, and we might differ, but that's the job of the united states congress to hear all sides and hear from constitutional scholars about how we need to do this and do this together for the american people. over 1,854 public officials across the country including 92 members of the house, and senators and business leaders across the country have said it is time for us to take a stand for democracy. they signed this name to our declaration for democracy. i would encourage all of our colleagues before you leave town, sign your name to the declaration to -- for democracy. show the american people that we stand on their side. so there is no doubt that it's a

bold step to amend a document that's only been amended 27 times. and some have questioned the need to fix the problem with the constitutional amendment. but the supreme court pretty much answered that question. the supreme court has also said, you know what? if congress wants to do something, then congress has to act in this way. so i don't question that the supreme court made the decision. i accept that. it was a 5-4 ruling, that's the way the our system works. the other part of our system is that free-thinking members of the united states house of representatives and of the senate come together to do what's right for the american people. so, mr. speaker, here's what i would say, in closing, millionaires and billionaires are doing what ordinary citizens

can't do anymore. and you know, they have all the string. and i can understand, mr. speaker, there are people at home who just really aren't sure where they sit in this system. they aren't sure what it means for their elected officials to be responsive for them because they believe there is somebody out there who has more money and as a result, more power, and as a result, more influence than they do at home. and i have traveled all across this country and i have to tell you, it doesn't matter whether you are in maine or montana or all the way down through the south of this country and all across this great landscape where people really want to feel that they have some power, that they have some influence. and mr. speaker, they just don't have that right now. and you know, when i think about who has the power, mr. speaker, just going to close here,

because our democracy -- i just don't even know another way to say that there is a for sale sign on the doors. and i see poor old uncle sam and he is looking pretty sad. and i never seen a more sad uncle sam. and he is shack willed by $ -- shackled by karl rove and $61 million from only 26 billionaires and from $39 million by who knows who else. and uncle sam shackled by the koch brothers and we could put a

lot more up there, mr. speaker, but it's time for the united states congress to remove the shackles of the money from uncle sam so we don't continue to sell our democracy. it is time for us to remove the shackles and say, you have to play just like the person who combiffs $5 or $1 and not a lot of people give a lot of money to political campaigns. i understand that. i would close by urging us to use the 16 legislative days that are left to restore democracy and restore sanity by asking the american people to restore the american campaign finance system and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the the

gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann is recognized. mrs. bachmann: i ask members that have five legislative days to include extraneous material on the subject of my special order and today mr. speaker, we mark the 20th anniversary of priest its for life. and i yield one minute to my friend, jean ohio. mr. smith: i want to three -- mrs. schmidt: i want to honor dennis scherer. i have stoord with the arch bishop in front of planned parenthood praying the ross ari. i have watched him get on a bus and come up here for the march

for life. and the archbishop is another pro-person. and my own parish priest who again has come up here to washington with a group of students, st. andrew to march for life. but in his own personal life has witnessed his brother and sister-in-law with a very challenged girl, who not only exemplified what the meaning of life is but as she passed earlier this year has become a portion of the right to life movement in greater cincinnati. i thank you and i yield back my time. mrs. bachmann: i now yield to mr. walberg of michigan, three minutes. mr. walberg: i thank you for

having a tch special order. one of our colleagues shared a poem with me on the floor one day and caught my attention and called the "anvil." i heard the andville ring, the investigate percent chime. old hammers worn with beating eyes. how many do you have, and all these hammers just one, said he and with twinkling eyes, heament is out. and the masters' word, skep particular blows have beat upon. and the falling blows was heard. and the hammers gone. the father and others who command the interest in life understand the power of truth. the truth that comes with the

creator, a creator who has designed life itself for good and for the best interests of all. in our great document, the declaration of independence has said we hold these truths to be self-evident and all men are created equal and endowed by the creator with certain god-given rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and so, mr. speaker, i would just refer back to the truth. and if if we think about life and honor, an organization like priests for life and others who understand the truth that are contained in words like this, behold children our gift of the lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. of the prophet said in the womb i knew you before you were born, i set you apart. that's life, before even the

womb was open. and in that beautiful saum, you form my inward parts. i will give thanks to you to i'm wonderfully made, wonderful are your works and my soul knows it well, my frame wasn't hidden from you when i was made in secret and wrought in the depses of the earth and written all the days that were ordained for me for as yet was not one of them. father frank we thank you for your work and the prefts for life and we thank all of those who stand for life. and mr. speaker, i thank this body for the opportunity to speak that god created life for a purpose and must adore it and continue on. i yield back. mrs. bachmann: i now yield to mr. chris smith, a leading voice

for the unborn across the united states, representative chris smith of new jersey. . mr. smith: i along with countless others have been moved, inspired and motivated to defend the weakest and most vulnerable among us by the remarkable life and pro-life witness of father frank pavone. ordained to the roman catholic priesthood in 1988, the father celebrates 20 years since the founding of priests for life. the organization he so effectively leads. a prolific writer and gifted speaker, the father takes the gospel message of love, forgiveness, truth and reconciliation, both to friendly audiences who draw encouragement from his messages and to those, especially post-aborted women, who suffer and are in deep pain. i've heard father pavone

challenge priests to more robustly defend the sanctity of life, especially in their homlies. in promoting the gospel of life, he insists no venue should be forsaken or ignored. whether it be from the pulpit or in the public square, the father couldn't be clearer. speak out with candor, clarity and compassion. silence is not an option. silence i've heard him say does a woman contemplating abortion no favor whatsoever. she needs pro-life options, real alternatives presented in a meaningful way. she needs understanding and genuine support and others who might help her need to know that their willingness to assist might be the difference between life and death. in like manner, the father and executive director janet morane are unceasing in their efforts to intangibly aid post-aborted women who often suffer not only

physical damage from abortion but life-long negative emotional, psychologicalal and spiritual consequences. the silent no more awareness campaign provides a safe place for women who have had abortions to grieve and find peace. amazingly father pavone also steadfastly reaches out to the actual purveyors of death in the abortion industry. this good priest sees not just the abortionists and the enablers committing violence against women and babies but what might be if we genuinely care about their souls. father pavoen reminds us that we are to pray for them. care for them, all while tenaciously opposing the deeds that they do. abby johnson, a woman who ran a planned parenthood abortion clinic for eight years in texas, said of the father, he has been a staple in my house for many

years. even during my planned parenthood years. i enjoyed watching him even ifs i dis-- even if i disagreed. everything seemed plaque and white for him, right and wrong was clear. abby johnson goes on to say, i remember watching him during the terry shiveow tragedy. i was drawn to his gentle spirit. i had seen two sides of him or was it? one side was so unabashedly unapologetically and passionately against abortion. the other was a man who had an incredibly compassionate heart and a kind spirit. this was the man who was helping a family grieve the loss of their daughter. but now i see they are the same. father frank is for life, all life. his compassion for life fuels

his passion. mr. speaker, priest for life turns 20, doing best what it has done so faithfully, defending leeflt of these least of these as if they were the lord himself. i thank my good friend for yielding. mrs. bachmann: i thank you, mr. smith, and your important pro-life voice and thank you for the years of steadfastness on this issue. and we do thank father frank pavone and also priests for life. i'd like to yield to a member from nebraska, mr. jeff fortenberry, an important pro-life voice here in the united states congress. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentlelady from minnesota for the time and thank you for your stalwart and courageous stand for life tonight. women deserve better than abortion and of course celebrating an extraordinary organization such as priests for life, who try to protect those who are most vulnerable, is an extraordinary cause. mr. speaker, as my colleagues and i gather on the floor, i am going to turn the subject to

another matter. because we are possibly marking what could possibly be considered one of the most significant turning points in the history of our nation, but it is not a cause for celebration. in america we have a legacy of principle that undergoes our nation and makes it possible to create prosperity. not just material means, but a flourishing of the potential of each person. and where does that principle come from? well, we've all heard the line from the earliest of our founding document, the declaration of independence. it goes like this, we've heard -- we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. this is the operative philosophical paradigm of our culture. so much so we don't even think about it. that our rights are not conferred by a king or a government, they are inherent

based upon the dignity of each person. and as we work this out in the early stages of our development of our country, we wrote a constitution which basically did one thing. it defined power. and it defined power as coming from the consent of the government, consistent with the operative philosophical paradigm of the inherent dignity and rights and responsibilities of each individual person. beyond that the consent of the government -- governed turns that power over to representatives who then make prudential judgments about what is in the common good we make law, and are held accountable by the people in elections. third, we spread that power out. we develop three branches of government. the congress makes the law, the president enforces the law, the judiciary interrupts the law. in order that we have even more balance of power to ensure that

it is not abused. but then we took it a step further. there were still concerns that we had defined where power is coming from, from the natural inherent dignity of the person, but we also wanted to define what government must not do. and so we wrote the bill of rights. the first 10 amendments to the constitution. and in the first amendment it starts with these words, congress shall make no law establishing -- congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. it continues, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. now, mr. speaker, the threats to religious liberty in our country are often more subtle than in other parts of the world. but as a legislator, what has

grieved me deeply is that for the first time in the history of health care in the united states , americans are being forced to choose to either obey the government or violate their personal convictions. buried in the president's 2010 health care law was a provision empowering the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, to issue rules on preventative services who could have predicted that she would -- services. who could have predicted that she would use her authority, sanctioned by president obama, to force everyone to purchase drugs and procedures, including abortion-inducing drugs, that violate the fundamental ethical sensibilities of many americans? no american should be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood. no american should be forced to stand for their deeply held reasoned beliefs or stand convicted by government

coercion. no american should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. this is wrong. it is a false choice. it is unjust. it is unnecessary. it is un-american and it is an affront to the very purpose of our government, derived from the consent of the governed. america owes its unique character and strength to empowering, protecting and upholding the inalienable rights of her citizens. health care should be about the common good, caring for the sick and healing the wounded. health care policy should not be a vehicle to drive divisive ideology, forcing americans to violate deeply held beliefs. the health and human services mandate violates the fundamental principle of religious liberty and the rights of conscience so dear to this country.

america owes its unique character and strength to empowering, protecting and upholding those rights of her citizens. mr. speaker, karen, one of my constituents, sent me this email. quote, as a women's health practitioner and a catholic i need the ability to stay within my faith boundaries. i would be unable to work if i was required to provide the services this mandate has imposed. indeed it is sad that the health and human services ruling seems most perniciously targeted at faith-based providers who are the backstop of compassionate care for our most vulnerable. throughout our history the u.s. health care system has in large measure owed its success to the doctors and nurses and health care providers, staffing, faith-based institutions. these institutions, including

hospitals and university clinics, nonprofit health institutions, serve the common good of all americans. the government should celebrate the contribution of these faith-based entities who fulfill the mission of helping the sick and serving the poor. without them we will see reduced access to high-quality care, especially for vulnerable persons who have traditionally relied on these benevolent organizations in civil society. in fact, mr. speaker, several health care practitioners have told me personally that they would choose to leave their professions rather than compromise their beliefs. but undoubtedly some will not obey the government. and our government has effectively condemned them. another man who was con chemmed for his beliefs had that -- condemned for his beliefs had this to say. i submit that an individual that

breaks a law that conscience tells him is injustice and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law. so wrote dr. martin luther king from the birmingham jail. the purpose of our government is to create just structures for societal order, empowering liberty, beginning with the affirmation of the natural rights of the person, including the most basic right of conscience. in my office there is a copy of a draft of the bill of rights. the rights of conscience were initially included in that draft. but by the final version that that right was formalized, by

the concept of religious freedom, perhaps given that the rights of conscience were such an ordinarily understood concept that its fullness did not need provision. james madison, the architect of the constitution, wrote this, he declared that conscience is the most sacred of all property. linking conscience rights to the foundation of religious liberty. in 1809 thomas jefferson stated that no provision in our constitution ought to be dear to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority. the health and human services mandate violates the fundamental principle of religious liberty and rights of conscience so dear to our country. no american should be forced to choose between violating their conscience in order to serve the public from the faith-based hospital to the business person

providing health care coverage in their insurance plan, to their employees, to the school established for children with special needs. no american should be forced to choose between their faith and their job. this is why so many people of goodwill, regardless of their religious traditions or their political affiliation, consider the health and human services mandate to be a gross affront to the very essence of what it means to be an american and all of us must choose our response. this is not simply a religious issue, it's not a catholic issue, it's not an evangelical issue, it's an american issue. we all have a responsibility to decide, informed by our faith, what our country means to us and what it demands of us in this moment. . last friday, there was a

federal judge who ruled on a court case in this regard and federal judge john kane had this to say, the government's interest are countered and outweighed by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. with that, i yield back to the gentlelady from minnesota and thank her for her leadership on this important issue and many others and thank her for the time. mrs. bachmann: i thank you, mr. speaker. and i will give just a few remarks on priests for life and on their 20th anniversary. tonight is a important night rgs, because it has been 40 years since the roe versus wade that removed legal protection for our unborn, those who still remain in the womb of their mother and since that time,

numerous groups, mr. speaker, have risen to restore that protection to the unborn and to educate the public about the issue that we all know is abortion and provide compassionate service. those who need alternatives to abortion and those who need healing after abortion and i stand here today with my colleagues in the united states congress to honor one extremely important institution, known as priests for life as they celebrate 20 years for advocacy and service to the unborn. as many people know, priests for life is one of the strongest voices for the unborn. this is for children of america and they stand strong because as we know, contrary to the name might suggest, priests for life isn't just for priests or

catholics. it has enabled americans from every ethnicity and political affiliation to awaken their consciences to speak up for the unborn and these are a few of the outreach efforts. every year, prefts for life holds nearly 1,000 retreats across america for men and women who have lost a child to abortion. they have run seal ent no more campaigns for men and women who have lost a child to abortion but have gone on to experience healing through god and want to share their testimony. one of the full-time members of priests life is dr. king. i was just with her this last weekend. they know her as the neice of

dr. martin luther king junior. and she has the truth of abortion and how it disproportionately impacts unborn black children in the united states. priests for life also sponsors a nonpartisan drive in helping to heal the hurt of men and women as they are port aborttive. they distribute guides and train clergy. it is very guy to find any national initiative that priests for life are somehow not deeply involved in. for example, february of this year, 2012, priests for life launched a lawsuit against the health and human services mandate which we have heard, that requires job creators to

offer health insurance coverage for morally objectionable practices and this mandate is an afront to our religious liberty rights in the united states. never before has this government required a job creator to provide insurance that incrudes contraception, abortion-causing pills or sterilizations. no organization, no american, mr. speaker, should have to violate their religious beliefs because of this president's health care dictates. i'm a mom to 28 kids, five natural-born children and 23 foster chair children. every child matters and we should have the right to life for every american. every life is precious, every life is sacred. every life matters and i'm

extremely proud to be a part of the pro-life movement and been affiliated for priests for life. that is truly a voice for the voiceless. as we take note of this important 20th anniversary of wub of the pro-life leading organizations, i thank priests for life for everything they do to protect and sanctity of every human life. i yield to one of the strongest pro-life voices in the state of texas, well known to americans across this nation, representative gohmert. mr. gohmert: this is an important day. priests for life marking 20 years as a christian, as a southern baptist.

it's an honor to pay tribute to the catholic priests who have stood strong, stood for life, that precious one of the trilogy set out in the declaration of independence, but, first, life. only if you have a life can you then go to liberty and have a chance at a pursuit of happiness. for those of us who believe the scripture written in the old testament as did our founders, most all of them, in fact, a third of those signing the declaration of independence were ordained christian ministers and george washington and ben franklin, even though history teachers mislead their students these days, they all believed in the scriptures, when you look at

the fall of the northern kingdom of israel, it is a little scary, bass i have read one of the things that god was angry over was that people had fallen into such incredible idol woreship they were willing to sacrifice their own children. how could anybody love idols that they could sacrifice their own child and allow the taking of their own child's life. and then i thought about abortion in this country. and we have no room to talk. for 20 years, priests for life have known that. and they have stood firm that the most essential light of our creator is life.

and you can't get to liberty until you start with life. and then the irony of all ironies, today, the first day that the catholic church and really, all of us who are christians, all of us who believe in freedom of religion, all of us that actually believe the contusion means what it -- constitution means what it says, has been slapped down by this administration regardless of what the supreme court says. first amendment makes clear, as my friend, mr. fortenberry says, congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. and we have friends, christian

friends who believe with all their heart it is a right to practice their religion. and they have these religious beliefs. and this administration has demeaned them to the point that it would release a quote as was pointed out by the heritage foundation today, when quoting the health and human services department, quote, the obama administration will continue to work with all employers to give them the flexibility and resources they need to implement the health care law in a way that protects women's health while making commonsense accommodations for values like religious liberty. values nothing. it is a constitutional right that this administration is tropical depressioning on and trap willing and stomping on and take this right. what's next? did jews not worship on the

sabbath because it is inconvenient and maybe this administration will help try to accommodate that value? or how about communion. maybe this administration will find it is not healthy and help accommodate, the freedom of religion as a value they try to work with people who believe this to the core of their hearts . and we go back to the founding. we didn't even have a constitution. and ben franklin said for five weeks, virtually, listening to the back-and-forth. and 80 years old, had trouble getting up, overweight, couple years or so from meeting his judge and says, how does it

happen we not once thought humbling to the father of light. in the beginning contest with great britain, we had daily prayer in this room. our prayers will be heard and they were answered. that is not a dais and someone who doesn't believe in the acome dution of religious value, he believed in religious freedom. and not only that he believed in the power of prayer because in that same speech, because he wrote it out in his own hand, he says i have lived, sir, a long time. and the longer i live, the more convincing proofs i see of this truth. god governance men.

is it possible that an empire could rise without his aid? ben franklin said, we have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing, not that we are accommodating. but we have been assured in the sacred writing that unless the lord build it, they labor in vain to build it. i also believe that without god's concurring aid will build it no less than the builders of babel. we are trying to accommodate what ben franklin stirred the hearts of those and let's listen to a preacher preach the word altogether and then come back and they did and they came back with a new spirit and give us the constitution that this

administration is now tropical depressioning upon. god, the god of which ben franklin spoke without whom we will succeed in our political building no bigger than the builders of babel is being told by this administration they'll accommodate as best they can, but make no mistake, they are trampling on the rights that right for life has been preaching for 20 years. and with that, i yield back. mrs. bachmann: i thank my friend from texas. and we have so many members of congress that wanted to be here. and there was so much time. i thank congresswoman black of tennessee, congressman lanching forward of oklahoma, congresswoman blackburn of

tennessee and congressman trent franks of arizona. congressman forwarden berry and congressman schmidt of ohio. i want to thank them and congressman fortenberry and congresswoman gohmert of texas. this is an important night and we thank priests for life of 20 years for standing firm for the cause of the unborn. we will get there yet. thank you, father frank. and mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from minnesota for a motion. mrs. bachmann: i make a motion that this body do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house returns here on c-span. >> tonight, at the house arms services committee looks at the effect of sequestration on the defense budget. house members' debate extending bush era tax cuts. and kevin mccarthy talks about

the 2012 campaign season. that you carry -- ashton carter said budget cuts could lead to less than training for troops being deployed to afghanistan as well as cuts for military families. the white house budget director says republicans are to blame for the standoff because they have refused to consider ending the bush era tax cuts on income over $250,000. the officials testified about sequestration before the house armed services committee. congress could avoid the cuts by enacting 1.2 trillion dollars in deficit reduction by the end of the year.

the house arms services committee meets today to receive testimony on the implementation options for sequestration. joining us today for the -- the honorable jeffrey zients and the honorable ashton carter, the deck -- deputy secretary of defense. although this is the first day of august, there are only a handful of legislative days left to resolve the devastating cuts to our military known as sequestration. the house has already passed a

bill that would achieve the necessary reduction for a year. however, the senate has yet to consider any solution other than the proposal which was defeated. since he offered that proposal six months ago, the president has been virtually silent on the issue. this impasse and lack of a way for it has created an uncertain budget environment for industry and defense planners. in part because of this rising tide of uncertainty ended part to help build the political will to resolve sequestration, this congress has repeatedly requested information from the president on exactly how sequestration will be implemented. we understand that planning for sequestration will not lessen the damage but failing to plan for it will make a terrible situation worse. this hearing appears to have

been -- prompted a flurry of activity within the administration. on monday the department of labor issued guidance on the war and act, urging employers not to not of -- notify them of losses before the elections. yesterday the president made the determination that military personnel accounts will be exempted from sequestration. director zients issued a memo that is a small step in the right direction. so there is even more to discuss. i also know we will hear a lot today about balanced reductions so i want to address the issue. despite claims that the president's budget reduces the deficit by $4 killion -- trillion, these claims are off the mark by nearly 90%.

the savings are propped up by a series of gimmicks, claiming spending reductions that are actually tax increases and counting reductions that are already in law. it claims $848 billion in savings from saving -- ending the war is in iraq and afghanistan by counting funds that would not be requested in the first place. even if that is the foundation for the president's solution, let the the senate bring it to a vote, then we will have a conference and sort out our differences. until that happens, i hope we can and much of this uncertainty today. as one senior official told me, america's inability to govern ourselves placed directly into the hands of those who spread the narrative of american decline.

and will ultimately thrust this into a more dangerous world. if this is not enough to compel action and straightforward talk on the part of the administration, i do not know what it is. thank you for being here. i look forward to your testimony this morning. i also request my full remarks be submitted for the record. mr. smith. >> i completely agree with the chairmen that sequestration is a problem right now. this committee has done an excellent job of bringing attention to that reality. folks who think because it does not take until january that we have until then are completely wrong. the impasse of whether or not it is going to happen is having an impact on our economy, not just a fence. sequestration is the entire discretionary budget. it has a profound impact on

employers decisions about what to invest in. it is impacting the economy right now. the best thing would be to find a solution right near to that. also the uncertainty with the tax cuts that are set to expire is also a major problem of the economy. delaying on this is a challenge. that uncertainty is having an impact on our ability to get the economy moving again. i agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. sequestration was a bad idea in the first place. it was based off of a bill back in the 1980's. both of the plans, the architects have said we never meant for it to be implemented. it is terrible policy. it was meant as a forcing mechanism. it was going to be so awful that everybody would have to get together and prevent it.

the reason i did not vote for it, and the problems of determining how to deal with our aphis -- deficit, what revenue to raise, are so serious and there is so much difference that we can go through something as bad as sequestration rather than find the solution. putting a gun to the head of the economy as a forcing mechanism is a bad idea from the beginning and when i hope we never try again. the chairman is right. the problem is we have to address. i want to thank our witnesses for being here, mr. zients in particular. the white house has put out a variety of solutions. every time the republicans have put up a bill there has been alternative offered by the democrats. the senate is a different story. right now, the difference is democrats and republicans have a different approach to this. in the senate, and nobody

controls the senate because it takes 60 votes to do anything. you would have to have republicans and democrats agreed to get anything out of the senate. the solution is to get all democrats and all republicans to try to figure out a reasonable approach. there is a fundamental disagreement on that. we have had that debate. i think revenue has to be part of the equation. if you look at the republican proposals, it says we should not cut defense, we should cut taxes and we should balance the budget. the math does not add up unless you cut everything else in our budget, medicare, transportation, education, everything else by 50%. nobody supports that. the republicans do not support that. let's be realistic about the choices we face and the fact that revenue has to be a piece

of the equation. if you are committed to providing for the common defense to make sure that our servicemen and women have the support they need to defend this country, you should be willing to raise the money to pay for it. that has to be on the table. it is time for all parties to come together to find a solution to this problem. i think this hearing is helpful and i think mr. -- thank mr. zients and mr. carter for being here. it is a great this committee is shining a light on the problem. we have to move past that to find a way to solve the problem so that sequestration does not happen. with that, i yield back and i look forward to the testimonies. >> mr. zients. >> let me start again.

mr. chairman, thank you. >> you have to put it closer. >> third time the charm. ranking member smith and ranking members of the committee, and thank you for having me here. i am here to discuss the sequestration. these are the automatic spending reductions for fiscal year 2013 required by the budget control act. i want to start by reiterating a point made when the president signed the act last august. sequestration, by design, is bad policy. congress should pass a balanced deficit-reduction to avoid it. the intent of the sequester was to use the threat of each of the disagreeable cuts to defense and non-defense programs to force congress to enact a compromise

deficit reduction plan. if allowed to occur, sequestration would be destructive. domestic investments and corporations. -- core government operations. it would be cut by approximately 10% while non-defense funding would be cut by almost 8%. the actual% will be great care given that one-fourth of the fiscal year will already have a lapse by january 2. these cuts would be across the board in indiscriminate. there has been a lot of focus of the defense cuts, which deputy secretary carter will address in a moment. but we would face equally harmful domestic cuts with sequestration causing harm to many of the investments most critical to our country's long-

term economic growth. more than 16,000 teachers and aides would lose their jobs. close to 700,000 children and mothers would lose nutrition assistance. 100,000 kids would lose their place in the head start program. the faa would face cuts in operations. food safety and workplace safety inspections would be cut back. the number of fbi agents, border patrol agents, and transportation staff would decline. the nih would have to curtail scientific research into cancer and child had diseases. -- childhood diseases. the president's budget

concluded they plan to avoid these cuts, making tough choices to reduce the deficit. with a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increases. the president post a plan included $2.50 for every dollar in revenue. it over four trillion dollars in deficit reduction. far exceeding the amount required by the joint committee to avoid sequestration. recently, attention in congress has focused on seeking information from the administration on planning and preparing for sequestration. i want to stress that in the unfortunate event that congress fails to pass a deficit- reduction package, and avoid sequestration, the administration will be prepared to issue the order on january 2 and to manage its

implementation. let me be very clear, no amount of planning, at no amount of planning will mitigate the damaging effects of sequestration. moreover, are planning must be deliberate so that we avoid inadvertently triggering some of the negative effects of sequestration. we do not want to waste resources or disrupt government operations. to make vivid, -- this vivid, the right course is not moving around rocks to make for a less painful landing. the right course is to avoid driving off the cliff altogether. implementation of sequestration would be governed by the procedures set forth in bill law -- in the law. it provides little flexibility

your discretion in implementing sequestration. -- or discretion in implementing suit -- sequestration. it would apply evenly across programs, projects, and activities. because congress has not made progress toward enacting a balanced reduction, but the administration is taking a number of actions to prepare for a possible sequestration. earlier this week, omb issued guidance to agencies and will engage them on matters necessaries for issuing the sequestration order. i have also notified congress of the president's intent to exercise his authority to exempt all military personnel accounts from sequestration if it were to occur. regarding federal contractors, the department of labor issued guidance on the warren act

clarifying they are not required to issue advanced warnings to their workers and that doing so would actually be inappropriate in light of the purposes of the act. we are taking the necessary steps. but as i stated, no omar declining will mitigate the damaging effects of sequestration. sequestration is a blunt, indiscriminate instrument designed to force action, forced congress to act. -- force congress to act. five months remain for congress to work together to pass balanced deficit reduction and avoid the sequester. the administration is ready to work with congress to get the job done. thank you look forward to any

questions. >> doctor carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member smith, members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i am pleased to join my colleague, mr. zients. i will focus on the operations of the department of defense. let me begin, if i may, by thanking you for your continuing support to our department and our service members. and military families. not only in afghanistan but everywhere around the world. it is much appreciated. i return from friday from a trip around the pacific theater where i had the opportunity to meet with our troops in hawaii and guam, japan. for over 70 years, the presence of our service men and women has been a guarantor of peace and

prosperity. in the climate of peace and stability created by the u.s. military presence, first to japan rose and prospered, south korea, then southeast asia, and now china and india. we intend to remain a pacific power for decades to come. because we believe this region is an important part of our future. our new strategy calls for that, one of many reasons why the subject of this hearing is so when ported to all of us. if it is acceptable, i would like to ask my statement be submitted. secretary panetta and i have been emphasizing that sequestration, if it is allowed to happen, would have a devastating effect on defense. while i will focus on the impact of the defense, acting director

zients' testimony makes it clear it would be equally devastating. he has described the mechanics by which it would work and i would refer you to my prepared statement for a more detailed treatment of the mechanics as they would apply to the department of defense. i will highlight some of the impacts of sequestration that are specific to dod but much of what i say could be echoed by non-defense government managers. while i can describe any of sequestration's will impact on dod, it is not possible to devise a plan to implement it that somehow eliminates these consequences or even mitigates them. the intent and to sequester was to use a threat of mutually agreeable cuts to defense in non-defense programs,

implemented mindlessly to force congress to enact a compromise to reduction plan. it was never designed to be implemented. sequestration, therefore, if it were allowed to happen would introduce chaos into the management of every single one of more than 2500 defense investment programs. waste at the time we need to be especially careful with the taxpayer dollar. in efficiency into the industry that supports us and would cause lasting disruptions even if it all the extended for one year. sequestration in 2013 would disrupt our forces and our programs. over the long term, the lower spending caps in 2014-2021 would require that we modify and

scaled-back the new defense strategy that the dod leadership so carefully developed a few months ago. if sequestration is triggered, its impact would be devastating for defense. given the recent announcement that the president will exempt military personnel funding, the cuts will be about 10%. under sequestration rules, this same percentage must apply individually to literally thousands of defense programs one by one. overseas contingencies' operations would be subject to sequestration. that is a wartime support funding. supporting our combat is our highest priority.

we would therefore endeavor to protect wartime operating budgets as much as possible, including the operation and maintenance accounts. this is possible to do in part because the accounts contain budget funding. these two categories of funding merge together during execution of the dod budget. we could reduce the basic budget portions and spare the other portion. we could take similar steps as needed in other accounts, including funding. however, especially in the marine corps, this would lead to much larger impacts on that based -- base budgets and awn readiness of those services. we would seek to minimize the effects on readiness in the near term but we could probably not

do so fully. as a result, some later units, including some to afghanistan, could receive less training, especially in the army and marine corps. under certain circumstances, reduced training could impact the readiness of other units to respond to new contingency should they occur. obviously, sequestration would affect trading in the other services, the navy and the air force as well. next, sequestration would force dod and other agencies to reduce funding for civilian personnel. we would probably have to release temporary employees and imposed a partial hiring freeze. we might also have to impose unpaid furloughs on our civilian personnel. you could imagine the effect of the output, not to mention the morale, of these employees to conduct some many essential

support functions, from repairing weapons to conducting oversight and audits. military families and retirees would be adversely affected by sequestration. we could be forced to cut back on services, maintenance, and maintenance of family housing. commissary hours might have to be reduced. funds for the health program for retirees and military dependents would be sequestered. resulting in delays in payments for service providers and some denial of medical services. these actions, taken together, would represent a major step toward the creation of an unready military force. military readiness would be

added to the other programs hard but i -- harmed by sequestration. sequestration would also lead to universal disruption of dod's and investment programs. under current rules, every one of our 2500 programs, research and development projects, and construction projects would each be reduced by exactly the same percentage. some managers would be forced to buy fewer articles and weapons. reductions will cause unit costs of weapons to rise which will result in further cuts. in cases where we cannot reduce the quantity of by the spot, we would have to delay projects, which is also economically inefficient. many construction projects could be rendered unexecutable.

we would be forced to delay fixing schools, defer construction of medical facilities, environmental cleanup and so forth. while we can foresee the harmful effects of sequestration, as i explained, the nature of the mechanism makes it impossible to devise a plan that eliminates or mitigate them. we are working to understand this complex legislation and we are assessing impacts. but we are still five months from january. i am hoping that congress will exercise the necessary leadership to make sure that sequestration is de-triggered. in the unfortunate event it is triggered, ovie will work with omb -- we will work with omb.

we are equally worried about a different type of error. this would occur if sequestration does not happen but we end up triggering some of its effects anyway. for example, we do not want to alarm employees by announcing adverse personnel actions or suggesting that such actions are likely. for efficiency reasons, we do not want to hold back on the obligation of funds, for weapons or operating programs that would have been obligated in the absence of a possible sequestration. nor do we want to cut back on training, which would harm military readiness when we face a complex array of national security challenges. finally, we understand that private companies serve the department of defense and constitute important members of our national security team,

making important decisions on sequestration. they face many of the same dilemma as we do. a number of them have expressed their alarm at such a wasteful and destructive way of managing the taxpayers'the taxpayers' moe talents of their employees. we will continue to consult closely with them, along with other government departments. the best thing that can happen for our industry partners as well as the department is for congress to enact a balanced deficit-reduction clan -- plan. i believe what i have outlined makes clear that sequestration would be devastating to dod. and just as it would be to every other affected federal agency. secretary panetta and i believe we need to deal with the debt and deficit problems in a balanced away and avoid sequestration and that this will require legislation that both houses of congress can approve

and the president can sign. the men and women of our department and their families in need to know with certainty that we will meet our commitments to them. our partners in the defense industry and their employees need to know we will have the resources to procure the world- class capabilities they can provide and that we can do so efficiently. the american people, our allies, partners, friends and potential foes the world over need to know that we have a political will to implement the defense strategy that we have put forward. that is why secretary panetta and i urge action now. thank you again for all you do to support our men and women in uniform here at home and around the world. thank you and i am happy to take your questions. >> taking very much. guidedpartment of labor's notwithstanding, each company must decide for themselves if and when they are obligated to

provide advance notices to their employees of impending layoffs. the criteria established by the warrant act is that such layoffs be some of the foreseeable. two weeks ago, i asked the ceo of lockheed martin, the ceo of eads north america with the chairman of the national offense and debt association and the former deputy director of omb, the president of pratt- whitney who is a small-business owner on the board of the national association of manufacturers, i asked these four people the following question -- can you each confirm at this time the layoffs are reasonably foreseeable? there unanimous answers were yes. i also ask each of them at a believed they were obligated by either the spirit of the letter

of the warrant act to give conditional notices to employees that may be laid off as a result of sequestration in advance of making a final determination regarding which specific employees will be let go. none of them disagreed. finally, i asked them if any of the exemptions to the 60 day notice requirements are applicable in this situation. for example, could the companies they represent claim that laos from sequestration were sudden, automatic, and unexpected? here is what they said -- we do not believe so. no, they are well forecasted and anticipated. we knew months in advance and could see it coming. i would agree with my colleagues the law on the books today said that sequestration will occur on january 2, not conditional or contingent on anything.

that is the law of the land. and we are obligated to plan on it. we have a fiduciary responsibility to our boards, our shareholders and our employees to plan based on the laws that are on the books today. it the largest defense contractor and senior elected representatives of the national defense in this special -- industrial association, the aerospace industry association and the national association of manufacturers all believe that laos -- that lauyoofs -- that layoffs are reasonable, why do you disagree with them? >> i think the important thing here is that the department of labor oversees the act. that happened earlier this week. so subsequent to the hearing you are describing.

they did that in response to questions raised by contractors in the defense industry and contractors who do business with other government agencies. dol -- the agency responsible for implementing the act, provided the guidance and the guy that makes clear that contractors are not required to issue the warrant at notices 60 days in advance of january 2. they go on to say to do so would be inconsistent with the purpose of the warren act. these potential plant closings or layoffs are speculative and unforeseeable. so to give blanket notices both with taxpayer resources and create unnecessary uncertainty. clearly the company to just talk about the need to a door this guidance from the department of -- need to absord this guidance

from the department of labour. i think the department of labor has responded to questions from contractors with the guidance they gave earlier this week. >> mr. chairman, i cannot add anything on the legal side. i sympathize with my colleagues in the defense industry in the sense that they like we are on the horns of this dilemma. on the one hand, this should not happen. nobody wants it to happen. and we do not want to begin taking actions now that we did to tear ourselves to pieces in the expectation of something that is really stupid if it happens five months from now. on the other hand, we do not want to be eight -- in a position where we are flatfooted five months from now either. so that is where we are and i sympathize very much with them. this gives them as they discuss with their boards and councils

and make their own decisions of legal guidance that they can take as input, but the underlying issue here is that we have a lot of people who depend on us to be a bit until a more or less predictable and responsible way. this puts them in a lousy position, this process of sequestration, which is why the secretary and i had been saying for months that we have to head this off. it is very damaging. just having a shadow over russ is damaging. at this discussion illustrates. -- just having the shadow over us is damaging. and in this -- as this discussion illustrates. what they are already doing things because it is the law of the land. did the omb or dod provide input to the department of labor's

opinion? >> omb plays a role in clearing guidance from all agencies. so they played their normal role. >> we did not. the department of defense did not though the -- as i said, there is a sensible results here of not having people tear themselves apart about something i hope does not happen. but we do not have a role in making the legal determination. >> hope is not good enough to build a strategy on. they are going based on what the law of the land is. have you or anyone else in your organization given any guidance to industry, either verbal or written, not to issue conditional warren act notices to employees before the election? >> speaking to the defense?

>> no, we have made available to our contractors the department of labor's guidance on the warren act. >> the department of labor's issue earlier this week is the only guidance that has been put out. >> let me ask that again. have you or anyone else in your organization given any guidance to industry either verbal or written not to issue conditional boren act notices to employees before the election? >> no. >> no. >> thank you. >> director, used estimated -- use it cannot estimate the reduction by program, project, and activity until congress enacts all fiscal year 13 appropriations. can you explain why the omb

could not make certain reasonable assumptions to begin its analysis? for example, what could you not use the president's budget request as a baseline or the house passed appropriations? in the case of the department of defense, the difference between the house passed a preparation and the president's request is 1%. i think most analysts would like those odds, 99% certainty of what the funding will ultimately be. >> the cbo estimates have a decent methodology but the problem with their estimates or anyone's estimate at this point is you have to make a series of assumptions. you have to understand what the appropriation level is going to be. one has to understand balances on the defense side and what they will be. one has to understand mandatory spending for those programs that

will be some debt on the mandatory side to sequestration. you then have to understand how much spending will interact with pta's. so it is a very complex exercise. the estimates dr. carter provided at & and -- at 10% are likely within the reins. our time is much better spent avoiding sequestration and to balance deficit reduction rather than massaging numbers that would have a devastating impact on defense and domestic programs. >> however, you cannot spend your time doing that and dr. carter cannot spend his time doing that. we, the members of congress, have to spend our time doing that. so what you are saying is you basically will and let -- will implement the law as written and it will be as strait across the board cuts of roughly 10% to

every single program, every line item? >> the guide as we did yesterday -- >> working with agencies to understand which programs are exempt in which are not exempt. if the program is exempt from sequestration, it will not be subject to such a cut. >> that is the personnel to regret not only personnel. there are other accounts we have to go through by looking at the budget act of 85, how programs have changed, what new statutes come into play. it is a complex exercise to understand which accounts are exempt and which ones are not. that is an important part of the across-the-board cut. if an account is exempt, it is no longer in the denominator, if you will. >> right. so you have listed what accounts had -- will be exempt and everything else will be cut line item by line item across the

board evenly? what that is what the law says. >> thank you very much. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just to be clear -- you are looking at the options for if we have to implement it give you are not completely ignoring it and dissuading? >> fortunately or on for that -- or on foot chilly, we have experience working when the government shutdowns, possible that ceilings. we know how to do this. as dr. carter said, we will be ready at dod and across the government is unfortunately congress does not do its job and passed balanced deficit reduction. at the same time, we will do it in an efficient way. there are five months between today and january 2. that is plenty of time for congress to pass balanced

deficit reduction. and at the same time, it is more than enough time for us to be ready for the unfortunate possibility of january 2 coming to be in behalf to implement these sequestered. we will be ready but really that is not for the energy should be spent. the energy should be spent on passing balanced deficit- reduction to avoid what everybody agrees is that policy. >> there is no question. the testimony has made clear that you both think sequestration is awful and should be avoided in any way possible. on the warren act, that is a legal question. neither one of you suggesting that defense contractors or people in the transportation industry or any of those areas should not be concerned. there is clearly an impact on jobs. we do not know what specific jobs and that is what makes the warren act difficult because you do not know specifically who will be laid off. but clearly there is a lot to be concerned about it you are a contract worker or defense

worker. neither of you would dispute that? >> obsolete. we have a $900 billion cuts. there will be bad consequences. no doubt. the sequester was designed to be in forcing function, not to be a policy that would be implemented. >> absolutely. the warren act to the very narrow question. that is part of the legal obligation that the budget control act issued guidance. how should we implement this? but clearly there is a lot to be concerned about it you are a worker under any government contract. that is the interesting thing about these hearings. we have had hearings about the devastating impact of cutting federal government spending on defense workers and at the same time, we have complained that cutting federal government spending on other workers the not have an impact on the economy. it does. if you -- as people have said, it is a matter of finding a

balanced approach to solving this problem. i do not think there is any gulf between how devastating secret jason would be and how important it is we work to prevent it. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have four quick questions for director zients. assistant answers so we can get through all of them. sequestration, depending on how it is administered, could be truly catastrophic. the budget control act specifies that sequestration be implemented in the course of section 256k of the balanced budget. the same percentage sequestration shall apply to all programs, and activities within the budget account. defense program products and activities have been defined as the most this a bit level of

budget items divot -- identified for defense appropriations and explanatory statements and the budget justification document have been modified by congressional action. this level of application may render some programs on executable -- unexecutable. some investments for loquats the orders may not be -- for low quantity orders cannot be funded. >> i think dr. carter said there is about what the 500 ppa's across the defense apartment. there are tens of thousands of pta's. each will receive an across-the- board cut. >> will sequestration be implemented at a higher at a global -- at a higher aggregate

level. >> the law is clear. at the ppa level. >> it will be those accounts that are determined to not be exempt. and it will also include an obligated balances on the defense side and the mandatory programs subject to sequestration. >> which spending accounts will or will not be subject to sequestration? >> those that are not exempt will be subject to sequestration, as i just described. also balances on the defense side are subject to sequestration as are mandatory spending programs that are not exempt from sequestration. >> can you provide us with a list of the exempt accounts? >> we will be developing that list. >> the control act of 1985

providing flexibility -- will activities be used? >> we are analyzing how the 1985 act interacts with the dca. that is central to determine which accounts will be exempt and which will not be exempt. >> will the department of defense be granted but ability to apply sequestration to adjust programs and ensure continuation of critical investments? >> the department of defense will do what the law says. it will apply at the ppa level. >> on what basis and at what level will the authority be given? >> according to the law. >> in my question here, it states that accepted otherwise provided, how you interpret that? >> i need more context to

understand your question is. >> if you could take a look at 256k and for the record tell us what you think as of the rights provided means? >> we will do so. >> thank you. should such a funding level be appropriated for fy 13 with the additional $5 billion be sent it to sequestration? >> that depends on whether congress does what we all agreed need to be done which is a balanced deficit-reduction. if it is enacted and the sequester is avoided, then it would return to the security caps. if sequestered happens on gingrey second and the caps -- it sequestration happens on january --

>> thank you fierce extinct cancers. -- thank you for your distinct answers. >> the distinction -- the section he was referring to says except as otherwise provided obligations and that a sequestered accounts shall be reduced only in the fiscal year in which is sequestered occurs. the secretary of the department of education yesterday said it sequestration kicks in and education will be affected as you pointed out -- i have only been talking about the defense side. that is half of the equation. but he said any cuts to education would be put off until the next year. the next education year. by what authority will he be

doing that? >> that is not the case. as we all know, the school year starts in september. the 20122013 school year - >> actually, i was on a school board and the board of was on, the school year started in june. >> in terms of how we fund, so september through early summer. so the secretary clarified for the 2012-2013 school year, would not be impacted by sequester. however, it would be very devastating consequences to the 2013-2014 school year. that money would have to be taken out within the fiscal year which as you all know and september 30. there will be devastating cut to the next school year. education would have to live under the law and do their fair share of these devastating

across-the-board cuts. >> thank you very much. mr. reyes. >> gao has stated that regardless of the possible effects of sequestration, agencies must continue to comply with the requirements of the impoundment control act. with empowerment defined as any action or inaction of an employee of the federal government that precludes obligation or expenditure of budget authority. our committee has received testimony that indicates that there is an observable slowdown and reduction in contracts and orders. question this morning for you is, what is ombs' position on contracts funded with fy12 appropriations but executed in fy13? will agencies be allowed to slow

down contact or accelerate them to protect programs? >> we have been very clear in yesterday's guidance that we expect agencies to continue normal business operations. and to not slow down in any way. >> have you noticed the same thing that we have noticed? is there any indication from your perspective that these things are occurring? >> i will refer to dr. carter because two-thirds of the contact is that dod. >> i have been concerned about exactly the phenomenon you are raising. that we begin to experience the effects of sequestration even the sequestration does not take place. i do not see that in the obligation rate statistics yet. i have some anecdotal evidence to that effect from are

contacting officers. we are not seeing it show up yet and and the guidance river given yesterday was very sensible. which is let's not self sequester before we have to if we end up having to. our program managers to keep operating in the most efficient manner that they had planned to so they are giving good defense value for the taxpayer dollar. we want them to keep on keeping on. it the are managing well, doing it defensible -- doing it the sensible way. >> i was interested in your response about not providing guidance to industry leaders. what about providing guidance within the government as it pertains to violations of the anti deficiency at if a director

or program leader -- they have to plan long term. and cigarette station kicks in, what guidance -- and sequestration kicks in, but guided are you providing? >> at the agencies are well aware of the act. the sequester had not taken effect at this point. hopefully it never will. agencies are instructed to continue their normal business operations which means to continue to spend at the appropriate level. obviously not to in any way violate the efficiency act or slow down spending. >> it seems to me like that puts them in a catch-22 situation. they need to plan ahead. for instance, you mentioned the cutbacks in -- that would affect customs import protection.

they have to make those kinds of plants -- plans. >> those cuts did not occur until the sequestration order is issued on january 2. ob of, i think the jko everybody here is to ensure we never get to that point in that congress passes ballast deficit reduction that avoids sequestration -- passes ballanced deficit reduction that avoid sequestration. >> there are managers out there that could from my experience be in violation. i am wondering if -- is somebody taking that into account? >> they cannot be in violation. they have their appropriations level and the air spending that level prudently. if on january 2 the level of

spending is reduced by $55 million on the defense side and $55 billion on the domestic side, agency managers will be ready to implement that. we will be ready. i think that we have prepared for these types of contingencies before. dod knows how to do it. agencies know how to do it. we have to avoid this situation altogether. >> may i just add to that if i may for clarification? you all may not need this but i want to make sure our program managers understand that the key point is that funds they obligate between now and when sequester hits, if it hits, will not be subject to sequester. so they will not have to retroactively adjust activities they put on the contract during this period. we want to make sure our program

managers, i think most of them do understand that, but that is where guidance is helpful because it makes clear to everybody obligate the funds haven't cooperated in a way that is appropriate. do your ed -- defense mission that in an efficient way. the sequester will not retroactively apply to what you do now. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. part of what you have to do at omb is provide economic forecasts, employment forecasts. there has been several studies about the economic consequences of sequestration. if you have any doubts that if sequestration were to take effect that there would be substantial numbers of people lose their jobs -- losing their jobs and it would be detrimental to the economy? >> i think that is absolutely the case. as i said earlier, if you take $55 billion out of the defense

budget and equal amount out of the domestic side, teachers will lose their job. people who work at the faa will be furloughed or potentially laid off. same situation with border patrol human know, some studies have estimated that 1 billion to 2 billion people in the defense industry -- 1 million-2 million people in the defense industry could lose their job. >> i cannot know if i can about it that, but the cost to be significant. >> i want to go back to the department of labor guidance. could the department of labor guidance that says it would be inappropriate to send out notices be any sort of community for a contractor who would be sued later by employees who were laid off? >> i am not a lawyer.

i am not a labor lawyer. i think the guidance is very direct. clearly, companies need to work with their legal counsel to interpret that guidance. >> i would assume you would say that they learn from their experience. if they have been sued in the past over these issues and it resolve them,rs to that would factoring -- >> i would assume that each situation -- i have spent 20 years in the private sector. different situations need to be evaluated. we have pretty clear guidance from the department of labor. co. leadership needs to work with the legal counsel to interpret it. >> can i get back to the department of education issue for a second? i do not fully understand that. is it the fact that all of the education money is sent out to the school districts before

january 2? >> no. >> then how can it be that some of the money -- here is what is going on. you said sequestration will apply to on up -- on obligated balances of the department of defense. if the school district has not spent all the money why is that not an unobligated balance. >> unobligated balances outside of the department of defense are not budget. -- subject to sequestration. add the ended the day, the department of education has the same across the board cuts -- it has to reduce its spending in fiscal year 2013 by that amount. by funding the school year that is about to begin, it will have a big impact in the following school year.

the department of education has to hit that number. it would have a devastating impact on kids and education across the country. >> you made that clear. what i do not understand completely is whether omb has discretion for whether those cuts will occur. can they occur on february 2? september 2? depending on their discretion -- in the case of schools, it will be several months after. >> there are so many different types of programs across the federal government. some are seasonal, so more spending might be up front, in which case you need to save up front. some might be back-end, in which case the money comes out of later months of the fiscal year. by the end of fiscal year 2013, each agency has to achieve that across the board cut in each one of those ppa's.

it is hard to generalize about how it will be achieved. >> do you have discretion to determine when those across the board cuts will occur within the time period from january 2 until september 3? >> the sequestration order is issued january 2. that means that $50 billion has to come out on each side. agencies need to think through how they will end their fiscal year with the savings achieved. in every situation it is different. in every situation trip will be very difficult. a%-10% numbers have been cited up front. 8% of the domestic side, 10% of the defense said. they are actually higher than that. january 2, we are already one quarter into the fiscal year. >> thank you very much.

ms. sanchez. >> thank you for being before us. my first question is for director zients. did you have a vote on the sequestration act? >> the budget control act? >> no. i am not a member of congress. >> thank you. secretary carter -- i would ask the same question? . did you get a boat? >> i did not. >> the bill was neither acted -- enacted nor voted for by the administration. the only body that can turn the course of this policy is us, not them. so everybody here wants to talk the negative impact of sequestration. i think there are other committees to have done this. >> would you yield for a moment?

the president did sign it. it would not have become law if the president had not signed it. >> taking back my time, we know the impact of the sequestration law -- loss of jobs, cuts to programs across the board, last teachers, less programs to support their children, less programs for senior citizens. however, i do not think the solution is to exempt the department of defense. we need to sit down and go through and figure out what we need to cut. this is the law as it is now -- it will -- it is wrong to go percentage by percentage across the line, but we need to, as leaders in this country, sit down. i know i've talked to leaders from a major and small businesses.

i had a ceo expressed to me that the impact of sequestration, the uncertainty, is weighing down the company. he said he cannot even make decisions for his company because it is making him crazy to not be able to lead his company. with this sequestration, california is set to lose 150,000 jobs. we are on the line for this. i do not want to see sequestration triggered. i do think we all need to sit down in a very calm manner and look through and figure out where we will make cuts, both from the department of defense and all the other places in our budget. i would urge our colleagues to sit down in a constructive way and work through this and stop this whole uncertainty that is going on. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. jones. >> thank you very much.

i was listening very carefully to ms. sanchez. for me personally, i have -- the anxiety over sequestration in my district is mounting every day. one of my biggest concerns is, quite frankly, and mr. director you could maybe answer this for me -- if we do go into sequestration, the mental health programs within the department of defense, which i think now are very much stressed with ptsd and tbi, at what point do we go within the five months were you

get to a point where everybody who will be on any type of list to be advised, that you will not continue in this position? if we cannot come to a resolution in the house, which i think both parties will try to do, at what point are you in that five-month period of time where you have to start notifying? that is based on the labor laws of what ever, but give me an idea of that element. also, if you would, how do you anticipate the threat to the mental health programs within the department of defense? >> thanks for asking that question. i absolutely share your concern. we have, of necessity and sadly,

learned a lot about the mental health consequences of combat over the last decade. we have tried to advance our service of wounded warriors. there is no question about it. this is caught up and everything else we do. in sequester, we try, as everywhere -- within the pri to constraints of the law, as it is written, -- within the brutal constraints of the law, to maintain the most essential aspects of treating ptsd, dramatic -- traumatic brain injury, and so forth. we're not in a position where we can say we can successfully do that because we have big cuts indiscriminately applied, but we will certainly try. i appreciate the community's report. -- support.

your great for people down there. i'm grateful for that. >> you -- you are great for our people down there. i am grateful for that. >> thank you very much. in december, there was that resolution by congress. then, the process starts. or does it start before december? if there is no resolution by congress to stop sequestration? >> we will be very mindful of being ready and, at the same time, not doing things that are wasteful and destructive. if we're going to have a very unfortunate situation where the sequestration order needs to be issued january 2, we will we ready to do so. -- be ready to do so. >> i would like to thank the witnesses. i think we can stipulate that just about everybody on this committee thinks sequestration is a bad idea. i do. we do not want to see it happen.

i think we can also stipulate that it is bad for the economy, bad for civilian workers in the defense department and people who work for contractors who get laid off -- i think it is equally bad for the economy for teachers, firefighters, and people who work for highway contractors to get laid off. i want to apologize for witnesses. i believe you've done a good job explaining an indefensible problem you have been saddled with. i normally like to answer questions -- ask questions, but i think that is not the right thing to do. the answer to the problem lies on our side of the problem -- table, not yours. i would just say that, with great respect and affection for my colleagues, brit is time for us to start saying we are for and not against. understand that repealing sequestration increases the national debt by $1 trillion.

that is what it does. so if repeal this, we have to take responsibility for what we do instead. i think that replacing that $1 trillion is not nearly enough. i think we need a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i would stick with the $1 trillion that most of us voted for last august, and i would do the following on top of that. in medicare, i would say that people have to wait a little longer before the bank and get the medicare benefits. i supported a plan that would say that, for each year that you are under 55 years of age, you have to wait one month to get medicare benefits divested beyond 65. a person 45 years old can get medicare when you are 65 years and 10 months old. i would do the same with social

security. i know there are things you cannot say in american politics. i would favor some reductions in domestic areas of the budget. i am from new jersey. i would favor reductions and beach erosion of funds from the federal government if we also had reductions in crop subsidies and other forms that benefit other areas of the country. it is time we have to do those things. i do not think every housing authority should have a job training program. the department of labor has many programs. i think we can do that. i think the wealthiest 2% or 3% of americans should pay a slightly higher income tax. i think every dollar they patient go to deficit reduction. i think we should reduce defense spending, personally, below the level in the sequestered. i would not go to the $495 billion, but we can do a little

beyond what is already in the bill. the way we ought to do it is have statutory caps on a defense appropriations, where each year this committee and the defense appropriations subcommittee would make decisions on a rational and intelligent ways to allocate the reductions. for example, our footprint in asia and europe is a bit too large and could be reduced. i think that a nuclear arsenal that can blow up the world 24 times is quite sufficient and could be modernized and reduced in cost. i frankly think that changes in the military health-care system, which would be painful and politically unpopular -- we have an obligation to consider them in a fair and balanced way. i do not expect any of my colleagues to agree with all or any of what i have said. if you agree with trephine -- with it, fine. but i think it is fair to expect

each of our colleagues on this committee, if they want to say they are against sequester, say what they then would do instead. if you are not prepared to say how you would replace that $1 trillion of additions to the national deficit, i think that is unfair to witnesses here. i hope and pray that on january 2 the sequester order is never issued. it is very bad for the country and the economy, but the power to stop that is with us, not with the gentleman here testifying. the chair of the committee deserves great credit for a long time, for 10 months of educating the congress and the country on the consequences of sequester. i commend him on for that. we as a group have to move to the next step. we can stipulate that we all do not like this. what will we do about it? i support some ideas that i know

are quite controversial. others should put their ideas forward. then let's go about our business, passed a law, put it on the president's desk and yield -- repeal sequester that way. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i mentioned earlier that we had passed legislation not to get rid of the $1 trillion, not to eliminate that, merely to pay for the first year of it to move it out of -- you have presented some items which i applaud. however, many who are facing election in november who are in tighter races are not going to step up. >> if you would yield, might race may have just gotten a lot tighter. [laughter] i say this with great respect for the chairman. we have been pushing things out for 40 years. we keep having commissions and

delays. that is what got us into that -- this problem. it is time to make a decision. >> i am in agreement with you on that. we have five months left. we have two legislative weeks left before we leave for the election to go home and tell people what a great job we're doing. then we come back after the election and, you know what the environment will be like. people who have lost their lections, don't miss any boats to try to solve something that is very important that we have not been able to solve for a year-and-a-half. i'm frustrated with that. it is important that we do that. in the meantime, they had a responsibility to let the people know what they can expect. we have a responsibility to fix this, i am just not very

optimistic at how we are going to go about that. mr. forbes. >> thank you. mr. zients, you open the door to my questions when he said that the administration stands ready to work for congress. you are willing to opine as to which action of the administration or congress you thought were responsible or not responsible, and also which ones you thought were realistic or not realistic. my first question to you -- you about howtarta carter devastating are the atrocities in sequestration. you heard the ranking member say he voted against that. i voted against that. the believe it was reasonable to use a draconian methods such as sequestration to force congress to do anything? >> let's go back and review the history. >> nosair -- i only have five minutes.

i just -- no, sir. i only have five minutes. >> the vast majority of members of this committee, democrats and republicans, voted for the balance control at. >> you stated in your testimony that you thought certain members of congress were irresponsible. do you think it was responsible to use an action as draconian as sequestration to force congress? >> the budget control act was a law in order to force a balanced deficit. >> are you willing to say it is responsible when it is to your favor? >> do i think it was responsible to implement the sequestered? absolutely not. >> do you think it was responsible to use it as a forcing mechanism? >> udall wrote the law -- >> i am asking if you think is responsible. >do you think it is responsible

to use a draconian methods? >> whatever it takes to get balanced deficit-reduction. >> do you think it was responsible for the president to sign that measure into law? >> given the situation with the debt ceiling, the president was presented that bill. the president signed the bill. >> you testified on february 14 -- this was a court. -- quote. the sequester is a very important force in function for us to do deficit reduction -- reduction. is your thought that sequestration, even though it may be in effect holding national defense black male, is a proper tool id it forces deficit reduction? >> there are five months remaining four congress to act. what is holding up is congress' ' for the top 2% to pay their share.

>> let's go to your partisan statement you just made and say this. you mentioned the fact that the president has put forward a realistic alternative to this. you come in and say that is the job of congress to fix this. do you acknowledge that the president has the least some responsibility to come in and stop sequestration? >> the president has put forward on two occasions, in september and 2011, a balanced deficit -- >> do you feel he has some responsibility to put forth a realistic proposal? >> he has done on two occasions. >> one thing you mentioned is his budget. this is a copy of his budget. do you know how many votes this budget got? >> that budget was not voted on in the senate. >> it was voted down 99-1. >> it was a republican gimmick. it did not have the president's policies included. >> day know how many votes that

budget got? >> it was voted down by every member of congress. don't you think a realistic proposal should have a single vote by at least one out of 535 members of congress in some committee? can you tell me a single proposal that the president of united states has put forward to stop sequestration that has gotten a single boat out of the senate or house? >> that is not the president's budget. >> can you tell me if there is any proposal you can put forward today, any proposal the president has put forward to stop sequestration that has gotten a single vote on the senate floor, a house committee or a house for? >> the root problem is the republican -- >> i understand your partisan agenda. i'm just asking you if you can tell me -- can you point to any proposal? >> there are specific?

>> your answer is no. if you cannot propose -- point to any such proposal, can you honestly sit there and say that the president has a realistic proposal if it cannot garner a single vote in the senate or the house? with that, i yield back. >> thank you. mrs. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity for the hearing today. i want to share with my colleague that he was asking about the administration, but in actuality, before the rules committee the president did support the proposal to offset sequestration. that did not go very far. there are opportunities to do that. unfortunately, as was just mentioned, if we do not address the top 2% paying their fair share we will not get where we need to go. one thing that you brought forward today is really the impact on our military families.

i know that everybody on this committee has consistently and very strongly, when it comes to our military families -- in addition to the problems with sequestration, we also have tax cuts that would go away for our military families that would remain significant problems to them, whether it is the child tax credit, a number of other opportunities they have had over the last number of years. i wonder if you could comment on that? we would have a real impact on your family -- our families if we're not able to move forward. one thing that struck me the other day -- the defense industry suggested that, in order to solve this problem, everything has to be on the table. would you be willing to look at a deficit reduction package?

>> my understanding is that the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, agreed that middle-class families should not experience a tax increase in net -- at the end of this year. mike understanding is there's a consensus. the senate has passed the bill that will make sure that families earning under 200 to 2000 stars and all americans on their first 200 to $2,000 -- $250,000 would have no increase. i would encourage the house to pass the bill so we can take away uncertainty for middle- class americans that their taxes will not go up on january 1. why not, where there is agreement, go ahead and provide certainty to those families and individuals and to our economy that taxes will not go up? >> i appreciate that.

i would challenge my colleagues on that as well. that is the one way that we can begin to give some certainty to the economy as a whole. >> absolutely. >> could you comment on additional cuts that would occur under sequestration for our military families? how would those be felt? you have had a lot of contact with the industries that support our defense. what have you heard from them in terms of what they really feel congress should be focusing on right now and ter? >> you captured it a moment ago. my colleagues and the defense industry are be holding this situation unfold with the same kind of alarm that we are expressing in the departments and agencies that have to demand -- manage things. this is no way to do business.

the best of them have a very carefully tried to give us good value and manage their facilities and their programs and their technology and people in a optimal way for us. this throws everything they are trying to do away. they are hoping for the same thing everybody here has been talking about, which is that we can find a way not to do this to ourselves. associate myself with them in every way. the they are trying to manage on our behalf the situation that is really untenable. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. miller. >> my colleagues will find consolation in the fact that will be given the opportunity to vote on the floor tomorrow to extend all of the bishkek and europe tax cuts, including those for the middle-class.

as acting director of the omb, what is the law today regarding the bush tax cuts? how do you interpret the law today? >> they are set to expire. >> when? >> at the end of the year. >> do you make any plans in regards to that in your forecast or budget, that there will be more revenue brought in to the government because they expire? >> the president's plan assumes there will be no tax increases on families earning less than $250,000. >> that is not my question. my question is, as the tax cuts are today, what is the law? the law is that they will expire at the end of the year. what type of forecasting do you do to prepare for that? >> the president's plan has the tax cuts not expire for families

under $250,000. >> that is not a lot. >> let me finish. >> no, sir. what is the law? what do you have to do? if it is the law, you have to prepare for this tax cuts expiring -- correct? >> i do not really understand the intent. what preparations are you talking about? >> do you forecast additional revenue coming into the government? >> our policy is to protect those families -- >> from any of the tax cuts? >> yes, we do. we have money coming into the government in the assumption that the top 2% will not -- >> how much money will that be? >> over one decade, it is about $1 trillion. it hundred $50 billion in the expiration of the tax cuts and the estate tax. >> so you plan on part of the law expiring, but you are not

planning on any of it because somebody has made the statement -- i would like you to say who made this statement -- sequestration was never meant to happen. >> nobody would debate whether sequestration was intended to happen. >> but it is the la. >> it was before some function -- >> but it is the law. >> the root problem is to use all of republicans to ignore is the top 2% have to bear -- pay their share. >> was the president cost budget ever voted on in the senate? >> it was not. >> the president's budget, was it ever voted on in the senate? >> now. . >> does it concern you that in a democratic-controlled senate, that harry reid would not even bring up the budget proposal? >> what concerns me is that we have five months --

>> that is not my question. my question is regarding a refusal -- does it concern you and the president that the democratic-controlled senate would not, in your words, a vote on the proposal that the president of the united states gave to this congress? >> what concerns me is that we have five months to enact a balanced deficit reduction to avoid sequester. >> i have a minute and a half. i will ask you until the time runs out. does it concern the president that harry reid would not bring up the president's proposed budget? >> what concerns me is that the vast majority of democrats and republicans on this committee voted in favor of the bca, which had a forcing function sequestration, and there has been no acknowledgment of

republicans that we need a balanced package that requires the top 2% to pay their fair share. >> i would expect you to be political and your comments, but you have not answered my question -- does dree concern you or the president of the president's budget was not voted on in a democratic-controlled senate? >> my energy is how we use the next five months to create reductions. >> can you explain to me why you waited until yesterday to put that any types of discussion into what would be exempt from what agency is? >ies? u.s.a. and we had six months prior to that. >> let's assume that all of us are putting energy into avoiding the sequestered. assets at a multiple occasions, we will be ready in the very unfortunate situation that the sequester order needs to be issued. >> thank you.

>> thank you for conducting this hearing. i want to get to a few points with the witnesses. almost exactly one year the -- ago the budget control act was passed. the administration originally asked for just a clean bill to avoid default. they were not the ones insisting on the sequestration-backed mechanism. is that correct? >> that is right. the history here is that republicans refused to do balanced deficit reduction last summer. the threat of default lead to the budget control act. >> thank you. in your testimony, you mentioned that the design of the budget control act inc. the sequestration -- inc. the sequestration act, which is the basic question of how it would be taking place. the fact is that it was on the

books for a number of years. it was a bumpy ride before congress reached a point where we balanced the budget in the early 1990's. i would note that when it passed, congressman graham was on the record that it was never the objective to trigger a sequester. the objective was to have the threat of sequester force compromise and action. that is precisely the thinking with the budget control act which was enacted almost exactly one year ago, is that correct? >> that is my understanding as well. in the recent past. >> at the time, the speaker was boasting in public that it got 90% of what he wanted in terms of negotiations with the white house. this was something that had more than bipartisan participation. the speaker claimed he got 98%

with the deal voted and sent to the president one year ago. i would like to go to one. with mike -- which my good friend mr. forbes was trying to claim, that there was not a single proposal the white house was offering that has been voted by the senate or the house in terms of deficit reduction. i would point out that, in the 2011 republican budget plan, with a claimed $5.70 trillion in savings, $1 trillion was war savings in the oco account. the chairman is somebody i have a great deal of respect for -- he claims that is a gimmick. we will spend $90 billion in afghanistan this year. >> that is right. cbo scores those savings by and closing the back

door on discretionary spending. those are real savings and to close the back door so we cannot in any way increase the cap. >> i am not doing this as a gotcha point. there is some overlap between budget documents that had been voted on by the vast majority of republicans in the house and what the president put forward. i think we should go back to mr. admonition when the sequestration was first passed, that it was a mechanism to force compromise. there are some working parts that we can begin to get to that point and avoid the cataclysmic results. >> five months remained. there is plenty of time to do a balanced sedeficit reduction and avoid the sequester. >> back in eastern connecticut, people get it. we have fought two wars on a

credit card. after 2014, we will be bringing down that process of pouring money into afghanistan. those are real savings. that is real money that this government will not be spending. to me, for the administration to offer that as a way of reducing the budget and hitting the target which, again, the republican budget of 2011 used precisely the same measure, it is at least one piece of how we can solve this problem. i do not know if you want to comment on that. >> it is driven by the policy of ending the war in iraq and drawing down in afghanistan. >> thank you. i would think that the gentleman would know, serving on this committee, that whether it be republican or democrat proposing using funding, we are carrying out into the future one trillion dollars -- $1 trillion,

it 1 not be spent. we will pull the troops out of afghanistan, so we do not need to carry that into the future. i have cedric is a gimmick, whether republican or democrat -- said it is a gimmick, whether republican or democrat. >> your caucus supports that kind of approach. i yield back. >> mr. turner. >> thank you. it has been a pleasure having you here in front of the armed services committee. we are not usually of the habit of hearing such partisan statements and what is really a bipartisan committee. we do not usually hear people throw around republican and democrat, but you have -- i want to commend you on your broken record of partisanship with respect to the fiction that

this administration has a budget or a plan. although you have tried to it over and over again, there has been not one single vote of support in the house or senate who supports the president's so-called budget. the lack of that support means you have no plan. we are in august. there is not one thing on the table that we could kick -- pick up that has support of the house or senate that would solve this problem that comes from the president. i cannot imagine what it would be like to have the title of the director of office management and budget and have no support in congress for a budget. if are you, i probably would want to blame congress in stead of blending the fact that you have no plan. you keep saying congress should act. by the constitution, we cannot do it alone. we have to have the president.

just as the president signed the act that caused sequestration, a bill i voted against, the president has full responsibility for sequestration, having in dorset coming out of the house and senate and signing it himself. having recently pulled out of the super committee, having provided no plans to have an action that would have been, in the fact, avoiding sequestration. what we are dealing with now is to ban things. one, your statements on the warren act. we had people faced with the effects of sequestration. we have contractors concerned that they will have civil penalties and additional actions against them as a result of failure to notify employees that they may be laid off as a result of the threat of sequestration. you say the department of labor issued a guidance so that nobody needed to provide those notices.

let me ask you first -- you said you might not be a lawyer, but i know you have an understanding of the authority of the position usage and. do you have any legal authority to waive the penalties in the warren act for noncompliance under the threat to sequestration? >> i do not. >> let me go to the department of labor's guidance. we have the department of labor's fact sheet with respect to the warren act. they expressly state that an employer who violates the provisions by ordering a plant closing or mass layoff without appropriate notice is liable for -- it list all these things. then, it says that the department of labor -- this is there a document -- since it has no enforcement responsibility, cannot provide specific advice

with respect to individual situations. i'm assuming you'v do not disagree. >> they are the experts. >> the requirements work through the united states district courts. the regulations, with respect to the warn act, it says that the department of labor has no legal standing in any enforcement action and therefore will not be in a position to issue advisory opinions on specific cases. although you will not the knowledge it, there documents acknowledge the statement that people need not provide warren notices under the threat of sequestration has no effect. it is not worth the paper it is printed on. it may be the desire that nobody do that, but this certainly not reality. it is a fiction.

>> may i respond? >> the reason people say that is that there are no plans in this administration. we have no understanding about what the sequestration affects would be. you cannot provide as one document about what will happen if this hits. >> in our testimony, both dr. carter and i illustrated -- >> you have documents the specifically shows what programs stop and who gets what'? >> the answer is no -- >> you have not done it. >> if you want to give a speech, you can give a speech. the witness has to get more than two seconds. if you just want to badger your witnesses, you can do that and not put it in the form of a question. >> the answer is no. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. just a few questions -- a couple of statements i would like to make. i want to thank you all for

joining us. i'm sorry to drag you from your actual governing responsibilities to attend this spectacle. this attempt by house republicans to wash their hands of their own mass and lay the blame on the president. it is an election year, after all. the responsibility to govern is something i know both of you take seriously, which is more than i can say about this tea party republican house of representatives. this brings me to an important point. why exactly are we here? i will answer that question. we are here because last summer the house republicans, bowling down to their tea party base, refused to honor the financial commitments of the united states government and threatens to undermine the full faith and credit of their own country. scrambling to deal with that manufactured crisis, congress broke the gridlock and enacted

legislation that would impose sequestration unless we agree on a balanced approach to meeting our budget targets. now, instead of working on a balanced approach, the approach every serious economists as is necessary, what do the house republicans do? they passed the ryan budget that cut employment training programs, food stamps, low- income homes, energy assistance, health care for children, the sick, and the poor, foreclosure prevention, taxes for the rich, and loaded the defense authorization with pork. an east coast missile shield, nuclear facilities nobody wants -- billions of dollars of waste. they wants to have their cherry

pie and eat it 2. this hearing is not about the obama administration. it is about the republican party's abdication of its responsibilities to govern and the terrible results. the tea party republicans, during the debt ceiling negotiations, insisted on sequestration as a part of the deal to keep america from defaulting on its debt for the very first time in our history. what would have happened if we had not broken that gridlock, and which branch of government was responsible for this sequestration policy? last but not least, i would like to ask whether or not the administration is willing to meet their budget targets by

adopting a balanced approach that involves a measure of spending reductions and a measure of revenue increases? >> in terms of the debt ceiling negotiation, i think it had a bad impact on the economy during that period of time. i cannot imagine and not even want to think about the impact it would have had on the economy if we had actually defaulted. >> in fact -- >> the threat of it alone had a bad impact. we can hardly afford further bad news. balance deficit reduction is the key. a further spending cuts and revenue, with the top 2% paying its fair share -- independent economists, all of them have the epicenter of their plan balance,

spending cuts and revenue. it is the lack of balance, the insistence of that, that is the root problem here that has us in the situation where we are five months out and have not yet replaced the sequestered. a balanced plan is the key to moving forward and making sure we do not have to implement what we all agree is a bad policy. >> what you are suggesting is that it is this very congress that hais the very problem you have -- >> congress needs to pass balanced deficit-reduction that the president can sign into law. >> i thank you and your back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i would like to remind everybody that the house republicans have acted. we passed a budget. the senate has not acted.

i would encourage the president to do like he did on the cyber bill and show leadership. the senate starts to take up a cyber bill. he needs to write another op-ed and insist that the senate passed something. it into conference. let's talk about it. to say we have done nothing is not accurate. we have passed a budget. that is something that needs to be corrected in the record. my question goes to dr. carter. concerts in multi-year procurement authority, the contract, what percentage of what we procure today are in those multi-year contracts? >> i cannot give the the exact percentage. i can find it out for you. it is fairly small, but they then are important. your contract can be much more efficient because to lengthen the horizon of the manufacturing base, cedric is much more efficient.

-- so it is much more efficient. sequester, if it occurs, would effect the payment on those contracts in the future. it is a partial exception to the thing i was describing earlier about obligated funds. >> it is the determination liability consideration? >> in general, the kinds of changes called for in sequestration, when you negotiate a multi-year contract to negotiate a variable numbers. we never know what our preparation will be year by year. >> if we break this contract -- >> it is less efficient if quantities go down. >> has the department of defense taken into consideration what kind of balance we are talking about? if we cut those contracts, there will still be a cost there.

has there been an analysis on this multi-year contract? >> you are right, there will be tremendous inefficiencies. quantities have been to the date -- decrease -- that delays things. >> have you done any analysis on that? >> no specific analysis at this point. >> is that something you could shield? f-35 -- could we shield those? >> it is not at this time subject to multi-year contracts. we know how to make those adjustments. they are just grossly inefficient. >> would you be able to adjust those? >> it is across the board. you have to go ppa by ppa. >> you have some ability to do that, to shield some of those

malta-year contract. >> you have to go ppa by ppa. >> that begs the question, are you considering that? >> we would certainly take advantage of any flexibility that we could find. >> that is something you should be doing. >> unfortunately, there is just so little flexibility in sequester. it is not much help, but we will take a advantage of every bit of flexibility can if this happens to us to continue to try to deliver the best body we can for the taxpayers and defend our country. i am sure all the other managers will try to do the same. >> that brings me back to where i started -- house republicans have backed it. i urge you to go talk to the president to have him show some leadership to get the democratic-controlled senate -- to sit here and say that we have

not acted is just not true. >> in 20 years in the private sector, you inevitably do a lot of negotiations. in order to come to the table, you have to have two reasonable parties. this approach -- >> get it passed the senate. >> where people are not paying their fair share is not -- >> what is clear about that? single people earning over $200,000? cobbles over 200 to 2000? >> it is the package coming before you that insures there is no tax increase for 90% of americans. >> as a former small business owner, sometimes my tax return which show over $300,000. i do not take that money home. i take that money and invested in my building. >> this will protect -- >> rigell her job creators. >> -- it will hurt job creators.

>> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses for testifying here today. as the newest member of congress, i was not here to vote on sequestration, thank goodness. had i been here, i would not have voted for this irresponsible plan. this is an irrational way to deal with the budget deficit and our national debt. sequestration represents a failure of leadership in congress and is absolutely the wrong approach to getting our fiscal house in order. it would have a devastating impact on the two military installations, service members, civilian personnel and defense contractors that are the major economic drivers in my district. it would bring serious harm to funding for border security, a

priority for me and my district, to education, to public safety, disability services, and essential services for the most honorable members of my district. if a family took an approach of sequestration to manage its budget, it would cut mortgage payments, utility bills, food, clothing purchases, child care, and all the rest by same amount across the board. obviously no family would or could do this. while i was not here to vote against sequestration last fall, i am here now to help stop it. i came here with the full intention of working across the aisle to solve problems. i have been told countless times that this is a 90 proposition. but i remain hopeful that common sense and bipartisanship will

yet prevail. my question is for you, dr. carter. i am very concerned about all of these potential cuts across the board to military and to domestic spending. but i would like to focus, with your help, on the department of defense, a critical area in my district and in many others. could you please help us by identifying three critical national security priorities that absolutely must be protected, whether we have deep cuts under sequestration or some other formulation? congressman jones spoke to one -- how we create our millet -- treat our military members for post-traumatic stress disorder and tbi. if we could have your view on the three most critical national

security priorities. >> the first one that obviously comes to mind is our wartime spending and support to the forces that are engaged in the fight in afghanistan. i indicated that the opening that the that is largely but not exclusively oco funding. the bad news is that oco is subject to sequestration. the only slight silver lining on that cloud is that the operations and maintenance part of oco and the base part become one account in the year of execution. what that means is that we can take money from ordinary training, readiness here at home in order to keep the troops in the field funded in a way

that we really owe to them. that makes the hit on the readiness hear back at home even harder. you are shifting the pain away from the field, which is the responsible thing to do, but you make it even heavier. the second thing is that that is not entirely possible for the other parts of oco that are not operations and maintenance. we will have to find other ways there to provide the materiel and so forth to the troops need in the field. otherwise, i could go on and on, but military medical care was cited already, obviously. that is an area where we will work very hard within the limits of this rigid lot to do everything we can to make sure there is no impact on the care that we give to wounded warriors, families, and so forth. of course, the exemption of

is onery personnel a way as signifying their faith in the importance of ordinary soldiers, sailors, and marines. -- thank you. >> thank you for being here. secretary carter, of sequestration happens, and we do not wanted to and we will work hard. but that is the law of the land. it looks like there are a lot of contracts to be real scope that a possible time as part of the sequestration. do you have any idea what the cost would be to risk of the contracts? >> the contract termination is not required in the sense that if you have already obligated money on contract, that obligated fund is not subject to

sequestration. >> you are not anticipating terminating any contracts that have not been funded? >> they do not have to be terminated on account of sequestration. >> this problem will be thousands and thousands of contracts and obligations. would you anticipate you have the authority to do a class deviation or would you have to go buy it contract by contract. >> there are hundreds of thousands of contracts government-wide. on the other third, i think you have to go contract by contract to understand where we will not exercise options, where will we make modifications? where do you consider termination's? it is a very inefficient and labor-intensive it -- >> have you given guidance to

the executive branch agencies and everybody that the responsibility -- have you started to give them that guidance? will there be training or everything else going? what's the guidance we did yesterday was focused on exempt and non exempt accounts. if we get to a point where january 2 sequestration order is kicking in, we will prepare agencies on contracting. >> so they will have enough work force in place -- >> as you know the acquisitions work force strategizing is to make sure we are moving from no bid contracts to competition to fixed-rate contracts. >> reclaiming my time, the department of defense is about $55 billion the first year. that is net. either one of you have an

estimate as to when to start doing these terminations are whatever it is, it triggers penalty payments and other things as well as the cost of defending -- do we know what the growers will be? what's the $55 billion is money that will be taken away. >> does that not add to the problem? what it means the money you have left will be less efficiently spent. >> can you give us a guess as to what the gross expenditures will be at in order to make up -- >> you are cutting $55 billion. the remaining money will not be as well spent because of the inefficiencies we described. >> let me ask you this question. you said earlier that during the first quarter, all the agencies get their money obligated and pushed out.

it is not subject to sequestration at that point in time. mechanically, how does that work? will we have a mass rush across government to get everything spent and done in the first quarter and pushed out to the recipients? how do you cut at that point in time? >> it is what it is. if they have obligated -- >> how did they comply with -- >> they have to meet their sequestration target with the amount of funds that are not obligated at that date. this is a subject we will go through with our program managers one by one. >> this is just the department of defense? >> it would apply to any agency doing contract in. that is the way the law works. >> collectively the administration seems to be taking the attitude with respect to sequestration of the fellow who fell off a 10-story building. as he is passing the fifth floor

he says so far so good. we have a five months left and i am not sensing a lot of leadership. i respect the mantra that you have to pound away, but there are those of us who have similar opinions just as strongly that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. these horrible rates that this president extended, it increases federal revenues so fast. that would be a balanced approach. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. my questions are more about clarification. you had mentioned not extending the tax cuts for the tot two%. are you talking about on in come -- the top 2%. are you talking about anyone who earns over to under $50,000?

>> the first would still receive the tax cuts. the income above that -- that group needs to pay their fair share so we have a balanced approach. >> is the estimate of how much money that would raise? i think the estimate is over nine years. >> >> 10 is about $850 billion. >> sequestration is 1.2 trillion dollars. but i guess with -- interest savings -- that leaves $134 billion debt would have to come to cut if we used all of the income or revenue from elimination of the tax cuts to go definitely towards sequestration. >> president's plan has a buy $1.20 trillion of revenue that goes beyond the expiration of the $103 billion.

there are further spending cuts. the balance here is not simply the 2% paying their fair share, it is for their spending cuts in health care and other non mandatory programs. -- other mandatory not health care programs. >> if we have $134 billion over nine years to cut, that works out to be $10 billion or $15 billion per year. $7.5 billion defense and domestic programs. >> you are correct, but discretionary, we have already saved one trillion dollars. there are mandatory programs mentioned on the health care side and not health care side that the president was a budget and his submission to the joint committee last encumber our savings in that area. >> just to clarify, the bill

that i believe we will vote on tomorrow that has come over from the senate, well but have the $850 billion in revenue? >> the senate bill ensures no family with less than $250,000 has any tax increases as you point out for families with more than $250,000, the first $250,000 is also protected. it extends the middle class tax cut for one year while not extending the tax cuts for a the wealthiest 2% consistent with the wealthiest 2% the need to pay their fair share. >> that will raise the >> >850 billion greater than in essence, yes. >> just to clarify because you both have said it, sequesters and takes effect january 2. it becomes law or it is law but it becomes effective january 2, but it is really until the each

-- the end of the fiscal year that each agency has to show savings. education has to take it out of the next -- same with defense. if they have already obligated money for the end of this year, whatever is left -- >> january 2 will be a quarter of the way through the fiscal year. the cuts are actually higher percentages that have to be applied. >> right. i just wanted some clarification and i appreciate your indulgence. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. e -- mr. wilson. >> i think it has been very revealing the information the american people are receiving today -- it is very important to the american people. it has direct impact on the citizens are represent. i am grateful i represent for jackson. we are very proud of the marines

trained there. i represent north airfield. in the new district i now will be in the neighborhood of fort gordon and the eisenhower medical center. i have wonderful people and the military families. as chairman of the military personnel subcommittee, i am concerned about what i have heard today. in particular, yesterday in advance of this hearing, the president announced he would exempt military accounts from sequestration. can you describe whether they will be exempt in whole or in part and to what extent? >> the law gave the president until early august to make that determination. he did decide to exempt medical personnel in total. that part of the budget will be

exempt from sequestration. that means the rest of the budget has to bear a larger share of the cuts. we certainly think that is a fair and practical thing to do. it is fair because it is the right thing to do by our troops in a time of war. it is a practical thing to do because the way the military personnel regulations and laws work, it would be very difficult to take that much money out of the personal account of it or not exempted. we cannot furlough military personnel. we can furlough civilian personnel, and sadly might have to do that. the only way we can accommodate a cut of that size would be to do things like stop exceptions, which is very unhealthy for the forest. stop bringing in new people. stop permanent move is where

everybody freezes employees and we cannot move anybody around. it is particularly unpleasant. sequestering is very unpleasant and that general to everything we do. in a bad situation, this is making the best of a bad situation to exempt military personnel. >> you actually said it was stupid. that is unfortunate for our country. as you mentioned about furloughs, the exemption of military personnel accounts from sequester means that even more military personnel will have to be separated to offset the loss of savings from pay and benefits. >> no, because the entire military personnel account is protected in this way. what will suffer

disproportionately as a consequence is readiness, the force that exists, modernization, research development, evaluation, all of the other major accounts will suffer as a consequence. >> in your testimony, you indicated this will affect service members who are serving overseas. in an june, he expressed concerns about a hollow force, the same statement the secretary panetta. do you agree with the commandant? if they are sequestered, how will the department's ensure service members are trained and equipped? >> this is the kind of turned off one does not want to have to make but is made under sequester. past 2013 when these mechanical cuts are imposed, i think the entire leadership of the department has made it clear and

the president made clear in the budget that we submitted for fiscal year 2013, which did not presume sequestration but did it contain his intent on this matter, we do understand the military personnel will have to be part of meeting our budget target in the future. we already have $489 billion of cuts. we have already taken that and then defense. we did include military personnel. to do otherwise would be unbalanced. we would have a hollow force of the same size. >> thank you. mr. whitman. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today. we appreciate you taking the time. let me ask you, you had previously testified before us that sequestration would affect

our lcs programs. could you elaborate more on that and how it will affect different accounts and how it will affect the ohio class replacement submarine? we know what of the models for procurement has been the virginia class submarine. it is critical to our force projection their -- we know how important that is. can you comment on how sequestration would affect our shipbuilding industrial base, specifically the suppliers and vendors that support the industrial base? >> that is an excellent question. i share all the concerns implied. a sequester doesn't lie to each and every program like -- a sequestered does apply to each and every program.

it applies separately to the r&d line. this is a detailed pain for each and every management and each and everyone of our programs that leads to inefficiencies. our shipyards plan out to their work years in advance. they operate in the most efficient way. this will have caused us to make a very inefficient adjustments in each and everyone of them. it is a sad waste of the tax payer's procurement dollars to run things this way. >> how would it affect the ohio oppose a plan of displacement? >> will get back to you with a more detailed answer. at this point he will have a program that is largely are in the money. it will affect the rate we accumulate the design content.

obviously, we will work as hard as we can to make sure we do not slow the project down as a consequence. >> in your understanding of the ship building supply industrial base, at do you think with the uncertainty building with sequestration, is there a possibility any of the small businesses would go out of business? >> i do. the bottom of the supply chain is particularly vulnerable in times of economic inefficiency, at which this would engender. we worked very hard to protect small businesses that supply defense. the reason is that small businesses are particularly vibrant good sources of technology. they breathed new life and talent into the defense sector. we are always concerned about new businesses and we will work

hard to keep them in the game. >> how difficult would it be to reconstitute the small-business suppliers industrial base for shipbuilding if it were affected by sequestration? >> we worry all the time in about exactly that. not just in the context of sequestration, but budget cuts in that general. it is very hard once you lose a specialized supply chain contributor to regain that specialized expertise. it is better to keep it in the business for the long run. that is why our industrial base policy is such an important part of what we do in defense. >> i want to point to comments that have been made. when secretary panetta came and testified before us february 15, he said that in looking at the total context of defense spending, the administration

opposed the policy was to pursue a i put an amendment and that set aside in 2013. i was surprised when president obama visited richmond, virginia and did an interview. his " was this. as you know i do not thing now is the time for brack. he said we just went through some base closings. the strategy that we have does not call for that. i am wondering, was the president missed speaking because it was clear to me that secretary panetta said it was this administration oppose a policy to pursue brack. >> the president is right. we did not build into our 2013 budget submission any savings

or presumption for the very simple reason that that is not an authority that we have. there was never any prospect and is no prospect of any brac in 2013. down the road if we continue to have reductions in overall defense spending, it will be a necessary thing we will have to revisit. >> i want to be clear that it is not only no savings in 2013, there are no savings in the five-year window. this is not the economic time given the fragility of the economy. >> very good. >> mr. scott. >> thank you for being here. i did not vote for sequestration. i no commitments were made at the highest level of both

parties this would ever happen. we are. unfortunately for me as a man with a wife and a soon-to-be 13- year-old boy i am quite honestly tired of the blame game. i will live under whatever we do for a long time in this country. i and the rest of the freshman class want to get this resolved. if i could, i would like to talk to you about a couple of things. the president has essentially said, if you will pass my budget everything will be ok. he did not get a single vote from democrats are republicans. that is not my fault it did not pass. it was not supported by his own party. same with the jobs bill. as i have listened to the president come out and talk, he has talked more about the buffet rule than anything else. i take you at your word that his tax bill is coming to the house.

i will soon have his total language and you said it would generate $850 billion over 10 years. we spend approximately $10 billion a day in this country. is that fair enough give or take? the buffet rule generated $750 billion over eight years. i have listened to my president propose a tax that would fund the government for 45 minutes and a buffet rule for 10 or 11 hours. this tax code we are living under today, the one we are living under today generated $2.70 trillion in 2007. it generates less than that today. part of it is a global recession. part of it is the class warfare he is perpetuating.

with due respect, there is a difference in taxing schedule bus and come and taxing w-2 income. you are a smart guy. if you are a schedule s business owner and you will pay schedule s taxes at 40% under the president's proposal or you can convert to a schedule c and pay him at what he says should be a lower rate than today, why would you not convert to a schedule c and pay at the lower rate? >> first of all, the president presented a detailed plan to the joint committee. i operated in the economy during the clinton administration which was a level of taxation we're talking about returning to. i can say there were plenty of incentives to grow by businesses. they employ about 4000 people.

what he proposes we return to so that the top 2% are paying their fair share. >> are those paying nothing paying their fair share? >> nobody with income under $250,000 is paying any more. to your. the president is in favor of tax reform so we have a simpler system. he has set forward principles -- >> he has not presented a proposal. it is time for him and the administration to stop blaming george bush. the bottom line is, we are spending $10 billion a day in this country. your revenue estimates rigid i ask this of another member of the administration, the only member that he has allowed it to

meet with the freshman class which is 20% of congress, the revenue estimate you have, how is that derived? >> in the presidents proposal of $1.60 trillion? >> the total receipt -- >> it is derived by having the top 2% pay its fair share by us returning to the clinton era tax rates and by ensuring deductions are limited to 28% for the wealthiest 2%. there are some other specific proposals like the corporate tax peace. the president would love to do tax reform to simplify rates. >> you are the director with the budget office. with all due respect, the assumptions as soon as the revenue from corporate taxes doubles in the 24 months between 2011 and 2013. >> i do not believe that to be

the case. you have the economy growing and picking up pace. we are not where we need to be. >> that is part of the problem that his definition of growth as 1.5% to 2%. >> if congress would enact the jobs act would have better growth. >> the president was asked to give us -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. just to clarify something that mr. whitman brought up, i remember in a meeting with secretary panetta in my office, i do not know if you were there, but the request of us was that we have two bracs going forward in the strategy. is that correct? >> he has asked for authority to

begin brac in 2013. that would not have led to any brac activity. there is a commission and so forth. >> there was a request of us. we did not put it in our bill. it was his request. >> that was. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like unanimous consent to introduce a report titled "long run macro economic impact of tax rates on high-income taxpayers and 2013." can i enter that for the record? >> no objections. >> i will quote from it for a second. we ask ourselves why we are here. if we are honest with ourselves,

we can look back over decades of fiscal mismanagement by both parties. both republican and democrat and maybe one or two independence if they were out there at the time. we have made it for fiscal choices year after year. -- core fiscal choices year after year at this time. you have mentioned over and over on this panel that we have five months to avert sequestration. we need to be working together. we do not need to be engaging in partisanship or playing the blame game whether you voted for the bill or did not vote for the bill. it is coming at us a very quick. sequestration is allowed to take affect, we know it is irresponsible and the damage it will do is irreversible. you did mention some things on the president was a plan to

raise revenue through tax and the 2% that do not pay their fair share. i think 5% of the top earners pay almost 40% of our total revenues. that report i just mentioned actually analyzes what the president's plan is. those businesses you were talking about employee 54% of the private-sector work force. the number of workers employed by large flow through businesses is significant. 20 million workers are employed by float through businesses with more than 100 employees. these higher marginal tax rates -- it finds the higher tax rates will have adverse impact in the long run. lower output, capital stock when

the resulting revenue was used to finance additional government spending. we are here to talk about the house armed services committee. i would like to get some questions from secretary what she testified if the president exempts military personnel -- you testified. with the president having just recently announced that millinery we do military personal accounts are exempt, would not occur until after fy 14 or later, or with the department have to start taking steps in fy13 to responsibly brought down the fourth beginning at a later date? >> what the president did was

exempt from sequestration in fiscal year 13 military personnel. as i said, that was both a decision made on principle and one that was practical, given the limitations on the way the such draconian cuts would have had to be taken. over the course of the next 10 years, in the long run, as we absorber the cuts we have already of sort, military personnel, that part of our budget will be taken into consideration, as it was in the 13 budget that we submitted. to do otherwise would be to unbalanced. what the president was doing was avoiding something associated with sequester in 13, which was particularly of third impact on that account in 13.

otherwise we would have had to have done some very drastic things. >> would any of these reductions rely heavily on involuntary separations? >> in the plan we submitted for 13, we would endeavour to do that in whatever circumstances we found ourselves to avoid or at least minimize involuntary separation. we built our holt drawdown, the army and marine corps on the principle of minimizing involuntary separations. >> thank you. and you are planning on leaving at 12:30, but we do have one more member. understand have agreed to stay for that and i thank you for that. >> thank you both for being

here and staying a few minutes longer. what is the omb position on contracts funded with fiscal year 12 appropriations executed in fiscal year 13? will agencies be allowed to delay contracts to prefers -- to reserve flexibility or accelerate contracts prior to january 2? >> we are instructing agencies to continue their normal business operations. that was central to yesterday's divens critical contract that are fully obligated will not be impacted. contracts that are not obligated would be subject to sequester or to the ramifications of sequestered. >> for either one of the comet in the event that is all your 13th begins under a continuing resolution, which is looking more and more likely, how will

the calculations be applied? if fiscal year 13 begins under a continuing resolution, will omb consider apportioning based on fiscal year 12 levels? >> we will assume business as usual. if we are in an event where the sequestration order is implemented, we will be ready to implement. >> mr. carter, do you have anything to add to that? >> no, i do not. >> in that event, will changes be redirected to the beginning of the fiscal year once the appropriations bills are passed? >> no. >> same answer. >> i appreciate you both being here. thank you. >> mischa chairman, i yield back. -- mr. chairman pierredax i want to thank both of our witnesses for being here. about half the discussion was a

useful discussion about how to get out of the problem and the other half was simply an attempt to blame the administration for the entire problem. normally on the armed services committee, the members of the committee are very partisan, but our witnesses are from the dot in they do not really fight back. today we had someone who was willing to punch back. that was not the most useful exchange we have had. if we are going to have witnesses from the white house, don't cut them off every two seconds. it is just embarrassing to the committee to not give the witnesses a chance to get two words out of their mouth and between questions. i think the chairman's intentions were very good in this hearing to finally start having a discussion about how we get out of it. the discussion is moving forward and i think it was very useful

to have people from the white house and have the discussion about how to get out of what we all agree is a problem that we must avoid, and the sooner, the better. the sooner we can come up with a solution, the more certain we can have in the economy and the better we can help turn things around. i thank the chairman for attempting that. i yield back. >> thank you. i think this is a bipartisan committee, and i think this is probably the first time we have had a witness come that has actually told us what republicans should do and what democrats should do. i think that got us off on a track that all was uncomfortable with, and i wish it had not happened. but for you to state your position that the worst thing

that could happen if republicans are not willing to raise revenue, as i said an early meeting and in our opening statement, we have taken action. we talked a little bit about help private industry works. this is the congress of the united states and we are directed by the constitution. it lays out a framework where we resolve problems. that is one body passes legislation and another body passes legislation, and then you have a conference and try to resolve the differences. we find ourselves hung up because the senate has not taken action. director, one final follow-up question. is it the case that the president's negotiators first raised the sequester mechanism during the debt ceiling

negotiations with the house? >> i don't know the history of that negotiation. that has been my understanding is that that is where it came from. is there a way that you could find out and get back to us for the record? >> i was not part of those negotiations. >> de know anybody in there that you could ask? >> let me see what kind of follow-up i can do. at the end of the day, the vast majority of members of this committee voted in favor of it. >> i completely understand the members who voted for it. the other piece of that is, nobody likes sequestration, but nobody wanted the debt ceiling to be breached, either. that was a complete terrible choice that we face. the members who voted for it and the president who signed it, it was not yay, sequestration.

it was we have to stop the debt ceiling from being reached. that was the only option on the table. >> as you pointed out, it is the law. we all agree we need to avoid it. >> thank you very much. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> next on c-span, house members today extending bush era tax cuts. then fbi officials discussed the investigation of the fort hood shooting. later, another chance to see today's house armed services hearing on the defense budget. thursday and "washington journal," ohio congressman jim jordan will be here to discuss the tax debate on capitol hill and the gop position on the temporary government spending deal. then a look at the call for increased gun-control legislation since the york, colorado shooting. our guest is a democrat from colorado. "washington journal," live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> we have to be really clear about the very many ways that we owned ourselves and that we own

our history and that we make decisions in our history that are phenomenal, bottle, and special. >> the former president of bennett college rights and talks on african-american economic history. this sunday, your question, calls tojulianne malveaux. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> the house passed a republican tax-cut bill today. the bill prevents the bush sheriff tax rate from expiring by extending them through 2013. 19 democrats joined republicans

in voting for the bill. here is part of the debate prior to the final vote. it begins with a ranking member sander levin. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 8, the job prevention and recession prevention act. in doing so i and my fellow republican house colleagues have made an important choice, the choice to focus on job creation. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who oppose this important piece of legislation have made a different choice. the choice to focus on tax hikes that destroy jobs. the job prevention and recession prevention act stops the tax hike we face at the end of the year and provides a one-year extension of the low tax policies originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and then extended again in 2010.

the 2010 bill was supported by 85 current house democrats, 40 current senate democrats and president obama. importantly, this legislation allows congress time to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform. without causing undo harm to our fragile economy. economists have noted that comprehensive tax reform, when paired with appropriate government spending cuts, could lead to the creation of one million american jobs in the first year alone. the choice republicans have made is to pass this bill, work toward comprehensive tax reform and create jobs. in contrast, my democrat colleagues have proposed raising taxes. they claim the tax hike will only affect the rich. what they don't want to tell you is that in reality this tax hike will hit nearly one million small businesses and

53% of small business income. a study conducted by ernst & young concluded that the democrat tax hike could lead to the loss of over 700,000 jobs. that's the choice that democrats made, to raise taxes on families and small businesses and destroy jobs. america is at a crossroads. as this chart illustrates, and the question is, which path will our country take? the democrats' path will cause 700,000 lost jobs. or the republicans' plan that will lead to the creation of one million jobs in the first year? what's even worse is that in their quest to raise taxes on the so-called wealthy, several of my democrat colleagues have made it clear that they're willing to hold low and middle income americans hostage by threatening to let all taxes

rise at the schedule -- as scheduled at the end of the year if they don't get their way. now, these massive and imminent tax hikes are part of the fiscal cliff or jobs cliff as i offer refer to it that we face at the end of the year. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says going over the fiscal cliff could cost america two million to three million jobs. this will be a devastating blow to almost 13 million americans who are unemployed as well as to the middle class americans who have been struggling in the obama economy. now, mr. speaker, the choice to me is obvious. let's pass this bill, let's work toward comprehensive fax reform that creates a simpler, fairer tax code for all americans, most importantly, that creates the jobs we so badly need. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their choice, to increase taxes and destroy over 700,000 jobs. now is not the time to dig the

hole we're in any deeper. instead, democrats should take the advice of people like former president clinton and larry sommers and join republicans to stop the tax hike, work to strengthen our economy and get our country back on track. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: there is a choice to be made here, and it isn't what the chairman has put forth for one second. everyone in this body agrees that we should extend the

middle class tax cut. the senate passed a bill that does just that. the president is ready to sign it this week. the middle class families of this country need certainty, not some vague promises about something to be done in the future. so the question is, if everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cut, why don't we come together? the answer is this. the senate bill continues all the tax cuts for every american household on their first $250,000 of income. 114 million families would see their tax cuts extended in full. 97% of small businesses would

keep all of their tax cuts, according to the joint tax committee. 97%. so why don't the republicans join us in acting? i think the answer is clear. this chart shows it. they're insistent, their priority is cutting taxes for the very wealthy. they want to give households that earn more than $1 million a year a tax cut on average of $160,000. this chart shows that we have here for middle class families $2,200. for the verywelly, $160,000. that's over 70 times more a tax

cut for millionaires than for typical families. and what makes it worse, if possible, is it would add $49 billion to deficit this republican bill also would raise taxes on 25 million families, 25 million. those who benefited from the eitc, from the child tax credit, and a higher education tax cut which they would credit -- credit that they would eliminate altogether. and it's still worse. the bill we're going to discuss tomorrow, so-called tax reform, essentially would provide someone earning more than $1 million a $331,000 tax cut. this debate is not about tax reform. it's about whether or not we

protect the very wealthy at all costs. at all costs. for middle income families. for everybody except the very wealthy. there's talk about 700,000 jobs being lost. that study financed by special interest friends, it's been discredited by every fact checker. and you know, they're talking about 70 times more for the millionaire than for middle income families on average when in 201193% -- in 2011, 93% of income growth went to the top 1% of wealthy households. 93%. and they come here and say, as their first priority, is

protecting the very wealthy. now this isn't about tax reform. we need to work on this. this is about whether the first priority of the republicans is protecting the very wealthy, holding hostage middle income families. let middle income family hostages be released. be released. join together for what everybody says they are for. let's pass today our substitute and give a middle income tax cut to everybody. including 97% of small businesses. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the health subcommittee, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. herger: mr. speaker, this house must act to stop the midnight tax hike that threatens to hit all american taxpayers on december 31. this midnight menace includes a 50% cut in the value of the child tax credit. higher taxes on dividends for seniors living on fixed income. the return of the infamous marriage penalty for working families. and the alternative minimum tax ensnaring middle income taxpayers. an average family of four with an income of $50,000 could see a tax increase of almost $2,200 a career. the president says he wants to stop the midnight tax hike for some taxpayers, but not all. he claims that he merely wants

the wealthy to pay more but the truth is, that his tax increase proposal would especially hit small business owners. as someone who comes from a small business background myself, i understand that many small businesses pay taxes as individuals. their income includes money that they reinvest in the business to expand and hire more workers. a big tax increase could harm the very businesses we are relying on to create more jobs. in fact, a new study bierness & young suggests that the president -- by ernst & young suggests that the president's tax proposal would cost more than 700,000 american jobs. mr. speaker, what lane will you

choose? i urge the house to pass h.r. 8 and prevent a tax hike for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. when you look at mr. herger's district, he's standing up to protect 180 people who have income over $1 million, sacrificing a middle income tax cut for 285,000. i now yield two minutes to the very distinguished chairman, former chairman, and a gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. chairman. i've never been so fortunate in this house to have the republicans state the argument as clearly as they have this afternoon.

and i think wally herger said it. it is possible not that we're talking about a tax cut. people are working every day to try to make ends meet. they don't know the wonderful tax cut that they are enjoying. but you bet your life if we don't come together, we don't reach agreement, they'll understand what a tax hike is. and that's exactly what's going to happen to 98% of the tax paying people of this great country. taxpayers who work every day who raise their families porks buy from the local merchants that keep small business alive are going to find out, probably too late, that the republican party says you don't deserve the lower tax rate. then they may ask, what's holding this up? if everyone agrees that they should have it? we're going to have to explain

to the middle class what the republicans are explaining to us. that somehow we are to believe that less than 2% of the population is creating the jobs and really supporting the economy. i don't know where they've been or how they're going to come become but they haven't been creating jobs and they haven't been spending and investing money. but even if there was a controversy, why the heck are we holding hostage 98% of the people? if republicans agree and democrats agree and liberal and conservatives and even tea party people agree that these people work hard every day, should continue to have this tax cut, then why the heck don't we agree to give it to them? and if it ever becomes that we're in a political debate and it's only about less than 2% of

100%, then let's fight like the devil over that and see who prevails. but it's not going to be hard for us to explain this if you do this to the hardworking american people, shame on you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to pause and just listen and think through a couple of arguments we've been hearing over the past couple of weeks from our friends on the other side of the aisle and from the president of the united states and one is that people should pay their fair share. that's an interesting argument, mr. speaker. let's look at that a little bit closer. so if the president's will were to prevail on this, in other words if this tax hike goes into place, then the top tax rate for some small businesses would be over 44%.

now contrast that to the top tax rate that president obama is proposing would be 28%. now, all afternoon, you're going to hear a lot of things go back and forth but you won't hear anyone contradict those numbers -- those numbers and that disparity, mr. speaker, because they are true. there is no sense in telling corporations you get a 28% rate and the top rate for small business is 44%, there's nothing fair about that. let's look at another argument. another argument is that this smu closes a budget gap and this is deficit reduction and we're all about deficit reduction and let's have at it. the little secret on the deficit reduction is at best, the most generous estimate, is this would take care of, what, maybe seven, eight, nine, 10 days of spending, maybe. but who would pay the cost for

that? i'll tell you who pays the cost for that. the job creators and the people who are looking for jobs right now, mr. speaker. according to ernst & young and other who was looked at this, some estimates are that it would cost 700,000 jobs. i know nobody that is willing to say you know what we have got too many jobs. let's thin the herd. there's too many people working. let's thin the herd, there's too many people working and let's do it buzz of democratic dogma. we have leading depps on the other side of the rotunda saying let's embrace the fiscal cliff and grab on to the dogma and go right off the cliff regardless of the outcome. you know what? that's ridiculous. and we have an opportunity here to make some certainty, to move to the next year, not to the move to the next year just for the sake of another year but to move to next year to fundamentally reform our tax system. to create a more competitive to create a more competitive tax code