o what they need to do and stop the bottleneck, cut down on carbon emissions and move people around, not just cars. transportation, a huge job creator, cut 25% in the ryan budget. cuts education by 40%, 45%. now, if there's one engine of economic development, having smarter, better trained people has got to be the core of that and yet education's cut by 45% in the ryan budget. . so the bottom line is, these are some of the key things wrong with this budget. and many more i'm planning on talking about. but just return to my theme a little bit, mr. speaker, and say we are facing a fiscal cliff and americans need to call members of congress and say focus on the job on hand and need you to

focus your attention. what are you people in congress going to do about it? what we are saying is we need to come together and have a deal. the deal has four pieces and i repeat and make sure the military shares in the cuts by being more efficient, we need to make sure we protect social security, medicare, medicaid and need to make sure that we are having -- that we're having -- putting jobs up front and investing in american jobs to a very large degree, and we need to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute a little bit more to meet our budgetary challenges. that's what the progressive caucus says we need to do. we have had difficulty coming together because of obstruction. republican obstruction has made it difficult to move forward and do anything.

why do we have the obstruction? because we started out signing pledges that we won't raise taxes and ryan's budget that have resulted in a number of public sector workers being laid off and federal employees having a reduction in their health care and so these things, this sort of obstructtive nature and insisting on cuts only has been the source of the problem. in order to get to a solution, we need people to come off these rigid positions so we can do the people's business. just to sort of think about the level of obstruction -- i already mentioned last august, how dramatic it was when the republican majority refused to raise the debt ceiling and caused us to have a downgrade in our bond rating, that was a sad

moment. but we have wasted a lot of time. we voted 32 times to repeal obamacare. obama does care more than i can say for some. we had time for voting to repeal obamacare 32 times, but didn't have any time to offer serious fixes to the economy. and i just want to mention that president obama, to his credit, has done, i think great and excellent work in offering solutions. they simply have been ignored. it's really kind of sad when you think about the fact that the president has offered real serious and important solutions to the problems of the nation and yet they really have not been seriously addressed.

for example, the president called us all here and talked about the american jobs act. this is a great piece of legislation. but you know, mr. speaker, we never even had a vote on it. we never even had an opportunity to say who wants the american jobs act. it was simply something that the republican majority in the house wouldn't even address. the fact is, there were great ideas in this bill. and i want to talk about those ideas, because i think they would really do a lot of good. it includes a national infrastructure, a proposal that we would be able to fund by the federal government putting in seed money in and leveraging that public money with some private-sector bonds and then have a fund of money that we could then use to make investment and important infrastructure that would be a

key and important element of the program. we would be able to make investments in the transmission lines. it would help take wind energy from the western part of my state in minnesota and bring it to where the population centers are. would be able to improve our grid and have a smart grid that would make energy use much more efficient and effective. and we would be able to use this infrastructure to fund programs all over the united states where we wouldn't only improve -- we wouldn't only build things that we need, but improve them. the american society of civil engineers has addressed this issue, mr. speaker. what they have said, 2.3 trillion of infrastructure maintenance needs to be done. i come from the city of minneapolis and in my city, we had a bridge fall into the

mississippi river. maintenance in this country is critical. we have bridges that are old and deteriorating all over this country. we have bridges that are in need of repair, roads as well, and we also have other projects that need to be taken care of, in terms of our grid and wastewater treatment, in terms of all types of important infrastructure. but we have not invested. we are relying on things that our grandparents gave us. we are relying on eisenhower-era infrastructure, because we haven't in our age focused on the needs of the american people to have infrastructure bill. just to talk a little bit more about the american jobs act, it would also extend cutting payroll taxes in half for 98% of

businesses. it would also offer a complete tax holiday for increased workers or increased wages. it would extend 100% expensing and throughout this year and if we were to pass it, maybe even longer, and this continues to be an effective way to incentivize new investment. and also, it would address and reform regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses to access capital. we need to help small business people to get investment into their company and that means access to capital. the american jobs act would also would have a returning heroes hiring tax credit for veterans. this is something we addressed already, which is a great thing, but would move on from there and prevent up to 280,000 teacher

layoffs. mr. speaker, you should note, we have had now about 30 months of private-sector job growth, but we have had also significant number of months of public-sector layoffs, mostly teachers. this is because of these draconian cuts that the federal government has made in -- and state governments have been affected about by and local and city governments but we would address these layoffs, which is really hurting our economy and of course teachers have been some of the most negatively impacted of all. we also would move from that idea to another great one, modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country. our public schools across this

nation, our kids go there and spend hours and hours try to learn there but many are in bad repair. they need help. we could support new science labs, internet-ready classrooms and innovations to schools across the country. the american jobs act with all these great ideas, never got a shot in this congress. it would, as i said, call for infrastructure investment with a national infrastructure bank which i talked about already. but i did mention airport improvements and waterways and would put literally thousands of workers back on the job. and also, we need to wire up this country. we would expand access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation's spectrum. i just want to remind you, mr. speaker, that our nation at one

time didn't have the entire country on the electrical grid. there was a program called rural electric try fix, which was a program under the roosevelt administration where our nation decided where you would not have to leave the countryside and take advantage of electric lights, but we would wire the whole country, and we did. the new wiring, the new rural program is connecting all of america with high-speed wireless and this is a project we should embark on and it's worth and would help improve economic activity and revite lies communities and it would be a great thing. the american jobs act also included pathways back to work

for americans looking for work. we have a serious unemployment problem and we see our friends on the republican side of the aisle shaking their fingers and criticizing, saying, where are the jobs. speaker boehner saying, where are the jobs? i think to myself, well, the jobs are in the american jobs act. can we take it up? can we vote on it? these are things we can do. one of the most innovative to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years is a program that says that as part of an extension of the unemployment insurance to prevent five million americans looking for work losing their benefits, it would include reforms to prevent layoffs and give states better flexibility to fund and support job seekers, including things

like work-sharing, unemployment insurance for workers whose employers chose work-sharing over layoffs, two, a new bridge to work program. the plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displaced workers take voluntary work and pursue on-the-the job training. states could be empowered to implement wage insurance and re-employ workers and programs that make it easier for the unemployed workers to start their own businesses. these are a number of things caint in the american jobs act which we haven't had a shot at. and it is a key feature of what we propose in the deal for all, get to work. we've got a country to rebuild. absolutely the case. but if the republican majority would allow us to take up the

american jobs act, i'm confident that there is something in there our colleagues would like. maybe the $4,000 tax credit for employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers. that would be a great benefit to workers and employers. maybe another feature they would like, prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring. we know that workers who have been out of the market now, are you unemployed? and if the answer is yes, we aren't going to hire you. these are valuable workers with good skills and should have a shot to get back into the work force. we might also find support for expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund of successful approaches for subdiesed

employment. one of the groups that has been hard hit, really hard hit during this recession is young people. and the american jobs act proposed by president obama, addresses youth employment, yet we haven't had a chance to deal with it because of a republican obstructionism. i want to encourage my colleagues to let go of your attachments and let go of the pledges and the ryan budget, let's come together to solve our problems. there is a whole section in the american jobs act on the tax relief for every american worker and family. i don't think we need to extend tax cuts for the richest folks, because they don't need them. but when people do need them, democrats are happy to cut taxes and we have. we cut payroll taxes for about 160 million workers. and we could extend that if the president's plan will expand the

payroll tax cut past last year. another thing is allowing more americans to refinance their mortgages at near 4% interest rates and put nearly $2,000 a year in a family's pocket. but the american jobs act, an excellent vehicle for putting americans back to work never really had a shot because as the minority leader in the senate said, the number one priority for the republican caucus was to make president obama a one-term president. but is it right to make getting rid of obama your top priority when we have so many americans out of work and we have an economy that has never really come back? i think it's not a good thing, and i wish we could move away from that and start focusing on

things that people really, really need. . . if i could go back to the deal for all, which is the progressive caucus' idea on how we negotiate on what the by as i -- basis of any ideal needs to be is simple, the way things are shaping up, after all the dust settling in 2012, election, an average middle class family could face tax increases of $2,000 unless congress acts. that's how important it is for us to do something and to act. and this is an opportunity, this fiscal cliff they talk about, is an opportunity to address the budget in a responsible way that grows our economy and puts americans back to work. talk about the american jobs act, other great ideas as well. but too many folks in washington, too many folks here in the capitol would rather cut medicare, medicaid and social security, benefits for millions

of -- that millions of americans depend on, and as i said this particular chart shows it all when you see the huge numbers of people who rely on medicare, medicaid and social security. and rather than -- rather than getting together with working on the problem, they're railroad caughting -- cutting benefits that millions of americans depnd on and raise taxes on middle class americans to protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. that's as simple as that. so let's just take a look at what the risk is, mr. speaker. one in every four families depends on our social security system. 61 million folks. including 36 million retired americans. it's important for people to remember social security also cares for people with disabilities and survivor

benefits for people who have parents who pass on. many children in our country today are survivors on those benefits which -- surviving on those benefits which some of us in congress are trying to protect, others are trying to cut. nearly every american senior can depend on medicare to cover health care costs. turning medicare into a voucher system, as republicans have proposed, would not only make seniors pay thousands more for medicare, by $6,000 more as estimated, but leave as many as 65 and 66-year-olds without any health care coverage at all. which would be a shame. and would return our nation to a time when seniors were in desperate and bad shape. so that's why, mr. speaker, the progressive caucus is proposing the deal for all, four commonsense proposals that would solve our deficit problems and protect the american middle

class. a deal for all says that any plan cannot slash benefits for millions of american seniors -- america's seniors, children and disabled americans. the deal for all says we must make and ask and expect that the wealthiest 2% pay their fair share of taxes and close loopholes that let companies ship jobs overseas. the deal for all makes smart cuts to defend spending, not just any old cuts, smart cuts, efficient cuts to defense spending to focus our armed forces on combating 21st century risks and the deal for all calls for any plan to invest in america's future by putting americans back to work. yes, we're facing a fiscal cliff as some call it. but that doesn't mean the middle class should get pushed over the

edge of that cliff. if working and middle class people are going to take a hit in tough times, it shouldn't be to pay for tax breaks for rich folks and millionaires and billionaires and oil companies. it's time for all americans of every economic situation to step up and do what's right for this country. and it's time we have a deal in washington that reflects our values. now, i just want to just elaborate on this a little bit by telling you, mr. speaker, about how the progressive caucus has been bringing experts together to study this issue. this is not just something we thought up. we brought experts in the field, comm economists, people who really focus hard on and have expertise in social security, medicare, medicaid, jobs, how to reduce the military budget in a wise way.

we've brought folks together to discuss this. in fact, yesterday was one of the hearings that we've had and the progressive caucus was hard at work holding a hearing, we're going to put some of it online so people can see it. and we had these experts from across the political spectrum, some conservatives, to detail the best ways to avoid the fiscal cliff and to rejuvenate the economy without harming essential protections from the middle class. and so depending -- the pending fiscal cliff is an enormous opportunity to address our jobs crisis. i say jobs first, mr. speaker. and then we need to put our country on the path to fiscal health. the progressive cause is laying the groundwork it make sure that any agreement reflects these core values. and our bipartisan panel yesterday confirmed the best way to grow our economy is from the middle out. not from the top down. no trickle hundred down.

we also cannot expect to put americans back to work unless we protect social security, medicare, medicaid and ask the wealthiest to contribute their fair share. so we had larry core come in and he is a person who has extensive background, very wise gentleman, has politically on the conservative side, but has done a lot of important research on how we can reduce our military footprint in a smart way. mr. larry core very well prepared witness shared his views and was really a big help as he laid out his presentation. and i just want to share with you a little bit about what he had to say, mr. speaker. because it really was fascinating. i think that i would urge people to check out mr. core's presentation online.

he had a number of -- a number things that would really provoke a lot of important thought and online you can go to the progressive caucus website and see some of that. but let me talk a little bit about what he said. mr. larry core was asked to how best to summarize his take on the current defense budget and he pointed to our poster, the one -- this one right here. he made it very clear when he said, don't pay for 20th century military in the 21st century. which i think sums it up. and i'll elaborate more on what he to say but we had another expert who i think i'd like to direct people to listen to, she's the chair of the national committee to preserve social

security and medicare and she said, quote, changes to programs must be based on what is best for their beneficiaries, not on what is expedient for reducing america's debt. unquote. she also went on to add, social security, medicare and medicaid are vital to the economic and health security of millions of senior americans. chad stone was also there and he talked about the jobs picture and he actually referenced a poster right here as well. and chad stone, he's a chief economist for the center for budget and policy priorities and he said that piling tax cuts on -- will only lead to draconian cuts in programs millions of americans rely on. so we can't go at this cuts-only approach. we got to have some jobs and we got to have some investment. and steve from the center of tax justice put it best. he said, quote, i think all of us here agree that the most

important job for congress right now is to help the economy to create jobs, tax cuts are one of the least effective tools to accomplish this goal. and so we had a great lineup. i urged folks to go on our website, study what we're there to say. but i do want to go back for a moment to just talk a little bit about the ideas larry core shared. and what he said was that -- he mentioned sequestration. he said that sequestration is certainly not a smart way to cut the defense budget. because it's just a across-the-board cut. but close analysis, you know, and careful cuts and strategic ones could help a lot. the fact is he talked about how the pentagon actually is pretty well endowed. he said that -- he talked about how if the automatic

sequestration defense cuts were to go into effect, the fiscal year 2013, nonwar -- nonwar expenditures, 2013 base, he said the budget will be reduced by about $55 billion down to what is about $500 billion and remain at that level in real terms for quite a while. and he said that this result in total reduction of about $500 billion over a decade from the projected levels in defense spending. and he also went on to note that it also means that the pentagon will still be spending more in 2013 after sequestration than it did in 2006. so they're not going to be poor by any means. at the height of the iraq war, in 2006, we still would have been spending more than that if sequestration goes into effect. but he's not just saying do

sequestration. he's actually promoting a strategic and smart way to do some cuts. but he said that, look, the united states military can do well, defend our nation and protect our country for about $500 billion and it seems to make sense to me. we'd still be spending so much more than any other country in the world. he went on to also note that in short the military really doesn't have a resource problem. they have what they need to defend the country. and he noted that, if the sequestration goes into effect, it would not be ideal to just do across-the-board cuts but there are a number of weapon systems that could be retired, a number of strategies reducing the

military budget that would not hurt national security but would really put our country in a position where we are dealing with our financial problems in a forthright way. and i think that it makes sense to really look carefully at these ideas. maya went on to note when she talked about social security, that it does not contribute to our nation's deficit. if you look at social security, it actually runs a surplus. and -- which don't need to cut social security, what we need to do is to recognize that this important program is a program that has been one of the most successful in the history of the united states and that if we abandon our commitment to our seniors and the disabled, we will be abandoning a core principle of our country. and, she was -- mr. chad stone was important in his testimony

as well. as we wrapped up, i was most impressed with the idea that we do -- it's not just about cuts. we also need to grow our way out of this recession and that means investing in jobs. and i think the american jobs act and many other things would do -- would put us far away down the line if we were to make those proper investments. and so that's what i want to say about the economy tonight. i'd like to urge people, mr. speaker, to focus their attention on the so-called fiscal cliff. it is coming up. we will see expiration of the bush tax cuts, we will see expiration of the payroll tax, we will see expiration of the doc fix, we will see expiration of the a.m.t. there will be a number of things coming together all at the same time. there will be budgetary negotiations, but no matter what they are, they've got to include protection of our social safety net, social security, medicare, medicaid, they've got to -- the military must share in the cuts,

the wealthiest americans must help us get some revenue and finally we've got to put jobs up front instead -- up front. so with that, mr. speaker, i am ready to retire. and therefore will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. and in the summer of 1973, it was a real honor for me to be selected to go on an exchange program, of course, i had to borrow the money to go and pay that back by working hard, but went on an exchange program some the soviet union. quite an eye opener for me. despite how wonderful the country was made to sound and how great it was that the government -- they proclaimed was the safety net for everybody in the country and they are

proclaiming because the government was in charge of everything and in charge of everybody's business, there was 100% employment. they talked about how wonderful their socialized medicine was. there were eight americans on this program that summer and we all had very different backgrounds, different political views, a lot of big hearts in the group on both ends of the political spectrum. but for me, a kid growing up in east texas, it was an extraordinary education. because even though people talked about how wonderful it was to have socialized medicine and everybody had a safety net because the government was the

safety net, the country's economic system was riding from within. went to medical school. reminded me of pictures from american medical schools from 40, 50 years before. we went to the economic exhibition, kind of like a world's fair in moscow at one point. and it reminded me of the pictures from the 1940 or early 1950's world's fair, things like tractors sitting out there with people ooohing and aaaghing. you could go to a used tractor dealer and find used tractors in the u.s. but everybody was told how wonderful it was. and during the course of the summer down in the ukraine, i

got to be good friends with a few of the students there. i spoke some russian back in those days and they spoke better english than i did russian, but he'd bring his dictionary with him and translate. it is amazing, you take a language course -- i had two years of russian awe are taught to converse, i'm going to the library and i have a dog, but when you want to talk about really serious life issues, we weren't prepared for those things. so we needed a dictionary so we could get our ideas across. but at one point, he said, you know, you seem surprised that

our country wouldn't want better . and he grabbed my shirt and said we don't have materials this good. we don't material this good for our individuals. and he said, we fought two world wars on our soil. and he said, we don't have it as good as you do in your country, that's obvious. he said, but, people will always be reluctant to leave the best they've ever known for something they're not sure about. when it got to 1989 and the soviet union fell because of the economic disease and decay that was pushed into the death spiral by president reagan's actions and followed by president george

h.w. bush, it collapsed and we began to see all the economic problems that were eating away at that country, because the government tried to be the safety net for everything and everybody. and it won't work that way. at a collective farm out -- way out from kiev. i was surprised. i worked on farms and ranches and try to get your work done by the middle afternoon when the sun gets it's hottest. you start early and here it was mid-morning and the farmers were sitting around in the shade there in the farming village, and i had been looking out at these fields and you could hardly tell what was cultivated and what wasn't. it was terrible.

they had nice gardens right around the individual dwelling places. those were kept up. they got to have those for themselves, but the fields just didn't look good at all and i tried to be nice and my best russian i could, i said, when do you work out in the fields? and they kind of laughed and one of them said in russian, i make the same number of rubles if i'm here or out there and so i'm here and boy, was that a lesson of why a big, huge, nothing but safety-net country can't work. free markets work until they decide it's time to be social is particular, progressive, whatever you want to going call

it and forces have been taken over by socialist structures. it's a good thought and wonderful idea to think, as did the pilgrims, we'll bring everything in the commonstore house and split it equally. sounds like a great idea but as the apostle paul found and pilgrims found, you have to say, you know what? this isn't working out very well. we have to have strict rules. the pilgrims found if you divide it up into private property and allow people to eat what they grew, not only grow enough for themselves but enough to trade, barter and sell and that can be very effective. but i heard my friend across the aisle mentioning earlier about the so-called ryan voucher care

and i know they know, in fairness to my friend paul ryan -- great to see him on the floor this evening, that actually, anybody over 55 gets medicare. paul ryan proposal, it's not exactly like the bill that i previously proposed, but my friend's brilliant and is on the right track. says if you are over 55, you get medicare. i would go a step farther because i know what is being proposed for those under 55 is going to be so much better, giving control back to the doctor and the patient instead of an insurance company between the doctor and patient. but this business of safety net, they aren't talking safety net but government takeover of

everything. but paul ryan's plan would make sure those under 55 have health care and have it affordable. all kinds of reforms that need to be made. we do not need a full takeover of health care by the government. my friend had mentioned that because we kept passing bills to repeal obamacare and actually, there were very few bills that dealt with a massive overrepeal of obamacare, but there were many bills that picked out specific parts. look, friends across the aisle, you surely don't want to be responsible for this terrible part of obamacare. so when people go back and say, you voted to repeal it 33 times, well, there were different aspects and we couldn't get our friends to repeal parts that

after they found out what was in it and passed it, vote for things that were not good. my friend said the president called us here and asked us to pass our american jobs act. i almost forgot about it. he stood right there and told us 16, 17 times, pass my bill right now, right here right now and so i kept wanting to get a copy of the bill. he was chass advertising us for not passing it. we kept calling the white house to get it and week later, it was clear there was no bill. so i figured, if there's no bill and keeps running around the country and spending the taxpayers' money, flying around on air force 1 and what sounded

like campaign stops, but government paid for it all, so he is out there, tell congress to pay my americans job act. he had banners, pass american jobs act. american jobs act. good grief, he is going to keep telling us to pass it, there ought to be one. i put together to eliminate the 35% tariff on all american-made goods. it's called a corporate tax, because it did he seves people into thinking that gee, if you tax the evil corporations, then we don't have to pay it. baloney. if a corporation or company doesn't pass that tax on to its customers, clients, people buying its services, then they go out of business. 35% tax. highest tariff that will any

country in the world puts on its own goods and we were doing that. mine says let's eliminate that. and we have heard from people around the world, if you drop your corporate tax 12%, manufacturing jobs would come flying back into this country. you want to talk about pro-union and this side of the i'll wants to see government unions grow more and more, i don't understand that. i understand that retired government workers need it, but to have government workers in a country where the government is the people, all of us that are elected here, we're public servants. everybody that is hired by the federal government is supposed to be a government servant. we work for the people of america. why in the world would you need a union to conspire against the people of america?

because obviously, the role of any government union would be to get government bigger and bigger and more and more benefits to the detriment of those who are paying for all of that. so, any way, i don't understand why we need a federal government union and neat they are did franklin d. roosevelt, but that's where all this goes. and when we eventually got a copy of the president's idea of a jobs act, we found that although he had been telling everybody in america, it's only going to increase taxes on millionaires and billionaires, what he did is increase taxes on people who made $250,000 individually. he said he is going to end the giveaways to big oil. the pages that dealt with oil companies were not going to affect the big oil companies at

all. 94%, 95% of all the oil wells in america are run by americans and look at what was eliminated, it was really only the things that were going to devastate the independent -- some of them basically, mom and pop-type services that worked on oil wells, gas wells, it's going to shut them down and wouldn't be able to afford business and eliminate the pass-through deduction in investing in wells. if the independents can't get people to invest in the wells, they can't drill them. but the big oil companies, they don't have to get people to invest in oil wells, they have enough money to do that. it was incredible. i couldn't believe it. i got it to c.p.a.'s that do work for independent oil and gas companies, small ones and they were saying, oh my word if this

goes into law, you can't stay in business. what does that do? ends 94% of the oil and gas wells in america and means that gasoline goes up even further than the doubling that this president has already done. and wind energy. we heard about wind energy, smart grid. think about it. we have had these hearings in natural resources committee, doc hastings did a fabulous job. and what we found out this week -- last week, actually, when you talk about using wind or solar energy, since wind doesn't blow all the time and sun doesn't shine all the time and since we don't have an effective way to hold electricity, there is no massive battery that we have developed yet that holds significant amounts of electricity, so you have to use that electricity immediately, because you can't hold it. well, we get to the point where

we have something to hold electricity, then we are on our way, wind, solar, wind, those things will be more helpful. but as it is, if you declare we are going to have to have wind energy and use solar energy, then for those times when the wind's not blowing or the sun's not shining, but people still need electricity, then you have to have a coal-power plant. hydro-gas-powered plant and all of those things standing by to produce the energy when these other things don't. you have to have different sets of wires taking electricity from the leg power plant and all send them out to the windmills, way out wherever they are, chopping up endangered species and bring that he electricity in and end up having to different wires

going out to solar places. and then -- so, actually, you are going to paying two and three times as much for energy, because you have to have two to three times the infrastructure just so you can say we are getting power from wind and from sun. . . i read some of these stupid bills including the president's idea of a jobs act. it created more government, it took over more control of the internet, it took over more control of cable. it's just a disaster. so, i hear about the president's great ideas for helping the economy and i say thank goodness the president didn't pass that disaster because the economy

would be doing even far worse. well, except for the people that stuck out the millions and hundreds of millions and billions like the president's friends at solyndra and things like that. and by the way i see today this article, september 13, 2012, a.p. avoids weekly u.s. jobless aid amplecations jump to 382,000 by a reporter. anyway, jobless claims jump to a two-month high. not exactly the progress the president says was happening. i've been mentioning ever since i found out from gold star parents, billy and karen vaughn, they told me 2/3 of the deaths and the wounds of our military in afghanistan have occurred

under president obama. i couldn't believe that so we got the official numbers. got a poster around here somewhere. i don't have enough time to use it right now. but when we got the official numbers it turns out 70% of those who have been killed in afghanistan have been killed under president obama's command even though he's been in command in afghanistan only half the time of president bush. 84% of those people losing arms, legs, handses, terribly disabling wounds, from i.e.d.'s and other injury sources, 84% of those have occurred under commadder in -- commander in chief obama compared to the 16% that occurred under president bush in afghanistan. article here from tony lee, on the somber 11th anniversary of 9/11 attacks, nearly 2,000

members of the u.s. military have died in afghanistan since the war started in response to the attacks in 2011. and by the way, this president obama when he was running for president called it the good war. but this article by tony lee goes on and points out what i've been talking about ever since billy and karen brought that to my attention and i was greatly sorry that i did not know that without them pointing it out to me. it was also interesting to read an article by john nulty, 12, september, 2012, obviously i like the guy, i like his cynicism. he says, oh, that awful mitt romney. just a few minutes before the white house itself disavowed the cairo embassy apologizing for free speech, romney rightfully condemned the appeasing statement in no uncertain terms. as a result all day long the corrupt media has been on a

rampage to make romney pay for the unpardonble sin of criticizing their precious one. you see, there's no president for a political opponent immediately criticizing a sitting president after a foreign policy crisis. oh, wait, and then it has reference to other articles where there's gone on, flashback to kerry slamming bush over and over it's happened when it's a republican president. the article says, over the entire institution media circling wagons for obama today in a futile attempt to rescue him from his own foreign policy blunders, we now have cbs news writing -- riding to the rescue in order to give the same president who condemned romney before he condemned the terrorists an opportunity to further politicize this tragedy. there's a broader lesson to be learned here. governor romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim

later. that's what president obama had to say. yes, that's -- talking about spouting off too quickly, but the president is right about mitt romney, guilty as charged. romney did shoot first to defend the principles of free speech that the people who work for obama in cairo were so eager to flitter away. yes, that mitt romney saw this outrageous example of simpering into the face of terror coming from american officials and immediately spoke out against it. and it goes on to make the great point, romney stood up for free speech. the movie that's been fussed about sounds like a ridiculous thing that should not be done except that this is america where people, whether it's howard stern or anybody else, they have a right to say things no matter how offensive they may

be unless they go so far that they actually harm other people. another article, no record of intel briefings for obama the week before embassy attacks. this was written on 12 september, 2012, points out according to the white house calendar, there's no public record of president obama attending his daily intelligence briefing known as the presidential daily brief, p.d.b., in the weeks leading up to the attacks and the murder of u.s. libyan ambassador chris stevens and three american members of his staff. and i've got to say, i read an account and a story and -- of the administration reporting the name of one of the other three

killed as part of the libyan embassy personnel. they gave the man's name, pointed out he was a former seal team member, but was in private security force and then according to the article the administration reported that he was killed while running for cover. madam speaker, i know something about seal team members. in the mind of a seal team member or a former seal team member he has -- he is never running for cover. he's running for a place if at all from which to launch a better attack. even in death this administration can't be respectful to the people that have laid down their lives for this administration and even

though the white house says that, gee, the president does read briefings, he just hasn't been getting them personally, i would hope that he would start doing that. there's people's lives at stake and he is president, he's such a unanimous as it tick campaigner -- he's such a fantastic campaigner, i know it's inconvenient but i sure hope he'll get back to being president and to give credit where credit's due, it was very wonderful of the president to take a minute and a half or whatever it was, a minute, a minute and a half, to pay tribute to those who laid down their lives for their country at the libya embassy where they didn't have adequate security and where this administration enabled al qaeda and others to take over the government. it was nice of him to take a minute and a half to pay tribute to them giving their lives in the middle of this campaign event before he went on with the celebration.

i recall president george w. bush, people here know we certainly had our differences and i certainly disagreed with him on a number of things, but i had great respect for the man. he said, how can i go play golf when i am commander in chief and i have sent soldiers or military into harm's way? it just doesn't feel right for me to be out on a golf course having a good time when our men and women are in harm's way. but it did look like a fun celebration there that president obama was having in las vegas. another article, libyan official said u.s. at fault in attacks. written by r. hawkins 12, september, 2012, he points out that although the head of libya's national assembly has formally apologized for the

killing of u.s. ambassador christopher stevens, other high-ranking libyan officials refused to apologize and continue to contend the u.s. is to blame. the story talks about those conditions. hey, it was our fault. kind of like the ridiculous claims that sometimes those of us who are judges and prosecutors heard from a guilty rape defendant who said, well, you know, she was asking for it. excuse me? that was abominable what happened at the libyan embassy. and it is a tragic fact that this administration, against the will of congress, without even asking what the will of congress was, said, well, gee, you know, the u.n., organization of islamic conference, they want us there. so why not? we ought to go. that's all he needed. he didn't care what congress

thought. he enabled them. he took out -- he used american bombers. and then when the american public obviously was upset that it was taking so long, hey, keep in mind, it's not the u.s., it's nato. he may not have gotten the briefing that let him know that over 60% of the nato military is american military. and here's a flashback article. i just think it's important when these terrible things are happening around the world that we take a quick look at how it got where we are so maybe we don't keep doubling down on things that get americans killed and hurt our national security. but this article by dana lohse, 12 september, 2012, flashback, obama administration endorsed the muslim brotherhood. and it points out that from a

"new york times" article, even august 1 of this year said leon pennetta, the united states defense secretary, said on tuesday the president of egypt was his own man, a strong declaration of american support for him. a former leader of the muslim brotherhood whose future course in egypt remains a great unknown to the obama administration. well, it didn't keep us from enabling him to be there. another article says obama admits he lost egypt as an american ally and it goes on to talk about how the president, because of our turning our back, our stabbing a man with whom this administration had made agreements, who was trying to uphold the israeli-egyptian accord as brokered by president carter, one nice thing that president carter did, president obama now admits, well, they're not really an enemy but they're

not an ally. we logs them as an ally because of the incompetence of this administration osm because ma, let me finish with this. although he doesn't have time for netanyahu, he has time to attend jay-z's and beyonce's fundraiser, they're fabulous entertainers, i understand that, but there's a country to run, there are americans being killed and it's time somebody around this town picked up the responsibility and acted responsibly. i don't think doing a c.r. is the way to do it but certainly not running off for fundraisers when people are giving your lives for you on foreign soil is the way to go either. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gomespertk madam speaker, i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the

question is on the motion to ad journ. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the >> tomorrow, the chamber gavels and at 9:00 a.m. eastern. it would prohibit the energy department from issuing loan guarantees for renewable energy projects submitted after 2011. of the house live when members return. in three weeks, the first of the presidential debates.

watch and engage. tonight, then burning key explains his agency's plan to continue assisting the economy. hillary clinton talks about the violence in the middle east that resulted in the death of the u.s. ambassador to libya. that is followed by remarks from the libyan a ambassador. later, a debate on the measure to replace upcoming defense cuts. then burning he announced more action to stimulate the economy. he spoke with reporters for about an hour. >> earlier today, the open market committee approved measures to support employment growth. i will get to the specifics and

a few moments. that motivated the committee's decision to take additional actions. the federal reserve conducts monetary policy to promote employment and price stability. the united states enjoyed price stability until the 1990's and continues to do so today. the employment situation remains a grave concern. it is not growing fast enough to make significant progress reducing the unemployment rate. fewer than half of the 8 million jobs have been restored. at 8.1%, the unemployment rate is nearly unchanged since the beginning of the year. the weak job market should concern every american. high unemployment imposes large ship and entails a tremendous waste of human skills and talents.

5 million americans have been unemployed for more than six months and millions more have left the labour force. they have given up because they have not been able to find suitable work. as skills atrophy, they find it increasingly difficult to get good jobs. and also to the detriment of our nation's productive potential. they have provided unprecedented levels of policy accommodation in recent years. it with the main policy interest rate near the effect of lower bound, we have tools to carry out monetary policy, balance sheet actions, and guidance for how we anticipate exceptional levels. while providing this support, we carefully weigh the benefits and costs and recognizing the monetary policy in current circumstances cannot cure all

economic ills. there are several actions taken this year. in january, they extended for guidance, anticipating the rate will remain near current levels until 2014. in june, the committee decided to continue the program to establish the average maturity by buying longer-term securities and selling an equivalent amount of shorter- term securities. the modest pace of growth continues to be inadequate to generate much progress. with inflation anticipated at or below objectives, the committee is convinced that further policy is warranted to strengthen the recovery in support the games we have begun to see in housing and other sectors. we have decided on new actions related to securities and extend

the for guidance regarding the federal funds rate. the committee decides to purchase additional mortgage- backed securities at a pace of $40 billion a month. the new purchases combined with the existing maturity extension program and the continued reinvestment already on the balance sheet have about $85 billion each month for the remainder of the year. the program of purchases should increase the long-term interest rates more generally and also mortgage rates that will provide further support for the housing sector. the committee also took two steps to underscore the commitment ongoing support for the recovery. first, the committee will closely monitor information on economic and financial

developments in coming months. if we don't see substantial improvement, we will continue the purchase program, undertake additional asset purchases and apply the policy tools as appropriate. we will be looking for the broad based growth in economic activity to signal sustained improvement for declining unemployment. in determining the size, pace, and composition, we will take appropriate account of the inflation outlook for the efficacy of costs. the committee emphasized that it expects a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy after the economic recovery strengthens. the policy of accommodation will remain even as the economy picks up. the federal funds rate, it

anticipates the low level for the federal funds rate is likely to be warranted through 2015. they submitted their individual economic projections and policy assessment for the years 2012- 2015 and over the longer run projections for the unemployment rate have a central tendency of a 0.0-8.2%, declining to 6.0- 620% in 2015. it remains somewhat above the normal rate of unemployment. there is a central tendency for 1.7%-1.8% for this year. while the economy appears to be advancing at a moderate pace

with some improvements, participants in economic outlook remains uncertain. the economy continues to face economic headwind including the situation in europe, tight credit, and fiscal contraction at the federal, state, and local levels. in addition, markets continue to pose downside risk. before i take questions, i would like to talk about the accommodative monetary policy. the first is the notion that purchases are akin to a fiscal spending. the second is that rates hurt savers. the third is policy risk and inflation down the road. on the first concern, i want to emphasize they are not comparable to government spending. the federal reserve buys financial assets. ultimately, it will normalise

the balance sheet by selling back into the market. the federal reserve's earnings are remitted to the treasury. the odds are strong that the asset purchase program by strengthening rather than reduce the debt. on the second concern, my colleagues and i are very much aware of assets like certificates of deposit are receiving very low returns. a healthy investment returns, it is difficult to say without the income from a job. the interest rates imposed some costs. from a healthy and growing economy, and finally caught on

inflation. food and fuel prices caused by drought and a geopolitical tensions. however, overall inflation is averaged a very close. the federal reserve is fully committed to both sides of the mandate, price stability, and a maximum employment. it has the tools and the will for price stability. i would happily respond to your questions. >> your forecast doesn't get back to full employment for four years. can you give us a better idea of

if you will have specifics in mind? >> we will be looking for signs that the economy is strong enough for labor market conditions. we will not be able -- to help the economy began to grow quickly enough and reduce the unemployment rate. that is the criteria we are looking at. >> the indicated -- and there are not any specific economic conditions that are described. can you describe what those can be? or is the fed reluctant to have done that so far? >> we have been talking about communications and trying to think about how to indicate to

the public what the policy function is. we haven't come to a set of numbers or data that we can put out. what we try to convey here is that we are not going to be premature. even after the economy starts to recover and the unemployment rate moves down, we're not going to rush. we will give it some time to make sure the recovery is well established. >> i want to talk about the same line in the statement. the that mean that your tolerance for inflation will be higher in the middle of the recovery? and what good is that language? it doesn't tell people that the reaction to inflation has changed. stock prices are up today, so our oil prices and gold. wire those part of the same

reaction to the fed's acts? >> our policy approach doesn't involve intentionally trying to raise inflation. it will want to provide enough support to that the economy will grow fast enough to bring unemployment down over time. we have seen unemployment the same place where it was in january. not enough jobs growth to bring down the unemployment rate, but what we need to see is more progress. that is what we will be looking at. we think, by that point, the economy will be recovering and we will be providing the support it needs. it doesn't involve any inflation and we believe it will be close to the 2% target. >> to follow up, you say that it does not include a greater tolerance for inflation. you will reverse course if inflation is above target

level? >> if it goes above target level, we take a balanced approach. we do it in a way that takes into account the deviations of both of the objectives from the targets. >> earlier this year, the fed took policy action for the economy. but there hasn't been any improvement in the market since the beginning of the year. why should people believe this will make a difference? there is possibly a point for reduction in unemploent. is that the limit to what the policies can do going forward? >> i talked about this, the assessment is that the research literature says that the policies we have undertaken have had benefits for the economy and they have provided some support. they have eased financial conditions and help reduce

unemployment. monetary policy is not a panacea. it's not able to -- we will do our part and try to make sure unemployment moves in the right direction. we can't solve this problem ourselves. >> [inaudible] >> what happens will depend on where the economy goes. the 0.4% you're referring to, the change in the forecast, remember that people make projections assuming that policy is appropriate. not all are assuming these policies in this projection. it is probably a little bit of an understatement of what we can get. i want to be clear that while we can make a meaningful and significant contribution, we

can't solve it. we don't have tools strong enough to solve the unemployment problem. >> an adequate explanation over the past couple of weeks of the fed's ability to lower interest rates. what is missing from any economist is how the transmission mechanism is going to work. most people think this will have a minimal effect on rates. do you know how much it will push rates down? and how few basis points might change demand which seems to be a problem in the economy. >> it will depend on how much we end up doing and what the economy does. we will be providing accommodation according to how the economy of balls. the virtue of putting it this way is we will provide more support. if the economy strengthens on

its own, it will require less support. the amount of support we provide will depend on how the economy evolves. we think that these policies can bring interest rates down. not just treasury rates but mortgage rates and the rates of corporate bonds and other types of important interest rates. it also affects stock prices and other asset prices. looking at all of the different channels, we think it does have impact on the economy. it will have an impact on the labour market. the way i described it, significant defects. -- effects. not a panacea. we don't want to stagnate at high levels of unemployment, we want to make progress.

>> mr. chairman, is this the limit of what the fed can do? you refer to policy tools. will doesn't improve, what there be available? >> a variety of possibilities and we continue to look at different options. the tools i discussed our balance sheet actions and we can change those in various ways. the other tool is communication tools. we continue to work on how best to communicate with the public and assure the public that the fed will remain accommodative long enough to restore a recovery. working with communications tools, and economic conditions might be one way in which they can further provide accommodations. >> i want to go back to the

transmission recognition -- mechanims. that seems to be the concern about the remark that you made. they could not see how that help the economy. i think there is a fear that the policy is helping wall street but not doing much for main street. can you describe how it is really different for trickle- down economics where you pump money into the banks and hope that they land? -- they lend? >> we are about trying to get jobs going, trying to get more employment. that is the objective. the tools that we have involved affecting financial asset prices and the tools of monetary policy. a number of different channels, mortgage rates, interest rates,

corporate bond rates. the prices of homes, to the extent that home prices began to rise, consumers will feel wealthier and feel more disposed to spend. people might be more willing to buy homes because they will make a better return on that purchase. stock prices, many people own stocks directly or indirectly. the issue here is whether or not improving asset prices will make them willing to spend. one of the main concerns is that there is not enough demand. people feel that their financial situation is better because there 401k looks better or their house is worth more and they are willing to go out and spend. there will be willing to hire and to invest.

>> mr. chairman, the statement says we have come back from this a couple of times. if the outlook does not improve substantially, they will have additional asset purchases. it can you define and describe more specifically what improved substantially? and what is the committee referring to when it says additional asset purchases? >> we are looking for ongoing sustained improvement in the labour market. this is not a specific number that we have in mind, but we have seen the last six months is not in it. we're looking for something that involves unemployment coming down in a sustained way because i don't know our tools are that strong. we would like to see an economy that is strong enough that it will support the improving labor

market conditions. that is essentially what we are looking for. in terms of the tools that we have, the mortgage-backed security purchases that we can continue to expand or change, we can purchase forced treasurys. in terms of other policies, there are a number of possibilities. that is our communications policy, to better explain our rate policy that will engender more accommodative financial conditions. >> it is clear that there is a good deal of confusion about how long you will keep buying assets. why did you choose not to adopt a specific target? did the committee consider specific targets? why did you choose not to do that?

>> the problem is that for this purpose, what we're looking for is a general improvement for labor market conditions. we want to see the unemployment rate come down, but that is not the only indicator of labor market conditions. the unemployment rate fell because participation fell and that is not necessarily a sign of improvement. we want to see a stronger economy that can cause the improvement to be sustained. they're not going to be looking for wiggles and the numbers to radically shift to the policies. they decided to define its qualitatively. i will give you a least a little color in terms of what we have been looking for. an economy that is quickening. it gives signs of continued

improvement. it allows labor markets to be stronger. and that will be the qualitative criteria that we look at. again, we don't have a single number that captures that. we anticipate that we have to do more and we will do enough to make sure that the economy gets on the right track. >> hi, mr. chairman. someone told me less than 1% of mortgages went to borrowers with impaired credit history. when we talk about main street policy, it seems that you are struggling like many central banks because the challenge is to get them to people that really need them. companies with somewhat fragile balance sheets. given that is the case, you guys got involved in markets when

they were dysfunctional. what is your appetite for doing more targeted credit programs? you had a treasury secretary in the congress that is willing to override some of the credit risk. about're talking congressional programs and i don't advocate specific programs. it is up to them to make those decisions. we are seeing a modest improvement and one thing that is helping is the stronger housing market. lenders are worried about further housing constraints that will make the collateral worth less than the load. -- the loan. as house prices rise, lending standards have eased a bit. there are other changes that are useful. i know that the fhfa has

changed their policy on foot backs so that -- putbacks. there are things that will make the market more open. that is one factor that could make the policy more effective at not less effective overtime. more people can take advantage of the low rates that we are finding. >> mr. chairman, one of the innovations is that you have predicated york action on the achievement for explicit economic goals and the labour market. can you give us some explanation as to how that conditioning will make your policy more effective than you have previously? had a technical question. when operation twist and, do

you anticipate adjusting the size of your asset purchases to maintain the monthly flow of long-term asset purchases? >> we will be looking at the whole set of asset purchases in order to make decisions. in particular, what is the state of the labour market and the outlook for economic growth? our policies have always been conditional in that we have always been clear that the asset purchases or reviewed periodically to see if they were still necessary. we did extend the maturity program. our policies have an element of conditionality. the idea is to make that more transparent to the public and make it more obvious that the fed will do what is needed to provide support for the economy.

we hope that when it will do is try to get more assurance or convents that the fed will be there to do what it can. we are not promising a cure, but what we can do is provide some support. by assuring the we are hopeful that will increase confidence and make people more willing to invest, a higher, and spend. -- hire and spend. >> just to follow up on his question about getting back to full employment, and books that there is still a lot more work to do. -- it looks like there is still a lot more work to do. your term expires in january 2014.

what are your plans? do you plan to leave at that time? would you consider a third point term appointment? the have any concern -- do you have any concern whether your actions by the perceived as helping obama and hurting governor romney's presidential chances? >> i am very focused on my work. i do not have any decision or information to get you on my personal plans. on the politics, we have tried very hard and i think we have been successful at the fed reserve to make our decisions based entirely on the state of the economy and the needs of the economy for policy accommodation. we do not take those factors

into account. we think that is the best way to maintain our independence and the trust of the public. >> my question pertains to community bankers being worried about the impact this will have on their banks. there has been industry consolidation. some question whether and not the fed has looked at the impacts the rules would have on smaller sized institutions. will there be relief for the smaller institutions? can you provide assurance that this will not be a one-size bits of regulation? >> certainly. we are very interested and focused on the community banks. we believe they play a very important role in our communities. we have a number of ways of

communicating with community banks, including our advisory council made up of community bankers and a special set of programs to reach out and talk to them. we are interested in their views. i speak to conventions and the like and talk to various groups. in terms of what you brought up, of course one size does not fit all. the complex regulations only apply to the most complex institutions. the complex rules are applying to derivatives and extra supervision under section 165 and the liquidity rules, a whole range of things that only applied to the most complex and internationally active banks.

the smaller banks, what our proposed rule does is try to strengthen their capital. many small banks already meet those requirements. of course, it is important for small banks to capitalize as well as large banks. again, most of the rules and the most complex rules would not apply to smaller banks. the eggs under $500 million have a special exemption -- the banks under $500 million have a special exemption from these roles. we have a subcommittee of our supervision committee. they are interested in making sure that rules are not excessively onerous. we try to make sure that we take into account the needs of community banks.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday the former fed governor had a conference in washington. he said he had never seen such a divided fed. some people said that it was dubious whether qe3 would work. can you comment on his comments? don't you wish that some fed officials who don't support credited easing would keep their fears to themselves? thank you. >> as you know, we are living in a very complex time. we're dealing with a complex, economic situation in a variety of issues, including new policies.

there is naturally a range of opinions and views. on the whole, it is a good thing. it is good to hear different points of view. it is important that there are views discussed around the table and inside the fed. we have a discussion process that spans eight range of views. we were able to come to a pretty good consensus. the vote on this was 11-1. that is a sign up the broad center of the committee does support these actions and will continue to support them going forward. >> does the negative commentary kurt quantitative easing of -- hurt quantitative easing?

>> a barrel be negative commentaries whether it comes from fed officials -- there will be negative commentaries whether it comes from fed officials are not. i discuss some of that evidence in my speech in jackson hole. different researches have had different results. there has been some initial impact, but they disagree on how much. there will be disagreement. i personally do not think that it will solve the problem. i do think it has enough force to help nudge the economy in the right direction. >> you said that you have not got strong enough tools to deal with unemployment problems. i am curious to see what policies he would like to see to

address this? how concerned are you about that? >> again, there are a range of areas where actions can be taken. i cannot prescribe all the possible responses. on the fiscal side, we currently have the fiscal cliff if no action is taken. there'll be a substantial increase in taxes and cuts in spending on generate one of the following year. if that is allowed to take place -- on jan. 1 of the following year. if that is allowed to take place, we might fall into another recession. we need to address the fiscal cliff and address longer-term

fiscal sustainability issues. that is one area where there are a lot of potential benefits. if the fiscal cliff is not addressed, i do not think our tools are strong enough to offset the effects of major fiscal shock. we would have to think about what to do in that contingency. it is important for the fiscal policy makers to work together and find a solution for that. >> i have two questions. the lead of projections -- in the projections, i went during if you look up the growth rate you have about [indiscernible]

the second question is, a lot of economists do not see too much effect out of qe3. [indiscernible] >> on inflation, we do anticipate at some point what is normal in a recovery. there is a lot of slack in the economy. we need to make up some of the slack that was created.

we do not anticipate that the economy will be overheating anytime soon. as long as we pay close attention to inflation expectations, as well as the trajectory of the economy, we think inflation will remain close to our 2% target. second, there is certainly a range on views of what these tools are. of course, the staff here has done a great deal of work on the question. the bottom line for most of the research that while these tools are not so powerful that they can solve the problem, they are at least able to provide meaningful support to the economy. our job is to use the tools that we have to meet our mandate, which is maximum employment and price stability.

if we have tools that can provide some assistance and not meeting our mandate, i think that our obligation is to do what we can. of course we'd like to see policies across the board to help address these issues. that is not a our province. we are the monetary policy authorities. our job is to use monetary policy as effectively as we can. >> mr. chairman, there have been concerns raised by people like a columbia professor, mr. woodward and others, on the path to fun ds rate. it is not convincing or provide the kind of confidence that you

referred to. on this latest treatment, you have removed some of that conditionality. it will remain a prepared for a considerable time until the economy strengthens. i assume that was done to make your guidance more credible. but the question remains -- as the economy picks up steam, will you keep rates low? or will you do what the fed has always done and begin to raise the funds rate? >> well, that is an important question. former would odward is a colleague and friend. i know his work quite well. the communication about future policies is the most powerful to

that central banks have with the interest rate is close to zero. he advocates policy that would essentially require your credibility -- that would require credibility lasting several years. so, his own perspective is that credibility is the key tool that central banks have in order to get traction. whether we have the credibility to persuade markets that we will follow through is an empirical question. the evidence is that when we have announced extended guidance and markets have responded to that, the private sector forecasters have changed their estimates of what

unemployment and inflation will be when the fed begins to remove accommodation. the empirical evidence is backed -- that our announcements do have a credible credibility. there is good reason for that. it had talked a lot about directions for maintaining rates low even at the economy strengthens. the basic idea is broadly espoused within the committee. there is a consensus that even as personal change and so on going forward that this is the appropriate approach. we will have created a reserve of credibility that we can use in any subsequent episodes that occur. >> with the mortgage rates at

historic lows, how much further do you think your actions will drive down the rates? related to that, i am assuming that you expect the purchase of mortgage-backed securities to have an effect on refinancing and housing activity. what would that look like? in regards to a meaningful effect? >> it is true that our mortgage- backed securities packages should drive down rates and increase more refinancing. it would depend on several things. it would depend on the amounts of purchases that we do. it would be a function of how the economy evolves. if the economy is weaker, we will do more. the economy is looking weak. if that economy is stronger and

improved marketo creat conditions, we will not have to do much. it depends on how the economy evolves. it is hard to give you an exact estimate. in terms of how many homes and those kinds of questions, again i think the markets are looking a little better. think house prices are beginning to rise in some markets. that will encourage people to look at homes. i u.n. hoping we will continue to see improvements in the housing market -- i am hoping we will continue to see improvements in the housing market. to the extent that we can support housing, i think that would be a very useful outcome.

>> there does not seem to be many people who would qualify for refinancing. can we expect a meaningful effect on an increase in refinancing activity? >> i think there will be some, but to get more benefit when people buy homes. sales of homes are down still, but they have been rising steadily. we are trying to provide more support for people who want to go out and buy homes. also for those who want to refinance homes. but it is the body of homes and the furnishing that helps the economy -- buying of homes and the furnishing that helps the economy grow. >> you said that you were hearing anecdotal information from some of your colleagues at

the regional fed banks about firms and companies making decisions on hiring next year because they were afraid of the fiscal cliff or whatever the federal parliament would do in terms -- government would do. i am sure your staff is working hard on it. how much of a head wind to the economy is the fear of the federal government just cutting back and falling over the fiscal cliff? or even in taking a few steps back from the cliff. how much is at contributing to the lack of growth in the economy? >> it is hard to give you a number. i can certainly confirm that as the governors made their report around a table, there was

considerable discussion about uncertainty. it included policy uncertainty and this policy uncertainty. a lot of firms are waiting to see whether that problem will be resolved. if so, how? it is a concern. it is affecting behavior now. again, i do not have a number. i do not know how big that effect is. certainly the sooner that can be resolved and clarified, it would be beneficial. you would have avoided the cliff and clarified to firms and investors of how this can be resolved. it is an issue that is of some consequence. yes.

>> hello, mr. chairman. how much was the fiscal cliff a factor in your decision to do an open ended qe instead of a fixed sum? >> there are a lot of headwinds right now that are effected in the economy. there is fiscal headwinds. international factors, including the situation in europe. other factors and soom th on. we look at how quickly it has been growing over the last six months to a year. in order for unemployment to fall, the economy needs to grow at or above the trend levels.

lately it has not really been at trend. we have been responding to that problem and trying to take steps that will ensure somewhat stronger growth. we hope it will bring unemployment down over time. again, the uncertainty of the fiscal cliff is one of the headwinds, but i am sure there are many others. we do not try to differentiate among them in any sense. if the fiscal cliff does occur, i suspect it will not. i hope it does not. if it does and get the kind of impact that congressional officers were talking about, i do not think the fed has the tools to offset that. we would have to rethink it at that point. we have taken the steps we have now because they want the economy to take on more momentum.

>> one of the aspects we have seen in recent reports on unemployment is the shrinking of the labor force. is that something that is of specific concern to you? what does it tell us about the labor market in the economy? >> you are absolutely right. the unemployment decline last month was more than 100% accountable by participation. some defined participation is anticipated as expected. we have more people retiring. female participation has fought and out and has not continued to climb for several decades. we are seeing less participation among younger people. if you were college students are taking part-time jobs.

also part of this decline was something that we anticipated quite a long time ago. part of it is typical. part of it reflects the fact that some people because they have given up or are discouraged and have decided to leave the labor force. if the economy were to strengthen, at least some of those people would come back into the labor force. they might even temporarily raise the employment rate because they are looking again. the participation rate is one of the other indicators of a generally weak labor market. that is why i said earlier that we want to look at a range of indicators and not just the unemployment rate, although that is a very important indicator. it is a leading indicator. we also look at participation

and a variety of other measures that suggest our labor market is still quite in weak conditions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in three weeks, the first of the presidential debates live on c-span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. coming up, secretary clinton talks about the violence in libya. that is followed by a discussion on conditions in libya. later from the house floor, defense spending. ben bernanke expand his plans to help the economy -- explains its plans to help the economy. on "washington journal" a congressman will be here to discuss automatic budget cuts.

then david johnson of the consensus -- census bureau will talk about that i know report on income and poverty report. "washington journal" live tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. this monday on "washington journal" we discuss the book of "the price of politics." it will be live on monday at 8:30 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> did you see the jobs report this morning, by the way? 95,000 jobs created and almost 400,000 dropped out of the work force altogether. it is simply unimaginable.

>> business once again added jobs for the 30th month in a row. that is a total of 4.6 million jobs. >> watch and engage. tuesday the 16th, the candidates take on questions in a town hall meeting. also, watch the vice presidential debate on thursday the 11th in kentucky. on election day, we will look at the control of congress. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and on c-span.org. >> secretary of state clinton said the u.s. government had nothing to do with the did you that touch on violence on u.s.

yemen, andin egypt, a libya. her remarks made the beginning of a joint statement with the foreign minister for about 10 minutes. >> this is a very important first session of the u.s.- morocco strategic dialogue. before i begin to address the significance of the strategic dialogue and the next step in our long relations with morocco , i want to say a few words about the events unfolding in the world today. we are closely watching what is yemen and in the debandyemen

elsewhere. we are hoping there'll be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence. i also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to the protests in a number of countries. let me state very clearly, and i hope it is obvious that the united states government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. we absolutely reject its content and message. america's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our

nation. as you know, we are a place that is home to people of all religions. many come to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including of course millions of muslims. we have the greatest respect for people of faith. to us and to me .his video is discussing japa as i said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. we condemn the violence that has

resulted in the strongest terms. we greatly appreciate that many muslims in the united states and around the world have spoken out on this issue. violence has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. islam respect the fundamental dignity of human beings. it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocence. as long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, in the name of god, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. it is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions.

these are places whose very purpose is peaceful. to promote better understanding across countries and cultures, all governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people because to attack an embassy is to attack the idea that we can work together to build an understanding and work toward a better future. i know it is hard for some people to understand why the united states cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. i would note that in today's world, which today's technologies, that is impossible. but even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression,

which is enshrined in our constitution and our law. we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be. there are different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression. but there beach -- there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. we all, whether we are leaders in government, leaders in civil society or religious leaders, must draw the line and violence. any responsible leader should be standing up now and drawing that line. i wanted to begin with this statement because, as all of you

know, this has been a difficult week at the state department. i very much appreciate the condolences' your government expressed to our embassy even though that tragedy happened far away, we found a reminder of the deep bonds that can act morocco to the united states. it was in the height-atlas mountains of morocco that one of the americans we lost this week, ambassador chris stevens, fell in love with the region when he served as a peace corps volunteer their. that experience set him on a decade-long career of service. in the memory of fallen friends and colleagues, let us remind ourselves of the many ways in which not just our government but the people of our two nations have worked together to

build a better future. >> a discussion on the -- on the state of libya. following the forum, ambassador this event is 90 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. welcome. i am a senior fellow, my name is karim mezran. i want to welcome you to this event. i am welcoming our speakers, the

director and longtime expert of libya, and professor william zartman. he has many accomplishments and has written many books. his biggest achievement has been entering me. -- mentoring me. i am humbled. dr. mark swayne sends his apologies because he will not be able to attend this conference because of the fact that there was a tragic event a few days ago.

he cannot come, but sends his displeasement. we had attended -- intended as a moment to inform about this situation. discussion of the possible solutions of what is going on on the ground, the security situation. i invited all of you here to be able to express your opinions and change them. this changes the nature of the governing, creating an urgent -- some of the situation underground -- on the ground. i had the pleasure to meet chris

stevens and get to know him more -- enough to call him a friend. at a professional level, he loved libya. many libyans had met him and many libyans had friendship with him. he believed it deeply in democracy and in -- and the quality. that freedom is a universal value. we should be aware this is chris' legacy.

i would ask for a moment of silence for chris and his family members and friends. thank you very much. because of the change, william will open the discussion for all of you to express your points of view or -- and criticized what we say or support it.

why libya had this -- we are watching on two different levels. there is a democratic election institution, the economy is moving forward. there has been increasing lack of security. 17 or 18 officers killed. the movement, which no libyantes

ever would think it existed, now there are hundreds, if not thousands paired with a come from, and we have allowed them proceed up to a point that the himself has come out by saying -- and many other issues.

[indiscernible] until we get to what happens on tuesday. they were much more prepared. he went on for hours. we should go a little bit deeper. i think there are two things we have committed. is that history

should have told us something. when i talk about history, i went back in the 1950's. a phrase remains in my mind. do not exchange arrogance for pride or vice versa. to not think that because the compromise will not be accepted -- [indiscernible] i think this is something that

happened, not recognizing the libyans needed foreign help or needed the help of foreign nations. -- the united nations. not even refuse it. not even go out to ask for it. god only knows how much that was needed. the second comes from [indiscernible] i was astonished, myself, first of all, and many of you were, too, last year. when the pitcher was presented of the libyan revolution and

everything was supposed to be done nicely and perfectly and banalities we all accepted. a revolt. and conquests comes defeat. and take power and therefore here it is. i thought at the time and i think now that is not true. the banality is wrong. without the help of the europeans or americans, it would not have been possible. by facing gadhafi, but there were other libyans who sympathize with the regime. minority, maybe, but they were there. [indiscernible]

who never had, after the civil war, a moment of thinking what is the history, what has happened? not recognizing it was a silly war. it let us not to think about what to do or how to incorporate a lot of this. the people were sympathizing with the regime. all of this and then coming up now and saying there are -- all leads us to think we need to

have the courage to diminish the threat. it is needed. that is the only way to have the institution to proceed. otherwise, there is no way you could go.

[indiscernible] we have reports of southern european countries denouncing -- [indiscernible] we are just beginning to see [indiscernible] it is an urgent undertaken. thank you very much. [laughter] -- [applause]

>> good afternoon everybody. thank you for your presentation. banca to the council. -- thank you to the council. i want to join you like the doctor did in reflecting on a legacy of the late ambassador stevens. his tragic death and the killing of other u.s. officers has been extremely hard on not only the american people but the libyan people, as well. the libyan american community being the nexus between the two this morning, as well. we pray for families -- for his family and his friends. we hope that the legacy of

ambassadors stevens is to continue the progress of libya. we must remain resolved to continue the good work he has started. and the achievement of the outcome of a libya that is democratic, ruled by law, respectful of human rights and human dignity. i think that would be the best tribute we could give to the great man chris stevens was. i have had the pleasure of seeing him less than two weeks ago appeared i was in libya. sure enough, our discussion centered mainly around the issue of security, because of its importance. we were there when the demolition of the shrines was taking place. before that, it was other places. he was concerned and we wanted

to share an assessment of, what does that mean? i think that was one of the major deficits that we have had in assessing how serious these turn of events that were taking place. today, we mourn his loss but, as i said, we will remain resolved to continue his good work, both from libya and from the united states. i think when we wrote -- when we address the security challenge, and i think they were very possessive -- perceptive in assessing this as one of the major issues if not the major issue of the time in libya today, even as i met with officials at the libyan congress, i felt a sense of pride that truly a democratic process is being developed in libya. make no mistake about it, the

looming access -- abscess of bill security -- a real security endanger of inaction in the face of these repeated events that were taking place with a government that, although has tried very hard to manage the post revolution transition, have in fact failed in some ways to be proactive and to address these issues in the difficult circumstances that they were in. to top it all was the fact that some of the demolitions of these shrines was condoned by these elements, the very security forces that were being developed by the government, not that the fault of the government, necessarily, but the stooges -- but just to show you the seriousness of the problem we are dealing with. one of the most important things we must do when we address the

issue of security in libya is first recognize that it is a multifaceted problem, that it is complex and interconnected. until and unless we are able to reduce it and identify its components, and develop the necessary strategy is to mitigate the threat or the danger that comes from any of those elements, we will always remain dilute and unable to address the very roots and the very components of this very serious problem. the second thing i think -- i want to preface my comments with the fact that the situation has development -- developing over the revolution but we have yet to have very accurate assessment and data and information about the components that are parts of this very major problem. how many of the security forces,

what are these actions? how many militias do we have? who are the leaders of these militias? what is the real structure that is in effect when we look at the western side, we have to hire security committee. in the east, we have the shield of libya. then, in between, there are all these different forces. i have met some scholars on the ground there who are doing very good research that i think we should connect with and we should use their expertise, their local expertise to be able to get -- export that data to be able to assess as we move toward. these two things are paramount for us to do a real assessment. to take back the first point, which is how do we break down this problem and how do we start to lay a good handle of this problem, i think we look at the

components of this threat, and it is high time to start defining it in real terms than to just put it under the umbrella of security. there is a growth of violent extremism that needs to be addressed in the mists of this revolution in libya. there is a real threat that the khaddafi loyalists harbor -- present to the country. whether by having people who are bent on undermining the revolution, or there are people who have grievances that are building day after day and week after week and then we will eventually create the critical mass necessary to take them into the circle of violence and they certainly have weapons and they certainly have the vacuums of forces that can undermine the very country we are in.

there is the threat, the ever existing threat, of the borders, of the immigration, the legal struggling -- smuggling, the drugs, and all this month that comes from it. but that is a basic state problem. that is not necessarily particular to libya. libya happens to have long borders and difficult geography. it is becoming a problem. what is happening in the south is practically under nobody potsies control. there are vast regions in the south that are at a state where they could go either way because of these real problems. then, there is the problem of the weapons, the problems of the uncontrolled militias, the problems of the aftermath of the revolution, and those are not to be ignored or brushed as just a simple after fact for a revolution. these are young men who are in the hundreds of thousands who

have access to a very significant weapons. they can be very dangerous. there has to be very serious plans put in place to mitigate the potential troubles that come from this problem. once you identify the threats, you are able to set better strategies to deal with it. each one of them requires a very sophisticated strategy that deals with the intricacies and the local flavor of these conflicts. the violent extremism, unfortunately, is supported by a degree of rigid intellectual movements that are present in the country. those we need to rally the scholars of the country, we need to rally the advocates of moderate ideologies and we need to engage in daily -- in very robust debate and be respectful

of the conservative nature of the society and belongings of people who advocate this. but we cannot leave any space for violence. the khaddafi loyalists, there has to be a very robust natural -- national reconciliation process. we need to address their concerns, but once again, this has to be not a tailor-made, develop process. it has to be raised from within. the tribal leaders have to have a role. the local councils have to have a role. the folks who have been affected, there are ways to solve these problems. and to give opportunity and to develop the area as that have the greatest needs so we can overcome some of these challenges. i think that goes to the third point i want to make, which is, once we have taken active stance -- steps such as active

reconciliation, we must have strategically set our eyes on the development of the country, the reconstruction and rebuilding of libya, which may be secondary to security at this point because of the threat of it, but the minute we are able to get a handle over this, we must kick in the economic opportunities and the developments, and absorbed -- the youth will absorb the components, the educational opportunities, an economic upturn of the libyan community. if we understand the nature of the threats, reduce them, start addressing them with very effective strategies, and at the same time, effectively put a reconciliation process and allow for portunity to develop, i think we can salvage libya and we can take it back on the right

track and do the best we can do as we remember the late ambassador stevens. thank you very much. [applause] >> i have been promoted to the above promoted to a discussion -- to discuss -- i have been promoted or demoted from announcer to participate in the discussion. we are faced with a sharpness and fuzziness. we are shaped with sharpness because we have events in front

of us. we are faced with fuzziness because the answers to these events often involves, necessarily, contradictions and uncertainties that we have to use in order to face the sharp things that have happened. i just want to make a few remarks that may add to the fuzziness but also point out the situation in which we find ourselves. we have to continually remind ourselves to avoid generalizations. we need generalizations' becau. the word libya is a generalization just like the word revolution and just like the word muslim and islamic. these generalizations cover a multitude of divisions, distinctions, -- i have been

turned off? i want to make a good point. divisions, distinctions, and that one has to focus on in order to not drag down an understanding of the situation with broad generalizations. it is easy to say libya is or the muslims did that or the on, and we oweomeon it to ourselves our own clear thinking and a world that listens to us to avoid the semantic traps that the use of language poses to us in dealing with events of this kind. second of all, it has been mentioned by the speakers we are faced with a situation where we have to counteracting goals to take into account. security is the hard answer.

reconciliation is the soft and long-term answer. you do not affect reconciliation in the short term term. it takes a lot -- a long time. security requires a sharper response and also -- often runs up against -- am i still coming across, here? something happening? against those people who are trying to reconcile. there are situations that are beyond reconciliation, so if we are talking to extremist groups who want to say it -- and we want to say, we share common goals, the betterment of humanity, which will -- we were to all the same god, and so on, that falls on absolutely deaf ears. there are times when, much as we reconcile lawyers, conflict managers would like to put all of our eggs into the basket of reconciliation, there are signs -- there are times when chart security is necessary.

somehow, we have to keep those two types of goals active and make sure that they do not get in other kobes ways. ever since -- others' ways. it is also important to emphasize that we are not facing a war of islam against us. we are facing a security problem of some specific groups that need to be targeted and we need to reach out to other groups, other people, reconciliation, who identify themselves in different ways than we do. third, as a general statement, i think american people, in general, are used to the attitude toward fallen -- foreign affairs that we roll up

our sleeves and get in there and put it in order and go home. we did this most recently in iraq. the idea comes up out of world war room and one. half -- world war ii 1. -- world war i. to help libyans in such a way that we are helping their responsibility, their ability to deal with their own affairs. this means backing them up without taking the lead, it means providing the possibilities, the capabilities, of doing both the reconciliation and the security that is needed in the situation of this kind. we rejoice at what has happened in libya with the elections.

they went off a very well. the extremists were beaten. extremists are usually beaten in elections. so we clap our hands and we say, there it goes. we have an element of the arab spring where democracy has come forth. we should know from our own history, and it is shoing if you go back and read it sometimes, in our early years, learn from our own history that democracy comes slowly. the road is bumpy. it is up and down. we should not simply be taken that the ideas of elections, how often do we repeat this to our own education, elections are not the end of the process. but we have to continue to work with what the elections have set up to move forward. finally, it is important for the government, we are talking about

libya, to face its own responsibilities. that includes security for the people who are working with us and whose help they enjoy. the government itself needs to be strengthened. there is often the comment that, yes, but the government is in an early position, and it is in a weak position, and, therefore, one cannot expect it to live up to its responsibilities as needed. we know from the olympic training that taking action, practicing strengthens rather than weakens. if we have a government that is starting, we cannot allow excuses for not taking action. we need to take action. i am talking about broader situations, such as the

declarations of governments in egypt. it needs to take actions to assert the kind of value for security of a reconciliation. thank you. [applause] >> let's -- now it is your turn. let's get it going. yes. please, i forgot. identify yourself. >> daniel, a professor at johns hopkins. i am not sure exactly what you propose to be done.

if you were in power, what would you do tomorrow for reconciliation? >> you do not want me in power. that is a scary thought. let's take another couple of questions. the example i will take is that of the possibility to incorporate by a committee and start with the position of former members of the visit -- of the regime. and distinguish those who are not guilty of ordering the assassination or exacerbating themselves. members of an ideological rebgrp of the regime. the government was not directly involved. then, entire areas -- just

people who would be incorporated into the national society. the example [indiscernible] the reconciliation of 1999, someone like that. then you have a judgment to identify those who have committed crimes. that is the best way to have reconciliation and justice of the same time. one should not go without the other. libya has the means. it is a small society. everybody knows what is there in general. >> can i add a short comment? one of the particulars. the road a few papers about rallying the international committee to support.

that was an important point. there are figures that can be very helpful in the events in this process. more to that point is we need to make sure we also incorporate some of the strengths of the basic society in libya in order to allow ourselves a reconciliation process. one of the things we have seen is the role of elders and tribal leaders in addressing some of these issues and i think making it something that is able to address many difficult problems that we are able -- unable to address i think it would be done intellectually or on the basis of ideas, but rather based out of respect, tradition, and some of these things, we can resolve some of these problems. in addition to having a very effective legal system that will deliver justice in areas where reconciliation is not really an option but rather resorting to a legal system. >> i am happy about the

election of the prime minister. he had the courage to speak that he would have done it differently. i do not know if you remember it. it should have been done another way. that there is something from the bottom and then build up at the national assembly. that makes the legitimacy much pyre -- much higher than the elections were designed. that was important. an important statement. i am sure he will work for that kind of enterprise. i am optimistic on this individual doing that. yes. >> thank you. i am with the u.s. libya business association. as we saw yesterday with the , what is, in your

opinion, his mandate and his ability to implement more international cooperation as libya solves these problems? we saw over the past several months, we have gotten very -- various international groups have gotten to a certain point and hit a wall with the national transitional council as far as implementing cooperative programs, whether it is embedding advisers into the finance ministry or providing some sort of international support forced to help in libya. do you think, are they going to give him that mandate? are they ready to move to the next step now in excepting international operation? thank you. >> i think the number one thing is exactly what you mentioned at the end. this is the first governments that has appointed, and chosen,

front -- from an elected body. that gives it a sense of legitimacy and mandate that is different even from its predecessor, although it is a continuation in some ways of the previous government in action. it's limitation will be the fact that it is short, a year in a half -- a year and a half. and all of the unfortunate buildup of problems from the previous governments in having discussions, and i have those very frank discussions, recently, and their discussion is, we need to become more of an emergency government, if you make, for the first few months be able to address the major issues of security and things along those lines. to me, that, unfortunately, will unto what i was very hopeful to say, which is to start joining

hands with international parties and allow development to begin. part of the stuff that happened with the previous government was that we're very cautious and and also, with the idea that we are in transition and we are with the mandate of keeping everything on track until something happens. i hope they come with a different mentality, marbles, more looking forward. we have done this in the past nine months and 10 months and we did not move any forward. i think he has some of that within him, but i think he will be limited with some of the problems from earlier. >> i think the government has been put with their shoulders against the world. they have been alluding themselves it will go, it will

go it will go. nothing has been done. now they are against the world. there is no future because, i am sure from what i know from history, that they do not stop until they are defeated. to be continued. this government has to be sure that this kind of behavior will continue. they will go to the american ambassador and who knows what other targets they may have. i think it is something dramatic that has changed on tuesday. then, is the but the highest level, have to change it. they have to change it. it is imperative the initiatives be taken now. there is no time. yes, sir. >> thank you. i am from the foreign services institute.

one of the challenges given the situation with the apparent -- well, with what happened, it seems to me that one possible danger, and this is something that terrorists are overlooking -- always looking for, is overreaction. one of the inherent problems is then, if the response is too much on the security side, no matter how necessary a firmer and more robust security response is, that it leads to fatigue problems down the line potentially, with an increasing reliance on security as a solution to the problem. this is, given the history and it plays like libya, but it is a regional problem, must be on libya, of reliance on security, on the intelligence services and on those solutions on the

problems to these countries. they are within their problems, but relying on those solutions has been historically done. seems to me that one of the problems then for all of you helping with the move forward is how do you provide solutions that still hold back that kind of institutional outcome that leads to increasing reliance on intelligence services, on security, as the first solution rather than the second. you talk about reconciliation and so on. is this not the real -- one of the real dangers a moment like this poses for libya where now the international community, in particular, the response is one of horror and shock and an increasing turn towards, perhaps, security as a solution? how do you think you prevent that at this point? >> there has to be a short-term and a long-term answer.

it was said that the only way to defeat them is to take away the water from the lake where the water -- or the terrorists -- you have to reach a consensus. opening a system which is inclusive. for the rest, you need to have a strong reaction. it needs to be dealt with with the police, security intelligence forces. he always says you cannot afford to meet tolerance a taller -- to meet intolerance with tolerance. the most important thing now is to identify this phenomenon. let me tell you one thing. libya is different in some aspects from the rest of the arab countries.

we do not suffer from this widespread too much. that is not me who says that. it has been said by the state ambassador many times when we went to the country. has been said by libyan officials. it has been proved by the only poll taken a few months ago, a few weeks ago, that shows exactly what i am saying. whether it is because of behind the revolution. if there is a regret, it is that the country has been abandoned. more involvement should have happened. i am confident we are different in this from other parts where there are other reasons.

it is not anymore that i am trying to make a vision of what is the islamic world. then being able to get out from the cold war mentality of friends and enemies. an example of this. in certain issues, you need to have a different kind of strategy. they have to be treated the way they have to be treated. i do not think there can be an overreaction. >> to add to that, just a soft answer and then i leave the implementation up . i think you create the impression that you are not living in a security atmosphere. that you are living in an open and reconciliation atmosphere.

security is definitely there, but it does its job quietly. it is easy for security to do that job quietly and over efficiently. that is one of the intentions. but i think you set the balance and the kind of atmosphere in which you operate, and then, if you call the because the implemented as to live up to that kind of atmosphere, then you are not letting the security overcome overtly the nature of the situation in which we find ourselves. i can throw in because i am not the speaker, i am a little perplexed. maybe somebody can tell me what the destroyers are doing there. it does not seem to be an appropriate response.

it does seem to me a response that race is exactly the kinds of problems you are suggesting. >> anyone else? chris. >> i am from the congressional research service. i was hoping the speakers and maybe some of our guests in the audience might address specifically how the response to this incident, whether by libyan authorities or by the united states, might impact some of the broader questions we find ourselves quest -- asking, specifically the resolution between eastern libya and a fear about over centralization of power, a question in the constitution, how much -- how my action between some of the

groups supported have been the least present at the event in question, how might they respond if pressed, of it -- either by libya or the united states? how will that spot -- spillove over? thank you. >> i will try to take a stab at this. your expertise and insights. i will tell you there is no easy answer. it will not be a right or wrong answer. what you need is you need to have a leadership with a political will to take a course of action that will bring forth results. i think back also to the question before. the concern about a lack of a clear, surgical, effective response to the terrorist attack that has taken place on libyan soil two days ago, will only add to the gravity of the perception

and of the problem that is rampant in the issue of security in libya today, which is a weak government that is unable to address even attacks of such magnitude. to me, it becomes very important for that to happen within the next base -- a few days, with a new prime minister, with a government with a mandate for the people, and an atmosphere which is very ready for a reassurance for the government to take action. the nature of that action is to be calibrated because it is very quickly looked upon by all parties involved. if it is overly u.s. lead, it will become the rallying cry of those who are attacking us and the destroyers are coming and this and this. if it is not, it may not be very effective. like a said, there are no easy answers.

i would clearly say that, given the state of affairs, and has to be swift and it has to be limited in scope, but it has to also be able to give the government the stands and authority it needs. back to the other question of, the other dynamics that will have an impact on what comes next, whether it is how america can be viewed or how this a libyan-american partnership can be developed further in on security and non-military ways, i think it will be very sensitive to a lot of other dynamics but it has to be part of a greater vision on how we will proceed on the other issues, as well. i would say we need to address the critical matters without worrying too much about that. but the same time being very vigilant about how to develop. i hope i shed some light. >> where the debate will be carried on, that is where that

will be debated. the debate can then take place. centralization. that is an intellectual debate. if you got it -- if you do not resolve the first one, there will be no time to do that. >> i am sorry. the highest number of votes in the libyan parliament, and he is from -- caught me by surprise. he said, we will go many years back. he is an advocate. he is seeing it from that light. we will forget about it. we will go back. there are plenty of dynamics. the least of whic

>> do i need to stand up? >> yes. >> just a couple of points i would like to raise here. the issue of security. i have seen, over the last year right now, that there is a difference between how libyans the security in libya and then europeans and americans and others evaluate the situation, the security. i think the non-libyans look at libya through the eyes and experiences of afghanistan, iraq, and somalia. they said, it is much better than these countries. it is stable. not anymore, after what happened to us. unfortunately. i think that, at a political letters -- level, it effected

house some of us were thinking about how to deal with libya. i think that is why some of these events took us by surprise. we have to change that. libyans do not like to compare themselves to somalia. their demand of what they want to see, or their country and stability and security, is completely different. they are looking at a country that should be stable like the gulf countries. or, more, they look northward rather than south or east and west. this is one point. i think the other point that we have to be very careful after what happened is there may end up having to deal with a shift. we usually do that here. in the united states. when we have happy democracy and

everybody is talking about promoting democracy, then something tragic happens and then the mood changes from democracy to security. we all completely forget about promoting democracy and working with a civil society and trying to implement what we would like the other countrythat can lead t that happened in the past of supporting dictators, carrying deals with warlords, and the sky is the limit when you try to think about security, so this is another danger we have to worry about, and i think ultimately, and we have to help the libyan government understand now they need to take action, and these

actions impact the security and the stability of the country, and partnering with a new government, and helping guide it without the initiative to do things i think will be the key to the future it is called the strategy of tension in counter- terrorism. people are happy if someone takes power. there was somebody else? are there any other questions? >> thank you for your presentation. it was very enlightening. i am a research associate. i think one of the things the

has been highlighted time and again with these questions is the balance between development and security, and you talk about security being the first priority and development being the second priority, but i wonder if it may be helpful to discuss some of the benchmarks that need to be hit on the security front before you think of transition can be made to dealing more seriously with development. obviously, there are development organizations on the ground doing work in tripoli down to small ngos, and they are doing work currently, but you are talking about a more serious broadbased effort toward development, and i wonder which benchmarks need to be hit and how you will work to reach those benchmarks before we can deal

with development issues. >> i am going to give to comments. one is with the ministry of electricity who was running to be prime minister. he said in the last month they were coming into libya to do major work as part of of a plan with the ministry, and two days before -- this was two weeks ago -- he said they have called and they will not be going to libya. they will be coming at the end of september to reassess the plan. the second comment was from the minister of defense who says, a part of my talent in performing my duties as a defense minister is the fact that he defense installations in the country are controlled by people i have no say over, militias, so it is

very hard for us to make securities become a dominant issue in a country where we are racing with time to institute democratization and bring it development that will sustain all this in the future, but we have lost a honeymoon, which shows the nine months after the transition, so back to your benchmark, there has to be respect of the state, whether that manifest itself in the official abilities to address conflicts. the second is building off and of security forces -- to build when security forces that are affective and making sure you have resources so that is

effective on the ground. you are talking about a more dire problem. the third is key installations. airports, we have all heard about the airport going back and forth, so key installations are under state control. fourth is the ability to safeguard the partners and the folks on the ground. the american consulate was guarded by folks who -- there are reports they were derailed from their duties or things along those lines. we can certainly put more accurate figures to it, and i would push folks like the

interior minister and the defense minister to give me those benchmarks, but now they will not believe we did this. now that is why we find ourselves in this situation. i think we need to move very quickly in democratization. >> one more question. >> in your question, there are two words that concern me. a good one is this idea of tension and the other is benchmarks and priorities. i think we have to understand that the forces of insecurity look at the railing measures of development, measures of welfare, and measures of well- being the government might carry

out, so it is important to stay on track with development policy. you cannot do things for places you cannot get to, but the idea of waiting until develop an -- until certain benchmarks have been met, i think is a dangerous attitude now. the three governments in north africa that have seen the overthrow of the north regime are seeing an election challenges fed will haying and on how well they enter the welfare questions, impossible questions, but still, burning questions in the upcoming elections, so it is important to

move forward on those fronts if that kind of governmental stability is to be carried out, doing what you are talking about trying to get across security hurdles. >> i am libyan american. in trying to impact this libyan spaghetti, thinking it through, there are two fundamental problems about how this government or the previous one can deal with this dimension. it is obvious to me they do not have the tools to affect policy, so you can be a minister and issue of the right orders, formulate all the right policies, but if you do not have the capacity to carry it out,

that includes defense and internal forces, so one is lack of tools for governing, and i do not see that being solved within the libyan context as it is today, because history teaches us there has never been a country where it collapses to this extent and you have to build it from scratch, and you have armed and unarmed groups, and somehow they were able to do it on their own. history has always proven there was always an outside force, the un, or and occupied force. so far we are talking about the security issue, alexians and having -- elections and having transparency. that is going well, but that is on television.

you cannot have a government on television while the streets are controlled by different groups. what happened yesterday was the end of something that have been going on for weeks. these groups have been destroying mosques, schools, attacking tombs built 500 or 600 years ago, and you have impunity, and you have the interior minister saying on television, i do not have the forces to stop them, and the prime minister saying i have a force larger than me, so you have 10 days ago a government that had to acknowledge publicly it is not in control, so there is no surprise these

groups have been involved. i am sorry i am taking a long, but i want your reactions to what i am saying. adding to this is what the transitional council and decided not toe do. i do not blame them for what they have done, but i blame them for what they have done when there was domestic opinions that would have supported some sort of you in security force in the beginning of the transition. libya was in a position to negotiate an interesting framework. they did not make any decisions, and when you do not make a decision, you have made a decision, and i think what we are seeing is a consequence.

they have also done something relating to national reconciliation. they began to blame different groups in libya, whether the former regime by issuing all sorts of lists, or by dividing people between east and west or the way they decided to structure the dnc and so on, and that created a background that is how we divide and define ourselves against others, and it is not only an issue of former regime members. today you have those who pretend to be part of the revolution versus those who carried it out, those in government versus those coming in from the outside. you have east against west, and

so on and so forth, and once you stop the ball rolling, it is not going anywhere but more division. the libyan oriole to mention where everybody is fighting to get a piece of -- libyan oil dimension where everybody is fighting to get a piece of that, and everybody knows exactly what needs to be done. the problem is how to do it, and when you do not have the tools to do it, i am not convinced much can be done, so this is the question. can it be done only by libyan capacity, which i doubt, if not, how you bring in an acceptable international tools that libya can use? libya may not want to rely on

the force of the united states, for example, or the experience of one government, but it can supplement its capacity using international organizations it has been a member of since the 1950's, and that would be a much better way of dealing with it. i am afraid and we are at the tail end of what libya can accept or cannot accept. and nobody can blame the united states or france or egypt or china of sending troops common on because they will not allow the situation to continue and a slave. >> i was beginning to be surprised. what was the most contentious issue, but they are not going to make it by themselves, because

it is a record. . is a very good point. we should not be ashamed of asking, because what happens is the security council's you can count upon. >> you mentioned the gallup poll that came not a few weeks ago on libya, and i wanted to expand upon that and ask a question. libyans are the most favorable of any country in the u.s. or in north africa, more favorable than the canadians. over 50% say they have confidence in the leadership of the united states, so this is unprecedented for a middle eastern country. we also found out 95% of libyans

say are militias are a serious threat. -- say our militias are a serious threat, so there is dealinglar demand for with this issue. that does not mean people want to much policy, but especially in the are, -- in libya, people are open to accepting help, especially technical assistance when it comes to the issue, so when we talk about libyans not be able to do it now by themselves, what specifically could the u.s. do to support the efforts of securing libya's situation? >> there is one.

. =-- one point. if it was not for some of the militias, the government would not have had some troops to take back the consulate. the contradiction is growing. who you really can count upon is the problem, so where do you begin with? and where you begin? how do you begin the demilitarization of the militias? it is very difficult. we need support to do that, and i will get back to you after the question.

>> thank you. my name is steve. i am with cantor fitzgerald. two days ago we memorialize milosevic of regional -- the loss of 658 employees 11 years ago, so i would like to go to the response of ambassador stephen s.. it is very easy to be reactionary. we need as a nation to be clear and absolute to communicate this type of activity is unacceptable. it goes beyond libya, so what i

would like to hear is if you could provide your thoughts on the range of possible responses, and educate me as to what you think you could do, all the while respecting what i think we would all like to see achieved in libya, which is the is the basement of a free and productive democracy -- the establishment of a free and productive democracy. >> you go first. in answer to the question, specifically, there are two components that need to happen.

you have got to get the partners who are concerned, so the defense ministry, joint chiefs of staff, maybe a couple of other agencies, and they have a national security council, but you need to have discussions, building on the tools they need and effective programs, but the partners they need is the un, because any intervention from a owntry will have its implications that will derail the property, so they you in being president is a strong force, because the dynamic of having a force in libya is yet to develop. there is not a strong security force. there is the beginning of its.

we cannot just be negative, but in order for you to carry out security from days zero, you need a more affective strategy in addition to some other issues that can be addressed with partners other than to you in, but back to the other question. -- other than to you win, but after the other question -- -- other than the un, but back to the other question, it is not really a reactionary. you know this is a problem that exists. you know there is violent extremism acting to murder and unto the security of the country itself. you need to further intelligence and identify the

problem, but identifying the problem and now is not necessarily the problem. we need an effective partnership to carry on a mission to rid the country of terrorists. you may have to make sure you know. we need the facts. we need to have a strong leadership in libya willing to make hard choices. it is going to have repercussions and headaches, but you cannot keep these problems. ahead of the national congress, he came up very strong, and he was adamant about this. there were some sectors of libya who were unable to take

that, so there are ways to take strong policy. >> i would go further. no government can take control if it is afraid of its own security. i think that i would rather have nato intervention with the same countries that helped libya, the police force to support the regime, in training and patrolling and securing, things they cannot do otherwise. they can take part of the

decision if somebody gets upset , and they can guarantee the security of the government. that is a provocation. we can ask the government to have the courage. they say, we are not going to make it by ourselves. we need somebody else to protect us. there is no shame in accepting that. security is guaranteed. we can have a continuation of the procedure.

the minister can say, in his own words, and you have to be careful, because if they get mad. several things have to be addressed. >> i think adding what has been said, the united states can press for and participate in the establishment of an international police force. we often under play the role of police as opposed to a military force, and what is needed is a military force.

now i am worried about the you win, but i do not think russia and china are likely to veto this, if not to build on what nato has done. second, i press for the creation of a reconciliation commission that includes major figures representing different currents, outsidecular, islamizc of libya. it is important that getting our religious sanction approval authority behind an effort of this kind is extremely important , people who can speak with authority about what their religion says, and that would be extremely helpful in bringing people together in separating the fish or sharks from the

water, and that is an important part we emphasized in the book called negotiating with terrorists. those are two things mentioned that is working through an international organization to support welfare development programs for the next elections that are going to come off, where the government would have a record to defend. i just want to support what he just said about bringing in the larger religious community to support this process. what is happening with these extreme groups is they are

trying to reduce diversity with all kinds of schools and different perspectives and to an reducing it extremist version, so everyone across the region has a serious stake in articulating a response, an intellectual and religious response to these extremist elements, and that would be the most effective one, the most effective way to deal with its. >> the you want to have a comment? >> thank you very much. thank you to the council and the foundation. i have just a to comment concerning the death of ambassador stevens and the

american in an gauzy. -- in benghazi. i want to apologize for what happened here a good it happened in the city i live in. it is a shame, and what makes it very difficult for me, i knew chris personally for a number of years. we played tennis together, and i remember when he came back from libya, we were going to play a game of tennis together, and he was going to be the next ambassador of libya. i said, you are the right man in the right place in the right

time. he loved libya. he rarely leaves the revolution day and night, and he is a libyan champion. how this incident happened, why the libyans tried tune in to protect new foreign diplomats -- tried to help protect foreign diplomats, unfortunately, i believe there is one main reason behind it, that we have no organization. we have no decisionmaker to take care of security without police, without intelligence, we do not need to do anything, and this is the message i am very concerned about with the prime minister.

if we had no way to protect our people, we would not be able to establish a democratic country. he is a very personal friend. how we are going to handle this issue, the libyan officials made a strong statement condemning this attack, but i think this is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. we have to do everything to arrest these people and bring them to justice, but also how

are americans going to react? it is a very dangerous time. we have to be aware of how we are going to accomplish this. i think americans have to realize the situation is very frightening in libya. it is unfortunate after that stupid movie which the people behind it i consider terrorists, because they are responsible for the death of innocent americans, and the attack against the muslim religion i think they paved the way for more terrorist action and, but is this the right response to this stupid movie? i would say no.

there are more civilized ways to express your view, but who is behind it? is it extremist? is it out kind of? -- al qaeda? visit gaddafi's supporters? -- is it gaddafi supporters? ?s it all three together salmo they have money, and they have the ways and means. there were some cars exploding in tripoli, and we find out they have some communication.

after my visit, american had to be committed to this revolution. we have to work together, and i think we need more support during peace, but how can libya control and let the world know we are serious? i think the ministers have a real problem. gaddafi left behind and not destruction. we need to establish a police force. we need training. also, you need time. this is a very difficult time,

and i never expect we would come to this end while the government cannot do much to protect our interests, to protect our people, to protect our friends. also, they really need someone to decide, someone who can take the responsibility at the same time. i think get one time it was very difficult. i cannot blame the government because they do not have the ways and means. i cannot blame the government. i think after a few months we should be able to create new the force but will support our country. without having the government showing this is the middle east

-- this is not africa. it is different from other places. the government has to show. otherwise they will have no affect. my of politicians to the american people, and we hope we will still have the support of the united states to help libya get through this terrible situation. thank you. >> thank you, and i am very grateful for your participation in this debate. please feel free to write, to see me, to complain, what ever you want to do. i am more than happy. we are open, and we would like

to see all of you again very soon. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in three weeks, the first of the presidential debates live on c-span, c-span radio, anton c- span.org. coming up, a debate on a measure to replace possible cuts in defense spending followed by ben bernanke on the economy. later hillary clinton talks about the violence in the middle east, and a forum on conditions in libya. the family research council host a summit tomorrow. speakers at the annual event include the gop vice presidential candidate paul ryan as well as erick kanter and the

south carolina senator. will be live starting at 8:40 a.m. eastern corridor >> have you visited the c-span 2012 web site? you can watch the events on the campaign trail with mitt romney, president obama, and others. you can read what the candidates are saying on the economy, national security, and immigration. watch and engage at c-span.org /2012. >> i have been astounded that for a piece of history we know so much about -- columbus kept numerous journals, wrote lots of letters, took four trips to the americas, and starting on the second trip there were lots of official scribes and army officials and all kinds of officials doing lots of

documents. we know what happened. 30,000 people had their hands cut off. 2 million people have been killed. no human being wants to be judged by their darkest days. no nation wants to be judged by their darkest day, but when nations have dark days, we have to acknowledge that. >> anton talks about his vote. -- book. saturday at 10:00 p.m. and sunday at 9:00 p.m. when. the president passed a bill by a vote of 223-196 specified the president's plan to replace automatic cuts with other spending cuts and not with

revenues. the senate does not expected to take up the measure, and the president has threatened to veto it. here is the hour and 15 minutes debate from the house floor. er current law there will be a $110 billion across-the-board cuts known as sequester that will be imposed on this country on january 2, 2013, resulting in a 10% reduction in the department of defense programs and an 8% reduction in certain domestic programs as well. in may of this year the house passed a bill to deal with this, that was the sequester replacement reconciliation act. and what this legislation would do, it would replace that sequester for 2013 with commonsense spending cuts and forms. unfortunately we have seen a lack of leadership both over in the senate and at the white house. the senate faileto act on this legislation. the senate, where all good bills go to die, so too with this, or in any sequester replacement

bill. so today the house will once again try to responsibly fix the sequester. the national security and job protection act would ensure our national security but at the same time we do that it will cut spending. the national security and job protection act wou do two things. it wou turn off the sequester of congress, or similar legislation that achieves equal levels of deficit reduction. secondly, the national security and job protection bill would require that the president of the united states submit to congress a legislative proposal to replace the sequester with an alternative no no later than october 15 of this year. up until this point we have seen absolutely no leadership, no plan to fix this sequester problem. but ye there's strong bipartisan agreement that the sequester, as it is right now, is bad policy and should be reprioritized. once again, the president has failed to lead in this area, failed to put forward a credible response, failed to put together a legislative

proposal and the senate has failed as well. the result is that less than 100 days we will see reductions that our very own secretary panetta will hallow out our armed forces and make arbitrary, totally arbitrary reductions in other spending programs. not on has the president failed to ad in this area, he's failed to put forward a plan, but the president has also failed -- and this is important -- to submit to congre a report as law requires him to do so detailing specifically how this administration would implement the sequester. now, mr. speaker, after months, literally months of stonewalling congress on how this administration would implement the sequester, congress now comes to the floor because we are forced to pa legislation requiring the president to submit a detailed sequester implementation program. and when that legislation became law, as we said, the prident's response has been no response. rather than him doing his home work, the president has simply

taken a pass on this matter. instead, has provided congrs with nothing and not meeting e requirements of the law. it is an example, i thi to use the president's own words, of an incomplete by this president on his report card. the president lacks leadership. it's simply stunning to this member and to the american people as well. as i say, the senate is no better for failing to respond in this matter as well. the senate refuses to take up any bill or replace the sequester whatsoever. so today, mr. speaker, we again come here, passing legislation to try to solve this problem, to fix the sequester, to make sure that these draconian cuts does not go in place now. we are not saying it's not the house-passed bill to pass, we are not saying that the president put forward his legislation, but the senate to act. withhat i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speake

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. this is really quite a charade we're engaged in here today on the house of representatives' floor. let's just flash back a year to how we got to this spot. at that time our republican colleagues threatened that the united states would default on its full faith and credit, that we wouldn't pay the bills that we already incurred, that this congress had already voted for and threatened to tank the economy unless we passed their version of the budget, the ryan buet, the budget that came out of the house budget committee. so in order to prevent the united states from defaulting, everybody got together, the house, the senate, the president, and they passed the budget control act. to hear our republican colleagues today, you think they'd have nothing to do with the budget ctrol act. we heard the chairman of the

budget committee, mr. ryan, on television today saying, well, i don't really, you know, i didn't want to associate myself with that a the reality is he voted for it, the speaker of the house said he got 98% of what he wanted. here's the speaker of the house after we passed the budget control act, got 98% of what i wanted. i'm pret happy. so now we face the consequences of the budget control act. what did it do? it did two things. it cut discretionary spending over 10 years by over $1 trillion and it created a sequester process. now, there's agreement in this house that allowing the sequester cuts to take place would be a really stupid thing to do. there's agreement on that. the issue is, how do we replace that? hodo we achieve a similar

amount of deficit reduction to replace that sequester? we hear our republican colleagues say tre's no leadership from the president. they haven't heard any alternatives. that's just not true. there are lots of alternatives that have been put on the table. they just don't like the alternatives. and you know why? because the democratic alternatives to the sequester and the one put forward by the president takes the same balanced approach that's been recommended by bipartisan commissions. they say that in order to tackle our deficit we should make additional cuts, but we should also eliminate a lot of special interest tax breaks for big oil companies, that we should ask the very wealthy to go back to paying a little bit more in taxes about what they were paying when president clinton was president. last time we balanced our budget. so the president has submitted that. in fact a year ago the president sent down a plan right here on how we could take

a balanced approach to deficit reduction. just yesterday in the rules committee on behalf of my democrat ig colleagues, we pro-- democratic colleagues, we proposed a substitute that would replace the sequester with a mix of cuts. cutting some of the agriculture subsidies. but also raising revenue by cutting some of the big breaks for big oil companies and asking the wealthiest to chip in a little t more. so our republican colleagues, who say they want a big open debate on the floor here, they denied us even a vote on that amendment. we're not going to vote today on that amendment. instead we're voting on this relution that, even if we pass it and the senate passes it and the president were to sign it, it would do nothing about the sequester. nothing. that's why i say this is a charade. so we had an option to bring to the floor to this house a real substitute proposal. that if we passed it would have removed the sequester, make sure there's no cuts to defense and nondefense on the

sequester. we don't get to vote on that today. instead we're voting on something that's totally meaningless. they say they're going to ask the president to submit a report to congress. he's already done it. he did it a year ago. they just don't like it. because it takes a balanced approach, because it does ask big oil companies to give up some of their big taxpayer subsidies. so, mr. speaker, let's end the charade. the moment our republican colleagues come to the conclusion that it's more important to protect defense spending than it is to protect special interest tax breaks for big oil companie wcan move on and deal with this in a balanced way, the same way bipartisan commissions have recommended. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair would remind all members that it is inappropriate to traffic the well while a member is speaking.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: and i thank you. and at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the sponsor of the legislation before us, the gentleman from florida who recognizes while the president may have presented a plan to this congress, that bill went down 414-0 and to the senate 97-0, the gentleman from florida. mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? mr. garrett: i yield to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. west: i thank you, mr. speaker. this is not a charade. i was part of the military for 22 years. i know the type of cuts will do to the military. i know what this type of cuts will do to nondefense discretionary. it is all we've accomplished in education and weaken programs to help families that send young people and adults to

possible. secretary of education, arne duncan. this will force defense cuts that in my view would do catastrophic damage to our military and the ability to be able to protect our country. i think right now, mr. speaker, it's very simpl one had a quote back in the 1920's that said those who failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. at the end of world war i we cut our military. there came world war ii. at the end of world war ii and then came the korean war. after that we had to chase communism, vietnam. i participated in the riff after desert shield/desert storm. it takes the army and marine corps down to 1940's level. it puts 200,000 of our men and women in uniform on the streets. it makes our united states navy go to 1915 levels. currently we have a naval force of 283 war ships. it goes down to 230. it takes our air force down to

the smallest air force we have had in modern history when we created the united states air force. it cuts nontactical fire squadrons. if you talk to any of our service chiefs, if you listen to the chairman of the joint chiefs, he talks about haowing out this force. we should not be doing this at a time when we see what is happening in the wld right now, when the united states of america has had a sovereign piece of its territory attack, we have had an ambassador who has lost his life and the message we are sending is we are not going to do nothing. this bill says we havpassed a plan out of the house. the senate, if you don't like our plan, come up with your own plan. mr. president, you are our commander in chief, come up with a plan. you know, one of the things you learn as a young officer, if you er get in a firefight, if you get in an ambush, to do nothing means losing a life. those are my friends still in uniform. those are my relativestill in uniform.

now, i did not have the ability to be selected to be on the superscommittee maybe because i've only been here as a freshman. but that does not mean i will not be an adult and present a solution that says very simply, if youon't like what we passed in the house, then do something. come up with a plan. we just heard the debate about the continuing resolution, a continuing resolution we've been forced into because we ve a senate that has not passed a budget in close to three years. we have a senate that has not taken up any appropriations bills. well, i will tell you and i will reach out to my colleagues on the other side, at least here in the house we have done something. we have been forced into a position with this sequestration to say we need to come up with a solution. the supercommittee did not meet its enacted mandate. does that mean we're going to stop? does that mean we are going to look at the men and women in uniform and say we will allow this to happen? does that mean we are going to look at other people who are affected by these nondefense

discretionary cuts? those who have not come up with a plan, tell us what you want so that we do not have this occur. and think about the second and third order effects that will come to this. we talk d mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? mr. west: i will not yield. we are talking about the department of defense civilian positions that will be lost. we a talking about defense industrial base, the technology that's going to develop the next generation of weapons systems for our men and women that will be lost. we are talking about a critical decision for the way ahead for the united states of america. and i understand what's been said about this balanced approach that the president sent over in his fiscal year 2013 budget. $1.9 trillion in new taxes but yet it never balances at any time. and if it was such a good plan, such a good budget, no one here took it up. that's my concern. thiss a last chance for us to be the adults, to do something, to stave off this

questration. the house voted, the house sent a piece of legislation out in may. the house voted on a sequestration transparency act. we still have not gotten anything. the director of the o.m.b. testified before the armed services committee. he has no plan. all he did was sit there and say, if you guys would stop with these tax cuts not being brought up on the rich then this would not happen. what is the fair share? when the top 1% pays close to 31% of taxes, that's not the debate, mr. speaker. the debate is what we're going to do about the sequestration and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. we heard before that there was this vote on the president's plan and got no votes. we had a vote on a fake president's plan. when we had a democratic alternative which the white house said was closer to their plan than the one that was put up for a fake vote it got a huge vote from our democratic colleagues.

i would just ask mr. west to read his own amendment because if you read the bill, it's pretty clear. if we're to pass it and the senate was to pass it and the president would sign it, it doesn't make the sequester go away. no, it doesn't make the sequester go away. it calls for action. in fact, it says the president should submit a plan within a certain period of time. it says in your bill. pridential submission not later than october 15, 2012. the president shall transmit to the congress a legislative proposal. mr. west: if the gentleman will yield. it says it will be replaced. if you come up with a plan -- mr. van hollen: exactly. and reclaiming my time. that's exactly right. that's exactly what it says. but you know what, you tell the president what his plan has to do. you tell the president tha his plan cannot include one penny of revenue for the purpose of reducing the deficit. in other words, you say the president's plan got to look like your plan. so mr. speaker, the issue here is not whether or not the

president has a plan or not. he does have a plan. our republican colleagues don't like it because it says that it's more important to protect defense spending and protect domestic spending like n.i.h. than it is to protect special interest tax loopholes. i see the chairman of the armed services committee on the floor and i respect him greatly. that's what he talked about last octor. here's what he said when he was asked. quote, if it came that i had only two choices. one was a tax increase and one was a cut in defense over and abovwhere we already are, i would go to strengthen defense. that's the president's position. that's the president's position, mr. west. he says we need to take a balanced approach to recusing the deficit. we need to combine cuts but we also should end special interest tax breaks for the big oil companies. george bush himself said that when youot oil above $50 a barrel, you don't need these ridiculous incentives to keep

them drilling. and we should ask very wealthy individuals to pay the same tax rate as the people who pay for them do. and we should eliminate some of these ag subsidies. you asked about other proposalless. i have a proposal in my hand. i took it to the house rules committee yesterday. it would have totally replaced the sequester. if we actually voted on this, it would replace the sequester for defense and nondefense. you know how we do it? we do it through cuts to big ag subsidies, we do it by eliminating subsidies for the billing oil companies and we ask people making more than $1 million to pay a little bit more because we think it's more important to do that than to allow tse cuts to defense to take place and all the consequences you talk about, and we think it's important to protect investments in places like n.i.h. people who are fighting to try to find curious and diseases. so, mr. speaker, madam speaker, the issue is not whether we replace the sequester. the president has a proposal, i got a proposal. it's how we do it. and again our republican

colleagues have doubled down on this idea that you're going to protect every tax break that's out there before you protect spending on our national defense. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland refreshes -- reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker. before we hear from our leader we have 15 seconds for the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. west: thank you, madam speaker. we voted to cut defense spending by $487 billion. we're talking about additional. when you talk about raising these taxes, earnston young had an independent report that talked about the adverse ramifications that were covered about raising taxes. one thing we fail to understand, small business operators at the subchapel ter, l.l.c.'s, you're going to ruin this economy and more job losses by raising those taxes. the speaker pro tempore: t gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i'd yield for an answer, whether paying -- capital is a small business.

mr. west: i'm not talking about bank capital. i'm talking -- you say raise taxes on individuals. mr. van hollen: i take my time back. reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. west, when you're -- when mr. romney and mr. ryan and all our republican colleagues cite those figures about pass-throughs, that includes companies like bain catal. it also includes some fortune 100 companies. the president has put forward a proposal that says, let's act right now. to extend tax relief to 98% of the american people and 97% of all pass-through businesses. it's true, we don't think that bain capital needs a big additional tax break when we've got a big deficit that we should deal with in what we think should be a balanced way. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. all members are advised that they will direct their comments to the chair. the ntleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: now at this time i'd leak like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, our leader.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey and commend the gentleman from florida on bringing this bill forward. madam speaker, the bill before us is not about tax rates. because i think that that issue will be resolved one way or another here shortly in this election. because we know that there's a difference between the two sides. unfortunately our counterparts on the other side of the aisle think it's very important in this tough economy to raise taxes. we don't believe that, madam speaker. but the bill before us sply asks the president to give us his plan for replacing the first year of cuts in the sequester. it has been 126 days since we passed our plan to responsibly replace the sequester wi cuts that maintain our fiscal discipline. our plan controls unchecked government spending and reduces wasteful and duplicative programs but still there has been no

action and no proposal coming from the other side of the capitol, coming from the other side of the aisle. it has been 126 days since the president said he would veto our plan. but he has failed to put forward an alternative. in a letter that some of us republican leaders wrote on july 14, asking the president to engage with us, to come andind a bipartisan solution to the sequestration, that letter has gone unanswered. madam speaker,naction carries a very high risk. instability, unprecedented political transformation throughout the middle east. a civil war in syria. iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism, as well as challenges proposed by rising china and geostrategic shifts in the asia-pacific make maintaining american military preeminent as important as ever.

and the deadly and tragic attacks on ambassador chris receiveness, foreign service information management officer sean smith, and two other americans at our consulate in benghazi, libya, make clear that islamic extremist terrorism remains a tremendous threat to the middle east, the united statesnd the international community. if the cuts in the sequester go forward, they will fundamentally weaken our current and long-term national security and our ability to meet challenges with these challenges we are facing. implementing these cuts will remain -- will mean reductions in ship building, aircraft and missiles, shrinking our current force to levels not seen since before world war ii. and that means fewer defense-related jobs. according to a study conducted by thaerospace industries association, the job losses will reach two million. let me put that in perspective. the economy added less than

100,000 jobs last month. worse, more people dropped out of the labor force than were added to it. under the sequester, unemployment would soar from it current level up to 9%, setting back any progress the economy has made. according to the same study the jobs of more than 200,000 virginians, my own state, are on thline. a small business in my district, which provides fresh food to troops at military bases, said the sequester threatens the jobs of their 200 employees. another small company in virginia, high test landtories, could could be forced to reduce their staff by as much as 40%. removing the jobs from the community will shrink the local economy and set back an already underutilized business zone. that same predicament faces hundreds of hardworking men and womein town from here to california -- town interests

here to california. madam speaker, we are here today asking the president simply to come forward with a plan. we are here today because the minority has failed to work with us to find a sution, to prevent these cuts that would hollow out our military and result in massive layoffs. madam speaker, the house will act. now we need leadership, mr. president, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. n hollen: thank you, madam speaker. it's hard to know where to begin. because i hope everyone was listening very carefully. that if we allow these spending cuts to take place, we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in virginia alone. thousands of jobs around the country. you know, i've heard a lot of complaints from our republican colleagues about the recovery bill.

and the fact that we had to do some emergency spending to prevent the loss of millions of jobs. you know what? that worked. and here our republican colleagues here today are saying, we have to make sure the spending cuts don't take place because if we do, it will result in a lot of lost jobs. you know what? it takes jobs to build an aircraft carrier, absolutely. it also creates jobs when you inst in trying to repair and modernize our roads and our bridges, our infrastructure. the president submitted a jobs bill more than a year ago to this house. to do exactly that. let's invest more in modernizing our infrastructur. we haven't had a single vote on the president's jobs bill. so i'm really glad to hear our republican colleagues say that we make these kind of cuts it's going to result in lost jobs. because you know what? you are right about that. and the debate today is not about whether we should prevent the is he quester from taking place, as i said, we should.

it's how, how we do that. and i heard again from the republican leader, the president doesn't have a plan. he has a plan. they just don't like his plan. they don't like his plan because it takes a balanced approach. it says, in addition to ts we should also ask people who make more than $1 million a year to contribute a little more to reducing our national deficit and preventing the sequester. we should ask big oil companies give up their taxpayer subsidies. so, the question, madam speaker, is not whether we replace the sequester. there's lots of plans, can't get a vote on it today. the issue is not whether, it's how. we should take a balanced approach and i yield now three minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you very much. and i am pleased to participate in this debate. in some ways.

alough i do have to say that this is noreally the kind of honest debate that we need to be having. we should be having a conversation, we should have been having a conversation well before now about how we would avoid sequester and do it in a bipartisan way, to do it in a balanced way. that is not what is happening right now. it is -- what we're see something the republican plan without that kind of conversation, without at kind of willingness to find common ground or balanced approach. the federal gugget is about choices -- budget is about choices and the choices we make matter. do we choose to protect our seniors, to grow the middle class, to make smart investments for our economy, to be able to reach agreement on deficit reduction in a way that is fair to the american people? or not? republicans have made their choices. their priorities and their values very clear. once again they are wasting america's time playing politics. instead of working to find that common ground. sequestration was put in place to push us, to force us in

congress to work together on a bipartisan, balanced approach to deficit reduction. we knew it would be tough. we didn't -- we all knew we would not want to implement sequester, that that would be difficult. but we put on the table what needed to get done if we couldn't have that kind of conversation and we have not yet seen the republican leadership in the house be willing to engage that kind o serious deficit reduction conversation that takes a balanced approach, respects our obligation to americans, and our future. today's legislation does not move us any closer to achieving the goal of deficit reduction done in a balanced way. in a fair way. in a real way. kw we mt reduce the nation's deficit in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner. we've seen ery bipartisan, independent commission tell us that. it means that -- and they've told us and we know that we have to take some hard hits in spending cuts, that we have to require greater efficiency and

greater effectiveness from all sectors of government. that we must do this with a banced, with increased rev knew. it cannot be done without it. in order to build economic growth in our nation, we need to do all of this, deficit reduction means spending cuts, means increased revenue, it means a lanced approach if we're going to grow the economy for now in the future. republican congresses have rejected this balanced approach and in doing so they have made it clear that they're not serious about deficit reduction. they are in fact willing to add $800 billion our deficit with tax breaks for the wealthiest. that's what this does -- this legislation does today. they are adding $2 trillion more in defense spending, more than the pentagon has said it needs to keep us safe and defend our nation. and they are willing to do this at the expense of our middle class, our seniors and our economic recovery. the republican approach to replacing the sequester means that we will be less prepared to

compete in the 21st century economy. now is not the time to make drastic cuts in transportation, in infrastructure, in innovation and clean energy, or in education and health care. and that's what this would do. the republican plan creates false and unfair choices for the american people, let's get serious, let's move forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thank you, madam speaker. i would now like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california who recognizes that it is really not a balanced plan to say that we want to raise $3 on every american in taxes and only $1 in spending reductions. and it is not a balanced plan to say that we want to pick and choose winners and losers when it comes to the tax code reform. the gentleman from california for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california for five minutes.

mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman for his leadership in bringing this important bill forward at this time. it boggles my mind, madam speaker that we are standing here ready to wipe out our national defense at a time when we turn on the tv in the morning and see the middle east erupting, when we see iran moving forward on their plans to achieve a nuclear weapon, when we see china increasing their defense spending when we're cutting ours. people need to understand we have cut $487 billion, starting october 1, over the next 10 years, out of our defense. on top of that, we have added this problem of sequestration, which adds another $500 billion to $600 billion other the next five years starting scran 2. the first $487 billion some thought was put into and plans. even though we had to aust our strategy that wee had

since world war ii, whad to cut back, we know we won't be able to carry out the meigs we will be called on to do in t future but we will be able to survive, according to our military leaders. but the sequestration, we held five hearings last september with all of our former military leaders, our current military leaders, former chairmen and secretaries of these committees and to a man, every single one said that the sequestration would hollow out and wipe out our national defense. we would take the navy back to the size it was in world war i. the armed forces, the ground forces back to the size they were in 1940. and the air force back to the smallest it's been since it was created. how does anybody think that given these times that is not a stupid thing to be doing? and the way the sequestration would take effect is you just

pull out the budget and take a percentage, the administration hasn't told us what percent but probly 15% or 20% off every single line item. mowing the line at fort dix will have the same priority as ammunition for the troops in afghanistan. how can anybody think that that is a smart idea? you know, we have a constitution of the united states and it tells us how we should operate here in the congress. it says one body passes a bill this other body passes the bill, a conference is formed, you work out you're difference you take it back for final passage and send it to the president to be signed into law. the house has acted. we took tough votes. we prished our -- accomplished our objective of paying for the first year of sequestration, not just the defense cuts, but all the cuts, across the board, to move it back, pay for the first year, move it back into a time where we're less stress

wfl the -- with the election upon us, where we could do it in a less political environment , and the senate hasn't acted in 126 days, they haven't acted. we're used to that because, excuse me, the other body hasn't acted. but you know, madam speaker, all they have to do, they don't like our birbling i understand that. all theyave to do is pass another bill, get toyota conference and then we'll work out the differences. we accomplished ours through cuts. they can accomplish theirs through increasing taxes and then we can work out a difference. but there's -- the gentleman on the other side says they presented a plan and we don't like their plan. well a plan ising in in. -- is nothing. what they have to do is show us, get the votes, pass a bill and go to the conference. it's in the constitution,

that's how we operate. it's important enough that we should all act like adults and follow the constitution and get it done. our nation, our security, depends on it. and we don't have much time left to do it. madam speaker, i think it's very important that we pass this bill. i encourage my colleagues to vote for it. let's act like adults, let's ea our salaries here. let's get this job done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the quelt fr california yields ba his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hlen -- mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i agree with the chairman of the armed services committee, we should act like adults. we agree the sequester cuts are done in a stupid, meat ax way. we also agree with what the chairman said last october when he said if it came to choosing between allowing all the terrible consequences he rightly spoke about and taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction which included some additional revenue, he would

accept the balanced approach. now we heard our colleague say that -- mr. chairman, not right now. i'll yield for a quick question. mr. mckeon: you presented what i said i would do given two bad choice. but you don't have anything on the floor yet, you haven't passed a bill, so i don't even have the opportunity to vote for increased taxes because you haven't passed a bill yet. mr. van hollen: we wanted to give you that opportunity yesterday. that's why i went to the house rules committee with this substitute that said you can replace the sequester right away if you're willing to cut some big ag subsidies, which i thought we were all agreed we could do, but also get rid of some subs disfor the big oil companies, not the smaller producers but the big five and

ask the people over $5 million pay the same effective rate as the peep who work for them pay. i agree with what you said last october, it's more important to prevent the kind of cuts we're talking at here today than it is to protect tax breaks for big oil companies. mr. chairman, i wanted a vote. we wanted a vet. the rules committee -- the thing i have in thinkmy hand would replace the sequester. the resolution on the floor doesn't replace the sequester. even if it goes to the president. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recogniz. mr. levin: i have now been here 30 years. 26 on the ways and means committee. so why are we at this point of

serious impasse? i think a major reasonis that that the radical right has taken over house republicans. balance is considered surrender. compromise is considered retreat. indeed, since the passage of the budget control act in august of 2011, the republicans have made sequestration even more likely. before august of last year, the republican decision was no new revenues. the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy were untouchable. but in their budget passed this march, the republicans not only said the bush tax cuts for the wealthy must continue, but also they should be expanded. they are doubling down on a policy of tax cuts for the

wealthiest while annual income stagnation continues for the middle class and we have the worst income inequality in generations. so in a word, they went from bad to worse. furthering the likelihood of sequtration. under the ryan budget and the so-called tax reform fast track bill they passed last month, a recent analysis concluded that the average millionaire would lock in an average tax cut of $330,000. while the average person making less than $200,000 would see their taxes rise by $4,500. i support tax form. but so far, republicans have refused to say which policies they would eliminate to pay for. it's been dodge and deception. half of the money in individual income tax expenditures is in the lowest rates for capital

gains and dividends. and they propose to cut those rates even further. mr. ryan down to zero on capital gains. and most of those benefits go to those making over $1 million. but most of the other major tax expenditures, mortgage interest, health insurance, education benefits that would have to be decimated are mainly middle class benefits. this bill ignores the fact that the president put forward a balanced deficit reduction package over a year agthat would have cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. and i close by emphasizing the word balced. balanced. essentially the republican partyhat i've known over the years has become very deeply imbalanced. in terms of the mainstream of

america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: at this time i'd like to yield to another gentleman from california for two minutes who understands that we are presenting a balanced approach as we pass the option to pass the legislation or an alternative, the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i had some notes i was going to say but i'm going off script as the gentleman from maryland who i genuinely like and respect, made some comments to which i feel i must respond. the gentleman referred to, as thpresident does often, to additional taxes on domestic energy for which they used the pejorative big oil and taxes on job cators, f which they are eating a pejorative, the rich. mr. campbell: and these two things will solve all ills. by my count when we did the

budget this year in the budget committee, the democrats used those two taxes to pay for seven, by my count, different items of spending. now let me explain what that's like. here's a dollar. this is $1. a single dollar. if i go into a store and spend it and buy these breath mints, the dollar will be gone and i will have the breath mints. i cannot then take this dollar into six more stores and buy six more breath mints because the dollar is gone. you cannot use the same tax increases to pay for everything that are multiple times what those tax increases were. i understand this is a political talking point. i get it. look, we all do those. i get it. but this is not a game. we saw this week with the reprehensible assassination of ambassador stevens that our national defense is not a game. and it is definitely not a game now. and our economy is not a game

as millions of people who are out of work can attest. this is a real proposal, we're asking the president far real proposal and not a political talking point and we need to solve this problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, dam spear. i want to thank my friend from california for thoseomments. i would just say this, i have in my hand a proposal a sutitute amendment. if we passed it, it would prevent the sequester from taking place on defense and nondefense in a balanced way. you spend these things one time, they get rid of the sequester. and as the chairman of the armed services committee said, he wished he had an opportunity to vote on something like this. i said i wish the rules committee had given us all that opportunity. with that, i yield three minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i te my friend from california, the gentleman from california whosdollar was at issue here.

the gentlen from california, i will tell you with all due respect an affection, your party over the last 10 years took that dollar and they bought those mints. and they went to the sixth subs -- the six subsequent stores and gave them a credit card for the next mints they bought. it's time to pay the bill. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i have a very short time. i want to make the point, you kept buying mints you just didn't keep paying. madam speaker, this bill is another instance of this republicans caucus walng away from its responsibility. the budget sequester was never intended to be a solution in and of itself. it was meant to be the blunt instrument to force compromise. unfortunately, compromise is a dirty word around here in some quarters. to lay out conditions as this bill does requiring one side to concede before negotiations even begin while solving only part of the problem disregards

sequestration's fundamental purpose, to be equally unacceptable to both sides that it forces compromise. this bill which i strongly oppose essentially says, let's pretend. let's pretend we don't have a ficit challenge. it says, let's pretend we can solve our problems by cutting domestic spending alone. no rational human beg believes that's the case. no cuts to republicans' favorite progrms. no elimination of tax loopholes for oil companies or anybody else. no increases in revenue by asking the wealthiest to contribute a little more to setting our country on a sound path. we're collecting the lowest amount of revenues we have collected in 70 years in this country. and we haven't cut spending. and we increase spending in the last administration very substantially. by the way a greater percentage than this administration increased the deficits, 86%

very 41%, check the figures. what we need a pragmatism, principle and serious governing. we need to be honest with the american people, both bipartisan commissions that explored this issue concluded that the best solution is a balanced approach that addresses revenues, entitlements, and targeted cuts to domestic and defense spending. we need something that is sorely lacking in this house. courage and a willingness to compromise to. come together to. reason together. -- to come together. to reason together and to make tough decisions together. sequester is the direct result of republican policies. and is a part of the republican strategy to cut spending. you keep saying, well, this is not a democratic policy. it's an irrational policy. but it's in your bills and in your rules. now, instead of working with

democrats to turn off the sequester, republicans are trying to paint the sequester as a democratic initiative. thats false. untrue. the republican cut, cap and balance -- i ask for one additional minute, mr. chairman. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: the republican cut, cap and balance bill enforces its cuts and caps how? through sequestration. that's what you voted for. after the agreement was reached on the budget control act that put the sequester in place, speaker boehner said, i got 98% of what i wanted. now our republican colleagues are attempting to undo the sequester in a way that lets them off the hook politically but puts america at risk financially. democrats have an alternative. mr. van hollen just spoke of it. it would repeal the sequester for year by asking that the wealthiest in our country -- why, because they can help a

little more. not because they're bad. god bless them. and by the way, we're most of those as well, folks. i hope my friends on the other side of the aisle, who i know are as deeply concerned about our deficits and debt as i am, will join democrats in defeating this bill and sending a message th only by working together can we find the solutions we need. america expects that of us. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: madam speaker, at this time i would like to yield to the gentleman from oklahoma three minus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. lankford: let's review. we have -$16 trillion in debt. and it's climbing every single day. we have no budget from the senate for the last three years. the president's budget got exactly zero votes in the house

and in the senate. and the federal government has dramatically increased spending which has led to this spending-driven crisis. let me show you what i mean by that. five years ago in 2007, federal treasury received $2.5 trillion in revenue. the same amount that's estimated to come in this year in revenue. $2.5 trillion. five years ago, $2.trillion now. five years ago, total spent by the federal government $2.7 trillion. now, $3.7 trillion. that almost looks like $1 trillion difference in spending. which equals the same amount as our deficit. it amazing to me. when we process through this, the problem is crystal clear. it's just the solution that seems to evade us in this process. now, some would say, we've increased spending1 trillion, let's just increase taxes as well. and that will solve the issue. i would say, why are we spending money we dot have?

last summer we agreed that we would cut some spending. and put a group of people together in a room and let them work out a plan to find $1 trillion in cuts. the backup, the emergency backup plan, was that we would cut across the board if a solution wasn't found. 10% for security, 8% for everything else. now, no one wants across-the-board cuts that are that huge. a 1% cut in agencies would be no big deal. i can't imagine any agency couldn't handle 1%. 2%, no big deal. maybe even 3%. but you start to climb up and it really begins to cut into some agencies that are actually very efficient. other agencies you can do a 50% cut and it would be fine. the problem is an across-the-board cut becomes a very big issue for us. treating every line item the same is a mistake. every part is not the same in our budget. let me give you an example. at my house on a saturday afternoon, i'll open up a dr. pepper can at my house and my

very cute red-headed 12-year-old daughter will walk up and sa daddy, can we split that? i will almost always smile at her and say, sure. i'll take the liquid and you take the can. to which she says to me, that's not really fair. but it again comes back to the same point. not all parts are the same. if we do across-the-board cuts in every area, that is not the best way to do it. now i guarantee you you allow this house to go item by item through this budget, we will find $100 billion in cuts next year. i guarantee you. but doing it across the board, cuts into f.b.i., it cuts into our defense, it cuts into border patrol, it cuts into the basics and the heart of what we're doing and we cannot do that. the house passed a very specific plan for dealing with this last may. it is complete for us. now it's time for the senate to actually do their job and it's time for the president to send that out over to us. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: madam speaker, at this time i yield to a third gentleman from california, over here, the gentleman from california, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california four four -- r four minutes. >> thank you. thought i'd fool you. go to the left. it fools a lot of people. mr. speaker, i rise in support obviously of h.r. 6365, the national security and job protection act. do we need any more evidence that recent events in egypt and libya, than to oppose these devastating cuts that would do unto our national security? i don't think so. mr. lvert: if sequestration occurs it would cut the military to its smallest size since before world war ii. all the while we're still a nation at war in afghanistan, facing unrest and aggression in the middle east, increased threats fr iran, china and north korea. in addition to the 10% cut to

defense, our domestic programs would have, such as health, science, research, education, border security, that will face an additional 8% cut. in may this house passed the only plan that's been presented thus far to prevent and replace sequestration. last may, by providing and making commonsense reforms to our fast-growing government that's on auto pilot spending programs, and to avert the spending-driven economic crisis that's before us. while we've seen no signs of leadership from the white house or the senate, but the house will act again today. with h.r. 6365, the national security and job protection act. the house will lead wherethers have not. this legislation senleds as clear statement that the house is ready to carry out our budgetary responsibilities. we just need willing partners. the president, thsenate, house

republicans and democrats, we all agree on a common goal. replace the sequester to replace important domestic programs, our fragile economy, our national security and our troops. is bill is a fact of that solution. make no mistake, if sequestration goes into effect, america will compromise a legacy of superiority on the land, on the sea and in the air to send and to potentially send our economy spiraling back into a recession. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and i would hope that we could pass this with a large number and get on with it. with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i now yield one minute to the distinguished democratic leader, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized

for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. as we come to the floor this afternoon to talk about this sequester issue, the clock is ticking and every moment we delay in dealing with the budget issue is a moment of time that does not increase confidence in our economy, does not bring more certainty to our economic situation and does not reduce the deficit. i heard the previous speaker say that this legislation that is on the floor would end sequestration. it does not. and that is one of the major differences between it and the democratic proposal put forth by

mr. van hollen. unfortunately, afraid of debate on the floor, the rules committee did not allow the republicans to allow mr. van hollen to propose -- mr. van hollen's proposal to come to the floor today so that we could have a vote on it. but even with that we can have a debate on it. and the debate is about fairness, it's about balance, it's about living up to our responsibilities, it's about saying yes, we all have to compromise, there will be cuts, we need revenue, we want growth. that's what mr. van hollen's proposal does. it does indeed replace the sequestration. it is a better plan. it actually does end sequestration through a mix of cuts and revenues as i mentioned. the reason we have a problem here is because our republican

colleagues have refused to have one red cent from the wealthiest people in our country contribute to resolving this fiscal crisis. this budget crisis. not one red cent. if they cared as much about defense as they say, one year ago they would have agreed to a balanced and plan with fairness and balance. where we would have growth on the table and make decisions about revenue and about cuts to produce growth and not go to a situation that called for across-the-board cuts in defense and in our domestic budget. this is really silly. it's really silly. it's not serious. it's a charade this bill that they have on the floor today. it just keeps making matters

worse, as the clock keeps ticking. so i urge my colleagues to reject this mirage of a bill that poses as a suggestion and support instead ideas that are being advanced by mr. van hollen. i don't like everything about it. i think we have cut over $1 trillion. that's how we got through last year. all cuts. no revenue. but if you need only to see how we differ, just look at the ryan-romney republican budget. their blueprint says, we're going to end medicare, we're going to make seniors pay $6,000 more as we end medicare, an we're going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. that'snot fair.

that's not balanced. but that is what would happen if the republican bill were to become law. it would enact the ryan bill. so i urge my colleagues to think very seriously about this because people sent us here to find solutions. we must resolve this. when the speaker of the house says i'm not confident we can do this, we are confident we can do anything we set our minds to. and we certainly have to be confident that we can honor our responsibilities to the american people. so we all have to go to the table willing to yield, willing to compromise, we've had to do it with president bush sr., with president bush, his recovery package for our country, democrats cooperated with both those presidents when we were in the majority. why is it that the republicans in the house see no reason to

compromise en at the risk of the fullaith and credit of the united states of america? even at the expense of the health of our economy, even at the expense of jobs for the american people? vote no on this mirage. support what mr. van hollen is putting forth. let's get moving because the clock is ticking. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempor the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized r four minutes. south carolina, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. >> i thank the secret from new york for that. i'm sorry, the gentleman from new jersey. thank you, madamchairwoman. i saw the gentleman from maryland, now i'm losing track of where everybody is from. i saw mr. van hollen on television this morning, it was the first i'd heard of his

proposal so i hadoance -- i had a chance to go and look at it today and also had a chance to look at the c.b.o. report that was performed on it. and saw some interesting things. i don't know if we've discussed fully here today, it raises taxes by $85 billion other the 10-year window. according to the c.b.o., it raises spending by almost $80 billion. this is a refrain i used to hear a lot when i was younger, taxes and spend, taxes and spending, raise taxes, increase spending. mr. duncan: i thought it was gone from today's party across the aisle burr here it is alive and well in mr. van holl's substitu, raising taxes and raising spending, a deficit re ducks of $5 billion, it increases the deficit by $5 billion in the first year.

it does that, part and parcel but offering what they call the buffett rule. the last time i came to this well, i believe the gentleman from maryland and i had an exchange about whether my amendment was a gimmick, the gimmick about the president's budget. mr. mulvaney: in mresearch, i found it was the president of the united states who tchailed buffett rule a gimmick. i'm wondering now if the president believes that part of mr. -- the gentleman from maryland's offering is in fact a gimmick. it encompasses the buffett rule in its entirety. i compare all of this, madam speaker, to the offering we have before you with our bill. that bill reduces the deficit by at least $237 billion. over the same 10 years. theirs redeuces it by $5 billion, raising taxes. ours reduces the deficit by

$237 billion at least according to the c.b.o. that's the smallest number the c.b.o. gives us. it also gives us four times as much deficit reduction in the first year than what they seek to replace. theirs ireases the deficit by $55 billion in the first year, ours decreases it by more than the b.c.a. it steeks replace. our offering does that, madam speaker, without asking anybody, anybody, pay more money to the government. people pay enough money to the government. we spend their money improperly. it's not that we don't take enough from. the we take enough money from our citizens. we spend it improperly. when i finished looking at this, madam speaker, i thought to myself, i think it would be grt to have this come up far vote. i'm disappointed the rules committee didn't give them the chance to bring it to the floor. it's happened to me before, i'm sympathetic. at the same time, i know he has

the chance to do that still. we'll finish the debate and before the vote, there's going to be a motion to recommit. the gentleman from maryland could offer his amendment as the motion to recommit. in fact, i would welcome the opportunity to see that debate. i would welcome the opportunity here, 60 days before an election to have my colleagues across the aisle come over and say, would you -- we want to raise your taxes, would you please re-elect us? i want that on the floor. i'm disappointed the rules committee didn't bring it. i want to see if that's really what our colleagues stand for. i heard it described by the gentlelady from california as a better plan. i think we're doing a disservice by not allowing a vote on this particular bill. it is not a better plan. i think the vote here would bear that out, not just on our side of the aisle. it would be curious to see if that's what our colleagues stand for, madam speaker. more taxes, more spending here 60 da before an election. i encourage folks to support our bill.

our bill cuts spend, let's people keep their money and still alws taos end the sequester. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i wish mr. mulvaney was more persuasive with his colleagues. we want a vote on this we heard a lot from our colleagues about the devastating impact of these cuts on defense and other things. we agree. which is why we think it's appropriate to ask people who earn more than $1 million a year to help contribute more to our deficit so we don't have to see these consequences. i now yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is advised from the speaker that there are four and a half minutes remaining on his side and five minutes remaining on the other side. the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. nadler: madam speaker, addressing our debt is a critical long-term goal. but it's not our immediate

problem. right now our immediate problem isigh unemployment and our economy needs efforts to spur job growth. the expiration of the bush era tax cuts, particularly those targeted toward the middle class and the tart of unparaeled spending cuts mandated by the sequestration provision threaten further job growth. looking at sequestration, there's rare agreement. not anyone, not the president, not congress, expected the sequester to take effect. republicans argue that the steep cut would risk defense-related jobs. and they're right. according to the economic policy institute, these cuts would kill 1.3 million defense jobs in the first three years. the republicans completely ignore the defense, i'm sorry, the domestic spending cuts will also kill an estimated 1.3 million jobs in the same time frame. sequestration will kill ppt 6 million american jobs in three

years. we must stop the sequestration mandated spending cuts dister. this bill won't do that. this bill mandates training tens of billions of dollars of federal spending next yearing reducing the already draconian spending caps and doing all this without adding a single dollar of additional revenue. the outcome is virtually the same. it will still kill a couple million american jobs. base -- basic economics tell us in good times with low unemployment we should reduce the national debt but to create job growth we must not reduce spending. the proposed spending cuts, particularly of the magnitude the republicans are proposing, would be disastrous. when we get to 5% unemployment, then worry about spending cuts. right now, jobs are the issue. madam speaker, i urge a no vote on h.r. 6365. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: may i ask how much time remains on each side. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes remain, the gentleman from new jersey has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. are you the last speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much to the ranking member of the budget committee and thank you to madam speaker. we rise today to try to bring some logic and sense because as americans debate sequestration they throw their hands up and say, what is that? what is that in the minds of children and the elderly?

what does that mean in a real, rational way of coming together and saying there are some cutsened there are some revenues enhancers and increases to be able to invest in the american public. in order to create jobs you expend dollars, you invest you create, research and development u help to create oppounities for small businesses. you help to promote manufacturing. that's how you create jobs. but let me tell you what the underlying bill says this bill will only take effect one year later. is haso opportunity, no desire new york rationale to raise revenu every thinking economist says we must raise revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to expend and spend dollars that invest in the american public. do you want your military families to be on food stamps? do you want 50 million americans to suffer food insecurity? or do you want these americans to suffer? that is seniors or meals on

wheels, home care, adult protechive services. millions of children. one third of them depending on the social service block grant, child protective services, one million disabled, respite care or transportation. or do you want to continue the food insecurity for 16 million children. all i can say is that this bill not only kicks the can down the road, it quicks -- kicks the mountain down the road. let's vote against this bill, silt down at the table, boost revenue and invest in the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. vahollen: i yield 45 second to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the spker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: we have a serious debt problem in th country. we have a serious jobs problem in this country. both of those serious problems are solveable. the impediment is political. this is exhibit a of a

dysfunctional congress. the supercommittee failed, this congress with the leadership on the republican side, implemented these sequester cuts, we all know they make no sense from an economic standpoint. but it puts the burden back on us to come up with a balanced approach that every american know sthess only way forward. a balance of revenues a balance of entitlement reforms an a pentagon making a contribution to solve our problems. that is what is going to create jobs and that is what is gog to create fiscal stability. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland for the remaining 45 seconds. mr. van hollen: i yield myself the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollenthank you, madam speaker. the issue all afternoon has not been whether we should replace the sequester. yes, we should. the issue has been how we do that. we've heard our republican

colleagues talk abt the devastating impact of the sequester on defense and nondefense. we agree tt's why we put forward a plan to replace the sequester in the balanced way that's been recommended by bipartisan groups through a combination of cut bus also revenues generated by things like closing the tax loopholes for big oil companies. our republican colleagues have just doubled down on the position that it's more important to protect tax breaks for bill oil companies and very wealthy individuals than it is to protect our investment in spending, in defense, or other important national priorities. that's what this debate is all about. i hope we will reject this proposal and adopt a more balanced one. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. gaett: i yield myself the balance of mtime. e eaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: i began this day being interviewed by a grup of southern college students in the pry -- and the primary

question they asked was, why can't congress seem to work in a more bipartisan man her work across the aisle and work with the other chamber? i had to explain to them what was about to occur here in the floor that when it comes to one of theost seminal issues we have to deal with in this country, our fiscal matters and defense matters this that this house, led by republicans, have done everything we possibly could to make sure that this country stands strong fiscally and stands strong in a defense posture as well. and they have reach aid cross the aisle and reached across to the senate in a bipartisan manner to eeffectuate that. we have passed a budget out of this house to the senate, where they say all good bills go to die. it has not come back. we saw the president -- told the president we want to work on a budget. we saw his budget come to the house and fail 414-0, not get anything democrat or republican support for that bill. we have reached across the

aisle, tried to work on the fiscal matter and defense matters when it comes to the sequester. we recognize the devastating impact this will have on our defense posture in this country. as other members have come to the floor in light of all the past circumstances that have come across this country in the last decade, in the light of the memorial services we just held, all of us in a bipartisan manner, out on those steps just days ago on september 11, in light of what has just been in the newspaper in the last several days, our embassies being attacked and americans killed on american soil, we realize the important significance of making sure that we have a strong defense at this point in dime. -- in time. i ask anyone to considerhis legislation to vote yes in favor of this leglation and anyone who would stand and vote no against trying to make sure that we're strong fiscally and trying to make sure that we are strong in a defense posture as well, anyone who would vote no, i woulask them, how do they, when they go through the airport leaving here or coming

to washington look anyone in uniform in the eye and say they voted against a bill to make sure there would not be defense cuts here. the other side of the aisle has no answer for that. their only hans today and as it's been ever since i've been here in congress is to say the solution to all problems is, what? raising taxes. they want to raise taxes for every $1 spending cs. we do not have a revenue problem in this country. we have a spending problem in this country. now there's an old saying that goes if there's a dime left on the table in washington, someone, primarily from the other side of the aisle, i would suggest, will find a dollar's worth of use for spending it. and i think that's the case here. if they raise the taxes three to one, they'll find $30 worth of spending to increase and the gentleman from california pointed out that was the example every single time in the budget committee, every single time we have suggested for spending cuts they were opposed and would always use the same spending cuts to

further increases in spending elsewhere. as the gentleman from california makes the reference to spending a dollar every time r what was it, for breath mints i think it was. candidly, after listening to this debate and after listening to debate continually in budget committee over the years, i always leave there as i will leave here tonight with a sour taste in my mouth. if the other side of the aisle does not agree to begin to work with us in a bipartisan manner to make sure that this country strong fiscally, to make sure that this country is strong in a defense posture as well. i encourage all my colleague from both sides of the aisle

>> among the members of proving both bills was paul ryan. he met with colleagues and spoke to reporters in the capital. >> mr. president, it is nice to see paul ryan back here in congress. it will be even nicer to see in january as a full-time member. there has been a lot of controversy about mr. ryan and what he says and why he states them and the contrast with what he says and what he has done, but perhaps the least credible claim of all about congressman ryan is the idea that he could deficit hawk and his budget is an attempt at deficit reduction. solutions to the country's economic and fiscal problems.

and, as more and more people are learning, it certainly isn't about, as bill clinton said, arithmetic. in ryan's budget, any savings achieved by his plan to privatize medicare and gut investments in the middle class do not go to reducing the deficit. he's saying he's creating that pain because we need the pain for deficit reduction. but he uses all those savings to pay for further tax cuts to the wealthy. this chart explains it pretty well. independent studies have found that the ryan budget would raise taxes on the middle class by about $ 2,600 -- up to $2,600, people between $50,000 and $100,000 pay $1,300 more a year. people between $100,000 and $200,000 pay $2,00 more a year. and then there are whopping

savings for people whose income is over a million dollars, $28 $285,000. as a result of the massive giveaways to the wealthiest americans, the congressional budget office found that the ryan budget failed to balance the budget until 2040. but these this conclusion relies on rosy assumptions supplied by ryan himself. ryan's plan could even take a longer to balance even under more realistic assumptions. even taking the unrealistically rosy assumption as that ryan stipulates in his budget -- for instance, that revenue levels would be 1% o 19% of g.d.p. -- s almost certainly not true -- his plan wouldn't balance the budget until 2040. independent experts like the nonpartisan tax policy center have challenged these assumptions. under more realistic assumptions, ryan's plan could take far longer to balance the budget and cause the federal debt to rise even further