days, people had the feeling that the kit with live a better life than we thought. that is not the case now. that is a huge change in the sociology and mentality of this country. that as a lot about where we are. we have to grow up and realize things have changed and we are not going to have it the way it was. >> in closing, for me, it is striking the large number of important issues that are out there. there are others that we do not yet know about. the 2000 election was not primarily about defense. what did the winner in of doing in the next 8 years. ? there are a series of questions that we do not have the answers for yet from the candidates. there is a series of assumptions that they are making that remain to be tested. there is also a series of false

goods or whatever else you want to describe. post-truth policies of today that need to be knocked down. taking those three is something that falls too much on the research community. it falls too much on us in the media and the public to answer those questions. knock down those mets they are using. thank you for being part of -- myths that are using. thank you for being part of this discussion today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the proclamation phrase is late people in those states or parts of states still in rebellion on january 1, 1863. it does not free everybody, just those states or parts of states

still in rebellion. there are several parishes in louisiana that have slavery because the union army is not in control of that area. there are parts of virginia where the union army still has a foothold. >> president clinton issued an early version of the emancipation proclamation calling the victory at antietam. this weekend on american history tv, historians take your questions on the battle and repercussions on the single bloodiest day of fighting in american history. at noon eastern on c-span 3. >> i think people really like to viewsere politicians' have shifted over the years. they want to see whether mitt romney in 1994 was campaign for

welfare reform, against welfare reform, against the motion. but what -- against abortion. there is an element that is like a gotcha element. there is also an element that this is incredibly interesting. >> i tried to think why it is that he has changed so often. why does he find it so difficult to come down on one side of an issue and instead float between both sides of the issue. >> running for state office for the first time, does it help if there is a governor named rod blagojevich if your name is barack obama? >> the best way to describe its as the -- it is the viral heart of the internet. a discussion with buzzfeed

editor on "q & a." >> the house passed a defense sequestration bill that would provide -- require the president to provide cuts in defense set to expire in january. this is one hour, 20 minutes. mr. speaker, you know, under 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 certa 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 spendinguts and reforms. unfortunately we have seen a

lack of leadership both over in the senate and at the white house. the senate failed to act on this legislation. the senate, where all goodills go to die, sooo 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 would do two things. it would 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 e sequester with an alternative no no ter than october 15 of this year. up until this point we have seen absolutely no leadership, no plan to fix this sequester problem. but yet 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 patta will hallow out our armed forces and make arbitrary, totally arbitrar reductions in other spending programs. not only has the president failedo lead in this area, he's failed to put forward a plan, but the president has also failed -- and this is important -- to submit to congress 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 pass legislation requiring the president to submit a detailed

sequester implementation program. and when that legislation became law, as we said, the president'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 congress with nothing and not meeting the requements of the law. it is an example, i think 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 he, 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. with that yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 goto this spot. at that time our republican colleagues threatened that the united states would default on s 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 budget, the budget that came out of the house budget committee. so in order to prevent the united states from daulting,

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 control 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 and the reality is he voted foit, 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, i got 98% of what i wanted. i'm prettyap. 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? how do we achieve a similar amount of deficit reduction to replace that sequester? we hear our republican colleagues say there'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 yoknow 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 rul 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 raing 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 resolution 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, becauset 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 companies, we can 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 th 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-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 militarynd the ability to be able to protect our country. i think right now, mr. speaker, 's very simple. 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 hav 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 hallowing out this force. should not be doing this at a me when we see what is happening in the world right now, when the united states of america has had a sovereign piece of its territory attack, we have had an ambassador who has lostis life and the message we are sending is we are not going to do nothing. this bill says we have passed 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 ever 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 relatives still in uniform. now, i did not have the ability to be selected to be on the supersubcommittee 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 you don'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 have 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 are 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. this is a last chance for us to be the adults, to do something, to stave off this sequestration. 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 tten 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,f 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 read his own amendment because if you read the bill, it's etty 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. presidential 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 hollenexactly. 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 that 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 sa 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 october. 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 above where 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 you got 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 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 these cuts to defense to take place and all the consequences you talk about, and wehink 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 poposal. 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. garrt: 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: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i'd yield for an answer, whher 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 capital. 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-throu 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 gentleman 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 simply 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 with 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 and find a bipartisan solution to the sequestration, that letter has gone unanswered. madam speaker, inaction carries a very high risk. instability, unprecedented political transformation throughout the middle east. a civil r in syria. iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for

terrorism, as well as cllenges 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 states and the international community. if the cuts in the sequester go forward, they will fundamentally weaken our current and long-term national security andur 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 the aerospace 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 its 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 the line. 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 rginia, high test landtories, could could be forced to reduce their staff by as much as 40%. removing these 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 women in 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 solution, t prevent these cuts that wod hollow out our military and result in massive layoffs. madam speaker, the house will act. now we need leadership,r. 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. van 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 therecovery bill. and the fact that we had to do some emergency spending to prevent the loss of millions of jobs. yoknowhat? 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 invest 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 infrastructure. we haven't had a single vote on thpresident's jobs bill. so i'm really glad to hear our republican colleagues say that

if 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 cuts 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 to 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' 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. although i do have to say that this is not really 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 nversation, without that kind of willingness to find common ground or balanced approach. the federal gugget is about choices -- budget is about choices and the choices we mak 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 nd that common ground. sequestration was put in place to push us, to force us n 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 of 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. we know we must reduce the nation's deficit in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner. we've seen every 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 balanced, 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 balanced 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 to 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 compe 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 hlth 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. e speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. rrett: 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 spendinghen 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 othat, 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 adjust our strategy that we've had since world war ii, we had to cut back, we know we won't be able to carry out the meigs we will be called on to do in the future but we will be able to survive, according to our military leaders. but the sequestratn, 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 probably 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 wherwe'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 they have 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 i 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 earn our salaries here. let's get this job done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the quelt from california yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hlen -- mr. van hollen: thank you, madam spker. i agrewith 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 reductiowhich 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' passed a bill, so i don't even ve the opportunity to vote for increased taxes because u 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 pa 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 vet. the rules committee -- the thing i have in thinkmy hand would replace the sequest. 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 recognized. 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 reason is 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 sequestration. 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 reform 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 divides. 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 year ago that would have cut the deficit by $4 trillion or 10 years. and i close by emphasizing the word balanced. balanced.

essentially the republican party tt i've knn 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 t 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 the president does often, to additional taxes on domestic energy for which they ued the

pejorative big oil and taxes on job creators, for which they are creating 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 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, 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 mpore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank my friend from california for those comments. i would just sayhis, i have in my hand a proposal a substitute 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 committesaid, 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 tell my friend from california, the gentleman fro california whose dollar was at issue here. the gentleman from california, i will tell you with all due respect and 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 walkingaway 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 e 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 deficit challenge. it says, let's pretend we can solve our problems by cutting domestic spending alone. no rational human being believes that's the case. no cuts to republicans' favorite programs. 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 ineased the deficits, 86% very 41%, check the figures. what we need a pragmatism, principlend 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. that is 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 sequestrion. 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 jusspoke of it. it would repeal the sequester for a 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 that 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 minutes. 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 vtes 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 ce in this year in revenue. $2.5 trillion. five years ago, $2.5 trillion now. five years ago, total spent by the federal government, $2.7 trillion. now, $3.7 trillion. that almost looks lik $1 trillion difference in spending. which equals the same amount as our deficit. it's 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 spending $1 trillion, let's just increase taxes as well. and that will solve the issue. i would say, why are we spending money we don't 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 e 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 evy 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 say, 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 spear pro tempore: the gentleman from california four four -- for 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, thano oppose these devastating cuts that would do unto our national security? i don't think so. mr. calvert: 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 from 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 where others 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, the senate, house republicans and democrats, we all agree on a common goal. replace the sequester to replace important domestic programs, our fragileconomy, our national security and our troops. this 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 wi 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. pesi: 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 abt fairness, it's about balance, it's about living up to our responsibilities, it's about saying yes, we all have to romise, 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. thiss 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 mire 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, and we're going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. that's not 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 ithat the republicans in the house see no reason to compromise even at the risk of the full faith 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 amican 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 tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 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, madam chairwoman. 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 had toance -- 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 lly 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 spendi, 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 hollen's substitute, raising taxesnd

raising spending, a deficit re ducks of $5 billion, it increases the deficit by $5 llion 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 my research, 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 oubill. 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 increases 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 fnished looking at is, madam speaker, i thought to myself, i think it would be

great 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 seehat 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 ease 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 days before an election. i encourage folks to support our bill. our bill cuts snd, let's people keep their money and still allows 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 is high 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 unparalleled 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 disaster. 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 ntional 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. wh we get to 5% unemployment,

then worry about spending cuts. right no jobs are the issue. madam speaker, i urge a no vote on h.r. 6365. the speaker 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. the 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 jacon 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, younvest you create, research and development you help to create opportunities 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 has no opportunity, no desire new york rationale to raise revenue. 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 americanublic.

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. van hollen: i yield 45 second to the gentleman from vermont, mr.elch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. welch: we have a serious debt problem in this country. 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 coress. 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 going 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 hollen: thank you, madam speaker. the issue all afternoonas 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 about the destating impact of the sequester on defense and nondefense. we agree that'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 bres for bill oil companies and very wealthy individuals than it is to protect our investnt 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. garrett: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker 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 floothat when it comes to one of the most seminal issues we have to deal with in this country, oufiscal mattersnd 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 -- td the president we want to work on a budget. 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 flooinight of all the past circumstances that have come across this country in the last decade, in the light o the memorial services we just held, all of us in a bipartisan manner, out on those steps just ys 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 anye to consider this legislation to vote yes in favor of this legislation 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 would ask them, how do ey, 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 tes for every $1 in spending cuts. 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 spdi 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 dlar every time for 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 is strong fiscally, to make sure that this country is strong in a defense posture as well. i encourage all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: thank you, meerks. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one order to inquire mr. cantor for the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, on monday and tuesday, no votes are expected in the house. on wednesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will

consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules next week, including a prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of american universities in the stem fields and issue being championed by chairman lamar smith, the gentleman from texas, as well as bob goodlatte from virginia and raul labrador from idaho. a complete list of suspensions will be announced at the close of business today. in addition, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.j.res. 118, sponsored by chairman dave camp, which provides for congressional disapproval of a rules submitted by the department of health and human services relating to waivers of work requirements with respect to the temporary assistance for needy families programs. the house will also consider h.r. 3409, the stop the war on coal act, sponsored by bill johnson of ohio, which is a package of bills to expand domestic energy production and help create american jobs.

lastly, mr. speaker, members are advised that with the senate's expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate votes in the house during the week of october 1. this is a change from the original house calendar. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information with respect to what we're going to consider next week and also i was going to ask him, but he's already indicated that he doesn't expect the sc meeting of the week in to occur and i thank him for that information. that would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we have approximately a little over a day and a half, a day and 3/4 remaining before the election. i want to ask the gentleman first of all, been a lot of talk about the work that has not been done. we have not done the jobs bill that i've been urging us to

consider. we have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll deal with that and which both sides agree. we have disagreement on tax cuts for those who are in -- not in the middle class. the farm bill. i want to discuss that in a second. the violence against women act. the farm bill and the violence against women act and the middle class tax cut both passed the united states senate and postal reform, there's also agreement on that in the united states senate. obviously sequestration. and i want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, mr. leader. but in the farm bill, as you know we have a discharge petition that is pending which is somewhat unusual and that our party is -- has initiated a

discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. that's somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. a number of republicans have signed on to that, as you know. as a matter of fact, we understand you're suggesting to some that they do sign -- not you, personally -- excuse me. but there's some suggestion they sign on to that as a -- as an indication for their support for the farm bill. the senate passed a farm bill 64-35, mr. leader. we are hoping that that bill could be brought to the floor next week. it's not on the calendar, but in light of the fact that 16 republicans voted in favor of it in the senate, it's clear that it does have broad bipartisan support. the ag committee here in this house reported out a bill 35-11. that bill has, of course, not

been brought to the floor. we don't have much time left, as you just announced. even if we count thursday as a full day and even if we count friday as a full day of next week we have essentially two days and then suspension votes on wednesday night. many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in many years. we passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the senate and in fact the farm community, as i think the gentleman probably knows, perhaps not unanimously but in large number opposes the drought bill that we passed and the reason they opposed it is because -- and i think you were absolutely right, mr. majority leader, when you talked in the past years about certainty. farmers are opposed to the farm bill that we passed from the house because it doesn't give them any certainty. they think a five-year bill is prmble. they've seen 2/3 of the --

preferble. they've seen 2/3 of the preferable. they've seen 2/3 of the senate pass it. i would ask assurance if there's any possibility that we're going to consider a farm bill, either the house bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the republican chair of the committee, or the senate bill, passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility before we leave here in consideration of the crisis that is in the farm community that we'll consider that bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i want to respond to his initial statements about the house's work in terms of jobs and taxes and the gentleman well knows that we have sent to the senate well over 30 measures that are job-creating bills that will help improve the environment for small business men and women to actually begin

investing and creating jobs again. as the gentleman know, we passed h.r. 8, the job protection and recession prevention act. we passed that. a bipartisan vote. including 19 house democrats. this followed up on over 20 hearings on tax reform this congress. and what we did in that bill, mr. speaker, the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that taxes are not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic situation that exists throughout this country. we don't believe that it is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone and to take more of their money right now while they're having a difficult time getting through the month. and that is why, mr. speaker, we believe we continue to stand on the side of the hardworking taxpayers and we ask the gentleman to please, when he cites the fact that we didn't pass his jobs bill, we passed a jobs bill. we passed numerous jobs bills.

in fact, over 30 jobs bills sitting in the senate. the inaction has been on the senate. so mr. speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill, i in fact just came out of a meeting with one of his members to talk about the farm bill. we're trying to look for ways forward. yes, there can be a possibility that we act again on the issue of the disaster and the drought. as the gentleman rightly said, we passed the drought relief bill sitting over in the senate, again, inaction. the gentleman indicates the reason for opposition to that bill. there's nothing in the bill that is controversial. it's the fact that some who insist on having something else in the bill didn't have it. well, one thing we know is we're all for allowing the relief is the farmers. why can't we get that done? why can't we finally decide, you know, there are some areas of disagreement and we realize

that reasonable people do and certainly in election season sort of emphasizes that, unfortunately. but we also know the things in common. addressing the drought issue is we do have in common. we passed out of the house. mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman any indication he'd give that perhaps there would be some movement on that would be, i think, a positive thing for the farmers. and we continue to work on how to go forward and, yes, there could be a possibility there's some action next week on the issue of the farm bill. looking to find ways that we can work together on issues that we all support, not issues that divide us and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and i appreciate his comments. we do have agreement in the senate on a farm bill. they voted for it 64 votes, almost 2/3 of the senate. we may not have agreement but we had a bill that came out of the republican-led committee, your committee with over 2/3

vote and neither one of those have been brought to the floor. so we're arguing on something that we had pretty significant disagreement on. yes, there were democrats that voted for the drought relief. i can understand their view. but the farm community is opposed to the drought relief bill, not unanimously but significant part. so the gentleman points out that we ought to pass that on which we have agreement. let me suggest to him that 98% of americans and 97% of small business people, we agree on not having a tax increase. the gentleman's worried about those people who are making about 20,000 a -- worried about making $2,000 a month. there are people who are having

trouble. we need to give them assurance and the gentleman just said, just said we ought to be able to act on that on which we agree. i think the gentleman, maybe i'm incorrect. but i would tell the gentleman, on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that ensures that there will be no tax increase on those who are making either individually, under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. i assure the gentleman that i will produce and we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. so i tell my friend all he has to do is produce 40 votes but i think he'll produce many more than that because unless he says i'm wrong i think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase we have agreement, and

that's just what the gentleman is talking about. we have an agreement that nobody under $250,000, a couple, $200,000 individual, shall get a tax increase on january 1 of this year. we could pass it next week. we could pass it -- we could pass it under a suspension calendar, in my opinion. we could send it to the senate and they've already passed a bill. they've already passed a bill through the senate, which adopted that proposition. so we have a majority votes in the senate and i would hope we would have almost unanimity in the senate on that proposition. but i think what i hear the gentleman saying is unless we have agreement on 100%, the fact that we agree on 98% and 97% we're not going to move the bill. now, i agree with the gentleman. if we have agreement, that's something central that we have agreement on. i hope we could move it. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i

thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say there's not agreement right now that we ought to raise taxes in this economy. and the reason is, mr. speaker, we are concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that perhaps may be out of work or underemployed or trying to make it and having a real difficult time. we're concerned about those people, and the best thing we could do is create a job and see them go back to work and we saw that this summer ernst & young put out a study demonstrating that his tax policies -- the gentleman's tax policy, the president's plan to raise taxes is going to destroy 710,000 jobs and slash $200 billion from the economy and lower wages for all working americans by 1.8%. that's what that study says. so, no, there's not agreement that we should raise taxes like that. because if you raise taxes,

there will be less jobs and less growth. we need to focus on those who want to get back to work. that's where there's agreement is, we all want to work people. we believe you don't help people by laying down a tax increase, put more money in the government that can't seem to figure out a way to fix the problem once and for all. that's what we want to do is fix that problem, help those people and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response. i don't think it answered my question. we understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more or $10 million taxable income. we understand you don't want to do it. we don't agree on that. you're correct but we do agree on the fact that 98% of americans who make less than $250,000 couple, $200,000 individual, those ought not to

get a tax increase on january 1 and very frankly -- you didn't respond to me. i presume you agree with that. what you don't agree with is if we don't do it all on something we disagree with, that's what's causing gridlock in congress, that's what's causing this congress to be the least productive congress in which i served in 32 years, that's what's causing us to not listen to one another, talk by one another and not agree. that's why the farm bill hasn't been passed. that's why the violence against women bill hasn't been passed. that's why the postal reform has not been passed. that's why middle class tax cuts has not been passed. because if you don't get it all you don't want to do any of it i say it respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98% of americans ought not to get a tax increase. we do disagree on whether those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this deficit down and dealing with our debt. and what the gentleman responded was unless we're for 100%, we're not going to be for any. that's what i hear you saying

and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: that's not why these bills haven't passed. the violence against women bill passed out of this house, sitting over in the senate because the senate has its own bill that has a blue slip problem. let them send the -- let the legislative process work over there, send as you bill and we'll get something done. the gentleman did not join us in that bill. so the fact that the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill. we went and did our work. and i'd say more to the gentleman, mr. speaker. you know, the postal reform bill, the fact of the matter is this side, mr. speaker, the minority will not agree to reforms. everyone knows the post office needs reforms. everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to incur and lays on the u.s. taxpayers. we're trying to fix that problem. but because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with reforms like a

five-day delivery. this is something that the president supports. but because his side refuses to go along with trying to reform that organization, we can't move. we can't do that. we all know that's common sense. common sense in reforming the postal service, something everyone knows needs reform. that's why this bill didn't pass. and we've got another issue on the farm bill. there are issues of policy differences. and the gentleman knows, throughout last year we went through a lot of these policy differences in the snap program and the rest. we have g.a.o. recommendations year in and year out about that program. but unwillingness on the part of the nye mortgage to ever -- minority to ever engage in a discussion on real reform on those programs. let's remember what we're talking about in the farm bill.

most of it by far is not farm programs. they're food programs. again, raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward. we need to understand the specifics and other real policy differences. yes, we're all willing to work together. or at least we are on this side. so i really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. no. we want to work together and set aside differences and agree on things we can find in common. that's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business or their family. it's not all or nothing, it's not black or white. and so i yield back. mr. hoyer: i say we agread on 8%. the gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98%. he brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. farm bill? you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. forget about what we think on this side. you reported out of a -- out a farm bill.

you reported out a farm bill some four or five months ago, i'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago and you have not brought it to the floor. it's not a request of whether we agree or not, your own bill you haven't brought to the floor. in terms of the violence against women act, you knew that the senate wouldn't do that and the president said he was going to veto it. you didn't sit down with the president to do it because you want to exclude some people. you want to exclude some people who were subject to domestic violence. in this country. when all the experts say if you exclude people we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. so, i think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate. i would say, with all due respect. mr. cantor: that's not true, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: which is not true? i said a number of things. mr. cantor: will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i will yield. the speaker pro tempore: if members would please address remarks to the chair. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say to the gentleman, it's not true. we don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits and he knows

that. it was simply a matter of new language inserted by the senate that really -- we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. we want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying others. and the gentleman knows that. it's unfair to characterize anything we're trying to do to exclude people from benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. all of us care about those victims. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank -- mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his observations. we have a difference of opinion. on whether or not they want to exclude people. because the senate bill was inclusive and every woman member , republican, of the united states senate voted for it. everyone. that was the difference between the two bills. those who were included and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be, but we also think

there aren't people include who had need to be. with all due respect i think my characterization was absolutely accurate. but it's interesting, mr. speaker, that we still haven't eabed the question -- answered the question. we tend to want to talk about other things. 98% of americans should not get a tax increase on january 1 that are making less than $250,000 individually as a family. i think we agree on that. mr. speaker, now i haven't heard that we don't agree on that but we agree on that which means there are 2% on which we do not agree. and that bill has not been brought to the floor that passed the united states senate dealing with that 98%. or 97% of small business. now, mr. speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98% and the president of the united states will sign that bill, the majority leader knows, that i know it and the american people

know it. he will sign that bill. that bill has not moved, not because of the 98%, but because of the 2%. that's my contention, mr. speaker. i believe that is accurate. because the senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98%. we ought to pass that bill, we ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the election. and the american people at least ought to have that on the floor and, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional revenues to meet our debt, so that our children are not put deeply into debt, and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults, yes, we can have that debate. bring the bill to the floor. and let us pass the senate bill and i would hope our republican colleagues would join us and say at least we're going to take care of the 98%. then we'll argue with the 2%. we'll argue about whether or not

that's good policy or bad policy. whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy. very frankly i tell my friend, the majority leader, i was here in 1993. the gentleman was not, i believe. but i was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1.5%, 1.75% of american taxpayers. your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the deficit and the unemployment. as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite. in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed. you're taking the same contention now and that study took the same proposition. it was wrong then, it is wrong now. i would hope very sincerely that we could agree on that on which

we agree. because we agree on 98%. and let that move and not hold us hostage to the 2% on which we do not agree. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond to that. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i do, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. again, i'd first of all ask, was there over 8% unemployment then? that's the first thing, mr. speaker. we are about trying to do something to get people back to work. and if you're worried about the 98%, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs and so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that those taxes, that tax hike that he's advocating, is going to affect 53% of all small business income. that's joint committee on tax says that. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53% of small businesses and the gentleman knows that, it's a misleading figure because 53% of

the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not in our opinion small businesses at all. the gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53% of small businesses -- because it's our contention that 97% of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard, making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97% of small business will not be affected by our proposal and if the gentleman thinks i'm incorrect i'd be glad to hear that. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the point is about jobs. ok? and the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating income. if you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8%. it's about jobs. i mean, that's the thing, mr.

speaker. it's always -- we always hear somehow that we are favoring some big, bad business. no, we are about the businesses who create jobs. small businesses. according to the small business administration definition, create jobs. so, mr. speaker, just because in the gentleman's mind that somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets the benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike on you understand our plan will go out and create a job. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, it is an absurd assertion that there are people i don't like. i would hope the gentleman would retract that. it has nothing to do with people we like or don't like. mr. cantor: i absolutely retract that, mr. speaker. but the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. and what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs, that's the prescription we need right now is more jobs.

our policy is about helping the small business men and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. that's all. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit. and the uncertainty of tax policy. that is one every economist will tell you that and certainly every business person will tell you that. large, medium or small. and none of us on this side of the aisle have used -- i have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses. that's not an issue at all. it is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, mr. speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute some of us, i.e.,

perhaps members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt. we heard a lot about personal responsibility in the republican convention. we ought to take personal responsibility and the gentleman continues to talk about jobs jeags -- creation. we want job creation. we have a make it in america agenda that unfortunately hasn't moved. we have a jobs bill that was offered by this president, that economists say would have created a million more jobs. it lays still on a desk somewhere untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this house. notwithstanding the fact that the leader and i have discussed that -- moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions. i lament the fact when we talk about this, again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98%. that we don't agree on the 97%. i think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it, because we do agree on it. he said he doesn't want anybody

to get a tax increase. and by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the republicans in this house and in the senate and signed by george bush. that's why those taxes are going up on january 1. because you sunsetted that tax increase, didn't make it permanent. why did you do that? for scoring purposes. because you knew that it would score great deficits. i want to tell the gentleman additionally, mr. speaker, that unemployment was 7%. the reason bill clinton won the election, because the economy was going downhill. that's the same reason barack obama won the election. answered talks about jobs -- and he talks about jobs. a policy that was unanimously opposed, mr. speaker, by the republican side of the aisle in the house and in the senate created 22 million private sector jobs. we know something about creating private sector jobs.

notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, mr. leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now , right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs. in 1993 you were demonstrably wrong. i don't mean you personaly, mr. speaker, i'm referring simply to the republican party's position on that. demonstrably wrong. 22 million new jobs. and in 2001 and 2003 you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you were talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of jobs. you lost jobs in the private sector over those eight years, mr. leader, i'm sure you know that, about 600,000 net, you lost four million jobs in 2008, the last year of the bush

administration. you lost 818,000 jobs in the last month, mr. speaker. 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the bush administration. . it is lamentable that this is another instance where we continue to talk about bills for message purposes, that we know the president won't sign, he said he won't sign it, we know the senate won't pass, and we

allow those 98% of americans to twist in the wind. because we will not deal with the other 2% and we're prepared to debate that, of course. and discuss it. but i'm very sorry that we apparently will not see in the next 2 1/2 days remaining before the election that we address the middle class tax cuts. i'll yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. i have one more subject i want to cover. mr. cantor: we believe that we've got a real spending problem here, mr. speaker. we've got a problem with an

unwillingness to reform some programs. the gentleman talks about, you know, members having to pay more. in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require members as well as federal employees to pay more toward their retirement. the gentleman wasn't supportive of that. so again, we've got some serious unfunded obligations at the federal level. the american people know that. we're trying to solve problems. the problems are not solved by raising taxes. now, the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes, again, because there is a 2% that he just wants to pay more. ok? he's so intent on doing, that i'd ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of. you got to reform the program.

mr. speaker, week of been the only one to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem. the president has not, the senate has not and the gentleman has not. and again, it's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim america in its true aspirational sense and be that place of opportunity and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i hear the gentleman. i presume he refers to the ryan budget. of course the ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. the gentleman knows that. the ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of medicare for people. the majority leader mentions federal employees. the fact of the matter is my position, mr. speaker, and this is a subject i want to talk about, we need to get america

on a fiscally sustainable credible path. that's the single most important objective that this congress ought to be addressing. and mr. speaker, very frankly it was addressed in a plan called the simpson-bowles plans, perfectly know. will we agree on everies a pkt? no. it was a plan that said we had to a balanced approach to doing this. we had to deal with entitlements. we had to deal with revenues. and, mr. speaker, we are now collecting 14.8% of revenues. that's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years. if we were a business we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. we could keep borrowing so we could keep spending without putting a pay-go discipline that we had in the 1990's that helped, mr. speaker, balance

the budget four years in a row. the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing or knowing that we're here that that's been done. it was done because we paid for what we borrowed. mr. speaker, we're going to have an opportunity, not in the next two days of this session before the election, but we're going to have a lame duck. we're going to have to come back here. we are going to have to do some serious things. we need to as americans, not as democrats, not as republicans, we need to have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our responsibilities. very frankly the bowles-simpson, every republican member of that group from the house walked away from it, voted no. said, no, we will not agree.

and so it didn't get the 14 votes it needed to be brought to this floor. i think that's a sad fact, mr. speaker. that should have had a robust debate. and perhaps modification. but it was a plan that said to all americans, we're all going to have to be in this together. a balanced plan, mr. speaker, to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility and s&p downgraded us not because, mr. speaker, we didn't have the resources to solve our problems. standard & poor's downgraded the united states of america for the first time in the lifetime of anybody i know and perhaps anybody in history because they didn't know whether we had the political

will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger. mike mullens, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mr. speaker, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting america, didn't respond iraq, iran, didn't respond terrorists, didn't respond other enemies around the world. he said the biggest security concern that he had, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was the fiscal challenge that was not being addressed in america. . mr. speaker, we need to address it, i hope my friend the majority leader, and he and i worked together on a number of things, we worked on a number of things this session we passed in a bipartisan fashion, i would hope that he and i would both commit ourselves to during the lame duck session do our responsibility to america

and to our constituents in reaching a bowles-simpson-domenici, gang of six, almost every economist that has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. and if we simply have sold our soul, mr. speaker, to grover norquist on asking people to help bring this debt and deficit down, mr. speaker, we will not succeed. but if we summons the turge and the will to solve this problem, we can do it, mr. speaker. i'm hopeful that my friend, the majority leader, and i, will work together over the next number of weeks between now and november 6 to establish the preface for acting in the lame

duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. if we do that, if we do that, we could redeem this congress' performance. i hope we'll do that. i don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment or not. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i'm going to try and make sure that i don't bring on even more because i know our colleagues are waiting to speak. i would say to the gentleman there is not immune knit on his side. the minority leader of the house, the president of the united states has not endorsed, the minority leader rejected bowles-simpson and the president has not endorsed bowles-simpson which is part of the issue the gentleman seeks some clarification on which is, where's the plan to get us out of this? anti-president was unwilling to even adopt that.

but -- and the president was unwilling to even adopt that. the reason our side rejects bowles-simpson -- we bleve there are good things in bowles-simpson, i do look forward to working with the gentleman and seeing if we can work together, cooperative fashion, to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. i'm looking forward to that. but bowles-simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach unless you say, $1.22 in taxes, new taxes, with $1 in cuts, is balanced. we don't believe so. because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy. we also believe the bowles-simpson revenue target of 20% of g.d.p. is the highest target, and something that is ex-- exceeds that which we have been at pretty much over the last 70-some years for three years.

we believe that is too much ofal revenue flow into washington for washington to make the decisions. we've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. totally legitimate discussion point, yes, but an issue. it's not just rejection out of hand. like the minority leader and the president have said. they reject that. we say, this is why and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. the gentleman and i both agree upon that. how are we going to deal with this? bowles-simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address the fundamental problem of growing unfunded liability. we want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. that's our position. and so i do, i do look forward

to working with the gentleman. there's some great things about tax reform in bowles-simpson. i want to work with the gentleman on that. and if we can't have a conversation about resolving the deficit and spending. so again i try not to invoke any more time, mr. speaker, and i yield back. million hoyer: i look forward to working with him as well, mr. speaker. because there is no more important issue that confronts us as a congress or us as people, and no act that we could do would give more confidence not only to our own people but to people around the world that america has got its financial house in order. we need to do that. we can argue the specifics one way or the other. but, mr. speaker, we do have a difference. we had that difference in 1993 and we argued about it. we believe that we won that argument on the vote and we won

it, in my opinion, on performance. we argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we lost on that argument. which is why we were in the deepest recession at the last administration this country has been in my lifetime. i'm not one of the younger members of this body. but i am with the majority leader hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. the american people, i

just the of that going on, you can make your own opinion about what is happening. >> he watches c-span and comcast. created by americas created --

cable companies. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> president obama and first lady michelle obama welcomed the 2012 olympians and parlympians to the white house. at its presented the obama's with the u.s. flag carrier during the opening ceremony in london. this is 20 minutes. >> the president has vowed to stay out here to speak with

everyone, even if it blows his schedule. so i will get things started. hello, team usa! and welcome to the white house! i had so much fun with everyone over in london that, when i got home, i told barack, what's his name, my husband, the sky -- [laughter] that we had to invite everyone over to the house. we're thrilled the you could join us today. this was a dream come true for me. i get a chance to spend so much time with you and hear about your dreams. i get to see how incredibly talented you are, including a member of our women's dress and

tin -- women's wrestling team who literally shut me up off my feet. [laughter] you should see pictures. i have never been picked up by heiress of before. [laughter] i saw team usa win again and again and again. our olympians brought home a less than 220 two metals. [applause] very impressive. but even more impressive than those metals are all the hard work the lead into the olympic and paralympic dream. all of those early mornings and long hours at the gym, many balancing worker class's or raising your kids at the same time -- today i want to to know how proud we are of all of you. that is why the state has been so special. we have been looking forward to this for a very long time.

we wanted to know how inspired we are by your passion, your dedication, your courage. this summer, people across the country, including the young people here today, they thought, you know what? if they can work hard and set a goal and rate should, maybe i can, too. maybe i can go a little farther and a little pick -- and a little better than people think i can. we saw you give 100%, overcoming obstacles, representing your country with such determination and pride. they some athletes like navy lt. brad snyder who is with us here today. >> where is brad? >> right here. [applause] >> one year ago, he was blinded by an iud in afghanistan, but he

won two gold medals and a silver. [applause] and afterward, he said coming to be able to come out here and to keep in the fight and keep going and keep inspiring and he perpetrating some goodwill for our country means a lot. and that means a lot for us, too. it means all of you chose to stand up and represent this country, to carry our flag and remind us what an honor it is to call ourselves americans. and today, i want to congratulate you again for your achievements. i also want to congratulateusoc and thank all of you for getting more young people involved in sports in their communities. by the end of this year, we will

have helped kids across this country get healthy and active and maybe inspire some future olympians and heroin be -- and paralympians as well. with that, i am proud to introduce to you and other big fan of yours, my husband, our president, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you! i am the fan-in-chief. [laughter] is great to have teen usa here at the white house. i want to thank michele for not teasing me too much, which is what she does so well in these introductions. it was true that i was pretty jealous of the fact is she had a chance to go to london.

i had almost as much fun following you guys from here, watching when you did. i was able to catch a little bit of everything. it was a great way to in the day, watching you guys do things that i did not think were humanly possible. every morning, when michele and i worked out, we would say, did you see that? that was unbelievable. and then i would job on the treadmill. [laughter] -- and then i would jog on the treadmill. [laughter] but i was inspired. i was inspired to run a little bit faster watching tyson day, going a little bit longer after watching michael phelps and the other swimmers.

and wheelchair rugby, i am just glad you are not taking me out. but the most to do was to inspire us. he made us proud. as your president, you made me proud to see how you convicted yourself on a world stage. you could not have been better ambassadors and better representatives of the united states and what we stand for. one of the great things in watching our olympics is that we are a portrait of what this country is all about, people from all walks of life, every background, a brief way -- every faith. it sends a message to the world about america and it speaks to the character of this group, how you carry yourself, and it is even more important considering the obstacles many of you have had to overcome, nudges to succeed at the games, but to get

there the first place. 13 years ago, carrie miller was serving in the army when her car was hit by a drunk driver. she lost both her legs. she went to college and learned to play sitting volleyball. today, she is the proud owner of two silver medals. leading up to the olympic games, he had a job pouring concrete for 12 hours a day and still managed to put into more hours of training in the discus. he may have bet -- she may have been swimming in london, but she still had to finish her reading assignments for her high school english class. where is katie? [applause] there she is. she brought some of her classmates here today.

and then there is mantio mitchell. where is he? he breaks his shinbone halfway through the 4 * 400 meters relay but he finishes anyway in 46 seconds to help the u.s. qualify. [applause] unbelievable. all of you have stories of determination and perseverance. all of you made incredible sacrifices to get your. about a month ago, i was in colorado springs and were stopped by the olympic training center and i met a bunch of athletes, some of the amazing pians who were about to

head out. i met some of the bobsledders were getting ready for the next winter olympics. it was amazing to see not only how hard people work training, but also to hear how much you get to eat during the training. [laughter] which i was very impressed with. i hope you all get some well- deserved time off over the next few months. ready soon,that, o many of you will be back in the gym and that the couple -- and back in the pool. the olympic games is not just about what is happening when the cameras on and everyone is watching prison it is which is happening when nobody's watching. you believe that, no matter where we come from, no matter what and we have been built in life, with enough effort, there

is no limit to how far we can go. that is what sets all of you a part. that is what sets america apart. we celebrate individual effort, but we also know that together we can do incredible things that we could not accomplish on our own. so thank you for being such a great role models, especially for our young people. we could not be prouder of you. you give us a summer we will never forget. it is a great honor to welcome you home. and i have been told that, because of my schedule, i am not allowed to shake reddis hand, but i will break the rule and shake as many as i can. god bless you. let's hit the music! [applause] i love this. [laughter]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> co. i would like to start off by saying tnaks for -- i want to say thanks to the first lady for taking the world literally out of my mouth. the toughest aspect of my recovery or the last year was the idea that my service was taken away from me. to be able to throw on this new uniform, represent team usa and get back up there and compete to serve and, when she said, get back into the fatfight was amazg for me and my family and it is an honor and privilege to stand here before it today and to carry the flag. it is a privilege to be the one

to bring our fly back home to you. it really is a privilege. [applause] >> hi was the side air in the opening ceremonies in the olympics. usoc had a fundraising effort to help olympians and paralympians. each donation was turned into a stitch that was incorporated in the flag that brad and i carried. it is my honor today to present to you guys the flag from the olympic games. [applause] >> they are rigo. -- there we go. that is wonderful.

this is beautiful. you want? [laughter] [applause]

>> in president obama's with address, he talked about the attack on the island -- the attack on the american consulate in libya. >> this week in libya, we lost four of our fellow americans, glenn doherty, carolyn woods, sean smith and chris stevens were all killed on an outrageous attack in our post in benghazi. these americans represented the best of our country. glenn and tyrone had served in america's navy seal for many years before their continued service providing security for our diplomats. they died defending their fellow americans advancing the values that all was cold beer. shawn also started his service in uniform, in the air force. he then spent years at the state department, on several

continents, always entering his country's call. and investor chris stevens died a hero in two countries, here in the united states, where he inspired us who knew him, and in libya, a country that he helped to save, where he'll completely laid down his life. on friday, house able to tell their families have much the american people appreciated their service. without people like them, america could not sustain the freedoms we enjoy, the leadership would demand. as we mourn their loss, we must also send a clear and resolute message to the world. those who attack our people will find no escape from justice. we will not waver in the pursuit and we will never allow anyone to shake the resolve of the united states of america. this tragic event takes place during turmoil in many countries. the united states has a profound respect for people all faiths.

we stand for religious freedom. and we reject the denigration of any religion, including islam. but there is never any justification for violence. there is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. there is no excuse for an attack of the american consulate. right now, we're doing whatever we can to reject a marriage -- to protect americans who are serving abroad. we are in contact with governments around the globe to make sure that every nation has a responsibility to help us protect our people. we have moved forward with an effort to see that justice is done for those we lost. we will not rest until that work is done. most of all, we must reaffirm that we will carry on the work of our fallen heroes. i know the images on our televisions are disturbing. but let us never forget that, for every angry mob, there are millions to yearn for the

freedom and dignity and hope that our flag represents. that is the cost of america .ppeare we are americans. we know that our spirit cannot be broken and the foundation of our leadership cannot be shaken. that is the legacy of the four americans that we lost, men who will live on in the hearts of those they loved and in the strength of the country they serve. with their memory to guide us, we will go forward. thanks. >> hello, i am united states representative and retired army lieutenant colonel alan west feared this week, the republican-led house of representatives continued to focus on jobs and removing government barriers that make it harder to create jobs.

including the small business tax hike that president obama has proposed. the house took action to address a serious threat to our national security, which is what i would like to discuss with you today. far from the coverage of election day, there is another day limit, january 2. it has here is consecrations for our nation's security -- it has serious consequences for our nation's security. there will be cuts that will reduce our national defense by as much as 10%. i spent 22 years in active-duty service in the united states army and served in several combat zones. i cannot understand -- i cannot understate the dam is that these cuts would do to our country. we would have the smallest ground force since 1940 and the

smallest tactical force in the history of the united states military. leon panetta said that cuts of this magnitude would be devastating to the defense department. the house of representatives has approved irresponsible plan to replace these devastating cuts. the bad news is that the people's house is the only part of our government that is acting to eliminate this threat to our national security. the senate, a body controlled by our president's party, has done nothing. they have a poster disregarded any attempt we have made to work with him on a solution. president obama's failure to lead is inexcusable on his face. but even worse is the fact that the sequester, which is the president's idea in the first place. he did not want to deal with the

issue again before his reelection campaign, so the what has put in this dangers sequester as an escape hatch. dutch irresponsibility is how the sequestered came about. the president's senate did nothing. the house came back this week and passed a bill that i sponsored, that requires the president to finally sent congress a legitimate plan to replace his sequestered. while the president may not like our ideas, he has a responsibility to put forth his own and to press his senate allies to action appeared before the house started to debate my bill, the president

threatened to veto it. one must simply ask why. think of the week we have just been through. consider the stark and her thick reminders that freedom remained under siege by forces in violence over freedom of expression. it is critical that the united states expressed strength, that we remain resolute. the purpose of this addresses to respond to president obama, coming to say this to him directly. as an elected representative of the people, a career soldier, and concerned citizen, mr. president, for you as commander- in-chief of our armed forces, to sit and do nothing while our dark cloud hangs over the military is shameful. it is irresponsible and it is wrong. it is dead wrong. and you're not -- in your nomination acceptance speech, you stated your goal was to have the strongest military the world has ever known. you have proven this promise to

the american people is nothing more than empty rhetoric. your determination to allow sequestration proves your words are as hollow as your desire to hollow out our military. all of this is a bargaining chip to raise taxes. for