is especially harmful to women, to their jobs, and to the services that they rely on. >> what do women want from this economy? what they want from the family. they want an economy that creates jobs and that grows the middle class and provides an opportunity for themselves and for their families to succeed. we should not be going down this road. the democrats have an alternative. we need to take hold of it and move forward and make sure that women's economic security is not further eroded. it is now my pleasure to introduce jan schakowsky. -- someone who has been an unbelievable champion from illinois. >> warning -- sequestration is dangerous to women's health. four examples --

one, sequestration will cut essential initiatives, including $8 million from the breast and cervical cancer screening program and $24 million for reproductive health services in title x. two, the national institutes of health will cut $1.56 billion, cutting back research in areas such as alzheimer's, environmental health, links to breast cancer and mental health services. sequestration hurts mothers. while the united states lags behind other industrialized nations in preventing maternal and infant mortality, sequestration cuts $4 million from the safe motherhood initiative, $50 million from the maternal and child health services, and incredibly, will deny life-saving in immunization to 30,000 children. three, sequestration hurts women as caregivers.

women are typically the caregivers, not just to children, but to aging parents. sequestration would cut $12.6 million from the national family caregivers program, reducing services to 700,000 family caregivers. four, sequestration will hurt the many women who work in health care professions. look at the national health service corps, education assistance and training for direct care workers, nurses, family physicians, and other health-care professionals. warning -- sequestration is bad for the health of women and their families. now it is my pleasure to introduce someone with whom i have the pleasure of co- chairing the seniors' task force of the democratic caucus, someone who is a champion for women of all ages, and that is doris matsui.

>> thank you for bringing us to get here. all of us here today understand we should be focusing on moving us forward, but the ugly word of sequestration trends to cripple our economy, with severe cuts that will be devastating to our country's women, children, and families. if sequestration occurs, 70,000 young children will be kicked out of head start programs, and in my district of sacramento, 3,000 children will lose access. these kids do not know what sequestration is about. they only care about learning their colors, their abc's, getting their snacks, and perhaps learning how to play with each other. the mother's care about the safe nurturing environment that head start provides and the resources available to them to

get back on their feet. this includes someone i recently talked to. ashley, a sacramento resident who knew, had to make changes in her life when she became a mother. thanks to head start, her daughter received nutritious meals and early education, and ashley was able to finish her education while also working. sequestration will force cuts to the women, infants, and children's program. wic connects low-income women with services, parental care to healthy food options. wic is a helping hand to women who needed the most. i have seen the lines of wic. there are two wic programs in my district. these are not cuts that we can afford at all.

i stand here with my colleagues today to urge the majority to work with us to prevent them. that is my pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine, donna edwards from maryland. >> thank you bringing us all here together to focus our attention on how these harsh and arbitrary, across-the-board budget cuts will harm millions of women across the country. here today, after months of failure to pass a violence against women act, a bipartisan act, it is quite the irony that later on today the house is going to finally reach authorize -- and hours before they take a sledgehammer to the already strapped budgets of a nation's mystic violence per month, causing disruption of services. more than 6 million women each

year are harmed by domestic violence. their children in every single congressional districts across the country, millions of children live in homes where they witness domestic violence, and as a result of the republican failure -- and it is their failure to stop the sequestration -- services these women rely on for their lives and safety will be cut by $20 billion. 112,000 victims of domestic violence, including 3,500 in the small state of maryland, will not receive the critical services they need to escape domestic violence. 230,000 victims will be calling crisis hotlines, and those calls will go on unanswered. 230,000 calls to crisis hotlines around the country. you can imagine that in the

middle of the night a woman is being battered, she has her two children, she wants to get to safety, she places a phone call to a hotline, and that line goes unanswered. that is what sequestration means to the victims of domestic violence. and so i think this is shameful. we all do. we know it can be stopped. here we are on a thursday, set to go home for the weekend. first of all, people working in america -- they do not go to home on thursday. there's time for us to stop this. the republicans hold the gavel. the republicans have the ability to stop sequestration. it is really very shameful that they are going to go home this weekend without doing that. and so, for the women who are forced to stay in their homes with their abuser because there's no place to go because shelters have been cut, because hotlines go on answered, that is on the hands of the gop here

in the house of representatives. and so i would urge our colleagues, even at this late moment, that there is something that they can do about that. democrats have put forward a fair and balanced proposal that balances spending cuts with revenue so we can deal both with the deficits, but also with how we grow our economy, and it is time for them to do this. with that i would like to turn the microphone over to my colleague who is a leader on small business, from new york, nydia velazquez. >> sequestration is bad for our economy. these types of cuts will be detrimental to our country, and particularly to the job creators, small businesses.

i want to remind you that women's own businesses are the fastest-growing sector in our economy. 8 million strong, while they generate over $1 trillion these businesses are some of the most innovative, and unlike their corporate counterparts, they do not have an army of attorneys, and they do not have ready access to the capital markets. filling this void is the small business administration, which fills our commitment to women entrepreneurs. the sequester has the potential to undermine this very promise by reducing sba funding. as a result, loans to women will be reduced by $250 million, translating to an decrease of 2,500 jobs.

this means fewer women will be able to access affordable capital to turn their ideas, their dreams, into reality. when it comes to contracting, we have been fighting for so long -- we even took the bush administration to court to implement a contracting women program, and now that it is up and running, we're going to shut the door, preventing a level playing field for women's businesses to act as federal contractors. we have not achieved the mandating contracting goal of 5%. this will translate to $1.3 billion in small business contracts that will be lost for women entrepreneurs. this will jeopardize at least 15,000 jobs.

when combined with the closure of business centers that serve mainly women across america that will provide technical assistance so that they could turn those dreams and those ideas into a financial plan and then go to a bank that is matched by the small business center, the women's small business center, they will not be there to assist and provide the technical know-how to help these women. given the challenges they face, women-owned businesses rely on these programs. by slashing this initiative, years of progress can be undone in an instant. this is not only bad for women, but it is bad for the u.s. economy. and now it is my pleasure to

introduce a new member, a great asset, congresswoman julia brownley. >> thank you very much. i want to thank madam leader for holding this important press conference and for your leadership on this very important issue. as a member of the veterans affairs committee, as an american, and as a proud representative of ventura county, we are home to a large naval base with a very significant veteran community. i am extremely concerned about the impact the sequester will have on our women and men and their families who have courageously served, sacrificed, and defended our country. if congress fails to stop the across-the-board and unnecessary cuts at this time, so many programs that help veterans, like transitioning to civilian life and finding employment, will be reduced.

more veterans with less resources is unacceptable. our brave men and women deserve better. now is that time to be doing more, not less. for our veterans' sake, we need to come together to stop the sequester now. thank you very much. >> thank you. while congresswoman brownley was speaking about veterans, i was thinking of examples of pink slips that will go out to psych director nurses who are there to help our returning vets with ptsd. that will be cut. mindless cuts.

i am so proud of our members, all of our house democratic caucus, but i express a special pride in our women today. as you can see, they have knowledge and experience of these issues, working as legislators and in their community. i know they would agree that all the talk here, as serious as it is, is just only more on top of other cuts and other impacts -- $1.6 trillion in cuts agreed to in the last congress that have had an impact on everything from the hhs committee, cuts in research across the board, and now we have these additional cuts, and lord knows what is in store for us in the future. women are calling a halt to all of this. we have to change this environment. we have to take these cuts and they get home at the kitchen table of our families, where in many cases women are single-

parent homes, and it is not only bad for them, but for our economy. i have said earlier, i was just saying sequestration equals unemployment. i am proud of congresswomen velazquez's committee. louise slaughter of the rules committee has been such a leader on these issues. we talked about that chair of the science and technology committee, the list goes on of leadership. and one of the ranking members of this very important exclusive committee in the house, maxine waters will report to us on the testimony in her committee yesterday. this is about the economy. we talked specifically out

about how it affects people and women in particular, but could you tell us what came from your committee yesterday. >> certainly. thank you very much, leader pelosi. i find that we appear to be coming to this room more and more as women, as you lead us in addressing many of the issues that are arising in this conference in this congress and our need to push back on the negative impacts of what has been done by our friends on the opposite side of the aisle. yesterday we had mr. bernanke in our committee, and he came to tell us what he is doing with quantitative easing, and that is trying to stimulate the economy the bond purchases that he has been doing, because he is trying to keep the interest rates low and create jobs.

he said that it sequestration takes place, that is going to be a great setback. we do not need to be having something like sequestration that is going to cause the job, a million jobs that could be lost. he made it very clear, he is not opposed to cuts, but cuts must be done over a long period of time and in a very planned way, rather than the blunt cutting that will be done by sequestration. as you know in this committee, we have all of hud, which is responsible for so many programs that determine the quality of life for women and families. our formula grant program will be cut by $153 million. these are grants to cities that help with women and children and low-income programs. we also will cut the home program by $52 million if

sequestration takes place. native american housing grants, cut $34 million. public housing, mostly single women in public housing, another $304 million, and homelessness. everybody claims to be concerned about homelessness and the growing number of women and children who are out there homeless, but they will take a $99 million hit, and on and on and on. we are here today one more time talking about women and children and families and how we can protect our women, children, and families and have a decent quality of life. sequestration will set us back. all gains we have made will be lost by sequestration. >> what is interesting is the purpose of all this is to reduce the deficit, and cutting these investments does not do that. in fact, maxine, from my

understanding from chairman bernanke, it is reported he said if you take too big cuts too soon, you can halt the jobs of the economic growth, and you can increase the deficit. you do not reduce the deficit. what is the purpose of all of this? it is going to increase the deficit, increase unemployment, affect people in their individual lives, and have an impact on the education of children, safety in our neighborhoods, and we will increase the deficit while we are doing that. it is mindless, it does not make sense. women take a particular hard hit with sequestration. in this month of march, by the end of march, people will see

the light and understand that we are not standing for this. every single day you will be hearing from us on this subject, and my colleagues are resources for questions for you. i am trying to remember who had a question last time. >> [indiscernible] also the fact that top democrats said that pushing major pieces of legislation through. what do you think the role of house republicans has been in the legislative process? >> i wondered why i did not realize it sooner. we come to washington to be legislators, to be representatives of our districts and legislators. that piece is missing here. noise, just making saying that something that may

have good domestic consumption back home, but they did not come here to legislate -- either did not want to or cannot legislate. there is a void here in terms of what is our purpose. they are not here to get something done because their caucus is dominated with anti- government ideologues. you're right. the only thing they have been able to pass with their votes is the destructive ryan bill. other than that, we have had to supply the votes. if we have the supply of votes, we should write the bill. we are the legislative branch. we're not the central committee of our parties.

we are a serious body. we all have to bring to a level of commitment to the issues of knowledge that the ideas, judgments on the subjects, and we come here to make compromise because none of us is elected as the only one to make a decision. that has not dawned on them. >> i want to make sure that gets into the record. >> at least 750,000 jobs lost. next, and then we will come back. i got to keep a list here. >> what has the president told you and leaders yesterday, and why are you waiting until the deadline happens to talk about this? >> the president said how thrilled he was to be there to unveil the statue of rosa parks.

this was such an exciting day for us. it was such an exciting day, and i announced that legislation had been introduced that there be a statue in the capitol. her funeral was november 2. president bush signed the bill december 1. it was the 50th anniversary of her not giving up her seat on the bus. she was a genius. she timed her passing in a way that gave us a month to pass the bill, house and senate, get it signed, and it took some time because her funeral was seven hours long. the president did tell us after

he expressed his personal joy at being there for rosa parks that he hoped we all came with the idea we would find solutions. >> why are you waiting until tomorrow at the deadline? >> why am i waiting? we have been saying you cannot go home, you cannot go home, cannot. we will not be a drive-by congress. the mindlessness of the sequestration, combined with a complete cavalier attitude that we do not have to be here to work on a solution, necessitates us staying -- but we thought something would happen, but how could it happen if we are not here? that is a question you have to pose to the republicans -- "why do you keep putting up roadblocks?" my staff will not like it if i say to you what i said the other day. everybody talks -- the speaker talks about they are kicking the can down the road. that would be at least some

distance. they are nudging the potato across the line. they're not making any progress whatsoever. they are setting us back. ask them. yes. >> [indiscernible] we have heard from both sides of the aisle about a sequester. jim gordon said yesterday we do not like the sequester, but those on the republican side, "we're getting some of the cuts that we want. we are making progress." what do you say about comments like that about this question being a success? -- sequester being a success. >> he said it was a home run and a success. perhaps to take a different point of view, we believe the budget is a statement of our national values, a vision for our country should be

presented, and our vision and values should be represented in how we put a budget together. it should be something that creates jobs and reduces the deficit. understand the difference between investments for the future and just across-the- board mindless cutting. that is what is called the democratic process. they have a view of anti- government ideology that says cuts no matter what for the sake of cuts. we do not share that view. that is the debate we are engaged in. i would say that it is a false economy to think if you cut education, that you are born to reduce the deficit. nothing brings more money to the treasury, nothing, than the education of the american people. these are investments. innovation begins in the classroom. our competitiveness depends on that.

and so i think -- i do not know if they understand the role of government is and how the budget plays into that, but we agree we have to reduce the deficit and we want growth with jobs and we have these spending cuts. i will go back to my endangered species, where we were two weeks ago, they did not give a hoot, these endangered species, when president bush was racking up this deficit. my colleagues? >> the deficits has increased during the obama years, they're trying to put that out, where in fact we have seen the percentage of deficit related to gdp go from 10% down to 5%, and we have seen real dollars in cuts from the deficit. we are making progress, and we can continue with our fragile

economy to make more progress. this is not only unnecessary, but completely counterproductive in the direction and the past we're taking right now. >> a very quick point. some of the folks who are talking about how we must deal with the spending side of the question, versus revenue side, and i will be happy to provide you with this report. they may have not followed what has happened here over the last 10 or 12 years. there is substantial data that will tell you -- and this is just from the labor, health, education perspective, which is where i am the ranking member, although it has the broadest expense of programming after

defense and the largest expanse of resources -- over the last 10 years -- there has been $12 billion in cuts to labor, education, and health programs. if you add what we cut to the budget control act, it is another $9 billion. this will be cut between now and 2021, 2022. if you add one year, it will be another $7.5 billion in cuts to work force training, head start programs, title i, biomedical research, every program that has the opportunity for jobs that will make sure that people can live a life and be able to have that opportunity. they have not read the bill. they have not read what has actually happened in spending

cuts, and they need to do that. this is not cause of the deficit. we know the cause of the deficit. >> we do not have time for one more question, but i promised. >> do any of you feel confident or see a positive side to this question, in that you will have a chance to rein in some of the defense spending that has grown rapidly over the past decade? >> subjecting every dollar that we spent to scrutiny, that is what we have to do to make sure we get our money's worth. the mindlessness of these cuts, when it comes to domestic and defense. what is our mission? what is our national security mission? that is where we should be making the evaluation of what we need, what we must have, and what we can do without, not in the matter in which i have -- i have met with generals about the subject. this is a horrible way to go about this.

this is not about discussing our policy and how can we save jobs. it is about mindless cuts that are harmful to our national security right now in terms of the training and the rest that we provide for our troops. to go back to the question -- to review what we spend and how we have raised revenue and how to create growth. it is important to note that these tax bonanzas for special interests are a spending cut. we talk about expenditures for education, health care, and the rest. these are called tax expenditures. if you want to cut spending -- some of the spenders you could start with, as the president has suggested, are some of these loopholes in the tax code against tax breaks to special interests. you can begin with $38 billion given to big oil as an

incentive for them to drill when they can make a trillion dollars in profits over the 10-year period. the list goes on and on. when we talk about expenditures look at tax expenditures, too. we made the argument about rates. we're not going to that place. what we're saying is if you address the tax expenditure issue, it will limit the amount of deduction that people can take and you will have a fair tax system and you don't have to take the food out of the mouths of seniors and meals on wheels. the strength of our country is in our military, and it is in the health, education, and the well-being of the american people. our budget must reflect that. you can to cut expenditures. let's start with tax expenditures. thank you very much.

>> house leaders of both parties took to the floor about automatic spending cuts and the house agenda. this is a half-hour. , automatic draconian, in my view, irrational cutsstarting tf the so-called sequester. i did not see any legislation on the floor for next week which would obviate the happening of that event, of the sequester, although i do see that there is some desire, apparently, to make sure that the defense department and the department of veterans

affairs has the ability to manage those cuts in a way that will be least detrimental. i would ask the gentleman, there are of course 12 other -- excuse me, 10 other appropriation bills , there are 10 other major agencies and multiple departments and offices that will have a problem similar to that of the department of defense and the veterans administration. is the gentleman aware of any efforts that will be made to accommodate the domestic side of the budget? mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i would say, mr. speaker, as the gentleman knows, the house has acted twice to offer alternatives to what we agree with is a very wrong way to go about cuts. which is the sequestration measure. but unfortunately both times the

senate rejected or refused to take up the alternatives. i'm aware the other body is anticipating at least -- anticipating to at least attempt to vote on an alternative, both of which are protected to fail in the state in -- predicted to fail in the senate. so i'd say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that he's right in saying that our intent is to try and provide the flexibility for the defense department in terms of its appropriations, as well as the milcon bill. and we do so because there's bipartisan agreement around those two bills. and i would say to the gentleman, if bipartisan agreement somehow is reached in other bills, i would say to the gentleman, we certainly would like to be able to take a look at that. but i believe, mr. speaker, it's prudent for us to try and do the things that we can do right now so that we don't have to bear the burden of the wrongheaded

way of controlling spending which is that sequestration. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. let me only observe that the bills which the gentleman has now discussed for three weeks running, that we've had colloquies, are no longer available to either the senate or the house. he knows that. they were in the last congress and they died in the last congress. there has been no legislation in the 59 days that we've been here, put on this floor, and only the majority leader can put legislation on the floor. no legislation which would have an alternative to the sequester. and in fact, notwithstanding some of the representations, mr. leader, that have been made, mr. speaker, there was a bill on this floor on july 19, 2011, which was called cut, cap and balance. 229 republicans voted for that bill. that bill had as its fallback, if the objectives of the bill

were not reached, sequester. that was substantially before, many days before the president and through the person of jack lu talk about the making that a part of a piece of legislation that we needed so that we did not default on the national debt. and for the first time not only since i've been serving the congress, some 32 years, but the first time in history as a result of that action of coming so close to defaulting on the national debt this country was downgraded by a single point. the gentleman talked about the stem bill that was passed and i voted for, he voted for, the overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans voted for it, to help our economy. that event substantially hurt our economy. mr. speaker, the inability to get to agreement on this sequester is hurting the economy. and i will tell my friend that we've offered three times to

have a bill considered as an alternative to sequester which cuts spending, raises some additional revenues. i know the gentleman is going to give me a lecture about raising taxes. i understand that. but i would urge the gentleman, let a vote happen on this floor. let the house as you said in 2010 work its will. that's what the speaker said he wanted to do. let us vote on an alternative. not just blindly go down this road of sequester, not blindly go down this road that the gentleman has just agreed with me and we agreed together, i think most of us agree, the sequester is irrational. it should not happen. in fact, it was put in the bill on the theory that surely we wouldn't let it happen. but in 59 days we've had no bill on this floor. all the gentleman says is a bill that's gone and dead and bury, that we can't consider, that won't make a difference, that will not get rid of the

sequester. i regret that, mr. leader, because i think we can. frankly we can next week put alternatives on the froor. if you have an alternative, put -- on the floor. if you have an alternative, put it on the floor. but that's what the american people expect. they expect us to solve problems, and they sent us to vote on policy. mr. van hollen, who's the ranking democrat on the budget committee, has asked three times, mr. leader, to bring a bill to this floor, an amendment to this floor to provide an alternative to sequester. it seems strange that when both of us agree that sequester is wrong, irrational, will have adverse effects, ben bernanke said it would substantially hurt the economy, that we don't provide alternatives, and all we talk about is something we did yesterday -- actually more than three month, four months ago, that is dead and gone. we need to do something now,

and we need to come together in a bipartisan basis. i might say to the leader, we've had four major bills signed into law in this congress by the president. every one of those bills were passed in a bipartisan basis with an average of 168 democrats voting for it and an average of 124 republicans voting for it. we saw a perfect example, mr. speaker -- mr. leader, on the floor today of making very good policy. how did we do it? we did it in a bipartisan vote. and i suggest to my friend, the majority leader, that we could do that as it relates to the sequester if we would bring something to the floor, have a vote on it and in my view in a bipartisan fashion we could in fact set aside this irrational,

negative sequester and move on to a rational, fiscal policy. i'd be glad to yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on it. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. first of all, there would not be a bipartisan vote on the democratic suggestion as to how to deal with the sequester. as the gentleman rightfully suggests, that measure will include tax increases. we heard a lot of talk about balance, that we need to approach the situation in a balanced way. well, the president has enacted $149.7 billion worth of tax increases for this fiscal year. sequestration results in $85.3 billion worth of spending reductions. as you can see, mr. speaker, the balance is clearly in favor of tax increases. taking people's money and then allowing washington to decide how to spend it when most people realize that government is never the one best to spend

and allocate someone else's dollars, which is why we insist on having a limited government providing the necessary support and roles as it should and not continuing to take other people's money and deciding how we spend it. now, i'd say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i do that the senate refuses to take up whatever we send them. they refused again and again. so we've got a real problem, that somehow one house does its work. twice this house has passed bills with alternative measures to address sequestration, and a significant portion of both of those bills, one of which i sponsored, were provisions taken out of the president's, himself, budget. not spending increases but reductions that the president says are ok but yet still the

senate failed to take them up. so there's a meeting tomorrow at the white house, mr. speaker, and i know the gentleman shares the desire to perhaps have that men -- meeting make the senate act. the house can produce a plan and has twice to replace this sequester. now, i'd say to the gentleman, he's concerned about the economy and so are we very concerned about the economy. we're concerned about the rating agencies outlook -- agencies' outlook on our situation. but i remind the gentleman, mr. speaker, that the warnings from these rating agencies are not warnings that are wholly addressed by just coming to some deal. those warnings from the rating agencies are directed at our

doing something about the underlying fiscal problem this federal government has which are the mountains of debt caused by the growth and the unfunded liblets in our entitlement programs -- liabilities in our entitlement programs. and the gentleman knows we failed to come to agreement in 2011 as to how to deal with those unfunded liabilities which is why the sequestration is in place. we got to have that deal on the unfunded liabilities, because that's what those warnings are about, that's what we should be concerned about, not raising more taxes. those warnings are not about raising more taxes. it's about getting rid of the out-of-control liabilities that are racked up because of the spending which is out of control. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. it doesn't get at -- we've been here 59 days in this congress. not a single bill has been

brought to this floor which will deal with the sequester. not one. as a matter of fact, we've only met 17 of the 59 days this year . so when my friend laments the fact that the sequester is going into effect and he talks about bills he doesn't deny they're dead and gone. senate can't take them up. so many folks want us to read the constitution of the united states. i'm for doing that. it's article 1 that gives to the house, as the leader i'm sure know, the responsibility to raise revenues and to pass appropriation bills. it's the house that needs to initiate legislation, and we guard that pretty jealously. we guard it as -- we just passed vawa. there was a lot of discussion about vawa having -- in the last congress that passed overwhelmingly was delayed because very frankly they had some money effect in that bill.

we said it was subject, therefore, to objections on our side. we haven't met very often and when we do meet the only real bills that are passed are passed in a bipartisan fashion which happened today. and when we talk about balance -- and i get very frustrated and take somebody else's money. do you want to take it out of your pocket? was the constitution of a united states which formed a more perfect union designed to take the chinese money or european money and fund our education, our health care research, our highways, our national security? of course not. it is our money. each one of us individually works hard and we apportion a part of our earnings to the common good, to the common defense, to the common investment in our future, in education, in innovation, in infrastructure.

yes, we do that. and i will tell my friend, and he well knows this, i get somewhat frustrated when i hear this. when i served in this congress from 2001 to 2008 when the economic policy that was in effect was all your party's economic policy, and you cut revenues substantially and you increased spending substantially and we went from surplus to deep deficit. we need to solve that. i agree with the gentleman. we need to solve it, but we need to do it in a bipartisan basis. that's why i point out the only bills that have of substance that have been signed by the president that weren't suspension bills on which we all agree were bipartisan bills which averaged 124 republicans voting for them and average 168 democrats voting for them. both parties joined together to solve problems. that's what needs to happen. and i will tell the gentleman he can talk about confidence all he wants, talk about why the rating agencies downgrade

us. there were a number of reasons. but the greatest reason was, and they articulate it, standard & poor's articulated, they weren't confident that we could work together to solve problems. and we're not doing that. the gentleman continues to not want a balanced program. every group, every group that i've seen or read about or talked to people about has said you cannot get from where we are in the deep debt that was created in the last decade to where we need to be, a balanced fiscal and sustainable plan for america for the years to come without addressing both the spending side and the revenue side. the example i use is we are selling a product, mr. leader, that many of us voted for it and you want to accommodate on the defense side, which cost $23 -- costs $23, and we are pricing it at $15. no business in america or in

the world could survive with that imbalance. we need to bring that in balance, and you're not going to get to the 15% of revenues that we're collecting or now maybe 16% or 17% simply by savaging either defense or nondefense spending or entitlements. so i would certainly hope, mr. leader, that we would come together. you and i have talked about this a lot. people go home and talk about how bipartisan we are going to be. we are prepared and we understand there are going to be things we have to do that we won't like. on your side there will be things to do that you won't like. that will be a compromise. that's the definition of a compromise. our country needs it. americans want it. i would hope that we could in the coming days, not only address the sequester, but address the need over the next 10 years to get this country back to balance where we were

in 2000 where we had a balanced budget, the debt was coming down and in fact people were concerned that it was coming down too fast. unless the gentleman has further remarks, i'll yield back. mr. cantor: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: the gentleman loves to go back and talk about that period from 2001 to 2008 and the fact that there was too many tax cuts in place and without the control in spending. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, because my point, i tell the leader, is that we didn't pay for what we bought. we kept buying but we didn't pay. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i was saying that. too many tax cuts in place, and i agree with the gentleman, mr. speaker, not only on the fact that there were tax reductions and cuts in place but the fact there wasn't a control in spending. that is a problem here, mr. speaker. but ironically, the gentleman has consistently been in support of and just voted to

extend 98% of those tax cuts. and so what we're saying right now is we got to do something about the spending. you just got $650 billion in tax increases, mr. speaker, over the course of the next 10 years through the fiscal cliff deal. i just prior spoke about the imbalance. this year, f.y. 2013, of the amount of new revenues versus the actual spending that is being projected to be reduced in the sequester. i agree, let's get back to balance. let's go ahead and increase the spending reductions. washington does have that spending problem. the gentleman agrees. so, you know, again, i think it's unfair to say that there's just, you know, no agreement on the fact that we ought to go and reduce tax rates and taxes because the gentleman supports

doing that. so let's talk about balance. you know, and we got the highest level of revenues, it's been reported that we have the highest level of revenues coming into the federal government this year ever. and the gentleman does know as well the spending is out of proportion in terms of history, in terms of the percentage of g.d.p. so why can't we focus on that? we got to get this economy growing. and the gentleman is correct in saying the government needs to be adequately funded, but we got to take a look at what we're funding. that's what we're talking about in replacing the sequester is prioritizing. what are the functions of government? and the sequester, it does cut spending, but we'd rather cut it in smarter ways. you know, again, i hear the

gentleman talk about he'd like to be here on the floor passing bills. we would, too. get the senate to act. we have a bicameral process here, and the senate has not acted. the white house, the president hasn't even sent up his budget, mr. speaker. the president has that obligation in law. has not presented his budget to the house. the senate refuses to do anything. and what's the white house doing right now? the president's been going around the country campaigning for the past two months scarring people, creating havoc. that's supposed to be leadership? the president says to americans that their food is going to go uninspected and the borders will be less patrolled and unsafe. his cabinet secretaries are holding press conference and conducting tv interviewses, making false claims about teacher layoffs.

i just feel that people ought to take a look and say, hey, these sequester spending levels, not the sequester, but the spending levels, and say, in 2009, was food not inspected? because that's what the claim is, mr. speaker. that somehow if we were ever to reduce spending at all we couldn't have food inspectors. did we have a border patrol -- any border patrol agents in 2009? of course we did. of course we did. they will be funded at the same levels under the sequester. and that's our point. replacing the sequester with smart cuts. but the other side, mr. speaker, and the gentleman and his caucus won't join us in doing that. because all we hear again and again is raise taxes. and i have said, as the gentleman knows, we can't in this town be raising taxes every three months. that's just not the way we can

get this economy back on track. did the f.a.a. shut down in 2009? that's the claim. that's the claim that the president's saying. shut down the f.a.a., stop air travel as we know it. or give us higher taxes. that's the false choice that this president and his administration are out there hawking. we can't have that. that's not leadership. let's come together. i agree with the gentleman, but stop the false choice. stop the games and let's get it done. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. he said a lot and i could have a lot of comments on that but i will say this, as long as the gentleman believes it's only us saying that we need a balanced program, he will oppose it because we are democrats. if the gentleman listens to independent advice all over this country, from all sorts of sources, republicans and democrats, conservatives and

liberals, they will say, you need balanced approach. we need to cut spending, we need to restrain spending and we need to balance the cost of what we provide with the income that we have. every business person, small, medium and large, understands that concept. we have not followed it and we did not follow it in the last decade. i regret the fact that the gentleman doesn't like the president going around the country and telling the truth. saying what the consequences may well be. now, are they going to be on march 1? no, but will they inevitable occur if the sequester stays in place? the answer to that is an emphatic yes. so i think the president is going around the country saying, look, these are the alternatives . and saying that the senate won't act or the president won't act -- people did not elect me, i will tell you, to make the president act or to make the senate act.

they didn't think i could do that. what they did think i could do is make steny hoyer act. and if i were the majority leader, they expected me to have the house act. even if people didn't agree with me of legislation i put on the floor. but they expect us to do our job , not to cop out, with all due respect, to the fact that the president's not doing something or the senate's not doing something. we have a responsibility here in this chamber, the people's house, as representatives of 435 districts, to do our job. and if the other folks don't do their job, we can lament that, we can criticize them, we can inform the american public of that. but we cannot say that's why we're not acting. so i would hope that next week we would in fact act and bring legislation to the floor and i'd be, as the gentleman knows, my friend knows, i'm for a big deal.

i'm for getting us to that $4 trillion that the simpson-bowles recommended. because i think that will give real confidence to our economy, really grow businesses and put our country on a fiscally sustainable path and i will >> several live events to tell you about on c-span2. the center for american progress looks at the future of electronic payments at noon eastern. starting today, nearly all federal payments, including social security, will be made electronically. instead of paper checks, most recipients without bank accounts for direct's will receive benefits on the government issued a prepaid card. this afternoon at 3:00, live from george washington university for a speech by actor actually judd on reproductive health. she is reportedly considering running for u.s. senate for kentucky in the next election,

taking one senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls live on "washington journal." also this morning, republican members of the house armed some misses -- armed services committee will host a news conference to discuss automatic defense spending cuts live at 10:30 a.m. eastern. the supreme court heard arguments challenging parts of the 1965 voting rights act which requires certain states to obtain pre-clearance from the justice department or courts to change voting laws. we will air the court session at 9:00 p.m. eastern. in about an hour and a half, we will discuss the pending automatic spending cuts with democratic representative don edwards, maryland, whose district includes the suburbs of washington, d.c., and joint based andrews, the home of air force one. also joining us to take