mr. mckeon, saying, "wait a minute, i do not know if we want to put at risk defense spending, these national security investments." so, that will play out. i would much prefer to see us resolve this before we hit the march 1 trigger date, but i do believe if we go over it -- i certainly hope republican colleagues will come to their senses. >> what is the game plan, say we do go over the march 1 deadline, investments." just as we went over the fiscal cliff deadline? what is the game plan to deal with it and how much time do you think congress and the white house has to deal with it before this becomes an economic drag? >> i think it is already becoming an economic drag looking at the last quarter of last year. you saw a downturn in economic activity in a factor behind that has been, many analysts believe, the anticipation of these across-the-board cuts. so, are you getting this slowdown -- if you are getting this slowdown in anticipation of the cuts, it will get worse once the march 1 date hits. my view is we have to deal with this now, and you are raising a broader question about these thing

mr. mckeon talked about. we had a proposal to avoid all of that. not even a vote today, and we proposed to do it in a balanced way, mr. speaker, to make some cuts to some of the big agriculture subsidies, direct payments, also some revenue by closing taxpayer breaks for the big oil companies. our republican colleagues continue to stick to the position that they won't close one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. they conceded in the last election that very wealthy individuals benefit from those tax breaks but they don't want to eliminate one of them for the purpose of reducing the deficit in a balanced way combined with spending cuts, which is what our constitute amendment would do and -- substitute amendment would do and it's important that the american people know we didn't have a chance to vote ont. mr. speaker, it's sad reflection on this body that we're here debati a meaningless political action and ignoring the real work of the american people in this country to deal with the sequester in a balanced way

mr. mckeon talked about. we had a proposal to avoid all of that. not even a vote today, and we proposed to do it in a balanced way, mr. speaker, to make some cuts to some of the big agriculture subsidies, direct payments, also some revenue by closing taxpayer breaks for the big oil companies. our republican colleagues continue to stick to the position that they won't close one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. they conceded in the last election that very wealthy individuals benefit from those tax breaks but they don't want to eliminate one of them for the purpose of reducing the deficit in a balanced way combined with spending cuts, which is what our constitute amendment would do and -- substitute amendment would do and it's important that the american people know we didn't have a chance to vote on it. mr. speaker, it's a sad reflection on this body that we're here debating a meaningless political action and ignoring the real work of the american people in this country to deal with the sequester in a balanc

mr. chair, let me respectively correct the senator senator from missouri. i did not vote for that -- >> i should've said at the time that it was voted upon, the ranking republican, senator mccain and buck mckeon voted for the budget control act. they were the leading republicans on armed services in the two houses at the time. i should have made it clear. it was the ranking republican of the time we took the vote. >> senator ayotte? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of our military leaders are being here today, for your service and everything. everything you do for us. to put things in a bigger picture here, sequestration, on a scale from one to 10. one being the least dangerous and 10 being the most dangerous, how dangerous is sequestration in terms of the safety of this country? >> i will take a shot at that, senator. it sure feels like a think tank may not country and want to negotiate me down -- >> i'm asking for your professional judgment. any disagreement on that? >> we are at a place right now where we are facing very dangerous times around the world. would you all agree with that? it's not a time to take a peace dividend? >> if i could, because i didn't get a chance to r

mckeon voted for it. they were the leading armed services people at a time. but it was not senator inhofe. it was the ranking republican on the time we took the vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of our military leaders for being here today. let me just start to put this in a bigger picture here. on a scale from one to 10, one being the least dangerous to our country and 10 being the most dangerous, how dangerous is sequestration in terms of the safety of this country? >> well, i will take a shot at that, senator. from where i sit today, it sure feels like a tank -- some think tanks may want to negotiate it down, but it's very serious. >> i am asking you for your professional judgment. is there any disagreement on this panel? >> we are out of place right now where we are facing dangerous times around the world. would you all agree with that? >> not a time to take a peace dividend? >> absolutely. if i could, the issue of the mechanism is one thing. the magnitude of this thing -- even if we got all of the authority in the universe to deal with this, this would be the steepest and biggest reduction in total obligated authorities for the defense depa