sequestration is arbitrary and irrational. arb irrae we will learn more today about its impact on our national defense, with sequestration,ith with continuing resolutions, government shutdowns and the recurring looming threats on the fall of our nation's that we no only failed to sustain our national security, but also fair to meet our shared obligation, to protect and promote public safety, health, transportation,o education and the environment. when we allow this to happen but risk much of what we do and stand for as a nation, and weunm undermine our position in the world. throughout the two years since the enactment of the budget control act, the provisions are sequestration of our military leaders have been warning us of ess harmful consequences.ratiou if sequestration continues, thet services will have to cut activn and reserve components in strength, reduce force structure, defer repair of equipment from delay or cancel modernization programs, andw allow training levels too seriousloy decline, which will ility erduce our

sequestration is arbitrary and irration irrational. while we'll learn more about its impacts on our national defense, with sequestration with continued resolutions, government shutdowns and the threat of a default on the nation's debt, we not only fail to sustain our national security but also fail to meet our shared obligation to protect and promote public safety, health, transportation, education and the environment. when we allow this to happen, we put at risk much of what we do and stand for as a nation and we undermine our position in the world. throughout the two years since the enactment of the budget control act, our military leaders have been warning us of its harmful consequences. if sequestration continues, the services will have to cut active and reserve components and strength, reduce force structure, defer repair of equipment, delay or cancel modernization programs and allow training levels to seriously decline, which will reduce our ability to respond to global crises, thereby, increasing our nation's strategic risk. seq

my amendment does not fix sequestration, nor will it impede my continued push for fixing sequestration. we're going to continue to do that. it's immoral that we're not doing it. however, the damage being done to our military is so egregious and reckless under the current sequester mechanism that i have no choice but to take this step to avoid an even greater readiness catastrophe that would seriously damage our national security. i talked just a few minutes ago to general ordierno. he is the top person in the united states army. i want to make sure i don't misquote him. he said if we can do what we're trying to do with this amendment, in other words, back load some of this stuff, it would actually save money three or four years from now because if you start cutting right now across the board, as would be mandated by sequestering, then you are going to be cutting in areas where it's going to cost you more to come back and do that. so i think you will find most of the military is very anxious to do that. again, i'm not going to introduce this until we have a chance to talk to senator ses

when you add to sequestration and c.r. the effect of the shutdown we saw in september, in october, the first two weeks of october, virginians really feel it. today a total of 177,982 virginians are employed because of federal funding, either directly with the department of defense or one of the service branches, or through military contracts. for example, the talented men and women at the newport news shipyard, they are private contractors, but they manufacture the largest items that are manufactured on planet earth, nuclear aircraft carriers, and they do it to keep america men and women safe. this summer, over 70,000 d.o.d. civilians in virginia were furloughed. construction training and maintenance on military bases was delayed which affected private contractors. if sequester continues, as some are saying -- some are fatalistic about it, saying we can't do anything about it. if sequester continues into 2014, 34 planned ship maintenance availabilities will be canceled in the new year. each of these maintenance projects is

they want to forego sequestration. if there's going to be an agreement, it needs to be a willingness of republicans to give something up on sequestration. that will only happen if there wea long-term solution that can arrive at between social security and medicare and including tax or four. canton that happen -- including tax reform. can that happen question mark we are going to work to get to that direction. congressman ryan is working urray of the patty m senate budget committee to get in that direction. it is a tough row to hold. -- two ho. hoe. >> it is now called the mercedes-benz superdome in the new orleans. built at public expense after hurricane katrina badly damaged it. when a hosted football games again, it was a feel-good story. the public paid for the repairs. the league put in a token amount. there has been about a billion dollars invested into the superdome. man who owns the new orleans states keeps almost all of the revenue generated there. -- rebeln't rebel of against this because they do not understan

the obstacle for sequestration, however, is not cost. for years, carbon dioxide has been pumped into the ground to enhance oil recovery. the challenge now is to test this technology for long-term storage. phil jagucki is a geologist on the project. jagucki: carbon dioxide is injected into the ground every day. but we want to put it in and keep it down there, and we need to find ways to monitor it so that we can verify that it's staying underground, that it's behaving as we intended or as we had planned. and so that's the knowledge gap that we have to fill. when is the last survey? if you think of the analogy of the oil and gas fields, that material has been down there for millions of years. when we put co2 in, it should remain there for millions of years. narrator: the first requirement for a good potential rock reservoir is porosity. the target rock must have enough tiny spaces between rock grains to absorb the co2. dr. gupta: you can imagine, for example, maybe a sponge. and if you put a drop of water on some pieces of rock, that water

we lose $150 million through sequestration. design engineers hired pretty even when you get the money you cannot click your fingers and higher 600 specialized engineers. we have to keep this co-care and. we are on a very tight schedule to deliver on time. also it is the undersea domain. we have to own it quite simply. it is my job to keep that on track. i'm concerned that we fall behind it, keeping pace of our potential adversaries. is a priority, regardless of sequestration. air and missile defense, and that gets into the electronic spectrum. nuclear abilities for jammers to cyber warriors. it is just flat out presence. quantity has a quality of its own. the righte we have ships with the right capability with my partner to my left and any become -- a navy marine corps team we can take your these little crises so they do not fester and become bigger crises and we get into the situation of the major contingency. senator the priorities for the marine corps before -- the response to any crisis today. as we move money around to mai

it's getting rid of the mechanism of sequestration. >> yes. we need to replace. >> flexibility is a help if we can't do that. >> so would you all agree what we need to do is replace sequestration with a more rational approach to what you all need to do? >> absolutely. >> all of you agree with that? >> yes, ma'am. >> there were some questions relating to the unsustainability of the percentage personnel costs with a regard to all your budgets. you must have done some thinking on what factors would you apply and making recommendations to changes to your personnel costs. what would be your philosophical prospective going forward making your recommendations? >> senator, i'll take a crack at it. for example, if we were to slow pay raises or something to that regard, something when done look at the impact on the constituency and can that be reversed because we have to maintain the all-volunteer force. that's very important. two, it has to be transparent. our folks, we have to speak to them and make sure they understand why, what, how and what is the

sequestration. if there is going to be an agreement, it seems to me it has to be a willingness of republicans to give something up on sequestration but only that would happen if there is a long- term solution that we can arrive that between social security and medicare and including tax reform. can that happen? i am very pessimistic it can happen but i know that going to try to work in that direction and i know that congressman ryan is working very closely with patty murray of the senate budget committee to try to get in that direction. it is a tough row to know. >> if that's the case, then what? >> then you have sequestration which is the law of the land and republicans are generally satisfied with sequestration. since it is the law of the land, it seems to me like it is as simple as passing a claimcr through the house and find out the democrats will shut down government or not and is the president willing to sign it or does he want to shut down government and it seems a lesson was learned in our s

that is before sequestration. now we have sequestration. an outcome once thought to be so egregious -- i can remember just as recently as -- less than a year ago, we thought that we're not going to have this. after $487 billion being pulled out of the military, we can't also have sequestration, which would be another half trillion dollars that would come out in the next period of time. and that's -- so we didn't think it would havment but i happen. but it did happen. we're now into our seventh other eighth month of sequestration. in total, our men and women of the military stand to endure over $1 trillion slashed from their budget. general odierno -- i talked to general odierno yesterday, chief of staff of the ample he recently said that his forces are at the dirnl geeing quoalt now, mr. president. "the lowest readiness levels i've seen within our army since i've been serving for the last 37 years and that only two brigades are ready for combat." that's our united states army. we've never had that confession made. a level of desperation whe

it's a big deal for us and sequestration and it's important user fees.mostar program is defined by appropriate dollars and those cuts come they're killing us. we are -- years before trying to actually turn the program around and this is making it very challenging. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. dr. woodcock, greatly appreciate the passion you showed earlier in your testimony. i would agree with you on that passion, particularly about bringing innovative treatments for rare and terminal diseases. i had a little bill that would allow folks to get early access to early approval to those drugs in order to help them. and what we believe will actually lower the cost of some of the extreme edition. i do want to talk about a bill and know what we're hearing today we avoiding over in the senate and hous house passed thg quality and security act, it was a bipartisan bicameral compromise to prevent another fungal meningitis i would like to a

sequestration must go. and then we have to start looking at longer term problems driven by demographics. we know the sequestration is harming our job growth. o.m.b. -- excuse me c.b.o. has estimated the sequestration will cost the economy 900,000 jobs. simply by suspending, eliminating sequestration if we can generate 900,000 jobs most americans would say that's the right policy. if you can just do that and create jobs, then do it. and it's obvious that sequestration is not workable. the house of representatives our colleagues have had very difficult times passing bills that adhere to sequestration, bills that traditional passed overwhelmingly, infrastructure bills, transportation bills, and if we can't do that under the pressure of sequestration, then, again, we're back to a dysfunctional government. it might be formally open but it's not helping people do things we have to do, economies grow, states build bridges and sewers and highways. now, senator mikulski has done an extraordinary job as chairwoman of

i have spoken great deal about the impact of sequestration on our military. however, the substantial cuts sustained by our education, research and development, and infrastructure are equally as damaging. these are programs that support an educated and productive workforce, improve the flow of commerce and support those in our communities in the greatest need. just as a hollowed-out force will struggle to meet mission requirements, a hollowed-out workforce will struggle to compete in the global economy. these two things are tightly linked. that is why i urge my colleagues to support eliminating sequestration for both military and non-defense programs. "the financial times" recently reported that the u.s. public investment has dropped to 3.6% of g.d.p. this is well below the 5% we have averaged since world war ii. these cuts not only undermine our long-term national security strategy but also our long-term competitiveness and economic growth. without a strong economy, we cannot sustain the investments we need in a strong national defense. according to macroecom

chairman, to replace the upcoming sequestration cuts. and i hope some of the other existing sequestration cuts with some additional revenue or finding other ways to reduce our debt besides that hammer of sequestration. i have two good ideas right now. the farm bill. i felt good about our first conference committee meeting. it went well between the house and the senate. and that would bring the debt down, at least the senate side bill, $24 billion. of course, the immigration bill, we've had a hearing on that here. that would bring the debt down $158 billion in ten years. $700 billion in 20 years. so those are all positive ideas as well as the many things we've discussed in this group. last thing i wanted to mention was exports. been one of the brightest spots in our economy. i truly see this as the way we get out of the downturn that we've experienced. the total value of american exports reached a record 2.2 trillion last wreeyear. exports are a key driver of job creation with every billion in exports supporting nearly 5,000 jobs. i'm pro

unfortunately that's what sequestration has done. so have we tried to find ways to insure that public housing doesn't suffer given the bad choices by some in congress >> absolutely. it's not about just bringing up in private capital but whether you can have a grocery store or about creating a partnership that opens up public housing housing to be part of the community as the mayor said. yes part of it is getting new and creative source of capital but? not a neither nor. the federal government should be doing their fair share and with the cuts we've seen we need to do more. and the president has a budget that would significantly increase housing i hope congress funds that budget. but we're not going to depend upon on congress we're going to continue with the great leaders to save public housing >> last question. secretary (inaudible). mr. secretary can you tell us >> the first thing the president said his greatest education was on the south side of chicago. he learned a lot of lessons and he has asked the entire constant to travel aro

nobody likes sequestration. i do not like sequestration. but i can live with that. under sequestration, discretionary spending begins to rise after fiscal year 2015. it is not ideal, not the best, but it is the law and without replacing it with better savings we must keep sequestration. warner, i will support additional revenues. outas chairman ryan pointed ,nd senator kinsley made clear those additional revenues must come through economic growth. i think we can do that. i am equally certain republicans in congress will not support tax increases, either directly or indirectly. front door or back door. asking american workers to send more of their paychecks to washington will hurt growth. similarly, taking more tax dollars from job creators will result in fewer jobs. i agree exactly with what senator grassley said, the $600 billion tax hike that came with the fiscal cliff legislation at the end of last year was our tax hike. we have gotten the tax hike, and we will not support another one. let's explore representative cole's idea of an expedited tax reform process to

the republicans hate sequestration right now as the democrats do. we got this december 13th deadline coming up, mike, and i just wonder, i find it hard to believe republicans will stumble that into that again. but is it not fascinating what brian just said talking about kicking the can down the road. kicking the can down the road on the budget deal. kicking the can down the road on one issue after another. this is a government of -- you know -- >> indecisiveness. >> they run crisis by crisis by crisis. >> that whole concept of leadership we talk quite a bit about. it will take a president -- only president that's kicked the can down the road when it comes to the budget issue and debt issue. you have to have a president not concerned about these other elements and wants to do something good for the country and we haven't seen that in a long, long time out of any president. >> what happens if we have yet another government shutdown or another crisis -- i just wonder. the approval rating in washington -- i mean has there ever been as much discussed wit

it is essential that we stop the reckless policy of sequestration. sequestration blindly cuts everything. it recklessly cuts health care for veterans. it slashes funding for life- saving medical research. it cuts investments in education and innovation. because of that reckless approach we have seen sluggish job growth. it is holding our economy back. that makes absolutely no sense, mr. chairman. i strongly agree with chairman murray that our number one goal needs to be replacing the reckless sequester policy with a balanced, smart plan that continues the work we have done on budget deficit reduction, while growing the economy for the future. i look forward to working with our conference committee, all colleagues on both sides of the aisle. people across america are urging us to come together, as we know, to pass a bipartisan budget and they are urging us to put middle-class families at the front of the line. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. let's go to mr. crapo. >> thank you very much. i have listened very carefully to the comments that have b

said, rogers has sequestration is unrealistic, ill-conceived. discretionary cuts must be brought to and in and. -- an end. sequester will cost our economy estimateded and -- 800,000 more jobs in 2014 alone. it bears repeating. cbo'syou please share analysis of the overall impact of sequestration on job and economic growth for 2013 and what you think the impact will if sequestration remains in place? congresswoman, when we quote from a letter we wrote to congressman chris van hollen. discretionary spending spending, if those reductions were eliminated, that 6%uld increase real gdp by 0. and would raise full-time employment by 800,000 people i the fourth quarter of 2014. much.nk you very the stakesmplifies of our conference committee's work. i hope our committee will begin working in earnest toward an agreement to prevent the economic damage that hires and -- that partisan politics and sequestration has caused. and senatoran cole coons. that myt to assure you good friend and i did not coordinate our remarks. i was going to ask that that letter be

it's sad we have to be having this conversation since sequestration was something put into law at a time when nobody believed it would ever happen. it was supposed to be so bad that we would do anything and everything possible in order to avoid it, yet it has arrived. my first question, which i'll leave open to any of you who might want to answer it, i'd like to know a little about the means by which the format by which the regularity with which you talk about the source of concerns we are having today about sequestration's impact on readiness and on the department of defense generally. how and in what way do you communicate those concerns to the white house? >> i would say that first off, as joint chiefs we meet twice a week to discuss many key issues, to include policy issues of health of force issues, and we clearly have discussions and then the chairman, as the chairman takes those to the white house. we also have periodic meetings with the white house. in fact, we have one next week where we'll have the opportunity to go over and discuss many of these issues with the president. i th

the house and the senate budget deal with sequestration just in different ways. the house budget fully replaces the defense kit -- cuts. they pay for it by cutting even more deeply and the committee domestic investment. our senate budget, on the other hand replaces all of the automatic cuts and i for it with an equal mix of responding cuts and revenue. so, mr. president, finding a bipartisan solution won't be easy. we all know that. it will require comprise from both sides. if i mention in the first budget committee conference last week. i'm going to this process ready to offer some tough spending cuts up like those that disappear 2022 would be permanently locked to law. i know, there are many republicans who would be very interested in swapping some of the unefficient and damaging cuts from sequestration with structure changes to programs that save many multiple of the cuts replaced over the coming decades. in short, i'm willing to comprise. i'm red i -- ready to listen to republican's ideas. as long as their proposals are fair for seniors and families i'm prepa

the sequestration cuts are hitting at the worst possible time. there's a huge jobs crisis there. of mineers are losing their jobs and having a tremendous ripple effect across the economy at a time when the safety net is being undermined because of budget cuts. >> a lot of republicans are talking about they want smaller government. but it's the red and rural states that tend to get more from the government than they give. they are the ones who are getting more. you see this right there, for every dollar they send to d.c., how much do they get back. here's a sampling of red rural states getting way more than they are paying in. that's typical across the nation. i see signs in your piece of classic gop voters saying, wait a minute, there are government programs taken away that we can actually use. >> there's definitely that feeling. to be sure, there's definitely a strong sense of pride and independence among the unemployed workers i talked to. they don't want to be but i talked to one unemployed minor who said that listen, his wife managed to convince him to accept unemployment ben

the comments last week by secretary chuck hagel meeting with members of congress to end sequestration and work out an agreement on the budget. when lawmakers return after the thanks giving recess, will that happen? >> i am not sure, but i am fairly optimistic. i think the the discussions between paul ryan and senator murray are going pretty well. i think there is a real chance that we could have a budget agreement that nobody is in love with, but is at least a step forward in saving money in ways other than these across-the- board sorts of cuts that come with sequestration. i'm hopeful that it will actually happen. >> if it actually happens, what will it look like? >> i think the hope is that it will last for a couple of years. that it would include at least some reforms in mandatory spending programs which after all occupies two thirds of the federal budget, and that it would prevent any further cuts in national security and other discretionary programs. i think it is important for people to remember that defense is 17% of the federal budget, and yet it has had to absorb 50% percent

avoidome relief to another round of sequestration and so forth. whether we can see our way through the political paralysis to get their is another question altogether. i am by nature an optimist who wants to believe that rationality will prevail. so far it has not. time, the imposition of sequestration to the recent shutdown and so forth. i am not confident at this point. i feel if the conversation we should be having is one of raising public awareness of some of the very real causes of sequestration on national defense. agree phillip that there's a lot we can extract from the defense budget and reorient and spent in better ways. sequestration does not allow you to make cuts in a mall matter. you to cut the highest priorities along with the lowest priorities. to me, we have to help people understand the damage to readiness that is are you taken place, the ways in which we are breaking modernization programs that will be fundamental to safeguarding american military superiority and the ability to prevail the future, and we have to raise public awar

but sequestration doesn't allow you to make cuts in a smart meta.it forces you to cut the highest priorities along with the lowest priorities. and so to me we've got to help people understand the damage to readiness that's already taken place. the ways in which we are breaking modernization programs that will be fundamentally safeguarding american military superiority and ability to prevail in the future, and we've got to raise public awareness about that and congressional awareness. because the old caucus in congress that used to hold together a national secret issues is no longer. so we have to start from scratch to have this conversation and try to build support for a larger deal, not only on our own domestic economic growth but also on national security grounds. >> i agree completely, and no one is going to lose money betting against, betting against executive-congressional cooperation. let's kind of think a little bit about, suppose you thought it could possibly be fixed. actually, the basic processes conspired to make it very difficult to fix

host: what impact have they have seen from -- have they seen from sequestration? guest: the b-2 bomber has been protected, so their training hours have been detected, but some are saying less training hours, and it's for letting .ould, it is concerning it is damaging for the morale of the troops and for the community as a whole. host: if you do not cut from the pentagon, where does the money come from? guest: well, twofold when you try to balance the budget. i used to teach home economics. you can decrease spending or increase revenue. first and foremost, if we could put some revenue-enhancing opportunities for growth, and i'm not talking about tax increases, but getting jobs back, that would bring more revenue back into the country. something simple is to approve the keystone pipeline, which would provide more jobs. if we could provide more certainty for job creators, i know businesses would grow. he would hire. a part of that is to have certainty about our health care intem, which right now is major turmoil. employers do not know what to expect from the presiden

unfortunately, sequestration and i'll finish with sequestration in a minute, poses grave dangers. we need to do what we can to maintain this priority for shipbuilding. right now the sequester has reduced our normal level of three carrier strike groups and three am tbib yus groups to which weakens our readiness in a challenging word world. we have to maintain the priority. the ndaa does that. another reason i support that. 2014 will be re78d as a potentially historic year for the military. i want to make sure that history that's good is not clouded by our continued inability to reduce the issue of sexual assault. in 2014 secretary hagel embraced the proposition that women should be able to serve in the military without being barred from any military specialty, that they could rigorous training criteria but that both men and women should be able to compete to serve in any military specialty even combat-related specialties in the military, we will be remembered, 2014 within remembered for that. but that memory will fade if we're remembered for missing an important opportunity to tack

no more sequestration. this nation cannot afford that terrible policy of sequestration, because it will rip the heart out of the critical investments that america has to make. i ram bled off, but mr. enyart, would you like to pick it up for a while? mr. enyart: thank you, mr. garamendi. what we're really talking about here, mr. garamendi, is are we spending money or are we investing in america? i like to tell folks at home that, you know, when that roof starts getting old on your house and you know those shingles need to be replaced, do you want to replace those shingles and put a new roof on that house before it starts to leak? yes, you want to do that, because you are going to save the money when that roof starts to leak. we are talking about investing in america. we are talking about investing in our house, investing in our home, protecting that infrastructure, protecting that roof before it does begin to leak. and you know, it's interesting, you were talking about how money gets siphonned off and this b

the house and senate budget both field sequestration in different ways. the house budget fully replaces the defense had, they pay for that by cutting even more deeply into key domestic investment. senate budget on the other hand replaces all of the automatic cuts and pays for it with an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and revenue that we raised with tax loopholes. finding a bipartisan solution won't be easy. we all know that. it will require compromises from both sides. if i mention that the first budget committee conference last week, i am going into this process ready to offer tough spending cuts that unlike the sequester caps disappear in 2020 to would be permanently locked into the law. i know there are many republicans who would be very interested in swapping some of the inefficient and damaging cuts from sequestration with structural changes to programs that would save many multiples of the cuts over the coming decades. in short i am willing to compromise. i am ready to listen to republican ideas. as long as their proposals are fair for senio

do you see it coming. >> we see the effects of sequestration on job creation. you look at government employment. there has never, since post world war ii, to the best of my knowledge been a recovery in which we had a loss offons in the government -- of jobs in the government sector. we had a loss of 500,000 government jobs. the majority of those jobs are school teachers, firefighters and police officers. if we had simply held the line on government employment during this recovery, our unemployment rate would be under 7%, i have no doubt about that. it's time to grow the economy by investing in the ways that the president has spoken about - infrastructure. that is why he's down in new orleans today, talking about the need to invest in port infrastructure. >> you mentioned infrastructure a number of times. it has to come from public-private partnerships. public sector doesn't do it on its gown. government does not do it on time. public-private partnership could be the way to do it. we don't have many of these, nobody trusts anybody. what is the likelihood of gett

the issue, though, is those sequestration cuts come from mainly defense programs. there is a $21 billion hit to defense programs. a lot of republican defense hawks are very concerned about that and told mcconnell that directly in the closed-door session. at is the issue that republicans are going to have to struggle with. they want to cut spending, but they also do not want to see hit from defense programs, and that is really the incentive for republicans to cut a deal now to avoid those cuts to the pentagon. >> you mentioned appropriators want some kind of number by early december, and that december 13 date is looming. what are a couple of the possible trouble areas that could pop up that could grind to a halt again? >> it always comes down to the issue of taxes. revenue, democrats are saying they are open to considering things that would raise revenue that would not involve closing loopholes that would raise revenue, something republicans do not want to raise revenue, raise taxes of any kind. if there is not a large enough number where they can raise revenue from

>> the pentagon already has been struck in year because of the sequestration cuts. there is also a strong group of both republicans and democrats who believe that the military budget should not be cut even the 4% or so that it's been cut under the sequester. it's actually less than 4%. so i'm not ready to call it a paradigm shift. you hear the nsa revelations, you have increasing discussion of drone warfare. none of which are particularly by the way large budget items. an f-22 fighter plane is a large budget item. but it does draw attention to what are we spending it on and how much should we be spending. and clearly the sequester has shown provisionally that there is a lot that can be cut without perilling america's sku e's sec. >> military leaders say they are already pinching pennies and the cuts heard them significantly. and the cuts are affecting readiness. take a listen. >> we're looking with sequestration at a long range problem that is significant. it will take us 10 plus years to get readiness back for the level we want under and i fully sequestered budget.

on job and economic growth for 2013 and what you think the impact will be for 2014 if sequestration remains in place? >> so congresswoman, i think the things that -- let me quote from a letter we wrote to congressman van holland a couple months ago. we said that if the automatic spending reductions specified in the budget control act including both the effects on discretionairy spending and the mandatory spending, those reductions were eliminated that would increase real gdp by .6% by the fourth quarter of 2014 and would raise full time equivalent employment by 800,000 people by the fourth quarter of 2014. >> i thank you very much. and i really thank you for your testimony today. this just amplifies the stakes of our conference committee's work. i hope that our committee will really begin working in earnest toward an agreement in the coming days to prevent the economic damage that partisan politics and the sequester could cause in the coming months. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. let's go with -- right next to you, congressman cole. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wa

time after time, from the imposition of sequestration to the recent shutdown and so forth. so i am not confident at this point, but the conversation we need to be having is one of raising public awareness of some of the very real costs of sequestration on national defense. i agree with philip that there is a lot that we could extract from the defense budget and reorient and spent in better ways but sequestration doesn't allow you to make cuts in a smart man. it forces you to cut the highest priorities along with the lowest priorities. to me we have got to help people understand the damage to readiness that is already taking place, the ways in which we are breaking modernization programs that will be fundamental to safeguarding american military superiority and ability to prevail in the future, we have to raise public awareness and congressional awareness. the old caucus in congress that used to hold together on national security issues is no longer so we have to start from scratch to have this conversation and try to build support for a larger deal not only on our own domes

each of these local leaders talked how sequestration affected our community in 2013 and what would the effect would be if the sequester continues. for a community like deyton with such a strong relationship with ohio's largest single site employer, the message was devastating. the budget control act of 2011, which i voted against, was signed into law on august 2, 2011. the budget control act establishes series of spending caps and forced reductions designed to indiscriminantly reduce government strength. these forced reductions, also known as sequestration, greatly impact our national security by requiring the department of defense to reduce its budget by roughly $500 billion. already in its second year, this poorly conceived and flawed process continues to compromise our defense capabilities and greatly impact military communities like deyton, ohio. reducing federal spending is important. but the sequester, as proposed by president obama, applies 50% of the cuts to less than 18% of the spending. the department of defense represents less than 18% of overall spending. due to the preside

this chart shows the devastation of sequestration. what it shows is the bottom line are these are the efficiencies. this is what he's talking about. i want you to see this because this goes from fiscal year 2014 all the way to 2023. and if you take the sequestration as it is right now without any adjustments now senator sessions, senator mccain and i have tried to make adjustments in there so that there are greater cuts back here and not so many in the first two years. the orange -- and that's where almost everything comes out from -- that's readiness. that's what we need to support our fighters in the field to save lives. now the green is modernization. that's not affected by these inefficiencies that we're talking about. the force structure that's a major cost item. that's the yellow in there. what i'm saying is i know there's room for improvements, and i want senator coburn and others to work on areas within the pentagon where money can be saved. if that happens it's still going to be all found down here. i mean everything, tricare

if you talk about how much sequestration cuts and hurt the economy, you set up a good argument for neverressing spending, ifure goal is to hike taxes, when someone like nancy pelosi comes along said that there is no more roomo cut, they seem to say that every time we do that we push the economy to the brink even though we don't. were they tryingo sell this to make a point year not cutting spending? >> i think that economy possible. also think that if everything was as bad and pple were so upset about the healthcare, and about the tax increases, and so upset about the policies, i don't see how barack obama got elected last two times, i -- >> by the way, the polls mean nothing now. but if they did a redo they would lose. >> absolutely. >> thank god thing are come back to haunt him, timing is everything you are right. past two elections it was his way. now people are questioning what he said then. stow, i don't know if lightning would strike twice. >> thank god for republican congress or he would have lowest approval ratings of everyone in the city. neil: i admire that. with a south were ac