H5518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

of materials that could easily be used 

as staging areas for violence against 

our country. 

The most tragic of all are the young 

people who had been killed or who are 

now in jail, many of whom I knew and 

took care of as a family physician. Unfortunately, we, too, have one of the 

highest murder rates per 100,000 in our 

country. Our community was shocked 

a few months ago when two of our 

young policemen, who were in a high 

crime area but who were on what 

seemed to be a routine patrol, were 

shot earlier this year. Both sustained 

injuries which go beyond the physical. 

One is paralyzed and will require lifelong care and support. 

Our community, though, is fighting 

back. Our law enforcement has been 

meeting with those from across the 

Caribbean region. We are working with 

the Federal law enforcement that does 

exist in the Territory. Both of us, 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are high-intensity drug trafficking areas. We have a well-integrated but still incomplete team led by 

Adjutant General Vicens from Puerto 

Rico and Executive Director Catherine 

Mills from the Virgin Islands, but we 

do need more Federal help in order to 

restore the safety of our communities 

and to protect the lives of our children. 

This is not only important to my constituents and me; it is critical to the 

well-being of the constituents of all of 

our colleagues but especially to those 

whose communities have high homicide and violent crime rates. 

In this legislation, which I am 

pleased to cosponsor, we are pleading 

for this critically important help in 

order to bring the vital Federal resources to save our communities—to 

save all of our communities—and to 

protect our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1550. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin 

Islands and the gentleman from Puerto 

Rico. 

I urge the passage of the bill, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 1550, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

object to the vote on the ground that a 

quorum is not present and make the 

point of order that a quorum is not 

present. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

The point of no quorum is considered 

withdrawn. 

SEQUESTRATION: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES 

MILITARY 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas 

(Mr. CARTER) is recognized for 28 minutes as the designee of the majority 

leader. 

Mr. CARTER. I thank you, Mr. 

Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot of 

hard work to do in about the next 3 

months around this place. I want to 

talk tonight about a process that we 

have brought upon ourselves so that 

now we are faced with what, I think, 

could be one of the greatest catastrophes in the modern history of the 

United States—and that is almost the 

complete destruction of our military 

through a process called ‘‘sequester.’’ 

We use a lot of big words around this 

House, and half of the people who sit in 

this room on a daily basis don’t even 

know what it means, to be honest with 

you, but they know what the process 

does: across-the-board cuts at every 

level of government. The reality of 

these cuts is that, at least in the current makeup of our government and 

with so many of our expenses in this 

government being mandatory spending 

and what we call ‘‘entitlements,’’ the 

lion’s share automatically falls upon 

the military, on the Defense Department. 

Even more critical to this particular 

agreement, which was made in the earlier part of this year when we had one 

of our many shutdown-the-government 

risks that have come upon this body in 

the last couple of years, the White 

House with the President, along with 

the majority leader of the Senate and 

the Speaker of the House, met to discuss how to keep from having a shutdown of the government and how to 

raise the debt ceiling so we could continue to operate this government. With 

everyone recognizing that there was a 

looming crisis from having spent more 

than we make for as long as we can remember, quite honestly, and, therefore, 

that we are now in a problem of debt 

which is drowning this Nation and the 

Members of this body wanting to address that, the discussion was about 

how we would do it. 

They came up with a concept of a 

supercommittee. Most of you who keep 

up with current events know that we 

formed a supercommittee, the purpose 

of which was to come up with the cuts 

from the appropriate parts of this government so that we would reduce the 

spending of over $1 trillion, thus starting ourselves down the road to fiscal 

responsibility. This is what we set out 

to do. It was an honest effort, let’s be 

frank. It was an honest effort. Everybody, whether elected to do it or not, 

recognized that this was the issue that 

was before us. The question was how to 

do this, and they came up with this 

supercommittee. 

They agreed that, if the supercommittee failed, then the process of sequester would replace the actions of 

the supercommittee. There will be a 

political debate that will go back and 

forth as to who killed the effort in the 

supercommittee; but wherever the 

fault may lie, the supercommittee 

failed. Those of us who were in this 

House asked about the sequester and 

looked at it and worried about it as the 

vote came up as to whether or not this 

was the right thing to do. We then 

asked the question of the leaders here, 

which I’m sure was asked on both sides 

of the aisle: So what happens if the 

supercommittee doesn’t perform? 

We were told sequester, which was 

the worst possible thing to happen to 

this House, and I think both sides of 

the aisle agreed with that. But don’t 

worry, it has never happened. It never 

will happen. We will do the right thing. 

The committee failed. 

It is almost August. Quite honestly, 

the number of legislative days left before the election can almost be counted 

on these two hands, and we haven’t addressed how we are going to do this; 

but the folks who may most be affected 

have no choice but to address it. 

The agreement that came out of the 

meeting between the President and the 

Congress was that roughly half the $1.1 

trillion number, I believe it is, would 

come out of the Defense Department 

and that the other half would come out 

of domestic spending. Well, the Defense 

Department being the Defense Department—and it cannot function without 

planning—is already planning what it 

would have to do in case this occurs. 

We talk in big ideas and issues 

around here, but the reality is this: 

this is about a bunch of people who 

chose the profession for their lives, 

that of defending our Nation. 

b 2110 

We should never forget that the ordinary soldier, sailor, airman, marine, 

and Coast Guardsman volunteered to 

join their branch of the service, most 

of them, as their profession. This is not 

the old drafted military of World War 

II or the Korean war or the Vietnam 

war or the Cold War. This is a volunteer military. This is a young man or 

woman saying: I choose the job of 

fighting for my country. This is what I 

choose to do with my life. I will earn 

my way. I will earn my promotions by 

being a good warrior. 

My wife and I, when we first learned 

that we were going to have the honor 

of representing what we call a great 

place, Fort Hood in Texas, we wanted 

to meet with soldiers, and the place we 

could find them to meet with us around 

Thanksgiving time was in Korea. We 

went and met with Fort Hood soldiers 

in Korea. Most of them were from 

Texas at our table where they were 

talking to us, and I asked a question. I 

was new to getting to talk to the ordinary soldier. These were just ordinary 

soldiers. There may have been a couple 

of sergeants there, but most of them 

were not highly ranked. 

I said, How long are you guys and 

gals going to be in Korea? They said, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5519 

Oh, 3 months, 6 months, whatever the 

time period was. I said, What do you 

want to do next in the Army? They responded, We want to go to Afghanistan 

or Iraq. This is back in ’04. From someone of my age who has the memory of 

the draft Army, that was a shocking 

answer: We want to go from this place 

in Korea to the place where the war is, 

and we would like to go directly there. 

These were 19-year-old kids, kids like 

my son coaches in football and baseball 

back home. These were kids that could 

have been the same kids that played on 

the team the year before who were sitting there at the table telling us they 

wanted to go to war. 

I was kind of taken aback by that answer. It was unanimous, by the way. 

There were eight people around the 

table that were all unanimous: we want 

to go to war. Then this young towheaded 19-year-old soldier said, Sir, 

that’s what we are. We’re trained warriors. That’s what we do for a living. 

We fight wars. We want to go where 

our country needs us. We want to go to 

war. Not because we like war, but because we are professional soldiers. We 

do this for a living. 

This is the mindset that goes back in 

history a long ways. Some of the greatest armies in the world had that 

mindset, that this was the job they 

chose for their life. Now, because we 

have not been willing to live within a 

budget in the United States—we’re all 

at fault, every one of us. The people in 

this House, both sides of the aisle, 

we’re all at fault. We spend more than 

we make, and we wonder why in the 

world it doesn’t work. How many people sit at home and look at their household budgets and say, My gosh, we’re 

spending more than we make. No wonder it doesn’t work. That’s like the law 

of gravity. It’s a natural thing that you 

can’t spend more than you make and 

not ultimately be in trouble, even 

when you can take it out of other people’s pockets like the government. 

Now we are faced with a crisis, and 

we’re talking about a solution for that 

crisis that’s going to fall on the back of 

that 19-year-old kid that talked to me 

in Korea because his goal in life was to 

rise in the ranks by being a good soldier. As a good soldier, if he did a good 

job, he would be promoted and he 

would rise in rank. Maybe in his heart 

his goal was to some day be a command 

sergeant major of one of the commands 

in the Army, kind of the pinnacle of 

the career of an ordinary soldier. Because we spend too much and can’t 

agree on how to cut it and we’re going 

to have to go to automatic cuts, that 

young man’s job is at risk. The President says he’s going to protect the jobs 

of the soldiers. I hope what he means 

he’s not going to fire anybody. Although one of the papers that I was 

reading an article in it said he’s not 

going to cut the pay of the soldiers. 

I happen to be blessed. One of the 

things that I’m very proud of in this 

body is I am a cochair of the Army 

Caucus here in the Congress, and I’ve 

heard the generals talk about what sequester means to the Army. It means 

cuts of 100,000 to 180,000 soldiers. That 

means that kid that I talked to in 

Korea, who’s probably now done three 

tours in Afghanistan or Iraq, who has 

done a good job, fought for his country, 

performed in an excellent manner, has 

been promoted, he’s in the beginning of 

the middle of his career, and because 

we can’t agree on how to reduce our 

runaway spending, that kid is going to 

lose his job. 

He will not only lose his job, but he’s 

going to lose his career. He chose our 

United States Army partially out of 

the job he wanted to do, but in a great 

many cases out of patriotism for this 

country. He didn’t sign on to be in 

somebody else’s Army. He signed on to 

be in our Army. He’s done everything 

right; and yet because we can’t control 

our spending, that young man and 

those young men and women at that 

table could lose their careers that they 

chose for their lives, careers to be 

proud of as Americans. There are 

young people willing to do this for our 

country. 

When we talk these big numbers and 

throw around big words, we’ve got to 

remember it affects human beings. 

We’ve got some charts here I want to 

show you so you get some idea of what 

we’re talking about. Where is the 

spending? This is entitlements. The 

spending is at $26.1 trillion. Nondefense 

spending is at $11.3 trillion. Defense 

spending at $3.6 trillion. That’s where 

the spending is in our country today. 

Let’s look at what we propose to do 

as a solution under sequester. From entitlements we’re taking $171 billion out 

of $26.1 trillion. From nondefense 

spending, we’re taking $322 billion out 

of $11.37 trillion. Over here in defense 

we’re taking $422 billion, the highest of 

any of these numbers, out of $3.6 trillion. This is about a 42 percent cut. 

This is out of whack. 

What’s this out of whack going to do 

to our military? Let’s start off with 

what we’re talking about right now in 

the country. We’re talking about our 

economy, we’re talking about getting 

ourselves out of this slump we’re in 

and putting Americans back to work. 

Does anybody think it’s a good idea to 

create a program that loses American 

jobs? To me, I just can’t fathom it. But 

according to CNN, 1 million jobs will be 

lost under sequester. That’s not military jobs. That’s the people who provide goods and services either directly 

for the military or sell it to the military. 

b 2120 

And here is something else that’s 

pretty frightening. As we look down 

the road at this sequester program, the 

law that was created by the Congress 

and which was signed into law says, if 

we anticipate the loss in an industry of 

jobs based upon the actions of this 

body, they have to pass out pink slips 

60 days before that might happen and 

in some cases 90 days. 

Well, the drop-dead date on sequester 

is January 2 of next year. So if we do 

nothing by January 2, we are going to 

have these across-the-board cuts. We 

are going to have 1 million people get 

pink slips in either October or November. Now, is that going to raise the enthusiasm for growing our economy in 

America? It is absolutely as destructive as it could be. 

We have a responsibility to try to do 

something about this, and we can’t 

keep kicking cans down the road in 

this body. If we do, one of these days, 

we are going to get a broken foot, and 

already there seems to be a brick in 

the can. 

This is serious stuff. We’ve got real 

people’s lives being affected in the 

military. We’ve got real people’s jobs 

being affected in the defense industry. 

These are people who go to work, just 

like everybody else in this country. 

Somehow we hear the words ‘‘defense 

industry,’’ and we assume some kind of 

fat cats. Go over to one of the defense 

industries and see the machinists and 

the guys that do all kinds of jobs, that 

create these great instruments that are 

instruments of war and also instruments of peace that we use in our military. All of these things are at risk, 

and the people who do those jobs are at 

risk right now as they relate directly 

to the sequester. 

I am joined by my friend Mr. BISHOP

from Utah. Would you like to jump in 

here and talk a little bit about this? 

You are on the Armed Services Committee, I believe. 

We had 20-some minutes to start. So 

we are down to 10 minutes, I believe. 

Tell us your view from the committee. 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas taking 

up this particular issue. I promise you, 

you will get a few minutes here to finish this one up here as well. 

I will start just by moving off where 

we are for just 1 second and going back 

to my real love, which is still baseball. 

If you recall, back in 1962 they created 

the amazing New York Mets, a team 

that set the standard for ineptitude in 

professional sports. Anyone who wants 

to seek that, to fall that low, now has 

a perfect standard by which to judge 

your effectiveness in becoming bad. 

The New York Mets, in 1962, lost 120 

out of 160 games. That’s the standard 

by which people now judge themselves. 

And it’s amazing to think of how the 

leadership of the New York Mets could 

cobble together a team of athletes so 

inept at working together as a particular team, leaving such luminary 

names as Jay Hook and Ken MacKenzie, Choo Choo Coleman and Hobie 

Landrith there together. 

Probably the best of all those names 

was Marvelous Marv Throneberry, a 

big first baseman who I think, in his 

third year with the Mets, actually hit 

a triple, which is amazing considering 

he’s not really one of those fast runners. But as he was rounding the bases 

going to third, he missed second base, 

which was spotted by the opposing 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

team. So they waited until the play 

was back in, called for the ball, stepped 

on second base, and he was out. 

Well, obviously Casey Stengel went 

running out there to complain about 

this and argued the case up and down 

and lost, and Throneberry was out. As 

Stengel went back to the dugout, he 

passed the first base coach, Cookie 

Lavagetto, and said, ‘‘Why weren’t you 

out there at least arguing with me?’’ 

And Cookie looked at him and said, 

‘‘Because he missed first base, too.’’ 

And that was the end of the discussion. 

Now, eventually, the management 

was able to take the amazing ’62 Mets 

and turn them into the miracle ’69 

Mets that were the world champions. 

But the administration of the Mets had 

to do some fancy work to do that. 

The situation we have right now is 

where we have an administration in 

this country that is doing that same 

kind of work that the Mets leadership 

did, except in reverse. We are going 

from the ’69 Mets back to the ’62 Mets, 

an administration that took over the 

best defense, the best military in the 

world and is, bit by bit, pulling it down 

to the form of mediocrity, even to the 

level of the ’62 amazing New York 

Mets. 

We have faced three potential cuts to 

the military. With the first one, thenSecretary of Defense Gates said, If you 

go beyond this first $600 billion cut, it 

could have devastating effects. This administration took a second cut beyond 

it, and now what the gentleman from 

Texas is talking about is the potential 

for a third cut to the military. 

Now, what has been the net effect of 

this administration’s efforts on behalf 

of defense altogether? Well, for the 

first time, there are 50 major defense 

programs that have been canceled. This 

is the first time there is not a single 

aircraft modernization going on in this 

country. And if you consider the fact 

that modernization takes between 10 

and 20 years to effect, that means regardless of what happens in November, 

this country is without a new modernization program for our aircraft for 

at least two decades after President 

Obama leaves the White House. 

We were spending 4 percent of our 

GDP on military before this President 

came in. We’re now down to 2.5 percent. That is the percent we have been 

complaining about our allies in Europe 

spending, and that compares to 6 percent under Reagan, 10 percent under 

Kennedy, 12 percent during Korea, 35 

percent during World War II. 

We have platforms in our military 

that are over 25 years of age and are 

not getting any younger. We have the 

smallest Army since World War II. We 

have the smallest Navy since World 

War I. In World War II, we had over 

6,000 ships; today, we have 280. 

We will have the smallest Air Force 

ever. Several years ago, two of our F– 

15Cs literally broke in flight and two 

F–18s caught fire while on the aircraft 

carrier. Our A–10 Warthogs have cracks 

in the fuselage. We only have one fifthgeneration fighter in production while 

the Chinese and the Russians have a 

combined 12 fighter and bomber lines 

open for business. 

We are moving the defense of this 

country backwards into an area that is 

frighteningly fearful. We are going 

from the ’69 to the ’62 Mets when we 

should be trying to go in the opposite 

direction, and that’s what happens before sequestration goes into effect. 

If, indeed, we add the sequestration— 

a third cut on top of the other two—we 

will do what the Secretary of Defense 

has said: We will hollow out our military. We will put our defense at danger—not just the defense of this country but, as was previously mentioned, 

the jobs that are in the private sector— 

the military base, the industrial base 

that help us defend ourselves, and we 

will take away from the table the potential of foreign affairs options that 

we have. 

Our ability two decades from today 

to conduct foreign policy is dependent 

on the decisions we make now to define 

and have an adequate military backup 

for what we need to do. These are the 

decisions we need to be making, and it 

is essential that we recognize what we 

are doing now is wrong. 

To change and reverse our defense 

cuts even for 1 year would take $109 billion. But, oddly enough, that is 1 

month of borrowing that is being done 

by this administration. 

We can’t afford this sequestration as 

a country. And I find it sad that the 

President of the United States will actually say that he will veto any effort 

to get rid of these automatic spending 

cuts, using the defense of this country 

as a hostage in a high-stakes battle 

with Congress over what our future tax 

policy will be. That is not what a good 

administration should be doing. That is 

not what this country needs. We need 

to do something different. 

I appreciate the gentleman from 

Texas allowing me to rant a little on 

this particular issue. This is important 

to every American. This affects not 

just what we’re doing today but what 

happens two decades from this day, 

when we are probably long gone from 

this body. 

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, 

and we may get a little more time, so 

don’t run off. 

What you just had to say was really 

important. That’s the kind of shock 

that the American people need to hear. 

We are going to take the most powerful 

and the strongest military force on 

Earth and hollow it out. And when you 

ask a commander to explain a hollow 

force, he will say, On paper, it will look 

like a combat brigade; but when you go 

down into the various jobs that must 

be done to have an effective fighting 

combat brigade, you will find there is 

no one in those jobs. Therefore, it is 

not an effective combat brigade. This is 

simple stuff using just people as an example. 

When you are using carrier forces 

and you are saying, We’re going to 

take out the carrier and all their supporting ships—so we’re going to give up 

a carrier and its ships or maybe two 

carriers and its ships to meet this sequester—you gut the Navy. 

b 2130 

You gut the way they deliver force to 

a fight. They are one of our major 

deliverers of force to a fight. We take 

their claws away from them. The longrange Stryker and our new ships that 

are coming online, that as I understand 

it—and I forget what they call that— 

but that is gone. 

And the thing about the Air Force, 

my gosh, we have known for a long 

time, since I first came to this Congress, that we were behind the eight 

ball in developing the next generation 

of combat fighting aircraft. We were 

behind the eight ball. This is when I 

came in 2002 and the discussion I was 

having with the folks in those days, we 

are working on it, we have them on the 

assembly line, we are trying to finish 

them up, but we’re behind the eight 

ball. The Chinese and the Russians already have the next generation of 

fighting aircraft, and they’re developing more, just as you said. And yet, 

we’re talking about ours are going to 

go away. You have much more experience with this than I do, but I think everybody has common enough sense to 

know that if you shut it down, bringing 

it back is going to take a long time. 

It’s just that simple. It’s complicated. 

It’s not easy. 

And then of course, if we’re not going 

to reduce the numbers of our fighting 

force, we’re going to reduce the way 

they go to battle because you’ve got to 

cut something in the Army. If you’re 

not cutting people, and I don’t know if 

that’s what the President means when 

he says he’s not going to go after the 

personnel, whether he means he’s not 

going to lower their pay or he’s not 

going to lower their numbers. I don’t 

know the answer. But if they lower the 

numbers, this is the vehicle the next 

generation is supposed to go to war in. 

We’re not going to have that vehicle to 

go to war in. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. 

The Chair is prepared to recognize a 

Member from the minority party. 

There being none, under the Speaker’s 

announced policy of January 5, 2011, 

the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas (Mr. CARTER) for the remaining time until 10 p.m. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. We’ll try 

not to use it all so somebody can go get 

some rest around here for all the good 

work you people do here. But I am 

grateful to have a little more time so I 

can visit with my good friend, Mr. 

BISHOP. 

That’s what you’ve been saying to us 

here. And one of the things you hear 

around this House is, well, there’s soft 

power. I’ve had debates with some of 

my colleagues that we don’t use soft 

power effectively. We try to always use 

hard power. I would argue you can’t 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5521 

have soft power unless you’ve got hard 

power. All the sweet talk in the world, 

if you don’t have somebody to back 

you up that you can ultimately punch 

them in the nose, it ain’t getting you 

anywhere. And if we’re taking the 

punch out of our military, what are we 

left with? 

By the way, I think those young kids 

who are not getting the kind of history 

lessons they should get these days 

probably know from somebody telling 

them that the last time we took our 

military down to this level, we had an 

event called Pearl Harbor. And that 

shows what happens when your readiness is not ready. And this is a world 

full of very, very dangerous things 

right now. We’ve been looking at terrorism for the last 10 years, and terrorism remains a big, big problem for 

this country. But there are others who 

would do us harm out there that if we 

don’t have the ability to defend ourselves, we could fall into serious 

harm’s way. 

I yield to my friend. 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the 

gentleman again, and I would just like 

to reiterate a couple of things that he 

has said and build on those points that 

are there. It is extremely important to 

realize that we are about the people’s 

business, and we are doing the constitutionally required things that a 

Congress ought to do. 

You know, we all say that it is significant, that we do have a problem 

with our budget. Which is true. We all 

recognize that. But there are certain 

core constitutional responsibilities 

that were given by the Founding Fathers to Congress to make sure that we 

maintained those responsibilities in 

those areas. The Constitution tells us 

that we have the responsibility to promote general welfare, which is nice. We 

probably don’t understand what they 

meant by general welfare anymore, but 

we are to promote it. But we have the 

obligation to provide for the common 

defense. And that verb differentiation 

was not done by accident by those who 

wrote the Constitution. It is the mandate that this Congress has to provide 

for the common defense, not simply because it’s a fun thing to do, but because it defends this country, and it 

provides our ability to do foreign policy in the future as well as providing 

some jobs for people who are necessary 

to make sure that this happens. 

I reiterate what we said earlier. This 

sequestration is not a simple decrease 

or cut to the military. It would be the 

third major cut to the military. Remember, we cut, number one, $600 billion, at which time the Secretary of 

Defense said you cannot go much more 

than that. And then this administration put another cut, number two, of 

$400 billion. And now if sequestration 

were to go through, were the President 

to follow through on his threat to veto 

any legislation that would stop the sequestration, it would be cut number 

three of an additional $600 billion. And 

that is what everybody who works with 

the system says would destroy and hollow out our military, and we would be 

in violation of our constitutional obligations to provide for the common defense. 

Now, I am actually fairly proud of 

the House. We have on several occasions sent legislation over to the Senate that would stop this process and 

make sure that this core constitutional 

responsibility we have is actually fulfilled by Congress and we do not let 

this cut number three, sequestration, 

go into effect. 

Right now, they are sitting on Senator REID’s desk. He needs to take up 

the responsibility of putting those to a 

vote and passing that legislation and 

putting this on the desk of the President, who needs to take up his responsibility as Commander in Chief and 

pass those bills and make sure that 

these devastating cuts, which as the 

gentleman from Texas quite correctly 

said, would hollow out our military, 

would be devastating to our military 

posture, not just for today, but for decades to come; make sure that those do 

not go into effect and those are properly signed by the President and properly passed by Congress. 

The House has done our share. The 

House has done our responsibility. I 

need to call upon the Senate now to 

pick up the mantle and do their part of 

this effort to make sure that we defend 

this country, as we ought to. 

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman 

for pointing that out, and reclaiming 

my time, we’ve already done work to 

show the direction we can go to head 

off this absolute disaster for our national defense. It is in the hands of the 

Democratic-controlled Senate. It is in 

the hands of the majority leader in the 

Senate, and it is time for him to put 

the partisan politics aside and fund our 

military and make the cuts across 

other areas. 

Let’s keep to our word to make cuts. 

Let’s don’t break that word, but let’s 

don’t destroy the military and violate 

the Constitution, which says we are 

supposed to provide for the common defense of this country. 

You know, sometimes we get kind of 

provincial in this country, so just for 

the fun of it, let’s talk a little bit 

about all those jobs, who’s going to 

lose those jobs. 

Let me put that chart up here. Potential job losses across the board: 

California, 125,800; Virginia, 122,800; 

Texas, 91,600; Florida, 39,200; Massachusetts, 38,200; Maryland, 36,200; Pennsylvania, 36,200; Connecticut, 34,200; Arizona, 33,200; Missouri, 31,200. That’s the 

top. That’s the top 10, I think it is. 

But the truth is the defense industry 

and those who provide for the defense 

industry are a major part of our economy. We’re all going to feel this. But if 

you’re one of those States, and you’re 

already worried about where are your 

kids, when they get out of school, 

going to get a job with jobs being lost, 

look at that list and see that we’re all 

in this together. As we make this crazy 

move of weakening our national defense to the point of disaster, we’re 

also weakening the very economy we’re 

struggling to strengthen. 

b 2140 

How can this possibly be good sense 

to anybody in this country? To me, it 

doesn’t register. We’re looking to create jobs, not destroy jobs. This is going 

to be a major impact on our country. I 

think we have the real potential to go 

back into a deep, double-dip recession 

and hopefully just being able to head it 

off at that. 

Meanwhile, as these cuts take place 

and our military gets weaker and 

weaker and weaker, what do we do 

about the enemies of the United 

States? Is that where we want to be? 

Have we become that kind of country? 

I don’t think so. I think we all need to 

gut up and put the politics aside. Let’s 

don’t hold hostage these jobs and hold 

hostage our military so somebody can 

get their tax policy different from 

someone else’s tax policy. Let’s debate 

that without holding anybody hostage. 

Let’s debate it, let’s vote on it, and 

let’s get it done. Let’s go to conference 

and let’s work on taxes the way we’re 

supposed to, but let’s don’t hold anybody hostage with threatening to destroy our military and get half the 

country laid off because we want it our 

way. 

I would argue that that’s exactly 

what HARRY REID is doing right now in 

the Senate. And I think that is something we need to stand up and shout on 

behalf of those warriors who go to war 

for us and who, by the way, have gone 

to war for us multiple times in the last 

decade. 

This is exactly what Congressman 

BISHOP was talking about. We have a 

resolution that was sent over there, 

H.R. 5652. It replaces $78 billion in defense cuts with $316 billion in cuts over 

10 years, and the cuts come from across 

the board—Agriculture, Energy and 

Commerce, Financial Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means—instead of 

all out of the Defense Department. And 

the committee chairmen of the committees in the House did the work, held 

the hearings, and came up with these 

solutions. This is how this place is supposed to work. 

Now, why can’t we let it work? Why 

do we have to play political games that 

hold the greatest defense in the world 

hostage? It’s a crime. It’s absolutely a 

crime not only to our institutions of 

the military, but to our individuals in 

the military who gave us 10 years of 

war and did it voluntarily. Not one of 

them was drafted into the fight. They 

all marched to war voluntarily. And 

some of them suffered horrendously on 

behalf of this country. They got promoted, and they were rising in the 

military; and with one fell swoop, because we refused to do it the right way, 

and the Senate wants to hold tax policy before the goodness of the Defense 

Department, these guys are going to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5522 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

lose their jobs. And those people aren’t 

in those unemployment figures. These 

are industry figures we’re talking 

about. 

But what about the guy that fought 

for you for 10 years and you’ve thrown 

him out of a job when he’s been promoted? He may be a staff sergeant for 

all I know, that kid that I met in 

Korea almost 10 years ago. And yet do 

you know what? We’re going to fire the 

kid even though he has been a good soldier. What are you going to do with 

him? He’s got to find a new job and a 

new career. He chose defending his 

country as his career. 

Through no fault of his own, but 

through the political will of the Senate, at least the majority of the Senate, he gets his job taken away from 

him, and he’s out on the unemployment line. Something is bad wrong 

with this whole picture. 

I’m not going to take all the rest of 

the time, Mr. BISHOP. I’ll yield back to 

you if you have anything you’d like to 

say in conclusion, and then I’ll wrap it 

up. I’m really grateful for you coming 

down here because your insight coming 

from the committee and hearing this 

day in and day out, I know you all have 

held numerous hearings on every issue, 

and I really appreciate your coming 

and sharing that with us. 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I’m just grateful to the gentleman from Texas for actually broaching this issue. Jobs are 

important, but it’s not just jobs for the 

sake of creating a job. This is a job 

that is essential for the defense of this 

country. This is our constitutional responsibility, and we need to take that 

seriously. 

Sequestration is basically, as you 

said I think at the very beginning, it’s 

not what was planned here; it just kind 

of happened. It was a failed policy that 

happened. Now is the time to actually 

become adults about this and recognize 

that sequestration will not only destroy jobs, but it will destroy the defense of this country; and our responsibility is to make sure we defend this 

country and give every capability that 

when we send somebody into harm’s 

way they have the equipment that is 

necessary to make sure they come 

back successfully. 

We don’t want a fair fight. We want 

America to have the best equipment, 

and that flat out won’t happen if we go 

through this big cut number three that 

we call ‘‘sequestration.’’ 

I thank the gentleman for allowing 

me to say something about this important issue, and I thank you for bringing 

it to the attention of the American 

people, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. I think a good point 

that you’ve clearly made, ‘‘sequestration’’ should be a definition of our failure to meet our constitutional responsibility. And it just can’t happen. So I 

want to end by encouraging both sides 

of the aisle and all my colleagues in 

this House, let’s get this deal done, 

let’s don’t gut our military, let’s come 

up with other solutions, and for goodness’ sakes, let’s don’t sell out the people who have gone to war for us for the 

last 10 years. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to: 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia (at the request 

of Ms. PELOSI) for today on account of 

official business in the district. 

Mr. HEINRICH (at the request of Ms. 

PELOSI) for today. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas (at the request of Ms. PELOSI) for today on account of pressing business. 

Ms. SUTTON (at the request of Ms. 

PELOSI) for today on account of travel 

delays. 

f 

BILL PRESENTED TO THE 

PRESIDENT 

Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, 

reported that on July 27, 2012, she presented to the President of the United 

States, for his approval, the following 

bill. 

H.R. 5872. To require the President to provide a report detailing the sequester required 

by the Budget Control Act of 2011 on January 

2, 2013. 

f 

ADJOURNMENT 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I 

move that the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o’clock and 47 minutes 

p.m.), under its previous order, the 

House adjourned until tomorrow, 

Wednesday, August 1, 2012, at 10 a.m. 

h 

for morning-hour debate. 

EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL 

Reports concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized for Official Foreign Travel during the second quarter of 2012 pursuant to Public Law 95–384 are as follows: 

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON ETHICS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN APR. 1 AND JUNE 30, 2012 

Name of Member or employee 

Date 

Country 

Per diem1 Transportation Other purposes Total 

Arrival Departure Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

HOUSE COMMITTEES 

Please Note: If there were no expenditures during the calendar quarter noted above, please check the box at right to so indicate and return. ◊ 

1 Per diem constitutes lodging and meals. 

2 If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended. 

HON. JO BONNER, Chairman, July 9, 2012. 

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN APR. 1 AND JUNE 30, 2012 

Name of Member or employee 

Date 

Country 

Per diem1 Transportation Other purposes Total 

Arrival Departure Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

Foreign 

currency 

U.S. dollar 

equivalent 

or U.S. 

currency 2

HOUSE COMMITTEES 

Please Note: If there were no expenditures during the calendar quarter noted above, please check the box at right to so indicate and return. ◊ 

1 Per diem constitutes lodging and meals. 

2 If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended. 

HON. DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Chairman, July 10, 2012. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE