H5956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

funding and language regarding cybersecurity. 

I strongly supported the inclusion of 

this anomaly, and see it as essential 

but also limited in scope to only the securing of our vulnerable Federal civilian networks. This provision does not 

intrude upon the authorizers’ jurisdiction or enable a new executive order in 

any way. 

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I reserve 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Before I 

yield back, Mr. Speaker, let me take a 

moment to talk about the ranking 

member. 

Mr. DICKS, as I said before, has served 

on this committee for 30-plus years. 

I’m not exactly sure how many. How 

many is it? It is 36 years. He has been 

a very, very dedicated member of the 

committee, including—and most especially—of the Defense Subcommittee 

on which he has served for, I think, 34 

years. Before that, he was an aide to a 

Member of Congress, so he has wide, 

deep experience in this body. 

Maybe just as importantly, perhaps 

even more so, is the dedication that he 

has given to the country through his 

service in the Congress. I, personally, 

have found him to be a close friend. He 

has also been a great partner in this 

appropriations process since I have become the chairman of the committee. 

He has been helpful in a thousand instances. His heart is in the right place. 

His mind is on the business of serving 

the public, especially the military part 

of that service. 

We’re going to miss NORM DICKS

around here. He is going to leave a 

large hole in our hearts but also in the 

business of this body and this Congress, 

so we wish him well as he embarks 

upon a new career, perhaps, and a new 

way of life, perhaps. I’ve got an idea 

there are going to be a few fish involved in that future, but we are going 

to miss NORM DICKS for all that he has 

meant to us. 

This may be the last bill that he has 

a part in. I hope, perhaps, there will be 

something in the lame duck; but in 

case there is not, I wanted to be sure 

that we said some words of deep, profound thanks to a patriot who has 

served his country as few others have. 

I wish NORM DICKS the very, very best 

as he embarks on the next phase of his 

life. 

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. DICKS. I want to thank the 

chairman for his very kind remarks. It 

has been a deep pleasure working with 

you and your very able staff. I think 

one of the reasons for the success of 

trying to restore regular order is that 

we’ve had good staff cooperation at all 

levels. I want to thank our staff, both 

the majority and minority, for their 

excellent work. 

It has been a great pleasure working 

with you. Again, let’s hope we can convince people that we should get our 

work done so when we come back in 

the lame duck session we can finally 

put the omnibus bill together for 2013 

and get this accomplished. I know 

that’s what the chairman wants and 

that that’s what I want, but I appreciate his kind remarks. I appreciate his 

courtesy and his leadership of our committee. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Finally, 

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention staff. 

As the ranking member has said, none 

of this would be here but for this wonderful staff that we are blessed with. 

Bill Inglee on the majority side, the 

clerk; Will Smith, his deputy; and all 

of the staff on the subcommittees and 

the full committee have worked day 

and night—weekends included—on this 

bill. For that we are deeply appreciative. Then David Pomerantz on the 

minority side and all of the staff on the 

minority side, both full committee and 

subcommittees, have equally worked 

as hard and, most of the time, together 

on the same thing. So we want to 

thank them for the deep service that 

they’ve given to us. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, we know that in too 

many states and districts across the country, 

students with the greatest needs are being 

taught by teachers with little or no training, including those enrolled in alternative route 

teacher preparation programs. That’s why I 

am so glad this legislation requires the Department of Education to provide Congress—and 

the nation—with comprehensive information 

on the extent to which our highest-need students, including students with disabilities, 

English learners, students from rural communities, and low-income students, are being 

taught by teachers-in-training who are enrolled 

in alternative route programs, disaggregated 

by state and district, as well as by student 

subgroups. The data that will be included in 

this report should be made public and disseminated to parents and other interested parties so that is understandable and actionable. 

Specifically, the provision requires: 

The Secretary of Education must submit a 

report to Congress by 12/31/13 that provides 

a comprehensive picture, with state-level and 

LEA data, on the extent to which the following 

categories of students are taught by alternative route teachers-in-training who are 

deemed ‘‘highly qualified’’ pursuant to 34 CFR 

200.56(a)(2)(ii): students with disabilities, 

English learners, students in rural areas, and 

students from low-income families. 34 CFR 

200.56(a)(2)(ii) is the regulation that allows individuals participating in alternative route programs but who have not yet completed their 

full state certification to be labeled ‘‘highly 

qualified.’’ This regulation was struck down by 

the Ninth Circuit in the Renee v. Duncan lawsuit, but written into statute in the December 

2010 CR. 

To produce the report required by this 

amendment, states and LEAs will be required 

to compile the data that they are already required to have under Section 1111(h)(6)(A) of 

NCLB regarding the professional qualifications 

of all their teachers, including: ‘‘Whether the 

teacher has met State qualification and licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject 

areas in which the teacher provides instruction. 

Whether the teacher is teaching under 

emergency or other provisional status through 

which State qualification or licensing criteria 

have been waived. 

The baccalaureate degree major of the 

teacher and any other graduate certification or 

degree held by the teacher, and the field of 

discipline of the certification or degree. 

This data will provide essential information 

to parents, to educators and to policy makers 

so that informed decisions can be made so 

that we can strengthen one of our nation’s 

most valuable assets, our public schools. We 

will be in a much better position to look at our 

neediest students and our neediest rural and 

urban school districts and determine the extent to which well prepared teachers are or 

are not equitably distributed. Mr. Speaker, I 

look forward to receiving this important report 

from the Secretary on December 31, 2013. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to 

rise in support of an important provision that is 

included in this Continuing Resolution. This 

provision will enable the collection of essential 

information that we have long sought to make 

determinations about whether teachers are equitably distributed among our high needs 

schools. It will also help us understand which 

teachers are working with underserved students. 

In many places, teachers-in-training are 

serving as teachers of record. While we know 

this, we do not know exactly where they are 

concentrated around the country or which subgroups of students they are primarily teaching. 

Data points are available for some locales, but 

not nationally. This provision will require the 

Department of Education to gather information 

about the extent to which students with high 

needs are being taught by teachers with the 

least amount of preparation, including students 

with disabilities, English language learners, 

low-income students and students in rural 

areas and report this information to Congress 

by December 31, 2013. 

It is my hope that this report will require 

States and LEAs to compile the data that districts are already required to have under the 

Parents’ Right to Know Section of NCLB regarding the professional qualifications of all 

their teachers. 

I look forward to receiving this important report. The information presented will assist 

Congress, the public, parents and educators in 

making informed decisions about policy and 

practice. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

Pursuant to House Resolution 778, 

the previous question is ordered. 

The question is on the engrossment 

and third reading of the joint resolution. 

The joint resolution was ordered to 

be engrossed and read a third time, and 

was read the third time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 

consideration of House Joint Resolution 117 is postponed. 

f 

b 1540 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND JOB 

PROTECTION ACT 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 778, I call up 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5957 

the bill (H.R. 6365) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 to replace the sequester established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 778, the bill is 

considered read. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6365 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Security and Job Protection Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Current law requires that there be 

across-the-board cuts, known as a ‘‘sequester’’, imposed on January 2, 2013. The sequester will result in a 10 percent reduction in 

non-military personnel programs of the Department of Defense and an 8 percent reduction in certain domestic programs, such as 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 

border security. 

(2) Intended as a mechanism to force action, there is bipartisan agreement that the 

sequester going into place would undercut 

key responsibilities of the Federal Government. 

(3) As the Administration stated in its fiscal year 2013 budget request, ‘‘[Sequestration] would lead to significant cuts to critical domestic programs such as education 

and research and cuts to defense programs 

that could undermine our national security. 

. . . [C]uts of this magnitude done in an 

across-the-board fashion would be devastating both to defense and non-defense programs.’’ (The Budget of the United States 

Government, Fiscal Year 2013, p. 24, February 13, 2012). 

(4) On March 29, 2012, The House of Representatives passed H. Con. Res. 112, the 

budget resolution for fiscal year 2013, which 

includes reconciliation instructions directing House Committees to craft legislation 

that would achieve the savings required to 

replace the sequestration called for in fiscal 

year 2013, as established by the Budget Control Act of 2011. 

(5) On May 10, 2012, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5652, the Sequestration 

Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, 

which would replace the $98 billion sequestration of discretionary spending called for 

in 2013, as established by the Budget Control 

Act of 2011, by making changes in law to reduce direct spending by $310 billion through 

fiscal year 2022. 

(6) An analysis of the impact of the sequestration prepared for the Chairman of the 

House Armed Services Committee found that 

if left in place, sequestration would cut the 

military to its smallest size since before the 

Second World War, all while we are still a 

nation at war in Afghanistan, facing increased threats from Iran and North Korea, 

unrest in the Middle East, and a rising 

China. 

(7) Major consequences identified by the 

House Armed Services Committee include 

the following: 

(A) 200,000 soldiers and Marines separated 

from service, bringing our force well below 

our pre-9/11 levels. 

(B) Ability to respond to contingencies in 

North Korea or Iran at jeopardy. 

(C) The smallest ground force since 1940. 

(D) A fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the 

smallest level since 1915. 

(E) The smallest tactical fighter force in 

the history of the Air Force. 

(F) Our nuclear triad that has kept the 

U.S. and 30 of our allies safe for decades will 

be in jeopardy. 

(G) Reductions of 20 percent in defense civilian personnel. 

(H) Two BRAC rounds of base closings. 

(House Armed Services Committee memo entitled ‘‘Assessment of Impacts of Budget 

Cuts’’, September 22, 2011). 

(8) Secretary Panetta and the professional 

military leadership have also looked at the 

impact of sequestration and reached similar 

conclusions. 

(9) Secretary Panetta stated, ‘‘If the maximum sequestration is triggered, the total 

cut will rise to about $1 trillion compared 

with the FY 2012 plan. The impacts of these 

cuts would be devastating for the Department. . . Facing such large reductions, we 

would have to reduce the size of the military 

sharply. Rough estimates suggest after ten 

years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest 

number of ships since 1915, and the smallest 

Air Force in its history.’’ (Secretary Panetta, Letter to Senator John McCain, November 14, 2011). 

(10) General Dempsey, Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated, 

‘‘[S]equestration leaves me three places to 

go to find the additional money: operations, 

maintenance, and training. That’s the definition of a hollow force.’’. 

(11) The individual branch service chiefs 

echoed General Dempsey: 

(A) ‘‘Cuts of this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military. . .My assessment is 

that the nation would incur an unacceptable 

level of strategic and operational risk.’’ –General Ray T. Odierno, Chief Of Staff, United 

States Army. 

(B) ‘‘A severe and irreversible impact on 

the Navy’s future’’ –Admiral Jonathan W. 

Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations. 

(C) ‘‘A Marine Corps below the end 

strength that’s necessary to support even 

one major contingency,’’ –General James F. 

Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

(D) ‘‘Even the most thoroughly deliberated 

strategy may not be able to overcome dire 

consequences,’’ –General Norton A. 

Schwartz, Chief of Staff, United States Air 

Force (Testimony of Service Chief before 

House Armed Services Committee, November 

2, 2011). 

(12) According to an analysis by the House 

Appropriations Committee, the sequester 

will also have a significant impact on nondefense discretionary programs, including 

the following: 

(A) Automatically reducing Head Start by 

$650 million, resulting in 75,000 fewer slots 

for children in the program. 

(B) Automatically reducing the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH) by $2.4 billion, an 

amount equal to nearly half of total NIH 

spending on cancer this year. 

(C) A reduction of approximately 1,870 Border Patrol Agents (a reduction of nearly 9 

percent of the total number of agents). 

(13) Beyond the negative impacts sequestration will have on defense readiness, it will 

also undermine the industrial base needed to 

equip our armed forces with the weapons and 

technology they need to complete their mission. A study released by the National Association of Manufacturers suggests that 1.1 

million workers in the supply chain could be 

adversely affected, including 3.4 percent of 

workers in the aerospace industry, 3.3 percent of the workforce in the shipbuilding industry and 10 percent of the workers in the 

search and navigation equipment industry. 

SEC. 3. CONDITIONAL REPLACEMENT FOR FY 

2013 SEQUESTER. 

(a) CONTINGENT EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amendments made by it shall 

take effect upon the enactment of— 

(1) the Act contemplated in section 201 of 

H. Con. Res. 112 (112th Congress) that 

achieves at least the deficit reduction called 

for in such section for such periods; or 

(2) similar legislation that achieves outlay 

reductions within five years after the date of 

enactment that equal or exceed the outlay 

reductions flowing from the budget authority reductions mandated by sections 

251A(7)(A) and 251A(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 

1985, as in force immediately before the date 

of enactment of this Act, as it applies to direct spending in the defense function for fiscal year 2013 combined with the outlay reductions flowing from the amendment to 

section 251A(7)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

made by subsection (c) of this section. 

(b) REVISED 2013 DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

LIMIT.—Paragraph (2) of section 251(c) of the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) with respect to fiscal year 2013, for the 

discretionary category, $1,047,000,000,000 in 

new budget authority;’’. 

(c) DISCRETIONARY SAVINGS.—Section 

251A(7)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(A) FISCAL YEAR 2013.— 

‘‘(i) FISCAL YEAR 2013 ADJUSTMENT.—On January 2, 2013, the discretionary category set 

forth in section 251(c)(2) shall be decreased 

by $19,104,000,000 in budget authority. 

‘‘(ii) ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY

SPENDING CAPS.—OMB shall issue a supplemental report consistent with the requirements set forth in section 254(f)(2) for fiscal 

year 2013 using the procedures set forth in 

section 253(f) on April 15, 2013, to eliminate 

any discretionary spending breach of the 

spending limit set forth in section 251(c)(2) as 

adjusted by clause (i), and the President 

shall issue an order to eliminate the breach, 

if any, identified in such report.’’. 

(d) ELIMINATION AND CONDITIONAL REPLACEMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 SEQUESTRATION FOR DIRECT SPENDING.— 

(1) ELIMINATION.—Any sequestration order 

issued by the President under the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

of 1985 to carry out reductions to direct 

spending for the defense function (050) for fiscal year 2013 pursuant to section 251A of such 

Act shall have no force or effect. 

(2) CONDITIONAL REPLACEMENT.—To the extent that legislation enacted pursuant to 

section 3(a)(2) achieves outlay reductions 

that exceed the outlay reductions flowing 

from the budget authority reductions required in section 251A(8) of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

of 1985, as in force immediately before the 

date of enactment of this Act, the direct 

spending reductions for the nonsecurity category for fiscal year 2013 otherwise required 

to be ordered pursuant to such section shall 

be reduced by that amount, and Congress so 

designates for such purpose. 

SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL SUBMISSION. 

Not later than October 15, 2012, the President shall transmit to Congress a legislative 

proposal that meets the requirements of section 3(a)(2) of this Act. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. GARRETT) 

and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN) each will control 30 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from New Jersey. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GARRETT. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 

their remarks and include extraneous 

material on H.R. 6365. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. GARRETT. At this time, Mr. 

Speaker, I yield 31⁄2 minutes to myself. 

Mr. Speaker, under current law, 

there will be a $110 billion across-theboard cut known as sequester. It will 

be imposed in this country on January 

2, 2013, resulting in a 10 percent reduction in the Department of Defense programs and an 8 percent reduction in 

certain domestic programs as well. 

In May of this year, the House passed 

a bill to deal with this. That was H.R. 

5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. What this legislation 

would do is it would replace that sequester of 2013 with commonsense 

spending cuts and reforms. Unfortunately, we have seen a lack of leadership both over in the Senate and in the 

White House. The Senate has failed to 

act on this legislation—the Senate, 

where all good bills go to die, so too 

with this, or any sequester replacement bill. Today the House will once 

again try to responsibly fix the sequester. 

The National Security and Job Protection Act would ensure our national 

security, but at the same time we do 

that, we’ll cut spending. The National 

Security and Job Protection Act would 

do two things quickly. First, it would 

turn off the sequester of Congress, enacting the House-passed reconciliation 

bill or similar legislation that achieves 

equal levels of deficit reduction. Secondly, the National Security and Job 

Protection Act would require the 

President of the United States to submit to Congress a legislative proposal 

to replace the sequester with an alternative no later than October 15 of this 

year. 

Up until this point, we have seen absolutely no leadership, we have seen no 

plan from the President to fix this sequester problem, but yet there is 

strong bipartisan agreement that the 

sequester, as it is right now, is bad policy and should be re-prioritized. Once 

again, the President has failed to lead 

in this area, failed to put forward a 

credible response, failed to put forward 

a legislative proposal, and the Senate 

has failed as well. The result is that in 

less than 100 days we will see reductions that our own Secretary Panetta 

says will hollow out our Armed Forces 

and make totally arbitrary reductions 

in other spending programs. 

Not only has the President failed to 

lead in this area, he has failed to put 

forward a plan. The President has also 

failed—and this is important—to submit to Congress a report, as law requires him to do so, detailing specifically how this administration would 

implement the sequester. 

Mr. Speaker, after months, literally 

months, of stonewalling Congress on 

how this administration would implement the sequester, Congress now 

comes to the floor because we are 

forced to pass legislation requiring the 

President to submit a detailed sequester implementation program. When 

that legislation became law, as we said, 

the President’s response has been no 

response. Rather than him doing his 

homework, the President has simply 

taken a pass on this matter and instead has provided Congress with nothing, and he is not even meeting the requirements of the law. It is an example, I think, to use the President’s own 

word, of an ‘‘incomplete’’ by this President on his report card. 

That the President lacks leadership 

is simply stunning to this Member and 

to the American people as well. As I 

say, the Senate is no better for failing 

to respond in this matter. The Senate 

refuses to take up any bill or to replace 

the sequester whatsoever. 

Today, Mr. Speaker, we again come 

here passing legislation to try to solve 

this problem, to fix the sequester, to 

make sure that these draconian cuts do 

not go in place now. We’re not saying 

that it has to be the House-passed bill 

that passed. We’re also asking the 

President to put forward his own legislative proposal, for the Senate to act 

before the legislation takes effect. 

Americans are looking for leadership, 

and they’re getting it from the House 

of Representatives today. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, this is really quite a 

charade we’re engaged in here today on 

the floor of the House of Representatives. Let’s just flash back a year ago 

to how we got to this spot. 

At that time, our Republican colleagues threatened that the United 

States would default on its full faith 

and credit, that we wouldn’t pay the 

bills that we already incurred, that 

this Congress had already voted for, 

and threatened to tank the economy 

unless we passed their version of the 

budget, the Ryan budget, the budget 

that came out of the House Budget 

Committee. In order to prevent the 

United States from defaulting, everybody got together—the House, the Senate, and the President—and they 

passed the Budget Control Act. To hear 

our Republican colleagues today, you’d 

think they had nothing to do with the 

Budget Control Act. We heard the 

chairman of the Budget Committee, 

Mr. RYAN, on television the other day 

not wanting to associate himself with 

that. 

b 1550 

The reality is he voted for it. The 

Speaker of the House said he got 98 

percent of what he wanted. Here’s the 

Speaker of the House after we passed 

the Budget Control Act: 

I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy. 

Now we are faced with the consequences of the Budget Control Act. 

What did it do? Two things: It cut 

spending, discretionary spending over 

10 years by a trillion dollars by putting 

in spending caps, and it created a sequester process. 

There’s agreement in this House that 

allowing the meat-ax sequester agreements to take place would really be a 

stupid thing to do. There’s agreement 

on that. 

The issue is: How do we replace that? 

How do we achieve a similar amount of 

deficit reduction to replace that sequester? 

We hear our Republican colleagues 

say there is no leadership from the 

President; they haven’t heard any alternatives. That’s just not true. 

There are lots of alternatives that 

have been put on the table. They just 

don’t like the alternatives. And do you 

know why? Because the Democratic alternatives to the sequester, and the 

one put forward by the President, 

takes the same balanced approach 

that’s been recommended by bipartisan 

commissions. 

They say that in order to tackle our 

deficit we should make additional cuts. 

But we should also eliminate a lot of 

special interest tax breaks for Big Oil 

companies. We should ask the very 

wealthy to go back to paying a little 

bit more in taxes, about what they 

were paying when President Clinton 

was President, the last time we balanced our budget. 

The President has submitted that. In 

fact, a year ago the President sent 

down a plan right here on how we could 

take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. 

Just yesterday in the Rules Committee, on behalf of my Democratic 

colleagues, we proposed a substitute 

that would totally have replaced the 

sequester, again through a mix of cuts, 

cutting some of the excessive agriculture subsidies, but also raising revenue by cutting some of the big breaks 

for Big Oil companies and asking the 

wealthiest to chip in a little bit more. 

Our Republican colleagues who say 

they want a big open debate on the 

floor here, they denied us even a vote 

on that amendment. We’re not going to 

get to vote today on that amendment. 

Instead, we’re voting on this resolution 

that, even if we pass it and the Senate 

passes it and the President would sign 

it, it would do nothing about the sequester—nothing. That’s why I said 

this is a charade. 

We had an option to bring to the 

floor of this House a real substitute 

proposal that, if we passed it, it would 

have removed the sequester, made sure 

that there are no cuts to defense and 

nondefense under the sequester. We 

don’t get to vote on that today. Instead, we’re voting on something that 

is totally meaningless. 

They say they’re going to ask the 

President to submit a report to the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5959 

Congress. He’s already done it. He did 

it a year ago. They just don’t like it 

because it takes a balanced approach, 

because it does ask Big Oil companies 

to give up some of their big taxpayer 

subsidies. 

So, Mr. Speaker, let’s end the charade. The moment our Republican colleagues come to the conclusion that 

it’s more important to protect defense 

spending than it is to protect special 

interest tax breaks for Big Oil companies, we can move on and deal with this 

in a balanced way, the same way bipartisan commissions have recommended. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair would remind all Members that 

it is inappropriate to traffic the well 

while a Member is speaking. 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 

minutes to the sponsor of the legislation before us, the gentleman from 

Florida (Mr. WEST), who recognizes 

that while the President may have presented a plan to this Congress, that bill 

went down 414–0, and to the Senate 97– 

0. 

Mr. WEST. I want to thank my colleague for allowing me to come here. 

This is not a charade. I served 22 

years in the United States military, 

and I was part of a reduction in force 

coming out of Desert Shield/Desert 

Storm, and I know what these types of 

cuts will do to the military. Also, this 

is what these types of cuts will do to 

non-defense discretionary. 

The sequestration will put at risk all that 

we have accomplished in education and 

weaken programs that help children, serve 

young families, send young people and adults 

to college and make the middle class American Dream possible. 

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. 

Secretary of Defense: 

This mechanism of sequestration will force 

defense cuts that, in my view, would do catastrophic damage to our military and the 

ability to be able to be protect our country. 

I think right now, Mr. Speaker, it’s 

very simple. George Santayana had a 

quote back in the 1920s and said: 

Those who fail to learn from history are 

doomed to repeat it. 

At the end of World War I, we cut our 

military, then came World War II. At 

the end of World War II, we cut our 

military, then came the Korean War. 

At the end of the Korean War, we, of 

course, did the exact same thing, and, 

of course, we had to chase communism 

all over the world, Vietnam. 

As I spoke about earlier, I participated in the RIF after Desert Shield/ 

Desert Storm. This sequestration does 

one simple thing: It takes the Army 

and Marine Corps down to 1940s levels. 

It puts 200,000 of our men and women 

in uniform on the streets. 

It makes our United States Navy go 

to 1915 levels. Currently, we have a 

naval force of 283 warships. It goes 

down to 230. 

It takes our Air Force down to the 

smallest Air Force we have had in modern history, when we created the 

United States Air Force. It cuts nontactical fighter squadrons. 

If you talk to any of our service 

chiefs, if you listen to the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs who talks about 

hollowing out this force, we should not 

be doing this at a time when we all see 

what is happening in the world right 

now, when the United States of America has had a sovereign piece of its territory attacked. We have had an Ambassador that has lost his life. The 

message that we are going to send is 

that we are going to do nothing? 

This legislation says, very simply, we 

have passed a plan out of the House. 

The Senate, if you don’t like our plan, 

come up with your own plan. Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. 

Come up with a plan. 

One of the things that you learn as a 

young officer, that if you ever get into 

a firefight, you are ever in an ambush, 

to do nothing means that people lose 

their lives. I will not stand here and do 

nothing at this time because those are 

my friends still in uniform; those are 

my relatives that are still in uniform. 

Now, I did not have the ability to be 

selected to be on the supercommittee— 

maybe because I have only been here as 

a freshman—but that does not mean 

that I will not be an adult and present 

a solution that says, very simply, If 

you don’t like what we passed in the 

House, then do something. Come up 

with a plan. 

We just heard the debate about the 

continuing resolution, a continuing 

resolution we have been forced into because we have a Senate that has not 

passed a budget in close to 3 years. We 

have a Senate that has not taken up 

any appropriations bills. 

Well, I will tell you—and I will reach 

out to my colleagues from the other 

side—at least here in the House we 

have done something. But we have been 

forced into a position with this sequestration to say we have got to come up 

with a solution. The supercommittee 

did not meet its enacted mandate. 

Does that mean we’re going to stop? 

Does that mean that we’re going to 

look at the men and women in uniform 

and say we will allow this to happen? 

Did that mean that we’re going to look 

at other people that are affected by 

these non-defense discretionary cuts? 

All I’m saying is, with this piece of 

legislation, those who have come up 

with a plan, tell us what you want so 

that we do not have this occur. Think 

about the second- and third-order effects that will come to this. 

We are talking about the people that 

will be lost in uniform. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WEST. No, I will not yield, so 

please—thank you. 

We’re talking about the Department 

of Defense civilian positions that would 

be lost. We’re talking about the defense 

industrial base, the technology that is 

going to develop the next generation of 

weapons systems for our men and 

women that will be lost. We’re talking 

about a critical decision for the way 

ahead for the United States of America. 

And I understand what has been said 

about this balanced approach that the 

President sent over in his fiscal year 

2013 budget. They had $1.9 trillion of 

new taxes, but yet it never balances at 

any time. If it was such a good plan, 

such a good budget, no one here took it 

up. That’s my concern. 

This is a last chance for us to be the 

adults, to do something, to stave off 

this sequestration. The House voted. 

The House sent a piece of legislation 

out in May. The House voted on the Sequestration Transparency Act. We still 

have not gotten anything. 

The Director of the OMB, Mr. Jeffrey 

Zients, testified before the Armed 

Services Committee he has no plan. All 

he did was sit there and say that, if you 

guys would stop with these tax cuts 

not being brought up on the rich, then 

this would not happen. 

What is a fair share when the top 1 

percent pays close to 37 percent of 

taxes? That’s not the debate, Mr. 

Speaker. The debate is what we’re 

going to do about this sequestration. 

b 1600 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

We’ve heard before that there was 

this vote on the President’s plan and 

that it got no votes. We had a vote on 

a fake President’s plan. When we actually had to vote on the Democratic alternative, which the White House made 

clear was closer to their plan than the 

one that was put up for a fake vote, it 

got a huge vote from our Democratic 

colleagues. 

I would just ask Mr. WEST to read his 

own amendment. Because if you read 

the bill, it’s pretty clear if we were to 

pass it and the Senate was to pass it 

and the President would sign it, it 

doesn’t make the sequester go away. 

No, it doesn’t make the sequester go 

away. It calls for action. In fact, it 

says the President should submit a 

plan within a certain period of time. 

It’s right here in your bill: Presidential 

submission not later than October 15, 

2012. The President shall transmit to 

the Congress a legislative proposal. 

Mr. WEST. If the gentleman will 

yield, it says that it would be replaced. 

If you come up with a plan, it will be 

replaced. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Exactly. And reclaiming my time, that’s exactly right. 

That’s exactly what it says. But you 

tell the President what his plan has to 

do. You tell the President that his plan 

cannot include one penny of revenue 

for the purpose of reducing the deficit. 

In other words, you say the President’s 

plan has got to look like your plan. 

So, Mr. Speaker, the issue here is not 

whether the President has a plan or 

not. He does have a plan. Our Republican colleagues don’t like it because it 

says that it’s more important to protect defense spending and protect domestic spending like NIH than it is to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

protect special interest tax loopholes. 

And I see the chairman of the Armed 

Services Committee on the floor, and I 

respect him greatly. That’s the position he took last October. Here’s what 

he said when he was asked: 

‘‘If it came that I had only two 

choices, one was a tax increase and one 

was a cut in defense over and above 

where we already are, I would go to 

strengthen defense.’’ 

That is the President’s position. 

That’s the President’s position, Mr. 

WEST. He said we need to take a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. 

We need to combine cuts. But we also 

should end special interest tax breaks 

for the big oil companies. George Bush 

himself said when you’ve got oil above 

$50 a barrel, you don’t need these ridiculous incentives to keep them drilling. 

And we should ask very wealthy individuals, frankly, to pay the same tax 

rate that the people who work for them 

do; the same effective tax rate. And we 

should eliminate some of these ag subsidies. 

Now you asked about other proposals. I have a proposal in my hand. I 

took it to the House Rules Committee 

yesterday. It would have totally replaced the sequester. If we actually 

voted on this, it would replace the sequester for defense and nondefense. 

You know how we do it? We do it 

through cuts to big ag subsidies, we do 

it by eliminating subsidies for the big 

oil companies, and yes, we ask people 

making more than a million dollars a 

year to pay a little bit more because 

we think it’s more important to do 

that than allow these cuts to defense 

to take place and all the consequences 

you talk about, and we think it’s important to protect investments in 

places like NIH, people who are fighting to try and find cures for diseases. 

So, Madam Speaker, the issue is not 

whether we replace the sequester. The 

President’s got a proposal. I’ve got a 

proposal. It’s how we do it. And, again, 

our Republican colleagues have doubled down on this idea that you’re 

going to protect every tax break that’s 

out there before you protect spending 

on our national defense. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GARRETT. Before we hear from 

our leader, I yield 15 seconds to the 

gentleman from Florida (Mr. WEST). 

Mr. WEST. We voted to cut defense 

spending by $487 billion. We’re talking 

about additional. And when you talk 

about raising these taxes, Ernst & 

Young had an independent report that 

talked about the adverse ramifications 

that will come from raising taxes. 

Obviously, one thing we fail to understand, small business operators, subchapter S corps, LLCs, you’re going to 

ruin this economy and more job losses 

by raising those taxes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker. 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I just would ask the gentleman, and 

I would yield to him for an answer, 

whether he means Bain Capital is a 

small business. 

Mr. WEST. I’m not talking about 

Bain Capital. You said raise taxes on 

individuals. I’m talking about personal 

income. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

reclaiming my time. Mr. WEST, when 

Mr. Romney and Mr. RYAN and all our 

Republican colleagues cite those figures about passthroughs, that includes 

companies like Bain Capital. It also includes some Fortune 100 companies. 

The President has put forward a proposal that says let’s act right now to 

extend tax relief to 98 percent of the 

American people and 97 percent of all 

passthrough businesses. 

It’s true we don’t think that Bain 

Capital needs a big additional tax 

break when we’ve got a big deficit that 

we should deal with in what we think 

should be a balanced way. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. 

MILLER of Michigan). Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the 

Chair. 

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 1 minute to 

our leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. CANTOR). 

Mr. CANTOR. I want to thank the 

gentleman from New Jersey and commend the gentleman from Florida on 

bringing this bill forward. 

Madam Speaker, the bill before us is 

not about tax rates. Because I think 

that that issue will be resolved one 

way or another here shortly in this 

election. We know that there’s a difference between the two sides. Unfortunately, our counterparts on the other 

side of the aisle think it’s very important in this tough economy to raise 

taxes. We don’t believe that, Madam 

Speaker. The bill before us simply asks 

the President to give us his plan for replacing the first year of cuts in the sequester. 

It has been 126 days since we passed 

our plan to responsibly replace the sequester with cuts that maintain our 

fiscal discipline. Our plan controls unchecked government spending and reduces wasteful and duplicative programs. But still there has been no action and no proposal coming from the 

other side of the Capitol, coming from 

the other side of the aisle. 

It has been 126 days since the President said he would veto our plan. But 

he has failed to put forward an alternative. And the letter that some of us 

Republican leaders wrote on July 14 

asking the President to engage with us 

to come and find a bipartisan solution 

to the sequestration, that letter has 

gone unanswered. 

Madam Speaker, inaction carries a 

very high risk. Instability and unprecedented political transformation 

throughout the Middle East, a civil war 

in Syria, Iran’s dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons in support for terrorism, 

as well as challenges posed by a rising 

China and geostrategic shifts in the 

Asia Pacific make maintaining American military preeminence as important as ever. And the deadly and tragic 

attacks on Ambassador Chris Stevens, 

Foreign Service Information Management Office Sean Smith, and two other 

Americans at our consulate in 

Benghazi, Libya, make clear that Islamic extremist terrorism remains a 

tremendous threat to the Middle East, 

the United States, and the international community. 

If the cuts in the sequester go forward, they will fundamentally weaken 

our current and long-term security and 

our ability to meet challenges we’re 

facing. Implementing these cuts will 

mean reductions in shipbuilding, aircraft and missiles, shrinking our current force to levels not seen since before World War II. And that means 

fewer defense-related jobs. According 

to a study conducted by the Aerospace 

Industries Association, the job losses 

will reach 2 million. Let me put that in 

perspective. The economy added less 

than 100,000 jobs last month. Worse, 

more people dropped out of the labor 

force than were added to it. Under the 

sequester, unemployment would soar 

from its current level up to 9 percent, 

setting back any progress the economy 

has made. According to the same 

study, the jobs of more than 200,000 

Virginians, my own State, are on the 

line. A small business in my district 

called Produce Source Partners, which 

provides fresh food to military bases, 

says the sequester threatens the jobs of 

their 200 employees. Another small 

company in Virginia, HI-TEST Laboratories, could be forced to reduce their 

staff by as much as 30 percent. Removing these jobs from the community will 

shrink the local economy and set back 

an already underutilized business zone. 

That same predicament faces hundreds 

of hardworking men and women in 

towns from here to California. 

Madam Speaker, we are here today 

asking the President simply to come 

forward with a plan. We are here today 

because the minority has failed to 

work with us to find a solution to prevent these cuts that would hollow out 

our military and result in massive layoffs. 

Madam Speaker, the House has 

acted. Now we need leadership, Mr. 

President. 

b 1610 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

It’s hard to know where to begin because—I hope everyone was listening 

very carefully. If we allow these spending cuts to take place, we will lose 

hundreds of thousands of jobs in Virginia alone. Thousands of jobs around 

the country. 

You know, I’ve heard a lot of complaints from our Republican colleagues 

about the recovery bill and the fact 

that we had to do some emergency 

spending to prevent the loss of millions 

of jobs. You know what? That worked. 

And here our Republican colleagues 

here today are saying that we’ve got to 

make sure the spending cuts don’t take 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5961 

place because if we do, it will result in 

a lot of lost jobs. 

Well, you know what? It takes jobs 

to build an aircraft carrier, absolutely. 

It also creates jobs when you invest in 

trying to repair and modernize our 

roads and our bridges, our infrastructure. 

The President submitted a jobs bill 

more than a year ago to this House to 

do exactly that. Let’s invest more in 

modernizing our infrastructure. We 

haven’t had a single vote on the President’s jobs bill. 

So I’m really glad to hear our Republican colleagues say that if we make 

these kinds of cuts, it’s going to result 

in lost jobs because you know what? 

You are right about that. 

The debate today is not about whether we should prevent the sequester 

from taking place. As I said, we should. 

It’s how we do that. 

I heard again from the Republican 

leader the President doesn’t have a 

plan. He has a plan. They just don’t 

like his plan. They don’t like his plan 

because it takes a balanced approach. 

It says, you know what? In addition to 

cuts, we should also ask people who 

make more than a million dollars a 

year to contribute a little more to reducing our national deficit and preventing the sequester. We should ask 

big oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies. 

So, the question, Madam Speaker, is 

not whether we replace the sequester. 

There are lots of plans that I’ve already talked about. The one in my 

hand, I offered it yesterday. I can’t get 

a vote on it today. 

The issue is not whether; it’s how. We 

should take a balanced approach. 

I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. 

SCHWARTZ). 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, 

I’m pleased to participate in this debate in some ways, although I do have 

to say that this is not really the kind 

of honest debate that we need to be 

having. We should be having a conversation. We should have been having 

a conversation well before now about 

how we would avoid sequester and do it 

in a bipartisan way and do it in a balanced way. That is not what is happening. Right now what we’re seeing is 

a Republican plan without that kind of 

conversation, without that kind of 

willingness to find common ground or 

balanced approach. 

The Federal budget is about choices. 

The choices we make matter. Do we 

choose to protect our seniors, to grow 

the middle class, to make smart investments in our economy, to be able to 

reach agreement on deficit reduction 

in a way that is fair to the American 

people or not? 

Republicans have made their choices, 

their priorities, and their values very 

clear. Once again, they are wasting 

America’s time playing politics instead 

of working to find that common 

ground. 

Sequestration was put in place to 

push us, to force us in Congress to 

work together on a bipartisan, balanced approach to deficit reduction. 

We knew it would be tough. We all 

knew we would not want to implement 

sequester, that that would be difficult. 

But we put on the table what needed to 

get done if we couldn’t have that kind 

of conversation, and we have not yet 

seen the Republican leadership in the 

House be willing to engage in that kind 

of serious deficit reduction conversation that takes a balanced approach, 

respects our obligation to Americans 

and our future. 

Today’s legislation does not move us 

any closer to achieving the goal of deficit reduction done in a balanced way, 

in a fair way, in a real way. We know 

we must reduce the Nation’s deficit in 

a balanced and fiscally responsible 

manner. We’ve seen every bipartisan 

independent commission tell us that. 

It means, and they’ve told us and we 

know, that we have to take some hard 

hits in spending cuts, that we have to 

require greater efficiency and greater 

effectiveness from all sectors of government, that we must do this with a 

balance, with increased revenue. It 

cannot be done without it. 

In order to build economic growth in 

our Nation, we need to do all of this. 

Deficit reduction means spending cuts, 

it means increased revenue, it means a 

balanced approach if we’re going to 

grow the economy for now and the future. 

The Republicans in Congress have rejected this balanced approach, and in 

doing so they have made it clear that 

they are not serious about deficit reduction. They are, in fact, willing to 

add $800 billion to our deficit with tax 

breaks to the wealthiest. That’s what 

this legislation does today. They are 

adding $2 trillion more in defense 

spending, more than the Pentagon has 

said it needs to keep us safe and defend 

our Nation. They’re willing to do this 

at the expense of our middle class, our 

seniors, and our economic recovery. 

The Republican approach to replacing the sequester means that we will be 

less prepared to compete in the 21st 

century economy. Now is not the time 

to make drastic cuts in transportation 

and infrastructure, in innovation and 

clean energy, or in education and 

health care. And that’s what this would 

do. 

The Republican plan creates false 

and unfair choices for the American 

people. 

Let’s get serious. Let’s have some 

real solutions. Let’s move forward on 

deficit reduction and economic growth 

for the American people. 

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I 

would now like to yield 5 minutes to 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

MCKEON) who recognizes that it is really not a balanced plan to say that we 

want to raise $3 on every American in 

taxes and only $1 in spending reductions, and it is not a balanced plan to 

say that we want to pick and choose 

winners and losers when it comes to 

the Tax Code reform. 

Mr. MCKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise 

in strong support of the National Security and Jobs Protection Act offered by 

Mr. WEST from Florida. I have the 

privilege of serving on the Armed Services Committee with him, and I thank 

him for his leadership in bringing this 

important bill forward at this time. 

It boggles my mind, Madam Speaker, 

that we are standing here ready to 

wipe out our national defense at a time 

when we turn on the TV in the morning 

and see the Middle East erupting, when 

we see Iran moving forward on their 

plans to achieve a nuclear weapon, 

when we see China increasing their defense spending while we’re cutting 

ours. 

People need to understand that we 

have cut $487 billion starting October 1 

over the next 10 years out of our defense. And on top of that, we have 

added this problem of sequestration, 

which adds another 500, $600 billion 

over the next 10 years starting January 

2. 

The first $487 billion, some thought 

was put into, and plans. Even though 

we had to adjust our strategy that 

we’ve had since World War II, we’ve 

had to cut back. We know that we 

won’t be able to carry out the missions 

that we’ve been called on to do in the 

future, but we will be able to survive, 

according to our military leaders. 

But the sequestration—we held five 

hearings last September with all of our 

former military leaders, our current 

military leaders, former chairmen and 

Secretaries of these committees, and 

to a man, every single one said that 

the sequestration would hollow out and 

wipe out our national defense. 

We would take the Navy back to the 

size it was in World War I, the Armed 

Forces, the ground forces back to the 

size they were in 1940, and the Air 

Force back to the smallest it’s been 

since it was created. How does anybody 

think that given these times that is 

not a stupid thing to be doing? 

The way the sequestration would 

take effect is you just pull out the 

budget and take a percentage—the administration hasn’t told us yet what 

percentage; it’s probably going to be 

about 15, 20 percent—off of every single 

line item. So mowing the lawn at Fort 

Dix will have the same priority as ammunition for the troops in Afghanistan. How can anybody think that that 

is a smart idea? 

You know, we have a Constitution of 

the United States, and it tells us how 

we should operate here in this Congress. It says one body passes a bill, 

the other body passes a bill, a conference is formed, you work out your 

differences, you take it back for final 

passage, and send it to the President to 

be signed into law. 

The House has acted. We took tough 

votes. We accomplished our objective 

of paying for the first year of sequestration, not just the defense cuts, but 

all of the cuts across the board, to 

move it back, pay for the first year, 

move it back into a time where we’re 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

less stressed with the election upon us, 

where we could do it in a less political 

environment, and the Senate hasn’t 

acted. In 126 days, the Senate hasn’t 

acted. Excuse me. The other body 

hasn’t acted. 

b 1620 

Madam Speaker, they don’t like our 

bill; I understand that. All they have 

to do is pass another bill, get it to conference, and then we’ll work out the 

differences. We accomplished ours 

through cuts, they can accomplish 

theirs through increasing taxes, and 

then we can work out a difference. All 

the gentleman on the other side says 

is, They’ve presented a plan and we 

don’t like their plan. 

Well, a plan is nothing. What they 

have to do is pass a bill. Show us. Get 

the votes, pass a bill, and then go to 

the conference. It’s in the Constitution. That’s how we operate. And it’s 

important enough that we should all 

act like adults and follow the Constitution and get it done. Our Nation, our 

security depends on it, and we don’t 

have much time left to do it. 

Madam Speaker, I think it’s very important that we pass this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. Let’s 

act like adults. Let’s earn our salaries 

here. Let’s get this job done. 

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 

the National Security and Jobs Protection Act 

offered by Mr. WEST, whom I have the pleasure of serving with on the Armed Services 

Committee. We all know that in less than 4 

months, the automatic across-the-board cuts 

known as sequestration will go into full effect, 

significantly reducing funding for our national 

defense and vital domestic programs. 

Mr. WEST and members of our committee 

understand just how much these draconian 

cuts will undermine our constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense. They 

will result in the United States having the 

smallest Army since World War II, the smallest 

Navy since World War I and the smallest Air 

Force in U.S. history. That is why President 

Obama’s own Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has said the pending sequester is devastating and akin to shooting ourselves in the 

head. 

So the natural question is—what is our government doing to stop sequestration? On May 

10, 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed a measured and responsible proposal to deal with this impending 

threat, H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement 

Reconciliation Act of 2012. Yet, 126 days later 

the Senate has not acted. The President has 

not acted. 

Madam Speaker, the House is prepared to 

work with the President and the Senate on alternatives to sequestration. We urge them to 

come to the table. That’s what Mr. WEST’S legislation does. Our colleagues in the Senate tell 

the press that they are negotiating a deal. 

Well they have been talking about that for a 

year now. It is time to put something down on 

paper and get it passed. We must not allow 

the well being of our troops and our national 

security to be used as a bargaining chip in this 

debate. 

Just this week we were reminded at how 

unstable and dangerous our world is. The killing of Americans in Benghazi on the anniversary of Sep 11th is a reminder and a challenge to every member of this body that we 

must put our national security and our national 

interests first. 

As one senior military official recently told 

me, America’s inability to govern ourselves 

past sequestration plays directly into the 

hands of those who spread a narrative of 

American decline and will ultimately thrust us 

into a more dangerous world. 

This legislation will require President Obama 

to live up to his obligation as Commander-inChief and submit his alternative plan to replace sequestration, while encouraging the 

United States Senate to do the same. Let us 

also not forget that it was the President who 

put defense ‘‘squarely on the table’’ last summer in the negotiations for the Budget Control 

Act. 

Madam Speaker, we are running out of time 

before the draconian cuts in sequestration 

take effect. There are 111 days remaining. We 

need to work together to find a solution. I urge 

members to vote ‘‘yes’’ on this legislation. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I agree with the chairman of the 

Armed Services Committee; we should 

act like adults. 

We agree that the sequester cuts are 

done in a stupid, meat-ax way. We also 

agree with what the chairman of the 

Armed Services Committee said last 

October when, if it came to choosing 

between allowing all of the terrible 

consequences that he rightly spoke 

about and taking a balanced approach 

to deficit reduction which included 

some additional revenue, he would accept the balanced approach. 

Mr. MCKEON. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will yield for a 

very quick question. 

Mr. MCKEON. You presented something that I said when I was asked 

after a speech what I would do, given 

two bad choices. But you don’t have 

anything on the floor yet. You haven’t 

passed a bill, so I don’t even have the 

opportunity to vote for increased taxes 

because you haven’t passed a bill yet. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

We wanted to give you that opportunity yesterday, which is why I went 

to the House Rules Committee with 

this substitute—which is in my hand, 

Mr. Chairman—that said you can replace the sequester right away if you’re 

willing to cut some big ag subsidies, 

which I thought we were all agreed 

that we could do, but also get rid of 

some of the subsidies for the Big Oil 

companies, not some of the smaller 

producers, the big five, and you ask 

folks over $1 million to pay the same 

effective rate that people who work for 

them pay. 

I agree with what you said last October, which is that it’s more important 

to prevent the kind of cuts that we’re 

talking about here today to defense 

and non-defense than it is to protect 

tax breaks for Big Oil companies. 

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to vote. We 

wanted to vote. If the Rules Committee 

will allow us a vote, you can do it right 

now. In fact, the thing I have in my 

hand, the substitute, if we passed it, 

would actually replace the sequester. 

The resolution on the floor doesn’t replace the sequester, even if it goes to 

the White House. 

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the Ways 

and Means Committee, Mr. LEVIN. 

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, I have now been 

here 30 years, with 26 on the Ways and 

Means Committee. So why are we at 

this point of serious impasse? I think a 

major reason is that the radical right 

has taken over House Republicans. Balance is considered surrender; compromise is considered retreat. 

Indeed, since the passage of the 

Budget Control Act in August of 2011, 

the Republicans have made sequestration even more likely. Before August of 

last year, the Republican position was 

no new revenues. The Bush tax cuts for 

the very wealthy were untouchable. 

But in their budget passed this March, 

the Republicans not only said that the 

Bush tax cuts for the wealthy must 

continue, but also they should be expanded. They are doubling down on a 

policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest 

while annual income stagnation continues for the middle class, and we 

have the worst income inequality in 

generations. So, in a word, they went 

from bad to worse, furthering the likelihood of sequestration. 

Under the Ryan budget and the socalled tax reform fast-track bill they 

passed last month, a recent analysis 

concluded that the average millionaire 

would lock in an average tax cut of 

$330,000, while the average person making less than $200,000 would see their 

taxes rise by $4,500. 

I support tax reform, but so far Republicans have refused to say which 

policies they would eliminate to pay 

for it. It’s been dodge and deception. 

Half of the money in individual income tax expenditures is in the lower 

rates for capital gains and dividends, 

and they propose to cut those rates 

even further, Mr. RYAN down to zero on 

capital gains. Most of those benefits go 

to those making over $1 million. Most 

of the other major tax expenditures— 

mortgage interest, health insurance, 

education benefits that would have to 

be decimated—are mainly middle class 

benefits. 

This bill ignores the fact that the 

President put forward a balanced deficit reduction package over a year ago 

that would have cut the deficit by $4 

trillion over 10 years. 

I close by emphasizing the word, 

‘‘balanced.’’ Essentially, the Republican Party that I’ve known over the 

years has become very deeply imbalanced in terms of the mainstream of 

America. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5963 

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I’d like to yield 2 minutes to 

another gentleman from California 

(Mr. CAMPBELL), who understands that 

we are in fact presenting a balanced approach inasmuch as we present the options to either pass this legislation 

that the House already did or an alternative. 

Mr. CAMPELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Madam Speaker, I had made some 

notes I was going to say, but I’m now 

going to go off script as the gentleman 

from Maryland, who I genuinely like 

and respect, made some comments to 

which I feel I must respond. 

The gentleman referred to, as the 

President does often, additional taxes 

on domestic energy, for which they use 

the pejorative ‘‘Big Oil,’’ and taxes on 

job creators, for which they are creating a pejorative, ‘‘the rich,’’ and that 

these two things will solve all ills. 

Well, by my count, when we did the 

budget this year in the Budget Committee, the Democrats used those two 

taxes to pay for seven, by my count, 

different items of spending. 

Now, let me explain what that’s like. 

It’s like this: 

Here is a dollar. This is one dollar, a 

single dollar. If I go into a store and 

spend it and buy these breath mints, 

the dollar will be gone and I will have 

the breath mints. I cannot now take 

this dollar into six more stores and buy 

six more bits of breath mints because 

the dollar is gone. I spent it. So you 

cannot use the same tax increases to 

pay for everything that are multiple 

times what those tax increases will 

ever raise. 

Now, I understand this is a political 

talking point. I get it. Look, we all do 

those. I get it. But this is not a game. 

We saw this week, with the reprehensible assassination of Ambassador Stevens, that our national defense is not a 

game—it is definitely not a game 

now—and our economy is not a game, 

as millions of people who are out of 

work can attest. This is a real proposal. We’re asking the President for a 

real proposal and not a political talking point, and we need to solve this 

problem. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I want to thank my friend from California for those comments, and I would 

just say this: 

I have in my hand a proposal, a substitute amendment. If we passed it, it 

would prevent the sequester from taking place on defense and non- defense 

in a balanced way. You spend these 

things one time to get rid of the sequester. 

The chairman of the Armed Services 

Committee said he wished he had an 

opportunity to vote on something like 

this, and I say to him, I wish the Rules 

Committee had given him that opportunity. 

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. HOYER. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

I tell my friend from California 

whose dollar was at issue here, the gentleman from California, I will tell you 

with all due respect and affection, your 

party, over the last 10 years, took that 

dollar and they bought those mints; 

and they went to the six subsequent 

stores and they gave them a credit card 

for the next mints they bought. It’s 

time to pay the bill. 

Mr. CAMPELL. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. HOYER. I have a very short time, 

but I wanted to make that point that 

you kept buying mints; you just didn’t 

keep paying. 

Madam Speaker, this bill is another 

instance of this Republican caucus 

walking away from its responsibility. 

The budget sequester was never intended to be a solution in and of itself. 

It was meant to be the blunt instrument to force compromise. Unfortunately, ‘‘compromise’’ is a dirty word 

around here in some quarters. 

To lay out conditions, as this bill 

does, requiring one side to concede before negotiations even begin—and 

while solving only part of the problem—disregards sequestration’s fundamental purpose: to be equally unacceptable to both sides that it forces 

compromise. 

b 1630 

This bill, which I strongly oppose, essentially says, let’s pretend. Let’s pretend we don’t have a deficit challenge. 

It says, let’s pretend that we can solve 

our problems by cutting domestic 

spending alone. 

No rational human being believes 

that’s the case. No cuts to Republicans’ 

favored programs, no elimination of 

tax loopholes for oil companies or anybody else, no increases in revenue by 

asking the wealthiest to contribute a 

little more to setting our country on a 

sound path. 

We’re collecting the lowest amount 

of revenues we’ve collected in 70 years 

in this country, and we haven’t cut 

spending, and we increased spending in 

the last administration very substantially. By the way, a greater percentage than this administration has increased the deficits: 86 percent versus 

41 percent. Check the figures. 

What we need, Madam Speaker, is 

pragmatism, principle, and serious governing. We need to be honest with the 

American people. Both bipartisan commissions that explored that issue concluded that the best solution is a balanced approach that addresses revenues, entitlements, and targeted cuts 

to domestic and defense spending. To 

achieve such a balanced solution, we 

need something that is sorely lacking 

in this House: courage, and a willingness to compromise, to come together, 

to reason together, and to make tough 

decisions together. 

Sequester is the direct result of Republican policies and is a part of the 

Republican strategy to cut spending. 

You keep saying, well, it’s the Democrats. This is not a Democratic policy. 

It’s an irrational policy, but it’s in 

your bills and in your rules. 

Now, instead of working with Democrats to turn off the sequester, Republicans are trying to paint the sequester 

as a Democratic initiative. That is 

false, untrue. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman another minute. 

Mr. HOYER. The Republican cut, cap 

and balance bill enforces its cuts and 

its caps. How? Through sequestration. 

That’s what you voted for. 

After the agreement was reached on 

the Budget Control Act that put the sequester in place, Speaker BOEHNER

said, ‘‘I got 98 percent of what I wanted.’’ Now our Republican colleagues are 

attempting to undo the sequester in a 

way that let’s them off the hook politically but puts America at risk financially. 

Democrats have an alternative—Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN just spoke of it—that 

would repeal the sequester for a year 

by asking that the wealthiest in our 

country, why, because they can help a 

little more, not because they’re bad. 

God bless them. And by the way, we’re 

most of those as well, folks. 

I hope my friends on the other side of 

the aisle, who I know are as deeply 

concerned about our deficits and debt 

as I am, will join Democrats in defeating this bill and sending a message 

that only by working together can we 

find the solutions we need. America expects that of us. 

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, at 

this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 

LANKFORD). 

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Speaker, 

let’s review. We have $16 trillion in 

debt, and it’s climbing every single 

day. We have no budget from the Senate for the last 3 years. The President’s 

budget got exactly zero votes in the 

House and in the Senate. And the Federal Government has dramatically increased spending, which has led to this 

spending-driven crisis. 

Let me show you what I mean by 

that. Five years ago, in 2007, the Federal Treasury received in $2.5 trillion 

in revenue, the same amount that’s estimated to come in this year in revenue, $2.5 trillion 5 years ago, $2.5 trillion now. 

Five years ago, total spent by the 

Federal Government, $2.7 trillion, now 

$3.7 trillion. That almost looks like a 

$1 trillion difference in spending, which 

equals the same amount as our deficit. 

It’s amazing to me. When we process 

through this, the problem is crystal 

clear. It’s just the solution that seems 

to evade us in this process. 

Now, some would say, tell you what 

we need to do. We’ve increased spending $1 trillion, let’s just increase taxes 

as well and that will solve the issue. 

I would say, why are we spending 

money we don’t have? 

Last summer, we agreed that we 

would cut some spending and put a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

group of people together in a room and 

let them work out a plan to find $1 trillion in cuts. The back-up, the emergency back-up plan was that we would 

cut across the board if a solution 

wasn’t found, 10 percent for security, 8 

percent for everything else. 

Now, no one wants across-the-board 

cuts that are that huge. A 1 percent cut 

in agencies would be no big deal. I 

can’t imagine any agency couldn’t handle 1 percent. Two percent, no big deal. 

Maybe even 3 percent. But you start to 

climb up, and it really begins to cut 

into some agencies that are actually 

very efficient. Other agencies, you 

could do a 50 percent cut and it would 

be fine. 

The problem is an across-the-board 

cut becomes a very big issue for us. 

Treating every line item the same is a 

mistake. Every part is not the same in 

our budget. 

Let me give you an example. At my 

house, on a Saturday afternoon, I’ll 

open up a Dr. Pepper can at my house 

and my very cute, red-headed 12-yearold daughter will walk up and say, 

Daddy, can we split that? I will almost 

always smile at her and say, sure, I’ll 

take the liquid, you take the can and 

we’ll split it even. To which she says to 

me, that’s not really fair. 

But it again comes back to the same 

point: not all parts are the same. If we 

do across-the-board cuts in every area, 

that is not the best way to do it. 

Now, I guarantee you, you allow this 

House to go item by item through this 

budget, we will find $100 billion in cuts 

next year. I guarantee you. But doing 

across-the-board cuts into FBI, it cuts 

into our defense, it cuts into Border 

Patrol, it cuts into the basics and the 

heart of what we’re doing; and we cannot do that. 

The House passed a very specific plan 

for dealing with this last May. It is 

complete for us. Now it’s time for the 

Senate to actually do their job, and it’s 

time for the President to send that 

over to us. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I 

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. CALVERT). 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

support, obviously, of H.R. 6365, the National Security and Job Protection 

Act. 

Do we need any more evidence than 

recent events in Egypt and Libya to 

oppose these devastating cuts and what 

it would do to our Nation security? I 

don’t think so. 

If sequestration occurs, it would cut 

the military to its smallest size since 

before World War II. All the while, 

we’re still a Nation at war in Afghanistan, facing unrest and aggression in 

the Middle East, increased threats 

from Iran, China, and North Korea. 

In addition to the 10 percent cut to 

defense, our domestic programs would 

have, such as health, science, research, 

education, border security, an additional 8 percent cut. 

In May, this House passed the only 

plan that’s been presented thus far to 

prevent and replace sequestration, last 

May, by providing and making commonsense reforms to our fast-growing 

government that’s on auto pilot spending programs and to avert the spending-driven economic crisis that’s before 

us. 

Well, we’ve seen no signs of leadership from the White House or the Senate. But the House will act again today 

with H.R. 6365, the National Security 

and Job Protection Act. The House will 

lead, where others have not. 

This legislation sends a clear statement that the House is ready to carry 

out our budgetary responsibilities. We 

just need willing partners. The President, the Senate, House Republicans 

and Democrats, we all agree on a common goal: replace the sequester to protect important domestic programs, our 

fragile economy, our national security 

and our troops. 

This bill is a path to that solution. 

Make no mistake, if sequestration goes 

into effect, America will compromise a 

legacy of superiority on the land, on 

the sea, and in the air and potentially 

send our economy spiraling back into a 

recession. 

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 

of this bill, and I would hope that we 

could pass this with a large number 

and get on with it. 

b 1640 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I now yield 1 

minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. PELOSI). 

Ms. PELOSI. As we come to the floor 

this afternoon to talk about this sequester issue, the clock is ticking. 

Every moment we delay in dealing 

with the budget issue is a moment of 

time that does not increase confidence 

in our economy, that does not bring 

more certainty to our economic situation, and that does not reduce the deficit. 

I heard the previous speaker say that 

this legislation that is on the floor 

would end sequestration. It does not. 

That is one of the major differences between it and the Democratic proposal 

put forth by Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Unfortunately, afraid of debate on the floor, 

the Republicans on the Rules Committee did not allow Mr. VAN HOLLEN’s 

proposal to come to the floor today so 

that we could have a vote on it; but 

even with that, we can have a debate 

on it. 

The debate is about fairness. It’s 

about balance. It’s about living up to 

our responsibilities. It’s about saying, 

yes, we all have to compromise—there 

will be cuts; we need revenue; we want 

growth. That’s what Mr. VAN HOLLEN’s 

proposal does. It does, indeed, replace 

the sequestration. It is a better plan. It 

actually does end sequestration, as I 

mentioned, through a mix of cuts and 

revenues. 

The reason we have a problem here is 

that our Republican colleagues have 

refused to have one red cent from the 

wealthiest people in our country contribute to resolving this fiscal crisis, 

this budget crisis—not one red cent. If 

they cared as much about defense as 

they say, 1 year ago they would have 

agreed to a plan with fairness and balance, where we would have had growth 

on the table, making decisions about 

revenue and about cuts to produce 

growth and not getting into a situation 

that called for across-the-board cuts in 

defense and in our domestic budget. 

This is really silly. It’s really silly. 

It’s not serious. It’s a charade, this bill 

that they have on the floor today. It 

just keeps making matters worse as 

the clock keeps ticking. So I urge my 

colleagues to reject this mirage of a 

bill that poses as a suggestion and to 

support, instead, ideas that are being 

advanced by Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don’t 

like everything about it. We’ve cut 

over $1 trillion. That’s how we got 

through last year—all cuts, no revenue. 

You need only see how we differ by 

just looking at the Ryan-Romney Republican budget. Their blueprint says 

we’re going to end Medicare; we’re 

going to make seniors pay $6,000 more 

as we end Medicare; and we’re going to 

give tax cuts to the wealthiest people 

in our country. That’s not fair and 

that’s not balanced, but that is what 

would happen if the Republican bill 

were to become law. It would enact the 

Ryan bill. So I urge my colleagues to 

think very seriously about this, because people sent us here to find solutions. We must resolve this. 

When the Speaker of the House says, 

I’m not confident we can do this, we 

are confident we can do anything we 

set our minds to, and we certainly have 

to be confident that we can honor our 

responsibilities to the American people. We all have to go to the table and 

be willing to yield, willing to compromise. We had to do it with President Bush, Senior, and with President 

Bush on his recovery package for our 

country. Democrats cooperated with 

both of those Presidents when we were 

in the majority. 

Why is it that the Republicans in the 

House see no reason to compromise 

even at the risk of the full faith and 

credit of the United States of America? 

even at the expense of the health of our 

economy? even at the expense of jobs 

for the American people? 

Vote ‘‘no’’ on this mirage. Support 

what Mr. VAN HOLLEN is putting forth. 

Let’s get moving because the clock is 

ticking. 

Mr. GARRETT. I yield 4 minutes to 

the gentleman from South Carolina 

(Mr. MULVANEY). 

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. 

I saw the gentleman from Maryland 

this morning on television. It was the 

first time I had heard, Madam Speaker, 

of his proposal. So I had a chance to 

take a look at it today, and I also had 

a chance to look at the CBO report 

that was performed on it. I saw some 

interesting things that I don’t know if 

we’ve discussed fully here today. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5965 

It raises taxes by $85 billion over the 

10-year window. According to the CBO, 

it raises spending by almost $80 billion. 

This is a refrain that I used to hear a 

lot when I was younger—taxes and 

spending, taxes and spending, raise 

taxes and increase spending. I thought 

it was gone from today’s party across 

the aisle, but evidently, here it is— 

alive and well—in Mr. VAN HOLLEN’s 

substitute offering, raising taxes by $85 

billion and raising spending by $80 billion, which is a net reduction of the 

deficit of $5 billion over 10 years. According to the CBO, it actually increases the deficit by $55 billion in the 

first year. 

It does that, by the way, in part and 

parcel by offering what they call the 

Buffett rule. The last time I came to 

this well, I believe the gentleman from 

Maryland and I had a nice exchange 

about whether or not my amendment 

was a gimmick. It was the amendment 

regarding the President’s budget. I 

seem to remember someone else calling 

the Buffett rule a gimmick. In my research in coming over here today, I 

found out that it was, in fact, the 

President of the United States who 

called the Buffett rule a gimmick. So 

I’m wondering now if the President believes that part of the gentleman from 

Maryland’s offering is, in fact, a gimmick because it encompasses the 

Buffett rule in its entirety. 

I compare all of this, Madam Speaker, to the offering that we have before 

you with our bill. That bill reduces the 

deficit by at least $237 billion over the 

same 10 years. Theirs reduces it by $5 

billion—raising taxes. According to the 

CBO, ours reduces the deficit by at 

least $237 billion. That’s the smallest 

number the CBO gives us. It also gives 

us four times as much in deficit reduction in the first year as does the BCA 

that it seeks to replace. Again, theirs 

increases the deficit by $55 billion in 

the first year. Ours decreases it by 

more than the BCA it seeks to replace. 

Our offering does that without asking 

anybody to pay more money to the 

government. People pay enough money 

to the government. We spend their 

money improperly. It’s not that we 

don’t take enough from them. We take 

enough money from our citizens. We 

spend it improperly. 

So, when I finished looking at this, I 

thought to myself, I think it would be 

great to have this come up for a vote. 

I’m disappointed that the Rules Committee did not give Mr. VAN HOLLEN

the chance to bring it to the floor. It 

has happened to me before, and for 

that, I am sympathetic. At the same 

time, I know that he has a chance to do 

that still. We are going to finish this 

debate here in a few minutes; and before we vote, there is going to be a motion to recommit. The gentleman from 

Maryland could easily offer his amendment as the motion to recommit. In 

fact, I would welcome the opportunity 

to see that debate. I would welcome the 

opportunity here, 60 days before an 

election, to have my colleagues across 

the aisle come over and say, We want 

to raise your taxes. Would you please 

reelect us. I want that on the floor. I’m 

disappointed the Rules Committee did 

not bring it. I would love to see if 

that’s really what our colleagues 

across the aisle stand for. 

I heard it described by the gentlelady 

from California a few minutes ago as a 

better plan. I think we are doing a disservice by not allowing a vote on this 

particular bill, because it is not a better plan, and I think the vote here 

would bear that out, not just on our 

side of the aisle. I would be curious to 

see if that’s what our colleagues stand 

for—more taxes, more spending here 60 

days before an election. 

I encourage folks to support our bill. 

Our bill cuts spending, lets people keep 

their money, and still allows us to end 

the sequester. 

b 1650 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I wish Mr. MULVANEY were more persuasive with his colleagues because we 

agree. I wish we had a vote on this. 

We’re happy to have that debate. In 

fact, that’s what we’ve been having on 

the floor today. 

We heard a lot from our colleagues 

about the devastating impact of these 

cuts on defense and other things, and 

we agree, which is why we think it’s 

appropriate to ask people who earn 

more than a $1 million a year to help 

contribute a little bit more to our deficit so that we don’t have to see these 

consequences. 

I now yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. NADLER). 

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, addressing our debt is a critical longterm goal, but it’s not our immediate 

problem. Right now, our immediate 

problem is high unemployment, and 

our economy needs efforts to spur job 

growth. The expiration of the Bush-era 

tax cuts, particularly those targeted 

toward the middle class, and the start 

of unparalleled across-the-board $1.2 

trillion spending cuts mandated by the 

Budget Control Act sequestration provision, threatened further job growth. 

Looking just at sequestration, there 

is rare agreement. Not the President, 

not the Congress, not anyone ever 

wanted or expected the sequestration 

measures to take effect. Why? Because 

we have a jobs problem, and the spending cuts demanded by sequestration are 

a huge jobs killer. 

Republicans argue that this steep cut 

would risk defense-related jobs, and 

they’re right. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these cuts 

would kill 1.3 million defense jobs in 

the first 3 years. But the Republicans 

completely ignore that the domestic 

spending cuts will also kill an estimated 1.3 million jobs in the same 

timeframe. Put another way, sequestration will kill 2.6 million American 

jobs in just 3 years. We simply must 

stop the sequestration-mandated 

spending cuts disaster, but this bill 

won’t do that. 

This bill mandates draining tens of 

billions of dollars of Federal spending 

next year, reducing the already draconian domestic spending caps, and doing 

all of this without adding a single dollar of additional revenue. The outcome 

is virtually the same. This Republican 

bill will still kill a couple of million 

American jobs. Talk about driving off a 

cliff. 

Basic economics tells us that during 

good times, with low unemployment, 

government should reduce the national 

debt, but that to support job growth, 

government must not reduce spending 

during recessions. Now when we suffer 

from high unemployment, the proposed 

spending cuts, particularly those of the 

magnitude Republicans are proposing, 

would be disastrous. When we get to 5 

percent unemployment, then we should 

start worrying about spending cuts. 

Right now, jobs are the issue. 

Madam Speaker, I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote 

on H.R. 6365. 

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 

to H.R. 6365. 

While there is wide bipartisan agreement 

that getting control of our debt is a critical 

long-term goal, there is also agreement that 

unemployment is unacceptably high and that 

our economy remains in need of major efforts 

to spur job growth. 

As we grapple with these issues, there are 

two significant events approaching at the end 

of the year that many have argued could send 

our economy careening off the so-called fiscal 

cliff: (1) expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, 

particularly those targeted toward the middle 

class, and (2) the start of unparalleled, acrossthe-board $1.2 trillion spending cuts mandated 

by last summer’s Budget Control Act sequestration provision. 

On the tax question, we are where we’ve remained for years now—the President and 

Democrats agree that we can’t afford to foot 

the bill for tax breaks for the wealthiest among 

us, while the Republicans continue to be beholden to the don’t-tax-even-millionaires-andbillionaires plan. 

But on sequestration, there is rare agreement. The simple truth is that no one—not the 

president, not the Congress, not anyone—ever 

wanted or expected the sequestration to take 

affect. Why? Because we have a jobs problem, and the spending cuts demanded by 

mandatory sequestration are a huge jobs killer. 

In 2013 alone, sequestration would require 

that defense and discretionary domestic programs each incur an across-the-board $54.7 

billion cut. Republicans have been spending a 

lot of time talking about the effects this steep 

cut would have on defense-related jobs. And 

they are right. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these cuts would result in the loss 

of 1.3 million defense jobs in just the first 

three years. 

But, Madam Speaker, that is not the end of 

the story. The Republicans completely ignore 

the almost identical job loss from the mandated domestic spending cuts—also about 1.3 

million jobs lost in three years, according to 

EPI. 

Put another way, if we don’t stop it, sequestration will be responsible for killing 2.6 million 

American jobs. 

So we simply must stop the sequestration 

mandated spending cuts. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

But this bill won’t do that—at least, not really. H.R. 6365 still mandates (1) draining tens 

of billions of dollars of federal spending next 

year, (2) reducing the already draconian 

spending caps as outlined in the BCA, and (3) 

doing all this without adding one single dollar 

of additional revenue. So the outcome is the 

same—the Republicans would still kill a couple of million American jobs. 

Talk about driving off a cliff. 

But we won’t hear about that from the Republicans, as they are too busy dancing as 

fast as they can to rewrite their role in setting 

up this self-made disaster in the first place. 

During last summer’s debt ceiling debate— 

another game of chicken where Republicans 

held our economy hostage—Republicans demanded a dollar-for-dollar spending cut in 

order to raise the debt limit so our nation 

wouldn’t, for the first time ever, default on our 

debts. Sure, there was the charade of reaching compromise through the so-called super 

committee. But it should come as no surprise 

to anyone in this Chamber that we are where 

we are today. Republicans wanted deep cuts 

that would kill millions of jobs, and we now 

stand on the brink of implementing them. 

Basic economics tells us that, if you want to 

support jobs and build the economy, government must not reduce spending during recessions. In good times, when unemployment is 

low, government should build surpluses to pay 

down the debt. In bad times, when unemployment is high, government should run deficits 

to make up for slowed private sector spending 

and to spur job growth. That is why what 

President Clinton did in the 90s—balancing 

the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt during a good economic time—was 

so good, and why what President Bush did— 

enacting huge tax cuts and running large deficits during a time of low unemployment, when 

he should have been paying down the national 

debt—was so devastating. Now, when we suffer from high unemployment, proposed spending cuts—particularly those of the magnitude 

Republicans are proposing—would be disastrous. When unemployment is down to five 

percent, then we can think about spending 

cuts. Now we must spur employment, and not 

enact these job-killing spending cuts. 

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we 

stop the misguided and self-made disaster 

that sequestration, or equivalent spending 

cuts, will bring. But H.R. 6365 won’t do it. I 

urge a no vote. 

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I 

advise my colleague from Maryland 

that I have no further speakers at this 

time, and I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I ask how 

much time remains on each side. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes 

remaining, and the gentleman from 

New Jersey has 5 minutes remaining. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the distinguished lady from 

Texas, Ms. SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank 

you very much to the ranking member 

of the Budget Committee. 

Madam Speaker, we rise today to try 

to bring some logic and sense, because 

as Americans debate sequestration, 

they throw their hands up and say, 

What is that? What is that in the 

minds of children and the elderly? 

What does that mean in a real rational 

way of coming together and saying 

there are some cuts and there are some 

revenue increases to be able to invest 

in the American public? 

In order to create jobs, you expend 

dollars, you invest in research and development, you help to create opportunities for small businesses, you help to 

promote manufacturing. That’s how 

you create jobs. 

But let me tell you what the underlying bill says. This bill will only take 

effect one year later. It has no opportunity, no desire, and no rationale to 

raise revenue. Every thinking economist says that we must raise revenue 

in order to reduce the deficit and continue to spend dollars to invest in the 

American public. 

Do you want your military families 

to be on food stamps? Do you want 50 

million Americans to suffer food insecurity? Do you want these Americans 

to suffer? That would include seniors 

on Meals on Wheels, home care, adult 

protective services. Millions of children, one-third of them, depend on 

these social service block grants, child 

protective services, foster care and 

child care. This also includes 1 million 

disabled, respite care or transportation. Do you want to, as I said, continue the food insecurity for 60 million 

children? 

All I can say is that this bill not only 

kicks the can down the road; it kicks 

the mountain down the road. Let’s vote 

against this bill. Let’s sit down at the 

table, boost revenue, and invest in the 

American people. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman 

from Vermont (Mr. WELCH). 

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, we 

have a very serious debt problem in 

this country. We have a very serious 

jobs problem in this country. Both of 

those serious problems are solvable. 

The impediment is political. 

This is exhibit A of a dysfunctional 

Congress. The supercommittee failed 

this Congress when the leadership on 

the Republican side implemented these 

sequester cuts. We all know they make 

no sense from an economic standpoint, 

but it puts the burden back on us to 

come up with the balanced approach 

that every American knows is the only 

way forward, a balance of revenues, a 

balance with entitlement reform, and 

the Pentagon making a contribution to 

solve our problems. That is what is 

going to create jobs, and that is what 

is going to create fiscal stability. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I yield myself the remainder of my 

time. 

Madam Speaker, the issue all afternoon has not been whether we should 

replace the sequester. Yes, we should. 

The issue has been how we do that. 

We’ve heard our Republican colleagues talk about the devastating impact of the sequester on defense and 

nondefense. We agree. That’s why we 

put forward a plan to replace the sequester in the balanced way that has 

been recommended by bipartisan 

groups through a combination of cuts, 

but also revenues generated by things 

like closing the tax loopholes for big 

oil companies. Our Republican colleagues have just doubled down on the 

position that it’s more important to 

protect tax breaks for big oil companies and very wealthy individuals than 

it is to protect our investment in 

spending in defense or other important 

national priorities. That’s what this 

debate is all about. 

I hope we will reject this proposal 

and adopt a more balanced one. 

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I 

yield myself the balance of my time. 

Madam Speaker, I began this day 

being interviewed by a group of southern college students, and the primary 

question that they asked was why can’t 

Congress seem to work in a more bipartisan manner, work across the aisle, 

work with the other Chamber. I had to 

explain to them what was about to 

occur here on the floor; that one of the 

most seminal issues that we have to 

deal with in this country is fiscal matters and also our defense matters that 

this House, led by Republicans, have 

done everything we possibly could to 

make sure that this country stands 

strong fiscally and stands strong in a 

defense posture, as well. We’ve reached 

across the aisle, and we’ve reached 

across to the Senate in a bipartisan 

manner to effectuate that. 

We have passed a budget out of this 

House only to find that bill go to the 

Senate where as they say ‘‘all good 

bills go to die,’’ and not have anything 

come back. We’ve communicated to the 

President of the United States that we 

want to work with him on a budget, 

only to see his own budget come to the 

Senate and fail 97–0, and come to this 

House and fail 414–0, not getting any 

Democrat or Republican support for 

that bill, as well. 

We have reached across the aisle. We 

have tried to work on the fiscal matters and the defense matters when it 

comes to the sequester. We recognize 

the devastating impact that this will 

have on our defense posture in this 

country. As other Members have already come to the floor, in light of all 

the past circumstances that have come 

across this country in the last decade, 

in light of the memorial services that 

we just held, all of us, in a bipartisan 

manner out on those steps just days 

ago on September 11, in light of what 

has just been in the newspaper in the 

last several days of our embassies 

being attacked and Americans killed 

on American soil, we realize the important significance of making sure that 

we have a strong defense at this point 

in time. 

I ask anyone who considers this legislation to vote ‘‘yes’’ in favor of this 

legislation, and anyone who would 

stand and vote ‘‘no’’ against trying to 

make sure that we’re strong fiscally 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5967 

and trying to make sure that we are 

strong in the defense posture as well, 

anyone who would vote ‘‘no,’’ I would 

ask them how do they when they go 

through the airport leaving here or 

coming to Washington, look anyone in 

uniform in the eye and say that they 

voted against a bill to make sure that 

there would not be the defense cuts 

here. 

b 1700 

The other side of the aisle has no answer for that. Their only answer today, 

and as it’s been ever since I’ve been 

here in Congress, is to say the solution 

to all problems is what? Raising taxes. 

As I said before, they want to raise $3 

in taxes for every $1 in spending cuts. 

We do not have a revenue problem in 

this country; we have a spending problem in this country. You know, there is 

an old saying that goes, if there is a 

dime left on the table in Washington, 

someone, primarily from the other side 

of the aisle I would suggest, will find a 

dollar’s worth of use for spending it, 

and I think that’s the case here. If they 

raise the taxes 3 to 1, they will find $30 

worth of spending to increase. 

As the gentleman from California 

pointed out, that was the example 

every single time in the Budget Committee. Every single time it was suggested for spending cuts, they were opposed. They would always use the same 

spending cuts to further increase 

spending elsewhere. 

The gentleman from California 

makes the reference to spending a dollar every time for—what was it?—for 

breath mints, I think it was. Well, 

quite candidly, after listening to this 

debate, and after listening to the debate continuously in Budget Committee over years, I always leave there, 

as I will leave here tonight, with a sour 

taste in my mouth if the other side of 

the aisle does not agree to begin to 

work with us in a bipartisan manner to 

make sure that this country is strong 

fiscally, to make sure that this country is strong in a defense posture as 

well. 

I would urge all of my colleagues 

from both sides of this aisle to vote 

‘‘yea’’ on this legislation. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

Pursuant to House Resolution 778, 

the previous question is ordered. 

The question is on the engrossment 

and third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time, and was read the 

third time. 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I have a motion to recommit at the 

desk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the 

gentleman opposed to the bill? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I am opposed. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the motion to recommit. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Van Hollen moves to recommit the bill 

H.R. 6365 to the Committee on the Budget 

with instructions to report the same back to 

the House forthwith, with the following 

amendment: 

Strike sections 3 and 4 and insert the following: 

SEC. 3. BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION THAT 

PROTECTS MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS 

AND REQUIRES EVERYONE TO PAY 

THEIR FAIR SHARE. 

(a) CONDITIONAL ELIMINATION OF SEQUESTRATION.—Sections 251A(7) through 251A(11) 

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall have no force or 

effect upon enactment of subsequent deficit 

reduction legislation containing savings over 

10 years that meet or exceed the outlay 

changes that would have resulted from those 

provisions. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS OF DEFICIT REDUCTION

LEGISLATION.—Deficit reduction legislation 

enacted pursuant to subsection (a) shall— 

(1) require upper income taxpayers to pay 

their fair share by instituting a ‘‘Buffett 

rule’’; 

(2) extend middle class tax cuts while allowing components of the tax extensions 

that benefit upper income beneficiaries to 

expire as scheduled under current law; and 

(3) include targeted spending cuts. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes in 

support of his motion. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, 

let’s just flash back to a year ago when 

we were working on the Budget Control 

Act, and it’s, I think, worth reminding 

everybody what the Speaker of the 

House, Mr. BOEHNER, said at that time: 

I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy. 

That’s what the Speaker of the House 

said about the Budget Control Act. 

We now find ourselves here trying to 

find a way to prevent these across-theboard meat-ax cuts from taking place 

in the defense budget and the non-defense budget. There is agreement that 

that would be a stupid way to deal with 

our deficit, so there’s no dispute there. 

The issue is: What do we do to replace the sequester, to achieve deficit 

reduction, but do it in a reasonable and 

credible way? 

That’s where the rub is. 

What Democrats have said is we need 

to do it in the way that bipartisan 

groups have proposed that we do it, 

through a combination of additional 

cuts in a targeted way, not in a meatax, across-the-board way. 

But, yes, we also have to ask the very 

wealthiest Americans to contribute 

more to reducing the deficit, because 

the math is pretty simple. If you don’t 

ask very wealthy people to contribute 

one more penny to reducing the deficit, 

then you have to hit everybody else 

much harder. You have to hit seniors 

on Medicare harder. You have to reduce dramatically our investment in 

our kids’ education. You have to cut 

investments in infrastructure, our 

roads and bridges. Those are the consequences of not taking a balanced approach. 

So we say, when it comes to the sequester, we should avoid all the terrible things our colleagues have said 

and which we agree with. Let’s take a 

balanced approach to do doing it. 

You know what? The President submitted a plan to do just that, more 

than a year ago. It’s not that he 

doesn’t have a plan; it’s our Republican 

colleagues don’t like the plan. Why? 

Because he says we don’t need to provide these big taxpayer giveaways to 

the Big Oil companies anymore. We 

don’t need to cut dramatically into 

things like Medicaid and Medicare 

when we should be asking seniors to 

pay a little bit more. Let’s ask them to 

pay what they were paying when President Clinton was President. That’s the 

last time we balanced our budget. 

The question is: How do we do it? 

The President submitted a proposal. 

As I said earlier, I took a proposal yesterday to the Rules Committee that 

would have done this in a balanced approach. Our colleagues say they want 

an open, democratic process. We 

haven’t had a vote on that. 

Instead, we’re going to have a vote 

on something that actually, even if it 

passes the House and the Senate and is 

signed by the President, doesn’t do 

anything to eliminate the sequester, 

doesn’t do a thing. It just says that the 

President has to come up with a plan. 

But they tell him what it has to do. 

They say it cannot be balanced. It cannot include any revenue. It has to be 

across the board in cuts. 

Now let’s talk a minute about taxes. 

The President has called upon this 

Congress to immediately enact tax relief to 98 percent of the American people, let’s do it now before they expire 

at the end of this year, and our Republican colleagues say, No, no. Nobody 

gets tax relief unless very wealthy people get a bonus tax break, because everybody on the President’s proposal 

gets tax relief on the first $250,000 of 

their income. Our Republican colleagues say, No; unless people like Mitt 

Romney get an extra tax break, nobody 

gets tax relief. 

You know what? The President’s proposal provides tax relief to 97 percent 

of all pass-through businesses. The Republican colleagues say, No; unless 

you’re going to give businesses like 

Bain Capital a bonus tax break, we 

can’t ask them to contribute one more 

penny to reducing the deficit. 

Let’s talk about jobs. It was really 

interesting to hear our Republican colleagues talk today about the fact that, 

if you allow these budget cuts to take 

place, it will have devastating impacts 

on the jobs in this country. 

You know what? A year ago this 

month, the President submitted a proposal to this Congress, a jobs initiative. It called for investing more in our 

infrastructure, in our roads and in our 

bridges, to help put more persons back 

to work. We have 14 percent unemployment in the construction industry. 

So here are our Republican colleagues saying, Well, we can’t allow 

any of these cuts to take place because 

people who were building tanks will 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

lose their jobs. And we agree; spending 

that money on defense has consequences. But how is it that spending 

money on roads and bridges and infrastructure doesn’t also put people back 

to work? That’s what the President 

proposed a year ago. Not a single vote 

on the President’s jobs bill. There were 

37 votes to repeal ObamaCare, but not 

one vote on the President’s jobs bill. 

So, Madam Speaker, whether it’s acting on the jobs bill, which has been sitting here for more than a year, or acting on the President’s proposal to immediately extend tax relief to 97 percent of the American people, or whether it’s taking a responsible balanced 

approach to replacing the sequester, 

let’s do what bipartisan groups have 

recommended and take that balanced 

way to build our economy and reduce 

our deficit. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I 

rise in opposition to the motion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARRETT. The seminal question, I think, to those who are watching deliberations here on the floor tonight, they are asking themselves the 

question: Are you better off today than 

you were 4 years ago? 

When you look at the economy, you 

have to answer that question with a resounding, ‘‘No.’’ Poverty is continuously up year after year after year, at 

the highest levels in this country we 

have seen since back in 1995, when one 

out of seven people in this country now 

find themselves, unfortunately, on food 

stamps. 

b 1710 

Forty-seven million of our friends 

and neighbors find themselves in that 

situation. One out of six Americans 

will be on Medicaid. Are you better off 

today than you were in the past? Absolutely not. And that’s why it’s astonishing as I stand here to listen to the 

other side of the aisle and the proposals that they presented so far and 

that they have over the years. 

For the last hour of the debate, the 

gentleman from Maryland has been 

saying one or two basic things, but one 

primary thing is that he went to Rules 

last night, that he had a plan. He 

pulled out his plan and he said, This is 

what the solution is. This is how we 

solve the problem. But the problem was 

that that mean old Rules Committee 

just wouldn’t allow him to have it 

come down to the floor tonight. 

Well, my friend and colleague from 

South Carolina made the recommendation to him: Take that proposal. If that 

is truly the answer in your heart, it’s 

the right answer, that is truly the way 

to go, and lay it out. If you really do 

believe that the solution to the problem is by raising taxes to the tune of 

$85 billion and cutting spending to the 

extent that there’s only a net reduction of $5 billion; if you truly do believe, as you said for the last hour, 

that the way to resolve the issue of sequester is by raising taxes by $3 for 

every $1 in cuts; if you truly believe, 

and for the last hour, as he has said, 

that is the solution to the problem, 

then he could have come here and presented an alternative in this format. 

But he has not done so. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield? 

That’s just not true. We asked the 

Parliamentarian, and they said we 

couldn’t bring it in that format because of the rule. 

Mr. GARRETT. Reclaiming my time, 

what we have here before us is a lack of 

direction, a lack of leadership that 

America is so looking for out of Washington. The American public is looking 

for leadership from Washington. 

They’re not seeing it from the President, who has failed to present a budget that would get any single vote in either the House or the Senate—97–0, 414– 

0. They’re looking for the Senate to 

demonstrate some degree of vision, 

some degree of leadership by taking 

any of the bills that we send over to 

them, whether it’s the budget or the 

sequester legislation, and showing that 

they can pass that legislation. They’re 

looking for some degree of vision from 

the other side of the aisle in the House 

as well on these matters to make sure 

that we can stand up fiscally and a 

strong defense, and they’re seeing a 

lack of vision here by the other side of 

the House as well. 

We know what writings tell us: A Nation without vision leads to a people 

that will perish. Well, Madam Speaker, 

I can tell you this: that the route these 

last 2 years, this Republican-controlled 

Congress has shown vision with our 

strong budget, with our sequester bill, 

and now with this bill as well to 

present the option to the other side, to 

the Senate, and to the President to 

make sure that we can defend this Nation strong militarily and fiscally as 

well. 

I would encourage all my colleagues 

to vote ‘‘no’’ on this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion to recommit. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

on that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 

will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum 

time for any electronic vote on the 

question of passage. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 170, nays 

247, not voting 12, as follows: 

[Roll No. 576] 

YEAS—170 

Ackerman 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

LujaμAE1n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NAYS—247 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5969 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peters 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pingree (ME) 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—12 

Akin 

Bachus 

Blumenauer 

Broun (GA) 

Critz 

Garamendi 

Herger 

Jackson (IL) 

Johnson (GA) 

King (NY) 

Ross (AR) 

Towns 

b 1733 

Messrs. KISSELL, FORTENBERRY 

and LIPINSKI changed their vote from 

‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ 

Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from 

‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ 

So the motion to recommit was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the noes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, 

I demand a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This 

will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 223, noes 196, 

not voting 10, as follows: 

[Roll No. 577] 

AYES—223 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOES—196 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Amash 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (CA) 

Bass (NH) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Boren 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Duncan (TN) 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Herrera Beutler 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Labrador 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

LaTourette 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McClintock 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Paul 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Wolf 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—10 

Akin 

Blumenauer 

Broun (GA) 

Burton (IN) 

Garamendi 

Herger 

Jackson (IL) 

King (NY) 

Ross (AR) 

Towns 

b 1742 

Mrs. SCHMIDT and Mr. GOWDY 

changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 

RESOLUTION, 2013 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 

consideration of the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 117) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for 

other purposes, will now resume. 

The Clerk read the title of the joint 

resolution. 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. BARBER. Madam Speaker, I 

have a motion to recommit at the 

desk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the 

gentleman opposed to the joint resolution? 

Mr. BARBER. I am opposed in its 

current form. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the motion to recommit. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Barber moves to recommit the joint 

resolution H.J. Res. 117 to the Committee on 

Appropriations with instructions to report 

the same back to the House forthwith with 

the following amendment: 

At the end of the joint resolution (before 

the short title), insert the following: 

SEC. 156. (a) FULL YEAR FUNDING FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNTS.—Notwithstanding section 106, appropriations and 

funds made available and authority granted 

pursuant to this joint resolution (including 

section 101(c)) for the following accounts of 

the Department of Defense shall remain 

available until September 30, 2013: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE