Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2011

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

At the outset, I just want to say to my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, I have great respect for him. And I hope he won't take it the wrong way, but I'm glad to have you back, and look forward to actually working with you next year. I actually hoped that we'd be able to work in a bipartisan way, starting right now. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be

the case, and we are engaged here in the House on this floor today in what has become a ridiculous political stunt which will actually take us much closer as a country to going over the fiscal cliff. We're wasting valuable time. The Speaker should be engaged with the President of the United States in negotiations rather than having walked away from those negotiations with the President. That walking away is becoming a bad habit.

The President put on the table a balanced budget plan that calls for shared responsibility. It calls for $1.2 trillion in additional revenues from high-income earners over the next 10 years, and $1.2 trillion in additional cuts, if you include the interest savings over the next 10 years. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, that $1.2 trillion in cuts comes on top of the over $1 trillion in cuts that have already been agreed to this year.

And to our colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, when he says that the President hasn't lifted a finger to remove the sequester on defense, that's just not true. It's just not true. In fact, the President's proposal to cut the $1.2 trillion would also remove the sequester for at least 1 year--and maybe for 10. And it's more cuts total than what we're talking about on the floor here today.

So what we really have, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that too many of our Republican colleagues still think that compromise is a dirty word. And that's what brings us to the floor today in this political exercise.

As has, unfortunately, been the case throughout the year, the Republican package that we're dealing with today has two objectives. One objective is to minimize the impact of the budget challenge on high-income earners and to shift that burden on the middle-income earners and working people.

The numbers tell the story, Mr. Speaker. Because if we go over the fiscal cliff, people earning over $1 million will face a significant income tax hike. But under the Republican Plan B, compared to the Senate plan that is before this House right now, the House Republican plan would give those millionaires a $50,000 tax break on average.

But do you know who would pay more under a Republican Plan B? A whole lot of middle class families. Eleven million families will see an average of $1,100 tax increase because the Republican Plan B takes away the tuition tax credit. Twelve million families will lose the enhanced child tax credit; they will face $800 more burden. EITC, 6 million families will pay more. The typical U.S. Army private--including those men and women serving us in Afghanistan today--married with a newborn infant will see a $453 increase in taxes as a result of Republican Plan B. On average, 25 million families will pay an average of $1,000 more so that 402,000 families who make over $1 million can get an average tax break of $50,000. That's the tax part of Republican Plan B.

We're here today right now talking about the cutting part of Republican Plan B. I think all of us recall during the election the Republican Presidential candidate said:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the

President no matter what.

And then he went on to say:

And so my job is not to worry about those people.

Well, you know what? The Republican sequester-cutting plan today is making their nominee's promise come true. It sends a signal that our Republican colleagues just don't care about the 47 percent. Because you know who gets hit? Here's what it would do. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, this is a recycled version. We had virtually the same bill on the floor last spring; we're just doing it again. That bill did not get one single Democratic vote, and now it's brought here under the premise of some kind of bipartisan approach. The reason it didn't get Democratic support is, while they're providing these tax breaks to people making over $1 million compared to what it would be if we went over the fiscal cliff, 22 million children will face reduced or eliminated food benefits. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office. 1.8 million Americans will permanently lose their food assistance, and of those, nearly 300,000 children will lose their school free or reduced lunch program.

So what this sequester-avoidance plan does is make good on the promise that Republicans don't care about the 47 percent. That's why it didn't get any Democratic votes last spring. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against it today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I wish the outgoing chairman of Financial Services would check his facts.

Ms. Pelosi, the Democratic leader, did not make a tax proposal that would give people over $1 million a year a $50,000 tax break, which is exactly what the Republican plan would do, number one.

Number two, the proposal that the President has put on the table has $1.2 trillion cuts if you include interest savings, which is more than the cuts here, and will also deal with the sequester.

Number three, the Republican proposal out of Financial Services will increase the likelihood that taxpayers have to bail out the financial industry again, not reduce it.

And number four, they strip away the independence of the Consumer Finance Protection Board so that lobbyists can meddle in exactly how they do their work so that they're looking out for lobbyists' interests rather than the interests of the American people.

So this whole approach that we're seeing right here is another example of trying to help the folks at the very top at the expense of the rest of the country.

And, Mr. Bachus, it wasn't me making the 40 percent comment talking about dividing America. That was the comment made by the Republican candidate for President.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished lady from New York, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. Lowey, and I congratulate her on becoming the new ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What is unbalanced is the Republican package that we see on the floor today. We already talked about the numbers of the Republican Plan B tax proposal which compared to going over the fiscal cliff and the Senate alternative would actually provide millionaires with a $50,000 tax cut on average while 25 million American families will actually see a tax increase of $1,000 on average, including, Mr. Speaker, some of our soldiers on the front line in Afghanistan today.

The majority leader talked about doing the math. Then do the math on the tax plan, because that's exactly what it shows. What the President has called for is a balanced plan that asks for the wealthiest to share the burden of our deficit challenge and make sure that we get our economy in full gear.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 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. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points here.

First, the chairman of the Budget Committee said that the President hadn't put any specific spending cuts on the table. That's just not true. His proposal has been available to the public for well over a year now. As to just one specific proposal, the President has said we should get rid of excessive agriculture subsidies. He has called for $30 billion on that item alone.

I yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, that also is not true, and on that, we will have a longer discussion.

The reality is ag subsidies are one very concrete example. Interestingly, this bill that our Republican colleagues have brought to the floor, again, while cutting deeply into the food and nutrition programs, doesn't take one penny from ag subsidies for agrabusinesses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's also important to correct another statement that has been made by both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Ag Committee with respect to the food program. I think the chairman knows that the SNAP statute provides in statute two routes for people to be eligible for food and nutrition assistance--one is the specific income and asset test, or they can become eligible under the SNAP statute based on participation in other programs in which they have to show income-based need.

Nobody wants fraud. We should find every dollar of wasted money and get rid of it, but don't pretend that people who qualify under the statute are engaged in fraud. What you're proposing to do in this Republican bill is to deny millions of those people on nutrition programs their legal support, and we do not think we should be doing that. At the same time, we are giving millionaires a $50,000 average tax cut.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), and I congratulate her on becoming the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

May I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say a few words again about the priorities reflected in this Republican package.

If you look at Plan B, the tax part, you're giving people who earn over $1 million a year on average a $50,000 tax cut compared to what it would be under the Senate proposal. At the same time, under this proposal that we're talking about here on the floor of the House, you're talking about eliminating important support in food and nutrition programs for millions of Americans, including for 300,000 kids who would no longer be on school lunch programs.

What this boils down to once again, Mr. Speaker, is a question of priorities. We've got to reduce our deficit, and we've got to get the economy moving again. But we have to deal with the deficit in a balanced way, not in a way that provides additional tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of the country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's talk a little bit about what this Republican package will and will not do with respect to health issues.

First of all, while their bill would replace much of the sequester, they leave in place the 2 percent across-the-board Medicare cut. Let me say that again. Despite all the talk we're hearing today on the floor about their efforts to replace these across-the-board cuts, they leave them in place for Medicare, which will hit providers and have an impact on the Medicare system.

Second, with respect to children's health, they cut about $20 billion from Medicaid and the Children's Health program over the next 10 years, even though those programs are protected from the sequester. So if we were to go over the fiscal cliff--which apparently is the way our Republican colleagues want to take us right now because we're not down talking with the President but we're here on the floor. If we go over the fiscal cliff, those children's health care is protected. But if we adopt the Republican proposal, those children will actually see less health security. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2015, there will be 300,000 children who no longer have coverage under the Children's

Health Insurance Program. That's what they're proposing here, even as their tax Plan B provides millionaires with an average tax break of $50,000 compared to the Senate plan, and even though their tax plan, while providing millionaires that average rate compared to the Senate plan, is going to increase the tax burden on 25 million families. So an average tax cut for millionaires of $50,000 compared to the Senate plan, and at the same time a sequester proposal that would result in 300,000 kids in the year 2015 losing their Children's Health Insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

There you have, Mr. Speaker, the priorities in the Republican plan. That's not balance.

Look, the reason we're here is because our Republican colleagues refuse to compromise. They bring this bill to the floor in the name of a productive contribution to compromise when this virtually identical bill did not get a single Democratic vote last spring--not one. And that's compromise?

The Senate has already said it's not going to take up this bill. That old bill has been sitting over there, and the President has said he would veto it. We are wasting the people's time, Mr. Speaker. It's time for the Speaker of this House to negotiate with the President.

Now, we know what the problem is. There's this book, Mr. Speaker, which is very aptly titled, ``It's Even Worse Than It Looks.'' This book was written by two scholars of the Congress, one person in a Democratic-leaning think tank and the other in a Republican-leaning think tank. Here's what they say, and they say it with great regret. They say:

The problem is that in the House today, we have a

Republican Party that's become an insurgent outlier,

ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social

and economic policy regime, and scornful of compromise.

That's from two independent, nonpartisan scholars. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the problem we've got here today.

It's time for the Speaker to actually follow the good counsel of many members of his caucus. Either take up the Senate bill and pass it, or let's get serious and negotiate with the President, who's put forward a balanced plan, a plan, as many of my colleagues have said, that a lot of Democrats don't like.

In fact, there are going to be Democrats who don't vote for even the proposals the President's put forward already. Many are still reserving judgment.

That's the test of compromise, not a bill that comes to the floor that's never had a single Democratic vote. That's not compromise.

The American people want us to work together. Let's stop playing these political games, Mr. Speaker. Let's not bring to the floor of the House bills that have never gotten a Democratic vote before, and which the President has already indicated he will veto because they fail the important test of balance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's true that our Republican colleagues are not going to have a partner for a totally lopsided, unbalanced approach, that, once again, minimizes the responsibility of the wealthiest of the country at the expense of everybody else.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The chairman of the Budget Committee began his closing remarks by saying, ``Let's take a step back.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what this package of bills does for the country; it takes us many steps back. And the reason it takes us back is because the Speaker of this House has backed out of negotiations with the President for a balanced approach to dealing with our deficit and making sure that we accelerate economic growth and job creation in this country.

The issue has never been whether or not to reduce our long-term deficit. The question has always been: How? And how you do it reflects your priorities. The President has made clear his priority is not to give higher income individuals another tax break relative to what would happen if we went over the fiscal cliff, and yet that's exactly what this package of proposals would do.

I've used this chart a couple of times, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to use it again, and with good reason, because no one has or can dispute the facts in this chart.

The reality is, while folks who earn more than $1 million a year, about 402 families in this country--and God bless them, we want people to keep making more money; the issue here is shared responsibility for reducing our deficit--under the Republican plan relative to the Senate bill, they're going to get a $50,000 average tax break, while over 25 million Americans will see an increase in their tax obligation compared with where we are today. We don't think that's balanced. That's not even balanced within their tax plan.

At the same time, they bring to the floor today a bill, a sequestration bill

that, by the way, leaves in place the cuts to Medicare and then cuts support for kids on food stamps and children under the health insurance bill, groups that, frankly, would be protected if we went over the fiscal cliff under current law.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of priorities. So what this motion to recommit does is say, you know what, we think it's time that we end the taxpayer giveaways and subsidies to the Big Oil companies. My goodness, why should all of us be providing them one more round of tax breaks? Gas prices are high, their profits are going through the roof, taxpayers should not be subsidizing that. And we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing that when we have before us a bill that removes about 300,000 kids from the school lunch program and removes about 300,000 kids from the Children's Health Insurance Program in the year 2015, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So, again, this is about priorities. What this very simple motion to recommit does, in addition to asking that oil companies no longer keep getting taxpayer subsidies, is just to disclose to the public what the impact of these cuts will be on citizens throughout this country. It says, tell us what the impact of the Medicare and Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program cuts will be on kids and others in our congressional districts.

At the very least, we should know what we're doing. The Congressional Budget Office had told us, but anybody who thinks that that independent, nonpartisan group has its projections wrong, we'll get a real world check. So this is simple accountability. This is understanding what the impact of your vote will be. So I would hope that our colleagues would recognize that at this time, when oil companies are doing just great, they don't need welfare from the U.S. Government.

We should also understand very clearly what the impact of these cuts will be because the projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are that it's going to have a very serious negative impact on kids' health, as well as in terms of the support under the preventive health fund for women around the country. So, for example, with the $10 billion cut to the prevention fund, 326,000 women would not get breast cancer screenings; 284,000 women would not get cervical cancer screenings they are slated to receive in 2013.

These cuts have real impact. So the question is not whether to make cuts--we have to make cuts. The President has put $1.2 trillion in additional cuts forward on top of the $1 trillion. We're just asking for balance. We're asking for common sense in our priorities. I urge people to support the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 841, I call up the bill (H.R. 6684) to provide for spending reduction, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

This is what we should be doing almost every day here--cutting spending. In particular, this cuts $236 billion over the next 10 years in net spending cuts to pay for 1 year of the sequester. It sets aside the sequester on defense and nondefense discretionary spending. It cuts $218 billion in mandatory spending and $19 billion in discretionary spending by lowering those caps. The result of this is we believe it's better to identify specific spending cuts, waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government in order to prevent the sequester from occurring. This sets aside this question for 1 year. But in exchange for that, it has a net spending reduction of $236 billion. We think the path forward is even lower spending, which is what this achieves.

I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend started off by saying this is a farce, this is not real. This is what Congress is supposed to do.

Let's review what this legislation is or is not.

Number one, six congressional committees went through their areas of jurisdiction to look for areas where spending can be reduced--to look for areas where there was government duplication, to look for areas where there was government waste and fraud--reported out of those committees savings, spending cuts, and we package it together here. We ought to be doing this each and every year.

More to the point, Mr. Speaker, this package of spending cuts are built on top of the fact that we actually passed a budget to pay off the debt. We actually passed a budget to make sure that nobody gets a tax increase. That's a lot more than the President can say.

The President's budget was voted down unanimously in the House and the Senate. The Senate, they haven't passed a budget in 3 years. We don't just have a fiscal cliff, we have a fiscal abyss in front of us, and that is the debt crisis that is on our horizon.

Failure to address this debt crisis means not just 47 percent of Americans, but every American gets hurt. Every American gets a lower standard of living. Every American, especially the next generation, receives a lower standard of living if we don't fix this mess.

So what is this we're doing here today? We're saying we don't think the crude across-the-board sequester is good policy. We think it will harm our national security--the first and primary responsibility of the Federal Government--and we want to replace next year's cuts with even more spending cuts that we think are smart spending cuts.

The gentleman is talking about all these people who will lose food stamps and free and reduced lunches. Let me say it really clearly: Every single person who qualifies for food stamps will get food stamps. Every single child who qualifies for a free and reduced lunch will get their free and reduced lunch. What we're saying is you actually have to qualify for these benefits to get these benefits, and that's not the case today. We are spending so much money from this government that people who don't even qualify for these benefits, who make more than they should to qualify for them, are getting these benefits.

There is a lot of waste. There's a lot of fraud. There's a lot of abuse in how our Federal tax dollars are being spent, and we're beginning to rein that in with this down payment of spending cuts.

With respect to taxes, what we are trying to do here is limit the damage to the taxpayer. There's not a single tax increase that we're proposing here--not a single. What we're saying is prevent as many tax increases as possible from hitting anybody in this economy. Because you know what? It's not a very good economy. Look, elections have consequences. We understand that. I, of all people, understand that. The consequence of this election is we have a President who in every proposal he has given us has called for net spending increases along with tax increases.

He used to say we ought to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax increases. He's not even doing that. The latest proposals say let's raise taxes and then raise spending. Mr. Speaker, that's what got us in trouble in the first place.

With that, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my congratulations to the fine gentlewoman from New York on becoming the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. She has our respect and our congratulations.

With that, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds to say, Follow the President's lead? I wish he were leading.

The gentleman from Michigan said he's offered all these specifics. I wish it were so. Where are they? We hear numbers, we hear platitudes, we see budget gimmicks and accounting tricks; but we don't see specifics. We have yet to see a specific solution from this President to deal with his debt crisis.

He's claimed he wants to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax increase. We've seen a lot of specific tax increase proposals come from the President, but we haven't seen a specific spending cut proposal from the President. That's the problem.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Will the gentleman yield?

I meant ``net.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The food stamp program has grown over the last 10 years by 270 percent. That's far in excess of the recession. With these kinds of reforms, it will have grown by 260 percent. Hardly the kind of draconian cuts the gentleman seems to suggest. What we're saying with these programs is that you need to be eligible for the actual benefit to receive the benefit. That's not asking too much. If we can't put commonsense reforms like this in place, we'll never get anywhere in dealing with this debt crisis.

The gentlelady from the Financial Services Committee says it's just wrong to submit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau agency to the appropriations process. I find that an amazing critique.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

This is an agency that gets its money from the Federal Reserve without ever having to go through Congress. When we uphold the Constitution to take office, let's never forget that the power of the purse lies in the legislative branch. All of these executive agencies should have to go through the appropriations process. That's not gutting a program; that's bringing accountability to a program.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, over the past decade Medicaid spending increased by 150 percent. Over the next decade it's projected to increase by 225 percent, and an effort to slow the increase is called a cut. That's our problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

May I inquire as to how much time remains?

I'll reserve the balance of my time since we have no more speakers for closing, and leave it to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, let's take a step back to remind us where we are.

On January 1, if we do nothing, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase. That will dramatically hurt our economy and families. Then, on the next day, we'll face a 10 percent cut in our defense budget.

Americans chose divided government, whether it was intended or not. The President won. The House is still a Republican House. We're going to have to find a way to make this work. This is what we're attempting to do today. We want to avert this crisis, this cliff, but that means to begin to get spending under control, that means to prevent as many tax increases from hitting Americans as possible.

My friend--and I mean this sincerely--my friend from Maryland says we need a balanced approach. The President, in all of his latest proposals, says more taxes and even more net spending. Hardly a balanced approach.

Here's the problem: Our problem is not balanced. Even if all the current tax rates are extended, those taxes still go up. The problem is spending goes way up. Spending is our problem.

The size of our government will double over the course of this generation as a share of the economy. The President has shown no leadership on dealing with the drivers of our debt. We have. We have passed our budget. We put the specifics out there.

Let's avert a fiscal cliff and let's get on to the business of preventing the fiscal abyss, which is the coming debt crisis that will not be resolved until we have real leadership; and that, unfortunately, is sorely lacking.

With that, I urge passage of this. Let's prevent taxpayers from tax increases, get a down payment on spending cuts, and let's pass this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy this. It's good reading. It has a very rich irony, ``Title VIII. Disclosure of higher beneficiary costs from provider cuts under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP cuts.'' Where was this when they passed ObamaCare? Where was this need for disclosure on the beneficiaries of Medicare when they took $716 billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare? Where was this concern when they raised $1 trillion in taxes to pay for ObamaCare? Where was all of this need for disclosure when they were hitting providers and beneficiaries in Medicare to pay for their vaunted ObamaCare program?

The gentleman talks about cuts to food stamps and Medicaid. Food stamps will have grown by 260 percent instead of 270 percent under this bill. Medicaid has grown by 150 percent over the last decade, and it is projected to grow by 225 percent over the next decade. Slowing the growth of spending isn't a cut, it's slowing the growth of spending. This is our problem, Mr. Speaker. If we lambaste these commonsense ideas as draconian cuts, we're never going to fix this problem. If we keep this kind of language and definition, heaven help us.

The other part on oil companies, all these taxes. Look, I've been a member of the Ways and Means Committee for 12 years. A number of years ago we put in place a policy that says: We want more manufacturing in America. We want to reward manufacturing jobs. So if you manufacture something in America, you will pay effectively lower tax rates than if you make something overseas. The idea would be more U.S. manufacturing jobs. Here's what they do. They say ah, ah, ah, not if you're in the oil industry. So, if you're working in the oil fields in North Dakota or the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania or the Woodford in Texas, we don't want your jobs, because if you manufacture oil in America, we're raising your taxes. We're not going to raise your taxes if you manufacture oil overseas, but if you create American-made energy jobs, this raises your taxes. Not only does it raise our taxes and costs American energy jobs, it raises our gas prices. How is that good for consumers and families?

So, it's an anti-American energy job, pro-high gas tax bill that all of a sudden calls for the kind of disclosure that they weren't willing to disclose when they jammed ObamaCare through. This is not serious and I reject this motion.

I urge all Members to vote against the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act of 2012. This bill is essential in stopping the devastating across-the-board sequestration cuts set to take place across the entire federal government in just a few weeks. Half of those cuts would come from the Department of Defense and our national security programs.

The Department of Defense, industry, and the Congressional Defense Committees, have repeatedly and consistently warned of the consequences of letting sequestration take place. If allowed to happen, the impact to the Department of Defense would be a reduction of 8.2 percent or $54.6 billion from the fiscal year 2013 budget. The total sequestration reduction for Defense through fiscal year 2021 amounts to roughly $492 billion--almost half a trillion dollars.

With military pay and personnel costs exempt from the cuts, the actual cut to all other accounts increases to 9.4 percent. Even though the Department of Defense has some limited flexibility to allocate sequestration cuts in the operating accounts, a computer will cut all procurement and research accounts proportionally--which will directly impact more than 2,500 programs and projects. The impact on our national security and readiness will be severe.

Base operating budgets will be cut, negatively impacting readiness. Training could be significantly reduced, resulting in unprepared troops and higher risk to those who deploy. Civilian personnel will certainly be affected, possibly resulting in hiring freezes and unpaid furloughs. Fewer weapon systems will be bought, which starts a vicious circle of rises in unit prices for the remaining weapons. Other major weapon systems will be reduced or terminated, and current contracts may have to be terminated or renegotiated, resulting in additional costs to the government and a loss of favorable contract terms in some cases. Procurement and Depot Maintenance schedules will be severely impacted, which is enormously disruptive, especially in shipbuilding and maintenance when future deployments rely on maintaining schedules.

Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified that the impact of sequestration on the Department of Defense alone would drive up our nation's unemployment rate by a full percent. Jobs will be lost but more importantly, infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities critical to our national security will be lost. Already prime contractors have

notified their suppliers and subcontractors that programs are on hold. This has left thousands of small businesses with no choice but to close their doors and lay off workers as work orders have dried up.

Our nation's manufacturing base relies upon these workers and their special skills. We rely on these small businesses to supply critical components for important weapons systems and platforms.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the impact of sequestration is very real and is very imminent. Just consider that if sequestration remains in place for its full nine years, our nation will be left with the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in history.

When we talk about the impending cliff, these across-the-board cuts to our defense budget will result in not only an economic fiscal cliff, but of greatest concern to me, a cliff off which our national security will fall. This will impact our readiness, our ability to defend our nation, and our ability to ensure the safety of our all volunteer force as they operate around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for keeping the impact sequestration will have on our nation's security at the forefront of your negotiations with President Obama. We cannot, and we must not, let these devastating cuts happen. Unfortunately, only the House has acted to do anything about it, passing a bill on May 10 and considering this bill today. I urge my colleagues in the House to approve this legislation today and for the Senate to follow suit quickly to ensure that sequestration does not become a stark reality just 13 short days from now. Failing to take action will cause irreversible harm to our nation's security and violate our Constitutional responsibility to ``provide for the common defense.''

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) says that this is political theater, that this is a waste of time. Well, let me tell you that the Financial Services

Committee has cut $35 billion of unnecessary wasteful spending. We started with bailout money, $29 billion that Dodd-Frank said, if a too- big-to-fail company goes broke, we're going to pay off their creditors and counterparties. Now, didn't the American people tell us in 2008 and 2009 what they felt about using their money to bail out creditors and counterparties? People that are making $40,000 and $50,000 a year would have to help pay $29 billion.

We also do away with the HAMP program. Now, is that a waste of time, doing away with this program? The special inspector general for TARP, the Congressional Oversight Panel, and the Government Accounting Office--the Government Accounting Office, many of those employees are your constituents in Maryland--even the editorial writers of The New York Times said--now, this is New York Times. They said HAMP does more harm than good. It's a wasteful program. Even my Democratic colleagues on the Financial Services Committee said, It doesn't work, but we can make it work. Well, let's shut it down.

$2.8 billion. Is that a waste of our time today?

Third, this legislation saves over $5 billion. Is that inconsequential? Is that theater? Because it gives real accountability to a government agency that right now has not, the CFPB. They have unlimited funds. Then it takes $4.9 billion in savings from just by making reforms that this Congress, this House, voted by over 400 Members to do; but the Senate, even though this will save $4.9 billion, they haven't even taken this bill up. 414 of us voted for this bill, and the Senate hasn't taken it up. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. As the budget chairman said, they haven't passed a budget for 3 years.

My gosh, let's quit talking about this group of Americans or that group of Americans. Let's talk about America as if it's one country. Let's don't engage in class warfare. Let's don't pit one income group or one group against each other.

We're going to take a very small step today, but it's a first step, and it's not an unimportant step towards cutting the national debt. The national debt in the last 4 years has gone up 70 percent. That's a staggering amount.

Now, let me say this. Chairman Bernanke, for 6 years, but particularly the last 4 years, has come before our committee, and he said that the national debt is imperiling our economic future. Let me use his words.

He said:

Our economic security is at risk if we don't cut down on

the debt.

Mr. McKeon was here speaking. Secretary Bob Gates said that it's imperiling our national security. Is that theater? Is the national debt an illusion? Americans don't think so, and today we'll start acting. We'll start acting. And we'll do something else: We'll cut taxes. We'll preserve those tax cuts, except for those millionaires, people making over $1 million, as Mr. Van Hollen said. We're going to let those tax rates go back up, which is exactly what Nancy Pelosi proposed. We're going to take her proposal. And, do you know, as Mr. Van Hollen says, it probably won't get one Democratic vote for something that your leader proposed 3 months ago.

That's political theater, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of our Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the measures before us to replace the sequester and reduce the deficit and to extend permanent tax relief for the middle class and hundreds of thousands of small business people.

For the past weeks and months, as people have been looking for jobs and budgeting for their expenses, we've been working to keep taxes from going up and offering commonsense spending reforms. The Spending Reduction Act at issue today reduces our deficit and protects our national security by replacing indiscriminate cuts that are neither strategic nor balanced.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our current spending path is unsustainable and poses a real threat to the economy, to job creation, and to our ability to remain competitive in the global economy. We must address the underlying issue that faces this country, which is the mounting deficit and load of debt that we are going to leave to this generation and the next. But the President has been unwilling to consider serious spending cuts or offer a serious and balanced plan to avoid the fiscal cliff.

The risks of unchecked spending are grave. The consequences of our debt crisis will be felt by every student looking for a job that matches their skills after graduation, by every retiree counting on Social Security and Medicare, and by every small business owner looking to expand and hire.

We have passed bills and put forward reforms that would save programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from certain and predictable failure, yet we cannot find cooperation,

Mr. Speaker, from the White House or the other side of the aisle to help solve these problems.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this place just 11 days from the new year. For months, we have been ready and willing to work with the President to prevent the fiscal cliff from impacting small businesses and hardworking families.

The math shows that the President's push to hike taxes won't reduce the deficit, and, left unchecked, his government spending will bankrupt our future. Our plan will protect 740,000 additional small businesses that would otherwise be hit by the tax hike the President is proposing.

We don't believe taxes should go up on anybody, but if we can prevent taxes from going up on as many people as possible, on 99.81 percent of American families and small businesses, we must and need to do so.

Americans are looking for jobs, small businesses are deciding whether they should hire or invest in growing, and many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. We are all committed to creating an economy where everyone has an opportunity to succeed.

House Republicans are offering a plan today similar to one that received 53 Democratic votes in the U.S. Senate only 2 years ago, and the Spending Reduction Act is a serious start toward reducing our deficit and protecting our national security.

Absent a balanced offer from the President, this is our Nation's best option, and Senate Democrats should take up both of these measures immediately.

The President has a choice, Mr. Speaker. He can support these measures or be responsible for reckless spending and the largest tax hike in American history.