[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12928-12932]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      SEQUESTRATION: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 28 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot of hard work to do in about the next 3 
months around this place. I want to talk tonight about a process that 
we have brought upon ourselves so that now we are faced with what, I 
think, could be one of the greatest catastrophes in the modern history 
of the United States--and that is almost the complete destruction of 
our military through a process called ``sequester.''
  We use a lot of big words around this House, and half of the people 
who sit in this room on a daily basis don't even know what it means, to 
be honest with you, but they know what the process does: across-the-
board cuts at every level of government. The reality of these cuts is 
that, at least in the current makeup of our government and with so many 
of our expenses in this government being mandatory spending and what we 
call ``entitlements,'' the lion's share automatically falls upon the 
military, on the Defense Department.
  Even more critical to this particular agreement, which was made in 
the earlier part of this year when we had one of our many shutdown-the-
government risks that have come upon this body in the last couple of 
years, the White House with the President, along with the majority 
leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, met to discuss how 
to keep from having a shutdown of the government and how to raise the 
debt ceiling so we could continue to operate this government. With 
everyone recognizing that there was a looming crisis from having spent 
more than we make for as long as we can remember, quite honestly, and, 
therefore, that we are now in a problem of debt which is drowning this 
Nation and the Members of this body wanting to address that, the 
discussion was about how we would do it.
  They came up with a concept of a supercommittee. Most of you who keep 
up with current events know that we formed a supercommittee, the 
purpose of which was to come up with the cuts from the appropriate 
parts of this government so that we would reduce the spending of over 
$1 trillion, thus starting ourselves down the road to fiscal 
responsibility. This is what we set out to do. It was an honest effort, 
let's be frank. It was an honest effort. Everybody, whether elected to 
do it or not, recognized that this was the issue that was before us. 
The question was how to do this, and they came up with this 
supercommittee.
  They agreed that, if the supercommittee failed, then the process of 
sequester would replace the actions of the supercommittee. There will 
be a political debate that will go back and forth as to who killed the 
effort in the supercommittee; but wherever the fault may lie, the 
supercommittee failed. Those of us who were in this House asked about 
the sequester and looked at it and worried about it as the vote came up 
as to whether or not this was the right thing to do. We then asked the 
question of the leaders here, which I'm sure was asked on both sides of 
the aisle: So what happens if the supercommittee doesn't perform?
  We were told sequester, which was the worst possible thing to happen 
to this House, and I think both sides of the aisle agreed with that. 
But don't worry, it has never happened. It never will happen. We will 
do the right thing.
  The committee failed.
  It is almost August. Quite honestly, the number of legislative days 
left before the election can almost be counted on these two hands, and 
we haven't addressed how we are going to do this; but the folks who may 
most be affected have no choice but to address it.
  The agreement that came out of the meeting between the President and 
the Congress was that roughly half the $1.1 trillion number, I believe 
it is, would come out of the Defense Department and that the other half 
would come out of domestic spending. Well, the Defense Department being 
the Defense Department--and it cannot function without planning--is 
already planning what it would have to do in case this occurs.
  We talk in big ideas and issues around here, but the reality is this: 
this is about a bunch of people who chose the profession for their 
lives, that of defending our Nation.

                              {time}  2110

  We should never forget that the ordinary soldier, sailor, airman, 
marine, and Coast Guardsman volunteered to join their branch of the 
service, most of them, as their profession. This is not the old drafted 
military of World War II or the Korean war or the Vietnam war or the 
Cold War. This is a volunteer military. This is a young man or woman 
saying: I choose the job of fighting for my country. This is what I 
choose to do with my life. I will earn my way. I will earn my 
promotions by being a good warrior.
  My wife and I, when we first learned that we were going to have the 
honor of representing what we call a great place, Fort Hood in Texas, 
we wanted to meet with soldiers, and the place we could find them to 
meet with us around Thanksgiving time was in Korea. We went and met 
with Fort Hood soldiers in Korea. Most of them were from Texas at our 
table where they were talking to us, and I asked a question. I was new 
to getting to talk to the ordinary soldier. These were just ordinary 
soldiers. There may have been a couple of sergeants there, but most of 
them were not highly ranked.
  I said, How long are you guys and gals going to be in Korea? They 
said, Oh, 3 months, 6 months, whatever the time period was. I said, 
What do you want to do next in the Army? They responded, We want to go 
to Afghanistan or Iraq. This is back in '04. From someone of my age who 
has the memory of

[[Page 12929]]

the draft Army, that was a shocking answer: We want to go from this 
place in Korea to the place where the war is, and we would like to go 
directly there. These were 19-year-old kids, kids like my son coaches 
in football and baseball back home. These were kids that could have 
been the same kids that played on the team the year before who were 
sitting there at the table telling us they wanted to go to war.
  I was kind of taken aback by that answer. It was unanimous, by the 
way. There were eight people around the table that were all unanimous: 
we want to go to war. Then this young tow-headed 19-year-old soldier 
said, Sir, that's what we are. We're trained warriors. That's what we 
do for a living. We fight wars. We want to go where our country needs 
us. We want to go to war. Not because we like war, but because we are 
professional soldiers. We do this for a living.
  This is the mindset that goes back in history a long ways. Some of 
the greatest armies in the world had that mindset, that this was the 
job they chose for their life. Now, because we have not been willing to 
live within a budget in the United States--we're all at fault, every 
one of us. The people in this House, both sides of the aisle, we're all 
at fault. We spend more than we make, and we wonder why in the world it 
doesn't work. How many people sit at home and look at their household 
budgets and say, My gosh, we're spending more than we make. No wonder 
it doesn't work. That's like the law of gravity. It's a natural thing 
that you can't spend more than you make and not ultimately be in 
trouble, even when you can take it out of other people's pockets like 
the government.
  Now we are faced with a crisis, and we're talking about a solution 
for that crisis that's going to fall on the back of that 19-year-old 
kid that talked to me in Korea because his goal in life was to rise in 
the ranks by being a good soldier. As a good soldier, if he did a good 
job, he would be promoted and he would rise in rank. Maybe in his heart 
his goal was to some day be a command sergeant major of one of the 
commands in the Army, kind of the pinnacle of the career of an ordinary 
soldier. Because we spend too much and can't agree on how to cut it and 
we're going to have to go to automatic cuts, that young man's job is at 
risk. The President says he's going to protect the jobs of the 
soldiers. I hope what he means he's not going to fire anybody. Although 
one of the papers that I was reading an article in it said he's not 
going to cut the pay of the soldiers.
  I happen to be blessed. One of the things that I'm very proud of in 
this body is I am a cochair of the Army Caucus here in the Congress, 
and I've heard the generals talk about what sequester means to the 
Army. It means cuts of 100,000 to 180,000 soldiers. That means that kid 
that I talked to in Korea, who's probably now done three tours in 
Afghanistan or Iraq, who has done a good job, fought for his country, 
performed in an excellent manner, has been promoted, he's in the 
beginning of the middle of his career, and because we can't agree on 
how to reduce our runaway spending, that kid is going to lose his job.
  He will not only lose his job, but he's going to lose his career. He 
chose our United States Army partially out of the job he wanted to do, 
but in a great many cases out of patriotism for this country. He didn't 
sign on to be in somebody else's Army. He signed on to be in our Army. 
He's done everything right; and yet because we can't control our 
spending, that young man and those young men and women at that table 
could lose their careers that they chose for their lives, careers to be 
proud of as Americans. There are young people willing to do this for 
our country.
  When we talk these big numbers and throw around big words, we've got 
to remember it affects human beings. We've got some charts here I want 
to show you so you get some idea of what we're talking about. Where is 
the spending? This is entitlements. The spending is at $26.1 trillion. 
Nondefense spending is at $11.3 trillion. Defense spending at $3.6 
trillion. That's where the spending is in our country today.
  Let's look at what we propose to do as a solution under sequester. 
From entitlements we're taking $171 billion out of $26.1 trillion. From 
nondefense spending, we're taking $322 billion out of $11.37 trillion. 
Over here in defense we're taking $422 billion, the highest of any of 
these numbers, out of $3.6 trillion. This is about a 42 percent cut. 
This is out of whack.
  What's this out of whack going to do to our military? Let's start off 
with what we're talking about right now in the country. We're talking 
about our economy, we're talking about getting ourselves out of this 
slump we're in and putting Americans back to work. Does anybody think 
it's a good idea to create a program that loses American jobs? To me, I 
just can't fathom it. But according to CNN, 1 million jobs will be lost 
under sequester. That's not military jobs. That's the people who 
provide goods and services either directly for the military or sell it 
to the military.

                              {time}  2120

  And here is something else that's pretty frightening. As we look down 
the road at this sequester program, the law that was created by the 
Congress and which was signed into law says, if we anticipate the loss 
in an industry of jobs based upon the actions of this body, they have 
to pass out pink slips 60 days before that might happen and in some 
cases 90 days.
  Well, the drop-dead date on sequester is January 2 of next year. So 
if we do nothing by January 2, we are going to have these across-the-
board cuts. We are going to have 1 million people get pink slips in 
either October or November. Now, is that going to raise the enthusiasm 
for growing our economy in America? It is absolutely as destructive as 
it could be.
  We have a responsibility to try to do something about this, and we 
can't keep kicking cans down the road in this body. If we do, one of 
these days, we are going to get a broken foot, and already there seems 
to be a brick in the can.
  This is serious stuff. We've got real people's lives being affected 
in the military. We've got real people's jobs being affected in the 
defense industry. These are people who go to work, just like everybody 
else in this country. Somehow we hear the words ``defense industry,'' 
and we assume some kind of fat cats. Go over to one of the defense 
industries and see the machinists and the guys that do all kinds of 
jobs, that create these great instruments that are instruments of war 
and also instruments of peace that we use in our military. All of these 
things are at risk, and the people who do those jobs are at risk right 
now as they relate directly to the sequester.
  I am joined by my friend Mr. Bishop from Utah. Would you like to jump 
in here and talk a little bit about this? You are on the Armed Services 
Committee, I believe.
  We had 20-some minutes to start. So we are down to 10 minutes, I 
believe. Tell us your view from the committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas 
taking up this particular issue. I promise you, you will get a few 
minutes here to finish this one up here as well.
  I will start just by moving off where we are for just 1 second and 
going back to my real love, which is still baseball. If you recall, 
back in 1962 they created the amazing New York Mets, a team that set 
the standard for ineptitude in professional sports. Anyone who wants to 
seek that, to fall that low, now has a perfect standard by which to 
judge your effectiveness in becoming bad.
  The New York Mets, in 1962, lost 120 out of 160 games. That's the 
standard by which people now judge themselves. And it's amazing to 
think of how the leadership of the New York Mets could cobble together 
a team of athletes so inept at working together as a particular team, 
leaving such luminary names as Jay Hook and Ken MacKenzie, Choo Choo 
Coleman and Hobie Landrith there together.
  Probably the best of all those names was Marvelous Marv Throneberry, 
a big first baseman who I think, in his third year with the Mets, 
actually hit a triple, which is amazing considering he's not really one 
of those fast runners. But as he was rounding the bases

[[Page 12930]]

going to third, he missed second base, which was spotted by the 
opposing team. So they waited until the play was back in, called for 
the ball, stepped on second base, and he was out.
  Well, obviously Casey Stengel went running out there to complain 
about this and argued the case up and down and lost, and Throneberry 
was out. As Stengel went back to the dugout, he passed the first base 
coach, Cookie Lavagetto, and said, ``Why weren't you out there at least 
arguing with me?'' And Cookie looked at him and said, ``Because he 
missed first base, too.'' And that was the end of the discussion.
  Now, eventually, the management was able to take the amazing '62 Mets 
and turn them into the miracle '69 Mets that were the world champions. 
But the administration of the Mets had to do some fancy work to do 
that.
  The situation we have right now is where we have an administration in 
this country that is doing that same kind of work that the Mets 
leadership did, except in reverse. We are going from the '69 Mets back 
to the '62 Mets, an administration that took over the best defense, the 
best military in the world and is, bit by bit, pulling it down to the 
form of mediocrity, even to the level of the '62 amazing New York Mets.
  We have faced three potential cuts to the military. With the first 
one, then-Secretary of Defense Gates said, If you go beyond this first 
$600 billion cut, it could have devastating effects. This 
administration took a second cut beyond it, and now what the gentleman 
from Texas is talking about is the potential for a third cut to the 
military.
  Now, what has been the net effect of this administration's efforts on 
behalf of defense altogether? Well, for the first time, there are 50 
major defense programs that have been canceled. This is the first time 
there is not a single aircraft modernization going on in this country. 
And if you consider the fact that modernization takes between 10 and 20 
years to effect, that means regardless of what happens in November, 
this country is without a new modernization program for our aircraft 
for at least two decades after President Obama leaves the White House.
  We were spending 4 percent of our GDP on military before this 
President came in. We're now down to 2.5 percent. That is the percent 
we have been complaining about our allies in Europe spending, and that 
compares to 6 percent under Reagan, 10 percent under Kennedy, 12 
percent during Korea, 35 percent during World War II.
  We have platforms in our military that are over 25 years of age and 
are not getting any younger. We have the smallest Army since World War 
II. We have the smallest Navy since World War I. In World War II, we 
had over 6,000 ships; today, we have 280.
  We will have the smallest Air Force ever. Several years ago, two of 
our F-15Cs literally broke in flight and two F-18s caught fire while on 
the aircraft carrier. Our A-10 Warthogs have cracks in the fuselage. We 
only have one fifth-generation fighter in production while the Chinese 
and the Russians have a combined 12 fighter and bomber lines open for 
business.
  We are moving the defense of this country backwards into an area that 
is frighteningly fearful. We are going from the '69 to the '62 Mets 
when we should be trying to go in the opposite direction, and that's 
what happens before sequestration goes into effect.
  If, indeed, we add the sequestration--a third cut on top of the other 
two--we will do what the Secretary of Defense has said: We will hollow 
out our military. We will put our defense at danger--not just the 
defense of this country but, as was previously mentioned, the jobs that 
are in the private sector--the military base, the industrial base that 
help us defend ourselves, and we will take away from the table the 
potential of foreign affairs options that we have.
  Our ability two decades from today to conduct foreign policy is 
dependent on the decisions we make now to define and have an adequate 
military backup for what we need to do. These are the decisions we need 
to be making, and it is essential that we recognize what we are doing 
now is wrong.
  To change and reverse our defense cuts even for 1 year would take 
$109 billion. But, oddly enough, that is 1 month of borrowing that is 
being done by this administration.
  We can't afford this sequestration as a country. And I find it sad 
that the President of the United States will actually say that he will 
veto any effort to get rid of these automatic spending cuts, using the 
defense of this country as a hostage in a high-stakes battle with 
Congress over what our future tax policy will be. That is not what a 
good administration should be doing. That is not what this country 
needs. We need to do something different.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas allowing me to rant a little on 
this particular issue. This is important to every American. This 
affects not just what we're doing today but what happens two decades 
from this day, when we are probably long gone from this body.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, and we may get a little more time, so 
don't run off.
  What you just had to say was really important. That's the kind of 
shock that the American people need to hear. We are going to take the 
most powerful and the strongest military force on Earth and hollow it 
out. And when you ask a commander to explain a hollow force, he will 
say, On paper, it will look like a combat brigade; but when you go down 
into the various jobs that must be done to have an effective fighting 
combat brigade, you will find there is no one in those jobs. Therefore, 
it is not an effective combat brigade. This is simple stuff using just 
people as an example.
  When you are using carrier forces and you are saying, We're going to 
take out the carrier and all their supporting ships--so we're going to 
give up a carrier and its ships or maybe two carriers and its ships to 
meet this sequester--you gut the Navy.

                              {time}  2130

  You gut the way they deliver force to a fight. They are one of our 
major deliverers of force to a fight. We take their claws away from 
them. The long-range Stryker and our new ships that are coming online, 
that as I understand it--and I forget what they call that--but that is 
gone.
  And the thing about the Air Force, my gosh, we have known for a long 
time, since I first came to this Congress, that we were behind the 
eight ball in developing the next generation of combat fighting 
aircraft. We were behind the eight ball. This is when I came in 2002 
and the discussion I was having with the folks in those days, we are 
working on it, we have them on the assembly line, we are trying to 
finish them up, but we're behind the eight ball. The Chinese and the 
Russians already have the next generation of fighting aircraft, and 
they're developing more, just as you said. And yet, we're talking about 
ours are going to go away. You have much more experience with this than 
I do, but I think everybody has common enough sense to know that if you 
shut it down, bringing it back is going to take a long time. It's just 
that simple. It's complicated. It's not easy.
  And then of course, if we're not going to reduce the numbers of our 
fighting force, we're going to reduce the way they go to battle because 
you've got to cut something in the Army. If you're not cutting people, 
and I don't know if that's what the President means when he says he's 
not going to go after the personnel, whether he means he's not going to 
lower their pay or he's not going to lower their numbers. I don't know 
the answer. But if they lower the numbers, this is the vehicle the next 
generation is supposed to go to war in. We're not going to have that 
vehicle to go to war in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair is prepared to recognize a Member from the minority party. 
There being none, under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 
2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for 
the remaining time until 10 p.m.
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you. We'll try not to use it all so somebody can go 
get some rest around here for all the good work you people do here. But 
I am

[[Page 12931]]

grateful to have a little more time so I can visit with my good friend, 
Mr. Bishop.
  That's what you've been saying to us here. And one of the things you 
hear around this House is, well, there's soft power. I've had debates 
with some of my colleagues that we don't use soft power effectively. We 
try to always use hard power. I would argue you can't have soft power 
unless you've got hard power. All the sweet talk in the world, if you 
don't have somebody to back you up that you can ultimately punch them 
in the nose, it ain't getting you anywhere. And if we're taking the 
punch out of our military, what are we left with?
  By the way, I think those young kids who are not getting the kind of 
history lessons they should get these days probably know from somebody 
telling them that the last time we took our military down to this 
level, we had an event called Pearl Harbor. And that shows what happens 
when your readiness is not ready. And this is a world full of very, 
very dangerous things right now. We've been looking at terrorism for 
the last 10 years, and terrorism remains a big, big problem for this 
country. But there are others who would do us harm out there that if we 
don't have the ability to defend ourselves, we could fall into serious 
harm's way.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman again, and I would just 
like to reiterate a couple of things that he has said and build on 
those points that are there. It is extremely important to realize that 
we are about the people's business, and we are doing the 
constitutionally required things that a Congress ought to do.
  You know, we all say that it is significant, that we do have a 
problem with our budget. Which is true. We all recognize that. But 
there are certain core constitutional responsibilities that were given 
by the Founding Fathers to Congress to make sure that we maintained 
those responsibilities in those areas. The Constitution tells us that 
we have the responsibility to promote general welfare, which is nice. 
We probably don't understand what they meant by general welfare 
anymore, but we are to promote it. But we have the obligation to 
provide for the common defense. And that verb differentiation was not 
done by accident by those who wrote the Constitution. It is the mandate 
that this Congress has to provide for the common defense, not simply 
because it's a fun thing to do, but because it defends this country, 
and it provides our ability to do foreign policy in the future as well 
as providing some jobs for people who are necessary to make sure that 
this happens.
  I reiterate what we said earlier. This sequestration is not a simple 
decrease or cut to the military. It would be the third major cut to the 
military. Remember, we cut, number one, $600 billion, at which time the 
Secretary of Defense said you cannot go much more than that. And then 
this administration put another cut, number two, of $400 billion. And 
now if sequestration were to go through, were the President to follow 
through on his threat to veto any legislation that would stop the 
sequestration, it would be cut number three of an additional $600 
billion. And that is what everybody who works with the system says 
would destroy and hollow out our military, and we would be in violation 
of our constitutional obligations to provide for the common defense.
  Now, I am actually fairly proud of the House. We have on several 
occasions sent legislation over to the Senate that would stop this 
process and make sure that this core constitutional responsibility we 
have is actually fulfilled by Congress and we do not let this cut 
number three, sequestration, go into effect.
  Right now, they are sitting on Senator Reid's desk. He needs to take 
up the responsibility of putting those to a vote and passing that 
legislation and putting this on the desk of the President, who needs to 
take up his responsibility as Commander in Chief and pass those bills 
and make sure that these devastating cuts, which as the gentleman from 
Texas quite correctly said, would hollow out our military, would be 
devastating to our military posture, not just for today, but for 
decades to come; make sure that those do not go into effect and those 
are properly signed by the President and properly passed by Congress.
  The House has done our share. The House has done our responsibility. 
I need to call upon the Senate now to pick up the mantle and do their 
part of this effort to make sure that we defend this country, as we 
ought to.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for pointing that out, and 
reclaiming my time, we've already done work to show the direction we 
can go to head off this absolute disaster for our national defense. It 
is in the hands of the Democratic-controlled Senate. It is in the hands 
of the majority leader in the Senate, and it is time for him to put the 
partisan politics aside and fund our military and make the cuts across 
other areas.
  Let's keep to our word to make cuts. Let's don't break that word, but 
let's don't destroy the military and violate the Constitution, which 
says we are supposed to provide for the common defense of this country.
  You know, sometimes we get kind of provincial in this country, so 
just for the fun of it, let's talk a little bit about all those jobs, 
who's going to lose those jobs.
  Let me put that chart up here. Potential job losses across the board: 
California, 125,800; Virginia, 122,800; Texas, 91,600; Florida, 39,200; 
Massachusetts, 38,200; Maryland, 36,200; Pennsylvania, 36,200; 
Connecticut, 34,200; Arizona, 33,200; Missouri, 31,200. That's the top. 
That's the top 10, I think it is.
  But the truth is the defense industry and those who provide for the 
defense industry are a major part of our economy. We're all going to 
feel this. But if you're one of those States, and you're already 
worried about where are your kids, when they get out of school, going 
to get a job with jobs being lost, look at that list and see that we're 
all in this together. As we make this crazy move of weakening our 
national defense to the point of disaster, we're also weakening the 
very economy we're struggling to strengthen.

                              {time}  2140

  How can this possibly be good sense to anybody in this country? To 
me, it doesn't register. We're looking to create jobs, not destroy 
jobs. This is going to be a major impact on our country. I think we 
have the real potential to go back into a deep, double-dip recession 
and hopefully just being able to head it off at that.
  Meanwhile, as these cuts take place and our military gets weaker and 
weaker and weaker, what do we do about the enemies of the United 
States? Is that where we want to be? Have we become that kind of 
country? I don't think so. I think we all need to gut up and put the 
politics aside. Let's don't hold hostage these jobs and hold hostage 
our military so somebody can get their tax policy different from 
someone else's tax policy. Let's debate that without holding anybody 
hostage. Let's debate it, let's vote on it, and let's get it done. 
Let's go to conference and let's work on taxes the way we're supposed 
to, but let's don't hold anybody hostage with threatening to destroy 
our military and get half the country laid off because we want it our 
way.
  I would argue that that's exactly what Harry Reid is doing right now 
in the Senate. And I think that is something we need to stand up and 
shout on behalf of those warriors who go to war for us and who, by the 
way, have gone to war for us multiple times in the last decade.
  This is exactly what Congressman Bishop was talking about. We have a 
resolution that was sent over there, H.R. 5652. It replaces $78 billion 
in defense cuts with $316 billion in cuts over 10 years, and the cuts 
come from across the board--Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial 
Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and 
Means--instead of all out of the Defense Department. And the committee 
chairmen of the committees in the House did the work, held the 
hearings, and came up with these solutions. This is how this place is 
supposed to work.

[[Page 12932]]

  Now, why can't we let it work? Why do we have to play political games 
that hold the greatest defense in the world hostage? It's a crime. It's 
absolutely a crime not only to our institutions of the military, but to 
our individuals in the military who gave us 10 years of war and did it 
voluntarily. Not one of them was drafted into the fight. They all 
marched to war voluntarily. And some of them suffered horrendously on 
behalf of this country. They got promoted, and they were rising in the 
military; and with one fell swoop, because we refused to do it the 
right way, and the Senate wants to hold tax policy before the goodness 
of the Defense Department, these guys are going to lose their jobs. And 
those people aren't in those unemployment figures. These are industry 
figures we're talking about.
  But what about the guy that fought for you for 10 years and you've 
thrown him out of a job when he's been promoted? He may be a staff 
sergeant for all I know, that kid that I met in Korea almost 10 years 
ago. And yet do you know what? We're going to fire the kid even though 
he has been a good soldier. What are you going to do with him? He's got 
to find a new job and a new career. He chose defending his country as 
his career.
  Through no fault of his own, but through the political will of the 
Senate, at least the majority of the Senate, he gets his job taken away 
from him, and he's out on the unemployment line. Something is bad wrong 
with this whole picture.
  I'm not going to take all the rest of the time, Mr. Bishop. I'll 
yield back to you if you have anything you'd like to say in conclusion, 
and then I'll wrap it up. I'm really grateful for you coming down here 
because your insight coming from the committee and hearing this day in 
and day out, I know you all have held numerous hearings on every issue, 
and I really appreciate your coming and sharing that with us.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I'm just grateful to the gentleman from Texas for 
actually broaching this issue. Jobs are important, but it's not just 
jobs for the sake of creating a job. This is a job that is essential 
for the defense of this country. This is our constitutional 
responsibility, and we need to take that seriously.
  Sequestration is basically, as you said I think at the very 
beginning, it's not what was planned here; it just kind of happened. It 
was a failed policy that happened. Now is the time to actually become 
adults about this and recognize that sequestration will not only 
destroy jobs, but it will destroy the defense of this country; and our 
responsibility is to make sure we defend this country and give every 
capability that when we send somebody into harm's way they have the 
equipment that is necessary to make sure they come back successfully.
  We don't want a fair fight. We want America to have the best 
equipment, and that flat out won't happen if we go through this big cut 
number three that we call ``sequestration.''
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me to say something about this 
important issue, and I thank you for bringing it to the attention of 
the American people, sir.
  Mr. CARTER. I think a good point that you've clearly made, 
``sequestration'' should be a definition of our failure to meet our 
constitutional responsibility. And it just can't happen. So I want to 
end by encouraging both sides of the aisle and all my colleagues in 
this House, let's get this deal done, let's don't gut our military, 
let's come up with other solutions, and for goodness' sakes, let's 
don't sell out the people who have gone to war for us for the last 10 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________